Randy Blythe, worth reading

[MJS]

Originally Posted by lemeker

How is this any different than trading tapes back in the day?

It's no different at all. That's why you never see any geniuses trying to compare it to stealing cars, robbing banks, etc...

A lot of people can't seem to grasp the difference between stealing money from someone and not giving someone money.

I doubt there's anyone whining about piracy that isn't a hypocrite anyway, which is just one of the many things that make the piracy threads retarded. Especially on a forum full of thieving pirates that refer to Reaper as "free" software.

[ArrowHead]

Artdecade, Mordacain, I'd disagree with you both.

1) The porn industry is a GREAT parallel to the music industry. In fact I'd say music and porn were the two greatest contributors to all the technology and innovation we've seen on the internet.
2) The porn industry is NOT just fine, despite piracy and free content. It's hurting the hell out of them, just like it has the music industry.

Porn Industry Struggles Against Free Content, Piracy - ABC News

[MF_Kitten]

A few points i would like to see people discuss:

-What about piracy as a protest against the industry?
-What about instances where the artist condones piracy of their own material, like Devin Townsend or Trent Reznor?

[flint757]

^^^well then it isn't technically piracy

I'm not sure how porn survives except for the fact that any ho will do it, it only takes a day to make a full production movie and it is all pretty low budget despite high production making the budget smaller. Saturation helps too.

I think music industry if you include all musician's is financially alright, it's labels who are suffering and only their losses get taken into account.

People should feel a tad worse for pirating porn over music honestly because one takes a little more from you in the end.

[shitsøn]

Originally Posted by drgordonfreeman

The disagreement comes in, however, because I think you have a rather antiquated view of the music industry. Your view seems to be of where the music industry was, rather than where it currently is and is going in the future.

People listen to music differently now. With iTunes, Amazon, etc, people rarely download entire albums anymore, let alone actually purchase physical CDs. Some people may, but they're not in the majority. I'm sure you've noticed that many top artistic acts aren't even putting out entire albums anymore. They're putting out a single song at a time, usually what would have been the hit singles from the album.

First of all, I really appreciate the discussion. You're bringing up good points and I agree to the point that people are listening to music differently, even in underground music genres now - which is unfortunate. This might be my main gripe with it. The mainstream listener has always been quite single-focused, but the mainstream formula has taken over many underground scenes now.

Originally Posted by drgordonfreeman

The costs associated with distributing music are mostly marketing now, rather than real production costs. For example, any 12 year old kid can produce a professional sounding song in the bedroom. Just listen to some of the songs people post on this message board. High quality, impressive stuff.

Which isn't a bad thing by any means. At the same point, if no one pays for the music, there won't be money for promotion and marketing either. Yes, there is YouTube and Facebook and what not, so yes, you can promote yourself, but it is rare that you can gain much of a fanbase with that, especially when you're starting from nowhere. You can only do so much.

Originally Posted by drgordonfreeman

Further, one of my arguments is that in the future, being a full-time musician may not be feasible. People may have to actually get real jobs in order to support their music hobby.

A person will have to save and use money from their day job to pay for the costs of their real job: being a musician.

And I guess this is something you can hardly adapt to as a musician. It surely starts as a hobby and everyone uses money from their day jobs to pay for it. Taking the step up to being a fulltime musician, because there is enough demand for your band to be seen and heard, makes it more than a hobby, though. If your fans are not willing to spend some money on you, you won't really be able to fulfill that demand for more, because you have to work pretty much full time. This will result in your fans losing their interest in your band.

Originally Posted by drgordonfreeman

The world is so fragmented now that everyone has ADD. It's almost impossible to catch a single person's attention, let alone, an entire group of people's attention.

In the past, in a less fragmented more attention-oriented world, people paid to hear you play. In today's world, you pay people to hear your play.

I agree. I believe that social media and illegal downloading play a huge part in that. If you can have all the music you want to for free whenever you want to, the value of the music itself decreases, because it simply gets lost. It's unfortunate, but that's what it is right now.

I also believe, that "you pay people to hear your play" can't work for artists in the long run. That might be an antiquated view, but I do believe that.

Originally Posted by drgordonfreeman

I don't agree with how the game is changing, but refusing to adapt to the new rules of the game will guarantee a losing outcome.

Yeah, sure. I mean, I play in a band as well and we just signed with a bigger Metal label with worldwide distribution and offices in the EU and US. But the recording budgets are still getting tighter for us, so we have to adapt. This results in recording all the guitar and bass tracks at my homestudio. We could only afford the studio time for drums, vocals and mixing. The mastering we're doing ourselves, too.

It is cool that you're able to do these things today, with the technology that's given, but even to afford all this stuff, you have to make some money in return at some point. I guess I don't have to mention that I paid this equipment out of my own pocket, though...haha. You can and have to adapt, but as an artist you can only do so much, if you want to keep artistic integrity and a certain level of quality.

A fan has to understand that, if he wants his favourite bands to stay alive.

[drgordonfreeman]

Originally Posted by shitsøn

First of all, I really appreciate the discussion. You're bringing up good points and I agree to the point that people are listening to music differently, even in underground music genres now - which is unfortunate. This might be my main gripe with it. The mainstream listener has always been quite single-focused, but the mainstream formula has taken over many underground scenes now.


Which isn't a bad thing by any means. At the same point, if no one pays for the music, there won't be money for promotion and marketing either. Yes, there is YouTube and Facebook and what not, so yes, you can promote yourself, but it is rare that you can gain much of a fanbase with that, especially when you're starting from nowhere. You can only do so much.



And I guess this is something you can hardly adapt to as a musician. It surely starts as a hobby and everyone uses money from their day jobs to pay for it. Taking the step up to being a fulltime musician, because there is enough demand for your band to be seen and heard, makes it more than a hobby, though. If your fans are not willing to spend some money on you, you won't really be able to fulfill that demand for more, because you have to work pretty much full time. This will result in your fans losing their interest in your band.



I agree. I believe that social media and illegal downloading play a huge part in that. If you can have all the music you want to for free whenever you want to, the value of the music itself decreases, because it simply gets lost. It's unfortunate, but that's what it is right now.

I also believe, that "you pay people to hear your play" can't work for artists in the long run. That might be an antiquated view, but I do believe that.



Yeah, sure. I mean, I play in a band as well and we just signed with a bigger Metal label with worldwide distribution and offices in the EU and US. But the recording budgets are still getting tighter for us, so we have to adapt. This results in recording all the guitar and bass tracks at my homestudio. We could only afford the studio time for drums, vocals and mixing. The mastering we're doing ourselves, too.

It is cool that you're able to do these things today, with the technology that's given, but even to afford all this stuff, you have to make some money in return at some point. I guess I don't have to mention that I paid this equipment out of my own pocket, though...haha. You can and have to adapt, but as an artist you can only do so much, if you want to keep artistic integrity and a certain level of quality.

A fan has to understand that, if he wants his favourite bands to stay alive.

You make some good points here, and I can't really disagree.

I think the elephant in the room is the fact that we're all caught in an awkward transitional period. The past is changing into the future, and while the future holds just as much success for innovative artists as the past, people haven't figured out how to bridge that gap. I think this can be said of the entire world, especially in economic terms, but that's a different discussion.

Nonetheless, you can point to external factors and say it's pirating.

You can point to internal factors and say the artists need to figure out how to adapt to a new business model.

Either way, people are understandably suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance right now.

My proposal for a solution is old-world:

0.) Figure out when you have free time, such as the weekends.

1.) Get a band together to jam during that free-time.

2.) Write some inspiring songs while jamming.

3.) Gig during your free time until you have a fan base that wants to listen to your music during their leisure time.

4.) Take the songs you've been playing live, and record those in the lowest cost way while still maintaining a professional quality.

4.) Give away CDs at shows or allow fans to download the music off of your website for free so that they can listen to your music at home.

5.) Continue to gig supporting your songs until your fan base has increased to a point to where you can put on your own concert.

6.) Instead of raking your fans over the coals through TicketMaster, book some independent location. For example, a neighbor, who owns a farm several miles outside of the city, was telling me the other day that a local band paid him $1,000 to lease a small part of his land to hold a two hour concert. It was BYOB, and they charged $10 per person, all of which went straight to the band. They covered costs and walked away with a about $1,000 in profit. Not much, but it's a great start. The absolute key here is gaining control of your ticket sales and being able to set a reasonable price for your fans that both motivates them to attend and motives you to play.

7.) Apply this same process to anywhere you want to gain exposure, including using the promotional utility of the internet.


I think this a great theory, but I don't really know how this would work in the real world. From my view point, I think it'd work well, simply because I could easily follow a business strategy like that while maintaining my current job.

The only problem I can see with the above strategy is that it takes a long time. Per an example I outlined in a previous reply in this thread, maybe 20 years or more to really establish your band.

[slowro]

From Misha's facebook

"Just for the record, i am not going to waste my time saying that Piracy needs to stop, because it will be just that, a waste of time, it is what it is.
With that said and established, i really don't think that it is too much to ask that IF you are going to pirate a band's album that you don't overtly rub the fact that you stole their music in their faces.
Remember guys, merch nets bands more money, but cd sales determine their profile in the music industry, buying either helps ensure that the bands you love can afford to keep making the music that you love."

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

You'd actually be shocked how many of your favorite bands already have full time jobs. Even WITH label support.

Again, I have to disagree--many of the bands that are my "favorite bands" tour nationwide. Thus, I doubt they are working a full-time job in various countries throughout the year. Small progressive/metal/rock/jazz bands, yes. The bands run by those big labels? No. You are talking about the extinction of record labels, and I showed that it isn't a reality as you claim.

[ArrowHead]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

Again, I have to disagree--many of the bands that are my "favorite bands" tour nationwide. Thus, I doubt they are working a full-time job in various countries throughout the year. Small progressive/metal/rock/jazz bands, yes. The bands run by those big labels? No. You are talking about the extinction of record labels, and I showed that it isn't a reality as you claim.

Disagree all you'd like but who are your "favorite bands"? I used to buy my bagels from the singer of Shadows Fall between their tours. In fact about 10 years ago some of the biggest and brightest national acts came out of this neck of the woods, and I can tell stories about how most of them need other work full time between tours. I don't want this to turn into a giant namedropping debate, but I'm not just making shit up - I have a lot of friends in national touring acts. Some pretty big bands, label wise (big acts on Century Media, Eulogy, Metal Blade, etc...). They don't make what you think they make.

Clearly you don't work full time DURING a tour, but in between for most musicians it's a full 40+ hour workweek at the same typical shitty jobs the rest of us work. There's a few exceptions, but in the metal world it's VERY few. Some are lucky enough to get other music related gigs, clinics, recording, etc... - but many others work in restaurants, factories, warehouse, landcaping jobs, and any other shitty job that will hire them.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Disagree all you'd like but who are your "favorite bands"? I used to buy my bagels from the singer of Shadows Fall between their tours. In fact about 10 years ago some of the biggest and brightest national acts came out of this neck of the woods, and I can tell stories about how most of them need other work full time between tours. I don't want this to turn into a giant namedropping debate, but I'm not just making shit up - I have a lot of friends in national touring acts. Some pretty big bands, label wise (big acts on Century Media, Eulogy, Metal Blade, etc...). They don't make what you think they make.

Clearly you don't work full time DURING a tour, but in between for most musicians it's a full 40+ hour workweek at the same typical shitty jobs the rest of us work. There's a few exceptions, but in the metal world it's VERY few. Some are lucky enough to get other music related gigs, clinics, recording, etc... - but many others work in restaurants, factories, warehouse, landcaping jobs, and any other shitty job that will hire them.

See, again, you're dropping names of labels that aren't very big. If you want to tell me I'll be seeing Tori Amos or Bruce Dickinson, maybe John Mayer or John Petrucci, selling bagels, I'll say you're intuitive, but not correct. In fact, give me one artist on Universal, EMI or Warner who will be selling me bagels tomorrow--I dare you to.

You're arguing with sales, and you're losing. You can have your opinion of the dying industry all you want, but sales say differently, and ultimately, you have no proof whatsoever. In case you haven't noticed, most metal bands, and most metal labels, are not considered big-time. The majority of people don't care about Shadows Fall--they don't make nearly enough to be considered a big-time act. The lead guitarist plays in a cover band to scrape up dough in his off-time. Maybe "big" means something different to you than it does to me, but to me, the big bands with national tours are making at least a couple hundred thousand a year, which most metal bands can't even lay claim to. I love metal, but it seems to deceive a lot of people who listen to it into believing that it's constant rise and fall reflects the entirety of music. It doesn't.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by MF_Kitten

A few points i would like to see people discuss:

-What about piracy as a protest against the industry?

Well, since I believe cars are overpriced, why don't I protest the car industry by stealing cars?

It may be the "reasoning" now, but let's face it--people didn't steal music to stick it to anyone. They just took it because they could and they wanted to. Let's not give credit where it is definitely not do.

[Scar Symmetry]

Originally Posted by MF_Kitten

A few points i would like to see people discuss:

-What about piracy as a protest against the industry?
-What about instances where the artist condones piracy of their own material, like Devin Townsend or Trent Reznor?

Good points raised.

Also, what about POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE ARTIST?

This is just the transition phase. Look at bands like Periphery, they hold all of their own chips.

This is progression people, not global thievery. That argument is so ....ing dumb it makes my brain hurt.

[MF_Kitten]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

Well, since I believe cars are overpriced, why don't I protest the car industry by stealing cars?

It may be the "reasoning" now, but let's face it--people didn't steal music to stick it to anyone. They just took it because they could and they wanted to. Let's not give credit where it is definitely not do.

good point, though not entirely applicable. You jump to something that is much more substantial, and that is worth much much more than an album. I guess a more applicable version of your example would be protesting the price of new cars or something by only buying used cars for cheap.

the "piracy" way of thinking is found in many many people. Where you have to pay for each plastic bag in the store, people often ignore the cashier asking if they want a bag, and then after paying, ask to get one. They know the cashier most likely won't bother, and will just give them the bag. It's not a nice thing to do, if you think about it. This is a low-priced thing though, so you won't be too surprised by it, but it's in the same vein of thinking, don't you think?

Knowledge of the thing you're stealing is also a contributing factor. You know the plastic bags cost damn near nothing for the store, and they aren't losing anything substantial because of your stealing it. When people know that the artist won't notice that they downloaded the album when the checks come in, they won't feel bad about it. Nevermind the fact that thousands of people do just that, right?

In the end though, i'm feeling myself much more willing to part with my money when the price of an album is lower, and it's easier to get. It's also a major boost to me when i know that the artist is personally involved in it, and is getting the money. When Louis CK sold his standup show on his site for 5 bucks, and you could just download it right there, with no DRM bullshit, that made me throw my wallet at the screen. I've bought AAL and Periphery stuff, and more recently the new Chimp Spanner album, because the price was right and the access was instant. The world of music production has changed, the world of music consumption has changed, and the industry has to change too if people are to stay interested.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by MF_Kitten

good point, though not entirely applicable. You jump to something that is much more substantial, and that is worth much much more than an album. I guess a more applicable version of your example would be protesting the price of new cars or something by only buying used cars for cheap.

the "piracy" way of thinking is found in many many people. Where you have to pay for each plastic bag in the store, people often ignore the cashier asking if they want a bag, and then after paying, ask to get one. They know the cashier most likely won't bother, and will just give them the bag. It's not a nice thing to do, if you think about it. This is a low-priced thing though, so you won't be too surprised by it, but it's in the same vein of thinking, don't you think?

Knowledge of the thing you're stealing is also a contributing factor. You know the plastic bags cost damn near nothing for the store, and they aren't losing anything substantial because of your stealing it. When people know that the artist won't notice that they downloaded the album when the checks come in, they won't feel bad about it. Nevermind the fact that thousands of people do just that, right?

In the end though, i'm feeling myself much more willing to part with my money when the price of an album is lower, and it's easier to get. It's also a major boost to me when i know that the artist is personally involved in it, and is getting the money. When Louis CK sold his standup show on his site for 5 bucks, and you could just download it right there, with no DRM bullshit, that made me throw my wallet at the screen. I've bought AAL and Periphery stuff, and more recently the new Chimp Spanner album, because the price was right and the access was instant. The world of music production has changed, the world of music consumption has changed, and the industry has to change too if people are to stay interested.

Millions of stolen albums > me stealing a car, even if each album was one dollar. See, you can't compare buying used cars because you'll still be paying--people simply take music without paying. That is theft.

If you want to pick and choose, why don't we talk about books as a comparison, as they are roughly in the same price brackets. Maybe I see it differently because I am a writer, and if someone stole my hard work, something that took me months to perfect, even if it was only a copy of it, I'd be ....ing pissed off. Why? Because you're taking money out of my pocket, no matter how insubstantial the amount may seem to you and your justifications. I don't care if you think it is too expensive--if it is, then go without. Millions of people do it daily, and music is not a necessity. You are still stealing from me. You can say you will, but you will not die of starvation without stealing my product. Do you have a right to steal it? No. Do you feel arrogantly entitled to? I guess so.

So, to sum up what you said, if the price is what you want to pay, you'll pay it, and if not, .... it, just take it? Nice logic.

[Labrie]

So if I go to a library and take out your book and read it, is that theft too? You might have got your cut when the library purchased your book but now literally everyone has access to the material and everyone that reads your story has that information now in their brain and they did not directly pay for it.

The same can be said for any renting or sharing service. Be it for books, videos, music etc. The problem for me is that people working in the "arts" sector that work hard making one original story, video or song, have this over-inflated sense of entitlement to money for the infinite potential of copies that can be made from that original product.

Forget about the paper or plastic that the media comes on and forget about the money it costs for the gear and equipment to make the music or book. As far as I'm concerned that is part of the costs of running a business. If I make something tangible that cost me $10 in materials, that means every time I want to sell another one I have to pay $10 to make it. It's not the same with music where I can literally make as many copies as I want. If what I'm supposed to be paying for is the original "idea" then why should you be entitled to the same amount of money for every copy of a song or book sold when you didn't put in any new work to make that copy?

Or if what I'm paying for is the right to have access to that original material then I should have the right to get a full refund if I am not satisfied with said material.

[ArrowHead]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

See, again, you're dropping names of labels that aren't very big. If you want to tell me I'll be seeing Tori Amos or Bruce Dickinson, maybe John Mayer or John Petrucci, selling bagels, I'll say you're intuitive, but not correct. In fact, give me one artist on Universal, EMI or Warner who will be selling me bagels tomorrow--I dare you to.

You're arguing with sales, and you're losing. You can have your opinion of the dying industry all you want, but sales say differently, and ultimately, you have no proof whatsoever. In case you haven't noticed, most metal bands, and most metal labels, are not considered big-time. The majority of people don't care about Shadows Fall--they don't make nearly enough to be considered a big-time act. The lead guitarist plays in a cover band to scrape up dough in his off-time. Maybe "big" means something different to you than it does to me, but to me, the big bands with national tours are making at least a couple hundred thousand a year, which most metal bands can't even lay claim to. I love metal, but it seems to deceive a lot of people who listen to it into believing that it's constant rise and fall reflects the entirety of music. It doesn't.

Speaking of constant rise and fall, I believe I said TEN YEARS AGO that I was buying bagels from the singer of SF. If you take only that one example, at the time Art Of Balance was #15 on the billboard charts, and they were just off a gigantic tour.

The four artists you lists as your favorites are ALL legacy acts. Any examples of folks that broke into the business less than 20+ years ago?

Any examples of anything at all? Your argument is coming across very aggressive, and a bit rude (sorry if it wasn't meant that way), but you're making very little effort to support your argument with facts, or examples. It leads me to believe your opinions are based on very little ACTUAL experience in the industry. Am I incorrect in this assumption? You're right that metal isn't the largest percentage of the industry, but it's the biggest part of my own experience, and it's what this ENTIRE THREAD was about dude.

I mentioned Shadows Fall for two reasons - they're not really a relevant touring band right now and I'm not friends with them. I don't think any of my friends in current acts really want me discussing their finances with strangers on the internet. So sorry if I'm not name-dropping big enough labels for you, but I'm talking about the MAJORITY of gigging and touring bands, not the top few percent that have achieved massive fame and fortune in music.

[ArrowHead]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

You're arguing with sales, and you're losing. You can have your opinion of the dying industry all you want, but sales say differently, and ultimately, you have no proof whatsoever..

Just to get back to where this whole argument started (because it's gone so astray since)

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

And if you truly believe the record industry is facing extinction, well, maybe for metal it is, but for music in general? Last year there were over a billion units sold, which was a step up from the year prior. 2011 U.S. Album Sales Still Strong After Three Quarters | Billboard.biz

The 2011 Music-Sales Boost, By The Numbers | Billboard.biz

Doesn't sound like extinction to me.

[edit] Looking at the article you quoted, you're confusing the rise in digital sales with total sales, and more importantly year over year sales. Easy to do, as those articles use some pretty misleading wording. I misunderstood myself at first. Then again, it's Billboard magazine, of course they hype the industry.

The reality is that the industry has lost money year over year well over a decade now.









Those are horrifying numbers, man. Units are units, not dollars. A 99 cent song download is a unit. An entire physical album is a unit. That's a $10+ difference per unit.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by Labrie

So if I go to a library and take out your book and read it, is that theft too? You might have got your cut when the library purchased your book but now literally everyone has access to the material and everyone that reads your story has that information now in their brain and they did not directly pay for it.

Lol good try but libraries cannot buy books that are not approved for their usage by the publisher. If I didn't want my book in a library for people to read for free, it wouldn't be there, because the library would not be able to purchase it.

The same can be said for any renting or sharing service. Be it for books, videos, music etc. The problem for me is that people working in the "arts" sector that work hard making one original story, video or song, have this over-inflated sense of entitlement to money for the infinite potential of copies that can be made from that original product.

Really? It's over-inflated to feel entitled to payment for your work? Okay, why don't you try working for free, then. You don't need that paycheck at the end of the week--it's only your over-inflated senses that desire it.

Forget about the paper or plastic that the media comes on and forget about the money it costs for the gear and equipment to make the music or book. As far as I'm concerned that is part of the costs of running a business. If I make something tangible that cost me $10 in materials, that means every time I want to sell another one I have to pay $10 to make it. It's not the same with music where I can literally make as many copies as I want. If what I'm supposed to be paying for is the original "idea" then why should you be entitled to the same amount of money for every copy of a song or book sold when you didn't put in any new work to make that copy?

Or if what I'm paying for is the right to have access to that original material then I should have the right to get a full refund if I am not satisfied with said material.

If you think all of this, you should try doing C-Class business taxes (self-employed, which means musicians as well, taxes). You'll see how misinformed the entire first half is, and then the second half... well, you can get a refund. I return things I am not satisfied with all the time. But I don't steal them on the pretense of possibly buying them later on.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Speaking of constant rise and fall, I believe I said TEN YEARS AGO that I was buying bagels from the singer of SF. If you take only that one example, at the time Art Of Balance was #15 on the billboard charts, and they were just off a gigantic tour.

The four artists you lists as your favorites are ALL legacy acts. Any examples of folks that broke into the business less than 20+ years ago?

Any examples of anything at all? Your argument is coming across very aggressive, and a bit rude (sorry if it wasn't meant that way), but you're making very little effort to support your argument with facts, or examples. It leads me to believe your opinions are based on very little ACTUAL experience in the industry. Am I incorrect in this assumption? You're right that metal isn't the largest percentage of the industry, but it's the biggest part of my own experience, and it's what this ENTIRE THREAD was about dude.

I mentioned Shadows Fall for two reasons - they're not really a relevant touring band right now and I'm not friends with them. I don't think any of my friends in current acts really want me discussing their finances with strangers on the internet. So sorry if I'm not name-dropping big enough labels for you, but I'm talking about the MAJORITY of gigging and touring bands, not the top few percent that have achieved massive fame and fortune in music.

He is talking about the music industry. So am I.

Yes, I named two: John Mayer and John Petrucci. Less than twenty years ago, both broke through. Then you have bands such as Bend Folds Five, The Killers, Disturbed, FFDP... I can go on and on and on about bands that show the industry is not in fact dying.

If you talk about the majority of non-big label bands, of course they aren't making much--because they are big label bands. Then, you have to consider that audiences factor in.

As for the "I know people but I don't want to say names," cool. But don't argue as if knowing nameless people makes you an expert on the industry. I'm not an expert, but I can clearly see that there are still tons of acts making tons of money. Metal is a very small portion of music.

As for how metal breaks down, here you go: http://www.metalinjection.net/its-just-business/bands-money-touring


And no, I'm not angry--read how you wish. I'm being honest.

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Just to get back to where this whole argument started (because it's gone so astray since)


Looking at the article you quoted, you realize the 1% increase in sales vs. last year is compared to 19% DOWN from the year before that? So how exactly is 1% UP from 19% DOWN example of the music industry thriving.

Those are horrifying numbers, man.

Way to look through the article without reading and pick the smallest number to try and argue with. If you had read it, you'd know that your statement is far off.






As for after this, I'm done arguing this. Thieves will always have excuses for their actions--you can walk in a courtroom any given day and hear people tell how breaking the law was justified because A, B and C. But we always get down to the bottom line of you're wrong because the law says so.

[xhellchosemex]

Originally Posted by Sikthness

Ill be the first to admit: I download a TON of music for free from blogs. However, I don't think I cause much harm to bands I am a fan of. For one, 90% of the cds I have, I would not have been willing to spend money on in the first place. I simply can't justify spending hard earned money on something I haven't heard yet either on youtube or downloaded form. If I had to pay for my entire music collection, it would be well into the 5 figures. Now, that being said, if I am a fan, i will purchase the cd. I know many like me that are more than willing to go to shows, buy the cd despite having downloaded it, and buy merch. In fact, for a lot of these lesser known bands, I'd argue that illegal downloading is actually helping them financially. More people listening = more word of mouth. I know it sounds bad and unmoral to 'steal' music, but this is the way it is. The music will speak for itself, and if it is good enough than I as well as others will support the band monetarily. People simply won't justify spending money on middle of the road music.

I know many will disagree w/ me, but that's ok. This is how it is now. Bands need to adapt just like in any other industry, or die financially. Make better music. Fans WILL still give you their money if the music is good enough.

what this guy said. im really not going to pay for music which i could dislike or something. i always check out and then buy the cd or merch.

[MF_Kitten]

Lots of great points being made back and forth here.

I think the only real thing i can say, is that yes piracy is wrong, but yes it is happening for a reason. It's not just people being stingy and lazy. Things have drastically changed in the world, yet the industry is still trying to apply the old logic to the new conditions. This causes a mismatch between what people are willing to put up with, and what they are being offered.

So even though it's really sad that it has come to this, for the artists, piracy is the consequence of the industry lagging behind.the same applies for video games and movies too, by the way. Exact same issues.

[Labrie]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

Lol good try but libraries cannot buy books that are not approved for their usage by the publisher. If I didn't want my book in a library for people to read for free, it wouldn't be there, because the library would not be able to purchase it.

And by the sounds of it you wouldn't have your book in the library because you would equate people reading it there to be stealing it. Which, imo, is absolutely absurd for someone who CHOSE a career in writing.

If you wrote a book that sold 1000 copies does that mean that you spent your own personal time writing out 1000 copies? I don't think so. But yet you think you're entitled to the amount of money for the time it would potentially take for you to write out your book that many times. If you're making the argument that you don't work for free then I'm making the argument that I don't pay someone to NOT work.

And no, the last time I checked, I wasn't able to return digital copies of albums. If I'm paying for the right to listen to a piece of music and it turns out to suck ass, then why can't I return my "right" to it and get my money back?

You can't be naive about it. If you choose a career in music you have to expect that people are going to "steal" your product. That's just the way it is regardless if it's right or wrong. If you don't like it then choose a job where you get paid by the hour.

[ArrowHead]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

Way to look through the article without reading and pick the smallest number to try and argue with. If you had read it, you'd know that your statement is far off.

Read the subsequent edit.

I'm trying to share some of what I know from going to school for music, studying the business, gigging and playing in bands for 20 years, and putting out a handful of demos with a handful of bands. One actual worldwide release that wasn't all that successful. Nothing huge, and I don't want to be preachy or condescending, but it's what's formed the basis of my opinions. There's people on here that are big giant bears, and I'm a tiny ant. But some of my friends are bears, and I've shared stages with bears. I've worked in factories with bears that got chewed up in the 80's and 90's and were spit out as ants. I'm trying to relate some of that experience in this discussion.

You seem intent on arguing, but it seems to be based entirely on facts that just aren't correct. Like the age of DT, the health of the industry's profits, or the difference between piracy and theft. Ben Folds is an example the industry isn't dying? Their last album was over 12 years ago. Disturbed? First album was 13 years ago. Same With Mayer, 12 years ago he was selling multi-platinum albums. Dream Theater's first album was in '89, and now twice you've told me that it was less than 20 years ago they "broke through". More importantly, most of these artists have sold significantly less and less and less albums since their debuts as the industry curls up. So far you've not listed a single current example. Your examples are all rooted in the late 90's and early 2000's.

And you say my example of Shadows Fall is not a "BIG" band, yet Dream Theater is. In 2002, 10 years ago, Shadows Fall's album "Art of Silence" was at #15 on Billboard. Dream Theater's album that year, "6 Degrees of Inner Turbulence", maxxed out at #46. So if Shadows Fall was selling bagels, DT was working full time as well. Except Petrucci was selling instructional videos, doing clinics, endorsing gear, and building up a brand instead of asking what kind of cream cheese his guests wanted. Full time work is full time work, dude.

Please, I don't mind a good discussion, and this thread IS a good discussion, but don't de-rail it with inaccuracy and unfounded opinions. It's so hard to argue each and every non-fact you throw at me without feeling like I'm completely de-railing a thread that was going very well.

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by Isaac

Your premise is entirely false, nothing is being stolen. Nobody is being stolen from, ...

Sorry, wrong. You have my product and you did not pay me for it. You stole it. End of story.

Try to tell an Architect that you didn't steal the result of their effort by copying their plans.

Try to tell a professor that you didn't steal their research just because you copied their data.

Try to tell a photographer that you didn't steal their photos just because you copied their drive.

You're confusing the physical media with the intelectual property/work product. Pirating is still theft and you can play all the sophist games you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you took somebody's work, effort, intellectual property, without compensating them.

Ray

[TheSpaceforthis]

If the porn is of good quality, people will pay for it, same goes for music. End of story.