Take THAT Music Industry!

[Devion]

so then what if everyone goes by your logic, and says "were not gonna buy cd's anymore... it means they arent missing out, because they arent gonna get teh money anyway."

then whats gonna happen?

no one has come up with an answer to me or pride yet either... what happens to a band that need the money to pay for food? i cant work full time AND be in a touring band... it just wouldnt work. i need money. and your stopping me from getting it.


in fairness though, i feel that once youve purchased your music, your freely allowed to do what you like with it. except you cant give it to someone else, as your giving them YOUR rights to that music. they arent buying their own rights.

I understand your problem with income and so, but last time I bought an album I was heavily dissapointed, just like a previous album I bought before that one.

1 or 2 good songs for about 15 euros.
That's why I just download nowadays, only when I really like an album like Breaking Benjamin - Saturate or We Are Not alone I buy it.

Also 15 euro for a cd, way too much, example: If a shop would price their products too high, people wont buy.
They will get it through other ways/shops.(Only the problem is the prices are all the same in almost every musicshop)

My other way is internet.

Im not saying its right that people are downloading music these days, but the music industry is a sham, full of arrogant people demanding money for little work/contribution to society. Its all greed, either side of the arguement. I buy the albums i can afford, and which i think deserve my money, if its a band i love and feel that should carry on, i'll do my best to support them.

The only thing I can say is, idem ditto.

 

[Skiwan]

dave, i think ull find that the "making it for the art" part, comes from the love of the stage... it isnt the fact youve made a good track, because no one can see youve made a good track... its when a band gets on stage, and they see hundreds or thousands of people dancing/rocking/moshing/headbanging to their music... THATS the real satisfaction... i would, and still do that for free..

yeah that was the satisfaction you got from it, my friend is in an indy band and he enjoys getting together with his friends and creating music, he doesnt need a stage with hundreds of people or need a multi million record deal to feel satisfied. The Beatles hated touring, and hated performing live (by 1965) and so they decided they werent going to do it anymore and concentrated on creating music. If you're in it for one reason alone it should be because you enjoy it, not because you think your gonna make big bucks, because thats never a garentee. Bands are in it for all sorts of reasons, but the worst mistake is to put your eggs in one basket and try to make money.

Personally, i find the bands who pour their heart and soul into their music and communicate to you on a personal level where it evokes feelings are the ones that both provide the best music, and secondly get the most satisfaction from it, even if they dont get to be number one or really rich doing it. I'll take NOFX as an example, they've been playing scince 1983/84 they've never made it big, infact all members except Fat Mike have part time jobs (Fat Mike, owns Fat Wreck Chords), yet in interviews, home movies and in their lyrics, they claim they've had the best time in their life, even in the days where nobody would sign a crappy tone deaf punk band like them and they made 20 bucks profit each from 6 months of touring. Thats why they feel no remorse about the mp3 revolution and infact support it.

Like i said, its nothing to be proud of downloading music, but i feel that most artists messages are being communicated across the entire world for no fee, isnt that worth a lot more than money?

As for Prides theory on bands trying to make it and being unable to because of people downloading mp3's, scince when did you ever see unheard of bands mp3's on the internet? I mean ive never found an mp3 on the net where it was an upcoming band, the vast majority of downloadable music is usually well established bands with some sort of fanbase, for one reason because people dont generally put new unheard talent on the internet, and another reason would be - how the hell would somebody search for a band they havent heard of? Im not justifying it, its just i feel its a huge flaw in the arguement.

 

[frsrblch]

How about downloading music that isnt available where you live? After 3 years of high school Spanish, I have acquired a taste for spanish heavy metal. My spanish teacher (from Spain) recommended a couple bands to me, but they are impossible to find and completely unheard of in Canada. I can find them on Kazaa, and I see no problem with downloading their music.

What kind of music does your band play, Axeman?

 

[Jesus]

hard rock mainly, the last band played thrash metal, and my current solo project is... unclassifiable XD


and yes dave, your right, it is the reason i do it, loving being on stage... i was wrong to generalize like that.

but like i said, i would do that for free, and i DO do that for free. however, if i want to make a career out of it, which is something id love to do. i cant do it for free, because i DO need to pay for my gear to be insured, fuel for the tour bus, to rent the bus in the first place, i need to pay for hotels at each stop, i need to pay for advertising...

it all comes out of the bands pockets, not the labels... all the label does is puts its name to something, and says its credible... and then they take the money from the sales.

so ok, if im gonna do it only because i love it... i wont charge anyone for my gigs, i wont charge anyone for my albums either...

i dont have time to work, because im busy rehearsing, and writing songs.

now, ive just spent £1000 on a week in a recording studio.
i then spend £500 on cd's in cases, with artwork. no book, that would put it up to £700.

then, i pay the newspaper £100 for a months advertising of my cd.

then, i pay about £500 for fuel to get around england, this is only a rough guess.
then i pay £500 for stops in hotels, food, other living expenses etc...

all the while im not working. ive got no money coming in...

people start taking the cd... thats great. people love my music!!! im a success!!!

but wait... no im not. because i didnt charge anyone to come see me play, they all came... but i had no amps, lighting etc... because i couldnt pay the electricity/maintainence of each venue...

so that was a big flop... thats ok, no biggie... oh hang on, half my shows were cancelled, because they heard about the first half.

still, at least people got all my albums! w00t. im going somewhere....

straight to the curb. i just spent £2600, which i cant afford, because im unemployed....



ok, heres how i make money... i offer my local record store another £100 to advertise it as well. i also offer them a 10% cut of the profits, as im releasing without a label, so i have to share (btw, most stores wont accept less than 35% if your self releasing) my income from the album with them, so that they will sell it on their property... they and i agree to sell the album at £5 a go. 500cd's at £5 each, is £2500... GREAT!!! i only lost £100... or did i? no, i didnt, because out of that £2500 i dont even see £250 of that, cos the store takes it as their cut. then of the remaining £2250, i have to pay tax. so im left with £2200. not bad? well, ive not made any profit... and i have to pay for the electricity at each venue. so well call that £1800 turnover that goes to me..

so i actually only spent £600... however, if the store took their full cut, id actually only have about £1000, losing £1500.



so now. does that help enlighten your view?

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

I think you're wasting your time, Axman. People are grabasses; they want free ****. They don't care either way about the impact and have all the justification in the world at a moment's notice.

As for Prides theory on bands trying to make it and being unable to because of people downloading mp3's, scince when did you ever see unheard of bands mp3's on the internet? I mean ive never found an mp3 on the net where it was an upcoming band, the vast majority of downloadable music is usually well established bands with some sort of fanbase, for one reason because people dont generally put new unheard talent on the internet, and another reason would be - how the hell would somebody search for a band they havent heard of? Im not justifying it, its just i feel its a huge flaw in the arguement.

I go back to my example of The Killers. Newer band, has maybe one or two singles out. No one these days is going to be a CD of a new band for one single, save for people who are very eager, which is an exponentially smaller percentage of people then it would have been in the early 1990's.

You will never see another Black Sabbath, another Beatles, another Metallica or Megadeth. Because no one will ever sell those massive amounts of records successfully ever again unless they are doing a very specific already-established type of music. There is going to be no more new revolutionary approaches to music.

Add to this the fact that it is a massive gamble for the record company to sign new talent. This means that bands like the Beatles will never be "discovered"--bands/musicians are no longer the commodity anymore. It's all about marketability and turnaround, and guess what? Thanks to MP3 downloading, new unique styles of music doesn't accomplish that anymore.

I go back to my example of the Killers. No one's going to buy their album, they're going to go download the single. There is basically a point where the record company execs attempt to shock a 'new' artist's career into the public eye; this is the time when the first new radio single is released, and the band is played constantly on the radio, and does a lot of promotions. This is called "the push" in the recording industry...and thanks to MP3s, 'the push' is going to fail, EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

The end result is that record companies can only get the HUGE selling stuff with any degree of certainty in profit, the bottom-line same-****-different-day stuff. Those things that sell so huge that the MP3 stuff isn't horrendously detrimental by comparison.



You will see many more Britney Spears, but no new interesting spins on the pop diva gimmick or culture.

You will see many more Justin Timberlakes, but you will never see any solo pretty boy pop albums that are not directly cut from the same exact piece of cloth.

Bands like the Beatles, who have such a wide array of material and aren't pumping out similar, cookie cutter songs from one single to the next, will have their deals cut and you won't see much of them past a first album.

Lastly, bands or artists who defined new genres of music are now too much of a gamble; unique approaches to the craft or new twists on a given style will NEVER be given a recording/distro deal over the SAME OLD **** that is GUARANTEED TO SELL, because the record industry must do this in order to not be throwing money out the window.

I want you to think on that last one for a second. Recall that these are not my opinions, they are FACTS of the industry's current cautious state of mind. If MP3s had been invented 50 years earlier...things would have been very different. Think of the artists, the progress, that would have fallen flat on its face because MP3s would have rendered them financially non-viable.

Can you imagine a world where the distorted guitar amplifier was never invented, because Black Sabbath never got a record deal after everyone downloaded 'Paranoid', and the new hard rock craze of the late 60's/early 70's never began? Can you imagine Led Zeppelin being a one hit wonder? Can you imagine the Beatles never coming to America (which incidentally was responsible for changing the entire face of the industry across the world, since they wrote their own material and were the first band to prove that such a thing was commercially lucrative...meaning that, not only would they have never come and been huge failures, but...almost no american musicians today would be writing their own material)? Can you imagine a world where Jimi Hendrix made a single album and was asked to play disco because 'it's what sells/sold' at the time? How about a world where Metallica never got a record deal because they were playing thrash in the eighties instead of hair metal, or where Nirvana never even left the low-end Seattle grunge scene because no one wanted to chance giving a new kind of band a record deal? For you rappers out there--how about a world where there was no such thing as sampling, because Vanilla Ice's 'Ice Ice Baby' sampling lawsuit never existed--because Ice's single was downloaded and no one bought his album? Hell, if things had gone extremely badly, there would probably be no rap or club music at all, seeing as it was the immense amount of money found in both these new genres that gave them their respective expansive fanbases. You think the massive thug emulating rap mogul lifestyle would exist if NWA, Dr. Dre, and Sugar Hill Gang didn't sell enough records to attract any attention? Hell no it wouldn't. You can kiss your Wu Tang Clan goodbye. How about a world where Aerosmith never got anywhere because Steven Tyler wasn't a 'marketable' front man? A world where going to Woodstock didn't matter because you have the whole thing downloaded on webcast anyway? A world where Van Halen's guitar techniques went completely unnoticed because they deviated too far from the profitable norm? How about a world with no god damned Ozzy Osbourne (or no Randy Rhoads or Zakk Wylde, for the guitar nuts out there)?

We take these things for granted, these advancements, these new genres, these unique artists who bring new standards to the way we see our ability to create music as a whole. The turntable would never have become a musically acceptable instrument; the distorted guitar would be a forever underground and bootleg invention; the art of the guitar solo would have never come to exist; several genres would have been stillborn at best and never even come to have existed at worst. Like I said, we take all this for granted, because we have had such advancements already. But it's time to face the facts--innovation in the music industry is dead and the MP3 killed it. You are going to see the new, unique stuff slow to a miserably thin trickle before finally ending completely. You may never even notice these things aren't happening--because, by nature, we don't know what new genres of music or musical techniques one might happen upon until they are found and shown to the public--but trust me. In ten years, it will all be Britney clones, boybands, angsty teen rock, chugging guitars in screaming metal bands, repetitive anti-male techno one-shots and eninem-like half-joke rap songs that cap on current events.

In other words, the only thing that will remain are trends. The safe things.

Ask any record exec at any major label and they'll tell you; you have to forcibly gravitate towards the similar stuff or it's a waste of an investment and a complete waste of time. The three record deal was once an american music industry standard but nowadays newcomer artists are lucky to get backing for a single record.

Maybe down the road people might realize this but right now it's simply a matter of cause and effect--the Internet generation thinks its entitled to everything. Hopefully the next one doesn't end up the same way.

 

[Jesus]

unfortunately, pride is right.... we wont ever see bands like that again, they wont be able to play such huge arenas, we wont have such huge festivals as woodstock... and thats because one of the first things venue's look at with major artists, is... our survays says!!!!

record sales >_>

they look at it this way: if you cant sell that many records... how the hell do you expect to sell enough tickets to cover our expenses here?

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Not to mention most of the time these days, tours are ditch efforts to make back the losses on the album advances not recouped by the dwindlin album sales...which means, in general, you can expect to see less and less concerts as this wears on, because you really don't even hardly break even on a one-album-artist touring just by nature of the beast.

 

[Jesus]

well, ive already noticed a severe dwindle in touring... most up coming bands, or fresh meat in the big leagues, do 1 tour, and thats it... the bands already in the big leagues play maybe 1 major gig a year?

 

[Ravendust]

You will see many more Britney Spears, but no new interesting spins on the pop diva gimmick or culture.

You will see many more Justin Timberlakes, but you will never see any solo pretty boy pop albums that are not directly cut from the same exact piece of cloth.

Bands like the Beatles, who have such a wide array of material and aren't pumping out similar, cookie cutter songs from one single to the next, will have their deals cut and you won't see much of them past a first album.

Lastly, bands or artists who defined new genres of music are now too much of a gamble; unique approaches to the craft or new twists on a given style will NEVER be given a recording/distro deal over the SAME OLD **** that is GUARANTEED TO SELL, because the record industry must do this in order to not be throwing money out the window.

In other words, the only thing that will remain are trends. The safe things.

You just described the musical 'We Will Rock You'.

So what you're saying is...we'll never see original music again?

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

There will be exceptions as far as originality goes. But there will never be another Jimi Hendrix, there will never be another Black Sabbath, there will never be another Van Halen--those artists that broke boundaries and created new forms of music, new ways of playing instruments, etc.

They used to look for 'the next big thing.' Now, there is no such thing--the push always fails, so it is more financially safe for them to get things that are similar to what already exists. Because of this no revolutionizing artists will ever get past an initial record deal again--entirely because of MP3s.

 

[Devion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaiyanPrideXIX
There will be exceptions as far as originality goes. But there will never be another Jimi Hendrix, there will never be another Black Sabbath, there will never be another Van Halen--those artists that broke boundaries and created new forms of music, new ways of playing instruments, etc.

They used to look for 'the next big thing.' Now, there is no such thing--the push always fails, so it is more financially safe for them to get things that are similar to what already exists. Because of this no revolutionizing artists will ever get past an initial record deal again--entirely because of MP3s.


Sure it does...

Just to say to you, BIG BULL****.

MP3 just saved it.

Why?

You can, at NO cost(except for recording then) spread music through the internet.

Bit torrent, newssites, weblogs they all pay attention to it.

Just because artist wont become millionairs in two seconds doesnt mean new music wont come out.(Including new sorts of music)

P.s. Please spare the drama in the next post.

EDIT: I posted the link in irc, zeq2 channel and got a pm in two seconds from a guitar player

[kalle\\] Devion
[kalle\\] next time you write in the forum
[Devion] yeah?
[Devion] why?
[kalle\\] and that there ARE good musicians today
[kalle\\] but he does´nt know them
[kalle\\] because he doesn´t spread his field of view concerning music
[kalle\\] via mp3´s
[kalle\\] ...

EDIT2:

[Zetsumei] mp3 will make it easier for the small groups with alternative music to come out
[Zetsumei] the internet makes it easier to become famous of some sort mp3 makes sure music doesn't get monopolized
[Zetsumei] although then again small groups suffer most from not getting any money because ppl download it
[Zetsumei] and bigger groups get their money anyway
[Zetsumei] so getting rich with music is getting harder, but getting famous is easier

I'll stop posting irc logs ;x

< and the > are removed since they dont work in my post.

EDIT: @ Majin_You: I edited a unintentionally flame, I guess Phatslugga forgot that.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Well, you can ask your friend why all the last revolutions in guitar playing were made in the 60s and 70s, and why we haven't seen anything of the sort since. If he has an answer for that, a coherent one, I might be more apt to be open to things.

Actually, I'd tell you to give him the age old question among the rock guitarists out here...but he'd probably just google it and find the answer (it's who invented distortion, if anyone cares...don't bother answering if you know. It's what separates people in the world of guitar playing, and I think it ought to remain guarded).

Back ontopic: is that supposed to be a compelling argument? Because it's not--it actually proves my point. I supposedly have no idea about what kinds of great music is out there because I don't sit around all day and download new MP3s from no-name artists...that's essentially what he's saying, right? There's a reason why those people don't have record deals, or albums on store shelves, or singles.

Fact remains, no artist ever got a record deal because they 'blew up' on the internet. So tell your buddy to keep peddling his mp3s--it ain't going to get him anything but a bandwidth bill every month.

You can, at NO GAIN spread music through the internet. Example: The Offspring released a whole album on the internet once...now they're completely washed up because they have no financial backing from the record company. You turn on your radio and it's gonna be Green Day Green Day Green Day...no Offspring in sight. And when they DO Play Offspring, they play old popular songs that record companies can still collect decent royalties on. All because of a dozen or so mp3s.

As far as your friend goes, I've probably been alive bordering on twice as long as him for starters, and I am confident that I have a much more in-depth working knowledge of the music industry's cashflow. I studied these things at college, along with audio production--and unlike most people, I wasn't taught them by a teacher, but rather actual record label executives. Cry BS on it if you want; Hugo Burnham (current manager of lesser local band C60), and Barry Marshall (a guy who helped work on some legendary productions, including Metallica's famous Black Album) educated me in ways that a kid with a broken-down second hand telecaster, a duct-taped guitar strap, and a Gorilla combo amp are not going to have any idea about.

This is all besides the point--anyone who knows the industry well enough is going to be able to see the faults with MP3s, and anyone who is just a grabass internet-kiddy who thinks they're entitled to everything is going to think otherwise.

I really don't see how people can make an argument after Axman and I explained this so in-depth already...MP3 downloading DOES HURT parts of the industry. It's a fact. Are you going to make Metallica homeless by downloading their albums? No. But the lead singer from the Killers is going to be working at a gas station as soon as his tour is done and his advance is up, mark my words. And don't expect to see another Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin or the Beatles anytime soon, either.

Then again your friend probably likes modern music and probably doesn't even have half a clue about the contributions made by these and other 'old school' artists. Kids these days don't know anything about the history or about the people who paved the way for what we have today. They just want want want, gimme gimme gimme...I bet every person who outright defends mp3 downloading in this thread also has a hard drive full of movies, rips DVDs, etc...like it or not, all that stuff--including the supposedly harmless MP3 downloading--is technically stealing.

Either way you're not on the same page as what I've been saying my last few posts, if you think my concern is that the artist won't get rich. If you consider 9 million people having your MP3 being successful...that's cool I guess. As for me--my recording rig and my guitar and vocal equipment is over $7000 worth of stuff, meaning every mp3 I might make costs a bare minimum of $7000 in 'production costs.' I don't see how it's smart to make albums and put them out on the internet...

After all, you can say you have the most innovative new guitarist ever on this mp3 you found...he's not going to start any revolutions when all he is to his 'fans' is a single's MP3 in the middle of a 6 gigabyte drive partition in your Kazaa 'My Shared Folder'.

 

[Phatslugga]

Quote:

EDIT: I posted the link in irc, zeq2 channel and got a pm in two seconds from a guitar player

[kalle\\] Devion
[kalle\\] next time you write in the forum
[Devion] yeah?
[kalle\\] tell that mother****er I greet him
[Devion] why?
[kalle\\] and that there ARE good musicians today
[kalle\\] but he does´nt know them
[kalle\\] because he doesn´t spread his field of view concerning music
[kalle\\] via mp3´s
[kalle\\] ...

That's unnacceptable, you might as well have flamed him yourself. There was no need to paste that here, and I already told you to cool down, have a warning.

 

[Jesus]

devion... you know that recording is the most expensive part right?

 

[Devion]

Well, you can ask your friend why all the last revolutions in guitar playing were made in the 60s and 70s, and why we haven't seen anything of the sort since. If he has an answer for that, a coherent one, I might be more apt to be open to things.

Actually, I'd tell you to give him the age old question among the rock guitarists out here...but he'd probably just google it and find the answer (it's who invented distortion, if anyone cares...don't bother answering if you know. It's what separates people in the world of guitar playing, and I think it ought to remain guarded).

Back ontopic: is that supposed to be a compelling argument? Because it's not--it actually proves my point. I supposedly have no idea about what kinds of great music is out there because I don't sit around all day and download new MP3s from no-name artists...that's essentially what he's saying, right? There's a reason why those people don't have record deals, or albums on store shelves, or singles.

Fact remains, no artist ever got a record deal because they 'blew up' on the internet. So tell your buddy to keep peddling his mp3s--it ain't going to get him anything but a bandwidth bill every month.

You can, at NO GAIN spread music through the internet. Example: The Offspring released a whole album on the internet once...now they're completely washed up because they have no financial backing from the record company. You turn on your radio and it's gonna be Green Day Green Day Green Day...no Offspring in sight. And when they DO Play Offspring, they play old popular songs that record companies can still collect decent royalties on. All because of a dozen or so mp3s.

As far as your friend goes, I've probably been alive bordering on twice as long as him for starters, and I am confident that I have a much more in-depth working knowledge of the music industry's cashflow. I studied these things at college, along with audio production--and unlike most people, I wasn't taught them by a teacher, but rather actual record label executives. Cry BS on it if you want; Hugo Burnham (current manager of lesser local band C60), and Barry Marshall (a guy who helped work on some legendary productions, including Metallica's famous Black Album) educated me in ways that a kid with a broken-down second hand telecaster, a duct-taped guitar strap, and a Gorilla combo amp are not going to have any idea about.

This is all besides the point--anyone who knows the industry well enough is going to be able to see the faults with MP3s, and anyone who is just a grabass internet-kiddy who thinks they're entitled to everything is going to think otherwise.

I really don't see how people can make an argument after Axman and I explained this so in-depth already...MP3 downloading DOES HURT parts of the industry. It's a fact. Are you going to make Metallica homeless by downloading their albums? No. But the lead singer from the Killers is going to be working at a gas station as soon as his tour is done and his advance is up, mark my words. And don't expect to see another Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin or the Beatles anytime soon, either.

Then again your friend probably likes modern music and probably doesn't even have half a clue about the contributions made by these and other 'old school' artists. Kids these days don't know anything about the history or about the people who paved the way for what we have today. They just want want want, gimme gimme gimme...I bet every person who outright defends mp3 downloading in this thread also has a hard drive full of movies, rips DVDs, etc...like it or not, all that stuff--including the supposedly harmless MP3 downloading--is technically stealing.

Either way you're not on the same page as what I've been saying my last few posts, if you think my concern is that the artist won't get rich. If you consider 9 million people having your MP3 being successful...that's cool I guess. As for me--my recording rig and my guitar and vocal equipment is over $7000 worth of stuff, meaning every mp3 I might make costs a bare minimum of $7000 in 'production costs.' I don't see how it's smart to make albums and put them out on the internet...

After all, you can say you have the most innovative new guitarist ever on this mp3 you found...he's not going to start any revolutions when all he is to his 'fans' is a single's MP3 in the middle of a 6 gigabyte drive partition in your Kazaa 'My Shared Folder'.

1 line: Read Davidskiwan post.

Ill help you, the problem is, artist want to earn money with their music.
Well tough luck, wasnt music an art, isnt making music a hobby?

You cant expect to earn money with your music.
First of all, maybe you just plain suck.(Not directed to anyone, its a general comment, before anyone jumps at me)

Also, bandwidth bills...haha ever heard of bit torrent?(You spread it once, let other people share also)

Why animious(sp?) artist/internet musician dont have record labels?
Because of their opinion/belief or they want to remain animious(sp?).
Look at gothic, it aint because they suck, that they dont have a record deal, but because most gothic bands dont want to commericialise

And also you are missing the point here, its not about earning money(as you said), it was about inventing new music sorts, so my point still stands.

Also you have no knowledge of my friend, so dont even try to make hasty conclusion, since you only make yourself look stupid.

And there are already other Led Zeppelins, Jimi Hendrixs, you just have to look harder.
You think when it doesnt hit MTV, it isnt big, which is just stupid.

And with the Offsprings story, about the "old popular songs that record companies can ask royalities and they have no financial backing."
With financial backing I cant disagree(at cd part), but they still could give concerts.(For needed money)
And whats better, hearing your music being whored at MTV, Radios etc or people who downloaded it and have your song in your playlist, enjoying it and seeing you name on the song.

And no, I dont have my HDD full of "warez", except for 2 games, so there goes your point.
And another thing it aint stealing, I just copied it.(Technically the owner didnt loose anything ;x(And also hasnt lost any income since I wouldnt spend it in the first place))

Making music is about fame, not fortune.(So what are you trying to say? ;x )

I'll take paintings as example.

First people made them for relatives, friends and like to share them.

Later on more and more people want it.

He just wants to be famous and spread his work around.

Now another artist starts painting.

Later on more and more people want it.

Artist gets greedy and ask money.

People pay.

Artist ask MORE money.

People searches for different way to get paintings.

They get photos of it.(Compare it with MP3, the artist who made it gets famous, but he isnt getting jack**** because of his retarded prices)

Also several WEBLOGS(with 10.000 unique views a day) pay attention to alternative music.
People get interested and wanna hear more, artist makes more and spread it through Bit torrent.

This would also stop the Britneys, Justins etc, since if everyone would download and they wouldnt recieve any money.(Most of these sort of artist are in it for the money)

And dont begin a hobby you cant afford or just because you want to make money out of it ;/

That's unnacceptable, you might as well have flamed him yourself. There was no need to paste that here, and I already told you to cool down, have a warning.

Oh great, the word was already censored and it had a valid point, why not warn the whole forum since this happens(People being "rude)" alot.(The only flaming word was mother****er)

And then why dont you deal with Saiyan, since he is offending my friend.

EDIT number 500 :

devion... you know that recording is the most expensive part right?

Dont begin a hobby that you cant afford.

 

[Skiwan]

okay, there will never be new talent, nobody will ever create good music again, and its down to kazaa. period.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

You think when it doesnt hit MTV, it isnt big, which is just stupid.

Not stupid, reality. Even with the internet's help, musicians accomplish nothing and don't get any of the exposure they need to survive without the recording industry. That's why they call getting a record deal, 'hitting the big time.' I don't care what you say--the facts speak for themselves on this one: NO MUSICIAN HAS EVER MADE IT ANYWHERE WORTH MENTIONING ON MP3 EXPOSURE.

Look at gothic, most bands dont want to commericialise, it aint because they suck, that they dont have a record deal.

That's just ridiculous. A superstitious belief, honestly. I never met a band who thought a record deal was a bad idea--who said, 'no way man, we want to keep it real and stay in our garage...and only play little bingo halls and basement parties' ... and I've met a LOT of bands.

Ill help you, the problem is, artist want to earn money with their music.
Well tough luck, wasnt music an art, isnt making music a hobby?

Making music is about fame, not fortune.(

And dont begin a hobby you cant afford or just because you want to make money out of it ;/

I'm sorry Devion, if this comes off as rude--I don't mean it to, but I can't think of a nice way to say it. You clearly don't understand a thing about the motivations of why people make music. You say it's about fame...do you think your favorite band who you only have on mp3 is 'famous' while he works a double shift at McDonald's to try and afford his next set of guitar strings or microphone? Is he 'famous' in the unemployment line? Is he a celebrity when he gets thrown out of his apartment because he can't afford the rent?

It's not about wanting to earn money for my music. It's about the ridiculous amount of hard work I put in--do you know how hard it is to even play a small gig? I have to carry tons of equipment, set it all up, make sure it's all working right, then after busting my ass all day long to load it all into the car I have to set it all up at the place on the fly in five minutes tops, then I have to take my battered hands and play guitar and sing all night long under hot lights for a crowd who didn't pay and doesn't give a damn most times...then I get to bring it all home, and then my practice space is screwjobbed for a few weeks because we never get everything back EXACTLY how it was. You see me play 5 songs in 25 minutes at some club or bar at 7 at night...yeah, I had to bust my ass since 11 that morning to be prepared, and had been busting my ass for the month beforehand to make sure I could play and sound good.

And that all doesn't even include the amount of money I lost in the process.

It's a matter of compensation. I bust my ass, don't get appreciated...the least you could do is put down five bucks to get into the club, or buy my album that I spent 6 months and thousands of dollars and countless hours making if you like the music.

You've got me pegged wrong if you think I'm about the money. I can't remember the last time I played a gig I was paid for except my own CD release party, which cost 2000 bucks to throw and we ended up 600 bucks in the hole. And we had frigging playboy girls giving away a free copy of the newest 'Girlfriends' magazine with each CD bought!! I'm lucky to even get gas money, FFS. But how much of that money would I have gotten back that night if they all could have gone to our website and downloaded the whole album? Not a dime, and I'd have been out 2000 bucks for nothing.

And just to make the point, I got kicked out of that band the next day and the ****er used a CD RIPPER to get the tracks off a copy I gave him...he re-uploaded them to the distributor with new crappy artwork and no credit to me or the other two people in the band he'd thrown out...

...and now MY months of work, thousands of dollars of effort, and work on writing/playing/recording/engineering those songs, as well as my money (most of that 2 g's was from my pocket) are making those dudes undeserved money.

I think that sufficiently explains what I think of CD ripping, in general.

You can rag me if you want about what I said but it's true--record companies are forced to gravitate only to sure things nowadays, and that is ENTIRELY the fault of the MP3.

Devion, if you think the only reason we ask for money is because 'artist gets greedy' well then you're completely off the mark of what an artist wants out of their work. THe money isn't the point--the point is, I have to bust my ass to make music. What right do you have to enjoy my work, entirely at my expense?

Honestly, it's like people think we're your slaves, and we're supposed to just pump out the songs that keep your parties, your clubs, your car rides, and your radioes fun and interesting. Well we're not slaves, and we don't make music only for money (if that is the case, I wouldn't play the kind I'd play, I'd play goth or linkin park style stuff because that is what sells). We make music to make music but if you enjoy it, I think a musician is entitled to at least some sort of compensation. Not always money, either--hell, I'd be happy to have a crowd cheering for me, knowing they loved my work, sometimes. But if you just download me on *****Torrent, you aren't gonna know me. You aren't going to know where I'm coming from, when my gigs are, what kind of stuff I am trying to portray. You're going to get a name and a title that is added to a playlist and nothing more. And I'm just going to be like some slave, some kind of damn court jester, pumping out music for people's ungrateful entertainment halfway across the world while I suffer in poverty because some punk on his dad's internet connection doesn't think music is worth his $14.95 anymore.

And for what it's worth...

no requests unless its a paying job

Citing Davidskiwan in this argument is a moot point.

 

[Devion]

Not stupid, reality. Even with the internet's help, musicians accomplish nothing and don't get any of the exposure they need to survive without the recording industry. That's why they call getting a record deal, 'hitting the big time.' I don't care what you say--the facts speak for themselves on this one: NO MUSICIAN HAS EVER MADE IT ANYWHERE WORTH MENTIONING ON MP3 EXPOSURE.

That's just ridiculous. A superstitious belief, honestly. I never met a band who thought a record deal was a bad idea--who said, 'no way man, we want to keep it real and stay in our garage...and only play little bingo halls and basement parties' ... and I've met a LOT of bands.

I'm sorry Devion, if this comes off as rude--I don't mean it to, but I can't think of a nice way to say it. You clearly don't understand a thing about the motivations of why people make music. You say it's about fame...do you think your favorite band who you only have on mp3 is 'famous' while he works a double shift at McDonald's to try and afford his next set of guitar strings or microphone? Is he 'famous' in the unemployment line? Is he a celebrity when he gets thrown out of his apartment because he can't afford the rent?

It's not about wanting to earn money for my music. It's about the ridiculous amount of hard work I put in--do you know how hard it is to even play a small gig? I have to carry tons of equipment, set it all up, make sure it's all working right, then after busting my ass all day long to load it all into the car I have to set it all up at the place on the fly in five minutes tops, then I have to take my battered hands and play guitar and sing all night long under hot lights for a crowd who didn't pay and doesn't give a damn most times...then I get to bring it all home, and then my practice space is screwjobbed for a few weeks because we never get everything back EXACTLY how it was. You see me play 5 songs in 25 minutes at some club or bar at 7 at night...yeah, I had to bust my ass since 11 that morning to be prepared, and had been busting my ass for the month beforehand to make sure I could play and sound good.

And that all doesn't even include the amount of money I lost in the process.

It's a matter of compensation. I bust my ass, don't get appreciated...the least you could do is put down five bucks to get into the club, or buy my album that I spent 6 months and thousands of dollars and countless hours making if you like the music.

You've got me pegged wrong if you think I'm about the money. I can't remember the last time I played a gig I was paid for except my own CD release party, which cost 2000 bucks to throw and we ended up 600 bucks in the hole. And we had frigging playboy girls giving away a free copy of the newest 'Girlfriends' magazine with each CD bought!! I'm lucky to even get gas money, FFS. But how much of that money would I have gotten back that night if they all could have gone to our website and downloaded the whole album? Not a dime, and I'd have been out 2000 bucks for nothing.

And just to make the point, I got kicked out of that band the next day and the ****er used a CD RIPPER to get the tracks off a copy I gave him...he re-uploaded them to the distributor with new crappy artwork and no credit to me or the other two people in the band he'd thrown out...

...and now MY months of work, thousands of dollars of effort, and work on writing/playing/recording/engineering those songs, as well as my money (most of that 2 g's was from my pocket) are making those dudes undeserved money.

I think that sufficiently explains what I think of CD ripping, in general.

You can rag me if you want about what I said but it's true--record companies are forced to gravitate only to sure things nowadays, and that is ENTIRELY the fault of the MP3.

Devion, if you think the only reason we ask for money is because 'artist gets greedy' well then you're completely off the mark of what an artist wants out of their work. THe money isn't the point--the point is, I have to bust my ass to make music. What right do you have to enjoy my work, entirely at my expense?

Honestly, it's like people think we're your slaves, and we're supposed to just pump out the songs that keep your parties, your clubs, your car rides, and your radioes fun and interesting. Well we're not slaves, and we don't make music only for money (if that is the case, I wouldn't play the kind I'd play, I'd play goth or linkin park style stuff because that is what sells). We make music to make music but if you enjoy it, I think a musician is entitled to at least some sort of compensation. Not always money, either--hell, I'd be happy to have a crowd cheering for me, knowing they loved my work, sometimes. But if you just download me on *****Torrent, you aren't gonna know me. You aren't going to know where I'm coming from, when my gigs are, what kind of stuff I am trying to portray. You're going to get a name and a title that is added to a playlist and nothing more. And I'm just going to be like some slave, some kind of damn court jester, pumping out music for people's ungrateful entertainment halfway across the world while I suffer in poverty because some punk on his dad's internet connection doesn't think music is worth his $14.95 anymore.

One word: Hobby, go think about it.

They dont have to work at MacDonalds, you are being dramatic again.

My dad who organises a Sixties Revival(I can give you the link if you want) is full of 60s bands.(Duh )(And on a side note, my dad organised 2 60s festivials next to his job, not anymore though since he retired)

They never asked money and still survived.(And still became local/national famous)

Why?

Because they didnt drive ferraris or porsches.

They had a normal job and with music as their hobby.

And yes there are bands who dont agree with record deals, gothic, rock bands.(Some gothic bands are wellknown for it and arent "small time")

And with belief I didnt mean religious or superstitious :tired:

Citing Davidskiwan in this argument is a moot point.

I agree its hypocrite, but I didnt saw it in his signature

(if that is the case, I wouldn't play the kind I'd play, I'd play goth or linkin park style stuff because that is what sells)

Make goth, rap.

 

[Skiwan]

Citing Davidskiwan in this argument is a moot point.

=0 omgz u caught meh! actually its cuz im FED UP of my pm box getting full of requests -_- i hate to turn people down, its more for other peoples sake than mine, i turn down people alot as my personal life takes priority. I dont think my work is worth money anyway, Clipseh has offered to pay me in the past and i declined. If that makes me a hypocrit, fair enough, i have no right to criticise people arguements, i should be shunned and discredited for pointing out my views. Please dont make this personal.... enough about me.

and as for mp3's not helping bands, in 2000/2001 Strike Anywhere were relatively unknown talent, without a fan base, so they stick up ALL their discography on their website to download (i remember downloading it all), after that their fanbase started to grow, and now their latest album is the most successful they've done. They took down their discography with the latest release, which was sensible (was a marketing plan really), but you can still listen to every track of that album on their website. In my view mp3's made people realise the potential of their music, as they didnt get much credit before hand, http://www.exitenglish.com/ is their site now.

Of course mp3's hurt musicians financially, i never said it didnt, but its not the end of revolutionary music, as ive posted in this thread, the lyrics of Dinosaurs will die, it describes the industry as destroying itself, which, even following your side of the arguement (Pride) that once the new talent doesnt get a look in, well everyone would download the popular stuff instead, wouldnt it? With the financial figures the big names risk these days, they'll crash and burn much worse than any indy/underground band. However that song is just a theory, one i'd like to come true though. I'd rather blame the spice girls for the current state of music in this country anyway.

Offspring's latest album wasnt as successful for many reasons, for one, their music is unchanged the style the same, infact its quite stale now, as everyone knows their older stuff is far superior. Comparing that to greenday, a band that has huge amount of advertising, also changing their whole sound to fit with the current linkin park/gothic crap that the younger generation is listening to, really doesnt cut it as a good comparison for saying mp3's are to blame, there are too many variables for it to be that reason alone.

I find it insulting that you think there arent any revolutionary music being created at this moment in time, I'm rather into the libertines at the moment, which is a huge refreshment from everything else ive been hearing for years, they're kinda like a cross between the clash and the beatles, and they're doing really well, with inovative music.

Im not saying that musicians dont get hurt, im saying that your personal experience, is just one viewpoint, there are many out there that havent faced those kind of problems, many who have.

 

[Morpherex]

I'd play goth or linkin park style stuff because that is what sells).

Citing Davidskiwan in this argument is a moot point.

CRAAWWLING INN MY SKIINNNNNNNN
LLOL! LINKIN PARKLOLOL AM I EMO YET?!!??! LOL OR ANGST!??!?!? LOL