Re: [ARSCLIST] interesting!

[Roger and Allison Kulp <thorenstd124@xxxxxxxxx>]

As I have said here before,I think the big record/music companies,and the retail outlets that peddle their wares are an outdated retail/sales/distribution model. They are dying a slow,painful death,but they will die,just like print newspapers will.Since about 2000 or so,a lot of artists have been selling their music on their own private websites.Vinyl,CDs,or digital downloads.Many handle it all.This is the way to go.

Now I just buy vinyl,but I do buy new stuff,too,and every so often,I discover a band I want to start buying,as I did last year,with Franz Ferdinand.With the exception of a store liquidation sale in 2002,I have not set foot in a music/record store,since 1998-9.I buy entirely online,mostly from eBay.But,I have bought from time,to time off of artist's own websites.I began to do so,in 2000,as this was the only way to get Green Day's "Warning" on vinyl.

Let's face it,the Sony/BMGs,and Universals  of this world are never going to completely go away.What's more,there will be further consolidation.EMI may get gobbled up,Warner may sell their music division.Remember back in the 80s,when MAXIMUMROCKANDROLL,et al were bitching about the "big six" labels ? Well, now it's the "big four".It's just that there are so many other ways of getting your music out there,that noone notices the consolidation any more.

I predict they will give artists some additional leeway in selling new releases,and then if there is still interest,the sales rights will revert back to the labels,after 12-18 months or so.I also predict the labels will set up exclusive deals to sell new CDs/downloads,of their catalog stuff,with online outlets,like Amazon,or walmart.com,as the only way to buy it.


                              Roger Kulp
Karl Miller <karl.miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Marcos Sueiro  wrote:    ****I'm going to get whipped for this, but I'll say it anyway: I don't see what is so terrible if large large record companies simply disappear. Music has been around much longer than the recording industry, so I do not think that the quality of music itself would suffer. And certainly there must be other business models for musicians to make a living without having to feed a huge machine that often sucked their blood, especially now that the means to record music are available to so many. 

  From my perspective the current business models are predicated on sale of the "object" which held the recording. We now have a "objectless" information environment.
   
  For me, the same can be said about libraries. Like the music business, they just don't "get it." They seem to stumble along attempting to force their "object" oriented thinking to an information world less bound to "objects."
   
  While I believe there are some things left for libraries and record companies to do, their old world is already gone and has been replaced by the web (google et al) and iTunes (et al). 
   
  It seems to me that record companies need to concern themselves more with marketing and libraries should focus on the preservation of our intellectual history. I also wonder if record companies should focus more on making history available, for I cannot help but think that there might be more of a niche market for those old scratchy records than they might have thought there was. Well probably not since the marketing of music, both classical and popular, seems to have the performer as its primary focus.I remember how quickly after his passing, the recordings of the great pianist William Kapell disappeared from the catalog. Once a musician is gone, they become part of a niche market...perhaps a market for those who are more interested in the music than the personality. I wonder how different the business of music would be if the marketing was based on the quality and content of the music...I know, a bad idea.
   
  Karl


 
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.