News:

He was a pretty good teacher, but he's also batshit insane and smells like ferret pee.

Main Menu

But WHYYYYYYYY is there no music on MTV?

Started by Cain, August 08, 2013, 12:54:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.

Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.

Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.

So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.

Yes, it was a fluke.

But a lot of working musicians are charity cases these days.
http://www.myhaam.org/
http://simsfoundation.org/
etc.
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Nephew Twiddleton

Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.

Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.

Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.

So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.

I'm fine with not being a rock star in the current model, and yeah, I think those days are done. I would like being a musician to be.... ok. If you're a musician, you're either poor as dirt, working a day job, or a plutocrat. That's what it is. I'd like to see it be a day job again. Or a night job, as it were, but one that could sustain itself.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.

Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.

Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.

So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.

I'm fine with not being a rock star in the current model, and yeah, I think those days are done. I would like being a musician to be.... ok. If you're a musician, you're either poor as dirt, working a day job, or a plutocrat. That's what it is. I'd like to see it be a day job again. Or a night job, as it were, but one that could sustain itself.

THIS
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Nephew Twiddleton

Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 08, 2013, 11:55:27 PM
A musician today makes more money from touring than they do from the actual sales of their music on physical media, even if they play in small venues. The number of dollars generated from the sale of merchandise like autographed CDs and DVDs, t-shirts, coffee mugs, beer bongs, official band-logo-embroidered ball gags outweighs album sales. And that doesn't even count tickets and VIP packages. So musicians should expect to be paid for actually showing up and creating an experience for their fans and followers, but not necessarily for the sterile soundtrack (even though the music may be the most important piece of their identities).

Playing small venues doesn't get you private jets, etc. All that was from the era of fat royalty checks.

Imagine spending months on end in vans and hotel rooms WITH YOUR CO-WORKERS again and again for decades until you drop dead from crappy road food.

Better than 99.99% of musicians in history have had it. I'm just saying the era of filthy rich rock stars is a fluke, historically speaking. It may seem like that's the way it has always been because it has been that way since everyone here was born, but it hasnt been the default forever. Sure there have always been rock stars like Stephen Tyler and Janis Joplin and Ludwig van Beethoven, but the way we equate "surviving as a musician" with mansions and gold records, is mostly a fabrication of the 20th Century.

So the demise of that culture would, in the long run, be perceived as a return to normal. The digital revolution isn't really overturning THAT much history. What it is doing is making huge ranges of music available to entire classes that may not have had access to them before. The industry that sprang up around facilitating that is less relevant now in the form of mega rich stars and decades-long careers on the charts. There's still an industry, but it needs to reevaluate the way it runs.

I'm fine with not being a rock star in the current model, and yeah, I think those days are done. I would like being a musician to be.... ok. If you're a musician, you're either poor as dirt, working a day job, or a plutocrat. That's what it is. I'd like to see it be a day job again. Or a night job, as it were, but one that could sustain itself.

THIS

I mean, this is largely a part of why Anarchangel went on hiatus.

Pat needed to take over the family business. The other main thing was Villager's medical problems, which have now subsided enough to not get in the way of her gigging.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Nephew Twiddleton

Pat is now comfortable enough in the role of owner that he can gig again.

Twid,
Stoked.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Nephew Twiddleton

Either way though, we're not leaving to go on any tours outside of the region. We can all take a fortnight off and do the Northeast, but that's that. We're never going to go as far south as DC or as far West as Allentown. And that's an optimistic assessment.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Reginald Ret

Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.

The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.

A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.

The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.

Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Nephew Twiddleton

Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.

The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.

A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.

The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.

Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.

Please see my previous posts on the role that the label plays.

Ultimately, screwing over the label still screws over the band as well as the fan, at least how the system works now.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Reginald Ret

Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 09:23:26 AM
Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.

The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.

A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.

The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.

Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.
Please see my previous posts on the role that the label plays.

Ultimately, screwing over the label still screws over the band as well as the fan, at least how the system works now.
Yes, that is true now. Hence the conditional statement implying a different situation in the future.
What is it about conditional statements that makes them invisible?
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Nephew Twiddleton

Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 09, 2013, 09:23:26 AM
Quote from: :regret: on August 09, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 09, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2013, 11:57:56 PM
Either you own what you create, or you don't.

The disruptive nature of the Information Age is that the above statement is no longer a simple self-evident truth.

A musician's creation is much more than pattern of 1s and 0s, but it can be accurately approximated by a pattern of 1s and 0s. While the original creation may be owned by its creators, the translation of that creation into digital language effectively deprives its owner of his absolute (and maybe morally valid) control of the creation. Because the copy is as good as the original, and the copy can be reproduced an infinite number of times without a loss of fidelity, the original creation is not monetarily more valuable than any single copy of it, regardless of who owns it.

The Information Age take anything that can be digitized and reduces its monetary value to zero, rendering it free from the monetary monopoly of ownership. It has nothing to do with the morality of ownership or theft. The fact that a thing can be reproduced infinitely simply overpowers supply/demand economics.

Ethically speaking, it's still theft.
What if the pirater mails the artist at least the amount they would have made on the sales of the record? That is about 1 dollar per album i believe. Then the pirater would only be stealing from the record company right? But if that situation became common, the record companies wouldn't be very neccesary.
Please see my previous posts on the role that the label plays.

Ultimately, screwing over the label still screws over the band as well as the fan, at least how the system works now.
Yes, that is true now. Hence the conditional statement implying a different situation in the future.
What is it about conditional statements that makes them invisible?

Yeah, sorry about missing that part.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS