ethics of using Grooveshark to listen to new music

[ariich]

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.

This is a gross generalisation. Most people who stream music for free do so not to avoid paying, but because they can't afford to pay, and so I think these services are a great way to allow us to hear music first. I spend way more on music than I ever did before, and I pay for the premium version of Spotify as well.

The reasoning is the same for illegally downloading, although that's a lot harder to justify as, ultimately, it's still stealing. Just because you can't afford something it doesn't mean you have the right to take it for free. But I still hold that, for the most part, it doesn't result in the majority of people spending any less on music, they can just be more choosy on where they spend their money, rather that what I used to do when I was a kid which was spend £15 on album purely because I heard the name mentioned once or the cover was cool, and then discover it's total crap.

So yes, services like Spotify and Grooveshark are a very good thing, and a great way to discover music.

[7StringedBeast]

I don't think its a gross generalization at all.  It's the truth.  This is how it is.  Prog fans in general are much more willing to buy the music because they have respect for music as art and all that.  But the general public nowadays would much rather just get everything for free.

I didn't know anyone in college who bought CD's unless they were musicians themselves.  In fact, other than my musician friends, I don't know more than 5 other people that actually buy their music these days.

[robwebster]

I don't think its a gross generalization at all.  It's the truth.  This is how it is.  Prog fans in general are much more willing to buy the music because they have respect for music as art and all that.  But the general public nowadays would much rather just get everything for free.

I didn't know anyone in college who bought CD's unless they were musicians themselves.  In fact, other than my musician friends, I don't know more than 5 other people that actually buy their music these days.

I'd describe that as anecdotal, but while it's true that CD sales are declining, downloads are on the increase. I know a lot of people who download from the iTunes store. Casual fans, megafans - the lot. And gigs have never stopped being popular. The financial crisis is the only thing that's putting a dampener on ticket sales (which will reach a greater audience thanks to filesharing) as opposed to any kind of free distribution, and that's where the real money is anyway.

So, I'd argue that while there are two edges to the blade, not only is the publicity probably worth more than the CD sales would've been in the first place, but CDs don't matter that much in the long-run anyway. I love them, I've got about 300 of the buggers, but in the grand scheme of things they're not the lifeblood of the music industry.

[ariich]

People in college are, generally speaking, not exactly rolling in money. I used to mostly download back in my university days as well as buy a bit, because I could afford very little music, so I bought what I could afford but downloaded the rest. Same goes for a lot of people, including those who don't buy any at all.

But maybe it's worse in the US, I don't know. But here in the UK, just in the move from uni to work, hardly anyone I know downloads anymore, and most people buy music either on CD or legal downloads. And I'm not talking prog fans (of which I know very few), I'm talking normal people.

[KevShmev]

Prog fans are not normal people.  Man, if that ain't the truth.

[ariich]

Prog fans are not normal people.  Man, if that ain't the truth.

[7StringedBeast]

No matter if you have the money or not, its still wrong to download music illegally.  There is no justification for it that makes it OK.  I've done it too.  Especially in college, but since leaving college my whole philosophy about it has changed. 

Not to mention that for every CD sale there are taxes.  So there is revenue for the government being lost int he decline of CD sales.  Which is a weird point because most people probably couldn't give a crap about the government, but we are at a time when the gov needs money just like we all do.  But that's just a side point and probably turns out to be negligible anyways.  But I was just saying this in reference to the economy.  Buying CDs would help the economy even if its just in a really small way.

People just want their music for free.  This is why pay sites or something like the netflix of music doesn't catch on.  If grooveshark were a pay to play site and royalties were given to the musician along with the correct licensing, then it'd be great.  It would no doubt not cost much at all.  But you can't compete with free.

[ariich]

No matter if you have the money or not, its still wrong to download music illegally.  There is no justification for it that makes it OK.  I've done it too.  Especially in college, but since leaving college my whole philosophy about it has changed. 

Completely agreed, but I was mostly talking about legal streaming sites, which pay the labels for the licences.

And you're wrong about people not being willing to pay. Spotify now has over 1 million paying users.

[7StringedBeast]

What legal streaming sites exist?  I know of pandora and slacker radio.  But they have commercials.  Grooveshark lets you take music on demand uploaded by other users.  Definitely not very ethical.  I am not familiar with spotify.

[ariich]

On grooveshark, it's possible to upload anything but it gets moderated to remove things outside of their licences. I dunno how quick they are at that though, there's probably some dodgy stuff on there, but I'd say it's a reasonable bet that most of the stuff is legit.

I haven't used Pandora or Slacker, but yeah free sites will usually have commercials. Do either of those offer a paid version?

Spotify isn't available in the US yet but it's amazing. The free version also has commercials and even a limit to how much you can listen to per month, but the paid version is incredible and has allowed me to discover so much great music.

[7StringedBeast]

Right I have no problem with paid stuff.  Grooveshark gets away with having content by trying to seek licenses after the stuff is on their site.  So basically they do nothing until someone makes a stink about it, then they either try to obtain licensing or try and delete all instances of said material.

[ariich]

Yeah. They seem to be a bit quicker about it these days (it's only recently that I've noticed things getting deleted) but it's far from perfect, and personally I'd like to see it get cleaned up a bit.

[j]

No matter if you have the money or not, its still wrong to download music illegally.

It is ILLEGAL to download music illegally.  Whether or not it is unethical is another matter entirely, based more on the situation and intent, and mostly unrelated to the legality of it.

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.

To play the devil's advocate a bit, while I do agree with most of what you've said in this thread, I take issue with this recurring theme of a band's "quality" ultimately prevailing and elevating them into inevitable success.  The notion that if a band is "good enough" they will rise to the top simply ignores too many factors at play: genre, marketability, accessibility/mainstream appeal, etc...the list goes on.

Dream Theater and Porcupine Tree are massive outliers in that they toe the line between being obscure and somewhat accessible, and even they aren't exactly rolling in the dough.  I'm sure both you and I like plenty of bands that make brilliant music in our opinions, but that we both know will never garner a fraction of the recognition we think they deserve.

My point is that a band's commercial success has much more to do with wide, broad-spectrum appeal than it does with making what you or I consider "quality music".

-J

[7StringedBeast]

See, for me Pandora is enough.  It really introduces you to new bands of genres you like.  I found a bunch of bands that way.  I think people expect too much to hear an entire album for free.  I don't think it is necessary.  

[contest_sanity]

No matter if you have the money or not, its still wrong to download music illegally.

It is ILLEGAL to download music illegally.  Whether or not it is unethical is another matter entirely, based more on the situation and intent, and mostly unrelated to the legality of it.

This is exactly what I was feeling, but you formulated it so succinctly. 

[King Postwhore]

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.  

It's too bad Don Henley doesn't abide by his same rule when it comes to his solo albums.  He's had some huge peaks and valleys on his albums. 

[robwebster]

To play the devil's advocate a bit, while I do agree with most of what you've said in this thread, I take issue with this recurring theme of a band's "quality" ultimately prevailing and elevating them into inevitable success.  The notion that if a band is "good enough" they will rise to the top simply ignores too many factors at play: genre, marketability, accessibility/mainstream appeal, etc...the list goes on.

Dream Theater and Porcupine Tree are massive outliers in that they toe the line between being obscure and somewhat accessible, and even they aren't exactly rolling in the dough.  I'm sure both you and I like plenty of bands that make brilliant music in our opinions, but that we both know will never garner a fraction of the recognition we think they deserve.

My point is that a band's commercial success has much more to do with wide, broad-spectrum appeal than it does with making what you or I consider "quality music".

-J

I agree that it's not inevitable... but on a theoretically even playing field, where all bands got equal publicity, that would be the only reason. It's in effect to an extent now - much as I like the band (and I really do!), I'm not going to buy Threshold tickets when I can buy Dream Theater ones.

Aside from quality, lack of publicity is the only thing a band really has to hide behind. They're the two factors: how many people know about the music, and how many people like it? You can look at them as two totally separate processes - views and investments.

First step is getting people through the door and looking at your work, second step is to get them to invest in it. If people like something enough, they do invest in it. Whether it be a t-shirt or a poster or a gig or, yes, an album, they will invest in it. If you've not got people viewing it, that'll lower your investments. The internet, however, allows everyone to view it, maximising in turn the possible investments.

Either nobody's looking at it, or nobody's investing. Which means you either need...

a. more people to look at it, which is where those people who didn't pay for the song nonetheless come in massively useful, because some simply won't pay for anything, regardless of how much they like it. Nonetheless, they'll spread the word, and they'll tell people who will be investors. And there are certainly enough investors to keep a rich music scene turning, with more born every day.

OR

b. better music. Which will lead to a.

The amount of help you get with "a" used to be more determined by the kind of marketing you get, but now it's a more even split, putting more emphasis on "b." Now bands can survive and reach a magnificent audience simply by virtue of producing brilliant music (see also, Porcupine Tree), rather than needing a shove from the record label to facilitate "a." So nowadays, it's more likely that the more obscure bands aren't going to stay obscure for long, 'cause it's available for free. Word of mouth's a lot more important... so if a band isn't getting the same word of mouth exposure as another, why isn't it? Given that there are way fewer obstacles nowadays. Each publicity burst needs ignition, but just food for thought.

I've kind of got out of the "groove" now so I've got a feeling this might be messier than my previous posts on the subjects - sorry about that. Probably riddled with holes, but I hope some of it made a trickle of sense.

[Ħ]

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.

Same.  It's pretty dense but very interesting.

[KevShmev]

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.  

It's too bad Don Henley doesn't abide by his same rule when it comes to his solo albums.  He's had some huge peaks and valleys on his albums. 

I am guessing he probably said that in the late 80s, when The End of the Innocence was a bit hit and had four or five pretty big hits.  Meanwhile, Walsh's albums consistently had one or two hits (or in some cases, no hits) so Henley probably had a big head about it, as well as, given the acrimony that has often existed between the Eagles members, an axe to grind.

[King Postwhore]

Kev, do you remember the shot Henley took at Rush around 2002 about all these bands that were coming back just to make money yet he didn't know that Rush too the 5+ year s off because of Neil's tragedies and he took a beating for being a pompous ass.  I've loved the Eagles and I've liked some of he solo stuff but the man is an ass.

Also in the day.  Radio station played way more album cuts and promoted bands 24/7.  That's gone and fans need a way of looking for new music and what an advantage to hear a full album to see if you like it.

[KevShmev]

Kev, do you remember the shot Henley took at Rush around 2002 about all these bands that were coming back just to make money yet he didn't know that Rush too the 5+ year s off because of Neil's tragedies and he took a beating for being a pompous ass.  I've loved the Eagles and I've liked some of he solo stuff but the man is an ass.

I had forgotten about that, but now that you mention it, I sort of remember it. 

But why would Henley take a shot at any band coming back to make money, considering that is exactly what the Eagles did?  Hell, the Eagles still barely get along, from most accounts, yet they continue to plug away and charge an arm and a leg for their concerts.  Not criticizing them for that, but if you are gonna do that, you have to have a lot of nerve to criticize others for supposedly doing the same thing.

[King Postwhore]

Yup.  The stories of his ego is legendary but I'm sidetracking this thread.  But it did drive me mad.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

All I do know is he said they haven't been important or relevant in 20 years.

[Jamesman42]

What there should be is more stuff out there that you either pay for like Netflix,

Zune Pass is pretty much like that, IMO

[j]

To play the devil's advocate a bit, while I do agree with most of what you've said in this thread, I take issue with this recurring theme of a band's "quality" ultimately prevailing and elevating them into inevitable success.  The notion that if a band is "good enough" they will rise to the top simply ignores too many factors at play: genre, marketability, accessibility/mainstream appeal, etc...the list goes on.

Dream Theater and Porcupine Tree are massive outliers in that they toe the line between being obscure and somewhat accessible, and even they aren't exactly rolling in the dough.  I'm sure both you and I like plenty of bands that make brilliant music in our opinions, but that we both know will never garner a fraction of the recognition we think they deserve.

My point is that a band's commercial success has much more to do with wide, broad-spectrum appeal than it does with making what you or I consider "quality music".

-J

I agree that it's not inevitable... but on a theoretically even playing field, where all bands got equal publicity, that would be the only reason. It's in effect to an extent now - much as I like the band (and I really do!), I'm not going to buy Threshold tickets when I can buy Dream Theater ones.

Aside from quality, lack of publicity is the only thing a band really has to hide behind. They're the two factors: how many people know about the music, and how many people like it? You can look at them as two totally separate processes - views and investments.

First step is getting people through the door and looking at your work, second step is to get them to invest in it. If people like something enough, they do invest in it. Whether it be a t-shirt or a poster or a gig or, yes, an album, they will invest in it. If you've not got people viewing it, that'll lower your investments. The internet, however, allows everyone to view it, maximising in turn the possible investments.

Either nobody's looking at it, or nobody's investing. Which means you either need...

a. more people to look at it, which is where those people who didn't pay for the song nonetheless come in massively useful, because some simply won't pay for anything, regardless of how much they like it. Nonetheless, they'll spread the word, and they'll tell people who will be investors. And there are certainly enough investors to keep a rich music scene turning, with more born every day.

OR

b. better music. Which will lead to a.

The amount of help you get with "a" used to be more determined by the kind of marketing you get, but now it's a more even split, putting more emphasis on "b." Now bands can survive and reach a magnificent audience simply by virtue of producing brilliant music (see also, Porcupine Tree), rather than needing a shove from the record label to facilitate "a." So nowadays, it's more likely that the more obscure bands aren't going to stay obscure for long, 'cause it's available for free. Word of mouth's a lot more important... so if a band isn't getting the same word of mouth exposure as another, why isn't it? Given that there are way fewer obstacles nowadays. Each publicity burst needs ignition, but just food for thought.

I've kind of got out of the "groove" now so I've got a feeling this might be messier than my previous posts on the subjects - sorry about that. Probably riddled with holes, but I hope some of it made a trickle of sense.

Yeah, your argument makes complete sense, and I agree with it other than that one point: unless you're talking about some arbitrary benchmark level of minimal success that can be achieved by any "good" band regardless of accessibility, or if your definition of "good" heavily factors in mainstream appeal, I don't see how you can say that all else aside, "good" music translates to successful album sales.

Take Coldplay and the Devin Townsend Project in your scenario.  They both make what I suppose we'd call "good" music (albeit very different), but even on a level playing field, Coldplay's music by its very nature is going to appeal to a wider base of people.  If everyone in the world heard both bands, you have perfect exposure, and both are going to see greater success.  But Coldplay's success will exceed Devin Townsend's in magnitude since they write almost exclusively shorter, poppier, catchier songs that tend to be the mainstream's cup of tea.

Then you've got the Black Eyed Peas, who by and large make terrible music (hope you agree with me on this), but with perfect exposure will outsell either of the bands mentioned above!  If they were to undergo some radical metamorphosis and begin to make "good" music by our standards, are you sure they would have more monetary success than they already do?

-J

[ariich]

I like some of BEP's stuff.

Some of it is pretty bad though.

[j]

Ariich, quit finding the good in things, it is ruining this thread.  Make verbose wall of text posts or get out.

-J

[ariich]

[Jamesman42]

If someone listens to music for free and then goes to see that band in concert, where the real money is made to the band, then the band has not only not lost something, they have gained a fan and some revenue.

[RuRoRul]

Also, as sad as it is to think, a listener who listents to your stuff for free and has never paid you anything is still better than no listener at all, like rob said. Usually the choice people make when choosing to illegally listen to something for free is "Download illegally or don't listen at all", rather than "Download illegally or buy". I know if I was suggested a random band and had no idea whether I'd like them or not, and the only way for me to hear their stuff was to go out and buy their album, I probably would just never hear their stuff.

[ariich]

Also, as sad as it is to think, a listener who listents to your stuff for free and has never paid you anything is still better than no listener at all, like rob said.

Well, that is a matter of personal opinion. Some artists will feel that way (Devy in particular is very outspoken about it) but many others will not agree at all.

[7StringedBeast]

If someone listens to music for free and then goes to see that band in concert, where the real money is made to the band, then the band has not only not lost something, they have gained a fan and some revenue.

So stealing from the record company is OK then?  I mean their money made the album come to be.

[ariich]

If someone listens to music for free and then goes to see that band in concert, where the real money is made to the band, then the band has not only not lost something, they have gained a fan and some revenue.

So stealing from the record company is OK then?  I mean their money made the album come to be.

Yeah that's my issue with the whole "the band get more from shows anyway, the label take all the album money" argument as well. The label support the band.

[7StringedBeast]

Also, as sad as it is to think, a listener who listents to your stuff for free and has never paid you anything is still better than no listener at all, like rob said.

Well, that is a matter of personal opinion. Some artists will feel that way (Devy in particular is very outspoken about it) but many others will not agree at all.

So if I steal a video game from a store, its better that I steal it and play it for free than not play it at all?  Cause I'll tell all my friends how great it is and maybe they will go buy it?

[SPNKr]

Prog fans in general are much more willing to buy the music because they have respect for music as art and all that.  But the general public nowadays would much rather just get everything for free.s.

Just stepping in to say this is complete BS.