Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
So Maria Digby has done a world wide stadium tour? What I mean is a metallica/U2 kind of tour where every night she plays in front of 20-50K fans? Seeing as her first album came out less than a year ago I highly doubt that.
|
world wide tour no
but she did play a stadium
she is part japanese, has a good fan base there so she played in tokyo (given their population density) she was in a major stadium (60k)
it took U2 years to get to the point of doing a world tour, where every night they were playing to packed house in every country so it would be unreasonable to expect someone to match that instantly by internet promotion.
But that was not what you asked, you asked about someone who successfully played at the stadium level, given the conditions (japanese heritage, strong fan base in that country, high population density, limited engagement dates) she met your criteria.
In the future she may get to the britney spears level.
Quote:
|
This whole argument goes back into the realm of whether torrent downloads of music that you have never purchased are legal or not. You think that if someone goes and downloads the entire Radiohead catalog from a torrent site that it is okay. I don't. It is a fundamental difference that is not worth arguing because we will never change each other's minds.
|
actually it has nothing to do with what i believe about downloading. and everything to do with weather the RIAA is telling the truth or not. They are claiming that downloader (in this case) has recieved no authorization from artist. Well if the artist says, it ok to share/download my music, that is in fact authorization.
I realize it is hoop the RIAA does not want to jump thru (finding out if the artist has ever authorized the sharing) before they file suit. But i believe they should, and i don't think admitting that they don't care, and that the RIAA is lying about no authorization thing is wrong.
Quote:
Sure, I will concede that the artist could potentially compete against themselves, but only under certain circumstances. If their old record label owns 100% of the bands publishing then the band could compete against itself, if not they will continue to profit from licensing situations. If that is the case that leaves the label who owns the back catalog left to rely on sales of those albums to make money and as I stated before many people will just download them and not buy them.
|
so we both agree your consultancy analogy is bullshit good.
Quote:
I won't argue the points of a piracy tax because I don't know much about it.
I will say that you are someone that is non-typical when it comes to music. There are always people who scour the landscape for new music. That has never changed. The internet makes that scouring different (and in some ways easier) so people like you (and myself to some extent) who like discovering new bands and don't mind searching now have more access to artists they may have otherwise never been able to find. That is all fine and great, but I don't think any time in the near future that is going to be the norm. As I said in another post music for most is a leisure activity and they spend very little time and effort into finding it. For some acts that is going to be just great. They didn't care about being big famous bands, they just want to make a little money and lay some music, but for others it just isn't going to be enough.
|
i don't scour the internet
i subscribe to mininova music catagory feed
and run a filter on it for my music preferences
http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?cat=5
it goes right into my torrent client, and automagically downloads all that music
i simply put the newest stuff on my ipod/zune/stereo and listen to it.
If i don't like the song, click delete, gone.