Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

it's cool dude, i obviously don't expect you to agree wth me on much.
although i think you're probably picking at more points than you need
to; it seems like we both agree that the situation is complicated. i'm
gonna follow the point-by-point format i guess, because you have, but
i think it's kind of unnecessary.

> I read your whole post and didn't see you actually challenging
> anything I said. And besides, if you use logic to develop ethics,
> you're abusing logic.

i don't rely follow that. or maybe i just don't agree.

>> the
>> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can
> manage
>> to produce it in the first place.
>
> Whereas the profit margin for mp3s is high, they're easy to produce,
> and more people want them than want vinyl.

but that's my point... those things are true, so why am i making more
money off vinyl in 2008? well, beause people STEAL mp3's, to use a
somewhat hysterical verb. if you relly read all my posts yu'd see that
i don't care that much.

>>
>> if you think cdbaby (which has paid out $14million TOTAL to artists
>> over its ENTIRE existence) is an adequate substitute for being able
> to
>> sell enough (audible) merchandise to support a tour, you've never
>> tried to make a living as an independent musician.
>
> You're putting words in my mouth. I said that I make more money off
> of CDBaby than I did before CDBaby, but that "next to nothing still
> isn't much". As for CDBaby having paid out $14million, you're
> wrong. CDBaby has paid out a total of $80million to date, and pays
> out $2.5million per month. But those stats are meaningless, because
> the money is divided up unequally. Even an average would be
> meaningless because the fact is just because you spent $50 to
> register a CD on CDBaby doesn't mean you deserve to make a living off
> of it, or even make your $50 back. You seem to have missed my point
> entirely. I pointed out that the really successful artists who had
> been on CDbaby are no longer in print there because they have been
> picked up by labels. That's what happens to successful bands.

ok, i apologize (and also if the number was wrong, i pullsed it from
an interview with the CEO tht might be a couple years old now).

my point is that profit-wise, that kind of distribution channel is
pretty marginal compared to what we're losing in the plague of
bankruptcy among crick-and-mortar retailers.

>> this was never an
>> easy thing to do, and it is now accepted as basically impossible.
>> everyone is a weekend warrior these days, or at the very least
> they're
>> spending more time on their t-shirts and less time on their
> albums...
>>
>
> There are lots of band signed to independent record labels that go on
> tours and make a living as a band. I don't know whether there are
> more or less than there were during some fabled halcyon days of the
> past, but I've been at this for 18 years now and I don't remember any
> glory days. And I think the only thing making it any harder is the
> fact that musicians now compete with a lot more forms of
> entertainment for attention. Mp3s have only helped musicians, as
> have Ipods. What has hurt musicians is YouTube, DVDs, Playstation,
> Xbox, Guitar Hero, tons of channels available to tv cable or
> satellite subscribers, karaoke, and a jillion other things that
> people can be doing rather that listening to your album or going to
> your show.

a lot of my favorite independent labels from the 90's are going out of
business or reconfiguring enormously: merging with majors, or
switching to licensing and management: kill rck starts, troubleman,
touch and go... the list goes on and on and on.

the ones that stay in business seem to be pursuing a couple different
strategies: 1) stop signing bans that are interesting and only sign
bands that you think will make money (meaning the probably sound like
something you'v heard before), or 2) sign lots and lots of bands in
the hope that one of them will produce a license-able single, but
don't put very much money into any of them.

maybe this is why you're not hearing as much new music you like? dunno.

> You know what? I haven't listened to Nine Inch Nails since their
> first album. And I was all over their first album for the first two
> years it slow-burned before charting. After that, I lost interest.
> Nine Inch Nails probably make a thousand times as much money as they
> did when I listened to them, and the same pattern plays out with most
> of the bands I've been into over the years. The way it works is, I
> find the cutting-edge music, people who know that I am always
> listening to the best music ask me what's good these days, and then
> whatever I say is good gets popular later on. Not because of me, but
> because of hundreds of other people just like me, finding the good
> stuff and then introducing it to the masses. And by the time the
> masses are into it, we're onto something else. And you think we
> should feel guilty for this? We should be getting PAID for it!

i don't care about nine inch nails. (i also don't really care about
your music tastes, and i'm quite sure you don't care about mine...) i
still think they're n interesting example of a band as a money-making
machine that is really trying to duck and weave with the changing
landscape... they are actually giving away high quality downloads of
the new record with no expectation of any compensation. so naturally
this is a fvorite example if you want to show that people can be
successful pro musicians in a context of total loss of recording
profit. to which my response is usually that they wouln't be able to
do that now if they hadn't sold so many records in 1994.

just an example.

> First, I only justify my actions to myself. Second, as I said I
> think fewer people listen to music than ever before,

really? i take the train to work everyday and probably 3 out of 4
people are plugged into something. it makes me wonder. it can't sound
very good.

 and we're damn
> lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.
> Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay for
> music. I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my mp3s
> and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me for
> mp3s being sold.

because both of those quantities are pittances?

>> for example, myspace lets everyone be heard, including a lot of
> great
>> werid stuff and a tremendous amount of utterly lame and derivate
>> stuff, and some stuff that's just weird and bad (eye of the beholder
>> applies). one could argue that this is a needed injection of
> democracy
>> to the system, and non-professional music is cool. i agree, but i
> hate
>> spending time on myspace, and i hate the sound of their
>> mega-compressed flash player, and i miss hearing albums that are
>> produced with some care and craft because the band had time to
>> practice and some cash to put into recording sessions, even though
>> they're making quirky music that's never going to be licensed for
> car
>> commericals or clearchannel radio.

> I have no interest in MySpace and Facebook or similar sites. I think
> they look terrible, are pointless, and are for kids. While there are
> plenty of 'celebrities' who have pages at those places, nobody gets
> famous from them unless they've done something that deserves
> worldwide ridicule.

i don't think that's totally true. i agree that the significance of
myspce is overrated (hence me rant about it??) but there are
exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.

but the point is that a tremendous amount of (young) people do turn
to myspace to tell them about new music. they really do. i can't
believe it either.

>> and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
>> make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.
>>
>
> Did they? Who paid for those tours? Why aren't these tours making
> money anymore? I thought this was about lost revenue from recorded
> product, now you're talking about tours. The only thing I can think
> of that would make tours less profitable now than before is the price
> of gas.

um... i'm talking about selling cd's on tour. or tapes, or records, whatever

this used to happen. now it doesn't. that's a huge financial loss.

and yeah, gas prices are a big deal. combine these factors and it
means that a lot of bands just won't tour anymore... this is happening
right now.

>> now we have to go to europe where tradition demands we at least will
>> be well fed and given a place to sleep. usually pays pretty good
> too,
>> so you can go home with some money in your pocket despite the fact
>> that you sold about 35 cd's to 35 enthusiastic crowds over the last
>> month and a half. america? not even so kind.
>
> And this is because they don't listen to mp3s in Europe, and go to
> concerts instead? I'm not getting your point here... your post is
> all over the place.

could be. sorry i'm not a better writer. the point is that in europe
you get paid MUCH better for shows, and hospitality is better so you
don't have to spend as much on food and lodging, making tour profits
less depndent on merchandise.

actually i think they steal MORE mp3's over there.

>>
>> besides all that, most mp3's just sound bad... (oops...) i can't
>> imagine hearing all my music on an iPod, with terrible cheap little
>> earbuds, in 192kbit mp3's, "sound enhancer" -ed... on a train...
>> what's the point? and yet this mode of listening appears to be
>> tremendously popular. gah...
>
> So did AM radio, and so did cassettes. Personally I think, no, I
> KNOW that mp3s at 192kbit sound better than vinyl. CDs can sound
> better, though, but that depends on how well they were mastered in
> the first place.

ok, it's not important. every recording medium has its own kind of
distortion. i'm a little sad that mp3 is the new standard and it's
considerably wore than digital music sounded in 1990. the analog
purists are starting to have a point; that kind of sucks because i'v
been defending digital audio for a long time and now i feel sort of
betrayed by it....

but i was actually talking about listening habits, more than actual media.

forget the rest, it was rhetorical in the fist place... though (i
hope) not totally deserving to be trashed.