Comments on: Big Music: Not Needed

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:29:56 +0000

You know, today, artists who do not record / produce / do their cover art themselves (or with the help of a few friends) are anyway not signed anymore. The only contracts Big music signs nowadays are license contracts, that specify that you have to be your own producer and that they sell your music. In other words, nowadays, Big music, when it sells self producing artists only presses the master those artist provides them. In return, big music pays those artists producer something between 12% and 17% of the tax-free price of the CD.

That’s why most mega stars started their own label : To be able to have control over their production and to get more than the 6% an artist gets with a normal record deal.

My advice to young artists would be the following : Don’t rely on big music to start your career and record your albums, and if you’re really, but only really good, you’ll become more and more famous and that day, Big music will want to sign you and this day you’ll be able to negociate what you want with big music, and not accept anything it asks you to do.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:06:37 +0000

Maybe someday, we can look back as old folgies and say to ourselves…. “Wellllll, when I was a lad, four companies used to control 85% of all media in the world with something called DRM….”

…. I’m getting old ;(

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:30:07 +0000

You mean they have bought politicians

All politicians are bought and paid for, very few exceptions to the rule. Even the so called politicians who support democracy and liberties are acting on behalf of corporates. This happends so often these days that we hardly even blink when it does. I think it’s universally accepted that politicians are out for whatever they can get(money, power etc…).

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:25:40 +0000

I loved the responces when I first read them. Rafael Venegas hits the mark, carpefile nails the bullseye.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:23:48 +0000

I once called this the revolution of the consumer, but i retract that, you are correct, it’s actually an evolution of the consumer and digital technology itself.

Good article

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:00:05 +0000

So simple even a monkey could understand it. See, sometimes we don’t need long winded and often repeated rants. The truth in it’s simplest form should be enough to suffice most of the time when written in such a clear and concise manner.

So, what other industires throughout history have been “ravaged” by new technologies? The ones in this article were a few good ones. The theater versus home theaters come to mind. The principle can probably be applied to anything I suppose. Just look around at the world, pick any invention, then ask yourself what that invention replaced and which industry was “ravaged” by it lol. That’s the way the world works. The betterment of mankind is always going to be more important than a tiny group of individuals that refuse to adapt.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:26:11 +0000

Unfortunately the media cartels are trying to buy politicians to ensure their antiquated business practices survive for a while longer.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:02:49 +0000

“Online, it’s not revolution. It’s evolution. The unfit perish while those who innovate survive and prosper.”

you got that right jon ;P

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:59:13 +0000

this is so true i love it