To Set The Record (Industry) Straight…

Over the past few years, the music industry has been under speculation; it has been pegged as a dying industry. “Are Record Labels Dead?” asks CNN in one article. Even Rolling Stone declared “The Record Industry's Decline.” The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) blame people who “illegally” download music by use of the web and peer-to-peer (or P2P) software for the decrease in music sales. On February 28, 2007 the RIAA sent 400 pre-litigation settlement letters to 13 different universities, “a rate more than three times higher than the previous academic year” according to their press release.

The RIAA believes that by filing suits against college students, whom they admit are “some of the most avid music fans,” they can “encourage fans to turn to legal music alternatives.” However, it appears the RIAA is misguided. According to Liz Kennedy, a source at the RIAA, “music sales are down” and “the music community has experienced significant losses” despite their efforts. “Right now the music industry is in transition,” said Russell Fink, VP of Digital Media and Commerce at Island Records. The music industry is not dead or dying, it is changing – drastically. Lawsuits cannot change this.

The RIAA has filed thousands of lawsuits against those who pirate music in attempt to stop the amount of music that is downloaded and shared illegally through the web. According to Kennedy, regardless of their efforts, “the global theft of sound recordings cost the U.S. economy more than 71,000 jobs and more than $2 billion in wages.” If years of public “education,” pre-litigation letters, and lawsuits haven’t slowed illegal downloading or increased record sales yet, what makes the RIAA think that suing more people will help their cause? No matter what, “People are going to download [music] anyway,” said Luis Dubuc AKA Triple Crown Records artist The Secret Handshake. It is a fact. Essentially, the RIAA’s lawsuits are about as effective as trying to stop an avalanche with a “Do Not Disturb” sign. It is time for the record industry to wake up and embrace digital advancements.

"What makes the RIAA think that suing more people will help their cause?"

Many people, like Alexa Mantell, who was cited last year by the RIAA and forced to pay a fine, have used P2P software like Limewire and Kazaa to download their music. However, personal file sharing and software including instant messenger programs like AOL Instant Messenger, personal networks, and personal websites have become increasingly popular ways of sharing music illegally, and are almost completely untraceable.

Today, record labels give listeners incentives to buy records. Aside from album art, “there’s a lot of bonus material, a lot of the retailers do have a digital supplement to the physical side,” said Fink. He continued, “[Record labels] offer a wide rang of goodies… from bonus tracks, to video, to interactive experiences with artists, to master tones and ring backs.” However, “I don't even keep album art,” said Mantell. Also, what if a listener only wants one song? “Those things are nice perks to buying an album, but if I don't want the whole thing, then I'm not going to go get it…I can find the videos on YouTube if I really need to, and the rest aren't things I would really use or take advantage of,” she said. Moreover, “why would you pay for something, if you could have it for free?” asks Alex Gaskarth of Hopeless Records band, All Time Low. People want music, for free, and nothing less.

The RIAA defines downloading as a crime. However, “It doesn’t feel illegal if you’re sitting behind your computer,” said Gaskarth. “It’s not like walking into a store and walking out with a record under your jacket. It’s just clicking a button and nobody moves a finger.” Besides, “a lot of kids just don't have the money to buy a record,” said Brandon Saller of the Hollwood Records band Atreyu. “Better you should get our music online for free, and still come to our shows, than nothing at all” he said. Bands want their music heard, any way possible. Nevertheless, the RIAA continues to attack their target market of consumers with lawsuits.

"A band needs a label just because not that many people have as much money as an organization does to get the record out there."

With the advent of the Internet and file sharing, music is more likely to find its way to the consumer. “I think people are more aware [today] of the consumption of music, and now they’re more attentive to it,” said Fink. “It’s just more spread out, more user-oriented, so there’s a lot more discovery that way.” More people have access to, and are interested in music than ever before.

While the RIAA goes after avid music listeners, record companies have introduced the “360 deal” as a way to increase profits, and essentially take advantage of their bands. According to Fink, in a “360 deal,” “you have a deal with the artist themselves, and you’re going to put out their music. We (the label) are going to supplement you (the artist) on your tours, but we want a piece of that, and a little piece of your merchandise, a little piece of your DVD releases. Any type of business that an artist goes into, the record label is their partner.” Unfortunately for the labels, the “360 deal” will not suffice as, thanks to technology, it becomes easier daily for artists to produce, promote, and distribute music themselves, just as a label would. Moreover, few established artists have agreed to sign “360 deals” -- thus proof of the failure of that idea. In fact, many established artists such as Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have already found alternative options to record labels in order to get their music to fans.

“The RIAA should be working to find a way that they can shift their industry to jam with how the rest of the music-loving world operates... while still raking in their oh-so-precious dollars and cents,” said Mantell. The record companies and the RIAA should spend their time and money to research other clever ways to kick-start this great industry into its next phase instead of filing lawsuits. Maybe record companies should take a hint from other forms of multimedia when looking for alternative streams of income.

"Better you should get our music online for free, and still come to our shows, than nothing at all."

With technology like Pro Tools LE, it is easy for artists to record music. Therefore, there is now more new music created on a day-to-day basis than ever before. The world is oozing with new artists striving to release the next big hit. The record industry must embrace its own transformation in order to accommodate the wave of tech savvy music artists and fans. Industry executives need to take a step back to realize that there will always be a need for their service.

“Ultimately in order to be successful, a band needs a label just because not that many people have as much money as an organization does to get the record out there,” said Gaskarth. “As an artist, you need it all to really break through,” said Fink. “You need radio, you need video play, you need those appearances, and you need those placements on TV. To get to a level of superstardom, you need the other traditional means of media.” Major labels can afford and provide this to artists. Fortunately, because of this, record labels will most likely always be around.

Furthermore, artists are generally more concerned about giving their talent exposure than making money anyway. “Absolutely, I’m more concerned about sharing my art,” Andrew Volpe of Island Records band, Ludo acknowledged. The RIAA and major record labels should take risks. It comes down to simple economics. There is an excessive supply of artists, and an even greater demand of listeners. Fear not: there is hope for the music industry because great art exists, and thus there is even greater potential for the industry to thrive.

By Brandon Weiss
Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2008

Comments

[GiantRaven]

“why would you pay for something, if you could have it for free?”

Well I guess its now justified for me to steal everything I want...

[/sarcasm]

[recliner33]

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

[sowhat360]

do people understand that it actually costs bands money to record the music??? so should they just work off of money from shows and forever be in debt.....i dont understand how you think music can continue to be created at a high level without record sales

[iwillrockyou22]

i agree recliner33. its still nice maybe to pick up an album every once in a while....

[Taoistic_Beer]

The only reason I don't buy records these days is because of the medium. The CD.

With the vinyl you sit down and enjoy the music, because there's nothing there but music. But with the CD are instantly reminded of work and everyday's troubles. The hectic lifestyle etc.

[The_Man_IV]

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

[g8erfan1]

The bottom line is, the labels will ALWAYS squeeze as much cash as possible about of the music artists and the fans. I disagree that you need the help of a record label to make it big. As musicians learn more about computers and the internet, they will be able to get their music out on their own terms. It's already happening now. You just need to know where to look. Besides, the fans are the ones who decides which band is going to be huge and which ones suck. Record labels are a dying, outdated breed.

[MattA7Xfan4Life]

it's like this
i torrent music i wanna hear,
if i like it i buy it, if the record
industry allowed trials then i for one
would torrent no more

[g8erfan1]

Besides, look at some of the garbage that is being turned out by record labels these days. You tell me if the record labels have lost sight of things.

[l)ragonForce]

recliner33 wrote:

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

that is true man but this is a bussiness... its like getting money stolen from their paycheck

[GiantRaven]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

Buy CDs online, its cheap

[GuitarJunkie]

Well, I don't illegally download music, but I don't think it's as big a deal as some people aka the RIAA make it out to be. However, the reasons some people give in this article are pretty lame like "What if I only want one track on the album and not the whole thing." That can't be your only motivation to download the track w/out paying for it since you can download single tracks from Itunes for a buck.

Its a touchy subject for some, but almost everyone on here has written and/or recorded some music and honestly I make music so people can hear it. If I can make a few bucks off it thats great too but if I were ever to hit it big I would pull something like Radiohead did with their newest album.

[zackk]

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

[omarrodrigez]

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

[duncang]

Dropping prices and advertising it is the temporary solution, full album streaming is on the right track for the permanent one.

Stream the album online and people can listen to it and decide if they think it's worth it to go out and make that purchase.

No, this article is very true. Very few artists ever make money off their albums anyway, most of it comes from touring until they hit a certain level of stardom - in which case, it goes about even and it doesn't matter cause they're star rich.

Most major label bands are actually in debt after their first record. What does that say about the music industry?

Download is good for ARTISTS, it is bad for RECORD COMPANIES. This is why they tried to use the 360 deal, but if you're in a band most any legal consultant will advise you to not sign a 360 deal unless they're paying you way more than you're worth right off the bat.


What I mean is, the music industry does have to come up with something new. I thought this article was pretty good.
Download is undeniably bad for the INDUSTRY. It's pretty good for the people making the music, as the album sales were nothing to them except telling their industry counterparts how much money to spend making them more famous.


What I'm saying is, record companies are dumb... but still control everything. Life's tough, get a helmet.

[Quantonyne]

the thing that kills me is CD's cost so much...and yet they are so keen on getting scratched...normal wear and tear. CD's WILL scratch, unless you are anal about it. If i pay 12 bucks for a cd i want that ****er to last, cassette tapes cost more then cds to make and yet they cost less to buy...plus with the hard shell it was harder to damage.

I torrent my music, i can get a whole bands music cataloge in about 2 hours...for free...you would have to be stupid to pass up on that. Also i have over 50 GB of music on an external HD, so if anyone wants some of my music they can just rip it, and it has spread the word of the bands...

Perfect example of how downloading makes money for the band...PaganFest on April 29th, i am getting like 6 or 7 people to go...thats like $120 some bucks, just cause i downloaded some Ensiferum, Turisas, Tyr and Eluveitie, i spread the word of the bands to my friends and now everyone i know is hooked on those bands...money for a band that no one knew of 3 months ago.

sorry for the wall of text...the RIAA just pisses me off.

[madmanomaironed]

The music industry needs a complete revolution. I think that capitalism should be taken out of the equation. At the end of the day the music is what is important. People can choose to download music from official sources or illegal sources. Surely it is unfair on those who legally download that they pay whilst others don't. The fact is, you cant convince all people to pay, so it would make more sense to make music free.
Now, i'm the kind of person who likes to buy CDs if I love the band, etc. So CD sales should increase simply by reducing the price by what the music costs to solely the price of distribution, manufacturing, etc. The record labels undoubtfully would lose millions from such solutions, or atleast most would think they would.
Keeping in mind that the prices of the CDs would reduce, there would be a new wave of people buying CDs as they would be more affordable. Effectively, there would most probably still be an overall reduction in profit, but there wouldn't be a loss.
Lastly, they should make greater investments into gigs and tours. The fact is that records can be reduced to files; digital information. The real life experiance of going to a gig cannot be changed and hence people will still attend gigs. The fact that the music would be free would allow there to be an even larger fan base attending gigs and hence the industry would recover lost profits from there.
In conclusion, the current state of the music industry will result in a colapse. There spending too much money on legal crap when they could do so much more with it. They should undoubtfully change their ways or else music as we know it will change for the worse.

[blue_strat]

A problem with only buying CDs from stores like Virgin/Zaavi and HMV, is that those stores will stock only albums that are relatively popular. You have to go to a big city to find a lot of albums in CD form. The big chains can't stock every CD in all of their stores, and most people won't spend the money on petrol to drive to a store that does stock what they're looking for.

And when you can just go to a website and download near enough any CD you can think of for free, you can hardly blame people for using P2P.

This is basically like YouTube and MetaCafe etc. Maybe record labels could allow people to download music from their sites for free, and gain revenue from adverts on the site.

[duncang]

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

[ScaryGuy82]

It takes people money to make the music you have been taking for nothing. I guess some people just don't know what it's like to be a starving artist.

In a few years from now people will treat musicians like they were treated a long time ago. Like servants. It's sad people, it's sad.

[Quantonyne]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

if a band has a home studio they more then likeley will produce it themselves, the producer is just there to direct the direction of the music...he tells the band what he thinks sounds good...if the band is recording in their home they probably will produce it and mix it themselves, many musicians are quite competent in mixing, hell they even engineer for other bands.

it dosnt take as many people as you think to record a cd...maybe 10 tops. Producer, Engineer, Assistants, Masterers. its when the big wigs come into the picture that its gets more complicated.

[GuitarJunkie]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

[duncang]

Quantonyne wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

if a band has a home studio they more then likeley will produce it themselves, the producer is just there to direct the direction of the music...he tells the band what he thinks sounds good...if the band is recording in their home they probably will produce it and mix it themselves, many musicians are quite competent in mixing, hell they even engineer for other bands.

it dosnt take as many people as you think to record a cd...maybe 10 tops. Producer, Engineer, Assistants, Masterers. its when the big wigs come into the picture that its gets more complicated.

Indeed, but I think you and I both know that bands, especially very small ones, don't have home studios. It's as simple as that.

Plus, Americans get it easy. CDs over here (the UK) cost almost twice as much, and I don't even have a job yet I still manage to pay for all my music, so don't give me that 'I CAN'T AFFORD IT! BAWWWW!' bullshit.

[tbarrettl]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

For 300 Bands and 1-20 CDs per band that adds up though if a band has a show near me I will go to it to support them that way though Music is an art and whoever threw in Capitalism in it was greedy like RIAA.

[RageAgnstUrJaw]

I know a couple guys who work under a major label, and they don't really care about record sales. Ofcourse if they put out an album that sells hundreds of thousands of copies they are happy that their work is getting out there, but in terms of money, they get it all from touring rather than the CD sales.

[ScaryGuy82]

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.

[Kapalen]

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Wrong, when a band makes an album the label pays for their shit, food transportation etc. If they don't pay back the label with record sales, they're in debt. Also, even if you can record in your home, you still need the label to distribute the album to people like walmart. I'm not for or against downloading music, but a lot of people don't realize that if you don't get paid to make your music you can't afford to make anymore because you'll be too busy getting a JOB.

Also, I disagree with where it says there's more music being made now than before, population wise likely, percentage of population wise, I doubt it. Back in the day you could walk onto someone's porch start playing and everyone in town would show up and jam (I'm from the south).

[whippingpost]

MattA7Xfan4Life wrote:

it's like this
i torrent music i wanna hear,
if i like it i buy it, if the record
industry allowed trials then i for one
would torrent no more

I have to agree with this comment. I don't download, but I think that there should be a trial of some sort. Music is getting expensive these days. Almost outrageously so. I rarely buy new releases due to both the price, and that there's not much out there that strikes me as interesting these days.

There used to be a store - Blockbuster/Warehouse Music - that would allow you to preview a CD before you bought it. With prices what they are today, I'm not going to drop close to $30 on something unless I know I'm going to like it. And, I don't trust reviews either. Everyone who's bought an album with great reviews, only to find that it really sucked, raise your hand.

[the spiker]

The compact disk is a dying medium and I think they are starting to recognize this. Offer DRM-free downloads like on Amazon or better yet, subscription-based services and the money will flow.

[the_extremist00]

now THATS a kick ass article lol

[Quantonyne]

duncang wrote:

Quantonyne wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

if a band has a home studio they more then likeley will produce it themselves, the producer is just there to direct the direction of the music...he tells the band what he thinks sounds good...if the band is recording in their home they probably will produce it and mix it themselves, many musicians are quite competent in mixing, hell they even engineer for other bands.

it dosnt take as many people as you think to record a cd...maybe 10 tops. Producer, Engineer, Assistants, Masterers. its when the big wigs come into the picture that its gets more complicated.


Indeed, but I think you and I both know that bands, especially very small ones, don't have home studios. It's as simple as that.

Plus, Americans get it easy. CDs over here (the UK) cost almost twice as much, and I don't even have a job yet I still manage to pay for all my music, so don't give me that 'I CAN'T AFFORD IT! BAWWWW!' bullshit.

i have a SMALL home studio...i am poor, i think most newer bands are starting to get into recording their own stuff early on, but i know plenty of bands who do their own recording for free. but i know what you mean.

i can afford to buy cd's, i just dont like to because i can get it for free. like the article said...why pay for something when you can get it for free.

[ScaryGuy82]

The only reason it's good for bands THESE days for people to download their music, is because it gets their music around. and the only reason that bands don't make very much at all on an album is because everyone is downloading it!!! Back in the day Elvis, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Beatles would release an album and be ****ing rich off the sales ALONE! Crazy, I know!

Times have changed so much that things will never go back to the way things were, there' NO doubt about that. People have to come up with new ways of making money off their own art. Touring is the biggest money maker these days.

[reesy]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

couldnt agree more, this guy omarrodrigez, has been watching way too much cribs thinking that everything is done in one studio. Yes these days the majority of recording is done in one studio but the mixing and mastering is sent away through record label contacts.

The record label will never die they will just adapt, totally agree with the streaming an album or having some kind of taster session ( like maiden's new 3 play policy on their latest album) and lower cd/mp3 prices!

Suprised nobody has mentioned DRM free music, apple has the monopoly on the market by the encoding aloowing on

[reesy]

only playback in ipods or a cd made on i tunes! What about the other thousands of mp3 players!

The major lables need to get their heads together and decide on a universal digital download format and encouragin more live music!!

[Leonheart]

PROTIP: CD's should not cost $15 or over. There are a few record labels who actually acknowledge this and never sell a CD for more than $5. (Plan-It-X Records and Anti-Creative)

[joshjebl]

Why dont they start offering concert tickets with there albums maybe they will sell more.. that or offer bubble gum with the purchase..

[Mihyaeru]

I've always downloaded music to preview it before I buy the CD i agree CD's can be expensive especially for bands that arnt as well known for those of us who are studying at skwl or college still and either dont work or only work part time while they study. I like buying CD's I like supporting bands i like and I like artwork. The album art is part of the package which you dont get with mp3's.

But you knowwhat my opinion doesnt matter to anyone in fact none of your opinionsmatter either, very few people are going ot change thier minds. This arguement has bene going on for years and will go on for years, and to be honest I'm sick of it, but oh well..the industry is changing

[EVD]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

You are quite possibly the most naive person ever.

All the music is "horrible" nowadays according to you, so that's why you don't buy CDs.
So what do you do?
download the music you think is horrible?
C'mon man, get sorted.

This is a seriously huge thing we're talking about here, and it can't be chalked up to over priced CDs because that's in the hands of the store that sells it, not the artist, label or the RIAA.
And your musical preference in this case is just totally irrelevant.

[fredzeskater]

no.

music downloads will never ever stop. they can't stop millions of people over the entire world downloading music. if they try.... they've already lost, they're just wasting a **** load of money imo.

xx

[falsreasoning]

i hate when people say CDs are over priced...your basically looking that artist in the eye and saying **** you, all the work you have put into something you love isnt worth 15 bucks.

[rahnercore]

I used to download entire entire discographies at a time on torrents or limewire. I changed once I started going to shows and seeing a lot of the bands that I like driving around in shitty old vans (which some of them actually live in). From that point on, I felt like a jackass downloading, and I've been buying CDs ever since.

I like having a hard copy of the music that I listen to. I suppose I'm kind of lucky, because a lot of the music I listen to is available at CD Max or Exclusive Co. for $3-$12...sometimes, if I find a CD in a bargain bin that looks interesting, I'll buy it, just to see how it is. Some of my favorite bands were discovered this way.

I think with downloading, that's one thing you're kind of missing out on--there's not as much opportunity to expand your music interest.

[TikiJoe]

Not much anyone can do about it....Like it or not bands have to get paid. And it's OK to want to make a living playing your music. The business surely needs to change - fighting downloading is probably a losing battle

[TikiJoe]

WORD zackk!! No time for a part time job??? really.....

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

[TikiJoe]

Very well put!!

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

It takes people money to make the music you have been taking for nothing. I guess some people just don't know what it's like to be a starving artist.

In a few years from now people will treat musicians like they were treated a long time ago. Like servants. It's sad people, it's sad.

[notoriousF A T]

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.

did you just compare downloading their music with sleeping with their spouses? wow "people really need to think before they speak...or write"

[lbc_sublime]

i don't see a difference between me downloading a song, watching it on tv, and/or recording it with a dvd recorder, taping it wiht a vcr, borrowing a cd to listen to froma friend, watching it on youtube, listening to it on the radio

there are all these free media devices at our finger tips that cost record compamies money to advertise to me this is cost effective in that aspect

i agree they need to start looking at other alternatives

[latinosuperstud]

^ to scary guy... artists dont see any of the money from their albums if they are with a big label... the only money they really get is from touring and putting on shows... therefore they dont generally care how the fans get their music because they dont a piece of that pie

[iamk0ng]

I've never seen so much intelligence from a UG article.
Way to go.

[ltdf50]

Dudes, are you really complaining about 15$?!
If I could get CDs for 15 bucks, I would never download anything again...
Where I come from (AUSTRIA), one CD costs 18€, thats 28$!!!!
TWENTYEIGHT dollars, and you complain about 15....

[ltdf50]

BTW, some time ago, I talked with a guitarist from a NUCLEAR BLAST band and he said that they don't earn shit with records. He said that all the money comes from TOURING and MERCHENDISING.

[AXE187]

I always thought rec labels took a cut of tour and merch money anyway ;/

[adamungar1]

It’s just clicking a button and nobody moves a finger.

Anyone else notice how stupid of a quote that was.

[goodguyclub]

falsreasoning wrote:

i hate when people say CDs are over priced...your basically looking that artist in the eye and saying **** you, all the work you have put into something you love isnt worth 15 bucks.

I like that. Different point of view than most people think about. It's all a pretty sick circle that eveyone has already overcommented on. Bands need labels, labels need bands, CEO's need money and more money and more money, we need music. CD is a dying technology, it's the only thing that will go away. Not downloading, not "record" companies, not Fallout Boy. . . not soon enough anyhow (sorry, couldn't help it)!

[ScaryGuy82]

latinosuperstud wrote:

^ to scary guy... artists dont see any of the money from their albums if they are with a big label... the only money they really get is from touring and putting on shows... therefore they dont generally care how the fans get their music because they dont a piece of that pie

That is exactally why I said, "The only reason it's good for bands THESE days for people to download their music, is because it gets their music around. and the only reason that bands don't make very much at all on an album is because everyone is downloading it!!! Back in the day Elvis, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Beatles would release an album and be ****ing rich off the sales ALONE! Crazy, I know!"

[ScaryGuy82]

notoriousF A T wrote:

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:



I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.


did you just compare downloading their music with sleeping with their spouses? wow "people really need to think before they speak...or write"

Yes I did. Got your attention didn't I? Good. Now you can begin to think.

[Armagedn]

I, for one, think illegal downloading is awful. It IS ruining the record industry.

[brentondig]

I download music when I want to hear what a band is like. This tends to be me downloading a band's discography, but still.
Yet, I also buy music if I like it, so it's fine, I think...
The only problem I have is that after downloading so much stuff in a certain time-frame, my ISP contacted me, saying I was using too much bandwidth ahah

[ScaryGuy82]

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

notoriousF A T wrote:

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:



I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.


did you just compare downloading their music with sleeping with their spouses? wow "people really need to think before they speak...or write"


Yes I did. Got your attention didn't I? Good. Now you can begin to think.

You must not be an artist of any kind because you don't know what it could be like to have something that you have created, your own art, stole from you. Just like going to my work and picking up MY paycheck. And YES, I know bands don't make much at all on their albums. That's because people download it and so the bands OVIOUSLY will never see a dime from it. How do you expect to get money from something that is being stolen from you?

[RedMoonMan]

i think that most of the people who DL the music wouldn't buy the CD anyways due to lack of money, when i have money i buy the CD but if i don't have money i am not going to pay for the CD in the first place.

[Boy About Town]

People have said that downloading doesn't hurt the bands, it just hurts the labels, and they support bands in other ways, going to gigs, buying merch etc. But if you hurt the label, if you bring down labels you are hurting the band. Labels make a lot of artists exposure possible, they make the quality of music possible a lot of the time. Half the people here I dare say would be unaware of their favourite artists without those very artists being supported be a record label. Furthermore, I don't feel like record labels over price their merchandise, the prices have to cover the hundreds of thousands of pounds in overheads incurred by the production of CDs, not to mention that only something like 1 in 10 major label releases are successful and make money back for the label. That means the 1 that does do the biz needs to go towards making up for losses from the others.

[goodguyclub]

Boy About Town wrote:

People have said that downloading doesn't hurt the bands, it just hurts the labels, and they support bands in other ways, going to gigs, buying merch etc. But if you hurt the label, if you bring down labels you are hurting the band. Labels make a lot of artists exposure possible, they make the quality of music possible a lot of the time. Half the people here I dare say would be unaware of their favourite artists without those very artists being supported be a record label. Furthermore, I don't feel like record labels over price their merchandise, the prices have to cover the hundreds of thousands of pounds in overheads incurred by the production of CDs, not to mention that only something like 1 in 10 major label releases are successful and make money back for the label. That means the 1 that does do the biz needs to go towards making up for losses from the others.

Well said!

[x_themetalfan_x]

Whatever, I'll keep my collection of downloaded music. I can't afford to buy albums (I have to pay rent, insurance, gas, food, etc). I find most people saying "Just buy it you greedy ****" are the ones who don't have bills or responsibilities. I think a band would prefer that I became a fan and come to a show rather than not have any music at all. They make more money off me from one show than from buying every single one of their albums anyways.

$25 for one CD? No thanks. I'd much rather give the band $25 for a T-shirt and $50 for a ticket. Fuck the RIAA.

[Free to Guitar]

g8erfan1
Besides, look at some of the garbage that is being turned out by record labels these days. You tell me if the record labels have lost sight of things.

If it weren't selling, they wouldn't back it. That's the sad part.

lbc_sublime
i don't see a difference between me downloading a song, watching it on tv...watching it on youtube... listening to it on the radio

So you can't tell the difference between stealing a book and reading it in Barnes and Nobles? You have no control over the music on the radio or the TV, which means you have no ownership over it.

tbarrettl
Music is an art and whoever threw in Capitalism in it was greedy like RIAA.

Those greedy pigs, putting money into "Art." How dare they allow musicians to spend all their time making music instead of having to do it after they get home from their jobs. Just imagine how much artistic output Deep Purple could have made without that damn money. I'm not defending the record industry(*puke*) but putting money and music together isn't a sin.

[jamie_hough]

I have no problem in buying CD's online - theyre really cheap and with sites like www.play.com they have free delivery on everything. having said that, some of the more mediocre music I listen to I download or file share with friends... I dunno this is too dificult a topic for me to come up with an answer!

[ScaryGuy82]

Like I said, If the labels don't make money then the bands don't make money.

Say I was selling candy bars on the street, people were buying them and giving them away for nothing right down and around the corner. What the hell! Think people are gonna buy my candy bars? No...hell no, not when they are free. WHOO! HOO!!

It's human nature. People want free things. It's easy...when it's free. That's something that will NEVER change. So as long as there is free music floating around out there there will always be people getting their hands full. No respect to the artist that is making your day a little better with that song you say is your FAVORITE song.

[ScaryGuy82]

Free to Guitar wrote:

g8erfan1
Besides, look at some of the garbage that is being turned out by record labels these days. You tell me if the record labels have lost sight of things.


If it weren't selling, they wouldn't back it. That's the sad part.

lbc_sublime
i don't see a difference between me downloading a song, watching it on tv...watching it on youtube... listening to it on the radio


So you can't tell the difference between stealing a book and reading it in Barnes and Nobles? You have no control over the music on the radio or the TV, which means you have no ownership over it.

tbarrettl
Music is an art and whoever threw in Capitalism in it was greedy like RIAA.


Those greedy pigs, putting money into "Art." How dare they allow musicians to spend all their time making music instead of having to do it after they get home from their jobs. Just imagine how much artistic output Deep Purple could have made without that damn money. I'm not defending the record industry(*puke*) but putting money and music together isn't a sin.

This is a smart man, people. Listen to him. LISTEN TO HIM!

[stueey]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

Dont undertsand why people cant promote themselves. enter shikari did it and i think still do and they are gettin around fine.

I think you just gotta have the bollocks now, im not gona get my bands signed, im gona do it myself, might take a bit more time and such, but it seems like id make a ****in killing if i pulled it off!

[touji-za-nai]

i'm not sure if downloading music from a major label band is ever a good thing, but anything from small fry to the "almost there" area is a great advantage to them. They wouldn't make much money off of it anyways and its just more publicity

[stueey]

stueey wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

Dont undertsand why people cant promote themselves. enter shikari did it and i think still do and they are gettin around fine.

I think you just gotta have the bollocks now, im not gona get my bands signed, im gona do it myself, might take a bit more time and such, but it seems like id make a ****in killing if i pulled it off!

also, its not hard to produce ur own music either, the only thing i would worry about is making CDs but then theres downloading, CDs are gona becoma a collectable thing now aint they?

[mhylands]

goodguyclub wrote:
I like that. Different point of view than most people think about. It's all a pretty sick circle that eveyone has already overcommented on. Bands need labels, labels need bands, CEO's need money and more money and more money, we need music. CD is a dying technology, it's the only thing that will go away. Not downloading, not "record" companies, not Fallout Boy. . . not soon enough anyhow (sorry, couldn't help it)!

Haha, I liked what you said, *cough* FOB *cough*, haha. But you know, every band I have ever personally met, I have bought their EPs and LPs. With most bands I love, I usually buy all their CDs at some point or another, my main downloading issue is when the CD gets scratched up, and then I go get the songs. Still, I like having some medium, and I'll go buy their CD again if I have to (I really don't like the look of plain CDs that you burn to, haha). But yeah, I completely agree with what you said.

[ValoRhoads]

the real money isn't actually in the record sales, it's in merchandising and touring revenues. The records do net good cash but not as much as touring.

[ScaryGuy82]

ValoRhoads wrote:

the real money isn't actually in the record sales, it's in merchandising and touring revenues. The records do net good cash but not as much as touring.

That is mainly because people download the music. Why do you think tickets cost have gone up so much in the last several years? They have to make money somehow, and they big way to make money back then is not the same these days. They used to make damn good money off record sales.

[ltdf50]

I personally buy band t-shirts and go to all shows in my area. I also buy CDs, but I can't afford buying the whole discography of a band (ok, i have some original bought discographies, but i really can't do this with all bands). But i try to have at least one CD per artist. I think it's not right buying no CDs at all.
All these people who don't buy CDs should listen to an original and compare the quality to the copy. this is also a point why you should buy CDs i think.
And often bands are simply getting ****ed by record companies, e.g. at a show of a german hardcore band (that was on victory records) they said that nobody should buy their CDs, because Victory hasn't paid a penny to them yet. They said that if people want to support artsits, they should buy T-Shirts, because the merchendising money goes to the artist, the record money to the label... sad but true

[charger356]

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

I attend school full-time, work a part-time job for JUST over minimum wage, and live in my own house with my own bills to pay for. I buy CD's regularly and have yet to experience such financial disaster that I have to liquidate all my belongings to buy bread and water.

Based on the few words you said, I honestly think you're just a tight-wadded idiot with pimple face and a pornography addiction.

[piff665]

Cds really dont give the band a lot of money; it gives the retailer that sells it and the record company alot of money. Most of the money that bands make comes from both touring and merchandising. Financially, what nine inch nails and radiohead are doing is very smart, since distributing their music independently online will give them maximum profits to whatever people decide to pay for the album. I honestly dont download alot of music, since i actually like to physically have cds and all of the songs on them in their entirety. But when i do download, usually its to see whether i want to buy the cd later.

[ScaryGuy82]

charger356 wrote:

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.



Based on the few words you said, I honestly think you're just a tight-wadded idiot with pimple face and a pornography addiction.

Classic.

[LedBeatlesgtrst]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

you read my mind. Why buy CD's if the majority of the music is terrible. I really only buy 2-5 CD's a year and only 1 may be recent because the rest is terrible. And that one may be from a musician that is quite old from the good eras of music. I think that the only good bands out there that didnt start in the 90's or earlier are Wolfmother and The Raconteurs. Thats all I can think of.

[ScaryGuy82]

piff665 wrote:

Cds really dont give the band a lot of money; it gives the retailer that sells it and the record company alot of money. Most of the money that bands make comes from both touring and merchandising. Financially, what nine inch nails and radiohead are doing is very smart, since distributing their music independently online will give them maximum profits to whatever people decide to pay for the album. I honestly dont download alot of music, since i actually like to physically have cds and all of the songs on them in their entirety. But when i do download, usually its to see whether i want to buy the cd later.

Years ago, back before downloading, people would buy albums and the artist got a percentage of each copy sold. When you sell over a million copies...yeah...that percentage adds up to a pretty little penny, buddy.

[Niko12]

I mostly agree with everyones comments, especially how people say you know you spend so much money on cds and they could get scratched, etc. What I tend to do is buy the CDs and never open them or use the CD ill buy the cd and download the songs anyway, but i buy the cds for the simple fact that i like having a cd collection and as an artist myself i would like others to do the same.

[CrabSoldier X]

for a high school or even college kid that cannot work because they are too busy with sports and school, $15 a CD will indeed add up quickly to be a lot. Besides, its easier to just download it than to go out to a music store (for me, the nearest is kinda far) and pay for a cd when i might only like 2 or 3 songs on it. I still buy CD's from my favorite bands, and itunes, but im not trying to pollute the ozone with my exhaust so i'll make less trips to the store.

[anthonyd3ca]

Actually downloading songs from a band sometimes leads me into buying their album. It's kinda like if I really like the album from the songs I downloaded, I will go out and buy the album to support the band. I don't want to buy an album that I might not like.

[Masonpwiley]

reesy wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

couldnt agree more, this guy omarrodrigez, has been watching way too much cribs thinking that everything is done in one studio. Yes these days the majority of recording is done in one studio but the mixing and mastering is sent away through record label contacts.

The record label will never die they will just adapt, totally agree with the streaming an album or having some kind of taster session ( like maiden's new 3 play policy on their latest album) and lower cd/mp3 prices!

Suprised nobody has mentioned DRM free music, apple has the monopoly on the market by the encoding aloowing on

Amazon has DRM free too.

[Anti Vicarious]

I'm a musician, and god damn, I would LOVE for millions of people to download my music for free, because that's what it's all about. The music is the most important, not the money. The money can be made from touring, merchandise, ect. Even if the only way to make money was album sales...I'd rather be a poor musician with many fans around the world, than a greedy unknown artist.

As for downloading, I download a lot of bands albums to check out their music and if they are worth paying $17 dollars for the cd. If so, then I go out and buy the cd as well. For example, I downloaded radiohead's entire discography, then after falling in love with them, I went out and bought all their cds.

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

yes, it's alot for some people.

[guitarhead93]

I have to download music in limewire coz I live in peru, and original CDs cost a lot more than in america, almost 15 or 20% more. Its a shame, but its true.

[dudester410]

i'll admit, i download maybe 3 songs form an artist, and if i liek them, then i buy a few of their cd's, i thx to downloading i know own 350 albums from al sorts of different artists, although, if plp downloaded two songs and never bought an album, which is whats hapening, makes a big difference

[weemansyndrome]

I hate when you download an album and all the songs have transitions between them that get ruined by the tiny gap at the end mp3s. Transitions are cool and mp3 ruins them.

/rant

[suppersready21]

People are expected to pay an extra $15 to hear a band they paid $50-$60 previously to hear in concert. I find that amusing.

[Obie]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

not when you have bills to pay and you barely scrape by with your paycheck. ever tried livin on your own?

[inli3u]

charger356 wrote:

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

I attend school full-time, work a part-time job for JUST over minimum wage, and live in my own house with my own bills to pay for. I buy CD's regularly and have yet to experience such financial disaster that I have to liquidate all my belongings to buy bread and water.

Based on the few words you said, I honestly think you're just a tight-wadded idiot with pimple face and a pornography addiction.

The best part is "based on the few words you said". You could be right. Just as equally, however, you could be dead wrong as you know nothing about this person's situation other than what was said. So why the **** would you make such bold assumptions?

-----

Why is everyone convinced that a home studio has to cost several thousand dollars? It's not hard to make really nice recordings with cheap equipment and free mixing software like reaper (Don't let the free-ness fool you).

[RG guy]

15 is a little much for a cd but thats why i buy used cd's whenever i can because their not usally damaged much and most of the time dont skip

[JL Sevenfold]

I think a lot of people download music because they don't want to end up with the disappointment of buying a crappy cd. Radiohead was brilliant in letting people pay what they want for their cd- a free cd encourages people to listen to them for the first time without having to worry about burning $15 on a cd they don't want, and an option to pay allows fans to give back to the band for the music they love. This allows for more people to hear the band/pay for a concert ticket and merch which supports the band. Also the band/label (if there is one) can still get some money from cds/mp3s.

[themanintheback]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

It's more like $20 where i live, even for a 5 year old non-mainstream CD, and if you can't get a job and your parents aren't wealthy enough to just give you that money on a whim, then $20 bucks is a lot of money.

[EZLN libertad]

interesting, i think what radiohead did with rainbows is really gonna be the future of the industry, giving fans the option to pay whatever they want, same with NIN

Checked.

[davedoom]

the RIAA will burn - mark my words - the stone age doesnt exist today - neither will these cavemen in a few years

[the boogieman]

...ffs

the music industry isnt dying, just the riaa is

if i didnt dl music i would have never gone out to see tons of bands play live, nor would i have bought some cds for the bands i really like

not to mention without big record labels we wont have as much shit as miley cyrus, the jonas brothers, and "high school musical" becoming as big as they are

internet is a gateway

[JL Sevenfold]

I can see why some people who are strained for cash would say CDs are expensive and download them instead. However I know a lot of people with jobs (in high school) that don't have to support themselves that say CDs are expensive, too. Sounds like some of them are just trying to cover up the fact they don't want to pay for music when no one else is. I guess it's like when people only want something when they see someone else has it.

[0llie]

Ok so say the RIAA stop people from illegally downloading music.
What are they gonna do about MySpace? And YouTube? And all the other websites that let you listen to bands songs online?
That will lead to a whole bigger arguement because so many people use MySpace TV and MySpace Music as well as using YouTube.

Besides, that being said, I know where I download from I cant get many bands that are on an indie label that actually really need the money because they cant get merchandise or tour. So if I like a band like that then ill go buy their EP or albums if they release them.

Although, im in college, I cant get a job and I currently have no income at all. So I cant afford to pay £20 for albums.

Theres no way to stop people from downloading music illegally, when the RIAA realise that the better it will be for everyone.

[RCT2head]

"wide rang..." looks like someone forgot to edit...

what's going to happen is really anyone's guess tho

[JL Sevenfold]

davedoom wrote:

the RIAA will burn - mark my words - the stone age doesnt exist today - neither will these cavemen in a few years

Keep in mind that some of these people are just trying to protect their jobs, just like fans are trying to protect their bands. They have mouths to feed too, and deserve a job as much as anyone. I don't want to steal anyone's thunder, but I do want to point out that not every record-company or label employee is trying to screw bands over, some are just trying to be involved in music, too, and decided that they wouldn't make it in a band. Regardless of who or why.

[Dr.Jazz]

Taoistic_Beer wrote:

The only reason I don't buy records these days is because of the medium. The CD.

With the vinyl you sit down and enjoy the music, because there's nothing there but music. But with the CD are instantly reminded of work and everyday's troubles. The hectic lifestyle etc.

I agree with this, i own more vinyl that cd's and i am only 16 lol, i like vinyl because it has a very unique sound, every record sounds different, but every cd just sounds the same, it jsut isn't as good.

[JL Sevenfold]

On youtube however you can't take the music with you and listen to it in your car, on your iConform/whatever, etc. You are still stuck to your computer and waiting for files to download. I would prefer hitting play once and listening to a cd in one run, no gaps, than "watching" every song on Youtube.

By the way I'm not familiar with Myspace music/whatnot, so I don't know how that works. And "iConform" was a joke. No riots intended.

[Flying Afros]

the only things i have downloaded have been bootlegs of live shows, or obscure recordings that I couldn't find on iTunes or my local store. I like to buy the CDs of the bands I like. It makes me feel less guilty of downloading. But I know most of the money made from record sales goes to the label and not the band.

Lets just face it, the record companies can't stop millions of people from downloading. It's just to big of a problem to handle. Maybe they should try something else though, like offering some kind of incentive for buying a CD? I dunno. But usually the good bands want their music to be heard one way or the other. That way, they will get more fans and more will come to their shows, making them more money in the end. It pays off actually.

[JL Sevenfold]

Shit. I just realized I sat here for over an hour thinking/commenting/reading when I was supposed to plow the driveway. F-ing snow, I f-ing hate it. Oh well, it was probably the most interesting piece of news/any type of article I have read lately. (No names mentioned, Spitzer.)

[perilouspete]

GiantRaven wrote:

“why would you pay for something, if you could have it for free?”

Well I guess its now justified for me to steal everything I want...

[/sarcasm]

exactly.....i'll be the first to admit that i download music all the time, but there's no way to defend it from a moral standpoint. i'm not gonna try to say it's not stealing, because it is.

[perilouspete]

JL Sevenfold wrote:

Shit. I just realized I sat here for over an hour thinking/commenting/reading when I was supposed to plow the driveway. F-ing snow, I f-ing hate it. Oh well, it was probably the most interesting piece of news/any type of article I have read lately. (No names mentioned, Spitzer.)

you from wisconsin? cause we have a shitload here...

[JL Sevenfold]

Northwest of Chicago, actually. Right when it all melts away, we get drilled. It's not too bad, only a couple of inches so far (that's what she said) but it hasn't stopped coming down in craploads yet. Whatever, it'll melt away soon. Hopefully.

[Lucifer1805]

This debate seriously is getting everyone to a certain place called nowhere.
I live in England and your average CD comes at about £12 which is about $24
I see what everyone means,its a lot,its not a lot and so on. But for the sake of intelligence,accept the damn fact some kids like a lot of bands,and to be quite honest,its now rare to find every single cd you buy has a brilliant track listing. When you live in a small town,with no job availabilities. Also in my case,my brothers in university and therefore in debt of a student loan,my oldest sister currently finding a job and no income,me and my twin sister in school (again no job availabilities part or full time for 15 year olds anywhere near) and one parent earning £11,000 a year,and a mortgage alone of roughly £9000 a year,plus bills for gas,electricity,taxes and food and water. she ends up in debt

sorry bout the personal status explanation
but you see that with roughly about £200 (birthday,easter,xmas combined) I could possibly get about 15 albums. a fairly big amount piled up

but when i'm hearing bands on the radio after i spend that money,i have to wait months before i can afford an album,that in honesty. may be dissappointing. an album has about 2-4 tracks ever released. when you buy an album you haven't all the tracks on, you could end up paying £12 on a 12 track cd of which 3 tracks you like.

my point is..albums are unpredictable in quality overall,so yes i use frostwire to download music.
have the RIAA never felt happy when they get a free candy bar instead of havin to go to a corner shop to buy one. (i can't remember who used the metaphor like that but it was spot on)

millions of people will continue to use it
debate over
PS:RIAA...your a dissappointment to yourselves for failing to notice,you know,the lil thing called logic

[DP_SF_DTX_RATM]

Single song downloading has both helped and killed the music industry....

On one hand, people preview the music they like, and possibly go on to buy music from this and other alike bands.

On the OTHER hand, most people download 2 songs they like from a band, and thats it. No respect nothing. That's what my friend does....Drives me nuts.

So you know, I'm usually a liberal, so I say keep downloading avalible....I just wish people would respect it more.

[JL Sevenfold]

perilouspete wrote:

GiantRaven wrote:

“why would you pay for something, if you could have it for free?”

Well I guess its now justified for me to steal everything I want...

[/sarcasm]


exactly.....i'll be the first to admit that i download music all the time, but there's no way to defend it from a moral standpoint. i'm not gonna try to say it's not stealing, because it is.

See? Everything just got slightly simpler. I respect people who admit they are stealing, because it takes at least some degree of nuts to do so and I'm not going to stop them anyway. Their decision, not mine.

[euan_soad]

I download the odd song very very very occasionally. Today I bought 16 cds. Downloading is killing nothing.

[stumaster18]

Four Simple Steps:

1) Check out a band.
2) Download the music.
3) If you like it, buy it. If you don't, delete it.
4) Repeat.


Simple.

[axe_2_grind]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

Ignorant, not stupid. Most of us on here are fans snd many of us in local bands but we have no real understanding of what goes into making an album on a professional level. That's ignorance not stupidity.

[742627000017]

I just decided not to read this...just to keep good mood

[piff665]

ScaryGuy82 :
piff665 wrote:

Cds really dont give the band a lot of money; it gives the retailer that sells it and the record company alot of money. Most of the money that bands make comes from both touring and merchandising. Financially, what nine inch nails and radiohead are doing is very smart, since distributing their music independently online will give them maximum profits to whatever people decide to pay for the album. I honestly dont download alot of music, since i actually like to physically have cds and all of the songs on them in their entirety. But when i do download, usually its to see whether i want to buy the cd later.


Years ago, back before downloading, people would buy albums and the artist got a percentage of each copy sold. When you sell over a million copies...yeah...that percentage adds up to a pretty little penny, buddy.


Yeah obviously. Even then, though, most of the money came from touring and merchandising. With or without that 'pretty penny' that is earned from cd sales, a successful band will still be a financially successful band; either way, popular bands will still easily have enough money to live off music.

[LunchBx]

If they sold CD's for 2x what they cost to make them CD's would be

[Punker 96]

I don't think downloading should be considered "wrong", but it is definatley an abused privilege. There is a very large population of new musical talent out in the world today, and unfortunatley downloading hurts them alot more than the bands that have already made a name for themselves. If someone was to download an album from AC/DC and an album from band they say playing in a bar the night before, chances are they're going to feel a little sorry for the band that needs the money to continue making music, and not so much for the rock legends that have already collected a decent stash of money.

I'm not saying money is more important than the art itself. I'm a musician myself and being able to share my music with the world is definatley more rewarding than any sum of money ever could be. In a sense, downloading does help just about every band get their music heard, but like I said before, the privilege is being abused. The money put towards record production can end up being quite costly. Bands and record labels need that money to keep moving forward. It is true that shows will also generate some income for the band, but the band needs the record sales as well. Otherwise, they would have to be on tour every single day of every year just to make up for the loss of sales.

Sure, a little free downloading isn't a bad thing, but people need to understand that musicians don't make alot of money. In fact the majority of musicians are usually close to, or are in debt for the majority of their careers just to get their music heard.

I'm not directly taking a specific side of this argument, but I think people need to be more aware of the effects of music downloading, and not just the bad side of it, but the good as well. It can be either a privilege or a problem, but of course when it does become a problem, more lawsuits probably aren't the answer. We are lucky to have the oppurtunity to share our music at the click of a button, but still we should never take it for granted. Artists work very hard to produce music. They're giving to us, so shouldn't we be giving back? Even if it's just a little bit?

[Crashman77]

I think all cd's should be worth $1 for every song on the album, i.e. if the album has 10 songs then charge $10, this would help a bit because I buy cd's on a regular basis and when I see a cd that is 9 songs long and is being sold for$21.99, I don't buy it, I can get it for free on line or pay $0.99 for it with itunes or other legal downloading sites. I personally would rather have the cd, but I ain't spending $20 for it.

[duncang]

Crashman77 wrote:

I think all cd's should be worth $1 for every song on the album, i.e. if the album has 10 songs then charge $10, this would help a bit because I buy cd's on a regular basis and when I see a cd that is 9 songs long and is being sold for$21.99, I don't buy it, I can get it for free on line or pay $0.99 for it with itunes or other legal downloading sites. I personally would rather have the cd, but I ain't spending $20 for it.

That's a stupid method, it depends on song length as well.

[Ichimaru]

I'm not going to spend £10 on something that I don't know if I like. It just doesn't make sense..

[Trucont]

sowhat360 wrote:

do people understand that it actually costs bands money to record the music??? so should they just work off of money from shows and forever be in debt.....i dont understand how you think music can continue to be created at a high level without record sales

That's the reason so many bands are starting to record in their own personal studios. Radiohead made 100% profit from what they did. I don't see how that hurts the bands that decide to do so.

[wideheim]

That "cd's costs so much" argument is so lame, do you think the people who had a normal income (like most of you) didnt listen to music in the 60-70-80 and 90's? No they save up money to buy something that is pleasure, but now all fat americans need money to their cheeseburgers and colas.

[Magero]

I download all my music. If I like the album enough, I'll go out and buy the material, I'll buy a shirt, I'll got to a show. If I don't feel they are worth my money, I won't spend it. I'm supporting bands that I love in a way that isn't going to bankrupt me.

[HexaDakota]

It's stealing. Anyone that tries to convince you otherwise just doesn't want to admit that it's stealing because it means they'd have to actually get the music they want the hard way instead of effortlessely downloading whatever they want off Limewire.

Checked.

[dwink1217]

"God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid."

producing the cd SHOULDN'T cost money. you pay the upfront fees for the equipment. all that other crap? heres an idea, DO ****ING RESEARCH. learn about the music, gain the knowledge on how to do all those things yourself. you don't need 7 people to record a cd. you need a band and a couple of people that aren't retarded.

for god sakes i've at least had a basic idea of how to make a half decent recording since i was 16. you wanna know how i did it? practicing, messing around, and listening. sure it's not professional, but it sure as hell could be if i put the effort in. these are PROFESSIONAL musicians. they should put the damn time and effort into making real music instead of taking the cheap way out because they're greedy bastards.

[GunsnRosesown]

IMAO: If the artist releases a new album, buy it. If its an old album ex: Use Your Illusion(GNR)
its not worth buying because they have already receieved their credit for the album.

However, for modern rock there are other ways around it. You can go to libraries, borrow bought CDs from a friend, etc. There are ways around it.

In other words, just buy the album if its new.

[warlockking]

I usually buy CDs of bands that i really like, like Ozzy or Black Label Society etc. But for everything else like a song i hear on the TV or something i like i go to itunes.

reesy wrote:

only playback in ipods or a cd made on i tunes! What about the other thousands of mp3 players!

The major lables need to get their heads together and decide on a universal digital download format and encouragin more live music!!

To get an itunes download into MP3 all you have to do is Burn it onto a CD and then rip that CD into Windows Media Player, that's how i do it.

[Ultimate_Gio92]

tbarrettl wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

For 300 Bands and 1-20 CDs per band that adds up though if a band has a show near me I will go to it to support them that way though Music is an art and whoever threw in Capitalism in it was greedy like RIAA.

yeah zackk is a ****ing moron. I cant spend that much money at all. there are other things i want to buy. If I bought all the music that I wanted, I wouldnt have a ****ing room. I would have a couch and a backpack. Everything else I have like more furniture, computer/laptop, speakers, 3 guitars, new amp, piano, band merchandise such as t-shirts, posters, wristbands and patches (which benefits the bands), concert tickets (which support the ****ing bands), and even food.

I cant afford to buy all the music I want. Some of you may say... "You cant afford to buy all the music you want, then wait and save up".

Fuck that, I wanna listen to the song/album NOW, and im gonna listen to it NOW. Ill support bands by going to their concerts and buying their merch, but I cant afford music.

Ultimate_Gio92 has spoken

[Ultimate_Gio92]

wideheim wrote:

That "cd's costs so much" argument is so lame, do you think the people who had a normal income (like most of you) didnt listen to music in the 60-70-80 and 90's? No they save up money to buy something that is pleasure, but now all fat americans need money to their cheeseburgers and colas.

CD's back then were also cheaper. I cant afford 20 bucks or even 15 bucks for a CD. If a CD was 5 dollars id do it. but the only CD's that are 5 dollars are ones that are used beyond belief or stolen.

[redhotsexmagic]

cds in the 90 were actually more then than now if you think of sam goody and suncoast places like that i always used to pay like $17 - $20 for a cd..now if you go to best buy the most they are is like $14 but usually new releases are $10. just buy the damn cd. it looks cooler to u can make a nice collection

[Anno[fzk]]

EVD wrote:

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??



You are quite possibly the most naive person ever.

All the music is "horrible" nowadays according to you, so that's why you don't buy CDs.
So what do you do?
download the music you think is horrible?
C'mon man, get sorted.

This is a seriously huge thing we're talking about here, and it can't be chalked up to over priced CDs because that's in the hands of the store that sells it, not the artist, label or the RIAA.
And your musical preference in this case is just totally irrelevant.

Taste is more than relavant in this case. It is the very basis of it. The music industry has turned art into a product. In those terms, everyone has a right as a customer to choose what they like or don't like.

As for the cd prices, the cost goes up because of ALL of the middlemen, not just the retailer. That means the studio debt, sound engineer, producer, distributor, advertising, etc. also take a fair share of the loot.
If you know anything about marketing, you will realize that the middleman is gunna cost you. A lot.

Notice that its only the major labels that are freaking out. There's no outrage from indepentant labels.
Now that musicians have a window directly to their listeners, there will be no need for major labels.
This will happen as long as there are completely altruistic artists who are in it for the music.

[Regular_Guy]

For the record, I download music illegally, than if I like the artist/song, i purchase it.

Here's how I look at the whole downloading illegally vs. attaining legally argument: In order to do well in the business world, you must offer some advantage over your competitors. If your competitor is cheaper, for example, you must be more convenient (or have some other good quality). The thing is though, that downloading illegally has every single advantage. It is cheaper, much quicker, offers any quality of music that you are looking for, can be transferred easily onto any other medium, and offers a bigger variety of music than can be found anywhere else. So, to compete, record companies should not just try to sue the consumers for going with what is obviously the superior competitor (as consumers are supposed to do). They should find a way to compete in a category other than price.

[iamthedecieved]

i dunno i just always had a thing for having an actualy album i love holding it ilove knowing this comes streight from the artist, this is the cd this is the tape this is the vinyl whatever i love having the actual thing

[roarinflames]

this was probably the best opinionated article i have read on this site!
Great Article!
on topic, i used to sample stuff by downloading.
but now theres youtube, except the RIAA wants to pull music off of that now too

[neversleeps84]

I wouldn't say downloading is ruining the record industry.....but it is forcing them to change and re-think their strategy, and so far I really haven't seen either. Besides i-tunes, there hasn't been much innovation for getting music to people at a fair price.

[Petehookftw]

I can hardly find any of the albums I really want to hear in any store in my neighborhood, so unless I feel like traveling twenty miles to the nearest real record store, Downloading is the only way I get good music. Distribution of music is heavily hampered by superstores like Target and Walmart Monopolizing on sales.

Czech.

[Adam_Harrison9]

Dinosaurs Will Die

"Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn

I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"

For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don't we all know

Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be

Music written from devotion
Not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited
There are no tricks, up our sleeve

Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just ****ing glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall

Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good

If you think anyone would feel badly
You are sadly, mistaken
The time has come for evolution
Fuck collusion, kill the five

Whatever happened to the handshake?
Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
What happened to integrity?
It's still there it always was
For playing music just because
A million reasons why."

[5250]

I'd rather pick and choose the songs I want, and purchase them directly from the band's website; kind of like "iTunes". I'd like the band to get the money instead of the corporate slobs at the record label. With the technology of today, self-promotion is much easier.

[mrbiscuits315]

iamthedecieved wrote:

i dunno i just always had a thing for having an actualy album i love holding it ilove knowing this comes streight from the artist, this is the cd this is the tape this is the vinyl whatever i love having the actual thing

Most of the profits from ablum sales go the Label. Unless you the buy the album from a live show.

[jaybe2k4]

CDs are overpriced when you consider that each actual plastic disc costs a fraction of a cent to manufacture and (i read this somewhere, but could be wrong) that the artists may only receive as little as 10 cents per album sold

Personally, if i hear a band i like, i check them out on Myspace or i download them P2P. If they only have a couple songs i like, i eventually DL from iTunes, or if they have more than a few i buy the album, but i never really listen to the music from a CD anymore; they're far too easy to scratch and I like to take my music in my car... so i really have to like a band/artist to buy something i essentially only use once (to rip to my PC and then put on my iPod)

[Samdunhamss]

It is unbelievable some of the stuff you guys say...
Illegal downloading is wrong no matter how you look at it. The fact of the matter is you are taking money from someone no matter how you look at it. That's why it is illegal, it's stealing. You could justify your actions by saying things like how it doesn't affect the artist too much, but it does affect the artist some, the people who work for the company, and others.

People are so quick to justify their actions. Jesus Christ, morals are dead.

[HORSEBACK]

I buy cd's for the experience. I like going out to pick up a hardcopy of someone's hard work. Thers just something special about buying a cd/tape/record/ or whatever that you just cant get by downloading it off the internet. To me, downloading just feels too artificial.

[jaybe2k4]

here's another point, before digital music, think of how much of sales were from upgrading technology? records to cassettes to CDs, etc... CDs have been around forever and digital music (MP3, AAC, whatever) is essentially the next step, but with the widespread use of CD-R drives (as well as P2P programs), there's no need to pay for a digital copy of something you already have when you can just burn it or download it

Also CDs are pretty shitty; before music became digital think about how many times people would have to purchase the same album because their older copy got scratched and became unreadable?

[CoolDudeMorgasm]

Hooray for downloading music.

It's not exactly the music industry that's dying...

It's the music sale/distribution industry that's dying which essentially hasn't got much to do with the artists considering they are given an incredibly small proportion of the sales of their album. So good riddance to the RIAA.

[BurningTheLives]

The RIAA just wants money and nothing less. Music should be a passion, not an opportunity for a quick buck. Not everyone has the money to pay $20 per album, not to mention there are so many bands I like so to get to hear all of them, I'd need hundreds of dollars. Bands can support themselves with touring and merch. Albums are a plus to the money earned.

[recliner33]

iwillrockyou22 wrote:

i agree recliner33. its still nice maybe to pick up an album every once in a while....

Yeah I agree with you, I just hate how people assume that people who download music never buy cd's. Ever since I downloaded music I probably bought 3 times as many cd's as I bought before. And most of the cd's I buy now are from bands that I would have never heard if it wasn't for downloading music. If tv and radio played better bands then there wouldn't really be a need for downloading unless you don't plan on buying the album anyways.

[psychokiller99]

i think there are a number of reasons sales are down.
1. probably the most important one, is that music just isn't that good nowadays (from the major labels anyways). the stuff out on the radio, and MTV etc. just isn't that good.
2. there are a TON (and we all know this) of different genres, and scenes and one type of music. when led zeppelin and the beatles were releasing music, everyone listened to them. rock n' roll was the biggest thing, it seemed like it was the only thing. not so today. the are 1500 subgenres of rock and metal, and dance and hip-hop and country and soul and R&B, and indie and classical, it's harder i thinking for a massive audience to embrace just ONE album/artist.
3. of course downloading is a major problem, for the record companies anyways. not so much for the artists. artists really don't make anything off their records unless they are already super big, so downloading doesn't really affect them anyways. but the record companies really lose tons of money.

i'm sure there are more reasons, but i can't think of any haha. that being said though, i agree that the labels aren't "dying", they are just changing drastically. but i don't see record sales increasing and getting back to normal again, i think the mainstream music scene is gonna see a big change in the coming years. i guess everything i said is kinda obvious, but idk, just my 2 cents.

[David_Bowie=GOD]

Downloading music helps you figure out what you like. You hear about a band you never heard and you want to listen to them. What if you spent 15 bucks on a cd and didnt like it? Waste of money. I dont think downloads affect sales. If you download their music and like it, you go buy the cd. Thats what I do at least. Downloading music not only helps discover music youve never heard, it also helps the artists become better known. If you notice, most artists and bands against downloads are pretty much set for life cough*metallica*cough

[gibson4ver]

"The boys upstairs just dont understand anymore"-Last Dj
just think WWTPD
What Would Tom Petty Do

[BaSSiSt_METAL]

i think downloading is alright to a point
i download but i also buy lots of cds
id encourage cd buying

[Nirvana_17]

yeah downloading is probably not the reason for sales decreasing.... its probably because music nowadays sucks.

[mp3stalin]

David_Bowie=GOD wrote:

Downloading music helps you figure out what you like. You hear about a band you never heard and you want to listen to them. What if you spent 15 bucks on a cd and didnt like it? Waste of money. I dont think downloads affect sales. If you download their music and like it, you go buy the cd. Thats what I do at least. Downloading music not only helps discover music youve never heard, it also helps the artists become better known. If you notice, most artists and bands against downloads are pretty much set for life cough*metallica*cough

more or less. and not all well off bands are against it. if i remember right Dexter Holland of the Offspring said that it was this generations version of mix tapes.

[ParkerScks]

well... i blame emo's haha joke. but i do blame trends.. i mean, there are hundreds of diffrant genres nowdays and its hard for us.. the fans.. to lisen to it all. so what do the lables do? they create "trends" in oder to take more out of our pokets for example lamb of god are classed as "metalcore" so are killswitch engage... what do they have in common nothing at all... its just somthing to put out so they cash in (im not knokin eather band.. lamb of god being my favorite band of all time) but the point is its there own fault like i said 1000's of diffrant types of music - they make trends - trends die - trends have haters - whom btw suck dick because they follow it just as mutch as anyone else buy blindley missing the point! witch is as said 90% of the bands with in the trend have jack shit in common.

[AbstractDeth7X]

whippingpost wrote:

MattA7Xfan4Life wrote:

it's like this
i torrent music i wanna hear,
if i like it i buy it, if the record
industry allowed trials then i for one
would torrent no more

I have to agree with this comment. I don't download, but I think that there should be a trial of some sort. Music is getting expensive these days. Almost outrageously so. I rarely buy new releases due to both the price, and that there's not much out there that strikes me as interesting these days.

There used to be a store - Blockbuster/Warehouse Music - that would allow you to preview a CD before you bought it. With prices what they are today, I'm not going to drop close to $30 on something unless I know I'm going to like it. And, I don't trust reviews either. Everyone who's bought an album with great reviews, only to find that it really sucked, raise your hand.

Stores like that still exist. They're called Borders, Barnes & Noble, and FYE.

[Alpha_Wolf]

LimeWire should change it's name to LameWire, because that's what it truly is.

[broken fusion!]

sowhat360 wrote:

do people understand that it actually costs bands money to record the music??? so should they just work off of money from shows and forever be in debt.....i dont understand how you think music can continue to be created at a high level without record sales

You fail.
It's easy to record and produce to a high quality in your basement. Use the internet to get it out.

[asteria24]

(pssst:
...If you transfer
the CDs to your computer
you'll solve the scratching problem...)

Me
I don't like downloading.
I did for a while
when I was in the
"I MUST FIT IN WITH THE SCENE" stage
but now I don't care.

Where's the thrill gone?

The Curiosity of
walking into a music store
you know
that place that you always
drive by but never bother
to look inside.
The shelves stacked high
with CDs from bands
you've never heard of before.
"That one has an interesting cover"
so you pick it up
and head to the register
where you strike up a friendly converation
with The Girl Behind the Counter.

The Expectation of
struggling to break
the plasticshrinkwrap chains,
freeing the music
and feeling like
a hero with broken nails

The Excitement of
reading along with the lyric booklet
cover-to-cover
falling into
a great piece of art
discovering the design
on the CD itself
(that part is my favorite)

The Satisfaction
of knowing that
You Earned That Album
You Bought That Album

Doesn't compare to
Clicking that "download" button.

...At least not for me.
I support the
LittleIndieMusicStores

[Indie Purist]

I've spent enough money on CDs over the years to buy a small car.
And I'm 17.

The record industry needs to evolve or die like the decaying, wretched dinosaur it is.

[Wicked Rose]

I can't remember what the name of this store in Canada was, but they had this brilliant idea that (assuming it was used more frequently) could have saved the cd. Rather than having to purchase the album and having no options as to wether you could get your money back, they allowed you to scan the bar code and have a listen to the WHOLE CD. Not just a trial (itunes) but the full length track. Mind you, some people might find this annoying, standing infront of a scanner with headphones on, but still, it worked for me. God I miss that store.

[BaSSiSt_METAL]

Me
I don't like downloading.
I did for a while
when I was in the
"I MUST FIT IN WITH THE SCENE" stage
but now I don't care.

Where's the thrill gone?

The Curiosity of
walking into a music store
you know
that place that you always
drive by but never bother
to look inside.
The shelves stacked high
with CDs from bands
you've never heard of before.
"That one has an interesting cover"
so you pick it up
and head to the register
where you strike up a friendly converation
with The Girl Behind the Counter.

The Expectation of
struggling to break
the plasticshrinkwrap chains,
freeing the music
and feeling like
a hero with broken nails

The Excitement of
reading along with the lyric booklet
cover-to-cover
falling into
a great piece of art
discovering the design
on the CD itself
(that part is my favorite)

The Satisfaction
of knowing that
You Earned That Album
You Bought That Album

Doesn't compare to
Clicking that "download" button.

...At least not for me.
I support the
LittleIndieMusicStore

this makes me wanna pick up some random cd
instead of just buying bands i already know :P

[BurningTheLives]

Nirvana_17 wrote:

yeah downloading is probably not the reason for sales decreasing.... its probably because music nowadays sucks.

+1
most of the bands I like now can't be found at my local music store, and anything you get off of iTunes is in m4p format, so if you want to use it with another program, forget about it.

[Chemicalwarfare]

"A band needs a label just because not that many people have as much money as an organization does to get the record out there."

The whole concept of not actually having to have a package for a product didn't seem to strike anyone on that side the record industry. It's really simple see, they depend on other people to make money, they're leaches.

[whitestrat279]

i'm not sure if downloading music from a major label band is ever a good thing, but anything from small fry to the "almost there" area is a great advantage to them. They wouldn't make much money off of it anyways and its just more publicity

Yeah, bands who make their stuff available to download free off myspace, band website or whatever can gain popularity because when it's free people WILL download because of the fact it's free. Then, a major label notices them, sign them, and the band sells around 1 million CDs. They could already become hugely popular because they made their first stuff available free.

I guess I'm saying make it free first, then sign a record label so they become popular enough to do their own thing like Radiohead kind of (not saying the Radiohead thing works for everybody though).

Problem solved.

[wolfhowl11]

maybe if music sold online wasn't encoded at ear rape (128 kb/s) it'd be easier to buy when you live not beside a record store.

[wolfhowl11]

maybe if music sold online wasn't encoded at ear rape (128 kb/s) it'd be easier to buy when you live not beside a record store.

[EVH_iS_g0d]

Maybe big record labels would make more money if they weren't obsessed with bad music.
I'm sick and tired of rap and the mountains of mindless rock that gets put out every month by another no-energy, untalented moron.

[joseruntalan]

iTunes for life!

[E-dogg66]

I think the record labels make enough money even with down loading, so they should not try and stop people from finding new music on the web. Maybe a band like linkin Park won't sell as many records and make the Big labels money today like they could have if they were around 10-15 years ago but there are a lot of other bands that maybe go unnoticed if not for file sharing. I don't want to buy an album from a band I only heard one song from especially when I heard that song on the radio.

[AthenasGhost]

I think downloading music is a great thing, people who go to shows show that they support that artist, if downloading wasn't an option anymore, people who used to download still probably wouldn't go to the store and buy the album,The labels and what not need to stop being so selfish, artists make more money than they need anyways, music shouldn't be about making money. It started as an expression of emotion, and that aspect of it has gone to hell.

[jonnyrotten45]

the problem is that the RIAA isnt willing to work around it. I think that they should work on creating a system where programs like limewire and things like that should have to pay the RIAA a certain some of money, the companies that pay the money could then get money from sponsorships like radio stations do, but still have the music be free to the consumer, because like it or not, illegal downloading isnt going to go away with a few law suits

[death101]

I do not down load music and i am an artist wanting to make it big
but if you want to download music and you like a band you should support them by buying there songs on itunes or better yet go to there concert and buy over priced merchendise that way the artist gets most of the money and fans will tell other people about there music and be a fan supporting the band

[MrBucket]

people find out about bands through downloading quickly and then end up showin support by buyin shirts or going to shows or w/e. most bands wouldnt of even been as discovered if it werent for downloading so 'stfu'

[linkrevolver]

well

a lot of artist are more interested onmake money cuz they give poor music

anyway it could b easyer if cds was cheaper
and it seems cd will b more expensive, and not just cds
merchandise, dvds and all of the things they say they want a pice of that will b more expensive
that sucks

[TC1223]

All it will be now is what NIN did - there will be no more record labels.

[bassboy 999]

Who cares about RIAA and the recording companies? Fuck them both, who gives a shit if they both die?! Ill put up the flag and sing the anthem the day they go. This is about the bands. It's about the people who are actually making the music. They are the ones that should be "revolutionising". Radiohead will go down in history forever as being the first band to give its music away on the internet and let the people pay whatever they want for it. A similar system or the same perhaps, will be the face of the modern age and the new music industry.

[CoolDudeMorgasm]

bassboy 999 wrote:
Radiohead will go down in history forever as being the first band to give its music away on the internet and let the people pay whatever they want for it.

They aren't the first... There's been quite a few bands who've done this.

[PopNFresh07]

Maybe we should consider downloading as pro bono work.

[Tantalus]

Yeah....the musicians might make music to 'spread their talent' but I can assure you that isn't why the recording engineers, producers, etc..... do it. Honestly, the industry will never die, but eventually there will be very little music made with decent recording quality.

And honestly, you wouldn't say "**** the record industry" if you saw all of the people who would have to go home and tell their wives and children that they got laid off because of the thousands of greedy high schoolers who are too lazy to get off their ass and work for enjoying the albums they don't deserve.

[losing battle]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

you understand the irony of that statement because im sure you use this site for tablature, which is essentailly the same thing as you being to cheap to go out and by a book of sheet music. There for you are a hypocrite and your entire oppinion is invalid.

[Raphael Faunus]

The only thing I'd ever buy is vinyl -- Or, alternately, the CDs of great local bands that can't torrent. I see no reason I would ever want to buy a CD when it sounds so mundane and unemotional. I buy vinyl records all the time, because it sounds great. Honestly, CD is a dying medium for musical expression. I am in no way against capitalism, and you'd have to be an idiot if you were -- I am, however, against exploiting it. As is done with the ridiculously overpriced records and albums that are extraordinarily not worth it. Mind you, I'm an Objectivist in some ways -- I have my fair share of knowledge and support in earning what you deserve. Until the artists themselves, however, are actually earning the useful money from the album sales -- I will forever support my silent rebellion.

[RockerNo.21]

I download songs via P2P but if i come across a couple of songs i like from the same album, I'll go out and buy the album. Downloading MP3 files doesn't beat opening a CD case with a booklet and a Physical copy of the songs.

[jthm_guitarist]

The_Man_IV wrote:
Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

Exactly
"The Music Industry" as a whole may be slipping, but good musicians are still making money.
I am constantly buying albums, and the albums I buy are from successful artists (they proved so 1960s-80s)

[nathanuc1988]

I lost my job because of the RIAA. I worked at my college as a Computer Support Tech. and I was pulled into my bosses office where he told me that the RIAA has filed a report that I was illegally downloading music. Knowing I was innocent, I asked him for proof, and the server files showed that I downloaded "metallica- one". I own the And Justice for all.. cd... I have the disc to prove it. I did not download nor share the file. What happened was I recored guitar tracks to Metallica- One and named the file "Metallica One.mp3" and sent it to my friend. The server claimed it was the actual track and I was immediately fired. When I contacted the RIAA, I was never put on the line with anyone who could help me. I own hundreds of LEGAL cd's and I lose my job and all income because the RIAA made a mistake, and wont fess up to it... thanks a lot

[glugger]

MattA7Xfan4Life wrote:

it's like this
i torrent music i wanna hear,
if i like it i buy it, if the record
industry allowed trials then i for one
would torrent no more

Amen Brother

[HyperCannon]

No matter what happens to the record companies, there will always be some creative people out there who will think of other ways to sell there music. Most likely, people will hav to start small, such as creating a website and selling songs through there, tho it will prolly reach some P2P thing in nothing flat. The point is, people will hav to get creative and do some thinking for themselves.

[michhill8]

cd's aren't overpriced, corporate retailers like Best Buy and Target get them for 7.50 at the cheapest (from the 4 big labels), so they sell them for 9.99 during their initial release week. 2 bucks above cost isn't that much to ask.

On the other hand... stores like FYE are overpriced.

[i_am_metalhead]

“Better you should get our music online for free, and still come to our shows, than nothing at all”

Yea... but then the RIAA doesnt get any money... which will make them cry and throw a fit; and, in turn, sue more people because they are a bunch of greedy bastards.

The RIAA is a joke and they need to **** off already

[J-Whitt]

(sarcasm) Oh yes, let's all download music illegally, because paying one dollar for a song that we love will kill us. One dollar is sooo hard to make, let me tell you.

[catchtherainbow]

In some areas of the world, it's tough to get the CDs from the bands that you love. Finally you either resort to downloading or just buying an overpriced CD based on shipping cost.

[HyperCannon]

J-Whitt wrote:

(sarcasm) Oh yes, let's all download music illegally, because paying one dollar for a song that we love will kill us. One dollar is sooo hard to make, let me tell you.

I couldnt help but laugh! (thats a good thing Ill hav u know)

People are so dim, just buy a CD/iTunes track/a cellphone music store track/etc. Even if u hav to buy urself some prepay Visa's to do it...

Because who doesnt hav 1 buck somewhere...

[GodbowstoMath]

recliner33 wrote:

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

well, maybe the major labels should start putting out more consistent talent, there are a lot of good bands on major labels, but most of the true talent is in the independent labels, they the labels making the money now (speaking relatively).

[odd_cause]

Hmmm im in two mind on this debate, while i do download stuff, i also play in a band, make records and understand the economics of being in a band.lol. basically if a band is signed to a label they wont see much if any money for a while as all the marketing, production, and distrobution of the record is paid for out of the artists royalties. but the catch is - if the bands dont sell records the labels dont recoup the costs of the records, and inevitably the band get dropped, if not this record then the next. after that its highly likely going to be adios for that band.

Even though a band makes the most off touring and merch sales, it is ****ing hard work to tour week in week out.

Like i said i do down load music but i still buy albums, only on vinyl.

My opinion is the record industry has only themselves to blame. the quality of music has been declining over the past 10 to 15 years, but the record industry has refused to change, meanwhile other competition for the Music buyers dollar has strengthened..ie DVD, Gaming Consoles, social networking. And as a consquence, music buying has fallen down in the list of prioritys of your average person.

[Cuda71]

What kind of company fails to adapt to and even fights against changing technology, then blames the fans when things start going down the drain? All these lawsuits are simply a survival tactic. The fact is they know they are no longer needed to distribute music, and will scratch, kick and bite their way to those last dollars as they leave.

As far as the stats the RIAA post on there site... complete bullshit. Don’t buy it for a second. $12.5 billion in economic losses a year? Does this mean that $12.5 billion just disappeared from the economy? Of course not, it just went to other places. I know that the $300 I didn’t spend on CD’s last year didn’t vanish, it went toward new gear and to the companies that make the stuff that helps me make my music. For every promoter that loses a job at a big label company, three more will find work using the internet to create a distribution network run by the people. And so what if a few writers get laid off? I’m a firm believer that bands should write their own music anyway, but that’s another story.

It's up to everyone here to do their part, and that doesn't mean giving up the music you love. I only buy the few albums that I find are really worth it, everything else I download. Buy more merchandise, go see the shows, and do what you can to get the money to the people who deserve it. It's up to us to put the RIAA out of business while keeping the good music alive.

[madmanomaironed]

Raphael Faunus wrote:

I am in no way against capitalism, and you'd have to be an idiot if you were -- I am, however, against exploiting it.

I'm afraid that you've pretty much just contradicted yourself. Capitalism throughout history is based on the exploitation of others. Heck to this day its being done through outsourcing of agriculture, manufacturing and even call centres.
The entire idea of capitalism is to capitalise on your profits and gain as much money as possible, which is exactly what the music industry is trying to do here. As I said before, a revolution is the only way forward.

http://www.garywillis.com/blog/

[ken20008]

i dont buy cds here in singapore cos im still in secondary school and metal cds (or any other kind of cds for that matter) arent cheap. S$25 TO S$35 for an album isnt really cheap for a student.

I really want to buy albums, just that im not working and cant afford to go crazy on buying records.

I own a few Green Day records and have Lateralus by Tool in my collection. Im proud of it even though i download.

Im aspiring to be a musician, recording a demo year end, i can tell you, big bands can make money buy recording the album themselves and selling it themselves. Plus they earn alot from touring.

Record labels are only an accesory to guide a small band to fame. After that they are a problem.

[nappyd]

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.

Most "big established bands" don't record an album in their home studio either, at most demos of song ideas. They usually go somewhere else to make albums w/ the rest of the band for a variety of reasons.

The record labels themselves screwed themselves into this mistake by ditching the singles format in the 90s, forcing people to look for alternatives for getting individual songs from a cd back in the 90s. And also that whole ignoring real musicians and bands to focus in on boy bands & britney-like crap didn't help either. Then there's also that problem of radio station consolidation and being too corporate, and having issues like not enough new artists getting airtime, etc.

[raoulruby]

Well I'm going to continue downloading, but just buy merchandise and go see bands live.
If the band are unsigned i will buy there record as well.

[jplay5]

most of the problem is file-sharing, but a huge problem that no one is really discussing is the fact that this era has produced a sub-par group of musicians. Once that trend turns around and we have some stellar songwriters and guitarists and even rappers, the music industry will turn around.

[the1]

raoulruby wrote:

Well I'm going to continue downloading, but just buy merchandise and go see bands live.
If the band are unsigned i will buy there record as well.

I'm kinda similar. Why the **** should I buy a Metallica CD when they cost more than other bands, yet the band themselves are millionares??
On the other hand, I will go out and buy Reuben CD's because they are underated and have their own label.

[nautiluspfd]

let me give you all some perspective: i am in a local band called In Reverie based out of charleston, SC. we are not signed to a label and we do not have any support outside of our own incomes. the last time we recorded it cost 4500 dollars. that was for 3 songs. in order for us to record an entire album(10-12 songs) it would cost around 16,000 dollars and that is using a low level producer. to press a cd cost about 1200 dollars for a thousand discs. good art work can be anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars. i hope you see where i am going with this. we arent metallica or jay-z or radiohead, and when you download music you are ****ing people like me and my band who dont have millions of dollars. as i read this forum i see some people who understand this and i want to thank you for realizing the problem here, as for the rest of you pull your head out of your ass and see that you are making it impossible for new independant acts to survive and create new music.

[AVIDFANOFSOUNDS]

This is a really pointless arguement, people are downloading stuff but nothing the record companys can stop them there is just to many people downloading.

Also if a band is really good they don't need a label to get started look at the artic monkeys they only got famous from uploading there songs on myspace they didn't have a label.

[metaldud536]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

wrong wrong wrong wrong. You know how many people listen to rap and hiphop? And most of them wont even pay for the cd's. It is downloading that causes problems if millions of people do it EVERYDAY and not just hiphop and rap.

[E-dogg66]

metaldud536 wrote:

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??
wrong wrong wrong wrong. You know how many people listen to rap and hiphop? And most of them wont even pay for the cd's. It is downloading that causes problems if millions of people do it EVERYDAY and not just hiphop and rap.

[rasker]

tbh I couldn't be bothered to deal with having a shitload of CD's lying around. for casual listening it's so much more easier to just click on whatever song I'd like to hear.

the idea of having a vinyl collection is something I've been toying with for awhile. they feel more solid and real compared to cd's.

[E-dogg66]

metaldud536 wrote:

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??
wrong wrong wrong wrong. You know how many people listen to rap and hiphop? And most of them wont even pay for the cd's. It is downloading that causes problems if millions of people do it EVERYDAY and not just hiphop and rap.

Maybe people should stop listening to that crap. I think I'll blame this on Hip Hop M-ya thats what I'll do AH AH AH AH MWHA AH AH AH

[trackmind]

Seriously. RIAA are idiots. They need to realize that the industry is changing, rapidly. They see the illageal downloaders as "enemies" rather than seeing them as possibilities, and that were it all goes wrong in the first place. Most people who buy records today are people who were raised on it. In 40-50 years, those people wont be around, and then all the record labels are gonna have are consumers who think they suck and therefore will refuse to buy any music at all. Wake up, people.

[trackmind]

nautiluspfd wrote:

let me give you all some perspective: i am in a local band called In Reverie based out of charleston, SC. we are not signed to a label and we do not have any support outside of our own incomes. the last time we recorded it cost 4500 dollars. that was for 3 songs. in order for us to record an entire album(10-12 songs) it would cost around 16,000 dollars and that is using a low level producer. to press a cd cost about 1200 dollars for a thousand discs. good art work can be anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars. i hope you see where i am going with this. we arent metallica or jay-z or radiohead, and when you download music you are ****ing people like me and my band who dont have millions of dollars. as i read this forum i see some people who understand this and i want to thank you for realizing the problem here, as for the rest of you pull your head out of your ass and see that you are making it impossible for new independant acts to survive and create new music.

Wouldn't it be easier to find new solutions than trying to hold on to old ones that obviously do not work anymore? I definitely understand what you mean, but it's really just in the hands of the record labels to find new solutions. People are gonna continue downloading nevertheless.

[grammergitis]

As you see, it's mainly the record companies that are agruing, most bands understand that the importance of music is to have it heard by the many. "If it means downloading, so be it" Is the mindset of most musicians out there.

Ask anyone who is in the music industry and they will also tell you that the main part of the profit will come from going tours and playing shows...How will people goto these shows if they don't know the band? Lot's of people have found some music over the Internet and are now huge fans of bands and support them.

Labels need to quit their whining and realize that its the band's music, and music should always be heard, with or without money involved.

[hobozach]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

+100000

I totaly agree. All i hear is the that the f*ckin record labels are POd about the illegal downloading. Illegal downloading is like the drug industry: No matter how hard u come down on the biz, it'll continue to flourish, because there will ALWAYS be people who want the product, whether its 5 years from now, or 20 years.

As for the people who are sayin u should buy the album instead of illegally downloading: Keep buying. Ur right, without the buyers, bands and artists are f*cked sideways. But let the downloaders download, cuz no matter how much u preach, it won't ever be enough to stop us from doing wat we do. Free is free to us, whether its shared, stolen, or given. Its good u have strict morales, but don't be the christians of the music biz and try and shove as much of ur ideas down our throats as much as possible.

[sevenchurches]

i get about three songs off an album. If i like them I buy the album. Simple as.

but too many bands are making shit muisc that i dont want

check.ed.

[LD_Luke D]

A problem with only buying CDs from stores like Virgin/Zaavi and HMV, is that those stores will stock only albums that are relatively popular. You have to go to a big city to find a lot of albums in CD form. The big chains can't stock every CD in all of their stores, and most people won't spend the money on petrol to drive to a store that does stock what they're looking for.

And when you can just go to a website and download near enough any CD you can think of for free, you can hardly blame people for using P2P.

This is basically like YouTube and MetaCafe etc. Maybe record labels could allow people to download music from their sites for free, and gain revenue from adverts on the site.

all very true very good idea!

[burnout202]

spiralfrog.com

[Shread_6009]

why are these RIAA people complaining? they collect almost 90% of the profits a CD makes ( less after they pay all the people that worked on the disk), plus all T-shirt sales, songs used in soundtracks and commercials, as well as concert, posters, every interview and whenever the song is on the radio. not the mention the thousands they get from the lawsuits. these guys just want 3 billion $ instead of the 2 billion $ they get because of illegal downloads. geez, i doubt i can even spend around a million $ in a lifetime, let alone the billions the labels are getting.

btw these numbers are per BAND, not just in total. i buy all my CD's cause i want my favorite artists ( Tool, John 5, Ozzy, BLS etc.) to keep making music, but these record labels hav nothing to complain about. they're richer than the bands will ever be.

[eddie0gre]

Honestly, if record companies didn't exist it'd level the playing field for everyone. Maybe if record companies didn't pay millions upon millions of dollars to get mediocre artists and writers in the spot light, people might listen to music other than what MTV tells them to. I know that i want people to like my music because they actually like it. Believe me, i haven't met one person who listened to that One Republic song "Apologize" before Timbaland produced the remix. That's a terrible song either way. Just goes to show how stupid people can be.

Also, as an artist. I don't care how people hear my music as long as they're listening. And i really don't care about the money. I feel like the money would just cause more problems than it'd fix.

[imnotastoner]

duncang wrote:

Dropping prices and advertising it is the temporary solution, full album streaming is on the right track for the permanent one.

Stream the album online and people can listen to it and decide if they think it's worth it to go out and make that purchase.

dropping prices would be impossible

and streaming the album wont help either.
as long as people have this technology at their fingertips, they will take advantage of it.
for example, say i go to a website and hear the new muse cd streaming.
i really like it, but as usual im dead broke.
i pop open bittorrent, and i have the full album within 20 minutes.
ANYONE will prefer that to going to a store and paying $20 for it.

[had_hc]

haha! from where i live (Malaysia), cds are like 40+ bucks! plus i'm a student! i mostly download music free.. but for the local artist, i will definitely buy it! the big international ones, probably only once a year!

p/s i already got about 26Gb of music on my laptop! from free downloading 99% of it. n gonna keep downloading freely!

[Lrn2play]

music industry is dead, yeah.
now its just music, like it should be

[Licorice]

Ok, I can understand not buying from huge, mega famous bands that make millions and billions a year. But I will surely still buy albums of smaller bands.
Bigger Artists have ways of getting money besides just CDs.... Merchandise, Concerts, TV commercials, ect. Big names are by no means getting 'poor' by illegal downloads.

[metalscott76]

i think the biggest advancement in the music industry is myspace. Every band you could ever think of is there.

[guitarguy2012]

It might cost money to record songs, but it's not going to make the band go into debt if you download one song. Recording shouldn't be a problem to any band, it's not like all 4 or 5 people can't split 1,000 dollars to pay for the studio. In my opinion, you should be able to listen to music for free, instead of paying 10 dollars if you just want one song. Most band nowadays, are one-hit-wonders. Why would the bands complain that people are downloading their music and not buying the cd. They need to stop complaining..at least people are listening to your music. Theirs millions of people that would like to be in your shoes, and would play music for free, and not care if people are downloading music for free. But, that's just what i think. I'm only one person.

[|Heretic|]

The thing is, is that if people don't stop downloading music for free, the record labels will (eventually) have to shut down, because they will begin to loose money eventually. (or so is the thinking of the record label owners)

However, the price of Cd's goes up because of inflation (although i'm sure it isn't the only reason). I'm sure that record labels could drop the prices making it easier to buy them. Although i don't see how £10-15 is completely unreasonable (if you buy a cd when it just comes out it tends to be cheaper), even if i can't afford it sometimes. If you can't pay, you should go without, music isn't something you cannot live without.

[vanceboy]

the record industry giant is simply not needed anymore...the internet makes anyone and everyone a "do-it-yourselfer", thus cutting out the (big) middle-man.

[grimevil]

buy cds because it's more personal. I feel that I get closer to the music and the band. Also, if you have a pretty decent cd player, you get such a better sound quality than any mp3 player. I don't go to crap commercial cd stores either that charge $15 a pop, instead I pay $10 at a local one or underground store.

[vanceboy]

had_hc wrote:

haha! from where i live (Malaysia), cds are like 40+ bucks! plus i'm a student! i mostly download music free.. but for the local artist, i will definitely buy it! the big international ones, probably only once a year!

p/s i already got about 26Gb of music on my laptop! from free downloading 99% of it. n gonna keep downloading freely!

RIAA agents are going to enter your house guns blazing....shouldn't have posted that man.

[Warheart1188]

The RIAA tried telling us last year that ripping music to your computer and putting it on a mp3 player was technically illegal. Ha! Anyways, I don't really bother with them. I buy music because I have money to do so. I like cds because it's always good to have a authentic hard-copy and cds are better in quality and such. Also, I'm a sucker for special editions of cds with bonus tracks and extra cds and/or dvds. Also, I buy the cds because I want to help the artists. But I do occasionally buy songs from iTunes.

[Warheart1188]

vanceboy wrote:

had_hc wrote:

haha! from where i live (Malaysia), cds are like 40+ bucks! plus i'm a student! i mostly download music free.. but for the local artist, i will definitely buy it! the big international ones, probably only once a year!

p/s i already got about 26Gb of music on my laptop! from free downloading 99% of it. n gonna keep downloading freely!

RIAA agents are going to enter your house guns blazing....shouldn't have posted that man.

RIAA is in AMERICA. He lives in MALAYSIA. They don't follow our copyright laws. There is no international copyright. Keep that in mind.

[2mins2midnite]

OVER PRICED CD's
I BLAME THE RETALIERS THEY SELL THE CD DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC AND THEY CHARGE ALOT
THEY ARE TO BLAME

[TheAmenCorner89]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

No, but £15 is, and thats equivilent to $30. That's what people in the UK have to pay for most CDs

[ZeBlackCat]

Recliner;

Although listeners are great for a band as artist, because your music will be spread and heard, it's bad for music because that means less money for a new album.

Although money isn't needed make music nessecarily [Though it will help your favourite music evolve] There certainly IS money needed to put their music out there.

[yunkers]

bands make more money touring anyway, their cd sales account for at most a 1/3 of their money, so really they are still profiting, so **** industry

[yunkers]

[quote]LimeWire should change it's name to LameWire, because that's what it truly is./quote]

what a thoroughly researched assessment

[ZeBlackCat]

imnotastoner wrote:

duncang wrote:

Dropping prices and advertising it is the temporary solution, full album streaming is on the right track for the permanent one.

Stream the album online and people can listen to it and decide if they think it's worth it to go out and make that purchase.
dropping prices would be impossible

and streaming the album wont help either.
as long as people have this technology at their fingertips, they will take advantage of it.
for example, say i go to a website and hear the new muse cd streaming.
i really like it, but as usual im dead broke.
i pop open bittorrent, and i have the full album within 20 minutes.
ANYONE will prefer that to going to a store and paying $20 for it.

That would drive the human population into apathy, less and less will mankind have to go outside for what they want, for there is internet, internet relations, internet schooling, internet work, etc.

Life is so beautifull inside a single room... isn't it?

[Tedward]

BULLSHIT

MAYBE IF COMPACT DISKS WERENT FUCKING 23 DOLLARS CND FOR 9 SONGS AND THEY ACTUALLY HAD A CHOICE OF CDS I, AS WELL AS THE MAJORITY OF UG WOULD ACTUALLY BUY MUSIC.

I HAVE COUNTLESS TIMES WALKED INTO HMV AND LOOKED AT SAY A GODSPEED YOU! BLACK EMPOROR OR MASTODON CD, AND SAID TO MYSELF.

" FUCK WHY THE FUCK ARE THESE SO EXPENSIVE NO WONDER NO ONE BUYS THEM "

AND THE MUSIC INDUSTRY CRIES OUT " WE ARE DYING BUY BUY BUY! "
AND THE PUT OUT BULLSHIT LIKE (ie) PANIC! AT THE DISKO ON EVERY SECOND COMMERCIAL ON ALL THREE MTV COMMERCIALS IN THE AREA

THEY NEED TO MAKE ALL MUSIC ACCESSABLE TO CONSUMERS, BOTH IN TERMS OF, WELL, ACCESS, AND MONEY.

PS IF I WAS AN UNDERGROUND MUSICIAN (WHICH IS WHAT I LISTEN TO, AS A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE DO) I WOULD BE SO HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO SEARCH LIMEWIRE AND FIND THAT MY SONGS HAVE LIKE 300 HOSTS FOR EACH SONG. ITS ENCOURAGING TO KNOW PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOUR MUSIC. AFTER ALL THATS HALF THE POINT OF MAKING IT.

PPS>

my general rule is if i download a bunch of music from an artist and i like them i buy the cd. i bet a lot of UGers do that too.



/rant

//long

[Maladiq]

They (record companies) should build sites wich would host free downloading for songs. Every song should have it's own page and host commercials. For every visitor the owner of teh commercial would get a certain ammount. This way the artists and companies woul get paid for every single perosn that likes that song. This would make artist have more great songs. And there are going to be more money involved this way. And this way piratery will dissapear.

[365_days_gone]

Good thing downloading music is legal in Canada!

[party_on_wayne]

i doubt anyone will get down here, but here is my opinion. If you want to support a band, see them live, and buy the CD or t-shirt at the concert. merch sales AT CONCERTS is the most direct form of monetary support. Downloading, won't go away, its one of those things where you need to use your head. There are lots of songs that are hard to find on a hard copy, but whatever

[party_on_wayne]

Also, if you decide to become a 'professional musician' you need to realize that you probably won't make any money for a long time. opposite of that, if you decide to become a doctor, you won't have to worry about money at all. One should choose a profession because they enjoy it, but a big problem in this world is people not wanting to grow up (i.e. small time generic bands these days)

[party_on_wayne]

whoever said the CD format was bad was 100% correct. everyone and their mother has an ipod/zune/mp3 player. the only use for the cd would be to rip it onto your computer, then let it collect dust in your vehicle that has a cd player. and even then, you most likely have a car adapter to play music from your mp3 device. and enough of the 'i'm a student so boo hoo' get a job and grow up.

[EL Mariachi 94]

A friend of mine pointed out that:

It's reasonable enough to admit that the metaphor of a stealing a digital file is disingenuous. In the real world stealing refers to revoking the ownership of a physical object from one party and bestowing it on yourself -- someone steals a physical object (say a CD or a t-shirt) from a store, thus causing actual financial harm to that store.

But this is not the case with the digital world -- someone doesn't steal a song or a movie, they simply make a copy of it. This act of copying does not deny the ownership of the work to the original person, and is therefore not stealing.

If you mean "steal" in the abstract and hypothetical sense, where someone "steals" a hypothetical sale from the artist, then you might reconsider your wording. This is because it is impossible to tell if a person who downloads a song would have actually purchased it in real life anyway. The lost sale is hypothetical and not real, as it is in the physical world.

[Illigx]

recliner33 wrote:

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

Its still a job for most of them. How would that work in my life? Would patients come in, get diagnosed, treated, not pay, and tell their friends about me, and me end up with more patients who don't pay, and settle with that? Just being happy because I have many patients, people know and respect me, and people want to come to me for help, but not making any money? Its a two way street, If you don't pay for the music, there won't be much money left to make it. I download music "illegally", but I also purchase the CD's of artists that I enjoy, even having it downloaded on my laptop, and I still go to shows. Bands like Hatebreed, Lamb of God, and other smaller label bands with big followings are reliant on money more-so than bands such as Furgie (excuse my spelling) and some of those other pop bands that have people waiting to pay for everything for them. Bands work to make music, and make music to work, and without making any money for it, they might as well not pay you back with new music. And to party_on_wayne... I'm a doctor, and with the rising cost of malpractice and medical insurance, its exactly like the record industry. People in private practice are not making they money everyone things compared to doctors in larger hospitals whom have their insurances taken care of for them by the hospital. I chose to be a doctor because I enjoy helping people, the same reason musicians play music, because they enjoy it. The money is just the part of it that lets me do just this job, instead of anything else also.

[Toaster Pastry]

Maybe the music industry wouldn't be going down the shitter if record labels would stop pressuring artists to make hit singles and find people who can make genuinely memorable music.

[Aziraphale]

Finally a UG article worth reading!

Record companies con't just hog money from record sales, they use that money to pay for recordings, tours, promotion and so on. So even if the artists don't get it in cash, they still benefit greatly from it.

To say it's ok to download if you go to the live shows instead, you're not really helping. Because the record companies are paying for those shows, from staff to transport to equipment, and the bands could never afford that on their own. So really, you're just making things worse in the long run.

And it's funny how so many call the record companies "greedy" when YOU are the ones who don't want to pay for music, but download a couple of discographies a day.

[Ragnorak6000]

The only reason I dont download music is,
A: Very slow internet connection.
and
B: I like having a big selection of cds at my fingertips instead of a massive music library on my computer.

[archangelseren]

possibly been said but people used to share tapes and records etc with friends didnt they? now you dont need friends in this age and just swap on the net. people still buy them i do if i like the album enough. its a really easy way to test whether or not you like the music instead of buying it then selling it again or whatever no one cares

[ViperScale]

I will never buy another CD unless i know the band is without label. I am not going to feed the monster.

[jimpachi00]

its rather simple ... limwire and other forms of free music (rock on) should be legal, purly becuase of promotion. limewire (rock on) has opened me into a whole new world of music, before i only listend to a few bands eg zebrahead and grennday but because of limewire (rock on) im listenin to things like ill nino in flames arch enemy ill disposed etc etc ... my life feels complete with music

and its true, y would you buy sumthin wen u can get it 4 free. not only dus your pocket feel heavier but its also alot less effort

[jimpachi00]

id also like to add i have seen most of the bands tht i hav downloaded live and will probs at sum point buy all the cd's just for shits and giggles

viva la limewire (rock on) and stuff

[Mattylightning]

recliner33 wrote:

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

i have to agree with you. the expansion of a bands fanbase is based around getting the music to the fans. Plus with more people listening to you the more likely you'll get merch and dvd sales.

[Chris12345]

You non-UKers should check out "Enter Shikari"... they are unsigned... (recorded the album themselves, then hooked up with a distro company) and yet they are selling out big venues, get pretty decent TV/magasine exposure and they have enough money to live as a professional band...

All by doing it themselves and touring a shite load... because they enjoy it...

I'd be delighted if people were downloading my music for free and enjoying it! If you're good enough, you will make enough money, if not, who cares!

Me n my mates between us own enough equipment to make very high quality recordings (tho we may well lack the musical talent! :-p), we didn't buy this equipment so we could make loads of money and become a professional band... we brought it cos we love making music!

The model NIN and Radiohead are using is interesting... a mix of pysical and digital downloads... it gives the masses the music for free/cheap, and gives people who like to own the CD, or love the band, to own a psyical hard copy!

If I ever make a penny from music, I will be happy! I don't practice guitar everyday to make money! That's what my job is for! I'm perfectly happy just sitting here jamming away and playing music with my mates, and playing pub gigs and occasionally getting a few quid or drinks out of it... As long as no one else is making money off me, there's no problem! If a promoter was taking £1000 and we only got a tenner, then there's a problem... but otherwise I'm happy!

If enough people like you and you are good enough. You will make money!

[DonCorleone72]

notice how most bands dont mind if u download a few albums? Why is that? because the record company makes most of the music anyway...

i personally buy most of my albums because i like the art, booklet, etc., but if i really like a band, then ill see them live, buy a shirt, etc., since that is where the band makes their REAL money.

[job153]

Record Labels today are only about the cash generated from the music they produce. I think it time for change, time for us to go back to listening to bands who ENJOYED making music and sharing it with the world,instead of bands with whiney singers,crappy guitarists and medeocre drummers who only write songs for a big fat pay check at the end of the month. The industry IS changing, and lawsuits aren't going to comfort the VP's of record labels. Hopefully this change makes them consider who they do and don't sign a contract with.

[wilson 595]

If this is what the record industry is going to do, music will probably be gone in about 5 years. Instead of touring, bands sell everything online. The fans dont get real experiances of what music should be, neither does the band. The music industry is getting cash, and the bands get all their stuff stolen. Its sad that music has come to this. I would die to live when it was good.

[job153]

Thats not to say that i don't agree with downloading songs. I will admit i do download, but I also go out and buy artists Cd's. If the labels were to figure out some other way to slow the download of MAJOR bands signed to Major labels, and simultaneously promote a more user friendly way to buy CD's online it would good for all the starving artists and to promote the ones just starting out in the music industry. Face it artists have to make money but its the GREEDY RECORD LABELS who have such a problem with it because their losing the most money. I know many band who like people downloading their songs because it promoted them when they were starting out.All im saying is that if the labels were to devide the cut evenly we wouldn't have such a problem here. So what if they have to sign more bands, that just hopefully means more good music that is being shared with people around the world

[wilson 595]

If this is what the record industry is going to do, music will probably be gone in the next decade. Instead of touring, bands sell everything online. The fans dont get real experiances of what music should be, neither does the band. No one gets anything exept for the consumer, and if you look at it in the longrun, if the consumers keep illigaly downloading, the bands won't have enought money to play, and they wont get any music. If people would stop illigaly downloading, and doing so much with the mp3's, music would be so much better, because there would be more bands that could make it, and everyone would get that "good feeling" with music the traditional way. DONT SUPPORT ILLIGAL DOWNLOADING OR MP3'!!!

[Anjohl]

There is no ambiguity here, its technology trumping outdated capitalism yet again.

Give the frustrated public and outlet to get the music THEY like, instead of being limited to buying maybe 6-10 albums per year, and now you get introduced toa wide spectrum of new music.

the record business has a duty to make profit from the publics desires, so if the public desire cheap (or free) access to a wide range of music at the click of a button, then the record companies can either adapt, or die off like the phonograph machine and the dinosaurs.

[job153]

wilson 595 wrote:

If this is what the record industry is going to do, music will probably be gone in about 5 years. Instead of touring, bands sell everything online. The fans dont get real experiances of what music should be, neither does the band. The music industry is getting cash, and the bands get all their stuff stolen. Its sad that music has come to this. I would die to live when it was good.

I would too. I just think its the labels responsibility to take some action and say give the artists a break here, without looking like greedy bastards.There are all these good bands out the that are broke, and the VP's of the record label they are signed with are rolling in dough.If they were to give back more to the artist and find someway to cut back the downloads then hopefully we should pretty well off.

[Mr. Altoid]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

Try $19.99.

[manmanster]

The way I see it, as a musician, I'd rather cut an album and use it as a promotional device(I'd still arrange it to be a work of art, but from a business standpoint I would use it as a promotional device), so I could book myself for tours that sell more tickets and make more money. I recognize that as an artist the amount of profit I will receive from album sales in today's market is trivial compared to the amount of money I could make touring. Since distribution has become cheaper, and more fans can be targeted/created with free downloading, recording music has transformed itself from a direct profit-maker to an indirect one.
I think the industry is changing, sure, but I see the change not really hurting anyone but record labels incapable of adapting to a changing industry.

My main point is that free downloads have spread the music of artists to a substantially larger audience, increasing their fanbase, and indirectly increasing ticket sales. If theres still money to be made in the music industry, who cares where it comes from, as long as the artists themselves aren't getting screwed over?

[Pontius2000]

the record labels have brought this upon themselves by 1. promoting to death god awful artists and allowing truly good artists go unmarketed and unnoticed and 2. releasing costly cds with 1 or 2 good songs and 9-10 songs of crap. people get tired of paying money for crap. there are a handful of bands that I know don't make crap music, so I am going to buy their albums without thinking twice about it. but I no longer buy an album just from hearing 1 song from an unknown artist on the radio, I've been burned too many times that way.

I've heard the estimate that artists get about 8 cents per album sell. so if you have a band with 4 members, that's 32 cents for the band on a cd that costs about $1 to make and the consumer pays, say $12 for it. where's the other $10.68 going??? a little is going to the producer, but most of it is split between the label and the retailer. THAT, my friends, is piracy. that's why it's true that bands make most of their money off touring and merchandise. plus publishing rights. but the labels are the ones that are robbing bands blind, that's why you really don't hear a lot of artists complaining about downloading.

[Cheesepuff]

Anjohl wrote:

There is no ambiguity here, its technology trumping outdated capitalism yet again.

Give the frustrated public and outlet to get the music THEY like, instead of being limited to buying maybe 6-10 albums per year, and now you get introduced toa wide spectrum of new music.

the record business has a duty to make profit from the publics desires, so if the public desire cheap (or free) access to a wide range of music at the click of a button, then the record companies can either adapt, or die off like the phonograph machine and the dinosaurs.

That's the iTunes store. Nobody buys there anymore, it's all free downloads, which the companies can't control.

[Me2NiK]

You know what's actually illegial, RIAA?
A cartel orginisation.
The musicians should take THEM to court.

[Moose1309]

Downloading is all about convenience. It's CONVENIENT that the music is right there, you don't have to wait until you have the time/money to waste the gas to drive to the store and pay $15 for a CD. It's CONVENIENT because you only get the songs you want off the albums. And, most of all, it CONVENIENT because its FREE, and you just can't compete with that. The RIAA is out of luck unless they can come up with something to combat downloading. Maybe if they stuck a little of that precious money they buy there mansions and big fancy cars with into solving the problem, they'd have an answer by now.

[lachlandavis]

I think the record companies will find that if they make downloads cheaper, say 15 - 50 cents a track they will get more buyers. I know a lot of friends who were attracted to russian sites because they offered such a large amount of music, more than most file sharing websites, and it was only 20 cents a track, anyone can find 20 cents lying around and it feels good knowing its legal.

The only problem was even though they paid royalties to the band (at the rate acceptable in russia) theyve mostly been shut down because, the government feels its unfair that people outside of russia should have that benefeit.

[vIsIbleNoIsE]

it's just too expensive to get only music buying only legit cds. if nobody downloaded music illegally, everyone's music libraries would be pitifully small. what kind of screwed up world would that be?

[ganz108]

wouldnt it be nice to turn the clocks back to the 60s and buy vinyls because it was the only copy of music one could own?

now we have mp3 players cd's etc. I feel sometimes it was the only pure form of music we once had. Spending of your income on a vinyl made you even appreciate the music more, because you didnt know the next time when you could get another one.

whereas people nowadays just download anything they want and when they listen to it once, they get bored and downlooad something else.

Its destroying the competition in music; the industry; and worst of all the music.

[ganz108]

Big up to the front man from the band elbow who is calling for itunes to not sell single music tracks, but one should download the whole album. we need more people like him.

[ajaxender12]

The last cd i bought was Led Zeps Mothership. I had the music already (illegally) but lets look at what Mothership contained:
2 cd's of some of the best music ever made
A dvd with live video's of most of the songs
A booklet about the history of the band
All in a nice, folding cardboard case thing.

That is worth $40 (nz, about $30 us i think, although you probably pay less...). But thats nearly what most new, single cd's cost! Essentially, i'll buy a cd when its worth it. That time it was - most times, its not.

[liamduzrocks]

lol
i like the way the ppl that use the longest technical words are the ones speaking all the bullshit
lets face it
most ppl that say downloading is good are just trying to justify the fact that they cba to get off their arses and buy the cds
but it is good because it gets exposure
the record companies are suing everyone because theyre greedy ****s and they know that most bands make most money from touring and gigging anyway
most bands can do most of the organising promoting etc themselves and only need record labels to take them to the next level of stardom
tbh i prefer to buy cds because i like something i can hold, and if its a good enough album i want something that proves i own it
but i cant afford to buy every cd i want
so i download
lol
also
not just record companies but the whole music industry is in decline
because tbh i can name a handful of current bands that have any ounce of creativity in them
most of it is about looking like everyone else and singing bout the same old bullshit
well off white indie kids sing about how ghetto they are and how all urban places are scummy and everyone does drugs cos they wanna be hard and everyone else sings about how being a well off teenager in a world that supports most minorities that get little no hassle from anyone is really hard to live with
****s

[wildchild6660]

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

Emphasis on minimum wage

[XxPunkMafiaxX]

recliner33 :
I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

ye, but this is about the recording companies, not the artists. If the money gets "stolen" from the company, then its gonna cost the band more to release the CDs, in turn they lose money. its all a vicious circle. unless your Metallica, who sue any ****er for any ligitimate reason...then money isnt a worry

[A7X2ndHeartbeat]

I would download illegally from any big band that has been out for a while and has made a lot of money, but, for any small band that i think is good, i would go the extra step and buy their CD.

[belavista man]

Panic! At The Disco got the go-ahead for a new album... of course the music industry is on it's death bed. But yeah, I agree with A7X2ndHeartbeat, totally.

[Kadaj]

I love how it says "illegally" in quotes, as if it's not really illegal or something.

[ghostofhendrix]

wideheim wrote:

That "cd's costs so much" argument is so lame, do you think the people who had a normal income (like most of you) didnt listen to music in the 60-70-80 and 90's? No they save up money to buy something that is pleasure, but now all fat americans need money to their cheeseburgers and colas.

Actually they just listened to songs on the radio and recorded them onto tapes- which in essence is the same as downloading off the internet!

[ghostofhendrix]

I think downloading is good to build up a strong following- such as bands like Arctic Monkeys or Enter Shikari (Although i don't personally like either of them), but overall if you really like a band, you ought 2 buy the cd. If i download something, its normally cuz im not sure if i'll like it. If i do, then i'll buy the whole album later.

[Bodom69]

Bottom Line is Everybody is to concerned with money to realize what this business is really about.....Getting heard. I love where i am now busting my ass to get heard making new fans and struggling to find a ride to the next show. thats music.

[odd_cause]

nautiluspfd wrote:

let me give you all some perspective: i am in a local band called In Reverie based out of charleston, SC. we are not signed to a label and we do not have any support outside of our own incomes. the last time we recorded it cost 4500 dollars. that was for 3 songs. in order for us to record an entire album(10-12 songs) it would cost around 16,000 dollars and that is using a low level producer. to press a cd cost about 1200 dollars for a thousand discs. good art work can be anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars. i hope you see where i am going with this. we arent metallica or jay-z or radiohead, and when you download music you are ****ing people like me and my band who dont have millions of dollars. as i read this forum i see some people who understand this and i want to thank you for realizing the problem here, as for the rest of you pull your head out of your ass and see that you are making it impossible for new independant acts to survive and create new music.

Dude sorry to rain on your parade, but i doubt very highly that your bands ep is being downloaded on limewire/torrent/whatever. And if it bothers you that it does then maybe your doing music for the wrong reasons. Like you i play in a band, have release a self funded ep and distributed it ourselves and have another record coming out in june, again self funded this time being put out by a distribution company. the combined total of the two ep's would easily be 10k after all the manufacturing costs are factored in. do we care? not really, are we against downloading? no, in fact for the months of release we actually put the first ep available for download on myspace. a lot of people downloaded it, but a lot of people wanted to support the band and bought it as well, hence why we have nearly sold out of the original pressing, people heard the songs, they liked them and came to a show or tracked down a record store that sold it and bought one. i imagine the new one will follow a similar route. if you are a new or indie band you need to use downloading to your advantage, not fight against it like the record companies are.

the fact is if your band is not well known or having radio or tv play your ****ed, you really can only let people download the stuff, and the people who truely like your band will buy the record as well.

also good music survives and all the shit dies off.

by the way with a name like in reverie, you dont happen to be saves the day fans?

[mkorklan]

This should not be labeled as "news." It should be labeled as "commentary."

While it seems the point of this article was to promote the free downloading and sharing of music, I didn't see one actual solid argument in favor of this. It's all whining about recording companies and complaining about having to buy music at a store.

If somebody wrote this in higher education, they would be laughed out of academia forever.

Stay positive
Mike

[kop4]

15$ bucks is a low price for a CD, but in the US, the medium salary in my country is around 600$ and the CD prices are the same. Moreover, the professional gear is like 2x more expensive than in the US coz u have to cover the cost of shipping...

[kop4]

600$ per month I meant

[AngryGoldfish]

If "great art exists...there is even greater potential for the industry to thrive." - Thats the balls of it. Whether your downloading or buying legally is only money issues. If theres music out there, then there will always be ways to distribute that to the world.

[BraddyVengeance]

sowhat360 wrote:

do people understand that it actually costs bands money to record the music??? so should they just work off of money from shows and forever be in debt.....i dont understand how you think music can continue to be created at a high level without record sales

What you don't realize is that the record companies pay the bands to record and release material, then the record companies make money from the sales and the artists recieve a small royalty check. then only "real" money the band makes from a record company is from the initial contract. Most of the band's money making comes from merch sales and touring. I've been in multiple bands, played shows, and sold my own music. Quite personally I wouldn't mind if people stole my music, I would be flattered to know that people want to hear it.

[midnight ride]

I usually just look up a cd online look at a few of the track names and download a couple songs from the album and if I like I go out and buy but I agree the argument about Cd's being so much is very lame the most I've seen a cd cost was $15 which isn't that bad

[axe_man]

downloading music illegally is done because its easy and free, people would not download illegally if they knew that there fav atists would go bust. it's not like all their income is off CDs now anyway, and it also promotes them. Its only just a bad thing but not bad enough to be worried about.

[Fishermann]

What's in it for the band's? The record companies are the ones who make the majority of the money made off of cd sales. If a bands popularity grows through illegal downloads, so much the better. The band gets more exposure of THEIR work and makes a little extra by that many more people going to the shows, which is how most bands produce their revenue anyway.

[priestfan76]

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.

I think you are one of those people.Go sleep with their wives?That argument doesn't even make sense.If you see a band live, you give them money.Also, if you download their shit, you tell people about them, and then the other people will tell other people, and now the band has a following.Let the record companies die out, they are the ones who rob the artists, not the fans.

[BullonParade]

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

it does hurt the band. first of all small bands trying to make a name for themselves have less money to fund tours, promotions etc because of downloading. and if record labels are being hurt then they are also funding and helping the band (as much as it may not seem like it sometimes), so yes, it is damaging the band.

Well, I hate the RIAA so much it's not even funny. The RIAA has been screwing over independent labels since they were started. And if you don't sign into the RIAA then it is near impossible to get your music out.

But I've also seen the consequences of pissing off the RIAA, the bass forums old mod Incubus_Science got a $3,000 dollar fine for illegally downloading music, so frankly I'm torn. I've downloaded 1 song off the internet and I did that from school, but one of my friends downloads and album a week so...

[Demon Lord]

I do download songs illegally and i will admit it's not very good of me however i do buy a bands CD if i think the band is good enough or they are a new band who're trying to make it. The big record companies do take more than their fair share of the money from a band and signing a record deal can often be the death of a good band. I would say that I'd like to see the back of them but what would we do without them, I know for sure that a small band doesn't have enough money to record decently at home since I'm in one of those bands.

It's always been a big step for a band to sign with a record company and I know for sure that if I get to that point I'll be dreading it.

Illegally downloading music does damage the music world but I can't see it being stopped any time soon, policing the internet is not an easily done thing.

[ryugaiden11]

recliner33 wrote:

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

Loyal loving fans won't pay for a band's studio time going on tour....record sales do. Where exactly is the logic in your statement??

[HammerForce]

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, tbh I cba to read all the posts to check. But here in the UK it's almost impossible to buy any decent (or slightly unheard of) power metal or shred CD's for under about £18 (about $35 for our american friends) in any of the big music shops. As a result, none of the second hand music shops have them either. I download almost all the music I listen to, but if I ever find a CD by a band I like in a second hand music shop I will buy it 9 times out of 10 because (and I've found this to be true quite often) you can't always download all of the songs, only the most popular ones and quite a lot of the time the less popular songs I find better

[boxcar_smasher]

I hate going into a record store and not finding anything i want and it plain sucks. Then when you ask the store workers if they have something they always say they can order something if it's not in stock. Well, most of the time you end up paying to order a CD from a store and it ends up costing you more than it needed to.

Example. I wanted Explosions in the sky's newest album FYE didn't have it, so i ordered it through them. well come a week later and i get a phone call saying it was in. i go in to buy the album. it was 24 Freaking dollars!!!! i looked at they guy and said take it back that crazy. I'm not gonna pay a pissload for a band's album when no one knows of that band. I put off buying a thrice album because it was 20 bucks without tax. and besides i can spend that 24 bucks to buy a concert ticket and really support that band.
I'm pretty much down with buying CDs. they serve little purpose these days. it's time to change things around. out with the old and in with the new. the RIAA is dead, and they should just accept the fact they are not needed in an internet age.

[l3xbi]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh I love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

In ****ing deed. In europe its well cheap for CD's apparently... On the shelf in the UK its like £10-14ish for a brand new CD. Downloading is good, as it does in turn lead to more fans for the groups, if you enjoy listening to it, then buy it. If you're on this site, you must have some musical heroes...
So ****ing support them! I'm not saying buy their whole discography, because, well CD's are expensive, just every now and then !

[Kalas]

boo hoo musicians can't live big luxurious life styles anymore.

[jane_says]

haha, after reading this article, i dont know why but a thought popped into my head, what if the governement made p2p sharing legal and free.....but had a sales tax on it of the price that it would be if you were to buy it seperatly, haha, just a thought

[Exhumed&Impaled]

I can honestly say I don't care about the RIAA...

they can bitch about downloading all they want, but the fact is that I'll download what I please.
Like the one dude said, I go to shows all the time...

I support the local music scene, as well as the larger gigs in the cities.

But the fact is that most music I like/and/or download is out of print.

aka, they don't have it in CD form any more...

and of course, i hate itunes. DRM sucks, and I'm not paying an extra 30 cents just for it to be stripped off and a higher bit rate.

I just think it's funny how the riaa is so pissed off...

i like it actually..

but the matter of the fact is that music industry is changing, GET USED TO IT!

[Oxendoobie]

lmao @ RIAA, they STILL think it's all college kids at univerities, anyone with a high speed connection can download anything, they really are retarded. lol im in a band and i wish people were downloading my music of the internet. also Gene simmons is a douche cuz he said people who downlaod music should die, or something close to that.

[trackmind]

Think of it this way. A clothing shop decides to only sell red t-shirts, despite the fact that the whole population wants blue ones, and try to convince the population that the red ones are better, even though the population is absolutely certain that they want blue ones. Quite obvious that it wont work out.

It's the same thing with the record labels. They can't keep holding onto a method/product that barely has any demand at all and try to threathen/persuade people into wanting it. It's doomed for failure.

[SchitzoJoe]

If bands are complaining about people downloading their music rather than paying, then they should choose one of the following options:

1) Sell their albums online for much cheaper.
2) Find ways to record cheaper.
3) Change their career, because they're obviously doing it for the money, not for the music.

[ShredderOmega]

Put it this way, no matter how many songs I download, from whatever number of bands, I will still buy all the albums I can find or afford. Why? Haveing the CD is just better. You get album art, lyrics, hidden tracks and all the songs are high quality, correctly mixed and correctly labled. Ileagle downloads are nothing but an 'until I can' solution. Most people out there will agree with me, besides, wait a while a CD's price will drop, it's those *******s out the who are quite happy to put up with the really low quality shit to avoid spending any cash that annoy me. I mean come on; the best download of CoB's 'In Your Face' I could find swapped from stereo to mono at the last chorus for **** sake... I'll be happy to pay £20 for the whole album. And by the way, for the first while, bands HAVE to do it for the money, they normally don't have other careers to finance themselves as they're trying to get noticed.

[ekord123]

[quote]sowhat360 wrote:

do people understand that it actually costs bands money to record the music??? so should they just work off of money from shows and forever be in debt.....i dont understand how you think music can continue to be created at a high level without record sales"

totally agree, albums can cost over a million to make! A MILLION! bands need the money, besides, whoes more greedy? the person who drags there feet over 12 dollars or the people who spend lots of money making art, and it is art (unless its like rap or talentless stuff like blink 182)

[ekord123]

l3xbi wrote:

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh I love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??


In ****ing deed. In europe its well cheap for CD's apparently... On the shelf in the UK its like £10-14ish for a brand new CD. Downloading is good, as it does in turn lead to more fans for the groups, if you enjoy listening to it, then buy it. If you're on this site, you must have some musical heroes...
So ****ing support them! I'm not saying buy their whole discography, because, well CD's are expensive, just every now and then !

both of these are stupid comments, if your complaining about bad music out there why would you download? cd's arent over priced, some can save your life, i know they have mine. your a ****ing cheapo for bitching about 15 dollars, you cant even call yourself a music fan if you dont fully support your favorite bands.

[inspir3]

Download ---> Listen ---> Consider purchase ---> Buy / Not Buy

Very Simple...

[Squidge]

I think a lot of this could be solved (at least help) If bands and record companies set a price for albums. Something like $10 for any regular album. Look at the 70s and 80s. Most albums were $5 to $7. I understand that infflation accurs, but $20 for an album with 10 songs? I dont think so.

[Vrstone87]

inspir3 wrote:

Download ---> Listen ---> Consider purchase ---> Buy / Not Buy

Very Simple...

I've done this for years, but only for bands I don't know much of, I'll buy any album from select bands(i.e Flogging Molly, System of a Down, and In Flames.) Artists don't make much cash from record sales in the first place, at least not in comparison to the money generated from touring or gigging. Hell, I'm willing to bet that the bands that are affected the most from album sales losses sell more records at shows just from a fan's hype over the show..

[matthippie88]

its not the internet thats killing the music industry its the music that the companies are signing make better choices in the acts they sign and people will support them

[xTaVx]

I'd like to see more artists self produce and sell via their own websites. Then I can pay the artist and DL the songs I want.

[lost in 3 words]

excellent article.

[mosh_rocker2006]

I agree that the record industry is dying and will be dead in the near future, but this does not mean the music industry is going down in flames. Music is in more demand than it's ever been. As for file sharing that is not the reason the record industry is dying, and even though i don't agree with it...the fact is file sharing is not the cause of the record industry's death.

[jagstang270]

amazingly written artical, I enjoyed it very much.

[moestas]

since most rapper-hipsters are too dumb to record their own stuff, this will bring a music revolution and rock will become mainstream again

[CzwtheMerph]

I'm pretty sure that the only thing I've heard when it comes to the actual bands income, is that they make they're money from touring. The labels nickel and dime them wherever they can on the subject of CD sales. Besides, who the hell listens to CD's anymore when you can just get a ten dollar tape deck adapter and you're almost assuredly already owned Ipod?

[HyperCannon]

Basically all the RIAA is saying is "If you done buy music, we dont get money ("we" as in the record companies and their bands, therefore they lie because the bands dont get money from selling songs anyway) and if we dont get money, we'll sue your arse!", making threats and all that kind of bullshit. They are trying to hit us in the heart by saying if you do this or that, you will never hear your bands again and music will die or somehting along those lines like they always do.
Id say that the article title is very apt. The fans arnt the problem, the bands certainly arnt, and the musical freeloaders arnt either. I wonder who that could leave...

[stbeal]

Tell me where I can go - either online or a bricks and mortar store - and pay about a dollar for a single song; but it must be DRM free, completely lossless, not tied exclusively to anybody's hardware or form factor, and legal. I'll go there in a heartbeat and gladly pay for my music. I can't believe this option doesn't exist.

[Maurauth]

ekord123 wrote:
both of these are stupid comments, if your complaining about bad music out there why would you download? cd's arent over priced, some can save your life, i know they have mine. your a ****ing cheapo for bitching about 15 dollars, you cant even call yourself a music fan if you dont fully support your favorite bands.

CDs may not be overpriced where you live, but over here in the UK a non-mainstream CD will cost anywhere between £14 - £20, which is $28 - $40. And most mainstream CDs even cost £10 - £14, again; $20 - $28.

So if you think a student who can't get part-time work, with a very large range of music tastes can afford to buy more than 10 albums a year, you're deluded.

However, in my personal opinion, I download as much music as I can so that I can experience every piece of music that artists produce, if it's good I'll play it to all my friends and buy some merch / go to their shows if they're local. And if I really like the band I'll go out of my way and buy the CD and go to their concerts even if they're far away.

[Maurauth]

As a further extension of what I just said; if there was an online store that had the variety, sound quality, lack of DRM, speed of download and all the correct tagging such as the old Oink and current what.cd then I'd happily pay a fair subscription to download unlimited tracks a month, or even pay something like 5p (10c) a song.

Seriously though, imagine if there were monolith sites like that where artists could just upload their albums with all the tags, and artwork and lyrics .pdf's and they gained all the profits other than money going to the maintainence of the servers and say 1/4 of a penny (1/2 a cent) going to the company running it.

Who wouldn't sign up for such a service?

[stbeal]

Maurauth wrote:

Seriously though, imagine if there were monolith sites like that where artists could just upload their albums with all the tags, and artwork and lyrics .pdf's and they gained all the profits other than money going to the maintainence of the servers and say 1/4 of a penny (1/2 a cent) going to the company running it.

Who wouldn't sign up for such a service?

I would sign up today. Right now - as long as it met the criteria in my previous post.

Don't get me wrong, I buy lots of CDs. I don't get stuff from peer to peer networks. I go to concerts. I support the artists I like. But there are lots of CDs by other new and established artists that I will never buy for the one song I want. With a system like this in place, they can at least make a little money off of me too.

[Maurauth]

stbeal wrote:
I would sign up today. Right now - as long as it met the criteria in my previous post.

Don't get me wrong, I buy lots of CDs. I don't get stuff from peer to peer networks. I go to concerts. I support the artists I like. But there are lots of CDs by other new and established artists that I will never buy for the one song I want. With a system like this in place, they can at least make a little money off of me too.

I was thinking of something a lot like how NiN released Ghosts I-IV, with it available in a very large selection of formats.

[phillyguitar]

g8erfan1 wrote:

The bottom line is, the labels will ALWAYS squeeze as much cash as possible about of the music artists and the fans. I disagree that you need the help of a record label to make it big. As musicians learn more about computers and the internet, they will be able to get their music out on their own terms. It's already happening now. You just need to know where to look. Besides, the fans are the ones who decides which band is going to be huge and which ones suck. Record labels are a dying, outdated breed.

I have to disagree that a tech savvy musician or musical group could promote themselves. No matter how tech savvy you are, there are certain skills that require training in order to do properly. Creating digital media (graphic design basically) requires training and talent as well. So does music recording. Sure anyone can record, but what will the quality of that record be? Booking shows, finding spots on t.v., these are all things that require a well connected person. There is just too much training required, and too many avenues for bands to do on their own, and this is why labels will never die out completely. Most musicians don't have time to train to be recording techs, graphic designers, pr specialists, etc.

[Maurauth]

phillyguitar wrote:
I have to disagree that a tech savvy musician or musical group could promote themselves. No matter how tech savvy you are, there are certain skills that require training in order to do properly. Creating digital media (graphic design basically) requires training and talent as well. So does music recording. Sure anyone can record, but what will the quality of that record be? Booking shows, finding spots on t.v., these are all things that require a well connected person. There is just too much training required, and too many avenues for bands to do on their own, and this is why labels will never die out completely. Most musicians don't have time to train to be recording techs, graphic designers, pr specialists, etc.

I'm pretty sure that person was talking about when artists first start out, you sure as hell don't need a person to get you on tv the moment you start out as a band, that's for later on when you are bigger and actually need the publicity. Booking shows locally really isn't hard, and if you put a bit of effort in, planning a small tour isn't hard. Recording doesn't need to cost you $10k like some people have said, you can easily do it for $1k.

Sure you need a graphic designer for your cd artwork, but I'm sure you'll at least know someone who can take good photos and at most all you will need is someone to do the cover.

[-Rock-N'-Roll-]

325 comments posted, 1 removed | this article is 100% spam-free..aha don't get that everyday I bet.

[BrianApocalypse]

A good read, but it's vitally important to consider that there is far, far more music today than before which means that money going into the industry is split between many more labels, each taking a smaller cut.

[omarrodrigez]

A wise man once said "I realized one day that music comes from the universe, not me. So doesn't it belong to all of us?". Most of the bands I listen to do their own production, own artwork, EVERYTHING themselves. They make their money by touring and merch sales, that's a fact. I know how the "industry" works, and good music doesn't come out of an "industry". Art can't be manufactured. Screw the major labels, nothing good has come out of them in years.

[imabookie3]

RIAA is the Standard Oil of our day, wholly corrupt with greed and selfishness to the core. They don't even remember the value of their product and beyond that, a combination of Frooty Loops, Pro Tools, Audacity, BitTorrent, Kazaa, Limewire, etc, etc, have rendered the RIAA absolutely useless. Thinking about how much money an organization as worthless as the RIAA rakes in each year is enough to make any sane person want to start a riot.

The flat out ridiculous logic behind the claim that illegal downloading has claimed '2 billion dollars and 71,000 jobs' from the American economy is mind boggling. An organization that serves no purpose shouldn't be providing jobs! Beyond the obvious point that there are openings for janitor, secretarial, security, law enforcement, teaching, etc etc, jobs open across the United States as well as in other countries, IT IS THE RIAA'S FAULT THAT THOSE JOBS WERE LOST IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Since when is it the consumer's fault to provide for a company!?

I think they can still exist if they take their heads out of their asses and start catering to their audience instead of ****ing up people's lives by suing them over music that the RIAA shouldn't be allowed to 'own' in the first place.

[free.music.free]

The RIAA is a parasite feeding off the hard work, energy, and creative passion of their host (artist). The Industry may die, but Music will not. In fact, i say let the "industry" die -- better yet, kill it!

If by "industry" we mean the commercializing machine that spits out records and bands just to turn a profit, we can do without. Its death would seperate the real artists, the ones who just want to be heard and make music for musics sake, and those "artists" that are more concerned with spectacular levels of popularity ("superstardom"), overproduction, and the gross amounts of money earned from hawking their "art".

Art should be singular, not commodity: the creative process itself, paired with the appreciative fans and the good feelings of sharing art, should be enough incentive.

It is a mistake to let Labels "own" the artists music: again, it amounts to little more than parasitism...

And if things need to get specific in regards to copyright laws: the ripping and reformatting of music constitutes a transformation of the original "product"... thus, it is reappropriated by the user, and no longer the Labels property.

And what of the positive benefits of file SHARING? how many new bands are discovered everyday had it not been for file sharing? How many people can "taste-test" new albums and bands without having to purchase something they might otherwise be dissapointed with? And how many already known bands gain new fans everyday because of file sharing?

It seems to me that the RIAA is most affraid of becoming obsolete not simply because profits are dwindling due to "theft", but because file sharing communities are effectively replacing the need for the "industry" altogether: recording, promotion, media, fan base construction -- with the rise of technology and its accessibility, these things are becoming more and more possible without the help of corporate labels/corporate media. Music is alive on its own terms, stop trying to police it!

[j-e-f-f-e-r-s]

Music is art. However, the RIAA and its ilk have spent the last 50 years or so trying to convince everyone that music isn't art, it's 'business'. Apparantly musicians can't write songs unless they have money. Fuck that.

Do you know how bands made their money in the old days? They toured. They went on the road and they ****ing toured wherever the hell they could. It may not have been the easiest lifestyle, but who said being a musician should be easy? I'd much rather a band earns its money through hard work and live shows than by being paid ridiculous amounts of advance money by some record label. If a label pays you a million dollars up front, it's because a) they're going to steal $2 million from you when your back is turned, and b) they will make you their bitch, and turn your music into mainstream crud that they can shovel onto daytime radio.

The RIAA wants people to stop downloading? They can do two things. Firstly, bring back the indie stores. I'm fed up of not finding a single Buckethead album in all of both HMV and Virgin, because they're too busy flogging off whatever it is Jo Whiley is playing on her daytime radio show. I want to listen to alternative stuff that hasn't been shown on a dozen different MTV channels, and if downloading is the only way to do it, then that's fine by me.

Secondly, make CDs cheaper. Why the hell should I pay £18 for what is essentially a plastic disc with about 40 minutes worth of noise on it. That's nearly 50p a minute! I don't care how new the CD is, or how big the bad is, that is extortion right there.

And while we're on the subject of CDs, I'll add a third point. Sign up bands that have a modicum of consistency. I'm fed up of hearing a song that I like, getting the album, then discovering that only two or three songs are any good. If a band has a single or two in them, that's fine and dandy, but why should I pay a stupid amount of money to hear a couple of decent songs followed by crap?

[BradKohl]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

Actually, no. It's quite easy to do all the mixing and stuff on your own. my brother and I do it all the time and have a couple of demos each that are of good quality.

[LynchMobster]

This article is just reposted form month a ago. The date of the article and first comments are on 3/21/2008.

[j-e-f-f-e-r-s]

LynchMobster wrote:

This article is just reposted form month a ago. The date of the article and first comments are on 3/21/2008.

I know, but I felt like having a rant.

[Bendrix]

wtf ive got a feeling this is a very old article, whats wrong with UG???

[samtewari]

The record companies need to sign that deal with QTrax quick

music will be free and the companies will make mega £££££
from the advertising revenue - problem solved

[abel1389]

sigh...

you need a label to help get your CD mass produced and insure that everything get sold in those chain stores that people everywhere actually feel like driving to. whether or not you can record the thing on your own, or even produce it on your own, nobody can ***** your face out to stores and t.v. stations the way a label can. however, you get very little money from those sales, and there's a reason for that: the sale money is your label's way of paying to drive you all over the country, or fly you all over the world, at $4-$5 a gallon of gas. add to this that equipment and lighting and pyro and whatever else you may use in a concert is damned expensive, and you very quickly expend the money you earned from record sales, and possibly go into debt, like quite a few bands do at the start.

now, the touring money, depending on the crowd, is where you take your cut. which is where downloading can help. BUT: while downloading gets your name out more, and swells your fan base, it also denies the label the money they need to help pay for the shows you make so much money off of. it's a cycle of downloading hurts label hurts touring funds hurts artists hurts art. and if the art is hurt, then there's less to download, and everything spirals out. bands disappear like imploding stars that just can't sustain themselves anymore.

the current mediums of music production have been trumped, and downloading seems like a good thing, because it's a way around the trees in the woods. in the long run, though, downloaders will find themselves without music to download except for shitty indie bands that just want to crank out as many titles as humanly possible. people with a flair for dramatic, theatrical, and original performances just don't get places without some funding and a little help from the people that don't get ignored. but it's the parent principle. you need your parents to grow up, no matter how useless and binding they seem. but when tou can have life for free, and you decide parents are useless, you cease to grow up.

and the guy who said "why pay for something when you can get it for free?" well: why secretly hate someone and let them live when you can kill them? sure it's against the law, but what the hell? enough people start doing it, what'll it matter?

now, where will that sort of thinking get us?