179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Brian Behlendorf
To:
- Greg Earle
Cc:
Date:
Tue, 19 Jul 1994 19:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: Ambient to Billboard
Msg-Id:
<Pine.3.89.9407191957.D15030-0100000@taz.hyperreal.com>
In-Reply-To:
<9407200151.AA18133@isolar.Tujunga.CA.US>
Mbox:
idm.9407.gz
On Tue, 19 Jul 1994, - Greg Earle wrote:
quoted 6 lines There's another front page article headed "Time-Warner Companies Making> >There's another front page article headed "Time-Warner Companies Making > >Multimedia Moves" but it's not strictly IDM material (interesting, though). > > See? See? If we don't get the "distribute your music in 44.1/44.8 KHz form > via your Web Home Page" going soon, these bastards will catch on and try to > stop it, or play the game themselves ... arrgh ...
This is off the topic of IDM, but since I am hosting this list I can do this :) I think there will be a position for large established record labels to be in the net for two reasons: 1) Image. Think 4AD records, and what it meant for artists to be on it. That will exist on the net; in fact it'll be even more important on the net. 2) Distribution. Yes, you can put your files up on the net and make it available to 20 million users very easily. But you can't make it available to *every* one of them at once - some elements of the web do scale well, but Michael Jackson won't be able to put his new album on anything less than a T3. So don't count them out :) And in the same way that AOL serves a purpose by getting people interested in reading email and then by incompetence showing them there's a better paradigm to follow, getting majors on the net would be a good way to show bands that they can try doing this themselves :) Brian