Randy Blythe (LOG) - Online Raging via Twitter

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by Osiris

Then again if you're so big a band that you can sell a million copies, you'd probably have a record deal and affording bandwidth probably wouldn't be an issue. You could always find a way to offer your music for free. And have a little donate button.

I think if I could avoid being signed, I would. There are plenty of successful acts that start their own labels just to retain ownership and creative control of their music.

To the other point, I personally would not give my retail product away. I'll consider various models when I actually release something. Hell, I might put out a high-quality B-Side version of my full album, but the retail product should be higher quality in my opinion, otherwise what impetus is there to buy it?

[the fuhrer]

I don't know about everyone else here but downloading an album cheapens the experience for me. I get excited about buying a new cd. I anticipate its release for weeks. When I get my hands on it for the first time I listen to it front to back several times. I take in every little detail. The few times I have downloaded something I shut it off the first time I hear something I don't like. I never give it a chance, why bother. I have gone back and found something that I downloaded years ago when I was young and discovered it was awesome. I just never cared at the time because I wasn't out of 10 bucks either way. Now days I buy music to support the artists I love but I also buy music because I enjoy the experience of it. I appreciate the value of a good album. I think that is whats missing today. The newer generations haven't had to wait for a cd they wanted. They get it for free the minute they want it. I remember begging my parents for l.d. 50 when it was released. The anxiety of waiting, hoping I would get it. I couldn't just hop on youtube and listen. The feeling I got listening to that for the first time at 15 after waiting weeks to get it will probably be one of the best musical experiences of my life.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by the fuhrer

I don't know about everyone else here but downloading an album cheapens the experience for me. I get excited about buying a new cd. I anticipate its release for weeks. When I get my hands on it for the first time I listen to it front to back several times. I take in every little detail. The few times I have downloaded something I shut it off the first time I hear something I don't like. I never give it a chance, why bother. I have gone back and found something that I downloaded years ago when I was young and discovered it was awesome. I just never cared at the time because I wasn't out of 10 bucks either way. Now days I buy music to support the artists I love but I also buy music because I enjoy the experience of it. I appreciate the value of a good album. I think that is whats missing today. The newer generations haven't had to wait for a cd they wanted. They get it for free the minute they want it. I remember begging my parents for l.d. 50 when it was released. The anxiety of waiting, hoping I would get it. I couldn't just hop on youtube and listen. The feeling I got listening to that for the first time at 15 after waiting weeks to get it will probably be one of the best musical experiences of my life.

There is certainly something to be said for waiting for the experience. Its like saving up for an expensive instrument. The waiting builds the anticipation to the point that when you finally obtain this object of desire its become something else entirely. The last album I felt that way about was probably 10,000 days. I remember getting that package and checking out Adam's crazy-awesome art design before sitting down to put the CD on....Its probably the last time I really pushed my old HiFi speakers as well and I loved every second of it. I intentionally don't listen to leaks or early versions purely to not spoil my ancticipation of an album (even if it is already bought and paid for on preorder).

[the fuhrer]

Hell yeah man, that's what its all about for me. I remember getting Behemoths Evangelion and reading all the liner notes. You can't download that stuff, definitely worth 15 bucks. I guess a lot of people don't have the appreciation for music and the artists that we do.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by the fuhrer

Hell yeah man, that's what its all about for me. I remember getting Behemoths Evangelion and reading all the liner notes. You can't download that stuff, definitely worth 15 bucks. I guess a lot of people don't have the appreciation for music and the artists that we do.

I think its all relative, really. For some people music is just a soundtrack to their lives. Personally its more of a religion to me;I have a reverence for albums that makes them basically holy works to me.

I see parallels to the idea of free music with the idea of free software. Don't get me wrong, I love free software and I use quite a bit of it. The authors can sometimes get by from ad revenue and other inbuilt revenue-generating features, but I have no problem for paying for quality software. I similarly have no problem with the shareware model or trial versions of programs to give me a taste of the program.

I just like to see people receive fair compensation for their work. When its an incredible work and a great contribution to society as a whole, that person should receive greater compensation in my opinion. I simply just can't understand wanting to deny an individual the fruits of their labors.

[Osiris]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

To the other point, I personally would not give my retail product away. I'll consider various models when I actually release something. Hell, I might put out a high-quality B-Side version of my full album, but the retail product should be higher quality in my opinion, otherwise what impetus is there to buy it?

Respect for the artist, liking the music, liking the physical cd/booklet/cover art, buying the album for a friend. If an artist is a big enough bro to be so humble to give away their product but accept donations, I'd be more compelled to donate/buy the album just from him being so generous.

Then again this isnt really a viable option for big record companies. I think itunes has the right idea, especially if they offer free listens to the music before you buy it.

[DDDorian]

People cite a lot of different reasons (or, more often than not, excuses) as to why illegal downloading is a useful tool that empowers both the customer and the artist, but how many of them still ring true? Let's go over a few of 'em briefly:

• Illegal downloading isn't theft because I'm just making a copy! What you are stealing is an artist's intellectual property and their right to profit from it, not some physical object. You don't have to agree with the notion that artists have an individual right to protect their intellectual property but it's one that's enshrined by law in most countries and plays a very important role that reaches far beyond merits of music or other forms of entertainment media. (Also if I see anyone facilitating it here I'm gonna ban 'em for it. Just sayin'.)
  
• Downloading a torrent is so much more convenient than dealing with the hassles of physical distribution! Six or seven years ago, yeah, maybe, but since then the media industry has made massive advances in legal avenues of digital distribution - the barrier to entry is way lower, online payment systems are simple and secure, the customer has more choice in terms of format/audio quality, you can choose to purchase individual tracks instead of full albums, and you can access these services from an increasing array of multimedia devices. The only convenience still unique to illegal downloading is that you aren't paying for anything, but even that can be nullified by the peripheral benefits that come with purchasing something legitimately through a well-featured DD platform - not music-related, but Steam is an excellent example of a DD platform that took a struggling industry (PC gaming) and turned it into a massive success and an invaluable tool for consumer, publisher and developer.
  
• Downloading an album allows me to sample the music before paying for it. Why should I pay for music that I may not even like? First off, if you're on SSO and you still think you have discriminating taste you're kidding yourself Secondly, and more importantly, there are an increasing number of ways to listen to albums in their entirety for free that don't involve illegal downloads - there are officially-sanctioned pre-release streams, there are legitimate streaming services like Soundcloud or whatever, there are subscription-based services... ...., even listening to ripped tracks on Youtube is a less damaging option seeing as bands at least have a little leverage if they wanna pull their stuff down. You can't expect all of these options for every release, naturally, but if people continue to support more legitimate means of sampling music for free then it becomes easier for artists to provide these services and can even allow them to profit without charging directly for anything.
  
• Downloading an album allows me to stick it to those greedy dinosaurs at the major labels! Get with the times, grandpa! While it's true that the importance of record labels of all sizes has been diminished due to factors like the increasing affordability of home recording equipment and the ease of self-distribution via the internet, they still provide a multitude of very valuable services to those who want to make a living in the industry - they have access to a lot of promotional channels that are inaccessible to independent artists, they allow you to develop working relationships with others in the industry, they act as a gatekeeper to good music for a lot of people which helps your music get noticed over the crowd, and they can streamline the process of multi-platform distribution. What's more, today's musician is in a better position to negotiate a favourable contract than ever before; as the primary role of labels shifts from financing releases to distribution and promotion the amount of control they can reasonably exert over an artist is diminished, meaning that musicians have more creative freedom and are able to keep more of the money made from each sale. Theoretically, anyway.
  
• Making a living through music is a stupid juvenile fantasy. Get a real job. The fact of the matter is that part-time musicians, even talented ones, will only ever be a fraction of the musicians that they could be if they were able to dedicate their full time and energy to bettering themselves and honing their craft, and anyone who says otherwise is probably in denial about what a mediocre musician they are. It only requires a very modest contribution from a very small number of people to allow someone the freedom to work on their music more seriously, which in turn results in better music for everyone, including the self-absorbed dicks who decides it's not worth paying for. Win/win!

Oh, and Lamb of God sucks, by the way.

[Stealthdjentstic]

Hey look dorian posted he should ban me, i deserve it!

[GATA4]

Originally Posted by DDDorian

People cite a lot of different reasons (or, more often than not, excuses) as to why illegal downloading is a useful tool that empowers both the customer and the artist, but how many of them still ring true? Let's go over a few of 'em briefly:

• Illegal downloading isn't theft because I'm just making a copy! What you are stealing is an artist's intellectual property and their right to profit from it, not some physical object. You don't have to agree with the notion that artists have an individual right to protect their intellectual property but it's one that's enshrined by law in most countries and plays a very important role that reaches far beyond merits of music or other forms of entertainment media. (Also if I see anyone facilitating it here I'm gonna ban 'em for it. Just sayin'.)
  
• Downloading a torrent is so much more convenient than dealing with the hassles of physical distribution! Six or seven years ago, yeah, maybe, but since then the media industry has made massive advances in legal avenues of digital distribution - the barrier to entry is way lower, online payment systems are simple and secure, the customer has more choice in terms of format/audio quality, you can choose to purchase individual tracks instead of full albums, and you can access these services from an increasing array of multimedia devices. The only convenience still unique to illegal downloading is that you aren't paying for anything, but even that can be nullified by the peripheral benefits that come with purchasing something legitimately through a well-featured DD platform - not music-related, but Steam is an excellent example of a DD platform that took a struggling industry (PC gaming) and turned it into a massive success and an invaluable tool for consumer, publisher and developer.
  
• Downloading an album allows me to sample the music before paying for it. Why should I pay for music that I may not even like? First off, if you're on SSO and you still think you have discriminating taste you're kidding yourself Secondly, and more importantly, there are an increasing number of ways to listen to albums in their entirety for free that don't involve illegal downloads - there are officially-sanctioned pre-release streams, there are legitimate streaming services like Soundcloud or whatever, there are subscription-based services... ...., even listening to ripped tracks on Youtube is a less damaging option seeing as bands at least have a little leverage if they wanna pull their stuff down. You can't expect all of these options for every release, naturally, but if people continue to support more legitimate means of sampling music for free then it becomes easier for artists to provide these services and can even allow them to profit without charging directly for anything.
  
• Downloading an album allows me to stick it to those greedy dinosaurs at the major labels! Get with the times, grandpa! While it's true that the importance of record labels of all sizes has been diminished due to factors like the increasing affordability of home recording equipment and the ease of self-distribution via the internet, they still provide a multitude of very valuable services to those who want to make a living in the industry - they have access to a lot of promotional channels that are inaccessible to independent artists, they allow you to develop working relationships with others in the industry, they act as a gatekeeper to good music for a lot of people which helps your music get noticed over the crowd, and they can streamline the process of multi-platform distribution. What's more, today's musician is in a better position to negotiate a favourable contract than ever before; as the primary role of labels shifts from financing releases to distribution and promotion the amount of control they can reasonably exert over an artist is diminished, meaning that musicians have more creative freedom and are able to keep more of the money made from each sale. Theoretically, anyway.
  
• Making a living through music is a stupid juvenile fantasy. Get a real job. The fact of the matter is that part-time musicians, even talented ones, will only ever be a fraction of the musicians that they could be if they were able to dedicate their full time and energy to bettering themselves and honing their craft, and anyone who says otherwise is probably in denial about what a mediocre musician they are. It only requires a very modest contribution from a very small number of people to allow someone the freedom to work on their music more seriously, which in turn results in better music for everyone, including the self-absorbed dicks who decides it's not worth paying for. Win/win!

Oh, and Lamb of God sucks, by the way.

/thread

For real. All other uses of "/thread", in this thread, are improper and unworthy.

[Osiris]

Originally Posted by DDDorian

• Downloading an album allows me to sample the music before paying for it. Why should I pay for music that I may not even like? First off, if you're on SSO and you still think you have discriminating taste you're kidding yourself Secondly, and more importantly, there are an increasing number of ways to listen to albums in their entirety for free that don't involve illegal downloads - there are officially-sanctioned pre-release streams, there are legitimate streaming services like Soundcloud or whatever, there are subscription-based services... ...., even listening to ripped tracks on Youtube is a less damaging option seeing as bands at least have a little leverage if they wanna pull their stuff down. You can't expect all of these options for every release, naturally, but if people continue to support more legitimate means of sampling music for free then it becomes easier for artists to provide these services and can even allow them to profit without charging directly for anything.

Oh, and Lamb of God sucks, by the way.

You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.

That said, I was listening to the Mastodon stream yesterday of Hunter and it rocked tits. Probably gonna buy Crack the Skye soon.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by Osiris

You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.

Downloading an album from a torrent, illegally is morally wrong.

If the artist has posted other ways of listening to their music for free they still retain control over how their creation is experienced, by and large. They still control distribution.

The key thing is that the artist retains control of their creation. Downloading their album illegally takes that control away from them.

[DDDorian]

Originally Posted by Osiris

You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.

Officially-sanctioned freebies give artists the potential to earn money indirectly through sponsorships or advertising, and they also allow the artist to monitor the general habits and trends of their audience - where they're from, the average amount of time they spend listening to something, a rough percentage of how many listeners followed through and bought the album, etc - which they can then use to better target/promote their stuff and to improve the experience the next time around. If they're giving it away for free then you can certainly argue that it doesn't really matter whether you download from p2p or you check out a Bandcamp profile, but by prioritising official freebies over pirated rips you'll encourage more artists to offer freebies on their own terms and to make it more accessible to everyone, as well as help them out a little financially without spending any of your own money. None of those things are possible if you just download a torrent.

[LolWotGuitar]

[ArrowHead]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

Do no reflect each other well according to your standards, maybe.

Average income doesn't mean anything as most people make too little to be debt-free in the US. I make over $50K (granted its by working 60 hour weeks and overall busting my ass) and its still a struggle to pay bills, put my wife through school, plan for kids, etc. I don't live extravagantly, either. Most people that only make $50K a year struggle to make ends meet. $100K is the level I deem minimum to avoid that grinding existence. If I could make what I make now just by selling albums, I would do that, but it would still be a struggle to get by and I'd still be looking at other employment options.

What does it have to do with the price of tea in china, as it may be? $100,000 a year is pretty rich to the majority of Americans, no matter how you spin it.

Originally Posted by SirMyghin

Averages mean shit, how many of those people have truly put the effort in to achieve their goals and craft a good career? How much of the populace works in a burger joint for life bearing their mistakes? The average is for the average, some folks just aren't 'average' enough to settle.

What the heck are you babbling about? Average includes the underachievers AND the ludicrously rich. That's what makes it an average. The point being, his idea of making $100,000 minimum and not wanting to be rich is in fact a goal to be in the top 30% of earners in the country, or somewhere thereabouts.




Either way, still not sure what any of it has to do with music, as I don't see many of us that attempt it ever coming close to that figure working as a musician. It doesn't seem relevant at all.

[chronocide]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

Another point on that...do you think John Petrucci, Steve Vai, Guthrie Govan or any other guitarist in their caliber could develop their kind of insane technique while working 60 hours a week and having at best, 3 hours a day to practice (assuming they didn't have wives to please? Hell no. It just isn't happening. SO if you don't already develop that technique while you live at home and mooch off your parents (assuming they are willing to let you do so), its simply not going to happen for you. I've had to give up on the idea of developing serious chops because I can only devote so much time in a day to music.

That's what the three examples you cite did. And pretty much any example I can think to give of a massively technical player.

Not many people work sixty hours a week, mind. The average chap here would have twenty-five to thirty hours extra a week than that would allow to practice if that was their inclination.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

What does it have to do with the price of tea in china, as it may be? $100,000 a year is pretty rich to the majority of Americans, no matter how you spin it.

OK, go on believing 100K is rich. While you're at it, cite me some figures that say a "majority" of Americans believe that $100K is "rich." I did an informal poll at work with 4 guys and none thought $100K was even close to rich. In fact the leading definition of rich among that group was being able to live comfortably off of the interest generated from the amount you had in a savings account.

The relevance of citing a figure is in setting a goal. And while we're on the subject:

Average Income of a Musician

You'll see ranges of an average working musician from $22K to well over $100K (for certain symphony orchestras).

Determining how much you can earn is always relevant. If I determined I could only make $25K a year as a working musician but I need $50K to support my family properly, obviously I can't go off being a musician. Unless of course I want to be a total selfish prick and ignore the needs of my family to pursue my own selfish desires.

[chronocide]

I'm not great on US living costs, but a couple of seconds googling tells me that in 2006, only the top 20% of US HOUSEHOLD incomes (77% having 2+ earners) totalled above $91,705. So $100,000 seems a lot.

I put on lots of fair sized bands, some earning WELL into the thousands per show and selling a lot of records. I'll bet I've never put on someone who earns that.

[Scar Symmetry]

I do think it's worth bringing up the Red Seas Fire album/EP again.

A lot of hard work was put into it and it's a quality product. People are flinging money at them because they can hear the hard work put in and can tell that in this day and age where everything is available fast, in abundance and sometimes free - this is worth their money, even if they're not paying for the music directly.

I will be buying the new Threat Signal album because they are extremely talented and have obviously worked hard. I like the look of everything about their new album. However, if a band thinks that they can cruise by in their careers by making an awful product and then expect people to pay just as much then it could be argued that they are stealing from the consumer who doesn't know any better or has been tricked. How many times has an album been sold on the strength of one track only for the customer to find that the rest of the album is complete shit? I'm not putting it forward as a strong argument, just a little food for thought.

Since the days of Myspace music has become a different ball game. There's so many ....ing bands these days as someone said earlier in the thread it could be argued that we don't really need any more new bands. So, work hard, be smart, make a quality product and release your shit for free and you will find people chucking their money at you. If they don't, look at what you could do differently. Otherwise you forfeit your right to complain.

[Stealthdjentstic]

Originally Posted by Scar Symmetry

I do think it's worth bringing up the Red Seas Fire album/EP again.

A lot of hard work was put into it and it's a quality product. People are flinging money at them because they can hear the hard work put in and can tell that in this day and age where everything is available fast, in abundance and sometimes free - this is worth their money, even if they're not paying for the music directly.

I will be buying the new Threat Signal album because they are extremely talented and have obviously worked hard. I like the look of everything about their new album. However, if a band thinks that they can cruise by in their careers by making an awful product and then expect people to pay just as much then it could be argued that they are stealing from the consumer who doesn't know any better or has been tricked. How many times has an album been sold on the strength of one track only for the customer to find that the rest of the album is complete shit? I'm not putting it forward as a strong argument, just a little food for thought.

Since the days of Myspace music has become a different ball game. There's so many ....ing bands these days as someone said earlier in the thread it could be argued that we don't really need any more new bands. So, work hard, be smart, make a quality product and release your shit for free and you will find people chucking their money at you. If they don't, look at what you could do differently. Otherwise you forfeit your right to complain.

Actually it's interesting you brought up threat signals (if I'm thinking of the right band that is!). Was he the one that did cool things if people donated to the making of the album? Like signing copies and writing special songs for people? I think that is a very, very cool way to raise money

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by chronocide

I'm not great on US living costs, but a couple of seconds googling tells me that in 2006, only the top 20% of US HOUSEHOLD incomes (77% having 2+ earners) totalled above $91,705. So $100,000 seems a lot.

I put on lots of fair sized bands, some earning WELL into the thousands per show and selling a lot of records. I'll bet I've never put on someone who earns that.

And again, average income means nothing in terms of perception of wealth. Just saying however many people are under a certain threshold does not illustrate what those people's conception of wealth is.

Regardless, 100K a year is my personal benchmark so why does anyone care? Its only the level I set myself to where I feel comfortably doing nothing but creating music as a career and not feel compelled to look for another line of work. Its exceptionally limited in scope and its personally how I feel.

[brutalwizard]

Originally Posted by DDDorian

Oh, and Lamb of God sucks, by the way.

AMEN

[chronocide]

EDIT: To Mordacain, folks be too sharp on the posting!

Aside from it being monstrously unrealistic, it just seemed somewhat condescending to people who make music for a full time living and who are successful since it made your post read like it's not worthy of being a full time occupation unless you're earning a serious amount of money more than they do. I don't that was your intention, but it certainly came across that way to me (and at least several others, evidently).

[Scar Symmetry]

Originally Posted by Ancestor

i bought ashes, sacrament and killadelphia -- all nice and legal. i still think it's stupid for musicians to complain about this stuff.

the analogy sucks, because people who work at mackie dee's have a crap job for low pay. blythe does what most people wish they could do and is far above the poverty level. not only that, he gets a percentage from the sale of log's music, even though it's probably really small.

where's the gratitude? man, i wish people cared enough to download my stuff. oh, well. he's honestly not that tightly wound. and doesn't really care about his fans. otherwise he wouldn't instigate so much violence at the shows.

....in' A. As I said earlier it's a privilege not a right, these days moreso than ever. A lot of these bands needs to wake the .... up and stop making fools of themselves publically.

[DLG]

this is like the dude from Disturbed complaining a while ago. You sell out arenas on the reg, dude. be thankful. very thankful.

[yingmin]

Originally Posted by Stealthtastic

Actually it's interesting you brought up threat signals (if I'm thinking of the right band that is!). Was he the one that did cool things if people donated to the making of the album? Like signing copies and writing special songs for people? I think that is a very, very cool way to raise money

Josh Freese did something like that for one of his solo albums, although the rewards for donations got to be extremely ridiculous (i.e. doing acid and playing mini-golf with him and Maynard from Tool).