Is buying music even reasonable?

I am against the commercialization of music, as in making music for the purpose of generating money. It is not something I want to encourage.

[...]

Don't buy commercial shit that's actually hurting music. But if you appreciate an artist's work and can buy it, then by all means do so.

You see, this is a very tough one because you're getting into people's own motivations which frankly can't be confirmed by anyone other than said individual. Meedls makes his living (or a good portion of it, you'll have to correct me) from making music. The purpose of music in his life is absolutely to generate income, but that's the necessity of living, not greed... he sounds incredibly passionate about what he does and he's a lucky motherfucker to make that happen!

I do understand exactly what you are saying with this quote (the nickleback example), but generating money is always something that HAS to happen and artists SHOULD strive for. I'm not saying every garage band in the world should be getting cut fat checks, but when you get to a certain point where you're buying new gear, artwork for your album, getting duplication done, getting merch printed, you HAVE to become all business or else you're just throwing money away.

That's just the reality of being in a band. It's always going to be about the money in some form because it's too expensive of a hobby to do for free all the time. My main motivation in playing a show is to get that onstage rush, the adrenaline, and the love of the music, but "do we get paid tonight" is ALWAYS on my mind because we have costs to cover.

This is a rant on a quote that was slightly taken to an extreme that I don't think marwen intended it to be, but i figured I'd shed some light on that line of thinking from my perspective.
 
This is a rant on a quote that was slightly taken to an extreme that I don't think marwen intended it to be

Evidently I did not :) but you raise some valid points Zach.

My statement rests upon the reality that there are many so called artists (and isn't it so easy to call oneself "artist" these days) who simply don't deserve the kind of revenue and mass attention they get. I believe there's a clear line, for me at least, between buying a commercial product from an unskilled overrated musician, and paying a skilled, genuine and passionate soul for his time, efforts and related expenses. Let's just say that, for some artists, it would be wrong if they didn't get paid, hence my "by all means do so".

Most of history's greatest musicians for that matter (Bach, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky come to mind) made their living solely from music, either by composing, teaching or performing for the church or opera, etc. a guy like Paganini would write music and then go touring Europe, making his living from shows.

It's not so much about verifying motive as it is about ignoring the posers who are simply degrading this art form, and supporting the REAL artistic souls out there.
 
All I'm going to say about this ^ is that there are a lot of great musicians out there whose day jobs are in retail. There's a lot of musicians out there who view music as a hobby, and nonetheless produce some of the highest quality material. I think the line is not so clear between who's exploiting a product for cash and who's following their dream. You can't really judge that. Buy what sounds good.

Where I was going with this was that there is a clear difference in actual value between a digital download and a physical album, be it a CD or an LP or cassette. The OP was asking if it's worth buying the download. My answer is no, because the download is freely reproducible, has no real world value. The only case where it could be argued as beneficial is if all of the physical copies are sold out and you still desire to support the artist by buying the record first-hand, rather than off ebay or such. Granted, even still they would be better supported by a ticket or shirt buy in most cases.
 
I can't believe that in this day and age, when CD sales are down so low from 10 years ago, that people honestly think bands are making music to exploit people into buying their record. I'm not calling anyone in particular out, but you must be walking with blinders if you seriously feel that way. There are far more lucrative avenues to pursue these days to maliciously extract money from people (like for example -- go to work for Activision). Just because you don't like a musician's music doesn't mean said musician doesn't have his or her heart in what he or she is doing. Don't like it? Don't buy it. But it's not Nickelback's fault that millions of people disagree with your personal taste in music. I don't like them, but it is what it is.

I'm going to break this down and this is going to be a long post. Hope that's cool!

In this day and age, there really is no standard for a record deals anymore like there was in the 90's. Nowadays, your band could strike a record deal in which the label takes the right to your publishing (in other words, the rights to the songs themselves) AND the CD. Now, this may seem evil, but it really isn't. CDs aren't selling what they used to, so the label is able to recoup the money it loses on promoting and releasing the CD faster this way.

However there are bands nowadays like Periphery, Cradle Of Filth, Celtic Frost/Triptykon, Dillinger, etc etc etc etc who sign licensing deals with the label and keep their publishing. In other words, they basically sign a deal with their label to only distribute and promote it, but the label doesn't keep any rights to the songs themselves, or even the CD itself. They only get the rights to release it exclusively. This means the band actually makes more money with each CD sold. However, it also usually means that the band will be responsible for paying for its studio costs (and some other costs usually such as touring) on its own.

The point that I'm making with all this though, is that if you buy the record, yeah the money may not reach the band, but it helps the band. If the record doesn't sell and the band gets dropped, the band is fucked plain and simple. I hear alot of people championing the death of the label, but I really doubt that's happening any time soon. It is virtually impossible to accomplish the proper touring, promotion, etc without outside assistance and outside funding. No serious booking agent will book a band without a label backing the release and no serious distributor will distribute just one band unless that band is huge or has proven sales potential.

I also don't want to sound like I'm one of these die-hard assholes that ostracizes downloaders and points fingers. I download plenty. In fact, I think downloading is one of the best things to happen to this industry because it gives the buyer an option to try before he or she buys. However, I do think that if you like the band you should support the artist and buy it. By doing so, you enable the artist to keep making music and keep them on the road. Just personally handing them 10 bucks doesn't necessarily help this cause, because after all, most of these bands are not business-savy. They just want to jam their tunes and write music.
 
Pretty sure Haughm said that they plan to release the vinyl edition next year through Profound Lore. Will definitely pick it up myself because the album art for that is stunning!
 
I make an average of $5 - $6 when one of my albums is purchased from iTunes. That's what fans hope an artist can make on a $10 album, and if the artists are savvy, they can.

People used record companies or the deals their fave bands signed as justification for not buying, saying that they would buy directly from the artist if they had the choice, but there's still plenty of people not doing that. They do have the choice, and I personally do benefit when they buy, yet I still have my music pulled down from a torrent index, blog site, or megaupload type site every other week. So, there's all kinds out there.

I wouldn't know how to get a song for free. I mean, I just stay away from it and am not even curious.