Very well put! It's not the big acts you have to worry about. Look at the smaller bands who are just struggling to make a living. I'm not a very good musician myself but I know some very good and talented musicians and it's just heart-breaking to see them struggling to make a buck. Most of them give up in the end. And they don't get paid a lot for their performances either. You really have to become succesful to finally make a good living out of it.

i mainly buy cds for reason mentioned before, coz of the artwork and the fact that i can collect them and show them to mykids and say "this is best music ever made"

i was just thinking, if you buy cds from bands that are dead like michael jackons and nirvana, where does the profit go?? it certainly doesnt go to the bands... wtf??

Not much of it goes to the bands even when they are alive. It goes to the record labels and copyright holders.

Same for me. Whenever i get the chance, i buy an album, but I can't buy every album i want.

I don't recall saying that those artists make music only because they like it. I said that that should be what it is about, but it isn't. That was actually what I disliked about it in the first place. If artists actually see the music as work, instead of a medium in which to express yourself, they are obviously doing it because of the money.

I don't have anything against the selling of albums, but I do have something against the endless bitching of artists against downloads. Because the bands that I have seen that complained about it, have enough money as it is. If you make as much money as a band like Metallica, I can't see why you would be pissed if your sales go down a bit. The smaller bands, which I would think have more reason to bitch about it, don't say a word about it. One quite big band in the Netherlands, Kutschurft, limited their first cd to 100 copies. When they saw that they were becoming really popular, they didn't change anything. The second album as well was limited, and was sold out really quick. They didn't get to see much money from that day onwards, but they continued making music. And that is the right spirit. I even have the original of their first two albums, because they were not only worth it for the music, but also for the people that made it.
I also know that these guys had jobs aside from the music. But they could give me the music I loved, with their main income being from full-time jobs :eek:


Sorry that I wasn't clear on this in my first post, this is my mistake, but I do not ONLY download music. Like I said, I have the first two albums by Kutschurft, and I have about 100/110 original albums right next to me now. Also, if an artist is whining about their albums being downloaded, I won't download them. I won't buy them either, though, I just don't listen to the music. If I feel that an artist is worth being paid not only because they make good music, but also because they make music with good intentions, I won't complain about having to pay them. And if they really do make music with the intentions I described, they won't be pissed if I download their albums.

And even if I do only download the music, which I do with most bands, I will support them. I give them good reviews, encourage them to keep doing what they are doing, etc.. Why should an artist only be able to measure their success by how much money they are making? If you look around on the internet, and you see that people like your music, they enjoy listening to you, they feel what you want them to feel... That should be your real reward. Even if you are making millions off your albums, that should be the thing that encourages you to keep making music.


Wasn't that always the case? If you aren't well known, you won't make a lot of money. Not only because of the downloads, but because you are not well known. I am not saying that those bands were not good, or they lacked something. But it has always been the case that some bands that make some of the best music do not get well known, and some that are pure shit get well known, that's not something that has come along with the illegal downloading of music.
If you look at the "grind" bands, with which I mean goregrind, porngrind, etc. The really extreme forms of music, I can't imagine that they make a lot of money, even if all of their albums are being sold. Yet they keep making music. If you look at some black metal bands, who have a thing for limiting their albums, I can't imagine them making a lot of money as well, yet they keep making music...

I know what you're saying and I don't disagree but that wasn't my point. My point was that I'd like to support especially bands like that by buying their albums instead of downloading. And it's also about killing the market. Of course I download stuff as well but when I like an album I put it on my list and will buy it in the end.

Ok, then I did not understand you good, sorry. I am not against the fact that bands make money though, and I am not too bad of a person to give them money, but I am against it if it is only about the money. The most music I like is, in the general public, quite unknown. The people I was aiming at were not in these bands, too. As I said, if an artist gets all upset about people downloading their album, I won't download it, especially when the band in question makes enough money anyways.
I did, however, pay for the recording of an album by a band that was broke (you had to order and pay the album in advance, and there were enough albums in total to cover the total costs if every album was bought). I did that because, for this band, I knew it was not about getting richer themselves, they really wanted to record that album and wanted to show it to the world, and if you can't pay the recording of it, I am more than glad to help a band that I like with that if the band has these intentions. This is not to put myself in a better daylight, though. This is to show that there are bands who aren't trying to be as rich as they can, but just want to let their music being heard by the public.
But if you go and make an album trying to get as much sales as you can, I say you aren't doing it for the good reason. Before the public, before the fans, before the critics, it is important that you yourself stand behind the music and what it says. If you are making an album to get sales, you are putting your own opinion aside.

Downloading is better, because it's free, and saves me a **** load of money which is good, considering that I'm not exactly the richest person around. Besides, bands/artists don't really make money off of album sales anyway.

Thats not always true.
On a major label, yes, but independent peoples makes money off their albums.

sometimes, more often than not it's the opposite. you hear horror stories all the time how indie labels like Motown and SST ****ed their signed bands.

at least with major labels there's increased distribution/publication, and they usually get a bigger chunk of the royalties paid.

Yeah, I was talking more about the Rhymesayers and Strange Music-esque labels.

I know on Suburban Noize records, the artists make at least 5 dollars per album sold.

If I'm broke/not going to the store, I'll ask for a download.

I buy CD's because they're tangable. I only d/l albums when they have bonus tracks not avaialbe on CD's.

Whether they do or not, album sales help them get and secure record deals.

I only buy albums that I REALLY like. If I consider it 10/10 I will buy it.

I rather buy the hard copy of an album...just sounds better through the stereo. Downloaded music quality is always questionable and esp from itunes they don't give you the freedom as buying a cd yourself

do you go without bread because the grain farmer only gets a pittance from the loaf sold on a shelf?

even if the band only makes a small profit who is it that paid for the recording time? the studio engineers? the video? the duplication and distribution of the album? the marketing and promotion?

the label (or for the really independent stuff the actual band members).

just because the vast majority of major label offerings suck more ass than this elephant...



... doesn't mean labels are necessarily bad. consider the quality of most homemade recordings on myspace vs. something released by a label. while some people are capable of getting decent sound recordings there are a whole hell of a lot of recordings that sound like they're hook up to Dumbo's nose up there.

the label advance for recording an album can be the difference between a band working together in the studio and a band where 2 of the guys still have to work day jobs.

at the same time (especially if it's independent) if the album doesn't generate sales it's going to discourage the suits from trying more bands from that style, a label can't pay its bills if the bands don't sell. i think the labels (especially the so called majors) don't really give a crap about what's popular just so long as something is that popular.

I still buy vinyl records cause I like having a physical copy of something-and it sounds better, and you give the album the time it deserves, rather than burying it amongst about 1000 songs you don't actually listen to.

If it's the stones or zeppelin I'll download because they're going to be dead soon anyway

that's actually not a bad idea

If i only bought 10/10 albums i'd probably only have about 30 there.

yeah, but i'd rather that than a shelf full of crap.

It wouldn't be all crap though, i mean i buy only stuff that i really really like but that doesn't mean it has to all be perfect 10/10 music. If i was that fussy my music listening habits would be very dull!

yeah, i see what you mean, honestly i wouldn't be that restrictive, i mean if it's like an 8/10 i'd still buy it. i'll download albums first to see if i'll consider putting my money towards it, i don't want to waste my cash on average to crappy dribble.

besides, if those average bands really want my money they should make better albums, haha :D

Yes I like that too. I will always put freshly bought albums aside and I spin those in turns so I will at least listen to them properly a couple of times. That's why I don't do much downloading anymore. It just grows out of hand and I just am not able to listen to it all.

That's the problem with downloading, it can get really out of hand. Especially if you keep a list of music you want. The problem for me is that I'll have a few bands I want to check out, but then once I get to a blog that has some of that I'll look through to see what else is there. At the point, it's all over and I'll end up with hundreds if not thousands of new songs. It takes me like a month to get through all that new stuff, not contacting anything new I buy or get from friends. Now, I just go on a downloading spree once every so often and get some new stuff; if i don't like it pretty fast and it doesn't have potential I sometimes won't even listen to the full album... I know, it's bad, I just don't have time. If I didn't listen to music for like 12 hours a day I wouldn't even have time to listen to anything more than once or twice. Thank god for technology so I can have my music anywhere :D.

It definitely gets out of hand. I miss having access to only the albums I purchase, and actually spending time with them. Now we all have short attention spans and always looking for the next thing, not giving everything a proper chance.

This. I couldn't agree more. I was showing someone my Itunes yesterday and totally realized I haven't listened to half the crap I have.

idk, but it seems that you guys have to try to keep a steadier pace when getting albums. i mean, getting new music is great, but you gotta know when to stop and start at a time, otherwise you get flooded with stuff that you may end up not listening to.

idk for me, i get a couple albums at a time, but once i get them, i go through them ASAP. i also rate each song and go through everything at least once, so if i stop between albums, i can know where to go by play count or if it's not rated.

like right now i have some albums backed up that i just got a few minutes ago, but it's nothing a day or two of going through them can't fix.

I download first and if I like it I buy it later.

I very rarely download any music, except sometimes just a track or two to help determine if a cd is worth buying. I find that after actually shelling out cash for a cd, I'm more motivated to give it a proper listen. Plus, I like reading the liner notes of the album and looking at the artwork while listening to it. Half the appeal of buying music to me is knowing that eventually I'll have a really badass music collection, and I'll be able to display all of it on a shelf or something.

Having real albums is definitely awesome. I wish I had thought about it a long time ago before I got a bunch of those crappy CD book-cases and chucked all my jewel cases.
When I'm in my late years, I won't even have a decently preserved collection of CD's and their original cases, which will probably, by then, be as records are to us now.

There's just something tangible about CD albums you can have pride in and that can't be lost like MP3's due to hard-drive failures.

But they can be stolen, scratched, burned, water damaged, crushed, or taken away by tornado! :eek:

I've always been scared of theft or damage...my CD collection owns me. :(

I feel ya, I know exactly what you're talking about. For the most part I take ridiculous pristine care of my cds now. After having a few bad experiences, I don't even loan them to people anymore. Half the time I don't even get them back, or if I do, they'll be scratched up or have the cases broken. I remember going over to a friends house a while ago that I hadn't been to for a while, and finding a few cds that I had let him borrow like 3 years ago. The cds were all beat up, and I haven't loaned anything since then. Now if someone wants to borrow something I just make them a burn.

Theft?

The only people who would steal are scummy chavs, hopefully your music collection wouldn't catch their eye. If it does, that's a reflection on your music taste..

Major labels don't need my money, independent artists however, do.

The majority of the time I download but if there is a specific artist I really like or their album has at least 75% great tracks then I will buy it. When artists put out an album with 12 tracks and expect people to buy it when they only have 3 quality tunes and the rest is filler, they have a serious problem. I think the main reason they even put out albums like that is because they need to fill the album quota on their contract before it runs out.

Another reason I prefer purchase cds rather than download, is to support local business. In my town we have a couple really nice independant stores, and I would feel very guilty if I started downloading all my music and they went out of business. I enjoy talking with the guys who run these places, and I've discovered some great stuff that just happened to be playing when I walked in.

For me it's less about feeling guilty for stealing something from the musicians, and more about just the fact that you're stealing. I feel guilty getting something for nothing, especially when I know that the product I'm getting took a lot of hard work from various parties to create. Just doesn't make ethical sense, especially not in a capitalist society. With that said, I will still download if what I'm looking for is way overpriced, hard to find, or will take like 3 months to ship. I'm generally not willing to drop more than 20 bucks for a cd, unless it's a double of course.

Yea nobody steals CDs around here... When they steal your car, they throw the CDs out.

If they're happy hardcore CDs they may keep them.

Uh ok. Times have changed indeed, but in the 90s CDs were commonly stolen from cars and homes (during parties and such). Easy money I suppose, when you could bring them to a used CD or pawn shops. Plus people didn't have a way to get music for free like today on the internet. So true thieves would steal to sell them, and "acquaintances" would steal them because they wanted them.

Yeah I stopped loaning CDs out a long time ago too. I'll make them a copy before I let them walk out the door with a real CD.