Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
.......
I honestly have no f*cking clue what kind of point you're trying to make here because that comparison makes no logical sense.
|
capping the length of an album makes about as much sense as capping an individual's income.
@Flower Child - i see where you're coming from, but if the bigs are capped i don't see how the smalls will thrive. then again i have a few family members who are / were working musicians to varying degrees of success (up to a 1 hit wonder in the past and entertaining Olympians a few weeks ago), so my views on this topic will be a bit skewed. i totally get your supply and demand angle though.
my big gripe here is that if the bigshots were capped at an arbitrary figure then those groups between the moonlighting office rockers and major label touring operations would be snuffed out. all the groups that 'should' be big and have the talent necessary but always miss that one lucky break to propel them into the limelight, the ones who keep touring around your state or province every summer and pack every venue they play but can't afford a cross country tour. how would they ever afford to accomplish anything if their resources (to record / promote / perform) are arbitrarily limited?
as for the whole 'hollywood would die' angle. yes. yes it would. people don't spread around millions of dollars on ambitious projects even by their standards. it's risky. if you had $1 000 000 in your pocket and someone wanted you to front $750 000 for a revolutionary idea, something totally unique and original, completely and utterly unproven. would you? that's a pretty large chunk of change that you could easily be dumping into a load of smoke. people who've worked their asses off to the point of handling those kinds of sums are not hesitant to spread it around, they're hesitant to take risks while spreading it around. especially when there are plenty proven methods (and script formulas) that more or less guarantee an acceptable return on investment.
FD is totally on the mark.