Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
Yeah, that's pretty old news, but it's not really about whether it's good or not. That's entirely subjective.
^Also this.
|
Well, look it's tough to get people to think or to think differently I get that. But, but, but some things to consider:
1) In the eighties and nineties, before Internet, a tape or cd cost about 12.00. Well, that is about how much they cost now and inflation has gone up considerably since then. So, an average artist makes a lot less now--not keeping up with inflation--then they did back then. The cut in money comes out of somewhere and that is in the ingredients used, make a product cheaper to make up the loss.
2) We repeatedly hear movie block buster costing hundreds of million to make and many, if not most, have a huge payout in terms of billions made off of paying customers. The movie business is still in the business of investing huge some of money to make a good product, the demand is there. Also, movie ticket prices have gone up from around $6.00 in that time to now around $15.00. Keeping up with and surpassing inflation. Why does music not have the same model?
3) I'm not making an argument of what is good or not. I'm making the argument that it's OK to demand better ingredients to make better product. We, the general public, don't have to be a shill for the record company (shill is an important word to look up because there are a quite a few shills out there.) We don't have to make excuses for them. They want to make music as inexpensively as possible and appeal to less picky children then they want to invest in expensive instrumentation, production value, lyricists, artists and the like. Why is it not OK to demand better ingredients? Its not a matter of tastes but of expense. I don't feel a need to make excuses for the record company.
I'll write what I see as solutions emerging and why there may, may, may be better music in the future.