Corey Taylor on Piracy: 'People Take Our Blood, Sweat and Tears and Throw It All Over Like It's Nothing'

Slipknot frontman discusses his views on music piracy during the latest Reddit AMA session.

Ultimate Guitar

During his Reddit AMA session last Thursday (April 25) Slipknot/Stone Sour frontman Corey Taylor reached the subject of music piracy and what he thinks of as pros and cons of illegal downloads.

According to vocalist, although the piracy does allow the music to reach all corners of the world, it also highly devaluates the songs, making the fans treat them "like it's nothing."

"I realize the days of a hard rock/metal band selling 20 million copies are far behind us," the singer said. "I have two minds about this. I like the fact that music is now available to the farthest reaches of the world, where once there would have been no way to find it. But I hate the fact that people take our blood, sweat and tears and throw it all over like it's nothing, with no thought to what went into making it and how hard we fight for it."

Taylor's comment instantly caused mixed reactions and tens of comments, with some fans agreeing with frontman's stands and others disapproving them.

The remainder of the AMA session saw Taylor showing his appreciation towards jazz icon Miles Davis and comedy glam rockers Steel Panther, but also revealing some interesting info regarding his potential work with Velvet Revolver two years ago. When asked just how close he got to joining Slash and the gang, the singer replied:

"I'd say close, I guess. I flew out to LA a few times - first time I just jammed with them. The second we were recording demos. I have no regrets about not getting the gig. Honestly, I don't know who could fill that spot for them."

The vocalist also discussed his collaboration with Dave Grohl and his Sound City Players project, calling it "a dream come true."

"It was so great. Being a part of that song was a dream come true. I'd always wanted to work with Dave, but hearing the song after Rick Nielson and Scott Reeder had put their touches on it was just frosting on the cake. I'm very fortunate to have been a part of that."

Finally, when one of the fans asked him how exactly thick is his neck, Taylor demonstrated some good sense of humor by saying "18 inches, currently. It's a b-tch to buy shirts..." You can check out the full AMA session over at Reddit.

Trending stories

145 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    Yes, it is a double-bladed sword for sure... I do tend to side with the notion that it is more harmful than beneficial though..
    They should be lucky enough to see people getting interested in to their music. They should stfu about. Wanna stop piracy? Stop technology.
    The point of making music is to create art for other people to hear, not to just make money. Well, maybe for him it's just to make money. I just don't see that his "blood sweat and tears" are being used unjustly, it confuses me, because the people pirating the music more than likely enjoying it and appreciating it and are fans of it. They know how hard you worked to make it, but give it a rest you didn't fight to make music. You used your outrageous earnings from your tours and sales and merchandise and sponsorships to buy as many things as you wanted or needed to make the music! "OH I need a new guitar, new recording studio" etc. So when were you fighting? Or was it the struggle to lift your wallet to buy all those things is the epic fight you mention? I don't remember hearing about Bach setting someone on fire for sneaking into one of his performances.
    These guys are professional musicians, naturally they should be payed for their labour. You would be extremely hard pressed to find som other category of professionals who'd work for free, not matter how much they enjoy their work. Of course they fought to make music, years of playing in shitty bars to catch that one big break. Musicians can probably be said to work a lot harder than many other professions. Do you know how a tour works? You do know that they actually pay for the tour themselves, and that larger tours require larger investments? I find it interesting that you think you can arbiter when people earn "too much money" (something that you can't really know without doing Corey's taxes). You also seem ignorant of how most endorsements work... You actually think that a guitar company throws free guitars and money over an endorsed band? No way in hell, you still have to buy the stuff, but at a discount. Do I would recommend some humility on your part, you are not entitled to his work for free, and calling him spoiled and suchlike will not change that.
    I'll never buy a Slipknot album OMG... It's too bad music... I buy good music OMG
    And I should care exactly why? I like what he do with Stone Sour myself..
    I'd love to buy all the music I have, but that means I wouldn't be able to afford merch or going to see bands bands and artists can pick their poison, would they rather sell more recrds, or more t-shirts and tickets for shows?
    so I go to a bakery in the morning and buy some bread, milk, and a few cakes. later I go to the same bakery and grab a bag of chips and walk out without paying. the next time I walk into the bakery to buy bread, milk, and cakes, the clerk tells me I have to pay for the chips I stole. I tell him, "If I have to pay for the chips, I wont be able to afford the bread, milk, and cakes I buy here every day. pick your poison". see what I did there? its exactly the same situation and it looks like blackmail from the clerks point of view. moral: being broke is no excuse to steal.
    Except the clerk loses something, while nothing is stolen when you pirate. Especially considering the amount of people who still buy the item in question even after they'd originally pirated it.
    Nothing tangible is stolen when you pirate. The band lost a sale and you have an album you didn't pay for. Theft is theft. it has nothing to do with a physical object.
    Yes it does. You also pay for album art and other shit that comes with packaging. How can I "steal" something someone else ripped and shared online? Did I broke into the studio and stole the masters of the recording?
    No you didn't "broke into studio and stole the masters" but you own an album you didn't buy. You can't talk around it. If you really think people buy albums for "the art and other shit" and not the music i don't think i can have a discussion with you.
    People always try to use this argument but then you'd have to explain away why people can still burn discs because then the people they share with are getting an album for free and in your logic it constitutes theft. It only hurts the band if you don't buy the album later on because that sale is gained back and it balances out. I usually download leaks to see if I want to purchase the album, and usually its out of anticipation but 80 percent of the time, I buy the album (Including both parts of House of Gold and Bones)
    I would say burning a copy of your friends disc is theft. Again, you own an album you didn't buy. If you like it and buy it then it is no longer stolen. I'm not saying that i've never done it, cause I have. This has been happening to music since tapes came out. It is just much easier now and its having a bigger effect on the bands.
    they lose the exact same thing, which is a sale. the fact that the profit/investment ratio and the amount of people that buy the albums is high, doesnt make your pirating the album negligible. you are pirating an album, but you fail to take into account that 1000s of other are thinking just like you, "so many people buy the album, it wont make a difference if I pirate it". this translates into many thousands of lost sales and lots of money the band wont see(label profit is another topic). just like the baker invests time into making a profit, bands invest time into making a profit, just on a bigger scale.
    This! Also, referring to the begining of this thread, I f*cking hate this kind of reasoning. Just because somebody has already earned a lot of money through their hard work doesn't give anybody the right to steal from them. Maybe they don't need more money but it's not for any of us to judge. They did their job and deserve to be paid.
    What about countries where you can't buy the album either physical or virtual? Profit shouldn't mix with art.
    So artists should be happy to live a life of poverty because in your ideal world art is free? People have to eat, even artists. You are not entitled to art.
    Second Rate
    Artistic ability is a skill. Why should a man not be able to exploit his skills to make a profit? Profit and art should mix, and they are a perfect mix. Artists should not be asked to live in poverty to uphold someone else's arbitrary standard of "integrity." So the product is not available in some countries, boohoo. It is not the artist's problem.
    Well..actually. Yeah it is the artists problem. You can't lecture someone on profits and then try to dismiss the availability of the product as a reason its not bought.
    Second Rate
    Well..actually. That's not what I said at all. Way to intentionally twist and distort my post.
    That's bs. That's saying that every penny you earn goes towards bands! You sacrifice elsewhere to afford stuff you wanna hear, like they did 20+ years ago. You still have the option of sharing locally as well, which doesn't do anywhere near as much harm as downloading has done.
    broken ipod
    Oh, I would love to buy music, but i HAVE to buy other unnecessary things in my life like concert tickets. My life is so hard so I steal music to buy things I don't need in order to live. So sick of this kind of logic, just because you can't afford it, doesn't make it not stealing. And paying off a record contract is very important to bands. Yes, they make a good amount of their money on the road, but, if a band wishes to avoid getting dropped from record companies, so they can keep releasing records, they are going to need to sell records.
    You'd be surprised how little money bands make from touring. It's definitely not enough to make a living out of that's for sure
    I'm sure Corey Taylor has more money than he needs to retire tomorrow and live a posh life for the rest of his days...
    Did nobody read the article? He's upset that the effort put into the releases is devalued because of piracy, he says nothing about missing out on money.
    Yeah but he is just one guy, man. What about all the smaller acts of the world. They need CD money considerably more.
    Music industry has never made more many than it does today. Piracy only contributes to that. And it does not devalue the songs, it makes them even more valuable. You download an album, and if you REALLY love it, you buy it. That's how I get by. Small acts USE the internet to promote their music. There's enough people who buy the music.
    I'm sure it's still more than the money they make off of albums sold. especially on a major record label.
    Yes, however most bands don't seem to understand the concept of starting out small. A lot of bands i've seen get signed to labels and then immediately embark on a tour where tickets range from $30-$60. People don't go to see them because the ticket prices are a little bit too high for a band that relatively few people have heard of, they lose money because of this and the label drops them. The bands that make money are, ironically, the bands who start off playing small gigs in bars/coffee-shops/small venues for $5 a ticket. Fugazi for instance had a very business-like approach to touring, they would make sure that the tickets for their shows were as cheap as possible during their tours and they wouldn't hire any extra help for their tours. All the money they made went directly to them, and they always made a profit on their tours. Also, at one time not too long ago (eighties I think) the idea that a ticket to see a concert could cost more than $30 was unheard of. Big stars like David Bowie and Pink Floyd were making a living charging people $15 for their shows. Whilst bands today are complaining that they can't seem to make enough money charging $200+ for their shows. I apologize for my monologue.
    Good stuff. This subject always brings me back to the scene in Fast Times where the guy is scalping ($12 face value) Van Halen tickets for $20, and the kids are pissed that he's ripping them off. There's some perspective!
    You need to take inflation into account though. So, $15 in the '80s was "worth" more than it is today. Also, agree about Fugazi.
    $15 in the 80's varied from $44 to $28, in today's dollars. $44 isn't so bad for Bowie or Floyd, I'd say.
    I paid under $7.00 to see both of them in the seventies....and Bowie had Badfinger as his opening act....
    I remember my step-mom telling me that she had the opportunity to see Pink Floyd live for $20, and still regrets not seeing them. Ironically, I almost paid $269 to see Roger Waters live. But they were doing some type of promotion where you could pay with either cash, or with a certain type of credit card (American Express I think) and they wouldn't accept any other payment. Essentially, because I didn't live near a ticket vendor and didn't have the right brand of credit card, they wouldn't accept mine, or my parents money (they wanted to go as a couple) to see the show. This story isn't very relevant to the article, but I found it kind of interesting.
    The ideal scenario: - Buy records (10 eur/record) - Go to the gigs (30 eur/gig) - Buy the t-shirt (25 eur/tshirt) Considering a band touring for their new release: 65 eur That is not so much in a year, right?. However, we are all fans of more than one band and let's say 4 of our bands are releasing albums/touring on a given year, you expend 260 eur. Wich would be 22 eur/month. Not that much either, right? But, we are not only listening the touring bands, but newcomers and older stuff, which would be in average case, one record per week (10 eur). So you have to add 40 eur to your monthly budget. At the moment we would have 22+40=62 eur per month. I think that is a low range budget for an average music consumer and can go much higher if you add a few extra concerts and festivals. Sharing music increases everybuddy's budget for gigs, bands a more easily known and more people are likely to go to their concerts. It is a win-win situation
    but dont forget about young people (14-18). 15 years old guy simply cant spent 62 per motnh on music , when i was young, i spent just cca 50 to buy record/gig/tshirt per year. Now i have job, and it isnt too much for me spent 30 per month.
    Here's the thing, just because you're 15...that doesn't make it right. Not having cash doesn't mean it's acceptable. The entitlement attitude of people is ridiculous.
    no cash = no rec rd , no record = no ticket/no tshirt, band will recieve 0$ and have less fans. if illegal donwload = you know that band and their music, and if you like it, you can purchase ticket/tshirt and band will recieve $$, thats my opinion, when you dont have enough money for records.
    Same could be said about profiting out of art. It's ridiculous. Artists like Mr. Taylor here, are not coming short on cash, they don't have to work double or triple shifts to make ends. Music is appreciated with or without money, not having money is not going to make you deaf. Do you stop appreciating art if can't go into a museum?
    I agree with you. Without music sharing, many demographic segments of the population would be excluded of music. And i don't mean only youngers, also people who simply can not afford that kind of expenses in their budgets (e.g. third world countries). As a consequence, touring would be only in those countries/cities with the higher economic capacity and not in poorer countries where music is equaly appreciated.