Date:         Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:39:33 -0700
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <002501c7c60c$b8fddaa0$6b01a8c0@TOMOFFICE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

--- Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

*** A smart negotiator doesn't inflame a negotiation
by asking for something he knows well the other party
cannot ever, under any circumstances, deliver.

Or as my father the attorney used to say, "don't waste
your time trying to sue someone who can't pay."

It seems to me that the business of being a musician,
from the inception of recording, has been a history of
diminishing returns. Is this "right." It depends on
your prespective. If radio stations had to pay for
live music, we wouldn't have music on the radio. If
every theater had to have an orchestra, we wouldn't
have music with our motion pictures, or incidental
music with plays.  

If we did not have recordings we might attend concerts
more often, and there might be more of them. We might
be used to paying more for our music...or would we
listen as much?  I rather think we would have a
greater appreciation for the music we hear and would
listen more carefully. But, with canned music, well
the can has been opened.
 
What I would find helpful in these discussions is
information telling me how much of that money paid for
a broadcast ends up in the musician's pocket. Also, is
the payout process done through "statistically"
correct surveys? Or as I like to think of it, the rich
get richer syndrome.

Karl