[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Organising a tour of the band that no-one has heard of is not going to make great record sales, is it. First there has to be exposure and when you are big enough, THEN the live shows and tours promote albums.

Well it's HAS worked again and again. Yes it takes a long time, but live work generates a following that then buys albums. You tour to sell albums, you don't make albums to tour.

Every heard of SUPPORT SLOTS?

That is the quickest way to play in front of a new audience.

That's rather arrogant considering that you are hardly an international success yourself (let alone a national success). Perhaps I'm not the only one who needs to do some research?

LOL! That depends on your definition of success Skunk. I'm more than happy with what I've achieved in my homeland and now here in the USA. I have SUCCEEDED in what I set out to do, so am by definition successful.

Because the lack of a fair-use copying clause is stunting sales. I know, I know. It was the point that I was making.

Show proof or retract. You are completely incorrect and posted nothing, no proof no argument, no firsthand experience, no figures that in anyway support your nonsensical assertion.

So U2 were just born big and there were no other big bands around at the time when they started out? One day Bono just wrote a song and 2 billion people bought it? I can assure that was not the case - and that taping albums for personal use did not harm his sales or the growth of U2. Irish artists also compete against US and British bands and have EVEN Smaller record sales than in Austrailia.

Heard of the "Tyrrany of Distance?"

The proximity to London make a huge difference. So does being part of the E.U. (now) Touring in Europe and England and even America, were and still are, much easier for an Irish band than for one from Australia. Costs, time away, dollar exchange, familiarity with cultural trends, visa difficulties etc etc etc.

If I recall correctly U2 used the fact that Adam Clayton was English to their advantage too.

Contrastingly, many an Australian has been sent home simply for bringing a guitar in to England on a tourist visa.

Exactly my point. Exposure under the Austrailian system can only be achieved with BIG BUCKS (unlike in Ireland).

Additional comparisons of Australia to Ireland are also like comparing apples and oranges, considering the Australian cultural penchant for all things sporting, the Irish weather, the history of Irish music, the forementioned proximity to London and Europe, the geographical distances in Australia that make internal touring prohibitive, and so on and so on. You cannot compare the two.

No-one should ever be exposed to a band that is NOT owned by a large corporation and we should all DO OUR BEST to keep the exposure of small bands down to a minimum (we wouldn't want anyone to hear a sample of a small band because that could lead to people buying records or going to concerts).

No that's not what I said. I simply doubt that you copying a bands CD does anything for that band.

By the way, getting a CD collection insured in Europe is like trying to get insured against acts of terrorism - prohibitively expense if you can find a willing insurer.

Then revert to points 1 and 2.

The point is why should laws that protect people from having millions stolen from them, be revoked so other won't lose $1000. Doesn't make sense.

[ 02-10-2004, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]