BUYING music? ~_^

[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 . . .

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(self praise is no praise I know )

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 . . .

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. ^_^