Zukan wrote:We have a future?
Hang on, I’m supposed to say that!
Moderator: Moderators
Albatross wrote:The future is sitting there waiting to be made. Or, if you believe in the 'block universe theory' then time is just an illusion and the future is already there waiting for us linear thinking apes to step in and discover it.
Either way we're all doomed.
Airfix wrote:The future of the pro audio industry may not be music - Can you imagine that?
Arpangel wrote:Airfix wrote:The future of the pro audio industry may not be music - Can you imagine that?
Yes I can, and it’s been like that for ages, music has been an adjunct to other things for a long time, not the focal point.
Yes, there’s still a lot of music being made, but it’s not a major part of the current Zeitgeist, like it used to be.
It’s video, it’s gaming, it’s films, it’s advertising, it’s ring tones, call waiting music, background, not foreground, it’s not a major changing force in peoples lives anymore.
we await the next Elvis - you never caught a rabbit
MOF wrote:we await the next Elvis - you never caught a rabbit
“ You ain't never caught a rabbit”, a strange lyric. Putting aside the use of ‘ain’t’ instead of ‘haven’t’ it’s a double negative, so the hound dog did catch a rabbit.
Recorded in Mono!!
The Red Bladder wrote:
Fortunately for all of us, it is what goes on in front of a camera that costs real money! That alone spares us from the equivalent of the plinky-plonk noises that pass for music coming from bedroom studios everywhere. (Though there's enough dross on YouTube - some of which I am creating!)
The Red Bladder wrote:The cost of equipment is almost nothing when compared to the cost of real talent.
Hugh Robjohns wrote:As an industry I would agree that the money is no longer in recording artists and bands for their own sake. It's now moved heavily into soundtracks for games, especially, and films/ big-budget-TV.
awjoe wrote:The Red Bladder wrote:
Fortunately for all of us, it is what goes on in front of a camera that costs real money! That alone spares us from the equivalent of the plinky-plonk noises that pass for music coming from bedroom studios everywhere. (Though there's enough dross on YouTube - some of which I am creating!)
I'd like you to elaborate on this. I don't see a dollar cost associated with what goes on in front of the camera. That's talent, and talent doesn't cost money. It costs something, sure - but that isn't measured in dollars. I mean, I've got a certain amount of talent (laugh if you like, but it's more or less true), and what it's cost me has got nothing to do with money.The Red Bladder wrote:The cost of equipment is almost nothing when compared to the cost of real talent.
Yeah, but what does it cost, in dollars/poinds/yen to develop talent? It's not financial, it's psychological. Look, one of the reasons I'm engaging you is because I like what you say in your posts. I want to know what you think. What's the cost of real talent?
awjoe wrote:What's the cost of real talent?
blinddrew wrote:Well, a big name actor or actress will cost you several million dollars for their time. That's your dollar cost. You hope that their name on the poster will pay for itself in terms of getting people to turn up and you hope that their talent will ensure a good set of reviews to enable you to make your next movie.
If you want the proverbial 'all star cast' then you multiply that budget many times.
Aled Hughes wrote: They also don’t charge £100/hour for sessions either.