Zer0

Think you might have missed this:

Of course I know what technology in the 60's was like compared to now, I was just being absurd.

__________________

RoxyRollah

Nigga chilla out!

__________________

Zer0

__________________

RoxyRollah

I know doll. Right back atcha!

Umm what do you mean regular gang? Like Cheers? We seem to come in waves. The east costers/ Europeans are on here about the same time. The westies and the southern hemisphere seem to collide at the same time also. (IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me. )

There is a thread in the introduction section done by Trollheart, will let you know what's up and I think he did a who is who also.

Welcome to MB btw.

__________________

Black Francis

And im apparently the only Puertorican in this joint, where my latin brothers at!?

__________________
"Hey Kids you got to meet the MIGHTY PIXIES!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbRbCtIgW3A

JulieR

I think if a musician, at least ONE, gets music as their art, then we are doomed if we wanted music to be free. But I don't mind torrenting or any others. It's just that we need to be sensitive to the musicians.

TiersenYann

I actually agree with you buddy. It just seem the music market is one in such transition that this failure is occurring - from the literature I've been reading it seems the need is for 'players' in the music industry - be it artists or labels - to find new ways to harness untapped revenue steams, although some papers basically conclude that its necessary to FIX THOSE COPYRGHT CRIMINALS' ATTITUDES, THEY DUK UR JUBBZ!!

Harnessing untapped revenue streams doesn't sound too practical to be honest. I've heard a lot about the lack of compensation artists are receiving from services such as Spotify, but also that artists need the exposure of such streaming platforms to gain traction. This is why I was wondering in a previous post whether they should charge more on tour or something similar?

I did an interview with a friend and producer recently and one of the themes that came up was a distinction between the image of the artist and their music. Labels love transforming an artist in a mass-marketing tool for the music they make but many artists fear (probably rightfully) that this would destroy their artistic integrity. I think the problem lies in that if you do make music -and (a large amount of) people like it, you may either seek label representation and lose artistic integrity or be your own manager and find yourself overwhelmed by marketing yourself and your music... seems a short-cut to a split personality if you ask me! Maybe because we live in such a sensationalised western culture if you were managing yourself you'd be forced to pretend you're something you're not, and do what you hate labels doing so much..

That's kinda... what I was sayin'..... kinda!

Earth Rocker

It's all good, brutha. I was just playing.

Earth Rocker

Music is free. The internet has made it impossible to protect the owners of intellectual property. Everything in multimedia form is free for the taking. People pretend to have integrity when it comes to downloading music and movies. If an artist put up a page that had two links to the same song...one link that said, "But It Now" and another link that said "Get it Free". The only people who would pay are the artist's mom and dad--maybe a sibling or spouse.

At least be honest about your thievery.

Richard Feltcher

If you feel that your artistic creation is there purely to achieve a monetary value, your art is of a questionable quality.

If I ever created something that I feel good about and other people appreciate it, the simple fact that I made someone enjoy my art is all I need. No matter what type of art it is.

art1
ɑːt/Submit
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.