Re: Why TRS Is Not A Success

[larryh@infi.net (Larry Hufstedler)]

AFC PeterS (afcpeters@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <Cp7sLw.Ht8@infi.net>, larryh@infi.net (Larry Hufstedler) writes:

: > Oh sure, they will sell the CDs, wouldn't want to miss out on the
: > bucks. But spend a million on Kate like they did Bruce Springsteen?
: > No way. Better to save the promo bucks for some infantile psuedo
: > psycho-babble band before the lead singer eats a drug overdose.

: I hate to break this to you, but it's a *business*. Record companies have one
: agenda: make money. It's the only agenda they ever had. More money will not be
: spent on Kate Bush until she demonstrates that there would be a profit to be
: made by doing so. She has a cult following, so she gets a cult budget. That
: record companies can afford to risk launching and carrying the Kate Bushes of
: the world is due largely to the profits they make from the Bruce Springsteens
: and Nirvanas. Lets be thankful for hit artists; without them, record companies
: would chuck it all and go into real estate.


: Peter Stoller


 We agree that profits are the bottom line. Don't misunderstand.. I have no
problem with making a profit. I do have a problem when, in an effort to lock
in future profits, a business adopts agendas intended to manipulate or
control the market. Especialy when it gets to the point that creativity
and substance are compromised. 

 It is a fact that music which does not conform to a very narrow standard
will not be promoted, regardless of it's quality. Market tests are performed
regularly by the industry. People listen to music and rate it. As you might
expect, anything that does not sound familier is rejected by most of the
listeners. People Do get tired of the same old same old sooner or later.
New ideas creap in. It is my contention that the industry retards the
process of change to make things more conveniant for themselves. Far more so
today than 30 years ago. I also believe they could make just as much money
in the long run without this regulation. What they are doing is unethical.

 Most people depend on the radio for musical input. If it is never played, 
it never sells. Kate Bush would sell quite well if they would just play the
stuff like they do REM. I have NEVER found a soul who didn't like Kate Bush
once they were exposed to it a few times. 

 If the recording industry of today had existed in the 60s, the Beatles
would never have been anything but a cult band. A change like that would
never be allowed. Sure the bottom line is money. It IS a business. But it is
being controlled for the conveniance and security of those involved. I doubt
that it is profit from popular bands that carry Kate Bush. That profit may
be put at risk at the beginning, but even cult status performers are making
money for the companies. Not even pizza has the profit margin of the
recording industry. Artists under contract only get 3%. CDs can be made for
less than a buck or 2 apiece in quantities over 10000. And to top it all
off, They release 3 to 5 different packages cleverly arranged so that you
must buy the same material 3 times to get it all. They are turning 1 and 1
half CDs into 3 or 4 CDs. I think it is a dirty trick... 
--
 larryh@infi.net     **** Cleanliness is next to impossible ****