I'm no fan of the greedy studios, but it's a simple case of economics. If consumers won't buy a product, the studios won't make it. Part of my problem talking about this is that I'm in my late 30's and don't listen to or buy music as much anymore, so I don't know how much people buy music now. I used to buy 20-30 CDs a year back in my 20's. That converts to about $500 per year on buying music. Does the current generation of 20-somethings buy that much music? I get the feeling they don't. If they don't, then the studios are going to cut back somewhere.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lumberjim
the Grateful dead give your statement the lie.
|
True.
That's the difference between a band that gets its money from touring and one that likes to stay in the studio.
I'll see your Dead, and raise you the Beatles. The Beatles toured a lot early on when they played simpler music. But they didn't venture out of the studio later on when their music got more complex. Sgt. Pepper would never have come out unless the fans were willing to pay for it. You can't really perform Sgt. Pepper live the way you can in a studio.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LabRat
Unless it's an action movie, where the big screen and sound effects make the theater a better place to get the whole experience than my La-Z-Boy, I would rather watch a movie at home.
|
I think it's exactly that type of blockbuster movie that will become extinct, because they are more expensive to make. It will take a while for it to happen, because of bandwidth issues downloading movies, but I think we are headed in that direction if people aren't paying to watch them. I understand movie revenues are down this year over last year.
Bands will evolve to stay in the game, but I think where we are headed is smaller acts. Bands will have to tour more to survive. No more making a few hit records and retiring. Not necessarily a bad thing, just different.