Look, people often spend up to $70 on a gym membership every month and don't even go.
In what kind of world do "people" "often" do that?
That'd be Hollywood movies. _________________ "I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."
Aside from the ethics of illegal downloading, I've found that when I did DL music in the past I never listened to it. Now, if I'm really interested in a new artist I'll try and buy the album. Spending 20 bucks on an album sure increases to guilt if I don't give it a fair amount of listens.
Aside from the ethics of illegal downloading, I've found that when I did DL music in the past I never listened to it. Now, if I'm really interested in a new artist I'll try and buy the album. Spending 20 bucks on an album sure increases to guilt if I don't give it a fair amount of listens.
This is actually the best argument for buying music. For starters, if you buy an album then you're likely to listen again even if you didn't like it on the first listen. And sometimes great records need a little time to really sink in, it's not unusual for some of my favourites to have not really clicked until the 5th listen. Where as if you download something with some P2P software or whatever it's very easy to binge download a lot at once & if something doesn't do it for you it either gets lost among a thousand other records or gets deleted.
Spending money is definitely a motivation to actually consume music in a fair way rather than making it incredibly disposable.
There is a certain sense in which violating laws is always "wrong", insomuch as those laws are a part of the system that keeps society functioning. Still, it is always reasonable to question the fairness and appropriateness of those laws, as well as to question whether violating them might sometimes serve the greater good.
I do not think we are likely to work out a clear answer to these questions. Perhaps the best argument in favor of allowing the free exchange of music is that controlling distribution has become impractical in the digital age. A law that cannot be enforced is of no value to society and can even be to its detriment if the powerful use it to make examples of meek.
This is actually the best argument for buying music. For starters, if you buy an album then you're likely to listen again even if you didn't like it on the first listen. And sometimes great records need a little time to really sink in, it's not unusual for some of my favourites to have not really clicked until the 5th listen. Where as if you download something with some P2P software or whatever it's very easy to binge download a lot at once & if something doesn't do it for you it either gets lost among a thousand other records or gets deleted.
Spending money is definitely a motivation to actually consume music in a fair way rather than making it incredibly disposable.
init true? my first taste(s) of at least a quarter...maybe half of the albums on my 'greatest luls ever' chart were not particularly favorable. i'm going to go count now.
edit: 41 albums on my list that i was underwhelmed by on first listen. of those, i had purchased 38 of them and forced myself to understand. three albums i restreamed via bandcamp/spotify over and over again for some reason and fell for them. _________________ follow me on the bandcamp.
[strike]its 2016[/strike]
Or maybe I'm just an elitist douchebag Apple fanboy)
Sweetie, those don't exist
Quote:
Look, people often spend up to $70 on a gym membership every month and don't even go. If music really is your life like it is mine, is it such a terrible thing* to spend a small fraction of that on so much of the music in the world? I know it doesn't solve the economics problem completely, but it's at least a music easier step than many realize.
Applerill, I love ya, but you really need to start reading your posts aloud before you press submit
Anyways Im too old and don't know the cool sites and don't want to infect my computer more than it already is with malware so I just stream instead of downloading, which is like scraping the bottom of the barrel but still isn't techincally "stealing", they make money (just a lot less from physical sales. most of the time). I would love to buy physical copies all of my most favorite singers, but unless I start getting paid for every hair that falls out the top of my head, I'm far too broke to do so. It's just modern economics and the increasing loss of disposable income for many (though with some it's the opposite problem). Music is music, it can be enjoyed anywhere, it can come from anywhere, like even from the simple tap of a pencil. And I have no idea where this is going.
When I was younger, I made money being a musician. I played gigs, and I was paid for playing music. As I should be. Because a club desired a service that I could provide. They payed me for it. This has changed over the years...dramatically. I make less money playing live now than I did 30 years ago. A couple of years ago, I was playing at a brewery in Colorado...$50 for 3 sets of live music. Much less than in the past...but it was pay. After three shows, they told me that they liked me, and wanted to book me regularly through the summer months. Could I play for $25/a show?
If your answer would have been yes, then you'd be part of the problem. If you think that it's a good thing for young bands to play shows for free because it would be "good exposure", that's even more of the problem. Playing for free is NEVER, EVER a good idea. It tells venues that they don't have to pay the nexy guy, because they can get guys like this one for nothing.
The reason I'm going here is that unless you are a name, you don't make good money playing live. If you're playing live, your best bet at any decent pay is a healthy tip jar and people buying your stuff. Which includes your albums. But why buy an album at a show if you can download it later for free? Who is that helping?
I don't care if it's me, or if it's Borejko, or if it's Metallica. If you download our music for free, you're stealing from us. Plain and simple. If you've decided that you'd like to make your music available for free because you think it's "good exposure", you're doing the rest of us a disservice. Why buy that guy's music when I can get it from this guy for free? Not cool. It tells people that music should be free when it should not be.
As for the artists who have "already made their money"...how about this? Let's say you manufacture something...I don't care what it is. And let's say that you've sold a lot of them and made enough money to make a living doing it. Does that make it okay for me to come and take your product without paying for it? It does not. Just because Ford has sold millions of cars, should I be able to walk onto a lot and take one for free? It's the same with music, and any other product that someone creates. It's not free. It shouldn't be free. And we don't have the right to just take it because we want it, or because we can't afford it.
Just because we CAN download music for free doesn't mean we should. In my opinion, it's not about what you want. It's about what the artist has put into what they have created, and taking from them is simply not right. Putting an artists music on a free download site is not right. And hiring artists to play your venue with no compensation is not right. Just because it's out there doesn't mean it's not wrong.
Pretty much no other products and services are free. Why should music be different? _________________ May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...
When I was younger, I made money being a musician. I played gigs, and I was paid for playing music. As I should be. Because a club desired a service that I could provide. They payed me for it. This has changed over the years...dramatically. I make less money playing live now than I did 30 years ago. A couple of years ago, I was playing at a brewery in Colorado...$50 for 3 sets of live music. Much less than in the past...but it was pay. After three shows, they told me that they liked me, and wanted to book me regularly through the summer months. Could I play for $25/a show?
If your answer would have been yes, then you'd be part of the problem. If you think that it's a good thing for young bands to play shows for free because it would be "good exposure", that's even more of the problem. Playing for free is NEVER, EVER a good idea. It tells venues that they don't have to pay the nexy guy, because they can get guys like this one for nothing.
The reason I'm going here is that unless you are a name, you don't make good money playing live. If you're playing live, your best bet at any decent pay is a healthy tip jar and people buying your stuff. Which includes your albums. But why buy an album at a show if you can download it later for free? Who is that helping?
I don't care if it's me, or if it's Borejko, or if it's Metallica. If you download our music for free, you're stealing from us. Plain and simple. If you've decided that you'd like to make your music available for free because you think it's "good exposure", you're doing the rest of us a disservice. Why buy that guy's music when I can get it from this guy for free? Not cool. It tells people that music should be free when it should not be.
As for the artists who have "already made their money"...how about this? Let's say you manufacture something...I don't care what it is. And let's say that you've sold a lot of them and made enough money to make a living doing it. Does that make it okay for me to come and take your product without paying for it? It does not. Just because Ford has sold millions of cars, should I be able to walk onto a lot and take one for free? It's the same with music, and any other product that someone creates. It's not free. It shouldn't be free. And we don't have the right to just take it because we want it, or because we can't afford it.
Just because we CAN download music for free doesn't mean we should. In my opinion, it's not about what you want. It's about what the artist has put into what they have created, and taking from them is simply not right. Putting an artists music on a free download site is not right. And hiring artists to play your venue with no compensation is not right. Just because it's out there doesn't mean it's not wrong.
Pretty much no other products and services are free. Why should music be different?
Very good post and points. Essentially how I feel about it. _________________ -Ryan
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
