On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Dre de Man wrote:
> ... Yet the recording industry has proven since more than hundred
> years to give us the ability to get to know exellent musicians we
> would probably not even have heard of otherwise. Besides that is has
> proven to give many musicians some extra money, which is always
> welcome.
I think the opposite is true. These companies define our tastes and genres
to a certain extent and destroy diversity. They have everything to gain
from pigeon-holing artists, and weeding out anything different. A&R people
are notorious for trying to carbon-copy past successes to increase profits
rather than actively search out original talent. They make it easy for a
few easily categorizable artists to be accessed, and get the majority of
consumer money - only a fraction of it goes to the artists themselves.
Point taken that MP3 is out there to make a profit too. They shouldn't be
trusted either! :-) LOL!
> The less profitable this bussiness becomes (the more illegal copies
> are being made), the more they will concentrate on big and fast profit
> making activities: recording the **** many people take for music.
Are you suggesting companies are currently being more charitable than
would be optimally profitable? All "marginal" projects are developed with
the idea of ultimately beefing up the bottom line, eventually. I HOPE they
become desperate due to pressure from MP3. Maybe they will feel pressure
to differentiate themselves from each other (which is what happens to
cartels when supply goes up and demand remains static), creating a little
musical diversity.
> That's what they partly do: recording classical music is not very
> profitable, and profits from selling pop are partly used to enable the
> continuation of recording classical music. Apart from that: it is a
> bit naive (but understandable at your age) to tell companies what they
> should do with their money.
Are you saying classical labels are a charity run by record companies?
They are simply expanding into other genres beyond a saturated pop market
to increase revenues, despite diminishing returns.
I am not suggesting we tell corporations what to do with their money
(though we can and should). What I *am* suggesting is that WE as consumers
can control where our money goes. Support artists more directly, by
attending local performances, buying from indy labels, visiting home grown
web sites, etc. The dumbing down of music by the big labels has
marginalized artists that don't fit the "lowest common denominator" mold.
Our consumer dollars are distributed unfairly, and it is up to us to
redirect them equitably.
> Such a thing is only possible in communistic countries. And we know
> how they have treated human rights, I mean real rights, not the right
> to steal from a record company.
There's a difference bettween communism and a country that is not
controlled by big business. Do you have any idea what kind of "rights"
corporations have in the US? The US government's officials are puppets of
corporate interests. Corporations commit more murders via pollution than
people could with guns, but they can't be put to a criminal trial. Haven't
you heard of Ford and the Pinto and the SUV Firestone tires?
Surely there is a middle ground between totalitarian communism and pure
capitalism?
> There is however something possible, that more or less does what Tako
> wants: in Europe several countries have a 'copy-tax', which you pay
> when you buy audio-cdr's, md's and tapes. This money is divided among
> performing artists, at least in Holland.
You can't imagine how quickly this copy-tax would be trashed in the US
legislature by record company lobbies! BTW, do you know how old I am? I
may be a grad student, but I am what is known as a "resumer" ;-) I have
done time in the worlds of corporate, non-profit, pop, classical. I
consider myself a "cynical optimist" :-)
Tako
|
|  |
