this is getting a bit long, apologies, but stick with it, it's making some good points... even if we are drifting away from mp3s. >From: Julian Lawton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] G>do you think that illegaly downloading music from the internet will force bands back out on the road to make a living, and we will see the demise of the studio bound bands who can't cut it live anyway. J>No, we'll see an infinite amount of tunes from people who have a 4-track/digital recording studio in their bedroom. And if people are busy downloading free MP3's, why will they go pay to see a band? G- What i would hope for in this hypothetical scenario would be that the recorded medium would be downscaled (if anyone can do it), and that the only way for record companies to make money would be to PAY bands more money to play live( a reverse of the current situation), whereupon Steps, the Spice Girls etc would be out on on their talentless arses. Theres no way a recording can match seeing a band live - and material put out by bands on the net, could be viewed as a taster for the live show (i know that recording music is an art in itself, im not denigrating studio work) G-if it's the case that will it be easier for bands to sell their music from>a website? J>No, because bands have always been able to sell their music directly (via gigs, mail order, their own label, even on home made cassettes). But what they can't do is publicity and marketing. - most people don't hunt for the music they listen to, books they read, films they see, so there's no reason why they're going to trawl through websites OK, a huge number of people will, but a larger number of people won't - they'll buy the encrypted tracks of the soundtrack to the latest Disney / Warner / Fox backed film instead,or what's on the MTV/VH-1 playlists, that will play on whatever secure format Sony or Microsoft come up with. Sure, people will crack it and you'll be able to get chipped players like with DVDs, Playstations,satellite decoder cards, etc, and it will 'cost' the industry billions. But they'll still make billions more. People need something that filters out the crap - for us, it's having a mod taste, for lazier people it's the mainstream media. G - Good point! the mainstrean is always going to be lazy - i have to put up with people at work playing crap music(what's wrong with this it's NICE. - no its got no bollocks!!!!). Sub-cultures like mod/punk/rockabilly/skinhead etc are a dying breed, why is this (any ideas out there?) i suppose it will end up with record companies becoming search-engines, and then we'll be back to square one. If we get rid of companies with committees who decide every move an artist makes, will this put the musicians back in charge? J>Again, no. Musicians have always had the choice. No one is forced to sign a recording contract. People do it because they think they can gain something out of it, or because they want to be musicians and not concerned with booking their own gigs, hiring their own PR, risking their own money on studio time. Same reasons a lot of us go to work for 'the man' rather than being self-employed. I'm not saying that bands don't get screwed over by small-print, but surely no one can have been that naieve since the 70s? G- TRUE you are not forced to sign a recording contract, and I even know of one or two bands who have recieved money from the national lottery to start them off. back in the eighties, even the Happy Mondays (the only example i can think of who made it big, although i know a few smaller bands who didnt), were on a JobStart scheme, being payed by the government as "musicians". i got bored of being in bands because of the drugs and egoes - but yeah, i had to have a job, to pay for it. And other big labels use spin off profits from record sales, to produce all sorts of nasty shit - parts for nuclear bombs etc...) J>Which don't make any money on their own? I think this one comes from >Thorn/EMI, but Thorn were already a big electronics company, producing >everything from Hi-Fi's to bomb parts when they thought (like Sony) they >might as well profit out of the software too. > G>with a smaller outlay on the net, would these bands get more exposure -like in the days of pirate radio, when stations didn't stick to a playlist that might offend potential advertisers? J>Yeah, but I just think you'll have the same old 'indie'/major divide in a different form. It'll be good for bands that have a specific audience but the niche labels existed anyway. > G- That's a good point too. But I know from experience that pirate stations are worth searching out, as they are run by people who are enthusiastic about the music. You would still have a divide, but if it meant that i wouldnt have to waste time with music that is not very good (im blue, daba doo-doo-dee-doo!)then that would would be alright. back in the mists of time, i remember the television technicians strike (i was but a nipper), and there was no tv from 6:00 pm onwards for months. this had a knock on efffect of people tuning into the radio, and hearing a wider range of music, which was reflected by good songs getting into the charts. i think it would be a good idea for a NATIONAL BIG JOHN PATTON DAY tho - where all you could hear all day would be instrumentals by the man himself. > > >______________________________________________ >Faster, stronger and able to send millions >of emails in one click: the new Topica site! >http://www.topica.com/t/14 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ______________________________________________ Faster, stronger and able to send millions of emails in one click: the new Topica site! http://www.topica.com/t/14
