|
Government to decide whether new music store is allowed to open (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SgtFoo |
We (yes I work for starbucks) already sell lots of canadian content, and the company will have no problem in finding reasons why they should eb able to open a store.... comparing to HMV and Best Buy are great examples.
I don't mind it anyways. I'd love to work in the music stores that open.
I also hope you all know that as soon as we start colonizing the moon, Starbucks will be the first coffee shop there. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by activate
so very little of what is produced in Canada is "Canadian"... even if it was "produced" in Canada, by a Canadian "performer" and at a Canadian "Studio".
that makes no sense at all.
care to elaborate? |
What I'm saying is that the entire reason for Canadian Content Laws is to protect Canadian culture, however, due to the fact that most of what qualifies as Canadian content does not reflect uniquely Canadian experiences or is drawn from uniquely Canadian formats/traditions it really isn't part of Canadian culture, or at least the culture which is meant to be protected by these laws. Subsequently, canadian content laws are ineffectual in the goal they are (notionally if not actually) intended to acheive. |
|
|
| swilly |
How is masterbating to margaret thatcher going?
swilly |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
we have been for a long time.
The government regulates EVERY TV AND RADIO CHANNEL WE RECEIVE for content. They actually decide what we can and cannot see/hear. |
Dude, to a large extent that is to protect CANADAIN content and to keep US backed media from coming into canada and taking over. And before you make the argument that the "market" should decide, it should be pointed out that the market has effectively been removed from the equation with these companies becoming both content and carrier companies. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
the only law that ever made any sense in canada was the one that stated that a company could only own one FM and one AM station per market.(city) This kept stations very diverse. Since they took that law away, well you see the results now.
Lets put it this way. Most people i know go to the internet for their tunes now. I guess the next step is for our communist government to regulate that too?
Canadian content rules only serve to force radio stations to play Sean Desmond and crap like that that they would never play otherwise. Good canadian artists will always shine through no matter what.
And if they extend these crazy laws to record stores, thats just more reason to buy from amazon. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Good canadian artists will always shine through no matter what.
|
I don't agree with that statement at all. And I also don't agree that the internet is a great solution to media laws in north america. Combined, its like saying anyone with a computer can make the next big show like lost or 24. Its simply not true. Having access to the internet does not equal having access to the mass of audience.
edit:
A great example of this is my friend's band. He's the drummer for Moneen, a punk band that is starting to become popular among the punk circles. They tried for years to get their stuff heard via the internet during the height of the napster days. Nothing worked for them until they were signed by a label which threw their promotions staff behind them. (No, the signing was not a result of napster either from what recall.) After that, canadain content rules helped them gain the air play they needed and they are now starting to become more and more known (although they are by no means huge). |
|
|
| EvilTree |
I don't understand the govt's obsession to try to regulate Canadian culture.
It is as if whatever culture we put out isn't American enough already.
So by trying to push Canadian artists on same music genre as what Americans (and the rest of the world) that promotes Canadian culture?
Except for few differences, Canadian culture already American culture, media wise. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Good canadian artists will always shine through no matter what. |
Agreed. If they have the talent to command an audience then they will be played and people will have exposure to them. At present radio stations are forced to play a certain amount of "Canadian" content so some material makes it into the rotation that wouldn't make the cut if not for government intervention. This is why bands like Rush, Honeymoon Suite and Glass Tiger ever had any radio play. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
I don't agree with that statement at all. And I also don't agree that the internet is a great solution to media laws in north america. Combined, its like saying anyone with a computer can make the next big show like lost or 24. Its simply not true. Having access to the internet does not equal having access to the mass of audience.
edit:
A great example of this is my friend's band. He's the drummer for Moneen, a punk band that is starting to become popular among the punk circles. They tried for years to get their stuff heard via the internet during the height of the napster days. Nothing worked for them until they were signed by a label which threw their promotions staff behind them. (No, the signing was not a result of napster either from what i recall.) After then, canadain content rules helped them with air play and they are now starting to become more and more known (although they are by no means huge). |
Life does suck, eh?
I mean, how many fantastic djs and producers do you know that don't get the credit they deserve?
No amount of govt control will determine what life/luck will bring in terms of opportunities. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Life does suck, eh?
I mean, how many fantastic djs and producers do you know that don't get the credit they deserve?
No amount of govt control will determine what life/luck will bring in terms of opportunities. |
I'm not pushing for government control of everything by any means (this seems to be what you are implying). I'm simply trying to make the point that there are two statements being made that I feel are false.
1) market forces are enough and therefore we should leave everything in the hands of the market.
and 2) canadain content rules serve no useful purpose. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
I'm not pushing for government control of everything by any means (this seems to be what you are implying). I'm simply trying to make the point that there are two statements being made that I feel are false.
1) market forces are enough and therefore we should leave everything in the hands of the market.
and 2) canadain content rules serve no useful purpose. |
How does so much canadian culture get played in other countries where no such laws exist? No one is forcing them to play canadian talent. Free markets work just fine over there, why not here? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
I'm not pushing for government control of everything by any means (this seems to be what you are implying). I'm simply trying to make the point that there are two statements being made that I feel are false.
1) market forces are enough and therefore we should leave everything in the hands of the market.
and 2) canadain content rules serve no useful purpose. |
I believe you have misunderstood me. I didn't say they serve no useful purpose, I said that they do not serve the purpose that they are intended to serve. They serve a purpose by artificially promoting and upholding the Canadian recording industry thus allowing that industry to thrive despite largely substandard quality (granted there is a lot of good but there is a lot of bad too). If that is a goal that we wish to acheive then CCLs are a great means to that end. Unfortunately, the intended goal of CCLs are to promote and protect Canadian culture, which they do not.
Regarding market forces.... if a band.... let's say your friends, is good enough they should be able to command an audience and be successful without any assistance via government intervention. IF they fail it simply means that they are not commercially viable. People can succeed without the benefit of CCLs.... just not the mediocore ones. |
|
|
|
|
