With all this talk of how the copying and sharing of files has brought
down the music business, I vaguely remember in "the good 'ole days",
making copies and sharing music with my reel to reel machines and later
with my cassette recorders. We then would buy the original LPs/45s of
the best of the best with good album notes and pictures. Somehow the
recording industry seemed to prosper in those less restrictive and
Don Cox wrote:
>On 02/05/07, Graeme Jaye wrote:
>>On 02/05/2007 you wrote;
>>>The music industry as a whole are merely reaping what they've
>>sown. The JK> artists and the consumers are the ones hurt in the end.
>>This is not really the place to discuss this subject, but I can't let
>>this one go unheeded :) .
>>People have always blamed the 'music industry' when sales drop.
>>Heaven knows, the industry is not exactly blameless for all sorts of
>>things, but the public also had a role in todays poor sales.
>>With the possibility of every computer in the world being capable of
>>making music at low cost, there has been a huge upsurge in people
>>doing just that. Their output is posted on any one, or several,
>>websites (SoundClick, MySpace, et al) and freely available for
>>listening or download. OK - a lot of it is pretty worthless, but there
>>are plenty of gems among the dross.
>This started in the late 80s when people began producing large numbers
>of MIDI or MOD files on Amigas and Ataris. These could be spread on
>floppy discs and later on CDs, including disks mounted on magazine
>covers. The files are quite small.
>Home recording of bands has been practical since the early 80s but
>distribution only became easy once the web and the MP3 format were
>>Couple that with the availability of almost any piece of music, you
>>might think of, being illegally available for download via P2P sites
>>and it's easy to understand how a large section of the public has come
>>to believe there is no value in music and that it *should* be free to
>>Worse still, owners and promoters of venues that put on live music are
>>of the same opinion and many of them simply won't pay the going rate.
>>They've been aided in this by the technology to make a single person
>>sound like a full orchestra (at a relatively low cost). Hence, where a
>>number of musicians were once employed, you will now find a solo
>>artist - at best, a duo.
>>Without the money, there can be no development of musicians. It's
>>harder to make a living out of playing music today than it ever was
>>before. In fact, I'd say it was nigh on impossible for the average
>>jobbing musician to make a living out of music as a full time
>>professional. Forty years ago, I could earn somewhere between £35-50 a
>>night (as a member of a band) - a not insubstantial sum of money at
>>the time. Today, I count myself lucky if I can get a gig for EUR50.
>>Forty years on and I'm earning the same, or less, money and a lot less
>>often! Where's the future in that for todays young players?
>>The saddest thing is the public who attend these venues don't even
>>care very much. They are just as happy with a poor solo act (with
>>backing tracks of dubious quality, downloaded illegally) as they would
>>be with a ten piece band. That's because people don't really *listen*
>>anymore, music has become a sort of 'wallpaper', against which the
>>public does other things, like eating or drinking.
>>So, blame the music industry if you want, but the real problems are
>>brought about by the artists and the consumers themselves. The artists
>>for making their music freely available (because it's just about the
>>only way they can get heard) and the consumers for not wanting to pay
>>[log in to unmask]