MickyDolenz said:

laurarichardson said:

Keep living in a fantasy world because you do not want to pay for music.

Unless you can download vinyl records or CDs for free, I don't know what you're talking about. You do know that a new release record can cost up to $50 depending on whether it's 180 gram, 200 gram, half speed, 45 RPM LP, Mobile Fidelity, etc. But they average around $20 - $25 for a single regular record and $28 - $35 for a double. So that's double or triple a CD price. I've never downloaded anything, pay or free, because it doesn't have good sound quality and I like having a item to play with artwork and stuff. I have no use for digital files. I've never even owned a cell phone or an Ipod, and I still have 8-tracks and cassettes. Malaco has a mail order catalog and they still sell pre-recorded albums on cassette, which my mom orders from. Also many people in the past listened to the radio for free or watched TV shows like American Bandstand and Midnight Special and didn't buy the records. Some people are not into music like that, and others could not afford a stereo or records & tapes and maybe only had a cheap pocket transistor radio.

.

As far as the labels losing money, in most cases the performers weren't making much anyway. That's why a lot of them die broke, and the labels generally don't have insurance & pensions for acts like people at other kinds of jobs. There's things like the R&B Foundation to help old performers. So it's not much of difference from their standpoint. Even the ones that became rich like Michael Jackson, he still made a small percentage compared to what CBS/Sony made off of him. Michael really started making money when he bought the ATV catalog, and Paul McCartney owns Buddy Holly songs and Broadway showtunes. While The Beatles were an active group, they didn't make that much from record sales or merchandising because Brian Epstein signed bad deals, and the members didn't make anything at all in the early 1970s from group material because of various lawsuits after they broke up and the money was in escrow. They lost their publishing in the first place because of Lou Grade in the 1960s. Some acts decades ago didn't get paid in money or royalties, but in cars, furs, drugs, and other things. The average act made money from concerts, not record sales, and some got ripped off there too with shady promoters, managers, and accountants.

[Edited 4/15/14 17:08pm]

If you want to find music on vinyl that is your deal. I can let you know while vinyl provides better sound is not making a comeback in fact CDs are going to be gone soon.

Many people are stealing music or just listening for free. They are not buying it and while we had radio and T.V. shows that allowed us to listen to music for free. Commercials insured that T.V, Radio and the artist were compenstated.

Despite the free content of broadcast networks money did exchange hands and people did buy music. You only have to contrast the record sales of past decades to the time that on-line music became availble.

As far as artist not making any money off of their music that may be true for some and not true for others but people stealing or just plain not buying it at all hurts the artist as much as the crooked crap that the record companiens are pulling.

At the end of the day if no one buys an artist's music the record company will drop them so if you like the music you should buy it and stop being cheap. ( This post is not solely directed at you but at a lot of orgers who defend this behavior)

thesoulbrother said:

thedance said:

^ a Big "Thank you" to Ben Liebrand in Holland for releasing the rare disco versions on the "Grand 12 Inches - series", I own all of them.

Vol 1 to 10: http://liebrand.nl/grand12/index.html

Volume 11 is on the way...

I am gonna order this......

I do too! Love this series!

Thanks for your reply, theSoulbrother..

And true, this CD-series is amazing...!

And includes some Sheila E., "The Glamorous Life" & "A Love Bizzarre",

+ André Cymone "The Dance Electric" (Long Version), -- on the 4CD: Grand 12 Inches - vol 3..

http://liebrand.nl/grand12/index.html >>>

As far as the labels losing money, in most cases the performers weren't making much anyway. That's why a lot of them die broke, and the labels generally don't have insurance & pensions for acts like people at other kinds of jobs. There's things like the R&B Foundation to help old performers. So it's not much of difference from their standpoint. Even the ones that became rich like Michael Jackson, he still made a small percentage compared to what CBS/Sony made off of him. Michael really started making money when he bought the ATV catalog, and Paul McCartney owns Buddy Holly songs and Broadway showtunes. While The Beatles were an active group, they didn't make that much from record sales or merchandising because Brian Epstein signed bad deals, and the members didn't make anything at all in the early 1970s from group material because of various lawsuits after they broke up and the money was in escrow. They lost their publishing in the first place because of Lou Grade in the 1960s. Some acts decades ago didn't get paid in money or royalties, but in cars, furs, drugs, and other things. The average act made money from concerts, not record sales, and some got ripped off there too with shady promoters, managers, and accountants

Micky, respectfully -

The argument that the loss of revenue from piracy does not impact artists' revenue streams, because the labels are so awful, is one of the biggest fundamental myths about the music business. People use it to justify stealing, because hey, the artist won't be hurt, only the terrible, awful, no-good record company.

Folks - if record companies did only bad things to artists, we would have gotten rid of them a long time ago. The fact is, it is a complicated business. It's very hard to run a label fairly and profitably.

It's also not reasonable to compare artist contracts from 50 or 60 years ago to today. The business has changed, a lot. It's still possible to sign bad deals, but they're not bad in the same way. Most people had figured out by the 70s that they needed to retain some major portion of publishing to get any long term revenue. So the deals changed and labels started letting artists keep it. Maybe they find some other, less well-known way to make up the difference.

It is weird to feel like a shill for the music industry. I used to think they were the root of all evil - I guess in some ways I still do feel that way. But I constantly see people making the claim that piracy hurts the label and not the artist, and I know that is not true.

it's Youtube fault, really

there are at least 4 good sites to download the audio of youtube videos

and youtube doesn't give a damn