Black Metal.

[Einherjar86]

Music should be freely acquired and musicians should all be paid the same, minimal amount of money by the government. Who gives a shit if they don't make bank? It's not like they're risking their lives in a foreign desert.

 

[Dak]

Music should be freely acquired and musicians should all be paid the same, minimal amount of money by the government. Who gives a shit if they don't make bank? It's not like they're risking their lives in a foreign desert.

I'm going to assume that is sarcasm.

I, and other people here, surely have no interest at all for paying for digital copies of songs/albums. We buy things because we want the tangible disc, booklet, vinyl, poster, etc. Labels are necessary for anything beyond the most rudimentary presentation of an album in any substantial quantity (which is why you may see a band self release something at 100 or less copies). I just don't cherish CD-Rs with the band's name in magic marker very much.

In general right now this is true, I think you missed my point about computers changing the capability of DIY production and distribution in the (probably near) future. Labels are a middleman, and anytime you can cut out a middleman, progress has been made.

It's not applicable to suggest that we support bands live. Black metal is global and obscure. Only successful bands tour, and rarely outside of their country at that. The number of bands that any one of us could reasonably see probably makes up a tiny percent of what any of us listen to.

As I said, for bands who don't tour, or maybe don't ever make it to the US etc., that is a whole different issue. But as far as successful goes, in general being successful has always depended on signing with a label, I am suggesting this can be changed and needs to be changed.

 

[Cythraul]

I would have to argue that the primary function of stealing, however, is not the removal of one thing from one person, but rather the acquisition of one thing by another person, and this seems to be supported by several of the definition entries in the OED that go back throughout its etymology. Many of them define the term based on the agent and not the victim, such as "To gain by secret or unobtrusive means" or "To derive obscurely and dishonourably" "To take dishonestly or secretly." Of course you can steal intangible objects. To use less controversial examples, when you use somebody else's invention idea, you're stealing. When you plagiarize another person's work, you're stealing. The problem is that your notion of stealing rests entirely on the victim and on a tangible, physical loss, and that does not cover sufficiently the entire set of objects 'things that can be stolen.' I suppose that we have reached a dead end if I can't convince you that downloading is stealing, so this will probably be my last post on the subject.

I'm willing to give up my idea of what constitutes stealing. Nevertheless, it's obvious that the cases mentioned are not paradigm cases of theft, and I think that at least some of these cases are precisely where the ethical issues become rather murky. Notice that in paradigm cases of stealing (e.g. theft of an apple), the act of stealing consists only in the transfer of some object in a certain way, and the whole ethical issue there just turns on whether the object in question was transferred from one person to another in a certain way (i.e. without permission from its holder). On the other hand, I would maintain that there is no ethical issue which consists in just "taking" some abstract object like a song or an idea. That is because one can't even take an abstract object; one can only take instantiations of it (even that's not quite correct; one can only take the thing through which the abstract object is instantiated). There is no clear sense in which one person has a song and another person doesn't.

Notice that whether there is an ethical problem in stealing a cd is in a certain sense context-independent. That is, even if I have already bought a copy of Nightfall by Candlemass there is still an ethical issue that attaches to my stealing a copy of said album. The case where I buy a copy of said album and also download it is not analogous to the situation described previously (and the temporal order in which I do the two things described in this latter case doesn't make one whit of difference). The ethical issue here is not context-independent, which is my whole point.

Obviously an mp3 is a thing through which a song is instantiated, but who owns such a thing? The artist did not make that mp3, so there is no loss incurred just by my act of downloading it. I'm willing to concede that this is in some sense stealing (though obviously not a paradigm case), but I don't give a hoot what the law says about this; I do not see an ethical issue here. I see no sense in decrying an action which has no negative effect on anybody whatsoever.

 

[Cythraul]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wbank/2004/01waterpriv.htm

Music is just another commodity to be bought, sold and controlled.

Dude, what are you even trying to say to me? I don't give a flying fuck about that link. The concept of property was not created willy nilly by a bunch of capitalists, nor does the concept of property cease to have a function outside of capitalism. And just because it seems incorrect to say of some certain things that they can be owned by anybody, that doesn't mean the notion of property is bankrupt. I don't have the patience for this hippie crap.

 

[MasterOLightning]

In general right now this is true, I think you missed my point about computers changing the capability of DIY production and distribution in the (probably near) future. Labels are a middleman, and anytime you can cut out a middleman, progress has been made.

Regardless of how low the costs of producing music get, labels will be necessary, because enough people do not want digital distribution. Perhaps advances for studio time become less necessary. But bands will still have a need for production of the physical media and distribution of it. Fronting the expense for 500 or 1000 copies of something is too much for many bands.

 

[Dak]

Regardless of how low the costs of producing music get, labels will be necessary, because enough people do not want digital distribution. Perhaps advances for studio time become less necessary. But bands will still have a need for production of the physical media and distribution of it. Fronting the expense for 500 or 1000 copies of something is too much for many bands.

The techonology pretty much exists now, there is currently a matter of fronting costs,but these days it isn't that bad. The most difficult part is distribution, but once people get used to ordering a CD online (from an artists website/through an ebay-like medium) as opposed to browsing a music store, the distribution problem becomes less of a problem.
Particularly since tr00 metalheads in general are already more likely to find their music by scouring the web as opposed to walking aimlessly down music store aisles.
Obviously the most convenient, easy route currently is through a label. That doesn't mean it can't, or won't, or shouldn't change.

 

[Omni]

Like I already said, there's also a lot of types of music that definitely won't see any kind of home recording any time soon, and labels help them pay for their studio time and sometimes things like session musicians or various other parts of recording.

Not to mention that many artists aren't able to press, package, promote and distribute their albums with any degree of quality or success.

For these reasons and others, doing everything yourself, regardless of it being the internet age, is not an option for many.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm going to assume that is sarcasm.

Yup. I was bored.

 

[Evil?]

So, for whatever reason, up until tonight ( the last 30 minutes actually) I thought Goat Horns was rubbish. I didn't understand the love for it. I decided to give it another chance and well...I like it now. Strange how that happens.

 

[Vilden]

The strange thing is how you could think one of the best (was my #1 album for a long time) albums ever was rubbish until now.

 

[challenge_everything]

Dude, what are you even trying to say to me? I don't give a flying fuck about that link. The concept of property was not created willy nilly by a bunch of capitalists, nor does the concept of property cease to have a function outside of capitalism. And just because it seems incorrect to say of some certain things that they can be owned by anybody, that doesn't mean the notion of property is bankrupt. I don't have the patience for this hippie crap.

And I thought you were supposed to be the "philosopher" around here. I'm not rejecting the idea of property or of capitalism, just pointing out that there is a trend to convert things which were formerly publicly available to private property. Intellectual property is a relatively modern creation. And the war on downloading is purely a result of political lobbying by giant labels to protect their control over the music we hear. As long as they want to forcefeed the population the same lowest common denominator crap, keep paying commercial radio stations to spin their bands etc etc, it's seems to me it's our fucking DUTY to download to break their control. Labels and bands who put out quality music will always be rewarded, not harmed, by downloading, because as most of us here have shown, people will still pay for a quality product.

 

[Zephyrus]

So, for whatever reason, up until tonight ( the last 30 minutes actually) I thought Goat Horns was rubbish. I didn't understand the love for it. I decided to give it another chance and well...I like it now. Strange how that happens.

I wasn't impressed by the first listen like I was with the next two. I wasn't used to the thinner production.

 

[Onder]

I'm listening to second Acrimonious EP and what a great black metal. And another exeptional band from Athens, along with Dead Congregation, Nocternity or Burial Hordes. And I forgot many.

 

[whiskey funeral]

Glorior Belli needs our help, America:

American people ONLY:

Basically we're looking for any kind of instruments (except vocals of course)

We need you to fill this basic form to make the recruitment process easier for us:

- What musical instrument do you play?
- Where do you live?
- Are you available to tour this year?
- Would it be your first live experience?
- Do you have any references? (bands/projects/myspace...)

---

Don't expect much money from this, it's the first time Glorior Belli will be able to reach the US soil, so you're doing it for the greatness of Lucifer.


You must understand the essence of Glorior Belli, as you'll be representing the image of the band.


We've received lots of answers already and unfortunately won't be able to satisfy all demands but Respect to all of you maniacs!

Get in touch: gloriorbelli@hotmail.com

 

[divine_torture]

Fuck I would love to do that. For any instrument... I'm gonna email them now. My drummer would wanna drum and I could easily fit in guitar wise. That'd be sweet.

 

[unknown]

that would be pretty sweet

I wonder who they'll be touring with

 

[Omni]

I already know one of the bands who's most likely going on tour with them, but the band leader asked me not to tell anyone last time that I talked to him.

 

[Matt]

I already know one of the bands who's most likely going on tour with them, but the band leader asked me not to tell anyone last time that I talked to him.

Then why post about it?

 

[Omni]

I posted about it because it was relevant and some certain people that I talk to on this board might know what band I'm talking about. The people who won't know are in no way harmed by the existence of my post, and really have absolutely no reason to complain about it.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Seems more like you just bragged about it.