sorry?
![It wasn't me... :innocent:](./images/smilies/icon_whistlehalo.gif)
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
You're being overoptimistic. Due to the evolution of the music business over the course of the last 25 or so years, music is much less likely to be properly distributed and promoted than it was say in the 70s. Mainly because back in the day record companies executives used to have a musical background. Quality was a factor. Now that these executives are but businessman, all that matters is market value. They don't give a damn about quality as such.Smallstone wrote: Music has MORE chance these days to be heard by a WIDE audience. and bloody quikcly. If anything it is almost like a utopian free for all.
The internet is not killing music. The opposite is true; its EMPOWERING!
All this majors/indies stuff is a smoke screen.
If you'd become a nun, you'd get one for free, so that's another choice made?davedecay wrote:plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?
davedecay wrote: plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?
.. and how much Eldo would like to have some nerds watching him working in the studio via webcast and telling him, what he should better do...davedecay wrote:Eldo should follow in the vootschteps of neubauten.org. supporters (via subscription) gain access to exclusive CDs/DVDs, live webcasts, etc., which raises money for the band without the interference of a label.
plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?
I certainly wouldn't. It's not like I'm in the band or something.davedecay wrote: how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?
but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.davedecay wrote:he wouldn't have to webcast, but it's a way to get money directly from fans, thereby bypassing labels.
i'd become a nun, but my penis might be a problem with the Mother Superior.
Well, nowadays they can do a very good job I'm tolddavedecay wrote:i'd become a nun, but my penis might be a problem with the Mother Superior.
You can get the same at the Gaye Bykers site if you make a donation of a quid or more - Bargain !plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?
You can look at it from another angle and call that a board of directors. We'd be shareholders. Definitely not my idea of a rock'n'roll band.canon docre wrote: This sort of basic democracy isnt a feature I would associate with AE.
Cool. Voting on which of Eldo's 200 vocal takes of a song to use.canon docre wrote:but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.
even better. we, the people should decide what von's sings about. Maybe we could suggest some agendas we always wanted to be thrashed Eldo-style.mugabe wrote:Cool. Voting on which of Eldo's 200 vocal takes of a song to use.canon docre wrote:but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.
I don't think that's entirely what all this "web 2.0" thang is about, but then again I read too muchcanon docre wrote:even better. we, the people should decide what von's sings about. Maybe we could suggest some agendas we always wanted to be thrashed Eldo-style.mugabe wrote:Cool. Voting on which of Eldo's 200 vocal takes of a song to use.canon docre wrote:but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.
Up until the 60s, 70s, record companies executives generally had some kind of musical training/background. As a result, quality and market value were considered quite synonymous. At least quality was a factor, whereas now the two can be totally separated. Remember it's an overall perspective. Nowadays it's very common for such executives not to have any kind of artistic knowledge. I've even been told very recently that in a quite comparable area (comic books), some companies deliberately hire people who know nothing about the product, so that they're able to sell anything (i.e. any kind of s**t with no trace of remorse). Artistic taste must no longer interfere with sales.Smallstone wrote: Explain to the what the evolution in the music business is over the past 25 years you speak of? I mean I kind of know what you mean but... people who run the music business don't like music like the used to in the 'golden age'? Hmmm. I think thats a pretty simple way of looking at it.