|
U-Know! Forum » More Bono bashing (never enough IMO) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Loopy Lumbago 95 posts |
Oct 14, 2010, 14:17
|
||
Jeez, I thought it was Bard Simpson! 8O
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Oct 14, 2010, 14:28
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: Yes, the title was about Bono Bashing, and tempting as it is just to get yer teeth into a headline like that, the thread was about Bono's One Charity/Organisation. The initial post linked to a piece about it! I thought you would have looked. sanshee wrote: I did. But...nice line in patronising people. I can only think you're being deliberately provocative or you're missing the point. [quote="sanshee"] That's why some of the discussion has been about the One Charity/Organisation. Get away. But once again, nice line in patronising people. [quote="sanshee"] That's also why all of my posts have alluded to said charity/organisation. No they haven't.
|
|||
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Oct 14, 2010, 14:35
Oct 14, 2010, 14:34
|
||
|
Whatever Keith, I'm getting bored now. You've accused me of posting the most pointless thing you've read on the internet (and congratulating me for it) to calling cetain people reactionary (depsite the fact others understood what I actually meant, still not good enough though) and to now being patronising. And the only times I haven't posted about me opinions on this damn 'One' shebang are them times I've spent wasting my time trying to explain myself to you! Laters. x
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Edited Oct 14, 2010, 14:47
Oct 14, 2010, 14:46
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: Whatever Keith, I'm getting bored now. You're not the only one. sanshee wrote: You've accused me of posting the most pointless thing you've read on the internet (and congratulating me for it) to calling cetain people reactionary (depsite the fact others understood what I actually meant, still not good enough though) and to now being patronising. Apologies for being so slow to mention it. I should have included it earlier. sanshee wrote: Laters. Don't bother on my account.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Oct 14, 2010, 18:47
|
||
In Mexico a 'Cool-o' is the buttocks.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Oct 14, 2010, 18:50
|
||
ERIC CLAPTON is by FAR the biggest COOL-o from what i can tell.
|
|||
|
Loopy Lumbago 95 posts |
Oct 15, 2010, 09:50
|
||
|
IanB Quote: "What the Nowegian study fails to show is that with more artists being paid direct for ther recordings of course their GROSS has gone up but they then have to absorb all the costs that were previously borne by the record company. Manufacturing, mechanicals, printing, video, photography, tour support, warehousing, shipping, promotion, marketing, the massive expenses associated with distribution, international development / licensing etc etc." Well can you show me where in the study it says it's about gross income or where in the study it says that artists net income has declined? Quote from the study: "The reason why the artist revenue has gone up much more than the industry, has to do with where the artists get most of their revenue from. Looking at record sales to artists, these have gone from NOK 37 million in 1999 to NOK 57 million in 2009, which is a 54% increase. The reason why Norwegian music artists earn more from record sales today, even though total sales have dropped, has to do with the increased share of Norwegian music being sold. Collecting remunerations to artists have gone from NOK 53 million to NOK 137 million, a 158% increase, and live income to artists have gone from NOK 66 million to NOK 191 million in the same period, creating a 189% increase. State subsidizations and grants have increased from NOK 51 million in 1999 to NOK 160 million in 2009, an increase of NOK 109 million or 214%. According to this, Norwegian artists have seen an increase in all four of their income sources during the past eleven years. This goes contrary to the common belief that artists have seen a decline in income because of the digitalization of the industry." Most of the costs you mention are connected to the production an sale of physical cd's, not the digital sale of music. And while we are on the topic of production costs: Quote: "A lot of production costs go into any song or album produced today, but these costs decrease according to the availability of technological equipment, making it cheaper and more accessible. However, production costs are still present and significant in most cases. Today the cost of making copies of this original piece of information is approaching zero. Not only is this copy cheap to produce, it is almost a perfect copy. In addition, most costs concerning the product are mostly sunk-costs when the first copy is made, these cannot be recovered. Eventually this means that products must be priced according to consumer value, and not the production cost. In an attempt to preserve the same level of prices post-digitalization the record labels have continued to price their products at the same cost as they were when physically distributed through CD´s when sold digitally through the World Wide Web." When it comes to promotion and marketing I will once again quote from the Steve Albini interview: "This is a terrific time to be in a band. Every band has access to the entire world by default. I know quite a few bands that have been able to establish themselves internationally based on nothing other their web presence. It's an incredible tool. It's also revived the careers of a lot of bands that came before the Internet era and never had enough penetration to find their natural audience. But because the music survived, some people were interested in disseminating it for no other reason than because they like it. People put stuff on YouTube or torrent clients or whatever, not because they're going to make money off of it, which is the only reason the mainstream industry would do something, but because they think it's good. It's a like a worldwide mix tape. An awful lot of bands that had no audience in their first incarnation were able to revive their careers and have a second lap. It's so exceedingly rare that somebody gets more than one bite at an apple like that. I think it's fantastic." IanB Quote: "The Norwegian "study" also supports my key point. This process is forcing musicians into a state of semi-professionalism." No it doesn't! Nowhere in the study does it even indicate that musicians are being forced against their will into the wasteland of "semi-professionalism" you seem to imagine. That is a mere assumption on your part. I guess musicians are able to make their own decisions and choices same as most people. And I haven't in any Declaration of Human Rights seen "The Right to be a full time, well paid musician for anyone who wants to" listed. I put up the link to the Torrentfreak article because it was an easily accessible summary of the study and also had a link to the actual study. I assumed those interested in the topic would be able to click the link and read the study. That seems to have been a bit difficult so here is the direct link served on a silver platter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37406039/Thesis-Bjerkoe-Sorbo IanB Quote: "I hope all the people being laid off by the Tories have greater success adjusting to the market in the coming years than having to work two jobs." I honestly don't get what you're on about! What has The Tories laying off people got to do with the topic at hand here? I guess the reason for laying off people is that good old capitalist mantra: "Cut public spending for the good of the economy". In other words: a part of "the laws and dynamics of capitalism" you so willingly have accepted in other postings. Or is it to be understood you accept "the laws and dynamics of capitalism" in theory but not its practical consequences? IanB Quote: "You want to know how it is? Make a record." I don't believe it is necessary to have a personal economical interest in the business to have serious opinions about it. On the contrary; a personal economical interest might cloud the judgement a wee bit. When all this is said; it's clear to me that the present situation with illegal downloading, companies spending huge sums of money on lawyers and lobbyists, tabloid politicians wanting to choke the internet to protect the entertainment industry from dealing with the real world etc, can't continue. In the long run it won't be good for anybody. But I'm afraid it will not change until the entertainment industry pulls its head out of its overly obese butt and enter the modern digital world. To a large extent this is also about consumer power.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 15, 2010, 11:16
Oct 15, 2010, 10:33
|
||
|
Thanks for taking the time to educate me in my own specialist subject but I gave up reading when I got to this bit "Most of the costs you mention are connected to the production an sale of physical cd's, not the digital sale of music." What percentage of this supposedly thriving artist-friendly market is currently digital in Europe? 15%? 20% ?And of that 15% - 20% how much of that traffic is not handled by Apple? 2%? Less? In any case costs like mechanicals, printing, video, photography, tour support, promotion, marketing, the massive expenses associated with distribution, international development / licensing all still apply. Do you know what aggregators charge for digital distro? Do you know how to get a record reviewed on Pitchfork or AMG or played on Late Junction or Echoes or XFM or KCRW? Do you know how to get your music released and marketed on another continent? Do you know how much print you have to give away to support a club tour? Do you know what it costs to record and release a cover version or any piece of music that is owned by a publisher? Do you know how to clear a sample or the use of a copyrighted image? Do you know what it costs to go to MIDEM or PopKomm or to send a band to SxSW? Do you know what Amazon charge to sell your music through their Advantage programme or what they take for selling downloads? Do you know how to get an American work permit or how much of tour revenue is withheld by German tax authorities? Do you know what it costs to rent a splitter van or hire a sound man/woman? The list is endless. And how thriving can a musical culture be that requires massive state subsidy? And who do you think is fit to arbitrate the distribution of that subsidy? As Tom Verlaine would say "this case is closed". You are Lawrence Lessig and I claim my £5.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 15, 2010, 11:17
Oct 15, 2010, 11:06
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: I completely respect your opinion Ian, but from my viewpoint, his consistent moralising and hectoring isn't accurately reflected in his financial arrangements. It's all rather convenient. Anyway, hopefully we'll just agree to disagree. Sorry, I missed this yesterday while I was busy getting educated about how great life is for musicians these days now that the music industry is dying. How we laughed. I hear you. I really do and sorry if my tone broders on the hectoring. I argue for a living. Anyway I just don't get how he is any more of a bad man than Lydon or Iggy who utterly sully their own creative past and rock culture in general with their greedheadedness. And how is Bono worse than any other artist who avoids tax for that matter. Sure he has a lot to say for himself but as Keith says you just can't argue with improving the lives of 2m people. I should be so ethical ....
|
|||
|
Loopy Lumbago 95 posts |
Oct 15, 2010, 11:12
|
||
|
Quote: "Thanks for taking the time to educate me in my own specialist subject but I gave up reading when I got to this bit "Most of the costs you mention are connected to the production an sale of physical cd's, not the digital sale of music." You gave up reading after a couple of lines? ;o) I see you're desperately trying to avoid dealing with what I actually have written and the findings of the study you obviously hasn't bothered to read. But of course, you're an expert; an innocent bystander and neutral observer of the industry that pays your wages. I agree; the discussion is closed.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
