# Should music be free?



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

With the recent cancellation of my favorite music downloader, Limewire, I feel the need to ask;

Do you think music/music downloads should be free?


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

I don't think so. Music is a business, not a free public service.


----------



## Atona (Nov 14, 2010)

I didn't even know people used limewire. I thought everybody just did the same thing as me by downloading it, learning how to use it, and then going "wow, there are so many faster and more convenient ways to do this, why the fuck did I download this program"

Music is the same as any other piece of art. It's up to the artist to decide on whether it's free or not. I don't really see how they could continue making music just to give it out for free, unless it were to become government-funded or something... Which doesn't make any sense.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

But then how did limewire stay functioning as long as it did? And how are other softwares suchas frostwire and Ares still up?  It may be my lack of insight into limewire, frostwire, etc. to how they work, possibly.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

zallens177 said:


> But then how did limewire stay functioning as long as it did? And how are other softwares suchas frostwire and Ares still up?  It may be my lack of insight into limewire, frostwire, etc. to how they work, possibly.


 Because the laws weren't as specific until recently. Limewire allowed you to download content from other users, which is now illegal.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

Ah, thats where the term "music sharing" comes into play.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Nov 14, 2010)

Saying that music should be free is like saying that any kind of art should be free. I dare you to go up to ANY artist of any type and tell them that they should put their artistic creations out for no profit just because you like looking at the pretty pictures on your wall but don't want to pay for them.

No, music should not be free unless the artist(s) that created it deem it to be so.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

But, with art, such as paintings, once it hits the internet almost anyone can; *right click*, save picture as... You know what im saying...

Im not saying its right, but it is true.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Nov 14, 2010)

zallens177 said:


> But, with art, such as paintings, once it hits the internet almost anyone can; *right click*, save picture as... You know what im saying...
> 
> Im not saying its right, but it is true.



That doesn't make it any more justified.


----------



## Aden (Nov 14, 2010)

Speaking as someone who will hopefully release a few albums in the future, my position can be summarized as: "Music should not be free, _but_..."

I am for the illegal downloading of music. I think that, without illegal music downloads, I would never have discovered even a fraction of the music that I love today. Therefore, I never would have paid these people that I wouldn't have heard of for physical copies of the album that I love.

Artists _should_ bitch about their stuff being downloaded illegally if that's their position, but in order to do that, you need to put out something that's good enough to buy. I will continue to buy my favorite albums from my favorite artists because they make excellent music, and you should buy the music that brings you happiness so that the artists can continue to bring you more.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> That doesn't make it any more justified.



Im not saying its justified, but then that should just as illegal as "sharing music"


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 14, 2010)

if music wasn't so damn expensive people might buy it


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 14, 2010)

Ikrit said:


> if music wasn't so damn expensive people might buy it


 
5-15$ a CD at K-mart is expensive...?


----------



## Eezo the Dragon (Nov 14, 2010)

I only buy indie music, because I feel bad stealing from artists that really need the money. It still feels wrong to me though, but I don't have enough money to buy a lot of music.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 14, 2010)

No.

Are you high?

Music + Free = No more music.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 14, 2010)

No, you're fucking retarded.


----------



## Aden (Nov 14, 2010)

Ikrit said:


> if music wasn't so damn expensive people might buy it


 
What are you buying, CDs? Downloads? Each of those is like 15 bucks max for an album. Have you really not found music that brings you enough joy to be worth 15 dollars?


----------



## Alstor (Nov 14, 2010)

Music is a business, like most kinds of art. If it was free, how would the artists pay for music producers, recording studios, mixers, sound engineers, and the costs for all the CDs that have to be loaded with the songs that are made from those guys? You paid money to buy a instrument, an automobile to get you to venues if you decide to do them, and to get those venues in the first place. You don't want to go broke doing an art.

But artists that do accept illegal downloading and free music (NIN, Radiohead, almost every musician on the internet, etc.) are cool.


----------



## Hir (Nov 14, 2010)

Liar said:


> 5-15$ a CD at K-mart is expensive...?


 they're absolutely ridiculous in the UK, a LOT more than that. I went to buy the new Watain before I saw the price tag of like $25.


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 14, 2010)

idk a online company that sell music at cd quality
i doubt that i can find all the cd albums for the music i listen to in a k-mart, would have to look for a cd only store (but with the online downloading those pretty much gone out of business here)


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

Ikrit said:


> idk a online company that sell music at cd quality
> i doubt that i can all the cd albums for the music i listen to in a k-mart, would have to look for a cd only store (but with the online downloading thoes pretty much gone out of business here)


 
Im kinda having trouble figuring out what you mean here...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Nov 14, 2010)

Copyrighting soundwaves is like copyrighting the specific ratios of gasses that leave your lungs.

It is dumb and hard to regulate.


----------



## Aden (Nov 14, 2010)

Alstor said:


> Music is a business, like most kinds of art. If it was free, how would the artists pay for music producers, recording studios, mixers, sound engineers, and the costs for all the CDs that have to be loaded with the songs that are made from those guys? You paid money to buy a instrument, an automobile to get you to venues if you decide to do them, and to get those venues in the first place. You don't want to go broke doing an art.


 
Don't forget that not everyone can do this. How many people out there will dedicate two years to a few decades of their life learning an instrument and learning how to write music? You're not just paying for the physical costs, you're showing your respect to someone who has honed their craft over years and years.

It's just like visual art. When you pay random yiffmurr furry for some art, it's not just the cost of the pencils and markers and tablet going into that, they're putting their years and years of learning and experience to work for your benefit.



Ikrit said:


> idk a online company that sell music at cd quality
> i doubt that i can find all the cd albums for the music i listen to in a k-mart, would have to look for a cd only store (but with the online downloading those pretty much gone out of business here)



gemm.com
musicstack.com
cdandlp.com
discogs.com
ET CETERA



JesusFish said:


> Copyrighting soundwaves is like copyrighting the specific ratios of gasses that leave your lungs.
> 
> It is dumb and hard to regulate.


 
Yeah man totally
also copyrighting some scribbles on a piece of paper is like copyrighting the patterns made by snow blowing across a parking lot
and copyrighting some combination of words bound together on paper is like copyrighting whatever I bash out on my keyboard randomly
totally the same
fuck artists


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 14, 2010)

zallens177 said:


> Im kinda having trouble figuring out what you mean here...


 sorry, it's almost midnight here and i'm dehydrated

basically, if i'm going to pay CD price i want CD quality, most online stores don't offer that and finding a CD store in town won't be easy


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

Ikrit said:


> basically, if i'm going to pay CD price i want CD quality, most online stores don't offer that and finding a CD store in town won't be easy


 
Ahh, and you have labeled yourself lazy I see.


----------



## Riley (Nov 14, 2010)

This thread was posted in 2010, right?  'Cause I saw the word Limewire, then saw Frostwire, and well...  I thought I might have stumbled upon a thread from 2003.

CDs are $20 around here.  I have no job.  I also have very little interest in most things people can call music these days.  Either way I'm not affected, or affecting anyone who has a job making music.  But it's still a service that someone is using their time, hard work, and (arguably) talent into providing.  Something like that should not be free.  There's a communism joke in here somewhere.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 14, 2010)

Yeah, yeah, I still used limewire before the shut it down.


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 15, 2010)

I'd pay for music when I can, but most of it is VG music and classical.  I ain't paying $30-40 bucks for a Dark Chronicle CD.


----------



## 00vapour (Nov 15, 2010)

Yes,

Musicians make their incomes from doing live performances and merchandise. CD sales and even online sales are a tiny portion of a typical musician's income. We aren't talking about the musician's money here, it's the record companies' money (unless the musician sells CD's themselves, which is usually not the case).

On a related note, Grooveshark is a cool thing you should check out, it's free.

Also, Limewire is a terrible system. Go on filestube or use utorrent like everyone else.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

00vapour said:


> Musicians make their incomes from doing live performances and merchandise. CD sales and even online sales are a tiny portion of a typical musician's income. We aren't talking about the musician's money here, it's the record companies' money (unless the musician sells CD's themselves, which is usually not the case).



It's imprudent to generalize here. A lot of artists I like sell their albums independently. A lot of them can't perform live due to varying reasons. Saying that music should be free because most of the bands you hear about follow the "form band, sign to a label, label releases CD, play supporting tour" formula is ignorant.

And even if _every artist_ signed to a label to release albums, guess what? The labels do need money too. Just like you can't generalize above, you can't say that all labels are part of the Big Four or are evil, shadowy corporations. Where do you think the money comes from for the recording studios, engineers, session musicians, etc to _make the damn album in the first place_?


----------



## Catilda Lily (Nov 15, 2010)

If you don't want to pay for it you can listen to the radio.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

catilda lily said:


> If you don't want to pay for it you can listen to the radio.


 
I'm trying to lay off the criticism of others' music preferences, but it's a gradual process. Please stop waving the cigarette in front of the quitter's face. :c


----------



## Catilda Lily (Nov 15, 2010)

Aden said:


> I'm trying to lay off the criticism of others' music preferences, but it's a gradual process. Please stop waving the cigarette in front of the quitter's face. :c



Sorry, I was just posting my thought on this matter.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 15, 2010)

Aden said:


> I am for the illegal downloading of music. I think that, without illegal music downloads, I would never have discovered even a fraction of the music that I love today. Therefore, I never would have paid these people that I wouldn't have heard of for physical copies of the album that I love.


This is true and a symptom of a much bigger problem that the record industry refuses to recognise (like quite a good many things) about music enthusiasts (or in your case, audiophiles).



Aden said:


> Artists _should_ bitch about their stuff being downloaded illegally if that's their position, but in order to do that, you need to put out something that's good enough to buy. I will continue to buy my favourite albums from my favourite artists because they make excellent music, and you should buy the music that brings you happiness so that the artists can continue to bring you more.


Artists will always have that prerogative, however, when an artist comes off as being a pig-ignorant shill for the record industry representatives, coming out with Grade A Bullshit, they're doing themselves and the industry as a whole more harm than good.

Good music, is a highly subjective term, but it is my opinion that truly good music is a rarity unless like me you enjoy the timeless classics that hit their peak before I was born.

FWIW Last time I found truely good music I liked, I went out and paid for the album, and was rather surprised to realise how inexpensive it was compared to most of the chart-toppers.



Aden said:


> And even if _every artist_ signed to a label to release albums, guess what? The labels do need money too. Just like you can't generalize above, you can't say that all labels are part of the Big Four or are evil, shadowy corporations. Where do you think the money comes from for the recording studios, engineers, session musicians, etc to _make the damn album in the first place_?


When most people mean 'the record companies' they are referring to the big four represented by the RIAA, not the independent smaller labels that put good music before artificially inflated profit margins.

And no, those big four, don't need money, they have ample surplus. They want more money, there's a huge difference, and they're fighting tooth and nail to protect their dying business model. If you truly support good music and support the artists, you would not support those companies. These are the guys that claim copyright over the efforts of the recording artists and the guys the fight, not for the 'starving artists' but for their shareholders greed. The independent smaller labels and the artists signed to these big four companies, are the ones everyone should be supporting. Unless the artist happens to be Gene Simmons, who can promptly go die in the fire.

And to what I was referring to earlier, there is a major issue with music today that goes unnoticed, in large parts, because of the benefits that illegal sharing of music brings to the smaller and lesser known artists and genres. In my country, traditionally, if you don't get radio airplay, you don't get noticed.. if you don't end up on MTV, you're unheard of.

If you are heard of, but not getting radio airplay, you're unlikely to be popular enough for any of the record stores to stock your CDs. The internet has made this less of an issue since you can for the most part, buy CDs online, but it's still a problem.. because the distributors kick a fuss over any new form of distribution system that would actually level the playing field and give people easy access to the music they love.

Take Spotify. Such a service to me is fantastic... but it's not available to me.. because of local distributor crap. What music is available to me.. can be expensive because the retailers (even the online ones) can make bullshit claims to charge higher prices here than they do in the US. If Spotify were available.. at least I could search for music genres I like.. and hear the songs.. discover some that I might only have heard of on the radio and then go and buy the albums. It's an ideal legal alternative for those that just want to hear the music to see if they like it before going to buy it.

I swear the Record Companies are just, digging themselves into a hole and unwilling to just, give the people what they want, rather than forcing people to do things their way.


----------



## Grimfang (Nov 15, 2010)

I love when artists offer an album for whatever price you think it's worth. It feels so awesome to buy an album under that sort of musician-listener relationship.
That is the best.

But I think an artist should have the choice over whether it's free or not. They should get some kind of credit, and compliments don't pay bills so well.


----------



## Taralack (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm a broke student, so I can't afford to buy any of the music that I love. If I had cash flowing out of my butthole, I would buy every single album I want to listen to.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 15, 2010)

no. no product thats coming from a big company should ever be free. its always nice to have some sort of reward for your hard work!
and besides, how is the _music_ industry going to work on free music? XD


----------



## Redregon (Nov 15, 2010)

i'm curious what people's views are for artists that are dead like Jimi Hendrix and Janice Joplin? there's no way they're getting their cut anymore and all the profits go to the execs (whom are rich enough as is imo.)


----------



## Morroke (Nov 15, 2010)

Redregon said:


> artists that are dead
> 
> Janice Joplin



FUCK, I honestly didn't know this

I've been listening to her all week

THERE GOES MY GOOD MORNING


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Nov 15, 2010)

Only when the artist wants it to be. Keep in mind it's how they make a living. How you you feel, if someone stole things you created from you. I have a cheap music option in fact it is way cheaper than any download service you can name. Check out stores where you can buy used CDs. A couple of places near me have them for under $4, now tell me where you can get 10 or more songs for around 40 cents a song. CD ripping programs are free at download.com


----------



## Ibuuyk (Nov 15, 2010)

Music costs something?

Remember, you're on Internet.


----------



## Redregon (Nov 15, 2010)

Morroke said:


> FUCK, I honestly didn't know this
> 
> I've been listening to her all week
> 
> THERE GOES MY GOOD MORNING


 
dude, she's been dead for decades. died in 1970 from a heroin OD.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

Carenath said:


> And no, those big four, don't need money, they have ample surplus. They want more money, there's a huge difference, and they're fighting tooth and nail to protect their dying business model. If you truly support good music and support the artists, you would not support those companies. These are the guys that claim copyright over the efforts of the recording artists and the guys the fight, not for the 'starving artists' but for their shareholders greed. The independent smaller labels and the artists signed to these big four companies, are the ones everyone should be supporting. Unless the artist happens to be Gene Simmons, who can promptly go die in the fire.


 
Oh yes, I agree. I was just saying that boycotting the buying of music altogether because of these companies is wrong.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (Nov 15, 2010)

zallens177 said:


> With the recent cancellation of my favorite music downloader, Limewire, I feel the need to ask;
> 
> Do you think music/music downloads should be free?


 
No, you fucking idiot. It's just... No.


----------



## Shiroka (Nov 15, 2010)

I think once an artist is dead, his work should enter the public domain. That goes for music as well, so right now, Michael Jackson's music should be legal to download freely.

Instead, what do we got? The "This is it" DVD, Best Of CDs and a crapload of merchandise, which profits will go to Michael's already financially comfortable family. Fuck it I say.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

Shiroka said:


> I think once an artist is dead, his work should enter the public domain. That goes for music as well, so right now, Michael Jackson's music should be legal to download freely.
> 
> Instead, what do we got? The "This is it" DVD, Best Of CDs and a crapload of merchandise, which profits will go to Michael's already financially comfortable family. Fuck it I say.


 
I'm inclined to agree, but...who would finance the pressing and distribution of new CDs and LPs of a dead artist if this is the case?


----------



## Xenke (Nov 15, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i'm curious what people's views are for artists that are dead like Jimi Hendrix and Janice Joplin? there's no way they're getting their cut anymore and all the profits go to the execs (whom are rich enough as is imo.)


 
Still no.

Besides, doesn't the artist's cut then go to descendants or something?

Either way, no.


----------



## VoidBat (Nov 15, 2010)

Free, no.
Greatly reduced prices, yes.

Paying 31 $ for a CD with only 7-10 tracks on it is a subtle way of saying that you're being royally fucked in the ass by various record companies. If I'm going to spend that amount of money on a album it better contain 16-30 tracks, rather then any meager, pissy 7-10 songs.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

VoidBat said:


> Free, no.
> Greatly reduced prices, yes.
> 
> Paying 31 $ for a CD with only 7-10 tracks on it is a subtle way of saying that you're being royally fucked in the ass by various record companies. If I'm going to spend that amount of money on a album it better contain 16-30 tracks, rather then any meager, pissy 7-10 songs.


 
I've paid 35 bucks for a 2xLP with four songs
It's not the _number_, it's the _time_


----------



## PATROL (Nov 15, 2010)

If music had a suitable price it would be all fine. But as long as CD costs 20$ or more for only 2 good songs on it.. then yeah it should be free.
Actually it's only the question of your morality, how you feel about piracy and yourself.


----------



## Lapdog (Nov 15, 2010)

I say no. Simple as.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

PATROL said:


> But as long as CD costs 20$ or more for only 2 good songs on it..


 
Perhaps you need to find better artists?


----------



## Xenke (Nov 15, 2010)

Bayonetta soundtrack was a great deal for 150 songs, 5 disks.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 15, 2010)

Thlayli said:


> No, you fucking idiot. It's just... No.



Okay, sit here and call me a fucking idiot, but have you not illegally downloaded music through some means?  If not then might I say, sir, you are a fucking saint.


----------



## Lapdog (Nov 15, 2010)

zallens177 said:


> Okay, sit here and call me a fucking idiot, but have you not illegally downloaded music through some means?  If not then might I say, sir, you are a fucking saint.


 
OHHHH!!! I HAVEN'T!!! can i haz ice cream nau???/??//?


----------



## WarMocK (Nov 15, 2010)

Free as in "free speech": yes.
Free as in "free beer": NO! Unless the artist says it's okay.
The latter requires that the musician is willing to kick the labels in the balls and start managing their music on their own. NIN and Radiohead did this, and the result wasn't as bad as the music "industry" predicted. They made quite a few bucks with their experiment, which drew the ire of the majors upon them.
Oh and btw: I still have about 200 torrent seeds here I need to finish, and I have over 30 Gigs of music. Best of all: It's completely legal and free!
The simple reason for that has a name: Creative Commons
There are enough hobbyists and professional music makers out there who offer good stuff for free or for a little donation. All you gotta do is to look outside the mainstrem. ;-)


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 15, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> OHHHH!!! I HAVEN'T!!! can i haz ice cream nau???/??//?



You can haz ice cream! But you aint touching my ice cream! Its mine!


----------



## 00vapour (Nov 15, 2010)

Aden said:


> It's imprudent to generalize here. A lot of artists I like sell their albums independently. A lot of them can't perform live due to varying reasons. Saying that music should be free because most of the bands you hear about follow the "form band, sign to a label, label releases CD, play supporting tour" formula is ignorant.


The reason for my generalization is because it is the big bands that get signed onto the big labels that have a chance at making money with album sales in stores online or otherwise. It is not uncommon for a band to lose money and go into debt over album sales.



Aden said:


> And even if _every artist_ signed to a label to release albums, guess what? The labels do need money too. Just like you can't generalize above, you can't say that all labels are part of the Big Four or are evil, shadowy corporations. Where do you think the money comes from for the recording studios, engineers, session musicians, etc to _make the damn album in the first place_?


I'm not typing a 200-page report here, it is impossible to analyze the problem from every facet and post a precise answer. My generalization is mostly true and thus acceptable. Statistically, it is the big 4 that are going to make the largest portion of album sales by a longshot.

Music should be free because bands that are successful will sell merch and do live performances (and have super-committed members), label or not. In-fact, it's widely regarded as an advantage to have a band's music available free of charge because people will listen to it who might not otherwise. If the album manufacturers/record labels cannot adapt to the current format of the music business and need to sell CD's at exorbitant prices that people won't pay, too bad, that's Capitalism; adapt or die. 


...Also, stop implying that I only hear about popular bands, that's just not true.


----------



## The_Lightning_Fox (Nov 15, 2010)

well considering I and other people bootleg it anyway... might as well make it free.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 15, 2010)

00vapour said:


> ...Also, stop implying that I only hear about popular bands, that's just not true.


 Aden's a hipster. That's kind of their thing. You probably haven't heard of them, though.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

00vapour said:


> Music should be free because bands that are successful will sell merch and do live performances (and have super-committed members), label or not. In-fact, it's widely regarded as an advantage to have a band's music available free of charge because people will listen to it who might not otherwise. If the album manufacturers/record labels cannot adapt to the current format of the music business and need to sell CD's at exorbitant prices that people won't pay, too bad, that's Capitalism; adapt or die.


 
What you're suggesting is no price on the music itself, but price on the merch and shows... so what's the incentive to even press CDs or LPs? Believe it or not, some of us still do like having a physical music collection.

And you say "bands that are successful" will sell merch and get enough fans to go on tour. What about the 98% of bands that don't have this kind of luxury? How is a band supposed to finance a startup? Solely by merchandise sales? Your model would work well for the bands that currently exist and are doing well, but it will make it more difficult for new and niche acts to pay for what they need to.



Jashwa said:


> Aden's a hipster. That's kind of their thing. You probably haven't heard of them, though.


 
ilu2


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 15, 2010)

Music should not be free of cost unless that is the musician's wish. Unfortunately, there isn't a great system of exposure for musicians who aren't very popular. There are a great deal of wonderful bands who are entirely off grid. This is really the only reason I can offer a level of support for the illegal downloading of music, as a method of increasing an audience. Having said that, I would hold an individual to actually purchasing the song officially should they come across some music that they enjoy.


----------



## 00vapour (Nov 15, 2010)

Aden said:


> What you're suggesting is no price on the music itself, but price on the merch and shows... so what's the incentive to even press CDs or LPs? Believe it or not, some of us still do like having a physical music collection.



Keyword 'some', a.k.a a minority, not where the money is.



Aden said:


> And you say "bands that are successful" will sell merch and get enough fans to go on tour. What about the 98% of bands that don't have this kind of luxury? How is a band supposed to finance a startup? Solely by merchandise sales?


Well, ignoring wherever you got that statistic from, most bands are not profitable or successful. It's a hard life living as a musician. And yes, you'll find that bands will survive solely on merchandise, and touring. 

One great way to make some coin as a band is to actually invest in a merchandise company (as opposed to a label) which will help you with creating merch and selling it online as well as increasing your band's presence.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

00vapour said:


> Keyword 'some', a.k.a a minority, not where the money is.



You do know that total revenue from CD sales is still greater than that from download sales, right


----------



## 00vapour (Nov 15, 2010)

Which study are we looking at? All I can find on the matter are articles about falling CD sales and rising digital sales.


----------



## Aden (Nov 15, 2010)

00vapour said:


> Which study are we looking at? All I can find on the matter are articles about falling CD sales and rising digital sales.


 
An study predicting that download sales would pass CD sales in 2012. :V

But point still stands. Even if downloads are 80% of the market, that 20% is still a few _billion_ dollars of revenue. To say that music should be only digital is shortsighted.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 15, 2010)

Recording industry needs some serious reform, yo.  :V


----------



## 00vapour (Nov 15, 2010)

Aden said:


> But point still stands. Even if downloads are 80% of the market, that 20% is still a few _billion_ dollars of revenue. To say that music should be only digital is shortsighted.


True, but keep in mind that if you were to graph the sales you would get a pretty quickly declining market. 

I'm sure it'll all be digital when all the old people die:V


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

00vapour said:


> True, but keep in mind that if you were to graph the sales you would get a pretty quickly declining market.
> 
> I'm sure it'll all be digital when all the old people die:V


 
Technically CDs are digital but I know what you mean

I wonder what the next-generation format will be


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> Technically CDs are digital but I know what you mean
> 
> I wonder what the next-generation format will be


 
Music pills.  Pop a couple Mastodons and rock out in your brain.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Music pills.  Pop a couple Mastodons and rock out in your brain.


 
I always assumed it was going to be akin to an implant that you could control via thoughts and/or voice input. Like cars with voice input, but actually cool.


----------



## Coyotez (Nov 16, 2010)

It shouldn't be free. Sure, some musicians do it for fun, but who would publish it? Who would make him famous? Nobody would because nobody would make money out of it.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Nov 16, 2010)

Should movies be free?
Should videogames be free?
Should books be free?
Should paintings be free?

et cetera.


----------



## Spectral0 (Nov 16, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> Should movies be free?
> Should videogames be free?
> Should books be free?
> Should paintings be free?
> ...


 Down with money! Down with economics! All hail anarchy!


----------



## Hir (Nov 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> I wonder what the next-generation format will be



it's kind of weird that with all our advancements the best way of playing music is still a needle on plastic.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Nov 16, 2010)

DarkNoctus said:


> it's kind of weird that with all our advancements the best way of playing music is still a needle on plastic.


 Indeed. The original phonographs didn't need electricity or anything, so it's actually technically superior to, say, an iPod.


----------



## Fiesta_Jack (Nov 16, 2010)

As a musician, I'd have to say I encourage illegal downloads, because I never really make jack off CD sales anyway. Almost everything's signed off to managers and producers. Also, because I've discovered so many good bands through illegal downloads, it's just incomprehensible to try to imagine my life without all this great music I have now. 

Concerts, physical CD's, and merch should not be free, but individual, digital files of songs? Hell yeah.


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

DarkNoctus said:


> it's kind of weird that with all our advancements the best way of playing music is still a needle on plastic.


 
And they'll be around for-fucking-ever :3

In 70 years I'll be playing my old records with the paper sleeves falling apart around them and my relatives will want to put me in a home.


----------



## Hir (Nov 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> And they'll be around for-fucking-ever :3
> 
> In 70 years I'll be playing my old records with the paper sleeves falling apart around them and my relatives will want to put me in a home.


 hey grandpa i was wondering if you remember a band from your time

they're called brokencyde they're a rock band


----------



## VoidBat (Nov 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> I've paid 35 bucks for a 2xLP with four songs
> It's not the _number_, it's the _time_


 
I'm aware of that.
I just don't understand the logic, if there is any, in buying _one, single 30+ $_ CD with 7-10 tracks were all the songs average around 2 min's in playtime each. Why do this when you can get two CD's for the same price with more songs, and more time? It's either stupidity or ignorance.


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

VoidBat said:


> I'm aware of that.
> I just don't understand the logic, if there is any, in buying _one, single 30+ $_ CD with 7-10 tracks were all the songs average around 2 min's in playtime each. Why do this when you can get two CD's for the same price with more songs, and more time? It's either stupidity or ignorance.


 
Obviously it's in high demand by a number of people. Vote with your wallet, maybe they'll wise up.


----------



## 00vapour (Nov 16, 2010)

pshh @ your record love.
The records deteriorate, they will not physically last longer than something on a CD or another digital format.

the correct argument would be that vinyl is better because it (can) sound better due to it being a fully analog medium.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 16, 2010)

"music is a business"
"art is business"

im dead

like
corpsed
totally


fuck this


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (Nov 16, 2010)

Music is a highly competitive market, so I think that the artists deserve every penny they get. They wouldn't earn their royalties without the fans, so if you're a big fan, why would you burn them like that?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 16, 2010)

i dont like music

[yt]B0Rkzka2b8s[/yt]

and i dont like you


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (Nov 16, 2010)

I personally prefer a hard copy cassette tape. There is nothing rougher and more real than a band's first demo tape.


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

00vapour said:


> pshh @ your record love.
> The records deteriorate, they will not physically last longer than something on a CD or another digital format.
> 
> the correct argument would be that vinyl is better because it (can) sound better due to it being a fully analog medium.


 
I'm not getting into the vinyl vs CD sound argument. There are too many pitfalls and too many variables for it to ever be a good discussion. I have my reasons for my vinyl affinity (including sound) <3


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 16, 2010)

the vinyl revival is more obnoxious than anything else
but you know theyre all going to degrade before you die

tapes are the future

trust me


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

Senzuri Champion said:


> the vinyl revival is more obnoxious than anything else
> but you know theyre all going to degrade before you die
> 
> tapes are the future
> ...


 
We could make a new thread if you want to talk about it :3?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 16, 2010)

i cant think of any positives when it comes to vinyl because the things that i usually want on vinyl:

-probably sound like they were recorded in a toilet or are remastered on cd
-(most) are expensive as fuck because record collector scum own them (not that it's limited to vinyl, devo hardcore vol. 2 goes for about $65 on cd) [this is really the case whenever you are dealing with old jazz records, old hardcore or grind or avant garde anything]
-dont really have good art or whatever. liners. like right now the only art i think that i would want to have be bigger would be nick blinko's album covers

from my standpoint it just further legitimizes terrible indie shit as "part of rock history" when really it is the least rocking type of music currently available

but you know i cannot resist awful kitschy shit so i gladly pay $1 for mary lou retton's 1984 olympiad exercise instructional album
so yaaay vinyl comes through for me when i have space in my house that is not occupied by plastics

and with tapes if you dont like the album you can record over them!


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

Or hijack this thread that's cool too



Senzuri Champion said:


> i cant think of any positives when it comes to vinyl because the things that i usually want on vinyl:
> 
> -probably sound like they were recorded in a toilet or are remastered on cd



wait what



> -(most) are expensive as fuck because record collector scum own them (not that it's limited to vinyl, devo hardcore vol. 2 goes for about $65 on cd) [this is really the case whenever you are dealing with old jazz records, old hardcore or grind or avant garde anything]



Old jazz records are cheap as fuck, dude. I just got eight for ten bucks last week. Classical records and box sets are even cheaper.



> -dont really have good art or whatever. liners. like right now the only art i think that i would want to have be bigger would be nick blinko's album covers



Are you kidding? Some of the packaging I have is amazing.



> from my standpoint it just further legitimizes terrible indie shit as "part of rock history" when really it is the least rocking type of music currently available



Don't like indierawk. Ask takun :V



> and with tapes if you dont like the album you can record over them!


 
And that way nobody can buy a used tape without listening to it the whole way through first \D:/

But seriously, we can totally make a new thread. Or bring it to my plinth build / vinyl AMA thread: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...n-Journal-Slash-Vinyl-AMA-Thread-Extravaganza c:


----------



## Mollfie (Nov 16, 2010)

No?

It's a business. Same as anything else, same as why people charge for art pieces, books, magazines, games etc. People should be paid for the work they produce. Unless they personally choose to give it away for free.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 16, 2010)

It may be a business, but people get music through the internet all the time. Just like once other pieces of art are on the internet, its free for people to save it on their hard drive.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 16, 2010)

it was not a very good thread

like free jazz records are usually expensive but like
i dont 

i dont search a lot because i dont make as much money now
and with regards to things sounding like toilets i mean the old SST/Crass Records/Minutemen "we jam econo/get it out any way possible" ethos where the focus was on spreading the music

now that the internet
most punk related bands
bands that i really really love
have discography or partial discography cds that allow me to enjoy the music without dipping a toe into that nasty world of punk resellers
some of those have gone out of print too but theyre easier to get now 

im not an audiophile because i think it is silly to spend $250 on earphones if im just going to listen to the meatmen - crappers delight [extended beatbox go go dance mix]

but some people are
and thats okay i guess



Aden said:


> ur meen



youre boring


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Nov 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> Yeah man totally
> also copyrighting some scribbles on a piece of paper is like copyrighting the patterns made by snow blowing across a parking lot
> and copyrighting some combination of words bound together on paper is like copyrighting whatever I bash out on my keyboard randomly
> totally the same
> fuck artists


 
Sums up my views right there.

So it is morally wrong to download songs, but perfectly acceptable to record things from the radio on a cassette player or recording system for future/shared enjoyment.

We went from legal, socially acceptable mixtapes to a system that occurs online which is pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> So it is morally wrong to download songs


 
If you read my first post in this thread, you'll see that's not my position.


----------



## Kivaari (Nov 16, 2010)

Senzuri Champion said:


> -(most) are expensive as fuck because record collector scum own them (not that it's limited to vinyl, devo hardcore vol. 2 goes for about $65 on cd) [this is really the case whenever you are dealing with old jazz records, old hardcore or grind or avant garde anything]


With some stuff I want, vinyl is the cheapest, and sometimes the only option. Now I just need money to actually buy some.


Thlayli said:


> I personally prefer a hard copy cassette tape. There is nothing rougher and more real than a band's first demo tape.


I don't really like cassettes, and finding something that can play them properly is hard, but I would kill to have demos from Artillery and Necrophagist. Most other bands I could care less about, album versions of songs are usually better.


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2010)

Senzuri Champion said:


> it was not a very good thread


 
ur meen


----------



## PoisonUnagi (Nov 18, 2010)

Depends if the artist wants it to be or not. If they're playing music for profit, then yes, they should be allowed to sell it. But if they're not (like me), then the music should obviously be free...


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 26, 2010)

On a philosophical level, music, like other art forms, should be free. Unfortunately, music is mass-marketed to an easily-entertained audience which demands almost nothing from its performers. The end result is forgettable boy bands, the entire genres of emo and gangsta rap, anyone who performed on the "Twilight" soundtrack, and Justin Bieber.


----------

