Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 20:50:54 GMT
the music industry has always conned people
dunno why they are so against spotify for that main reason, I don't see em burning their Beatles vinyl over the shit recording deal the Beatles had
|
|
|
Post by mintyjackhole on Aug 2, 2020 21:07:41 GMT
I think streaming gets them so pissed off because now anybody can listen to 99% of what SHiTEs listen to, and can do so quicker than a push of a button. When you spend your whole life tracking down the RIGHT version of every album you want to listen to, and wrap up not only a significant portion of your money, but also your sense of self in your precious curated music, the fact that any heathen with a phone and subscription has more tunes than you hurts. The puritan in them lashes out at a whole system that ignores their sacrifices. It's never been about the artist. These are the same people who tell Prince, George Michael and John Fogerty it's their fault for signing the contracts in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jeatletoes on Aug 3, 2020 11:58:02 GMT
I think streaming gets them so pissed off because now anybody can listen to 99% of what SHiTEs listen to, and can do so quicker than a push of a button. When you spend your whole life tracking down the RIGHT version of every album you want to listen to, and wrap up not only a significant portion of your money, but also your sense of self in your precious curated music, the fact that any heathen with a phone and subscription has more tunes than you hurts. The puritan in them lashes out at a whole system that ignores their sacrifices. It's never been about the artist. These are the same people who tell Prince, George Michael and John Fogerty it's their fault for signing the contracts in the first place.
This is exactly why it pisses them off. Especially now that lossless streaming is becoming more available as now there's literally no difference between what's what's there and what's on their shelf.
They claim it hurts the artist but then half their collection are used CD's. That gets a pass from the SHiTE's since the artist did get paid....25 years ago. I can't speak for them but my paycheck from 25 years back isn't exactly helping me put food on the table today.
They also claim that "CD's still sound better" but of course they don't even subscribe to a streaming service so they are pulling that information right out of their ass.
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,567
Member is Online
|
Post by daved on Aug 3, 2020 12:02:17 GMT
It hurts the artist, but then they jump on Amazon mistakes of selling box sets for $7.
|
|
|
Post by aaa-appreciator on Aug 3, 2020 12:48:34 GMT
Last I checked they also hate CDs because they produce charts and graphs with low DR numbers, which makes them sad.
|
|
|
Post by jeatletoes on Aug 3, 2020 22:37:08 GMT
Only CD's after 1994. Luckily I only buy Target cee dees and stuff STeVE has touched with his breath. Of life.
|
|
|
Post by respiratoryproblems on Aug 4, 2020 9:05:35 GMT
I think they generally preferred it when those bran muffin-eating, sparkling water-drinking ponytailed coroprate jerks (or whatever it was that idiot envisaged) were in charge because a least they understood how their favourite artists were getting hosed. Now it's all ones and zeroes to them, so it's beyond their comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by Boozin' Susan on Aug 4, 2020 10:13:41 GMT
Did they forget the shitty deals the bands in the 60s got? The Beatles’ deal was complete horse shit. They just managed to sell a gigillion records and made some coin from it. The 70s were stupid good to artists because of massive stadium/arena tours and a humongous demographic in kids buying all kinds of music related shit. Then you had videos and CDs and DVDs and now we’re kinda back to the shitty deals again. There are no more pieces of useless plastic to sell. I don't think that the shitty deals ever went away. Everybody's deal in the 60s was horse shit. So was everyone's deal in the 1970s and afterwards. You can probably count on two hands the artists who had it good in the 1970s. Sure, if you were Led Zeppelin or Wings or Abba or Pink Floyd or Elton John or Fleetwood Mac you were making some money via record sales for a while (unless your crooked manager made off with the lion's share), even if the percentages that the band ever saw were miniscule compared to the portions the label was helping itself to. Even respectable selling (meaning non-multi-platinum) acts of the 70s like the Rolling Stones or David Bowie weren't raking in the big bucks through record royalties. That is the well-documented reality, not hidden information, and Jagger and Bowie weren't shy about saying so. Regardless, 99.9% of the artists signed to a major label never saw much of anything. Or anything at all. Just why do you think that all those bands like the Stones or the Who or Yes toured the world relentlessly? For fun? Those tours were the only way they could make any real money. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the Beatles quit touring as soon as they were able to negotiate a more favorable record deal in 1966, just as I don't think it's a coincidence that Bob Dylan started endlessly touring once he stopped selling records. The big record biz has always been a rigged game, then and now. All this rose-colored boomer SHite shit about the alleged good old days is just that: typical willfully delusional SHite horse shit. COLA, I dunno if you should use the Beatles as an example to make your point about needing to tour to make real money. They never really toured all that much after 1964. Their 1965 European tour consisted of 15 shows in only 8 venues (over the course of just two weeks). Their 1965 US tour was another 2-week jaunt to 10 venues. After these two tours they had UK tour in December ‘65, a trip to Germany, Japan, and the Philippines, then their final 2-week US tour in August ‘66. Not exactly world beaters... Compare that to the Rolling Stones’ 1972 North American tour – 48 shows in two months. I’m sure the Beatles were making more money per show than their contemporaries, but how much money could a band really make if they were on the road for only one month out of twelve?
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Aug 4, 2020 10:22:10 GMT
I don't think that the shitty deals ever went away. Everybody's deal in the 60s was horse shit. So was everyone's deal in the 1970s and afterwards. You can probably count on two hands the artists who had it good in the 1970s. Sure, if you were Led Zeppelin or Wings or Abba or Pink Floyd or Elton John or Fleetwood Mac you were making some money via record sales for a while (unless your crooked manager made off with the lion's share), even if the percentages that the band ever saw were miniscule compared to the portions the label was helping itself to. Even respectable selling (meaning non-multi-platinum) acts of the 70s like the Rolling Stones or David Bowie weren't raking in the big bucks through record royalties. That is the well-documented reality, not hidden information, and Jagger and Bowie weren't shy about saying so. Regardless, 99.9% of the artists signed to a major label never saw much of anything. Or anything at all. Just why do you think that all those bands like the Stones or the Who or Yes toured the world relentlessly? For fun? Those tours were the only way they could make any real money. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the Beatles quit touring as soon as they were able to negotiate a more favorable record deal in 1966, just as I don't think it's a coincidence that Bob Dylan started endlessly touring once he stopped selling records. The big record biz has always been a rigged game, then and now. All this rose-colored boomer SHite shit about the alleged good old days is just that: typical willfully delusional SHite horse shit. COLA, I dunno if you should use the Beatles as an example to make your point about needing to tour to make real money. They never really toured all that much after 1964. Their 1965 European tour consisted of 15 shows in only 8 venues (over the course of just two weeks). Their 1965 US tour was another 2-week jaunt to 10 venues. After these two tours they had UK tour in December ‘65, a trip to Germany, Japan, and the Philippines, then their final 2-week US tour in August ‘66. Not exactly world beaters... Compare that to the Rolling Stones’ 1972 North American tour – 48 shows in two months. I’m sure the Beatles were making more money per show than their contemporaries, but how much money could a band really make if they were on the road for only one month out of twelve? Besides, we know how they were really making money: the trousers
|
|
|
Post by respiratoryproblems on Aug 5, 2020 7:02:42 GMT
Stockholm Syndrome has set in for some of these guys once it’s pointed out to them that they were being rinsed by record companies. No, no, no says popzeus. Record companies are good.
“They might have robbed YOU, but they didn't rob me. My CDs have given decades of enjoyment and will continue to do so until the day I die.”
|
|
|
Post by antiram on Aug 6, 2020 15:16:10 GMT
Didn't Spotify begin with users uploading their own shitty mp3's?
When the apocalypse comes (has it already started?), I'll just toss a couple of hard drives into my bug-out survival van. That means in my desert hideout, I can still listen to "Little Lamb Dragonfly" any time I want as the nation goes down in flames.
That's a helluva lot easier than fitting ten thousand ceedees in there.
Something tells me that fire-making tools would be more useful, but I can fit both.
|
|
|
Post by Norman ‘Whiplash’ Mailer on Aug 27, 2020 15:27:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aural Relations on Aug 27, 2020 15:49:02 GMT
If there's one thing David Bowie is known for, it's his uniformity over time.
|
|
|
Post by Norman ‘Whiplash’ Mailer on Sept 18, 2020 17:12:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mintyjackhole on Sept 18, 2020 20:57:30 GMT
Exile on My Street needs to have it out with the dude who wishes bonus tracks didn't exist at all.
|
|