Anti-piracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol::lol::lol::lol: If the greedy f***ing twats didn't charge inflated prices at the time then maybe they wouldn't have suffered so much.
No, you are wrong. You are still making the assumption that the price was inflated. You have got no basis for that. There was some room to reduce prices, but there was always a knock-on impact on new talent. And I will tell you again, the price of titles was below inflation at the time mp3s started to have an impact. If titles had risen with inflation then they would be well above what they are now, yet numbers on physical sales catestrophically collapsed in a fashion that was not compensated by volumes on legal streaming and download se

I didn't ignore it all but I see you've ignored your incorrect 22,000 sales example by 2 pensioners from a band who are in no way as big a draw as they were in just the US market. You ignored that it got to number 5 in the UK so no doubt sold a few physical copies anarl and no doubt sold a few elsewhere in the world.

Buckingham/McVie, an example of a product from a long establish brand in Fleetwood Mac, one of the biggest acts in the world, and appealing primarily to a demographic that has much higher purchases of physical media than any other demographic. I am giving you an example of what a best case scenario is. How much do you think that unknown acts are going to be making from their releases? Do you think it will justify the effort? Do you think it will pay their bills? Don't you think they deserve some security from their work?

I know fuck all about royalties and can't be arsed to Google but that £10,000 has to be bullshit as you are saying they'd make £500 a week in royalties over the 20 weeks! Songs at #1 will also sell as downloads (you are just bleating on about streaming and physical for some reason) and even at 5p per download (which is probably less than what they get), they'd only have to sell about 1,000 downloads a week to get £500. If that gets to #1 for 20 weeks on those sales then @tunstall birdman could probably get to #1 hoying a bit music behind his poems.

Maybe you should stop running you mouth off about something you admit you know absolutely nothing about? A lot of your argument is based on assumptions that are completely wrong, as if the money just pops out of somewhere. You maths don't add up, and you clearly do not even know the difference between download revenues and streaming revenues. By the way, they both are infinitesimal compared to royalties earned on physical sales. But lets say that someone did earn 5p per download and they sold 1000 downloads in a week (keep in mind, the way the charts used to work, it was possible to get into the top 40 with less than 100 sales in some weeks, as long as you were getting played on the radio). Lets say you sell those 1000 downloads and you earn that £500. Do you think you arte going to be selling another 1000 downloads the next week? Because the chances are you would be lucky to break 400. So then you are making £300 odd quid that week. Then what about the week after that? Maybe another 50 downloads? You will be lucky to walk away with £700 on what might be your only chart entry of the year. Do you think they should be grateful for that?

In reality streaming revenues are a fraction of a penny per play, and you have to have thousands of streams to make a few pounds. But you just seem to think that is all wrong.

If the money was as bad as you are failing to make out by getting to #1 then what about the person at #5 getting even less, or someone who never even charts, why the fuck do they bother making music? All these wannabe artists, songwriters etc should just do summit else as there's plenty of music out there now to last any kid just starting to listen to music for a lifetime.

And yet again, this is the point I am making and why the industry is on its knees. Like I said from the start, the talent is not coming through. They are not bothering. The only people with any kind of security are those who get the major PR pushes like Ed Sheeran and Coldplay and Rhianna etc. At best the real talent is only getting chances to make half realised productions, fitting around making a living, and this is compromising the work and the art of a lot of these people. But you can not see that paying for records funded the development of other artists, and all the other music that has now fallen by the wayside.

EDIT:

I've just realized that 1000 download sales on a 5p royalty equates to £50 of royalties, not £500, so it just goes to show how clueless @MackemX really is about the whole issue.
 
Last edited:


What gets me about this why don't they try to block the streams all the time not just the football

Been currently watching the cricket & darts later on yet nowt get mentioned about these

It's all about the money.

They paid about £4.2bn in the last round of rights sales a couple of years back.

Compare that to £1bn for the F1 to 2024 and the 5 cricket packages that were £250m each (apparently the BBC will show some too in the future) and I reckon they pay more for footy than all other sports combined.

Obv if folk stop subscribing there's less money in their pot for when they come up for the next round of bidding.

If they have less to spend I would expect to see a few other players enter the market. It can't be long before the likes of Netflix & Amazon fancy getting in on the act..?
 
It's all about the money.

They paid about £4.2bn in the last round of rights sales a couple of years back.

Compare that to £1bn for the F1 to 2024 and the 5 cricket packages that were £250m each (apparently the BBC will show some too in the future) and I reckon they pay more for footy than all other sports combined.

Obv if folk stop subscribing there's less money in their pot for when they come up for the next round of bidding.

If they have less to spend I would expect to see a few other players enter the market. It can't be long before the likes of Netflix & Amazon fancy getting in on the act..?

Youtube have already provided a platform for the free to view Champions League matches.
 
used private internet access for a few years but seen the speeds slow right down. i have used ipvanish for the last 2 years and it is the best vpn i have used by none. doesn't slow you down
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll definitely look into ipvanish when this year's subscription is up. Don't suppose you know how to watch BBC iPlayer without membership? Like watching news when I'm getting ready on the morning so I've got stuff to chat about from home when I Skype Mam
 
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll definitely look into ipvanish when this year's subscription is up. Don't suppose you know how to watch BBC iPlayer without membership? Like watching news when I'm getting ready on the morning so I've got stuff to chat about from home when I Skype Mam
hey if your VPN works ok for u why change. not sure about BBC iplayer as don't use it. but ipvanish has loads of different servers if you go down that route, just make sure u connect to one close to you to get the best speeds.
 
Youtube have already provided a platform for the free to view Champions League matches.
"Every layer of the music industry has seen its income devastated"

That isn't really true though is it? The figures mackemx inserted earlier showing total revenue in the music industry isn't that far off what it was a decade or so ago, plus you said the same for the film industry and seemed to ignore the figures showing they have been having record years for box office incoming recently.

Your argument may be true that it is all becoming stale but the money is still there, it just seems to be being spent on planet of the apes 8 and fast and the furious 15

Also, the internet allows new music artists to get music out there under their own control and to an almost unlimited audience.

If people release good music online then people will listen to it, not everything should be done with trying to make a profit as the initial reason.
 
How do these things work? Do you need to download software to anything you want hooking up to the VPN such as your firestick or do you just download the software to your PC and use that to change your routers settings so as everything that hooks up to your router is using the VPN?

Also how does it work on your smartphone, will using a VPN make your service provider think you're roaming?
 
Last edited:
"Every layer of the music industry has seen its income devastated"

That isn't really true though is it? The figures mackemx inserted earlier showing total revenue in the music industry isn't that far off what it was a decade or so ago, plus you said the same for the film industry and seemed to ignore the figures showing they have been having record years for box office incoming recently.

Yes, it is true. The figures that MackemX pulled out were something he lazily dug up from a google search, which he presented with no context or understanding. The industry was pretty much as devastated 10 years ago as it is today. As MackemX quoted, the figures were in the context of the previous 10 years seeing a 40% decrease in revenues before you even adjust for inflation. And what happened to the industry? How has it been trying to keep its head above water? You are ignoring what I said. The industry stopped taking a spin on promising artists, they started vastly reducing the pool of talent to a few choice artists, bland enough to have wide appeal. That is an industry that is collapsing. There is no money to bring through new talent. There is no real A&R. Most of the A&R men are looking for finished masters rather than talent to develop and support releases.

Your argument may be true that it is all becoming stale but the money is still there, it just seems to be being spent on planet of the apes 8 and fast and the furious 15

My argument is not that it is becoming stale, my argument is that the media producers are having to put their money on established brands with perceived wide appeal and guaranteed box office returns. The Fast and the Furious always makes money, so they will always commission those films. The Transformers films are utterly appalling, but they always turn a profit, so they will always get made. Tom Cruise films nearly always turn a good profit, even though he has not put in anything like a good performance since 'Born on the Fourth of July', so he will always get any role he is put up for. A film like 'Silver Linings Playbook' gets Robert de Niro (who did a fair job) cast purely because they know he is box office, not because he is the best man for the part. Colin Firth and Hugh Grant are as bland as could be, but are inoffensive and always add millions to the box office, so they will be shoehorned into any film that requires an English actor, be it either the moody one or the jolly one. How many English actors have lost out on English roles to those two old hams? You will not find the American studios ever producing another 'This is Spinal Tap', or 'As Good as it Gets', or 'A Beautiful Mind'. These films would be deemed 'too cerebral'. Films have to now be dumb enough for everyone to understand. I saw a film called 'The Circle' last night. It was one of the dumbest films I have ever seen.

Also, the internet allows new music artists to get music out there under their own control and to an almost unlimited audience.

If people release good music online then people will listen to it, not everything should be done with trying to make a profit as the initial reason.

Can you not understand that it is very difficult to make the music if you are not getting paid for it? This is not profit, it is about making a living so that music can be your vocation. Do you understand the concept of having 100% of nothing? How do you get your music 'out there' if you do not have a label pushing it for you? Have you ever tried to make a record while struggling to pay your bills and keep a full time job going? Do you know how much is costs to book a mixing session or a mastering session? Do you know how to get packaging designed? Do you know how bleed areas work? Do you know how to deal with the PRS and MCPS? I've had a label, all these things cost money. How about if you want a violin on your track? Where do you get the finance to pay for that? How do you finance the session to record them? How do you finance the microphone you record them on? How do you pay the engineer that records them? How do you finance the recording desk, or the audio interface, or the DAW license, or the plugins? How do you finance keeping everything safe and compliant with all of the fire and electrical regulations? You see you may be able to cover some of those things, but at some point you need other experts helping you and that costs money.

I have dealt with a few of the artists that the BBC have featured on their 'next big thing' sections. I am talking about the people that come in and do live sessions and things that, often heard nationally. I am yet to meet one of those people who has not had a full time job and is just fitting music around it. My neighbour tours regularly, plays big stadiums as the support act for big names, and has sat in with some big bands, and he could never survive on what he earns in music, even with his songwriter royalties. There is an artist local to me that the BBC give tonnes of coverage to, and I know for a fact that all while she has been getting hailed as a big thing (over the course of about 8 years), she has been making a living as a lift engineer. The only time she really made a few quid was when she was booked for corporate events. She is not making the music she would be making if she could actually make a living on her recorded work.

The fact is that there is only one way you can get regular money as a performing musician in this day and age, and that is by working in a wedding band. If you can get a decent band together with a good repertoire, and you can fill your calendar with gigs, then you can charge a couple of grand a go, and walk away with a few hundred quid each, depending on the size and quality of your band. You are not going to get a career or any security from it though.
 
Yes, it is true. The figures that MackemX pulled out were something he lazily dug up from a google search, which he presented with no context or understanding. The industry was pretty much as devastated 10 years ago as it is today. As MackemX quoted, the figures were in the context of the previous 10 years seeing a 40% decrease in revenues before you even adjust for inflation. And what happened to the industry? How has it been trying to keep its head above water? You are ignoring what I said. The industry stopped taking a spin on promising artists, they started vastly reducing the pool of talent to a few choice artists, bland enough to have wide appeal. That is an industry that is collapsing. There is no money to bring through new talent. There is no real A&R. Most of the A&R men are looking for finished masters rather than talent to develop and support releases.



My argument is not that it is becoming stale, my argument is that the media producers are having to put their money on established brands with perceived wide appeal and guaranteed box office returns. The Fast and the Furious always makes money, so they will always commission those films. The Transformers films are utterly appalling, but they always turn a profit, so they will always get made. Tom Cruise films nearly always turn a good profit, even though he has not put in anything like a good performance since 'Born on the Fourth of July', so he will always get any role he is put up for. A film like 'Silver Linings Playbook' gets Robert de Niro (who did a fair job) cast purely because they know he is box office, not because he is the best man for the part. Colin Firth and Hugh Grant are as bland as could be, but are inoffensive and always add millions to the box office, so they will be shoehorned into any film that requires an English actor, be it either the moody one or the jolly one. How many English actors have lost out on English roles to those two old hams? You will not find the American studios ever producing another 'This is Spinal Tap', or 'As Good as it Gets', or 'A Beautiful Mind'. These films would be deemed 'too cerebral'. Films have to now be dumb enough for everyone to understand. I saw a film called 'The Circle' last night. It was one of the dumbest films I have ever seen.



Can you not understand that it is very difficult to make the music if you are not getting paid for it? This is not profit, it is about making a living so that music can be your vocation. Do you understand the concept of having 100% of nothing? How do you get your music 'out there' if you do not have a label pushing it for you? Have you ever tried to make a record while struggling to pay your bills and keep a full time job going? Do you know how much is costs to book a mixing session or a mastering session? Do you know how to get packaging designed? Do you know how bleed areas work? Do you know how to deal with the PRS and MCPS? I've had a label, all these things cost money. How about if you want a violin on your track? Where do you get the finance to pay for that? How do you finance the session to record them? How do you finance the microphone you record them on? How do you pay the engineer that records them? How do you finance the recording desk, or the audio interface, or the DAW license, or the plugins? How do you finance keeping everything safe and compliant with all of the fire and electrical regulations? You see you may be able to cover some of those things, but at some point you need other experts helping you and that costs money.

I have dealt with a few of the artists that the BBC have featured on their 'next big thing' sections. I am talking about the people that come in and do live sessions and things that, often heard nationally. I am yet to meet one of those people who has not had a full time job and is just fitting music around it. My neighbour tours regularly, plays big stadiums as the support act for big names, and has sat in with some big bands, and he could never survive on what he earns in music, even with his songwriter royalties. There is an artist local to me that the BBC give tonnes of coverage to, and I know for a fact that all while she has been getting hailed as a big thing (over the course of about 8 years), she has been making a living as a lift engineer. The only time she really made a few quid was when she was booked for corporate events. She is not making the music she would be making if she could actually make a living on her recorded work.

The fact is that there is only one way you can get regular money as a performing musician in this day and age, and that is by working in a wedding band. If you can get a decent band together with a good repertoire, and you can fill your calendar with gigs, then you can charge a couple of grand a go, and walk away with a few hundred quid each, depending on the size and quality of your band. You are not going to get a career or any security from it though.
"This is not profit, it is about making a living so that music can be your vocation."

I'm afraid we simply aren't going to agree.

People argue that footballers don't deserve to be multimillionaire, I personally don't care about that but I don't think musicians should expect to be able to live of royalties of one album for the rest of their life.

You obviously have a vested interest in this discussion in that you're coming from a business trying to make a profit in that industry (at least I'm assuming your label wasn't a not for profit)

You listed a load of specific things that cost money for a band that fits into the 90s style of distribution. Make music with a band in your spare time, stick it on one of the many online hosting platforms that let you charge and see if people enjoy and buy it. We don't need the chart show to spread music and we don't need labels pushing it in our faces
 
Yes, it is true. The figures that MackemX pulled out were something he lazily dug up from a google search, which he presented with no context or understanding. The industry was pretty much as devastated 10 years ago as it is today. As MackemX quoted, the figures were in the context of the previous 10 years seeing a 40% decrease in revenues before you even adjust for inflation. And what happened to the industry? How has it been trying to keep its head above water? You are ignoring what I said. The industry stopped taking a spin on promising artists, they started vastly reducing the pool of talent to a few choice artists, bland enough to have wide appeal. That is an industry that is collapsing. There is no money to bring through new talent. There is no real A&R. Most of the A&R men are looking for finished masters rather than talent to develop and support releases.



My argument is not that it is becoming stale, my argument is that the media producers are having to put their money on established brands with perceived wide appeal and guaranteed box office returns. The Fast and the Furious always makes money, so they will always commission those films. The Transformers films are utterly appalling, but they always turn a profit, so they will always get made. Tom Cruise films nearly always turn a good profit, even though he has not put in anything like a good performance since 'Born on the Fourth of July', so he will always get any role he is put up for. A film like 'Silver Linings Playbook' gets Robert de Niro (who did a fair job) cast purely because they know he is box office, not because he is the best man for the part. Colin Firth and Hugh Grant are as bland as could be, but are inoffensive and always add millions to the box office, so they will be shoehorned into any film that requires an English actor, be it either the moody one or the jolly one. How many English actors have lost out on English roles to those two old hams? You will not find the American studios ever producing another 'This is Spinal Tap', or 'As Good as it Gets', or 'A Beautiful Mind'. These films would be deemed 'too cerebral'. Films have to now be dumb enough for everyone to understand. I saw a film called 'The Circle' last night. It was one of the dumbest films I have ever seen.



Can you not understand that it is very difficult to make the music if you are not getting paid for it? This is not profit, it is about making a living so that music can be your vocation. Do you understand the concept of having 100% of nothing? How do you get your music 'out there' if you do not have a label pushing it for you? Have you ever tried to make a record while struggling to pay your bills and keep a full time job going? Do you know how much is costs to book a mixing session or a mastering session? Do you know how to get packaging designed? Do you know how bleed areas work? Do you know how to deal with the PRS and MCPS? I've had a label, all these things cost money. How about if you want a violin on your track? Where do you get the finance to pay for that? How do you finance the session to record them? How do you finance the microphone you record them on? How do you pay the engineer that records them? How do you finance the recording desk, or the audio interface, or the DAW license, or the plugins? How do you finance keeping everything safe and compliant with all of the fire and electrical regulations? You see you may be able to cover some of those things, but at some point you need other experts helping you and that costs money.

I have dealt with a few of the artists that the BBC have featured on their 'next big thing' sections. I am talking about the people that come in and do live sessions and things that, often heard nationally. I am yet to meet one of those people who has not had a full time job and is just fitting music around it. My neighbour tours regularly, plays big stadiums as the support act for big names, and has sat in with some big bands, and he could never survive on what he earns in music, even with his songwriter royalties. There is an artist local to me that the BBC give tonnes of coverage to, and I know for a fact that all while she has been getting hailed as a big thing (over the course of about 8 years), she has been making a living as a lift engineer. The only time she really made a few quid was when she was booked for corporate events. She is not making the music she would be making if she could actually make a living on her recorded work.

The fact is that there is only one way you can get regular money as a performing musician in this day and age, and that is by working in a wedding band. If you can get a decent band together with a good repertoire, and you can fill your calendar with gigs, then you can charge a couple of grand a go, and walk away with a few hundred quid each, depending on the size and quality of your band. You are not going to get a career or any security from it though.
How many current "popular artists were found on online platforms before going on to make a career? They didnt have expensive recording studios, world famous violinists. they did it with a microphone from Maplins and a camera phone. If you begrudge these people a living then that brings a whole new context to the argument, otherwise its time to move with the times and accept that the the way things were done in the 50s didnt happen in the 90s and now that doesnt happen in 2017.

The internet is an instant audience for many artists to get them on the ladder, whereas in the past it would have been a lot harder for them
 
"This is not profit, it is about making a living so that music can be your vocation."

I'm afraid we simply aren't going to agree.

People argue that footballers don't deserve to be multimillionaire, I personally don't care about that but I don't think musicians should expect to be able to live of royalties of one album for the rest of their life.

You obviously have a vested interest in this discussion in that you're coming from a business trying to make a profit in that industry (at least I'm assuming your label wasn't a not for profit)

You listed a load of specific things that cost money for a band that fits into the 90s style of distribution. Make music with a band in your spare time, stick it on one of the many online hosting platforms that let you charge and see if people enjoy and buy it. We don't need the chart show to spread music and we don't need labels pushing it in our faces

So what you are actually saying is that you agree with me. Musicians can't any more make a reasonable amount of money out of recording music that they can live on. What you disagree with me on is whether they should be able to make money on their work, and you don't think they should in royalties or otherwise. You think that royalties are about being "able to live off of royalties of one album for the rest of their life" which is something I never argued for. What I said was that artists' royalties are now so low that they are not getting paid anywhere close to enough for them to justify the effort of producing the work. I said that without decent royalities that provide enough money for the artist to have a living in the at least the short term, the music will just not get made. You can not tell the difference between a dedicated full production and something someone is fitting into their spare time. But you agree with me, that is the situation. And I am sure you would be happy to pay the same you pay now for a match ticket to watch a Sunderland side playing in the Northern League made up of people who can't afford to make football their career, so just fit it around their other things.

You really are ignorant about the business now. Everything I mentioned in that post are things you really need if you are doing a release today. How do you think you get the press and media to review your releases if you do not have a physical copy to send them? If you don't do the press and media, you will sell zero copies. Like I said, you might be able to get away with covering some of the things yourself, but you can not cover all of them. Your problem is that you are a snob. You don't think that music constitutes work, so you think that people should have no opportunity to make a living from it. You think that music should be an amateur pursuit rather than a profession. That kind of attitude really annoys me because it is about someone wanting to enjoy someones artistic endeavours, but not wanting to pay the artist for the fruits of their labour. It really annoys me when someone begrudges others making a living. The people that make a lot of money in the music industry have always been in the vast minority. Most have only ever made just enough to get by while they are actually active. But there are always people like you ignoring them and trying to be jealous and spiteful towards the few that do really well out of it. But I suppose you are happy now those nasty musicians have all be put in their place now, aren't you?
 
How do these things work? Do you need to download software to anything you want hooking up to the VPN such as your firestick or do you just download the software to your PC and use that to change your routers settings so as everything that hooks up to your router is using the VPN?

Also how does it work on your smartphone, will using a VPN make your service provider think you're roaming?
you download software for all devices and connect through it or buy a VPN router and you don't need software on anything and you are covered without doing anything apart from paying each month for it. VPN's will not work on first gen firesticks though.
 
Glad to hear the music industry is failing, that's long overdue. People continue to make music because they love making music, and that will never stop. It's not somehow unjust that some people can't make a living from that anymore. No-one pays me to play football or computer games either but it's not a f***ing tragedy.
 
Glad to hear the music industry is failing, that's long overdue. People continue to make music because they love making music, and that will never stop. It's not somehow unjust that some people can't make a living from that anymore. No-one pays me to play football or computer games either but it's not a f***ing tragedy.
Just think of all the 5hit music which has generated huge wealth for people.
 
How many current "popular artists were found on online platforms before going on to make a career? They didnt have expensive recording studios, world famous violinists. they did it with a microphone from Maplins and a camera phone. If you begrudge these people a living then that brings a whole new context to the argument, otherwise its time to move with the times and accept that the the way things were done in the 50s didnt happen in the 90s and now that doesnt happen in 2017.

The internet is an instant audience for many artists to get them on the ladder, whereas in the past it would have been a lot harder for them

That is absolute nonsense. There are about 5 artists that have nominally been picked off of the internet, but that was just part of the PR. They were really just picked up by the A&R guy. Is Justin Bieber massive because he was on Youtube? Do you honestly think you can make a releasable record with a microphone from Maplins and a camera phone? How exactly would you do that? And when they get 'found' who is it that is it that is making them? Oh yes, it is the label, who is having to find the money from somewhere to promote the artists. But are they going to sink money into artists that they think they are not sure if they are ever going to make them money, or are they going to sink it into someone they think they can get an immediate return on? They are going to be going for the blandest artists with the widest appeal to maximise their investment.

Name some these artists you are talking about.

The thing is, you do not seem to understand the basic costs. We are not talking about 'expensive worlds best violinists'. We are talking about booking A violinist. It costs money. The cost of booking that violin player could equated to literally thousands of streams of the finished track. The cost of the studio is not about about an 'expensive studio' it is about booking any half decent studio to do stuff you need to do in the studio. Because if you've got bugger all money to start with, are you likely to be able to build your own studio to a standard to produce releasable music? Are you likely to be able to build up a range of microphones? You are certainly not going to be able to cover the cost of having an engineer or tape operator to assist you. Where are you going to put this studio, in the kitchen of your rented flat? What you end up with is a privileged few who get to make music in the studio, and the rest who just disappear off of the map, who never get any return on the compromised work they do manage to release. And then they lack the promotion and support of a label to bring their work to the world's attention.
 
Glad to hear the music industry is failing, that's long overdue. People continue to make music because they love making music, and that will never stop. It's not somehow unjust that some people can't make a living from that anymore. No-one pays me to play football or computer games either but it's not a f***ing tragedy.

What a miserable piece of work you are. What industry do you work in? How would you feel if you were told that you could not make any more money out of it, but feel free to continue doing it as a hobby, if you like?
 
That is absolute nonsense. There are about 5 artists that have nominally been picked off of the internet, but that was just part of the PR. They were really just picked up by the A&R guy. Is Justin Bieber massive because he was on Youtube? Do you honestly think you can make a releasable record with a microphone from Maplins and a camera phone? How exactly would you do that? And when they get 'found' who is it that is it that is making them? Oh yes, it is the label, who is having to find the money from somewhere to promote the artists. But are they going to sink money into artists that they think they are not sure if they are ever going to make them money, or are they going to sink it into someone they think they can get an immediate return on? They are going to be going for the blandest artists with the widest appeal to maximise their investment.

Name some these artists you are talking about.

The thing is, you do not seem to understand the basic costs. We are not talking about 'expensive worlds best violinists'. We are talking about booking A violinist. It costs money. The cost of booking that violin player could equated to literally thousands of streams of the finished track. The cost of the studio is not about about an 'expensive studio' it is about booking any half decent studio to do stuff you need to do in the studio. Because if you've got bugger all money to start with, are you likely to be able to build your own studio to a standard to produce releasable music? Are you likely to be able to build up a range of microphones? You are certainly not going to be able to cover the cost of having an engineer or tape operator to assist you. Where are you going to put this studio, in the kitchen of your rented flat? What you end up with is a privileged few who get to make music in the studio, and the rest who just disappear off of the map, who never get any return on the compromised work they do manage to release. And then they lack the promotion and support of a label to bring their work to the world's attention.
So the internet has resulted in only 5 people being discovered?

Anyway here is 12 for starters (modern 5hit music i know):
 
Last edited:
What a miserable piece of work you are. What industry do you work in? How would you feel if you were told that you could not make any more money out of it, but feel free to continue doing it as a hobby, if you like?

Anyone with sufficient musical talent is still perfectly able to have a great life as a musician, so I'm not concerned about them. I have a couple of mates on tours as we speak and they're well and truly set, your concern for their well-being is misplaced.

If I'd been making royalties off people watching repeats of me playing football or computer games, I'd have expected that to dry up eventually because they're hobbies, people do them for love, hundreds of thousands of them. More people are finding exposure now, not just on-brand industry picks.

Am I happy that less suits are making millions from other peoples talents now that people can sell direct to their fan-bases? Yes, they haven't earned their hookers and coke in my eyes.

(I'm in research and we did a Brexit so don't worry, my role is well and truly fucked too).

So the internet has resulted in only 5 people being discovered?

Anyway here is 12 for starters (modern 5hit music i know):

Die Antwoord released on Youtube a few years ago and are multimillionaire superstars.

Left Boy doing alright for himself too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top