Copyright "theft" is the worst thing on the planet!

[Winston001]

The whole ‘album’ or recorded music thing is after all a product of technology... 331/3 LP’s mean ‘albums’ and that meant a few good tracks and a lot of fill (usually).

Good post Paul. Its probably a signature of age but for me, albums had structural integrity, a gestalt if you will, that made the full album greater than the individual songs. The Led Zeppelin Runes album is a good example, and others such as the Dark Side of the Moon. Aqualung!! Extract one track and it's in a void but as part of a whole 50 - 60 mins, the music can be transcendant.

Now, where are my Yes albums...

[Winston001]

But it rips my grundies when I am asked to pay $30 for a CD. If I lived in the US that content would have cost me $1.99 per track (or $15NZD month on emusic).

Er...quite.

Um, did I mention that I'm a former Chair of the Inquisition oops - Standards Committee? And an orrifier of court? Regrettably we regard unlawful acts or indeed incitement to unlawful acts as evidenced by posts above et seq - by a learned brother such as yourself to be a serious breach of the Code.

So if you could kindly advise of the Canterbury Branch box number and perhaps drop off your hard drive, that would be appreciated.

[pete376403]

Open source linux and , open source software is a live and well and ,,,free as is free , ( well you do have to use it and give feed back or help if you can ) , there are some good open source movies ,,aniboom?

as for music , again some of the best is ...independent of the main stream!


maybe the business model is broken .....and the oldies are afraid they will lose the precious dollar .... boo hoo

Stephen

The old business model was to sell the same thing over and over - a couple of tracks on 45, all of the tracks on the LP, Then they could sell the same stuff again on cassette, then 8 track (not for long), then CDs came along and they could sell you the same stuff over again. Too right they don't want to give that up.

[Winston001]

The counter argument to that is that recorded music is a loss leader....

Yeah but I think it might be the other way around. My understanding which admittedly dates from Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd tours is that live concerts are not money makers. A few individual concerts make a profit but overall touring is a loser for bands. They do it to promote albums and because the fans expect it.

Black Sabbath have just done a concert in Birmingham - home, 40 years on, and it cost the band money to do it. It was for charity, Tony has cancer, Bill Ward refused to play, and good on them. But it wasn't for the money. In fact Black Sabbath carried the cost of performing which is staggering given the power of this band returning home.

(Wish I was there)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZKcgqYGNEc

[Asher]

Yeah but I think it might be the other way around. My understanding which admittedly dates from Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd tours is that live concerts are not money makers. A few individual concerts make a profit but overall touring is a loser for bands. They do it to promote albums and because the fans expect it.

Black Sabbath have just done a concert in Birmingham - home, 40 years on, and it cost the band money to do it. It was for charity, Tony has cancer, Bill Ward refused to play, and good on them. But it wasn't for the money. In fact Black Sabbath carried the cost of performing which is staggering given the power of this band returning home.

(Wish I was there)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZKcgqYGNEc

Are you sure tours arent profitable?
Fair enough small scale tours for emerging bands but not for bands that can sell out stadiums.

[Headbanger]

Yeah but I think it might be the other way around. My understanding which admittedly dates from Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd tours is that live concerts are not money makers. A few individual concerts make a profit but overall touring is a loser for bands. They do it to promote albums and because the fans expect it.

Black Sabbath have just done a concert in Birmingham - home, 40 years on, and it cost the band money to do it. It was for charity, Tony has cancer, Bill Ward refused to play, and good on them. But it wasn't for the money. In fact Black Sabbath carried the cost of performing which is staggering given the power of this band returning home.

(Wish I was there)

They have said that there was no personal profit in it, costs were covered but they had the expense of paying for the logistics similar to a full tour (pppfffttt) for a one off concert.

Indirectly the exposure will come back to them them in the form of money many many times over.

Either way, its all just spin and bullshit. No one needs to know the business sides of things, None of them are going to be honest, and none of them would be involved if it weren't for the payoff.

Personally, I wish they wouldn't.

Sabbath is what is was, and by losing bill and bringing in ozzy they only weaken the legend they forged.

The Heaven and Hell shows had more legitimacy.

[gammaguy]

most who used megaupload for downloading didn't pay for the service!

if thats the case please explain where he got his money

did he pay for his super size me lifestyle with a downloaded credit card?

[Winston001]

Are you sure tours arent profitable?
Fair enough small scale tours for emerging bands but not for bands that can sell out stadiums.

Yeah sorta. What happens is bands do tours of say 30 venues but we only hear about the big ones. The smaller concerts which cost just as much don't get mentioned because they are irrelevant and do not add to a bands mystique.

Basically, musicians make their money selling records. If its downloaded for free - they miss out. Check out what Metallica have to say - they hate free downloads.

They have said that there was no personal profit in it, costs were covered but they had the expense of paying for the logistics similar to a full tour (pppfffttt) for a one off concert.

Indirectly the exposure will come back to them them in the form of money many many times over.

Either way, its all just spin and bullshit. No one needs to know the business sides of things, None of them are going to be honest, and none of them would be involved if it weren't for the payoff.

Personally, I wish they wouldn't.

Sabbath is what is was, and by losing bill and bringing in ozzy they only weaken the legend they forged.

The Heaven and Hell shows had more legitimacy.

LOL I shoulda known you'd jump in. Ok ok so Tony, Geezer, and Ozzie don't need the money anymore. We both know that. So why bother doing the Birmingham concert at all? Particularly as Bill wasn't being helpful. I think the guys simply wanted to go back home and rock with their core. Money wasn't and isn't an issue. Yes there will probably be an album released but that reinforces my point - live concerts exist only to promote CD/records.

A rock concert is a fargin expensive thing to organise. I'm sure Chris Knox could chime in here with some reality. He is and was always anti-establishment.

[Winston001]

FYI from a quick google it looks like the only bands which consistently make money from touring are U2, Metallica, and the Rolling Stones. Presumably Lady Gaga and others do well too but mostly bands do it for the exposure and ego. Fair enough too.

[Headbanger]

FYI from a quick google it looks like the only bands which consistently make money from touring are U2, Metallica, and the Rolling Stones. Presumably Lady Gaga and others do well too but mostly bands do it for the exposure and ego. Fair enough too.

I'd hate to suggest that Google won't be the place to see the state of a bands finances, However if a tour isn't making money it grinds to a halt. Bands continue to tour because that generally is the only means they have to earn a living, and the only thing that re-unites old bands is the money to be made.

And record sales?

pffffttt.

That cash cow is long dead, When a band like Accept release an album that is loved world wide, only sells 16 000 copies, yet they tour the world and spend an entire summer doing the festival tours then you can see where there money is coming from.

If you read Vince Neils book ( I suggest you don't its rubbish) he does cover the relationship between the record release cycle and touring. His management wanted albums not for sales but just as a platform to brand his never ending (and truthfully loss making.....hence his re-uniting with the cash cow) tours.

[Headbanger]

LOL I shoulda known you'd jump in. Ok ok so Tony, Geezer, and Ozzie don't need the money anymore. We both know that.

I know nothing of the sort.

I could assume Ozzy is loaded, No idea about the rest.

Have you read Iommi's book by any chance?

[HenryDorsetCase]

I'd hate to suggest that Google won't be the place to see the state of a bands finances, However if a tour isn't making money it grinds to a halt. Bands continue to tour because that generally is the only means they have to earn a living, and the only thing that re-unites old bands is the money to be made.

And record sales?

pffffttt.

That cash cow is long dead, When a band like Accept release an album that is loved world wide, only sells 16 000 copies, yet they tour the world and spend an entire summer doing the festival tours then you can see where there money is coming from.

If you read Vince Neils book ( I suggest you don't its rubbish) he does cover the relationship between the record release cycle and touring. His management wanted albums not for sales but just as a platform to brand his never ending (and truthfully loss making.....hence his re-uniting with the cash cow) tours.

Old paradigm though: 80's.

Blindspott is the local example: they were big here, and they played some shows in South East Asia where they had not sold more than 5000 CD's. They sold out a 30000 seat stadium two nights running because their music was heavily downloaded and shared.

Focusing on the huge acts (Madonnasaur, U2, Stones, whatever) is a mistake too: most rock bands are the equivalent of a small business (they're the equivalent of Apple or Microsoft): so, they are providing employment and a middle class lifestyle for the band members and the road crew. My favourite, Drive By Truckers, are at this stage: rabid fanbase, sell out midsize venues, great online and merch presence, and realistic record label support.

Dont forget, most musicians are constitutionally unsuited for other employment. So you get Motorhead still touring, and Sabbath and whatnot. (they suck after 1979 when Ozzy was kicked out). Technical Ecstacy is the best classic Sabs album. There I said it.

Oh, and for the record (see what I did there) I dont download music for free. TV shows all day every day. Dont bother with films either.

[Scuba_Steve]

FYI from a quick google it looks like the only bands which consistently make money from touring are U2, Metallica, and the Rolling Stones. Presumably Lady Gaga and others do well too but mostly bands do it for the exposure and ego. Fair enough too.

Thats because U2, Metallica, Rolling stones etc are from the period when physical media was the advertising to get you to the concert.
Lady Gaga & other newer "artists" are studio manufactured, probably couldn't do live due to high dependance on electronic assistance, and have come about after record companies changed their model in the 90's & worked out they can make moneys from physical media without all the high costs of setting up a concert i.e. higher margins.

[Headbanger]

Dont forget, most musicians are constitutionally unsuited for other employment. So you get Motorhead still touring, and Sabbath and whatnot. (they suck after 1979 when Ozzy was kicked out). Technical Ecstasy is the best classic Sabs album. There I said it.

.

You are insane, Heaven and Hell is one the best albums ever made, by any band, ever, Mob Rules has huge levels of Awesomeness, Born Again is killer, and De-Huminizer is a stunner.

Technical Ecstasy is a miserable album.

[bogan]

FYI from a quick google it looks like the only bands which consistently make money from touring are U2, Metallica, and the Rolling Stones. Presumably Lady Gaga and others do well too but mostly bands do it for the exposure and ego. Fair enough too.

Pretty sure disturbed has said they make more money of touring than albums. Couldn't find the quote, but here's something interesting from their lead singer, 9 years ago http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/...wsitemID=13496