From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 10:22:04 MDT
I suppose I could have been more polite. There was no reason not to be.
I didn't specifically point everything out to you as thought you might
actually try to discover the truth. I assumed you knew that I have a
long history in music.
I never said I was not in the business - where did you ever get that
idea? I would not even have mentioned the subject if I was not involved
in the business, that would make me a fake, but since you are relatively
new here, I suspect you would not know about my long music history. From
a music schollarship at the U of A, to performing, to manufacture, to
engineering with a lot of industry contact for about a decade. I lived
it from when I woke up til when I hit the rack. I slept on studio floors
and read every book on the subject exhaustivly. I spoke to execs and
peeons alike. Don't think that just because I have left that aspect of
the business for more lucritave and stable environs - now I build
studios, sound systems, video systems and the like, including Radio and
television stations. I also maintain weekly contacts within companies
like ClearChanel and Citidel - more aspects of the same business. I have
never worked for a label - that is about the only position I have not
had - and would never want. Provide proof? Copies of schollarship?
Copies of my record contact? Copies of my BMI membership contract? Lists
and scores for hundreds of Tunes? CDs? And when I five you proof - will
a "sorry, you are right" be forthcoming? Don't make me waste my time.
I'm not giving you info and valuable time to help myeslf. But if you
would like to pay current consulting rate of 125.00hr (I know that is
inexpensive, but this is Tucson AZ after all, not LA.), I'll be glad to
give you whatever you like.
Musicians do not pay for recording or production costs after they are
signed in 99% of the cases. Videos are not the related to the label and,
like touring, does not support the label. Distribution is the
responsibility of the label. This is not to say that this is not about
business - costs must be recouped before the CD is profitable and
musicians get money from the CD - but that is the case in all goods.
CD sales are not now - nor have they recently been - a relevant aspect
of musicians income. In the 50s, an artist like, say Tennessee Ford,
would make a penny or 2 for ever record sold. But because he was know by
those record sales, he could perform the music and his other acts for a
substantial profit. It is in the performing and airplay (airplay to
include all cases where the music is heard) If you are a musician you
should know this. Musicians money related the CD come from airplay,
commercial spots, club play, etc.. CDs are profitable for the record
comany - that is where a good percentage of their money comes from.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like the labels, but they are legal
entities. I don't need to go look up stats to know these things - they
were learned through years of experience.
Here's a little reading for you. It's fun, witty, a bit silly, and
terribly accurate - plus it bashes the industry labels pretty well. I
read it, even had it signed, when it was published back in the early
90s', but it's still relevant.
http://www.shadoshea.com/Books/just_4_the_record.html ( do I need to
take a photocopy to prove it?)
As for what Hermit says - I filter the charlatan. So if you say your
purpose was to just figure the value of CD sales, great, I honestly send
all Hermitposts directly to the bin. I thought you were implying that
the musicians are ripped off in the process and that is simply not the
case.
And - I never claimed your argument moot - I would love to see you go
forward - but it seems to me that you are starting out of the box with
poor information. I don't know if you got it from having bad
experiences, following the experiences of others or what. If you think
otherwise, good for you, and in the end you will wonder why your
solutions are so unworkable. I am saying that you need to research your
foundation of knowledge and have a better historical understanding of
why the divisions and pay exists as it is now. I don't need to go into
any more depth with you on the subject. Like a hardcore, if I don't tell
you what you want to hear, maybe you'll just follow the local witch
doctor, maybe not. Either way - nothing done will effect me - audio
engineering is not about to change, and production is geared only to get
more expensive, the business looks lucritive to me no matter what
happens now.
On an only slightly related note - what kind of musician are you? What
is your forte? May I hear some? Where do your musical interests lie?
athe nonrex wrote:
>[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
>I have to wonder why I am replying in this thread. I suppose it's
>because I can easily show you where some of your misinformation is
>located without wasting more than a minute or two of my time. Though I
>am willing to bet this goes in one ear and out the other.
>
>I suppose I will just point out where you are wrong on this. Suffice it
>to say that there is not a correct statment except possibly the math,
>which I did not check, in relation to the following paragraphs.
>
>
>funny, you merely said i was wrong...you never said "why" or "how" i was wrong, or misinformed...just that i was wrong and misinformed.
>
>
>[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
>You are wrong on who pays for studio time, production and music videos or distribution.
>You are wrong about where the money goes as well - you seem to have just lumped them together in the form of \"money to the record company\".
>You completely ignore the main sources of a musician's income. hint - it is not CD sales! In fact, CD sales, unless you are someone like Madonna or the Stones, play a tiny part to completely indignificant part. We all knew when signing our contracts that the money wouldn't come from CD's, and even plotted ways to take over more of the production and distribution (a mistake - as distributers are near-impossible to deal with without label backing).
>
>
>as hermit pointed out, we weren't even discussing musicians' source of income, we were discussing revenue from sales of media, i chose to elaborate on the musician side, as i am one. never mind that ad hominem, though, just support your claims. i gave rough estimates, and i stated this. and from what hermit dug up, i was not only close to the stats i gave, i was actually being a bit generous with the stats..
>
>[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
>My guess is that whoever originally strated spreading this misinformation has zero actual experience in the field and ahs spent too much time reading from others with the same level of experience - none. The blind leading the blind.
>
>
>yet you say that you personally have had no experiance in the field, so you discredit your own arguement. is this the whole "self defeating" tactic? i think it could be classified loosely as "ad misericondum" (i think that's what the fallacy is called).
>
>[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
>I'm not going to go into the detail for you guys, as you are still trying to figure out that the \"wheel is round\" so to say. I just have to wonder who would give out such poor info and then who would be sucker enough to believe it. Anyone willing to believe the paragraphs I quoted, is going into the discussion completely ill prepared and with false information. Anyone person that made the statements listed in the quoted paragraphs at an industry gathering would look quite the fool. It's my advise that you actually speak to pros aside from a \"knownothing\" like me. (an electronic or punk musician with no main stream appeal are NOT the people to be talking to as they are very far from the actual business end of music - and usually idealistic dreamers to boot - as in they think their product is far more valuable than it is). Letting musicians that were in the Sex Pistols, or any other non-selling band give industry tips and advise is like asking a ditch digger to explain the science of geology.
>
>
>your arguement is hollow. you provide no proof or evidence, real or imagined, and you profess this yourself in the arguement. therefore, given your arguement, and using your arguement as my source of evidence, i declare your arguement moot for the same reasons you dlaimed that my arguement moot (though the difference is that i have "proof"). i also place upon your arguement the stigma that you attempted to place upon my arguement (that anyone believing it is a "sucker" and is "ill prepared...with false information" as you put it.) this is because for someone to logically accept your arguement, they have to accept that your arguement is self denounced by the proclamation that you are a "know-nothing" yourself, and is only compounded by the fact that you provide no real information, only an assertation.
>
>[quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
>I typed this fast without error checking - sry in advance for typos or grammar errors.
>
>
>
>and, were it not for this last note you had...i would have been petty and corrected every little spelling error, and signed...
>
>- the grammar nazi strikes again!
>athenonrex
>
>----
>This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28770>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
>
-- Reason - Vision - Empathy Tools for a healthy mind Bill Roh --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 10:20:19 MDT