Gilmour says McCartney is cheap
Posted by: garyi on 10 February 2004
In a newspaper today David Gilmour says he has so much money that he dosn't know what to do with it, hense why he gives millions each year to charity.
He also says that McCartney should do more for charity.
Do you agree?
He also says that McCartney should do more for charity.
Do you agree?
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by kevinrt
I don't know how much McCartney gives to charity.
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by garyi
I guess the asumption we need to draw from this is that Gilmour does know how much McCartney gives, and he feels he is tight.
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Jez Quigley
quote:
David Gilmour says he has so much money that he dosn't know what to do with it
Perhaps David and Paul could encourage their record companies to stop charging outrageous prices for 30/40 year old music
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Cheese
Somewhat cheeky
AFAIK Macca does (did ?) an impressive lot of charity work with his Friends Of The Earth and other foundations.
And donations are everyone's own business to begin with - thank you for your efforts Mr Gilmour but please let other people decide by themselves what they do with their wallet.
Cheese
AFAIK Macca does (did ?) an impressive lot of charity work with his Friends Of The Earth and other foundations.
And donations are everyone's own business to begin with - thank you for your efforts Mr Gilmour but please let other people decide by themselves what they do with their wallet.
Cheese
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Emil F
Are you sure this thread doesn't belong to the Padded Cell?
Emil
Emil
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Rasher
I know last year David Gilmour decided with his missus that the house in London was too big for them, so they gave it away to a childrens charity. WADRAAJAATBE, he is a serious charity giver and a gentle nudge to others is no bad thing.
Talking of prices of old stuff, nothing costs as much as Beatles CD's. Rubber Soul is still in the shops for top price for instance. No discounts for Beatles stuff.
(of course I'm biased because DG is one of my heroes)
Talking of prices of old stuff, nothing costs as much as Beatles CD's. Rubber Soul is still in the shops for top price for instance. No discounts for Beatles stuff.
(of course I'm biased because DG is one of my heroes)
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Bob McC
Considering how much money he has made with so little talent writing glorified advert jingles I think Mr Macca should give 90% of his brass away.
Bob
Bob
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Martin D
McCartney
Is supposed to bring in about £250m a year and I think he's a complete donkey and waste of skin.
He should stop dyeing his hair black it makes him look the fool he is.
Martin
Is supposed to bring in about £250m a year and I think he's a complete donkey and waste of skin.
He should stop dyeing his hair black it makes him look the fool he is.
Martin
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Ross1
In my personal opinion..
Music stars are making too much money. But it is the same for Baseball players, soccer, F1, Movie stars, etc....
What bugs me a lot is that they criticise the system but they are doing a lot of money. It's a business like any other economic sector.
That doesn't mean that they should play for nothing. But there is a big difference for a CD at $20. vs $10. for a kid that likes music; or a show at $60. vs $30.
Music stars are making too much money. But it is the same for Baseball players, soccer, F1, Movie stars, etc....
What bugs me a lot is that they criticise the system but they are doing a lot of money. It's a business like any other economic sector.
That doesn't mean that they should play for nothing. But there is a big difference for a CD at $20. vs $10. for a kid that likes music; or a show at $60. vs $30.
Posted on: 10 February 2004 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by Ross1:
Music stars are making too much money.
Considering how much record labels are making off them, how much do you think musicians should be making?
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Andrew L. Weekes
quote:
Perhaps David and Paul could encourage their record companies to stop charging outrageous prices for 30/40 year old music
What about the new stuff, they're just as bad here.
I'm no big fan of McCartney, but I'm not so sure he's as public about his charitable donations as Gilmour.
Andy.
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by woodface
I really hate it when celebrities bang on about all the work they do for charity etc. What Mr Gillmore gave is probably the equivalent of me donating a tenner a month yet you hardly expect me to go on about it. I think it is fair to say that PM has been majorly ripped off in the past and if anything is worth full price it is the Beatles back catalogue. To call McCartney talentless as one scribe did is simply idiotic; he has probably written more classic songs than anyone else although I will concede his post Beatles work has been disappointing!
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by greeny
Not read the Gilmour interview, but I don't think he should be naming names w.r.t charitable donations. PM has done lots in the past and it's totally down to him what he does or doesn't give, and I very much doubt that DG knows the full picture.
As for stars getting too much, well if someone like PM doesn't earn a lot from music when who should? I think it's far from easy for musicians to make a long term career from the industry.
As for PM having no talent,
, O Please!!!
Also he seems to have his head less up his own orifice than many in his position.
As for stars getting too much, well if someone like PM doesn't earn a lot from music when who should? I think it's far from easy for musicians to make a long term career from the industry.
As for PM having no talent,
, O Please!!!Also he seems to have his head less up his own orifice than many in his position.
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by greeny:
Also he seems to have his head less up his own orifice than many in his position.
This would be corroborated by musician friends of mine who tour with Brian Wilson and have had quite a bit of contact with McCartney over the years ... they say he's the real deal and as sweet as can be.
Also, if he's not talented, no one is. Lots of artists, in all mediums, produced great masterpieces when they were younger but have not continued to do so in their later years. It happens all the time. But that doesn't invalidate what they had achieved before.
Posted on: 11 February 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by fred simon:
Lots of artists, in all mediums, produced great masterpieces when they were younger but have not continued to do so in their later years. It happens all the time. But that doesn't invalidate what they had achieved before.
Like Brian Wilson, Peter Green and Jimi Hendrix, (although now having changed his name to Morgan Freeman is now doing very well as an actor.
)Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Ross1
I agree with you Fred, records companies are making a lot of profit too.
That's why sites like Kazaa or CD copies will always exist.
I don't like that because the artists should receive something for the "creation" but not the amount that they receive today.
That's why sites like Kazaa or CD copies will always exist.
I don't like that because the artists should receive something for the "creation" but not the amount that they receive today.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by fred simon
Ross, again I would respectfully ask, how much do you think artists should make?
Under the best of contracts, most artists make between US$1-2 in artist's royalties per album sold; huge stars get more, but many artists get well under $1. Against these royalties, however, most huge record labels charge almost every expense imaginable: the cost of recording the album, associated promotional costs including the making of videos, promotional tours, etc. Even when artists sell significant numbers, they rarely see a dime of it until they start to sell in the millions of units.
Songwriters/publishers share mechanical royalties, which at highest are about US$.08 per song per album. These are theoretically paid from the first unit sold, but most corporate record labels have ways of siphoning off and/or reducing these as well. But let's say they don't ... the writer/publisher share would be at best about $.80-$1 per album (depending on how many songs on the album, there is usually an industry-standard cap of 10 songs paid). Does that really seem like too much, all things considered?
Regarding Kazaa, copying, etc. the reason they will always exist is because it's human nature to get something for free whenever possible, even if unethical. Lots of folks point to the ever climbing retail price of CDs as justification for stealing, but take a look at the cost of going to the movies ... here in the USA currently near or at $10. When I was a kid, we paid $.25 (I feel like Grandpa Simpson saying that). Or look at the cost of automobiles now versus 30 years ago ... if people could somehow "download" an auto for free, virtually anonymously, millions upon millions would do it, yes? But would it be right?
Under the best of contracts, most artists make between US$1-2 in artist's royalties per album sold; huge stars get more, but many artists get well under $1. Against these royalties, however, most huge record labels charge almost every expense imaginable: the cost of recording the album, associated promotional costs including the making of videos, promotional tours, etc. Even when artists sell significant numbers, they rarely see a dime of it until they start to sell in the millions of units.
Songwriters/publishers share mechanical royalties, which at highest are about US$.08 per song per album. These are theoretically paid from the first unit sold, but most corporate record labels have ways of siphoning off and/or reducing these as well. But let's say they don't ... the writer/publisher share would be at best about $.80-$1 per album (depending on how many songs on the album, there is usually an industry-standard cap of 10 songs paid). Does that really seem like too much, all things considered?
Regarding Kazaa, copying, etc. the reason they will always exist is because it's human nature to get something for free whenever possible, even if unethical. Lots of folks point to the ever climbing retail price of CDs as justification for stealing, but take a look at the cost of going to the movies ... here in the USA currently near or at $10. When I was a kid, we paid $.25 (I feel like Grandpa Simpson saying that). Or look at the cost of automobiles now versus 30 years ago ... if people could somehow "download" an auto for free, virtually anonymously, millions upon millions would do it, yes? But would it be right?
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Rasher
The big sellers pay for new bands to have their chance. I would hate to just have Elton John CD's at the supermarket checkout as the only music available. The big sellers who end up loaded are a very, very small percentage of all the musicians out there trying to make a living.
Hey...how about a 99% income tax rate? That'll do it!
Somebody makes it really successful - So what, what's the problem?
Now Ross, if you want to talk about footballers...
Hey...how about a 99% income tax rate? That'll do it!
Somebody makes it really successful - So what, what's the problem?
Now Ross, if you want to talk about footballers...
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
Hey...how about a 99% income tax rate? That'll do it! ...
One for you, nineteen for me....I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack...
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and Happy
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Ross1
Fred,
I don't have the distribution of costs and profits on a CD; very hard to tell you what should be the part of every party in the process.
My point is that the costs of producing a CD is lower than the cost of producing vinyl; all tenants of the industry agree on that. But the price to the consumer has increase a lot when the shift was made from vinyl to CD. In the beginning they were saying that the costs were hight because the production was on a low scale; but now that they have economies of scale the price is still at the same level.
Personnally, I think that the price on a CD should be around $11-$12. and they should invest more on the packaging. When we were buying vinyl, the packaging was as interesting as the disc. Remember the Beatles White albun with all the photos included. Stones Sticky Fingers album,..
At the actual price, record companies and artists (not all) are making more profits. That's why so many peole are making copies. And in doing so, does not respect the artists.
But it's human like you are saying; if you have the perception that you don't have a lot for the price you are paying, you will try to have copies.
I don't have the distribution of costs and profits on a CD; very hard to tell you what should be the part of every party in the process.
My point is that the costs of producing a CD is lower than the cost of producing vinyl; all tenants of the industry agree on that. But the price to the consumer has increase a lot when the shift was made from vinyl to CD. In the beginning they were saying that the costs were hight because the production was on a low scale; but now that they have economies of scale the price is still at the same level.
Personnally, I think that the price on a CD should be around $11-$12. and they should invest more on the packaging. When we were buying vinyl, the packaging was as interesting as the disc. Remember the Beatles White albun with all the photos included. Stones Sticky Fingers album,..
At the actual price, record companies and artists (not all) are making more profits. That's why so many peole are making copies. And in doing so, does not respect the artists.
But it's human like you are saying; if you have the perception that you don't have a lot for the price you are paying, you will try to have copies.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by Ross1:
But it's human like you are saying; if you have the perception that you don't have a lot for the price you are paying, you will try to have copies.
Ross, I respectfully disagree. I think millions of people are downloading and copying music they dearly love, that would be worth every penny to them if they had to pay for it, simply because they can. In my view, what's human nature is to get away with something if there's little risk of getting caught.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Ross1
Sorry, I disagree
I personnaly make copies of CD's via P2P sites or directly from a original CD's because the price is too high. And before that I was making copies of CD's on cassette.
I really like the originals, specially for remastered, HDCD or SACD. So, I use a copy until the time there is a sale discount. Sorry but I find that a CD over $15. is too expensive for what I got.
My son is 20 and he has probably bought two CD's in the last year. He is still going to school and the price is too high for him. So one of the "gang" buy the CD and they are all making copies for the others; they are not even going through P2P sites.
Conclusion, that's not only a question of being caught..the idea is that when something is too expensive and you really want it, you will try everything to get it. When they will reduce the price, there will be less incentives to download or copy.
Look at Microsoft. Lot of people are making copies of their software. Why ? the price is too high.
I personnaly make copies of CD's via P2P sites or directly from a original CD's because the price is too high. And before that I was making copies of CD's on cassette.
I really like the originals, specially for remastered, HDCD or SACD. So, I use a copy until the time there is a sale discount. Sorry but I find that a CD over $15. is too expensive for what I got.
My son is 20 and he has probably bought two CD's in the last year. He is still going to school and the price is too high for him. So one of the "gang" buy the CD and they are all making copies for the others; they are not even going through P2P sites.
Conclusion, that's not only a question of being caught..the idea is that when something is too expensive and you really want it, you will try everything to get it. When they will reduce the price, there will be less incentives to download or copy.
Look at Microsoft. Lot of people are making copies of their software. Why ? the price is too high.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by fred simon
Ross, I really want a Hamburg Steinway piano, but I can't afford it. I think they're too expensive. Would I be justified in stealing it?
It's the ease and anonymity of copying/downloading that allows people to avoid the ethical question of whether it's right or wrong.
It's the ease and anonymity of copying/downloading that allows people to avoid the ethical question of whether it's right or wrong.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
If you stole one, then this would be bad.
If you could magically *duplicate* one leaving the original in situ.....
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and Happy
If you could magically *duplicate* one leaving the original in situ.....
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and Happy
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by greeny
Ross - I'm not totally convinced by your argument.
Clearly more CD's would be sold if the price was lower I would certainly buy more, however for those that download a lot I'm not convinced price of CD's is the main issue. Ok you say £13 (or whatever) is too expensive for a CD and justify downloading for free, but if you can download for free at what price are you likely to stop, Why pay £5 if you can download for free, In fact why pay £1.
I use the internet for samples, and I use sales as a means to reduce prices hence I very rarely pay more than £10 for a CD in the UK (in retail stores). When CD's were launched they were just under £10 at a time when vinyl was about £6-7. CD's were hence overpriced. However this was 15 -20 years ago. Now most new releases are £10 -£13 with back catalogue being £8-£16. If you look around and are slightly picky most albums can be found for around £10. Compaired to £10 in 1988 this I do not feel is overpriced.
Clearly more CD's would be sold if the price was lower I would certainly buy more, however for those that download a lot I'm not convinced price of CD's is the main issue. Ok you say £13 (or whatever) is too expensive for a CD and justify downloading for free, but if you can download for free at what price are you likely to stop, Why pay £5 if you can download for free, In fact why pay £1.
I use the internet for samples, and I use sales as a means to reduce prices hence I very rarely pay more than £10 for a CD in the UK (in retail stores). When CD's were launched they were just under £10 at a time when vinyl was about £6-7. CD's were hence overpriced. However this was 15 -20 years ago. Now most new releases are £10 -£13 with back catalogue being £8-£16. If you look around and are slightly picky most albums can be found for around £10. Compaired to £10 in 1988 this I do not feel is overpriced.