Re: now music and economics...

[Zenswhen <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

>It was he, not Robbins, who politicized the event.

Jo:

So true, and given the fact that Robbins & Sarandon were asked not to speak of political matters at the Oscars, and did not, he had no reason to do what he did EXCEPT to politize the event.

>It was prudent of Petroskey to worry about Robbins and Sarandon.

No, it wasn't. He had no reason to.

>The music business is a lot different today than it was in 1965.

Lela:

I was trying to relate it to the Who list it's being discussed on!

>are about to become superfluous because the benefits they can now offer artists are not worth the costs.

Oh? How many bands have made it big without a label?

> It's hard to say if it's not selling super well because of downloads.

Impossible to say, really. Still the point remains.

>Say I like this obscure 1940s song and I hunt around for it and buy the CD. 

So that means a band would then have no reason to make anything but singles. We get only Pinball Wizard and no Tommy.

>Plus, I can find a bunch of other rare stuff that nobody is interested in carrying down at the CD store.

Online stores have taken care of that problem.

> Buying a used CD doesn't support the artist, because there are no royalties 

You KNEW I'd be ready for this argument, didn't you? Of course it supports the artist...in that the CD was purchased in the first place. It's like a used car. And at least I'm recycling!Downloaded music is one purchase per 100k downloads. That means no one makes money.

>like radio or whatever. I notice that large capacity storage devices advertise lots of space for your mp3 collection.

But again, MP3s sound like a cheap radio.

>But they charge those costs back to the artist

WHY does this bother you? The artist doesn't pay it unless they make money! Those who don't, the vast majority, that money is gone from the labels' pockets, period! Think of it as a loan to start a business.

>, and it's stuff that might be contracted separately at lower cost. 

Might be, but I tend to doubt it. A system in place is usually cheaper than someone doing the tasks individually.

>year Sony 
Entertainment posted sales of $19.2 billion, giving them net earnings of $1.09 billion. 

Yes, you already said what I was going to...Sony isn't JUST a label. They make equipment, movies, books, etc. etc.

>You're right that their profit didn't get near the billion mark, but the gross was closer to two. 

As ANYONE who owns a business would tell you, the gross doesn't mean shit. It's the net that counts.

>This is one of the big five, and one that's trying 
to cut costs, indicating they're in trouble with $174 in PROFIT.

Do you know how that has to be split up?

>Pete puts music out for us by himself, as do other artists, on their own label. From what these artists say, it's better to be in control of it yourself.

Of course...as long as you're as famous as Townshend, that's no problem.

>I'm saying that signing shouldn't be taken as the criterion of success these days.

No, but it's a step in that direction. Most of the bands signed lose money for their label.

>But the risks weren't the reason for their profit.

Yeah they were! No product, no profit!

>Are you saying that a real rock band wouldn't do these things? It's selling out, right?

I'm saying that they don't make money on the tour unless they do these things. Even then, tickets are $100+ for the "cheap" seats.

>But where is it written that record companies are the only corporations who can do this?

Nowhere, but at least they have a clue about what might and might not make money. I suppose anyone who wants to can, but I don't see anyone lining up to do so. Not even established Rock bands like The Who.

>say they've broken even and are starting to get a slight profit, 

Well, not to downgrade them...but the odds are against them ever getting on VH1 and/or making any REAL money.

>Yeah, but the legal costs were charged back to them--it's 

So what? Why do you think they should get a free ride, just because they're musicians? What about used CD store owners...where's MY free lawyer?

>costs are charged back to the band, even if it leaves them in debt.

Yeah, they might be CHARGED to the band...but if the band doesn't make it, and breaks up, who's going to pay? That's IF any of them had money after the fact! No, that money's GONE.

>For what? CDs? 

Yeah, they DO want to make money, you know!

>The price on lots of stuff drops as it becomes obsolete.

CDs are far from obsolete!

>But they're developing talent so they can keep it in their stable.

Yeah, so they can benefit. Understandable, no?

>Is this a myth? What costs are they eating? Do you think they write off all the money that bands end up owing them? If so, it's a tax deduction and they get use of it anyway.

The costs of finding, recording, promoting etc. a new band who doesn't make it. And just so you know, a tax deduction is not money in your pocket. It's only less you have to pay.

>Notice Enron, followed by other large corporations. 

I noticed all right. No one's gone to jail, I notice...good job, Bush, getting ahold of corporate greed!

>there was much less competition from ACCUMULATED RECORDINGS in the mid-sixties than there is now.

That's why "music must change." It just hasn't, that's all. We need the new thing to take over from Rock music.
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.