Whats happened to Metal??

[-CC-]

Oh Einherjar, ever the good mediator!

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Yeah, terrible state of affairs isn't it Why can't ALL the bands, regardless of quality, wring money from us spoilt listeners!? IT'S AN OUTRAGE

A great, if sarcastic point. Metal is music, music is art, and real artists live a life of poverty and hardship. Besides, artists hae never gotten the respect they deserve from society.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

Art cost money to make, equipment costs money, recording costs money, touring costs money, promotion cost money etc.... I guess musicians are just special people that don't need financial support because they can magically shit money out of their asses. Anyone can be a studio project but a real band plays live, travels, writes and records. Studio projects go nowhere, real bands need support otherwise your sucking the life out of them
like giant greedy vampire bats.

 

[Seditious]

Art cost money to make, equipment costs money, recording costs money, touring costs money, promotion cost money etc...

it also costs money to be an Olympic athlete, but I don't hear them complaining that the viewers don't give them money. They want to do this thing they enjoy, they want to excel, and they are willing to pay a price to do it.

why whinge about the fact your hobby has a cost?

if you're looking to make money, spend your money on a real investment, not on producing an album.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

you have no fucking clue! What a fucking stupid comparison, compare an athlete to a musician completely different worlds. Everyday a band breaks up, everyday a musician loses hope. No time for music anymore must find a way to survive on your own.

 

[~Neurotica]

Each resourse runs dry someday. I'm afraid that most of musiciants are just out of the new ideas. So everything "new" is well forgotten old.
If people wanted to just make money - they wouldn't play metal, that's pretty much the last music genre where you can earn some decent money.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

The clever musicians will stand strong, everything has been done but there is a way to present old ideas in a new interesting presentation. The idea's are there, the 12 notes, the right people must unlock the code. Metal musicians need money to survive and live, not to be rich and pampered. IM doing all i can with government to shut down the goddamn torrent sites, and youtube. I am fighting this war until death. It wouldn't hurt if the right metal band got rich, they could start a new metal festival or something because bands don't come around anymore like they used to, especially death metal.

 

[Badbird]

you have no fucking clue! What a fucking stupid comparison, compare an athlete to a musician completely different worlds. Everyday a band breaks up, everyday a musician loses hope. No time for music anymore must find a way to survive on your own.

Agree.

Sure athletes have passion for what they do but so do chiefs. Being a musican is something you should ever do for MONEY.

 

[Seditious]

Everyday a band breaks up, everyday a musician loses hope. No time for music anymore must find a way to survive on your own.

do you have a point?

 

[skeptik]

Olympic athletes have sponsorships and teams to help them train, travel, etc. Obviously some of them are also professional athletes. Bad example.

Also, art and commerce are intertwined, whereby the art type is transmitted to the populace via commercial recording tokens, whether it is live performances or CDs, LPs, and cassettes. And the vast majority of the time, these things cost money. They're products that you buy, but they're also a token of art. So the relationship shared between art and commerce is both obvious and inescapable. In other words, talking around it is naive. Many governments around the world (some more than others) provide endowments for the arts, but for the majority of artists, they rely on their followers to support their art as craft.

 

[The Butt]

Didn't Karmablade post in Old School for a while?

Old School = AIDS

Sigging.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

The problem I have with censuring and prosecuting outlets for free music is the fact that said practice blurs the line between right and privilage. I strongly believe that people have the right to enjoy whatever art they wish, regardless of fiscal status. Requiring a pay to play for everything is market based elitism, and wrong. Trust me, if Metallica didn't fight Napster, they'd still be fucking rich. I suppose those that want to shut down all file sharing, YouTube, etc. think that only those that have money to burn are worthy of their music.

 

[Satanstoenail]

I think artists have the right to expect something in return for the money they've spent and the effort they've put in. Most people who are downloading free music are doing it with a computer and an internet connection that costs money. "Fiscal status" is a blurry line really, it all depends on your priorities. If paying for music is a low priority for you but you're greatly interested in music and have an extensive downloaded collection of albums by bands that aren't perhaps as commercially successful as Metallica, it shows ignorance, a lack of respect and a complete detachment from the realities of the processes involved in keeping art being made. Look at it this way: A painter shows his/her art at a gallery, people can come and look and enjoy it, and if they really like it they can buy it and take it home. This is how the internet should be imo. Browse, listen, but if you really like something, buy it. Give something back for the privilege of being able to enjoy it whenever you please.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I think artists have the right to expect something in return for the money they've spent and the effort they've put in. Most people who are downloading free music are doing it with a computer and an internet connection that costs money. "Fiscal status" is a blurry line really, it all depends on your priorities. If paying for music is a low priority for you but you're greatly interested in music and have an extensive downloaded collection of albums by bands that aren't perhaps as commercially successful as Metallica, it shows ignorance, a lack of respect and a complete detachment from the realities of the processes involved in keeping art being made. Look at it this way: A painter shows his/her art at a gallery, people can come and look and enjoy it, and if they really like it they can buy it and take it home. This is how the internet should be imo. Browse, listen, but if you really like something, buy it. Give something back for the privilege of being able to enjoy it whenever you please.

OK, so I agree. I guess I get annoyed by 30 second clips because the artist can't bear to give out a free track, knowing that it will get passed around like a drunk slut at a frat party and they won't make a dime off of it.

 

[Seditious]

Olympic athletes have sponsorships and teams to help them train, travel, etc. Obviously some of them are also professional athletes. Bad example.

history is replete with artists who have had their livelihood maintained by some wealthy benefactor, 'sponsor', if you will.

some artists, and some athletes, for all their passion, just aren't good enough, and nobody gives them money to do what they love doing.

the vast majority of the time, these things cost money. They're products that you buy, but they're also a token of art.

yea, which is why mp3 piracy is such an interesting issue.
maybe I just heard a Metallica song, maybe I didn't--will they be relieved if it turns out I didn't? will I have saved someone some money?

for the majority of artists, they rely on their followers to support their art as craft.

and strippers rely on tips. if they feel they don't get as many tips as they deserve, they're welcome to quit. Why bitch from the stage at the spectators with closed wallets?

 

[Seditious]

If paying for music is a low priority for you but you're greatly interested in music and have an extensive downloaded collection of albums by bands that aren't perhaps as commercially successful as Metallica, it shows ignorance,

that's a strange qualification. are you suggesting that stealing from the rich is a different matter?

 

[Seditious]

This is how the internet should be imo. Browse, listen, but if you really like something, buy it. Give something back for the privilege of being able to enjoy it whenever you please.

if I don't have $1M for an original Rembrandt, should we assume he'd be rolling in his grave if I had a cheap copy on my wall?
If I got pleasure from his painting, and it turned out I couldn't pay as much as he wanted for it, would he be furious like a prostitute who got cheated?

what if you browse the living art of a strip joint, and enjoy something, should you then feel obliged to give them money? would it be wrong of you to exploit the fact that they chose to make free access possible?

 

[Satanstoenail]

that's a strange qualification. are you suggesting that stealing from the rich is a different matter?

I'm suggesting that one should feel worse for stealing from the poor. I don't see anything strange about that.

if I don't have $1M for an original Rembrandt, should we assume he'd be rolling in his grave if I had a cheap copy on my wall?

Depends if you bought the cheap copy. If the cheap copy was an official cheap copy, chances are some of the money went to his estate. Although I'm not entirely familiar with Dutch copyright laws, so I'm only guessing.

If I got pleasure from his painting, and it turned out I couldn't pay as much as he wanted for it, would he be furious like a prostitute who got cheated?

Maybe, it depends on the mental stability of the artist I guess. Knowing some artists, he may take to you with a knife.

what if you browse the living art of a strip joint, and enjoy something, should you then feel obliged to give them money? would it be wrong of you to exploit the fact that they chose to make free access possible?

FFS. Would it be wrong of me to tell you to fuck off back to the philosopher forum?

 

[The Butt]

^ No it would not be wrong of you

 

[skeptik]

history is replete with artists who have had their livelihood maintained by some wealthy benefactor, 'sponsor', if you will.

some artists, and some athletes, for all their passion, just aren't good enough, and nobody gives them money to do what they love doing.

I did mention endowments for the arts, did I not?

yea, which is why mp3 piracy is such an interesting issue.
maybe I just heard a Metallica song, maybe I didn't--will they be relieved if it turns out I didn't? will I have saved someone some money?

Irrelevant matters.

and strippers rely on tips. if they feel they don't get as many tips as they deserve, they're welcome to quit. Why bitch from the stage at the spectators with closed wallets?

I'm not entirely sure how strip clubs work, but I would imagine that strippers actually receive a paycheck, so even barring any other absurdities that come to fruition through this comparison, the fact that strippers are naturally paid for their performances renders the analogy dead on arrival.

if I don't have $1M for an original Rembrandt, should we assume he'd be rolling in his grave if I had a cheap copy on my wall?

If I got pleasure from his painting, and it turned out I couldn't pay as much as he wanted for it, would he be furious like a prostitute who got cheated?

Maybe, but that's irrelevant, since the type-token distinction didn't even exist in the 17th century, so art was processed by the public in a very different manner during Rembrandt's life. I do find it interesting how you feel it prudent to compare art to prostitution, however, which continues below:

what if you browse the living art of a strip joint, and enjoy something, should you then feel obliged to give them money? would it be wrong of you to exploit the fact that they chose to make free access possible?

The 'living art' of a strip joint? There is, of course, performance art, but I would imagine the majority of strippers would not fall under this category. Whether or not you feel obliged to give a stripper money is your own personal issue. Strippers and artists alike who offer their services for free should be under no pretense of expecting recompense for their generosity, of course, but this was not the issue. The issue was illegal downloading I believe, which is of course not a case of artists providing free access to their works. If artists do not provide free access to their works, then yes, you should feel obliged to give them whatever they require in order to partake in their art, in whatever form it might be (a print, an act, a CD, a canvas, etc.).