Author Topic: Musicological banter  (Read 1564275 times)

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 22474
  • 12x MVP, and yet I don't belong here.
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4155 on: August 11, 2025, 05:04:28 pm »
I'd imagine in a near future, shows will be a thing of the past unless you're hearing sweet caroline at an Irish bar in Claredon.

i imagine a future where only the Big Boys & Big Girls can tour.  if you can't charge $50 a ticket or more (preferably much, much more), and sell some minimum of number of tickets (1,000?), then your ass is staying home and maybe - just maybe - you can occasionally play a local venue (but you won't make much, because you're a local nobody who doesn't tour).  apparently the cut-off is somewhere above Camper Van Beethoven.

same ol' story of haves vs. have-nots, with the gap between them getting wider and wider.
<sig>

Yada

  • Member
  • Posts: 12214
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4156 on: August 11, 2025, 05:34:15 pm »
somewhat related - https://www.instagram.com/p/DNOHnIQNK_0/?img_index=1
damn that's a sad tale and not sure how anyone is going to make a living touring unless small club shows are now $75

although they signed the contract, 4 bands played and only 46 people bought tix for $15
the venue and their staff need to get paid as well, their bills don't stop either
plus people are drinking a lot less at shows (well when it costs $75 to get a buzz, I can see why)


I don’t understand why venues don’t lower beer prices and simply use kegs. What am I missing? Sorry if I am being a moron. I think they would sell a lot more and more than make up the difference. Have venues proved that beer consumption at shows is price inelastic or something?

When I first started going to 9:30 you could get a Bud bottle for $3.

People wouldn't be able to hit space in the head with bottles if it was just plastic cups.

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 5679
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4157 on: August 11, 2025, 06:06:22 pm »
True….

I just assume beer is cheaper to produce and put in a keg….so when I see all these bottles and cans at venues I wonder


Yada

  • Member
  • Posts: 12214
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4158 on: August 11, 2025, 06:12:47 pm »
True….

I just assume beer is cheaper to produce and put in a keg….so when I see all these bottles and cans at venues I wonder

The issue is the beer will most likely taste like shit... most places that aren't "beer" focused don't clean lines, mix styles on the same lines, etc

Julian, Hyperpop SLUTFUCK

  • Member
  • Posts: 29719
  • 11x MVP, 1st Posts, HoF, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4159 on: August 11, 2025, 06:24:14 pm »
somewhat related - https://www.instagram.com/p/DNOHnIQNK_0/?img_index=1
damn that's a sad tale and not sure how anyone is going to make a living touring unless small club shows are now $75

although they signed the contract, 4 bands played and only 46 people bought tix for $15
the venue and their staff need to get paid as well, their bills don't stop either
plus people are drinking a lot less at shows (well when it costs $75 to get a buzz, I can see why)


I don’t understand why venues don’t lower beer prices and simply use kegs. What am I missing? Sorry if I am being a moron. I think they would sell a lot more and more than make up the difference. Have venues proved that beer consumption at shows is price inelastic or something?

When I first started going to 9:30 you could get a Bud bottle for $3.

People wouldn't be able to hit space in the head with bottles if it was just plastic cups.
Its the little things we lose in the name of progress that really hurt.
LVMH

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 5679
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4160 on: August 11, 2025, 06:30:25 pm »
Still advertised on facebook


hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 5679
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4161 on: August 11, 2025, 06:35:03 pm »
True….

I just assume beer is cheaper to produce and put in a keg….so when I see all these bottles and cans at venues I wonder

The issue is the beer will most likely taste like shit... most places that aren't "beer" focused don't clean lines, mix styles on the same lines, etc


Yeah I did think of that…it’s true too

Some consumers probably prefer cans and bottles

I been burnt a few times myself….

It just seems very inefficient and anti-environmental

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4162 on: August 12, 2025, 03:11:12 pm »
slack

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 16052
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4163 on: August 15, 2025, 02:44:28 pm »
not sure how  fusing doom, shoegaze, and sludge becomes “fairy doom", but that's description Faetooth came up with.
T.Rex

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4164 on: August 15, 2025, 02:49:00 pm »
Def Leppard's "Rock Of Ages" begins with a voice that says "Gunter Glieben Glauten Globen," which means...nothing.
Producer Mutt Lange got tired of counting the band in with "1, 2, 3, 4...," so he started saying this.
slack

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 16052
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4165 on: August 20, 2025, 03:17:31 pm »
Pro tip don't call your band or self Smoke... I think the highest Smoke artist on discogs is Smoke(131)

this all came about because one of the areas Qobuz isn't so great on is artists that share the same name and for some reason it thinks of the many Smoke's is similar to Splitsville...
T.Rex

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4166 on: August 22, 2025, 10:05:15 am »



After getting back the rights to his songs after 50 years, @JohnFogerty has pulled a @taylorswift13 and released #Legacy - revamped versions of some of the most well known and beloved songs in rock history.

It is still familiar, but it isn’t Creedence - there are a lot of little changes, mostly for the better. The production is great and the Atmos/Lossless version on Apple Music adds a whole new dimension of hidden notes, especially to the more dangerous, darker songs.

It will take a listen or three to get used to, but the beauty is that we have the old and ‘John’s Version’ now.

album.link/i/1814697485
slack

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 5679
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4167 on: August 22, 2025, 11:09:00 am »
Isn’t this the opposite of Taylor Swift? He got the rights back while her recordings were the result of not having the rights.

This is a very petty move by John to cut out the rest of CCR from profiting even a dime from the songs.

John really needs to get over it. I been hearing about his woes from 40 years!!!

Julian, Hyperpop SLUTFUCK

  • Member
  • Posts: 29719
  • 11x MVP, 1st Posts, HoF, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4168 on: August 22, 2025, 11:41:20 am »
Isn’t this the opposite of Taylor Swift? He got the rights back while her recordings were the result of not having the rights.
I am ruling this Factually & Contextually Correct.
LVMH

grateful tagle zuppi pizzaboli

  • Member
  • Posts: 11197
  • 👤 👩 👦 📷 📺
    • Wait, the entire rest of the internet exists and you CHOOSE to post here? Who hurt you?
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #4169 on: August 22, 2025, 11:50:14 am »
File under: sympathy for the billionaires