#1
- E.Reiljans
Prince: "The internet's completely over."
Internet: "Prince is completely over.
#3
- hrtburnout
/thread
Services like Spotify and iTunes are a huge rip-off for artists - actually worse than major label recording/publishing contracts - so I don't blame Prince for railing against them but, oh he's such a granddad.
So that's Prince and Bill Gates who think the internet is a fad. Any more?
So that's Prince and Bill Gates who think the internet is a fad. Any more?
#5
- Crashgate3
LOLosaurus Rex.
what this means to me is his new CD isn't actually any good
so he has to go for the publicity stunt sorta mentality to sell more
so he has to go for the publicity stunt sorta mentality to sell more
What? Rip-off? How? Intellectual property is hugely questionable in the first place, but artists don't have a divine right to be millionaires because they write a catchy tune. Some artists actually have some common sense and accept the market has evolved and have moved more into making money in the live arena. This old out-of-date attachment to intellectual property is really making musicians like Prince look like morons.
hes actually not so wrong.
internet often causes artists to lose a lot of money.
though today the internet is the way to go.
so from another view, hes pretty wrong.
difficult thing id say.
internet often causes artists to lose a lot of money.
though today the internet is the way to go.
so from another view, hes pretty wrong.
difficult thing id say.
Translation: "the internet's completely unprofitable".
Yea I really wonder how he can expect his argument to look serious with such a quote. ITs are part of nowadays' society, and his refusals to get his music broadcasted online won't change anything to that. As Intrepid said, the market has changed, now most of the customers don't want to pay 40 minutes of music for +$15 anymore, it's just a fact. No matter if you like it or not. Now it's up to the artists to find the best strategy to make their way out there.
I guess he stood for too long in the Purple Rain. 
How does an artist lose money? . No artist is losing money. They are just not able to make the insane amounts of money they used to. 5Haz is right in saying the internet is unprofitable for artists to distribute their music. Despite the fact the PRS and slimey record company bosses who want more laws to protect their wealth (Digital Economy Act anyone??) idiots like Prince have to move with the times.
Depends on which meaning of the term.
when the internet is used music becomes faster a pirate copy.
without it it does take a little bit longer and isnt so easy to find.
so it does actually make them lose money.
You say lose money as if making music actually costs them money or that somehow they are entitled to payment for someone to listen to their music. Once a song is played it's out there in people's head. If I happen to hear a piece of music on the radio I can then go home and play it one my guitar. In fact I could replicate the whole damn thing down to the tiny details. That's what Prince wants money for - intellectual property. That's why paying for music is becoming out dated very very very quickly.
Recorded music is now a vehicle for either advertisement like what you see with Spotify or a vehicle to promote the real thing - the 'live act'. That's today's market and if you don't like it, your in the wrong game. It;s like saying newspapers are losing money because news is now widely available on the net for free... guess what? TOUGH!
The unfortunate thing is the PRS and record companies like to lobby governments to create crazy new laws that get rushed through and stifle development and business.
Dude...
- Do you think equipment and instruments are for free?
- Do you think the endless hours of working on new music are paid?
- Do you think it's free to license and publish your music?
- Are professional studios available for free? Is a mastering engineer willing to master your music for free just because he thinks you're a nice guy?
- etc.
all well and true but the thing is music has existed for thousands of years and were rapidly approaching the point where all good tunes have been invented already
thus the value of music is dwindling
Ethics asside, music distributed on the internet is of questionable quality anyway. You don't have to be an audiophile to be dissatisfied with MP3, WMA or AAC files.
I still don't have problems with buying music on cd. The only bitter aftertaste it leaves is having the feeling I also paid for the mofo's who download music illegally.
I still don't have problems with buying music on cd. The only bitter aftertaste it leaves is having the feeling I also paid for the mofo's who download music illegally.
Yes I know about that cost, I've been there, and done that myself!
So because it costs money to produce a product that can only be consumed intellectually the customer should pay?
I have already said how the business model of the recorded piece as a tool rather than an end product. It is now a means to sell advertisement or promote a product - aka the live act. To see a return on that investment you need to look at other avenues of revenue.
A website costs money to maintain, this very forum a shining example. Yet you, the user, doesn't pay for one bit of it.
What we have is a bunch of rich musicians and record companies trying to force laws onto people to protect their own wealth. the sooner they are finished the better. Music needs to be free from the law and legislation that has destroyed music in the modern era.
Well, anyone can ask what they want for their product. If you (the consumer) considers it to be overpriced, leave it as it is. Don't buy it, don't rip it.
If you want to have it, then it obviously has some added value to you so why wouldn't you pay for it?
This website has promotion of a commercially sold product (also a piece of intelectual property) as primary purpose.
What we have with the music industry is a bunch of self-serving suits who lobby Governments to create laws to protect their own jobs.
Selling music only came around once it could be recorded and then replayed on a device. You were paying for the privileged of taking it home and listening to it. You were paying for a physical object that gave you access to a sound. Now that physical object is no longer on sale (it's now all MP3), people want to put a price on the sound - something that never existed before 'recorded sound'. All the composers survived without that, makes you wonder why people like Prince complain so much.
Music survived, flourished and evolved for thousands of years without the concept of selling a sound or use of song.
Here's an example. Let's say I have a photographic hearing memory. I listen to a song and record in my brain. This is no different than downloading a track without paying for it. All it is is data stored on a device (brain or hard drive). Now, what you are advocating, is that you are breaking the law if you listen to any song.
Anybody that listens to a song and then goes home and plays it on the piano is performing an act that is no different to downloading 'illegal' music.
This is why law protecting the music industry are nothing more than people trying to protect their wealth through regulation.
Music should not be shackled by law!
Like songs should be used to sell a commercially sold product - adverts, merchandise, or live gigs! Actual real tangible products!
Again, if you don't agree don't consume the product.
Simple as that.
I do agree there is a very thin line between playing music at home after having heard it and copying recorded performances.
Simple as that.
I do agree there is a very thin line between playing music at home after having heard it and copying recorded performances.
Services like Spotify and YouTube are charging for access to material that belongs to the artists, and compensating them with a tiny fraction of the revenue they make. Why shouldn't the artist be compensated for the use of their music? Other people are making money out of it, why shouldn't the artist?
You're railing against what you view as "greedy artists" but you don't understand that artists have always been at the bottom of the industry food chain and they aren't the people who are making money out of recordings, they receive a tiny proportion of record sales and always have. Take a look at this and you might understand why musicians don't want their music to feature on streaming services.
Incidentally they have always had to pay for recording costs by touring, selling merchandise, etc. This isn't something new, and you look ignorant for announcing that it is something new.
Once an artist stupidly signs a recording contract with a record company they deserve everything they get. If someone else has control of what you create then you are a dumbass - simple as.
I spent most of my college life convincing bands to totally desert record companies and go it alone through independently created business models. Having worked within the industry myself it's full of people who think they have a divine right to earn thousands through the pure sale of music and it's simply not the case.
Artists shouldn't be bottom of the industry food chain, but they are bottom because they support the industry themselves through false hope a misguided judgement. There shouldn't be an 'industry' in the first place! There shouldn't be suits that make money from other people's songs in the first place.
In my opinion, once you write a song, and someone hears it that's the end of it. Listening to a piece of music in itself is a download, a recording. it's gets logged in brain. This is no different to any other form of download. It's something that you can't charge for, and it's because of that the industry has forced Governments into creating oppressive laws that force people into paying for an invisible product.
It's so mental if you play a recording of a song in public you need a PPL Licence. It's so funny how the free loving nature of musicians and performers is exposed once they see the market diverting away from them.
In business you learn very quickly how markets can diverse, it's a shame most musicians (I say most because some have some common decency) don't actually figure that into the equation.
BBC KARTING SCHUMACHER.
Have I finished the thread yet?
Have I finished the thread yet?
Prince: "The internet's completely over."
(80 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG