MattFrost wrote:
today's global economy, you can get anything for a relatively good price. Ebay / trading with other users (be it originals or copies until you can get an original), both of these are available options open to anyone. The only exception are hard to find out of print albums which can understandably go for a lot of money but which are also worth more money.
I fail to see the difference between trading copies of CD's physically and downloading it. Is the act of trading a physical object superior to downloading the album? It seems to me that going through all that effort to obtain a copy of the CD which still transfers no compensation to the band is just a way to assuage one's conscience. Well, one smugly thinks, at least I didn't "download" it. No, but unless you purchased it first-hand so that the band makes a royalty and the label recoups expenses, then what you're doing is the moral equivalent. You're just making it harder on yourself to justify the 'theft'.
Quote:
This is akin to the "when purchasing albums does duration make a big difference?" thread. Ultimately, the major consensus seemed to be that an album is worth buying if it is a good album regardless of length. Many also said that if the album is good, price isnt an option. I would assume that this also relates to this topic. If the album is good enough, If the band is good enough, is price really going to matter?
My argument
vis a vis the import isn't just about cost, though. It's about the label, for whatever reason, sending me the message that as someone who does not live in their distribution zone, I am not worth the effort it takes (which isn't very much) to get our CD's distributed here. It's a Marie Antoinette-ish "let them eat Slipknot" attitude that I find terribly fucking insulting, because I want to support that label and their bands, but they keep on saying, you're not worth it, and if you want it you have to pay twice as much as the kid in Germany or Japan. So, what I do is I keep my eyes open for an opportunity to buy the actual titles when I can, but if I can't, I download. Album not out in the US for four more months? That's another "fuck you" from the record label, so I download it.
Quote:
To be honest. I only have a problem with those who abuse the ability to download.
I can't claim to have a moral problem with it since my musical palette has expanded so much because of it. I would be a screaming hypocrite to say that people shouldn't download, or that they should only download so much. People determine their own level of involvement depending on their conscience. My belief only works for me, I wouldn't seek to impose it on you or the person with 100 albums in their queue, I'm just rebutting the point that the RIAA is protecting the artists, as well as the fallacious argument that downloading hurts independent musicians. I have found that it helps more than it hurts, and that clinging to the RIAA standard is akin to rearranging the furniture on the Titanic.
Quote:
This is a good point and one that I can't necessarily argue. Of course, through trading and such you can acquire these tracks, it is usually not worth the effort for such an insignificant reward. Then again... without downloading, these tracks would be worth much, much more as stand alone tracks.
Maybe, but I don't collect music for it's worth as a commodity. To me, it's not like trading baseball cards. If I were such a collector I would collect vinyl, and I know a lot of people who do. In fact, I recommend that any artist who wants to download-proof their music release their songs on vinyl, because even if they get the digital file somehow, the vinyl will hold all of the worth.
Quote:
By protecting labels with good intentions, it also protects the artists that are on that label's roster.
The RIAA is a lobbying group formed to protect the labels at any cost from anyone- especially artists who realize how bad they're getting fucked. They have no good intentions, their entire purpose is to legally insulate themselves from technology that would force them to either evolve or go obsolete. It would be like an organization dedicated to protecting the buggy whips from the scourge of automobiles in the late 19th century.
Quote:
Why aren't labels able to send artists over seas? Why are labels forced to sell well put together albums for more money than they should be? It's because the labels, and not the artists, don't have the resources. (I am specifically talking about the underground labels - the labels hurt most by downloading)
I can't agree with that. I can personally tell you of over $2000 that various small metal labels would not have made off of me had I not downloaded their music first, and that's just in CD sales, not counting the direct support of bands live. The reason bands don't come overseas is because they have to cultivate enough of a following to ensure that the tour will at least break even and hopefully make money. It's usually not up to the label to send the band on tour, especially an independent. The indies usually have the band take care of those arrangements through hiring a private agent. So, in order for a band to embark on such a task, it has to be worth the cost. Europe is cheaper to tour in and metal is more popular, so there is little risk and a lot of reward. Coming overseas you have to deal with customs, taxes, visas, renting equipment and a van or bus, and not being sure if you're going to make ends meet. There's a huge cost to touring in the US, ask anyone who has done it (if you have, you know). And the rewards? Not so guaranteed.
Quote:
Hypothetically, if you stop people from downloading, and you get people buying albums, the labels increase their profits and can put more backing behind artists touring.
That's a bold hypothetical, because you will never really stop downloading. It's like saying, well, if we just wear sweaters it won't be so cold in the winter.
Quote:
Label support is what allows bands to tour consistently and without burning themselves out. Support of this kind would also allow bands to play in places that they otherwise would not have played where people want them to play. We all hear people complaining that bands aren't playing their area... this is why.
No, I answered that above. Only major labels offer tour support and guess what- the bands usually have to pay it back out of THEIR pittance that they get from CD royalties. Any time a band takes label tour support, it comes right out of their pennies on the dollar, the label doesn't pay for it out of the kindness of their hearts. Smaller labels, like I said, put the responsibility for touring on the bands (where it should be) and hence, a band chooses where to tour so that they can make the most money while incurring the least amount of cost. They go where the money is guaranteed, not where it's iffy.
Quote:
Being in a band that plays shows and has travelled, I know the expenses that are involved. Without the support of a financially secure label, bands are screwed.
I've done that many times myself and never did we have label support. The most our label did was to ship our merch to us when we were running low, but we paid for the merch. Labels are becoming an expendable middleman these days, and the ones who are going to survive are going to be the ones who can adapt to the changing market and who can utilize technology in their favor rather than resisting it and going down kicking and screaming.
Quote:
With myspace and other similar websites, there is no reason to have to rely on downloading to find music. Most labels share mp3's and have downloadable content. Youtube also has a vast worth of music available to listen to. PLUS with a little ingenuity, you can take those tracks on myspace that the bands don't allow you to download and record them straight into your computer for enjoyment later.
Sure, I know that. Like I said, I am not someone who sits home all day adding bands to a queue and downloading whole albums. If something piques my interest I will try and find it, and only download if it's the last resort (or if I feel slighted by labels that don't think I'm worth the effort to market to).
Quote:
Plus, there are these things called magazines which are written by profesional music journalists who cover bands that you and I and others have never really heard of before. I mean, downloading doesn't just affect the artists and labels. it affects just about everyone in the music industry in some way. What will happen to the artists and graphic designers that make the artwork and layouts for albums if downloading takes over the way we purchase and recieve music?
They will find a way to market their skills in a digital environment. Happens all the time. And magazines are also going the way of the dinosaur because, well, places like the Archives, or other well-established webzines that are not simply advertising sheets for the record labels. Very few printed magazines are truly unbiased and objective, they're governed by the labels and businesses that purchase ad space. Pan a CD that a label has invested a lot of promotional dollars in? You will never see their money again. Even happened to me once when reviewing for a website, which is why I won't waste my time writing solicited reviews.
Quote:
To be honest, the fact that you still buy albums that you feel are worth buying is still proof that the physical, tangible format of the almighty album, is still more important to metal fans than anything.
Well of course it is. I still buy CD's sometimes- get this- without even listening to them first! If I like the band's artwork, or the general theme of the artist, hey, it's $15, I'll give it a shot. 75% of the time I am happy, and 25% of the time I get to write an angry, unrestricted review. Works for me, I guess, maybe because I am older and it's just how I grew up, shopping for albums.
Quote:
I know for myself, the album artwork and booklet and all the enjoyment that comes with unwrapping a newly purchased cd or package from some trader in the mail is far more appealing to me than clicking a few buttons on a computer. I am not really worried per say about most metal fans however the current generation of kids growing up, are growing up in a society in which applauds media that are "easy" and "disposable."
I could write another 10,000 word post about this, and I don't disagree with you entirely, but I'm a pragmatist. Whatever will get people listening to my music, so be it. I have no interest in dickering around with a label whose sole purpose is to horn in on my creative process and give me a bum deal while sending me out there with stars in my eyes. I'm not 18 anymore. Downloading allows for a more level playing field between listeners and artists. It challenges us to work harder to get people to spend their money on our products. In an endless sea of crap where anyone can put music online, it makes us work that much more to stand above the tide. And in the end, the power comes to us- not to a label or some middleman that we have to entrust our fate to. The labels know this and they're fucking terrified, so they sic the RIAA on anyone they can, extort money from the people who can afford least to fight the lawsuits, and try and scare people with bullshit predictions of starving musicians and artists being ripped off and boo hoo hoo, and dammit, I just don't like being lied to and manipulated by a bunch of greedy sack-munchers sitting on bajillions of dollars made off the backs of gullible consumers. For the first time since the inception of recorded music, labels have competition, and they don't like it. Fuck them. Evolve or perish.