Will piracy kill off prog rock ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=99795
Printed Date: April 28 2024 at 15:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Will piracy kill off prog rock ?
Posted By: Davesax1965
Subject: Will piracy kill off prog rock ?
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:09
|
Well, folks, will piracy and the expectation that music is now free kill off small and specialised music like prog rock ? Will we just be left with Kylie Minogue and a pile of steaming rubble ? What do you all think ? ;-)
|
Replies:
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:25
| I'll invoke Betteridge here. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:30
|
What the Arctic fox said. Also, it's impossible to kill music unless you're some kind of magic creature (Nickelback?).
------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:34
|
You can't kill a corpse. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:36
|
Ahhhh, OK. ;-) So. How will music piracy - the fact that so many people can download entire musical catalogues with the click of a button - affect Prog rock as a musical genre ? Or will it ? Are we all happy now ? :-) PS Probably true, Dark Elf. ;-) And let's face it, we all bought the albums in the 1970's. But how does it affect new bands ? ;-)
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:47
Well it's quite obvious. Most people downloading prog albums do not buy them afterwards. Even so called "fans" of x band do this, and as a result of this fewer records are sold. I mean, this isn't exactly rocket science I'm sure (I certainly hope) the bands who have something to say, in an original way, will come out on top. Granted, small teenie tiny acts, that 9 people know of worldwide, who gets their album downloaded, are probably not going to make it financially - unless it sparks a huge public success and people actually start paying money for the music.
------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:51
|
Absolutely. ;-) The worrying thing is that prog rock means that you have to spend a long time learning to play. If there's nothing financially at the end of it, a lot of the next generation will say "might as well just churn out crap, then. " I really hope that doesn't happen.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 08:59
|
I'm sure the musical aspirations of youngins today are about as high and far reaching as the folks of yore's. If anything, I hear more of a 'perfectionist's' wet dream coming into play with a lot of modern stuff: 'Hey matey!!!!! That synth solo isn't supposed to go duuuuiiihooo dwuiiiiiiit but douuuuuiooo diouuuoo!!!!!! WTF are you doing?!?!?! Play it again Sam....and do it right and in tune and yaddayaddayadda.....' I'll concede that this level of perfectionism suits some acts, a guy like Steve Wilson fx, but it is also what leaves my heart completely untouched in 90% of the time. The sterile lab production flirt, as I tend to call it
 ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 09:21
Of course not. On contrary, e.g. all these prog vids at YouTube are actually popularized prog. And there will always be people - audiophiles, a band's fans and others - who will buy the official releases, digital and physical versions of the purpose of their collections. Also, the prog bands will earning more money of playing live than from CDs because the tickets will be more and more expensive. The tickets were cheap when I was a liitle kid in a middle of 70s, but also in 80s, I remember that the concert tickets of famous British and American bands were very cheap. |
Davesax1965 wrote:Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 09:41
|
Believe it or not, there's a lot of bands/artists, not only prog but on any genre of music, that have figured out a way to give the music for free, and still make some profit in terms of touring, selling t-shirts, hats, etc, and make a decent profit, not to become rich and wealthy, but to make a decent living. It's quite a different world out there, compared to the last decades of the 20th century, and adjustment is necessary to survive the e-trade and it's complexities.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 09:50
Why should Ms Minogue snr. be immune? ------------- What? |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 09:53
I think I like that last post very much, Dean. 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:01
Actually, that is a fallacy...
...and so is that.
Sorry but no. Ticket prices have kept track with rising prices in general, however, the cost of buying music has not. CDs are relatively cheaper now than they were in the 80s and vinyl is relatively cheaper now than it was in the 70s. Also, for small bands the money you can earn from a gig hasn't changed a great deal (basically it is four-fifths of f*ck all), and for lesser known bands it can even cost you money to play at a larger venue (pay to play).
------------- What? |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:01
Exactly. That whole world and everything is changed in the last 35-40 years. It is actually success today that some new prog band make a money for decent living from their music, 'cause for that decent living, whatever it means, the new bands have to earning much more money than the bands in 70s.
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:02
|
I would say that among all music genres, Prog fans are probably among the ones who are still buying more original albums. But yes it surely affects, it's sad that people investing a lot of work in their music can hardly pay the costs and probably some of them will eventually stop making music if they get more pressing priorities in their lives. On the other hand these new technologies which allow music piracy are also allowing them to create and record their music much more cheaply and to reach to the whole world of potential listeners for a very low cost, something unthinkable 40 years ago when only a deal with a major label could provide you with decent multinational exposure. So I guess one thing goes with the other, it (the technology, not the fact of piracy in itself) has some negative but also some very positive effects. Having said that, I wonder what is the future of the piracy download sites. With iTunes, Spotify, Bandcamp and other streaming services maybe they will become less meaningful. For some time many musicians or labels forbid their music from being on YT, but now most of them seem to be giving up and you find full album clips from nearly everybody. Also for some time in the past the chase against Napster, eMule etc and the blocking of pirate downloading sites was quite an active subject. I'm not a frequent user but I have the impression that the chase has relaxed a bit in recent years, hasn't it?
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:02
Oh dear, that kind of carpet statement is going to need proof to back it up. ------------- What? |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:06
|
Piracy has been around as long as prog - there have been bootlegs available for years and digital piracy has been around for a while as well and it hasn't killed it off so far. Home taping didn't kill music as far as I remember either. It doesn't help - I know for a fact that prog bands do lose a lot of sales from people uploading CDs and DVDs but I guess it has to be balanced against the number of people who may buy CDs after hearing an illegal download.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:10
|
Piracy will disappear completely once everyone has been suckered into adopting the "cloud". You won't be able to download anything, you won't own anything, everything will be streamed and everything will be pay-per-listen. Welcome to the world of tomorrow, please form an orderly queue. ------------- What? |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:12
|
I always suspected the Cloud idea was an elaborate trick.
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:13
|
Maybe bands will react by making music more worthwhile to buy for those people who don't wish to. That's not to say I know how to do it. And concert sales are still there. Concert tickets are far from free unless you know people, and I don't believe that is much different now than it was in the 70's. ------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:14
BTW I have to confess having tried some years ago (with eMule) but got quite fed up when a couple of times after downloading, say, "Camel-Stationary Traveller.zip" (or .rar) which at the speed of those days took quite a while, and after decompressing the file it was some porn video  Scared for viruses too, I don't know if it may kill prog but I don't want it to kill my PC.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:15
Yeah, let the people who sold you the stuff look after it for you. That sounded like a really smart idea to me. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SMSM
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:25
| Not if you have great labels like Esoteric making great remastering and great liner notes that make it worthwhile not to steal and buy music in a cd or vinyl format |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:27
|
Assuming that people are downloading prog in the first place. There are a lot of prog artists who, from a listener's standpoint, feel like they will never get out of the bandcamp sludge. There are definitely many talented musicians, but a lot of amateur-sounding artists. These days, I hear scarcely any prog that considers itself prog that could ever break out and actually, y'know, reach people. People chalk it up to "it's not accessible" or "it's not poppy," but, really, most of it just fails to connect with people on a human level.
That said, I think, in the prog community, there will always be loyal, record purchasing fans. Most prog fans like physical copies if they can afford them. But Dean might be right about the Cloud thing. This may be raining on everyone's parade here, but I suppose you could say ownership is but a vapor. It will disappear lightening fast and prog will simply have to weather through it. But maybe (who knows?) it will make a thunderous return. ------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:28
That's the key of course - make something that people want to hold in their hands, make your product desirable. Of course then it's not just about the music but just the packaging, however, you still need to have good music to wrap it all around. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:31
Trust me, I know stuff - I predicted the death of the computer mouse long before Apple invented the iPad. Admittedly I said that back in 1985 when touch screens were a mere figment of the imagination, but I was right. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:36
| Probably, but it's always been around in some form or another (in the '70s, albums were passed around between friends to be recorded onto cassettes). |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:37
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:38
|
I will always opt for a physical CD I can pluck from my shelf, I just enjoy them, logical or not. Then again, I love my mouse too, and I loathe touch screen technology. Every time I answer a damn phone call my cheek hits the hyper sensitive screen and i push a bunch of buttons with my face..... It's official. I'm old. ------------- |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:46
| But, folks, the problem is now that piracy is the standard, not the exception. ;-) |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:51
One important reason why there are less cd's/lp's/other physical music containers are being sold is itunes/spotify/similar online services. The big superstars (Madonna, Lady Gaga, etc) see less revenue because most of their albums suck so people download the singles or other few songs that sound ok, the rest gets ignored. Music will never die because people wil always make music as we have done for at least 35000 years. And folks can still earn a living doing music even without selling physical cd's (ad-revenue on spotify, (just keep all your copyrights instead of signing some or all away to some record company). Be creative and think of a new, working business model for the modern age and use file sharing as a promotional tool. ------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:53
|
Spotify, spit spit spit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25217353 So, I get $0.007 per complete play. It is an absolute total rip off. Described as "democratic anarchy". 10,000 complete plays on Spotify is 70 cents. I really should put some figures up for the non musicians here to show how bad things are...... believe it or not, it is almost impossible to make enough money from music to pay for a new instrument, let alone set up the money to do a live gig or tour. As for "be creative"..... it doesn't work. Even if you give hundreds of free downloads away. People just say thank you very much and wait for the next free download from somewhere else, or they use whatever download platform they're on as a free radio station. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:58
Not around here it isn't. You have wandered into probably the only music forum on the internet that values the musician as much as the music. Huzzah for that I say.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 10:59
|
Well, thank God for that, Dean.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:00
I'm not sure that's completely right. Either way I was talking about the folks actually downloading the stuff filesharers illegally upload. Anyway, I think a lot of these filesharers upload versions of albums, which are meant for promotional purposes - and promos don't cost sh*t. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:01
|
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/16193319442/myth-dispensing-whole-spotify-barely-pays-artists-story-is-bunk.shtml" rel="nofollow - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/16193319442/myth-dispensing-whole-spotify-barely-pays-artists-story-is-bunk.shtml
------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:08
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/spotify_and_pandora_artist_payments_not_as_exploitative_as_they_re_made.html
In June, David Lowery, singer-guitarist of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, posted http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale" rel="nofollow - part of a royalty statement to his blog The Trichordist . Cracker's song "Low," he revealed, had been played 1,159,000 times on Pandora in three months; Lowery, in his capacity as the song’s co-composer, was paid $16.89. For 116,280 plays on Spotify, Lowery got $12.05. Meanwhile, "Low" racked up only 18,797 plays on AM and FM radio stations during the same quarter. But for far fewer spins, Lowery received far more money: $1,373.78, to be exact.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:08
This is my belief as well, thank ford. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:09
|
And when I've been played on radio, I've received, generally, $0 in royalty payments. I actually had someone telling me that "PSA is worth sh*t in Belgium". Sorry to mention it, Unclemeat, you're quoting off the internet - I'm quoting from experience of actually being there.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:13
|
Spotify isn't exactly piracy either. We were talking about piracy weren't we? ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:22
|
If Spotify doesn't pay the labels then the labels will withdraw their products from the Spotify catalogue. It is prudent business sense for Spotify to pay the labels. If the label doesn't pay the artist then the artist will.... damn, we're back in the 1970s again. So much for artist liberation. Spotify is radio on demand, there is nothing magic about it, it is not a public service, it is not about the artist or making money for the artist, it is a business made to make money for its owners. The same is true of Bandcamp and Soundcloud, they are not a public service, nor are they about the artist, they are a record label with none of the responsibility and none of the overheads, they are a business made to make money for their owners. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:28
|
Not as long as I keep buying hard copies and artists put out good album packages. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:34
Thank you Dean. It's getting increasingly irritating seeing people continuously heralding these sites as the modern day equivalent of Robin Hood. It doesn't take a master degree in economics to spot the obvious - ie It's all business. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:41
|
Although these sites are pretty cool for "hobby" musicians. For those who have day jobs and don't care about making a living off music, these sites allow much wider audiences than ever could have heard from basement Claptons in the old glory days. So, if you don't need money from your art, then I think well done Bandcamp type artist pages can generate much artistic satisfaction for the bandmembers as people across the world can hear their music and even review them on websites. ------------- |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 11:43
|
Musicians don't need record labels anymore. Any artist needs to sell enormous amounts of cd's to end up with a profit as their income initially goes back to the record label to pay off their advance. btw: I once missed a vacation because I didn't have enough money to go as I spent it all on Miles Davis box-sets, I discovered Miles though file sharing. I discovered the Flower Kings also that way, now I have a not-yet-complete-but-I'm-getting-there cd-collection. And as every independent study into file sharing shows: people who do a lot of file sharing spend more money on the material they share than people who don't share (those people are not interested). ------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: Meltdowner
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 12:27
I used to discover artists by downloading albums before buying them: I
didn't want to spend money on albums I would never listen again.  Now I use streaming services for the same purpose. It's the society that needs to change; I lost count of how many times I heard: "You're stupid. Why do you buy music when you can get it for free?". Even a policeman said that to me once, they should give the example in the first place. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 12:41
There's piracy out there (and it's been around for a while), right? There's still prog out there, right? I'm not seeing anything killing off prog so far. Then again, how do you define "killing off"?
|
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 12:47
|
Keeping track of the money I make off music versus what I spend... In the last year I have spent 10,500$ so far, about to spend another 4,000$ in December, then next year there's probably going to be just as much money spent. I have made about 150 dollars in sales this year and I lose money every show that I play (that's not factored into my expenses). Yet I still keep making music. No matter how little people care. I will always keep making music. Till I die and rot. As long as people like me are around there will still be prog rock. ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 13:01
If this is the case, it is sad indeed, and one reason to kill it. However, I doubt it. The same story existed 40 years ago, and Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, and Beatles and Grateful Dead and Bob Dylan did just fine, thank you!
In many ways, this "piracy" thing, is a media scare to intimidate you, and it is engineered by big name lawyer and music groups that don't need the money. And they waste it on these kinds of situations, when in effect, the so called "piracy" and ability to get around "radio" and the printed media is one of the MAJOR REASONS why "progressive music" has come this far.
I would hate to see it stop and end up going back to the controlling days of music companies. Remember, ABOVE ALL, that the world's worst business desicions ever made were ... you got it ... better check it out ... they were the rock bands that busted it all into what it is today ... and "piracy" had a lot to do with it.
I like to say, that we need to protect our music better, by discussing and listening to it.
The buying part is a bit different, as I have never, and still don't, rely on downloads, and some listening here and there. Just about anything I review ... is in my collection on CD or LP. I don't think I have EVER reviewed a download, and I find that reviewers that live off that and review so much stuff, to the point that their view on music is not even a view that I, or you, would EVER consider progressive or worth reading. In most cases, it's like ... mass production! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 13:03
And run by the same conglomerate as any other out there. Even the concept is not progressive! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 15:12
Sometimes I despair at how narrow thinking can get around here. If a 10,000 people stole from Lead Zeppeling it wasn't going to hurt them when they were on their way to selling 37 million copies of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zoso.svg" rel="nofollow">  ... As you say, they did just fine. Peter Grant would probably have ripped your thieving arm off and beaten you to death with the soggy end, but you know, it was just business... he was hard man, vicious but fair.But if 100 people steal from (say) Pseudo/Sentai that's a different matter, they are not on their way to selling 37 million copies of their CD, so that's $500 missing from Greg's bottom-line. And that's not fine at all.
In so many ways that is total bollocks. This is not Robin Hood who only steals from the rich situation. Piracy knows no boundaries, once the mentality of "All Labels Are Bad" sets in then those that download will steal from everyone and anyone. There is no moral dilemma being played out here, there is no redressing of a perceived social-economic imbalance
Utter rubbish (well, that part of it that I could understand was... the rest... incoherent). Record companies are not monsters, they are a business. The purpose of a business is to make money, selling music is how they do that. A record label is not a public service, it is a factory for making a product. You may not like the idea of "Art" as a commodity but that is how it has always been, you make something and sell it, simple commerce - that's how it works, it worked for Mickey Angelo, it worked for Johnny Seb Bach and it worked for Billy S Burroughs - even worked for Vinney van Gogh who would barter paintings for a bowl of bouillabaisse at the Café du Tambourin. If you can sell your art you can eat. The way music companies works seems unfair and in some ways it was, but not in every way. The label funded the recording and production, it paid for the manufacture and distribution and recouped that outlay on sales. If the record didn't sell they lost money... the company lost money not the artist, who invariably kept the advance (ie a loan in advance of sales) the company paid them. That lost money came from the profits they made on all the successful albums they also made. Mike Oldfield (bless his cotton socks) paid for all the albums made by Clearlight, Slapp Happy, Jabula and all those other Virgin artists who didn't sell thousands of albums. That was tough on Mr Oldfield (bless his cotton socks) but it was great for Cyrille Verdeaux, Dagmar, Madumetja Ranku and many other musicians who got to record their albums because Virgin gave them a chance, all thanks to Mikey "O" (bless his cotton socks). Bad business decisions... you betcha, but what great music as a result of that. Today it doesn't work like that because we broke the music business, now the music business couldn't give a flying fart about esoteric music and niche markets like Prog because we broke it. Now the artist has to pay for everything, up front and out of their own pocket, the modern equivalent of the record label (Bandcamp, Soundcloud) pays for nothing. What do we get for that? Artist integrity? Think again. Every musician needs to eat Prog on, Sign in, Log out
------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 15:24
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 17:02
|
The Cloud will get hacked eventually and then the sky will fall, too much weight for those fluffy things to hold. As some have stated, not an issue for me as I buy physical versions. Prog will go on... -------------   
|
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 22:26
Oh I'm not in despair I'm very aware of the current state of things. :-D Gotta keep on always ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 22:26
|
Prog bands already know they won't make any money, thus it will be one of the least effected genres by this. Also, Kylie Minogue is actually pretty decent for modern pop music.
|
Posted By: Raccoon
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 22:44
Exactly. Prog bands don't expect a massive check delivered to them. They create music because they feel the need to let loose their ideas, not in the hope to become rich. At least prog bands. Typical bands that don't bring anything new to the table... Well, they see what works, and pray they get some publicity. As for the iCloud: I never understood it myself. Why would you store everything in an online storage device with fees every MONTH?? If it was a one-time fee, unlimited storage, I'd use it. Till then, it's money-grubbing thievery. ------------- Check out my FREE album: A one-man project The Distant Dynasty |
Posted By: Gallifrey
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 23:21
|
I believe the exact opposite is happening. With more piracy, artists don't have the expectation of money, therefore don't design their music to make money. They can be more honest to themselves as artists if they don't aim to please everyone. ------------- http://thedarkthird.bandcamp.com/ |
Posted By: DreamInSong
Date Posted: September 23 2014 at 23:46
|
Almost no prog artists make their living from their music. Piracy can't kill passion. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 02:01
|
I used to believe, or perhaps convince myself, that prog will move through piracy without losing too much because the listeners prize owning the proper artwork, as it's such a trademark of the genre. Who wouldn't want to be able to look at that wonderful art in their own hands? Mostly that was coming from older listeners who have spent much their lives buying physical products, but sadly, many people (especially younger ones) just don't care, they feel they have the right to simply take it for nothing. Sadly, just looking at a fairly `well-known' piracy site right now (not going to name any names and send people off there), and I can see some latest releases from even fairly obscure prog related artists have, in some cases, been downloaded HUNDREDS of time. Hundreds of sales that band will never see.  To me, buying an actual CD or LP is simply part of the deal...I want to see a physical product for my money, look at a nice collection on my shelves, thumb through the CD booklets, glance over the LP sleeves, etc. I grew up in a time when there was no downloading, so if you wanted it, you had to lay down your cash. I cannot believe people simply want to amass a massive collection of data on a f**king computer. Crap, I'm rambling...can't string coherent thoughts on the subject together!
|
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 03:02
| What about: The internet SAVED progressive rock. Sharing music that was forgotten about has greatly improved interest in the genre. |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 03:09
|
Actually, that's quite an interesting point... :-) Then I type in "Tangerine Dream" on YouTube and there's thousands of videos which can all be ripped off. Wonder how many people just use their PC's as radio stations rather than buying a CD ?
|
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 03:41
|
Complicated times. I noted a couple of interesting point sin the music creation observation "many bands / artists making music the way they want as well as someone "not connecting on a human level with what is created." Roughly cited. Firstly most artists do that (if it's popular it' selling out if not it's integrity). The record companies did used to invest and in some cases still do but primarily the, for want of a more attractive phrase, lowest common denominator oriented artist. Piracy of the hugely backed pop stars hurt the record companies. A very small indie artist getting pirated - well that might actually be encouraging and a record company may view piracy of someone withiout the backing as worthy of note. Recently people resented being given an "apparently" free (no cash off the consumer) download of one of the most popular bands on the planet - U2. While I think it is the imposition of an unauthorised file set on someone's hard media that really caused the resentment, instead of saying thank you I'll smoke it later (d/l to Pc) to free phone space) they got angry. The choice had been taken out of their hands. I think an authority will tell people to do something and they will do it - look at armies conscripting civilians and getting them to kill. Music commerce has moved from rich patrons of composers, to include concert attendees, and finally the shopping fan. Now who pays for it? The player, producer in the hope that someone will hear and like. I think many of the artist now, thanks to the technology) are probably the listeners of not so long ago. Most people are not as music / commerce conscious as PA fans (I know I've studied this.) It's all down to the creation of scarcity in capitalism. Fewer people with fewer jobs getting paid less wages against a slowly spiraling inflation means the usual "pirate" young, male, wanting the usual weekly priorities (Music, petrol, means of getting high and laid, looking the part ,all cost$. Saving on something means cash freed up for something else. Nothing new there. (Piracy btw I refer to the illicit download of commercial official product, bootlegs are another matter). It's females who do the best buying. In my city's retail music shop I once over heard a couple of Justin Bieber fans (c. 12 - 13 years vintage) breathlessly relating how they bought everything issued. Sort of trainee music consumers perhaps. But that was quite positive really. Gigging is not an option for so many (what if an artist is disabled?). Not everyone can or wants to hop in cars and vans and hit the road hoping to sell a few CDs and t shirts. Very dodgy, very unreliable and so many comfortably assume this will work. Go there, Try it. It might. But so much can go wrong so easily at any time. Artists toured with support, in support. Now it's almost cold hard charity. The problem for income generation are the streaming sites. I've seen the fabulous .007th of a cent plays on what I laughably call a statement. Perfomance rights organisations (mine's APRA) don't push for rates so long as something gets paid - it's streaming it's not like radio and money filters back to record companies whether major old or new like CD Baby. It's not going to work for too long. But it will dawn on people in 10 - 20 years that the music of the 20th century was culturally significant because there was financial support. Remove that support and it collapses into a cloud of dust. Other things like on line gaming are more popular than music because gamers are doing something rather than being passive listeners. So there are many hurdles to over come, the psychological barriers in the individual and collective consciousness to buy or not to buy, the cost / price ratio of product, the perceived quality of audio versus convenience. Well a record company has released a CD of mine (wow!) in the US only yesterday. Apparently I'll find out how well that goes in a week. The only real consistency in this thread is the perception of the Cloud. Don't think so. I'll keep confidential documents on inaccessible external hard drives. Too many viruses, too much hacking and the possibility therof to make anything other than non-line storage the only way to keep digital matter. Oh, by the way, I may have mentioned this before but... again. On the doco of the 1970 Isle Of Wight fest the very same subject (free music) reared it's head. "Music should be free" claimed concert goers unable to find the necessary pound to get in the field. (Tix weren't that cheap, one has to balance the cost of these against the miniscule wages doled out by the mighty). "The artist survives, how?" Asked the interviewer. "Record sales" was the response. I'm sure Fripp liner note readers know how reliable that is. Plus ca change, n'est pas? as Geddy and his French friends might have said in the Trees. We have an abundance of music, varying quality and perceptions of the audio, most people who use it as background (not PA subscribers obviously), scarcity of cash, an abundance of producers. Even the concert players have to compete for the ticket prices and merchandising dollar / pound / euro / groat. Couple of solutions. Streaming services to pay good rates, both company and artist and listener still benefit. Obviously the performing rights organizations will need to be more active in ensuring a minimum wage here, business has little or no ethics and they need policing. Major music companies to issue good product not dump over licensed compilations and dilute their own profit. I would like to see more 24 bit audio out there to demonstrate the value of quality sound - it works for the Beethoven Piano Concerto (3) just finished here and can work for rock and pop as well. It may be that the central factor in all this - bandwidth may see ISPs paying rates to video / audio publishers as their consumers "probably" pirate. Costs passed on to you know who. Cheers. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 05:25
A weekend ticket on the IOW 1970 was cost Ł 3; so the cost of a Levi's 501 pants at that time. Was it expensive for the three-day festival with the bands and the artists such as Moody Blues, The Doors, Chicago, Family, Jimi Hendrix, Jethro Tull, Joni Mitchell, Miles Davis, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, The Who and so on? I do not think so. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 05:43
|
55 bands played Isle of Wight in 1970, 500,000 attended - ticket sales = Ł1.5 million (equivalent to Ł22 million today) over 100 bands played 2014, 58,000 attended - ticket sales = Ł11 million (equivalent to Ł750K in 1970) ...that's twice the bands for half the money. No matter how you divide it, bands earnt less for playing in 2014 than they did in 1970. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 05:45
|
Don't forget as well that if musicians don't make any money from music, they sure as eggs is eggs will get it back from you with ludicrous ticket prices. ;-) Or rather, the promoters will. End of the story is that it's a pretty poor outcome for the future if artists get $0 for their music. A lady in the office makes cakes. She gets more money, per cake, than I do, per album. One day, I'll just give up or churn out crap. I'd rather not do that. But I can see it happening where I just say to hell with it and play for my own amusement. ------------- |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 05:59
| Well, it would seem the kids are no longer alright... |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 06:36
I managed a band for five years, due to the difficulties in getting regular gigs for the band I also became a reluctant promoter, so I have seen this business we call show from both sides. I did this for free, never took expenses and after paying for the hire of the venue and the sound engineer I paid out every penny taken at the door to all the bands that played. I made it a personal policy that every band got paid and every band got paid equally, whether they headlined or not. If the band's wanted to sell merchandise I would give them space to do that, and even sell it for them while they played, unlike some promoters I also did this for free. When you are promoting a gig of several unknown bands there is a limit to how much you can charge on the door, too much and people won't come, too little and you can't pay the venue or the sound man. No matter what you charge, there will always be someone who thinks it is too much, and there are those who expect to be on "the guest list" (my answer was always the same: "sorry but unless you're in the band there is no guest list, it's Ł3 to get in or you can listen from the car-park - your choice"). Fortunately I never had a band say I'd paid them too little, most were surprised I'd paid them at all.... and that is a sad reflection of what other promoters are like - we had played too many sell-out gigs and not been paid for me to behave like other promoters. Happily not all promoters are like that, I met several who, like me, did it for the love of it. When the band played a big venue (pay to play) sure they sold a lot of CDs, badges and T-Shirts, but if you factor in van-hire and other transport cost, accommodation and food expenses for the five members of the band it was still a net loss. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 09:19
If the few people that actually listen to prog purchase their favorite artists material, like CDs, that can be a help. Most artist's work are now licensed to record companies/distributors, so they get a bigger share of the profits then in days of old. It will not make the artist rich, but again, it does help. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 09:37
|
Interesting debate. Technology is a double edged sword. Yes, some people will download music for free since it's so easy to do so, but some of those people will go on to purchase the better quality physical item if they fall for the music. On the other hand the internet which allows access to the possibilities of free music also gives unprecedented exposure for any given artist. I can honestly say i have never downloaded any free music that is available as a physical piece of art. I have downloaded music that is only available is free but being a music addict means i need the artwork, the liner notes and more often than not the remastered version if it exists. As it stands i spend a good $200 a week on music lately. I look at free downloads as a form of advertisement just like radio exposure used to be. Artists have to guilt trip the public into coughing up the dough these days :) |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 10:32
|
Does anybody remember the ad inside some old vinyls: Home taping is killing music It looks like it didn't happen. The world changes and every market has to adapt if it wants to survive. It's Darwin... Actually the majors were very stupid. When CDs appeared their price was double the vinyl even though the support was cheaper. With digital supports they self-destroyed their market. Tapes were not the same of discs, CDs were possibly identical to the original. Personally, I listen to mp3s because I can bring with me gigabytes of music within a microSD card, but I will buy the new Pink Floyd in double LP format because I'm a collector and I regret the fact that Division Bell was originally issued on CD only. In a multmedia world, the trick may consist in offering a bit more than "just music". Multimedia packages including booklets, photos, anything possibly of interest which a download can't reproduce.As Silly Puppy says, downloads are becoming just like the radio.Owning a proper album in whatever format is another thing. ------------- Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half. My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 11:25
 a couple of minor points.The campaign was from the early 80s and was a reaction to improvements in technology that were occurring at that time, the first being the significant improvement that Chrome, SuperAvylin and Metal cassette tape was over the Ferric Oxide tape that pre-recorded cassettes were made from and the second was the emergent CD technology that offered superior quality source to anyone pirating an album, the third was the invention of the Walkman that gave the cassette a boost in popularity in the 1980s [cassettes were an old technology that had failed to compete with vinyl since their introduction by Philips in the mid-60s], a usable car cassette player was also a contributing factor. Vinyl was never under threat from home taping and it was already in decline, remember that in 1980 pre-recorded cassettes were out-selling vinyls. Now the home-taper could produce a cassette that was superior than what the record companies were producing themselves, home taping threatened the sales of pre-recorded cassette and CD, not vinyl. As a result of this levies were imposed on the sales price of blank tape - it would be another ten years before CD outsold pre-recorded tape, and by then sales of vinyl had dropped to four-fifths of sod all. You are assuming that the campaign failed and music still didn't die, but how can you tell? If the music industry didn't die (and we know it didn't) then surely the campaign can be seen as a success. We all assume that the record industry was crying wolf, but what if it wasn't, how can you tell? ------------- What? |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 12:57
What seems clear is that we will not see again Pog bands touring in a dedicated jet plane   |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 13:22
|
^If that's not the sign of a crumbling civilization, I don't know what is! ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: calm_sea
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 13:29
Fantastic point. I think niche genres actually fare better, because fans of genres like prog/psych, metal, punk, indie rock, etc actually care about the music they listen to and actually like to give back to the community and the artists. With vinyl being a hot commodity again, people actually buy LP's. If they don't buy hard copies of music anymore, they buy t-shirts and other such merchandise. People who only follow current generation popular music don't give a crap about supporting the music they enjoy, they simply want to jump on the newest hit singles and club tracks, consume, and move on. Besides, hasn't Kylie Minogue been making music since the late 80's? She's not exactly new.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 13:35
|
^It is a great point but unfortunately times have changed and "there ain't no goin' back", brother. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 24 2014 at 17:12
Some thought so. Some people decide if someone's going to get paid, how much and by whom. Apparently 3 quid was roughly 10% of the average wage. I assume pre tax. (IMHo for a festival this was quite a good price but the constraints on people are perennial. May be they wanted a physical product.... Anyway if taking without paying is now a legitimate? business model, where does it end? It's cutural, the pirate bay get away with facilitating file exchanging - really just letting people home tape globally. The point is that someone says "you don't get paid. I want to enjoy your thing but have no wish to fork out." Someone (else) might do that's the extent to which I am going to concern myself. Responsibility for you getting paid is not my concern. Play the music. it should be free. The people have spoken. A lot gets stolen, more than many understand. It's not just the money, but the simple enjoyment and fun of it all. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 01:10
I already said that I think that YouTube only contributed to the popularization of the progressive rock in the younger population. Are these current progressive rock bands lost something because the songs can be downloaded from YouTube? I think not, 'cause If a band does not have vids at YouTube, it's almost as if that band does not exist - It's like in ancient times that a band has not been played on the radio at all; in ancient times, you was listening to a certain fm radio programme who played, among the others, the progressive rock songs; if you like it, you will burn it to a cassette; if you do much like it, you'll buy a single or LP. Of course, it wasn't the only way to hear the progressive rock back then, but it was the most common way; this is similar to "piracy" from YouTube, with the difference that YouTube is an interactive media as a part of Internet as well. Anyone of that prog audience who wants the quality of sound, beautiful album jacket with a nice artwork, liner notes,etc, will buy CDs and LPs or, at least, will pay for legal downloads. Those who don't worry about these things, they will listen to inferior sound of an illegal download, similar to those on the Isle of Wight Festival who were pitch their tents outside the field rather than to pay Ł3 for a weekend ticket and to become a part of the history. Of course, with the exception of that guy who was interviewed by accident, lol. So, how to sell to that kind of guys something that they do not need, a progressive rock album for example? Well, that's an eternal question of all marketing magicians, isn't? In my humble opinion, only way is that some band(s) to record an album what would be like a "new DSotM" or a "new Tubular Bells" and, also, that the music industry have to be able to recognize (new) prog as an upward trend in sales and a profit made of white middle class and, consenquently, to invest a serious money in advertising new progressive rock bands, i.e. to pay a campaign created by the guys who know how to sell the things to the people who actually don't need it. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 08:26
| Nothing is killing off prog. Our music stores in these parts are thriving and there are more and more prog selections every time i visit. If anything piracy has allowed prog to reach every household |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 08:42
|
A relevant note from Bob Ezrin - http://fyimusicnews.ca/post/98271408357/the-day-the-music-died |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 08:45
|
BTW a question: I do not use "the Cloud", I'm getting old and I'm rather behind in everything concerning all this modern stuff, I just got my first smartphone a few weeks ago and so far I only use it for calling and messaging and at most emailing (which in any case I prefer doing from my computer). Can the Cloud be used as a new file exchange platform in the way traditional file downloading sites have been until now? I mean, if anyone uploads files to the Cloud and then just releases access links to other people, would that work? Would that be considered piracy?
|
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 09:28
|
< ="text/">
Sharing is not stealing, with downloading you actually make your own personally copy (copying is multiplying rather than taking a physical object away).
Art is about self expression,.not about just selling products. Michael Angelo worked for hire and got paid once for each thing that he made, not again and again. John Sebastian Bach had several day jobs (kapellmeister, organist, music teacher, if you couldn't improvise he wouldn't have you as his student), making his many compositions (of which presumably only a quarter survived, the manuscripts were divided among his surviving children of which only one was careful with them). Vincent van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime and the buyer bought it out of pity. He lived for a big part off his brother's money. The business-side of music exists for about a century or so. Before that composer were employed by the king, archbishop, pope etc and they were paid one (and only once) per composition if their employer liked it. A bunch of composers in the past (and most likely in the present) still have a job to pay their bills and in their spare time they write their music. Gustav Holst was a music teacher and Charles Ives had his own insurance company. Erik Satie was a bar pianist. Neurosis have a day job.
If the band can pay it back, the label recoups their investment, if not, the band is let go. In the meantime the big bulk of any profits has already entered the deep pockets of the record label. Especially the big labels (of which there are now about 3 or 4, used to be 6 a few mergers ago) do all they can to screw their artists any way they can. So the band gets to pay for the recording of their album but the copyright of that album is for the record label (Kudos to Robert Fripp for standing up against that). Indie labels like InsideOut will be much fairer and several of the bands on that label have their own studios in which they record parts (if not everything) of their albums.
In 1977 Warner Brothers had a problem with one of his songs (Punky's Whips on Zappa In New York) which resulted in a bunch of lawsuits which FZ won and thus he won back all the rights on his albums included all the tapes (which in turn resulted in whole bunch of really crappy releases of his stuff in the 80's and 90's).
Sure, musicians may make money off their music but the natural right to share (not to mention universal humsn rights like privacy) should not be thrown out of the window because of archaic, outdated business models. An insane sense of entitlement (“I'm the great so-and-so and I used to be famous 40 years ago so I still deserve a yearly income of some ridiculous amount of money”) should not be rewarded by bad legislation. ------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 09:44
Mega upload got sued out of existence with a total absence of due process. Long story that's still not finished. The musicians that used it were happy with the money they got from it, much, much better than itunes and legacy record labels. ------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 10:24
Only in your head it has. Your argument is a fallacy designed to appease your own conscience, it fools no one. This line of thinking isn't even smart enough to be classed as specious. If something is sold for a price and you take it without paying then that is theft whether there is a physical object or not. There is no physical money in my bank account but if you hack it and transfer everything to your account you have stolen my money. If I write a book and send it to you to proof read but you then take a copy and publish it under your own name before sending back you have stolen from me. If I make an album, burn it onto a 50˘ CDR and sell it for $10 do you then demand that CD for 50˘ as the music therein has cost me nothing to reproduce? If all you wanted was the physical object then you could go to a hardware store and buy a CDR for 50˘, but that is not what you want is it.. you want the music not the physical CDR and if you want it you will pay $10. So now if you steal that CD have you stolen $10 or 50˘? Obviously its the $10 because the blank CDR is only worth 50˘ and we've already established that if it was only the physical object you wanted you could buy that for 50˘ at a hardware store. But what if you take that CDR, copy it and hand it back, what have you in your possession that you didn't have before? My music of course which, as we have already determined, is worth $9.50 to you because you would have happily paid $10 for a 50˘ CDR, so my music must be the $9.50 "value added" to that 50˘. So lets now remove the 50˘ CDR from the equation. You want my music, it's going to cost you $9.50. If you take it without my permission you now have something in your possession that you didn't have before. It is theft. there is no pretty way to justify it, there is no excuse you can make, there is no justification you can use. You have something in your possession that you did not pay for. I cannot be arsed to reply to the rest of your comments, you opinion is based upon a flawed premiss so does not interest me. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 10:50
I despair. You want to completely erode the musician's right to own and make a profit off his labour so that your perceived rights as a consumer are not infringed. The only difference between music and other consumer products is that people feel it is OK to steal music because you likely won't get caught. And as for the insane sense of entitlement: ...It's only a crime if you get caught... I presume that if your property is taken without your permission and distributed amongst the starving and needy you won't be going to the Police or trying to retrieve it. Why not post your address (that's like posting a download link) leave a few copies of your keys under pots in the garden and let the looters descend whilst you are out? |
Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 11:00
That's only if they manage to kill off Net Neutrality - which the US is in the process of doing. It must be stopped.
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 11:07
| Will Piracy Kill Off Sailing? |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 11:30
| the death of yacht rock |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 11:55
| Hey! I resemble that remark! I lived on a yacht for two years and not only discovered this website while living fhere but some the coolest prog i have ever heard. Of course we just got tbe pirates drunk and fhey raped and pillaged the neighbors who blasted the Kenny G |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 12:16
There IS a very real difference between physical (that is finite, scarce) goods and non-physical (that is infinite, non-scarce) goods. For mp3's or ebooks to cost the same as cd's and paper books is extortion. The premise that collections of 1s and 0s are exactly the same is any and all ways as physical objects is also a flawed premise, I believe that is your premise. ------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 12:35
It's insane to see how much certain people bend words and meaning in order to justify their downloading habits  ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 13:10
|
I always support the artist by paying for my downloads. Especially since my tolerance for crowds has impeded my concert patronage. That being said, anybody that has ever (whether 1973 or 2014) created progressive rock with the intent of making a living off of it is chasing unicorns. Even more so than the rest of the music world. E.g., You can be jazz artist and make a pretty good living as a hired gun in the right market, but how many nightclubs/restaurants have even one prog night? ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 13:15
|
I only want to say that it's far from only being music. A few decades ago if I wanted to decorate my flat with framed reproductions of art works I would have to go to some shop where they sold art reproductions. Now I find them on the net, download them and take them to a printing shop and get them for a couple of euros. If I wanted a photographic work I would order the services of a photographer, now I can edit my pics for free. If I wanted to travel I would go to a travel agency who would charge for their tips and services. Now I learn everything online and book my tickets and hotel bookings without needing to pay anybody. If I wanted to learn about import / export regulations to some country I had to go to a customs expert, now I find all the information free on the net. If I wanted to travel by car I needed to buy a road map, now I have GPS and ViaMichelin for free. If I wanted to read the news I had to buy the newspaper, now I read them for free. A lot of information has become free, like it or not. The people who initially produced that information are not paid by me directly, but most of them get paid indirectly by some other means. If you consider music as "information", then you may apply similar considerations. Perhaps the future of music is in finding more creative ways to get income for the musicians while the actual experience by the listener is in principle free, same as with many other digital / online information services.
|
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 13:28
|
Piracy will kill album sales (CDs and vinyl etc) but I doubt it can kill off a specific genre of music altogether. Nowadays bands depend on touring mostly to make a living and get correct exposure for talents sake, not so much on cd sales. Established bands even don't do this anymore. Sadly the physical copies of music are dying off at an incredible rate. And yes, that is a REAL bloody shame. More often than not people download sh*tty, compressed digital music files not even realizing they are hearing the music totally incorrectly compared to how the artist originally intended the music to be recorded and heard. People want cheap and convenience When it comes to music media accessibility. Lame!!! ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: TVHS
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 13:40
|
Let me just chime in here with a little anecdote. I recently released my first single. It cost 450 euros or so for me to pay a professional drummer and the mixing/mastering engineer. I paid a friend (with guitar lessons to the value of about 150) to make me a lyric video for youtube. The money I paid doesn't account for the years and years or practice and all the equipment I paid for to record it. I believe my song is worth at least a meagre 1 euro from someone who wishes to download it. I don't think that's an unreasonable fee for anyone to pay for something that may bring them an experience that is worth far more. Thus far, I have 6 sales which amounts to less than 6 euros. I will never *ever* likely see even a 5th of what I spent on this in return because people have absolutely *zero* value in music anymore. Music that can change your mood, make you think, lift you to greater heights (I'm talking here about the greatest artists in the world, not necessarily myself ;)) I think that's sad. If someone thinks that I have a sense of self entitlement because I feel I deserve to be paid for my work, well, quite frankly, I think they are deluded.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 13:52
That is actually completely irrelevant and naive. You are confusing the cost of something with its value. Of course there is a difference between physical and non-physical. When you buy a CD or a paper book you are buying a physical and a non-physical product, the total price is the value of both added together. A CD without the non-physical content is a blank CD, a paper book without the non-physical content is a blank book. Unfortunately (for your argument) in both cases the physical is worth less than the physical plus the non-physical, and in the case of the CD at least, the physical is worth less than the non-physical. You accept this premiss when you buy a paper book and a CD, and you accept it when you buy a pizza, a bottle of beer, a car, a house, an oil painting, a pair of jeans, a vase, a mobile phone, a piece of jewellery, a computer and every other physical object that is worth more than it cost so why do you think this is different for a non-physical product? What is it you think you are buying ... the physical CD or its content? Why buy Diamanda Galas CDs when Rhianna CDs can be bought in your local supermarket at discount prices? Surely they are the same, just 1s and 0s stored on a piece of plastic.
It probably is if you devalue the worth of what you are buying. But you are not buying the media, you are buying the content. When you buy a paper book what are you buying and why are you buying it? Are you just buying the physical object regardless of the content? No, you buy it to read the damn thing. If you had no intention of reading it then why not buy a blank book, or better still, a tree. Why pay the extra expense of having that wood pulped and turned into paper? You buy the book because you want the content, you buy it to read it - the object you want is not the physical book but the non-physical content. You are willing to pay 10€ for some processed wood pulp because you want to read the book that's printed on it. The same is true for the CD - you don't buy a CD to sit and look at it, you buy it to play the music that is recorded onto it. You are not buying the raw material you are buying the content. So what if the paper book is the same price as the ebook, so what if the CD is the same price as the download. What difference does it actually make to you when you perform the one singular task that you actually purchased them for - to read the words and to listen to the music. What you are pay for is the value of the content, not the medium it was delivered in.. If you want to read a book for free go to the library, if you want to listen to a music for free turn on the radio. At least the author and the artist gets paid when you do that.
Erm, sorry but that's gibberish, and incorrect. That is not my premiss. If you don't like being called a thief then don't steal. But for pity's sake don't try to redefine stealing. ------------- What? |
Posted By: TVHS
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 13:54
|
Dean, you absolutely nailed it in one take. |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 13:55
|
I think I wrote something about a sense of entitlement. I was thinking of the Band, Kiss, Bono etc. They all expressed that sense of entitlement (the Band by way of their manager who claimed that file sharing alone was responsible for the decrease in annual income which used to be for a time $200.000, the Band hadn't toured for 10 years and hadn't released an album for 12 at that time). ------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: TVHS
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 14:32
| Well, I'll put it this way and this is how I feel. If people don't start investing in people's work then be prepared to put up with shoddy, cheap productions awash with vst instruments because that's all anyone will be able to afford to release. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 25 2014 at 15:11
Your opinion on entitlement is irrelevant and not worth the paper it's not printed on. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 26 2014 at 03:37
I disagree. The most effective way of imposing a philosophy is to get people to buy into it rather than forcing it upon them. Net Neutrality is a broad issue that covers all aspects of Internet usage and control regarding both the data and its delivery. It is my contention that Net Neutrality will be freely given up by the universal adoption of the Cloud and its Push-technology, Net Neutrality is the cart, not the horse. The WWW is currently Pull-technology, you search, find and pull data from it; with Push-technology you request and the data is pushed to you. One is passive, the other is pro-active. That is a fundamental change in how we receive data and has deep consequences for neutrality. Net Neutrality is lost when the choices offered are preselected, if Google, Bing or Yahoo filter the search results then we no longer have neutrality and everyone would agree that this is a bad thing. We would not buy into the idea and avoid it. Some already avoid Bing simply because it is owned, and thus controlled, by a multinational that few of us would trust unconditionally, (and that has implications for Yahoo users too). Yet people are rushing head-long into the Cloud with their eyes closed and their wallets open. Consider these examples
In both case the second option seems to be the most favourable to me, even though I am being presented with fewer choices, they are being recommended to me as being worth buying and that should ensure that I don't end up buying a lemon. In both examples I am in control of what I buy so you would assume that neutrality is preserved. However, the first option in both examples is "Pull" and the choice I make is neutral, the second options are "Push" and they are not neutral, they have been preselected so the choice I make is not neutral. By using the second, more favourable, option I have sacrificed neutrality and done so willingly. Ten million people willingly sacrificed net neutrality last weekend, if they don't use the Cloud to get their data they have bought a very expensive (and bendy) paper-weight.
------------- What? |