|
|
Taylor Swift is bang on (Page 5)
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by osiris
Come on, "Mr. Cue"? You can't make this drug up.
I had to deal with months of horrid marketing exposure for her here in NYC - at every turn was an frickin ad for her. She's a greedy marketing whore, to put it politely. And her music sucks.
I feel better now, thank you.
Tired of the "shoot the messenger" arguments. The quality of her music and her career are pretty irrelevant to this conversation. Her arguments are applicable to a wide range of people, whatever her real motivations were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
This "arbitrarily reproducible for no cost" thing I keep harping on? It's big. Order of magnitude bigger than mechanical reproduction, which is already big.
I am trying to understand how you can claim that music in CD or digital form can be reproduced for no cost?
There is cost involved when you record the original song or CD. If you own a recording studio, you pay for upkeep, electricity, a recording engineer, and employees. The equipment you use to reproduce the music is expensive and requires semi-frequent maintenance. This costs $$!!! If you do not own the studio, then you pay rent on the building and an hourly wage to the engineer, etc. Also, the blank CD's have to be purchased , and digital music uses bandwidth and storage space. There are costs associated with marketing and distribution as well.
|
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
How do we know you aren't really an Android user?
at least we do know she can cut and paste!
|
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by unicast reversepath
I am trying to understand how you can claim that music in CD or digital form can be reproduced for no cost?
There is cost involved when you record the original song or CD. If you own a recording studio, you pay for upkeep, electricity, a recording engineer, and employees. The equipment you use to reproduce the music is expensive and requires semi-frequent maintenance. This costs $$!!! If you do not own the studio, then you pay rent on the building and an hourly wage to the engineer, etc. Also, the blank CD's have to be purchased , and digital music uses bandwidth and storage space. There are costs associated with marketing and distribution as well.
He said reproduced. You're talking about initial costs of production. Not reproduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|