| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2003 : 10:31:47
|
I already mentioned before but I saw Chuck D speaking last week and
he started talking about how we should download music.
(Okay I'll admit I don't know too much on this topic,
so forgive my ignorance)
But this is basically the gist of what he said,
A true musician does not or should not make music sheerly for profit.
When you sit there strumming on your guitar are you thinking of money?
He thinks the record labels/companies/corporations are the ones making the most profits.
So who is going to lose out the most if we all downloaded everything?
And do we really think there will be no more music if these sorts of corporations went under?
He thinks that if these companies went under then we might have record stores that are really one giant indie section.
Then instead of having people famous for their well planned image, we might actually have musicians again, intent on music.
He doesn't agree with the distribution of wealth in the world and would rather see artists with a bit less money instead of handing over so much money, power and influence to big business.
Whatcha think? |
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 10:34:38
|
I just thought it might be more interesting than
which kind of Tuna I prefer.
(sorry Hordak,
we already have a floop)
;) |
 |
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 10:39:34
|
Sounds good to me. Anyone who makes music just for money isn't a musician. In fact...most bands on MTV and stuff...aren't even musicians...haha. I was skipping through the channels this morning and all of the sudden I see "Britney is letting out her writing skills. She co-wrote songs on her new album." Hahaha, that cracked me up. It's even more pathetic to think that "bands" like Good Charlotte write their own songs...ick.
Is it just me...or..is it really sad that there is no talent in the mainstream?
|
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 10:46:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
I just thought it might be more interesting than
which kind of Tuna I prefer.
(sorry Hordak,
we already have a floop)
;)
now what's that supposed to mean?
you know, i've been in this debate too many times with people but i'll just say i think Chuck D is a nimrod..
yes, music corporations are ripping everyone off, but stealing from artists isn't the answer either.
that whole "a true musician doesn't make money just for profit" thing is bullshit. that's got nothing to do with having people steal from you. and yes, most musicians who do it for a living i think are concerned about making a profit, as they should be. why shouldn't you be? |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 10:51:35
|
don't worry Tony that wasn't a cut,
I quite enjoy your posts ;)
I think he meant that having artists take a little less moola now
would be well worth getting rid of the corporations.
And of course people gotta make a buck, but how much money is enough money?
|
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 10:54:37
|
Its like those clips before a movie about the downloading is theft....
They show the stuntman or the wardrobe guy,
but what fraction of profit are they making.
Why don't they get the CEO of MGM up there. |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 10:55:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
don't worry Tony that wasn't a cut,
I quite enjoy your posts ;)
I think he meant that having artists take a little less moola now
would be well worth getting rid of the corporations.
And of course people gotta make a buck, but how much money is enough money?
it's easy for him to say.. but he can't speak for the artists.
how much money is enough if a relative thing.. but regardless if you're a struggling indie or Celine Dion, people stealing from you is people stealing from you..
should it be up to someone else to decide, "i think you have enough money"?
what if i decided that i think you have enough stereo equipment in your house and came in and took some while you were at work? i mean, how much stereo equipment do you really need?
(what is your home address by the way?) |
Edited by - floop on 12/01/2003 10:57:12 |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:01:14
|
Do you not consider that these corporations are stealing?
I'm talking about relative proportions here. |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:02:15
|
You're right. It is a relative issue. Do you atleast find it unfair that Britney Spears can sing 1 song and make more money off of that one song alone than a truly talented indie band will ever make? Fucking MTV...
Who knows...maybe Frank would be more popular if he wore an inch of makeup, put on a bra, and wore a miniskirt. |
Edited by - TheCroutonFuton on 12/01/2003 11:05:28 |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:12:22
|
| Fucking Viacom. Fucking Clear Channel model, as well, if you wanna get down to the real nitty gritty of what's happened to the whole music industry. Yeah, the radio stations across the country were faltering, and we would have lost a lot of diversity if it were not for CC, but they have a big hammer and they are quickly wrapping themselves around our senses (billboards, major concerts, radio, etc.) and creating the demand, and fulfilling it. It is becoming invisible. Good for them, they found a niche, they figured it out, but not good for anyone that doesn't want to play by their rules. I'm all for the free market and the competition for the listener's ear, but they (the 2 corporations mentioned above) have such a hold on the outlets now (and over the past decade) that they can now dictate whether or not a band gets radio play, if that band does not agree to their low pay offers or their particular demands to play particular venues. Dammit, I wish I could post this article I've got about Clear Channel. It's a business, and people should make money at it. There are also bands that refuse to go that route, like Fugazi, and I hope they can keep getting shows, becaus ewhen it comes right down to it, the music CC and Viacom creates is ABSOLUTE CRAP. |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:15:08
|
You could say that Chuck D is the antithesis of Lars Ulrich (or the AntiUlrich, if you will). I like his thinking but Chuck D is a little ahead of his time.
In other words, until America alters its capitalistic ways, it will still be driven by business and currently, music is still a big business. Profit trumps art. I completely agree what he's saying about image taking center stage over talent. That argument can be applied all the way back to 1960 and probably before. I wish what he says would happen but I don't think it will in our lifetimes.
Hell, I lose money every time I produce a record. But I love doing it and in the meanwhile, I keep outfits like Discmakers, Fender, Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Gibson, TC Helicon, BBE, etc. in business. 
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:25:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by cvanepps
You could say that Chuck D is the antithesis of Lars Ulrich (or the AntiUlrich, if you will). I like his thinking but Chuck D is a little ahead of his time.
In other words, until America alters its capitalistic ways, it will still be driven by business and currently, music is still a big business. Profit trumps art. I completely agree what he's saying about image taking center stage over talent. That argument can be applied all the way back to 1960 and probably before. I wish what he says would happen but I don't think it will in our lifetimes.
Hell, I lose money every time I produce a record. But I love doing it and in the meanwhile, I keep outfits like Discmakers, Fender, Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Gibson, TC Helicon, BBE, etc. in business.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com
music is a business and always will be a business. sure, it's an art first, but it's also a business. whether or not "true artists" should be worried about making money is irrelevant to the fact that stealing is stealing. i completely agree with Lars Ulrich. during the whole Napster debate people always said the same stupid things: "but Metallica are like, millionares! they don't need the money!".. that's totally beside the point.
and yes, carolyanna the music companies are fucked. there's no doubt. but that doesn't make it ok to steal from artists.
i see both sides of the issue.. and i can see how it's almost worth it just to hurt the music distributors.. but there are other, more positive ways of going about that..
i think before long, the whole idea of music copyright as we see it is going to change somewhat.. but i don't know how..
it's always going to be a business though... and i don't thinkg America will be changing it's "capitalist ways" anytime soon.. (sure, blame America for everything!)
capitalism and business isn't just American. sorry. |
Edited by - floop on 12/01/2003 11:27:10 |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:27:35
|
Yeah...stop twisting words. She never said it was just American...
*HE
heh...sorry. |
Edited by - TheCroutonFuton on 12/01/2003 11:32:24 |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:29:59
|
| um, i was referring to cvnapps comment that "until America alters it's capatilistic ways it will be driven by business, and currently, music is still a big business" |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:31:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by floop
capitalism and business isn't just American. sorry.
Wait a sec, I never said capitalism and business are just American. I said exactly the reverse: America is capitalism and business.
Who's twisting now? 
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:31:29
|
| I know...But that isn't saying it's "only American". Nevermind. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:32:46
|
In the end, if the artist wants to allow music sharing, then they should be the ones sharing their music, I guess. If they're not sharing, then we probably shouldn't be either, although I do and will continue to do so as a means of trying out new bands and CDs. The best part of the current system is that the 'big guys' are the only ones seriously hurt by music piracy. They've created an apathetic culture for their music where it catches you quickly and wears its welcome equally quickly, and nobody cares about the 'artist' just about that song for this week or month.
The indie side of things is generally comprised of people that love music - whether creating or absorbing - and want to support the good music. These people are far more likely to follow up on a downloaded album with a store bought one. Many won't even download out of respect. And some will download and never buy even though they may have thoroughly enjoyed it, unfortunately, though ultimately for different reasons than the pop pirates.
These people still have to make a living and survive and hopefully for the indie scene, the gained exposure provided free of charge by the internet means more money and not less.
Even if a person REALLY loves a CD and doesn't purchase it, which I believe to be wrong, the chances are that this same person might check out their concert when they're in town whereas they might not have done so if they'd not heard the CD. And a lot of people wouldn't have heard half the bands/music they'd like to if it weren't for downloading. I don't have enough money to buy every band I really want to check out and then find out I don't like it - although our local cool music store will exchange the disc if you don't like it for something else, which is really cool of them. A good way of encouraging people to be a bit more adventurous.
Anyway, that's what it comes down to for me. We're not at a stage where the artist chooses to be downloadable or not, and I'm not sure the RIAA can ever win the war (battles yes, but there will always be an underground, and as people get more computer savvy, it will flourish), but if they do win, it won't be all that bad for us. It's the cash cow choristers that will suffer. And hopefully the milking multinats that are behind them, AKA Rawlco, ClearChannel, etc. The true artists aren't the ones making money right now, but perhaps they will be sooner than we think.
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:35:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheCroutonFuton
I know...But that isn't saying it's "only American". Nevermind.
No. Other countries' economies are based on capitalism and business.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:37:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by cvanepps
quote:
Originally posted by TheCroutonFuton
I know...But that isn't saying it's "only American". Nevermind.
No. Other countries' economies are based on capitalism and business.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com
haha, I know...wait...haha. I was kinda defending you..because you never said that it was only American...
I was replying to floop with that post... |
Edited by - TheCroutonFuton on 12/01/2003 11:38:45 |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:58:07
|
| i guess i'm asking, why is it America that needs to alter it's capatilistic ways? (your words) and not other countries as well.. |
|
|
|
Danishboy
- FB Fan -
Denmark
175 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 12:59:22
|
I can only say "Video Killed The Radio-Star" It´s evolution
Man of steel |
Edited by - Danishboy on 12/01/2003 13:00:34 |
|
|
|
MangyKid
- FB Fan -
170 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 13:53:44
|
| I think people should stop with the "ideals" and "points" and worry about what is actually happening. I'm sure 50+% of what's downloaded is on the radio, and you could just tape it from there, no difference if you download it. Plus, I'd say half the time you'd never actually pay for what you downloaded, I know it's well over half for me. And I don't see any starving artists no matter how bad downloading gets, either. And quite frankly, it's convenient and free! It's a hell of a lot easier than going to the store, or ordering anything online, so why, except for moral and legal issues which are easily dismissed, would you do the latter? I buy stuff, but I buy stuff when it's convenient and I have money, and I download stuff when I don't have money. Point is, maybe if record companies tried harder to not sell radiohead's album for 20 fucking dollars, I would have bought it when I saw it. But no, they have to keep raising prices, so I downloaded the couple songs I wanted. |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 14:33:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by floop
i guess i'm asking, why is it America that needs to alter it's capatilistic ways? (your words) and not other countries as well..
Great question. Huge, complicated answer though; an answer that gets into politics and opinion about America's influence on the rest of the world.
Rather than do that, let me say instead I felt I was "treating the root" to make Chuck D's vision for the role of music a reality. In the grand scope of things, my thinking is probably flawed in that while music is a part of capitalism and business, it's a small part (oil being arguably the biggest). So it may be possible for Chuck D to get what he wants without America changing (too much) it's capitalistic ways.
In conclusion, Simon and Simon are not brothers.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
Crispy Water
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
819 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 15:03:36
|
This is an article I saw a couple months back that I really like. Don't remember where I first saw it, but it's on the website TheHollywoodReporter.com as well:
Commentary: Todd Rundgren
The music industry veteran argues that the labels have mishandled downloadable music.
Musician Todd Rundgren is known for such 1970s pop hits as "Hello It's Me," but his wizardry as a producer, music video pioneer and explorer of computer technologies is legendary in the industry. Since 1998, his recordings have been underwritten by PatroNet, a subscription service that gives his loyal fan base online access to works in progress.
Music is a sacrament. This has been true for thousands of years of human history, save the last 100 or so. I'm sure it was not Edison's purpose to debase such an important aspect of our collective liturgy, but what would one expect when something that was once ephemeral and could only be experienced at the behest of other humans is reduced to a commodity on a shelf.
The mechanisms of music, how and why it affects us the way it does, are still mystical even to a cynical older record producer like myself. Anyone who denies the depth and power of this medium has simply forgotten, in the face of the relentless Philistine argument, that all things can be commoditized regardless of their sacred origins -- that all music is worth exactly what the RIAA says it is.
Most musicians who have enjoyed any success under this model are in an ethical bind: On one hand, you may believe that your survival depends on effective marketing of a commodity; on the other, you realize that your truest expressions are being trivialized to fit properly into a prealloted space. How many times have I heard the argument, "Love the record, but we don't hear a third single -- back to the studio"?
I must remind my fellow players that for the vast majority of history we have only been appreciated for the quality of human expression we could produce at the moment. Great performances were only memories in the minds of those who witnessed, each unique except perhaps for the calliope at the local merry-go-round which was, of course, a machine.
The plain reality is that, except for a few notable aberrations, musicians will always be more appreciated, certainly in a financial sense, by live audiences than by labels and the listeners they purport to represent. The seemingly quaint idea that recordings were promotion for great performers is no less true today. Ask Phish.
Ask also whether, as a musician, you ever believed the RIAA was actively protecting your interests until they got into a fight with their own customers and started using your name, your so-called well-being, as justification. And when the customers became skeptical they became the enemy. And to follow the RIAA's logic, customers are therefore the enemies of musicians. Let us ignore the fact that if you ever got compensated for your contribution, it would have been because your manager and lawyer (and many before) forced the labels to recognize your labor in financial terms.
The reason why the RIAA comes off as a gang of ignorant thugs is because, well, how do I put this -- they are. I came into this business in an age of entrepreneurial integrity. The legends of the golden age of recorded music were still at the helm of most labels -- the Ertegun's, the Ostins, the Alperts and Mosses by the dozens. Now we have four monolithic (in every sense of the word) entities and a front organization that crows about the fact that they have solved their problems by leaning on a 12-year-old. Thank God that mystical fascination with the world of music has been stubbed out -- hopefully everyone will get the message and get over the idea that the musician actually meant for you to hear this.
The RIAA protects musicians like the musicians union protects musicians: They reward hacks and penalize those outside the system. The labels are not making this stink out of principle. They are not interested in the rights of musicians who don't sell any records for them. That myth was exploded when Warners dropped Van Morrison for "lackluster sales."
This stink is about a bunch of dumb-asses blaming the public for doing what the labels could have -- and should have -- done 10 years ago. I know because I told them so, each and every one individually and relentlessly: Put the music on a server so you can deliver on-demand services to people's homes. Seems so stupidly simple now.
After nearly 40 years in this business I know who my friends are. I know it isn't the labels who lost interest in my "fringe audience" decades ago. It is that fringe audience who still await any recording or performance I may come up with despite the RIAA trying to drive some symbolic wedge between me and my listeners just because their ass is in a sling. Don't do me any favors.
Audiences and musicians are on the same side. Musicians come from the audience (unlike record execs who come from the ranks of failed musicians). We experience together the mystical sacrament that a musical performance can represent. Additionally, we will be comfortably if not handsomely compensated by that audience if we can deliver a suitably affecting performance with some regularity.
It's time to let the monolith of commoditized music collapse like the Berlin Wall. Musicians can make records if they feel like it, or not. Wide open pipes are ready to transport us, mainstream and fringe alike, into the ears of an eager audience who appreciates us and is more than willing to financially support us. Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand because ... you know the rest by heart.
Published Oct. 22, 2003
Nothing is ever something. |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 15:44:34
|
I agree with Chuck.
100 years ago (and earlier) musicians earned their money by playing live. Nowadays any musician worth their salt still does. The live experience is something that cannot be pirated or stolen. |
|
|
|
Visiting Sasquatch
= Cult of Ray =
USA
451 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 16:09:39
|
A question and answer session with Visiting Sasquatch...
(1)Hey, if I can record the song off the radio for free, why can't I download it for free?
(2)Why can't artists create music for the love of music, and not for capitalistic greed?
(3)Why don't the labels and distributors catch up with the internet and stop trying to hinder technological progress? Suing 13 year olds is not the answer.
(4)People who say they haven't bought a CD in years (because they download it all) disgust me, right?
(1)Because Clear Channel was paid to deliver that song to you, and radio in general is supported by ads, you are able to freely record (the inferior sounding) song. The artist also benefits from the mass exposure. Artists can also promote themselves with free mp3s, but it has to be their choice, not yours. They are not, however, benefitting from unauthorized mp3 sharing.
(2)Sure no problem, but first do us all a favor, quit your dayjob, and volunteer at your local music club for free, because you love the music so much. The fact is, making music IS the artist's job, and SHOULD be paid for it, no matter if they are indie or a huge mega-band from the mega-label. The salary difference between the indie and corporate artist has nothing to do with you downloading any of their music without their permission, or compensation. Kristen Hersh once said that (the old) Napster was taking food from her children's mouths. If that's not putting it in perspective, then f-you.
(3)I totally agree, and these are just the growing pains that are part of our capitalistic society's evolutionary process. I'm not saying everything the RIAA has done is right, but then again, the downloaders aren't right by STEALING either. We are already seeing solutions like iTunes, Napster 2.0 and Emusic that provide users the ability to purchase the one track they want, WHILE at the same time compensating the artist. Everyone's happy.
(4)Yes. |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 16:38:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLT
I agree with Chuck.
100 years ago (and earlier) musicians earned their money by playing live. Nowadays any musician worth their salt still does. The live experience is something that cannot be pirated or stolen.
100 years ago that was the only way they could make a living.. they didn't have records..
you don't think you should pay anything for having and owning a recording, that you get substantial pleasure from, and that someone else spent hours and hours creating? |
|
|
|
MangyKid
- FB Fan -
170 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 18:07:21
|
What the hell? Itunes, napster 2 and emusic suck. If I wanted to download all of doolittle at a buck a track, thats $15. not a deal. I know Itunes only lets you burn the song 4 times or something, it's fucking retarded. When I own something I like to actually own it. And that's if I could find anything I liked in their selection. When record companies come up with a way to make it legal and not suck ass and end up paying more in the end for lower quality music that you don't exactly own, well ok. Until then, I'm going to keep "stealing" because we all know I'd pay for it anyway right? Oh shit, I wouldn't, and 90% of what's downloaded wouldn't be payed for anyway.
Oh yeah! there's that whole problem of most downloaders being kids with no money too, like me. I couldn't use any of those services because I don't have a credit card, or much money to begin with. Oh well, the artists don't care if I don't have money so long as they do. |
Edited by - MangyKid on 12/01/2003 18:09:48 |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 18:34:41
|
MangyKid has a good point here. They do kind of suck. Did you realize that iTunes doesn't even sell MP3s? They sell ACC files. ACC files may be all nice and everything but I don't have a use for them. Sure, I could probably download a bunch of ACC files, burn them to a CD, then re-encode the CD to MP3, but why should I have to do all that? When I realized there's no way to download MP3 files from iTunes, I uninstalled iTunes and have no plans to go back. I'm now back to buying CDs and ripping them the old fashioned way (without sharing them).
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 23:15:31
|
Ahh..i love this topic. Lot's of interesting points..i'll just share my opinions.
First - i believe your dollar is a 'vote'. You basically approve of the conditions that result in the creation of your purchase.
In the case of a $15 CD, generally $0.50 or less ends up going to the artist. (Who is the person i really care about.) Yes there are other people and efforts involved in the creation, but no where else in 'art' or 'workmanship' is the creator and performer so taken advantage of, and has his/her rights stripped away, and profit so filtered.
So, by giving your money to the store, you're supporting the process, and enabling it to continue.
I want to see it crippled.
Yes, there are some musicians who tweak out a decent deal (like FB), but they are a precious minority.
Another concern for me is format - 16bit Redbook sounds like shit. Really, it does. It is so 'unmusical' i can't stand it. I will not pay for that.
I *do* try to make an effort to help the musicians where i can. I promote them to all my friends, i get them to go to shows when they come to town, etc.. (Or i create a huge fansite. =)
On a similar note, i sent this letter to SOCAN (Canadian RIAA) the other day, we've got a bit of a situation here in the great white north.
- - - - -
To whom this may concern,
First off, I am an independent Canadian recording and performing musician, and am not a member of SOCAN.
I am given cause for great concern with an article I've read:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1069987965274_65397165/?hub=TopStories
The gist of the story is that SOCAN plans to charge ISP's a fee in order to 'compensate' them for music downloads.
As it stands I am already greatly insulted by the approximately $0.20 charge that is applied to each CDR sold, supposedly to benefit musicians. I am being charged a fee to archive my productions, and distribute my music, yet this benefits me in no way. (Nor any other musicians I know.)
Now you plan to charge ISP's a similar fee.
I provide my 40+ recordings online, for FREE. If your efforts are successful, Canadian visitors will be taxed for my music, despite the fact that I'm not charging anything, AND I do not see ANY return from this.
Your proposal is wholly unfair, and a disservice to musicians in Canada and elsewhere.
I'm curious whom you and RIAA plan to target next? Perhaps the electricity and food companies, as they keep these 'evil' music downloader's alive?
I hope you reconsider your efforts; your efforts do no serve to benefit Canada's musicians.
Dave Noisy
Victoria, BC |
|
|
|
Danishboy
- FB Fan -
Denmark
175 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 01:43:15
|
Denmark is a country with the highest downloading rate, or many just borrow the cd from the library and copy them.
I remember the 80ties oh what great years, groups like Limall, Milli Vanilly and Modern Talking. People who couldent sing or preform, still we bought their records.
Today i think or hope that with all the downloading, artist/preformers who have talent will land on their feet, and make their money on live preformances.
My grandmother(pianist,housewife) and grandfather(violinist,blacksmith) played for allmost no money, their love for the music were for better and worse.
My point, all the amaturs why do they play? Cause they love it!! no matter what.
So to all the nonmaking-notfamous-playing4free artists out their, keep the ball rolling.
Man of steel |
Edited by - Danishboy on 12/02/2003 01:53:43 |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 03:05:26
|
people should pay for music they like. like the audiowarez scene (ideally): if you use it alot, buy it. Second (to dave), we license our records through an indie-label that distribute them through an indie-distrubitor. No one in the chain makes a lot of money, but they all deserve the money they get. So does your local record shop that actually sells records that the big distributors (how is that word spelled!!) don't carry. In fact - one should make an effort to shop at these stores (if one knows how difficult it might be to even get your record out to the stores). And i've spent alot of money on the record, and an incredible amount of time making it. I think it is ok if i get some of it back. Most downloaders are arrogantly concerned about their rights. They have some valid points, but it is not your right to have quality music for free. It is a privilege. If dave chooses to make his songs available for free - great initiative! But it is HE who makes that choice. And if you like the songs, mail him some cash.
And; how many make money touring? Are any of you aware of how expensive it is? For most artists, touring is record-promotion. The revenues are minimal, unless you are pretty well established. Making good music requires lots of investments - money and time. If you want that quality, fucking pay for it. |
|
|
|
interloper
= Cult of Ray =
440 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 04:47:02
|
Im with Chuck as well., besides, downloading works in musicians favor, I don't care what anyone says. Think about bootlegs for instance. To take it one step further, I think everyone should not only download music, they should make several copies of it and give it to their friends. Music desparetly needs to be devalued financially speaking. The music industry is an industry. Any industry knows where the money is. You know where the money is? You know what drives the music industry to promote what it does based on money? Fifteen year old girls. They have the largest buying dollar in the industry. Does this not scare you? Why in the world would anyone in their right mind give any power to fifteen year old girls? The music industry does not care about you. The music industry does not care about anyone who can't turn them millions of dollars overnight, and if you'll notice, nobody new that isn't a teen pop idol gets any development. They're either blowing up at the first drop, or their gone. Record lables used to cultivate "artists" (I still hate that word in reference to pop musicians), these days Def Leppard would have been dropped after that first awful record of theirs. Another thing, no "artist" whatsoever makes hardly a dime on record...im sorry....twenty dollar cd sales. If they make any money back on their contract (which really is nothing but a big ass loan), it's on touring, never, ever recording. The standards of music get lower and lower everyday anyway. My argument is not very concise, probably because it's very early and I just woke up but, I hate it all. I download everything. I haven't bought a cd in ages. The only music I actually buy are records on Ebay, most of which have been out for ages (just got the first Gun Club!). There really is no music in sight that is of a major label variety much less on an independant label this side of Radiohead that is worth any of my money. The only good rock out there is sadly, nothing more than a pre-determined retro trip of some other band that existed in a time period long ago, and it's hilarious to watch people conceive these types of bands as groudbreaking primarily because what they're doing just hasn't been done in a while. It's like rock music has only been around since Nirvana or something. Even the White Stripes (who I happen to like a lot) are nothing more than a cultivated version of many a thing that came before them. Everything these days is desinged to make us miss the seventies (and why anyone in their right mind would miss the seventies is beyond me). It's the musical equivilant of total dishonesty. No one has any real concept of taking a musical chance, or trying to take what has been done, and make a logical follow up musically speaking (again, Radiohead is the only band in sight that's even remotely taking a chance and trying to further rock music at all, that's why I loved it when KID A made all the guitar rock idiots cry because all they wanted was another "The Bends".)
The music generaly speaking, is total shit. It's garbage. To each is own and all that blah blah, but that only goes so far. Our standards are at an all time low. How are fucking actors allowed to make major label records anyway? What kind of rock "artist" pimps out for Target department store? It makes me think that a little touch of "creative facism" might do music some good.
Ok, Ok...I'll stop. Get upset if I refuse to pay my electric bill. Not if I download some dumb new Strokes song. (who, by the way, are already on their last leg, and look like a bunch of down syndrome kids)
True cynics are nothing more than dissapointed idealists. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 06:12:05
|
i see i wasn't done:
interloper: "besides, downloading works in musicians favor, I don't care what anyone says. Think about bootlegs for instance. To take it one step further, I think everyone should not only download music, they should make several copies of it and give it to their friends".
And how should that benefit musicians? What, do we only need recognition and blown-up egos? Sure, it can be nice. Would it allow me to record the next album? Nope. Would we have the first two frank black albums - the way they sound? Probably not. Would you have Kid A (which we really could do without)? Nope. Your either-or take on the "industry" only benefits the artists with plenty and plenty of dollars in their pockets allready. They pull large crowds and make money from airplay (at least in europe) - which they buy through their pr-companies.
dave: "First - i believe your dollar is a 'vote'. You basically approve of the conditions that result in the creation of your purchase"
yes it is a vote. it's no problem to vote down the only dealer in town that still carries vinyl and low-profile indie-labels. You want to see them crippled?
I'm not saying downloading is bad. I do it all the time. But i still buy good albums. The last one was The Rogers Sisters - Purely Evil. Great stuff. The ultra-socialist ideal proposed by some here only supports other capital interests; who sells you the bandwith, who sells the cdrs, who sells the mp3 players? Why on earth is it wrong for a small bunch of people to cooperate and get a record out to a small store, and expect something back? (that is, if people like it).
Now, your take on SOCAN i can sympathise with. We have the same problem here, they even prevent artists from making their own mp3's available on their own site. If they do - they charge them! Right, taking care of our interests my strong and firm ass. |
|
|
|
NO.13Girl
- FB Fan -
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:47:54
|
I agree we should download music...
For the simple fact that all of us are not made of money and CD's are too expensive to just go out and buy on a whim...I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it!
And most of the artists I've gotten into lately I've bought their album because I heard an mp3 first...so as far as I'm concerned they have profited from me downloading music...
I don't agree with burning mp3's and giving them to other people though...I think if you download an mp3 and like it you should buy the album...though I know that's not how it usually is...
 "I joined the Cult of Frank / Aren't I Special?"
|
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:54:09
|
Anyone who calls Chuck D a nimrod doesn't even need to be reminded that he is an ignorant bag of feces.
Artists don't make art for money. They make what they make because it is in them and they have to get it out or they want to share it, or they want to turn people on to something they enjoy in order to spread that joy.
Regardless of whether or not someone is buying it...it'll always be there.
Chuck D is correct that there are only a certain amount of people making money off of millions of artists. That system is wrong and right now record companies are reaping the whirlwhind of many years of greed.
Download or don't. It's really a personal choice. Not something to make laws over. Be responsible for your own feelings and beliefs. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
