Originally Posted by Hicks
Yeah pro tools is sooo hard to use..
A computer isn't hard to use either, but let's see you write a high quality application without years of experience. It has nothing to do with how easy the tool is to use, it's about being able to record good MUSIC, how to create great compositions and record them well. I've been working hard at music production now for four years, and I'm just now getting to the point where it's not embarrassing. It takes many years to learn to make really good sounding music. And it's easy to see that this is true if you hang around other musicians who are doing the same.
And of course if you want to put a small string ensemble on your album, that sounds like a real string ensemble, then you aren't likely to do that in your bedroom. Or a choir. Or any number of other instruments that would never have access to or be able to reasonable record realistically in your bedroom.
And most artists are not technical at al on this front and couldn't do anything on the recording front themselves. So this is just a silly argument. I'm sure that people could make prescription drugs in their bedrooms as well, but it wouldn't be considered a good thing to try it.
The whole premise of this type of argument is absurd, and it's straight out of the downloaders rationalization handbook. People are breaking the law on a mass scale, Do you blame them for doing wrong? No, you start talking about how people should just make music in their bedrooms instead, and work at Burger King.
Wow so you know everything and everyone else knows nothing, got it. I've worked in record stores, so I know that the margin that the store gets is about 25-30%, typically $5 on a $16 CD. The artist gets $1-2 if they are lucky after "packaging" deductions by the label. That leaves 60% to be divided between the label and the distributor.
And you think that this is wrong? The artist was fronted money to create the album and the promotion of the album by the label. The artist doesn't cover the other losses, the artist doesn't pay anyone else's salaries, etc.... There's absolutely nothing wrong with that equation. If the artist wants to take a bigger slice of the pie, he can go out on his own and finance his own albums and promotion. And then he'll figure out why he only gets a small slice of that pie.
Any time in business that you go to someone else to finance your dream, you will not get the bulk of the rewards. That's just the way it goes. The same applies in the venture capital world. If you want to keep all the rewards, you have to do it yourself. And you soon find out why people go to venture capitalists.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, back in the 90s even one hit wonder bands like The Toadies, Belly and Better Than Ezra went platinum, that's ten times the number that I cited. Clearly only huge acts could sell 1/10th of that! Even today a band like Wilco, hardly a household name, can still sell 100,000 copies of a record in a single week.
I said today. And you cliearly haven't looked at the stats. Check the Neilson stats on sales. You will find that a tiny percentage of albums or songs EVER sell more than about 1000 copies. It's amazing how small. Yes, when one does well, it can do quit well, far less so now days. But it's actually a very small number, and of course those have to cover all the other bands that lost money. And those will be the most pirated of all, because they are most popular.
Clearly you can't prove that. In any event I'm not saying that no one would steal if the product was cheaper, but that it would reduce the amount of theft. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis, at some price point it stops being worth the time and risk involved to track down illegal downloads to an extent that just buying the item is the more attractive option to a larger number of people.
The cost of CDs has gone down considerably since 1999, but theft has gone up. If the cost was the factor, then theft would have not been going up. They were buying lots of music at the higher price up until downloading became possible. Music sales had been going up steadily. Downloading starts, prices go down, downloading goes up and up. How much more proof do you need?
And yeh, if someone wants to sell their entire album for $1 or something, maybe it becomes easier to buy than steal for some number of people. But that's pretty irrelevant. Are you willing to work for the amount that people would be willing to pay you compared to stealing what you do with zero consequences? I doubt it.
Also, did you say artists made more in the 70s than now? Sounds like you haven't been to a concert since that time, everyone knows that's where the real money is and it far, far more lucrative now than it was back then.
For a very small number of acts it's lucrative. But I was talking about music sales. And of course it's the music sales that provides the revenues for providing the leg up for the next round of acts, not concert revenues that go to the artist. Though now, because of the huge theft of music, the labels are now demanding a cut of the live revenues as well, since that's the only way they can get their money back in many cases.
And of course this thread has gone exactly the way I said it would, i.e. pages of people explaining why it's the fault of the people getting stolen from, and appologizing for theft, explaining why people should be happy getting anything at all for music, etc...