DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Ħ 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://troll.me/images/empathetic-shark/i-know-that-feel-bro-i-know-that-feel-thumb.jpg)
-
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.
-
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:
(https://www.bruceongames.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/pirate.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
(https://www.bruceongames.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/pirate.jpg)
A mystical quest
To steal all my music
Grooveshark
And Torrents:
I shall pay no more!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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."
-
I like using Grooveshark as a tool to listen to bands to weed out what I'd like to buy.
-
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.
-
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
-
I agree with j completely.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
Prog fans are not normal people. Man, if that ain't the truth. :P :rollin
-
Prog fans are not normal people. Man, if that ain't the truth. :P :rollin
:biggrin:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yup. The stories of his ego is legendary but I'm sidetracking this thread. But it did drive me mad.
-
All I do know is he said they haven't been important or relevant in 20 years.
-
What there should be is more stuff out there that you either pay for like Netflix,
Zune Pass is pretty much like that, IMO
-
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
-
I like some of BEP's stuff. :lol
Some of it is pretty bad though.
-
Ariich, quit finding the good in things, it is ruining this thread. Make verbose wall of text posts or get out.
-J
-
(https://josiahneo.com/gifs/sad%20okay.png)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
I'm not sure where the disagreement is here. Devy has explicitly stated that he doesn't mind people illegally downloading his music because he wants the music to reach as many people as possible. I'm not saying it's right in any way, just responding to the point that RuRoRul made.
-
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.
Um how? You think the general public would rather buy their music? Then explain why album sales are down all around. And also explain why now the industry has to remodel itself. Its cause they have to compete with free.
-
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.
Um how? You think the general public would rather buy their music? Then explain why album sales are down all around.
Everything sales are down. The global economy is in crisis. It's impossible to say whether downloading and/or streaming services have had an effect.
-
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?
I'm not sure where the disagreement is here. Devy has explicitly stated that he doesn't mind people illegally downloading his music because he wants the music to reach as many people as possible. I'm not saying it's right in any way, just responding to the point that RuRoRul made.
Sorry Ariich, I was quoting that for RuRo more than you.
-
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.
I second the fact that this is BS
-
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.
Um how? You think the general public would rather buy their music? Then explain why album sales are down all around.
Everything sales are down. The global economy is in crisis. It's impossible to say whether downloading and/or streaming services have had an effect.
Album sales were tanking before the economic crisis though.
-
(https://josiahneo.com/gifs/sad%20okay.png)
:lol
Even though I fall on the side of "downloading music illegally isn't *necessarily* unethical", I think any argument involving how much more money the band supposedly makes if you do X instead of Y is fundamentally missing the point. If something is unethical, it's unethical regardless of whether the outcome ends up being beneficial to the wronged party.
-J
-
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.
I second the fact that this is BS
Another post adding nothing to the debate. Awesome. Read my post and reply bitte.
-
Even though I fall on the side of "downloading music illegally isn't *necessarily* unethical", I think any argument involving how much more money the band supposedly makes if you do X instead of Y is fundamentally missing the point. If something is unethical, it's unethical regardless of whether the outcome ends up being beneficial to the wronged party.
Completely agreed. Back in my uni days when I used to download, I did justify it on the basis that I was still spending as much as I could reasonably afford on CDs. But ultimately you realise that one way or the other, it's still stealing, and is by it's nature unethical. So now I pay for the premium version of Spotify and get to discover a ton of stuff on there, and for everything else I buy CDs or legal digital downloads.
EDIT: HOWEVER, on the actual topic of this thread, legal streaming services I have no problem with whatsoever, and I think they are a great way to discover new music.
-
Even though I fall on the side of "downloading music illegally isn't *necessarily* unethical", I think any argument involving how much more money the band supposedly makes if you do X instead of Y is fundamentally missing the point. If something is unethical, it's unethical regardless of whether the outcome ends up being beneficial to the wronged party.
Completely agreed. Back in my uni days when I used to download, I did justify it on the basis that I was still spending as much as I could reasonably afford on CDs. But ultimately you realise that one way or the other, it's still stealing, and is by it's nature unethical. So now I pay for the premium version of Spotify and get to discover a ton of stuff on there, and for everything else I buy CDs or legal digital downloads.
And Ariich I think this is the perfect way to look at it. It comes down to people trying to justify it, but its unjustifiable stealing regardless. I commend you for your outlook.
I think people don't realize how it hurts the industry not to buy ALL their music. The label is made up of lots of people. All people that need to get paid to feed their families or make a life for themself. The less money coming in, means the more jobs that need to get cut. It's all a snowball effect. Actions have consequences, even downloading music instead of buying. There are no excuses. Stealing is stealing.
Now Devy is a lil different because he records and produces his own albums now. But, he still can't go 100% all out for free downloading because he still has a distributor that needs to get paid for getting his album out there to people, and I'm sure Devy wants to make some money. Also the more CDs he sells, the more likely he is going to be able to get funds to record the next one.
-
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?
Well, piracy is copying rather than theft - "steal from a store" isn't exactly a solid analogy - but for some reason that does feel different, and I can't quite place why. Perhaps it's the narrative aspect? Or perhaps it's that the video game is its own source of income and that's it, whereas for a band an album is barely a droplet in an ocean. Good question though, it feels different but I'm not sure why.
For what it's worth, I bought Spore from a store, realised I didn't need the disc to play it, and when I decided it wasn't worth the £40 I spent, I took it back for a refund, effectively copying Spore for free. So you know, it's not something I particularly object to, because I have actually done it. (Interestingly, if I thought the game were worth buying, I'd have been happy to spend the money - so maybe it is like for like after all.)
With music, though, you've got two phases. You've got to get people listening, and you've got to get those listeners buying. They're distinct from one another - but, funnily enough, the record labels are happy with it. They're more than happy to consent to putting entire albums on Spotify, for instance. I'd say that the music industry has recognised that purchasing and listening aren't necessarily the same thing - and it recognised it quite a while ago. By maximising the listeners you're thereby maximising the purchasers. The more they can hear, the better.
Besides which, with a service like Spotify, does it matter if the listener won't buy the album? The artists still get royalties off it. The listener gets to hear their music for free. Listeners and purchasers aren't necessarily the same thing, but some of those listeners (not all, but some) will graduate into purchasers. I think it's just a case of getting with the times.
-
Ok let me rephrase. It's ok to walk into a record store and steal a CD? I'm just asking to make my point, that's all.
-
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.
I mean in relation to Grooveshark, not illegal downloading. Stealing from the record company, I'm not losing sleep over.
-
Ok let me rephrase. It's ok to walk into a record store and steal a CD? I'm just asking to make my point, that's all.
Nope. Not a fan of shoplifting. Although, part of the reason that I have slightly less against illegal music downloaders than shoplifters is that I do believe that a CD is added value and that they're missing out on it - from the cover to the liner notes to that irreplacable feeling of putting it into your CD player for the first time and pressing play.
Then again, it's like the advert - "you wouldn't steal a car" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU) - I certainly wouldn't, but to make a free carbon copy of one? I can't say I wouldn't be tempted. Money's tight and I do need a car.
I'm not much of a pirate anyway, though, truth be told. The vast majority of my downloading consists of archive BBC TV shows that aren't released on DVDs - my only music piracy consists of streaming lo-fi off YouTube, or maybe someone'll send me a song on MSN 'cause they want to know what I'll think of it. I don't enjoy piracy 'cause I'm too much of a collector. I don't begrudge the buggers, though. Music is very abstract, and a ridiculously highly saturated market. I honestly think that for a lot of bands nowadays - and a lot of the bands that I love - it does so much more good than harm. It offers the oxygen of publicity to bands that would never otherwise get the blockbusters' tablescraps. Just as radio is make-and-break, nowadays piracy can ignite an entire career. It's more of a grey area than Spotify or Grooveshark, but it's another chain in the first phase of profitability, and lots of pirates will attend the infinitely-more-profitable gigs anyway, contributing almost as much as a paying fan to that band's livelihood, keeping it afloat.
The oxygen of publicity is so much more important than the poxy pittance that CD sales offer a band that it's still no contest.
-
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.
I see what you mean, I knowthat plenty of artists would really rather the people don't get to listen at all if they don't pay. I just meant "better" in terms of publicity, and helping them to make more money. If someone gets all a band's stuff without paying for it and then introduces it to people who do pay for it (or go see them live), the band is technically better off than if the person never illegally downloaded it at all. And if a lot of people illegally download and it leads to increased internet traffic / discussion for the band, that's technically beneficial to them as well.
-
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.
I mean in relation to Grooveshark, not illegal downloading. Stealing from the record company, I'm not losing sleep over.
See post a few up about record label being run by people, people who need to get paid. It's all a part of our economy. I think people think Record Label and just see some fat cat in a suit high up on the ladder raking in all of the money. Don't forget about everyone who works for that label, and all the recording studios involved in making the album and all the people that work in those studios. The artists that do the artwork. It's a whole thing and it's all paid for with CD sales.
-
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.
This is what usually goes through my head when hearing about a new band. Sometimes I'll listen to a whole album on grooveshark or download it, and if I like it enough, I'll buy it, or I'll buy the band's other albums. For example, there was some band (can't remember the name now) that I passed by in a record store. Their sticker said "for fans of Circa Survive and Mew." Well, I love Mew, so when I got home, I listened to the whole album on grooveshark. It was pretty terrible and nothing like Mew at all. So I saved myself about $20 that I used to buy a Bright Eyes album, since I had fallen in love with them after doing the same thing with Digital Ash.
-
You know in the day when the interwebs was a baby my cousin and I would hang out at record store for hours on end listening to full cd's for free so as long as you don't download...what's the harm?
Also, there's only room for one bender in these ther hills RuRoRul.............unless your my brother Flexo? Where's the beard? :biggrin:
-
The way I see it, putting my boring economic rationalist hat on for the 100th time on DTF, the market for "music" has failed.
I use the term market failure in an economic sense, in that the market is unable to price itself in such a way to balance supply and demand. The problem that I see is that there is almost an unlimited supply of music, in a rational sense, matched with an almost infinite demand for music. Under normal circumstances, or prior to the internet as many have pointed out, the marketing system for music would involve listening to the radio, liking or disliking what you heard (more often than not, liking I'd say) and going out a buying a CD with the song you like on it. So what this was able to do is basically create a market for music, effectively reducing the "supply" of music to those bands who made it on the radio, which those who listened to the radio would then buy because its what they heard on the radio. Then, bands could/would follow up by going on tour, selling merchandise etc; but this would all be based around their popularity gained from being heard on the radio and shifting units. I'm probably grossly simplifying here, but it suits the purpose of what I'm trying to say lol.
The market for music was similar to an oligopoly, there was a highly concentrated supply of music in the hands of major record labels and, by extension, major bands, who were able to earn rents on their services due to their market power.
Flash forward to 2011, and this system is broken. Just think of all of the marketing channels created by the internet: forums, Facebook, web magazines, probably more. All of a sudden, this old oligopoly market structure is broken and we shift to something more akin to perfect competition (perhaps even monopolistic competition, as suppliers do have some power to earn rents); which lowers consumer expectations about the price they pay for services while simultaneously expanding the market. No longer is the market totally dominated by a number of big bands or record labels, internet technologies have broken the hold. The problem of infinite supply and infinite demand emerges, where a price signal doesn’t do enough to match supply and demand; and as a result the market price for music plummets so the supply can be better matched with demand.
So, businesses are forced to adapt to the new market structure in order to make money; they try to create oligopolistic profits by “making” an artist huge (by getting radio stations to play their song 15 times a day, plaster their semi-nudeness all over the side of buses, etc), selling lots of singles, supporting with a tour which charges $100 per ticket and merchandise that is marked up by hundreds of percent, and then putting them out to pasture. Think about all of the mainstream music that has been churned through over the past decade or so.
Meanwhile, all of the other bands that don’t have this kind of support flounder somewhat under the pressures of the market. How many bands do you see these days that aren’t in real niche markets touring, surviving and thriving? As a result, smaller bands are forced into a situation where they have to sell their music for effectively nothing and hope they can drum up enough support for a tour, and make their money that way. Selling records doesn’t pay the bills, and I can vouch for a number of people I know who have tried and failed to go down this route.
So I suppose what I’m getting at is that services like Spotify, last.fm, are good for the music industry, as they give these other bands who don’t have the support of the oligopoly a chance. The internet is also fantastic for collaboration, diversification and creativity as far as I’m concerned. I’m actually working on a high level business plan at the moment for something that harnesses the internet and the creative process, if anyone is interested. We are never, ever going to go back to the days of the Beatles, who put out 27 studio albums and were out there for decades; market forces won’t allow that. However, the new market structure will allow for a greater diversity of music to be made and heard, if not in the mainstream, but in communities like this.
-
It's sad that we have most likely seen the end of truly great bands making it big.
-
You know in the day when the interwebs was a baby my cousin and I would hang out at record store for hours on end listening to full cd's for free so as long as you don't download...what's the harm?
Now there's an idea, except record stores are...
a. almost extinct
b. replacing any kind of real "trial version" of an album with an electronic "listen to some 30-second clips of songs" machine.
3. Hang on, c. typically, along with most retail stores, not huge on atmosphere or paying super-close attention to customers. None of them would think about offering that kind of service you're talking about anymore, and I think consumers would rather just not ask about it than to ask, get their request rejecting, and think that they've burdened the employees in some way or made themselves feel unwelcome or troublesome in the future.
-
:lol And we wonder why they are falling by the wayside. In truth the cool, not corporate stores that sell books and tea's and lattes, that you can talk to the owner of the store he'll through the cd on and is passionate about music were the coolest places to hang out.
Not the pretentious places where the douchey kid with the Hello Kitty tat and the, I'm so indie why the fuck would you want to buy this dickhead employee became the norm.
sona. I just found a job for you! :lol :P
-
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.
Agreed. I always have a hard time understanding the "low quality = bad song" argument. If it's a good song, it's still a good song despite poor sound quality. If I hear a song I don't like on the radio, it's not like I'm going to magically be turned into a fan once I hear it in CD-quality sound. Crap song = crap song.
-
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.
Well, the problem is that if a band doesn't sell enough CDs, the label won't support them on a tour. Downloading CDs from the big boys like U2, Rolling Stones, etc. isn't gonna them that much, since they'll still make a killing off of touring, but for the smaller bands who need a lot of label support to make it at all a lot of the time, it can kill them.
-
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.
I mean in relation to Grooveshark, not illegal downloading. Stealing from the record company, I'm not losing sleep over.
See post a few up about record label being run by people, people who need to get paid. It's all a part of our economy. I think people think Record Label and just see some fat cat in a suit high up on the ladder raking in all of the money. Don't forget about everyone who works for that label, and all the recording studios involved in making the album and all the people that work in those studios. The artists that do the artwork. It's a whole thing and it's all paid for with CD sales.
I understand that people need to get paid, and I appreciate their work, but it's not bothering me. It's entertainment, and the ability to select entertainment legally and for free helps me make informed decisions on what to buy later on. I have been using Grooveshark a lot lately to find music I know I will eventually buy (for example, The Dear Hunter, thanks to ariich, is now some music I legally own). There will be some I won't buy, but I bet others will.
Edit: I see your point, Kev, but I think I address it in this reply right here.
-
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.
Well, the problem is that if a band doesn't sell enough CDs, the label won't support them on a tour. Downloading CDs from the big boys like U2, Rolling Stones, etc. isn't gonna them that much, since they'll still make a killing off of touring, but for the smaller bands who need a lot of label support to make it at all a lot of the time, it can kill them.
See my boring, long winded and pointless post above.
-
I hear ya. While I am generally in favor of buying and supporting the artist, I am not gonna be a hypocrite and say I have never gotten free music from friends, etc. I have. We all have. Even most of those who proclaim to be 100% against downloading. I mean, how many of us older (30 or older) folks, when we were younger, make cassette copies of albums, or had them made for us, or borrowed someone's CD/album/etc.? Most of us, probably. And that is the same thing as downloading. You are still getting to listen to music that you didn't buy for free.
And what all of the anti-downloaders need to remember is that not every download is a lost sale. I see that argument on occasion and just laugh at it. A lot of the time, downloaders will check out stuff that they never would have went out and blindly bought on their own, so if 100 people, who had never heard an artist before, go out and download the CD, and 20 like it enough to go buy the CD, you didn't lose 80 sales; you gained 20. Of course, this isn't an exact science, as the numbers vary from person to person, album to album, etc., and there are definitely way too many people who already like a band and would still rather steal the music than buy it, but it is not as simple as, "Downloaders are evil thieves who have single-handedly destroyed the music business," like some would have us believe.
-
And what all of the anti-downloaders need to remember is that not every download is a lost sale.
Precisely, it just smacks of protectionism and "oh woe is me" tactics by those who proclaim it.
-
Freedom, you and me
We lost our world...
she lost them.
Freedom, you and me…
Kawaii...
Kawaii...
Arrival, new arrival
Kawaii...
Kawaii.
Freedom, you and me
We lost our world...
she lost them.
Freedom, you and me...
Kawaii...
Arrive safe.
Arrival, new arrival
Kawaii...
Kawaii.
-
Also, there's only room for one bender in these ther hills RuRoRul.............unless your my brother Flexo? Where's the beard? :biggrin:
(https://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9799/classicflexo.jpg)
-
Also, there's only room for one bender in these ther hills RuRoRul.............unless your my brother Flexo? Where's the beard? :biggrin:
(https://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9799/classicflexo.jpg)
:biggrin: :lol