Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by W.W.L.D.
How much does an iced coffee go for these days at Starbucks?

More than i'm willing to pay for it.

[ThrashersFan]

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette, with a satisfied smile on it's face.

The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and says "Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question.

[W.W.L.D.]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, but I don't feel ripped off by music companies.

The problem is that certain music companies are ripping you off and ripping off their artists, both by feeding you crappy music, and doing what Steve Albini can explain better. I could care less if Madonna loses money every day or if someone ripped a studio version of Hail To The Thief.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette, with a satisfied smile on it's face.

The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and says "Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question.

Then, how about this?

You can bug people with this
Edited to add that it's music. By the original Mariah Carey -- Minnie Ripperton - only it's not Minnie Ripperton (I don't think).

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Burger, my man, my theory is pretty damn simple.

By stealing music off the net, we are working a sort of chemotherapy on a dying industry. Music is a bloated sow of a business, with legions of go-between men suckling at the teat of the artists, consumers and manufacturers. Too many mouths to feed create shitty product aimed at maximum quick cash.

By squeezing the industry and pushing out many of the extra mouths, you create a leaner business which better benfits the consumer. Shit, look at how the chains are already beginning to lower the prices of many new cds to compete.

The stealing is justified because the industry/consumer relationship was inequitably tilted horrendously in favor of the industry. The only way to lower the prices and remedy the inequity was something as drastic as file sharing. When Jack Valenti and the folks at the labels cry that they're being put out of business, they are incorrect. They're putting themselves out of business by fucking the consumer dry. Just because people will continually buy what you sell does not mean you can forever inflate prices while simultaneously degraded product quality. The industry is getting exactly what it deserves.

I've never chimed in on a substantive discussion before (unless you consider 'what's the best reality tv show of all time' discussion substative), so please cut me some slack. But . . .

SD, your argument appears to be that the record industry is inefficient. And yet, here's an industry in which barriers to entry are substantial, but not obviously more so than in many other consumer-based industries -- food products, for example. If there really was a way to distribute CDs better and cheaper, eliminating the middle man, someone would have started such a distributor by now, and artists would flock to that label in order to get a bigger share of the pie. The fact that nobody has done so cannot purely be explained by the "they're a greedy oligopoly" argument.

Perhaps the level of e-commerce will evolve to the point that artists can "directly" release their music to the public in a profitable way, thus cutting out all the levels of distribution. But record companies also play a huge role in funding and promoting records, and it's not clear who will fill that void under this new paradigm.

I really don't see how consumers who steal music (or movies or TV shows or books) electronically are doing anything at this point other than ensuring that 1) record distributors and sellers make less money; and 2) marginal artists' records don't get released (because for those artists, the analysis as to whether it makes economic sense for the distributor to develop and release their album tips from yay to nay).

Str8 Up Apologist for da man (NB: however, that my entertainment conglomerate employer does not (yet) have a music division)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
This might be the greatest use of a hot woman in a video since Billy Idol's "Cradle of Love" video. (Whatever happened to that girl/woman?)

I will readily agree that the chick in "Cradle of Love" was very tasty indeed. However, the intervening use of Liv Tyler and Alicia Silverstone in "Crazy" would give it a run for its money.* And the coeds in their underwear in that Jimmy Eat World vid were nice, too, and almost made the song tolerable.

I'll have to LaunchCast "Stacy's Mom" at home.

*Defenders of ZZ Top trashy makeup girls and Adam Ant/Brian Ferry glammy makeup girls might offer their own views. De gustibus etc.

[tmdiva]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Don't keep us in suspense, woman! What is it? You are such a tease.

Usually "copyrighted."

NB: Jack Valenti is the president of the MPAA, not the RIAA.

tm

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by tmdiva
NB: Jack Valenti is the president of the MPAA, not the RIAA.

Look sharp, fellows --- she's going for the Timmy trifecta!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Please join SD and me for a round of "We shall overcome...":guitar:

Okay, but that'll cost ya'.

[cheval de frise]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Get me a white suit and a shaved cat, and I'm all set.

You don't get another shaved cat until you explain what happened to the last one.

CDF (poor Mr. Chuckles...I want my hibachi back, Gattigap.)

[Jack Manfred]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
This might be the greatest use of a hot woman in a video since Billy Idol's "Cradle of Love" video. (Whatever happened to that girl/woman?)

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I will readily agree that the chick in "Cradle of Love" was very tasty indeed. However, the intervening use of Liv Tyler and Alicia Silverstone in "Crazy" would give it a run for its money.* And the coeds in their underwear in that Jimmy Eat World vid were nice, too, and almost made the song tolerable.

I'll have to LaunchCast "Stacy's Mom" at home.

*Defenders of ZZ Top trashy makeup girls and Adam Ant/Brian Ferry glammy makeup girls might offer their own views. De gustibus etc.

The since takes care of ZZ Top, Adam Ant, and Brian Ferry. Rachel Hunter trumps the emo-coeds, even before you factor in that for every girl in her underwear there was a guy in his skivvies, NTTAWTT. Liv Tyler is gorgeous, but I have a problem with putting your formerly-estranged daughter in a series of videos with a faux-lesbian motif. It's just squicky.

If we're talking all-time, rock chick videos, the discussion has to begin with "Hot for Teacher' by Van Halen. After all, it was so scandalous as to arouse the ire of Tipper Gore.

Feel free to begin "Miss Chemistry" vs. "Phys. Ed." debate now.

[W.W.L.D.]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
marginal artists' records don't get released (because for those artists, the analysis as to whether it makes economic sense for the distributor to develop and release their album tips from yay to nay)

As a person who's cd-purchasing and concert-going activities are pretty much confined to those artists who never get played on the radio (Clear Channel -- not college radio), I have to wonder what you mean by "marginal?"

I buy an average of 5 cds a month, often directly from small labels, that often are very closely associated with the artist. So, it is possible to buy music that is released without a reliance on those music companies that "play a huge role in funding and promoting records."

For instance, a couple of weeks ago I purchased the new Wrens cd -- a limited pre-release that had been silk-screened and labeled by hand by the band itself, released on Absolutely Kosher Reccords. This band is certainly not "marginal" by any measure -- or are they crappy b/c they don't get radio or MTV exposure?

Of course, that requires that people actually look for good music, instead of buying what is pushed by the Sony-Clear Channel-Tower Records-MTV -etc. conglomerate of shit. I really doubt that will happen.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by W.W.L.D.
Of course, that requires that people actually look for good music, instead of buying what is pushed by the Sony-Clear Channel-Tower Records-MTV -etc. conglomerate of shit. I really doubt that will happen.

See, I think that will happen more as more bands get access to websites that let them distribute to the public, in as nearly a direct way as possible. But only if people are actually willing to pay for what they play. Otherwise, why bother?

[mr. bob dobolina]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Did anyone else miss the "having sex with a client is a no-no" in law school?" Don't public defenders know that the mirrors are two-way?

Former King County public defender Theresa Olson has agreed to give up practicing law for a year for having sex with her client in a high-profile triple-murder case last summer in the King County Jail.
sex with client is bad

Well I know in NY, these kind of public defenders are paid squat.

They are often far left wing nitwits, i.e. the bottom of the barrel of legal intellects from 6th tier schools and don't speak real good english. The state bolsters its conviction record on the backs of these incompetent PDs. Not to mention that the turnover is high, because most eventually find that they can make $20-$30 more an hour at the local strip club. The only PDs who stay with it for so little pay and the chance to work with the dregs of society are the true believing socialists, the fully incompetent with no initiative or those, like the woman in the story, who have a sexual fetish for felons but don’t want to have to go to jail themselves to experience prison love.

Interestingly, this report leaves some gaping holes. Is her denial that she and the murderer had intercourse but an admission of “sexual contact” a de facto confession that oral sex occurred? Or anal? Either way, the Clinton legacy lives on in her attempts to skirt responsibility for her actions.

On the plus side, if I was an about-to-be-convicted killer, and the PD offered me her punani, I would have been most grateful and accepting, but perhaps a bit more discrete.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by W.W.L.D.
As a person who's cd-purchasing and concert-going activities are pretty much confined to those artists who never get played on the radio (Clear Channel -- not college radio), I have to wonder what you mean by "marginal?"

I buy an average of 5 cds a month, often directly from small labels, that often are very closely associated with the artist. So, it is possible to buy music that is released without a reliance on those music companies that "play a huge role in funding and promoting records."

For instance, a couple of weeks ago I purchased the new Wrens cd -- a limited pre-release that had been silk-screened and labeled by hand by the band itself, released on Absolutely Kosher Reccords. This band is certainly not "marginal" by any measure -- or are they crappy b/c they don't get radio or MTV exposure?

Of course, that requires that people actually look for good music, instead of buying what is pushed by the Sony-Clear Channel-Tower Records-MTV -etc. conglomerate of shit. I really doubt that will happen.

I'm using "marginal" in the economic sense of the word. Some bands are screwed by the margin in the sense that they just miss getting signed; if the market was bigger for their music, they'd get signed. For others, the "margin" affects how much money record companies are willing to spend to promote their album. If there was better enforcement of copyright laws, bands which get a $100,000 promotional budget for their album would instead get $125,000. The dollar not spent is a dollar at the margin. The band not signed is the artist at the margin.

Maybe the Wrens would get a distribution deal if not for online piracy. Or maybe they are not sell-able enough that the difference wouldn't vault them into that next level (it goes without saying that I am agnostic as to the quality of their, or anyone else's music, for the sake of this argument. This has nothing to do with the question of whether it's good for the sake of the art to have one's music distributed by a distributor, large or small).

That said, if there were more consumers like you, the music scene would be a lot more interesting.