Lunch with AJ & JC (by Skype) lottery?
Here's an idea for financial patronage of new art from the Chatelain family -
A lottery, whose winner can have lunch (a two-hour post-meridien déjeuner) by means of Internet videoconference (Skype) with Alizée and Jérémy (European time, in Paris or Corsica as they find convenient.) Perhaps, in summer, in honor of "Gourmandises," it can even be a "déjeuner sur l'herbe." (But EVERYONE will be conventionally attired, like in the video, thank you!) Maybe one would standardize doing this on up to one Saturday each month. The winner also would be posted a DVD of the event, but on which the producers reserve full commercial rights. Food at the winner's end would be his/her responsibility, but perhaps some suggestions might be forthcoming in advance from France, e.g. to eat similar things. For a reduced chance to win for a given investment, a language translator at the French end could be provided. The lottery would be conducted via the Internet, and one could pay as much as one wanted above a certain minimum for a proportionately greater chance of winning. It would continue until at least a certain minimum total sales total was reached, e.g. €10000 after sales and marketing expenses. Fan clubs might want to band together to invest greater sums than could individuals, and lease a large screen display for a gathering with one another when the big day arrives! One could also imagine optional multicasting for a third-party service fee after the winner is announced. An alternative to lunch might be a match using a multiplayer Internet game, e.g. via X-Box Live, including video feeds on the side. (Did X-Box Live ever sponsor celebrity players as a marketing tool?) Yet another alternative might be a walking/driving tour by wireless Internet videoconference. ("Mlle. Alizée, could we please stop here and look around?") Pretty soon there will be great wireless broadband coverage to make this possible in many affluent countries. Naturally, everyone will be very well behaved and would most likely participate with their spouse or boy/girlfriend to make a foursome or more. Remember: <i>Gare à qui se comporte Sans l'once d'un tact, et Son sang n'est pas du lait!</i> <table align="center" width="50%" cellpadding="10" border="5"><tr><td><center>(added 2010.03.13)</center> [Would you] ...accept a dinner with a male or female fan? <i>Yes! And I will even say no problem. Most fans that I have met have been calm and respectful with me. In these conditions, I don't know why I would refuse to share a meal with one of them.</i> -<a href="http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92000&postcount=11">2008 interview</i> of Alizée </td></tr></table> And wouldn't it be nice to make it a pleasurable time for the Chatelains, who might become known for posting some dried, pressed foliage from the maquis (picked by guess who?) to those lottery winner whose company they most enjoyed during the run of a calendar year? This is all just daydreaming for now, but technology makes it possible - especially with a "James Bond Girl"! Would you be set up for a videoconference now? If the lottery existed, would you manage to set up in that manner for the opportunity to partcipate? How much might you invest for a value-proportional chance at winning, if the pot was set at €10000 (now about £8682, US$14091 and MXP180098). i.e. if you buy €100 of "tickets," you have a 1% chance of winning, et cetera. Do you think €10000 is too high for a two-hour lunch/walk/drive/gameplay with two celebrities living in an expensive city? Remember, all the money will go into funding the next art project the couple want to undertake. It is really mainly venerable sponsorship, and not just a chance for personal delight! Your comments and suggestions are encouraged. |
My sense is that Jérémy Châtelain is never going to participate in any of Alizée's fan activities. My impression is in fact that he has no role in the creation of the new album, but that may not be a permanent change; however the separation of their private life from her public life is an old story. Thus, as you have described it, this will not happen.
Now, some kind of skype or other on-line interaction with Her Grace alone might be possible but of course she would have to agree to it, and in the past she has never done anything like this for any ONE person, only for smallish groups, as she did for the chat event during the Psych promotion. So again, as you have described it I doubt it will happen even without the J-man involved. But something sort of kind of along those lines might. Needs more thought, in short. EDIT: I forgot, on two occasions she did do something remotely like this for single fans, namely the two episodes of Stars à Domicile with her in them. But in recent years it's always been with more than one. |
hmm...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Before the mass-market art era enabled by the printing press, audio recording media and so on, artists relied upon either patronage or theatrical entrance fees. As it grows increasingly impossible to enforce a copyright regimen for fixed art (vs. interactive art like network-based video games), we may have to again rely upon the older methods. The latter old method is rather wasteful in an age of almost-free global telecommunications, or at the least, a limited source of income for artists who are not superstars and can draw large in-person audiences. That's why I have thought about trying to find new methods of patronage, which can finance the artist to create work which can then be released, reproduced and communicated freely using modern information technology. My lottery idea might be one method which accomplishes that. Aside: When you submit the string "win lunch with" to the Google search engine, you get almost a MILLION hits. Perhaps Alizée will again be a superstar who can fill whole stadiums like Madonna. But what if that is only in her past, and she might retire from her career rather than settle for the life of a "working class" artist performing in a few smaller venues, and only in a few large cities at that? IF embraced, the lottery method permits, say, 100,000 fans widely (and thus THINLY) scattered around the world to financially support her with their "ticket" purchases, despite the fact that the largest in-person audience in any one place she performed live might only number 500. Thus, I am not looking to persuasion, but potential NECESSITY, to lobby for the cooperation of the Chatelains. I would be only too pleased if they elected to continue working to create media files, despite the impossibility of legally licensed sales, should that be their fate. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Regards, Jung |
Actually, at one time record sales were a more significant part of an artist's income, but those days are long gone. It has much to do with how the record companies currently share the revenue, which in my opinion is terribly unfair. So yes, touring is a big source of income for an artist.
Alizée seems to want to remain a "mainstream" artist, so she will tend to stick to the conventional "artist/record company" model of doing business. I think if she lost her ability to be under contract with a major label, she might possibly consider exploring less conventional ways of marketing her music. |
Quote:
As for the last name, Alizée and Jérémy are not legally married in France. In the U.S. they are, but they live there, not here. When they got married in Las Vegas, she did not change her name, and there is no evidence that she has filed a legal name change since. It is nearly 100% certain that her last name is Jacotey, not Châtelain. Nor is there any evidence that he has changed his name, so it's still Châtelain, not Châtelain-Jacotey or anything like that. What Annily's last name is, is a good question. One that, so far, her parents don't seem to think the public needs to know. And I'm OK with that. Quote:
Alizée probably has enough money to do that on her own, without using a middleman of any sort, but there's a niche it seems to me for a distributor business such as I've described for smaller artists or those just beginning. This would likely bring a lot of music to the market that in today's system would never get there, so it would be better for the listener, too. |
Quote:
I, for one, really enjoy having a physical object like a CD which I can hold in my hand, along with the artwork that goes with it. I have nothing against e-publishing music, and it may offer a great alternative to those who can't get past the traditional gate keepers. But for someone like Alizée who still has a connection with the record companies, her best bet may be to stay the course of the "mainstream". |
I like this idea.
|
I think it's a nice idea.
|
Goose and gander
Quote:
Then why did I include the J-man? Well, I know La Methode Cauet played for laughs, but I think A was being sincere when she visited the show and stated that it was impossible for J to take a meal alone with a female friend. That's why I stipulated the videoconference include J: goose and gander parity; no salacious undertone. And I think it would creep out fans, even the adolescent boys with raging hormones, to even fantasize A doing a raunchy JenniCam act or something. Not that hell wouldn't freeze over a MILLION times first, thank you. Perhaps people who aspire for something else might hope that Britney's career pops a couple more rivets? Alizée has grown up and married. Maybe eight years ago, her Mom might have joined Alizée for lucky-winner-fan lunchtiime videoconferencing. Or her Dad or grandma. On the other hand, perhaps Tahiti Boy and a couple more of the Palmtree Family could take J's place now if he is an unwanted distraction to fans, in the estimation of the Chaterlains ( ;P ). But I think you have to give fans something more intimate than a Fun TV SMS prompt and the chance they might get a single-Q&A audio link to get them to really invest in the sponsorship lottery I suggest. Edit: Quote:
Increasingly many clueless lay people are becoming aware at this late date that files can be copied for free. Copy protection fails if you - or anyone you know or can meet, if only on the Internet - has the minimal skills required to redigitize the analog audio feed. Roughly speaking, there is now about one digital audio player (most of them iPods) per household in the US. And US cellphones are bundling in this capability fast, too. Most in Korea did so long ago. You might learn more by reading something like End of the world as Hollywood knows it. Supposedly, Alizée "Toc de Macintosh" Jacotey herself said We hear you, princess, and are struggling to brainstorm plan B!Mp3 players are not at the source of piracy, it's the price of progress and the Internet... we can't do anything about it, we made a lot of laws, it was a battle lost before it begun, unless we go back to vinyl records. I think we should prepare for the death of the CD... |
sry
sorry to kill your idea but Jeremy won't and its not like you know Alizee so you prob couldnt get her to since her fan mail list is still probably stacked for a couple of years....
|
Quote:
A Day With Alizee Sweepstakes |
Quote:
Quote:
Bear in mind that anything she does with fans is going to be in full public view with photographers and the whole nine yards, so there's no possibility of getting up to mischief. If Jérémy is going to get jealous about something like that, he's being ridiculous. Of course, maybe he IS ridiculous, what do I know :p . . . In any case, I'm quite certain that he would not participate in any fan activities for Alizée. That would be totally out of pattern for both of them. I hear what you say about "something intimate," but there's intimate and then there's intimate. I mentioned the chat session that she had in 2008. In that session, fans who won a drawing or some such got to chat with her over IM for a time. That's not unlike what you were talking about, except that no money changed hands. (Incidentally, in that chat session it became very clear that she follows her fan site forums, because she knew all about the people she was chatting with.) And Jérémy did not participate in that, either. So don't worry about it; the only thing along those lines that could threaten their marriage would have to happen in private without tout le monde looking on, and that's not what you're proposing. I understand what you're saying about copy protection not working, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the great majority of people are trustworthy about such things. There will be piracy, sure, but as long as artistic work (music, books, whatever) is offered at a low price and easily, most people won't avail themselves of the opportunity for theft. People will buy her new album, not just steal it, I think we can be confident of that, especially if they can buy it digitally. So I believe that your idea is actually better as a promotion than as a money-raiser. |
Legitimate sales in an age of easy piracy
Quote:
And don't you find many responses I got at Would you pay to watch an Alizée video on Youtube? discouraging?In 1999 consumers spent $39 billion on music, mostly CDs. |
I like the idea, but I feel there are a good amount of unknowns. Of course, with research, those unknowns can be taken care of. So if you can get them taken care of, I think it'd be pretty cool. =]]
|
Quote:
As for the stats on music, remember that's gross revenues. CDs cost more than downloads and should, since they involve production costs where downloads don't. Are people buying less music today than in the past? They're certainly not listening to less. Book prices are dropping, too, thanks to e-books. Gross price for my novel is $4.95, where in print when that happens it will cost $14.90. But I get almost the same royalty regardless of which version someone buys. Same rule should apply for music, and if it doesn't yet, that's only because the record companies still have a stranglehold, something that I expect them to lose. I think record companies are probably on the way out just like publishing houses. I published a blog entry yesterday on this very subject, called The Decline and Fall of the Gatekeepers. Might be worth checking out, if you don't mind reading something long. |
The business model for book publishing is in many ways quite different from the music publishing model. (I wish it were the same.) First of all, recording an album can be quite expensive. Producing one music video at the level of production the public is accustomed to is also quite expensive. And I’m not including the cost of producing the physical CD. There is no equivalent to these costs in e-book publishing as far as I can see.
There was a time when a record company was founded and/or run by people who knew and loved music. They actually performed a useful function as gatekeepers back then, at least to some extent. They were better at finding artists with raw talent that could be nurtured into producing good music. For example, look at the role George Martin played in the career of the Beatles. Of course a few multinational corporations have since bought up most of these record companies. They are powerful and the laws are skewed on their behalf. It will be hard to break their stranglehold on the business. If each artist is forced to “go it alone”, it will be hard for them to fund projects to the level we currently expect. Even Alizée may have trouble affording all of it, and keep in mind the money she has came from the current system. How would new artists with no money fit into this new model? No new business model will be successful if it doesn’t sustain music on into the future and allow for new “Alizée’s” to be discovered and developed. As much as I dislike the current model, I would hate to see music devolve into a lot of poorly made recordings and video because of a lack of professional funding and artistic support. Maybe the answer is a new music business entity, like a musician’s co-op, so to speak, that could exist under the umbrella of labels like Institubes. Musicians could pay a percentage of their profits in dues and this money could be leveraged to fund projects. Maybe they could also get their fans to subscribe for a few bucks a month, as well as raise money from wealthy private, corporate, and governmental benefactors who are interested in music. If we want to see the level of production quality we are accustomed to, and if we want to see the current corporate structure out of the mix, there needs to be a way to fund these artists’ projects in any new model of doing business. |
Lefty, consider what you are able to do now with just a little software. What would it have taken 20 years ago to do something like that? Now project a few more years into the future. The trend is for costs of all of these things to come down, and control to be decentralized.
I'm sure it will never be the case that producing music is as cheap as writing a book, but it doesn't have to be. All that has to happen is for professional-quality music recording -- separate from distribution -- to be within most people's reach. We are surely not far from that now. If you could partner with other musicians, so that you didn't have to hire professional accompaniment; i.e., if you were recording as a band not as an individual, how close could you come in your home studio to professional studio-quality? How much would you have to spend to bridge that gap? OTOH, suppose you wanted to record your work with your band in a studio -- bearing in mind that you wouldn't have to pay the musicians a dime, only the studio itself -- how much would it cost to record a half hour or so of good music? What if you and your band members were splitting that cost? Suppose there were four of you. Would that be within reach? I understand that the sales model will always be at least a little different, but as things continue to decentralize through advances in technology, the control of the record companies will decline and record companies themselves will become dinosaurs headed for extinction, nothing surer. |
There is no doubt that the cost of putting together a recording of reasonable quality in the home has been dropping dramatically. This is a big help on the way to a new model of doing business. But one must consider that many musicians are not trained, interested or technically savvy enough to do a good job at recording themselves. There is so much involved that knowing how to do it right is a career in itself. Also, it helps to have a second pair of professional ears to help get the sound right. Many home studios can’t supply properly treated rooms for good recording like a pro studio can. Currently, the best way may be to record basic tracks at home, and then do the sweetening, mixing and mastering in professional facilities.
As for cost, it varies dramatically. I've seen studio costs to record an album vary from $5,000 to $30,000, and it can go much, much higher. I’ve seen a lot of studios that charge around $500.00 a day, and these aren’t necessarily world class. It also depends on the kind of music you are recording. I have at least $30,000.00 invested in my humble little studio, but you can get a reasonable start for a lot less. And I’m sure you know that 1 hour of studio time doesn’t equal 1 hour of recorded music. Even though I work fast, it’s not uncommon for me to invest 40 hours of studio time into a piece of music that is 8 minutes long. And when it comes to producing a professional video, the cost can go through the roof. There will always be those rare artists who can do everything themselves. But so many other good artists will be excluded. That’s why I proposed the co-op idea so artists can share resources and knowledge. I’m with you 100% on moving away from the current model of doing business, but the recording companies still play a valuable role and we need to find a replacement for that, because if you read this you can see what pigs they are. I’ve posted this video before, but it really shows what you miss when recording a self-produced album at home. You can also see the time that goes into producing world class recordings, and the producer’s knowledge is invaluable to this particular artist. I doubt she would get the same results doing this herself at home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMpM-oxoYX8 Knowledge may be a much bigger factor than cost, but both are part of the reality of doing your own recording. |
hmmm....
This conversation slowly went from a failureish idea of Alizee doing a video conference with Alizee(although most of our member's ideas of Alizee-related ideas(also some of mine) are complete failure ideas(besides the Open Letter to Alizee Project)) to how much money it costs to record a cd hahaha
|
Home recording gets darn good; music industry declines
Quote:
------------------------------------------ Quote:
Quote:
It argues that the decline in gross revenue is not coming largely from the efficiency of CD-free virtual distribution... but from massive piracy...Legitimate digital sources accounted for [only] 27 percent of recording industry revenue. Overall gross industry revenue was down to about $15.8 billion in 2009. Does anyone think net revenue hasn't also declined in the last decade? (Albeit I agree that decline would be less dramatic and more useful to read.)Worldwide, the industry federation says, 95 percent of the music downloaded via the Internet is pirated. The implied fallout for artists is stuff like this: In France... the number of albums released by domestic artists has fallen by 60 percent. |
What's the date on that piracy stat?
Edit: Doing the math, those figures seem contradictory. Listing them: Revenues declined 55% over X years (need a date there, too). 27% of revenues are now digital 95% of music is pirated Doesn't add up. If 95% of downloaded music was pirated, that should have resulted in a MUCH larger drop in revenue. What if zero music was pirated (obviously not true, but just playing with numbers here)? If 27% of revenues are now digital, and that alone produced a 55% drop in revenue, then the difference in price from CD to download would need to be .45 * .27 = .12, i.e. downloads cost only 12% of CDs. Reversing the logic: take the actual price ratio and substitute it into that equation, or rather the one solved for it, and you can find what the losses should have been if that price ratio accounted for 100% of it. The difference between that and the actual loss of revenue is what piracy truly accounts for. As for the decline in number of albums released, we see a similar decline in the publishing field. It's not due to piracy, but due to the availability of books published outside the conventional publishing house -- like mine. Are there stats on how much new music is released in non-conventional fashion? |
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, piracy definitely is eating into profits, but I think sometimes statistics are used to exaggerate how much. Say 10 people buy a CD in 2001 and no one pirates, while in 2009 10 people buy a CD and 90 pirate it. Now there's 90% piracy, but profits are still the same and more people have heard the music. Overall I think that's a good thing! Of course I'm over simplifying, and fewer people are buying as well, so it's not so cut and dry. |
Another factor to consider is the quality of the products being offered by the record companies. Maybe sales are partly down because of a lack of imagination and foresight on their part as to what artists they sign and what music they promote. I find myself having to go farther afield to find music that interests me. French pop, for example ;).
It seems that in the past the mainstream would get infiltrated by new musical ideas and undergo a significant change. Each decade seems to have its own sound. But I think this process has slowed down and weakened. I blame it partly on the fact that a few multinational corporations have taken over most of the music industry. I believe the industry was in better hands when it was run by people whose first love was the music itself. Add to that a bored and apathetic music buying public that has less regard for intellectual property rights and has easy access to music without paying for it and you end up with things being as they are today. |
Quote:
Ultimately, the only way out of the bind is going to be the removal of the middleman. |
Quote:
Companies like Sony got wind of this and wanted to get in on this easy money, so they bought up many of the record companies. The situation eventually ran its course and more effort had to go back into new artists and music, but now there was a lot of non-music people running the show. I think that contributed to where we are today, and these are the middlemen between the artist and the public. |
wow....so I see this thread as totally pointless and off track haha. but hey we all run into those. But it is interesting watching you two battle to the death about CD revenues.
|
Quote:
This thread is not "off track" and it certainly isn't "pointless." Did you not understand why the OP presented the idea of the lottery? Does it completely escape your comprehension what that has to do with declining music sales and revenues? Can't you see that the entire idea was to create an alternative way for a musician we admire to make money? And so a general discussion of the realities of the music business is completely on target? Nor is anyone "battling to the death." If you think that Lefty and I have ever behaved towards one another with the slightest degree of animosity, you're completely wrong. We don't even seriously disagree here, and although I remain convinced that the future of the music business just as in publishing is both digital and decentralized, I am inclined to bow to his superior knowledge of the realities of making music as it exists right at this moment. You're the one who's off-track here, not the thread. |
Quote:
1)yes i'm young and this is probably why I look stupid to you. 2)I guess I'm translating this thread in the wrong way. 3)You can ask any of the regular guys like Plaz,Jung,Joey,Uni on chat that I have the weirdest/Totally exaggerated ways of saying what things are like. So yah sorry that "battling to the death." was the wrong choice of words. 4)Maybe I got lost in your guys earlier posts so thats why the whole Lottery all the way to the future of the music business just as in publishing is both digital and decentralized thing. 5)But yah your right, I'm not even contributing to this thread so I'll go, and I have no idea why or how I got in here haha. Sorry If I messed things up, O and I'm really tired and thats the reason I usually write stupid pointless stuff |
@aaroniu31, it's cool, don't worry about it. As Deep said, we are hardly arguing. As a matter of fact we are in pretty much total agreement on the main points of the discussion. I'm just adding a few details from my perspective for informational purposes only. But those details still support Deep's conclusions.
|
yah I guess I just take fact-stating as arguing sometimes haha
|
Recording industry number analyses
Quote:
Quote:
"Legitimate digital sources accounted for [only] 27 percent of recording industry REVENUE." (NOT UNITS) Assumptions: CD-equivalent units purchased per year (N) constant CD prices (P) constant Define: D as the number of non-CD units now sold per year d as the fraction of non-CD units sold now = D/N r is the ratio of the non-CD to CD price for a unit Original revenue R(0) = NP Current revenue R(t) = (N-D)P+D(rP) Stipulating R(t) = (1-0.55=0.45)R(0) meaning [1] (N-D)P+DrP = 0.45NP and stipulating [2] DrP = 0.27((N-D)P+DrP) Divide [1] & [2] by P [3] (N-D)+Dr = 0.45N [4] Dr = 0.27((N-D)+Dr) Divide [3] & [4] by N [5] (1-d)+dr = 0.45 [6] dr = 0.27((1-d)+dr) Solving [5] for d in terms of r [7] 0.55 + d(r-1) = 0 [8] d = 0.55/(1-r) Note d<=1 so therefore r<=0.45 Note r>=0 so therefore d>=0.55 Simplifying [6] [9] 0.73dr = 0.27(1-d) Substitute d from [8] into [9] [10] (0.73x0.55)r/(1-r) = 0.27(1-0.55/(1-r)) Multiply [10] by (1-r) [11] (0.73x0.55)r = 0.27(1-r) - (0.27x0.55) And solve for r [12] (0.73x0.55+0.27)r = 0.27(1-0.55) [13] r = (0.27x0.45)/(0.73x0.55+0.27) = 0.18[0938198064035740878629932985853] Use [8] to obtain d [14] d = 0.6715 To account for the stipulations and assumptions, in round numbers, About 2 of 3 sales have to be non-CD And a non-CD price must be 1/5 of the CD equivalent But aren't ACTUAL non-CD prices always MUCH closer to CD prices? (See below for some documentation of this.) (One interesting possibility is this: Did buyers who liked only one song on a CD always buy the whole CD anyway? If so, then by selling pro rata by the song via non-CD means, sales can fall a lot even in the absence of any displacement by piracy.) ======= For fun I dug out and looked at numbers directly from the RIAA here: http://76.74.24.142/1D212C0E-408B-F7...F5871C369D.pdf as cited at http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...75f2b49bfe450c See the file for subtleties. Note also some slight differences from some previously reported numbers. (in millions) year 2008 Digital Download Album (Units Shipped) 56.9 (Dollar Value) 568.9 => Average price $10.00 (sales of singles are about double in size) Physical Compact Disk (Units Shipped) 384.7 (Dollar Value) 5,471.3 => Average price $14.22 Non-CD album prices are 70% of CD prices (NOT 18% as in the simple model calculation above) Physical (CD-like) units (in millions) by year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 847.0 938.9 942.5 881.9 803.3 746.0 767.0 705.4 619.7 511.1 384.7 CD units in 2008, relative to 1999, are down to 41% (NOT 33% as in the simple model calculation above) % of Shipments (value, not units - RF) 2005 2006 2007 2008 Physical 91% 84% 77% 68% Digital 9% 16% 23% 32% ======= Deep, in fact I do very much appreciate your point about the potential input savings in non-CD distribution. But consumer prices are not very different, as noted above. That was NOT the case for encyclopedias, as I discussed several years ago here: Libraries in transition from paper to electronics And since you are an e-book guy, Deep, you might enjoy the new page I just assembled here: A very incomplete history (500-2010) of intellectual property law, the codex and the e-book ======= Aside: Note when I asked... Would you pay to watch an Alizée video on YouTube? I got some answers like these: "kinda pointless... these days movies, music, etc leak even before they are finished..." "They say that time is money. Considering the time I've spent watching Alizée videos, I would say I've already paid quite a bit." Do you think these answers would make the RIAA feel better? <G> ======= Of course, now there is another challenge facing people who want to earn income creating new art which is entertaining, but not especially of our times. With digital storage and communication now so dirt cheap, ALL of culture from all eras is coming online for instant gratification - some of it free, some ad-supported and some fee-based. The Wall Street Journal has an interesting perspective piece here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126136236068199631.html It notes that now that anyone with a laptop has near-instant access to a near-infinite array of art objects, it's becoming harder for anyone to sculpt the tastes of millions of people into anything remotely resembling a lemming-like consensus. Thus one will compete for the attention of people with damn near everything that has EVER been created - including almost limitless amounts of virtually free stuff out of copyright! |
wow
Quote:
|
Moi... Lolita, the coloring book?!!!
Quote:
But another revenue stream exists for <i>celebrated</i> artists as well. Long before <i>YouTube</i> and other free video hosting sites threatened the legitimate marketing of movies, a wiseman named <i>Yogurt</i> explained the way forward: <center><object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvmZ9SPcTzU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1&showinfo= 0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvmZ9SPcTzU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1&showinfo= 0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object></center> |
Heh. I would totally buy Alizée, The Breakfast Cereal. :p
|
Eating well to grow BIG?
Quote:
By the way, some woman named Ensler or something like that encouraged me to ask you: What would <i>Alizée, The Breakfast Cereal</i> taste like? A brief answer will suffice; there's no need for a whole soliloquy! And you do know that John Harvey Kellogg, MD, invented Corn Flakes™ (the breakfast cereal) to <a href="http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/02/20/100-years-of-fighting-masturbation-one-spoonful-at-a-time.htm">help curb</a> the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#.22Warfare_with_passion.22">"d readed affliction of onanism,"</a> right? (Gosh - and here I had thought that supposedly <i>idle hands were the Devil's instruments</i> - go figure!) Do you think the proposed product would prove at all useful in this regard? P.S. See also <a href="http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?p=149857"><i> Alizée, good enough to eat!</i></a> |
Making money in a "post-Napster" world
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.