BLU
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

    I will say that this has bothered me over recent years. It seems as though true talent now has to be dug up from underneath the masses of crap that's so easily tossed onto the radio via Myspace or the likes. Didn't it used to be that you had to be talented to be heard by the masses? And now it's like you have to be part of an elite group of hunters to discover the truly beautiful.


    I think sometimes it has a bit to do with internet, but doesn´t it also have to do with the fact that music now is more for fun and doesn´t have the ideology behind it? the change of paradigma?

    Regarding ur earlier post, Metallica was like that, not illegal files but tape recorded bootlegs made their fame rise... and In Rainbows was an evidence that downloaders buy..

    Nice add to the discussion
  2. Originally posted by NLOTH_Victor:[..]

    I think sometimes it has a bit to do with internet, but doesn´t it also have to do with the fact that music now is more for fun and doesn´t have the ideology behind it? the change of paradigma?

    Regarding ur earlier post, Metallica was like that, not illegal files but tape recorded bootlegs made their fame rise... and In Rainbows was an evidence that downloaders buy..

    Nice add to the discussion


    First of all, thank you

    You're 100% right about In Rainbows. That really drew the line between downloaders and fans. Also keep in mind bands like Nine Inch Nails (The Slip) and Coldplay (LeftRightLeftRight) giving away "gift" albums on their websites...nods to the fans that have been supportive throughout the years, taking heed of the respect Radiohead was rewarded for free/choice releasing.

    And I would agree with the above statement as well...music doesn't seem to MEAN as much anymore, and the stuff that DOES is disregarded as boring and stale because it doesn't match every radio single that's hitting the airwaves, scooping up catchy riffs and memorable hooks. The real meaningful stuff focuses more on a wider perspective of talent instead of just "get-it-stuck-in-your-head" radio tunes.

    Such as...."Moment of Surrender" vs. "Party in the USA"?

    Maybe Bono should do some pop-lock & drop pole dancing on 360°'s 3rd leg- it'll relate more with the younger audience!

    Also, do these artists just frown upon downloading because it's the easiest thing to hate? I buy a LOT of albums from a local used store, and the artists certainly aren't seeing any money from that. Their work is just being recycled because someone didn't like it...in other words, I don't have to pay $13.99 for an album that someone ELSE didn't like...its only $4.99. Basically, these independent owners of these shops are profiting from people disliking certain music.
  3. I think all the e-tech has affected the big monster industry, but for the first time ever has been good results to fans. I mean, the CD prices were not under any kind of regulation, so you ended up paying graphic design, cardboard pins, deluxe editions, and a lot of etc's. You had to pay everything and music was the lesser. Or there were a lot of CD's around which only were worthy for one song and the rest was trash (Metallica's Garage Inc.).

    Everybody says artist are heavily affected for they get few if any royalties, but hey, how many bands did ever really had a chance to get a contract in a major record company? Just in Ireland, after U2 I can only think of the Cranberries to came close. And contracts often were not fair to artist neither, remember Bruce Springsteen under Laurel Canyon. So, for new bands, there was never been any secure point after all.


    I think the future is that bands will have to release their music directly thorugh the net, and the music industry will be replaced for the E-industry. Ther higher gross will have to come from their shows.
  4. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

    First of all, thank you

    You're 100% right about In Rainbows. That really drew the line between downloaders and fans. Also keep in mind bands like Nine Inch Nails (The Slip) and Coldplay (LeftRightLeftRight) giving away "gift" albums on their websites...nods to the fans that have been supportive throughout the years, taking heed of the respect Radiohead was rewarded for free/choice releasing.

    And I would agree with the above statement as well...music doesn't seem to MEAN as much anymore, and the stuff that DOES is disregarded as boring and stale because it doesn't match every radio single that's hitting the airwaves, scooping up catchy riffs and memorable hooks. The real meaningful stuff focuses more on a wider perspective of talent instead of just "get-it-stuck-in-your-head" radio tunes.

    Such as...."Moment of Surrender" vs. "Party in the USA"?

    Maybe Bono should do some pop-lock & drop pole dancing on 360°'s 3rd leg- it'll relate more with the younger audience!

    Also, do these artists just frown upon downloading because it's the easiest thing to hate? I buy a LOT of albums from a local used store, and the artists certainly aren't seeing any money from that. Their work is just being recycled because someone didn't like it...in other words, I don't have to pay $13.99 for an album that someone ELSE didn't like...its only $4.99. Basically, these independent owners of these shops are profiting from people disliking certain music.


    Completely agree with u on the first part... radio is different, listeners are different... sometimes I think fortunate things happened to the world but they weren´t fortunate for music .. musicians (and people in general) always wanted a better world but today... many countries like mine don´t really have a common feeling, something like when we were under bad leader and repression... I am not saying that I want that again... but maybe the rise in life quality in many places and technology made certain social groups have no ideology behond them... I might be thinking way weird... LOL... I don´t know...

    Bono pole dancing? too bad there´s no wink for laughing your head off hauhauha

    The third part: Just wandering about the record shops and etc... is it legal? becuase I also wander about borrowing and landing lots of records for uploading.. i usually buy them later... but isn´t file sharing just like that? someone bought and u share with ur net buddies... no profit, just pleasure to hear the music... not saying that i think like this, just trying to see other´s opinion since mine isn´t very shaped up yet

    No need to thank me.. I need to thank u all that post here because, like i said, is something i would really like understanding and having an opinion and u r helping
  5. Originally posted by thunderbolt:I think all the e-tech has affected the big monster industry, but for the first time ever has been good results to fans. I mean, the CD prices were not under any kind of regulation, so you ended up paying graphic design, cardboard pins, deluxe editions, and a lot of etc's. You had to pay everything and music was the lesser. Or there were a lot of CD's around which only were worthy for one song and the rest was trash (Metallica's Garage Inc.).

    Everybody says artist are heavily affected for they get few if any royalties, but hey, how many bands did ever really had a chance to get a contract in a major record company? Just in Ireland, after U2 I can only think of the Cranberries to came close. And contracts often were not fair to artist neither, remember Bruce Springsteen under Laurel Canyon. So, for new bands, there was never been any secure point after all.


    I think the future is that bands will have to release their music directly thorugh the net, and the music industry will be replaced for the E-industry. Ther higher gross will have to come from their shows.


    Yeah, wit the net uget to hear a lot more things... when would i find out about wilco here in brazil?

    As far as the future, I do think that net services will substitute the music inustry, even though i love collecting LP´s and CD´s, that´s unavoidable... but I keep thinking... how would the cycle work because an artist needs to have some money to start off the tour... ?
  6. I essentially agree that downloading generally leads to more sales. I've only done a little illegal downloading, but it did lead to me buying more stuff. I guess even if the physical CD sales (and therefore royalties) decrease, at least gig attendance is likely to rise if everyone's heard it and liked it. And you can't go to (most) gigs for free.
  7. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:I'll just throw this out there... (in regards to illegally downloading files)

    People who only download because they don't want to spend any money shouldn't be doing it. But illegal downloading paves the way for recognition, recollection, and popularity for some artists. I'm in a cheap little garage band right now, and if we made an album, I would rather 1000 people illegally download it and share it with their friends, spreading our popularity and increasing our potential for sales, than I would making sure the album ONLY sold, and thereby drastically reducing our fan base.



    This is a really important point a lot of people don't consider, IMO. A lot of people simply will not pay for music from some new little band they've never heard of, just on the off-chance they might like it. But give it to them free, and provided you've got a good product, you've vastly increased your chances of turning that freebie into a sale. Look at bands like We Are Scientists, or OkGo - they would never have built up the following they have without YouTube and downloads.

    Someone (and I can't remember his name right now - marketing guru/ideas guy) once described the 1000 True Fans Theory. In that he suggests that all an artist needs to make quite a nice living, is to attract 1000 "true fans" who would spend $100+/year on them. 100 x 1000 = $100 000. It's very similar to Amanda Palmer's business model and she's doing very well out of it.

    The major labels need to get their collective heads out of their collective asses and around the fact that we now live in a world where infinite perfect copies of their product can be created. Until then, they're going to keep losing money, and keep on whining about those mean fans who don't keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed.
  8. Bono pole dancing? too bad there´s no wink for laughing your head off hauhauha


    I've been requesting it
  9. Are you in favor of file sharing and illegal downloading? Do you download/share files? I try to only share/download things that are not commercially available, particularly rare promos. I buy most everything that is commercially available, even the compilations with only one song that I want. If I can get just the one track from iTunes, then I may go that route.

    Do you think that illegal downloads are bad for new musicians like Bono, Lars Ulrich and Lilly Alen think or you think that it´s a good way to promote the artist like Ed O´Brien? I have to say mixed bag on this one. It's a trade off between exposure and lost sales. I will say that downloading isn't going anywhere, and if musicians are going to make money in the future it's going to be from touring and merchandise.

    Do you think that online free downloads, youtube, etc will lower the quality of music because technology makes it easy for anyone to record something and put it out there? On the contrary, I think technology will make it ever easier to produce high quality recordings. Downloads will eventually go lossless as bandwidth increases.

    What are the pros and cons in your opinion? What´s the future of the music industry in your eyes? As I already stated, touring and merchandise will be the money stream of the music industry. Perhaps the old paradigm of pop stars being instant millionaires is dead, and that's just fine with me. And record industry execs not being able to get rich off the backs of the artists, that's just fine, too.

  10. Originally posted by sonia_lastrega:[..]

    This is a really important point a lot of people don't consider, IMO. A lot of people simply will not pay for music from some new little band they've never heard of, just on the off-chance they might like it. But give it to them free, and provided you've got a good product, you've vastly increased your chances of turning that freebie into a sale. Look at bands like We Are Scientists, or OkGo - they would never have built up the following they have without YouTube and downloads.

    Someone (and I can't remember his name right now - marketing guru/ideas guy) once described the 1000 True Fans Theory. In that he suggests that all an artist needs to make quite a nice living, is to attract 1000 "true fans" who would spend $100+/year on them. 100 x 1000 = $100 000. It's very similar to Amanda Palmer's business model and she's doing very well out of it.

    The major labels need to get their collective heads out of their collective asses and around the fact that we now live in a world where infinite perfect copies of their product can be created. Until then, they're going to keep losing money, and keep on whining about those mean fans who don't keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed.


    Just wandering though... how much of these 100,000 would be spent on recording, equipment, gigs, etc? and its something but not that much if you think .... split that int 5 members in a band... 20,000 a member to spend n 12 months... if you need to buy a good guitar... the month is gone... of course he´d have another job, no?

  11. Originally posted by Danny_Boy:[

    What are the pros and cons in your opinion? What´s the future of the music industry in your eyes? As I already stated, touring and merchandise will be the money stream of the music industry. Perhaps the old paradigm of pop stars being instant millionaires is dead, and that's just fine with me. And record industry execs not being able to get rich off the backs of the artists, that's just fine, too.




    I find this good too... i mean they should be well paid, not over paid, but everyone should be payed at least alright


  12. Just like it already does. An investor/ promotor would pay in advance the necessary amount to start the tour, then he gets his share as it goes on and the rest is for the band. When the Zoo TV kicked off, Achtung Baby had just been released (like 3 months before). I don't think sales were as high to support something as big as Zoo TV and the album's production, marketing, etc.

    But back to the question, I think music would work just as a video clip or a single: just to promote the tour.

    Great topic you've started!
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.