BUYING music? ~_^

[Vice Nebulosa]

Perhaps worth noting:

1. When it comes to my music, I am a terminal hoarder. Now, what enters my music library tends to be chosen with some care, but occasionally I am given to open my metaphorical arms wide to receive stones thrown from nearly any genre, in hopes that a jewel may hap to land atop the inevitable pile of debris. As one might imagine, this tendency often consumes a decent chunk of time in every instance it is indulged, without much to show for it minus the bruises from the stoning. *_*

2. The music-obsessor in me prefers to have hard copies of music CDs when possible, even if they may only ever be removed from their jewel cases once in their whole tenure on this Earth. I am very pro-“rot the planet via consumerism” that way. :sarcasm: There are certain exceptions, of course: in the matter of game soundtracks, specific titles can be numbingly difficult to locate (and, to be blunt, one is expected to be grateful for whatever one can get in the way of obscure goods in prairie Canada), and somewhat less than legal downloading is undoubtedly the best option, whenever a highspeed connection is available. Besides, the soundtrack to a game is merely a peripheral component of the creators’ revenue; I have no real compunctions about cheating Enix or Konami out of such things. That said, for mainstream music artists whose primary revenue comes from raw album sales, I make a point of supporting their work when it is in my power to do so (basic logic, really; if they are not fairly paid for the work they do, they will quit). Therefore, if I saw an unclaimed copy of Within Temptation’s most recent album, The Heart of Everything – even if I had already downloaded and listened to every track thereon – I would, funds permitting, purchase it, in the interest of the next album.

3. In a music store, I become helpless victim to those basest instincts of curiosity and hope. I “go shopping” extremely irregularly, and my purchases on these rare ventures almost invariably originate from book or music specialty stores, or the corresponding sections of larger malls. With some amount of diligence, I like to have some idea of what I might like to take home before entering the store in question, but once there, I (again, almost invariably) question this narrow-minded approach to music acquisition, and begin to rifle through the work of completely unfamiliar artists, seeking the power in the unknown, I suppose. As a result, my informal rule on the matter seems to lately have become this: buy one experimental album on the basis of an educated guess each time the urge hits to purchase some music. It is a habit that can backfire with considerable force. :laugh: In the moment, a mere $20 price tag will certainly not stand between me and musical potential, but this “potential” may in reality turn out to be nothing but bluster.

Most recent example occurred yesterday: after doing some minor research on artists that specialize in my “chosen genre” – symphonic metal – I determined that the band Apocalyptica, composed of a group of classically trained cellists inclined towards an energetic metal-orchestra synthesis, sounded rather promising. By the end of the day, I had not only acquired a two-disk, bargain-bin anthology of the group’s most prominent work, but also a copy of Within Temptation’s unsurpassed The Silent Force album (hopefully some of you will understand how much of an event this was; hard copies of it seem to be exceedingly rare :Eek:), and, as my experimental purchase, the album Viva La Vida by Coldplay. Just shy of a $60 spending, it was, and quite a mixed experience. :erm: Even if the other two happened to suck, however, The Silent Force was a sure bet; physical ownership of the album was most satisfying to trade for currency. ^_^

Apocalyptica had an excellent concept in theory, but blasting the hell out of the cello sound with electric guitar-style amplification leaves you with the sizable responsibility of proving that the modifications, however extensive, are an improvement. Granted, you achieve the driving force of an electric guitar sound with the fluidity of the cello’s playing method, but one must be careful not to pull a “DragonForce”, and have all your songs become minor variations on one superior achievement (in that case “Through The Fire And Flames”). That said, they did some interesting things with their remix of “Hall of the Mountain King”, “Heat” was intriguing, and “Deathzone” was by far the most enjoyable listen overall. Once they bring their death-metal vocalists into the fold on disk 2, however, they become embarrassing to listen to. :eep:

Coldplay was the real chance taken here, and it was rather a bomb. =\ In the end, “Viva La Vida” and the instrumental “Life In Technicolor” were really the only acquisitions of any lasting appeal, and the band’s sound became far too trancelike for my preferences, lacking the variation I had hoped for from such an acclaimed group. Shame, that. :(

Anyway, what are your views regarding the decay of the music business (free downloads cheating artists out of the ability to make a better go at an already cutthroat industry)? Are your music collections composed of a list of standby artists whose work you never tire of, or are they ever-expanding entities? In the case of the latter, how do you control this expansion (i.e. what has worked out, and what has not)? What is the best method to immerse oneself in new music -- sifting through an incomprehensibly vast wall of albums, all begging for your attention, or indiscriminate downloading? What are your experiences acquiring music, basically? :confused:

[Breine]

I buy all my music - I used to download some stuff several years ago, but now I'm against it. If you like an artist why wouldn't you like to support them by buying their music? Also, it's cooler to have actual (and real) CDs, rather than a bunch of mp3/whatever files or burned CDs.

I'm the same when it comes to movies.

When it comes to new music and I'm not sure about whether or not I want to buy the CDs, I often check it out on myspace/another place on the interwebz. I do like taking some chances, though, and therefore I sometimes buy CDs by artists I don't really know that well or haven't listened to at all. I do have a very eclectic taste in music, though, and so having a diverse collection (whether some of the stuff maybe isn't that good to me or not) is pretty neat to me.

Also, I do think that there is a connection between people downloading music and the decay of the music business.

[Rye]

I don't remember the last time I actually bought music - besides the CDs of my absolute favorite artists. I just don't do it anymore. I'm too busy saving up.

Bizarrely enough, I'm much more inclined to buying a movie if I liked it, which doesn't really support the artist exactly, but more the industry.

[Tavrobel]

I don't buy music. The cost is simply outrageous, even if I didn't want to get them free. Furthermore, buying the CDs doesn't really mean that the artists get that much money from it. There's all of those "special" costs that ensure that the artists don't get the full price of their work. Just go to a show or a venue or something; that stuff goes a long way. Furthermore, there's some artists that exist where you can't buy their stuff. How else am I supposed to support them other than by word of mouth and download?

I have little sympathy for the music industry. It's more or less their fault that they killed Napster back in '01, and suddenly, as though no one expected it (except for, you know, everyone), :bou::bou::bou::bou:loads of new sites were offering to do the same thing. Uhoh! The music industry created something they can't contain, and they should accept the consequences of it. If they had bothered to realize what a perfect monopoly they could have had by adapting Napster's technology before dumping them, they could have lived. But no.

I buy my movies and TV shows, though. Something about watching them on my TV screen is more appealing than watching them on my monitor, especially with my current setup: I can watch both at once.

EDIT: I suppose I never noticed the last paragraph. I download music non-stop, as long as someone has made a suggestion for it. I get through my new stuff pretty quickly, and in my experience, it makes the walk to and from classes much more interesting. But if you're really lost on where to start when it comes to new music, find yourself a friend who wears music related apparel.

[Sword]

I pretty much feel the same as Tavrobel. I don't even care about music that much. I'll hear something I like, download it, listen to it a few times, then insert it into a playlist. If buying a CD was the ONLY way I could acquire the music then I just wouldn't bother, so either way the music industry wouldn't get anything from me.

Yet I do prefer the full experience of watching a film in its highest quality and returning it to its nice, clean case.

This is probably because when you go to watch a film you kinda have to devote yourself to it, but for music it would just be something to have in the background while I engage in some other activity in order to make it "not boring". Which brings me to something else; I never understood people who seek to listen to music as a hobby. It would just bore the hell out of me. :/

[Rantz]

Only recently did I start paying for music in that I have a Premium account with Spotify (http://www.spotify.com/en/). Before I had that, I went something like 8 years without paying for music for myself (I did occasionally buy CDs as gifts).

Spotify is one of the best services I have ever tried, digital or analogue, music industry or otherwise. You may have heard of it, but the basic idea is that you get an account and download a program which is basically a media player. In this program, instead of browsing your own music library you search Spotify's music database and stream it. The streaming is pretty much instantaneous unless you're on 56k or something like that. For me, Spotify plays the song as fast as if it was on my hard drive. You can add music to playlists and link other Spotify users to songs, artists, albums and playlists. You can create collaborative playlists that can be maintained by several people. All is done via a comfortable drag-and-drop interface.

Spotify's music library was lacking in the beginning, but they're continuously adding new music as the can make deals with the owners, and their library is quite satisfactory now aside from some labels who asininely refuse to let Spotify use their music (The Beatles being the most notable band they're missing). They're still decently quick on adding newly released music, even from minor indie artists.

There are two types of account:

Free account, which you still need an invite for (I have a few, if anyone wants to try it out). This is financed by advertisements (when I had a free account, there was around 30 seconds of ads every 8th song or so; perfectly bearable, but it might have changed).
Paid account for €9.99/month (roughly $14 USD or £10 GBP). No invitation needed and no advertisements.


The catch? It's only available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain as of now, although they're trying to make it available in other countries. Unfortunate for those outside these countries, but that's how it is.

[Vice Nebulosa]

Also, I do think that there is a connection between people downloading music and the decay of the music business.

No doubts there. It is a precarious circumstance, being a recording musician in the modern era. Many bands (Nightwish is an excellent example) begin as utterly godawful ensembles, and only catch their greatest stride on their third or fourth album (in this case the album Once, in my opinion). As the industry becomes ever more competitive, one wonders just how much potential is left irretrievably unfulfilled because less time is permitted for artists to properly evolve. Furthermore, one may still fail to be successful in the industry if the inaugural album is stunning; people on the street may be whistling the tune in question, but the artist who recorded it may have had his/her proverbial bones picked clean by those who opted to download rather than purchase. Given current economic, military, and (if you believe the hype) environmental conditions on our planet at the moment, though, perhaps it is already obvious that ours is a generation mostly unconcerned with faraway things like "ultimate consequences". Music may simply be another desirable resource that one can acquire freely, without reprisal, and perhaps we believe that we are "sticking it to the man" by doing so. Even oil depletes, however. ;)


I don't remember the last time I actually bought music - besides the CDs of my absolute favorite artists. I just don't do it anymore. I'm too busy saving up.

Mm; there is that. If one is struggling to make one's own assorted ends meet (or is saving for something major, such as education), one is certainly not in a position to help someone else with financial burdens, be this "someone else" a music artist or not. Undoubtedly I will need to reduce (if not eliminate) nonessential costs such as music in the future, myself. That said, while I do have some sympathy for the artists who suffer for it, I refuse to halt my music acquisition for mere financial reasons; I have music downloaded on my behalf (dial-up :eep:) reguarly (only a small percentage of the music in my library is owned in physical form), and would only continue to collect it while strapped for cash. I would simply prefer that bands whose work I enjoy did not die an unceremonious death on me.


Bizarrely enough, I'm much more inclined to buying a movie if I liked it, which doesn't really support the artist exactly, but more the industry.

That is bizarre. :laugh: Although perhaps this attitude is due to the differences between pirated music and pirated movies? I.e. When one downloads music, it is in essentially the same form (minus, sometimes, slight variations in sound quality) that one would get from actually buying the disk. When one downloads a movie, on the other hand, it is in most often in a severely degraded form, has an enormous filesize, and must undergo modification before it can be watched on an actual television screen.

The situation with music: pay $20, or do not; the result on my end is essentially identical.

With movies: pay $20 for superior quality and simplicity, or download and get what you paid for. :erm:


I don't buy music. The cost is simply outrageous, even if I didn't want to get them free. Furthermore, buying the CDs doesn't really mean that the artists get that much money from it. There's all of those "special" costs that ensure that the artists don't get the full price of their work. Just go to a show or a venue or something; that stuff goes a long way.

True, but a bit of a dodge. Live shows are a feasible mainstay for neither artist nor consumer. They have a strict cap on maximum profits (a "full house" is the most that can be hoped for), and artists cannot be on tour on a perpetual basis. Live venues are a supplement to record sales, and are by no means a sustainable "alternative" to said sales for the artist's income. That, and you as a fan will not be inclined to attend more than a handful of concerts on an annual basis; only certain artists will receive the benefit.

The issue is much the same in the bookselling industry. The author may only receive a mere 10% of the profits from each novel sold, but the only reason he/she ever makes a dime is that consumers continue to pay the price, and the 10% begins to slowly accumulate value. No doubt this (relatively) agreeable system only continues to function because an easy way to pirate novels in the mainstream of society has yet to catch on. This is all but guaranteed to change if the concept of the "Ebook" ever catches on, however; the writers will then be in the precisely the same predicament that their musical counterparts currently occupy, relying on the generosity and foresight of their readership in order to earn anything. :roll2


Furthermore, there's some artists that exist where you can't buy their stuff. How else am I supposed to support them other than by word of mouth and download?

*Nod* Nothing to be done for it, in that case. And I firmly believe that world music should subvert the legal system this way; it is just that local artists are screwed with equal ruthlessness when they should not be.


I have little sympathy for the music industry. It's more or less their fault that they killed Napster back in '01, and suddenly, as though no one expected it (except for, you know, everyone), :bou::bou::bou::bou:loads of new sites were offering to do the same thing. Uhoh! The music industry created something they can't contain, and they should accept the consequences of it.

Who should? The music industry sucks more horribly than can be stated on a message board that utilizes language filters. Be that as it may, it is not the mighty industry that you damage most by this philosophy, but the indigent, individual artists who do not have billions of dollars insulating their livelihoods. Sad though it is, you must pay the beast to feed the captive artist he clutches in his talons. This you must do despite knowing that the beast will take a ravenous bite as his share before passing down the gristle. Refuse to pay him, and you may have a shot at starving the wretched creature, but he is a bloated, tenacious b*stard, and will outlive countless of the artists who come through his grasp. Punish who you will for the Napster incident, but just be aware of the broader implications of your actions.


EDIT: I suppose I never noticed the last paragraph. I download music non-stop, as long as someone has made a suggestion for it. I get through my new stuff pretty quickly, and in my experience, it makes the walk to and from classes much more interesting.

I hear you. :laugh: Throughout my senior year of high school, an average of an hour daily was spent in the pacing of vacant classrooms, Ipod blazing.


I never understood people who seek to listen to music as a hobby. It would just bore the hell out of me. :/

Eh, I doubt such a thing could properly be explained; can't help you.


Only recently did I start paying for music in that I have a Premium account with Spotify (http://www.spotify.com/en/). Before I had that, I went something like 8 years without paying for music for myself (I did occasionally buy CDs as gifts).

Sounds interesting. One ends up selecting precisely the tracks one desires (avoiding the sifting through the four or five drivel tracks inherent to album purchasing), and paying a small price for them individually, then? Sounds similar to what I know about the Itunes system, but seemingly with a handier interface . . .



The catch? It's only available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain as of now, although they're trying to make it available in other countries. Unfortunate for those outside these countries, but that's how it is.

What consumer craze can escape North America for long? ~_^

[Tama2]

Concerts are actually where most bands make their money. That being said, I download music all the time. I don't feel bad for it and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Bands shouldn't be in it for the money. Sure it hurts the actually business itself but that breeds great artists. Amazing artists and people with great skills are drowned out now and days by mind numbing music. But then again all that is based of one's perspective on what is and isn't good music.

[rubah]

thanks for reminding me to buy a copy of viva la vida. I knew I had forgotten something.

[Rantz]

Only recently did I start paying for music in that I have a Premium account with Spotify (http://www.spotify.com/en/). Before I had that, I went something like 8 years without paying for music for myself (I did occasionally buy CDs as gifts).

Sounds interesting. One ends up selecting precisely the tracks one desires (avoiding the sifting through the four or five drivel tracks inherent to album purchasing), and paying a small price for them individually, then? Sounds similar to what I know about the Itunes system, but seemingly with a handier interface . . .
Not exactly. You either pay a monthly fee (about half the price of a CD) or endure advertisements, and you get access to their whole music library to stream (ie. you can pick and choose tracks to play like you would from your hard drive, but you can't burn them out or put them on your MP3 player, for example).




The catch? It's only available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain as of now, although they're trying to make it available in other countries. Unfortunate for those outside these countries, but that's how it is.

What consumer craze can escape North America for long? ~_^
Haha, indeed. In this case it's, as far as I understand, more a question of licensing than a lack of interest in the North American market. It's the same problem services like Hulu has, only the other way around.

Oh, and regarding not being able to download the tracks onto your MP3 player, that's a significant downside. They are, however, working on making the service available mobile (I believe there's a portable Spotify client for the Google Android already), in which case the point becomes nigh moot.

[Polaris]

Cds here in Portugal cost +/- 20€, now let me see if I had to pay the Metallica one, the Dream Theater ones, the Keane ones (and let me low the price to 15€ just in case) that would be 100€ spent just in cds... why do that when you can just buy one that's memorable and then go to the concerts?;) I rather give money to see Keane than buy the cds.

[Shattered Dreamer]

I used to buy music a lot. There were times when I gave up the price a few extra beers on a college night out to buy a CD I really wanted. But know given that I'm no longer a student & unemployed I generally download anything I want or if one of my mates has something I want to listen too I make a copy.

As far as the costing musicians money argument goes, the average musician signed to a recording contract only makes between 2% & 5% of music sales. When you sign a recording contract you only retain Equitable or Artists rights to your music. This means you don't benefit that music financially from the sale of your music but you get the final say in how your music is used eg. for advertisement, sampling etc. How do I know this ? I majored in Intellectual Property at law school:D(self praise is no praise I know:tongue: )

The real bread & butter as it were for musicians is the gigs. The way I see it if someone downloads an artists music for free & they like it well then they are gonna come see your show which to me is a win win situation.

The musicians who complain about free downloads are the super rich who made enough money in their career to buy the rights to their music back from the recording company. All their belly aching just amounts to greed!

[Slade]

I always buy hard copies. The only time I've ever downloaded any music is if you can't get them any other way. Otherwise, I'll always go buy albums by musicians I like. I just prefer being able to hold the album in my hands. It's an insanely good feeling getting home and going through the albums I just bought, especially when they're a new album by your favourite band. That's the best kind. Especially when you put it in your player for the first time and listen through. Awesome ^^

I also tend to buy albums by bands I've only either heard a couple of songs or I've heard other people say they were pretty cool and I should give them a listen. This may seem like a waste of money to some people, but even if I only listen to the album once, there is always the chance in the future I will pick it up again, play it and actually really enjoy it. This has happened countless times over the years and thus, not a waste of money. This is how I came across alot of my current favorite bands. It's a formula that works for me.

Hopefully CD's don't go out of circulation for a long long time......I'd hate to have to download everything, it'll take the fun and thrill out of buying a new album.

[Jiro]

I only recently started buying CDs, but I only purchase cheap ones (under $20 each). I have a very small amount of income, but I prefer hard copies to downloading them (legally) via iTunes.

However, if something is too expensive, I will either go without or ask someone to download it for me. Usually I go without, but there are quite a few songs (in fact, the basis of my music collection was illegal downloads) in my library that were not paid for.

I have since bought several of the CDs these songs belonged to (because I started with only singles), so I have more paid music than not.

[Boney King]

I used to have a lot of CDs, but I gave them all to my sister to clear shelf space. I only kept a few CDs that I liked the artwork for/had a significance to me, and my Radiohead collection.

Now, I download all my music and I buy vinyl when I can.

[Vice Nebulosa]

That being said, I download music all the time. I don't feel bad for it and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Bands shouldn't be in it for the money.

That is absurd, in my opinion. I can understand the idea that "nothing is wrong with downloading music" (I partially agree with it; it is a remarkable ability granted us by our technology that affords us exposure to music we may otherwise never have noted the existence of, but a certain amount of restraint should be exercised for the sake of those artists who actually make it possible), but "bands shouldn't be in it for the money"? It is not as if they have a choice, mate. Creating quality music is an exceptionally time-consuming endeavor (ask anyone who has spent time composing, playing, or remixing music), and if those with a genuine talent for it are to survive, they must be made able to eat.

As much as the builder who may call carpentry his trade, musicians provide a service in return for their livelihood; 'tis not merely a hobby because it is also "art". Arguably, the individual musician is actually far more important influentially than the individual tradesman. Interesting to note how lowly many modern cultures regard their arts; Canada just nicely got finished hacking off massive portions of its arts funding a while ago, presumably under the assumption that it is a nonessential sector. Sure, it may not provide humans with nutrients or shelter, but (and I say this with frank honesty) I fail to see how life without music would be remotely livable.


thanks for reminding me to buy a copy of viva la vida. I knew I had forgotten something.

This is one instance where I would actually recommend downloading the thing. :laugh: "Viva La Vida" itself is the only song I can really praise, and, given the chance to do it over again, I would not have paid $20 for it. *_* All the same, you're welcome, I guess. ;)


Not exactly. You either pay a monthly fee (about half the price of a CD) or endure advertisements, and you get access to their whole music library to stream (ie. you can pick and choose tracks to play like you would from your hard drive, but you can't burn them out or put them on your MP3 player, for example).

Seriously? Cost not proportional to usage? That would rule quite supremely . . . :erm:


Haha, indeed. In this case it's, as far as I understand, more a question of licensing than a lack of interest in the North American market.

Could only be, really. Spotify, you say? Sounds like an intriguing service, at any rate; something to watch for. Thanks, Rantzien.


As far as the costing musicians money argument goes, the average musician signed to a recording contract only makes between 2% & 5% of music sales. When you sign a recording contract you only retain Equitable or Artists rights to your music. This means you don't benefit that music financially from the sale of your music but you get the final say in how your music is used eg. for advertisement, sampling etc. How do I know this ? I majored in Intellectual Property at law school:D(self praise is no praise I know:tongue: )

Is that really how it works? ~_^ I will need to acquire more information myself before I buy the validity of those numbers (probably in the next academic year, depending on who I am able to meet at the university), but if they are valid . . . Christ, I did not know things were so bad as that . . . :eep:



The real bread & butter as it were for musicians is the gigs. The way I see it if someone downloads an artists music for free & they like it well then they are gonna come see your show which to me is a win win situation.

Oh, not necessarily. Such things are severely limited by the locations the musicians choose to visit.

But that much emphasis on live venues, eh? ~_^ That is totally not the situation as I understood it . . . How do the profit percentages come out for the formal gigs, then (i.e. the sponsors' share as opposed to the musicians')?


The musicians who complain about free downloads are the super rich who made enough money in their career to buy the rights to their music back from the recording company. All their belly aching just amounts to greed!

Certainly sounds plausible. Still, even for modern artists, 5% of a million records is no small matter. Purchasing the actual album is a legitimate show of support for the artist, even if it is not nearly as significant as it should be.


Hopefully CD's don't go out of circulation for a long long time......I'd hate to have to download everything, it'll take the fun and thrill out of buying a new album.

There is that, isn't there? I find that there is an extremely personal quality to physically scouring the racks for suitable music, rapidly flicking through the alphabetized sections and making a choice, ideally without any prior recommendation whatsoever. It is easy to roam the internet and compile a list of artists that others have recommended (and this is an invaluable resource, used prudently), or even to indiscriminately download mass quantities of music in order to enjoy the process of sifting, but it is ultimately an inferior experience to snapping up a CD, claiming ownership thereof, and peeling out that disk for the inaugural listen. ^_^

[Rantz]

Not exactly. You either pay a monthly fee (about half the price of a CD) or endure advertisements, and you get access to their whole music library to stream (ie. you can pick and choose tracks to play like you would from your hard drive, but you can't burn them out or put them on your MP3 player, for example).

Seriously? Cost not proportional to usage? That would rule quite supremely . . . :erm:

You could argue that the advertisements in the Free account are a "cost" proportional to use, but other than that, yep :D

[Old Manus]

Woah tl ;dr, but I only buy music if an artist I really dig brings out an album. I think spending ten sovreigns on a CD with all sorts of copy protections and stuff (never mind the fact that you might think the album is utter :bou::bou::bou::bou:) is a colossal waste of money.