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?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Because I can't think of any.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

What I meant is illegally downloading them, of course, not downloading them from a pay site.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm broke. :/

songz in the key of life (The Reverend), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

But it's not like you're life depends on getting a particular record. And there's plenty of free and legal music available on the net.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

if you're broke and not spending your income elsewhere, what does it matter if you listen to legal music or illegal music?

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

"One Good Song"

The first line of the first post in this thread is still OTM.

Tits Bramble (Matt DC), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

try b4 u buy

man saves ducklings from (ledge), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

If you're broke but want to get some cool prints from a local painter, do you wait until you have enough cash or just go ahead and steal them?

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

I mostly just worry about food and the rent

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

try b4 u buy

This I can understand, but I was talking about a situation where you only download stuff but don't buy it afterwards.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

If you did that then the painter would be broke and therefore unable to make any more prints, cool or otherwise (xxp).

Dingbod Kesterson, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

What year is it? Who is the president?

Colonel Poo, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also SB

Colonel Poo, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

As for the "one good song" thing, in most cases you can legally download an individual song cheaply, if that's all you want.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

2009

and

http://oofta.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/tarja20halonen.jpg

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

i d/l momus illegally and delete the files without listening.

FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

I also hide his CDs in record shops when I see them, so that no one can find them. I have never done this, though, because I've never seen his CDs in record shops. This is either because a; no one wants them so record shops don't stock them, or b; someone else already did what I was intending to do.

Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

When I want to get some local Finnish rap albums, I always buy them because I know most of Finnish rappers aren't that wealthy, and many of them have said (in interviews and on the records themselves) that they don't like people downloading that stuff because they're trying to make a living with their music, and filesharing hurts that. I don't really see why this isn't a valid argument.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's an entirely valid argument. I don't think anyone could reasonably say it wasn't. I think the reaction to this thread is precisely because of the fact that it's so reasonable.

Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

isn't there some government rap program that supports them?

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

No.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

I believe anyone caught downloading music illegally should be made to kick a ball in the street for a minimum of 72 hours, just to learn about dignity and optimal social interaction.

Dingbod Kesterson, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

would finnish voters be opposed to one?

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

I've been trying to be ethical about stealing music for the last year or so, which (to me) means something like Tuomas's premise: no stealing of music from an artist I actually care about (the vast majority of which are nowhere near 'super rich'). Unfortunately, this has meant that I have attained virtually no new music in the past year, as I am broke as a joke.

Bathtime at the Apollo (G00blar), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I've gotten into tons of (new to me) old music though!

Bathtime at the Apollo (G00blar), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Actually, some Finnish musicians do get state grants so they don't have to have a day job and can focus on making music. But rap in here is quite marginal, so I don't think any rapper might get such a grant in the near future.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

How about downloading it first to see if it's worth buying? If it's bad, erase. If it's good, buy it at their next gig...

Nate Carson, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm fine with that, but that wasn't the question I asked.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

what do finnish rappers rap about if they're not wealthy?

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

fish?

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think in an ideal situation musicians would be supported by the state and records would be free. But since the state can't afford to support every garage band, there'd have have to be some system of deciding which bands are good enough to deserve the state money, and that's where it gets tricky. I believe the former Soviet Union had a system like this, but there where only a handful of pop/rock bands on the government payroll.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

If their music is available to buy in the format you want then you should pay. Or, download it for free but then go to one of their gigs and throw some money at them.

Hard House SugBanton (blueski), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

im more willing to "donate" to the artist (i.e. buy a cd that i already downloaded even tho i know i'm not going to do anything with the physical cd except but it on a shelf) if the artist is on a major label. especially for r&b/hip-hop, it's very likely that a label is going to look at the artist's album sales and say "well, you only sold 120,000 copies in the first month, so we didn't make any money off this record, and you probably won't be putting one out for another 2-3 years" whereas fatcat didn't look at the sales of animal collective's 'feels' and go "well, you guys only sold 6,000 copies of this record this month, so we probably won't be putting out any more animal collective albums for a few years"

hazmat yayo (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

what do finnish rappers rap about if they're not wealthy?

About being poor. It's actually a common subject in Finnish rap, plus most of the rappers are left-leaning.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

well then you would hope they would understand my situation and the whole 'not having any money to give them' thing

iatee, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

which i guess i mean to say that i know that the neither a large or mid-sized indie band nor a major artist is going to make money off of my singular purchase, but that my "vote" so to speak matters much more frequently when it comes to artists on major labels than ones on indie labels

hazmat yayo (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

and likewise i probably won't go see the-dream for $45 bucks but i'll go see the thermals for $15

hazmat yayo (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't buy music any more. I don't want CDs, and I didn't want downloads with DRM, which was the only way to legally get them until recently. I used to download illegally, now I mostly listen to Spotify, which is free and legal. Copyright, and today's forms of distribution, are utterly untenable in the digital age. There's probably a pretty direct correlation between the amount I spent on CDs in the pre-Internet age and the amount I spend on broadband, which enables the downloading. In other words it's the ISPs who are now making money out of music. There have been various suggestions in various countries to bundle in some kind of charge for music with ISP subscription, which I think makes some sense. As for illegal downloading, I think I'm right in saying that in Germany the high court decided it wasn't actually illegal to download, so the issue is not necessarily so legally or morally clearcut.

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

You let the German high court decide your morality?

Bathtime at the Apollo (G00blar), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Don't worry, I SB'd myself for that)

Bathtime at the Apollo (G00blar), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

well when have they ever let us down?

Hard House SugBanton (blueski), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

What was the German high court's reason for making downloading legal? Was it pragmatic (because it can't be stopped) or was there some actual legal / moral substance behind the decision? Because as I see it, a pragmatic decision doesn't affect the morality of the issue at all.

Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

I may have this German business wrong, I'll google and see...

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

I let the Zimbabwean high court decide for me on most things.

Bathtime at the Apollo (G00blar), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

From some paper on copyright law:

If a user in Germany downloads a song from a file-sharing network, it is seen as a duplication – a copy of the song. If this copy is for private use, it is perfectly legal – like copying a CD or a videotape. This permission is granted by an exception to copyright ("Schrankenregelung"), resembling – not equalling – the fair use provision in US copyright law. Of course it is not allowed to sell or lend this copy, because then it would be a commercial use, which is prohibited.

It's apparently legal in the Netherlands as well.

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

if there a justification you can give for including (A) here Tuomas, I'd like to hear it. short of 'charity'

U2 raped goat (darraghmac), Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

The justification comes from the fact that I'd like to see my favourite artists continue making music, and that's much easier if they actually can make some sort of living out of it. It's not really an issue with artists who are already super rich.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah I'm down with that too

Bathtime at the Apollo (G00blar), Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

In the long term, subscribing to an already collapsing system of remuneration (that never much helped smaller artists anyway) will not necessarily help your favourite artists continue to make music.

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

also maybe poor-beatles would have spent their creative energy making some lo-fi sgt-the-white-album

iatee, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

that music will be better if you take away the profit motive

i would never want a book's autograph (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

this isn't really fair...lots of masterpiece-producing artists started out having a day job until, you know, they became well-known enough to live off their art. they didn't all start out as professionals and then create great works (although some did of course).

but this doesn't contradict the idea that profit's a motive -- lots of people are motivated to work on the art between day shifts out of the hope that they can become a full-time artist, or get some other monetary benefit. (for instance, there is one artistic pursuit I would probably be working on much less quickly if I weren't interesting in trying to sell it and pay off some student loans.)

nabisco, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh wait, that's actually in the quote --

started out having a day job until, you know, they became well-known enough to live off their art

the motivation to get from the beginning of that sentence to the end of it is definitely something

nabisco, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

that music will be better if you take away the profit motive

umm I didn't say this and I don't agree with it.

I will say that in terms of hip hop its perhaps relevant to note that its roots aren't in making money - they're in entertaining your friends and family at a party when you have little to no money or resources. Now granted the genre didn't really start turning out masterpiece-level recorded material until big-time label financing started happening in the late 80s and that that in turn became a "get out the ghetto" strategy for a ton of artists who went on to make great stuff... but again, I'm not knocking artists getting paid or making the best possible work they can in the hopes of getting paid or whatever. That motivator exists and for some people it works. For other people they don't need that motivator, and they can produce great stuff too.

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

there is one artistic pursuit I would probably be working on much less quickly if I weren't interesting in trying to sell it and pay off some student loans.

xp nabisco: Have you been reduced to sperm donor along with J0hn?

giving a shit when it isn't your turn to give a shit (sarahel), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

and of course for some people money's the sole motivator and they're ideas are shitty and those people make shitty music.

The way the profit motive impacts art is a spectrum, its not a dualistic, good/bad, either/or thing.

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

otm

iatee, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

If you're not inspired and you don't have anything to say, i'm not going to feel bad that you are rushing to put out something to make a buck.

brotherlovesdub, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp Shakey: but some people are motivated by the "love of the thing" and their ideas are shitty and those people make shitty music.

giving a shit when it isn't your turn to give a shit (sarahel), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha yeah that's true too.

the moral of the story is: some music is shitty and some music is great and sometimes that music makes money

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

The way the profit motive impacts art is a spectrum, its not a dualistic, good/bad, either/or thing.

exactly what I started out trying to say - that to argue that people working for profit is somehow a bad this is moronic

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

bad thing

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 29 May 2009 23:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't think anyone is arguing that it's inherently bad! it's maybe bad for those particular musicians...

iatee, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

(when they're faced w/ the 21st century)

iatee, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

If you're not inspired and you don't have anything to say, i'm not going to feel bad that you are rushing to put out something to make a buck.

That's a massive and mean-spirited "if" -- there are plenty of people in the world who are inspired and have something to say but have to do some serious back-breaking and ass-kicking in order to find the time and energy to do it around whatever it is they do to pay the bills. And if there's an added reward at the end of all that work -- say, the opportunity to pay the bills easier, so you can spend more time on your inspiration and your things-to-say -- that is a good motivator to keep breaking backs and kicking asses to get it done.

nabisco, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

imo ^^^^^^^^^ this is canceled out w/ the internet's democratization of creating and exhibiting your work

iatee, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

spending your time hawking and marketing the things that are threatened by downloads and chasing after 'lost profits' rather than concentrating on your art seems as good a demotivator as any. what do you think of the idea of music labels having artists on salary rather than some silly sales-based profit scheme?

Philip Nunez, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

spending your time hawking and marketing the things that are threatened by downloads and chasing after 'lost profits' rather than concentrating on your art seems as good a demotivator as any.

(20th century version)

iatee, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure that's some kind of plus or minus to be "canceled out," just a statement that talented/creative people may really, really struggle to have the time, space, and energy to get things done -- and the thought that, if people like what you come up with, you might be allowed a bit more time/space/energy to do more is an important motivator. I suspect we all agree/acknowledge that this is a goal the bulk of creative people have in common, to be able to survive off working on their art full time.

(I'm also assuming we all agree -- and maybe some don't! -- that making art is genuine hard work that requires serious commitments and investments of your time, energy, focus, etc., all things that are in shorter supply when they're dedicated to another job.)

nabisco, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

also Phil I have no idea if that's in response to what I said, and I get the feeling we are talking about different things entirely here

nabisco, Friday, 29 May 2009 23:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

imo ^^^^^^^^^ this is canceled out w/ the internet's democratization of creating and exhibiting your work

i think this is a often-heard fallacy these days. sure, you put some music online and it's possible for tons of people to hear it, but to actually get people to care you've got to put some serious time and effort into promotion. and unless you hit the blog hype lottery, most bands are still making their name through relatively old-fashioned methods, i think.

Ømår Littel (Jordan), Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

payola?

L. Ron Huppert (velko), Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

"sure, you put some music online and it's possible for tons of people to hear it, but to actually get people to care you've got to put some serious time and effort into promotion"

Dude, did you not check out the Finnish rap at the top of the thread?

Philip Nunez, Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

which is why my hope is that the future of the music industry will be more towards one of the folk tradition and less of the American Idol/pro-sports variety - that music-making will become so commonplace it'll get down to something that people just DO, and the best stuff will circulate and rise to the top via its appeal as something that other people can play and participate in and enjoy.

um wut abt every1 that hates shitty folk music and wants 2 listen to gleaming and crisp r&b???? like i think its generally true that even w/o financial incentive ppl will still be making music but there's a professionalism and a, i guess, structure that happens when something is an industry that wld be lost with this and with it i think certain types of music. like its not just a drive to make "art" that makes something like a dream album possible but what about trained, skilled sound engineers and other tech jobs - those ppl need money too.

i remember talking w/ i think s1ocki about this w/r/t to movies its dope to make your own low-budget films but the difference even a trained lighting tech can makes is huge and w/o ppl buying tickets and DVDs who's going to train for that? and who's going to pay these ppl once they're trained?

magic, i guess. i guess it has something to do with my magic (Lamp), Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

"the difference even a trained lighting tech can makes is huge and w/o ppl buying tickets and DVDs who's going to train for that"

CG is probably going to kill this particular profession off faster than illegal downloads is my bet.

Philip Nunez, Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think by folk tradition he means diy not just beardos with dulcimers
also gleamimg & crisp has had a good run but the game changes every so often and new aesthetics come into play

L. Ron Huppert (velko), Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

that's maybe a bad example, cause gleaming/crisp modern r&b can actually be made in pretty low-investment way

nabisco, Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

i guess my point was less abt any specific aesthetic than just that - there are a bunch of ppl from editors to sound engineers that perform imo valuable functions but aren't really "artists" or w/e term shakey et all want to use that i think arent getting work in the new diy folktopia. and if u consciously create a situation where making any money from creative works is really hard then there's no incentive for these ppl to exist, and thus certain kinds of art arent really possible any more.

i mean lol im pretty happy making flash and iphone games for little to no money but w/o a major publisher fronting not just cash but also ppl - coders, designers, testers &c &c &c - i'm never going to make games as ambitious and interesting i think im capable of

magic, i guess. i guess it has something to do with my magic (Lamp), Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

they performed valuable functions at a point of time when their contribution helped create a product that made money. now that it doesn't, they don't.

iatee, Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

that some brutal economic determinism bro - in a world where any1 can self-publish digitally do u really think a professional editor has *no* value??

magic, i guess. i guess it has something to do with my magic (Lamp), Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

if nobody is willing to pay them then yes, in a strict economic sense, they have no value

iatee, Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

i'm not sure the crap to gold ratio is gonna be that diff. in whatever comes after the deluge, but yes certain styles/genres or whatever are going to be harder to pull off.
¯\(°_o)/¯

L. Ron Huppert (velko), Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

"i'm never going to make games as ambitious and interesting i think im capable of"

As is the case with many aspiring novelists, the personal distractions of life will probably be the larger obstacle than the theoretical loss of a support infrastructure that would aid you in your quest, starfighter!

Philip Nunez, Saturday, 30 May 2009 00:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

if nobody is willing to pay them then yes, in a strict economic sense, they have no value

umm mr iatee sir do you concede that there are forms of value other than economic

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 30 May 2009 02:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes, which is why I prefaced that with 'strict economic'...

iatee, Saturday, 30 May 2009 03:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

if we believe that expensive-to-make music has important social value, then yeah, in the long-term we need to find a way to fund it, because the current system isn't going to for much longer. see: newspapers

iatee, Saturday, 30 May 2009 03:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well I've been hesitant to get involved here, because A)it seems to me we've all had this same discussion in the recent past on another thread B)I don't personally know what the answer is, I don't pretend to, and I don't care, I only have faith that it will eventually appear.

What I WILL say right now is that what I do most of my downloading for is to TRY things. TRY B4 YOU BUY. Either that or I'm just catching up on some record or other I already bought years ago and no longer have access to, etc. So speaking as an American who has not yet tasted what Spotify must be like, it seems to me that model is a good way to start as far as I know. A place where music can be played, tried out, maybe paid for after a certain number of plays, whatever. But this endless downloading and dumping into folders and not ever getting around to listening to it drives a person (me) mad. If everything was instantly available, there would be no need for that excess.

Born Again Atheist (Bimble), Saturday, 30 May 2009 07:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

Like say, 25 cents to play a song one time, 50 for two...topping out of course at some level or the market will allow. Moving to an ad for the album after three plays. It isn't hard folks! Pardon my impatience with the technological progress of the human race, thanks.

Born Again Atheist (Bimble), Saturday, 30 May 2009 07:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

Bimble, you should look into Lala.com. It is for US citizens, and it allows a free first time streaming and then a very cheap purchase for permanent streaming abilities. There is a thread about it here that was bumped recently.

I say this as an ex-user that moved on from the company as it's focus shifted, but it kind of fits an attempt at a different digital model.

james k polk, Saturday, 30 May 2009 07:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

Last.fm has been good to me lately; most everything that I'm hesitant about dropping cash on is streamable, with a big increase in lo-fi punk shit in the last couple years (something that I find particularly hit and miss).

But what this thread has really convinced me of is that I should be bootlegging Jay Z albums and sending the money to Finnish rappers in some sort of copyleft global arts socialism.

THESE ARE MY FEELINGS! FEEL MY FEELINGS! (I eat cannibals), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think it will be interesting the see where the whole internet/cloud computing/futuristic technologies takes us in the sense of music production and how this affects things in the long run. Like now it's about digital copies of songs, what about in 15 years when everyone has 3d printers that can download models to recreate virgin vinyl first pressings on the molecular-scale?

Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 20:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, wow dude, can't wait for that

hugging used to mean something (call all destroyer), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 20:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

15 yrs from now is gonna be more like this I think
http://arcona.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/statue_planet.jpg

tylerw, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 20:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

can't remember if the apes had 3-d printers, though

tylerw, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 20:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.hear2.com/images/2007/12/29/natgeo_musicsales2_6.gif

Wonder if this chart account for changes in inflation?

Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 20:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

...this is the stuff with which I took issue; it still strikes me as wrong, most especially the "art should be made for the love of it" - sez who?

― worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, May 29, 2009 6:07 PM (5 days ago) Bookmark

Love seems to be worth more than money to those crazy beatnik beardo art types.

Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah I know Devendra is begging for change on Melrose Ave as we speak

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 23:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

Begging for LOVE.

cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 23:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

that's a beautiful chart

iatee, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 00:16 (nine years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.