If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available where you live, is there any excuse for downloading them instead of buying them?

It's a bit like the number of foreigners in the Premiership, it's only compressing the middle, not the top surely? I mean, if you're Coldplay/Duffy/Kings of Leon you're probably still doing pretty fucking well for yourselves I'd imagine?

"well, i would argue that i think the current system is better than the old system when the owners basically paid and treated the players like shit and held them to unfair contracts."

Totally agree.

But I still don't think it's improved the quality of the games (any of them.)

i mean, to be honest i can't even say wrt to sports because i think that even the relatively lower paid era when i was a kid was still pretty glossy compared to the "old days", like it's not like the showtime lakers were slaving away in obscurity and poverty...

i just wanted to say that because people get so bent out of shape about sports contracts and stuff and it's like, well, this much money is generated, and i'd always rather it go to the players than the owners. not like it's gonna go to the salvation army or something if lebron takes a paycut

I'd rather games be marginally affordable frankly to most people, frankly.

Not blaming the fact that the aren't on the players though.

no doubt, i mourned having to finally give up my season tix to the vikings but it had just grown from like $580 a year to like nearly $900 i think

Also frankly.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6518&edition=1&ttl=20090529172832

i buy stuff by people I care about. this amounts to about seven different artists. I don't really download anything new now either.

if you ask anyone who runs an independent label if downloading is hurting their sales, in my experience, they will say yes. they sell fewer items now than they used to. it's not because, across the board, their roster has gotten worse or less worthy. they physically move fewer items. the degrees of bitterness about this are kind of across the spectrum. Our label (Silber Records) spends a fair amount of time hitting rapidshare and stuff and getting items removed. But he's said the worst thing are the russian mp3 sites which charge for music and never pay the labels (though it's doubtful anyone is actually buying that stuff from there, it is annoying to see it).

"ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music."

"oh you mean like giving bankers ridiculously huge salaries made our banking system so great?"

no, the bankers in the case are the managers/label owners/a&r jerks who make loads but dont really contribute much... and their loss has always tempered my moral indignation at the concept of free downloads (well that and the free lunch) but the truth is the economy hurting record sales just means the scumback manager types are moving into live shows and starting to take a bigger cut of THAT. and wheras before pretty much all the cash from the live shows went to the musician and his team, now, like, live nation or whatever wants a cut...

but yes, i do think the vast rewards available really does attract a certain amount of actual artistic talent. probably a fair number of musicians/groups/producers etc that you love were suckered into the life by the dream of being a rich rock star, doncha think?

The biggest change I can see coming out of this is the majority of future musicians whose music will be consumed by the mainstream will come from people who are not 100% dedicated to being in the entertainment industry; you will see more "hobbyists" (for lack of a better term) with day jobs who take the time and energy to do the things they want to do but still need to follow other professions in order to make a living.

It'll be like writers, except people will actually know who you are!

It's not as though bands that have "made it" are relying solely on the poor saps who still shell out for CDs. A good portion of their income also comes from touring. People still want to see live music.

"probably a fair number of musicians/groups/producers etc that you love were suckered into the life by the dream of being a rich rock star, doncha think?"

Maybe, but really who cares? I don't see any evidence that they quality of music declines when ridiculous amounts of money aren't involved.

I can't keep up with all the good music coming out right now. I seriously doubt "piracy" is harming music. It's probably not making moderately talented people hyper-wealthy but that's not a bad thing. If you're making music for money, you're in the wrong business. Art should be made for the love of it, not for the financial gain. If you want money, tour and be very good at what you do. If you're talented and release quality products, you'll make your money. Saying file sharing is killing music is just stupid though. I download a handful of albums and single tracks everyday but I still spend 300 bucks a month at the record shop. Mostly on used product. If the artist isn't making money on the used promos i'm buying, why aren't they complaining about that or shutting down the used shops for selling promos?

Also, this is pretty rich coming from a forum overrun by critics and people who receive loads of promos. I'd bet a majority of leaks are coming from this same demographic. How many people who receive promos sell them back to record shops when the label clearly says not to?

Now on the other hand if downloads were hurting the amount of pussy that musicians get well woo boy I'll bet a lot of people would start finding new professions quick.

I know someone who did (buy from russian sites) and did it thinking it was the righteous non-theivy thing to do. Then he started using yahoo music, which as far as I can tell, didn't do much better in terms of compensation.

w/r/t Finnish rappers, I think switching to rapping in English would grow their potential audience far more than unendorsed downloads could hurt them, if financial viability is truly the name of the game (but is rapping in English seen as fronting?) Also, it's mind-boggling to think that Finnish rap could exist in the first place without an active trading culture (like for stateside rap/metal/etc...) Is the way the Finnish rap scene came into being fundamentally different from other places?

the whole "people only join bands to get laid thing" is so dumb...

Also, this is pretty rich coming from a forum overrun by critics and people who receive loads of promos. I'd bet a majority of leaks are coming from this same demographic. How many people who receive promos sell them back to record shops when the label clearly says not to?

ilm threads are full of journos saying they sold promos at second hand shops/ebay

xp it was a joke, M@tt.

It's just as wrong to sell a promo as it is to download an album without paying.

What's the best thing to do with a promo you don't want, then?

^^^^ shd be a list thread

The best thing to do is to sell it and also stop bitching about people downloading.

send it to a kid in bangladesh who has to try to survive on 2 promos a year.

use it as building material for your promo fort

Art should be made for the love of it, not for the financial gain.

Interestingly this is also true of whatever it is you do to pay the bills.

If you want money, tour and be very good at what you do. If you're talented and release quality products, you'll make your money.

This came up in one of the other recent downloading threads - the idea that touring is always profitable. The thing is, that's not true. Part of what made touring profitable in the past is that musicians would have new audiences that would buy recordings. For a lot of bands, merch sales made touring profitable as opposed to, at best, a break even proposition. So, now that they're selling fewer CDs/records, do you think the venues are going to give bands higher guarantees or percentages? Don't think so.

One could argue that the music fan is going to use the money they would have spent on buying music (that they instead download for free) to see more shows, and that live audiences would grow. But, from everything I've heard, that's not the case.

^^^^^^^^

since I make my living in the industry & have no complaints, I try not to mouth off too much about this question, but "art should be made for the love of it, not financial gain" line must always be called out as the nonsense it is: tell that to Mozart or the Beatles for Christ's sake. then go back in time and kill all the romantic poets so we don't have to suffer this "only art that's made for love of art and without thought of profit is any good" nonsense for even a second longer.

Loving what you do for work doesn't mean it isn't still work, which is something a lot of people seem loathe to acknowledge when it comes to artistic pursuits.

I can't think of anything in their history that suggests that The Beatles wouldn't have made music if it didn't lead to them being billionaires

xpost

I can't imagine anybody actually thinking they'd have bothered making even their earliest records if it didn't beat getting a day job

but people w/ day jobs are still making records today!

Yeah, but now their dreams of being millionaires are shot to hell.

So sad, feel bad.

xpost to myself

and some of them are probably poor british people!

let me know when some of them produce a body of work over 8 years that compares favorably to the Beatles

btw give me a million dollars

all british people should stop making music not just the poor ones

if I ever get 2 million dollars, I will give you 1 of them

dude you just bought yourself beers for life on me when I'm in yr town, just in case

I've said this on previous threads, but rather than getting all pissy about people downloading, musicians, record companies, whomever, should be working their asses off trying to find a system which allows them make a living making music (I mean assuming that's what they want--I get that being pissy has its own rewards.)

k I live in sf

beers here cost half a million dollars btw

truth fucking bomb on alex in SF - I enjoy just yammering about shit but I don't bitch about downloading, I talk a lot about how it's changed the nature of the listening experience but there is, permanently, NO point in whining about the way things are. you play the cards as they lie & STFU; if you have a job in the business, you won at life and should avoid looking like you're not grateful to the people who put you there.

"let me know when some of them produce a body of work over 8 years that compares favorably to the Beatles"

Question: do you think anyone has produced a comparative body of work to the Beatles? Cuz what's music's excuse for not producing a Beatles all the time back before filesharing was killing it and money was free and easy?

Alex I think the decrease of the profit motive has thinned the talent pool & that people who might have made excellent albums are spending their creative energies in other fields where they might be better compensated.

I think they didn't want to make the beatles look bad so they only allowed one beatles at a time