are you against downloading music?

[Sid Vai]

here in jemsite ive perceived some sort of animosity toward downlaoding music. I am among people who love music, but i live in a country where music simply isnt number 1 and where we only get a the mainstream stuff. Anything thats is being played on MTV you will find here anything thats nto you wil have trouble (i live in Honduras). I do believe downloading music is not right because its like stealing from the artist. but come on, record companies for years have put exorbitant prices on music and we the consumers, are the ones who suffered. they have no choice now. As soon as they get rid of one p2p program a new one will arise. it is inevitable.
I still buy cds, the good ones i can find around here. I havent downloaded much of vai's music cuz i dont want to spoil it for when i eventually visit the states and get the origianl cd's.
What is your stane on downlaoding music?

[chilln2music]

voted no...ill probably think differenty once i start selling my own cds. there was an article in the paper today. the article basically talked the major record companies creating "illegal" software soon to released that is automatically put on your computer when you download pirated music. there are two programs in the works... if anyones interested ill explain more about these programs...one is called "freeze" the other is called "silence." interesting.

[Sid Vai]

that sounds like trouble...

[guitarkatana]

I'll put it this way. I'm not against downloading music. There is nothing wrong with downloading an artists song or three to sample their music and see if you like. I am against downloading all the music of an artist you like and not paying your respects to them. Music is a service, ya gotta f*ckin pay for it! Without CD sales, artists simply can't do there thing. I'm talking about the less know artists who actually have to work for themselves.

[Ant711UK]

Haven't people always copied music?

I remember asking friends to run vinyl albums off on to tape for me to listen to when I was younger and I suspect some of the artists who have gone on to become major recording stars have done the same before they made it big.

On one hand downloading allows people access to artists they may never have thought of before and subsequently they go and buy their music, on the other hand it is costing record companies millions, so there is a risk of new artists not even getting a chance to record in the first place.

There is a huge problem with piracy and without doubt it needs to be tackled, but as it stands, most kids are always going to go for the free option as opposed to paying for music if they can do it. That way they've got the latest tracks on their MP3 players and saved their money for that PS2 game they were after.

I'm not sure if there is an answer to this problem

[Champagne Mist]

Originally Posted by Ant711UK

On one hand downloading allows people access to artists they may never have thought of before and subsequently they go and buy their music

This is the point I always raise when this subject comes up. Almost all the new bands I listen to now, I discovered or heard about, then downloaded their stuff to see if I liked it. If I like what i hear, I go out and buy the album, if i hate it, then its deleted. Over half my CD collection is of bands that I never would have discovered had it not been for file sharing programs. Thats about 100 CDs at about $15 each, do the math, thats 1500 bucks record companies made that they normally wouldn't have, and I'm only one person. Does everyone work like this? I don't know, but this is how I work, and I see nothing wrong with it. I think internet has helped many bands get on their feet and establish a broad fan-base that normally would have gone nowhere simply because they would have had no exposure. Some people might not buy the album, but may see them live. It bugs me everytime people cite the decline in album sales. You're only looking at one aspect of the situation. There are other factors. What about ticket sales? Merchandise sales? Would this band have even gained widespread popularity with just their own marketing? I don't think you can definitively say whether or not filesharing has positively or negatively impacted the entire music industry.

Another debate: many people think music is priced WAY too high. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

[Champagne Mist]

Andrew, i would be interested in any info on those programs. I know several copy-protected CDs have already been released--with no doubt more on the way

[nuno]

i have to say no as long as buying an '80s CD (ex: Master Of Puppets) will cost €23 in Italy (circa $22).

[GuitarWizard]

Andrew from up above is correct.


Thank god, maybe this will stop the pilferage!!

Its simple how the program works, when a new computer is bought, before you steal any music from any website, you will have to registrate your credit card info online.

They plan to charge like $.50 cents per song, $3.00 for album.

Hopefully, before people pay $3 for a bad sounding , digital 128k mess, they'll go to a used store, and buy the cd with liner notes for $6 or $7, or go buy it new.

2 Points here:
1) When you snag an artist album off the internet, you've just taken money out of the pocket of that artist, his manager, his label, his publisist, his limo driver...etc...etc... Now the typical low mental power answer is, "Who cares, that sum b*itch is rich any ole how", which is the "Dukes of Hazard" way of saying, Your broke and jealous. Its as if who ever the artist you ripped off, and his body guard came down to your place of work, and stole your pay check at the end of the week.
2) Burnt downloaded cds sound like hell, maybe its because I have 100% relative pitch, and very good perfect pitch, but every burnt cd I have EVER heard sounds sharp, and digital. I can't even stand to listen to burnt discs.

[EdE]

I agree with Champagne Mist. I have found several artists that I would have never heard of otherwise had it not been for downloading. Most of the stuff I download is one or two songs to make a compilation disk for, or to see if I like the stuff. One time I was downloading a Satch song, only one, (I do own the disc but it is quicker to download and burn than rip and burn, at least on my pc) and the guy emails me that if I like Satch, look at Shawn Layne and several others that I cant seem to remember now. Now I have bought all of those as well. I don't know why the record companies don't do something on their sites where you could listen to the tracks in its entirety but you couldn't save it. Sometimes 3 songs at 30 seconds each is not enough to determine if you might like something. That and make them cheaper. I know I would buy more if they were $10 instead of $18.

[bob mclaughlin]

Against?? No....

[sanitarium]

I voted yes, but saying that I have Win MX. I do download the odd song now and again but I find if I want a song i'll go out and buy it, hey maybe my brain works differant to everyone else. I do use it how ever to download lots of music videos, I don't know if that counts?

[welshpete]

In my opinion, dowloaded music is now the ultimate form for advertising. Artists can now get there music to the entire record buying public on earth with minimal resources.

When Napster (RIP) was at it's height, CD sales dropped slighty (we're talking a few %) which was in line with the buying trends of the time - infact if anything the sudden availability of more music slowed the fall off in sales.

I will give you an example. About 5 years ago I wondered "I wonder what that Paul Gilbert solo stuff sounds like?" I went to HMV, Virgin and a few of the other big stores and found maybe one CD, usually an import costing £19. ($28??). Now as far as I knew PG's solo stuff could have been mindless 8 million note persecond stuff which would not interest me in the slightest. So I went to napster, downloaded about 4 songs and realised that it was in fact, unbelievably good.
I now own every solo album he has done - all purchased on original, whether imports or not. After wearing out my first copy of Flying Dog (I can kill CD's in no time) did I go and download the album so that I had a copy? Did I make a digital copy of the first one I purchased (which I legally could do)? NO. I bought it again. Senor Gilberto could buy himself a slap up meal on what I have bought from him (unfortunately, his record exec's could eat for a week) - and all down to napster. Now I'm not saying that I would never have bought it without hearing it first - god knows i am not that strong willed in record shops; but it certainly prompted me to get hold of it.

I'm sure this story can be replicated the world over. In all things there are some who use it how it should be - you download, you listen and if you like you buy....its better than the nonsense you get on the radio anyway.
However there are people who will abuse this - I was disgusted when I was on holiday in Malta when every shop and market stall openly sell bootlegs with photocopied covers of EVERY major album you have ever seen for around £4.

The Music industry is on its knees - not because of piracy - which would have killed it a long time ago (remember "HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC" ) if it could , and not because of the downloading and file sharing which occurs. The Music industry is on its knees because all the minor labels are being swallowed up by the big boys (if there are more than three record companies in 2010 I will be shocked) and the one things the majors wont do, it is take a chance. Bands don't even get a sniff of a contract these days unless they show commercial potential. If you aren't going to make the big bucks, forget it. There is a quote i use about playing in a covers band when people tell me I should only play orignals..... "F**K artistic integrity, show me the money". I say it as a joke - believe me if i could make it playing my own stuff i would, but I want to play in a band and have fun, so I play covers , K?
Unfortunately - this is now what is happening to the whole music industry. Record execs don't want bands who write new, different or dare I say it inspiring music - they want bands who make $$$$$$$. End of story.
I was engineering a gig and got talking to an A&R guy who was there. I asked what he thought of the bands and who had a chance. Without batting an eyelid he said "The first band have a marketable image, that's all that's needed". He could have made that decision by looking at photos of them all - he agreed that the other bands had talent, could play, could write but how do you market a bunch of late 20's guys with guitars? NO, go for the wierd guys with the punky female lead singer who obviously has an affliction to wearing too many clothes.

When was the last time a boy/girl band released an original songs as their debut?? (I'll exempt the Popstars bands - they are already hyped enough, they could release silence and it would still go to number one).

All in all, you could count the number of decent bands who have been signed IN THE LAST THREE YEARS on your hands. There are plenty of bands who were signed by smaller labels and have now made it; but most of the bands are there to make money.

If a kid downloads THEIR music and still wants the buy the album fair enough. But chances are that that self same kid will instead get hold of something much more inspiring and original, and will buy off THAT artist instead - hopefully one where a nice big chunk goes to the guys or gals who WROTE the stuff.

OK, so I've gone off on one. But it's all relative. I work in the music industry (kinda) and believe me the last thing I want to do is ruin it. Downloading isn't killing the music industry; the music industry is killing the music industry.

[dex]

Originally Posted by GuitarWizard

2) Burnt downloaded cds sound like hell, maybe its because I have 100% relative pitch, and very good perfect pitch, but every burnt cd I have EVER heard sounds sharp, and digital. I can't even stand to listen to burnt discs.

this is totally off topic but you need to get yourself a new CD player.
Like Sony CDXP670 or something that has "CDR/CDRW compatible" on it.
CD's have most of the info on them doubled and sometimes trippled and the laser pickup mechanism tries to get all this info on the first pass.
Then an internal processor puts all the info in this formula and works out whether you have enough info to produce the sound, if not the formula fills up the gaps and the music keeps playing.
Acording to Philips/Sony CDDA standard a CD should still be readable/playable even after you drill a 2.5mm hole in it as long as that hole is not on the TOC tracks.
The more info needs to be "filled in" the worst the outcome and the vast majority of CD players produced 1-2 years ago have lasers pickups that are not sensitive enough to pick up enough data of a CDR to make it sound decent.
Just get yourself a new CD player and then A/B your favourite CD with a CDR copy of it and see what you think.
For better effects get someone else to do it and you sit infront blindfolded and listen.
I have done this to all the people who live close to me and claim they can tell appart mp3's and CD's /CDR's and original CD's - noone could.
Results were more like 50:50 which is like guessing.
I can guess too but at least I don't go around saying"I can tell them appart every time".

ilia

[LimHae]

With the size of my library of piracy (both songs and full length movies)there is no way I could be against it