Author Topic: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music  (Read 14219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« on: June 20, 2011, 10:06:48 AM »
So, I understand that Grooveshark has lisences to stream most of their material.  I've been primarily using Grooveshark to discover new bands, since it is the best legal way I can think of.  However, my dilemma is that I know that the sound quality is terrible, and I don't want to adopt a "throw-away" mentality (as Steven Wilson puts it) and simply dismiss an artist because of Grooveshark's poor quality.  Yet I am a poor college student and can't afford to buy albums all the time.

So it's kind of a paradox: I want to listen to as many artists as I can, but I also want to appreciate an artist's songs in the production it was meant to be listened to.  Do any of you relate to me, and do any of you have any tips/advice?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2011, 10:14:38 AM »
It's funny that in this day and age it seems that everyone feels like they are entitled to hear any music they want when they want for no cost. 
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline contest_sanity

  • Posts: 2346
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2011, 10:16:38 AM »
Yeah, I wish we could go back to the days of buying albums based on 1 song we heard and then the rest of the album sounding like goat shit.  Those were the times.

Offline FretMuppet

  • Posts: 775
  • Gender: Male
  • DAIM that looks good!
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2011, 10:18:43 AM »

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2011, 10:19:55 AM »
Yeah they were the times because good artists actually got support from labels and went on tours and people went.  Live music is losing steam all over the country.  Making music free is probably one of the worst things that could happen to music as an industry.  Yeah its more accessible, but it hurts the artists who don't see returns from their hard work.  

I don't understand the mentality of I deserve to hear everything for free.  
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11593
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2011, 10:20:27 AM »
One simple solution: don't dismiss an artist because of grooveshark's subpar sound quality.  Understand that the artist's album probably doesn't sound that bad.  Its like hearing a song like "Sweet Child of Mine" on FM Radio.  The quality is significantly worse, but you can still hear that its a good song despite that.

Another one: don't make it your goal to discover as many as you can.  Trying to find out about everything all the time isn't a great way to listen to music, in my experience.  You get a little bit of knowledge about one band at a time, but the amount of music all at once overwhelms you and most of it falls by the wayside.  That's more conducive a "throw-away mentality" than anything, IMO.  Hear about a band that might interest you, invest some time in an album.  Take your time with it.  You can't really come up with an opinion on bands when you've got ten different albums to listen to like its a chore or something.

And a third solution:

Grooveshark without the subpar quality.

Yeah they were the times because good artists actually got support from labels and went on tours and people went.  Live music is losing steam all over the country.  Making music free is probably one of the worst things that could happen to music as an industry.  Yeah its more accessible, but it hurts the artists who don't see returns from their hard work. 

I don't understand the mentality of I deserve to hear everything for free. 
Well, grooveshark has the licenses to play the music, its legal, so why not try-before-you-buy using it?  And live music "losing steam" might be more because of a poor economy overall rather than some kind of shift towards not paying for music at all.  I agree that the "I deserve everything for free" mentality in general is a bad thing, but its not such a big deal in the music industry when bands don't make much off of CDs anyways.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2011, 10:23:20 AM »
Another one: don't make it your goal to discover as many as you can.  Trying to find out about everything all the time isn't a great way to listen to music, in my experience.  You get a little bit of knowledge about one band at a time, but the amount of music all at once overwhelms you and most of it falls by the wayside.  That's more conducive a "throw-away mentality" than anything, IMO.  Hear about a band that might interest you, invest some time in an album.  Take your time with it.  You can't really come up with an opinion on bands when you've got ten different albums to listen to like its a chore or something.
That's good advice.  But I always think about the awesome music I've discovered for myself that I never would have found had it not been for casting a really wide net.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline contest_sanity

  • Posts: 2346
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2011, 10:25:46 AM »


A mystical quest
To steal all my music
Grooveshark
And Torrents:
I shall pay no more!

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11593
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2011, 10:28:24 AM »
But for each awesome band you've fallen in love with, there were probably other gems you've just let fall by the wayside that you can say you know because yes, you have listened to them, but you don't ACTUALLY know them because you haven't really taken enough time to let it all sink in.  To me, it's less admirable to have a 100 albums from 75 different bands, and more admirable to have 100 albums from 25 different bands.  

Offline OskarSluring

  • Posts: 181
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #9 on: June 20, 2011, 10:28:51 AM »
Ħ, ask yourself this:
What is more important to me; paying the artist to support him/her, or experiance the music? What gives me the most enjoyment/satisfaction?

Offline contest_sanity

  • Posts: 2346
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2011, 10:31:56 AM »
But for each awesome band you've fallen in love with, there were probably other gems you've just let fall by the wayside that you can say you know because yes, you have listened to them, but you don't ACTUALLY know them because you haven't really taken enough time to let it all sink in.  To me, it's less admirable to have a 100 albums from 75 different bands, and more admirable to have 100 albums from 25 different bands.  
I can understand this sentiment, especially hanging around here.  By following 2 top 50 album threads, participating in song roulettes, and just generally cruising the boards, it's easy to feel like "there are 1000 new bands I MUST listen to."

Online King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59294
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2011, 10:32:12 AM »
I like using Grooveshark as a tool to listen to bands to weed out what I'd like to buy.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2011, 10:35:38 AM »
But for each awesome band you've fallen in love with, there were probably other gems you've just let fall by the wayside that you can say you know because yes, you have listened to them, but you don't ACTUALLY know them because you haven't really taken enough time to let it all sink in.  To me, it's less admirable to have a 100 albums from 75 different bands, and more admirable to have 100 albums from 25 different bands.  
That is very true.  Right now, my "method" (if you want to call it that) is to cast a wide net, listen to stuff people suggest on the forums, and later nab the physical copies of the albums that I really love.  If I really am obsessed with an artist (like the Holy Trinity of Modern Prog: DT, PT, Opeth), then I'll hold off listening until I buy the physical copy.

"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline j

  • Posts: 2794
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2011, 10:59:15 AM »
Yeah, I wish we could go back to the days of buying albums based on 1 song we heard and then the rest of the album sounding like goat shit.  Those were the times.

 :lol

Exactly.  What a great thing they had going there.

I NEVER bought an album until I could listen to music on the internet first so that I could know what I was paying for.  I know there was no alternative, so I just did without.  Up until high school probably, I listened to the radio and occasionally friends' CDs, and didn't get into too many bands at all.

Put it this way too: I'd never ever have bought any of DT's albums (or a million other bands for that matter) if all I'd heard were the singles.

The way I sometimes go about sampling music is illegal, and I'm aware of that.  But since I buy what I like and delete the rest, I don't lose a bit of sleep over it.  There's nothing "unethical" about it; in fact I'd argue that the wastefulness and stupidity of habitually making blind purchases of ANY kind, not just music, is worse.

-J

Offline zxlkho

  • Official Dream Theater Hater.
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7666
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2011, 11:01:04 AM »
I agree with j completely.
I AM A GUY
You're a fucking stupid bitch.
Orion....that's the one with a bunch of power chords and boringly harsh vocals, isn't it?

Online King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59294
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2011, 11:07:36 AM »
Take it from a gut who was here before Al Gore created the internet.  It is such a great tool to find music, sample and then go out and buy it,  Just like CS joked about.  What the big dealeo?  Radio sucks today and it's about time music lovers get other mediums to find new music.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2011, 11:24:24 AM »
Take it from a gut who was here before Al Gore created the internet.  It is such a great tool to find music, sample and then go out and buy it,  Just like CS joked about.  What the big dealeo?  Radio sucks today and it's about time music lovers get other mediums to find new music.

The problem is that there is only a minority that actually go out and buy the stuff.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline robwebster

  • Posts: 5021
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2011, 11:25:00 AM »
Yeah they were the times because good artists actually got support from labels and went on tours and people went.  Live music is losing steam all over the country.  Making music free is probably one of the worst things that could happen to music as an industry.  Yeah its more accessible, but it hurts the artists who don't see returns from their hard work.  

I don't understand the mentality of I deserve to hear everything for free.  
The artists who don't see returns for their hard work though, surely, are the ones who sadly don't quite cut the mustard?

The thing is, the music industry is driven by free samples. Why do you think the radio's so crucial? Very rarely will people buy an album with no idea of what they're getting themselves into - they'll know the genre, or one of the recording artists, or they'll have heard a song from it. They'll have a preconception, or else they won't be interested. The Beatles aren't the top selling artist of all time because they made the best music. Sure, it helped, but the Beatles sold so many records because people found out that they were brilliant. Word of mouth, radio play, et. al. Example hasn't been at the top of the UK chart for two weeks because he's fantastic, it's because 11-million people listen to BBC Radio 1 every day, and will have heard that song. Even if 90% despise it, the other 10% could love it and that'd be enough to chart. Whereas if the perfect band - the winning formula that 100% of all people ever absolutely adore - were to only be heard by fifty people, that's still not a career.

Record labels spend tens of hundreds of thousands of millions of pounds or dollars or yen or rupees or mana trying to get the public to form an opinion about their music. Posters in Picadilly Circus, adverts on bus stations, airplay at radio stations, viral videos... payola's been illegal for decades now, I believe, but I'm sure there's an element of tastemaking. It is in everyone's best interest that everybody hears Violet Hill by Coldplay for free, and from there... who knows? Maybe they'll start humming it. Maybe a friend will lend them the album. Or maybe there's someone out there who'll switch off the radio whenever it comes on. (I hope not, 'cause it's an ace song.) So, throw money at it, and eventually everyone will have an opinion on Coldplay, and everyone who might be interested in buying the album will be able to make up their mind.

But where does that leave smaller bands? The Dream Theaters and the Porcupine Trees? Heck, no - let's go more obscure. The Pure Reason Revolutions and Therions of the world. They want everyone to buy their albums, too, but they don't have the luxury of million-euro advertising campaigns. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could listen to their music?

Free samples make a band like Dream Theater as visible as Madonna. You can't etch your music into someone's eardrums, repeatedly bashing your head against the listener until he buys your fucking record like you can with radio-play, but you can certainly enable the listener to make a decision. And if the band are profiting from that tentative will-they-won't-they phase as they are when a track's played on Spotify or Grooveshark, all the better!

Free music offers smaller bands exposure. If they still sink, then they're clearly not producing something that people are recommending. Which is sad! I'm sure there are loads of quite-good bands going under and it's tragic that a quite-good obscure band should be failing to scratch two pennies together when an awful manufactured monolith is standing proud - but they need to be better than quite-good if they want to survive. If the listener hasn't chosen to invest, it's not the listener's fault... it's the band's fault for not creating a product that's so good that it reaches its ghostly hand into the listener's pocket.

Filesharing and free samples give small bands that may not be so radio friendly a fighting chance. It's an equaliser, of sorts. Dream Theater get level-pegging with Madonna for the ultra-comeptitive price of free! I'm oversimplifying a little, but at its core, that's A Good Thing™ and I won't hear a word said against it.

Offline Ravenheart

  • Hair
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3263
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2011, 11:31:52 AM »
Well, you se---


*Cue Robwebster*


Nevermind.



I will add, though, that I dislike this mob mentality against internet streaming that's cropped up. Like Rob mentioned (although I may be misinterpreting what he said. I just woke up), the internet has helped a lot of bands get exposure they otherwise wouldn't receive. Listening to a free song or two via the internet has helped me discover some incredible bands I'd never have the pleasure of hearing if I just stuck to the radio (and the radio sucks. Sorry. I don't care if I'm playing by the rules by listening to the radio. Nothing on it catches my attention). Why can't we embrace it? Record companies won't be able to fight it, so they might as well adapt.

The majority of bands barely make a cent from their albums anyway, at least those on labels. But if people who love their music enough go out and see them, then there is the revenue--that's the cash. It's a lot of moving parts that need to move in unison and consecutively, but hopefully just enough people will be persuaded to see their favorite bands live and really give them that money in return that they wish their buying of their records would give them.

Offline ZBomber

  • "The Analogy Guy"
  • Posts: 5502
  • Gender: Male
  • A Farewell to Kings
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2011, 11:32:07 AM »
Another one: don't make it your goal to discover as many as you can.  Trying to find out about everything all the time isn't a great way to listen to music, in my experience.  You get a little bit of knowledge about one band at a time, but the amount of music all at once overwhelms you and most of it falls by the wayside.  That's more conducive a "throw-away mentality" than anything, IMO.  Hear about a band that might interest you, invest some time in an album.  Take your time with it.  You can't really come up with an opinion on bands when you've got ten different albums to listen to like its a chore or something.

This is EXACTLY how I feel. I like hearing new music, but too much at once is overwhelming to me. I like to keep my new artists/albums to one or two at a time, that way I can take as much time as I need to listen to the album over and over, becoming familiar with it, learning everything there is to know about it. I may not know as many artists as a lot of people on here, but I can guarantee I know much more about the artists and albums I do listen to, just because I devote so much time into it. When I get a new album, I will spin it over and over until I've become extremely familiar with it. I really don't get how people can form a solid opinion on an album when they have only heard it a couple of times. And to be honest, thats why I'm limiting my roulette to 5 rounds. I'm pretty much writing down the artists that I enjoy, and then at another time I will slowly listen to their discographies... but not all at once.

So, yeah... I don't discover a lot of music. But whenever I get money, I buy a new album. It's a much more enjoyable experience that way. I very rarely download an album, unless a friend wants to show me something (I kind of view that as a friend showing me his copy of an album, but obviously you can't really do that when there are hundreds of miles between you) or there is a song/album I've heard a sample of and am dying to hear but don't have any money at the moment. It's not a frequent thing, and I usually end up buying ti anyways, so I never saw a problem with that. I may be limiting myself to what I hear, but earning the music is a great treat, and the passion I develop for the album or artist in question is something I don't think a lot of people who listen to tons of new music at a time develop.

That's another thing that bugs me... buying digital music. I don't think I will ever do it. If I'm gonna put my money into music, god damn it I want some kind of physical medium. I'm not gonna pay someone to send me a shitty quality MP3. Even lossless files don't appeal to me, as they usually cost even MORE than the physical copy. :\ Why should I pay that much more for something you should WANT and HAVE your music to be in. What kind of artist would only market the lowest quality version of something....

Anddddd I'm sounding way too old fashioned now I'll go back to my 70s themed lava lamp lit room and smoke my peace pipe now guys

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2011, 11:33:10 AM »
Free music gives the band a chance possibly, but after that, the music just spreads for free to all these new fans.  To think that everyone is so noble that they go out and buy the album after they already have it on their computer is little naive. 

Why do you think current pop music is so focused on singles nowadays?  It's all about get one artist real popular get one hit single, then ditch them.  Which has always gone on, but it used to be about selling a great record, not just a single. 

This hurts the development of artists.  Do you think DT would have made it as far as they have without having Pull Me Under on the radio and then having people run out and buy Images and Words?  Hell no, they would have stayed obscure, the music just being traded around in a musical sub culture. 

Sampling of music on a website is one thing, but being able to download an entire album is another. 

The whole I think that the I deserve to hear all my music for free and the way this has infiltrated our culture is the most disturbing part about free music.  Music just isn't worth anything to anyone anymore.  It's gotten to the point where no one really wants to pay a few bucks for a cover charge to see a live act. 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2011, 11:39:06 AM by 7StringedBeast »
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline Ravenheart

  • Hair
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3263
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2011, 11:37:26 AM »
Why do you think current pop music is so focused on singles nowadays?  It's all about get one artist real popular get one hit single, then ditch them.  Which has always gone on, but it used to be about selling a great record, not just a single.  
Um, no. It's always been like that since the dawning of the music industry. This is nothing new.

Again, this is not a perfect system in this day and age. It does suck, but if the music industry refuses to change, then quite frankly, everyone up in there is an idiot. The internet is a powerful entity, and fighting it is like trying to move a massive boulder up on icy mountain during a blizzard.

Online King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59294
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2011, 11:38:30 AM »
Take it from a gut who was here before Al Gore created the internet.  It is such a great tool to find music, sample and then go out and buy it,  Just like CS joked about.  What the big dealeo?  Radio sucks today and it's about time music lovers get other mediums to find new music.

The problem is that there is only a minority that actually go out and buy the stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't download from Groveshark so in fact it's the new radio without hearing the same 5 songs played over and over.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2011, 11:41:43 AM »
Take it from a gut who was here before Al Gore created the internet.  It is such a great tool to find music, sample and then go out and buy it,  Just like CS joked about.  What the big dealeo?  Radio sucks today and it's about time music lovers get other mediums to find new music.

The problem is that there is only a minority that actually go out and buy the stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't download from Groveshark so in fact it's the new radio without hearing the same 5 songs played over and over.

I think you are correct and I usually lump internet and music straight into illegal downloading.  I really don't have much a problem with grooveshark in itself.  What I do have a problem with is the effect it has on culture.  It makes these albums available anytime anywhere.  So it means you really don't have to buy the album considering we get internet everywhere nowadays. 
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline robwebster

  • Posts: 5021
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2011, 11:42:53 AM »
Free music gives the band a chance possibly, but after that, the music just spreads for free to all these new fans.  To think that everyone is so noble that they go out and buy the album after they already have it on their computer is little naive. 

Why do you think current pop music is so focused on singles nowadays?  It's all about get one artist real popular get one hit single, then ditch them.  Which has always gone on, but it used to be about selling a great record, not just a single. 

This hurts the development of artists.  Do you think DT would have made it as far as they have without having Pull Me Under on the radio and then having people run out and buy Images and Words?  Hell no, they would have stayed obscure, the music just being traded around in a musical sub culture. 

Sampling of music on a website is one thing, but being able to download an entire album is another. 
You're reflecting my point a little.

The thing is, not everyone is going to enjoy everything so much that they buy it. Yes, plenty of people will end up getting something for free. Which is no bad thing, as that's still another voice shouting your band's name, but I'll come to that later - the point is, you need to be better than quite-good. If a band is drop dead fantastic, and enough people hear about them, they absolutely definitely will gain enough money to stay afloat, because that many of the people who listen to them will care. And if they don't, maybe your band's not quite that stellar.

The only artists who suffer are a. those who already have multi-million galleon advertising campaigns and don't really need any more visibility, and b. those too mediocre to benefit from the added exposure.

Not everyone is going to buy everything they hear, but you can't laser-guide any form of marketing to only reach the people who will buy it. It's an inevitable fallout - but by maximising your reach, you're thereby also maximising the number of people who will end up buying the CDs - or, more importantly, go to the gigs (which are a resource that point-blank cannot be downloaded) - and therefore the good bands will profit from the free samples.

The entire music industry is based on a system of awareness. It's a dangerous strategy, but it means that the cream of the crop will survive. Maybe not necessarily the Spock's Beards and the King's Xes, and that's sad because they're perfectly palatable bands, but certainly the Dream Theaters, the Porcupine Trees, the Opeths, the Devin Townsends... it propels genuinely good music into, at the very least, a cultish window of profitability, if not in some cases the mainstream. Why do you think so many bands used to stream songs on their MySpaces? It offers the radio treatment to artists who can't afford to appear on the actual radio.

If something's good enough, word of mouth will spread. And note that even a non-buyer can spread word of mouth. I've got a friend who's never bought a CD in his life. He also turned me onto every band I know, and got me obsessed with music. If it wasn't for the music he'd illegally downloaded, I'd very plausibly never have bought a CD in my life either. Even a non-buyer is another link in a chain of real, honest, word-of-mouth promotion... and if people aren't buying your music, it means that either nobody's talking about it, or while everyone likes it, nobody likes it that much. Which means, either a. more people need to hear it, or b. your music's not good enough.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2011, 11:47:19 AM »
But you aren't looking at the mentality this free internet music brings which is, why should I pay for this when I can go onto grooveshark and hear the entire album there for free.  The point is, people have no need to buy an album anymore, ever.

Myspace music is a great tool for artists that I 100% support.  Big difference there though.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2011, 11:50:35 AM »
Yeah, I wish we could go back to the days of buying albums based on 1 song we heard and then the rest of the album sounding like goat shit.  Those were the times.

The biggest advantage of the current state of the music industry is artists can no longer get away with doing that.  I remember years ago a friend told me how Don Henley once all but dogged Joe Walsh (his former bandmate at the time) for releasing albums that had one or two great songs and then nothing but crap; Henley was a big advocate of writing a good album from start to finish.  Nowadays, if someone does that, you can just buy the song from amazon or iTunes for 99 cents and be done with it.  

But for each awesome band you've fallen in love with, there were probably other gems you've just let fall by the wayside that you can say you know because yes, you have listened to them, but you don't ACTUALLY know them because you haven't really taken enough time to let it all sink in.  To me, it's less admirable to have a 100 albums from 75 different bands, and more admirable to have 100 albums from 25 different bands.  

Agreed.  That is a big problem nowadays: people don't give stuff time to sink in anymore.  I mean, why would they?  If something doesn't immediately sound good, they can go download eight more albums that might.  That is why buying the music (whether on CD or digitally) is the way to go: most people who buy their music are a lot more likely to give something that might not be to your liking at first many more chances, since you want to try and get your money's worth for what you bought.  

I always point out how three of my favorite albums were meh to me at first, but grew on me big time because I kept listening:

Devin's Terria
King Crimson's Discipline
Queensryche's Promised Land

Just imagine if I was one of those people who downloads everything, and then dismisses something right away; I wouldn't be a fan of those albums now.  And two of them (Terria and PL) are probably in my all-time top 20!

Offline robwebster

  • Posts: 5021
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2011, 11:52:18 AM »
But you aren't looking at the mentality this free internet music brings which is, why should I pay for this when I can go onto grooveshark and hear the entire album there for free.  The point is, people have no need to buy an album anymore, ever.

Myspace music is a great tool for artists that I 100% support.  Big difference there though.
Album sales, though, are barely a droplet in the ocean of a band's finance. Gigs are where the money's at, and you can't download a gig.

Yes, they're getting it for free (although some people will still be buying the album regardless of its online availability - loads, in fact; Dream Theater keep on charting stronger and stronger), but a fairer model is to think of the album as an advert for a tour. Advert for t-shirts and keyrings and thousands of sales per night. Advert for a show that nobody would come to if they hadn't - or if they didn't know anybody who had - listened to the music.

More important that they know about it at a loss to the artist (and they're gaining money from Grooveshark and Spotify anyway, so I don't quite see your point) than nobody hears them and they play to an empty hall each night.

It's a tough world and artists need to be competitive. Clinging desperately to the outdated buy my album - oh, but you're not allowed to hear it methodology won't cut the mustard in a world where information is so freely available, not that it was ever particularly profitable in the first place.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2011, 11:52:27 AM »
Also, Grooveshark is not supported by the industry.  The music industry does not get money from them.  The site gets all the content from user uploads. 

Artists are not giving permission for their stuff to be there.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41963
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2011, 11:56:16 AM »
Also, while it definitely sucks for the artists on a lot of levels, the current state is definitely a big plus for those of us who still buy music, as a lot of it is super cheap.  In the last two weeks alone, I got emails from amazon telling me how the new albums by Death Cab and Foo Fighters were on sale for download for $5 (I bought them both from Best Buy when they came out, so amazon doesn't know I have them already, but I am guessing emails are sent out based on previous purchases, what albums/bands you browse on the site, etc.). 

Offline robwebster

  • Posts: 5021
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2011, 11:56:59 AM »
Also, Grooveshark is not supported by the industry.  The music industry does not get money from them.  The site gets all the content from user uploads. 

Artists are not giving permission for their stuff to be there.
This is news to me - I think I just saw adverts and presumed.

Nonetheless, I still support the model - as I said, it applies too to filesharing. Usually bands are paying to get their music heard for free, 'cause it's the only way anyone's gonna buy stuff anywho. Giving them that luxury for free isn't harming anyone but the most visible and the most mediocre of bands - the former of whom can take it and the latter of whom will need to step their game up.

Offline Global Laziness

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2011, 12:21:35 PM »
Right now, my "method" (if you want to call it that) is to cast a wide net, listen to stuff people suggest on the forums, and later nab the physical copies of the albums that I really love.  If I really am obsessed with an artist (like the Holy Trinity of Modern Prog: DT, PT, Opeth), then I'll hold off listening until I buy the physical copy.

This is exactly what I do.

I don't really have a lot to add to the discussion at this point but I am thoroughly enjoying reading it.
Quote from: Jamesman42
Global Laziness: Speaks for Canada
Quote from: black_floyd
I walked down a spiral staircase in 19/16 in honor of Tom Sawyer and now I'm in crutches.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2011, 12:27:42 PM »
Also, Grooveshark is not supported by the industry.  The music industry does not get money from them.  The site gets all the content from user uploads. 

Artists are not giving permission for their stuff to be there.
This is news to me - I think I just saw adverts and presumed.

Nonetheless, I still support the model - as I said, it applies too to filesharing. Usually bands are paying to get their music heard for free, 'cause it's the only way anyone's gonna buy stuff anywho. Giving them that luxury for free isn't harming anyone but the most visible and the most mediocre of bands - the former of whom can take it and the latter of whom will need to step their game up.

I'm not sure what you are hinting at when saying bands pay to get their music heard for free.  If you are talking about the radio, radio pays the artist every time they play their music.  Radio is not a free medium.  That is why there are commercials.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline robwebster

  • Posts: 5021
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2011, 12:40:38 PM »
Also, Grooveshark is not supported by the industry.  The music industry does not get money from them.  The site gets all the content from user uploads. 

Artists are not giving permission for their stuff to be there.
This is news to me - I think I just saw adverts and presumed.

Nonetheless, I still support the model - as I said, it applies too to filesharing. Usually bands are paying to get their music heard for free, 'cause it's the only way anyone's gonna buy stuff anywho. Giving them that luxury for free isn't harming anyone but the most visible and the most mediocre of bands - the former of whom can take it and the latter of whom will need to step their game up.

I'm not sure what you are hinting at when saying bands pay to get their music heard for free.  If you are talking about the radio, radio pays the artist every time they play their music.  Radio is not a free medium.  That is why there are commercials.
No, I know - not for lack of trying, mind. Payola's illegal because it was popular and deemed unfair: given the chance, the record labels leapt at the chance to spend ridiculous amounts of money getting people to listen to their songs free of charge.

Getting humanity to take notice is the final objective of all facets, though, and still nonetheless an expensive one. The marketing campaigns and the posters and the bus stops et al. The objective is, ultimately, to get people to buy, buy, buy. And nobody buys something they haven't listened to, which is why radio became make-or-break when it was the closest thing to a free meal - a job that's now been transferred to the internet. That's partially a product of the climate, certainly, but I think it's a healthy one. It puts the consumer in control. Sales will still be made and the music industry will trudge ever onwards - free music's been availalble for a good decade or so now, and while CD sales are declining, there's still masses of demand and plenty of bands are continuing to flourish. The internet just nudges it in the direction of our own beat, rather than an anonymous tastemaker's.

It'll force the music industry to adapt, but that's good! The thing's a fossil. It's not dangerous, we're just keeping the bigwigs on their toes! The financial crisis probably (at a rough, "that sounds about right" guess) done more damage to music consumption in two or three years than filesharing has in a decade. We're not a threat, we're just poking it with a stick.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2011, 12:48:49 PM »
Here's the thing, I don't think we are going to see many popular bands anymore.  I think unless you are a band that's been around for the past at least 10 years, you are not going to get much exposure in the world.  I don't think any bands these days are going to flourish at all without the support of CD sales.

The problem with these online file sharing services is that its just pirating dressed up to look legal.  What there should be is more stuff out there that you either pay for like Netflix, or have commercials like radio.  The music should be given to the site by the record label or the band, not by users of the site.  Then Royalties should be paid for every listen or click or add to playlist.  This would be the best of both worlds, but doesn't happen because of the whole, well I can just do that for free thing.

How can anyone compete with free?  You really can't. 
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?