Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?
> > 
> >> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the musician 
> >> plays.
> > 
> >   Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.

> Instruments, kitting out a studio, staffing it with talented 
> professionals, paying their wages while they edit the music down, mix 
> it, work with the artist(s) to make it sound right. The guys who send 
> the mixdown to the fab where the CDs get pressed. The graphic artists 
> who design the cover. The PR people who promote the thing once it's on 
> the shelves.

  I'd say something along the lines of 100 *thousand* dollars. Not
100 *million* dollars.

  I'd say three orders of magnitude of difference is even generous.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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. 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").

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>>>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?
>>>> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the musician 
>>>> plays.
>>>   Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.
> 
>> Instruments, kitting out a studio, staffing it with talented 
>> professionals, paying their wages while they edit the music down, mix 
>> it, work with the artist(s) to make it sound right. The guys who send 
>> the mixdown to the fab where the CDs get pressed. The graphic artists 
>> who design the cover. The PR people who promote the thing once it's on 
>> the shelves.
> 
>   I'd say something along the lines of 100 *thousand* dollars. Not
> 100 *million* dollars.
> 
>   I'd say three orders of magnitude of difference is even generous.

OK, I think I can agree with that.

It doesn't cost anywhere near as much money to make music as it does to 
make a film. (Films, after all, typically *include* music.) I was just 
saying that making music is nowhere near as cheap as it sounds.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> saying that making music is nowhere near as cheap as it sounds.

Man, with today's tech at cheap prices, virtually anyone can own their 
own recording studio.  Aside from that, music *composition* takes years 
of training, but is basically the musician and his instrument while 
sketching it away.  Later it's just a matter of hiring some extra 
musicians and perhaps sound engineers to do the recording and editing. 
And then virtual distribution through some music store.  Hardly 
multi-million shattering.

That is, if all you want is just some honest cash by music-making, 
without resorting to multi-million marketing pushing you and your band 
as the latest teen idol and junk seller.

The recording industry truly is not needed anymore.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> Man, with today's tech at cheap prices, virtually anyone can own their 
> own recording studio.  Aside from that, music *composition* takes years 
> of training, but is basically the musician and his instrument while 
> sketching it away.  Later it's just a matter of hiring some extra 
> musicians and perhaps sound engineers to do the recording and editing. 
> And then virtual distribution through some music store.  Hardly 
> multi-million shattering.
> 
> That is, if all you want is just some honest cash by music-making, 
> without resorting to multi-million marketing pushing you and your band 
> as the latest teen idol and junk seller.
> 
> The recording industry truly is not needed anymore.

Well, theoretically I *have* a recording studio in my bedroom. It 
doesn't sound too hot though. That's either because my stuff is rubbish, 
or - more likely - I'm not a highly trained professional recording 
engineer. I doubt those guys will ever become obsolete. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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. 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").

And the price of CDs are *nowhere* near the price of movie DVDs either, but
I'll grant you it's quite a different factor.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 May 2009 16:00:15 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009 17:03:12 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> >   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?
>> > 
>> >> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the
>> >> musician plays.
>> > 
>> >   Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.
> 
>> Think symphony orchestra.
> 
>   All music CDs are created by a symphony orchestra?

<sigh>  No.  It's called an example.

>   Even if it was so, a symphony orchestra does *not* cost 100 million
> dollars. Heck, even an entire opera house built from scratch is probably
> not going to cost that much. (And even if it were, it's not like they
> would have to build one opera house per CD.)

The relative difference in costs still doesn't make it any more or less 
right for the rights-holder to protect their investment.  If I invest $1 
in something that I own the rights to, I have just as much right to 
protect that investment as Warner Bros. does on any film they create.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:09:07 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Web hosting?
>>>
>>> You *can* host a website from a laptop in your house, connected to the
>>> Internet via ADSL. I've done it. But it works *really* badly...
>> 
>> I do it today on 3 Mbps ADSL, works OK for my uses.  Largely depends on
>> the traffic you're expecting (and that you ultimately get).  Your site
>> must've been *really* popular. ;-)
> 
> More like... my site is only available when I remember to turn my laptop
> back on. (And when my mum doesn't turn it off because the whirring of
> the fan is annoying her. Or because she's whining about how much
> electricity it uses.)

Makes sense.  I actually moved to a new server for my own website because 
the fan on the old one was driving me crazy. :-)

And I didn't have enough memory really for what the system was doing.

> Actually, 98% of my traffic consisted of HTTP GET requests for a URL
> that's about 64 KB long... so, I'm guessing it's trying to exploit some
> sort of buffer overrun vulnerability? (Which Apache presumably doesn't
> have.)

Well, it may have one, but not the one that was being tried. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"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

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   The music industry is really, really greedy.
> 
>>  From what I hear, the film industry is not much different...
> 
>   At least the film industry has more reason for their actions. After all,
> if you pour 100 million dollars into making one single movie, you have some
> good motives to protect your rights.
> 
>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?

The first one costs a lot.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message