New topic
PrintableEverything changes every few years and people will always find shady ways to get the upperhand.
But with the disapearance of the "physical" record stores, and it all going to Amazon type warehouses, iTunes, it will get harder and harder to fudge. Amazon post their top sellers and top pre-orders daily same with itunes. The big money music game is coming to an end, and its all going to end up like any other product, like soda and cereal. [Edited 5/26/08 16:06pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
 [Edited 5/26/08 16:54pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dance said: Okay, I can't be the only one shocked that Kevin Eubanks knows more than three words.
Anyway: http://prince.org/msg/8/258907 Interesting thread.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
McLuan said in "The Medium is the Message"
Each medium, independent of the content it mediates, has its own intrinsic effects which are its unique message. The message of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure. This happened whether the railway functioned in a tropical or northern environment, and is quite independent of the freight or content of the railway medium. (Understanding Media, N. Y., 1964, p. 8) What McLuhan writes about the railroad applies with equal validity to the media of print, television, computers and now the Internet. "The medium is the message" because it is the "medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action." (p. 9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ll_McLuhan http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/ so....we agree that the old guard has been slayed...how would you rebuild? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Red said: McLuan said in "The Medium is the Message"
Each medium, independent of the content it mediates, has its own intrinsic effects which are its unique message. The message of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure. This happened whether the railway functioned in a tropical or northern environment, and is quite independent of the freight or content of the railway medium. (Understanding Media, N. Y., 1964, p. 8) What McLuhan writes about the railroad applies with equal validity to the media of print, television, computers and now the Internet. "The medium is the message" because it is the "medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action." (p. 9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ll_McLuhan http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/ so....we agree that the old guard has been slayed...how would you rebuild? The only way you can rebuild is to get rid of everything exists now. Basically the way things are counted, the system, the ownership, everything, and then you put in regulation. You get rid of all video stations, or force them to become video stations ONLY, the same with Radio, you open playlists from just 10 songs to 50 or 60. Theres so much that would need to be done, you basically have to burn it all down. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No there will not be a slash and burn. It will happen organically.
Right now everybody is trying different things, Radiohead said it would not giveaway its next album, and I don’t think that’s the way it would go anyway, unless it was sponsored by someone like the Prince Newspaper promotion, it makes a whole lot more sense, and doesn’t devalue the product. Once it becomes clear which delivery model or method is the most widely accepted and profitable, iTunes per song, monthly subscriptions, Amazon-type warehouse with traditional packaging, direct from the artist or label. The main thing that has to be settled is piracy and what to do about it. There will not be any business if there is no money to be made, and it will end up in court and settled there, just like the Viacom & Google . | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Xcalibre said: krayzie said: nah music industry was healthy until the digital technology took over everything. period this is what changed everything, not cultivating big names Having no new big names to take the place of the old ones that are jumping ship and going independent has certainly done its part to put them in the position they are in now. The mega-millions deals that they worked out to have prestige acts on their rosters (and to kiss their asses and inflate their egos) cut into the development of new artists. Nah na there are new big names, Norah Jones, Alicia Keys, Usher, Beyonce, Daughtry etc Those folks sold big units the past few years... And they are the reason why labels are still alive, not the Big ol names... The old acts jumping ship and going independent don't sell records anymore... Plus Labels keep the publishing rights anyway... This is what matters... |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
BlaqueKnight said: There are even more examples of one-hit-wonders and acts that should have never sold but did.
But what you just said contradicts what you said earlier and confirms what I said... If there are one hit wonders and acts that sell more than expected, that just shows and proves that this is the public that has the last decision to buy or not what they want and not the other way around... BlaqueKnight said: like Violetblues are mising what I am saying. You also seem to be of the belief that they care who or what you listen to. They don't. They control peoples' selection by being the primary source from which people choose their music.
No, no, no, completly wrong my friend, it has to do with the history of music, it has always been that way... Labels have to know what public if they want to sell records... This is crucial for labels to know exactly what the public wants and likes... Music is constantly moving, evolving and changing... And labels to survive have to adapt accordingly to the public taste... I speak about somethig that I know because I work for a major label for several years as a scout... If you don't know what this job is, my job was to collect all kind of informations about new trends, teen magazines, new fashion, new musical movement, making surveys with teenagers, talented indie acts and inform my superiors...This is a crucial for A&Rs because A&Rs make money according to the sales of their artists... They care about everything, charts, radio playlists, music videos, and all these stuff... They don't sign blindly... I don't know where did you get this idea... It's about money, labels don't invest in artists stupidly... BlaqueKnight said: Wow. You people really don't get it, do you? Who sells the most music? Wal Mart? Target? It doesn't matter. Who chooses the CDs that sit on the shelves? Do you think you can get a CD on the shelves of every Best Buy, Target or Circuit City in the country? You can't. Even if you could, how many sales would you get from "risk buyers"? Probably a few but not many. Why is that? Nobody would know who the hell you are. At the same time, the monitors and t.v. screens in Target are playing samples of Sony's latest new artists across various genres. Why is that? Sony PAID for them to. For every Ok-Go, there are thousands of premeditated artists. People GENERALLY pick from what's laid before them. I never said its ALWAYS that way. It doesn't have to be. If there's an artist or group that's not signed that's selling, they will go and get them. They don't CARE what people like, they only care that THEY sell them to you. There are no "rules", just "guidelines". You can't discount facts and numbers. They don't lie. Believe what you want. Nope, nope, again, exposure and bombardement is not everything... And the record distribution is not limited to WalMArt and Best Buy... They have been tons of artists who have made their name in the streets, starting from local markets... People "generally" pick from what they like not what's laid before them... And the job of labels is to sell what the public will like to buy and listen to... And sometimes what they like is not necessarly what labels is laid before them. That's why we have seen indie doing so weel, that's why we have seen suprise artists selling ... And of course , they care about what people like, because what people like is what sells... So that's why your argument makes no sense... It seems like you put everything on distribution and promotion... Music is not just about major labels... BlaqueKnight said: Its not a coincidence that everything is divided into musical categories much more so now than a few years ago. Its a different ball game. The fact that Puffy's group Danity Kane and those guys....something 26 or whatever can come out of the gate at #1 serve as examples of who's got the juice. As long as an artist falls within certain parameters, they can market them. There's always a percentage of people who succomb to media bombardment. All they need is for people to believe the hype.[/b][/color]
Musical categories have been extremly divided since the early 90's... It's not new... And the hype is not what makes people buy music... Everybody knows that... They have been enough examples that shows that the public doesn't buy into the hype so easily... How many times have we seen big names failing and no name artists suprisingly doing great... It happens all the time... |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Dance said: violetblues said: For everything that you hear on the radio, there are a ton more flops on a shelf.
Pretty much everything you hear on the radio is there because some company pays for it to be there. The music business is not in the business of selling music. They are in the business of creating celebrities to use to sell products. 
Nope, everything on radio is not because some company pays for it to be there, radio stations always decided what is good for their audience... That's why some big name artists failed to make hits... Dance said: There's no such thing as an artist selling or not selling. They manufacture music careers if they think they've got a great commercial. Those "flops" are people that didn't do well in testing. They're the ones that don't warrant spending millions to flood media with their image and cheap, easy nonmusic. It has always been that way... Do you think Warner signed Madonna because she was talented ? Madonna represented what was a cool at that time... From the music to her style... Dance said: People didn't wake up one day and decide they wanted all nonmusic. Companies watched some people respond to certain performers, types of nonmusic, and images/ideas. When the industry went the way of every other industry(corporate disease), they figured out what was best for their bottom line and how to manufacture pop stars. [Edited 5/26/08 12:12pm] Completly asbolutly wrong... Companies have nothing to do with evolution of music... The taste of the people has changed over the years... And labels have done nothing but adapted to this evolution acordingly... And if mainstream music sucks these days, it's because the public taste is getting to the worst... Companies started selling grunge music when they realized grunge was popular, they started selling gangsta rap when they realized that gangsta rap was popular... People |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Painfully.....I have 2 agree with his comments. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |