Jump to content

Accountability within the music industry


Recommended Posts

  • Members

So, are you saying that only young head-bangers and lightning fast guitarists are worthy of performing?


I admit, hearing the Cascades doing a newer version of "Listen to the Rhythm of the Falling Rain" is not my idea of great entertainment, there are lots of highly skilled forty-year-old musicians out there gigging and writing some excellent original tunes.


One thing that sucks about rock and roll is that attitude. Maybe your post did not mean to sound that way, but, you have basically dis'd every performer above forty.


Funny, in jazz and blues, in folk-rock and country-folk genres age adds respect and shows that people who write about life have actually lived it long enough to write about it from experience.

 

:thu::cool:

 

Aaaah, youth. Cant live with em, cant live without em.....:lol:

 

I hire players to back up acts all the time. I RARELY hire anyone under 30.:lol: No experience. In my 40s I am a MUCH better musician than in my 20s. Why would anyone NOT be? Its twenty more years of experience.:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

So, are you saying that only young head-bangers and lightning fast guitarists are worthy of performing?

 

 

I didn't get n that from him. I heard him talking about 40 year old guys picking up where they left off at 25 when they quit, thinking they still have a ligit shot at making it in the modern music biz. I have to agree with him. It ain't gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I didn't get n that from him. I heard him talking about 40 year old guys picking up where they left off at 25 when they quit, thinking they still have a ligit shot at making it in the modern music biz. I have to agree with him. It ain't gonna happen.

 

 

The 40 year old will have a more realistic view of what to expect and is probably doing it more for enjoyment. For all we know, he has as much chance making it as a songwriter as a 20 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The 40 year old will have a more realistic view of what to expect and is probably doing it more for enjoyment. For all we know, he has as much chance making it as a songwriter as a 20 year old.

 

As a songwriter, sure...but you'd be surprised at how many late 30s-early 40s guys I see who still want to go out on tour and send their records to labels in hopes of getting signed. :freak:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

How do you learn those covers? Sure, you might own a few CD's, but I'll tell you here and now, I REFUSE to go out and purchase "Cracked Rear View" to learn "Let Her Cry" by Hootie and the Blowfish. What's more, as a "working musician" (defined as one who supplements earned income from a "traditional" job source with playing gigs) I don't own (can't afford) an iPod, mp3 player, or what have you. I STEAL single songs from file-sharing programs and use them as a learning tool.


Does that make me accountable for robbing Darius Rucker of

 

 

This is a great comment and legitimate issue that you have introduced to the debate. I feel that it's okay to utilize file sharing programs to an extent...but when you exploit them it can become a risk for the original creators of the works you're sharing in addition to their financial backing. Nonetheless, I understand your point. Technology is technology. It has its ups and downs and can be used for positive objectives or negative ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is a great comment and legitimate issue that you have introduced to the debate. I feel that it's okay to utilize file sharing programs to an extent...but when you exploit them it can become a risk for the original creators of the works you're sharing in addition to their financial backing. Nonetheless, I understand your point. Technology is technology. It has its ups and downs and can be used for positive objectives or negative ones.

 

 

When I want to learn a song, I either borrow the CD from someone :idea:, or I download it from itunes for 99 cents. :idea: :idea: Since I'm going to be making money off of it, it isn't going to kill me to pay the writer and/or original performer for the privilege.

 

Saying anyone has to steal it to get it in 2008 is not a legitimate argument. And if it's some obscure rare import deal that isn't on itunes, why the hell would anyone want to put it in a cover band anyway? :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't get n that from him. I heard him talking about 40 year old guys picking up where they left off at 25 when they quit, thinking they still have a ligit shot at making it in the modern music biz. I have to agree with him. It ain't gonna happen.

 

This is essentially my point. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When I want to learn a song, I either borrow the CD from someone
:idea:
, or I download it from itunes for 99 cents.
:idea:
:idea: Since I'm going to be making money off of it, it isn't going to kill me to pay the writer and/or original performer for the privilege.


Saying anyone has to steal it to get it in 2008 is not a legitimate argument. And if it's some obscure rare import deal that isn't on itunes, why the hell would anyone want to put it in a cover band anyway?
:idea:

 

1) We can't assume that an artist will always make money from performing or recording a cover. Many artists perform covers out of tribute or respect to another band. Why pay for a single when you don't intend to make money off it and make it a permanent addition to your set list?

 

2) For some people, paying for every single song they cover is just an inconvenience. Borrowing a cd from a friend may be a feasible option, but even then you can go to youtube or myspace and just stream the song for free and in the comfort of your own home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Chances are good that if you are covering a song, you are familiar with it to the point that you like it. Given that, is stealing it really necessary? Why not use tabs or just lyric and chord sheets.

 

I am dead-set against stealing the tune (recording), but, I think it only damages the business when they try to close down lyric catalogs and tab sites like they have done. That just makes it harder for guitarists to learn the songs and may even compel them to steal the recording to use as a learning tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1) , but even then you can go to youtube or myspace and just stream the song for free .

 

Good point.:thu:

 

The worst thing about pirates: usually, there is a legit and FREE way to do the same thing.:rolleyes: Youtube is legal and free. In the software world, there is almost always a freeware program that can do EXACTLY what the $400 one you ripped off does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Reading this was really, really enriching.

 

I'm 18 and have always illegally downloaded music, since I was 10 basically. Why? I grew up in an ex-URSS country and there money is a BIG issue. You can't just go around and buy CDs and expect to have enough money to feed your family. I live in France currently. If I buy a CD and tell it to somebody in my home country, they go "PFFF. Like how dare you spend money on that". People don't give a damn about this stuff, so for some population even in the USA it's understandable.

 

As with everything, upbringing matters, and in that your generation failed to raise good CD buying kids. :p

 

Also when I download something, I don't feel like it harms the artist. How could it harm Nickelback that I didn't pay for their latest album? Oh, yeah, they won't be able to buy a new Ferrari if 10 000 of their downloader fans bought their albums. I see how it affects the industry in the long run, the mentality that it creates, but in the short run I have my stuff for free and keep more money for whatever... Quite sad isn't it? :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just read an article in our local paper about a series of free shows that occurred in my town. My band performed in this series...let's say it was a less than glamorous experience. Nevertheless, I started thinking about the concept of the free show and download. What it all boils down to me is one thing. Accountability. We hold "fans" accountable for very little. They don't buy our cds, so we make them free. They don't buy merch. We make that free. Hardly anyone goes out to the shows...eventually those become free. There is a trend of not holding fans responsible for their own odd purchasing habits. Does my favorite local sandwich vendor jack down his price when I don't feel like forking over the $5.15 for a pastrami and rye? No. But that doesn't take away the problem of "accountability" within the industry. Who do you think is most responsible for NOT making fans feel irresponsible? The labels, bands, management, the fans themselves...input please
:snax:

 

I think most of the accountability comes back to the fans, especially the ones who expect music to be free (or have little to no value) and the musicians who have allowed the fans to convince them that they should just give away their product. We may have thought that the record labels were robbing us blind, but at least they believed that our talent and products had some value and were willing to pay us. Our fate when left in the hands of our fans, seems to be even worse than the one the labels offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When I want to learn a song, I either borrow the CD from someone
:idea:
, or I download it from itunes for 99 cents.
:idea:
:idea: Since I'm going to be making money off of it, it isn't going to kill me to pay the writer and/or original performer for the privilege.


Saying anyone has to steal it to get it in 2008 is not a legitimate argument. And if it's some obscure rare import deal that isn't on itunes, why the hell would anyone want to put it in a cover band anyway?
:idea:

:thu:

A cover band, starting from scratch, would need about 60 songs to do a 4 hour gig with a few breaks thrown in. That's less than a $60 investment for all the material to be performed. If there's more than one person in the band, then the divided cost is half that, maybe less. I just can't understand how that's a prohibitive cost, and I'm no elitist rich guy by any stretch of the imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Also when I download something, I don't feel like it harms the artist. How could it harm Nickelback that I didn't pay for their latest album? Oh, yeah, they won't be able to buy a new Ferrari if 10 000 of their downloader fans bought their albums. I see how it affects the industry in the long run, the mentality that it creates, but in the short run I have my stuff for free and keep more money for whatever... Quite sad isn't it?
:mad:

 

I'm a guy who does session work on albums. I dont drive a Ferrari, I have a 99 Pontiac.:cry: You're ripping me off too. I worked hard learning an instrument to the highest level, something you havent done. What you are really doing is ripping off guys like me, ordinary guys who are the backbone of music.

 

Your sense of entitlement is amazing. Somehow, you feel that anything you want should be yours, and paying for it is not worthy of you. Part of the fun of buying records was earning them when I was 18. You actually had to save money, and your musical choices were actually important. You miss that because you feel the world owes you and you are entitled.

 

I got bad news for ya pal: you are entitled to nothing.;) You'll learn that later in life, when life passes you buy and you arent prepared for it. You have to work for stuff. Your gonna figure that working hard to get a good job is for others, and you're entitled to one. Wrong. Guys who feel that way usually end up wearing paper hats at Burger King. Or Le Burger Roi in France.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

:thu:
A cover band, starting from scratch, would need about 60 songs to do a 4 hour gig with a few breaks thrown in. That's less than a $60 investment for all the material to be performed. If there's more than one person in the band, then the divided cost is half that, maybe less. I just can't understand how that's a prohibitive cost, and I'm no elitist rich guy by any stretch of the imagination.

 

+1

 

and a cover band is probably already covering songs they like which means they already own the album... so it's even less of an investment.

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Reading this was really, really enriching.


I'm 18 and have always illegally downloaded music, since I was 10 basically. Why? I grew up in an ex-URSS country and there money is a BIG issue. You can't just go around and buy CDs and expect to have enough money to feed your family. I live in France currently. If I buy a CD and tell it to somebody in my home country, they go "PFFF. Like how dare you spend money on that". People don't give a damn about this stuff, so for some population even in the USA it's understandable.


As with everything, upbringing matters, and in that your generation failed to raise good CD buying kids.
:p

Also when I download something, I don't feel like it harms the artist. How could it harm Nickelback that I didn't pay for their latest album? Oh, yeah, they won't be able to buy a new Ferrari if 10 000 of their downloader fans bought their albums. I see how it affects the industry in the long run, the mentality that it creates, but in the short run I have my stuff for free and keep more money for whatever... Quite sad isn't it?
:mad:

 

What did I tell you guys? Kids are like this today... They expect music to be free. When you pay for it, you're a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

and a cover band is probably already covering songs they like

 

 

Not really. (You want what the audience is going to dance to.)

 

To be honest, it's nice to talk about ethics. But I *haven't* run into a cover band that hasn't used downloads. Or, in older times, copied radio songs onto cassette tape. Many Youtube streams, FYI, are also illegal.

 

.99 really is nothing, but we live in a world where it's actually more convenient to use the illegal services. Hmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What did I tell you guys? Kids are like this today... They expect music to be free. When you pay for it, you're a loser.

 

 

Whats amazing is how the story changes. At first it is " I dont have any money". Then it is:

but in the short run I have my stuff for free and keep more money for whatever...

Not only a thief but a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Many Youtube streams, FYI, are also illegal.


FYI, no they are not.:rolleyes: Not on your end. If someone is illegally hosting something on youtube, your job is not to be a lawyer and figure out what is legal and what is not. It's youtube's job. If someone swears on network TV, it isnt your fault. Its theirs.

 

.99 really is nothing, but we live in a world where it's actually more convenient to use the illegal services. Hmmm...

 

Ummmm, waiting in line to buy a cassette tape in 1980 was very inconvenient too. It would have been more convenient to just stick it in your pocket and leave.;) Yet, it would have been asanine to see any human being attempt to use that bull{censored} excuse as justification. Woe is the one that has to wait 12 more seconds for the I-tunes download, how inconvenient.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Your sense of entitlement is amazing. Somehow, you feel that anything you want should be yours, and paying for it is not worthy of you. Part of the fun of buying records was earning them when I was 18. You actually had to save money, and your musical choices were actually important. You miss that because you feel the world owes you and you are entitled.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Just because "money is scarce" is reason to justify taking something? :freak:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Part of the fun of buying records was earning them when I was 18.

 

 

the first thing i did when i got paid from my very first job was buy dokken's "under lock and key" on vinyl. it was such a great feeling; it's still one of my favorite albums (man, did i just give away my age?).

 

-PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FYI, no they are not.
:rolleyes:
Not on your end. If someone is illegally hosting something on youtube, your job is not to be a lawyer and figure out what is legal and what is not. It's youtube's job. If someone swears on network TV, it isnt your fault. Its theirs.

 

This argument worked very well with Napster. :cop:

 

Practically, the main difference between you watching an illegal video on Youtube and you downloading an illegal file on a file-sharing network is that you get a physical copy with the later method of which you know about the location. (You *download* that Youtube video technically, except that it goes to a cache directory that only geeks tend to know about.) The artist doesn't get paid either way.

 

Ummmm, waiting in line to buy a cassette tape in 1980 was very inconvenient too. It would have been more convenient to just stick it in your pocket and leave.
;)

 

Or tape it off the radio, which runs that nice quasi-legal boundary as well.

 

This isn't to justify these sorts of things... it's just the way the industry is. We can moan about it more, I suppose. I'm looking forward to solutions other than writing off the industry due to a generations' cheapskatedness (like cheapskates didn't exist in other generations). Until then, I'll enjoy my music hobby. :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm a guy who does session work on albums. I dont drive a Ferrari, I have a 99 Pontiac.
:cry:
You're ripping me off too. I worked hard learning an instrument to the highest level, something you havent done. What you are really doing is ripping off guys like me, ordinary guys who are the backbone of music.


Your sense of entitlement is amazing. Somehow, you feel that anything you want should be yours, and paying for it is not worthy of you. Part of the fun of buying records was earning them when I was 18. You actually had to save money, and your musical choices were actually important. You miss that because you feel the world owes you and you are entitled.


I got bad news for ya pal: you are entitled to nothing.
;)
You'll learn that later in life, when life passes you buy and you arent prepared for it. You have to work for stuff. Your gonna figure that working hard to get a good job is for others, and you're entitled to one. Wrong. Guys who feel that way usually end up wearing paper hats at Burger King. Or
Le Burger Roi
in France.
:lol:

 

Wait until he has kids, and they think they're entitled to take money out of his wallet or use his credit card to buy gas for their car that they don't pay the insurance on, etc etc...Wonder if he'll change his tune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This argument worked very well with Napster.
:cop:

Practically, the main difference between you watching an illegal video on Youtube and you downloading an illegal file on a file-sharing network is that you get a physical copy with the later method of which you know about the location. (You *download* that Youtube video technically, except that it goes to a cache directory that only geeks tend to know about.) The artist doesn't get paid either way.




 

Nor does the artist get ripped off. Since many "official" videos are put up by the labels, its their choice to air it, hoping it will spur sales. It is not quasi-legal, it is absolutely 100% positively legal. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

Or tape it off the radio, which runs that nice quasi-legal boundary as well.

Apples and oranges. For those of use who were actually there :lol:, it cost good money for a quality 45 minute cassette, about half of what the album cost. The quality was crap too. It was hardly an ideal situation.

 

I'm looking forward to solutions

 

If you dont think the RIAAs actions toward pirates have had SOME results, you are mistaken. Some people are scared to death to download illegally now. Not many of course, but some are. The "solution" is to actually teach values to the youth of America (and apparently France too:lol:).

 

Someday, people may be able to download tangible things like baseball gloves and spark plugs. When that day comes, the world ends.:eek: As BlueStrat said so well:

 

Wait until he has kids, and they think they're entitled to take money out of his wallet or use his credit card to buy gas for their car that they don't pay the insurance on, etc etc...Wonder if he'll change his tune?

 

Bingo.:thu: When mommy and daddy pay for everything, life is easy. The adult world is quite a bit different.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nor does the artist get ripped off. Since many "official" videos are put up by the labels, its their choice to air it, hoping it will spur sales. It is not quasi-legal, it is absolutely 100% positively legal. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

Can you tell the difference between an approved video and one put up by some fan, that the artist does not approve of? It's hard to tell some times. FYI some bands "look the other way" or even flat out approve of putting songs on file sharing networks. Can I tell which bands approve and which ones don't at first glance?

 

Apples and oranges. For those of use who were actually there
:lol:
, it cost good money for a quality 45 minute cassette, about half of what the album cost. The quality was crap too. It was hardly an ideal situation.

 

Yet the music industry was pretty much harping over taping in the beginning, too. *shrug*

 

If you dont think the RIAAs actions toward pirates have had SOME results, you are mistaken. Some people are scared to death to download illegally now. Not many of course, but some are. The "solution" is to actually teach values to the youth of America (and apparently France too:lol:).

 

The best *solution*, as I've said all along, in regards to deterrence... is to focus on the big major torrent sites and networks -- the sites who make a living off of illegal sharing -- and not really care about individuals trading songs over email. This is being done. But whatever you think of the youth of America, labeling them all as thieves is about the worst business plan I can think of. Especially when the youth of America made the industry's money and was the primary marketing target. Especially when the ethics of the music industry itself are *notoriously* lax, it's a bit of a pot-kettle-black situation here.

 

The industry was flat out not prepared for the end of the megahit model (whether or not file sharing happened or not, the Internet spelled the end of this -- California techies were seeing the "long tail" marketing light a long time ago), so this is what happens, right? I'm sure some people are scared to death, but for every scared person you probably have 20 pissed off folks willing to thumb their nose at the RIAA, and more importantly 100 people who really just want to share a song they like over their blog, and don't know one way or another the ramifications of copyright.

 

Anyways, as it stands, if you want to get nit-picky about it, if you view an illegal Youtube video, some anal-retentive type could actually charge you with downloading copyright material. As it is, this isn't happening -- it'd be stupid, of course. Besides, Youtube works with big media companies as best they can to provide tools that can be used to take down -- or leave up -- shared media, depending on what is best for the business. There was a flurry of anti-copyright lawsuits in the beginning, but I guess the model is working as the anti-copyright noise seems to have quieted down. Now, could the same model work for MP3 file sharing? Hmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...