BUYING music? ~_^

[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 ) 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.

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.

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), 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. 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? ~_^