Log In
Register
3.13am
19 September 2010
Offline
Mr. Kite said
Nothing on the CT @mr. Sun king coming together?
I honest to God saw it, made a note to comment, and then forgot.
My response to that would be two fold; if not them (EMI), someone else; if not then; sometime soon.
The CT scan would have been developed, whether by EMI or someone else, probably around the same time. The money EMI made on the Beatles would still have been made – teens still would have bought music. It’s not like preteen girls would have been buying stock. (As someone who reads far too much economics for a 17 year old, I’m thinking about this way too in depth.)
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
3.30am
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline
The thing is, the research was done by EMI, so had it not been them how would others have figured it out? They were the specific people with that idea and had a good plan to go about it.
I’d agree that someone else could’ve invented it soon if the research was already done and public knowledge in the science world, neither of which were true. The research originated at EMI and was paid for with money The Beatles earned.
Big effect, and in the science/medical world of all places.
3.36am
19 September 2010
Offline However, EMI would still have earned the lion’s share of that money by virtue of being a huge record label in England (fine, the UK). Those girls buying the Beatles singles and LP’s would still be buying music – most likely EMI music – if there were no Beatles around to spend it on.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
3.46am
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said
However, EMI would still have earned the lion’s share of that money by virtue of being a huge record label in England (fine, the UK). Those girls buying the Beatles singles and LP’s would still be buying music – most likely EMI music – if there were no Beatles around to spend it on.
Even though that would probably be true (the other bands earning money), it was the amount of money The Beatles earned that allowed EMI to give generous amounts to research. They wouldn’t have been so easily able if not for this particular group.
3.54am
19 September 2010
Offline I must not be being clear – and I’m sorry for that. Let me use some numbers.
Assuming EMI paid all their bands the same royalty rate (ignoring that I’m really quite sure they didn’t…), and The Beatles earned EMI 5M quid in a year after royalty payments… if the Beatles didn’t exist, EMI would probably kept 4M quid of that in increased sales from other bands. That money still would have been earned by EMI and spent on research.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
4.04am
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline In your hypothetical you’re saying The Beatles earned the 5M quid, and if they didn’t exist EMI would’ve “kept 4M quid of that.”
If they didn’t exist, there would be no “of that” to take a percentage of.
If in fact you mean they would’ve earned 4M from bands other than the Beatles, that means:
No Beatles = 4M quid total.
If you’re saying The Beatles alone earned the hypothetical amount of 5M quid, then:
Beatles + others = 9M quid.
These numbers would probably be much bigger if they were realistic, but ignoring that, in this example The Beatles more than doubled the amount EMI music earned. (In reality they did a lot more than that.) By giving that much extra money to the company it’d be a lot easier for them to spend money on the science department.
4.08am
19 September 2010
Offline Nononononononononono. That’s not what I mean. If the Beatles didn’t exist, the money that the people who spent it on the Beatles in real life would have spent it on different music. It’s basic economics. That money that in real life was spent on Beatles music would have been spent on different music and still get back to the same source (EMI)
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
4.13am
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said
Nononononononononono. That’s not what I mean. If the Beatles didn’t exist, the money that the people who spent it on the Beatles in real life would have spent it on different music. It’s basic economics. That money that in real life was spent on Beatles music would have been spent on different music and still get back to the same source (EMI)
Or it would’ve possibly went to other things teens were interested in. The audience buying Beatles records wasn’t necessarily that same one buying the other music EMI was putting out, if The Beatles brought in a large amount of revenue from fans who weren’t interested in other acts belonging to EMI, that same money would not have gone to the same place.
4.14am
19 September 2010
Offline And I’m pretty sure my assumption is correct. Now, let’s return to the actual question from here out.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
4.38am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline I didn’t buy music before The Beatles entered my life. I’m thinking EMI made bucket loads from Beatles sales that they wouldn’t have made otherwise.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Mr. KiteCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
4.43am
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline 
mr. Sun king coming together said
And I’m pretty sure my assumption is correct. Now, let’s return to the actual question from here out.
I am addressing the topic, just because it doesn’t agree with your viewpoint doesn’t make it irrelevant. If you aren’t going to accept that there are valid points other than yours, there’s really no point in starting a discussion where all you will get is opposition.
If you’re just going to assume everything you think is right whenever someone else starts to make sense, then I don’t know what point you’re making by starting this conversation.
The following people thank Mr. Kite for this post:
parlance4.47am
19 September 2010
Offline Mr. Kite said
mr. Sun king coming together said
And I’m pretty sure my assumption is correct. Now, let’s return to the actual question from here out.
I am addressing the topic, just because it doesn’t agree with your viewpoint doesn’t make it irrelevant. If you aren’t going to accept that there are valid points other than yours, there’s really no point in starting a discussion where all you will get is opposition.
(my italics) I wasn’t saying you were off topic. I was saying I had taken us down a cul de sac, and as there was no way either of us were going to agree, leaving it as a disagreed upon respectfully point was the smartest path in my opinion. If you want to accuse me of that which I’ve italicized, go right ahead. I’ll just quote my disclosure from thread’s top; “This is going to be controversial – I accept that, and I’m willing to engage anyone in a good faith debate about this.”
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
4.53am
Reviewers
4 February 2014
Offline Hey, respectful disagreement is fine and all, but dismissing a point in favor of yours:
mr. Sun king coming together said
And I’m pretty sure my assumption is correct.
isn’t really doing that is it?
I think I’ll just leave this thread alone, but whether or not EMI would’ve earned money from other sources, they did in reality earn it from The Beatles which lead to my first point.
If The Beatles weren’t around and the other Parlophone bands’ revenue lead to the CT, then I’d say they were responsible for things other than music.
The following people thank Mr. Kite for this post:
parlance1.25am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline I decided to look up some statistics to see if I could support your assumption, mr. Sun king coming together. I’m not an economics expert nor a Beatles expert, but from what I am reading, I cannot support your assumption that EMI would have made as much money without The Beatles. They were EMI’s “cash cow”. Please see the information in these two links.
If I am not interpreting these statistics correctly, I will happily be corrected.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Mr. Kite, parlanceCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
2.48am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said
Nononononononononono. That’s not what I mean. If the Beatles didn’t exist, the money that the people who spent it on the Beatles in real life would have spent it on different music. It’s basic economics. That money that in real life was spent on Beatles music would have been spent on different music and still get back to the same source (EMI)
No it’s not basic economics sorry. They may well have substituted a different form of entertainment, or something else entirely, which may have been far far from EMI. If I didn’t have my hundreds of Beatles CDs there are no other ones I would have bought instead.
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:
Mr. Kite==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
3.51am
14 December 2009
Offline
I thought it was a basic assumption among everyone that the market for rock music exploded in the wake of the Beatles’ unprecedented success – that the very transformation of the music business into the music INDUSTRY could be laid at their feet.
The following people thank Von Bontee for this post:
Mr. KitePaul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
3.57pm
22 September 2014
Offline The predicate of sun King’s argument is that the demand for pop music (and more specifically, pop music produced by EMI) was static, meaning that if the buying public were not buying Beatles’ music, they would buy music of other artists in equal quantities. The intuitive reaction of we Forumpudlians is that the assumptive predicate is invalid–that the Beatles created a swelling market for pop music that did not exist before their wild popularity became a massive worldwide phenomenon. So, is there any objective evidence to support the idea that the Beatles created a new and much larger economic market?
Here is an interesting article on the subject by a professor of macroeconomics: https://diorlace3.wordpress.co…..e-economy/.
The following people thank georgiewood for this post:
Mr. KiteI say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did'.
Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake, 1997
4.15pm
8 November 2012
Offline georgiewood said
So, is there any objective evidence to support the idea that the Beatles created a new and much larger economic market?
Ahhh Girl provided some above.
parlance
The following people thank parlance for this post:
Ahhh Girl12.25am
19 September 2010
Offline I stand corrected. My basic assumption was seemingly wrong (as the articles above show). In that case, what the hell do I know?
The following people thank mr. Sun king coming together for this post:
meanmistermustardAs if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
2.54am
10 August 2011
Offline
Well, you know what you don’t know – which puts you far ahead of many.
The following people thank Into the Sky with Diamonds for this post:
parlance, meanmistermustard, C.R.A."Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
3 Guest(s)