Slashdot Mirror
The Music Business and the Internet
Lots of people sent in links to stories about the music industry holding a press conference and claiming that people are copying music rather than buying it (see their press release if you like). But there are some alternative points of view too: a study at the University of Buffalo claims that music sharing may cut down on superstars and promote new music. The New Republic has a story about a band that released their album on the Net six months before CDs were available, and is now wondering whether fans will buy more, less, or about the same number of aluminum and plastic circles. And a nice chart I saw a few days ago compares CD sales vs. price over the last several years and suggests that price-fixing by the recording industry may play a part in slowing sales.
Go to your local pub or club tonight, drop some coins in a busker's guitar case, wrap a piece of waxed paper around a comb to make your own kazoo - whatever you can do to create and support music on your local level has got to be better than supporting the Machine.
You know, it's hard to have sympathy for an industry which has killed most of the real talent from getting into the popular market (with a few exceptions) ... and then it gouges the consumer with strong-arm tactics at the record stores in order to keep prices up.
For Pete's sake, CD's are still more expensive than tape cassettes. It's not about cost of manufacturing -- it's about gouging the consumer.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
While I support buying records of bands I like I know full well that they don't get much of the money I pay. Therefore if I like a band a lot I'll go see them in concert and buy their cds there. They get much more of the money from cd sales at concerts, plus they get your ticket money and support. This works out for the betterment of everyone except the record companies, but who cares about them anyways.
ahh, the egg in the basket..
People download music because CD's are over-priced.
The record companies lose money so start charging more for CD's
People download even more music.
This circle is set to continue unless record companies start pricing CD's realistically. If AOL/Compuserv/Freeserve can give away CD's in shops and with hardware then why do i have to pay £20 for a music CD?
At some point, the recording industry is going to have to realize that they have things BACKWARDS. Now, artists tour to increase and promote album sales. In the future, it's going to have to be the other way around -- artists will put out albums to promote and support their tours. Go see a band live, then buy a copy of the performance you just saw on your way out.
If the RIAA would actually use the internet to drive sales, many, many people would put down money for MP3s.
I would be willing to give about 10 cents per MegaByte for professional, complete MP3s. Barring that there is NO Copy Restrictions.
If the RIAA would stop worrying about people sharing the MP3s and actually become a supplier for what people want, they would make tons of money. They are in the position to capitalize on this, but they are too busy worrying about losing some sort of "control" they have over music.
The record industry doesn't have that many options. The best one seems to me to start giving away the virtual (i.e. the actual songs) and sell the material (i.e. nice hard to break cases, quality booklets or even books). The special edition Kid A from Radiohead is a good example of a CD you want to buy (if you like Radiohead, that is).
This, combined to other non-downloadable merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc.) and -- of course -- live performances, should enable musicians to keep making a living while preventing customer alienation (which you'd imagine would be the "prime directive" for the industry -- not so). As for big-time, multi-million producers, well...we have no moral or legal obligation to keep them multi-millionnaires. Just because an industry is well-established doesn't mean it has to be preserved by law -- especially when it alienates customers, infringes on their constitutional rights and goes against technological development.
Reminder: find a new sig
... would have to change. So should the music industry.
They should have to become leaner and more focused on quality and price instead of just driving legislation.
I understand that the music industry wants to keep their stranglehold, where they can charge pretty much what they want.
There is a strong competition on furniture, electronics, computing etc.. so why not in this industry as well?
The whole napster/gnutella/whatever issue is just a wakeup-call from the consumers that they are sick of price-fixing and control-freakish behaviour from RIAA and their members.
Instead of just listening to the industry, legislators should let the music-sharing force the industry onto a new path.
What the consumers want is pretty clear:
1. We want to be able to buy a lot more music. Price has to go down.
2. We want more control over how we get the music and what music we want (no longer having to buy an album with 13 shitty songs, just to have 2 good ones.
3. We want a much more innovative and competive industry.
If the music industry can't satisfy my wishes but the file sharing networks can, what do you expect me to do?
If you say that compared to a year ago file sharing is up by X% and sales are down by Y%, then that doe not tell you if that X% caused or contributed to that Y%, if Y would have been larger without the grass roots marketing effect of file sharing, or something else entirely. A single data point (or pair of data points in a time series) doesn't provide you with enough information to reach the kinds of conclusions people on both sides of this debate are pushing.
But then, this isn't science, it's politics and money, so everyone involved has a huge incentive to twist the facts to support their position.
- Internet music sharing was rampant in the UK (probably partly attributable to increased availability of broadband) and
- CD sales in the UK rose 4% (NB: vinyl sales rose by even more; go figure), contrary to a downward trend everywhere else
Hrm, let me see...Unfortunately, this information didn't make it through to their web site, as far as I could see...
In my country, ie india A blank CD costs approx 30 cents adn a blank casette 1$, however a recored CD of a big band costs 12$ and the casette of the same album costs 3$. It is ridiclous, its like saying "{We want to screw you, so please let us do so with a smile}"
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
The reason I download my music versus buy it is because..
o The last time I went, I couldn't find the CD I was looking for. However, they did have several hundred copies of a Britney Spears CD and pair of Reebok sneakers in a glass case.
o Their selection consisted almost entirely of rap, hip-hop, and other sonic diarrhea. My tastes in music extend a little further than incessant warbling up and down the scales and complaining to a drumbeat.
o They wanted to sell me candy, magazines, coffee, soda, biscotti, bottled water, bumper stickers, incense, candles, videocasettes, and DVDs of movies nobody wanted to see in the theaters to begin with. Not what I came in there for, an album.
o Even if I were to have found the CD I was looking for, I would have had to shell out nearly twice as much money as I would have 10 years ago FOR THE SAME CD. Apparently, it costs the shop alot of money to keep those Reebok sneakers in a glass case. Probably air-conditioned.
o The store expected me to give my money to a guy wearing lipstick wearing earrings. In his face.
o Some marketing bozo decided that putting anything other than rap and "best of" albums on the shelves was a good idea.
o I cant burn my own CDs at the shop, with the music I want on it, and nothing else.
Need I go on?
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION!"
Very true. Interestingly their own stats seem to show it's the impact of the recession, saying that England, one of the few places not impacted by it, saw sales rise. There were earlier statements in other places where they said that CD sales were down for the first time since a drop that had occured 10 yrs ago. Guess what. That was a recession too. It sure goes to prove, anybody can take stats and make them say what they want. I'd guess they'd say the drop in sales 10 yrs ago due to ? (Guess they'd better think up a new excuse.) In my case, my purchases of CD's are down to nil. Not the recession, and I've never had napster or other file sharing on my computers. I simply won't pay obscene prices to buy what I consider crap. (Though someone's study could as easily, and rightfully so, indicate that a small n %age drop in prices would spur a n% increase in sales. Did they ever consider the raping of the customer to be one reason they don't sell as well?
At the time the record companies started squawking, the US was headed into a recession. Things like food, clothes, and rent became priority over Nsync CDs. As unemployement rises (look at Fingerhut!) buying CDs is a rediculous way to spend the money I don't have.
Since the dawn of Napster, it was obvious that the record companies can't stop file sharing. As bandwidth increases, CDRs get cheaper, and prerecorded CDs get more expensive, new ways of ripping and sharing files will stay far ahead of the record companies and legislation.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Another factor, I believe, in the "slowing" (read: anything less than 10% year to year growth) sales of the Music companies has been their deliberate decision to abandon the "Single" in CD format, reducing the choice a person has when they hear a single song that they like to A) Buy the entire CD at $18+ for the known 4 minutes of good music and take a chance on the rest or B) oh wait, there is no other valid 'choice' as defined by the RIAA.
.. that is 7-inch records with one song on each side (Memo to 13-year old 'l33t doods': this is where the terms "A-Side" and "B-Side" came from). In fact, I bought about 250 7-inch singles a year. At $1.99 each, I could affort to take a chance on music I wasn't 100% sure about.
I wish I had the link to a recent online news story I read which talked with the industry reps who discussed their decision to abandon Singles as they felt it was cutting into their album sales.
It seems to me that they believe that when a consumer can't get just the muisc they want a la carte, they would be willing to buy a whole lot of extra music to get it. In this situation what they should be selling is the single in downloadable and usable (read MP3) form for a small price. (Memo to Record industry: charging $7.99 for one song when there is no physical cost of goods and encoding it in a format that users can't play on their iPod/Rio/Empeg/Nomad/Archos/Etc isn't going to fool very many consumers).
I can recall back in the late '80, I used to buy a lot of "45's"
In the early '90's the record companies moved to put out Singles, both 7-inch (2 songs) and 12-inch (3+ songs/Remixes) in CD format. I even bought some of those 3-inch CD-Singles in mini-longboxes (remember those).
Selection of CD singles in the USA, at least at the retail level, seemed to peak in mid '90s and has really diminished in the past 5 years.
However, this situation seems to be confined mostly to US retail. Amazon is good source for CD singles, and in Europe the format is much more popular, so ironically sources like Amazon.uk are great for getting singles to popular songs in the USA.
So this is where the availability of single song MP3 files, available for download, could be doing damage... entirely because they are filling a nitch and need that consumers have, but the labels have abandoned. A lot of those people who download probably would be good customers to buy a cheap CD single, if it was available and had the content they wanted.
Music sharing does not hurt music. It hurts the music business.
It does not hurt the artist. It hurts the pop star, the producer and the sleazy lawyers (hi, Hillary!), but not the artist.
You know, there was a time when artists (and athletes, and scientists and whatnot) did not aspire to earn billions of dollars and live on crack. There was a time (I'm really dating myself here) when they just loved their art (sport, discipline) and considered themselves lucky to just make a living doing it. Not millions of dollars. A living.
Greed is the bane of our time.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This isn't hypocrisy, this is the free market economy in operation.
:-)
Think about it - the whole point of the free market is that the cost of goods and services will reach the level that people are willing to pay for them. If more and more people are downloading, copying or otherwise getting their music for free, it appears that the market is saying that music is overpriced. Thus, the price should fall to a level which people are prepared to pay. (Note that there is no guarantee that this level is not zero)
By outlawing the methods by which people obtain music for free, you are in effect attempting to artificially keep the price of music higher than the market wants it to be, thus making the market less free.
Incidently, your comment about free speech is wrong. Freedom of speech guarantees just that - the freedom to say whatever you want. It does not, and should not, guarantee you an audience. In other words, you should have the freedom to speak, and I should have the freedom not to listen. I should also have the freedom to make whatever comments about what you say that I like, including calling it socialist propaganda
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I really see this situation as capitalism at work. With the ~$20 "fixed" price point not all the buyers getting satisfied(you could argue most are not), and a black market of sorts has opened up.
Downloading mp3's and writing them to cd is not free. It takes hardware, blanks, and TIME. What the record industry should be doing is figuring out ways to get these people to actually buy the cds. I am not sure how much profit is in each cd sold, so I don't know what is the absolute lowest they can go. BUT, if I could buy cds for around $7-$10, I would buy many more to just see if I like them.
Don't confuse moralism, idealism and economy. You are being moralistic and confusing it with idealism. The irony is that this a simple economic problem of value adding. Any sound business model is based on adding value to something and subsequently charging for the resulting product.
Most of the cost represented by the price of 20$ for a cd is not related to the music creation process (i.e. the artist's work). Instead it is related to the production, marketing & distribution of plastic discs containing the music. Napster has 'reliefed' the record industry of these tasks so the record industry is no longer adding any value to their products. Given this reality, our capitalistic system is simply functioning properly and the only result can be that either the record company finds a new way of adding value to their product or will simply die.
The record industry has managed to slow this process by price fixing, seeking legal protection, persuading politicians to adapt the law when that didn't work, trying to persuade hardware manufacturers to adapt their products and many other tricks. However, they have so far failed to add value to their product and have even started to remove value from their products (e.g. the celine dion cd that makes your pc crash).
It's as simple as this. Because the record industry is no longer adding value they are losing market share.
Consider the invention of book printing. Before book printing, clerics would spent months or even years manually copying books. The resulting volumes were expensive. Then book printing was invented and greatly reduced the cost of creating a copy. This probably killed the market for hand copied books. Is that bad? Is that evil? No it's a simple case of no longer adding value. Just like hand copying books is no longer a good business model, creating little plastic discs with music on them has also become a waste of time.
Jilles
I downloaded Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and like it, so I am going to cash in my yahoo points (I buy lots of stuff on yahoo shopping for work) and get the album when it comes out. Of course the mp3s I downloaded are only 96bit, and are full of static :).
Would I buy the album if the mp3s were 320bit? Probably, but I might just save my money to see Wilco if they come to town. Would I buy the album if I thought it was bad? Probably not.
While Wilco IS one of the bands that I would buy a new album from without ever having heard it, I would be much more likely today to download some or all of the songs before making a purchasing decision. Occasionaly even bands I like put out crap albums.
What I would like to see is labels and artists put up all of their music that is no longer being printed for download. I would happily pay $4-5 to download mp3s, oggs, etc. of an out of print Alejandro Escovedo album. That is money the label and artist would never see if I spent $25 buying the album from somebody on Ebay.
Bravo.
I have many times heard a song I liked on the radio, and gone to good lengths to identify that song and the artist. I live in MA, and I called a "urban" gospel radio station in SC to get a song title when I could only sing a lyric or two of it (Thanks, guys).
The algorithm for getting a single in the last five years was this.
1) Hear song on radio. Like it. Get info.
2) Go to record store. Search for single. Find R&B, hip-hop, ghetto-blastaz; all songs from very recently.
3) Ask person behind counter for single.
4) Listen to how they only recieved a handful of the singles, they are sold out, and the companies that release the single only produce a small amount anyway and Never Makes Them Again.
5) Go to other record store. Rinse. Repeat.
I can buy singles at Walgreen's (pharmacy), but nothing near what I want. My musical tastes are all over the map (hence the gospel music), but I also listen to top-40 and other popular music.
Here's an idea. The CD singles, when priced at about $3.99 to $5.99, weren't too attractive compared to a $11-$13 CD, back a few years ago. For double the price, I get five to ten times the songs. So I could see that the singles may not have been very popular.
Now, CD's go for $15-$20, and I would think that a $1.99-$2.99 CD single would sell well. But the RIAA sees not a customer that bought $2.99, but a sale that they lost of $20. In that perspective, no wonder they only made a few, and then stopped entirely.
Considering that P2P downloading is about getting the "singles" (How many people have downloaded an entirely album, every song? Be honest.), and that I would download a song and burn it myself at 25 to 50 cents a pop, it just seems like the RIAA has become inflexible.
Different businesses have different business models. Some businesses adapt to change and make it work. Some create new markets ("Why would someone make a shipping company? Isn't that what the Post Office is for?"), and some change markets.
The RIAA is trying to stick with what worked in the past. Too bad it has a virtual monopoly on music in the US, otherwise another company could make a new market and make the marketplace better.
Rules of profit maximization in the modern recording industry:
1. You are what you listen to, just as you are what you drink and what you wear; you are the car you drive and stuff you buy. You must buy what everyone else buys to be accepted. People who choose not to buy are strange and suspicious; marginalize them at all times. Their politics must be repressed.
2. You must buy this thing NOW. You must subscribe to the illusion that you 'got it first'. Buying things later is not acceptable. You must buy when demand is highest and supply is limited.
3. You must believe and support the supposed American ideals of 'freedom of choice' and 'rugged individualism'. But then, you must buy what we tell you to buy and you must eat at McDonald's. You must drive a sport-utility vehicle.
4. We will use modern streamlined methods of industrial manufacturing, production and marketing; but at all times you must refer to our products as 'art', and the manufacturers as 'artists'. Our right to produce these products must always be protected; however, your rights to use the products or criticize them must be limited sharply. We do not wish for you to use the product, or even to enjoy the product - we only want you to buy it.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
I don't think Wilco's decision to release the album on the internet is going to be an indicator of an online release's ability to sell well.
Wilco is a VERY GOOD band that has an almost "Cult" Status to it. The fans will buy it to support them, but anyone who hasn't heard of them probably won't download it or buy it.
Wilco is virtually the American Radiohead in terms of creativity, direction, and vision. The Woody Guthrie collabrations with Billy Bragg are part of what did this. Reprise is full of morons (look for Neil Young to get the boot next) - and the collective outcry when Wilco was released was hilarious.
I just wouldn't take this as a sign of how all things will go. Wilco will easily sell in the same category of about 500,000 - but I don't think the online prerelease will have much to do with it.
RB
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
> The recording companies has costs.
AKA "payola", long illegal in the USA, still done under a pretense of it being something else.
In addition to being illegal, payola is commonly believed to be the major cause of crap being played on the radio.
Add in the problem of having one company own nearly every radio station in the USA, and switching stations between formats at the drop of a hat if they think it will earn them a dollar more next year, and you start getting a picture of an industry that's very, very sick.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
REM has reportedly the second largest recording contact in the planet with Warner Bros records. They're good friends with Wilco, who were dropped from Warners when Yankee Hotel Foxtrot wasn't "commercial" enough. Some quotes from recent interviews with REM. Only posting because it shows in some ways that one of the biggest bands on the planet (which they, along with U2 are), doesn't give a shit what the RIAA says:
...Really (looking surprised)?
"MS: Well the industry as we've known it is dead. Gravitational shift, complete upheaval and extinction. It makes way for the stuff I just mentioned, and kind of settles the "art versus commerce" dilemma. Where it will go from here I can't say, but it is certainly exciting to watch." - Michael Stipe
"MW: What are your thoughts on the Napster issue and free music over the internet, because it really annoys me.
MS: I'm fine with it..
MW:
MS: I like anything that shakes up the status quo, and in the entertainment industry, not just music, file sharing has certainly done that. We'll see where it goes from here. I have a few ideas of where it's headed."
- MS = Michael Stipe, MW = a country singer from Atlanta.
"Q: How do you feel about people trading R.E.M.'s music for free over the internet?
A: People that are looking for live & rare tracks online, well, that doesn't bother me at all. People that are too cheap to buy the CD's and decide to get them for free (online), well, I personally would feel bad about doing that. I feel like I would be taking something from someone, and I don't believe in that. When you break it down it's stealing, and there's no other way to look at it."
- Mike Mills
And of course the Yogurt man, Peter Buck talking about Wilco and the industry as a whole:
"ERK: Well, you have to look at the music industry right now. Its not conducive to artists like R.E.M., Wilco or anybody with remote talent (laugh).
PB: You know, that's the thing. Warners has been in chaos in America for five years and, you know, I just think they might have dropped the ball a bit this year, and not just for us either. That Eric Clapton record sure disappeared pretty quick.
ERK: Seems like every record they put out disappears...
PB: Linkin Park is the only thing that sold. You know, there are new people coming into Warners this week and next week, and people will probably get fired. It's a constantly changing company and we feel that, well, we have a commitment to them. They have done great jobs for us outside of the United States, and in America, who knows what went on. I certainly wouldn't point my finger at anyone.
ERK: The state of the American music industry, I think, is in a huge flux right now. Grant Lee Phillips is getting more promo for Mobilize than you did for Reveal, and you're on Warners and he's on Rounder. There is something not right with Warners.
PB: Yeah, well, put this into perspective. Aimee Mann sold a quarter of a million of her records out of her apartment with a guy helping her mailing it out. And Warner Bros sold 330,000 of our record in the States, with all the might of Warner Bros behind it. I love the Aimee Mann record, but I don't think there is a huge amount of quality difference between the two. I think her record is really great, she deserved it.
ERK: I've been following the whole debacle since Grant left WBR.
PB: Now, with Wilco gone too, what is happening is that these record companies are doing these huge conglomerations and essentially what they then do is drop half their acts. So instead of having what used to be 8 record companies with 60 acts, it's gotten to 3 record companies with 15 acts.
ERK: Then you have people like Rounder picking up what's left.
PB: When you consider, it doesn't make business sense to drop someone like Wilco, who makes the record company money. They are recouped, they don't owe Warners any money, they make records inexpensively and tour their asses off. They make critically acclaimed records, and sell half a million world wide. And there is always the chance with those guys that Jeff is going to turn out a Top 20 single that will blow one of their records wide open and sell eight million copies. You know, when I heard that they got dropped, I just thought it was the most insane thing I had ever heard. One of the things we signed with Warners about and we were so excited about was catalog, you know, people like Randy Newman for 25 years. Those records are in print. They held onto some really great artists and that is disappearing, and disappearing everywhere, not just Warner Brothers. There is no such thing as signing someone and they do great work and they back them. Now it's, you get one record and you're out.
ERK: Do you think there will be a resurgence or upheaval in the music industry like 91?
PLB: What I think is going to happen is that the major record companies, and they are in this position, where they are run by accountants and promo people who don't know about music. So they're just imitating each other. The promo people go, "We've got to have a boy band" and the accountants go, "We need to sell a few more records."
ERK: I think that is causing a huge thing for record labels. Websites have eliminated the need for distribution deals for some artists.
PB: When you're talking about Destiny's Child, where you can sell 10,000,000 more records if you get the right video and promotional push, that is when you need a major label. If you're talking about someone who is playing...a smaller artist, there almost is no need for a record company. Essentially, I think a lot of things are going to go through MP3, the net. You know, the play music I put up for free. Have you downloaded it?
ERK: Yeah, it was great!
PB: It was something that I wanted to put out there. It was only 7 minutes long. I trimmed it down to what I liked the best. I wanted it out there and didn't want to press it, choose a cover, a title, charge people. Essentially, I just wanted it out there. I'm into the idea of spreading things in that way. Eventually, I'd love to download whole concerts that way."
The press release from the IFPI says in part,
So, in other words, 65% of the people in the U.S. who download the most music off the 'Net either:
So overall it appears as though downloads might not be to blame for cutting into sales. One would want to know, for example, how much more and how much less these subgroups bought, and whether they were heavy music buyers before.
This is a rather clumsy blunder in a press release intended (apparently) to scare the music industry and raise sympathy for their plight among their friends in government. A minority of the heaviest users of a new technology are buying less. Hard to feel sorry for the industry.
In the past, artists needed the promotion power of major labels in order to make money peforming live and/touring. Now, with the internet, any kid in his garage can set up a website for his band, record his band directly to mp3 to his computer and distribute it. There are plenty of music websites to review the material and spread the word about a great band. Then with the demand grows, the band can tour and make money *on their own*. Most people know that artists never made much money on CD sales anyway. I know it's true because my band is doing it right now. We recorded an album with our own cash and have sold several hundred copies via the internet(despite the fact that our MP3s are freely available). That has created the demand and now we tour the southeast US regularly. It's not great money but it's enough and it's fun. Another good example is the band Dredg. Their indie album sold thousands of copies on the internet(MP3s also freely available). They have a real cool indie alt-rock sound, comparitive to Radiohead(for lack of a better comparison)but they are in no way a radio band. The record labels don't like that a band can make it on their own these days, and many bands are making it on their own. I love it. Sure I don't buy major label CDs anymore. It's because the artists suck. I buy plenty of independent artist CD's, and I spend lots of money going to see these local bands. It's the way it's going to work from now on.
If you wanted to buy a painting, would you want it straight from Picasso's hands, or would you rather have Picasso paint it, give it to a producer who messes it all up, and packages it, and then sells it to you for a huge markup? Duh! Get it straight from the artist.
This made me laugh:
"We have the right to protect our exisitng business, and we have a moral duty to protect our artists and songwriters," said Mr Larsen."
Talk about hypocritical/double standard/load of horsecrap. Don't most artists make something ludicrous like a fraction of a penny per disc sold unless they have a renegotiated contract (after some success on previous albums which they got paid jack for)?
My take is that as long as the RIAA doesn't give a shit about the artists, I won't give a shit about the RIAA.
1) Weed out the lousy artists - find something that people will like.
2) Record the music, with the fancy mixers and recording studios so it sounds "right".
3) Distribute the music. With this could be considered promotion.
The real problem here is that the RIAA perform all three functions, but only gets paid at the 3rd step, while the Internet obviates the need for the 3rd step!
Via Gnutella, KaZaA, etc. the method of distribution has largely shifted to the consumer, and people frequently won't pay for something they can do themselves for much cheaper.
Find a way that RIAA, inc. can get paid for 1 and 2 above, and I think we can move on.
And, if you don't think that RIAA is important, and should be disbanded, go to mp3.com and listen to something BESIDES Britney, Nsync, and Pink Floyd. Otherwise, shut up and help figure this out...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Any time a mention is made of the RIAA we always get the young, incredibly arrogant dillweeds - no doubt still in college and therefore infallible - who blithely go about condemning pop as 'crap' music and telling everyone that if they had any taste at all they'd listen to 'alternative bands'. These same little boys also wear baseball caps backwards and think that this somehow makes them look cool (rather than just too damned stupid to figure out which way the cap actually goes).
Something you little egomaniacs need to know before you pull your dicks out of shorts and start playing with yourselves here:
- music is a matter of taste. As in, I've got mine and you've got yours. It isn't an "I've got taste and you don't affair", no matter how bloated your ego is. If you think otherwise you need meds, and lots of them.
- consider the possibility that alternative bands aren't popular is because *most people think they suck*. This is a more likely explanation than the idea that you have better taste than everyone else, or that you're smarter. Odds are that half of the people out there have better taste than you, and are smarter than you.
- the music you listen to says little about your character, abilities, mores, or ideals. Listening to alternative bands doesn't make you any more enlightened than believing in crystal power does. Claiming otherwise just makes you look dumb, although this is probably an accurate assessment of your intellect if you do so.
- popular music isn't popular because the RIAA brainwashes people into liking it. This is just another ego argument (i.e., "i'm superior and therefore immune to brainwashing, while the rest of you are a bunch of sheep"). Popular music is popular because *alot of people like it*. Deal with it.
I'm probably too late here but man am I sick of those little college boys blathering on with their stock lines "popular music sucks anyways!" or "support local bands and stop buying cds!". Enough already. Try acting like an asshole in a novel way for once; your lines are tired and old and rapidly becoming pathetic.
My rant for the day.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Pay at most 10 for an album, of which the artists make at least 2 .
Um, why should the artist, who does 99% of the work, get less per album than the distributor who simply puts it on trucks and ships it out the door? Switch those numbers around and I'll join you!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"