Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Free Music?

World Class Peach





Posts: 5021
(5020 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/21/2012 at 10:02 PM
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr -all-songs-considered/

Recently Emily White, an intern at NPR All Songs Considered and GM of what appears to be her college radio station, wrote a post on the NPR blog in which she acknowledged that while she had 11,000 songs in her music library, she’s only paid for 15 CDs in her life. Our intention is not to embarrass or shame her. We believe young people like Emily White who are fully engaged in the music scene are the artist’s biggest allies. We also believe–for reasons we’ll get into–that she has been been badly misinformed by the Free Culture movement. We only ask the opportunity to present a countervailing viewpoint.

click the link to read the rest.......its rather long but good


 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5021
(5020 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 10:54 AM
hmmm no comments from anyone about the practice of ripping or copying music you don't own? The library is an excellent source of free music, probably better source than online.

[Edited on 7/10/2012 by LeglizHemp]

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 10:56 AM
It's stealing.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 13864
(13918 all sites)
Registered: 7/17/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 10:58 AM
If you dance to the music - pay the piper!

The final chapter of Johnny Sandlin's book leaves you wondering how long musicians will be able to make a living. Songs are bought one at a time, entire albums (CDs) can be copied in seconds (use to take real-time in the days of cassettes!) and passed among friends. Point is, if it's free - how is the musician supposed to get paid?

 

____________________
Music is love, and love is music, if you know what I mean.
People who believe in music are the happiest people I've ever seen.

Bill Ector, Randy Stephens, Dan Hills and a guy named BobO who I never met - Forever in my heart!

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 11:11 AM
One example I use to illustrate this is when I was trick or treating with my best friend, who came from a VERY wealthy family (his grandfather founded the second oldest law firm in Chicago, although he was adopted), and we came to this house with a big bowl of candy on the doorstep and a note that said, "Please Take One." He took the entire bowl and dumped it into his bag. So I said, "Why did you do that?" I mean, this kid's parents could have bought him a candy factory. And he said, "Why not? Who's gonna stop me?" Funny thing is he carried this sense of entitlement with him as we got older - whenever we played Monopoly he ALWAYS claimed Banker and would OPENLY cheat in front of me, just stealing money and making sure I saw him do it. He got real enjoyment out of it and always considered me to be a sucker because I wouldn't cross that line, even in games.

He later became a successful stockbroker and made a lot of money but also developed a very condescending and patronizing attitude toward those who didn't share his success or "values." To him, winning wasn't the biggest thing, it was the only thing, you know, The Lombardi Way. And even though he had everything, cutting corners, cheating, and taking chances were more important than doing things the ethical - and legal way. I think he got a high off it. Needless to say, I've lost touch with him. He chose friends that were like he was, and frankly people that I couldn't stand to be around. More power to him.

But that was the thing - why not do it? Because I CAN. BECAUSE IT IS OWED TO ME.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 11:13 AM
quote:
If you dance to the music - pay the piper!

The final chapter of Johnny Sandlin's book leaves you wondering how long musicians will be able to make a living. Songs are bought one at a time, entire albums (CDs) can be copied in seconds (use to take real-time in the days of cassettes!) and passed among friends. Point is, if it's free - how is the musician supposed to get paid?


Hey, music's in the air, man..the air is free, so music should be free.......**pulling off a joint**

[Edited on 6/22/2012 by brofan]

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5021
(5020 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 11:30 AM
i agree brofan, i think the recording industry really dropped the ball back in the Napster days. Insted of fighting it they should have embraced the model. I do think $1 a song for downloads is still to high a price though.

from the blog post

"Over the last 12 years I’ve watched revenue flowing to artists collapse.

Recorded music revenue is down 64% since 1999.

Per capita spending on music is 47% lower than it was in 1973!!

The number of professional musicians has fallen 25% since 2000.

Of the 75,000 albums released in 2010 only 2,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. Only 1,000 sold more than 10,000 copies. Without going into details, 10,000 albums is about the point where independent artists begin to go into the black on professional album production, marketing and promotion"

[Edited on 7/10/2012 by LeglizHemp]

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 11:55 AM
I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the Record Companies going out of business, especially since there don't seem to any Ahmet Erteguns out there anymore. At one time they were essential but the business model is obsolete and any artist with even a minimum of cash can put out his own stuff and make a decent living off of it IF HIS "FANS" WILL BUY IT and not steal it off some torrent site.

What bugs me is that they just don't see it as stealing - that there is no line between right and wrong. I could almost accept - well, maybe understand is a better word - it if they knew what they were doing was wrong and they just did it for kicks or to save money, but the majority actually don't think that what they are doing is wrong or illegal. They feel they are entitled to it because it is available for the taking, i.e. what we USED to call the Honor System.

I got a form e-mail the other day from Randall Bramblett asking fans to contribute financing for his new CD through kickstart, I think - or one of those type of sites. I think this is a very good thing because it allows the artist to continue to create without exposing him to financial risk and also lets the fan participate directly in the process. I think this will be the future of the industry and in the long run musicians, and fans - will be better off.

But these "fans" who have downloaded thousands of songs and CDs from their "favorite bands" should be penalized somehow....not with jail time...it would be great if you could just re-program them somehow because they just DON'T GET IT.

As will be borne out by the posts that will follow telling me that I am an out-of-touch old fart who doesn't get it.....

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5021
(5020 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 12:04 PM
like you said.....the model is broken. i still buy maybe 10 cd's a year, maybe more. i remember 6-7 yrs ago libraries in denmark if you wanted to check out a cd they would burn a copy protected version so you could go home and listen but you had to return it like a book. somehow music needs to be more difficult to copy like in the old days, vinyl to tape or tape to tape. digital is just to easy and storage space to cheap.

[Edited on 7/10/2012 by LeglizHemp]

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 12:24 PM
People are going to think I'm a real a$$ - well, more now than before, anyway - I came to this realization when it became known in HS and college that I had the biggest record collection around, so people - and I mean absolute strangers, in some cases - would come up to me and "Hey, you got ___? (name a record) "Yeah!" "Excellent! Make me a tape!" You know, no please, who the hell are you, etc.....it was just assumed that because I had the most records it was my civic duty to record them for EVERYBODY within a 20 mile radius, often at my expense....Huh? When I expressed reluctance I was branded as "selfish" "an a$$hole" "jerkoff" .etc. etc. you name it. And yet the one or two times (then I got smart) I loaned a record out for taping I had to ask the guy 20 times for it back, or IF I got it back, which was like never, it looked the US Marines had conducted boot camp on it (I took PERFECT care of my LPs - and they're still that way today) I just decided that's it. No more. People didn't see what was wrong with destroying my property, giving it back to me (if they did, which was very rare) and then couldn't understand why I wouldn't do it again. Again, like I OWED them - even though if they liked the record or the artist THEY owed it to the artist to BUY the record. But, most figured as long as there were suckers like me, they didn't have to.

I solved that problem real quick by never buying a cassette player. Or lending records out anymore. Made a lot of enemies but never lost any more records and they stayed in pristine condition. But I was the selfish jerk, of course.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5021
(5020 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 12:39 PM
again from the blog post

"Artists can make money on the road (or its variant “Artists are rich”). The average income of a musician that files taxes is something like 35k a year w/o benefits. The vast majority of artists do not make significant money on the road. Until recently, most touring activity was a money losing operation. The idea was the artists would make up the loss through recorded music sales. This has been reversed by the financial logic of file-sharing and streaming. You now tour to support making albums if you are very, very lucky. Otherwise, you pay for making albums out of your own pocket. Only the very top tier of musicians make ANY money on the road. And only the 1% of the 1% makes significant money on the road. (For now.)"


 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1962
(1969 all sites)
Registered: 6/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 01:26 PM
The biggest problem is that there is no moderation. People want all the music for free because it's there for the taking. If you download something for free but really like it, why not buy a hard copy? I see downloads as a way to preview a recording before I lay out money for it. Young people seem to have no interest in a hard copy though, although I've seen many young people at record shows and in record stores recently so that's a good thing. But for the most part, they've grown up with the internet and accessibility to information and entertainment at their fingertips. they don't have to read magazines to see what's coming out, they don't have to hang out at the record store to discover interesting music, they don't have to look up phone numbers in a phone book, or use World Book Encyclopedia for school reports. They have been reared in an age of convenience, their attention span is short, and their view of the big societal picture is obscured by all the free stuff they can get. They don't even realize it's not really free. The expense is there for other people and it will come back to bit these young people in the a$$ when they can't find a job to pay for the internet, smart phone and iPod.

The fault is spread across a wide field of participants here though. The parents didn't teach their children ethics or about how their actions can affect a pyramid of unseen people. It's not just free music. They have no respect for each other, for knowledge, or the future. Thankfully it's not all young people, but spend enough time around 18-25 year-olds and you get a sense that we're screwed. Many only have one parent. There's no balance, no authority, no sense of right and wrong. Humans are animals. Highly evolved animals but without education and understanding we revert to animalistic behaviors like bullying for instance, and a sense of get all you can grab like wild animals attacking a fresh kill. when a disaster strikes, these are the people out looting and taking advantage of the weak and injured like creatures would in the wild.

Then there are the record companies that were way behind the internet curve and they stopped producing singles. I was running a record store in 1998-99 when they phased out most singles. They wanted to force people to buy the CDs to get the hit songs they heard on the radio. Singles used to be a good way to check out an artist before buying the album. pick up a single, hear the B side, hear another song on the radio you like and buy the album. Or listen to your buddy's copy and then go buy it. Nope. Just buy the CD, and but it at list price of $18.99 That's your only choice suckers. And then comes Napster. No t only can I download the single, I can hear the whole album. Why do I need to buy a CD at all? and that's when animalistic tendencies, a warped sense of sticking it to the record companies, incorrect notions about the financial stability of the artists and total ignorance of the big picture all collide, and we have people with 11,000 songs they never bought. But they love the artists and can't wait for them to put out more music to download for free. I truly believe, based on sales of low priced new CDs in my store, that a $10 price point for all new CDs and $7 or $8 for older ones could have saved the industry. If you could buy any CD for 7 to 10 bucks would you? Probably a lot more than you buy right now. I know I would. But it may be too late now. They should have done that in 1998. They refused to change the corporate culture of the music business. they could have sacrificed some profit to help their own industry but they wanted all they could get. Sound familiar? Some people don't stop wanting all they can grab just because they get older. They're still willing to damage their own long term stability with short term greed.

The musicians could have helped by collectively telling the companies that a new business model was needed to help them survive. There is strength in numbers but again, people don't want sacrifice their "sure-thing" short term stability for uncertain long term stability. They wanted to get what they could from the record companies who were still supporting them. Don't bite the hand that feeds, right? Funny thing about record companies - they only support you while you're selling records because they make money when you sell records. You stop selling records maybe Flava D'Month will sell some. Alanis Morrisette sold 33 million copies worldwide of Jagged Little Pill but the follow-up sold less than 10 million world wide. The record company considered it a flop. They barely promoted her next record and put that money into other acts. 10x platinum was not enough for them. They couldn't just feel lucky that their artist connected with 33 million people the first time out and continue to support her. Greed and short-sightedness is everywhere. It is not exclusive to young people.

As the trichordist pointed out, there is no shortage of companies eager to advertise and make money from the download sites. TDK, Ridata, Sony, Maxell, etc have all made money from CDR and DVDR sales. MP3 player manufacturers etc all have a stake in your 11,000 free songs because you want to listen to them even if you feel you should have to pay for them. Emily seemed aware that she should be helping the artists and the Grateful Dead proved that trading tapes (which the record companies are against) will not hurt your sales of records or tickets. Bands can make money on the road - if everyone who downloaded the album went to a show. But they don't. Or if they bought a t-shirt. But they don't. Little pieces of invisible information that make up and mp3 are disposable. My hard drive crashed - oh well I'll have to bit-torrent my collection back this weekend. No worries.

I used to trade tapes and make copies of friends' records, but the ones I really liked I bought. Sometimes I bought the LPs just so I could scour the covers. I've bought New releases on vinyl and cassette on the same day, then later on CD and cassette before CD players were in cars. Same thing goes for music from the library. If I really like one, I'll buy it. Maybe it sucks. I shouldn't have to pay for a record that sucks, and I have. The record store won't take it back if it sucks. Why? because you probably burned it and it doesn't actually suck. That's their opinion of their customers and people in general and it's easy to see why. I had to tell a guy that he was no longer welcome in my store because he kept buying CDs and returning them. Beside the fact that he probably burned a few or more of them, it took a lot of time to clean, package, reprice and restock the CDs. Someone was getting paid to process his purchases twice. Once going out, once coming in. Now multiply that by a thousand stores across the country. that a big waste of time and energy and money because someone wants free music.

The record companies also did themselves a disservice by deleting old albums from the catalog and by never issuing old records on CD. They also stopped putting catalog CDs in stores. Go to the Lynyrd Skynyrd section at your local CD store and see if they have "Nuthin' Fancy" or even the more popular "Second Helping." Nope. They have 10 different hits collections though because the companies make more money on those. It's the same for other artists with deep catalogs like Fleetwood Mac, Doobie Brothers, Allman Brothers, Billy Joel, Elton John, Grateful Dead, Aerosmith, Santana, etc. Pick an artist with some hit songs and a 25 year career and you'll find a bunch of hits CDs in their bin. Then the retailers complain that Amazon is taking their business. Yeah, because I could find "Zebop!" and "Penguin" and "Draw The Line" on Amazon. You have Biggest Hits, Greatest hits, Big hits, Best hits, Latest and Greatest, Now and Then, Then and Now, Best of then, best of now, complete hits, classic hits, best of the best, best of the rest, Super hits, Essential hits, and I don't give two sh!ts.

Then, somewhere, someone figured out how to put LPs on CD then shared it online. Maybe a CD was only available for a year or so - until someone puts it online. The companies should try to analyze the data about what it being downloaded and use it to make reissue decisions. Make some of these old records available through itunes or other online mp3 sellers.

I've ripped many LPs to CD because they aren't available anywhere. I'd like to buy the CDs but they aren't for sale. Sometimes I download them to save time.

There needs to be a shift in business models, which is happening, that is equitable for all the participants from the companies to the consumer. There is enough money to made that it can be shared if the companies stave off their greed long enough for everyone to be successful rather than driving the industry into the ground so they can get all the profits possible. And kids, go buy some CDs or LPs. Feel the product in your hands; read the liner notes. Take ownership of it if you care about it. many people worked very hard to put that item in your hands and you owe it to them to try to appreciate their work, their product, and their well being. if you want to hear more from them, it is the only way.

 

____________________
Do not panic!
http://jimkanavy.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=name&id=1124427931
http://www.americanbluesscene.com

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 01:30 PM
quote:

We have a record store here in town, I make sure anytime I want a CD to order it there, keep them in business. Might cost a few $ more than ordering online, but you gotta have a record store around.

One upside to the demise of the corporate music monopoly is that live music will regain its rightful place as the market for music. Musicians will be able to work their craft, rather than cobbling together productions. As professional live touring costs rise, local music will stand a chance again. I've already noticed an upswing of interest at local gigs, as long as the musicians are not hacks. Sure, there is youtube and online music, but people will tire of it, live music is the best.


I agree with ALL of this 100% - especially about supporting local CD/record stores...one the first things I do when I go to a new city is check in to my hotel and then IMMEDIATELY head out to the coolest CD/Record store within walking or cabbing distance. In rare instances, like with Ameoba in SF, I'll drive even if I don't have a car.....I did have one that day, rented it for a drive to Yosemite.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 01:41 PM
quote:
The biggest problem is that there is no moderation. People want all the music for free because it's there for the taking. If you download something for free but really like it, why not buy a hard copy? I see downloads as a way to preview a recording before I lay out money for it. Young people seem to have no interest in a hard copy though, although I've seen many young people at record shows and in record stores recently so that's a good thing. But for the most part, they've grown up with the internet and accessibility to information and entertainment at their fingertips. they don't have to read magazines to see what's coming out, they don't have to hang out at the record store to discover interesting music, they don't have to look up phone numbers in a phone book, or use World Book Encyclopedia for school reports. They have been reared in an age of convenience, their attention span is short, and their view of the big societal picture is obscured by all the free stuff they can get. They don't even realize it's not really free. The expense is there for other people and it will come back to bit these young people in the a$$ when they can't find a job to pay for the internet, smart phone and iPod.

The fault is spread across a wide field of participants here though. The parents didn't teach their children ethics or about how their actions can affect a pyramid of unseen people. It's not just free music. They have no respect for each other, for knowledge, or the future. Thankfully it's not all young people, but spend enough time around 18-25 year-olds and you get a sense that we're screwed. Many only have one parent. There's no balance, no authority, no sense of right and wrong. Humans are animals. Highly evolved animals but without education and understanding we revert to animalistic behaviors like bullying for instance, and a sense of get all you can grab like wild animals attacking a fresh kill. when a disaster strikes, these are the people out looting and taking advantage of the weak and injured like creatures would in the wild.

Then there are the record companies that were way behind the internet curve and they stopped producing singles. I was running a record store in 1998-99 when they phased out most singles. They wanted to force people to buy the CDs to get the hit songs they heard on the radio. Singles used to be a good way to check out an artist before buying the album. pick up a single, hear the B side, hear another song on the radio you like and buy the album. Or listen to your buddy's copy and then go buy it. Nope. Just buy the CD, and but it at list price of $18.99 That's your only choice suckers. And then comes Napster. No t only can I download the single, I can hear the whole album. Why do I need to buy a CD at all? and that's when animalistic tendencies, a warped sense of sticking it to the record companies, incorrect notions about the financial stability of the artists and total ignorance of the big picture all collide, and we have people with 11,000 songs they never bought. But they love the artists and can't wait for them to put out more music to download for free. I truly believe, based on sales of low priced new CDs in my store, that a $10 price point for all new CDs and $7 or $8 for older ones could have saved the industry. If you could buy any CD for 7 to 10 bucks would you? Probably a lot more than you buy right now. I know I would. But it may be too late now. They should have done that in 1998. They refused to change the corporate culture of the music business. they could have sacrificed some profit to help their own industry but they wanted all they could get. Sound familiar? Some people don't stop wanting all they can grab just because they get older. They're still willing to damage their own long term stability with short term greed.

The musicians could have helped by collectively telling the companies that a new business model was needed to help them survive. There is strength in numbers but again, people don't want sacrifice their "sure-thing" short term stability for uncertain long term stability. They wanted to get what they could from the record companies who were still supporting them. Don't bite the hand that feeds, right? Funny thing about record companies - they only support you while you're selling records because they make money when you sell records. You stop selling records maybe Flava D'Month will sell some. Alanis Morrisette sold 33 million copies worldwide of Jagged Little Pill but the follow-up sold less than 10 million world wide. The record company considered it a flop. They barely promoted her next record and put that money into other acts. 10x platinum was not enough for them. They couldn't just feel lucky that their artist connected with 33 million people the first time out and continue to support her. Greed and short-sightedness is everywhere. It is not exclusive to young people.

As the trichordist pointed out, there is no shortage of companies eager to advertise and make money from the download sites. TDK, Ridata, Sony, Maxell, etc have all made money from CDR and DVDR sales. MP3 player manufacturers etc all have a stake in your 11,000 free songs because you want to listen to them even if you feel you should have to pay for them. Emily seemed aware that she should be helping the artists and the Grateful Dead proved that trading tapes (which the record companies are against) will not hurt your sales of records or tickets. Bands can make money on the road - if everyone who downloaded the album went to a show. But they don't. Or if they bought a t-shirt. But they don't. Little pieces of invisible information that make up and mp3 are disposable. My hard drive crashed - oh well I'll have to bit-torrent my collection back this weekend. No worries.

I used to trade tapes and make copies of friends' records, but the ones I really liked I bought. Sometimes I bought the LPs just so I could scour the covers. I've bought New releases on vinyl and cassette on the same day, then later on CD and cassette before CD players were in cars. Same thing goes for music from the library. If I really like one, I'll buy it. Maybe it sucks. I shouldn't have to pay for a record that sucks, and I have. The record store won't take it back if it sucks. Why? because you probably burned it and it doesn't actually suck. That's their opinion of their customers and people in general and it's easy to see why. I had to tell a guy that he was no longer welcome in my store because he kept buying CDs and returning them. Beside the fact that he probably burned a few or more of them, it took a lot of time to clean, package, reprice and restock the CDs. Someone was getting paid to process his purchases twice. Once going out, once coming in. Now multiply that by a thousand stores across the country. that a big waste of time and energy and money because someone wants free music.

The record companies also did themselves a disservice by deleting old albums from the catalog and by never issuing old records on CD. They also stopped putting catalog CDs in stores. Go to the Lynyrd Skynyrd section at your local CD store and see if they have "Nuthin' Fancy" or even the more popular "Second Helping." Nope. They have 10 different hits collections though because the companies make more money on those. It's the same for other artists with deep catalogs like Fleetwood Mac, Doobie Brothers, Allman Brothers, Billy Joel, Elton John, Grateful Dead, Aerosmith, Santana, etc. Pick an artist with some hit songs and a 25 year career and you'll find a bunch of hits CDs in their bin. Then the retailers complain that Amazon is taking their business. Yeah, because I could find "Zebop!" and "Penguin" and "Draw The Line" on Amazon. You have Biggest Hits, Greatest hits, Big hits, Best hits, Latest and Greatest, Now and Then, Then and Now, Best of then, best of now, complete hits, classic hits, best of the best, best of the rest, Super hits, Essential hits, and I don't give two sh!ts.

Then, somewhere, someone figured out how to put LPs on CD then shared it online. Maybe a CD was only available for a year or so - until someone puts it online. The companies should try to analyze the data about what it being downloaded and use it to make reissue decisions. Make some of these old records available through itunes or other online mp3 sellers.

I've ripped many LPs to CD because they aren't available anywhere. I'd like to buy the CDs but they aren't for sale. Sometimes I download them to save time.

There needs to be a shift in business models, which is happening, that is equitable for all the participants from the companies to the consumer. There is enough money to made that it can be shared if the companies stave off their greed long enough for everyone to be successful rather than driving the industry into the ground so they can get all the profits possible. And kids, go buy some CDs or LPs. Feel the product in your hands; read the liner notes. Take ownership of it if you care about it. many people worked very hard to put that item in your hands and you owe it to them to try to appreciate their work, their product, and their well being. if you want to hear more from them, it is the only way.


WOW. Jim, this might be the post of the year, if not the DECADE - you hit SO many points and just NAIL EVERY ONE of them.....thanks for articulating what I couldn't and raising other points I didn't even think of.....WELL DONE.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 01:42 PM
quote:
The biggest problem is that there is no moderation. People want all the music for free because it's there for the taking. If you download something for free but really like it, why not buy a hard copy? I see downloads as a way to preview a recording before I lay out money for it. Young people seem to have no interest in a hard copy though, although I've seen many young people at record shows and in record stores recently so that's a good thing. But for the most part, they've grown up with the internet and accessibility to information and entertainment at their fingertips. they don't have to read magazines to see what's coming out, they don't have to hang out at the record store to discover interesting music, they don't have to look up phone numbers in a phone book, or use World Book Encyclopedia for school reports. They have been reared in an age of convenience, their attention span is short, and their view of the big societal picture is obscured by all the free stuff they can get. They don't even realize it's not really free. The expense is there for other people and it will come back to bit these young people in the a$$ when they can't find a job to pay for the internet, smart phone and iPod.

The fault is spread across a wide field of participants here though. The parents didn't teach their children ethics or about how their actions can affect a pyramid of unseen people. It's not just free music. They have no respect for each other, for knowledge, or the future. Thankfully it's not all young people, but spend enough time around 18-25 year-olds and you get a sense that we're screwed. Many only have one parent. There's no balance, no authority, no sense of right and wrong. Humans are animals. Highly evolved animals but without education and understanding we revert to animalistic behaviors like bullying for instance, and a sense of get all you can grab like wild animals attacking a fresh kill. when a disaster strikes, these are the people out looting and taking advantage of the weak and injured like creatures would in the wild.

Then there are the record companies that were way behind the internet curve and they stopped producing singles. I was running a record store in 1998-99 when they phased out most singles. They wanted to force people to buy the CDs to get the hit songs they heard on the radio. Singles used to be a good way to check out an artist before buying the album. pick up a single, hear the B side, hear another song on the radio you like and buy the album. Or listen to your buddy's copy and then go buy it. Nope. Just buy the CD, and but it at list price of $18.99 That's your only choice suckers. And then comes Napster. No t only can I download the single, I can hear the whole album. Why do I need to buy a CD at all? and that's when animalistic tendencies, a warped sense of sticking it to the record companies, incorrect notions about the financial stability of the artists and total ignorance of the big picture all collide, and we have people with 11,000 songs they never bought. But they love the artists and can't wait for them to put out more music to download for free. I truly believe, based on sales of low priced new CDs in my store, that a $10 price point for all new CDs and $7 or $8 for older ones could have saved the industry. If you could buy any CD for 7 to 10 bucks would you? Probably a lot more than you buy right now. I know I would. But it may be too late now. They should have done that in 1998. They refused to change the corporate culture of the music business. they could have sacrificed some profit to help their own industry but they wanted all they could get. Sound familiar? Some people don't stop wanting all they can grab just because they get older. They're still willing to damage their own long term stability with short term greed.

The musicians could have helped by collectively telling the companies that a new business model was needed to help them survive. There is strength in numbers but again, people don't want sacrifice their "sure-thing" short term stability for uncertain long term stability. They wanted to get what they could from the record companies who were still supporting them. Don't bite the hand that feeds, right? Funny thing about record companies - they only support you while you're selling records because they make money when you sell records. You stop selling records maybe Flava D'Month will sell some. Alanis Morrisette sold 33 million copies worldwide of Jagged Little Pill but the follow-up sold less than 10 million world wide. The record company considered it a flop. They barely promoted her next record and put that money into other acts. 10x platinum was not enough for them. They couldn't just feel lucky that their artist connected with 33 million people the first time out and continue to support her. Greed and short-sightedness is everywhere. It is not exclusive to young people.

As the trichordist pointed out, there is no shortage of companies eager to advertise and make money from the download sites. TDK, Ridata, Sony, Maxell, etc have all made money from CDR and DVDR sales. MP3 player manufacturers etc all have a stake in your 11,000 free songs because you want to listen to them even if you feel you should have to pay for them. Emily seemed aware that she should be helping the artists and the Grateful Dead proved that trading tapes (which the record companies are against) will not hurt your sales of records or tickets. Bands can make money on the road - if everyone who downloaded the album went to a show. But they don't. Or if they bought a t-shirt. But they don't. Little pieces of invisible information that make up and mp3 are disposable. My hard drive crashed - oh well I'll have to bit-torrent my collection back this weekend. No worries.

I used to trade tapes and make copies of friends' records, but the ones I really liked I bought. Sometimes I bought the LPs just so I could scour the covers. I've bought New releases on vinyl and cassette on the same day, then later on CD and cassette before CD players were in cars. Same thing goes for music from the library. If I really like one, I'll buy it. Maybe it sucks. I shouldn't have to pay for a record that sucks, and I have. The record store won't take it back if it sucks. Why? because you probably burned it and it doesn't actually suck. That's their opinion of their customers and people in general and it's easy to see why. I had to tell a guy that he was no longer welcome in my store because he kept buying CDs and returning them. Beside the fact that he probably burned a few or more of them, it took a lot of time to clean, package, reprice and restock the CDs. Someone was getting paid to process his purchases twice. Once going out, once coming in. Now multiply that by a thousand stores across the country. that a big waste of time and energy and money because someone wants free music.

The record companies also did themselves a disservice by deleting old albums from the catalog and by never issuing old records on CD. They also stopped putting catalog CDs in stores. Go to the Lynyrd Skynyrd section at your local CD store and see if they have "Nuthin' Fancy" or even the more popular "Second Helping." Nope. They have 10 different hits collections though because the companies make more money on those. It's the same for other artists with deep catalogs like Fleetwood Mac, Doobie Brothers, Allman Brothers, Billy Joel, Elton John, Grateful Dead, Aerosmith, Santana, etc. Pick an artist with some hit songs and a 25 year career and you'll find a bunch of hits CDs in their bin. Then the retailers complain that Amazon is taking their business. Yeah, because I could find "Zebop!" and "Penguin" and "Draw The Line" on Amazon. You have Biggest Hits, Greatest hits, Big hits, Best hits, Latest and Greatest, Now and Then, Then and Now, Best of then, best of now, complete hits, classic hits, best of the best, best of the rest, Super hits, Essential hits, and I don't give two sh!ts.

Then, somewhere, someone figured out how to put LPs on CD then shared it online. Maybe a CD was only available for a year or so - until someone puts it online. The companies should try to analyze the data about what it being downloaded and use it to make reissue decisions. Make some of these old records available through itunes or other online mp3 sellers.

I've ripped many LPs to CD because they aren't available anywhere. I'd like to buy the CDs but they aren't for sale. Sometimes I download them to save time.

There needs to be a shift in business models, which is happening, that is equitable for all the participants from the companies to the consumer. There is enough money to made that it can be shared if the companies stave off their greed long enough for everyone to be successful rather than driving the industry into the ground so they can get all the profits possible. And kids, go buy some CDs or LPs. Feel the product in your hands; read the liner notes. Take ownership of it if you care about it. many people worked very hard to put that item in your hands and you owe it to them to try to appreciate their work, their product, and their well being. if you want to hear more from them, it is the only way.


P.S. Dude, I would LOVE to sit down and spend an afternoon - or an evening - or whenever - talking music with you.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1962
(1969 all sites)
Registered: 6/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 01:52 PM
quote:
quote:
The biggest problem is that there is no moderation. People want all the music for free because it's there for the taking. If you download something for free but really like it, why not buy a hard copy? I see downloads as a way to preview a recording before I lay out money for it. Young people seem to have no interest in a hard copy though, although I've seen many young people at record shows and in record stores recently so that's a good thing. But for the most part, they've grown up with the internet and accessibility to information and entertainment at their fingertips. they don't have to read magazines to see what's coming out, they don't have to hang out at the record store to discover interesting music, they don't have to look up phone numbers in a phone book, or use World Book Encyclopedia for school reports. They have been reared in an age of convenience, their attention span is short, and their view of the big societal picture is obscured by all the free stuff they can get. They don't even realize it's not really free. The expense is there for other people and it will come back to bit these young people in the a$$ when they can't find a job to pay for the internet, smart phone and iPod.

The fault is spread across a wide field of participants here though. The parents didn't teach their children ethics or about how their actions can affect a pyramid of unseen people. It's not just free music. They have no respect for each other, for knowledge, or the future. Thankfully it's not all young people, but spend enough time around 18-25 year-olds and you get a sense that we're screwed. Many only have one parent. There's no balance, no authority, no sense of right and wrong. Humans are animals. Highly evolved animals but without education and understanding we revert to animalistic behaviors like bullying for instance, and a sense of get all you can grab like wild animals attacking a fresh kill. when a disaster strikes, these are the people out looting and taking advantage of the weak and injured like creatures would in the wild.

Then there are the record companies that were way behind the internet curve and they stopped producing singles. I was running a record store in 1998-99 when they phased out most singles. They wanted to force people to buy the CDs to get the hit songs they heard on the radio. Singles used to be a good way to check out an artist before buying the album. pick up a single, hear the B side, hear another song on the radio you like and buy the album. Or listen to your buddy's copy and then go buy it. Nope. Just buy the CD, and but it at list price of $18.99 That's your only choice suckers. And then comes Napster. No t only can I download the single, I can hear the whole album. Why do I need to buy a CD at all? and that's when animalistic tendencies, a warped sense of sticking it to the record companies, incorrect notions about the financial stability of the artists and total ignorance of the big picture all collide, and we have people with 11,000 songs they never bought. But they love the artists and can't wait for them to put out more music to download for free. I truly believe, based on sales of low priced new CDs in my store, that a $10 price point for all new CDs and $7 or $8 for older ones could have saved the industry. If you could buy any CD for 7 to 10 bucks would you? Probably a lot more than you buy right now. I know I would. But it may be too late now. They should have done that in 1998. They refused to change the corporate culture of the music business. they could have sacrificed some profit to help their own industry but they wanted all they could get. Sound familiar? Some people don't stop wanting all they can grab just because they get older. They're still willing to damage their own long term stability with short term greed.

The musicians could have helped by collectively telling the companies that a new business model was needed to help them survive. There is strength in numbers but again, people don't want sacrifice their "sure-thing" short term stability for uncertain long term stability. They wanted to get what they could from the record companies who were still supporting them. Don't bite the hand that feeds, right? Funny thing about record companies - they only support you while you're selling records because they make money when you sell records. You stop selling records maybe Flava D'Month will sell some. Alanis Morrisette sold 33 million copies worldwide of Jagged Little Pill but the follow-up sold less than 10 million world wide. The record company considered it a flop. They barely promoted her next record and put that money into other acts. 10x platinum was not enough for them. They couldn't just feel lucky that their artist connected with 33 million people the first time out and continue to support her. Greed and short-sightedness is everywhere. It is not exclusive to young people.

As the trichordist pointed out, there is no shortage of companies eager to advertise and make money from the download sites. TDK, Ridata, Sony, Maxell, etc have all made money from CDR and DVDR sales. MP3 player manufacturers etc all have a stake in your 11,000 free songs because you want to listen to them even if you feel you should have to pay for them. Emily seemed aware that she should be helping the artists and the Grateful Dead proved that trading tapes (which the record companies are against) will not hurt your sales of records or tickets. Bands can make money on the road - if everyone who downloaded the album went to a show. But they don't. Or if they bought a t-shirt. But they don't. Little pieces of invisible information that make up and mp3 are disposable. My hard drive crashed - oh well I'll have to bit-torrent my collection back this weekend. No worries.

I used to trade tapes and make copies of friends' records, but the ones I really liked I bought. Sometimes I bought the LPs just so I could scour the covers. I've bought New releases on vinyl and cassette on the same day, then later on CD and cassette before CD players were in cars. Same thing goes for music from the library. If I really like one, I'll buy it. Maybe it sucks. I shouldn't have to pay for a record that sucks, and I have. The record store won't take it back if it sucks. Why? because you probably burned it and it doesn't actually suck. That's their opinion of their customers and people in general and it's easy to see why. I had to tell a guy that he was no longer welcome in my store because he kept buying CDs and returning them. Beside the fact that he probably burned a few or more of them, it took a lot of time to clean, package, reprice and restock the CDs. Someone was getting paid to process his purchases twice. Once going out, once coming in. Now multiply that by a thousand stores across the country. that a big waste of time and energy and money because someone wants free music.

The record companies also did themselves a disservice by deleting old albums from the catalog and by never issuing old records on CD. They also stopped putting catalog CDs in stores. Go to the Lynyrd Skynyrd section at your local CD store and see if they have "Nuthin' Fancy" or even the more popular "Second Helping." Nope. They have 10 different hits collections though because the companies make more money on those. It's the same for other artists with deep catalogs like Fleetwood Mac, Doobie Brothers, Allman Brothers, Billy Joel, Elton John, Grateful Dead, Aerosmith, Santana, etc. Pick an artist with some hit songs and a 25 year career and you'll find a bunch of hits CDs in their bin. Then the retailers complain that Amazon is taking their business. Yeah, because I could find "Zebop!" and "Penguin" and "Draw The Line" on Amazon. You have Biggest Hits, Greatest hits, Big hits, Best hits, Latest and Greatest, Now and Then, Then and Now, Best of then, best of now, complete hits, classic hits, best of the best, best of the rest, Super hits, Essential hits, and I don't give two sh!ts.

Then, somewhere, someone figured out how to put LPs on CD then shared it online. Maybe a CD was only available for a year or so - until someone puts it online. The companies should try to analyze the data about what it being downloaded and use it to make reissue decisions. Make some of these old records available through itunes or other online mp3 sellers.

I've ripped many LPs to CD because they aren't available anywhere. I'd like to buy the CDs but they aren't for sale. Sometimes I download them to save time.

There needs to be a shift in business models, which is happening, that is equitable for all the participants from the companies to the consumer. There is enough money to made that it can be shared if the companies stave off their greed long enough for everyone to be successful rather than driving the industry into the ground so they can get all the profits possible. And kids, go buy some CDs or LPs. Feel the product in your hands; read the liner notes. Take ownership of it if you care about it. many people worked very hard to put that item in your hands and you owe it to them to try to appreciate their work, their product, and their well being. if you want to hear more from them, it is the only way.


P.S. Dude, I would LOVE to sit down and spend an afternoon - or an evening - or whenever - talking music with you.


that would be cool. It took so long to write that post, HTW logged me off. lol. I had to hit back on my browser and luckily my typing was still there so I copied and pasted it back in.

We probably have similar tastes in music. Do you live near Northeast PA?

 

____________________
Do not panic!
http://jimkanavy.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=name&id=1124427931
http://www.americanbluesscene.com

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1962
(1969 all sites)
Registered: 6/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 06:11 PM
I just got an order from Amazon that underlines the point about record stores I made. I ordered the new Lil' Ed & The Blues Imperials CD, the new Johnny Winter Bootleg Series Vol. 8, and a new reissue of Iron Butterfly Evolution.

I can't get any of those in the record stores around Scranton, PA. The blues sections are painfully small and filled with CDs many blues fans already have, very few new releases, and of course the ubiquitous hits discs. I easily could have downloaded the Lil' Ed and Johnny Winter CDs a few days before street release but I wanted to buy them and have a physical copy. I couldn't do it at a record/CD store. I had to go online. As for the Iron Butterfly, it's a record with nostalgia attached to it for me. it was the first Butterfly record I ever bought. I had my Mom's copy of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida and Ball, and I knew nothing else about the band. The vinyl had some pictures and songs from albums I didn't know about. I loved those songs and listened to them over and over again trying to guess what the rest of "Metamorphosis" and "Heavy" sounded like. I converted my vinyl to CD since until recently it was not available on disc. Sure I have all those songs but there's something that takes me back in time when I listen to those tracks in that order. And I couldn't find it in a record/CD store. It's stuff like that which will make you justify downloading music for free. The record company and retailer wants me to buy what in the store. if it's not there, "we can special order it for you." I may as well order it myself. I'm still not listening to it on the ride home like I wanted to. I am today though. Thanks Amazon.

[Edited on 6/22/2012 by jfk2112]

 

____________________
Do not panic!
http://jimkanavy.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=name&id=1124427931
http://www.americanbluesscene.com

 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 67
(67 all sites)
Registered: 3/2/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 10:51 PM
quote:
The biggest problem is that there is no moderation. People want all the music for free because it's there for the taking. If you download something for free but really like it, why not buy a hard copy?..."

x2 great post!!!

 

____________________
money can't buy life-bob marley

 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 67
(67 all sites)
Registered: 3/2/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/22/2012 at 10:53 PM
I really like the option that a lot of bands are doing these days...buy a cd or lp and you get a code for a digital download of the album...i will always buy the lp if this option is available....btw Everybody's Talkin sounds soooo good on vinyl

 

____________________
money can't buy life-bob marley

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9610
(9621 all sites)
Registered: 8/3/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/23/2012 at 06:02 AM
quote:
quote:
The biggest problem is that there is no moderation. People want all the music for free because it's there for the taking. If you download something for free but really like it, why not buy a hard copy? I see downloads as a way to preview a recording before I lay out money for it. Young people seem to have no interest in a hard copy though, although I've seen many young people at record shows and in record stores recently so that's a good thing. But for the most part, they've grown up with the internet and accessibility to information and entertainment at their fingertips. they don't have to read magazines to see what's coming out, they don't have to hang out at the record store to discover interesting music, they don't have to look up phone numbers in a phone book, or use World Book Encyclopedia for school reports. They have been reared in an age of convenience, their attention span is short, and their view of the big societal picture is obscured by all the free stuff they can get. They don't even realize it's not really free. The expense is there for other people and it will come back to bit these young people in the a$$ when they can't find a job to pay for the internet, smart phone and iPod.

The fault is spread across a wide field of participants here though. The parents didn't teach their children ethics or about how their actions can affect a pyramid of unseen people. It's not just free music. They have no respect for each other, for knowledge, or the future. Thankfully it's not all young people, but spend enough time around 18-25 year-olds and you get a sense that we're screwed. Many only have one parent. There's no balance, no authority, no sense of right and wrong. Humans are animals. Highly evolved animals but without education and understanding we revert to animalistic behaviors like bullying for instance, and a sense of get all you can grab like wild animals attacking a fresh kill. when a disaster strikes, these are the people out looting and taking advantage of the weak and injured like creatures would in the wild.

Then there are the record companies that were way behind the internet curve and they stopped producing singles. I was running a record store in 1998-99 when they phased out most singles. They wanted to force people to buy the CDs to get the hit songs they heard on the radio. Singles used to be a good way to check out an artist before buying the album. pick up a single, hear the B side, hear another song on the radio you like and buy the album. Or listen to your buddy's copy and then go buy it. Nope. Just buy the CD, and but it at list price of $18.99 That's your only choice suckers. And then comes Napster. No t only can I download the single, I can hear the whole album. Why do I need to buy a CD at all? and that's when animalistic tendencies, a warped sense of sticking it to the record companies, incorrect notions about the financial stability of the artists and total ignorance of the big picture all collide, and we have people with 11,000 songs they never bought. But they love the artists and can't wait for them to put out more music to download for free. I truly believe, based on sales of low priced new CDs in my store, that a $10 price point for all new CDs and $7 or $8 for older ones could have saved the industry. If you could buy any CD for 7 to 10 bucks would you? Probably a lot more than you buy right now. I know I would. But it may be too late now. They should have done that in 1998. They refused to change the corporate culture of the music business. they could have sacrificed some profit to help their own industry but they wanted all they could get. Sound familiar? Some people don't stop wanting all they can grab just because they get older. They're still willing to damage their own long term stability with short term greed.

The musicians could have helped by collectively telling the companies that a new business model was needed to help them survive. There is strength in numbers but again, people don't want sacrifice their "sure-thing" short term stability for uncertain long term stability. They wanted to get what they could from the record companies who were still supporting them. Don't bite the hand that feeds, right? Funny thing about record companies - they only support you while you're selling records because they make money when you sell records. You stop selling records maybe Flava D'Month will sell some. Alanis Morrisette sold 33 million copies worldwide of Jagged Little Pill but the follow-up sold less than 10 million world wide. The record company considered it a flop. They barely promoted her next record and put that money into other acts. 10x platinum was not enough for them. They couldn't just feel lucky that their artist connected with 33 million people the first time out and continue to support her. Greed and short-sightedness is everywhere. It is not exclusive to young people.

As the trichordist pointed out, there is no shortage of companies eager to advertise and make money from the download sites. TDK, Ridata, Sony, Maxell, etc have all made money from CDR and DVDR sales. MP3 player manufacturers etc all have a stake in your 11,000 free songs because you want to listen to them even if you feel you should have to pay for them. Emily seemed aware that she should be helping the artists and the Grateful Dead proved that trading tapes (which the record companies are against) will not hurt your sales of records or tickets. Bands can make money on the road - if everyone who downloaded the album went to a show. But they don't. Or if they bought a t-shirt. But they don't. Little pieces of invisible information that make up and mp3 are disposable. My hard drive crashed - oh well I'll have to bit-torrent my collection back this weekend. No worries.

I used to trade tapes and make copies of friends' records, but the ones I really liked I bought. Sometimes I bought the LPs just so I could scour the covers. I've bought New releases on vinyl and cassette on the same day, then later on CD and cassette before CD players were in cars. Same thing goes for music from the library. If I really like one, I'll buy it. Maybe it sucks. I shouldn't have to pay for a record that sucks, and I have. The record store won't take it back if it sucks. Why? because you probably burned it and it doesn't actually suck. That's their opinion of their customers and people in general and it's easy to see why. I had to tell a guy that he was no longer welcome in my store because he kept buying CDs and returning them. Beside the fact that he probably burned a few or more of them, it took a lot of time to clean, package, reprice and restock the CDs. Someone was getting paid to process his purchases twice. Once going out, once coming in. Now multiply that by a thousand stores across the country. that a big waste of time and energy and money because someone wants free music.

The record companies also did themselves a disservice by deleting old albums from the catalog and by never issuing old records on CD. They also stopped putting catalog CDs in stores. Go to the Lynyrd Skynyrd section at your local CD store and see if they have "Nuthin' Fancy" or even the more popular "Second Helping." Nope. They have 10 different hits collections though because the companies make more money on those. It's the same for other artists with deep catalogs like Fleetwood Mac, Doobie Brothers, Allman Brothers, Billy Joel, Elton John, Grateful Dead, Aerosmith, Santana, etc. Pick an artist with some hit songs and a 25 year career and you'll find a bunch of hits CDs in their bin. Then the retailers complain that Amazon is taking their business. Yeah, because I could find "Zebop!" and "Penguin" and "Draw The Line" on Amazon. You have Biggest Hits, Greatest hits, Big hits, Best hits, Latest and Greatest, Now and Then, Then and Now, Best of then, best of now, complete hits, classic hits, best of the best, best of the rest, Super hits, Essential hits, and I don't give two sh!ts.

Then, somewhere, someone figured out how to put LPs on CD then shared it online. Maybe a CD was only available for a year or so - until someone puts it online. The companies should try to analyze the data about what it being downloaded and use it to make reissue decisions. Make some of these old records available through itunes or other online mp3 sellers.

I've ripped many LPs to CD because they aren't available anywhere. I'd like to buy the CDs but they aren't for sale. Sometimes I download them to save time.

There needs to be a shift in business models, which is happening, that is equitable for all the participants from the companies to the consumer. There is enough money to made that it can be shared if the companies stave off their greed long enough for everyone to be successful rather than driving the industry into the ground so they can get all the profits possible. And kids, go buy some CDs or LPs. Feel the product in your hands; read the liner notes. Take ownership of it if you care about it. many people worked very hard to put that item in your hands and you owe it to them to try to appreciate their work, their product, and their well being. if you want to hear more from them, it is the only way.


P.S. Dude, I would LOVE to sit down and spend an afternoon - or an evening - or whenever - talking music with you.


I'd love to hang w/ both of you and talk music !

You have both made some excellent points regarding the record industry's hopelessly broken broken business model as well as this weird sense of entitlement that many young people ( and some older folks) seem to have regarding "free" music.

I wonder if part of this warped perspective is a feeling that well...playing music is fun. It's not actually like you're working a job like me. You're having fun doing this so you should be willing to do it for free.

Well...anyone who has ever been a musician, or had a friend who was a "working" musician knows that it is a very demanding, extremely difficult way to try to make a living, let alone try to raise a family. And the fun that comes in playing, or performing, is a well deserved payback from the endless hassles that have to be dealt with before the musician can take the stage.

To those clueless folks who say " Hey. The album should be free because these guys make their living now by playing live". Oh yeah? Try that yourself and see how hard it actually is. See how you feel when you tally up all the many costs involved and find out how little you actually netted this tour. And think about how to tell the wife and kids what things the family will have to pass on this time around.

A professional musician deserves any legitimate revenue source that is available to them, and that certainly includes any album that they spend valuable time and money to create and produce. And they deserve some kind of compensation for the time it took to create and produce that album.

Maybe this warped perspective also extends to anyone who writes, paints, acts, or dances. Hey. They never had to join the real world of "working" like I did. And they're having so much fun.

B**ll S**t.

I have a ton of respect for any artist who persues that innate need to create art, regardless of the almost guaranteed lack of financial reward in most cases, and... if that art touches me, inspires me, or hits me so deeply in an emotional sense that it moves me to tears...then sorry to the Freddy Freeloaders out there but that performance, that painting, that dance, or that piece of music has value and that artist deserves something tangible back for the effort it took to create that art.

And maybe that is part of the problem. There will always be folks out there who don't really "feel " music, at least anywhere near the level that many of us do here. To them, it is just something humming away in their left ear as pleasant background noise while they are tweeting, net surfing off their smart phones or texting.

Maybe to feel that music has enough intrinsic value that it merits the creator to be compensated for creating it, one needs to be focused enough on it to truly "feel" it, at least more than in a minimal sense.























[Edited on 6/23/2012 by les_paul_sunburst]

 

____________________
"In my dream the pipes were playing
In my dream I lost a friend
Come down Gabriel and blow your horn
Cause some day we will meet again"

Fallen Angel -Robbie Robertson (for HughDuty...and for TanDan)


RIP Strider...(1999-2012)

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4950
(4949 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/23/2012 at 08:58 AM
wonder why concert prices have gone up? merch? Its the only way for artists to make any money. It's tougher for new artists, though.

I go to a fair # of jazz shows in clubs. I make a point of buying cds directly from the artist. In return, I usually get a 2 minute conversation, a handshake, and an autograph on my cd.

support new artists.
while you're at it, support your local farmer, too.


 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/23/2012 at 05:53 PM

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you guys on the points you've been making.....I am digitally impaired and love my CDs, but this is an interesting ethical question that doesn't stop here.

Do you feel the same way about books? Do you not lend anyone a copy of the novel that shook your world or whatever? Do you not lend friends DVDs? once you start sharing your copy of anything, the recipient doesn't have to buy a copy to "consume" it. You may feel that it is different with music because people tend to make copies to enjoy time and time again. However, books and movies are art or at least intellectual creations that someone embarks upon as part of their livelihood.

Does the argument that all publicity is good publicity not work for you?? I think many tend to "share" or enable the stealing of media for the purpose of turning a friend onto something cool. It's one thing when you are living in the same dorm or you can hang with your buddy in his basement up the street, but today more than ever, friends and family are all over the map. So ripping and burning them a copy of that CD you've been trying to sell them on, or lending them a movie you think they'll like when they come to visit over the holidays, etc., is an extension of your enthusiasm. Now someone else is familiar with an artist and potentially a candidate to spread the word. This has to benefit artists down the line.....some are going to pick up the record, the guy with the burned copy is going to replace it eventually, or somebody is more likely to catch that show when it comes to the region. Does none of this second hand growing of the fan base not benefit the artist over time? again, not saying that this makes sharing OK, just think these are other elements to consider.


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9610
(9621 all sites)
Registered: 8/3/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/24/2012 at 08:42 AM
quote:

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you guys on the points you've been making.....I am digitally impaired and love my CDs, but this is an interesting ethical question that doesn't stop here.

Do you feel the same way about books? Do you not lend anyone a copy of the novel that shook your world or whatever? Do you not lend friends DVDs? once you start sharing your copy of anything, the recipient doesn't have to buy a copy to "consume" it. You may feel that it is different with music because people tend to make copies to enjoy time and time again. However, books and movies are art or at least intellectual creations that someone embarks upon as part of their livelihood.

Does the argument that all publicity is good publicity not work for you?? I think many tend to "share" or enable the stealing of media for the purpose of turning a friend onto something cool. It's one thing when you are living in the same dorm or you can hang with your buddy in his basement up the street, but today more than ever, friends and family are all over the map. So ripping and burning them a copy of that CD you've been trying to sell them on, or lending them a movie you think they'll like when they come to visit over the holidays, etc., is an extension of your enthusiasm. Now someone else is familiar with an artist and potentially a candidate to spread the word. This has to benefit artists down the line.....some are going to pick up the record, the guy with the burned copy is going to replace it eventually, or somebody is more likely to catch that show when it comes to the region. Does none of this second hand growing of the fan base not benefit the artist over time? again, not saying that this makes sharing OK, just think these are other elements to consider.




Respectfully, I would say that there is a major difference between a book and a CD. When a person loans a book to someone else, unless that person is doing a "Gutenberg" and has a printing press in their basement, then that one copy of a book does not have the potential to become endless perfect clone copies of the original.

The moment someone burns a CD, or downloads a music file, then that becomes a very real possibility.

I do not know any published authors personally, but I would assume that they understand that their book, if popular, will probably end up in the public library, and that there will always be readers who will never buy it, and will happily consume it for free. And that is acceptable to the author because they understand that public libraries do exist. Or regardless of their personal feelings, they know that it is beyond their control.

I am also assuming that they understand that some folks may pass the book on to someone else. And regardless of their own personal feelings about that, it is beyond their control

Their hope would be that in both cases, anyone who reads their book for free, will enjoy it enough that they will want their own copy and will purchase it, thus allowing the author to make a living and give them the means to continue writing.

But does that make it right? Good question. From a pure moral perspective, IMO, the answer would be library copy yes , loaning out to someone no.

I don't know any book publisher who has ever publically stated that their books can not be purchased by libraries. So I would assume that they find it acceptable. But as far as someone loaning a book, my personal belief is that the publisher and the author might very well say no, but they realize that it will happen because it is beyond the author's and the publisher’s control to prevent it. (I’ll get back to that in a moment).

However, one can not use the fact that this already happens with books as a justification for sharing copyrighted music for free. It's apples and oranges. Why? Because, it is a fact that a person can now buy a copy of a CD and thanks to the CD burner pass on ENDLESS perfect copies.

A book that is loaned to someone, or checked out from a library, is a single copy that for the most part, can not be duplicated. And if it is a library copy, it has to be returned to the library at some point. So, the artist or publisher at least retains some kind of control (though small) over that book. With that loaned or library CD, the borrower can, again, thanks to a CD burner, retain a perfect clone or endless clones of the original. That is a major difference.

As far as DVDs go, thanks to DVD burners, endless perfect copies of movies can now be cloned and shared for free, so any argument I’ve made against sharing CDs or downloaded music pretty much applies to DVDs or DVD downloads. Just change the word CD to DVD and the word artist or musician to “all those involved in producing the movie” and it pretty much fits.

Regarding the good publicity argument, again respectfully, my question would be when does that actually happen? At what point after a cloned CD (or download) has been reburned (or copied) and passed along to numerous people does someone finally say “ Hey. I really like this. I will now purchase an actual official, commercial copy of it so that the artist gets their just due.”

How often does that actually happen? 1 in 5? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? The music sharer has absolutely no obligation here to ever compensate the artist and can easily choose not to.

We certainly can not use Emily White as an example of someone who eventually “pays back” the artist. And she is the GM of a college radio station! You would think that out of all the people out there who will eventually “pay back” that she would be at the top of the list. But by her own admission, she isn't and she doesn't. And this is just my opinion, but I believe her situation to not be atypical among “free music” sharers.

I don’t know your given profession but let’s say hypothetically that you a doctor. A patient comes in and says to you. “Hey. I need treatment but to be honest, I am not willing to pay you. I am able to, but I’d rather you do it for free. But... if you do treat me for free, I will tell all my friends what a great doctor you are, and they will all come to you for treatment which will more than pay for the fee that I am not willing to pay you. So how about it? “

Would you do it? Would you feel any social or moral obligation to do so ?

Let’s say you are a lawyer. Or a stock broker. Or a mechanic. Or a house painter . Any occupation will do. And that same person makes that same pitch to you. Would you do it?

The answer will probably be no. Why?

In each case, each professional has made a major investment in themselves, either through schooling, and/or an apprenticeship coupled with long hours spent honing their craft and any number of years of practical work experience that gives them the right in a Capitalistic society, to charge you for their services and in doing so, to make a living.

So why does that same concept not apply to musicians, authors, dancers, actors, or painters? Haven’t they also taken their raw talent and through years of toil, pain, and sweat, molded it into something that has actual intrinsic value in our Capitalistic society and as such deserves proper compensation? I feel it does.

Almost every argument in favor of free music that I've read seems to sidestep that issue. The model there always seems to be “Hey. Just give us the benefits of your talent for free, and ...it will eventually come back to you in a big way. It won't be from me but it will be from someone”

But if you look at the music industry as it currently stands which is barely, that just isn’t happening. David Lowery makes some excellent points on why it's not happening in his blog. And I agree with his conclusions.

One other important point here. In my example above, the doctor, lawyer, or house painter has the ability to say no and that is fully within their control. An author or musician does not have that ability.

Human nature being what it is, there will always be people out there who, given the choice between paying for a good or a service when it is justified, and getting it for free without fear of repercussion, will take it for free.

Regardless of any moral implications. Whether or not that is a result of upbringing (or lack of), a sense of entitlement , a matter of convenience, or any other factor is probably best left to another thread.

By that same token, there will always be those who will always insist upon paying for that good or service when it is justified without being prompted or monitored for compliance. Again, the reason why is best left for another thread.

But when there is a control in place, such as the ability to say no, then it is a non-issue everybody pays because they have to. And everyone receives the benefit of that good or service. And the provider of that good or service is properly compensated.

The problem here, I believe, without pointing fingers at anyone, is an unwillingness to acknowledge that an artist’s talent, ability, experience, and “soul” has true intrinsic value and as such, deserves that same compensation when that talent and ability is expressed on a studio album.










[Edited on 6/24/2012 by les_paul_sunburst]

 

____________________
"In my dream the pipes were playing
In my dream I lost a friend
Come down Gabriel and blow your horn
Cause some day we will meet again"

Fallen Angel -Robbie Robertson (for HughDuty...and for TanDan)


RIP Strider...(1999-2012)

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/24/2012 at 01:53 PM
quote:
quote:

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you guys on the points you've been making.....I am digitally impaired and love my CDs, but this is an interesting ethical question that doesn't stop here.

Do you feel the same way about books? Do you not lend anyone a copy of the novel that shook your world or whatever? Do you not lend friends DVDs? once you start sharing your copy of anything, the recipient doesn't have to buy a copy to "consume" it. You may feel that it is different with music because people tend to make copies to enjoy time and time again. However, books and movies are art or at least intellectual creations that someone embarks upon as part of their livelihood.

Does the argument that all publicity is good publicity not work for you?? I think many tend to "share" or enable the stealing of media for the purpose of turning a friend onto something cool. It's one thing when you are living in the same dorm or you can hang with your buddy in his basement up the street, but today more than ever, friends and family are all over the map. So ripping and burning them a copy of that CD you've been trying to sell them on, or lending them a movie you think they'll like when they come to visit over the holidays, etc., is an extension of your enthusiasm. Now someone else is familiar with an artist and potentially a candidate to spread the word. This has to benefit artists down the line.....some are going to pick up the record, the guy with the burned copy is going to replace it eventually, or somebody is more likely to catch that show when it comes to the region. Does none of this second hand growing of the fan base not benefit the artist over time? again, not saying that this makes sharing OK, just think these are other elements to consider.




Respectfully, I would say that there is a major difference between a book and a CD. When a person loans a book to someone else, unless that person is doing a "Gutenberg" and has a printing press in their basement, then that one copy of a book does not have the potential to become endless perfect clone copies of the original.

The moment someone burns a CD, or downloads a music file, then that becomes a very real possibility.

I do not know any published authors personally, but I would assume that they understand that their book, if popular, will probably end up in the public library, and that there will always be readers who will never buy it, and will happily consume it for free. And that is acceptable to the author because they understand that public libraries do exist. Or regardless of their personal feelings, they know that it is beyond their control.

I am also assuming that they understand that some folks may pass the book on to someone else. And regardless of their own personal feelings about that, it is beyond their control

Their hope would be that in both cases, anyone who reads their book for free, will enjoy it enough that they will want their own copy and will purchase it, thus allowing the author to make a living and give them the means to continue writing.

But does that make it right? Good question. From a pure moral perspective, IMO, the answer would be library copy yes , loaning out to someone no.

I don't know any book publisher who has ever publically stated that their books can not be purchased by libraries. So I would assume that they find it acceptable. But as far as someone loaning a book, my personal belief is that the publisher and the author might very well say no, but they realize that it will happen because it is beyond the author's and the publisher’s control to prevent it. (I’ll get back to that in a moment).

However, one can not use the fact that this already happens with books as a justification for sharing copyrighted music for free. It's apples and oranges. Why? Because, it is a fact that a person can now buy a copy of a CD and thanks to the CD burner pass on ENDLESS perfect copies.

A book that is loaned to someone, or checked out from a library, is a single copy that for the most part, can not be duplicated. And if it is a library copy, it has to be returned to the library at some point. So, the artist or publisher at least retains some kind of control (though small) over that book. With that loaned or library CD, the borrower can, again, thanks to a CD burner, retain a perfect clone or endless clones of the original. That is a major difference.

As far as DVDs go, thanks to DVD burners, endless perfect copies of movies can now be cloned and shared for free, so any argument I’ve made against sharing CDs or downloaded music pretty much applies to DVDs or DVD downloads. Just change the word CD to DVD and the word artist or musician to “all those involved in producing the movie” and it pretty much fits.

Regarding the good publicity argument, again respectfully, my question would be when does that actually happen? At what point after a cloned CD (or download) has been reburned (or copied) and passed along to numerous people does someone finally say “ Hey. I really like this. I will now purchase an actual official, commercial copy of it so that the artist gets their just due.”

How often does that actually happen? 1 in 5? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? The music sharer has absolutely no obligation here to ever compensate the artist and can easily choose not to.

We certainly can not use Emily White as an example of someone who eventually “pays back” the artist. And she is the GM of a college radio station! You would think that out of all the people out there who will eventually “pay back” that she would be at the top of the list. But by her own admission, she isn't and she doesn't. And this is just my opinion, but I believe her situation to not be atypical among “free music” sharers.

I don’t know your given profession but let’s say hypothetically that you a doctor. A patient comes in and says to you. “Hey. I need treatment but to be honest, I am not willing to pay you. I am able to, but I’d rather you do it for free. But... if you do treat me for free, I will tell all my friends what a great doctor you are, and they will all come to you for treatment which will more than pay for the fee that I am not willing to pay you. So how about it? “

Would you do it? Would you feel any social or moral obligation to do so ?

Let’s say you are a lawyer. Or a stock broker. Or a mechanic. Or a house painter . Any occupation will do. And that same person makes that same pitch to you. Would you do it?

The answer will probably be no. Why?

In each case, each professional has made a major investment in themselves, either through schooling, and/or an apprenticeship coupled with long hours spent honing their craft and any number of years of practical work experience that gives them the right in a Capitalistic society, to charge you for their services and in doing so, to make a living.

So why does that same concept not apply to musicians, authors, dancers, actors, or painters? Haven’t they also taken their raw talent and through years of toil, pain, and sweat, molded it into something that has actual intrinsic value in our Capitalistic society and as such deserves proper compensation? I feel it does.

Almost every argument in favor of free music that I've read seems to sidestep that issue. The model there always seems to be “Hey. Just give us the benefits of your talent for free, and ...it will eventually come back to you in a big way. It won't be from me but it will be from someone”

But if you look at the music industry as it currently stands which is barely, that just isn’t happening. David Lowery makes some excellent points on why it's not happening in his blog. And I agree with his conclusions.

One other important point here. In my example above, the doctor, lawyer, or house painter has the ability to say no and that is fully within their control. An author or musician does not have that ability.

Human nature being what it is, there will always be people out there who, given the choice between paying for a good or a service when it is justified, and getting it for free without fear of repercussion, will take it for free.

Regardless of any moral implications. Whether or not that is a result of upbringing (or lack of), a sense of entitlement , a matter of convenience, or any other factor is probably best left to another thread.

By that same token, there will always be those who will always insist upon paying for that good or service when it is justified without being prompted or monitored for compliance. Again, the reason why is best left for another thread.

But when there is a control in place, such as the ability to say no, then it is a non-issue everybody pays because they have to. And everyone receives the benefit of that good or service. And the provider of that good or service is properly compensated.

The problem here, I believe, without pointing fingers at anyone, is an unwillingness to acknowledge that an artist’s talent, ability, experience, and “soul” has true intrinsic value and as such, deserves that same compensation when that talent and ability is expressed on a studio album.


[Edited on 6/24/2012 by les_paul_sunburst]


Thanks for taking the time to reply. As I said at the onset, I don't disagree with you, I just find it to be a more difficult question to settle on personally. You make the case that publishers and authors just accept upon releasing a book that people are going to lend copies to friends, etc., and that there is nothing that they can do to control it. Can't this theoretically be said about released music, as well? If you elect to make hard copies of it, then people are going to share it and you can't control that. If you choose to only make your name through live performances, then you can control it's dissemination and therefor be compensated directly for your work. And there are many bands who have made a name on live performances and encouraged trading of recordings of their music. I know this is not the norm, but apparently these artists are not as absolute about this.

I do see your point, however, about ease of replication. But if music is available at the library for free, then the library is sharing that copy of the CD, just as it is the book. And in theory, even without burning, a patron could repeatedly borrow a CD from the library and listen to it at will. I know there are usually courtesy time periods to give others a chance, but there is no one-time borrow limit or anything.

Finally, there is that legal issue of public domain. We no many traditional songs can be recorded without royalties going to anyone in the past that may have originated it. Also, after a certain time, all literature follows a similar path, hence the classics are available for free on the Nooks, etc. So my question is, with musicians that are no longer alive to benefit from the purchase of our CDs, to do we now "owe" it to their estate or the record companies to buy the CD from a store?? Am I still screwing somebody's hard work and dedication to their craft if I burn a Hendrix or Miles Davis record for my brother?? Those guys are not out there somewhere scraping to make ends meat in 2012. Again, just think it is important to explore these questions before getting to righteous about it. And I apologize if you given all of this great thought and resent me for using you to help me sort it out

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 577
(577 all sites)
Registered: 5/2/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/24/2012 at 05:32 PM
Well, I don't mean to upset anyone, but I have a differing view:

If you steal my bike, or my car, I don't have it anymore and I have to re-purchase it and it's a drag and I'm bummed. But if you could take my bicycle, without my EVER missing it, and replicate it for free, I don't mind that at all. I don't consider it stealing. Now, I understand the legalities, I just don't agree with it.

That being said, I still buy cd's. Just bought Patti Smith's newest one. If I like the artist, I want to support them and buy their stuff, see their shows, etc. But I still DL live shows where they don't make money from it.

Now, here's some thoughts: They don't lose a dime from me illegally downloading their songs (other artists) because I wouldn't buy it AND only DL it because I can do it for free. If I couldn't DL it, I wouldn't buy it. AND, because I DL it, they could actually be making much more money, as the more the music is spread around, the more potential for others to hear it, get interested in the band, buy the bands stuff, see them live, etc.

I used to frequent used CD stores. Not sure how legal these things were: They buy used cd's and resell them without the artist making any money off of it? Huh? Isn't that the same as illegal downloading? Worse, even, because I know no one making money off of DL's?
Lastly, I don't hear the artists complaining, I hear all the other syncophants who are making money off of someone else's talent. The Dead let people tape their shows and the industry was up in arms, talking about what a bad precedent it was, etc. and it only increased sales and popularity--the exact opposite of what the industry was afraid of! Like how VCR's would ruin the movie industry--never did happen, did it? The same was said about Instant Live's, but man, I love getting a recording of a show I was just at right after it's over (or in the mail a few weeks later) and yes, I often go in on it with a few folks and we burn copies for each other. I believe bands make MORE money by burning cd's of the shows and selling them, even knowing some will burn them and trade them but hey, maybe that's just me. Anyhow, didn't mean to piss anyone off, but just felt I should share (pun intended).

 

____________________
"The only funeral you should ever try to interrupt is your own, and that should be a full-time job." -Kinkstah

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com