Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but just a few quick things...

quote:

Originally posted by halo20 I also think it's a good excuse for you cheapo's not to buy the music. Make it sound like the artists are lazy, which imo it's their perogative, why should they tour if they don't want to. Not everyone is a DJ as so much a producer. Mr. Creamer can account for that.

Did not ever mean to imply that the artists are lazy - however, I would perhaps use the word spoiled. Many musicians (not just talking about DJs here) can barely scrape together enough money for lunch, so they have to do other things to get by. That's just life. I know the feeling well, being a musician myself - as much as I do love being an engineer, I would probably have gone into music instead if I'd thought there would be any chance of making money.

quote:

And at what point did going to see a live performance excuse the fact that you can download what you want. I thought they were two completely different sects in the industry? So the producer gets shafted while a road manager makes cash.

You're absolutely right. That's how life often is, crowd pleasers get the money. Listen...

1) There is a difference between music and business. Fans come from music. Money comes from business. To make money, you have to be a business-person; that is, was, and always will be a fact of life, at least in the free market. Producing a few tracks, handing them over to a record company, and expecting the cash to roll in is simply not good business sense. I feel for the honest producers who just aren't into the live thing, I really do, but as I said early, many many musicians consider music to be just a hobby or part-time job, and have to do other things to support themselves.

2) A lot of people I discuss this with make the incorrect assumption that people would buy the CDs if the MP3s were not available for download. This is simply not true. Before the days of Napster, many people owned just a couple of CDs (or tapes) and listened mostly to the radio. If people have no money, if they're poor (i.e. most students), then they aren't going to buy the CDs. Period. For the artists, it's a choice between either (a) no money coming in, and potential fans listening to something else, or (b) no money coming in, but free exposure to thousands of people who would not otherwise have any clue how talented the artist is.

If someone has thousands of dollars to blow on CDs and downloads everything off of Soulseek or DC instead, then that's just crap. But if someone has a total of $100 in their bank account, downloads a few albums and spends $30 to see a few DJs live... well, I think that's okay. If I had money coming out of my ears then I'd send them all $100 cheques, but I don't.

quote:

Originally posted by halo20 The economics of it all isn't quite as simple as you put it. Granted the revenue of EACH cd sold is low, but there is a shit load of other asset you aren't accounting for. Can you put a price on exposure? (just a random example) Also the success of one album, will offshoot a higher pay contract increase for the artist. For example you may have only made 50G's on your breakthrough album, but you sign a deal with Sony for 5 million for your next two albums. Follow? Support the artists people, these dj's are not blinging hip hop stars, they will go broke.

weak arguement. an artist will get far more exposure through the internet than any album sales. oakenfold makes most of his revenues through his live gigs and the reason foreign djs like him are so popular in places like north american and asia is because of word of mouth and internet exposure and not through the popularity of his cds. Oakenfold has one of the best selling 'underground' dance alums of all time tranceport and I dont think it sold much more than a hundred thousand coppies world wide. Compare that to the millions of downloads a year.

quote:

Originally posted by discojoe weak arguement

At least I can spell it.

And it wasn't an argument, I was stating fact. That is how the industry works, record execs gage contracts pertaining to previous albums sales. Sure as fuck not downloads.

___________________
http://www.beatport.com/jonathan-rosa/

Diginut, you also bring up great points and don't get me wrong, we are butchering this topic, but just for the sake of argument...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I would probably have gone into music instead if I'd thought there would be any chance of making money.

^ That quote is another thread on its own. And that is the problem with people in the music industry who are in it for the wrong reasons. To make money. The artists who respect digital music downloads are usually the ones who'd rather establish the TRUE meaning behind their music. Whether it be a message or a source of background music in the staleness of everyday life. I realize I completely contradicted a lot of my previous arguments, I just feel the need to defend some arguments on both sides.

(and to be honest, I don't have a definite stance or opinion about either side, of course it would suck if G.U went under)

___________________
http://www.beatport.com/jonathan-rosa/