"Home Taping is killing music"

massrock

Well-known member
Either way, trying to hold back the flow of information, bullying 'consumers' and introducing dangerous legislation is not the way to ensure survival.
 

wascal

Wild Horses
Taping Home Killing is Music

200px-Charles_Manson_-_Lie-_The_Love_%26_Terror_Cult.jpg
?
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
I didn't advance any analogy, I just asked you a question what you meant. Is it my analogy?

Did I say it was? I used the word before you even entered the thread - it was aimed at Talk Talk specifically and the myriad people down the years who've advanced it on blogs, in columns and conversation.

So it's the continued survival in unaltered form of large bloated record companies that concerns you?

Yes, of course, that and the continued survival of the support industries - purveyors of "champagne and flowers", stretch limos, that kind of gubbins. I believe it's traditional for those on the "freetard" side of the fence to mention U2 at this point....:rolleyes:
 

massrock

Well-known member
(Bear in mind the increasing market share of amazon and supermarkets in the UK means you now have to sell more to make less - no idea how that applies to iTunes, or other markets, but I'd be surprised if it was significantly different).
Isn't that further indication that music is still being purchased?
 

massrock

Well-known member
What is the 'record industry' being discussed here though? A small number of large slow moving old firms run by greedy fuckers who've exploited artists and consumers for too long and have in their hubris failed to adapt to new conditions.

The majority of artists have nothing to do with that and would most likely be better off if it didn't exist at all. Music certainly doesn't need it.
 

massrock

Well-known member
Did I say it was?
When I wondered if my asking you to clarify your post had been 'offensive' you said 'I don't find it 'offensive', just impossible to believe that anyone could advance it in good faith.'. Maybe a misunderstanding then.
I believe it's traditional for those on the "freetard" side of the fence to mention U2 at this point....:rolleyes:
Presumably this isn't aimed at me either.

What is that supposed to mean though? Again, another insinuation, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Seriously, in unaltered form?

No.

HTML:
What is the 'record industry' being discussed here though? A small number of large slow moving old firms run by greedy fuckers who've exploited artists and consumers for too long and have in their hubris failed to adapt to new conditions.

The majority of artists have nothing to do with that and would most likely be better off if it didn't exist at all. Music certainly doesn't need it.

This is a cartoon version of the music industry, a reflection of it at its worst. I realise this is a deeply unfashionable thing to say in places like this, but the majority of people staffing the industry are every bit as passionate about their music as people here. The further down the ladder you go, the truer this becomes. These people are hurting far more than those you describe, but rarely get a look-in in this debate.
 

massrock

Well-known member
One fact is you CANNOT stop information being freely available, that horse bolted long ago. I also happen personally to believe that even were it possible it would not be desirable to do so for some quite wide ranging reasons.

So those with sense have realised that you have to engage with other ways of operating a music business. That can mean other ways of supporting artistic endeavours, and it can mean working with audiences in different ways to help them want to pay for music and related products. I'm certainly not talking about U2, or Radiohead or even Nine Inch Nails. Maybe Marillion or Neubauten are worth paying to attention to though... But even then of course those are established names. The 'music industry' as you talk about has done fuck all and means fuck all to the majority of producers and performers and those are the people who are pioneering new ways of working. It's not easy but there's really no choice, and of course smaller operation are in a better position to do that.
 
Last edited:

massrock

Well-known member
This is a cartoon version of the music industry, a reflection of it at its worst. I realise this is a deeply unfashionable thing to say in places like this, but the majority of people staffing the industry are every bit as passionate about their music as people here. The further down the ladder you go, the truer this becomes. These people are hurting far more than those you describe, but rarely get a look-in in this debate.
It's not their fault though. Neither mismanagement nor the march of time and change.
 

massrock

Well-known member
Things would look quite different now if the big entertainment companies had been quicker to embrace digital distribution instead of faffing around fuming about Napster or whatever. MP3.com was around way before P2P took off anyway so that future was certainly visible to some. Of course with their track record no-one would seriously expect those companies to have done this and they didn't. So Apple stepped in, for one thing.

I do think subscription services might have a future, but again it seems it's hard for the majors to swallow.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
One fact is you CANNOT stop information being freely available, that horse bolted long ago.
I basically agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the home taping analogy, which is facile and stupid. It seems pretty obvious that unless something ludicrously heavy-handed is done to stem the free flow of information around the net, there are going to be some pretty fundamental changes to how and when people get paid for their music and hence to the structure of the industry. This could be a good thing in the long run, but it is something that's really happening and not just industry alarmism.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Things would look quite different now if the big entertainment companies had been quicker to embrace digital distribution instead of faffing around fuming about Napster or whatever. MP3.com was around way before P2P took off anyway so that future was certainly visible to some. Of course with their track record no-one would seriously expect those companies to have done this and they didn't. So Apple stepped in, for one thing.

I do think subscription services might have a future, but again it seems it's hard for the majors to swallow.

Sure, I'm certainly not here to deny that the industry as a whole has dropped several massive bollocks in their (mis)handling of the internet. The track record of Spotify so far is that people won't pay for what they can get for free and the money record companies (and therefore artists) make from it is less than peanuts. The industry quite likes it, cos it is at least some money (something like .01p per play, I was told) and some have shares in it, though Warners are already talking of pulling their stuff.

The bottom line still hasn't changed - you cannot compete with free. Again, if you know of these new models you allude to I'd love to know what they are (unless it's simply touring more or selling more t-shirts).
 

massrock

Well-known member
I basically agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the home taping analogy, which is facile and stupid. It seems pretty obvious that unless something ludicrously heavy-handed is done to stem the free flow of information around the net, there are going to be some pretty fundamental changes to how and when people get paid for their music and hence to the structure of the industry. This could be a good thing in the long run, but it is something that's really happening and not just industry alarmism.
Yes it's happening, things are changing, have changed, but it's not killing music.

And actually music is still selling, and indeed people are still getting paid. Maybe some of the ways in which people have traditionally expected to be paid are no longer realistic, if they ever were. At the ground level of production for a long time now many artists have accepted that they are not going to get any meaningful support from the 'industry'. This has probably saved a lot of people from getting caught up in restrictive contracts and advance debts. You might have to do other jobs, for the vast majority that was always the case anyway, but the costs of music production and distribution are much lower now, for one thing.
 
Last edited:

massrock

Well-known member
Sure, I'm certainly not here to deny that the industry as a whole has dropped several massive bollocks in their (mis)handling of the internet.
Even long before that though the good will of music listeners was abused for over a decade by the artificially high prices of CDs. Heck even the introduction of the unnecessary new format in the first place, which was presumably considered a good idea partly because it meant that people would buy the music in their collections again! What a wheeze.

And how about the effect of the marketing dominance of the major companies and broadcast networks obscuring music that had it had more exposure could have found a larger engaged audience? Maybe that's another argument but if audiences have been ripped off and sold short then music has been devalued and it's not surprising it's got to a point where many growing up now don't see the point in paying for it.
 
Last edited:

massrock

Well-known member
And I think you can compete with free. Offer people something they actually want and help them feel a connection to it and they'll see a reason to pay for it. Or rather, I don't think it's simply that music is theoretically available for 'free' that people don't see why they should pay for it.
 
Top