United States

This is what government-funded music sounds like:
[url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWD ... re=related[/url]

Most of what I've read here is just more of the same old debate that has been going on in Ameica for years now. Too much hating all the time. I personally can't see why it should be wrong to pay the "ARTIST" who created the work when you go on stage and ride thier coat tails as you build your following by playing a cover. As a matter of fact, BMI, ASCAP, and SECAP are all trying to properly collect the "Royalties" due to the artist who wrote the song when they are performed live. This has nothing to do with government controls. This is called "Properly Compensating" someone for thier work. Ask Metallica. Just because you can steal it, doesn't make it right. The other thing that always bugs me is the idea that if "America" didn't think of it, then it must not be any good. I think it's time we opened our minds again.

Oh...and for those of you who think it's bad for government to "control" things. I think you are missing the part about how "Corporations" control your art. Record companies decide every day which art get to the mainstream. And guess what makes it through every time. Hmmmm....is it true that only the art that can make the most money is good? A good song is a good song, whether 10 peeps like it or 10,000,000. Yet you are controlled by the "Money Men" and happy about it.

Oh...and for those of you who think it's bad for government to "control" things. I think you are missing the part about how "Corporations" control your art. Record companies decide every day which art get to the mainstream.

That's a ridiculous comparison.

Record companies don't sign someone unless they think they can make a profit. No one is forcing an artist to sign with a record company and no one is forcing someone to buy it either. This is why the biz is in a tailspin. They've got a glut of bad music, and it's costing them that the big sellers are having their music stolen online. The market will naturally correct this and we'll either get music worth buying or the company will go out of business and stop producing bad music.

Government, however, is not bound by the rules of the general marketplace. They can keep throwing money at a problem even when it makes it worse...and it ALWAYS does.

Um....i hate to say this but...You just agreed with what I was saying....Art has nothing to do with money....The record companies are only interested in selling you the potato chips! The other thing you missed in the original post is....The gov't subsidises the clubs....I saw nothing saying they control what music is played in them....and...as any good govt in USA.....They are protecting the "Profits" of the musicians and record companies by seeing to it that the proper royalties are paid.
I doubt you are aware of this.....Local and state govts in America charge a fee or tax to bars and clubs to play covers or have a jukebox or DJ.

Screw em all.

I just want to rock.

Um....i hate to say this but...You just agreed with what I was saying....Art has nothing to do with money....The record companies are only interested in selling you the potato chips!

Companies that put out bad music will eventually go under because no one is buying. Not so when Government makes a "product". If no one is buying, they simply raise the taxes so they can do more of it.

The other thing you missed in the original post is....The gov't subsidises the clubs.....

I'd have to see the extent of what they do to subsidize them before I believe that clubs are getting "free money" from the governments of Europe. I already posted what government-funded music looks like just a few posts ago.

Except for the UK, I don't really see any of those other nations producing original sounds or innovative bands. I was at the Brandenborg Tor for Sylvester (New Year's Eve in Berlin) just a year ago and there were THREE bands that played "Take Me Home Country Road" by John Denver. Radio in europe is usually playing the "B Sides" of bad 80's American music.

Hardly a goal worth striving for, imo.

They are protecting the "Profits" of the musicians and record companies by seeing to it that the proper royalties are paid.

RADIO is more controlled by the governments of Europe and therefore, they do pay better royalties because every single song is catalogued. And they do also keep better records of what is being played publicly, whether live or otherwise.

I doubt you are aware of this.....Local and state govts in America charge a fee or tax to bars and clubs to play covers or have a jukebox or DJ.

That's ASCAP/BMI/SESAC charging the fee.

[quote]I'd have to see the extent of what they do to subsidize them before I believe that clubs are getting "free money" from the governments of Europe. I already posted what government-funded music looks like just a few posts ago.

I was simply stating that even though the clubs are subsidized the govt does not control the music....

I do stand corrected for now that govt does not tax music in bars directly....yet. And here is a point we agree on. I don't want this to happen either. However...the bill is already in committe here in the Philly City Council.

At any rate it has been fun hearing all of your opinions...I wish you well

an example of so called "Good Music" chosen by the free market system
2,000,000 copies sold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skU-jBFzXl0
ENJOY!

an example of so called "Good Music" chosen by the free market system
2,000,000 copies sold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skU-jBFzXl0
ENJOY!

Touche'



He always looked like he was holding it, and needed to go the bathroom.

But wasn't that supposed to be funny? Did you see Edward Hill from 1964 Russian TV? They weren't joking...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWD ... re=related

an example of so called "Good Music" chosen by the free market system
2,000,000 copies sold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skU-jBFzXl0
ENJOY!

It could have been much worse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luP_3WI2BaU