Thoughts On Piracy And Today's Music

Does in fact piracy kill music?

Ultimate Guitar

The nineties where a fact a decade of change. During this time MTV rose replacing the radio as the only source of new music. Also radio introduced the playlists making it even harder for indie artists to get heard. To top it all the CD rose as well and despite the many advantages it was a much more expensive format than his previous (vinyl cassette). The average listener was trapped in a limited selection of songs he could listen for free in MTV and radio and if he wanted to take a plunge in the non commercial music scene he would also have to dig deep in his wallet. That said being an avid music lover evolved in a hard and expensive hobby.

Here comes downloading. While the ethic costs of downloading are known to everyone it provided an alternative to the programming that major labels provided. It gave everyone who couldn't come up with the money to search beyond the commercial island that they have stranded him upon an escape to music who was actually inspiring and had personality

if we look at todays music scene we can observe from punk bands going mainstream (Green Day etc) to corporate rock to mediocre supergroups with the sole intention to get some money off their name. Most of the big bands of the 80s and the 90s are producing albums that don't even hint of the music they created the precedent years aiming on our faithfulness to fund their retirement. On the pop scene music gets even more formulaic and stupid aiming on hate so they can be promoted by even non pop fans. Justin Bieber is a good example since there are people who hate him and spend more time hating him than listening to the music they love.

It seems that only those who sold their souls to the major label devil have survived in the spotlight of the media. Ain't it possible that piracy slowed down this situation? And with the labels and artists only caring about profit how do they expect to touch the average Joe when they do nothing to make the music more accessible to him (10 bucks an album on I tunes is not accessible)? While downloading has created many innocent victims it was the only way to vote against the dictatorship of the modern music scene who by controlling the media has decided to silence upon will and make something out of nothing.

Concluding while piracy right now hurts the new artists and that's something that's got to stop it helped keep the music as an art from when it was decided that it should be treated like a product indifferent to toilet paper.

But if the record labels understand that they can't control what we listen they can't kill the monster that feeds of their greed.

16 comments sorted by best / new / date

    "During this time MTV rose replacing the radio as the only source of new music" I may only be 18 but I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
    Your first paragraph marks you as very young ... and lacking historical perspective. Please read up on when stuff ACTUALLY happened.
    Just recently UG had an article about the CD being 30 years old. 2012-30=1982, the CD was already rising for 8 years when the nineties started.. Secondly, non-commercial equals only paying for the costs of a product, no profit is involved, so non-commercial is not necessarily expensive. Finally, your judgement of some groups only existing for the money seems quite unproven, I read no proof, no arguments. All in all a vague article that doesn't help the case of pirating.
    the vinyl was still vibrant in the late died off in early to mid nineties.
    Wild Hopkins
    This is terrible. There is so much wrong with this. I'd argue piracy has actual made more not less generic music. Thought experiment. Say it costs 15000 to make a good album (That means, hire professional, use good equipment) not mbox in your room. If you make a "risky" record that will sell 15% of what a "safe" record might. Now piracy cut how many records sell in half that means that now you are selling 7.5% (I know it doesn't work like this but it's for argument sake) This means that you might not make all your money back. In fact you might lose all of it. Try asking your parent for 15000 to blow on a vanity project. Good luck. That's fine, until you can't feed your family. So most people will make the safe record. In fact because piracy a few of my favorite artists have open talked about quitting because it take a long time to make music. And that time you cold be doing something else. i.e make a living to feed your family.
    I remember when every editorial on UG wasn't absolute shit. "Aint it possible that piracy slows down this situation?" Im from the midwest. Im someone who says "aint" quite regularly and THAT sounds absolutely retarded.
    So basically, the author's justification for pirating's the record companies' faults. Yeah, right, buddy! Considering that, if you're so poor you can't buy music, you can always use Youtube, I find that argument a load of crap. Furthermore, with music streaming services like Spotify, it's even easier to discover new music. Not only that, but music's cheaper than it's ever been. Songs cost between $0.99 and $1.29 each on iTunes. Albums cost between $7.49 and $11.99. EPs costs between $5 and $7.99. The excuse that it's the record companies' faults no longer applies, people!
    I'm not defending it here, more like devil's advocate, but considering Spotify pays so little to the artist it might as well be nothing at all, and YouTube is more than often (for what I look up) uploaded by someone else, why do that when you can find a higher quality download?
    Dude, proof read your article. You're missing a ton of punctuation, you're using incorrect pronouns, you're not using the correct form or tense of some words (I.e. " While the ethic costs...", or "...being an avid music lover evolved in a hard and expensive hobby." I'm not trying to be overly elitist but come on, bro'. If you're going to post something for public consumption, brush up on your composition skills.
    Your argument is flawed. Piracy right now doesn't expose me to new music. Youtube does. When we share music through social media, we don't use torrent files or p2p's, we tend to use youtube. I don't mind illegally downloading a new album, as I like to try before I buy, but I DO buy if I like it. I have the money to, and the artist deserves my contribution for giving me pleasure. I refuse to buy a new album by a band just because it's by a certain band, as the marketing and A
    The arguments here are quite poor. It feels as though it has been written for homework by someone with a relatively average grasp of the English language. Sorry to be a bit of a troll, but :/
    That's exactly what I thought while reading this. It reminded me of something I might have written in middle school.
    el tigre
    While all bands do need money to survive, I believe money can almost corrupt and kill them as well. Music, in its purest form, is written not to make a fortune, but to teach a lesson or advocate a belief. This causes many of the huge bands to stop making good music altogether. For this reason, I do not believe piracy is such a bad thing. One of my favorite bands, Streetlight Manifesto, even advocates piracy of their OWN music because they strictly adhere to making pure music. I do, and I think others should also help support the bands that need income to survive by going to concerts and buying merchandise, so they can continue making great music. Lastly, much money from records sold (in many cases most of the money) goes to wealthy record labels who do not need any more money. This is why I choose to support the bands who need money to survive by buying merchandise and going to concerts but not necessarily buying CDs.
    The 'cutting in half' affects both safe AND risky records being released, therefore the percentage stays the same.
    (half my comment got deleted, for some reason) ....the marketing and A and R machine can result in substandard releases. I also believe that a band shouldn't rely on past glories for current income. Many bands look to past releases for their revenue, rereleasing and remastering them time and again without touring. Being in a band is a job and should be treated that way. Make albums, tour and take four weeks off a year, then back at it. The notion that a band should get paid an obscene amount of money for one song is ridiculous. We're not curing cancer here, and there are far more causes that justify my money than more art for Lars Ulrichs wall, or another guitar for Slash. In shirt, Piracy has resulted in two things. The working musician having to work at his craft and not rest on his laurels, and safe commercial music gaining media attention through funding by vested interests. The first is no bad thing, and will result in a higher standard overall. The second.... you can draw your own conclusions about.