begin oe_protect.scr
Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:31:51 +0000,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> RIAA Drops Case It Can't Make Against Mom After Bleeding Her Dry -- Focuses
>> On Suing Kids
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Today the RIAA dropped the lawsuit against Santangelo herself,
>>| though Santangelo's first lawyer Ray Beckerman confirms for us the
>>| suit against her children now moves forward -- after her first battle
>>| drained the family coffers.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.shtml
>>
>> Sounds like the BSA and its allies, doesn't it? Another justification for
>> Free software and free culture (non-copyrighted music).
>
>
> why in the names of hell do the RIAA think this kind of crap will result
> in people buying *more* of their music?
>
The article has a couple of interesting links and some interesting
comments. Apparently, one label only made a profit last year because of
a bailout payment from the ex-Kazaa owners, otherwise it would've made a
loss.
The fundamental problem is that 99.999% of "music" the mainstream
labels are pushing is complete cr*p. A bunch of pretty girlies (or
young boys told to sing nasally), flouncing around in a short-skirt,
whilst the ugly one at the back tries to sing over them, because she is
the only one with any real talent; songs which even Lloyd Weber would
reject because they're so puerile, immature, cabaret or whatever;
videos designed to cover up the dreaful sound content, CDs so compressed
that they have a dynamic range of < 10dB in some cases; bass so peaked
that anything else is in audible.
It's hardly surprising that the "music" industry is failing, their
problem is that they no longer purvey music. I think the Spice Girls
sum up the change very well indeed, in that they were the first major
sh1te pop band who made more money from marketing materials than they
did from actual music sales (dolls, pictures, magazine appearances,
television shows, video plays, sponsorship, and in the end, one of them
managed to marry David Beckham).
The invention of the video didn't help things very much, and it's a sad
thing to note that one of the most talented bands of all time, Queen,
are generally given the credit for the first video; that for Bohemian
Rhapsody - the story is that they were unable to appear on TOTP due to
performing across the Atlantic somewhere, so they made a quick video
instead, which turned out to be popular in its own right.
There are some good bands around now, Mrs Mark still follows music, and
attends concerts. Sometimes I go, too, but usually for the old
favourites - my last one having been Roger Waters in Hyde Park. But of
these "good" bands, they're marketed less heavily than ever by the music
companies, who don't seem to have realised that the disposable pop
the're purveying is losing them money. It's arguable that it's hardly
worth the DRM in them anyway, as they'll be out of fashion within a few
months at most.
The present push is still the girl-next-door singer, but all very
visual, with Simon Cowell and co directing a public on how to assess the
mostly dreadful acts as they cover songs you've heard over and over.
There's positively zero assessment in terms of creative talent, which is
what is lost.
Let me say that again - *zero assessment of creative talent*.
This is why the phone-in show's approach is never going to pick a
long-term winner; viewers will pick the prettiest girl who was least
bad at singing a song they already liked. The music industry /needs/ to
be finding and promoting creative talent, but in stead, they find and
promote lawyers who sue children, or perhaps parents because of their
children's actions.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
To be beautiful is enough! if a woman can do that well who should demand
more from her? You don't want a rose to sing.
-- Thackeray
|
|
