iceberg
rock music matters
- Messages
- 34,405
- Reaction score
- 7,932
taken from a cowboys related thread and not wanting to derail it further.
for reference here is the article that to me, reeked of entitlement.
http://elitedaily.com/music/how-one-generation-was-able-to-kill-the-music-industry/593411/
now to be fair, i also found this one that talked about it from another minne.
http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/is-our-generation-really-killing-the-music-industry/
and her points are at least to me, more correct.
my main points about the article and why i feel the way i do about it.
1. it says how THEIR attention is worthy of sponsors to go after so the sponsors should pay for their right to listen to the music. this is not an assumption or me reading into things. the writer flat says "we will not buy your music". really? you're not going to buy something yet you expect others, for your attention, to buy it for you. how this is not entitlement is beyond me, but ok.
2. slam the musician, go ahead. they are saying all you need to be a musician is a computer and some software. they even have the good grace to tell them a few plugins will be wunderbar. but that's it. never mentioned talent. dedication. work. spending their own money out the *** to get that computer, guitars, pedals, amps, and continued supplies. nah, just a computer and software and you are a major label. in my 15+ years of doing internet radio i can promise you there's a crapton of **** out there done this way that sounds like hammered moose caca, so maybe, just maybe, there's more to it as there is also some incredible stuff. but that's a ton of work they gloss over so easily in a rush to come to their own conclusions. no real respect for music and that is echo'd through the article.
3. they killed the industry. really? the industries business model was dead when the first MP3 went online and joined pornography as downloads in the night. their having a phone and going "hey bobby listen to this!!!" is something new to them, but not to anyone older. not a slam on them, just a fact of life. but napster was sharing music long before cell phones. peer to peer was doing it and the RIAA was fighting at the time a seriously losing battle. technology killed it, not their use of technology a decade or more later. to say otherwise, to me, is self serving. aka, millennial.
4. this is the age of discovery. the more i think about this the more i do not disagree. the breaking down of the barriers did in fact make only the serious stick with it and they go online looking for people to find them. losing the RIAA's model while was a fun and glorious time to be sure to kill the bad guy, however, they did go find the music, fund it, record it, sell it, and eventually pay the artists. fyi - the average HOT SELLING artist got around $1.19 or so a sale per cd. from memory so look it up if you want the exact figure. sure the RIAA was a cash cow but people *had* to have music brought to them because there was not a way to go to the artist except via concerts and buying the tape or one day, cd at walmart or being clever and joining colombia house for 3 years.
yes that model is forever gone with all the bad that came with it but there was good also. some incredible music came from the 70s and 80s and into the 90s funded by this route. when sales dropped, so did their ability to go find artists and put them in the sales channel they were able to create. now you *do* have to go discover music and that can make it an age of discovery. it's also an opportunity for someone to eventually figure out a new model that will pay the artist (something the writer of article 1 didn't seem to want to do, just consume (which is a valid position to be in but hardly one of power) provide opportunity for the artists to be heard and get said attention, and ensure there is a platform for that music. it will one day happen.
but not by some kid on a phone going "hey listen to this!". while i find no harm or crime in that as this is the way music is presented today, i do find harm in the "will not pay" attitude as i do view that to be one of the huge areas where millennials are critiqued and this article is kinda an example of all the reasons why they do get slammed.
the 2nd article i can view and understand a lot better. this, to me, is a more realistic way of seeings things from an objective standpoint, not a "WE are making this happen!" one. the only thing i find funny from the 2nd article is the reference to the lennon quote where he said music should be free and blamed the publishers for making people pay.
man was worth around $800 million so sure, he can do such things but if he gave it away from the start who knows where the band would have gone or if done anywhere near as well.
but that's another story.
for reference here is the article that to me, reeked of entitlement.
http://elitedaily.com/music/how-one-generation-was-able-to-kill-the-music-industry/593411/
now to be fair, i also found this one that talked about it from another minne.
http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/is-our-generation-really-killing-the-music-industry/
and her points are at least to me, more correct.
my main points about the article and why i feel the way i do about it.
1. it says how THEIR attention is worthy of sponsors to go after so the sponsors should pay for their right to listen to the music. this is not an assumption or me reading into things. the writer flat says "we will not buy your music". really? you're not going to buy something yet you expect others, for your attention, to buy it for you. how this is not entitlement is beyond me, but ok.
2. slam the musician, go ahead. they are saying all you need to be a musician is a computer and some software. they even have the good grace to tell them a few plugins will be wunderbar. but that's it. never mentioned talent. dedication. work. spending their own money out the *** to get that computer, guitars, pedals, amps, and continued supplies. nah, just a computer and software and you are a major label. in my 15+ years of doing internet radio i can promise you there's a crapton of **** out there done this way that sounds like hammered moose caca, so maybe, just maybe, there's more to it as there is also some incredible stuff. but that's a ton of work they gloss over so easily in a rush to come to their own conclusions. no real respect for music and that is echo'd through the article.
3. they killed the industry. really? the industries business model was dead when the first MP3 went online and joined pornography as downloads in the night. their having a phone and going "hey bobby listen to this!!!" is something new to them, but not to anyone older. not a slam on them, just a fact of life. but napster was sharing music long before cell phones. peer to peer was doing it and the RIAA was fighting at the time a seriously losing battle. technology killed it, not their use of technology a decade or more later. to say otherwise, to me, is self serving. aka, millennial.
4. this is the age of discovery. the more i think about this the more i do not disagree. the breaking down of the barriers did in fact make only the serious stick with it and they go online looking for people to find them. losing the RIAA's model while was a fun and glorious time to be sure to kill the bad guy, however, they did go find the music, fund it, record it, sell it, and eventually pay the artists. fyi - the average HOT SELLING artist got around $1.19 or so a sale per cd. from memory so look it up if you want the exact figure. sure the RIAA was a cash cow but people *had* to have music brought to them because there was not a way to go to the artist except via concerts and buying the tape or one day, cd at walmart or being clever and joining colombia house for 3 years.
yes that model is forever gone with all the bad that came with it but there was good also. some incredible music came from the 70s and 80s and into the 90s funded by this route. when sales dropped, so did their ability to go find artists and put them in the sales channel they were able to create. now you *do* have to go discover music and that can make it an age of discovery. it's also an opportunity for someone to eventually figure out a new model that will pay the artist (something the writer of article 1 didn't seem to want to do, just consume (which is a valid position to be in but hardly one of power) provide opportunity for the artists to be heard and get said attention, and ensure there is a platform for that music. it will one day happen.
but not by some kid on a phone going "hey listen to this!". while i find no harm or crime in that as this is the way music is presented today, i do find harm in the "will not pay" attitude as i do view that to be one of the huge areas where millennials are critiqued and this article is kinda an example of all the reasons why they do get slammed.
the 2nd article i can view and understand a lot better. this, to me, is a more realistic way of seeings things from an objective standpoint, not a "WE are making this happen!" one. the only thing i find funny from the 2nd article is the reference to the lennon quote where he said music should be free and blamed the publishers for making people pay.
man was worth around $800 million so sure, he can do such things but if he gave it away from the start who knows where the band would have gone or if done anywhere near as well.
but that's another story.
