(a rant)

simple.fucking.formula.

i'm sick of seeing the same ol "lay down UR hard-earned cash so artists can keep doing what they're doing" bullshit. as far as i'm concerned, artists can make their money offa selling their product themselves online and at LIVE shows (which is where the real proving ground is, and also where artists got the potential to make lifelong fans who WILL buy their shit...if it doesn't suck ass, of course). it's a fucking LIE that everyone buys everything that they love anymore, so can we stop acting like this is some ideal we as music aficionados have to live up to? music is out there everyfuckingwhere. if i can expand my knowledge and palette via downloading, then fuck you i'm not gonna let some half-assed pride bout how things used to be done stand in the way of that.

why should i or anyone else in this day n age follow that old annoying mantra of "PAY FOR THIS or u are a tyrant who is killing music"? we all know it's not like that anymore. actually to ME it seems like the pressure should be on the "artistes". are u putting ur foot into ur work? does it sound GOOD? FINE then i will either purchase or think about purchasing and most-definitely see you live. drop some doodoo and demand fan-loyalty and compensation? u can go fuck urself. musicians don't have a monopoly on self-righteous pay-me-just-becos-i-do-art douchebaggery. if we wanna take a chance on ur shit, we will. but nowadays...we have OPTIONS, and that's pissing ppl off. i think more than anything it's the fact consumers have some power in the way things work now.

i feel like, ok everyone rails against labels and SUITS for turning music into a business devoid of passion or originality or any of that touchy-feely shit we associate with so-called "real" music. but im fuckn sick of artists who are clinging to the same old system the suits enforce when they say shit like this. the game's changed forever dude, we hear ur shit whether u like it or not. and the only way i can see it benefiting artists, is if their shit don't STINK. the onus is on artists to deliver, otherwise WHY the fuck would anyone drop some cash on it? unless ur an artist/group with a huge fanbase (commercial or underground) with ppl ready n willing to spend on whatever new product thats available (due to a good rep that's usually built up over time due to constant release of GOOD MUSIC). but even then, we'll still be downloading becos u just never fucking know anymore what's gonna move u and what's not. if we got that luxury as (cash-strapped) consumers, why wouldn't we take it? and if ur an artist who's worried bout making ends meet? GET A SECOND JOB. holy shit, we're not automatically programmed to support all ur asses.

"taking a chance" on something doesn't cut it anymore. i used to take plenty of chances that cost me $30-$35 a pop. now it's been almost 3yrs since i last bought a physical album on CD cos i got duped too many times (HOW many times have u heard this line or something similar to it? cos it's the fucking truth, not some whiny excuse: TROOF).

i mean isn't it time this debate EVOLVED a little? are artists just scared that consumers are gonna freely obtain their shit without blindly buying off the strength of one or two good singles all the time? and what about indy artists re-iterating the same tired industry shit about consumers = evil & musicians = entitled? how the fuck does that compute in an indy setting? are we sposed to buy out of sympathy? lol. i mean cmon. no artist out there is ENTITLED to ur money. CONSUMERS, on the other hand, are entitled to NOT PAY FOR SHITTY MUSIC.

thoughts?

V.

>no artist out there is ENTITLED to ur money.
>CONSUMERS, on the other hand, are entitled to NOT PAY FOR
>SHITTY MUSIC.

i said we're entitled to not pay for shitty music. im also saying downloading happens whether we like it or not. it's not an entitlement, it's reality.

V.

Nobody says we're entitled not to pay for shitty food, shitty clothes, shitty cars or shitty movies and we pay for all those.

Why does it only affect music?

And why do you think that artists are not entitled to get paid for their work?

>Nobody says we're entitled not to pay for shitty food, shitty
>clothes, shitty cars or shitty movies and we pay for all
>those.
>
>Why does it only affect music?
>
>And why do you think that artists are not entitled to get paid
>for their work?


dude.


and I'm not even talking about "good" or "Bad" music this time. Even the shittiest album ever made cost money to make. Shit.Costs.Money.

I'm not even gonna itemize it, because we all know how it goes. But it's just unrealistic to think people shouldn't get paid for their work. NOBODY who takes their art seriously can put shit out for free. SOMEWHERE along the line there's bills to pay.

dude, if i can make semi-decent songs on a budget of $0, then why can't the talented artists?? WHY does it have to cost an arm and a leg (and possibly another appendage) to crank out some good choons? and how does that directly correlate to consumers having the responsibility of carrying said artist? at least consumers buy for the reason of enjoying the music, FOR the music. all u hear from artists is they wanna make their loot, ohnoes they're worried bout making back their loot, loot loot loot. at what point do they grow up and find better ways of sustaining a livable income that doesn't involve making the listeners feel like criminals?

iono man, to me that's not a valid argument anymore.

V.

and realize the cause and effect nature of the world?

Shit, this fucking entitlement makes me want to puke.

I think I better leave this post because I am actually getting really annoyed.

"It's not the consumers fault that making music costs money"?

Shit, it's not MY fault that my landlord gotta pay his mortgage, utilities and maintain the building I live in, either... maybe I shouldn't pay my rent this March.

After all, that motherfucker needs to grow up and figure out a way to meet all the financial responsibilities connected to the building *I live in* without me having to carry his sorry ass or make me feel like a bad person for not paying.

Fuck that!

cos im not seein it. replace the things in ur landlord analogy with music-related terms so i can draw the lines here. cos...i dunno, ur equating ur living quarters and all the things u presumably need to live and survive in the world with...music? i wanted to call this a dumb analogy but thought i'd ask first *ducks*

V.

As such, it should be self-explanatory and if you don't get it then that is your own shortcoming and there's nothing I can do about that.

oh wells.

V.

The point is: NOTHING IN THIS WORLD COMES FOR NOTHING.

Is it the consumers' fault that there are a shitload of expenses that come with producing an album? No, it is not.

But it's not the artist's fault either... It's the way of the world and we all have to find some way to deal with it.

I need to get a haircut this weekend. Would I love to get it free? Yes.

But my barber has to pay for the rent of his chair. He has to feed his family too.

Is any of that my fault? Fuck no! But it ain't his fault either. So I'm gonna have to give him some money so he can give some money to the owner of the barbershop and then give some money to the market to get food to feed his kids.

Is this concept THAT complex?

This shit is absurd. Cats will go to great lengths to justify stealing shit.

As if these downloaders are really going out of their way to legitimately purchase shit that they liked after a thorough review.

Hell naw, they listened ad nauseum and then moved on to the next download.


http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

a service that someone thinks is worth something, then regardless of how much *work* and *money* went into that business, you're not getting paid... your landlord should get paid if you live there and everything is up to standards.. but if no one is living there or someone is living there and can't enjoy it fully, then no, they shouldn't get paid...

and usually, you're allowed to check the place out before moving in and cutting a check... you're allowed to try on clothes before buying... you can rent a movie before buying it.. if i have a complaint at a restaurant, i can send it back.. there are too many choices in ALL aspects in 2011 to not get a preview.. i like the idea of a free stream to let ppl listen before they buy music.. or a trial d/l.. but to put the brunt of your work into a single and using that to advertise an album full of inferior tracks, that's just false advertising and i think ppl have the right to be mad or not want to purchase the product. too many of the complaints i've heard are from acts who don't put full effort into *albums*..

i still think it's wrong to d/l an album, love it and just leave it at that... but if i'm gonna delete that shit from my computer anyways, what am i paying for? not entertainment or enjoyment.. i'm just making a donation to someone's bank account, right? eff that.. all of the albums that i love, i eventually buy.. i don't buy anything else in life w/o liking it, why should music differ? that's the question i've always had

>and usually, you're allowed to check the place out before
>moving in and cutting a check... you're allowed to try on
>clothes before buying... you can rent a movie before buying
>it.. if i have a complaint at a restaurant, i can send it
>back..

You're allowed to "check" out an apartment... but not to actually MOVE IN before you decide if you want to rent it.

And when you rent a movie before buying it... You PAY for it.

If you send a plate back to the kitchen at a restaurant, you still pay. And your food comes back with pubic hair in it too.

why i said "i like the idea of a free stream to let ppl listen before they buy music.. or a trial d/l.. but to put the brunt of your work into a single and using that to advertise an album full of inferior tracks, that's just false advertising and i think ppl have the right to be mad or not want to purchase the product."

what do you think about a price scale somehow based on quality? that's another norm in other industries - you get what you pay for... i'd like to see that work its way into the music industry lol..

>what do you think about a price scale somehow based on
>quality? that's another norm in other industries - you get
>what you pay for... i'd like to see that work its way into the
>music industry lol..

which is why the whole "I shouldn't have to pay if it sucks, so these artists need to step up their game" argument has always been problematic.

Maybe it's just not made for you...

i said clearly what i thought consumers are entitled to, and it was ONE DAMN thing. all of the shit i said is framed in the context of what goes down today. what i do, u do, wat everyone does. yet all ur seeing is the word "entitlement" n treating me like every other adolescent who has made this poast on okp. dude. let it go. this is what i said in reference to ENTITLEMENT:

"no artist out there is ENTITLED to ur money. CONSUMERS, on the other hand, are entitled to NOT PAY FOR SHITTY MUSIC". artists aren't automatically entitled to my or ur money, is my point. fair enuff? and consumers being entitled to not pay for shitty music is something we should all be able to agree on, but by saying that doesn't mean im negating every single entitlement an artist may or may not have. clearly none of ANYone's entitlements are my fucking choice, no way in hell i'd get off thinking that.

V.

>"no artist out there is ENTITLED to ur money. CONSUMERS, on
>the other hand, are entitled to NOT PAY FOR SHITTY MUSIC".
>artists aren't automatically entitled to my or ur money, is my
>point. fair enuff? and consumers being entitled to not pay for
>shitty music is something we should all be able to agree on,
>but by saying that doesn't mean im negating every single
>entitlement an artist may or may not have. clearly none of
>ANYone's entitlements are my fucking choice, no way in hell
>i'd get off thinking that.

It is true that the artist is not entitled to your money.

It is true that you are entitled to not pay for shitty music.

HOWEVER, you are not "entitled" to free music either.

Let me use myself as an example.

Money has been tight for me the past few months. I really can't afford to buy all the music I would like to.

So you know how I deal with that?

I LISTEN MOSTLY TO THE MUSIC I ALREADY OWN.

I don't think it is somehow my right to own all the latest music just because I can get it for free. I'm not entitled to that, even though I can get it very easily.

And I'm not saying I don't download shit... I do. But again: I recognize that it is not my right, and it is probably not healthy for music.

i stated that as a day-to-day reality of what music consumption IS now. it's ppl sitting at their PCs n shit downloading music. no way did i claim it's an entitlement or even righteous to hoarde all u can download just cos u can. i don't recognise it as a right, but it's definitely the norm. and within this norm, i got the luxury to choose what art i feel passionate enuff about and impressed with to BUY. it's not self-empowered entitlement, it's a reaction the situation.

V.

But whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what you have been arguing all along.

You're complaining about the artist's desire to recoup money that they invested into creating the recordings you downloaded and are enjoying, making it like they're assholes for expecting to be paid for rendering a service that you clearly find valuable, talking about "when are they gonna grow up?"...

...and you DON'T think you're expressing that you feel entitled to download music?

If you don't see that, then it's likely you don't know the meaning of the word "entitlement."

>dude, if i can make semi-decent songs on a budget of $0, then
>why can't the talented artists??

and I'll overlook "semi-decent". Because YOU started thos whole thing talking about quality, so imagine if somebody doesn't feel 'obligated' to buy your music for the *sound* quality of it?

"that shit was dope...but it aint got enough bass in it...I ain't payin' for that shit."



WHY does it have to cost an
>arm and a leg (and possibly another appendage) to crank out
>some good choons?

Recording
Mixing
Mastering
proofs
duplication
artwork ( photography and or digital design).


and so on. Ain't NONE of that shit free. And I'm sick of repeating this. and this is just a little boutique release that MIGHT wind up in a local record store. Think of a major project. ( And if we're talking about rehearsals and shit that bands do? triple the cost...)



and how does that directly correlate to
>consumers having the responsibility of carrying said artist?

because SOMEBODY has to pay for that stuff. Where do you think the funding comes from?

I've put out (duplicated with artwork) free mix CD's, so I can TOTALLY dig setting shit out for free just to make people happy. But when it comes time to record original material? I spend money, and a lot of it, depending on the project...

>at least consumers buy for the reason of enjoying the music,
>FOR the music. all u hear from artists is they wanna make
>their loot, ohnoes they're worried bout making back their
>loot, loot loot loot.

it's a little more complex than that...


at what point do they grow up and find
>better ways of sustaining a livable income that doesn't
>involve making the listeners feel like criminals?

so which is it? "Grow up" or "Make shit I like, and do it at no cost to me"?

c'mon man...




>
>iono man, to me that's not a valid argument anymore.

we'll keep talkin' about...

>
>V.

>>dude, if i can make semi-decent songs on a budget of $0,
>then
>>why can't the talented artists??
>
>and I'll overlook "semi-decent". Because YOU started thos
>whole thing talking about quality, so imagine if somebody
>doesn't feel 'obligated' to buy your music for the *sound*
>quality of it?
>
>"that shit was dope...but it aint got enough bass in it...I
>ain't payin' for that shit."

i was actually referring to me when i said "semi-decent" lol. i'd rather knock myself than throw subliminals at anyone. man, the most basic bedroom producer with FL Studio & Ozone can make somethin sound if not pro, then close enuff to it. imsayin we can do things on the cheap to make our shit sound lovely without resorting to paying out the ass for it, so why not do it? not saying thats wat all artists must do, imsayin it's a viable option to reduce the cost of making a record and maybe alleviating the pressure offa consumers to support with cash. there are ways of achieving nice sounds without high costs (or maybe i should say it with less certainty, "there MUST be ways of achieving nice sounds without high costs").

> WHY does it have to cost an
>>arm and a leg (and possibly another appendage) to crank out
>>some good choons?
>
>Recording
>Mixing
>Mastering
>proofs
>duplication
>artwork ( photography and or digital design).
>
>
>and so on. Ain't NONE of that shit free. And I'm sick of
>repeating this. and this is just a little boutique release
>that MIGHT wind up in a local record store. Think of a major
>project. ( And if we're talking about rehearsals and shit that
>bands do? triple the cost...)

understood. my counter: why not just D.I.Y most of it? or use friends and contacts that aren't going to charge u a dime? e.g. i got a friend who runs a music center/rehearsal studio who would let me use his space to record, mix and master whatever i wanted for free. i got a friend who is a pro photographer who could whip up artwork for me for free. i know a friend with a marketing company who can help me sell the shit online and elsewhere, free. sofar the only money i've put down is the $250 for an ounce of weed and $2.25 for a glass bottle of Pepsi. as someone into art and creative shit, there's a trusted network there of friends and fellow creative heads who would jump at the chance to help me craft music n they'd do it purely for the love of it. maybe my situation isn't everyone else's, but any kinda creative dude usually keeps fellow creatives in their circle. why not utilise friendships and goodwill for the benefit of ur music and for keeping the cost at a minimum?

>and how does that directly correlate to
>>consumers having the responsibility of carrying said artist?
>
>because SOMEBODY has to pay for that stuff. Where do you think
>the funding comes from?

yyeeaahhh...see i think i still lack the purely artistic perspective? cos my whole life i been getting involved in different creative ventures, but it's always been what i want n when i want cos i always had a job doing some other shit and i could afford to do the creative stuff at my leisure. to be purely dependent for income on ur art is...SCARY. and, well, not the most secure route to take in life, i would imagine (ironically im guna be pursuing just that this year, just to see if i get anywhere or fail miserably). but it doesn't mean i agree the funding HAS to come from the consumers just becos. like, i always conceived that an artist could make a living working a full-time job and subsequently have the cash and time (after work, on weekends) to make and release music. cos to me it's a purer form of whatever art that dude is gonna create, cos there'll be no monetary issues automatically stuck to it. u create what u wanna create, WHEN u wanna create it. that's gotta be a good thing for the music, no?

>I've put out (duplicated with artwork) free mix CD's, so I can
>TOTALLY dig setting shit out for free just to make people
>happy. But when it comes time to record original material? I
>spend money, and a lot of it, depending on the project...

rightyo, but then again i don't think throwing money at a project necessarily equates to an untouchable product. an old hat argument i know, but still worth repeating. so im seeing the option not to spend large cash still present there.

>>at least consumers buy for the reason of enjoying the music,
>>FOR the music. all u hear from artists is they wanna make
>>their loot, ohnoes they're worried bout making back their
>>loot, loot loot loot.
>
>it's a little more complex than that...

broad strokes.

>at what point do they grow up and find
>>better ways of sustaining a livable income that doesn't
>>involve making the listeners feel like criminals?
>
>so which is it? "Grow up" or "Make shit I like, and do it at
>no cost to me"?
>
>c'mon man...

lol right but artists can get away with "it costs money to make this shit, u gotta pay me for it no matter what cos that's how things work"? you come on, sir.

>>iono man, to me that's not a valid argument anymore.
>
>we'll keep talkin' about...

i'm game.

V.

>lol right but artists can get away with "it costs money to
>make this shit, u gotta pay me for it no matter what cos
>that's how things work"? you come on, sir.

NOBODY is holding a gun to your head forcing you to pay for, or even to listen to, the music.

If you don't want to pay? Fine... Just don't listen to the music and you owe nobody anything.

I used the example above about how I've not been able to afford a lot of new records lately... My solution is that I don't listen to a lot of new music. I have thousands of records already, a good deal of them that I have listened to very little, if at all. Enough to last me years, if necessary.

Does it suck that I am not up on new music like I used to be? Yeah... kinda. But then, it is not my RIGHT to have every new record if I cannot afford it.

>>
>i was actually referring to me when i said "semi-decent" lol.
>i'd rather knock myself than throw subliminals at anyone.

me too. I was speaking in the generic sense. Not throwing darts.

man,
>the most basic bedroom producer with FL Studio & Ozone can
>make somethin sound if not pro, then close enuff to it.

you might THINK that. But it won't sound professional. Trust me.


>>Recording
>>Mixing
>>Mastering
>>proofs
>>duplication
>>artwork ( photography and or digital design).
>>
>>
>>and so on. Ain't NONE of that shit free. \
>understood. my counter: why not just D.I.Y most of it? or use
>friends and contacts that aren't going to charge u a dime?
>e.g. i got a friend who runs a music center/rehearsal studio
>who would let me use his space to record, mix and master
>whatever i wanted for free. i got a friend who is a pro
>photographer who could whip up artwork for me for free. i know
>a friend with a marketing company who can help me sell the
>shit online and elsewhere, free.


That's cool. But do you think they'd foot the bill EVERY time you want to record and release something? THEY'RE professionals. So I don't think they'd keep doing free work for you just so you could put out your 'hobby' records. You're costing them time and money.

sofar the only money i've put
>down is the $250 for an ounce of weed and $2.25 for a glass
>bottle of Pepsi. as someone into art and creative shit,
>there's a trusted network there of friends and fellow creative
>heads who would jump at the chance to help me craft music n
>they'd do it purely for the love of it.

See what happens if you keep going to the well. Not saying that you don't have a great group of friends, but eventually, you're going to have to pay somebody. Especially if any of your friends does what they're doing for a living. ( Especially engineering and mastering).

maybe my situation
>isn't everyone else's, but any kinda creative dude usually
>keeps fellow creatives in their circle. why not utilise
>friendships and goodwill for the benefit of ur music and for
>keeping the cost at a minimum?

Friendships and Goodwill only go so far. Especially when money comes into the picture.


>
>
>yyeeaahhh...see i think i still lack the purely artistic
>perspective? cos my whole life i been getting involved in
>different creative ventures, but it's always been what i want
>n when i want cos i always had a job doing some other shit and
>i could afford to do the creative stuff at my leisure.

Same here. I *CAN* afford it. I'm not crying broke. But what i'm saying is this shit costs money.


to be
>purely dependent for income on ur art is...SCARY.

Of course it is.

and, well,
>not the most secure route to take in life, i would imagine
>(ironically im guna be pursuing just that this year, just to
>see if i get anywhere or fail miserably). but it doesn't mean
>i agree the funding HAS to come from the consumers just becos.

But again, you're not asking that of ANY other merchant. You don't tell a restauranteur to not rely sole on his restaurant. So why is it that you think musicians have to have another job?


>like, i always conceived that an artist could make a living
>working a full-time job and subsequently have the cash and
>time (after work, on weekends) to make and release music. cos
>to me it's a purer form of whatever art that dude is gonna
>create, cos there'll be no monetary issues automatically stuck
>to it. u create what u wanna create, WHEN u wanna create it.
>that's gotta be a good thing for the music, no?

That whole argument is bullshit. And I'm telling you from firsthand experience, that I'm doing JUST that. Putting out my music, the way I want to. And in order for me to have it released to MY standards, I can't be cheap about it.

Why waste the time working on it, and then just throw together some bullshit as an end product?


>rightyo, but then again i don't think throwing money at a
>project necessarily equates to an untouchable product.

who said it did?

an old
>hat argument i know, but still worth repeating. so im seeing
>the option not to spend large cash still present there.


and like the old saying goes: "you get what you pay for..."


>
>>at what point do they grow up and find
>>>better ways of sustaining a livable income that doesn't
>>>involve making the listeners feel like criminals?
>>
>>so which is it? "Grow up" or "Make shit I like, and do it at
>>no cost to me"?
>>
>>c'mon man...
>
>lol right but artists can get away with "it costs money to
>make this shit, u gotta pay me for it no matter what cos
>that's how things work"? you come on, sir.

Tell me why that doesn't make sense. Again, what other services do you get and NOT pay for AFTER you've had them? Tell me where that works....



>

im just over the whole thing really, and im over artists who support it. and im kinda mad artists aren't just sayin fuckit and doing their own thing n keep blaming US for their decline. don't most artists on labels get cash advances or some kinda budget to work with? can't they make albums on HALF the money they receive and use the rest for something else? shouldn't the costs of making a freakn album come down so artists aren't so dependent on US for keep em afloat? i feel like consumers keep getting the shitty end of the argument all the time, doesn't sound right.

>Nobody says we're entitled not to pay for shitty food, shitty
>clothes, shitty cars or shitty movies and we pay for all
>those.

right, but we still have a choice in making those decisions ye? even food deemed healthy is pretty crap. my fam grows all our veggies n fruits in the backyard/garden. that was a choice/reaction to food being rather questionable in general.

>Why does it only affect music?

i have no idea how u even brought clothing, food and movies in here and then state why it only affects music as if that's what i was saying. im talking specifically about music, yes? doesn't mean i think it's the ONLY thing it affects. could say the exact same thing for films: budgets are too high, marketing costs WAY too fucking high, and then the industry that bloats its own products gets mad when consumers don't fork over the dosh? please. im bout to get mad all over again :/

>And why do you think that artists are not entitled to get paid
>for their work?

i think i realise why i witnessed Afkap in so many arguments here over the years, ur drawing ur own conclusions n passing em off as my argument lol. i never stated that or the sentiment in the previous post u made. artists are entitled to get paid for their work like anyone else doing anyTHING else, but as a modern-day consumer i have the luxury of trying before buying on a MASS scale. im not entitled to a free download of suchnsuch's work, but it's there, so i'll take it. n so does everyfuckinbody else.

actually i wanted to draw a parallel b/w the gist of my argument, and the act of a friend burning a CD of an album he downloaded for free, and passing it on to another friend to listen to (aka traditional friend-to-friend bootlegging). or going into Borders and listening to full albums for free on the headphones and leaving without purchase.

V.

>im just over the whole thing really, and im over artists who
>support it. and im kinda mad artists aren't just sayin fuckit
>and doing their own thing n keep blaming US for their decline.
>don't most artists on labels get cash advances or some kinda
>budget to work with? can't they make albums on HALF the money
>they receive and use the rest for something else? shouldn't
>the costs of making a freakn album come down so artists aren't
>so dependent on US for keep em afloat? i feel like consumers
>keep getting the shitty end of the argument all the time,
>doesn't sound right.

For a start: budgets HAVE come down.

Some labels these days are giving bands advances of like $3000. That's not enough to pay for an album.

But it's still better than getting no advance at all, which many labels (I won't name name) offer artists these days.

I don't know if you realize how ridiculous it sounds for you to be complaining that the artists are depending on YOU (gasp!) to keep them afloat.

So you want to enjoy the music, but you resent the fact that the producers of the music require your patronage in order to stay in business? Please tell me ONE industry in the world in which that shit flies.

That's why I asked why it only applies to music. Do you complain about car companies are depending on you, y'know, PAYING for their product so that they can stay in business?


>right, but we still have a choice in making those decisions
>ye? even food deemed healthy is pretty crap. my fam grows all
>our veggies n fruits in the backyard/garden. that was a
>choice/reaction to food being rather questionable in general.

Umm... That's a false analogy.

You feel the food sold at the supermarket is crap, so you grow your own... You don't steal it from the store and say that you are "entitled" not to pay for it because it sucks.

The only way the analogy would be apt would be if you chose not to consume commercial music at all and you and your friends got together to form a band/bands to entertain yourselves.

That would be righteous.

>i have no idea how u even brought clothing, food and movies in
>here and then state why it only affects music as if that's
>what i was saying. im talking specifically about music, yes?

You're talking specifically about music, which (like it or not) is a commercial product just like food, cars, clothes and other shit you probably pay for with little complaint.

>doesn't mean i think it's the ONLY thing it affects. could say
>the exact same thing for films: budgets are too high,
>marketing costs WAY too fucking high, and then the industry
>that bloats its own products gets mad when consumers don't
>fork over the dosh? please. im bout to get mad all over again
>:/

Films are still art, though... my issue is the fact that modern consumers seem to believe that art should be free.

Nobody says it's their right to steal a car because the standard of construction and engineering is not what it used to be.


>i think i realise why i witnessed Afkap in so many arguments
>here over the years, ur drawing ur own conclusions n passing
>em off as my argument lol.

Oh... so you DIDN'T say that no artist is entitled to your money? That's some shit I made up, right?

I don't think that any artist IS entitled to your money, by the way... but you are not entitled to consume their work either. If you don't want an artist to have your money, don't give it to them! But by the same token, if your moral compass is on point, you shouldn't download their music either.

>artists are entitled to
>get paid for their work like anyone else doing anyTHING else,
>but as a modern-day consumer i have the luxury of trying
>before buying on a MASS scale. im not entitled to a free
>download of suchnsuch's work, but it's there, so i'll take it.
>n so does everfuckinbody else.

and if you like it... you buy it, right?

I mean, EVERYTHING you download and like... you buy?

Right?

>actually i wanted to draw a parallel b/w the gist of my
>argument, and the act of a friend burning a CD of an album he
>downloaded for free, and passing it on to another friend to
>listen to (aka traditional friend-to-friend bootlegging). or
>going into Borders and listening to full albums for free on
>the headphones and leaving without purchase.

Except that in the case of Borders you don't get to put it on your hard drive, your iPod, in your car and listen to it at the gym, the bathroom, your girl's house, your family reunion, your office Xmas party, etc.

ie you don't own a copy of it. VERY different.

people use that whole "tired of gettin' beat" argument, as if they would've paid for it if they liked it.

I've heard the same motherfuckers talking about "I just listen, and if I like it, I'll go buy it..." but six months later they're still listening to that same ol' burned copy.

and THEN they talk about how it was "aight"...


or even WORSE, when they come in here trumpeting about how dope something is, "Top Ten this or that", and "you're a fool if you don't like it", and yet they STILL haven't bought it themselves.



and I know we're all sick of talking about the whole live show thing, but again; How in the fuck is the artist gonna be able to book a live show with NO visible fan base? Promoters don't wanna hear SHIT about YouTube views and Facebook "likes". They wanna know how many you sold.

Ask yourself, would YOU book some dude who says he has a zillion fans to play at YOUR club? What kinda criteria would YOU use to find out if he's a draw? and I'm waiting to anything you can come up with that doesn't include the phrase "Number of album sales".

cats are just unrealistic about the way this business works.

You wanna be a leech and steal the music from the artists you claim to like?

Fine.

Do it.

I do it myself. But the truth is... even as I do it, I know it's not right and it's not moral and it's not healthy for music as a whole.

What I can't stand is the audacity of trying to justify it and arguing that it is somehow their god-given right to enjoy music for free.

Agreed.

These are prolly the same people who roll up into a restaurant, enjoy a meal and then leave without leaving the appropriate tip for the waiter because "It aint my fault he/she works for tips."

>and I know we're all sick of talking about the whole live show
>thing, but again; How in the fuck is the artist gonna be able
>to book a live show with NO visible fan base? Promoters don't
>wanna hear SHIT about YouTube views and Facebook "likes". They
>wanna know how many you sold.
>
>Ask yourself, would YOU book some dude who says he has a
>zillion fans to play at YOUR club? What kinda criteria would
>YOU use to find out if he's a draw? and I'm waiting to
>anything you can come up with that doesn't include the phrase
>"Number of album sales".

^^^

__
I don't like the beat anymore because its just a loop. ALC didn't FLIP IT ENOUGH!

Flip it enough? Flip these. Flip off. Go flip some f*cking burgers.(c)Kno

Allied State of the National Electric Beat Treaty Organization (NEBTO)

>>Ask yourself, would YOU book some dude who says he has a
>>zillion fans to play at YOUR club? What kinda criteria would
>>YOU use to find out if he's a draw? and I'm waiting to
>>anything you can come up with that doesn't include the
>phrase
>>"Number of album sales".

It's like cats live in some fantasy land or something.

All these dudes talking about live shows... ask 'em how many shows they been to themselves.

and ive spent stupid amounts of money hitting live shows over the last decade. i never gave up on the live show, that's my church right there. i may not buy albums any more, but i never pass up a gig. ur on my FB, check my photo album collection. i've documented each and every single one.

V.

>and ive spent stupid amounts of money hitting live shows over
>the last decade. i never gave up on the live show, that's my
>church right there. i may not buy albums any more, but i never
>pass up a gig.

So why did you start off trying to float that phony argument about "I don't think I should have to pay for it *IF IT SUX*"?

"i used to take plenty of chances that cost me $30-$35 a pop. now it's been almost 3yrs since i last bought a physical album on CD cos i got duped too many times".

the argument isn't phony, i was drawing from past experiences pre-2008 (last album i ever bought, Ananda Project's "Fire Flower"), where i would gladly buy albums from artists i loved to liked and ended up being disappointed with the material.

edit: actually no, the last album i bought was Maxwell's "BLACKsummers'night" in 2009. and this was after previewing both albums via free downloads. and these guys are among my top 5 fav artists of all-time. it was gonna get bought regardless, but i still had to listen first.

if it doesn't completely suck and i'm not paying for it, maybe i just don't LIKE it? im not obliged to buy n support based offa that. i bought BSN n Fire Flower cos they meant somethin to me & cos i loved the music, the message and the art in general. that's what it takes for me to shell out some coin in the world TODAY. otherwise my main source of financial support for artists is the live show.

V.

>if it doesn't completely suck and i'm not paying for it, maybe
>i just don't LIKE it? im not obliged to buy n support based
>offa that.

When I have said a couple of times that you are not obliged to even LISTEN to the music, let alone buy it. That's what you seem not to get.

But no disrespect, V... your argument just comes off pretty childish and unrealistic and out of touch with the real world to me.

You're talking about getting free studio time from your friends and shit... Do you realize that there are overhead costs involved in your friend running that studio?

And although he might let YOU do work there for free, if he doesn't charge SOMEBODY sooner or later, he ain't gonna have that studio for long?

Ditto your friend the pro photographer... It's really cool of him to do some free work for you, but if he did that for every one of his creative friends who needed free flicks, when would he have the time to do work that PAYS?

Look... if you have the luck or the hustle to get some shit for free, that's awesome for you. But to suggest that EVERYBODY should be expected to operate in this way... I'm sorry, it is just not a sustainable business model.

Which is why I say it hurts music and art as a whole.

And I wish people would stop talking about how technology has freed us from all these expenses anyway. I mean, that works for some records but I'd hate to think that ALL music should be made that way.

I am loathe to live in a world where we can't have another record like Pet Sounds or Thriller... Am I saying that I want to see a return of the disgustingly excessive recording sessions? Not necessarily.... but it makes me sad to think that all we have to look forward from now on is some shitty, bedroom-recorded Fruity Loops "productions."

People just need to grow up and realize that nothing in this world comes free... especially nothing of value. It's babies who expect to always get what they want, how and when they want it. http://splicd.com/cwssN6ShJjg/630/638

>You're talking about getting free studio time from your
>friends and shit... Do you realize that there are overhead
>costs involved in your friend running that studio?
>
>And although he might let YOU do work there for free, if he
>doesn't charge SOMEBODY sooner or later, he ain't gonna have
>that studio for long?
>

exactly...

>Ditto your friend the pro photographer... It's really cool of
>him to do some free work for you, but if he did that for every
>one of his creative friends who needed free flicks, when would
>he have the time to do work that PAYS?


preach on, preacher...

>
>Look... if you have the luck or the hustle to get some shit
>for free, that's awesome for you. But to suggest that
>EVERYBODY should be expected to operate in this way... I'm
>sorry, it is just not a sustainable business model.

AND he's gonna run the risk of being on the business end of a hearty "Fuck You, Pay me" from his friends. Personally, ain't NO way I'd keep doing free remixes and producing for 'friends'. Especially if they're on some "i'm just doing this to have fun" shit. Of course, I've done free shit for fun. BUT I'm not about to let anybody keep coming back for the same shit over and over, AND not taking me serious as a professional.


>
>Which is why I say it hurts music and art as a whole.
>
>And I wish people would stop talking about how technology has
>freed us from all these expenses anyway. I mean, that works
>for some records but I'd hate to think that ALL music should
>be made that way.

right. and like I tried to explain to him, the shit that might work for a Hip-Hop/Dance/Electronica producer is NOT gonna work for a band.




>
>I am loathe to live in a world where we can't have another
>record like Pet Sounds or Thriller... Am I saying that I want
>to see a return of the disgustingly excessive recording
>sessions? Not necessarily.... but it makes me sad to think
>that all we have to look forward from now on is some shitty,
>bedroom-recorded Fruity Loops "productions."

Speak on it.


>
>People just need to grow up and realize that nothing in this
>world comes free... especially nothing of value. It's babies
>who expect to always get what they want, how and when they
>want it. http://splicd.com/cwssN6ShJjg/630/638

^^^^^^^

and it'll probably end up damaging personal relationships as well.

>and it'll probably end up damaging personal relationships as
>well.


Let a motherfucker try to pay ME for a remix with a bockle of Pepsi...


The Great Negro Poet Clayton Davis said it best:

shhhheeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttt...

at any point in time all the creatives in my circle have used each others resources for the relaxed unpretentious on-the-spot creation of music (aka jam sessions mostly). and our collective resources just keep growing and our avenues to create keep increasing along with it. it's a beautiful thing. none of that dramatic shit has ever gone down cos we're all in it for the love of the moment. now i havent actually used those resources to co-ordinate a full-on attempt at an album, but i easily could, without damaging friendships cos we're not fickle like that. there's no money involved cept for the cost of running watever equipment we already have.

u guys are prognosticating some potential problems with that model but it's served me and my loose collective of creative heads for nigh a decade now. i guess it helps if all the ppl involved are cool as fuck? lol.

as for it being a long-term model that everyone should use? i dunno. im merely trying to give a cheap alternative to anyone willing to use it.

V.

>at any point in time all the creatives in my circle have used
>each others resources for the relaxed unpretentious
>on-the-spot creation of music (aka jam sessions mostly).

that's cool...

and
>our collective resources just keep growing and our avenues to
>create keep increasing along with it. it's a beautiful thing.
>none of that dramatic shit has ever gone down cos we're all in
>it for the love of the moment. now i havent actually used
>those resources to co-ordinate a full-on attempt at an album,

why not? If you could get it done, why not take advantage of it? You produce music, so why NOT put something out? Prove us wrong...


>but i easily could, without damaging friendships cos we're not
>fickle like that. there's no money involved cept for the cost
>of running watever equipment we already have.


See what you did? You used the word "cost" in there. See what I'm saying? at SOME point, somebody has to foot the bill.


>
>u guys are prognosticating some potential problems with that
>model but it's served me and my loose collective of creative
>heads for nigh a decade now. i guess it helps if all the ppl
>involved are cool as fuck? lol.
>

Again, that's good shit that you and your friends roll like that. But the whole thing is moot if you're not really interested in putting out a commercial release. We're talking about those acts that DO.


>as for it being a long-term model that everyone should use? i
>dunno. im merely trying to give a cheap alternative to any u
>would be willing to use it.

So let's just say I DID want to go that route. How much headache would I have to go through to find THAT many people willing to work for free? Let alone people who'd work for free and then let me turn around and SELL the shit we've done?


>
>V.

>So let's just say I DID want to go that route. How much
>headache would I have to go through to find THAT many people
>willing to work for free? Let alone people who'd work for free
>and then let me turn around and SELL the shit we've done?

Do your friends offer the exact aesthetic you're looking for in your work?

I've never been a fan of "use your friends just because they're around" shit... LIke, if I need a jazz trumpet and I got a friend who plays trumpet but only classical? And then you say "fuck it, he'll do..."

For me, there is too much compromise there... and I think it shows a distressing lack of respect for one's art.

>>So let's just say I DID want to go that route. How much
>>headache would I have to go through to find THAT many people
>>willing to work for free? Let alone people who'd work for
>free
>>and then let me turn around and SELL the shit we've done?

true. ive been friends with these ppl for a long long time tho, we're like family. and like i mentioned we're all employed, everyone who would be involved has fulltime employment and earns a comfy wage. money's NEVER been an issue when it came time to jam (we record a lot of our jams too, mind you, even started a once-a-week jam sesh night at our own venue a few yrs back which was awesome).

>Do your friends offer the exact aesthetic you're looking for
>in your work?

i have to say im speaking from a very specific example, and yes. the core unit is made up of me, my older brother and our mutual friend (the same guy who runs the music center/studio). we've been a loose unit for round 4yrs now and we just click, a lot of time we'll predict changes in the jams we just came up with simultaneously. that and we got tendrils that run in many different directions that can tap the talents who also happen to be our very good friends, to help out n play with. we once had a total of 12 musicians have a recorded jam with us, was one of the most epic experiences of my life lol. so yeah, the foundations are solid. no one would be exploited in anyway.

>I've never been a fan of "use your friends just because
>they're around" shit... LIke, if I need a jazz trumpet and I
>got a friend who plays trumpet but only classical? And then
>you say "fuck it, he'll do..."
>
>For me, there is too much compromise there... and I think it
>shows a distressing lack of respect for one's art.

oh i understand that very well. luckily im surrounded by some pretty accomlished musicians n writers n vocalists m we all seem to be on the same levels n wavelengths. so i know whenever i call on one of em to gimme a guitar solo or provide some vocals on something im working on, they CHEERILY say yes and come over n lay it down. sofar its been magical and no one's fucked up the vibe. i guess im just explaining my optimism when it comes to that option.

V.

the album creation process has yet to happen cos i never felt like doing it so big n serious, i just always fuck around on my own so i dont rely on anyone else to do shit. im pretty optimistic it would work out alright tho.

and i meant cost as in that woulda got used ANYhow for just a regular ass jam sesh, stead this time it's for something else. and im not talkn bout a million studio sessions either, they'd be sparse and only when he's got a room free (i wish i could cite to u n Af the specific example im using but it'll take too long to explain my mate's backstory).

in terms of payment for all the musicians involved? the selling point would be "the band", to take the shit live straight out the gate cos that's what we do anyway. all of us have fulltime jobs so money's not a big deal, being able to gig n sell albums would be. not to gain income (we don't really need it), but just to be good enuff that someone feels ur WORTH paying money for. i would be happy puttin it online for free n just gigging around.

V.

>in terms of payment for all the musicians involved? the
>selling point would be "the band", to take the shit live
>straight out the gate cos that's what we do anyway. all of us
>have fulltime jobs so money's not a big deal, being able to
>gig n sell albums would be. not to gain income (we don't
>really need it), but just to be good enuff that someone feels
>ur WORTH paying money for. i would be happy puttin it online
>for free n just gigging around.

I don't go for all that hippy-dippy pinko shit. All that "it just feels good to know that people out there think I'm WORTH it!" shit.

Make no mistake, first and foremost it IS certainly extremely gratifying to know that people are feeling my shit... but at the same time, I expect to be paid.

Not because I "need" the income...

(well...)

(who COULDN'T use more money in their life? Even Warren Buffett ain't gonna tell you he doesn't want any more money. Steve Jobs don't "need" my money but it doesn't mean he's giving away iPads in the street...)

...But the point is that it's not like I'm gonna starve if you don't buy the record. But at the same time, if you really claim to feel that the record is a thing of value in your life, I see no reason why you should not pay me something for it.

And I don't like the use of the word "support" as in "support the artist" like I'm some charity case... No! I gave you something of value! I rendered you a service the same way a dentist or a plumber or a pizza delivery guy does... why does my service have to be pro bono when you pay for those other services without question?

It's a respect thing. You like my record? Is it some shit that might even give you hours of enjoyment for years to come? And yet I'm an asshole for expecting you to give me ten bucks for that?

What part of the game is that?

And then of course there is the issue that if you truly enjoy the music I've made and you want to hear more of it, you've got to understand that it costs me money to make it... so it ain't like I need you to "support" me to pay my bills and feed my kids and shit... It's just a recognition of the fact that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuaG-TCpbtw

>
>(who COULDN'T use more money in their life? Even Warren
>Buffett ain't gonna tell you he doesn't want any more money.
>Steve Jobs don't "need" my money but it doesn't mean he's
>giving away iPads in the street...)
>
>...But the point is that it's not like I'm gonna starve if you
>don't buy the record. But at the same time, if you really
>claim to feel that the record is a thing of value in your
>life, I see no reason why you should not pay me something for
>it.
>

like I said, it's the hottest shit in the streets. A personal Classic. Shits on every other album of the last year...but not worth buying.

and let me just say, this shit right HERE:


> I gave you
>something of value! I rendered you a service the same way a
>dentist or a plumber or a pizza delivery guy does... why does
>my service have to be pro bono when you pay for those other
>services without question?
>



> I gave you
>something of value! I rendered you a service the same way a
>dentist or a plumber or a pizza delivery guy does... why does
>my service have to be pro bono when you pay for those other
>services without question?



> I gave you
>something of value! I rendered you a service the same way a
>dentist or a plumber or a pizza delivery guy does... why does
>my service have to be pro bono when you pay for those other
>services without question?


DUDE.



> I gave you
>something of value! I rendered you a service the same way a
>dentist or a plumber or a pizza delivery guy does... why does
>my service have to be pro bono when you pay for those other
>services without question?


MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND.


>It's a respect thing. You like my record? Is it some shit that
>might even give you hours of enjoyment for years to come? And
>yet I'm an asshole for expecting you to give me ten bucks for
>that?


a LIFETIME of enjoyment in some cases. Is that NOT worth ten bucks?


>
>And then of course there is the issue that if you truly enjoy
>the music I've made and you want to hear more of it, you've
>got to understand that it costs me money to make it.


I don't know how else we can explain it.

.. so it
>ain't like I need you to "support" me to pay my bills and feed
>my kids and shit...

right. I'm not out shaking a cup between recoding sessions.

It's just a recognition of the fact that
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuaG-TCpbtw

and just WHO do they think paid for Billy's perm?

Sidepost, watch him on the second verse. he fucked the words up, and looked at the band like "oh well...fuck it...keep the camera rolling"

But I feel like your priorities have just changed.

Years ago, you went to lots of shows....some good, some bad. But at that point, music was more of a priority in your life.

So you may have be able to overlook a mediocre show.

Now as your older, you can't/won't overlook a mediocre show.

But its not the artists fault. I doubt the artists get up in the morning and say, "Today is the day I'm going to half ass my shit on stage."

For every disgruntled YOU, there are 10 fans who love the show.

I'm seeing your argument here....mainly because as I read it, I realized that I haven't given a shit about the music for the past 5 years. I don't buy music like I used to ($30 on iTunes/month MAX). I don't go to shows mainly because I can't make it enough of a financial priority to pay the price of tickets (i have a mortgage/401K/health insurance/savings acct to worry about).

Unfortunatly, the state of the biz that we see today....is not the artists fault.

Its ours. (I say "ours" as a collective label for all who buy music/go to shows).

WE keep it going. I just choose not to participate in it that much anymore.

but i didnt pay for it so now imma buy this shirt from you

its kind of a strange feeling somewhere between "go fuck yourself pussy" and "damn.. thank you?.. at least you are better than dude that didnt buy my shirt?"

thats advertisment and $$$ in ur pocket
thats still making money off of your music
they bought the shirt to support you as an artist
and no other reason

nikes

Nike makes music?

thats advertising

they shld be happy if ppl steal them cuz they get exposure?

thats just silly

put it this way...

cd/digi album sale price = $10
cost to seller = $4 per unit
profit per unit = $6

tee shirt selling price = $15
cost to seller = $5 per unit
profit per unit = $10

if seller sells 1 cd and 1 shirt they shld expect a profit of $16

if an album is stolen and a t shirt is bght then (in simple terms) the seller gets a profit of $6 ($10 tee less $4 cost per unit of album)

it is more complicated than that obviously and these numbers are only for illustration purposes but...

this is a seller and a consumer example that any other seller/consumer relationship falls under.

i understand the reality is that musicians today face more unique challenges than that

i get downloading and for ME.. im happy when ppl want to hear my music. im understand the possible trickle down effect that may occur with more ppl hearing the music. im good and satisfied.

but i dont think anyone shld BOAST about stealing and then tell that seller they are wrong to not be happy about getting $6 profit

it is not a consumers place to tell them that

its offensive to a seller

if you dont understand that than we are gonna have a tough time finding any common ground here at all

.

>thats advertising
>
>they shld be happy if ppl steal them cuz they get exposure?
>
>thats just silly

but nike's business is making clothes

an artist selling tshirts is not making clothes, they are using their status as musician to stamp their logo on something and sell it

VERY different situation

the nike logo holds weight on clothes/shoes b/c of the rep of the CLOTHES/SHOES, the artist logo holds weight on a tshirt b/c of rep of THEIR MUSIC, not their tshirts

again.. slightly different issue than we are talking about

if i sell tshirts im a clothing company

if i open a dumhi bar... im a bar owner

if ppl come to my bar for the beer and pick up on the music...

then what am i?

regardless... your point is lost on me cuz following the analogy...

you can steal nike shoes as long as you buy nike socks

i hate making that point cuz it just seems like it takes us further away from common ground while we argue analogies and semantics

>again.. slightly different issue than we are talking about
>
>if i sell tshirts im a clothing company

not necessarily

someone who sells tshirts =/= a clothing company

i could put my name on a tshirt, no one will buy b/c i'm a nobody...and no one's gonna cop b/c american apparel t's fit them well if they can get a blank american apparel t for cheaper directly

it's the labor you put into music that gives your specific tshirts value

IF i buy fake jordans but the rest of my outfit is nike wtf is nike crying about!?!!?!?
its not like i didnt spend ANYTHING on you!
i coulda bought reeboks instead of fake jordans to go with the rest my nike shit that i bought out of fandom
You gonna cry about the fake jordans!?!?!
foh i dont have to buy ANYTHING from you but if i choose what is more valuable to me a tshirt i can wear for countless yeas vs songs that i can get for free, now ask youself that question when your bills are due and its a no brainer
Dude coulda bought a shirt from ANYWHERE. And he chose the shirt with your name on it because tlhe love YOUR shit and you mad?? That same $$ cant pay for the studio?????

i think i made my point to the best of my ability

now imma get high, pop on the couch, and touch my girls feet

ive got a cold

stakes is high logo getting paid off your t's?

are gonna go nowhere with this convo

and i hate talking about ME specifically

MY issues are simply that a thief telling someone who has their inventory stolen that the THEY are wrong for being upset about it...

and then on top of it... get on a soapobox about how proud of themselves they are for stealing that inventory...

well that doesnt sit well with me at all

btw.. when taking this convo from abstract generalizations to specific realities... hopefully you understand that Dumhi appreciates the support you have shown over the years in any and all forms thats it has come

when talking about general ish...

i cant get with the sentiment of this thread starting with araquals post

are the instros on the cd only?

they definitely will be on the cd tho

vocal album, bonus cut (the knife remix w/sean price, burke, and reef), and instrumentals

the cds will also be numbered in a collector edition fashion

additional bonus cuts are planned for future digital release as well

those will be free but i am trying to figure out how to make them free for those who bght the album still or for general public

im sayin.. i GET the reality of it

i know that everything is free and the only way to sustain yourself as an indie artist is to figure out how to deal with that reality in a productive fashion

my release party is no cover and free beer for cryin outloud

lol

i try man

i try to create relationships with folks checking for our music

so thats why it offends me even more when someone brags about stealing from me or anyone else in my same boat

and even then.. i dont trip over it!

just saying i do feel like as a seller i have the right to be upset when someone DOES steal from me and i think that goes for every seller

>
>just saying i do feel like as a seller i have the right to be
>upset when someone DOES steal from me and i think that goes
>for every seller


indeed

and, and this of course is general speak b/c your music is dope and worth every penny you charge but...

consumers work for their money

a lot of serious music consumers have flushed mucho dollars on crap because of the way it was advertised or presented and the inability to hear it first to decide whether a purchase is worth it or not

(and artists who are music fans know this)

so a lot of fans may feel they have, themselves, been stolen from (via advertising or false promises by the seller, by being convinced that they were buying a dope cd when it was crap) by various artists/labels/what have you over the years and they may indeed feel "entitled" somehow to "getting back" the money they "wasted"

i mean some would say that the nature of capitalism creates this whole unnecessary conflict as it does with all buyer/seller relationships, but y'know, that's just commie pinko talk...

and if this post was a fuck you to labels i wldnt be as offended by it

its a fuck you to artists tho

which is crazy to me

and not even major label artists

just artists

i cant go for that (c) darryl hall

but expect you to buy it regardless

now music "sucking" is subjective, which opens 6,348 cans of worms that we could not possibly deal with in the space alloted by good reverend quest

>thats advertisment and $$$ in ur pocket

in a way, yes.


>thats still making money off of your music

no it's not. It's making money off his shirts. That's a totally separate product. It's RELATED product, yes. But he sold a shirt, not an album.


>they bought the shirt to support you as an artist
>and no other reason

nope. that COULD be the reason. But it could be they just like the shirt. I'm gonna try to tie in his Nike reference:

Do you buy Jordans because you love Nike? No. You bought them because you love the look of that shoe. Same with his band shirts. Sure, you might like his band, but at the end of it all, you bought that shirt because you liked that SHIRT. I used to buy concert T's all the time. It had nothing to do with the recorded product. It was just a symbol that I was a fan of the band.

>no it's not. It's making money off his shirts. That's a
>totally separate product. It's RELATED product, yes. But he
>sold a shirt, not an album.
>

>nope. that COULD be the reason. But it could be they just like
>the shirt. I'm gonna try to tie in his Nike reference:
>

i'm sorry, but the odds of someone buying a "stakes is dumhi" t shirt who is not actually a fan of dumhi music...i mean...come on, seriously?

>
>i'm sorry, but the odds of someone buying a "stakes is dumhi"
>t shirt who is not actually a fan of dumhi music...i
>mean...come on, seriously?


pretty fuckin' high odds, actually. A musician friend of mine had that SAME discussion with another co-worker who had on a Ramones shirt.

Wasn't a fan of the band, but liked the shirt because it was a cool vintage T.

dont be dense dj
pink floyd had their record industry success decades before downloading even existed
Horrible example but if u care to explain haji's point i'm all eyes

Ps are u implying that pink floyd dont get paid to have their name on said shirts??? are they not making mony on their shirts because of their music?? Or did they just team up with mossimo and join the fashion industry?

>dont be dense dj
>pink floyd had their record industry success decades before
>downloading even existed

Still. You're trying to equate t-shirt sales with music sales.


>Horrible example but if u care to explain haji's point i'm all
>eyes
>
>Ps are u implying that pink floyd dont get paid to have their
>name on said shirts???

if they own the copyright and the rights to the logo, sure.

i'll give you a PERFECT example. If MoTown all of a sudden reprinted a Jackson 5 T-shirt, the Jacksons probably wouldn't get a dime. Because when they bounced ( and became "The Jacksons"), they left the rights to the name "Jackson 5" behind.



are they not making mony on their
>shirts because of their music??

perhaps. BUT the way you said it was that selling t-shirts was the same as him making money from his MUSIC, and that's not the case.

Or did they just team up with
>mossimo and join the fashion industry?

again, I don't know the details. I'm just going off of what you said.

company who mainly sells shoes be mad if someone doesnt buy the shoes but gets the socks and shirt??
my point is everything u sell with your name on it BRINGS YOU MONEY, period. to be angry because a fan admitted to you that they bought ur band tshirt IN SUPPORT OF YOUR BAND is not counting your blessings YOU ARE LUCKY THEY BOUGHT ANYTHING FROM YOu is my point. no business is entitled to anyones $ so when someone spends with you on ANYTHING you need to count the damn victory for what it is. THATS my point. the cd and the shirt are two diff types of merch, money is money. And to top it off tshirts almost always cost more than cds

"are all those 12 year olds who buy Floyd t-shirts also buying Floyd ALBUMS?"

or they are at least asking their parents to cop the albums on itunes for them w/ their allowances

or maybe they're not

but comparing buying a pink floyd tshirt at target to buying a dumhi tshirt on dumhi.com is kinda not "reality" ;-)

Didnt quite read the thread properly
Anyway started wearing jordans because they loved jordan
people wear/buy jerseys to suppprt a team
people buy the shirts woth their fave artists (particularly artists who are niche and not running the industry) because they love the artist. unless dumhi has a partnership with sears and they are just selling regular gear (like ll or 50cent) i promise u anyone buying a dumhi shirt is going to be a fan of the music.

>Didnt quite read the thread properly
>Anyway started wearing jordans because they loved jordan
>people wear/buy jerseys to suppprt a team

that's my point. You're not buying GAME tickets though, are you? And that's what pays him his NBA salary.


>people buy the shirts woth their fave artists (particularly
>artists who are niche and not running the industry) because
>they love the artist.

absolutely right.

unless dumhi has a partnership with
>sears and they are just selling regular gear (like ll or
>50cent) i promise u anyone buying a dumhi shirt is going to be
>a fan of the music.

But DID THEY BUY AN ALBUM? Because if not, he might as well just sell t-shirts, right? A t-shirt sale isn't translating into an album sale. Sure, you got the shirt. Sure you went to the show. But you don't own the record. You're saying everything but "I bought Dumhi's album".

( and I'm not specifically talking about Dumhi)

MUSIC THEY LIKE

i.e. absent the dope music, no tshirts get sold

so as an artist i can sit and weep about my music not being sold
or package my music in a way that people will want to buy it.
mp3 files just aren't sentimental enough (but artists shouldn't count
that avenue out either! attack from every angle)
a tshirt you can attach memories to
a cassette tape a cd (with nice insert good packaging) an album
all of these things you can remember opening and you can save and look
at later etc
an mp3 does not fulfill this feeling for music fans.
i've never heard anyone tell the story of that first time they
downloaded such and such's album from itunes and how they felt.
i've heard countless stories about the other items i mentioned tho.
as artists we have to understand that its about the overall package
when it comes to getting people to put money down.

last cd i bought was distant relatives and i was hype because
there is a really nice poster inside. i don't hang the poster but
it's my own little collectors item that came with the music.
i don't even play the cd (i listen to the download) and it sits
in my drawer with the other cds i buy.

this is the 'sentimental' value attached to music that artists need to be looking into.

so if a fan opts to buy royal legacy posters and downloads my album
i will thank them for spending any money on royal legacy.

i have a few 'fans' who have bought the royal legacy tshirt
because they liked the way it looked and not even for the music
my business mind tells me YES!! CHACHING!!
'cause those same dollars are going to pay for the next mixdown
the next show outfit, whatever
it's money!

later if i'm digging it... and i pretty much always start w/ a free d/l... the only artists i'll cop from first day are:

-badu
-curren$y
-mos def
-the roots
-radiohead
-lambchop
-ghostface
-outkast lol

.. but they earned that by consistently giving me something to enjoy.. and even for all of those, i can't pass up the pre-release leaks! sorry, i just want to hear the music as soon as possible.. everyone else has to prove to me their product is worth purchasing - like EVERY other business! and if i love an album, i WILL get around to buying it.. but let's face it, i don't think a lot of the shit i d/l is worth buying... and a lot of that stuff gets deleted from my computer at some point, too... where do you stand on that? i just don't see how artists can excuse themselves from the same business realities that everyone else faces.. you're competing for business, so either get a better product or compete on a pricing level.. if your shit is worth $13 dollars, cool, i'll buy it... but why would i pay that much for some shit that's worth $3?.. ppl pay bmw prices for kia's?

first of all, MistaVee, I never expected to see this from a cat like you, but I'm assuming we're all just here for the sake of the discussion.

>(a rant)
>
>simple.fucking.formula.
>
>i'm sick of seeing the same ol "lay down UR hard-earned cash
>so artists can keep doing what they're doing" bullshit.

What qualifies it as bullshit?

as far
>as i'm concerned, artists can make their money offa selling
>their product themselves online and at LIVE shows (which is
>where the real proving ground is, and also where artists got
>the potential to make lifelong fans who WILL buy their
>shit...if it doesn't suck ass, of course).

I addressed that in an earlier reply. I hope you saw it. ( and "suck ass" is relative, of course. One man's junk, right? )


it's a fucking LIE
>that everyone buys everything that they love anymore, so can
>we stop acting like this is some ideal we as music aficionados
>have to live up to? music is out there everyfuckingwhere. if i
>can expand my knowledge and palette via downloading, then fuck
>you i'm not gonna let some half-assed pride bout how things
>used to be done stand in the way of that.


fair enough. But you haven't demonstrated why you're entitled to do that, other than you *want* to do it.


>
>why should i or anyone else in this day n age follow that old
>annoying mantra of "PAY FOR THIS or u are a tyrant who is
>killing music"? we all know it's not like that anymore.

Sure it is.


>actually to ME it seems like the pressure should be on the
>"artistes". are u putting ur foot into ur work? does it sound
>GOOD? FINE then i will either purchase or think about
>purchasing and most-definitely see you live.

Again, your WHOLE premise is, "If *I* don't like it, I'll decide if it's worth paying for..." And sure, that works for ANYTHING. But like 'KAP said, do you use the same logic for shitty food and drink, movies, etc? and its not like you ate, drank and watched the shitty movie and THEN decided you weren't paying...





drop some doodoo
>and demand fan-loyalty and compensation? u can go fuck urself.

but shouldn't fans ( by definition) be loyal?


>musicians don't have a monopoly on self-righteous
>pay-me-just-becos-i-do-art douchebaggery.

how is it self-righteous? and not everybody is getting paid *because* they make art. Some people need to get paid so they can *Afford to* make art.

if we wanna take a
>chance on ur shit, we will. but nowadays...we have OPTIONS,
>and that's pissing ppl off. i think more than anything it's
>the fact consumers have some power in the way things work
>now.


but how are you a consumer if you're not paying for shit? See what I'm saying?


>
>i feel like, ok everyone rails against labels and SUITS for
>turning music into a business devoid of passion or originality
>or any of that touchy-feely shit we associate with so-called
>"real" music. but im fuckn sick of artists who are clinging to
>the same old system the suits enforce when they say shit like
>this. the game's changed forever dude, we hear ur shit whether
>u like it or not.

understood.


and the only way i can see it benefiting
>artists, is if their shit don't STINK. the onus is on artists
>to deliver, otherwise WHY the fuck would anyone drop some cash
>on it?

relative term.


unless ur an artist/group with a huge fanbase
>(commercial or underground) with ppl ready n willing to spend
>on whatever new product thats available (due to a good rep
>that's usually built up over time due to constant release of
>GOOD MUSIC). but even then, we'll still be downloading becos u
>just never fucking know anymore what's gonna move u and what's
>not. if we got that luxury as (cash-strapped) consumers, why
>wouldn't we take it?

there's no all-encompassing gauge for "good" or "bad" music. So we'll never agree on that logic...



and if ur an artist who's worried bout
>making ends meet? GET A SECOND JOB.

and becuase nobody buys music, that's what a LOT of artists do. To pay for putting shit out.

holy shit, we're not
>automatically programmed to support all ur asses.

true.

>
>"taking a chance" on something doesn't cut it anymore. i used
>to take plenty of chances that cost me $30-$35 a pop. now it's
>been almost 3yrs since i last bought a physical album on CD
>cos i got duped too many times (HOW many times have u heard
>this line or something similar to it? cos it's the fucking
>truth, not some whiny excuse: TROOF).
>

So, you making bad choices is at the root of it all. Let's call it what it is. Whenever I buy something that sucks, *I* have to take the "L". I can't blame the artist. He put out some bullshit, but *I* bought it. That ain't HIS fault. Sure, he made some wack shit, but I STILL had a choice. and let's be real. There's really no excuse for buying shit blind, with sound snippets, Youtube and artist websites playing samples.

You're my man, Vee, but seriously, you're making excuses with that "got beat" shit.





>i mean isn't it time this debate EVOLVED a little? are artists
>just scared that consumers are gonna freely obtain their shit
>without blindly buying off the strength of one or two good
>singles all the time?

maybe...

and what about indy artists re-iterating
>the same tired industry shit about consumers = evil &
>musicians = entitled? how the fuck does that compute in an
>indy setting?

not sure what you mean here.

are we sposed to buy out of sympathy? lol. i
>mean cmon. no artist out there is ENTITLED to ur money.

agreed. You don't have to buy out of sympathy. But you SHOULD buy out of respect and or a sense of fair play. If you don't like it, cool. Don't buy it, and you won't 'get beat' for it. But don't try to justify what you're doing.




>CONSUMERS, on the other hand, are entitled to NOT PAY FOR
>SHITTY MUSIC.
>

true.

or anyone else. ur comments in the Blu thread def inspired it tho.

V.

>or anyone else. ur comments in the Blu thread def inspired it
>tho.
>

I figured as much.

it's cool. I'm not taking it personal. I don't like your reasoning, but I'm not taking any of it personal.

It's just that this particular issue and this attitude of entitlement (as I see it) among contemporary fans just deeply angers me.

It always has, and now that I am kind of in the music biz myself, I take it a lot more personally now.

It's true that time marches on and the paradigms shift. Maybe we ARE heading towards an era in which the audience will expect all art to be free and those of us who create/market it have to go back to the drawing board to think of new ways to keep doing what we do.

But it just really infuriates me when fans are so entitled that they are actually castigating artists and making it seem like they are scoundrels and terrorists for not giving away products that cost them considerable expenditure to produce.

i think we both mean well. i freely admitted that i don't have the insider perspective just yet. like i said, im actually attempting a serious career in music in some form (writing, producing, djing watever) this year, so i feel like there's a lot on the subject i can yet learn about, and i know some of u already have that experience. it's just frustrating for someone who is just as passionate bout music but not actually in the biz, while also being a downloader but still supporting via live shows. it's all from that perspective and i too apologise if it all came off harsh or judgmental.

its just a lil frustrating being a lover of music and supporting artists in ur own way (if not thru purchase of albums, then via the attending of live shows) and always being reminded ur a blight on the face of the music industry :/ does not sit well after all the many YEARS of constant patronage buying CDs and records and tapes and merch from around 1990-2009. the downloading didn't begin til 2000, but the CD buying didnt stop til 2009. u just get to a point when u dont wanna feel bad for the current freeloader-based way of consuming music, either from being let-down by blind buys or by the Internet opening up a plethora of music sources n choices u would have otherwise never seen or head. i seem non-apologetic for my downloading because i see it as normal, i grew up with that mentality that almost anything can be obtained for free online. but i never felt ENTITLED to it, i simply exploit it like everyone else does.

this is getting way too long and i need to stop getn stoned n go to work at some point today. shall we keep debating or should we just let this sucker fall?

V.

Gotta go do some work.

We'll find our way somehow, man...

>But it just really infuriates me when fans are so entitled
>that they are actually castigating artists and making it seem
>like they are scoundrels and terrorists for not giving away
>products that cost them considerable expenditure to produce.


I'm gonna print all this shit out and hand it to my engineer, the next time he bills me for a session. I'll let you guys know how that goes...

>I'm gonna print all this shit out and hand it to my engineer,
>the next time he bills me for a session. I'll let you guys
>know how that goes...
>
>

...as much as it gets downloaded but usually what happens is the singles from a certain artist will get downloaded illegally by the thousands to millions but the album would be sold in stores by the same amount.

With that being said the music I like will be given away for people to download for free but when the time comes when the artist/label drops the album retail everybody be ready for the leak and download the entire album but only a small amount of the album actually sells.

It makes you think you're in bizarro world where the worst the music the more it sells but then we have people saying "if the artist's music sucks then we aren't supporting it nor buying it", I don't know what to say about that.

for whatever product i'm looking for.

music is a product...like it or not. once it's released into the stream of commerce it's a product just like any other product. like a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. hell, it's even sold at the same stores that sell bread and gas (*points to Wal-Mart and Target*).

free is always the best price.

i pay for bread at Wal-Mart and/or Target b/c i don't know where i can get it for free. if i did there's no way i'd pay for it. same w/gas.

same w/music.

can't beat free.

while ppl debate it ppl still aint buyin like they used to.
artists can be mad (we are entitled to that) or spend that energy figuring shit out 'cause it will NEVER be the way it was. we are not gonna change 2-3 generations and beyond of fans who are satisfied with dling and catching they fave artists shit on youtube rather than cop a cd.

and i hate the assumption that just because you aint sell everyone is bumping your bootleg. a lot of times if the output/singles suck or an artist is steady flopping fans will get over them fast and not bother anymore with them. Just like artists gotta make $ regular consumers gotta think about $$ too. so whether dling is "justified" or not fans not buying music as much anymore is the reality. my advice is to be more clever.

i agree.

and i put the blame for this new reality squarely on the record labels. they failed to anticipate how the mp3 and filesharing could harm their bottom line and so they didn't take the early steps necessary to secure the former music market. and by now it's waaaay too late for things to return to the way they were.

alot of people have this line....'the record companies didn't adapt' kinda thing. But if you think about it....there is no way of adapting to this type of change.

If someone invented a machine that created basketball shoes out of thin air....how does Nike adapt to that?

Simple answer....they don't. They move on to a different commodity and that's exactly what the record companies are doing.

and as a consumer that is not my fault or my problem.

Look... This is not some anti-downloading screed from me. I download music myself.

What I am raging against here is not the fact that people are downloading music for free (an inescapable reality borne by natural economic impulse and technological expediency) but the sense of ENTITLEMENT that makes people think free music is their RIGHT. And makes them go so far (as araQual does here) to disparage artists for the fact that they kinda would like to get paid for their hard work and investment.

THAT'S ALL.

For me, it's like if somebody forgot to lock the door at Circuit City and everybody's strolling in there and grabbing stereos and computers.

You see this and you think, "shit, who couldn't use a free television? It sucks for Circuit City but nobody's stopping anybody and if I don't go and take something out the store, somebody else will." So you go in there and grab you a TV.

I have NO problem with that. It's an incredible fluke of the system and a person would be almost foolish not to take advantage of it.

My problem is when people stop looking at it as a fluke and start viewing it as a RIGHT. Like if just because of the Circuit City affair, they started staging protests at Best Buy and demonizing them as some evil empire for not leaving their door open... because a free iPad is everybody's natural right.

THAT for me, is a problem.

Downloading is reality and it's unlikely anybody can put that genie back in the bottle, but I think any right-thinking person knows that it's "wrong."

Even araQual knows that... otherwise he would not keep making reference to how artists are making him feel like a criminal for doing it. People KNOW it's not "right" but they want to be made to feel good about what they're doing.

That really bothers me. It's not even about me caring about the music industry per se... I'm just really distressed by that kind of moral bankruptcy and narcissism that I see afflicted my generation on such a large scale.

Just shut the fuck up, get your free TV and deal with whatever feelings that arouses within you on your own.

>Just shut the fuck up, get your free TV and deal with whatever
>feelings that arouses within you on your own.

Fucking exactly.



http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

Glad someone came on here and just laid it out.

Sadly, this is the demise of the music business. (ironically still called a "business")

If my son/daughter ever came to me and said, "Dad, I want to play music to make a living...."

I'd give them a snide "smarten up Nas" comment like, "Ok sweetie, AFTER you go to college and establish a well paying career...you can be in any band you want...." It would be no different if my son said, "I'm going to be a major league baseball player one day!" (Yeah, son....we all had a dream once....now go do your homework.)

I'm all for the romantic argument of "do what you want"....but for Christ's sake.....for 9 out of 10 musicians - its just a grind.

Just go to your local bar and ask the acoustic guitar player how kush his life is....

And chances are:

He can sing pretty good.
He can play pretty good.
He probably has a local fan base.

To me - music can be a career.....but in the past 10 years, for the MAJORITY of people who sing/play an instrument....the business/fans (including the post above this one) have let them all know that its better off being a hobby.

Sadly, since 2000, the "value" of music has deteriorated to nothing.

All this D/L talk won't even matter anymore in a few years. Right now, there are dozens of website on which you can LEGALY stream every single album for free (Deezer, Spotify ...). So, are we entitled to get a taste of the music before we buy it ? Apparently yes. What's even more interesting is that you can suscribe to those website for like 15 $ / month and get an complete access to all of their catalog on your smartphone. Which means you can LEGALY listen to 90% of the music being released for FREE on your smartphone.

Why do you think music is different from other goods ? It actually isn't. If you could dematerialize any other goods, they would also be subjected to the same treatment (look at movies, TV shows, and soon books). It's the job of of the industry to give the consumer a reason to buy the physical object or the mp3, and that too takes some creativity. So back to my point, shitty food get bought because you don't have the means to taste it before you buy it. If you buy it one time and you don't like it you won't buy it a second time. Clothes ? You try them before you buy them. Of course you can't use that analogy with cars and other capital goods, but Im sure you got the point : it's the means that are different.

As for the artist getting paid ? Don't they get paid before they actually released their album ? How much of that album sales money really finish in their pocket ? Im talking about artists who are on major labels. Today you got major artists who start crying when their album only do 100K because of the leaks and because of us : mean consumers. 100 000 albums ? Really ? Thats a ridiculous amount of records, it's more than 1 000 000 $ of gross revenue. Is it really that expensive to produce an album today ?

The music system is actually not that bad economically. I mean, you have a market where one is able to buy ONLY what he really wants/need/like with pretty much all the information needed (which means your money really goes where you want it to go). But at the end, it doesn't matter if this system is healthy or not. AraQual is right, it's a reality, more and more people are going to get a taste of your music before they buy it.

>All this D/L talk won't even matter anymore in a few years.
>Right now, there are dozens of website on which you can LEGALY
>stream every single album for free (Deezer, Spotify ...). So,
>are we entitled to get a taste of the music before we buy it ?
>Apparently yes. What's even more interesting is that you can
>suscribe to those website for like 15 $ / month and get an
>complete access to all of their catalog on your smartphone.
>Which means you can LEGALY listen to 90% of the music being
>released for FREE on your smartphone.

I've said already in this post that time marches on, and if the industry wants to survive then it has to find some way to adapt to that reality.

I've got no problem with that whatsoever.

>Why do you think music is different from other goods ? It
>actually isn't.

If you read my posts throughout this discussion, I have said that many times.

If you could dematerialize any other goods,
>they would also be subjected to the same treatment (look at
>movies, TV shows, and soon books). It's the job of of the
>industry to give the consumer a reason to buy the physical
>object or the mp3, and that too takes some creativity.

I know this too, and with the releases on my label I have tried to do this. I'm very much in tune with the reality that the music is essentially free so like 70% of the effort goes into devising some compelling packaging and other supplements that will hopefully make this artifact something worth paying for.



So back
>to my point, shitty food get bought because you don't have the
>means to taste it before you buy it. If you buy it one time
>and you don't like it you won't buy it a second time.

People eat McDonald's a million times and they still go back to pay for it. You'll probably say that maybe they actually LIKE McDonald's so it's not shitty to them, but the fact is that if they found a way to get McDonald's for free, they would suddenly say it sucks and they don't have to pay for it.

Clothes
>? You try them before you buy them. Of course you can't use
>that analogy with cars and other capital goods, but Im sure
>you got the point : it's the means that are different.

The problem here is that the whole "I sample the music to see if I like it or not and if it sucks then I don't buy" thing is a LIE. Because people still don't buy the music they DO like.

Let's just be real here: people don't wanna pay for music, period. That's a reality.

>As for the artist getting paid ? Don't they get paid before
>they actually released their album ?

Not always. Not these days.


>The music system is actually not that bad economically. I
>mean, you have a market where one is able to buy ONLY what he
>really wants/need/like with pretty much all the information
>needed (which means your money really goes where you want it
>to go). But at the end, it doesn't matter if this system is
>healthy or not. AraQual is right, it's a reality, more and
>more people are going to get a taste of your music before they
>buy it.

And again: that's not my problem.

My problem is with araQual acting like musicians are assholes for wanting to recoup the investment they put into creating the album that you downloaded for free and claim that you LIKE, and saying shit like "when are they gonna grow up?"

That really offends me.

>My problem is with araQual acting like musicians are assholes
>for wanting to recoup the investment they put into creating
>the album that you downloaded for free and claim that you
>LIKE, and saying shit like "when are they gonna grow up?"
>
>That really offends me.


why anyone wld want to rub their downloading in the face of the artist is beyond me

i cld see the labels but the artist?

foh

i generally like araqual but this post is just dickheaded

unfortunately, i have several friends who hold this same attitude toward downloading

shrug

>why anyone wld want to rub their downloading in the face of
>the artist is beyond me
>
>i cld see the labels but the artist?
>
>foh
>
>i generally like araqual but this post is just dickheaded
>
>unfortunately, i have several friends who hold this same
>attitude toward downloading
>
>shrug

they might buy it for $10

i wonder how many ppl have hit up amazon like "yo, this sgt pepper cd is great and worth way more than $10... can i send you $50 for it?"

The fact is that we are economic creatures by nature.

When something does not have an economic value attached to it... it really has little value to us, regardless of what we might say.

It's like being a GREAT album is not enough... a record's got to come with a blowjob in order to be worth $10.

>It's like being a GREAT album is not enough... a record's got
>to come with a blowjob in order to be worth $10.


But seriously, what do you think an artist can add to his CD to make it worth the $10 ?

>But seriously, what do you think an artist can add to his CD
>to make it worth the $10 ?
>
>

And it's already a good thing, actually I think it's a good idea, but do you think the average consumer care about that ?

Wouldn't it be even more expensive (and risky) to double the number of tracks on each CD ? You could always offer the instrumental on mp3/flac/ect format but people would be able to find those instrumentals for free on the Internet.

>But seriously, what do you think an artist can add to his CD
>to make it worth the $10 ?
>
>

c'mon guys. A finished album should be enough for you. Why is it that all of a sudden people have to give you everything but their first born kid to get you to buy an album. WTF?


so the original album ain't enough? Artists have to throw in a free car wash and some other shit to get you to spend 10 bucks?

*throws up both hands*

But it isn't, and that's a pitty. But instead of complaining about that we could try to find a solution.

>But it isn't, and that's a pitty. But instead of complaining
>about that we could try to find a solution.


Personally, if I open a CD and there's a disc in it, I'm cool. I don't need doves to fly out and naked pictures of the bass player's girlfriend included.

What do you guys think "Bonus Tracks" are for?


Since when is the finished album just a teaser for the other free shit? Aren't videos and interviews enough to connect you to your favorite artists?


"dope beats, dope rhymes, what more do ya'll WANT?!?!?!" (c) Phonte

Once again : don't get me wrong, it's enough for me but apparently it's not for most people !

>But seriously, what do you think an artist can add to his CD
>to make it worth the $10 ?

I'm releasing a compilation of music and there's a lot of work that's been put into the packaging. The CD comes with an 80-page book which I put a lot of effort into writing and produced at considerable expense.

If you are interested enough in the background of the music on the CD then you will probably enjoy the booklet (which is full of lots of never-before-seen photos, information and interviews) and hopefully you will feel that is worth your money.

Or maybe you are not interested in all that extra info and you just want to hear the music. In that case, you will probably just download it. That will be my loss.

But I view the book and its packaging as the real product... not the CD.

I think that's a realistic outlook for this particular project. I have other approaches to it that I will be trying out on future releases, though.

What type of music is it ?

>The fact is that we are economic creatures by nature.

i disagree with this wholly...economic systems are created by man, they are not an inherent part of our nature...huge mistake in thinking, imo

>When something does not have an economic value attached to
>it... it really has little value to us, regardless of what we
>might say.

disagree again...i have at least 10 free music releases on my mp3 player that are valuable and important to me, and scores more on my HD

and that's just music

i'm assuming that you don't extend this concept to things like family, friends, children, higher power, own art, etc.

to describe and quantify behavior that is NATURAL to humans.

Get that straight.

So yes, terms like "supply" and "demand" are man-made, but the forces those terms describe are also present in the animal kingdom even if they do not have the language to conceptualize them.

>disagree again...i have at least 10 free music releases on my
>mp3 player that are valuable and important to me, and scores
>more on my HD
>
>and that's just music

Yeah, you SAY it's valuable... but if you were told to pay for it you would not.

>i'm assuming that you don't extend this concept to things like
>family, friends, children, higher power, own art, etc.

It could be applied to family and friends too.

If your fam got kidnapped and they told you to come up with a million dollars in ransom, assuming it was within your remote reach to get that kind of money... would you pay it in order to get your people back or would you decide that they're not that much to you and thus, it's someone else's problem to deal with?

An awkward analogy, I know... but it says something about the value that people might hold in your life.

beginning w/ an essentially materialist view of the world, am i right?

>Yeah, you SAY it's valuable...

no, it IS valuable to me...i enjoy the music, it makes me smile, it makes me dance and it makes me happy :-) that is VALUABLE because i'm not talking about money

>but if you were told to pay for
>it you would not.

why should i pay for something when someone "tells" me to (lol, interesting use of the word "tell", as in "order", as in, "you must do what i command") after they've already TOLD me i could have it for free?

that makes no sense...should is stop dl'ing free releases because i "should" pay for them

should i send a check to every artist that releases an mp3 that i enjoy?

lmao

IN FACT, i HAVE and DO pay for music that i could get for free QUITE OFTEN


and as far as that "analogy" about the kidnapping and all that...color me confused cause i have no clue what the point is you're trying to make w/ that

folks are gonna start calling me a conservative teabagger again... and I resent that, so I'm just gonna leave that alone.

mc's have been talking down to and putting blanket judgements on their "fans" for decades now

that's bound to be internalized at some level by fans and turned against the artists


in general, some "fans" just have the attitude that "hey, making music for living is easy and a hell of a life, fuck those guys, i'll steal cause i'm jealous they can do that for a living"...that mentality sucks but the fact is that there are enough assholish, entitled and ego-driven "artists" out there to, in some very small way, justify the attitude

Though I am glad that you are being more honest, admitting the base and venal mentalities of *many* (NOT ALL!) consumers behind this whole noble "we just don't want to have to pay for music that sucks!" line.

>The problem here is that the whole "I sample the music to see
>if I like it or not and if it sucks then I don't buy" thing is
>a LIE. Because people still don't buy the music they DO like.

how do you know this?

if this is so how are so many independent artists successfully eating off of their music?

fact is there are significant numbers of listeners for whom the attitude is NOT a lie


>Let's just be real here: people don't wanna pay for music,
>period. That's a reality.

but another reality is that there are a good number of ppl who still DO pay for music

but they may just have a bit more power in how they spend their dollars


>My problem is with araQual acting like musicians are assholes
>for wanting to recoup the investment they put into creating
>the album that you downloaded for free and claim that you
>LIKE, and saying shit like "when are they gonna grow up?"
>
>That really offends me.

like it or not, offended or not, artists who invest time into their art are taking a RISK like ANY SMALL BUSINESS or any person who takes a risk investing in something that may or may not successfully generate income for them

since you like to throw around the word "entitled", lets also say that an artist who takes a RISK investing in their art and expecting it to pay the bills is NOT ENTITLED to have that risk be rewarded

>like it or not, offended or not, artists who invest time into
>their art are taking a RISK like ANY SMALL BUSINESS or any
>person who takes a risk investing in something that may or may
>not successfully generate income for them
>
>since you like to throw around the word "entitled", lets also
>say that an artist who takes a RISK investing in their art and
>expecting it to pay the bills is NOT ENTITLED to have that
>risk be rewarded

I didn't say or even imply that they are entitled to having their risk rewarded.

My point is more about the fact that fans like araQual are acting like musicians are assholes for expecting or just wanting their risk to be rewarded in the first place.

And if we're to adopt the mindset that araQual is presenting (I don't know if you are cosigning him or not) then releasing a record will no longer be a "risk" anyway... It is a guaranteed, certified money pit.

Or charity, or hobbyism... or something.

But there is pretty much little or no economic promise inherent to it at all.

>I didn't say or even imply that they are entitled to having
>their risk rewarded.

i'm sorry, but i think you have certainly *implied* that...repeatedly

then again i'm not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box

>My point is more about the fact that fans like araQual are
>acting like musicians are assholes for expecting or just
>wanting their risk to be rewarded in the first place.

imo, it is pretty assholish to *expect* a risk like trying to make music for a living to be rewarded...and it could be highly ego-centric as well...now *wanting* their risk to be rewarded is obviously a given for any risk taker, that goes w/o saying

>And if we're to adopt the mindset that araQual is presenting
>(I don't know if you are cosigning him or not) then releasing
>a record will no longer be a "risk" anyway... It is a
>guaranteed, certified money pit.

kinda cosigning him, i've thought the exact same way a few years back but realized the last couple of years that, as a fan, i DO have a responsibility to spend dollars on artists that make music that i like...because it is valuable to me i should, if i can, support it and show that it is valuable to me

that said i think it's extremist and foolish to assume that creative people will not be able to innovate and find solid and reasonable ways to profit from their art because a bunch of assholes download w/o a care


>But there is pretty much little or no economic promise
>inherent to it at all.
>

>>I didn't say or even imply that they are entitled to having
>>their risk rewarded.
>
>i'm sorry, but i think you have certainly *implied*
>that...repeatedly

I'm mostly raging against the ATTITUDE that the artist is somehow moral suspect for even WANTING to be rewarded. Because I'm not a communist.

I believe that the promise of the potential of a reward motivates individuals to excel, and stimulates competition... which fosters excellence.

Take away that motivation and mediocrity will summarily follow. It may not be immediate, but it WILL set in eventually.

I never said or even implied that every artist is entitled to having their risk rewarded... There's a strong chance that nobody will like your work and you fail. That comes with the territory.

But where you have a situation where people DO like your work but they have no qualms letting you know that you don't deserve shit for it, and yet they still want you to continue producing work for their edification?

I'm sorry... that is just un-American. That's some pinko shit that erodes the soul of a culture,

I know it probably sounds a bit hyperbolic for me to be getting that deep about it, but it's true.

(I know there's lots of commie sympathizers round here, though... so they probably love that)


>imo, it is pretty assholish to *expect* a risk like trying to
>make music for a living to be rewarded...and it could be
>highly ego-centric as well...now *wanting* their risk to be
>rewarded is obviously a given for any risk taker, that goes
>w/o saying

Of COURSE it is egocentric.

Any performing artist of any kind is making a statement of ego. And we LOVE that!

Like, in a society where most people are literate, you believe that your writing is so excellent that it is worthy of being read by millions? You think that what you say is so important we all have to absorb it?

Well, if it turns out that you are right and millions of people do agree that your writing is exceptional and your thoughts need to imbibed by us all... why should you NOT get rewarded for that?

You hand over money to the dude who insulates your windows for the winter and it's no problem, but the artist who produces music that enriches your soul for a lifetime is an asshole if he wants to get paid.

Right.


>that said i think it's extremist and foolish to assume that
>creative people will not be able to innovate and find solid
>and reasonable ways to profit from their art because a bunch
>of assholes download w/o a care

I agree with you... I've said a number of times that now the musicians have to figure out a way to "monetize" as times change.

But the idea that the musician is a jerk for wanting to get paid at all is a BIG problem.

And as I said somewhere down below, the same people who are mad at a musician for wanting to make money from record sales are usually the same ones who will mock a musician for trying to make money by selling soda pop, clothing lines and Wi-Fi cable in commercials or selling sex in music videos and magazine pictorials.

It's a lose-lose situation and yet the audience still expects great art to be produced.

They are very unrealistic.

you're annoyed at an attitude and feel like typing essays because you're annoyed

oh and you hate commies and pinkos


have a good day Rush

So good day to you.

(You ARE one of those commies, aren't you? I thought so...)

>(You ARE one of those commies, aren't you? I thought so...)

but i do work for local government, so you and gov. walker could maybe build on why i don't deserve the mansion and yacht that my social services salary afford me

on the other hand i did spend over $20 on music this week, and do regularly purchase music which i've already downloaded and listened to

shit, i've had to download bootlegs AFTER paying for some shit...i bought an album on amazon and their crappy VBR mp3's were so shitty on my mp3 player that i had to search out and bootleg a 320 kbps copy of the album just to not get fucked on the purchase i made

>People eat McDonald's a million times and they still go back
>to pay for it. You'll probably say that maybe they actually
>LIKE McDonald's so it's not shitty to them, but the fact is
>that if they found a way to get McDonald's for free, they
>would suddenly say it sucks and they don't have to pay for
>it.

Im not going to argue with you on that, if it's free and it has no "spiritual / moral" value attached to it then people won't buy it. If a musician don't have a solid fanbase (people who will support you) then he has to find something else to make his product attractive. What ? I don't know, I haven't thought about it. If one can't do any of those things then Im sorry he has no choice but releasing music for free until he figure out how to sell it ... I agree it shouldn't be like that and I don't think the artist HAS to give his music for free, but what would he do instead ?

>The problem here is that the whole "I sample the music to see
>if I like it or not and if it sucks then I don't buy" thing is
>a LIE. Because people still don't buy the music they DO like.
>Let's just be real here: people don't wanna pay for music,
>period. That's a reality.

I agree there are a lot of people that won't pay for music, but most music lovers will pay if it's good.


>My problem is with araQual acting like musicians are assholes
>for wanting to recoup the investment they put into creating
>the album that you downloaded for free and claim that you
>LIKE, and saying shit like "when are they gonna grow up?"
>
>That really offends me.

I understand your point but like every other business, sometimes you start something and it sinks before you have the time to recoup the money that you invested.

>All this D/L talk won't even matter anymore in a few years.
>Right now, there are dozens of website on which you can LEGALY
>stream every single album for free (Deezer, Spotify ...). So,
>are we entitled to get a taste of the music before we buy it ?
>Apparently yes. What's even more interesting is that you can
>suscribe to those website for like 15 $ / month and get an
>complete access to all of their catalog on your smartphone.
>Which means you can LEGALY listen to 90% of the music being
>released for FREE on your smartphone.

In fact, we've put up streams to our shit PLENTY of times. Nothing wrong with a free listen.


>
>Why do you think music is different from other goods ? It
>actually isn't. If you could dematerialize any other goods,
>they would also be subjected to the same treatment (look at
>movies, TV shows, and soon books). It's the job of of the
>industry to give the consumer a reason to buy the physical
>object or the mp3, and that too takes some creativity. So back
>to my point, shitty food get bought because you don't have the
>means to taste it before you buy it. If you buy it one time
>and you don't like it you won't buy it a second time. Clothes
>? You try them before you buy them. Of course you can't use
>that analogy with cars and other capital goods, but Im sure
>you got the point : it's the means that are different.


I agree with that part of it too.


>
>As for the artist getting paid ? Don't they get paid before
>they actually released their album ?

nope. and I have NO idea where you're getting that from. If you're talking about an advance, then that has to be paid back. An advance is just a loan from the record company against future earnings.

How much of that album
>sales money really finish in their pocket ?

not a whole lot. Which is why we're having this discussion. If an artist gets a dollar per unit ( and I'm talking about albums here), then he's luckier than average.



Im talking about
>artists who are on major labels. Today you got major artists
>who start crying when their album only do 100K because of the
>leaks and because of us : mean consumers. 100 000 albums ?
>Really ? Thats a ridiculous amount of records, it's more than
>1 000 000 $ of gross revenue.

GROSS revenue. And like we KEEP saying. out of that 100k, sold, lets say the artist has a 'good' deal and gets 1 dollar per unit. He's getting $100k. Your manager gets 10%. Right off the top. And what if you have an agent too? that's another 5-10% Don't forget, You gotta pay taxes on it. and remember those videos you wanted? and the big ass poster in Times Square? Guess who pays for that...

oh, and we're talking about a solo artist. If you're a band, you're gonna split all that shit by 5. Good luck with that...


Is it really that expensive to
>produce an album today ?
>

Hell yes.


>The music system is actually not that bad economically.

what are you basing that on? Numbers are down all across the board. and what do you mean by "music system"?



I
>mean, you have a market where one is able to buy ONLY what he
>really wants/need/like with pretty much all the information
>needed (which means your money really goes where you want it
>to go).

I can dig that. i think iTunes was an amazing invention. Nobody's sayin otherwise.

But at the end, it doesn't matter if this system is
>healthy or not.

again, what are you basing that on? and shouldn't ANYTHING that is expected to survive be healthy? ( you're confusing me with your use of the word "system". )



AraQual is right, it's a reality, more and
>more people are going to get a taste of your music before they
>buy it.
>

nobody's arguing against that. We're talking about the notion that artists don't need to be paid for releasing music. Re-read the original post.

>In fact, we've put up streams to our shit PLENTY of times.
>Nothing wrong with a free listen.

Of course but this is pretty different, people can basically listen, to music (everywhere) for free with those websites. Would you agree to make your music available on one of those websites for a fix ammount of money ? How much ?

>>As for the artist getting paid ? Don't they get paid before
>>they actually released their album ?
>
>nope. and I have NO idea where you're getting that from. If
>you're talking about an advance, then that has to be paid
>back. An advance is just a loan from the record company
>against future earnings.

I don't know, I must have read it somewhere on the web, Im ill informed on those things.

> How much of that album
>>sales money really finish in their pocket ?
>
>not a whole lot. Which is why we're having this discussion. If
>an artist gets a dollar per unit ( and I'm talking about
>albums here), then he's luckier than average.

OK, good to know.

>GROSS revenue. And like we KEEP saying. out of that 100k,
>sold, lets say the artist has a 'good' deal and gets 1 dollar
>per unit. He's getting $100k. Your manager gets 10%. Right off
>the top. And what if you have an agent too? that's another
>5-10% Don't forget, You gotta pay taxes on it. and remember
>those videos you wanted? and the big ass poster in Times
>Square? Guess who pays for that...
>
>oh, and we're talking about a solo artist. If you're a band,
>you're gonna split all that shit by 5. Good luck with that...

How much can you with a small gig (less than 100 people) ? In a 500 people venue ? How do you get those gigs ? I mean do you really have to prove that you sold x amounts of albums ?

>nobody's arguing against that. We're talking about the notion
>that artists don't need to be paid for releasing music.
>Re-read the original post.

Then I disagree with him. you should be pay in a way (buy the album, go to the show, make people go tio their show) if you like their music.

>Of course but this is pretty different, people can basically
>listen, to music (everywhere) for free with those websites.
>Would you agree to make your music available on one of those
>websites for a fix ammount of money ? How much ?

you mean like iTunes? Beatport? eMusic etc? That's what people are doing now...

or do you mean a monthly subscription?


>I don't know, I must have read it somewhere on the web, Im ill
>informed on those things.
>

well yes. That's wrong. Nobody gets paid up front for a record. There's more to it than that.


>
>
>How much can you with a small gig (less than 100 people) ? In
>a 500 people venue ? How do you get those gigs ? I mean do you
>really have to prove that you sold x amounts of albums ?

you have to have a booking agent. Who usually won't work for free either. BUT the bottom line is, the conversation goes like this:

"Hey I have a band, The Whoever's, and we're trying to play a show in your venue. They have a good fan base, and we charted at 180 on last weeks Billboard, and sold 5k in your city last week. So, we think a lot of those fans would come out to see us..."


So the long and short of it is, you have to give venues a REASON to let you play there. There don't care if you're 'totally fuckin awesome', if nobody's ever heard of you. Why do you think big acts play big halls? Because those vast amounts of people are the people who are familiar with their work.

>
>>nobody's arguing against that. We're talking about the
>notion
>>that artists don't need to be paid for releasing music.
>>Re-read the original post.
>
>Then I disagree with him. you should be pay in a way (buy the
>album, go to the show, make people go tio their show) if you
>like their music.
>

that's all we're saying. How it turned into "Artists are assholes who expect too much from the fans" is anybody's guess...

>that's all we're saying. How it turned into "Artists are
>assholes who expect too much from the fans" is anybody's
>guess...
>

>
>>Of course but this is pretty different, people can basically
>>listen, to music (everywhere) for free with those websites.
>>Would you agree to make your music available on one of those
>>websites for a fix ammount of money ? How much ?
>
>you mean like iTunes? Beatport? eMusic etc? That's what people
>are doing now...
>
>or do you mean a monthly subscription?

I don't know what you have there in the USA. So excuse me if Im being long for nothing.

Here (in France) we have those websites where entire albums are streaming for free and for an unlimited ammount of time. I use 2 of them : Spotify and Deezer. You don't have to pay anything to have access to all of those albums at home, you don't even have to sign in for free ... But if you want to use it on a portable device like a smartphone, and listen to all the music in the world anytime, you have to pay like 10 euros/ month ($15).

To be specific, you have access to 3 700 000 songs for $15 / months, which means a single song is free (virtual price of a song : 0.000004 cent virtual price of an album : 0.00004 cent).

Of course labels get paid by those website. Major labels get paid like 5 millions $ (for the right) + 1.5 cent each time somebody plays a song. And of course the website's revenues come from advertisement (like TV). I actually think it would be better if music worked with the same economuic model than TV. It would be great if an artist could make a direct deal with those website too, not only itunes and other platform where the consumer has to pay for the music.


>"Hey I have a band, The Whoever's, and we're trying to play a
>show in your venue. They have a good fan base, and we charted
>at 180 on last weeks Billboard, and sold 5k in your city last
>week. So, we think a lot of those fans would come out to see
>us..."
>
>
>So the long and short of it is, you have to give venues a
>REASON to let you play there. There don't care if you're
>'totally fuckin awesome', if nobody's ever heard of you. Why
>do you think big acts play big halls? Because those vast
>amounts of people are the people who are familiar with their
>work.

Ok but once you have a good fanbase, sales does not really matter anymore ?

As for the 100K sales that I was talking about in my other post : those are first week sales ! Im pretty sure an album that starts with 100K is going to make at least 200K before the second album is out.

But if you want to use
>it on a portable device like a smartphone, and listen to all
>the music in the world anytime, you have to pay like 10 euros/
>month ($15).


To add to that:

- If you want full quality (or to be more precise: a high bit rate)

- if you want to listen without seeing (on the interface) and hearing adds

you will have to pay the subscription fee too. At least this applies to Spotify.

shrug

problem is the business model no longer works.

At all.

The physical good that would be given in exchange for your money isn't physical anymore, and is freely available.

Dunno why its so hard to just take that for what it is...you can't apply biblical morality to this one, cuz it doesn't quite work, and it gets you nowhere, as a musician

>(a rant)
>
>simple.fucking.formula.
>
>i'm sick of seeing the same ol "lay down UR hard-earned cash
>so artists can keep doing what they're doing" bullshit. as far
>as i'm concerned, artists can make their money offa selling
>their product themselves online and at LIVE shows (which is
>where the real proving ground is, and also where artists got
>the potential to make lifelong fans who WILL buy their
>shit...if it doesn't suck ass, of course). it's a fucking LIE
>that everyone buys everything that they love anymore, so can
>we stop acting like this is some ideal we as music aficionados
>have to live up to? music is out there everyfuckingwhere. if i
>can expand my knowledge and palette via downloading, then fuck
>you i'm not gonna let some half-assed pride bout how things
>used to be done stand in the way of that.

Agreed with this, I think....Every music fan wants to hear stuff and the internet has provided easy access. It's at the point now where we can check out anything we want. More ears listening to more music. I remember when people would recommend stuff to me and it would sometimes take a great amount of effort and money to even hear the music they were talking about. It's better now.


>why should i or anyone else in this day n age follow that old
>annoying mantra of "PAY FOR THIS or u are a tyrant who is
>killing music"? we all know it's not like that anymore.
>actually to ME it seems like the pressure should be on the
>"artistes". are u putting ur foot into ur work? does it sound
>GOOD? FINE then i will either purchase or think about
>purchasing and most-definitely see you live. drop some doodoo
>and demand fan-loyalty and compensation? u can go fuck urself.
>musicians don't have a monopoly on self-righteous
>pay-me-just-becos-i-do-art douchebaggery. if we wanna take a
>chance on ur shit, we will. but nowadays...we have OPTIONS,
>and that's pissing ppl off. i think more than anything it's
>the fact consumers have some power in the way things work
>now.

Disagree with this. The quality of music is not relevant to the change in availability. I think you're muddying the picture here. New technology has allowed for the mass file-sharing of music. Simple as that.

I'll expand here. Prices are not determined by what we perceive to be 'intrinsic value'. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Music recordings are now available in digital formats which are easily shared amongst uploaders/downloaders. In essence....the 'supply' has gone upward on an exponential spike. When supply is infinite, the price becomes ZERO.

Think of the simple act of breathing air. We all value it. It's important to all of us. But it has an endless supply and therefor....has no price. If 'air' had a limited supply than it would definitely have an economic value.

Now some people will say it's 'stealing', which in technically legal terms, it's not. It's not theft or stealing or robbery or any of those things because it does not satisfy the essential definition of those terms. If I download a Britney Spears track, I am not depriving her right to use that track in any other way she sees fit. If I rob you of a $10 bill, I AM depriving you of your right to use it.

So the only legal repercussion of file-sharing is properly called 'copywrite infringement' and such an offense is only made when one uploads/shares. Noone has ever been legally persecuted for downloading a song in any country across the entire planet.

The industry of music recordings, in any format, isn't even 100 years old. Records to tapes to cds. Now it's over. Recordings are no longer an economically viable commodity because they can be duplicated/shared/downloaded too easily. This means they have no economic value.

I love music. But I'm not paying for 'intrinsic value'.

And for the other posters saying 'It costs money to make music'....that's only because of the old system. Engineer your own album. Mix your own album. All the tools are there for us now.

It's extremely misleading for musicians to not acknowledge that the cost of making recordings has gone down exponentially as well.

we KNOW that brittany spears and the record label she is (the owners of said property) intend that property to be sold, have made that material available for sale, and have pumped money into marketing material

just because it is easy for most people to find ways around buying that material does not mean that its not stealing

and i get that you are trying to be literal with the law but... you can save all that breath and typing if you are gonna retype that for my sake. i think most laws should burned to the ground and started over. and lawyers should mostly die.

the intent of the seller and the intent of the "acquirer" along with a little common sense says its stealing.

If I steal the food out of your fridge....you can't eat.

If I somehow 'digitally duplicate' the food out your fridge and leave without actually taking YOUR food...you can still eat.

This distinction is very important. It's why noone has every been charged with 'theft' or 'robbery' or 'stealing' for downloading/uploading music or any other intellectual property.

More clearly, file-sharing is not stealing because noone is depriving another of their property.

>If I steal the food out of your fridge....you can't eat.
>
>If I somehow 'digitally duplicate' the food out your fridge
>and leave without actually taking YOUR food...you can still
>eat.


and in this case, you'd be better off comparing it to if he had a hotdog stand.

it would be like you're standing out in front if his hotdog stand and gave away his hot dogs for FREE.

basically, you're infringing on his right to sell hot dogs.


>
>This distinction is very important. It's why noone has every
>been charged with 'theft' or 'robbery' or 'stealing' for
>downloading/uploading music or any other intellectual
>property.
>

I don't know all the facts, but people HAVE been brought up on charges related to music/copyright infringement, haven't they?


>More clearly, file-sharing is not stealing because noone is
>depriving another of their property.

sure you are. A copyright is a person's property. Which is why I can't put out my own "Off The Wall" album. I have to pay the people who own the copyrights to the lyrics, music, etc. Otherwise, bootlegging would be legal.

I've researched the issue now and have a pretty firm grasp on this.

>>This distinction is very important. It's why noone has
>every
>>been charged with 'theft' or 'robbery' or 'stealing' for
>>downloading/uploading music or any other intellectual
>>property.
>>
>
>I don't know all the facts, but people HAVE been brought up on
>charges related to music/copyright infringement, haven't
>they?

Yes. But you didn't read closely. They've been charged with 'copywrite infringement'....not 'theft' or 'stealing' or 'robbery'. And the charges have only concerned SHARING or UPLOADING files....not downloading them. Put your critical thinking hat on and suss out the difference.

>>More clearly, file-sharing is not stealing because noone is
>>depriving another of their property.
>
>sure you are. A copyright is a person's property. Which is why
>I can't put out my own "Off The Wall" album. I have to pay the
>people who own the copyrights to the lyrics, music, etc.
>Otherwise, bootlegging would be legal.

NO YOU ARE NOT. You still don't get it.

Let's take an extreme example that doesn't even relate to file-sharing.

Suppose I put out an album called 'Upon the Wall' and when you hear it...it consists only of MJ's 'Off The Wall' in it's entirety. I cannot be charged with 'theft' or 'stealing' because MJ and his publishers STILL OWN 'Off the Wall' and can continue to do with it as they please.

'Theft' or 'stealing' or 'robbery' are defined as DEPRIVING the use of property by another. When I put out 'Upon The Wall', I did not DEPRIVE MJ and his publishers from using 'Off the Wall'....so I can only be charged with copywrite infringement.

>>
>>I don't know all the facts, but people HAVE been brought up
>on
>>charges related to music/copyright infringement, haven't
>>they?
>
>Yes. But you didn't read closely. They've been charged with
>'copywrite infringement'....not 'theft' or 'stealing' or
>'robbery'. And the charges have only concerned SHARING or
>UPLOADING files....not downloading them. Put your critical
>thinking hat on and suss out the difference.


See the part where I said: "people have been brought up on charges of copyright infringement".

and then you replied: "they've been charged with copyright infringement"...


same shit, Hermano. Like, LITERALLY the same shit...




>
>>>More clearly, file-sharing is not stealing because noone is
>>>depriving another of their property.
>>
>>sure you are. A copyright is a person's property. Which is
>why
>>I can't put out my own "Off The Wall" album. I have to pay
>the
>>people who own the copyrights to the lyrics, music, etc.
>>Otherwise, bootlegging would be legal.
>
>NO YOU ARE NOT. You still don't get it.
>
>Let's take an extreme example that doesn't even relate to
>file-sharing.
>
>Suppose I put out an album called 'Upon the Wall' and when you
>hear it...it consists only of MJ's 'Off The Wall' in it's
>entirety. I cannot be charged with 'theft' or 'stealing'
>because MJ and his publishers STILL OWN 'Off the Wall' and can
>continue to do with it as they please.

See where I said: "I can't put out my own "Off The Wall" album. I have to pay the people who own the copyrights to the lyrics, music, etc..."

and then you said:

When I put out 'Upon The Wall', I did not DEPRIVE MJ and his publishers from using 'Off the Wall'....so I can only be charged with copywrite infringement.

you'd be charged, right? Why? because you're releasing something you don't own the rights to.

I'm throwing in the towel, man. This is getting tedious.

Well give up if you want to.

But the distinction is clear.

As you said 'A copywrite is someone's property'....and copywrite infringement is the use of that property without the owner's consent.

Theft or stealing is a different scenario. One in which a person is DEPRIVED of their right to use their own property.

If you don't see the difference there....I don't know what else to say.

Edit: I'll throw this out there too. Hip hop is based on copywrite infringement. It's an integral part of the conceptual artistry.

>just because it is easy for most people to find ways around
>buying that material does not mean that its not stealing
>
>

>the intent of the seller and the intent of the "acquirer"
>along with a little common sense says its stealing.


and that's all there is to it.

>And for the other posters saying 'It costs money to make
>music'....that's only because of the old system. Engineer
>your own album. Mix your own album. All the tools are there
>for us now.

LMAO-right because the recording equipment, musicians, mixing/engineering/mastering knowledge all are free as well?

>It's extremely misleading for musicians to not acknowledge
>that the cost of making recordings has gone down exponentially
>as well.

Yet they still exist and are substantial. It's also extremely misleading to pretend otherwise.


http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

your arguments sound valid, logical and convincing

but they can not be applied to reality

this issue of whether it's right or wrong is a moot point

there are artists who are still thriving and growing and doing well off their music

artists that are mad about their stuff being downloaded should stop being mad at what they can't control and study those who have adapted

and people who consider themselves supporters of music should continue to financially support the artists they want to/can

music is not going to die

or at least have not understanding of my point.

So take that shit to someone else.

Or better yet, just read #65. I think I tried to clarify it there.

and fans owe nothing to artists

period

lots of fans CHOOSE to support artists they like because they feel grateful for the art that is created, some "fans" don't

and if araqual was a little over the top in essentially saying "if i don't like your shit i don't have to pay for it to find out i don't like it", sorry but you'll just have to find a way to deal with your emotional reaction to his statement aside from whining

then, yeah, you kinda DO owe them.

I know people will like to pretend this is not the case... but apply it to any endeavor in life and it holds true.

I'm not saying that fans should be forced to pay for "shitty" music they don't like... that is ridiculous.

My problem is people feeling it is their right to consume music that they clearly DO enjoy but feel that the artist is a big ol' meanie for wanting to get paid.

That's bullshit.

>My problem is people feeling it is their right to consume
>music that they clearly DO enjoy but feel that the artist is a
>big ol' meanie for wanting to get paid.
>


fact is, this argument is used for fans to shield the real reason they don't buy an album

and that reason is normally that they don't have the money, but they see it for free, and they take it

they may even feel guilty about it

and they may then create an argument to make the artist a villain so they don't have to feel as guilty

that's not cool...but that's the reality...there's too much music and no one has the money to pay for it all

>fact is, this argument is used for fans to shield the real
>reason they don't buy an album
>
>and that reason is normally that they don't have the money,
>but they see it for free, and they take it
>
>they may even feel guilty about it
>
>and they may then create an argument to make the artist a
>villain so they don't have to feel as guilty
>
>that's not cool...but that's the reality...there's too much
>music and no one has the money to pay for it all

oh... so NOW you want to get honest (and real) about it.

I understand the economic expediency of it. And I know this is why people DL.

But then why the fuck are they lying and making it about "I don't have to pay for music I don't like" when the truth is that they're not even paying for the music they DO like?

Why are they trying to distort the laws of economics and production by trying to argue that it's SUPPOSED to be free even though it costs a lot to produce it?

Why are they acting like the artist is an asshole for even having the DESIRE to make *some* of that money back?

Why do YOU bring "guilt" into it when previously you said that it's got nothing to do with "right or wrong."

It IS "wrong." We all know this.

But yet we all download (myself included) because we don't have the money to buy all the music we'd like.

Just be honest about the shit and deal with it.

Cats are trying to turn reality inside out and make the artist the bad guy because deep in their heart they know they're doing is wrong but they can't stand the feeling that they're bad people for it.

because of the supposed (and see through) attitude of *some*

your feelings are hurt, it's that simple

A lot of easier than actually addressing the issues, isn't it?

I think any clear-thinking individual can recognize that my description is not meant to apply to ALL fans... and if they're honest, they'll admit that it DOES fit a great many fans, including people they know. Shit... even people who are replying in this post!

But instead lets just pretend that I'm making this all up because my feelings are hurt.

(Why would my feelings be hurt, by the way? I don't even get that.... I just detest the moral turpitude of it. Same way neither myself nor anybody I know has been forced into prostitution)

>your arguments sound valid, logical and convincing
>
>but they can not be applied to reality
>
>


as cute as it sounds, it makes no sense. Logically, or grammatically.


Good day to you.

>as cute as it sounds

there's a difference.


I'm not gonna play word games and do the back and forth thing. So let's talk about music.


My point is, you're using words like "reality" and all kindsa other bullshit ( in the wrong context, I might add) and trying to interject it into a conversation about music and the business of it. But again, a majority of the replies here are proving that a lot of you don't know SHIT about the business of music. So ask yourself, if YOU know anything about 'living in reality'...





The fact that I have PERSONALLY gone through everything we're talking about in this post ( as have a few other posters here) is PROOF that we're talking about 'reality'. So you can cut all the bullshit and let's talk about music.

>I'm not gonna play word games and do the back and forth thing.
>So let's talk about music.

pot/kettle and all that

>
>My point is, you're using words like "reality" and all kindsa
>other bullshit ( in the wrong context, I might add) and trying
>to interject it into a conversation about music and the
>business of it. But again, a majority of the replies here are
>proving that a lot of you don't know SHIT about the business
>of music. So ask yourself, if YOU know anything about 'living
>in reality'...


the reality i'm referring to is the reality of music fans and how music fans view their choices in the bizarre "marketplace" of internet music-obtaining


but i see you're playing the "i'm an artist and in the business so i automatically get it more than you mere fans possibly can"

and you'll fail to realize that YOUR attitude is part of the reason why fans bootleg shit and flip you the bird while doing it...because you look down on them (or they perceive you to b/c of your high and mighty attitude)
>
>
>
>
>The fact that I have PERSONALLY gone through everything we're
>talking about in this post ( as have a few other posters here)
>is PROOF that we're talking about 'reality'. So you can cut
>all the bullshit and let's talk about music.
>
>

see what i'm saying?

it's this attitude from artists that make a lot of fans say "fuck em"

>
>>I'm not gonna play word games and do the back and forth
>thing.
>>So let's talk about music.
>
>pot/kettle and all that


no potna. You're talking about not living in reality. I'm telling you. We're here. In the real world. talking from real experience. So we ARE in fact living in reality. Not some alternate fucking universe.

the fact that we're LIVING means this is REALITY, dude. This is real shit we're talking about. Get it?


>
>the reality i'm referring to is the reality of music fans and
>how music fans view their choices in the bizarre "marketplace"
>of internet music-obtaining

well stop using the word reality. the fact that all this is IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING means that 'reality' is a given. on both sides.

not that you're not making valid points, it's your use of the word that drives me nuts....


>
>
>but i see you're playing the "i'm an artist and in the
>business so i automatically get it more than you mere fans
>possibly can"
>


Where did I say ANYTHING like that. I'm just telling you that BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES, I know what I'm talking about, whereas somebody who HASN'T might not see it from the same angle. Why is this so wrong?

We see it all the time in sports. People are quick to talk about the talking heads in the studio who never played the game. Who are you more likely to listen to about Basketball, Derrick Rose or Jim Grey?


>and you'll fail to realize that YOUR attitude is part of the
>reason why fans bootleg shit and flip you the bird while doing
>it...because you look down on them (or they perceive you to
>b/c of your high and mighty attitude)


you're certainly within your rights to do that. I don't understand why you'd call yourself a fan, but that's your right...


and shame on me for having a 'attitude' huh? and who am I looking down on? i'm a fan too. but unlike a lot of you, I actually BUY the shit I listen too.



>>The fact that I have PERSONALLY gone through everything
>we're
>>talking about in this post ( as have a few other posters
>here)
>>is PROOF that we're talking about 'reality'. So you can cut
>>all the bullshit and let's talk about music.
>>
>>
>
>see what i'm saying?

no. not really.


>
>it's this attitude from artists that make a lot of fans say
>"fuck em"
>
>

so be it. I'll just keep making my shit for the people that want to hear it...until I can no longer afford it. Then I'll grow up and get a job, I guess...

*shrug*

>the fact that we're LIVING means this is REALITY, dude. This
>is real shit we're talking about. Get it?

what i meant was that things aren't going to go back to the old model, all the teeth-gnashing over downloading is NOT going to stop it

sorry for using the word "reality" to make my point, i understand why it annoyed you now


>Where did I say ANYTHING like that. I'm just telling you that
>BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES, I know what I'm talking about,
>whereas somebody who HASN'T might not see it from the same
>angle. Why is this so wrong?

we're all fans and we all have experiences with purchasing music



>We see it all the time in sports. People are quick to talk
>about the talking heads in the studio who never played the
>game. Who are you more likely to listen to about Basketball,
>Derrick Rose or Jim Grey?
>

i get you, but there are times when someone looking from the outside in can offer serious perspective on a situation

>>and you'll fail to realize that YOUR attitude is part of the
>>reason why fans bootleg shit and flip you the bird while
>doing
>>it...because you look down on them (or they perceive you to
>>b/c of your high and mighty attitude)
>
>

>and shame on me for having a 'attitude' huh? and who am I
>looking down on? i'm a fan too. but unlike a lot of you, I
>actually BUY the shit I listen too.

woah, woah...if i'm going to be lumped into the "steal everything he listens to" category can i at least get the money back that i spent on music recently? i spent $20 this week alone, and i could use a 12 pack of heineken and big bag of doritos for tonight...

>>see what i'm saying?
>
>no. not really.
>

just the attitude that, as an artist, you "get it" and ppl who are "only fans" don't, is annoying to me and annoys a lot of fans to the point where they "lash out" (no value judgements here, for the record)

>so be it. I'll just keep making my shit for the people that
>want to hear it...

that's what's up

but yknow...good way to spend a Saturday slacking off work i spose.

V.

The SAME hippy-dippy music purists who go around chanting that music has to be free because it's a natural, spiritual right like oxygen or H2O.... They are usually the FIRST ones to denigrate modern commercial artists like Rihanna and Beyonce who "monetize" their images as "brands" because... y'know, "it's supposed to be all about the MUSIC, maaan!"

So let's get this straight:

If a musician tries to get paid from sales of their record, then they're a greedy asshole and they need to grow up and get a job.

BUT

If they try to cash in on their popularity as recording artists by letting their image be used to sell hair dye and soft drinks, then they are fakes... they're phony, soulless corporate shills and sellouts.

So which way is one to go?

*smh* Modern fans are so childish and selfish and they truly sicken me.

this whole post is fulla dirty blankets

>The SAME hippy-dippy music purists who go around chanting
>that music has to be free because it's a natural, spiritual
>right like oxygen or H2O.... They are usually the FIRST ones
>to denigrate modern commercial artists like Rihanna and
>Beyonce who "monetize" their images as "brands" because...
>y'know, "it's supposed to be all about the MUSIC, maaan!"
>
>So let's get this straight:
>
>If a musician tries to get paid from sales of their record,
>then they're a greedy asshole and they need to grow up and get
>a job.
>
>BUT
>
>If they try to cash in on their popularity as recording
>artists by letting their image be used to sell hair dye and
>soft drinks, then they are fakes... they're phony, soulless
>corporate shills and sellouts.
>
>So which way is one to go?
>
>*smh* Modern fans are so childish and selfish and they truly
>sicken me.



you summed it all up.

it's IMPOSSIBLE to argue with you

>The SAME hippy-dippy music purists who go around chanting
>that music has to be free because it's a natural, spiritual
>right like oxygen or H2O.... They are usually the FIRST ones
>to denigrate modern commercial artists like Rihanna and
>Beyonce who "monetize" their images as "brands" because...
>y'know, "it's supposed to be all about the MUSIC, maaan!"

of course

it makes sense that anyone who doesn't view music in a $ sense would then be critical of those who only seem to make music for $

duh

>So let's get this straight:
>
>If a musician tries to get paid from sales of their record,
>then they're a greedy asshole and they need to grow up and get
>a job.

no, if they try, fail, and then whine and bitch and gnash teeth and blame everyone but themselves...THEN THEY NEED TO GROW UP AND GET A JOB

>BUT
>
>If they try to cash in on their popularity as recording
>artists by letting their image be used to sell hair dye and
>soft drinks, then they are fakes... they're phony, soulless
>corporate shills and sellouts.

of course...in your first example musicians are being "criticized" by these phantom theoretical fans for their money motive and in the 2nd example they are being criticized for the same thing

it's really pretty basic, anyone who might feel like that has a general issue w/ the money motive in music


>*smh* Modern fans are so childish and selfish and they truly
>sicken me.

lmao

as if "older" fans wouldn't be exactly the same way if they had been able to easily obtain free copies of albums in the 60's/70's/80's/90's

you keep blaming the "fans" for the way things are when it's not entirely the "fans" fault, the "fans" are one component of a larger picture that also involves technology, artists, labels, law, morals etc.

and ironically, all this anger and vitriol towards "fans" kinda exposes the type of contempt that a lot of fans truly feel that "artists" have for them

>as if "older" fans wouldn't be exactly the same way if they
>had been able to easily obtain free copies of albums in the
>60's/70's/80's/90's
>
>you keep blaming the "fans" for the way things are when it's
>not entirely the "fans" fault, the "fans" are one component of
>a larger picture that also involves technology, artists,
>labels, law, morals etc.
>
>and ironically, all this anger and vitriol towards "fans"
>kinda exposes the type of contempt that a lot of fans truly
>feel that "artists" have for them

My issue is not with the fact that downloading technology has made it possible for consumers to get free music.

It's with the fact that those consumers believe free music is their RIGHT and the artist is a villain for even harboring the DESIRE to get paid.

I don't know how many other ways I can say this.

>
>My issue is not with the fact that downloading technology has
>made it possible for consumers to get free music.
>
>It's with the fact that those consumers believe free music is
>their RIGHT and the artist is a villain for even harboring the
>DESIRE to get paid.
>
>I don't know how many other ways I can say this.


i'm getting tired of repeating the same shit over and over.

>It's with the fact that those consumers believe free music is
>their RIGHT and the artist is a villain for even harboring the
>DESIRE to get paid.

no you are ASSUMING that people think free music is their right and that they are mad at artists for wanting them to pay for the music

essentially, you're making a bunch of blanket judgments about "modern music fans" because it ticks you off that a bunch of ingrates don't compensate the artists they listen to

your issue IS at least partially w/ the technology as, absent the technology, you'd be directing your vitriol towards hard core tape-dubbers and cd-burners instead of illegal-downloaders, and it's the technology and how it makes it so "easy" that creates these supposed legions of sociopathic fans who suck the blood of the poor struggling artists

i don't know how many more ways i can say this ;-)

>no you are ASSUMING that people think free music is their
>right and that they are mad at artists for wanting them to pay
>for the music
>
>essentially, you're making a bunch of blanket judgments about
>"modern music fans" because it ticks you off that a bunch of
>ingrates don't compensate the artists they listen to
>
>your issue IS at least partially w/ the technology as, absent
>the technology, you'd be directing your vitriol towards hard
>core tape-dubbers and cd-burners instead of
>illegal-downloaders, and it's the technology and how it makes
>it so "easy" that creates these supposed legions of
>sociopathic fans who suck the blood of the poor struggling
>artists

For the LAST time (and I truly mean this) my problem is with the language araQual used in his first series of posts that characterized artists are being assholes for caring about making money and for making him feel bad about downloading.

If you're feeling guilty about downloading, you probably know it is "wrong." (Note that I have consistently used quotes around "right" and "wrong"... there is a reason for it)

And if you feel that an artist is a jerk for wanting to get paid when people consume and enjoy his work, then it is pretty clear that you believe getting the music for free is the consumer's right.

>For the LAST time (and I truly mean this) my problem is with
>the language araQual used in his first series of posts that
>characterized artists are being assholes for caring about
>making money and for making him feel bad about downloading.

and for the LAST time (not sure if i really mean it) you are making TONS of assumptions about a wide range of music fans based on one post by one person on one message board

>If you're feeling guilty about downloading, you probably know
>it is "wrong." (Note that I have consistently used quotes
>around "right" and "wrong"... there is a reason for it)
>
>And if you feel that an artist is a jerk for wanting to get
>paid when people consume and enjoy his work, then it is pretty
>clear that you believe getting the music for free is the
>consumer's right.

and if you, by using the term "you" are tying to put *me* in this little box of "ungrateful theif fans" that you have CREATED, then *you* are MISTAKEN

You're describing a perfect hippy storm that doesn't even exist.

Imagine if we somehow invented a way to perfectly synthesize gold. Your're the guy screaming we should still pay the price of gold even though it's easy to obtain. Just doesn't make sense.

Recorded music has been a commodity for about 90 years. A POPULAR commodity for less than that. And a major commodity for probly only about 60 years. It's no longer valuable cause it's easy to duplicate and share.

There are no moral considerations in this evolution.

Music no longer has the same impact on trends in popular culture. That change is around 10 years old and growing. Music used to dictate or forecast pop culture...now it REACTS to it. Reason why? Because recorded music is not a viable commodity anymore.

over and over again.

And I should note that in your analogy, if we developed the technology to synthesize gold... then gold would eventually lose its value altogether.

It's really not too different with music either, really.

But it's not about the fact that the technology exists... I've said this time and again.

You are correct here:

>And I should note that in your analogy, if we developed the
>technology to synthesize gold... then gold would eventually
>lose its value altogether.

It's just that you're not differentiating between 'recorded music' and 'music itself'.

See...'recorded music' has been a novelty to us for around 80 years and because of the resources, technology and delivery resources associated with it.....IT COST MONEY TO OBTAIN.

Those times are over. 'Recorded music' is no longer an economic commodity. I could burp into a microphone, send it out, and you could hear it within seconds.

>It's just that you're not differentiating between 'recorded
>music' and 'music itself'.
>
>See...'recorded music' has been a novelty to us for around 80
>years and because of the resources, technology and delivery
>resources associated with it.....IT COST MONEY TO OBTAIN.
>
>Those times are over. 'Recorded music' is no longer an
>economic commodity. I could burp into a microphone, send it
>out, and you could hear it within seconds.

It's probably complicated that more and more of our popular music is recording-oriented in its very conception and the live performance of it is the novelty (based more on the excitement of seeing the performer in the flesh than actually consuming the music).

I guess the way to adapt to that is for artists to go back to basics and once again make their live show the core of the identity as musicians, but it just doesn't work as well for some genres.

Like hip-hop. I know it's a terrible thing to say, but despite its origins as a primarily live phenomena that people didn't believe could even translate to record, modern hip-hop is a studio form and the live performance is an afterthought in which most of the time you can barely even hear al the clever lines being spit.

*shrug*

'Recorded music' still has intrinsic value. But it doesn't have any economic value as a commodity or 'good'.

Who knows how things go in the next few years....but I'm of the mind that the 'recorded music' of an act is taking the place of an advertisement. In years past, the recorded music used to be the beef.

I got a number of cds and downloads that I've actually paid for because I liked the material. If I don't like it, I don't pay. More than likely, those albums get erased. I know some of y'all cats don't agree but screw it, I've been burned too many times on blind purchases.

we gotta hash it out and figure this shit out
i'm an artist finding my way and when it comes to making money off music
the music is never the key factor in anything
everyone comes at you about your image
you have to find a niche and a lot of that takes a lil business saavy.
musicians definitely have to be more clever in their approach in these days
yes there are assholes in the world that feel entitled to free music.
rather than even entertain them
figure out what your fans want from you!!
still sell your cd
but if it gets bootlegged don't cry
find merchandise that suites your vision
i have my own ideas and will be unveiling them over the year
but seriously
if you want to make a living off of your music in these days don't
assume that your actual music is going to be the selling point for you to make cash and eat

because i'm coming in this shit like double dutch
i gotta have all my tricks ready. just music is just not enough anymore
you want somebody to buy it (specifically your music) package it in a meaningful way

>the music is never the key factor in anything
>everyone comes at you about your image
>you have to find a niche and a lot of that takes a lil
>business saavy.

It's these same Lesson-ass niggas who are gonna be the first ones to diss an alrtist for being "all image"

It's a lose-lose situation.

supporters (or potential supporters) to worry about?
'cause when i say shit is about image
you have to decide what that image is
that doesn't mean sell out and diddy/beyonce your shit out or whatever the case is
in order for your 'image' to become a selling point
you have to go out there and understand your fans and know what they like about you
and package some shit from there
because once the image catches certain people, then they see the substance THEN they spend the money.
my main point is they may not necessarily want to spend that money on mp3 files.

This was a good post....I've enjoyed reading and participating in it....

>i have my own ideas and will be unveiling them over the year

But in regards to this comment you made - understand that the old cliche of selling t-shirts for $20 at your show - is dead.

As a consumer, even if I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE the band - I still look at it as "This is a t-shirt, made in china, with white ink on it....and you want me to pay $20 for this shit?"

If it comes down to "supporting the band" and "having common sense".....I'll take the common sense and save the $20

....every time.....

"unveiling"..lol everyfuckingbody sells tshirts
im talking about artists being creative, collaborating with other types of artists
To create a vision/image that people will want to consume
(basing it all of course around your music)
packaging music so that people not only cherish the music but the package as well

I cant tell you how many shows ive been to where the artists just have t-shirts and bumper stickers for sale...

by FAR, the most creative and "valuable" idea i've seen was at an OAR show about 2 years ago....they would sell flash drives that were loaded with the show from that evening.....so if you liked the show you just heard you could own it....in WAV form....

as a consumer what I "heard" was - "we're gonna kill it tonight....and you can have it forever if you want."

it was a killer show....a one of a kind gig.....and I have it.....

great idea on their part.
i mean the basics like tshirts should be available but i'm not trying to make a living off that either lol
one must be innovative in more ways than just ones music
when it comes to the business side of it
hopefully the model i'm working on works for me
but we'll see.

Just without the rediculous price tag....

After all.....its a t-shirt.

I feel like an artist could sell twice as many if they were reasonably priced.

i use a free service and the cheaper shirts don't match the quality of shirt i would want my fans to wear (or myself even).
i use printfection that doesn't charge me to have my store
but they have a set price for their shirts then you add how much
commission you want from the shirt (which raises the price of the shirt).

the wacker shirts start at like 17 beans
so even throwing 2 dollars commision on it is over priced for the quality given
so i decided to use their american apparel line (the colors are limited
but the quality of shirt is 100 times better)

now if you go to a service like jakprints.com its gonna cost the
artist even more but again the quality of the shirt goes up to wear
someone would actually rock the shit more than 4 times before it
starts fading (which was the case with the first set of t's i was
pushing).

quality costs. the thing about that is now you have to take that
quality and make it so the person who loves your music sees that tshirt
and they MUST have it.

or even package it with your music. there are ways.
but yea GOOD tshirts just ain't cheap.

Let me ask two quick questions:

1. Was anything said here that wasn't said in the last ten "downloading: good or bad" conversations?

2. Did anybody show even the smallest sign of changing their position one way or the other about downloading?

I've been done with this discussion for a long time. I'd suggest that regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, you do likewise. Or if you feel obligated, say your piece and get out. 180+ posts on this tired, divisive, go-nowhere topic is a waste of bandwidth.

just a thought

...an artist may have sold 10,000 units, but also had 50,000 people download their album ...even though it hurts them in the pocket, it would be nice to know how many people were interested enough to download it ..many of those people are fans, who are going to support in other ways (shows, merchandise etc)

another question, would you rather sell 30,000 units and no downloads.. or sell 15,000 units and 200,000 downloads? Which scenario helps spread your music farther?

>would you rather sell 30,000 units and no downloads.. or sell >15,000 units and 200,000 downloads? Which scenario helps spread >your music farther?

But at the end of the day, it all comes down to what ends up in the artist's bank account before they can honestly say which scenario is best for them.

>another question, would you rather sell 30,000 units
>and no downloads.. or sell 15,000 units and 200,000
>downloads? Which scenario helps spread your music farther?

Me personally I rather have sold 30,000 units with no downloads instead of half being sold but with 200,000 downloads cause down the road as those 30,000 people listen to their cd they will get the word out and eventually make copies for their friends and might upload a link on the net anyways, so eventually those downloads (with some more units being sold) will surface in abundance if your music is worth listening to.

artists that are already doing fine.

if it's an artist that's more obscure, underground, "struggling," then sure, i'll buy it.

being a musician myself and wanting to make a buck or two to pay back the expenses of making a record i put my heart into makes me feel a little empathetic and a willingness to spend 9.99 on something someone else did that i like. i don't assume that my buying or not will affect whether the artist becomes successful or not, but i feel like i can do my part.

for artists that are already making bank, yes, i might download the album.

.

sure big music lovers might adopt the 'try before you buy' attitude but most will just try, try, try and never buy for as long as they can help it.

that doesn't change the fact that musicians/labels are just whining about it
and not really trying to adapt to this FACT

i'm just trying to sound the damn trumpet on some gabriel shit
nobody wants to hear me tho *shrug*
just reiterating certain points

'cause if THAT'S the whole point they we definitely are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
i'm trying to reach conclusions because i'm in the process of making
this my living (or at least part of my living).

:7

And make about 22,000 a year right now. And can't pick a major for college, or even afford to get back into college. The last thing I'm thinking about right now is dropping 13.99 on an album. And I'll never buy digital - as a kid when money flowed more freely I spent $2,000 in one summer on iTunes, and when that hard drive crashed a year later I realized how fruitless digital downloads are. Sure, you can just download them again, but if you're dropping $10 on something...shouldn't you, like, have it or something?

Especially now that the artwork display in iTunes is so small you can barely appreciate the cover art - and unless you buy one of those crazy digital LPs you don't get any liners or anything, either - it just seems way above value to spend $10 for that stuff.

~~~~~~~~~
I don't check my inbox.

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Nodima/run_that_shit__nodimas_hip_hop_handbook

http://www.last.fm/user/NodimaChee

http://www.potholesinmyblog.com

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517

....there is absolutely no value to the product at all ...shit, grabbing an album from a blog rapidshare link is actually a better value since there's no restrictions on ho many devices can play the file

People are always looking to cop the newest music out and when something they probably was waiting to hear leaks before the physical copy drops, we all know that more than half of those people are going to download the album even if they was planning on copping/paying for it after it officially releases; but leaking entire albums exactly 7 to 14 days before it's release (and us knowing damn well it was the label that did it) doesn't seem to help in the long run whether it's a good or bad album.