Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

    Originally posted by Doug View Post
    ... ran a torrent ... Same with software - if I need it I'll buy it and if I don't want to pay the asking price I won't buy it.
    But if you ran Ubuntu all your software would be legally free, and easily distributed via bittorrent!

    (For BBall)
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      But if you ran Ubuntu all your software would be legally free, and easily distributed via bittorrent!

      (For BBall)
      I do leverage open source software where possible. (And have contributed back to the community both in code and dollars).
      You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
      All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

      - Jimmy Buffett

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

        Very interesting topic to me as I'm responsible for overseeing the digital business at my label.


        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        Since 2000, music has been in a full renaissance period. Very few eras have equaled the diversity, creativity and ... well ... quality of music of the last ten years. (The 60's being far and above any time period for virtually every genre, of course)
        I mostly disagree. Music has been declining since 1824, and popular music has been declining since 1967/1968. Since the '60s, each decade has been weaker than the previous in terms of quality, "evergreen" music.

        That said, I've found a LOT of music that I like in the past few years. The past two years have been some of my favorite in terms of discovery. But I don't equate my taste to quality, and even though we can't fully empirically define quality (yet), I believe it exists beyond subjectivity.


        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        This is a period of adjustment. Like how buggy whip factories needed a period of adjustment. These music industry slime-balls do not need more millions. The artists do, and it's finally being revealed that "Record Labels" don't offer much more than an obscene amount of overhead.
        Of course I'm going to disagree with this . You don't think labels have something to offer? Lady Gaga was nothing before Interscope, Madonna nothing before Warner, Justin Bieber nothing before Island. In fact, I'd say the glaring popularity of some historically subpar artists over quality artists, especially in the last 15 years, is a testament to the two things the labels do very successfully: market and use pre-existing relationships to leverage exposure/distribution.

        It's a lot easier to build a foundation and be semi-successful w/out a label now than it was 20 years ago, but thinking a label cannot offer something to an artist's career is not capturing the full picture. The answer to how much an artist needs a label, if at all, depends entirely on the artist's goals.

        Originally posted by Bball
        I read an article in Parade magazine a couple of years ago that basically said that while CD sales are down, overall record company profits were up. They were just picking and choosing what part of their overall sales they let you know about in order to create some sympathy for their big brother copyright schemes and lobbying efforts.

        Putnam's article seems to counter that.

        So which is true?
        If the Parade article was truly from the past couple years, then that journalist is terribly mistaken and possibly not worthy of their job. Profits are way, way down. Traditional sales are down, merchandising is down, film/tv is down, special markets/club sales are down, touring profits are down. The budgets required to release albums (marketing, tour support, artist advances, etc.) aren't necessarily down.

        Nothing is being hidden. Some major labels have 5-10 times the debt as the value of their assets (go look at the value of WMG stock). Labels, studios, venues, music stores, etc. are closing down. The only major retailers still carrying a decent-sized selection are Walmart and Best Buy, with Target a semi-distant 3rd.

        Originally posted by Los Angeles
        Originally posted by duke dynamite
        The record companies and promoters make a ton of money from shows. $30 for a silk-screened t-shirt!? WTF?
        Neither the record companies or the promoters make a single dime off of the merchandise. The merchandise money is just about the only thing keeping most artists fed.

        Period.
        Not necessarily true. "360" deals with artists have been fairly common in the past few years, meaning that a label shares in all revenue streams, including merchandising. In that sense, the music business has reverted to the early days.

        Originally posted by GO!!!!!
        I for one, if he recorded 300 songs would like to see more then a pissy 10-12 on his CD, make it a double CD feature, 20-26 songs, make it worth buying for the people...
        You may not have to wait too long to buy these extended packages. A lot of labels have their artists are under exclusive recording contracts, which can mean all masters recorded during that contract become owned by the label. As such, labels are beginning to experiment with ways to maximize their assets, which includes subscriptions and extended releases. It's a great idea that can finally happen with the lack of returns risk and no cost of manufacturing for digital releases.

        Originally posted by ilive4sports
        Like it was brought up earlier, record sales don't factor in much to the money an artist makes. Thats where touring and merchandise comes in.
        Oh, but they do (indirectly). The non-refundable advances artists receive from labels that sell their music make up a HUGE fraction of the money artists make.

        The amount of money that A&A has thrown away on this project is crazy. Great publicity, even some profits but they've lost a lot too.

        Originally posted by bellismo
        as someone getting into the music industry - its really difficult these days...you can't even create your own label and distribute your songs through the digital outlets - there are so many labels hence the distributers such as beatport.com and itunes are handpicking their cooperations with larger labels...
        It's as easy now as ever to create your own label. You can use a number of companies to distribute your music digitally to most major DSPs (including ones in Hungary) for a one-time, up front flat fee. After that, you see 100% of the net revenue. Being a successful label, that's a different story . Let me know if you want to know more about these companies.

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ
        I think Soup, Travmil and others make a good counterpoint - not around the intellectual property laws that make artistic expression commercially possible in the first place, but that the music industry's prices are out of sync with what the market will bear for digital downloads.

        Digital delivery should be substantially less expensive than buying a CD or other physical form of the music. There is nothing to print or press, distribution/ warehouse/ retail costs are minimal (no rent to pay), and there aren't any minimum wage store clerks running the cash register. So digital music should cost a fraction of physical music. The cost should cover the artists' royalties, bandwidth, marketing, and a reasonable profit. That's it.
        From a business standpoint, this is the defining problem of the music business of the past 30 years. When labels went from vinyl from CD, manufacturing costs went down while retail prices skyrocketed. This is why labels had such deep pockets in the '90s. It's also why a label could blow millions of dollars on one music video.

        The problem is, labels have taken advantage of the consumer for years. Only now are CD prices hitting a point that is fair, but it's too little too late.

        You're right though on digital vs. physical; no risk of returns (which is the #1 concern of a label), no manufacturing costs (which is roughly $1-$2/disc) and a higher wholesale share all make it possible for labels lower digital prices to a reasonable level. The general problem though is that lower prices do not cover marketing costs and artist advances. As silly as it sounds, margins have been paper thin for 5 years and they are getting thinner.


        Originally posted by ChicagoJ
        PS, One of the ugly things going on over the past decade is that the recording labels have been increasing their "take" of the artists' royalties as if the creativity did not come from the artist but came from the label. To the extend the recording labels are paying themselves a royalty -- that's a problem They can have a reasonable profit on the risk they take. And they take risks when they attempt to identify which artists will be profitable in the future. But they don't take as much risk as the artists themselves -- and diversify that risk with a portfolio of artist contracts -- and that should be reflected as well.
        Can't speak for all labels, but:

        1) It's a moot point as most projects don't recoup from the advances received by the artists. Aside from that, artists are receiving much larger royalties now than they were 15 years ago, that's for sure (I've been shocked at all the royalty rates I've seen during due diligence..shocked). Not all labels are fair, but most are.

        2) It's a huge risk to take on an artist in this shrinking market. Any 6-8 figure investment in marketing is a risk. That's why labels have slowed on taking new artists.

        Of course I'm biased and from a label's perspective, but there are a ton of misconceptions out there that aren't true.






        For anyone who's interested, 2010 album sales are down 8.1 percent from this point in 2009. Digital single tracks are up 0.7 percent right now, but posted its first ever decrease in q1 2010.
        Last edited by imawhat; 04-21-2010, 01:34 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
          You don't think labels have something to offer? Lady Gaga was nothing before Interscope, [. . .] Justin Bieber nothing before Island.


          This is supposed to convince us of the value of the big labels??
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post


            This is supposed to convince us of the value of the big labels??
            A label can make an artist into a superstar... but that artist may not fit your or my definition of 'worthy' of that lofty status.

            But if you're the artist that the label has deemed has what it takes and you can take advantage of that label push, you're not going to care what I think of your talent....
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              A label can make an artist into a superstar... but that artist may not fit your or my definition of 'worthy' of that lofty status.

              But if you're the artist that the label has deemed has what it takes and you can take advantage of that label push, you're not going to care what I think of your talent....
              apparently the labels only cater to the demographic of kids hitting puberty.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                I monstrously disagree with the notion that music is declining, imawhat. I know you are a musician AND you work in the industry, so I'm very much treading on your territory here. But nobody even knew how to make a repeating loop in 1968. Heck, it's taken 30 years AFTER that for rock bands to get white-boy blues out of their system and really open up to possibility.

                Punk? Hip-Hop? Dance? Glam? Metal? Jazz-Rock (whatever that's called)? Are you ****ing kidding me? Duuude? Music on artistic decline? The only thing that gives such a notion any appeal whatsoever is its obtuse cynicism. There's nothing intellectually significant in the statement.

                Love ya, anyway, ya big lug.

                It's a lot easier to build a foundation and be semi-successful w/out a label now than it was 20 years ago, but thinking a label cannot offer something to an artist's career is not capturing the full picture. The answer to how much an artist needs a label, if at all, depends entirely on the artist's goals.
                This is a VERY valid point, but you must acknowledge that Labels used to be the ONLY way. Now they are merely useful. That's a revolution in itself.
                Last edited by Los Angeles; 04-21-2010, 03:09 AM.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                  Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post


                  This is supposed to convince us of the value of the big labels??
                  You didn't have to edit out Madonna. As a cultural and fashion icon, she is unparalleled. But her music has always played second fiddle to the personality.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    For anyone who's interested, 2010 album sales are down 8.1 percent from this point in 2009. Digital single tracks are up 0.7 percent right now, but posted its first ever decrease in q1 2010.
                    I'm just curious, what are the figures for licensing to advertising campaigns, TV and movies?

                    I know that concert tickets hit a wall when the recession went full-bore. But there certainly is a serious abundance of summer festivals going on.
                    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      I monstrously disagree with the notion that music is declining, imawhat. I know you are a musician AND you work in the industry, so I'm very much treading on your territory here.
                      Not at all, not at all. It's everyones' territory. If anything, I'm very impressed with the knowledge and interest in music on this board. There are some out-of-towners, but in general I wish I'd known some of the people on here before I moved from Indiana. I would've enjoyed some good music discussions.


                      Originally posted by LA
                      But nobody even knew how to make a repeating loop in 1968. Heck, it's taken 30 years AFTER that for rock bands to get white-boy blues out of their system and really open up to possibility.
                      In 1968, nobody knew that you didn't have to play or sing a line perfectly. That it could be cleaned up by multi-tracking, multi-edits, and auto-tuning.

                      I love the discussion of recording technology advances, but it's done more harm to the ethos of recorded music than good, imo, since the first 8-tracks were becoming popular in studios. Still, it doesn't mean there aren't new and innovative ways of making music.

                      That doesn't really affect the quality of music (song, music and lyrics), which is where the decline has happened.

                      Originally posted by LA
                      Punk? Hip-Hop? Dance? Glam? Metal? Jazz-Rock (whatever that's called)? Are you ****ing kidding me? Duuude? Music on artistic decline? The only thing that gives such a notion any appeal whatsoever is its obtuse cynicism. There's nothing intellectually significant in the statement.

                      Love ya, anyway, ya big lug.
                      Artistic decline/growth is debatable, but I don't think there's much debate in the decline of music. Forget about social impact, artistic boundaries, etc. for a moment. Can you name more musically significant albums from the 2000s than the 1990s? 1990s than the 1980s? 1980s than the 1970s? 1970s than the 1960s? I think there are more musically significant albums from 1966/7 than there were in the past 20 years combined.
                      Last edited by imawhat; 04-21-2010, 03:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                        I'm just curious, what are the figures for licensing to advertising campaigns, TV and movies?
                        Anywhere from free to 7 figures, but numbers have dropped drastically in the last 15 months. I'll rank them in order of highest paying to lowest paying (in general):

                        National Ad

                        Movie trailer

                        Movie
                        TV
                        Regional Ad


                        I put a space between Nat'l Ad, Movie Trailer, and Movie to emphasize the difference in pay scale for each usage. I left out TV theme song, which could dwarf the best national Ads depending on the popularity of the show....especially when you factor in performance income (coughRembrandtscoughFriendscough).

                        There are several unsigned bands that make a killing in film/tv. One could argue that they're successful without a label, but I'd argue that the person who secured these deals may have learned their trade at a label (not always true).

                        If I were a rising band in the right genre, I'd sign with a publisher/music licensing company and let that guide my career. That's where the low hanging fruit is.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          Not at all, not at all. It's everyones' territory. If anything, I'm very impressed with the knowledge and interest in music on this board. There are some out-of-towners, but in general I wish I'd known some of the people on here before I moved from Indiana. I would've enjoyed some good music discussions.
                          Indeed.

                          In 1968, nobody knew that you didn't have to play or sing a line perfectly. That it could be cleaned up by multi-tracking, multi-edits, and auto-tuning.

                          I love the discussion of recording technology advances, but it's done more harm to the ethos of recorded music than good, imo, since the first 8-tracks were becoming popular in studios. Still, it doesn't mean there aren't new and innovative ways of making music.

                          That doesn't really affect the quality of music (song, music and lyrics), which is where the decline has happened.
                          I wasn't talking about recording advances I was talking about revolution. The kind of revolution that happens without any of the old timers realizing that it's happened until much later. Like how Comics were revolutionized in the 80's and it took 20 years to look back and say "you know, there was a revolution in comics in the 80's! Let's make some movies based on that stuff!"

                          Most of the artists that are breaking grounds and breaking rules and influencing the next generation TODAY don't give a fleeting fart about the perfect gated reverb for thier snare drum (bonus points if you know who I just quoted). But for some reason Simon, Randy, and the artist formerly known as whats-her-name really REALLY care about perfect pitch and arpeggios. Now who you gonna trust? Where do you put your faith?

                          Simon knows how to find "hits" like it's 1956 and his name is Chess. But he don't know **** about good music he couldn't hear *influential* if it sold out Hollywood Bowl 5 nights in a row.

                          I gotta turn you on to some music, my friend. The time is now. The artists are working. They are definitely firing on all cylinders. I'm not promising that you'll like what you'll hear. I'm just saying that anyone can find something in this diversified market. which brings us to what all this means: Diversity is the #1 word that defines this era.


                          Artistic decline/growth is debatable, but I don't think there's much debate in the decline of music decline. Forget about social impact, artistic boundaries, etc. Can you name more musically significant albums from the 2000s than the 1990s? 1990s than the 1980s? 1980s than the 1970s? 1970s than the 1960s? I think there are more musically significant albums from 1966/7 than there were in the past 20 years combined.
                          Can you name a recent president that was more important that Roosevelt?

                          Can you name a 20th century president that was more important than Lincoln?

                          Can you name a 19th century president that was more important than Jefferson? Than Washington?

                          We can play the history game all day, and you end up with the same result: Bach was a badass. He did it all.
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                            http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-are-bogus.ars
                            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                              Originally posted by Doug
                              Rock and roll never forgets...

                              (Yes, it is ironic to end a rant like that with a song quote from a "major label" artist that is constantly played on ClearChannel controlled stations . . .

                              . . . but who isn't on iTunes!



                              .
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Freeloaders are Ruining the Music Industry!

                                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                                It's as easy now as ever to create your own label. You can use a number of companies to distribute your music digitally to most major DSPs (including ones in Hungary) for a one-time, up front flat fee. After that, you see 100% of the net revenue. Being a successful label, that's a different story . Let me know if you want to know more about these companies.
                                yes...creating a label is easy - but like you said making it a successful one is a different story. I'm focused on house/dance music so the main place for my music to be in would have to be beatport.com - but they have a very strict policy of not letting in any new comers to the game and are only working with labels that they've worked with before who have a proven track record. A new label could only work in these situations once the DJ/music producer becomes big in another label and creates his new label afterwards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X