Future of Music
- Thread starter SheisMySin
- Start date
Décadent said:
Yeh i have done
got some stuff from the cave - thats how i found stargazer and Mournful congregation
I remember reading an article a couple of years ago that said that metal was the only genre that was increasing in sales! that shows how loyal us "metalheads"
are. i'll look for the article later today.
btw. I'm watching a robocop avi I downloaded last nite and I will definitely be buying it sometime :>
"can you fly, bobby?"
love it.
are. i'll look for the article later today.
btw. I'm watching a robocop avi I downloaded last nite and I will definitely be buying it sometime :>
"can you fly, bobby?"
love it.Susperia said:
I see it as you have to download to buy. Both should be used together as a method.
Say I download some albums the ones that really stand out or the ones I consistantly listen to I buy. A lot of the times a cd can be so good you buy it as soon as possible.
If I download something and it sucks I don't buy it and delete the mp3s. Not everyone makes enough to buy every cd. Trying is what counts to me and people that don't respect that can fuck off.
And if there is actually bands out there that feel once you download their music you have to buy it can get lost.
Shiny McShining Rodriguez
Pain: the gateway.
The thing with downloads is, that you can easily listen to a shitload of different stuff without a great deal of effort, far more than most people ever would buying CDs alone. As I see it, yeah it may take away from CD sales to an extent, but it does increase the exposure to bands, which can only be a good thing. I mean shit bands will never sell much, but if you're a good band without much exposure, you're more likely to get it with people downloading your stuff than just putting out a CD.
petehis kahn
A Twist in the Myth
I wouldn't have got into half the bands I liked without downloading the music in the first place.
I buy the CD's of the groups I like, which is money that they wouldn't have got if downloading didn't exist.
I buy the CD's of the groups I like, which is money that they wouldn't have got if downloading didn't exist.
FerretallicA
HMAS Slagdestroyer
Shiny McShining Rodriguez said:
Good for the consumer but shit for the major record labels who, if not for the internet, would still have the 90/10 rule in their favour (90% of consumers listening to 10% of the music actually out there, 90% of sales going to 10% of the record labels in business, 90% of profits coming from 10% of their artist register etc). When was the last time you heard of a law suit directly involving a label like Magna Carta or Lion Music as the plaintiff? Never? Because labels DO benefit from the internet music phenomenom despite what the RIAA would like you to believe. It's just the major players which are used to a market where they have absolute control who are losing out, and it's about time their gravy train came to an end anyway.
Entropiastrife
keeper of the keys
CAIRATH said:
Ok, I have a superficial attachment to music, even though I somehow manage to spend hours a day listening to it and hours a day making it.
I think you are just a consumer that buys into the product and the culture and identity behind it. you must say to yourself "hey, I MUST be very passionate about music, after all i sure spend a lot of money on it!". That is what the business is all about, making people think they "belong" if they buy. But that is not what music is about, thats retarded. Before the times of recordings (or even published music), are you saying everyone were superficial music fans because they weren't capable of "owning" music. I guess johann sebastian bach was a superficial music fan because he didn't own any music other than his own.
And I do support artists that I listen to, but just in ways practical to my needs and finances. I have 300 cds collecting dust, doing nothing for me. Before mp3 players, they made more sense, but now they dont. They turn to nothing more than something I can get in a 20 minute download. T shirts and concerts, however, do many things for me. If a band has those things, they are a commercial musicians and therefore I shall support them with that. if they don;t well obviously they are not doing it for a living, and therefore their music is art, not a product as well.
As far as the reason to buy cds so a record company will support their artists to tour, no, that is retarded. I am thinking on a one on one consumer basis. me buying the new eternal tears of sorrow album wont make them come to tour the us. The fucking record companies need to come up with a new strategy, and stop taking out the changing market and their out of date business methods on the bands.
I think soon enough we will be able to do away with record companies. it has always been a bullshit thing to begin with. and because of it, it has allowed the market to be flooded and commercial shit to reign. if music becomes less profitable, all of the posers will go away. but there are plenty of great musicians out their making great music and getting shit worth money for it. they wont go away. and will probably see themselves experiancing more success
Entropiastrife said:
This argument is beyond retarded. Maybe you should read up on this whole cause/effect thing and then read your reply again to see how stupid it is (hint: 'cause' comes before 'effect' and not the other way around).
Entropiastrife said:
You do realise that most bands that are discussed on this forum make absolutely NO money whatsoever on touring, right? Most of them probably lose money on it if anything. They are mostly people who have a day-job and have to take time away from their job to go on tour and then hope they manage to break even or maybe make a small amount of profit (which would probably still end up being way less than if they'd spent that month at work instead of being away on tour). You could argue they don't make much on selling albums either, but atleast if an album sells well it ensures they'll have interest from record companies to let them continue releasing music.
You can try to justifiy it all you want, by downloading an artist's music when you otherwise would have bought it, simply because you feel 'mp3s make CDs obsolete' then you're just a thieving bastard. I seriously doubt you'll find a single musician who would be thankful that you are not buying his CDs just because you go to concerts instead. You know, most people do both.
Entropiastrife said:
I guess you also don't give money to charity then. Right? Afterall, what does one person's contribution matter when you look at the big picture. One person not buying a CD isn't going to make a difference. It isn't going to make them come tour somewhere or lose/gain a recording contract. Hey, let's all follow your brilliant 'the world centers entirely around me' philosophy and all stop buying CDs and give money to people who need because it doesn't make a difference anyway. Good one.
Entropiastrife said:
I do agree with that. However it has nothing to do with the rest of your argument. And I get the feeling your idea of a new business model is 'let everyone download our music for free'. I think online music stores like iTunes are a good idea and record companies should be less scared to along with trends like that. But I would never use them myself. I want to own the CD. And I do seriously hope that online music stores will never completely replace the current distribution model.
Entropiastrife said:
You strike me as a very immature raging-against-the-machine type of person. How are record companies bullshit? Like it or not, they do a very important job, which is paying the studio bills, getting an artist's music out there and giving them the abillity to tour. The whole commercial bullshit thing really only applies to MAJOR record labels like Sony, BMG, Atlantic, etc. Most of the music that people on this forum listen to is released on record labels that are a factor 1000 smaller than those and have absolutely nothing to do with that aspect of the music 'business'.
I really don't understand how some people can be so bothered by the commercial stuff. The mainstream music scene and the underground music scene are two completely different entities. Whether Britney Spears is going to release a new album with Beatles covers tomorrow or whether Sony Records is going to go bankrupt on thursday has absolutely NO bearing on what happens in the underground music industry. There will always be commercial dross. It happens in the movie industry, in literature, and in music. And it's not going to go away. There will always be people who will figure out a minimal effort way to make money by raping some art form and finding a clever way to make it appeal to the masses. The only thing that will ever make that go away is if 'the masses' become less stupid, less shallow and more critical of what they buy. Which again is something that will probably never happen.
So instead of going on some crusade of 'I won't buy music because I am against the system' why not ignore all the commercial nonsense and spend your money on people who DO deserve it? Like it or not, but your attitude is exactly the only thing that could ever actually destroy the underground music scene. If everyone did what you did then soon artists would have no budget to record new material, let alone to actually set up an international tour. The only thing left to do then is for everyone to record music at home and put it on the internet for free. Which may be a fun concept, but it would result in a lot less quality music than we have now. And you can forget about ever seeing someone out on tour altogether then. You don't think artists are going to pick up their equipment and book a one-month tour through the US if no one is paying for their expenses, right? Unless they are already rich they simply wouldn't be able to afford it.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
FerretallicA
HMAS Slagdestroyer
Hallelujah, intelligent discussion!
Agreed. At least count I owned around 500 CDs but I basically never listen to them. First thing I do whenever I buy any CD is rip it to MP3, read through the booklet, then put it away safely. Even when I want to listen to music in my car, I burn whatever songs I want from my MP3 collection and listen to that rather than original CDs. Illegal? Quite possibly thanks to B.S. like the DMCA. Immoral? Hell no.
That said, I DO download a lot of music I can't possibly buy (eg out of print CDs, demos) and by bands I'm otherwise not going to be exposed to at all. If I like something, I buy the CD where possible. The only instance where I REFUSE to buy the CD (other than drastically inflated prices from certain importers) are things like the Megadeth remastered CDs which feature copy-protection to stop you ripping to MP3. In theory anyway... I had little difficulty ripping "Risk" regardless of their copy protection, but the bottom line for me is that if they want to take significant steps to stop me from enjoying music on my own terms AND pass on the cost of doing so to me, I'm just going to download an already-ripped version with no guilt or remorse whatsoever. This is the same reason I absolutely refuse to deal with any online download service which supports DRM at any level.
One of the major issues here is that the try-before-you-buy argument doesn't really work because it relies on the average consumer to display a strong enough sense of ethics to pay for something they've already downloaded if they like it, even though they can realistically keep it for free with no-one knowing if they deleted it or not. Pretty much no other industry places blind faith in the hands of the consumer in terms of honesty and it's not realistic to expect it from the music industry either. That said, it is an extremely piss-poor attitude being adopted by the major players of the said industry when they continue to charge a premium for their products/services yet insist on having strict control over how, when and where you listen to it, as well as attempting to block any efforts you may make to protect your investment.
Please explain to me how the first part isn't outright superficial attachment to your music collection.
I admit a lot of my attachment is superficial- the attachment to my CD collection, my meticulously organised MP3 collection, my concert photo collection, and my slowly growing music memorabilia collection. All of these are fairly superficial when you get down to it, but it doesn't take anything away from my love of music which goes a lot deeper than silicon discs or compressed audio files. To judge someone as a "real music fan" or not based on HOW they access that music is even more superficial still, not to mention utterly naive.
To an extent I agree with you, but it also needs to be recognised that music is ALL about culture. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it's all about feeling good or appealing to your intellect or whatever, but the bottom line is that music is inexorably tied to culture in its evolution. It influences how people dress, talk, interact and socialise. Going to a concert is a cultural event in my eyes, and anyone who goes around wearing a metal T-shirt is just as much buying into the identity behind the metal scene as someone who joins a horde of screaming pre-teen fans at a shopping mall boy band signing is buying into the mainstream scene. I admit I buy into it a fair bit. I'll buy a tour shirt at a gig if I really like the band, and very proudly wear all my guitar-related parephenalia. It's almost(?) impossible to be a serious music fan and not "buy into it" on some level.
The "spending money = real fan" mentality is bullshit, and the corporate music industry is all about the big dollar, but "buying into" something does not neccessarily = retarded. You also later go on to say "T shirts and concerts, however, do many things for me." That speaks for itself.
Spot on!
I think Shawne Lane said it best when he said the mainstream music industry is driven by a so called 'ethic' such that predetermined obsolescence is considered a virtue. One of the big reasons mainstream labels are so badly burnt by the internet music phenomenom is a market attitude which is their own doing to begin with! The focus is to keep pumping out something new (or repackaging something old) as often as possible to appeal to the desire of mainstreamers to be fashionable and up-to-date with the latest musical trends. When you're bombarded with the same songs over radio and TV ad-fucking-nauseum, AND you have the same song at home in MP3 format to listen to, it drastically shortens the marketable lifespan of the said album the song comes from. I imagine the market for "Summer Hits", "Video Hits", "Top 40 Mix" etc compilations would be particularly suffering because of the ease with which people can download individual songs they like. I can't imagine smaller metal-orientated labels and artists can relate to these as being such problems
There's another major point there but at the moment I can't back it up since I'm not a statistician and I can't find the pages I bookmarked with hard figures but I'll poke around tonight and if I can find what I'm after I'll post again.
The mistake you make there is assuming that liking something simple makes someone's attachment to their music any less than that of your own.
Painting/sculpture/etc and music are both just art at the end of the day. One is for the eyes, one is for the ears. I'm no visual artist but I really enjoy a lot of art ranging from album covers to paintings by people like Peter Brown and Nick Petali. Some of my favourite visual artworks are Peter Browne's minimalist-styled Australian outback paintings (examples at http://balifriends.com/invest_pb_collection.htm). I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of painting nor do I really care too much to be honest, I just enjoy looking at them. Does this make my appreciation of art or understanding of the complexity (or lack thereof) of any given piece less than that of someone who, for arguments sake, completed a Masters at the College of Fine Arts and paints for a living? Without a doubt! But does it make my enthusiasm for a Peter Brown painting any less "worthy" or lasting than the aforementioned scholar's appreciation of the Mona Lisa? That depends entirely upon the individual. Passion isn't something measured by knowledge. If anything, ignorance often fuels passion.
The same applies to music. Although most people who listen to mainstream top 40 pop are musically ignorant in my experience and opinion, there are also plenty of ignorant people who listen to metal just because it's loud and heavy with just as little appreciation for what lies behind the music. Are mainstreamers musically ignorant? I think so. Generally moreso than any avenue of music which requires initative to explore and discover rather than having your listening habits spoon-fed to you by mass media. Does that equate to not being passionate about what they're listening to? Not at all.
Odds are these will be the same people who notice no difference between CD-quality audio and a 128Kbps MP3 and aren't likely to care.
Music is only art if the performers behind it don't do it for a living? A band is only a "commercial musician" if they tour and sell T-shirts? Did you even think before you typed that? You need to seriously revise your understanding of art and "commercial" musicians.
What about artists like Ayreon and Office of Strategic Influence where the nature of the music makes it almost impossible to reproduce the music live and do the recordings any justice? What about side-projects and "supergroups" like Living Loud and Demons & Wizards where the artists involved are also active members of other touring bands which take absolute priority? What about bands who are contractually bound to a record label who screws them over and gives them virtually no publicity, promotion or distribution in your particular region. Does that mean the band deserves to be punished and are unworthy of your support anyway?
I agreed with a lot of what you wrote but I found that particular paragraph very unsettling.
Like it or not it's record companies that pay for the vast majority of recording, touring, production, distrubition and promotion that takes place. Take them out of the picture and you take away a lot of the capital which gives so many great bands the opportunity to be great in the first place. In terms of physical distribution, I can't imagine things are going to get any better for record companies from here so you don't need to worry about that but even with online distribution there's always going to be a corporate bad guy. You'll just be trading Sony BMG for iTunes, and once iTunes becomes the big gun they'll be the big baddy everyone wants to take down.
*takes a deep breath and lies down*
CAIRATH said:
Agreed. At least count I owned around 500 CDs but I basically never listen to them. First thing I do whenever I buy any CD is rip it to MP3, read through the booklet, then put it away safely. Even when I want to listen to music in my car, I burn whatever songs I want from my MP3 collection and listen to that rather than original CDs. Illegal? Quite possibly thanks to B.S. like the DMCA. Immoral? Hell no.
That said, I DO download a lot of music I can't possibly buy (eg out of print CDs, demos) and by bands I'm otherwise not going to be exposed to at all. If I like something, I buy the CD where possible. The only instance where I REFUSE to buy the CD (other than drastically inflated prices from certain importers) are things like the Megadeth remastered CDs which feature copy-protection to stop you ripping to MP3. In theory anyway... I had little difficulty ripping "Risk" regardless of their copy protection, but the bottom line for me is that if they want to take significant steps to stop me from enjoying music on my own terms AND pass on the cost of doing so to me, I'm just going to download an already-ripped version with no guilt or remorse whatsoever. This is the same reason I absolutely refuse to deal with any online download service which supports DRM at any level.
One of the major issues here is that the try-before-you-buy argument doesn't really work because it relies on the average consumer to display a strong enough sense of ethics to pay for something they've already downloaded if they like it, even though they can realistically keep it for free with no-one knowing if they deleted it or not. Pretty much no other industry places blind faith in the hands of the consumer in terms of honesty and it's not realistic to expect it from the music industry either. That said, it is an extremely piss-poor attitude being adopted by the major players of the said industry when they continue to charge a premium for their products/services yet insist on having strict control over how, when and where you listen to it, as well as attempting to block any efforts you may make to protect your investment.
CAIRATH said:
Please explain to me how the first part isn't outright superficial attachment to your music collection.
I admit a lot of my attachment is superficial- the attachment to my CD collection, my meticulously organised MP3 collection, my concert photo collection, and my slowly growing music memorabilia collection. All of these are fairly superficial when you get down to it, but it doesn't take anything away from my love of music which goes a lot deeper than silicon discs or compressed audio files. To judge someone as a "real music fan" or not based on HOW they access that music is even more superficial still, not to mention utterly naive.
Entropiastrife said:
To an extent I agree with you, but it also needs to be recognised that music is ALL about culture. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it's all about feeling good or appealing to your intellect or whatever, but the bottom line is that music is inexorably tied to culture in its evolution. It influences how people dress, talk, interact and socialise. Going to a concert is a cultural event in my eyes, and anyone who goes around wearing a metal T-shirt is just as much buying into the identity behind the metal scene as someone who joins a horde of screaming pre-teen fans at a shopping mall boy band signing is buying into the mainstream scene. I admit I buy into it a fair bit. I'll buy a tour shirt at a gig if I really like the band, and very proudly wear all my guitar-related parephenalia. It's almost(?) impossible to be a serious music fan and not "buy into it" on some level.
The "spending money = real fan" mentality is bullshit, and the corporate music industry is all about the big dollar, but "buying into" something does not neccessarily = retarded. You also later go on to say "T shirts and concerts, however, do many things for me." That speaks for itself.
CAIRATH said:
Spot on!I think Shawne Lane said it best when he said the mainstream music industry is driven by a so called 'ethic' such that predetermined obsolescence is considered a virtue. One of the big reasons mainstream labels are so badly burnt by the internet music phenomenom is a market attitude which is their own doing to begin with! The focus is to keep pumping out something new (or repackaging something old) as often as possible to appeal to the desire of mainstreamers to be fashionable and up-to-date with the latest musical trends. When you're bombarded with the same songs over radio and TV ad-fucking-nauseum, AND you have the same song at home in MP3 format to listen to, it drastically shortens the marketable lifespan of the said album the song comes from. I imagine the market for "Summer Hits", "Video Hits", "Top 40 Mix" etc compilations would be particularly suffering because of the ease with which people can download individual songs they like. I can't imagine smaller metal-orientated labels and artists can relate to these as being such problems
There's another major point there but at the moment I can't back it up since I'm not a statistician and I can't find the pages I bookmarked with hard figures but I'll poke around tonight and if I can find what I'm after I'll post again.
CAIRATH said:
The mistake you make there is assuming that liking something simple makes someone's attachment to their music any less than that of your own.
Painting/sculpture/etc and music are both just art at the end of the day. One is for the eyes, one is for the ears. I'm no visual artist but I really enjoy a lot of art ranging from album covers to paintings by people like Peter Brown and Nick Petali. Some of my favourite visual artworks are Peter Browne's minimalist-styled Australian outback paintings (examples at http://balifriends.com/invest_pb_collection.htm). I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of painting nor do I really care too much to be honest, I just enjoy looking at them. Does this make my appreciation of art or understanding of the complexity (or lack thereof) of any given piece less than that of someone who, for arguments sake, completed a Masters at the College of Fine Arts and paints for a living? Without a doubt! But does it make my enthusiasm for a Peter Brown painting any less "worthy" or lasting than the aforementioned scholar's appreciation of the Mona Lisa? That depends entirely upon the individual. Passion isn't something measured by knowledge. If anything, ignorance often fuels passion.
The same applies to music. Although most people who listen to mainstream top 40 pop are musically ignorant in my experience and opinion, there are also plenty of ignorant people who listen to metal just because it's loud and heavy with just as little appreciation for what lies behind the music. Are mainstreamers musically ignorant? I think so. Generally moreso than any avenue of music which requires initative to explore and discover rather than having your listening habits spoon-fed to you by mass media. Does that equate to not being passionate about what they're listening to? Not at all.
CAIRATH said:
Odds are these will be the same people who notice no difference between CD-quality audio and a 128Kbps MP3 and aren't likely to care.
Entropiastrife said:
Music is only art if the performers behind it don't do it for a living? A band is only a "commercial musician" if they tour and sell T-shirts? Did you even think before you typed that? You need to seriously revise your understanding of art and "commercial" musicians.
What about artists like Ayreon and Office of Strategic Influence where the nature of the music makes it almost impossible to reproduce the music live and do the recordings any justice? What about side-projects and "supergroups" like Living Loud and Demons & Wizards where the artists involved are also active members of other touring bands which take absolute priority? What about bands who are contractually bound to a record label who screws them over and gives them virtually no publicity, promotion or distribution in your particular region. Does that mean the band deserves to be punished and are unworthy of your support anyway?
I agreed with a lot of what you wrote but I found that particular paragraph very unsettling.
Entropiastrife said:
Like it or not it's record companies that pay for the vast majority of recording, touring, production, distrubition and promotion that takes place. Take them out of the picture and you take away a lot of the capital which gives so many great bands the opportunity to be great in the first place. In terms of physical distribution, I can't imagine things are going to get any better for record companies from here so you don't need to worry about that but even with online distribution there's always going to be a corporate bad guy. You'll just be trading Sony BMG for iTunes, and once iTunes becomes the big gun they'll be the big baddy everyone wants to take down.
*takes a deep breath and lies down*
FerretallicA said:
It's not about HOW they access their music, it's about whether they actually own it in some way or not. I think someone who has a thousand albums but actually legally owns about 10 of them is probably a superficial music listener. If you care that little about actually possessing the music and simply feel that a bunch of most likely poor quality poorly named mp3s on your HD suffice then I doubt that person really cares very deeply about the music. Maybe there are people who do, but either way they're still bastards in my opinion. If you truly care deeply about something it seems like you would atleast *try* to own it in some form. Whether it be vinyl, CD or mp3 (from iTunes or something) doesn't really matter I suppose. But I don't think taking pride and joy in your CD collection is superficial at all. I've spent many nights just sitting back in a comfy chair listening to music while admiring the artwork and reading along to the lyrics in the sleeve. I really don't see how that is superficial. (and yes, I also have a meticulously organized mp3 collection)
FerretallicA said:
Maybe not for everyone. I'm sure there are also people who just *love* loads of mainstream music and who really are passionate about their music. But I was making a generalization, one which I think holds up. Which is that the majority of people who listen to mainstream music simply listen to it because they aren't so much looking for music to truly listen to as they are looking for just something catchy to put on while they're ironing their clothes. So yeah, you're right. It doesn't always hold up. But in my experience, every single person I know who mostly listens to mainstream music is just not in any way a music lover. They own maybe 50 CDs or so and rarely listen to any of them and simply ocasionally buy whatever is 'hot' and then listen to that for about a week before getting bored of it. That's not really the kind of attitude I personally associate with being passionate about something. And that's fine, most of them probably are passionate about other things that I don't care about. I don't generally judge a person's worth on their CD rack or something. But I do think there is a large segment of people who are like that and they are the target audience of the 'big' music industry. Because anyone who is looking for something deeper simply won't be likely to find it in what the bigger music labels have to offer. Though there are ofcourse exceptions and I also have plenty of mainstream-label CDs sitting on the shelves, not all mainstream music is necessarily bad or manufactured.
SilverCrank
Member
mutantllama
Active Member
TheVaine
Thrasher
- Jun 2, 2006
- 222
- 0
- 16
As if I really have enough money to buy more then 2 CDs a month.... (I don't get an allowance or anything, I have to save up change from Lunch money)
Besides I don't DL entire albums, just like 2 songs off a album and get a feel for it.
I honestly don't feel sorry for bands who have over 500+ possible DL locations on the P2P networks... chances are that band is pretty well off. Not that I don't think that when they immediately turn rich that they are evil, but that they don't need to consume every damn penny they find on the floor.
Besides I don't DL entire albums, just like 2 songs off a album and get a feel for it.
I honestly don't feel sorry for bands who have over 500+ possible DL locations on the P2P networks... chances are that band is pretty well off. Not that I don't think that when they immediately turn rich that they are evil, but that they don't need to consume every damn penny they find on the floor.
Narg n Lamb
Member
The Heartbreak Kid
Afterimage
I dont buy CD's because they're so fucking over-priced and usually end up being shit. I buy all the merch, t-shirts, dvds, etc and go to the shows. As long as bands tour they will make money, and its usually the record companies fucking bands over.
Kreator/Destroyer
The Lovecraftian Batman
i download alot but i love buying cds for some reason...either the future of music seems to be going the wrong way...it's going to emo and rap...i say all metalheads who can play instruments, start a band and bring music back to the 1980s
FerretallicA
HMAS Slagdestroyer
Holy shit, I forgot just how epic (read: rambling) some of my posts have been over the years...
Similar threads
