Who downloads/who does'nt

[Kara-Shehr]

All this talk of downloading makes me want to start downloading. Oh no......

 

[SkeletonWitch]

Maybe I'm just a jaded old(er) fool, but folks that download countless songs/albums don't really strike me as fans of music for art's sake, but more as fans of music for ownership's sake.

I remember playing old Metallica and Megadeth CDs until every note and lyric was burned on my brain. This was back in the late 80's/early 90's, a magical period really. This is what metal fans need to go back to. There is no way anyone will ever convince me that someone can own 1000 albums (in any form) and know the album inside and out, and thus, appreciate it to the fullest extent. With fickle fans these days, my guess is that an album is played a few times, then put down/deleted/forgotten within a month, probably less. And then they move onto something else.

When it's all said and done, my guess is that anyone could get by with owning 100 albums and never look back. The rest is just fodder.

I'm not going to preach against downloading, because it's all been said before. I'm just tired of the old "I have no money" excuse. I don't know what kids are doing these days (actually I do: texting or playing angry birds, or something else on their phone, christ, put the goddamn thing down), but does anyone work while they're in high school or college anymore? I was somehow able to buy CDs while in HS and college and I survived just fine, and had a blast. And this is before at-your-fingertips mailorders with $10 CDs and free shipping. CDs were around $12-$13 before tax.

Damn, sorry for the rant, nostalgia I guess. Forgive my semi-luddite attitude.

Not all albums are meant to be listened to ad infinitum.

 

[JontRevolting]

I fully understand what he's getting at though,I have close to 1000 original cds and a nice pile of vinyl and you end up getting to the stage where you just can't physically listen to some albums as much as you should.I've got cds that i've listened to once or twice but have'nt clicked despite them having gotten rave reviews,then i've moved onto something else.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

Maybe I'm just a jaded old(er) fool, but folks that download countless songs/albums don't really strike me as fans of music for art's sake, but more as fans of music for ownership's sake.

I remember playing old Metallica and Megadeth CDs until every note and lyric was burned on my brain. This was back in the late 80's/early 90's, a magical period really. This is what metal fans need to go back to. There is no way anyone will ever convince me that someone can own 1000 albums (in any form) and know the album inside and out, and thus, appreciate it to the fullest extent. With fickle fans these days, my guess is that an album is played a few times, then put down/deleted/forgotten within a month, probably less. And then they move onto something else.

When it's all said and done, my guess is that anyone could get by with owning 100 albums and never look back. The rest is just fodder.

I'm not going to preach against downloading, because it's all been said before. I'm just tired of the old "I have no money" excuse. I don't know what kids are doing these days (actually I do: texting or playing angry birds, or something else on their phone, christ, put the goddamn thing down), but does anyone work while they're in high school or college anymore? I was somehow able to buy CDs while in HS and college and I survived just fine, and had a blast. And this is before at-your-fingertips mailorders with $10 CDs and free shipping. CDs were around $12-$13 before tax.

Damn, sorry for the rant, nostalgia I guess. Forgive my semi-luddite attitude.

This.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I have actually slowed way down on my DLing for the purpose of really getting to know the music I've downloaded well. You can't really say a band is good or bad based on the one song you listened to a couple times.

 

[The Butt]

I download quite a bit, and still listen to albums shit-tons. :S

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Onder has the best post in this thread.

 

[Vossyrus]

Maybe I'm just a jaded old(er) fool, but folks that download countless songs/albums don't really strike me as fans of music for art's sake, but more as fans of music for ownership's sake.

I remember playing old Metallica and Megadeth CDs until every note and lyric was burned on my brain. This was back in the late 80's/early 90's, a magical period really. This is what metal fans need to go back to. There is no way anyone will ever convince me that someone can own 1000 albums (in any form) and know the album inside and out, and thus, appreciate it to the fullest extent. With fickle fans these days, my guess is that an album is played a few times, then put down/deleted/forgotten within a month, probably less. And then they move onto something else.

When it's all said and done, my guess is that anyone could get by with owning 100 albums and never look back. The rest is just fodder.

I'm not going to preach against downloading, because it's all been said before. I'm just tired of the old "I have no money" excuse. I don't know what kids are doing these days (actually I do: texting or playing angry birds, or something else on their phone, christ, put the goddamn thing down), but does anyone work while they're in high school or college anymore? I was somehow able to buy CDs while in HS and college and I survived just fine, and had a blast. And this is before at-your-fingertips mailorders with $10 CDs and free shipping. CDs were around $12-$13 before tax.

Damn, sorry for the rant, nostalgia I guess. Forgive my semi-luddite attitude.

I have to agree with you.

I actually miss the simple days of saving up money and buying one album every month or two. I definitely had more appreciation for everything that went into each album I bought. I certainly had to, for a while I was paying $23.99-$27.99 for a single CD not including taxes which were about %15. Imports of those (mysterious) Norwegian black metal bands were definitely costly, but I have no regrets looking back.

I have close to about 600 albums (mostly CDs) which is a pretty good. Not nearly as much as some people, but I'm proud of my collection, have a lot of good memories, and I can't say I got any albums that I regret buying.

From my own observations of people I've talked to about the matter, I would say most people who say that they cannot afford to buy music actually can but they choose to place priority on spending their extra money on other forms of entertainment or items because they know they can get the music for free. It's just that most people claim that they need music, it's such a huge part of their life, but would rather spend their extra cash on fancy new TVs, sound systems, iphones, gaming consoles, and other items which you obviously cannot obtain for free. So I do think selfishness definitely does factor in to a certain extent. Anyways, not to turn this into a moral debate, as I had mentioned, this is just what I have gathered from my observations.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Onder has the best post in this thread.

Yeah after reading what he said he's kind of convinced me that it's ok sometimes. I've been pissing through hundreds and hundreds of dollars for the last decade on CD's. Everyone at work is like "wow holy crap I can't believe how many CD's you own, you still buy them?" when I bring in my CD wallets. I'll give downloading a try and keep buying CD's it could actually be more helpful to me.

 

[celestialelixir]

Maybe I'm just a jaded old(er) fool, but folks that download countless songs/albums don't really strike me as fans of music for art's sake, but more as fans of music for ownership's sake.

Keeping a larger library of music, no matter how much you listen, shouldn't warrant a label from others as someone who keeps their music for ownerships sake. I keep a larger library of music due to the fact that sometimes albums do need more than one listen to sink in, so what would be the point of deleting it if you can give it another chance later?

I remember playing old Metallica and Megadeth CDs until every note and lyric was burned on my brain. This was back in the late 80's/early 90's, a magical period really. This is what metal fans need to go back to. There is no way anyone will ever convince me that someone can own 1000 albums (in any form) and know the album inside and out, and thus, appreciate it to the fullest extent. With fickle fans these days, my guess is that an album is played a few times, then put down/deleted/forgotten within a month, probably less. And then they move onto something else.

I don't mean to come off disrespectful or anything, but perhaps not everyone enjoys music the same way you do? Perhaps one doesn't like having every note and lyric burned into their brains. That isn't to say an album is played once or twice then never played again; shit I've listened to BTBAM's "Colors" at least 80 times since I first downloaded it. Everyone has their own ways of listening to music, and who are you to judge how big a fan of music they are based on how they listen?


When it's all said and done, my guess is that anyone could get by with owning 100 albums and never look back. The rest is just fodder.

I'm not going to preach against downloading, because it's all been said before. I'm just tired of the old "I have no money" excuse. I don't know what kids are doing these days (actually I do: texting or playing angry birds, or something else on their phone, christ, put the goddamn thing down), but does anyone work while they're in high school or college anymore? I was somehow able to buy CDs while in HS and college and I survived just fine, and had a blast. And this is before at-your-fingertips mailorders with $10 CDs and free shipping. CDs were around $12-$13 before tax.

'cause all teenagers are your stereotypical high schooler.

Damn, sorry for the rant, nostalgia I guess. Forgive my semi-luddite attitude.

Not trying to be argumentative or difficult here, if I come off that way. Just trying to articulate my thoughts in an organized manner.

 

[Onder]

Onder has the best post in this thread.

Thanks dude

 

[skeptik]

I also have a problem with the aforementioned "I have no money" argument, but not for the reasons previously stated. Under normal circumstances in life, when you don't have the money to buy something, you do without. With the entitlement culture that exists today and the easy access granted us with the advent of digital technology, however, it makes it so easy to acquire nearly any piece of music that going without something you want just seems absurd to some people. But seriously, if you already own hundreds of albums, how desperately do you need to hear those 5 albums that you just downloaded today? I know this sounds slightly hypocritical coming from somebody that owns 2000 albums, but why can't you be content with what you own until you can buy more? If your attention span is so limited that the hundreds of albums you already have can't sustain you until you have the money to buy a couple more, then you have a problem.

And as far as the sampling to buy argument goes, please find me more than 5 bands that don't have a myspace page or some other authorized means of sampling their music. Even if that fails, there's still youtube, even though that is also an unauthorized source most likely, but it provides a quick overview of nearly anything you'd possibly want to buy. It's harder to not be able to find an album on there than it is to find one.

 

[Raina]

I download music, if I like it, I buy it as long as I have the money.

Unfortunately, I don't have too many CDs (my collection is @ 150), as a consequence to saving and spending all the money on concerts/festivals. I put priority in live shows, anyway. Incidently, this is a better source of income for a lot of bands, rather than CD sales.

As for listening, I can play a CD a lot of times, I usually dwell on a few bands for weeks - also get back to most of the stuff I listened before. I rarely browse fast through tens of bands, just for the sake of knowing about them; I like to listen at my own pace.

 

[TheInsane]

I remember an older thread where I discussed with someone who posted a "best of 2010" list (or something along the lines. I think the list consisted of about 50 albums (what the person considered the 50 best ones of the year nonetheless which means he or she tried to listen to even more albums throughout a year).

I argued that thats just crazy and to fully know if or how much you care for an album you need to give it many listens and also some time in between the listens. Maybe I am am exceptionally slow in my listening but I would say I definately didnt even give more than 50 albums a chance last year. There would be no time for that. Much less having hear and evaluated a best of list consisting of a whopping 50 bands.

I am grown up with really listening to new music though. To the point of knowing it very much by heart. I do feel that younger listeners nowadays more often tend to only give an album one or a few chances and then decide to like or not like and then go to the next album. Like most things it goes very fast and things are seldom deeply thougt about.

I do think it is part of the new culture since we can download an album in seconds where it used to be traded on tapes, copied on tape or bought some years ago (and I am not that old still). I think the old way gave much more of a chance to music while todays people look for things that immediately grabs them rather than let some stuff grow.

But thats just me...

 

[Necroraven]

I also have a problem with the aforementioned "I have no money" argument, but not for the reasons previously stated. Under normal circumstances in life, when you don't have the money to buy something, you do without. With the entitlement culture that exists today and the easy access granted us with the advent of digital technology, however, it makes it so easy to acquire nearly any piece of music that going without something you want just seems absurd to some people. But seriously, if you already own hundreds of albums, how desperately do you need to hear those 5 albums that you just downloaded today? I know this sounds slightly hypocritical coming from somebody that owns 2000 albums, but why can't you be content with what you own until you can buy more? If your attention span is so limited that the hundreds of albums you already have can't sustain you until you have the money to buy a couple more, then you have a problem.

And as far as the sampling to buy argument goes, please find me more than 5 bands that don't have a myspace page or some other authorized means of sampling their music. Even if that fails, there's still youtube, even though that is also an unauthorized source most likely, but it provides a quick overview of nearly anything you'd possibly want to buy. It's harder to not be able to find an album on there than it is to find one.

Yes, the problem seems to be, that when people are used to get everything they want immediately, it's hard to do without, even if you don't have money. That's when you resort to downloading, and justify it with the "I have no money"-arguments. Also, the great availability of music due to internet makes music more and more disposable. A bit like J. said, ten years ago, when I was 10 (and didn't have internet) and bought my first Iron Maiden albums, I listened to them all the time (since I didn't have anything else) and really appreciated the music. Nowadays when you basically have all the music in the world at your fingertips, you stop listening to albums at the moment the first "not so good"-song kicks in, and don't even give it a chance. Of course the bright side might be, that it's easier to stay away from shitty music, but many people sure miss good albums, that require a little more to open.

 

[SweptbackFlame]

I do both and I don't see why I shouldn't. It's good for the band when I download the album because I'm acknowledged about it and I know whether to buy it or not, even if it's just the information. Let's say that it's a rare cd that I come across in some shop - now I know I need to buy it and I do. Or I can recommend it to someone else or whatever. If I only knew the cover of it, I'd be very hesitant to spend money on it.

Some artists don't see that when their album is leaked to the internet, it's a good thing for them because that is the best advert possible. Internet is a the strongest media and this way people know about the album and want to ckeck it out. If album doesn't leak to be downloaded, the actual sales are much worse. There was some study about this - the people who download the most, also buy the most. I am quite certain that if internet-music-sharing didn't exist, the whole music industry would be half as big as it is, maybe less.

That is what I believe in and that's how I justify downloading. I buy stuff that I like when I have money, also not really to support the artists tbh, that's more of a side-effect to me (as I would even buy a NSBM album, not to support nazis, and I don't think they see much of the money), but to own the physical copy. It's a collectible and my good hobby. It's sex.

No one could have said it better

 

[Vossyrus]

Album sales are affected to varying degrees depending on the type of band.

Really obscure bands have little to lose because no one would have bought their album anyways, had there not been the exposure, and because they likely aren't touring or trying to make it big, or expecting any sales. They probably have full-time jobs as well.

But I think music fans (especially of metal) have a really warped view of how much money bands actually take home. A lot of the so-called "popular", "mainstream" and "commercial" metal bands like Cradle of Filth and Dimmu Borgir are only selling a few thousand copies. But it's ok, because these bands have so much money, right? Actually a lot of these bands barely get by, and if they do, it's because of the ridiculous amounts of touring they do. How can anyone expect bands to be full-time musicians, go on tours and everything, if they aren't making enough money.

If 100 people download an album, and 12 people decide to buy it after downloading, I have trouble seeing that as a positive thing. I can't really look at the facts and say, hey album sales are down but people who download are more likely to buy the album because that's an incredibly flawed argument. All that says to me, is that diehard fans who actually care about the music/bands would have bought the album anyways, but less are going to because they can download for free. But without question, if downloading wasn't an option, album sales would be higher. Like I had mentioned before, people generally don't make buying music a priority because they know they can get it for free and spend their extra cash on other forms of entertainment instead.

And I hear people say that bands who are passionate about what they do shouldn't care about making money, but it's a shame to hear people essentially saying they don't mind taking advantage of these people and their 'passion'. It's kind of like your boss saying, I'm going to give more hours this week but you're only going to get paid for 10% of what you worked but you shouldn't care because you're passionate about what you do.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

You dont have money to buy the cd's you want? Go make some money....
It's an extremely easy thing to do

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The thing is, if you're buying used it doesn't effect the band or label anyway, so it makes no difference whether I buy or download (though if you're buying from an indie record store, then that's a good thing). For example, I've bought 3 new albums in the past 6 months, though I probably bought about 25 albums during that time.

I understand and appreciate the argument people are putting forth about having a consumptive attitude toward music. However, insofar as attitude towards music is concerned, what's the difference between the guy who makes 200 K a year and buys 10 albums per week and the guy who makes 15 K and downloads 10 albums per week? Property, that's it.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

i download lots of albums ... if i like em, i buy em.