|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First) |
Sep 22nd, 2003 06:46 PM | |||||||
kahljorn | Sorry, busy downloading games and Movies right now, I'll get to it once Hollywood Producers start coming for meee | ||||||
Sep 22nd, 2003 05:18 AM | |||||||
FS | I've give you eight bars of gold-pressed latinum for that new Kenny G. Jr. II Jr. Jr. Jr. CD, kahl. | ||||||
Sep 22nd, 2003 02:23 AM | |||||||
kahljorn | AND pansies. | ||||||
Sep 22nd, 2003 02:16 AM | |||||||
Helm | You like daisies | ||||||
Sep 22nd, 2003 01:16 AM | |||||||
kahljorn | DONT DISS ON THE STAR TREK ECONOMICS, IT TOOK ME EIGHT LIGHT YEARS TO GET MY MAJOR. | ||||||
Sep 22nd, 2003 01:12 AM | |||||||
Helm | What was that, kahl? I didn't catch it quite right because I was preoccupied with trying to figure out what kind of flowers I should get you next time I drop by the hospital. | ||||||
Sep 22nd, 2003 01:02 AM | |||||||
kahljorn | I think we should all have some strange form of socialism like in the Star Trek thing. Everything is free, all you have to do is hold a job. Musicians don't get money, they merely get to play music and get a house and crap to support them. Yea, that would work really well.. | ||||||
Sep 21st, 2003 11:17 PM | |||||||
Helm |
The music industry is broken. The original sentiment behind what kahl just said I have to agree with: why should being a musician not constitute as means towards a respectable income? It should, of course. But should said income be arranged in regard to popularity? Or maybe in regard to some abstract scale of 'worthwhile music' that a group of art-fags came up with? In the first case, does it mean that just because the world is mostly uneducated and base say Britney Spears should be making billions and Psychotic Waltz live in their garage off t-shirts and demo sales? In the second case, on what terms should an elected group regulate what is 'worthwhile' music and what is not? I belive public opinion and/or current trends and 'good taste' should not be a factor to how an artist is able to live off his music. A suvival of the fittest model does not suit music, because it exists an unfortunate paradox that in this case the stupidest music would survive and anything eclectic perish. This is because everybody seems to be into music, as opposed to say, visual arts. And when everybody's into something, chances are the vast middle ground of it is going to be stupid. Music has been marketed as a perishable commodity thusly castrating it of any actual political relevance right after when it was most prominent as such a political force in the US. If drugs hurt the rock scene to a degree, then the complete and total commercialization of it did many times the same degree of damage. Anyway, obviously one reason why public oppinion shouldn't be a factor to whether an artist should be able to live off his music is that of artistic integrity. If there is a kind of music that seems to pay better (simpler, shorter, normalised and stupider music as it is) any left-field artist would be tempted to gravitate towards this so he can have a better chance of living a respectable life. And that hurts the progression of music as a whole. Polyphony is key in pushing the envelope of expression. A more extreme example is how an artist making say, sludge grindgore music would starve to death if he were to stick to his guns. As to the other case, nobody should ever be the one to tell you what is of good taste and what isn't in a free country, not to mention tell you that you're not worthy of being a musician. So I believe a uniform system of social provision for artists should be employed, where any man that can provide evidence of his musical creation or desire towards the creation of said should be provided with a base budget to use in order to live at least respectably. A sum of money not much more or less than minimum wage. No man should be rated against a set of criteria of what is considered 'good music', and every man involved in artistic creation should be provided with special benefits like recording time at some higher end studio, instruments and education in his specialised musical field. Obviously the money would not be enough to live a glamourous material life, but if such is the desire of an artist, just like with any man, he would be expected to go at extraordinary lengths to achieve them and the extraordinary is not what I am discussing. What I am proposing stems from my belief that music requires neither public acceptance to be worthy of support, nor any material extravagance to be produced. When those sentiments develop into public opinion it will not be far when they are also practice. The music itself should be freely provided. Donations, live shows and any other related activites would provide more than enough money to offset the costs of maintaining any given project and getting some money aside to upgrade aspects of it, if basic needs are covered. There are some obvious counterarguments to my position such as the chance of this system being exploited to an economically counterproductive degree. To this I say that in any country where culture is so reenforced as to create such a provision for artists, it would be highly improbable that many freeloaders would exist. In any society where education and culture is advanced to a tolerant degree, people would show a healthy disposition towards creation in all fields, be them practical or artistic. The person who is seeking to undermine any system is the person who is feeling left out of it. Obviously this system that I suggest would operate under a socialistic environment rather than that of a capitalistic one. This is where Vinth calls me a doped out commie fag. Given what I believe should be done, my current views on the music industry as it operates now are understandably those of disgust and irritation as well as a solid determination to oppose it. I am a musician who has resorted to having other jobs (teaching english, some translation work, the occasional graphical art or gameart freelance gig) in order to support my music making, in which I've invested countless hours of practise and study. I've resolved to making my band's music available freely (besides costs of shipping, although stable webspace would make that redundant too) and any profit gained if at all (tshirts and demos at shows) would be redirected in the group fund. I will not sign with any label, even if some interest be manifested from any. My goal as a musician includes having a dynamic moblie group operating under the sole direction of our inspiration, and does not include any social ambition. I'm stating this so you know I put my money where my mouth is, no pun intended. To the best of my knowledge filesharing is illegal. But if it's continued use pushes this industry into collapsing unto itself, I am prepared to not condemn it for the time being. Laws function when they are relevant and obviously they misoperate when they are reactionary to the social situation as is the case since the mp3 explosion. Much of what I speak of has existed as a sentiment in people since a good while before mp3s but it is now that the tools have finally been developed that piracy is actually in the face of the industry. And obviously they will try to break it before trying to work around it, and then they will try to work around it before embracing it. But is it possible for such a music industry to actually embrace filesharing? I think it would be an oxymoron. The reason is simple. The music industry, as with any capitalist industry operates under one simple rule: The maximization of profit. Whereas artistic creation as applied to a social structure apparently has a whole different set of goals inherently. Personally, I own about 400 original recordings of various bands. My collection has been the result of about 10 years of trips to various record stores and countless letters to strange german mailorders. I almost never buy in major cd stores because they're overpriced. Flea markets and shady vynil stores is where it's at. I have spent approx. 4000 bucks on cds and vinyl. I have about 100 mp3s but that would probably more be attributed to my lack of fast internet access and my habit to clean out the mp3s from below average stuff in my monthly reevaluations than in any actual attempt at moderated downloading. I usually download mp3s from bands I have been unable to find cds of. Very rarely do I download something without knowing something about the band and direction of the music since I am very informed about the 'scene' or scenes I'm following and I don't like wasting 2 hours or more to get crap Maybe it's easier for you guys where you click on a song and in 30 seconds it's on your HD. I usually buy CD's from bands I've downloaded music from, if such fortunate choice presents intself. The most recent example of this was with Confessor and Saturnus. I try to get in contact with the bands and artists I partcularily like to tell them personally that their music has had an impact of whatever sort in my life and if I where in their position, I think that that would be better than my 14 nameless cents. |
||||||
Sep 21st, 2003 10:25 PM | |||||||
kahljorn |
Personally I download mp3's and never buy cds(burn a burn burn), but I think if you're trying to argue from the side of, "Right or Wrong" here it's going to goto the other side every time, no matter if they are getting 20 cents a cd or 10 bucks. I don't find a need to justify my "Theft". |
||||||
Sep 21st, 2003 08:18 PM | |||||||
Perndog |
Quote:
|
||||||
Sep 21st, 2003 07:58 PM | |||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
For every Metallica or DMX file you can get on Kazaa, there are HUNDREDS of tiny garage bands or fresh rap acts who upload their music trying to branch out and get heard on a massive level. Bands like Auto Pilot Off, who I lived near and knew, probably weren't complaining much when kids were downloading music of theirs. They got known by 1. touring like fuck, and 2. by kids sharing their music online. But now they're on Island/Def Jam, so who knows their tune now.... Quote:
The bans this hurts the most are the big name acts, which is where the highest demand for mp3s rests. THESE artists, or more so their record labels, are IMO the ones who need to be flexible and adjust to this new phenomenon. |
||||||
Sep 21st, 2003 04:50 PM | |||||||
kahljorn |
"And as for Kahl's argument of "why should artists/musicians need to hold down jobs on the side?", uhhh, news flash, most already DO. When a band signs to a big label, they get fronted a ton of cash on credit" So basically what you are saying is... by stealing MP3's from bands who already hold a side job we are just jacking them more, putting them out of even mroe money? Which side of the argument are you on? Everyone's like, "MUSICIANS ARE GREEDY MILLIONAIRES", then the next it's about how poor they are... thank you for reinforcing my point? |
||||||
Sep 21st, 2003 03:52 PM | |||||||
Perndog |
The record company sends a rep to talk to the band, and the band (if they're smart) hires an entertainment lawyer to negotiate. You're right, bands that are already hugely successful do not do a lot of their own grunt work. But of all the working musicians I've met, every one of them either is or is in a band with a person who is very skilled and experienced at promotion and marketing. They make little money for it until they get a really nice break, and *then* they can (maybe) quit their day-jobs and reap the fruits of their labor. Any non-manufactured band on the billboard went through their own time in the same situation, they've just made it past that point. My point is that people bitch about musicians being greedy because they want a lot of money for what they do, but I think they deserve it. |
||||||
Sep 21st, 2003 11:53 AM | |||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Professional athletes do demand high salaries often out of greed, but they also demand it out of stature. Kenyon Martin didn't just demand a trade from the NJ Nets recently because the money they offered was cheap, it was still a multi-million dollar contract. He demanded more because he felt he has a certain stature amongst power forwards in the NBA, and that stature could be harmed were he to get "short changed" by the Nets. And unlike musicians on big labels, Kenyon Martin has a negotiator, a professional, who deals with the company like a labor rep. deals with the owners. That guy's job is to get Kenyon Martin the sweetest deal possible. Bands rarely have this, in fact, if you ever read any Steve Albini, the record labels SEND people to bands to pretend they are just this, a rep. on the band's behalf. This isn't the case... And as for Kahl's argument of "why should artists/musicians need to hold down jobs on the side?", uhhh, news flash, most already DO. When a band signs to a big label, they get fronted a ton of cash on credit. This money needs to not only cover luxury expenses, but it likewise must cover touring expenses, equipment expenses, etc. Often the case is, bands over-spend, primarily b/c they didn't read the proverbial "fine print," and the band ends up in debt to the label. They thus become beholden to the label, and must produce FOR the label. As the NY Times article above pointed out, most bands RARELY see much in royalties, and I'm willing to bet most bands or artists on big labels STILL hold down p/t jobs, and this pre-dates file sharing on the internet. So please, spare me the starving artist crap.... Quote:
|
||||||
Sep 20th, 2003 02:12 AM | |||||||
Perndog |
I like that statement. I would add, why don't people bitch more about the salaries of professional athletes while they're talking about greed? All they do is play games to entertain people; at least musicians create and/or deliver art. I find it difficult to tear down any skilled musician or songwriter for wanting money in the light of a basketball player who makes twenty times as much as the musician. In addition, I think musicians deserve the money they get because they do something that *not everyone is capable of*. Anyone can go to yuppie school and get an MBA and become a redundant manager at some corporation and be respected for it, but not everyone can write and/or perform, market and promote, and tour like musicians can, and for their talents, skills, and effort, it is only right that they receive suitable compensation. They earned the right to be greedy. And no, I'm not talking about pop stars, at least not most of them. |
||||||
Sep 20th, 2003 12:33 AM | |||||||
kahljorn | What the fuck is wrong with people today that they think they should get paid for their work, but musicians should produce great music they love and hold a side job at McDonalds? | ||||||
Sep 19th, 2003 08:41 PM | |||||||
Pain_Is_Love |
Re: Society is really screwed up now. Quote:
|
||||||
Sep 14th, 2003 10:35 PM | |||||||
Immortal Goat | That little bit about the record companies not paying royalties to the songwirters anyway, THAT should be the target of these lawsuits, not the fans. If I download a song, it means I like that band and would probably see them in concert if I had the chance, it does NOT mean that I will never buy their CD's. | ||||||
Sep 14th, 2003 09:09 PM | |||||||
Perndog | Well that lights up a lot of the stuff I wasn't seeing before. Thanks, Kevin. | ||||||
Sep 14th, 2003 07:41 PM | |||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/te...rint&position= September 14, 2003 File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught in Middle By NEIL STRAUSS Since the Recording Industry Association of America began its campaign against file-sharing services and unauthorized song swapping online in 1999, it has offered one chief justification for its actions: downloading songs is stealing money from the pockets of musicians. But the musicians themselves have conflicted responses to file sharing and the tactics of the association, a trade group that represents record labels, not the musicians themselves, who have no organization that wields equal power. So, many musicians have found themselves watching helplessly from the sidelines as the recording industry has begun suing people who are their fans, their audience and their consumers — who also share music online without authorization. Last week, 261 lawsuits were filed, the first battle in what the association says will be a long campaign of litigation against the most active music fans sharing songs on services like KaZaA. "On one hand, the whole thing is pretty sick," said John McCrea, a singer and songwriter in the rock band Cake. "On the other hand, I think it'll probably work." Many musicians privately wish file sharing would go away, though they are reluctant to admit it, because they do not want to seem unfriendly to their fans. So they have been happy to have the industry group play the role of bad cop. But with the escalation of the battle last week (with lawsuits filed against, among others, a 71-year-old grandfather and a 12-year-old girl), some musicians say they are beginning to wonder if the actions being taken in their name are a little extreme.This is especially true because, regardless of file sharing, they rarely see royalties. "It would be nice if record companies would include artists on these decisions," said Deborah Harry of Blondie, adding that when a grandfather is sued because, unbeknownst to him, his grandchildren are downloading songs on his computer, "it's embarrassing." The artist Moby, on his Web site, offered a similar opinion, suggesting that the music companies treat users of file-sharing services like fans instead of criminals. "How can a 14-year-old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multimillionaire musicians and greedy record companies," he wrote. "The record companies should approach that 14-year-old and say: `Hey, it's great that you love music. Instead of downloading music for free, why don't you try this very inexpensive service that will enable you to listen to a lot of music and also have access to unreleased tracks and ticket discounts and free merchandise?' " A few artists, like Metallica and Loudon Wainwright III, have come out strongly in favor of the record industry's crackdown. It could be seen as a gutsy move, considering the criticism Metallica faced from music fans when it campaigned against the file-sharing service Napster, which was declared illegal. In a new song, "Something for Nothing," Mr. Wainwright makes fun of the mentality of file sharers, singing: "It's O.K. to steal, cuz it's so nice to share." As for the lawsuits, he said that he was not surprised. "If you're going to break the law, the hammer is going to come down," he said. At the same time, other influential musicians and groups — like Moby, System of a Down, Public Enemy, and the Dead — contend that the record industry's efforts are misguided and that it must work with the new technology instead of against it. But most seem ambivalent, or confused. "I see both sides," said Rodney Crowell, a country music singer and songwriter. "In some ways, I think the record companies have it coming, but at the same time, being a writer and therefore in the business of copyright, they're saying it's impacting our business by 30 percent or more, so we have to do something." The Recording Industry Association says there has been a 31 percent drop in sales of recorded music since file sharing became popular more than three years ago, but statistics from Forrester Research show that the sales decline since 2000 has been half that, or 15 percent, and that 35 percent of that amount is because of unauthorized downloading. The situation has become so thorny that many top-selling artists, even those who have been outspoken about embracing new technology, declined to comment on the lawsuits on the record, for fear of upsetting their labels. In interviews, some musicians and their representatives said that their labels had asked them not to talk. And in a dozen cases, record labels did not grant interviews with musicians on the subject. "I don't think anyone really understands the impact of what's happening, and they don't want to make a mistake," said Allen Kovac, who runs 10th Street Entertainment, an artist management company in Los Angeles. "The impact of lawsuits on fans is a double-edged sword. If you're a record company, do you want record company acts being persona non grata at every college campus in America?" Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.) Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said. "I don't have sympathy for the record companies," said Mickey Melchiondo of the rock duo Ween. "They haven't been paying me royalties anyway." Musicians tend to make more money from sales of concert tickets and merchandise than from CD sales. In fact, many musicians offer free downloads of their songs on their Web sites to market themselves. For some of them, the problem with file sharing is control. Before a CD is released, early versions of the songs often end up on file-sharing services, where fans download the music under the misconception that it is the finished product. Other times, songs online by one act are credited to another act. And fans exchange studio outtakes, unreleased songs, and live performances that some artists would prefer remain unheard. Serj Tankian of the hard-rock band System of a Down, for example, said he thought that the free exchange of songs by his band and others online was healthy for music fans, but objected when that free exchange included unfinished studio recordings. Ween, which recently left a major record label, Elektra, to release its records independently, has found a way to coexist with file sharing, which the band actually supports by encouraging fans to record and trade shows. At the same time, Ween fans police eBay for people who are selling live recordings and KaZaA for people who are leaking songs before an album is released. "Before `Quebec,' came out," Mr. Melchiondo said, referring to Ween's latest CD, "our fans would message people on KaZaA who were sharing tracks and ask them to take the music down. And they also mounted a campaign where they put up fake copies of our record to throw people off." Mr. Melchiondo said that Ween's fans acted out of respect for the band, not because of intimidation from the record industry or sympathy with it. "We never asked them to do this," he said. "They just took it upon themselves ### |
||||||
Sep 11th, 2003 11:42 PM | |||||||
soundtest |
Quote:
WE NEED THE RIAA BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM THERE WOULD BE NO MUSIC ANYWHERE JUST LIKE BEFORE THEY WERE ESTABLISHED |
||||||
Sep 11th, 2003 10:35 PM | |||||||
Ninjavenom |
Quote:
I'm getting off-track in this thread. If you want to keep arguing, start one about it in Music. |
||||||
Sep 11th, 2003 09:51 PM | |||||||
Perndog |
Hey, art fag. Yes, Ninjavenom, I'm talking to you. There's a thing called opinions we have around here. The black album wasn't Metallica's best seller because it sucked. People love it. I love it. You're free to dislike it, but it didn't suck, and if you know enough about music to criticize it, you'll see the value. Are you a drummer? Because no one else cares about the drums, as long as they're there and in time. People notice vocals, then guitar, then maybe bass and drums afterward, and the vocals and guitar (and bass to some extent) are what made that album good. And now for the other topic: Quote:
Quote:
$15 CD - 25% packaging = $11.75 (round to 11.50). 15% artist royalty x $11.50 = $1.73. $10 CD - 25% packaging = $7.50. 15% artist royalty X $7.50 = $1.13. When you sell more than a handful of albums, an extra 60 cents per copy adds up fast. Sell 1000 records at that reduced price, and you're already out $600. Sell 100,000 like just about any record that gets played on MTV, and that's a difference of $60,000, more than many people's yearly salaries. EDIT: figures adjusted |
||||||
Sep 11th, 2003 09:41 PM | |||||||
The One and Only... |
It seems to be a question of the chicken or the egg: if we stop downloading, will they lower prices, or will they lower prices before we stop downloading? Me? Doesn't much matter. Most downloads I get from legit sites like www.mp3.com anyway. |
||||||
Sep 11th, 2003 08:51 PM | |||||||
Ninjavenom |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll be honest with you, a lot of the stuff i listen to does not require absolute concentration and complete focus to create, but they don't have the kind of money where they can just sling it around in a wet paper sack at ducks in their free time, so they've got a lead on these other fellas. There's a required amount of effort that must be put into music, and when you're just making music to be able to keep doing coke and getting wasted blah blah blah etc., you're gonna lose your train of creativity. That's why Sabbath Bloody Sabbath was an inferior record, it lacked the feeling that Master of Reality and Black Sabbath did. Same deal with damn near every other band living the same lifestyle. As for those who make and package CDs, i do appear to have forgotten about them, but i seriously doubt that they are also going to collapse from hoodlums downloading music. I, like every other pirate buy CDs, and much more frequently than before now that i have access to bands and the means to acquire their albums. I'll download the whole things, fuck it. I'd love to buy every one of the cds i have on my computer, but when was the last time a 16 year old had four thousand bucks to spend on cds? I whine about Metallica because they garner so much acclaim for doing so very, very little. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why have hamburger when you can have steak? If anything i'm just pissy that a band who could make decent albums like Kill 'Em All and Ride the Lightning would end up making something as gay as The Black Album. Come on guys, it sucked. |
||||||
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. |