Well, can a major band that is well-known already ditch their record label entirely?
Depends on their contract and if they're up for renegotiation. If you look close, you'll notice that big-name bands/artists eventually move over to their own label, but utilize the "big names" for physical distribution, et al.
Yeah, the main problem isn't with using a producer (a good producer can be the difference between an assy sounding album and a brilliant sounding one), but rather that the "top" producers are just ridiculously expensive. Same with some of the management.
In order to be a supergroup, though, there has to be a huge infrastructure supporting you. That's pretty much where the major labels come in. What I think will eventually pan out is that there will be many more "everyday" musicians pulling in decent income (assuming venue owners/bars ever get their head out of their ass with regards to live music vs. DJs/techno nights), and then HUUUGEEE bands that are supported by corporations that get revenue from giant tours featuring elaborate stage shows, etc, instead of record sales (which will be, undoubtedly, massively corrupt).
Oh, and I should point out that of course the venue is going to benefit from the concert revenue. However, unless specified in the label's contract with the band (which some more recent contracts *do* specify -- the jury is still out and the opinions from just about everyone are mixed on the subject ), the live performance net profits go to "the band" (for whatever value that means in terms of that particular music group).
It depends a lot on the particular contract that band had. Groups that are not wary can get ripped off pretty easily. However, to be very general, live performance monies go to the band, and they get very little from CD sales.
The reason that many of those stories happen is due to the ridiculously archaic and overpriced production and physical distribution system that made(makes) everyone except the band a good deal of cash. Or, at least, it used to.:D
The article is making the (increasingly realistic) argument, albeit in a round-about fashion, that the recording industry needs to adapt or die. They've got just about zero chance of regaining the revenue streams they had pre-napster, and so its time to think outside the box. Not a newsflash by any stretch of the imagination.
It's a choice between figuring out how to continue to make money (redesigning your business model) or making none (continually declining revenues for major labels until they can't afford to pay anyone in any case).
Well, that's a direct result of how we socialize drinking in the US, obviously.
However, binge drinking is not synonymous with alcoholism (it's not HEALTHY, but it's also not the same thing). Not that you could notice by looking at google for information. I found one 1st-2nd page result that told me if I desire alcohol more than twice a month, I'm an alcoholic.
Being dead has not, historically, prevented people from being tried in court. Pretty sure that either the English or French have, at least once, dug up a dude and tried him, and then "executed" him again by tossing him into a river.
We really need to kill off this nanny state we live in before the next generation is too afraid to go outside at all.
QFT
I was slightly too young to fully enjoy the 80's, but at least in the 80s, people weren't shit scared of every damn thing out there. (Sadly, that's where we started to be scared of it all, though)
While his screed does skew a little away into the Lone Gunmen territory, he is essentially correct. MADD et al have made it essentially illegal to do anything but stand in one place and drink, while the rest of the "think of the children" movement is continuing to try and make live as safe and sterile as possible in the US. MADD itself, as an organization, is quite insane and desperate to make itself continually relevant, leading to its metamorphosis into a neo-prohibitionist lobby group.
Remember, just because someone sounds insane, doesn't mean that there isn't some truth there.
Law firms seem to have these sorts of perks. I've heard of others having it as well. Not really that crazy. I think that a lot of slashdotters just work for shitty employers:D
The opinion that short selling (though I'm not a big fan of naked short selling -- i think that you should have to borrow the equity before you actually sell it) is somehow unmitigated evil seems to be mainly the domain of people who 1) don't understand how the market works and 2) market cheerleaders that think anything making the market go down is bad:(:(:(
So far this high PE hasn't deflated because people really believe Google is going to one day rock the world with a tremendous new product with enormous profitability. Google experiments in numerous areas with a sharp "google" approach, so people expect them to one day find that new product, and that's how Google's managed to support this expectation. If the internet bubble bursts, it'd probably start elsewhere since I doubt Google is going to cease this practice anytime soon. Google'd have to worry about investors running off scared from other internet companies falling apart, but Google itself is somewhat insulated since their exploration is intrinsic to their methodology, and is a known risk that isn't a suprise to anybody.
Well, that and the fact that the stock price has little to do with the day-to-day financial operations of any company. Once the stock has been sold, the only thing that price really effects is the CEO paper worthy(most of the time -- see Yahoo and Uncle Carl).Google doesn't even publish earning estimates ahead of time, so analysts have to make up numbers on their own to compare against when Google puts out its earnings reports.
Also, I don't see people getting edgy when P/E is higher than 10. Higher than 20 seems to be the "hmmmm, is it worth that?" point these days.
"Fundamentals" analysis is a fake science anyway. Stock is worth something because some large number of people agree its worth something. Is why I think technical analysis is actually a more reasonably way to "trade" (as opposed to "invest"). Of course, TA needs the other schools of thought to work, so it is probably a wash anyway.
As someone who has access to stats about click through and displays, I can say that you're almost entirely wrong with regards to how many people block ads and don't click on them.
At first I was surprised as well, but really, the number of people who dislike ads enough to block them is very low. Popup windows are considered far more annoying.
I've seen the "thin client" pattern come and go over the last 20 years. For some reason it never sticks, even though "this time for sure!"
There's always gonna be a need for someone to fix hardware, anyway. Until we make everything indestructible or replace tech support with robots.
Then again, IT support really could use some housecleaning. I'm really not all that smart, but I'm routinely reminded that 90% of my field-mates are much, much more stupid than I am.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, can a major band that is well-known already ditch their record label entirely?
Depends on their contract and if they're up for renegotiation. If you look close, you'll notice that big-name bands/artists eventually move over to their own label, but utilize the "big names" for physical distribution, et al.
Yeah, the main problem isn't with using a producer (a good producer can be the difference between an assy sounding album and a brilliant sounding one), but rather that the "top" producers are just ridiculously expensive. Same with some of the management.
In order to be a supergroup, though, there has to be a huge infrastructure supporting you. That's pretty much where the major labels come in. What I think will eventually pan out is that there will be many more "everyday" musicians pulling in decent income (assuming venue owners/bars ever get their head out of their ass with regards to live music vs. DJs/techno nights), and then HUUUGEEE bands that are supported by corporations that get revenue from giant tours featuring elaborate stage shows, etc, instead of record sales (which will be, undoubtedly, massively corrupt).
Oh, and I should point out that of course the venue is going to benefit from the concert revenue. However, unless specified in the label's contract with the band (which some more recent contracts *do* specify -- the jury is still out and the opinions from just about everyone are mixed on the subject ), the live performance net profits go to "the band" (for whatever value that means in terms of that particular music group).
It depends a lot on the particular contract that band had. Groups that are not wary can get ripped off pretty easily. However, to be very general, live performance monies go to the band, and they get very little from CD sales.
The reason that many of those stories happen is due to the ridiculously archaic and overpriced production and physical distribution system that made(makes) everyone except the band a good deal of cash. Or, at least, it used to. :D
The article is making the (increasingly realistic) argument, albeit in a round-about fashion, that the recording industry needs to adapt or die. They've got just about zero chance of regaining the revenue streams they had pre-napster, and so its time to think outside the box. Not a newsflash by any stretch of the imagination.
It's a choice between figuring out how to continue to make money (redesigning your business model) or making none (continually declining revenues for major labels until they can't afford to pay anyone in any case).
Well, that's a direct result of how we socialize drinking in the US, obviously.
However, binge drinking is not synonymous with alcoholism (it's not HEALTHY, but it's also not the same thing). Not that you could notice by looking at google for information. I found one 1st-2nd page result that told me if I desire alcohol more than twice a month, I'm an alcoholic.
I, likewise, have never heard about this. Perhaps someone saw the second Addam's Family movie and took it a bit too literally.
Being dead has not, historically, prevented people from being tried in court. Pretty sure that either the English or French have, at least once, dug up a dude and tried him, and then "executed" him again by tossing him into a river.
You have references? Google only gives me extrapolations, not real numbers, in addition to some pretty annoyingly broad definitions of alcoholism.
What's a "beer scooter"?
We really need to kill off this nanny state we live in before the next generation is too afraid to go outside at all.
QFT
I was slightly too young to fully enjoy the 80's, but at least in the 80s, people weren't shit scared of every damn thing out there. (Sadly, that's where we started to be scared of it all, though)
We have high alcoholism rates compared to... what, exactly?
While his screed does skew a little away into the Lone Gunmen territory, he is essentially correct. MADD et al have made it essentially illegal to do anything but stand in one place and drink, while the rest of the "think of the children" movement is continuing to try and make live as safe and sterile as possible in the US. MADD itself, as an organization, is quite insane and desperate to make itself continually relevant, leading to its metamorphosis into a neo-prohibitionist lobby group.
Remember, just because someone sounds insane, doesn't mean that there isn't some truth there.
E3 this year was the equivalent to hitting "Reload" on Kotaku every 15 minutes, at any other time of the year.
The whole point of E3 was the spectacle. Remove that, and there's no point.
Law firms seem to have these sorts of perks. I've heard of others having it as well. Not really that crazy. I think that a lot of slashdotters just work for shitty employers :D
a 12-dimensional, inverted, Buffetian sphere :D
The opinion that short selling (though I'm not a big fan of naked short selling -- i think that you should have to borrow the equity before you actually sell it) is somehow unmitigated evil seems to be mainly the domain of people who 1) don't understand how the market works and 2) market cheerleaders that think anything making the market go down is bad :( :( :(
Foxconn makes a lot of boards, including Apple boards.
Pretty sure this is the case with Dell as well, though I haven't looked inside a more recent server lately.
I'm gonna assume you're not a troll, or trying to be funny, because I've yet to each lunch. I suppose it may be informative for others as well.
RTFA = Read the Fucking Article. RTFM = Read the Fucking Manual. This "Fine" stuff is a latter day, dead-tree cleaning up of the original phrase.
Brazillions are poor, they NEED that money.
Er... wait...
So far this high PE hasn't deflated because people really believe Google is going to one day rock the world with a tremendous new product with enormous profitability. Google experiments in numerous areas with a sharp "google" approach, so people expect them to one day find that new product, and that's how Google's managed to support this expectation. If the internet bubble bursts, it'd probably start elsewhere since I doubt Google is going to cease this practice anytime soon. Google'd have to worry about investors running off scared from other internet companies falling apart, but Google itself is somewhat insulated since their exploration is intrinsic to their methodology, and is a known risk that isn't a suprise to anybody.
Well, that and the fact that the stock price has little to do with the day-to-day financial operations of any company. Once the stock has been sold, the only thing that price really effects is the CEO paper worthy(most of the time -- see Yahoo and Uncle Carl).Google doesn't even publish earning estimates ahead of time, so analysts have to make up numbers on their own to compare against when Google puts out its earnings reports.
Also, I don't see people getting edgy when P/E is higher than 10. Higher than 20 seems to be the "hmmmm, is it worth that?" point these days.
"Fundamentals" analysis is a fake science anyway. Stock is worth something because some large number of people agree its worth something. Is why I think technical analysis is actually a more reasonably way to "trade" (as opposed to "invest"). Of course, TA needs the other schools of thought to work, so it is probably a wash anyway.
As someone who has access to stats about click through and displays, I can say that you're almost entirely wrong with regards to how many people block ads and don't click on them.
At first I was surprised as well, but really, the number of people who dislike ads enough to block them is very low. Popup windows are considered far more annoying.
I've seen the "thin client" pattern come and go over the last 20 years. For some reason it never sticks, even though "this time for sure!"
There's always gonna be a need for someone to fix hardware, anyway. Until we make everything indestructible or replace tech support with robots.
Then again, IT support really could use some housecleaning. I'm really not all that smart, but I'm routinely reminded that 90% of my field-mates are much, much more stupid than I am.
I can't be Alyson Hannigan's neighbor if I'm not supar-rich, though.
Well, I could be, but *officially* a big refrigerator box doesn't count.