Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
Maybe she will. Maybe she won't. Again, my point is that U2 benefited from millions in promotion from Island records. It is going to be very difficult for the internet to match that type of ad machine.
Quote:
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.
|
See to me it is a slippery slope. For me a record label deal is a partnership. It is the artist that creates the music, but they have a partnership deal with the label to sell it. If the artist gives the okay to give the music away and the label doesn't should they still be able to?
Quote:
|
so we both agree your consultancy analogy is bullshit good.
|
I a way I still think my consulting business thought holds some water. My thought is that the owner of the business helped that person get to a level where they could then walk away and take many of the clients with them. Sure the business still has other clients and may be able to profit on the work that person had done for them in the past by reselling it, but what if that work was now available for free online? That business might not be the best analogy but look at it like it is a software company. The company helps a programmer get enough notoriety that they can walk away and work on their own and take many of the companies clients with them. They still have the software that the programmer made for them to sell, but what if the programmer then told everyone, "Just go here and download it for free?" Now you could argue the programmer is hurting the company.
Quote:
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.
|
While you may not spend a lot of time doing this, I would still venture to guess you spend more time than most. As I have argued before for most music is something of convenience so they listen it he car or at work or while doing the dishes. They don't put a lot of thought into seeking out new bands. Maybe I am dead wrong about this, but I think the masses don't care enough about music to look any further than their radio dial.