Led Zeppelin did release singles...</font>[/QUOTE]No singles were released in their homeland of the United Kingdom.

In North America they released a whopping TEN singles out of nine albums. Wow. Looks like the single was important to Zepplin right?

Which was my very point.

Mate, compare your philosphy to the guy that admitted to having 80,000 mp3s. You may not go and rob a bank, but does that mean we should make robbing banks legal just because you're honest?

I don't think /)K is a thief. No one wants to sell the music to him anyway, why should they care if he downloads it instead? How can you be supporting your favorite bands by not listening to their music?

Oh and...
False. Singles are being made and sold to make some extra money. What you get to hear in the commercials for an album and in free clips on various band's sites have been taken from songs to promote the album, sorta like scenes of a film made into a trailer.

Yorick, you and I just have a different perspective is all. You (rightly) have passion for your art and see it much more deeply. I'm just a lowly consumer, but as a group, we support your art. You have to take into account our needs and wishes whether or not you like them. Just as we have to accept the music that's available to us. I don't meant to insinuate that full albums won't be made or sold. I just mean that the market for singles is going to increase dramatically with the internet and flash memory. File transfer of data is going to be the way of the future. There's no physical resources to cause overhead per sale. Do you know how much software isn't even distributed on CD anymore? A word on music quality. MP3 compression is controlled by the bitrate as is the quality. You can make the music quality match the available storage space. Flash memory is alive, kicking, and becoming cheaper by the day. It's compact, it doesn't skip, it doesn't get scratched, and it's totally reusable. You can archive your old music for later and tote around your new music. A chip the size of a postage stamp will hold a dozen songs or more. The CD as a medium of storage is on it's way out period. Perhaps even mini-DVD's will find a niche, but I think flash memory has them beat out for primary portable music mediums. So go ahead and make albums, just don't disregard the market for singles. Can you imagine a music store where you put your flash meory chip in a docking unit and purchase your favorite selection of different songs? The ability to do the same thing from home? I know the piracy issue is the main fear with this sort of thing, but the technology is already here and pretending it isn't doesn't help a thing.

I don't see how inmaterial loss can be compared to material loss. If 80 000 people download a single that they wouldn't have spent money on regardless of whether it had been available for free or not, then the record company and artist has lost jack shit and that is an undisputable fact. As undisputable, is the fact that if you rob a bank of 2 million dollars, then they have made an actual loss of 2 million dollars. It is therefore a bloody poor comparison.

There's a very common misconception that people that used to regularely buy CD's and games, have stopped buying these things in favour of downloading them for free. This simply is not the case since, at least in my homeland, it is estimated that approximately 50% of all software is pirated, yet PC game and software sales are going UP. Not only that, but it was a long time since the PC game market was as big in comparison to the console game market, as it is now. Sure, games in general have become much more popular, but the interest has still not grown anywhere near as fast as the proportion of pirated games have, so the latter simply doesn't have as great impact on software sales as some people want us to believe.

Interestingly enough, the price of PC games has remained quite steady over the years, while CD prices have sky-rocketed, and had been doing so for quite some time before mp3-sharing on the Internet became common. Now which market was doing the best out of these two? [img]smile.gif[/img]

What has the availability of all sorts of music on the Internet done for the global music community? Well for one thing, it's easier than ever before to grow an interest in music. Me, I hadn't spent a dime on music in my life and didn't own a single record I could call my own, that was before the mp3 format was created. I very much doubt that I would ever have grown an interest in music if it wasn't for Internet piracy. Now that I have, and actually been to a few concerts and bought 10-15 albums from artists and bands I've discovered on the net, how can one possibly say that me owning some 900 mp3's is BAD for the music industry, especially when at least 70% of those tracks are songs that would be near impossible for me to have gotten a hold of legally due to the extreme limitations of todays music market? Isn't it ironic that during the few years I've actively downloaded music from the Internet, I've invested far more money in music than I did in my entire life before that?

Free, fast and easy music sharing on the Internet has had a huge positive impact on the music communities of the world. Never has it been easier to share the joy of music with others, never has it been easier to spread the word about a good artist and get other people interested. I'm part of several music-orientated communities on the net. If one member discovers a great new artist and wants to share the discovery, the rest of us no longer have to take his word for it and several months later (if we didn't forget about it by then) spend a hefty sum of money based on nothing but what the guy told us to find out if we've found an artist worth spending our money on, or scour the independant rock radio stations 24/7 in hope that they just might (no matter how unlikely) play that particular artist. No, he can simply give us a link to a few of his personal recommendations and we can instantly hear for ourselves. That is how music interest is born! Artists have absolutely nothing to lose by gaining interest and popularity, regardless of whether it immediately pays off in dollars.

Like it or not, but piracy is not black and white. For every person who went from actually buying albums to neglecting them totally in favour of swiping them off the net, there's a person whose sole reason for growing enough interest in the music of a popular artist to spend his money on him, is the fact that he was able to grow that interest without risking or investing anything, and how could that possibly be achieved if not with Internet piracy?

It all evens out in the end, which is proved by the fact that neither the arrival of mp3 and peer-to-peer programs, nor the constantly growing popularity of these things, have had no distinguishable effect on record sales.

[ 04-12-2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

About the single vs album thing. It's true that quite a few artists and bands create albums meant as one entity, and indeed that many music fans listen to albums as such. But individual songs are also meant to be separate pieces of art. A better allegory than trailer-movie is episode-series. While some albums are simply built as a series of movies - an album full of good songs that stand on their own as artistic achievements, some are also built as series chopped up in episodes. The individual episodes are supposed to be at least watchable on their own, but the bigger picture can only be seen if you put all episodes together.

Most people don't care about the bigger picture though. Rarely do I hear people talk about more than great songs. It's becoming more and more common to grade albums on a song-by-song basis, and when people discuss the latest album, they usually do it song-by-song as well, instead of discussing the general album flow or feel. Now this is still music fantasts I'm talking about. Regular people care even less about the bigger picture and only buy albums in hope that they will find songs they like as much as the single they heard on the radio.

Artists ultimately don't care more about the bigger picture than the individual songs either, or how many live concerts have you experienced where whole albums were played in their entity? Individual songs gets picked out there and mixed, because in the end, what the fans care about are the songs, and not the albums.

The public interest on the whole is leaning a lot more towards the individual songs than the albums. People do download whole albums, but only because they can, and hope to find more of the same stuff they liked when they heard a song, not because they're looking for an album experience.

[ 04-12-2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

On what authority do you speak for Mr. Everyman? What studies are you presenting to justify your opinion? If you have none, then speak for yourself. YOU assess albums on a song-by-song basis. 'People' do many different things. I DO know many people who look at the album as a whole. More importantly, artists and producers do. Countless albums, from the Wall and Sgt Peppers (two of the most influential albums to date) to more recent albums such as Chicane and Radioheads offerings, are complete works.

You also persist in the trend from posters here, in ignoring every other genre outside pop music. Music is more than pop.

No I don't. Only if I want to enter the marketplace and sell product do I have to take consumer needs into account. Otherwise I can compose, write and record to please myself.

I don't think /)K is a thief. No one wants to sell the music to him anyway, why should they care if he downloads it instead? How can you be supporting your favorite bands by not listening to their music?

Oh and...

Quote:

The album, is the artists primary expressive vehical at the moment, alongside the instantaneous expression of live performance. A 'single' has historically been lifted to promote an album. Like a few scenes of a film made into a trailer.

False. Singles are being made and sold to make some extra money. What you get to hear in the commercials for an album and in free clips on various band's sites have been taken from songs to promote the album, sorta like scenes of a film made into a trailer.</font>[/QUOTE]Mate, here we go... Go get a job in the recording industry and then come back and tell me that artists make money of singles. The songwriter does (through airplay/airtime etc), but the artist does NOT make money off a single unless they are the songwriter. Albums have always been where the money is. Singles have always been promotional tools.

I've been signed to two major labels in the past. BMG and Polygram (now Vivendi/Universal). I'm not talking out of my arse.

As far as Deathkiller goes, he's a thief. He's taken work from artists who cannot get a release in America, and contributes to ensuring there is NO DEMAND for a such a release, by stealing their songs. That effects the artists ability to make records, tour and do anything else that costs money. 80,000 mp3s? It's sickening.

As a rule of thumb, it's a good idea to judge your actions by the question "what would happen if everyone did what I'm doing?"

This is the fact: RECORDING MUSIC COSTS MONEY.

Pure and simple.

Take the money away and music will go downhill. Professional musicians/producers will become a thing of the past, and the quality associated with such professionalism will go out the window. If that's the way society wants to go, so be it. DOn't call yourself a music fan if that's the reality you want though.

You are kidding yourself if you think you're a fan of a band and stealing their work.

[ 04-13-2003, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

This is complete and utter faleshood. Total bollocks. Go check your information Rataxes.

I'll say [img]smile.gif[/img] Chicane is my favourite group these days.

I do think the teens deserve some form of punishment, but in all honesty, I wouldn't wish anybody on earth a fine of that amount.

I personally don't download mp3s. I know several people, including my own brother in law, who are trying as hard as they possibly can to earn a record deal. I feel that if someone were to record their songs and plaster them all over the internet, they'd really be kicking these hard-working artists into the ground by dashing their hopes of making it big. Nobody deserves to have their work stolen - it's like running out of the Louvre with the Mona Lisa under your arm - you just don't do it.

I actually feel good when I go out and buy some vinyl or CDs - I know that whoever put the effort into creating these records is actually getting what they deserve. I don't begrudge them a measly few dollars. I love music. It's worth every cent.

I'll say [img]smile.gif[/img] Chicane is my favourite group these days.
</font>[/QUOTE]Mine too. Pure genius. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Have you heard of their track 'Lost You Somewhere' Hugh? If not, I hope you find the time to look out for it. I have it on 12'' and played it just yesterday - it's magic [img]smile.gif[/img]

Experience is just about all of my friends, and an additional 200 people (approx) on 10 different music fan forums. Like I said earlier, some of them do care about the full album experience, but what's being discussed the most is individual songs.

If all that mattered for most music fans and artists, was the whole album, then why are whole albums never played in their entity live? Why are we seeing more and more professional reviews rating albums song by song if regular people only care about the full album experience? Why do top lists for individual songs even exist?

What genre is Pop? Pop is whatever's popular at the moment. Beatles was pop in the sixties, jazz was pop in the thirties. If your definition of Pop is Pink and Linkin Park, then I'm definitely not just talking about that. Granted I do not listen much to jazz, classical, trance or death metal, but very little of what I listen to often makes it to the top lists. In fact, the most interesting music fan communities revolve around bands that aren't mainstream, as they generally attract a more mature and closed community.

Why isn't that a bloody great argument if I ever saw one! [img]smile.gif[/img] Care to dig up some proof of your own, showing that CD sales took a dramatic hit the year that Internet piracy became common? Or that it every year since that steadily has decreased in a far quicker rate than it did before the mp3 format was invented?

[ 04-13-2003, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

Not suprisingly , IFPI claim that piracy is the biggest threat the the music industry ever and that it is solely responsible for the entire drop in music sales. RIAA site isnt responding to me, but I suspect they make much the same claims.

http://www.ifpi.org/

These people quote Jupiter Media Metrix as saying there is no noticible impact:

http://www.rediff.com/search/2002/sep/09mp3.htm

and :

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17600.html

Are quoting JMM research indicating a sales boost due to P2P.

Back from the days of napster:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,36961,00.html

Note the continuing claim - a substantial proportion of P2P users download music to help them decide what to buy, and a lot of people to get music that isnt available.

Here we go again about inmaterial vs material loss. Piracy doesn't compare very well at all with it, but even stealing a poster copy made of paper would be a more fair comparison.

I also know a few people who are recording their own songs, one personally, and the rest on the music communities. My cousin once had a rap group together with some friends´. What little interest their music got (they weren't terribly good) was garnered on the Internet. They actually did make an LP and sold a few hundred copies, almost entirely due to the interest that had grown for their music on the Internet I dare say. How else would they have reached out? There are other ways I know, but whatever method garners the most interest in the artist and his music, is unargubly the best one, right? Nowhere does interest grow and spread as easily, fast and free as on the Net.

Wouldn't you agree that public interest is just about the most valuable thing an artist can get? I don't know about you, but if I had created some music of my own, I'd much rather prefer to have a generated an interest in my music on the net, even if no one of them cares enough to buy my record, than to have absolutely zero interest. Nowhere is it easier to reach out to people with your music than on the Internet, authorized or not.

I feel good when I buy a CD as well, knowing that I to 100% support the artist whose work I'm willing to invest money in. If I had money to spare, I wouldn't have any problems spending 20$ as soon as I heard a cool new song, but the fact is that I don't have the money to spare. With money to spare I mean the sort of quantaties you'd have to have in order to not care much if you spend twentyfive bucks on a crap record based on one good single. I would've been very reluctant to spend the 300-400$ I've to this date invested in artists, if I didn't fully support the artists behind the music. The fact is that that support would never have been established without Internet piracy, and the music industry and artists would never have seen a dime of those hundreds of dollars.

[ 04-13-2003, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

I already defined pop as music similar to the style of top 40 music. "Popular"

[ 04-13-2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

There is an important word you seem to be ignoring. CHOICE. If an artist CHOOSES to give their music away online, it's not theft. If you take it, or pass it on, it's theft.

I have given my music out online freely. Ask around here. Plenty have my songs and some have full albus that I certainly don't want money for.

But do I support file sharing and mp3 trading? Definitely not. The difference is I have CHOSEN, your friends have CHOSEN, to follow a course of action.

In Deathkillers case, I hardly expect him to personally know the 80,000 artists he's stolen material from.

Now, take my own example. Just say everyone I gave my songs out to, shares my music with their friends, who share it with their friends.

"Oh, we can't buy the CD, so it's cool"
Why can't you buy a CD?
1.I have no money to mass produce a CD.
2.The record industry is rock bottom and hardly signing anyone in this environment.

So if everyone who ever heard my music shared my songs, the album I've created the songs to work into becomes meaningless, and I don't make any revenue at all, to compensate for the time and financial investment it takes to create the songs.

It's cyclic. No demand, no product, no product, no demand.

Now, if I'm fine with that, that's my choice. However, I know many musicians who would, and are devasted by these things.

How well is Anastasia doing? She lost untold amounts of single and album sales due to massive amounts of mp3 downloads of her hit. Her career is down the toilet. She is a phenomenal singer, and I challenge anyone to suggest that her career is bad because her product - singing and songs - are crap. She's an incredible singer and the songs are/were very strong.

No money made, no further investment from the company.

The only reason I can keep making my own music is because I'm able to make a record by myself. If I was a singer/songwriter who couldn't produce, engineer or play a number of instruments, I'd be screwed. Unable to realise my artistic vision, and unable to create music I love.

[ 04-13-2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Actually radio and television are the easiest ways to reach out to large numbers of people.

Secondly, public interest is the best thing an artist can get?? Er no.. the ability to create a work is the best thing an artist can get. mp3 sharing will rob recording artists and producers, the ability to realise their artistic vision.

More and more brilliant and gifted composer/producers are moving into advertising, where they create works of utter beauty, crammed into 30 seconds, and rejected en-masse by advertising companies.

I'm serious. I have heard music that is incredible that will never see hte light of day, because it's a thirty second rejected ad. Yet the gifted protege HAS to do this if they want to make serious money off their craft.

Think of all the albums and songs that MIGHT be made by such genius'. You will never hear them. Music fans share mp3s? Hardly.

Why isn't that a bloody great argument if I ever saw one! [img]smile.gif[/img] Care to dig up some proof of your own, showing that CD sales took a dramatic hit the year that Internet piracy became common? Or that it every year since that steadily has decreased in a far quicker rate than it did before the mp3 format was invented?</font>[/QUOTE]Declining record sales coincide with the popularity of file sharing. The information is everywhere.

Stealing a song is material loss. You take it from the owner without paying and that is material loss. It is like stealing food from a cafe.

Have you heard of their track 'Lost You Somewhere' Hugh? If not, I hope you find the time to look out for it. I have it on 12'' and played it just yesterday - it's magic [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]I haven't heard it! I'll keep an eye out for it.

<font color=ff6600> 6 posts in a row Yorick? *sheesh* :rolleyes: </font>

musician guy with a different opinion

please take the time to read it yorick (and anyone else who is interested), from what i can see it is a very well researched site, i'd be interested to hear your opinion on it....

Then I was not talking about Pop.
It might be theft (and I've never claimed it's not), but the simple fact is that even the illegal spreading of ones work on the Internet generates interest, interest which in the end can only be good for the artist.
One from the community and his friends band called The Amber Room did choose to share, but the work of my cousin's group was not deliberately shared on the Internet, at least not with their authorization.
Ehr, quite right. I don't know 99.9% of all the artists on my mp3 list neither.
It's plain wrong though. Did you read the articles that andrewas linked to? 34% bought more records since they started to share mp3's. Not even half as many, 15% bought less. People obviously don't think albums are meaningless since they still buy them even when they got the entire album on their computer. Albums represent something more than just the songs, buying it is a way of showing support for a band that you want to support, and it's also a collectors item. Did you know that Oasis most recent album was available on the net several months before it's release? I doubt there was a single hardcore Oasis fan who hadn't heard every single song on that album months before it's release. Just as little do I doubt that every single one of those fans went out and bought the album the instant it was released.

You know many musicians who've outright claimed that Internet piracy ruined their career and have any proof of that?

I don't know what the case is where you live, but here, Anastacia's latest got nothing but crap reviews. Quite a few international reviews I've read bashed "Freak of Nature" pretty badly as well. I personally think Anastacia has one of the most irritating voices I've ever heard (it's unique, I'll give her that) and I find her music piss-poor, nearly unlistenable. I don't even know anyone who likes her.

Unfortunately, I've heard nothing about her album not being successful or her career going down the drain. Her album was at Nr. 1 for quite some time and it brought worldwide sales to approx. 15 million copies sold.

How about Eminem then? His entire album was also available on the net several months before it's release Still, "The Eminem Show" was one, if not the most successful album of the year. He clearly did not suffer much from internet piracy. How about Oasis? Their case is similar to Eminem's as I've already said, and "Heathen Chemistry" went on to spend two weeks on the Nr 1 spot in England, outsell their predecessor, and have two Nr 1 singles (one of them for several weeks!) and two Nr 2 singles. They clearly did not suffer from internet piracy either.

Yeah, and...? No one can make music on their own if they don't master a number of instruments and don't know how to engineer or produce it. You can't blame that on the Internet though, that was a problem long before the word internet piracy was invented. I don't see how internet piracy can possibly hurt anyone who can't create the music in the first place. The "artistic vision" needs to be realised before it can actually be spread on the net.

Right, record a song, make a video and try to make MTV2 show it on a regular basis, piece of cake right? I doubt you'll have much luck at a radio station either, unless you make your own radio station and air it on the net.

Yeah sure, if you actually DO get them to show it, the odds are astronomical though, then you'll have a greater chance of becoming successful. The easiest and most surefire way of reaching out with your music though, is the Internet.

Once again I'm dumbstruck. How can Internet piracy possibly rob you of your ability to create music? The bloody music has to be created before it can be pirated, no?

You lost me, where does Internet piracy come into the picture here?

They do, trust me.

It doesn't coincide though. Record sales were dropping before Internet piracy became commonplace. The year 2002, CD sales have been dropping at a constant rate in Germany for the past five years, that's since 1997. You know when Napster was released for public use in it's current P2P format? Early 1999. CD sales had been dropping at a constant rate in Germany for two years before Internet piracy broke out from the very small underground communities of hardcore computer nerds. Even if that isn't the case in all countries, NO statistics show that Internet piracy had a major impact on record sales the year it became commonplace. NO statistics showed any dramatic or out-of-place drops that year.

Record prices sky-rocketing the past few years is the main reason why CD sales have dropped. Go around and ask people in the street if they buy as many records now as they used to, ask why if they say no. I bet the vast majority will say that they simply cost too much now a days. I'm not very old and even I remember a time when CD's didn't cost much more than half of what they cost today. Of course people are more reluctant to buy records today when they have to shell out almost twice as much money for it!

A material loss means that the material is actually lost once it's taken. If someone makes a copy of your song and takes it, you still have the original song don't you? It's just not possible to compare material things such as money or coffee mugs, to songs. If you record an album and 80 000 people swipe it off the net, you're no worse off than if those 80 000 people had never even cared about your record. If I steal 80 000 bucks from you though, you're going to be 80 000 bucks short, you're going to be a lot worse off than if I hadn't bothered with the money in the first place.

[ 04-14-2003, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

I beg you to differ. I'd say I'm a fan of Deftones. I've bought all their albums and their DVD, seen'em live once (the only concert they've done in my country, with no age-limit). I've also downloaded music videos for some of the songs and some live stuff. Therefore, you don't think of me as a fan? Would I've been any more of a fan if I've never seen some of their videos?

Yorick, over the past year alone, I've bought over 150 (!) CD's; 90% of it music by artists who've hardly had any exposure or none at all on radio and tv, and which I've only bought or even knew its existence of because I was able to hear samples and familiarize myself with the sound of said music on the Internet beforehand... There are no radiostations or music channels in my country I actually enjoy anymore, as while my taste became more "adventurous", the airplay lists on these stations and channels unfortunately didn't, quite the opposite actually. I've literally limited myself to listening to music from CD's and the occasional mp3 of bands I'd like to check out. While many of my mp3s are legal, in a way that I've downloaded them from certain sites where the artists themselves have given permission for their music to be placed, there is still a lot of music which I have obtained through the regular p2p-channels, not knowing the position of the artists on file-sharing, mostly with the purpose of satisfying my curiosity and to decide whether to buy the official CD or not... Sometimes the "illegal Internet circuit" is the only way for me to even hear certain artists' music, and I personally treat it more as a substitute for radio and tv, since I've lost patience and interest with those years ago.

While I agree that in the end it's the artists' call whether they want their music to be shared or not (the most vocal anti-mp3 artists are mostly major label acts like Metallica, Dr. Dre and Eminem, whose music I couldn't care less about, btw ;) ), I don't think the sales of most artists are really that much worse off than in the pre-Napsterperiod; except perhaps for the (major label) artists who used to have the monopoly (yes, the monopoly) on reaching people through the media, as more people are now looking beyond the music spoonfed to them on MTV and the likes, and are more eager to develop a taste not based on expensive videoclips or massive airplay nowadays. The variety of music offered nowadays is bigger than ever, also partly thanks to the Internet; and consumers have become a lot more exclusive with their tastes, more difficult for the major record labels to fathom and play in...

And what these major record companies did as their answer to the file-swapping and decline in sales was buy even more airplay (or at least that was the case here in the Netherlands, as all even remotely "adventurous" (indie)music was bullied off the airwaves, in favour of more boring uniformity), litterally stuffing their artists (like Anastacia, for instance) in the faces of their target audience. But if a song is played once an hour on all major radiostations for months and months in a row, they shouldn't be surprised when it loses its appeal, and people refrain from buying the CD... With this overexposure, they're literally treating even some of their best and sincerest artists as mere disposables, making songs lose their exclusiveness and getting the exact opposite effect of what they wanted. Because when music loses too much of its exclusiveness, I think the target audience will be more eager to download rather than buying that music; I can see why especially the major record companies are not all too happy about p2p-filesharing programs. ;)
And I actually think the aversion towards "popular" music is bigger than it ever was; not necessarily because it's that much worse than in previous decades, but because of that very same overexposure and the existence of easier acquirable alternatives which sound more exclusive and fresher.

And maybe it's mostly based on personal observations (I occasionally lurk at the Matador messageboard and other independent record labels' sites), but I believe most of the indie labels who didn't have any of the media exposure in the pre-mp3 period don't really seem to mind file-swapping that much; as for them it only means that while their artists mostly had to rely on mouth-to-mouth-recommendations, people nowadays actually have a chance to listen to their artists' music as well, making it a worthy substitute for the lack of radio/tv airplay which the major record companies always seemed to control. Publicity-wise, file-swapping has helped these artists getting heard by more people than could ever have been the case in a world without mp3s; and as the nature of their music is a lot more exclusive than those being crammed down people's throats on radio and tv (even if only because of the difference in exposure), people who like artists of both categories equally much are also more eager to buy a CD of the lesser known artist than pay up to $24 dollars-ish (that's the current new-price for most major record label CD's in my country nowadays in the "major" record stores, about 21-23 Euro :rolleyes: ) for a CD of the latter. Heck, let's forget about the difference in exclusivity and quality for a minute and look at the difference in prices; I've ordered a lot of my CD's from US based indielabels, and even taking the 6-8 dollars for shipping into account, even then I'm most of the time cheaper off than buying major artists' music here in a Dutch store; you may think CD prices are high in your country, but in The Netherlands, in many stores they're insane.

But anyways... Taking into account I'm an active user of p2p-programs and also taking into account how I deal with those obtained mp3s (namely use them as samples to decide whether to buy the CD or not, a tactic which ended up in me buying more than 150 CD's in less than a year's time), am I a thief as well by your definition?
Because personally, I'd rather blame p2p-software for making me buy more CD's than for the opposite. ;)

[ 04-14-2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

No I don't. Only if I want to enter the marketplace and sell product do I have to take consumer needs into account. Otherwise I can compose, write and record to please myself.</font>[/QUOTE]Then why are you concerned with profits or lack thereof, regardless of cause? I thought the consumer market impact of mp3 and digital file transfer was the basis for this thread. No? :confused:

I want to clarify that I'm not into file sharing anymore. I played with it a little when Napster first came out. I buy CD's mostly used, online, and from Columbia House now. I have a collection of over 100. I think that it's true the younger crowd is buying less music because of file sharing and CD burners. I'm not sure that it's any more than it used to be due to tape recorders with enhanced features for dubbing. Young folks have limited cash anyway. Also, let's not forget that the economy is down right now and has been sliding for some years. The first expenses to go in any budget is entertainment. I think that a lot of the lower income group isn't buying music at all right now. I know my income earning loss has contributed to me buying very little music lately, and the stuff I do buy I don't pay full price. A frugal attitude toward controllable expenses is the norm right now I think. That surely has to hurt the music industry badly (among others). Console and computer games are also competing more with music these days too. Free time is always a limited asset. The more you do of one recreational thing, the less you'll do of the others. To blame this downturn soley on file sharing is too simplistic.

[ 04-14-2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

I beg you to differ. I'd say I'm a fan of Deftones. I've bought all their albums and their DVD, seen'em live once (the only concert they've done in my country, with no age-limit). I've also downloaded music videos for some of the songs and some live stuff. Therefore, you don't think of me as a fan? Would I've been any more of a fan if I've never seen some of their videos?</font>[/QUOTE]Would you call the guy that killed John Lennon a fan? Plenty do because he called himself a Lennon fan. Yet he killed the guy! So much a fanatic of Lennons he stopped the world from hearing any more music from him.

And that is exactly what would happen if every Deftones "fan" stole the songs they liked and didn't purchase the album. The Deftones would no longer be able to share their music with the world.

Grojl, I appreciate your post. Thanks for the time on it. However, the fact remains that if you want to reach a large market, a large audience, TV, movies and radio remain the number 1 way to sell your product. 1 spot on a late night TV show sells far more copies than internet sharing. Individual sites just don't get the numbers a TV show does. Secondly, once someone has the song, they've less incentive to buy it.

Regarding the whole album vs single songs bit, on reflection, the attitude presented here amazes me to say the least.

I presented the analogy of someone splicing up the scenes they like from a film, yet this was challenged? It comes down to the artists INTENT. Artists and producers DO make full albums designed as full albums. Certain songs are left OFF albums because they do not fit in to the album. Balance of songs.....

forget it. I could go on but who gives a toss. I make albums. I produce others albums. Every single artist I've done an album for, without fail cares about the full work. The songs fit into the whole. They are pieces of a puzzle sometimes. In 10 years I've been involved in 32 albums in varying capacities. It's what I do. If you guys want to ignore that and persist in a "albums don't matter they're just collections of songs" it's your loss. You're the one(s) not appreciating the full work as intended.

I's like viewing a series of paintings in a different order to the artists intent, reading a trilogy in the wrong order or ignoring books altogether. Like selectivly watching parts of a film, or whatever. Ignoring the creators intent.

If you want to do that c'est la vie.

Bye.

[ 04-17-2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

ANother thing that pi$$es me off is certain stereo systems that have reverb and eq adjustments. Or 'graphic equalisers' that screw with the sound.

If I want reverb in a song, I put it in. Yet one of these machines can totally screw up the intent and in many cases ruin a tune. The "ambience" option turns up the left and right sides, and turns down the middle. Did you know that? Now, if you have a record where it's only the reverbs on the sides great. It sounds more "ambient" But if you have instruments hard panned, you end up loosing the centre panned vocal, snare, kick etc. WTF???

About ten years ago I was making a record with a guy doing testing for Roland. They were talking to him about the concept of having your CD player register midi signal, so you could change the keyboard sounds on a song for example.

Unbelievable. What is the frigging point? People bleed over sound selections.

However there is hope for the world. ;) Some people like to find out what speakers an album was mixed or mastered on, so they can buy them to hear it exactly as intended (for speakers are all different)

You guys can all philosophize all you want, you can justify all you want.The thing is this a product is out for sale you find a way to reproduce it and give it freely to whoever,you have robbed the creater.It's the same as playing a cracked game, It's the same as if Yorick made the best jelly and you mass produced it to "just your friends" you didn't think of it yourself you didn't create anything you were just so clever to copy it.I think cd's cost too much and albums as well but I don't steal them,If you don't like don't buy It'll drive the cost down.For those that say we love band X but do this, I would love to see you meet band X and say face to face we love you but we copy your stuff instead of buying, they would kick you in the nuts and take your backstage pass.

Well, personally, I think someone downloading some songs off the net is the same as someone recording songs from the radio. For years people have been recording and distributing music from the radio, and I saw no one really mind it yet.

Personaly, I don't mind if someone distribute a song he got off the radio, (or the net) to some of his friends, let's say 3-4. I only see it as a problem if it's more than that.

Well said Sageridder. [img]smile.gif[/img] :D

Hey, continuing my rant about systems changing the intended sound, I just remembered on Itunes there is the "sound enhancer" option with a scale of more/less.

What it does is compress the sound and turn up the treble. Uh huh. Wow. That's what mastering essentially does. In mastering the ong/album is compressed to maximum, and trebled to optimum sonic 'enhancement'. We pay masterers oh, $800 for a no name guy, and thousands for a better known guy. All this is fruitless of course, because Mac dish out Itunes with the sound enhancer defaulting to "ON". So people here an already compressed and trebled song even more so. Then there's radio. Which compresses the heck out of everything. But we all know that and allow for that.

So first shifts in tempos went out the window, then dynamic shifts. Soon variences in the frequency band. Made a song with a crunchy middle and warm bottom end? Forget it. All the products make it all sound like it's been put through a tinny top endy strainer.

Actually it was always illegal to tape songs off the radio.

Some artists I knew 12 years ago were going to try and sue their record companies, because their companies, though contractually obliged to protect their artists copyright, were manufacturing blank cassettes. Now what are you going to put on a blank cassette?

Anyhow it was never really an issue because of the quality degradation. The radio compression alters the song. The tape itself was inferior to records and then CDs. With mp3s it's a different story.

Nah Kenyth. That's not true at all. Music can be played against the backdrop of many other activities. Indoor sports, parties, driving to and from work, while playing a game. Music competes with music, not with other 'recreational activities'. Professionals with no free time are more likely to buy music than a game.

Meaning, I could unearth The Argument to end all arguments, I could show statistics that showed worldwide CD sales increasing ever since Napster was created, I could have bloody record company executives happily admitting that Internet piracy was the best thing that ever happened to them

And you'd still be adamant in your Black & White view that Internet Piracy = BAAAAD!
_
_
_

Having a discussion under those circumstances could compete for the very definition of a Waste of time. I'd say it's time to call it a day when it's clear that the opposition has no intention of ever refuting my arguments, but just insists on banging their view of the world into my head with a sledgehammer.

[ 04-17-2003, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

So mp3s is as good as CDs? I have never experienced that. The mp3s (never shared) I make from my CDs (all bought) do not have the same quality as the CD. Maybe it is just my imagination. ;)

What I find funny about the music industry is that it is not learning from its mistakes. Take mp3s as a very good example. Almost everyone use them. Now ponder all the statements in here. "I like 2 songs on a CD, therefore I would never buy it". I agree, what a complete waste of money. But downloading them and sharing them is illegal. Then why can´t the music industry adapt? Make a website that allows you to preview, prelisten ;) , the songs on a CD. Then you pick what songs you would like to buy and download them. But no, that would probably lead to a decrease in income since people would no longer buy all those crappy songs that fills out the CD. :rolleyes: The point is, the music industry needs to do something before it loses all its customers. And suing people is not going to help I´m afraid. Perhaps it is time for a new generation to take charge of the industry. One that has heard of computers perhaps. ;)

Edit: Yorick, where can I find your CD? Has it been released? The songs I´ve heard on the IW radio are amazing. We´ve got lots of talent on this forum. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 04-17-2003, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

Errr, yes, but what IF it can be proven Internet Piracy boosted record sales. You are right people wouldn't be able to say they lost income through it, but does it make piracy legal all of a sudden? I don't think so.
If it were proven that theft was a boost of the economy (unlikely, but let's assume it), do you think that would mean it was OK to rob people?

I think what artists are complaining about is that they CREATE something, and people steal it from them. I don't think there is a real difference between creating a sandwich or a bookshelf and creating art - well, of course the difference is obvious, but LEGALLY, there shouldn't be any.
The fact that it's easier to copy a song than to copy a painting doesn't mean that stealing music should be legal and stealing a painting theft.
I like to do calligraphy, and sometimes make little cards that I give to my friends. But if I ever decided to try and earn money from designing greeting cards, I would consider it theft if someone took a designed card, printed off a thousand copies and sold them - AND THE LAW WOULD AGREE WITH ME. Now what's the difference?

Don't get me wrong, 1. I think CDs are monstrously expensive and should be MUCH cheaper and 2. I disagree with you Hugh that artists usually create the album as an inseperable whole, and also with the assertion that there aren't a lot of albums consisting of a few good songs and lots of useless fillers - so I do think it should be made possible for people to pay for downloading individual songs AND albums.

I also think dragging classical music into this is not very relevant: I happen to like classical music and if I buy a CD, it will invariably be a classical one. However, out of roughly 200 classical CDs I have, there is only one that I paid more for than for a regular CD. Almost all CDs were less than half the price of a popular CD. Of course there ARE expensive recordings in classical music, but you KNOW you get value for your money with one of those (they're often double CDs with entire operas or performances of very good quality). The point is, you can get very good quality classical music for very low prices. But if these CDs had been the price of regular CDs, I would have a big problem.
So I completely understand why people who DO want to buy popular music are complaining now. I do not think downloading music instead of buying the CDs is morally right, but I do see the problem with buying CDs.

One last thing Hugh... I know how close this topic is to your heart: you are trying to make a livelyhood of what people say they don't want to pay for. I already made the comparison to my calligraphy (something I am still considering to pursue as a way of making a little money on the side) - so I DO know how you must feel. But can I just say I haven't even seen you as vehement on that other close-to-your-heart topic, religion? ;) I know how much this means to you my friend but please don't get so upset at people about it, OK? [img]smile.gif[/img]