Members acesclone Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 WHEN BANDS START PUTTING OUT ALBUMS AGAIN WHERE ALL THE TUNES ARE AT LEAST DECENT I'LL BUY. IN THE MEANTIME I'LL PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TUNES I AQUIRE. I mean 99% of what passes today for an album is pure S**T! What happened to the days when bands put out a great album a year.....sometimes TWO A YEAR! Nowadays they take up to 5 years to put out garbage with one or two decent songs and a pile out crap for the rest. Have some pride. Make GOOD music. Thank you for your concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by acesclone WHEN BANDS START PUTTING OUT ALBUMS AGAIN WHERE ALL THE TUNES ARE AT LEAST DECENT I'LL BUY. IN THE MEANTIME I'LL PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TUNES I AQUIRE. I mean 99% of what passes today for an album is pure S**T! What happened to the days when bands put out a great album a year.....sometimes TWO A YEAR! Nowadays they take up to 5 years to put out garbage with one or two decent songs and a pile out crap for the rest. Have some pride. Make GOOD music.Thank you for your concern Dear Assclown, that's great. You'll steal {censored} to listen to, you just won't buy it. If it sucks so bad, why do you want it at all? So I guess the issue is not that the music sucks, it's just that you don't want to pay for it. Thanks for clearing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thescham Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 You can alway buy a song for $.99 from Apple's new iTunes music store. Windows version coming later this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members buzzcut Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by acesclone WHEN BANDS START PUTTING OUT ALBUMS AGAIN WHERE ALL THE TUNES ARE AT LEAST DECENT I'LL BUY. IN THE MEANTIME I'LL PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TUNES I AQUIRE. I mean 99% of what passes today for an album is pure S**T! What happened to the days when bands put out a great album a year.....sometimes TWO A YEAR! Nowadays they take up to 5 years to put out garbage with one or two decent songs and a pile out crap for the rest. Have some pride. Make GOOD music.Thank you for your concern Why should anyone take your advice to have "pride" when you think it's okay to steal something that belongs to someone else? Other than that, I'll go along with what BlueStrat said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spinman Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 We're so happy you freed up some bandwidth from your file stealing to troll here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Skirmish Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 You can listen to any Cd you would want to buy at the store. If you don't like it and think it's crap: DON'T BUY IT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Skirmish You can listen to any Cd you would want to buy at the store. If you don't like it and think it's crap: DON'T BUY IT!!! Not if it's not available in stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Let me ask this: Is there any differance between a radio station playing a song on the radio, and you recording it, and downloading the song? Radio is essentially free to anyone with a radio. Much like MP3 software, people can find stuff to listen to for free. Now, I don't hear ANYONE complaining about radioplay. (unless they aint getting any.) File sharing is the same concept. It's more promotion for the BAND. Do record companies lose any money if the radio plays a song? NO. It's the same with MP3's. They aren't losing any money. In fact, it's win-win for the band. They get a chance to be heard all over the world, and they could potentially get hundreds or thousands of new fans that probably would have never had the chance to listen, if the ONLY way to get the music was to go and pay $20 of their hard earned money. If it's so bad, and taking so much money away from the bands, why aren't bands screaming and crying that the radio stations are GIVING AWAY THEIR MUSIC FOR FREE TO ANYONE WITH A RADIO???!?!?!?! It's the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members buzzcut Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kreatorkind Let me ask this: Is there any differance between a radio station playing a song on the radio, and you recording it, and downloading the song? Radio is essentially free to anyone with a radio. Much like MP3 software, people can find stuff to listen to for free. Now, I don't hear ANYONE complaining about radioplay. (unless they aint getting any.) File sharing is the same concept. It's more promotion for the BAND. Do record companies lose any money if the radio plays a song? NO. It's the same with MP3's. They aren't losing any money. In fact, it's win-win for the band. They get a chance to be heard all over the world, and they could potentially get hundreds or thousands of new fans that probably would have never had the chance to listen, if the ONLY way to get the music was to go and pay $20 of their hard earned money. If it's so bad, and taking so much money away from the bands, why aren't bands screaming and crying that the radio stations are GIVING AWAY THEIR MUSIC FOR FREE TO ANYONE WITH A RADIO???!?!?!?! It's the same thing. Radio stations pay a fee for every song they play. Unless you pay a fee for downloading someone's music, it's not the same thing. If the owners of the music don't mind, there's no problem but the point is that people who download these songs make no distinction. They just take what they want without regard to the owner's wishes. I understand what you are saying about music that's not available in stores - at least I can understand why someone would download those songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by buzzcut Radio stations pay a fee for every song they play. Unless you pay a fee for downloading someone's music, it's not the same thing. If the owners of the music don't mind, there's no problem but the point is that people who download these songs make no distinction. They just take what they want without regard to the owner's wishes.I understand what you are saying about music that's not available in stores - at least I can understand why someone would download those songs. That's true, the radio stations do pay a fee. But the end user doesn't. And the radio stations provide copywritten material for free. They get money for it from advertising dollars. There's a lot of sites that give away music for free download, and make their money from advertising. As far as I can see, its the same thing. MP3 filesharing = Radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members buzzcut Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kreatorkind That's true, the radio stations do pay a fee. But the end user doesn't. And the radio stations provide copywritten material for free. They get money for it from advertising dollars. There's a lot of sites that give away music for free download, and make their money from advertising. As far as I can see, its the same thing. MP3 filesharing = Radio. The one thing you're missing, even though you acknowledged it, is the fact that radio stations do pay to play. They pay, downloaders don't (unless they use a pay site). I realize everything else may be equal but those licensing fees add up really fast for the artists and their labels, especially in the case of a top 40 hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 True, but why is it MY responsibility as a consumer to check if the provider has paid the proper fees to provide me with that music? I don't go to a radio station, and say: "Hey {censored}er, you didn't pay the RIAA the royalties for 'Livin on a prayer', and I heard it! YOU MADE ME BREAK THE LAW YOU {censored}!" Of course not, because it's retarded to even try to hold the end user accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BryanMichael Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 I'd like to know when these mythical "good old days" were when bands put out all these great albums? I'm 33 and I sure don't remember every song on every album being great consistently with few exceptions. That's why they invented "Greatest Hits" collections. Just because you may have been a fan of one band or another and liked most of what they put out- that is IMPOSSIBLE for the record companies to decide beforehand. If you want to blame someone, blame the artists. Did you know that a band usually writes about 30 songs or more before they select the 10-12 that goes on an album? Those 10 or 12 are usually the BEST they can do, if you don't like them fine, but let's not try to blame the industry for that. Before the days of AOR (Album Oriented Rock for those who never knew a world without MTV) Record Companies would put out SINGLES for artists to get airplay and "hits". You still HAVE to "chart a single" to make money. Think about all the bands that come out in a year..go to a used CD shop and browse the bins if you need inspiration. You may remember about 10 bands from any given decade that put out a consistent product out of literally thousands, so when were these good old days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members buzzcut Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kreatorkind True, but why is it MY responsibility as a consumer to check if the provider has paid the proper fees to provide me with that music? I don't go to a radio station, and say: "Hey {censored}er, you didn't pay the RIAA the royalties for 'Livin on a prayer', and I heard it! YOU MADE ME BREAK THE LAW YOU {censored}!" Of course not, because it's retarded to even try to hold the end user accountable. You are not a consumer unless you are *buying* something. Your responsibility as an end user is to obey the law and deal with the consequences if you are caught disobeying the law. In no way does this absolve those who are providing the mechanism for the file sharing. They are probably going to get nailed a lot worse than the end users and they should be. Should the courts decide that as long as the provider pays a fee for the downloads, you can get them free, downloaders will be off the hook. Somehow, I don't think that will happen though. We can debate all day long about whether a given law is reasonable (and I would certainly agree that many are not) but the fact remains that if people can't make a living creating music, all that would be left are "hobbyists" like us. This would create quite a void in our lives wouldn't you agree? Naturally, people will always create music but most of the ones making a living at it are doing it better than most who are not - with a few exceptions of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 You know it! There was no "good old days" there has always been a few good to great bands, and a hellofalotof absolute {censored} released. The only differance now is because of the technology, there's a lot more {censored} to wade thru to find the few good to great bands. It may suck for the good bands, but it's not gonna help whining about it. Just work harder and get yourself out there. New bands should be completely embracing the MP3 format. With minimal promotion you can get your music heard, and possibly generate new fans ALL OVER THE WORLD. Which, will come in handy if you get to the point where you can tour. Wouldn't it be nice if you're from chicago, and go play a show in Idaho, and already have a fan base there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Buzzcut: let me rephrase that... instead of "consumer" it's "listening public". I'm not responsible for checking up on who's paid fees, and who hasn't. I shouldn't be held accountable for someone providing for free something that they didn't pay for. If there's every pretense that it's LEGAL, like everything i've ever seen, then how is one supposed to tell the differance between Napster and the Radio? as far as an end user is concerned, they're both providing music to me for free. So, just like I'm not gonna go check up on WLUP, or WKQX, I'm not gonna go check up on Napster, or Kazaa. It's not my responsibility to do so, and I shouldn't be held accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scubyfan Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kreatorkind Not if it's not available in stores. you can listen to stuff online, and buy them from the "physical" store. towerrecords, amazon, and some others have samples you can listen to before you go out and buy stuff. it has worked for me for the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members buzzcut Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kreatorkind Buzzcut: let me rephrase that... instead of "consumer" it's "listening public". I'm not responsible for checking up on who's paid fees, and who hasn't. I shouldn't be held accountable for someone providing for free something that they didn't pay for. If there's every pretense that it's LEGAL, like everything i've ever seen, then how is one supposed to tell the differance between Napster and the Radio? as far as an end user is concerned, they're both providing music to me for free. So, just like I'm not gonna go check up on WLUP, or WKQX, I'm not gonna go check up on Napster, or Kazaa. It's not my responsibility to do so, and I shouldn't be held accountable. I agree with most of your logic except that the main difference is between what the radio provides vs. what the mp3 provides. The radio provides the songs over airwaves, not a "tangible" recording. This fact is indeed the real difference. If the mp3 sites offered the songs in streaming audio rather than a downloadable format, I'd say your point is valid. Sure you can record the songs from the radio broadcast but think about what kind of quality recording you're really going to get. Plus, you gotta hope the DJ isn't talking over the songs at the begining and the end - not exactly quality material for your home collection. Granted, mp3's are not exacty an audiophile's dream but are good enough for the majority of listeners. This actually prevents sales of legitimate CD's. Let's face it, other than people who are truly looking for an alternative to radio, people are not usually downloading "Joe Schmo live at the Avalon." They are downloading mainstream aritists whose songs have been ripped from a commercial CD to MP3. Therefore, they don't have to go out and buy the music they like. Not true for the radio. That's the intent of the radio - to play songs you like so you'll by the albums. Now for artists who don't get airplay, they will probably encourage you to download their songs - at least some of them. And why not? It's a great way of getting your music heard. The bottom line is, the choice should be made by the person who owns the music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members raveneye Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Well, as Donald Rumsfeld said recently (and I'm paraphrasing loosely): "They have freedom now. When somebody has freedom, that means they're free to break the law. And that's what they're doing." So filesharers are certainly free to break the law, to protest overpriced crappy CDs. And the RIAA is free to sue them for doing it, if they think they'll win. And the filesharers are free to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is free to reinterpret the law. And somebody else is free to break the new law, in protest, if they want. And we're all free to sit here in the peanut gallery and argue about it all . . . Isn't America great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members buzzcut Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by raveneye Well, as Donald Rumsfeld said recently (and I'm paraphrasing loosely): "They have freedom now. When somebody has freedom, that means they're free to break the law. And that's what they're doing." So filesharers are certainly free to break the law, to protest overpriced crappy CDs. And the RIAA is free to sue them for doing it, if they think they'll win. And the filesharers are free to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is free to reinterpret the law. And somebody else is free to break the new law, in protest, if they want. And we're all free to sit here in the peanut gallery and argue about it all . . . Isn't America great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 12, 2003 Members Share Posted June 12, 2003 That's a scary thought... (that Rumsfeld thinks that way...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spinman Posted June 13, 2003 Members Share Posted June 13, 2003 I've said it before and I'll say it again; people who are pro-file sharing remind me of people who want marijuana legalized. They come up with all these arguments and rationales, some sensible, some convoluted. They quote statistics, legal judgements, moral platitudes, historical facts, etc etc etc. At the end of the day, the pro-cannabis crowd doesn't care about stronger rope or medical uses, they just want to toke up without being hassled. And at the end of the day, pro-file sharers don't care about intellectual property issues, bettering the record industry, supporting artists, or high ideals of freedom. They just want stuff that they don't have to pay for. Between the two, I think the potheads make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kreatorkind Posted June 13, 2003 Members Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by spinman I've said it before and I'll say it again; people who are pro-file sharing remind me of people who want marijuana legalized. They come up with all these arguments and rationales, some sensible, some convoluted. They quote statistics, legal judgements, moral platitudes, historical facts, etc etc etc. At the end of the day, the pro-cannabis crowd doesn't care about stronger rope or medical uses, they just want to toke up without being hassled. And at the end of the day, pro-file sharers don't care about intellectual property issues, bettering the record industry, supporting artists, or high ideals of freedom. They just want stuff that they don't have to pay for.Between the two, I think the potheads make more sense. Let me make one thing crystal clear... I have NEVER, EVER in my ENTIRE LIFE ever downloaded something that I could go buy in a store. I would never do it. I just feel very strongly that filesharing is a good medium for artists to expose their work to people that otherwise would have never heard it. It should be protected, and encouraged as a way to spread new music. {censored} money. {censored} the RIAA. A real artist, and a real performer doesn't need record sales, they only need fans that love what they do, and when they have that, they fill venues, and that's where their money comes from. It's a system where the really good bands can rise to the top, while if your a {censored} band, you won't have some record company pumping a million dollars into promoting you to the kiddies. So, it'll either force the crap bands out of music, or it'll force them to push harder, and make better music. If a band is completely awesome, and only a hundred people know about it, does it really matter? No. But, you can take that same awesome band, and with filesharing and the internet, they can be heard ALL OVER THE WORLD, at a very very minimal cost and promotion to the artist. If they don't suck, the music will speak for itself. They won't have to be on the radio, or MTV to reach people, and actually be very (financially, or creatively) successful. So, no, I don't defend file sharing because i just want that britney spears album for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spinman Posted June 13, 2003 Members Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by Kreatorkind Let me make one thing crystal clear...I have NEVER, EVER in my ENTIRE LIFE ever downloaded something that I could go buy in a store. I would never do it. Good for you! You are a rarity.I just feel very strongly that filesharing is a good medium for artists to expose their work to people that otherwise would have never heard it. It should be protected, and encouraged as a way to spread new music. {censored} money. {censored} the RIAA. A real artist, and a real performer doesn't need record sales, they only need fans that love what they do, and when they have that, they fill venues, and that's where their money comes from. It's a system where the really good bands can rise to the top, while if your a {censored} band, you won't have some record company pumping a million dollars into promoting you to the kiddies. So, it'll either force the crap bands out of music, or it'll force them to push harder, and make better music. If a band is completely awesome, and only a hundred people know about it, does it really matter? No. But, you can take that same awesome band, and with filesharing and the internet, they can be heard ALL OVER THE WORLD, at a very very minimal cost and promotion to the artist. If they don't suck, the music will speak for itself. They won't have to be on the radio, or MTV to reach people, and actually be very (financially, or creatively) successful. Let me give you my point of view. I was in a good band, if I do say so myself. But then, I don't say so myself. We had plenty of fans to say that for us. Our mp3's were available on the net, legally and free. We played live shows and drove crowds nuts. Eventually we split up because we were losing money and couldn't keep it going. Your ideas are nice but they don't work in the real world. Fans are fickle. If this is truly your point of view, then my comments are not aimed at you. And I don't see how file sharing fits into this equation. Anyone who wants to make an mp3 available on the internet can. Legally. No problems. The problem is when people take it upon themselves to do it for the band; and not just a "promotional single", but the whole album. When I was in a band, we lived and died by every CD sale. I was shocked how many times kids told me to my face, "Nah, I don't want to buy it; I'll just make a CDr of her copy". This stuff about the best bands rising to the top is a nice bit of utopian fantasy. People don't want to pay much for live music. If live shows are the real money-making for bands, then why do record companies typically provide "tour support" to bands? Why do bands get corporate sponsorship for tours? I toured for 5 years, and I lost my ASS. So, no, I don't defend file sharing because i just want that britney spears album for free. Once again, I applaud you, but you are the exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.