"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a17055e@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > >   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?

> > As much as it costs to create one CD of software. Pennies.

>   I didn't ask "how much does it cost to create one CD?"

>   I asked "how much does it cost to create one CD *of music*". There's
> a big difference. Making the music costs money.
>
>   However, my point is that it costs *nowhere* near the budget of a
> blockbuster movie.

There are some movies that cost in the 100 millions, many more that cost
much less. It's a broad spectrum.

> Not even if you rent an entire opera house and an
> entire philarmonic orchestra (which is, btw, what most movies do
> *besides* everything else; the music CD doesn't need the "everything
> else").

I'm not seeing what you are getting at. When all is said and done, are you
saying movie actors and producers end up earning less than musicians and
music producers? That doesn't compute. Movies typically have bigger budgets,
but they also bring more revenue in a very short period and there's not as
much competition. Practically half of the population may go see Star Trek or
Terminator in a weekend. No music concert or CD enjoys such sales. In the
end, you have to look at how each industry is thriving. I don't see music
industry in general leading a more luxurious existance than movie industry,
or sports industry, should you wish to bring them in too. But all do make a
handsome living, because entertainment in general has high demand. Business
models are not comparable. Musicians cannot make money by having their CDs
played in theatres, so of course they need to sell the CDs at a higher price
than if they could. If movie theatres disappeared and if actors needed to
make money either via live performances or DVD sales alone, the DVD prices
would not be the same.

Post a reply to this message