Good Stuff
 

Anyone who read that might wanna read this .

:tu:

Good Stuff indeed :tu:

janis is turning out to have one of the most articulate and persuasive voices in the copyright reform movement today. good post theknife. :tu:

- js.

I think this is an amazing idea. Too bad it will never see the light of day, the record companies will never consider the idea of sending free music directly to consumers. Music clubs already charge people to recieve random music in the mail, which is the same principle as music subscription web sites: charge the consumer to listen to advertisments. The rest of the economy is already moving in the opposite direction and eventually people will earn good money to view ads, and the music industry will be slow to follow suit, as usual.

Re: Good Stuff
 

Jepjep, great stuff - thanks for the link, theknife! :AP:

The writer makes some very good propositions to the labels but I share the skepticism of Mazer. The big labels are unlikely to follow the advice, and in their unwillingness to change they are keeping their signed artists as 'hostages' to the old order. Indie labels are probably much more open to new business models and willing to co-operate with the evolving online communities. Some success stories there might help to change the general climate.

- tg ;)

Such a clearheaded, well written argument by Ms. Ian--not only because her views on this topic are similar to ours, but because she offers the plain truth. Her analogies are perfect.

One reason the record company folks get so possessive about the intellectual property, IMO, is because they feel they are largely responsible for the success of artists who do break--that is, in terms of their development, on an artistic, fashionability, or stylistic level. In one of the most blatant examples of egotistical ramblings, Jerry Wexler (former Atlantic honcho), in his autobiography, actually tries to take credit for turning an Otis Redding song into a smash because of his input. I'm sure that privately these record company people pat themselves on the backs every chance they get, and downloading music spares you from having to actually look at the names of these people on the CD booklets. Don't get me wrong--let's give credit where credit is due--to the musicians, arrangers, producers, engineers. As Janis states, control is definitely a key point.

:AP: that would be great....

just wondering if one day the lables ,and music biz executives and all the rest of those ppl crawled back in to the woodwork...disappeared..
would ppl start paying for music from the artists...
after all these yrs of free music...
how will the muso's make a buck..
after it all gets sorted...
will the file trading community
support the artists that have
been left to fend for them selves?
or will a couple of copies of a new relese get bought
and then get traded all over the net...

Let me put it this way: there probably isn't a great chance that many of us will get rich on our own, in terms of sales, but I think an artist should not make that his/her first concern. If one is resourceful enough, one can find a way. I think the lack of homogenization would revitalize the public's interest in music.
As far as people buying music, I think that indepedent or under-exposed artists give you something to hold on to when you purchase their music. In other words, there's still some mystery there, unlike over-exposed, over-hyped product. On a lot of the music that I've downloaded, I often wish I knew more about it or the artist, so the curiosity factor is high.
Am I rambling?

yes but no :)
i basicly agree with the last bit
of what u said there, in the in time
the curious obscure artist has been
the one to stick in my mind and
end up on the favorites list....