Have we all seen the blog about the DJ who has only ever bought 14 albums?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/06/16/154863819/i-never-owned-any-music-to-begin-with
21 years old, managed to secure an internship with one of the most respected US stations, claims to have loved music from a young age but sees this almost as a badge of pride, saying that she doesn't think her peers and herself will ever pay for albums.
I don't know how she expects to have a job in the industry if her and her friends won't be funding it.
- Relevant artist taggings:
- DJ Downfall »[x]
- Broken Records »[x]
- Fear Of Music »[x]
- Meanwhile Back In Communist Russia »[x]
- Klaus says buy the record »[x]
- David Daniell and Douglas McCombs »[x]
- Metric »[x]
- 3hostwomexicans andatinofspanners »[x]
- Total Fucking Destruction »[x]
- Monika Na?eva, Michal PavlĂ?ek, DJ Five »[x]
- The Shit Is Coming Home »[x]
- Tits Of Death »[x]
- Lo-fi sucks! »[x]
- Matthew Seligman and Jon Klein »[x]
- Abdoujaparov »[x]
- Freeride »[x]
- Free Wheeler »[x]
- Free Radicals »[x]
- Let's Buy Happiness »[x]
- Kill The Young »[x]
- DJ Ordeal »[x]
- Little Thief »[x]
- Robbers On High Street »[x]
- Innercity Pirates »[x]
- Just Jack »[x]
- Radio Sweethearts »[x]
- The Fabulous Wannabeatles »[x]
- Selfish C*nt »[x]
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this


Broken Records
Meanwhile Back In Communist Russia
A lot of bands that I follow on Twitter posted this:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/
tl; dr
But... is the whole thing as sanctimonious and patronising as the first para would lead me to believe?
I stopped reading when he started going on about how his good friends
Mark Linkous and Vic Chestnutt killed themselves.
Downloading is LITERALLY Killing Musicians?!
4 letters
that explain why current and future generations of young adults shall remain selfish and ignorant individuals. Enlightenment through instant gratification.
great piece
*shit piece
fixed
heyyyyyy
seven minutes. good work.
Read that this morning, did make me rethink things abit. One thing I'd like to know is people always say how touring is loss making to promote album sales, could understand that being the case for big pop/rock acts but was that really the case for more indie size bands. Also there never seems to be any discussion of what things would be like otherwise, a massive shrinkage in the amount of music people could afford listening to would enviably mean less bands getting a following in the first place,. It did manage to pinpoint what seems off with spotify, that even though its legit, it relies on illegal downloadings existence for its existence
I mean if tours are loss making and album sales have dropped off why would they do it
Where as big pop/rock acts with the lavish shows all the crew etc, that makes sense as loss making to promote albums
I stopped reading when it said I applaud your courage in admitting you do not pay for music
She didn't say that
the problem is, it is easier to download music illegally than read through that essay
this is also the logic why I can't be arsed to buy a SunnO))) record on vinyl, when I can't stream it anywhere online to tell if I might like it.
Most of their stuff is on Youtube, Sean, so that doesn't really work.
I know this because I streamed the whole of their latest album on there before buying it.
Really don't like the bit where he says first generation to Unstick it to the man, completely meaningless as if every generation before were rebels , just a stupid generalisation that doesn't really mean anything
i imagine that's in response
to the fact the article she's responding to was making generation generalisations like there was no tomorrow.
wow what a ridiculous sentence!
She is an intern he is an academic, it would be good if he stuck to the arguments rather than invoke tragic suicides or make it a generational issue as if the current generation are morally deficient, especially as previous generations set the precedent for the copying norm with burning CDs and home taping, just seem like cheap persuasive devices rather than decent points
thing is though
with home taping, someone you knew had to buy it first, you got the tape from them personally & had to know them
it also meant that the tape was given to you as a try this sort of thing, based on what the person knew about you
downloading is instant & can be done with absolutely no knowledge of the uploader, or the content
So what you're saying is that it's a much improved system?
I agree.
being on this stupid forum
has caused me to start paying for albums a lot more regularly. Hell, I paid for my first downloaded LP due to this place.
<3
what did you end up buying?
Where does she say she wants a job in the music industry? She's an intern at a radio station isn't she?
Also her point is clearly not to wear a badge of pride about not paying for albums, but is instead to illustrate that she is of an age group / generation who were never limited to buying albums in physical form, having come of consciousness with the internet already in existence. She doesn't miss liner notes etc the way older people do because they were never the norm for her. Because of her age.
Cue a stupid thread about how people who don't pay commercial prices for albums are basically Hitler from people whose understanding of shared culture comes straight from the conservative property rights playbook.
back o'the net, son!
(fwiw I don't download albums myself- just don't like the feel of it)
but WLWC is quite right
"shared culture" :')
Not sure why you've picked this phrase out of everything?
because it's funny
A good a reason as any
sigh
Oh yes, and also, if you download albums
you are basically directly responsible for the deaths of Mark Linkous and Vic Chestnutt, according to this response.
I don't really think that bit was at all neccessary fwiw
but there's far more to his response than that
I know WLWC is trolling and I shouldn't rise to it
But he goes out of his way at several points to say he's not pointing a finger of blame. I thought the bit about Linkous and Chestnutt was well worth mentioning.
I don't think he is trolling at all
I've got a couple of mates who work in the music industry and completely agree with him.
Do you really, honestly think
The writer of that piece is saying that if you download albums you are DIRECTLY responsibly for those deaths?
It's a gross exaggeration to take what he's saying out of context, which is all the more disappointing when, as I say, he goes almost painfully out of his way to be reasonable and balanced throughout.
No, I don't
I understand his point but it was still hyperbolic and imo offensive- there are a lot of reasosn behind Linkous, Chestnutt (and anyone else)'s deaths that we won't and can't know about, because they're personal.
No doubt their financial situation was one of them
I don't think it's a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.
it's not ridiculous but it's definitely "in doubt"
There are so many mega-rich musicians who have killed themselves, and so many broke-ass ones who keep going making music that they love, that I wouldn't want to bring finances into a discussion like this unless I had actually been told by the person themselves that that was an issue, which never seemed to happen in this case.
So I'm more willing to dismiss his argument than accept it, given that the burden of proof is on him and he hasn't really delivered
MUSIC INDUSTRY MATES!!!!!
haha
it's not quite 'Croatian mates' level, I know, but I do have a couple of friends who work for labels etc and have expressed these views^ before. That doesn't really prove anything but seeing as nobody in this thread actually works in the industry, to my knowledge, it should certainly be taken into consideration. (Forgive me if some of you do, I don't know what everyone does)
not trolling
he says their financial circumstances were partly to blame for their depression and deaths > logic being that if more people paid for their albums, they might have been in better financial shape and then not killed themselves. It's pretty black and white in the piece.
Yeah, partly to blame. That's not how you phrased it in your original post.
Of course it's conjecture, but I think the Lowery's just trying to point out the real life consequences of genuinely poor musicians not getting paid properly - albeit a couple of extreme examples, but people he knew - in an attempt to combat the idea that musicians get paid plenty anyway.
It's satirical hyperbole
to highlight the ridiculousness of him mentioning suicide as the consequence in the context of an intern talking about she grew up with the internet supplying music.
She at no point
seems to justify not paying for albums. Just that she and her friends are too cheap to do so? Big fucking news.
I was starting to think "fair enough, your choice" as she claimed to be paying for the downloads at first
I mean, it's not hurting anyone. Her loss that she doesn't get the sound quality / artwork / liner notes but she's paying the money to download MP3's off iTunes.
But then she was bangin' on about how she'll never pay for it and it'd be great if there was a big magic spotify type thing that meant she could listen for free but artists would still get paid (WUT?)
So to sum up...
At first I was like this: "Aye, fair enough." But then I was like this: "What? Naw, fuck off! Do one ya boot!"
Don't think she said she wouldn't pay for the spotify type service, think she said she would pay for the convenience if an improved spotify type system, and the more money back to the artists is probably in terms of proportion rather than amount. I think it would be good if a load of indie labels banded together and made an alternative to spotify took their albums of spotify and put exclusive bonus material, might work
14?!?
I honestly don't think i've bought five records in the last five years.
Might do in the future. Not completely against it, but i just think they're far too expensive.
I do have a ÂŁ5p/m subscription to Spotify, though, so i sleep well in my bed knowing that i contribute something towards the hard work of the many, many artists that i love dearly.
do you think records are too expensive because of subscription services?
Or because you never paid ÂŁ15 for an album in Tower Records? Or because when you walk into a record store, all the greatest albums of all time are reduced to ÂŁ3 in the sales racks, making anything new and not as acclaimed seem over-priced? Considering music and art are meant to be kissing cousins, it seems baffling that the greatest pieces of art are valued at the most money, yet with music we like to devalue it... that has never made any sense to me.
yeah but
with music you're buying a copy - not the original
:O
?
=|:{D
<]:o){
like a postcard of the Mona Lisa
but then the only person paying for the original is the label, and the analogy holds, but it also doesn't when the song is digitized, and it's less of a physical copy and more like its essence. </hippie>
well, a postcard would be like buying the CD
streaming would be like doing this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Mona_Lisa.jpg
sorry but if I see an image on a screen and it doesn't have an instagram filter, I presume it isn't real
This thread
is already enormously depressing.
Why do you say that?
BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH MY POINT OF VIEW
to be fair
If you're going to intern at a radio station, and probably not get paid, you're probably doing it to get access to some free music, and maybe some free tickets, and yuhknow, maybe to meet some of the musicians you love.
Just because she treats CDs like digital carcasses, doesn't mean she doesn't care about music or values it (if she values her time spent working at a radio station for free, being deluged in links to listen to things, and perhaps given time to 'work' listening to promotional material). I think this under-scores an important but often neglected point that most people within the business of music acquire a helluva lot of music for free, and they are the ones who then have to place a value upon it. If you ask a lot of people in the bizniz how much a ticket for a festival costs or how much a new release is nowadays, some of them will have a shot in the dark, but I bet there are very few who don't work directly with the finances, who can tell you what things actually cost, and even fewer seem to be able to breakdown have the finances actually work. And these are the people trying to establish a 'value' to music, when they spend half their lifes in cordoned off backstage areas and putting in requests for promotional records...and maybe every once in a while going to a secondhand vinyl store to buy a record, where none of the revenue goes back into the record business...
These are very broad brushstrokes and within the silhouette of the business of music there are real exceptions to this rule, but on the whole, there are a lot of people who are ignorant (either out of choice or by design by those around them) to the 'value' of music. I mean, I still end up explaining to PRs that when they bike me a CDR that the artist is paying for it, and that if it's a band I really love or one that I know is in precarious 'could be dropped before the record comes out', that I'll happily wait a day or two for the royal mail or better still swing by next time I'm in the neighbourhood and pick it up. Basically, the excesses in the music industry (at least at major labels) are far smaller than the wastes (like the decades the record business invested in the live industry, as it continued to get richer and richer, relying on labels to buy tickets to giveaway to promote gigs and to invest in building an artists live career, when the promoters put in very little to cover the shortfall...), but that's a whole other topic...
All I'm saying is that it feels like maybe this intern (and the 1000s of others working unpaid in the music biz today) is just someone who wants more music than they can afford, and is happy to exchange their time for it, rather than their money.
fleshed this response out and tidied it up a bit in a blog post http://seaninsound.tumblr.com/post/25427855365/npr-intern
ABUSE IN THE WORKPLACE.
At some point the editor of this site should've probably warned their intern that writing this would be a Very Bad Idea. But no - page views galore.
Never been that big on the philosophy or politics of all this.
Take a far stupider, reductive approach to how I acquire music (I buy it, because that is what I've always done). Still, 100% agreed with the David guy that 'convenience' is an absolute bullshit argument- it's about ten times EASIER to get something via iTunes or Amazon's mp3 market than it is to Google it and sift through shitty torrents.
Don't think she says buying music online is inconvenient in the difficult sense, rather that she would like to pay for a universal catalog spotify like service that can be used on any device and distributes the money more fairly
the fact she doesn't know that spotify doesn't work on a mobile device, is kinda surprising but not shocking (people also don't seem to know the sound quality is better if you pay too)
I'm not sure she is unaware of that though she could be clearer. What I took from her article was that realistically it has become the cultural norm to not buy albums so there needs to be a system as convenient as spotify but fairer to artists, I think that's a sensible argument. Some of the comments on NPR are ridiculously harsh
I remember my brother was ripping stuff to his computer
and he realised he had left a particular cd in his car. It was easier and quicker to dl a torrent than to go outside and get the cd.
The part where she talks about convenience, I don't think she means it's not convenient to dl an album from itunes or even order a cd online. Just that it is not *the most* convenient way of obtaining music so it's not the method people will favour.
That doesn't really tally up for me.
Legal, paid download services are convenient. Very convenient. The vast majority of hardware used to listen to music comes with intuitive software designed for the very purpose of trying to sell you music.
I'm gonna go by her exact and own words, rather than any kind of projection on to them. She says she think her generation will pay for convenience. But, in overwhelming numbers, they don't. The difference in convenience between downloading an mp3 via Amazon or via The Pirate Bay is negligible in all but one sense- payment.
I'm not making any ethical or moral conclusions here- if you don't pay for music, you don't need to square it with me.
Essentially, nothing is ever going to be more convenient
than getting stuff for free at the click of a few buttons.
You're bang on the money.
I agree that you should pay for music etc ...and I do!
But to me, the problem isn't whether something is convenient, it's how convenient it is compared to the other methods and I don't think that the difference between legal dl sites & torrent sites etc are negligible or only due to cost.
However small the differences are, people are going to want to go with the easiest, most convenient option. Most people won't give a toss about the ethics of what they're doing if it's easier than doing the right thing.
Not saying I agree with doing things that way, just seems to me that's how it is for the majority.
I'm not even saying that you *should* pay for music
(by the by, I think that's what I think ... I'm never sure), or that downloading illegally is a heinous and most indecent act. I just think that not paying IS the convenience. In fact, I'd confidently predict that getting something for free is enough incentive for people to actually take a less convenient route to their music.
When I was a teenager
I spent a large proportion of what little money I had on music. Too large. Some of it was great, and I still listen to it now, but at least half of it was average. I'd spend ÂŁ6 for an album that I knew had two songs I liked, to find the rest of it was garbage.
I think I was taken advantage of. I was sucked into a massive marketing spin that overpriced the product, and took advantage of my youthful enthusiasm for new music.
The current situation is much fairer. Kids can browser freely, and make more informed choices about the artists they want to follow more closely. They then go and see thos artists live, and might - just might - download some of their music from a paid source.
Shitty bands, and shitty record companies have few opportunities to rip kids off. This is a good thing.
And I don't see music suffering. There is a much greater range of good quality music around right now, made by people who are in it for the right reasons. Some of them will become successful and make a reasonable career in the music industry, and others will have fun trying.
I can't see the problem. We are in a better place now.
So your arguement is because some CDs you bought were bad then no one should ever be paid for a record again?
But if kids are downloading everything for free in the first place...
...why would they go back and download and pay for the music they liked?
And you might have bought an album for ÂŁ6 and only liked two songs...
...but somebody else might have liked the whole album. So the shitty record company was ripping you off but not the other person?
And I have found that record companies rip the kids off more since downloading music has become more commonplace.
Quite often an album is re-released as a deluxe edition. I think some record labels have said they are doing this more and more to increase revenue from loss in album sales due to illegal downloading.
And:
"There is a much greater range of good quality music around right now, made by people who are in it for the right reasons."
This makes me think you might be trolling...
Massive artists are multi millionaires
Indie artists struggle to get by.
Wasn't the situation the same as in the CD boom of the 90s? Except music trends have changed, guitar bands aren't mainstream any more. You could ubstitute someone like The Smashing Pumpkins for Skrillex - he made $15m before even releasing a single.
Stealing ain't cool, but the world keeps spinning.
To be honest, I made that point pretty badly/troll-y
But what I mean is that there's still money to be made in and from music. The era when we believed that the music industry would collapse, and all our favourite musicians will disappear has gone. The record industry survived, and it has changed.
Some people make music for money, some people for love. Some people manage to achieve both, while some aren't able to do the latter because they can't make sufficient money from it. This has always been the way.
I agree and I think ultimately the world is now an easier place for people who make music for the love of it to get recognition, sadly not a living though
True, I also think more bands are able to get to that point
where you tour the world and struggle to make ends meet than ever before. Naturally, you will also get more bands who are irritated that they are not making money off of their records.
It sounds harsh, but if you became big enough to tour because a large number of people downloaded your records for free off the internet, or listened to your music on Youtube or Spotify, can you then complain that people aren't buying your CDs? It's certainly a grey area.
Re-post from facebook
My problem with this girl's outlook is that she is unable to value the music she's obtained. She has no personal investment in it, so she has no desire to enjoy it. She just rips it at random, without cause for research or proper thought.
Even as someone who receives a fair share of promos which I take full advantage of, I always like to 'own' something, whether on CD or on mp3 - I've got into the habit of going to a record store once a month to pick up my (imported) copy of Wire and I always make a point of picking out a CD to buy at the same time. Then I go home, scan through my copy and highlight stuff I'd like to get next time/download from Boomkat. The reason I like this is that the physical act of purchasing something makes you more invested in the product - you want to listen to it. I've lost track of the number of unlistened mixtapes, promos and all the other crap I've clogged up my hard drive with which usually sit there for months on end unlistened until I decide to sample a track and decide it doesn't really excite me.
I remember reading somewhere that if we want to move to a true digital culture we need to start treating our mp3s in just the same way as records: we need to throw them away if we decide they're worthless, we need to resell them, we need to share them and above all we need to value them. Purchasing something provides it with a value to you - you have expended time and money, rather than just mb/s, to get hold of it. Therefore, you'll want to listen to it, and you'll want to decide whether it's good or not. But what follows is that, if it's rubbish, like a CD or a vinyl, we have to dispose of it. We need a second hand mp3 market.
Don't think there Is much basis for the first paragraph, we have no idea how she finds or what she appreciates, the information just isn't there in the article to say that
You're essentially saying that you can't value things unless you've paid cash for them
never got a birthday present?
Of course
but let me ask you: how much crap have you downloaded (yeah, I went through a stage of doing that) and then just never listened to or heard once through. The number of free mixtapes I have from wherever which I have literally seen, clicked on and downloaded and then never listened to must be nearing triple figures. Whereas if I decide I want to buy a record I will one hundred percent listen to it and engage with it.
You're missing my point: it's not about the spending of physical cash, it's about an investment in real terms. If you're purchasing something, you'll likely be more discerning. If it's free you'll just take it. There are other ways besides money to make consumers discerning, but unfortunately, none works quite so well as cold hard cash. I don't think I'm getting my point across that well here: but money is just a means to an end, it's a way of making someone think about what they're consuming. My problem with the digital world (which I am also personally a victim of) is that it takes away the need to be discerning, the need to do research, the need to engage with things. Everything is momentary and fleeting.
But I'll bet it's exactly what this girl does
She rips her friends ipods, she rips all the promos her station gets sent, just as a matter of course. The mp3 age has turned us all into hoarders.
You're avoiding my point
You didn't just do that. This girl has built an entire music collection based on mindless acquisition. She didn't borrow stuff to get into it - she borrowed stuff for the sake of accumulating a vast music library.
Can you highlight the part where she says her music was all mindlessly acquired?
If you acquire chunks of music in 16gb ipod sized packages
then I'm sorry, you're acquiring mindlessly.
Where does it say that?
Is that the bit where someone gave her some music which she was really grateful for?
I genuinely can't believe you're standing up for this
I thought you were one of the 'good' guys on here.
it's likely that we're not quite addressing the same topic
You seem to be mistaking your own experience for that of other people
I don't indiscriminately acquire tons of music just because it's digital rather than physical - in fact in the most frenzied music acquiring period of life I had CDs piled two dozen high waiting to be listened to once.
You might well benefit from taking more care, but that isn't a universal rule that other people are incapable of exercising discretion.
and on that point: how many unwanted and unused birthday presents have you received?
a fair few, I'd wager. And I'd bet that your most beloved birthday presents were things you asked for, or which a loved one bought for you on hearing you talk about something.
Exact opposite
my most beloved presents were things people got for me that I couldn't have just bought myself, where they introduced something to my life that I hadn't been aware of.
personally i tend to attach more value to stuff i've bought
but i think this argument just sidetracks the argument a bit huh.
but i can't help thinking it's still all disease
i want a mutually assured destructive
life seizing separate culture to take me over
moving silent like radar
take me over and blow out my mind
Two main gripes with that:
a) »a vinyl«
b) mp3s are worthless to me, ta. ain't never gonna be paying for an mp3. physical artifact; yes, digital file; nah.
Do artists make decent money from Spotify?
I heard not but I don't really know. But if it's true that the money from Spotify is negligible, then how much would Spotify or something like it have to charge for artists to make a 'fair' amount from it? And what exactly IS a 'fair' amount? And, would the likelihood be that for artists to make a 'fair' amount, something like Spotify would have to charge so much or have so many adverts that people like this girl would say "fuck that, I'm not paying that/sitting through all those adverts" and it wouldn't work anyway? Arrggh, so many questions, my head!!!
In general terms I don't disagree
But if it comes down to a record you downloaded for free, and a record you read about, sampled and then bought - which would you listen to first? Which would you care more about initially?
Unfortunately until people see the real price of something, they cannot value it properly. Illegally ownloading music is a classic example of a negative market externality, economically speaking.
You're being facetious
``Unfortunately until people see the real price of something, they cannot value it properly. Illegally ownloading music is a classic example of a negative market externality, economically speaking. ``
This isn't even an example of a negative externality, let alone a classic one. Economically speaking.
Can't actually quite believe that first part of the quote above. People can't know how much they value something unless someone else tells them what the price is? Really?
But if they pay nothing for it, it has no cost
and no price. So therefore it has no value. They haven't had to do anything to get hold of it. So it is less valuable, simply speaking.
You seem to be questioning the simplest of all principles
Music costs money to produce, it costs money to market, it costs money to burn onto CDs, it costs money to tour in support of it etc etc.
So unless you have a value on that music and the cost is equal to the labour used to create, it is a negative externality. There is a deadweight loss to society.
Essentially, if everyone downloads music for free
then the people who buy the music and pay the bands are supporting all the illegal downloaders. That's a negative externality.
No, that's free rider behaviour
there's no negative externality here
negative externality = cost imposed on others or benefit unfairly received
If you don't pay for it but someone else does, you are imposing the cost on others and receiving a benefit unfairly.
But there is no cost imposed on others (keep in mind that it has to be actual cost incurred and not theoretical or moral)
Situation A: 10,000 people buy a certain album; I don't listen to it.
Situation B: 10,000 people buy a certain album; I copy it.
What cost is imposed in situation B that doesn't exist in situation A? That margin is where you'd have to locate a negative externality of my consumption.
I think you're still mixing it up with free rider behaviour on non-rival goods.
I'm questioning whether price = value (it doesn't)
Where is the deadweight loss? Black markets frequently boost total utility by overriding limiting restrictions such as pricing structures, monopolies, subsidies and legislation that actually creates deadweight loss.
``it has no cost and no price. So therefore it has no value``
price =/= value. To recycle my existing crap analogy, I paid nothing for Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion (gift) but I paid ÂŁ12 for Strawberry Jam, and I value MPP more. Is that a paradox to your statement?
but someone bought you the Animal Collective album
they paid money for it. Thus it clearly has a value. Someone values it enough to buy it for you.
but your suggestion was that the listener (in this example, me)
can't value something they get for free as much as something they paid for. So, paradox?
Am i reading a different article or something?
or misconstruing the contents/people's response.
'I didn't illegally download (most) of my songs. A few are, admittedly, from a stint in the 5th grade with the file-sharing program Kazaa. Some are from my family. I've swapped hundreds of mix CDs with friends. My senior prom date took my iPod home once and returned it to me with 15 gigs of Big Star, The Velvet Underground and Yo La Tengo (I owe him one).'
People seem to be talking about it like she's saying she's pirated everything but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
I see.
Well, each to their own I suppose
Yes, she is.
It's pretty clear.
'But I honestly don't think my peers and I will ever pay for albums'
I'm not interested in a discussion about the worth or value of music; I'm not interested in that angle of things at all. I'm less interested in the alleged morals and ethics of not purchasing the music you listen to. And I agree that the central tenet of her piece is that she is not of a generation raised on buying music. But she says pretty clearly that buying it isn't her thing, and isn't likely to ever be. Don't know why you'd suggest otherwise.
I agree.
If I was being very cynical and harsh, I'd suggest that's because the author sees no need to justify their actions- it's the industry's fault she doesn't pay for anything.
Perhaps that's true, perhaps it isn't.
She HAS pirated them though, hasn't she?
I know the Digital Economy Act changed the legal status of 'ripping' CDs in the UK, but as far as US federal law is concerned she has made copies of copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder. I dunno though, maybe I'm misunderstanding.
It's irrelevant, anyway. Discussion is obviously going to focus on illegal online downloading because that is the most common means of acquiring music without paying for it, and acquiring music without paying for it is EXACTLY what her blog post is about- she specifically says her generation will not pay for albums and that she 'owns' very little music.
can someone who's not an absolute belmer
explain how not paying for music is a positive thing? maybe without a pre-emptive reverse godwin?
cheaper, innit
can someone who's not an absolute belmer
I like what you did there
http://www.photobooth.net/movies_tv/img/bean_02.jpg
Not sure I meet the criteria but I'll try. I guess the main advantage is people not paying for music means they can appreciate more music as they don't have the financial limitations, this means that a greater number of bands can achieve a following which is good in terms of being appreciated which is probably the most important thing when making music, but sadly less money spread over more bands makes it a pretty bad careerwuse
I'll try!
I had never listened to anything post 'classic' early darkthrone as loads of reviews say it's shit. It's always bothered me so I got some recomendations off a forum, and downloaded 2 albums as I have barely any money (really) until I get paid. Now I get to judge for myself, and will buy at least one.
Not saying it's right, but I buy a fuck load of records and this helps me out. No I don't delete (even if I buy the album, as my record player doesn't fit in my pocket) my MP3s unless they are gash. I could do this 'sampling' on youtube, or streaming somewhere maybe, but that's not how I comfortably listen to music so it wouldn't really work. It's just what I did with cd's at the library when I were young and taped them.
Morally, it's wrong, as I am stealing something I 'should' pay for. I am fine with that. I love listening to music, and discovering gems I have missed. This allows me to do this more and more. Must of my debt comes from buying records and gigs so I'm not fussed. My band would have probably sold about 50 more cds if it wasn't all over Russian blogs. Or maybe, we wouldn't, and Russia just wouldn't know how great we were. Either way, there is nothing I have on MP3 which I really wish I could own physically which isn't really hard to buy.
SO yea, basically, I reckon Fenriz would be well happy that I downloaded Circle the Wagons and think it's great, rather than carrying on ignorant of it's daft charm.
BORED YET?
If every time people wanted to have OPINIONS ABOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY they just went on youtube and watched
Fenriz interview videos instead of posting about their OPINIONS on the INTERNETS the world of music would be a much better place.
Fuck, if only people could just get Fenriz to give their opinion for them,
about everything ever then the world would be a better place.
You probably would have got that Shed 7 support slot too.
I'M COOL WITH THIS
circle the wagons is really fun
but i was more interested in the people who feel justified not giving any money at all to artists they like. can't see how it's a positive thing.
only one point really
again related to someone I know, a guy in an unsigned band. He once pointed out that he's not making much money from music anyway and the cost of producing/gigging/recording puts him in debt as it is, so illegal downloading is neither here nor there really, and it's good that the music is out there, possibly amongst a wider audience than he can reach by playing shows, who may then go on to buy it.
+ most artists who aren't tiny make enough for it not to matter
that's just blanket not true
i'm not really interested in how it affects bands (or doesn't)
why would someone as an individual not recompense an artist for an artwork when they've put it out expecting to be paid. how would they justify that to themselves beyond wanting to keep hold of more of their money.
expectations might be unrealistic
Because they'd prefer to keep the money for themselves.
Need to save money now so they can pay for Spotify3000 when someone develops the ability to stream music directly to your brain as and when you think of it.
Morally, it's not wrong
depends what you think of stealing really
Not sure what stealing has to do with anything
given that it isn't relevant to this discussion.
What a surprise
Blog based on generational differences turns into thread where virgins bellyache about how their mum doesn't as pay as musch for music as they do.
were you trying to finger your prostate as you typed that dude?
tough being wrong, champ?
i've not decided what my position is yet
All I require is the ability to listen to what I want, when I want and how I want it. Is that too much to ask?
It's this atttitude that really fucking stinks about the article and indeed the file sharing advocacy point as a whole. Whatever other arguement is put forward essentially what people want is something that cost someone to make for nothing and the consequences can get to fuck.
People keep missing that she said she is willing to pay for a service that provides that
That's good of her, eh?
What a saint, willing to pay for a made up service that no one is providing. Man that's the file sharing debate closed then.
think she meant the spotify business model
just needs a bit of tweaking to get the artist recompense correct.
a bit....
Bit dismissive, it's a more realistic and pragmatic approach than just wishing people were different, copying music has been around since the cassette, it won't ever go away do we need to come up with an attractive alternative that is fairer
I am dismissive because her position is that she would pay for something that doesn't exist
so in the meantime that gives her carte blanche to abstain from paying for music. It's a nonsense argument.
Fair point. Its weird I think most downloaders know it can't really be justified but do it any way, if something is wrong but everyone is doing it it is hard to feel individually responsible
It's not wrong and nobody needs to justify it
You're a terrier.
I don't think it is up to you to determine whether it is wrong
If the artist doesn't want people to download for free, which many don't, then it is wrong, it's theirs
`Fraid not
it isn't wrong, and it isn't theirs if they say to the world to come and get it.
why?
if you're talking about
these things in terms of morals or ethics, there is no objective right or wrong. people have different values. you've made your views quite clear on these issues over and over, they're completely alien to me but whatever, people are different. what perturbs me is why you're so relentless about it. can you not understand why people have a different attitude to yours when it comes to music and how it's consumed?
I can understand why people have a different attitude to how /they/ approach music
But you seem to overlook that most people in these discussions are pretty sanctimonious about paying for CDs and condemnatory of people who don't. So, that swings both ways right?
Maybe she doesn't "expect" to have a job in the industry
Can't be bothered to read either but i'm willing to assume that
the horrible US neo-liberal free-market garbage response article with which people who should know better are cluttering my facebook feed is at least twice as annoying as the original article.
it really is
it really, really is
pray tell
how that response is 'neo-liberal'. Being pro market and understanding how markets work doesn't make you a neoliberal. It'sq a common confusion, but many people who are pro market are so because efficient, well regulated and fair markets make sure that no-one gets fucked over.
...
moron.
I just don't see any point in arguing with someone who is so patently irrational and ridiculous
And who clearly has no understanding of what I am expressing. Why does pro-market mean reaganite? Markets are everywhere, like it or not. They help distribute effectively. A government's job is to make those markets work as best as possible and to regulate effectively. The music industry is one of the clearest examples of a broken market I can think of, where the money is not being distributed correctly and where people are able to free-ride with impunity.
Since when did you become a communist? You want to eliminate markets entirely?
i did specify i didn't read it sooo......
i think that was more of an if-everyone-was-like-her hypothetical type thing
i don't think it's a very good point anyway but you're mis-representing it a bit
Like all your arguments are all-people-downloading-don't -buy-music hypothetical thing
Get off your high fucking horse.
Just like all of your arguments are like everyone-who-downloads-music-doesn't-buy-it hypothetical
type thing.
Get off your high fucking horse.
Ok, that's twice by mistake but get off it really.
I'm as happy as anyone to rant about how bad illegal downloading is for the music industry
but has anyone attacking her (especially the guy who wrote the response) actually read her original blog post?
I only just have after hearing about it for two days and I'm stunned by how much her position's been misrepresented.
She hasn't said illegal downloading is a harmless thing or that live music/merchandise can replace lost album sales, just that realistically a generation that's been raised on getting free music from the internet is hardly likely to ever to go back to buying albums en mass. I suspect she's right.
She is a fucking whore.
End of.
which raises a good point....
what does she look like? It's always best to know then I can make an informed decision as to whether I agree with her or not.
nuance as always from Einstein here
she's the same age as me
I don't buy her arguments AT ALL. It's not generational. She's made a choice.
it's the choice the majority of our generation have made though
(probably)
She's fallen into a habit, not made a choice.
And she doesn't justify it at any point - merely point out that realistically expecting people to start buying albums again isn't a particularly reliable strategy for the music industry to fallback on but imply none of the other current options are satisfactory either.
Dude, she's 20
You aren't 20.
24
Not a huge difference, you'll admit. We'd be counted in the same generation.
Not convinced. It means (I'm guessing) you'd have got into music around 2001 - 2004 when people did download but most still bought CDs.
She'd have got into it around 2005-2008 which was round the time downloading really, really took off. In internet terms I'd say it's a huge difference.
exactly - it's only a few years, but we're talking about the cusp of the internet digital revolution
she could be talking rubbish, but it's certainly plausible.
the difference between 24 and 20 is gigantic when it comes to trends
it's a full university degree away. you'd be graduating as she started uni, at the most. so it's quite a difference.
when i was her age...
we absolutely treasured music and its physical manifestation. Going to a record shop, buying 12"s not knowing what they were but based on the few words the staff had written on the front, getting them home and finding something amazing you'd never heard - or something you'd heard in a club and loved - special. I was broke, that made it even more precious.
In some ways it's great now, everyone can find an audience, i can listen to things from all over the world. But the fact that it was so difficult then and you had to work so hard to find things made it more important.
Now I DJ sometimes, but I still buy and play vinyl, because I like having to focus carefully on what I spend my money on. I never wanted it to be throwaway.
The royal we or are you the Borg?
*polishes tiara*
the main argument seems to be
that the past was better, because apparently buying music based on the album artwork in the shop makes it a better record than if you got it for free
Pretty simple, really.
People like convenience, cheap stuff, and technology. Music is neither sacred, nor immune from that. And that's pretty much the start and the end of it.
The thing is, music collecting is one thing. But it's not intrinsically linked to music enjoyment. Collecting music and enjoying music are two diffetent things. Technology has broken that (recent) historic link between collecting and enjoyment. That it has broken the link between collecting and control over supply (and thus payment) is kind of a side issue. There's no going back.
mp3s are pretty worthless because there's no inherent scarcity of supply. And whilst you can certainly acquire and curate mp3s, you can't really collect them in anything like the same way as something physical.
Re: 'Everything streaming everywhere' - People pay up for Spotify cos of a benefit to them: no ads, mobility, or even (for a few) better sound quality. There's no necessity to do so, and only a minute proportion of people pay for it out of a sense of duty. If Spotify get too harsh with their limits, people will go somewhere 'free-er'.
Sharing/copyright infringement: personally I tend to respect the general principle of copyright. Not religiously and to the letter, but not to the point of relentlessly hoovering up illegit stuff for free just cos I can get away without paying. But there's next to nothing from stopping anyone from doing otherwise. So they do. For obvious reasons.
Music is not being harmed by any of the above things. Some things have taken a hit, but not music itself.
</self-righteous-tedium>
I didn't like the tone
of Emily White's article. She sounds like a disingenuous hipster. Her sweeping generalizations really bother me. Yes, I realize the majority of her/my generation (she's 21, I'm 23) will download the latest Katy Perry album from a torrent site without blinking but what about those reports that have shown the increase in vinyl sales? I realize it doesn't make up for the rest of the music industry's losses but it's something.
oh god, this is another one of those 'Collateral Damage'-esque clusterfucks, isn't it?
like most endless debates, there is no happy answer that will suit everyone.
I will say that I'm in the...
pay for as much as you can afford with any given pay packet, and what is downloaded from 'cloud' locker sites beyond that is guilt-free, because you're paying for what you would have paid for in the CD age, and the free stuff doesn't equate to theft, because it's not like there are a finite amount of digital copies (with inherent manufacturing costs) that you are nicking and therefore preventing others from paying for.
and in time, paying for some music downloaded for free anyway.
(and people are going to lose out, because there is vastly more competition for disposable income in the form of many more bands/artists and non-musical outlays.)
(and really, how can people still expect to make a living from music; isn't that totally naive; isn't the true gain from making music more than financial; surely the most you can expect is not to make too huge a loss on your music.)
...camp.
I'm basically just waiting to hear what Jon McClure thinks so I can think the opposite
Vinyl's increase in popularity is almost in direct conflict with Cracker Man's sentiment.
It is something. Maybe not enough to fix things, but really... you need to adapt to survive. Plenty of artists are having success working within the internet realm and the inherently "free art" movement. Many of them have had boosters in the form of Pitchfork/blog hype and stuff like that, but frankly? The only ones that seem to be really suffering are few and far between. You don't see most modern underground acts complaining about this stuff, only a handful as far as I know.
When was the last time you heard a drone artist bitching about people stealing their work?
To be fair to her
those mp3's she's stolen count more towards 'owning' them than if she had just heard them all on spotify.
Paying for MP3's means you do then own the MP3 album.
Travis Morrison :')
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-morrison/hey-dude-from-cracker-im_b_1610557.html
That reads well and everything,
but isn't it a touch stupid all things considered? It primarily seems to be a response to his Facebook friends being reactionary idiots, not the Lowery piece. And it's disingenuous to compare shoplifting or taping to the options the internet now offers us- they're nowhere near being on the same scale.
Indeed.
I'd like to subtitle that article *man misses point*.
I dunno, he's just picking apart one problem in the original response article
which is that it acts like this is an entirely new problem, and that it's all young people's faults *grr shakes fist*. And he just wants to counter that by saying that, no, this thing has been going on for a while, albeit in a smaller form.
He doesn't really get into his opinions on the issue as a whole, he's just picking out one flaw, just like everyone upthread is doing with the Mark Linkous bit
It's still a silly way of arguing.
It just utterly sidetracks the discussion by picking up on one minor point that's not massively relevant to the overall thrust.
eh, i disagree
cos I don't see him as arguing against the article as a whole, he's arguing about some of the attitudes that come with it. Plus, he's actually doing the discussion a service by trying to point out which bits are incorrect (and possibly biased, based on that one individual writer's perceptions) so that we can focus just on the relevant, important bits.
So yeah, he's focusing on a small thing, but the result of that is to make the rest of the discussion more streamlined, more on-point, and therefore easier to engage with and have an opinion on, as you haven't got to get through all of these minor but disagreeable points before you get to the heart of the issue
Boy, was that badly put ...
basically
the record industry said that home taping would kill music - it didn't. They then said downloading would kill it - it didn't. That's not to say that's it's not having a negative impact and that artists aren't struggling as a result but whatever it is it's not brand new.
oh, I just like it because it's a flippant piece
a nice change in the face of the po-faced serious responses and the po-faced "shared culture" freetards
freetards
freetards
<3 Travis Morrison
Another way of looking at things
from Travis Morrison: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-morrison/hey-dude-from-cracker-im_b_1610557.html
damnit!
I've had enough of this thread
Summary: Stop downloading stuff for free and claiming you love music, arseholes.
But they are not mutually exclusive, I do download (well not so much now because if spotify) and I do love music and I am certain I buy more music because of the downloading, I don't see a contradiction there
lbc is a broken man
the terrible consequences of free downloading in action.
er, this is a bit of a poor counterpoint
people dont really value meat, as it is so cheap and available that it has become de-valued. If one had to go out and catch and kill and animal before you could eat it, people would think a lot more before doing it, and appreciate it more once they had it. Which is what LBC wants. At the moment people eat lots of poor quality meat just because its cheap and they dont think about it.
*some* people
Does it really bother you so much that someone could download something and love it more than you when you paid for it?
Do you feel ripped off or something?
I have never really got my head around this debate
I suspect partly because I am witnessing the death/remodelling of an industry that I am personally invested in for the very first time.
It happens though, an industry is not immune from being extinct just because you love it, the technology changes, the supply and demand is altered, new habits are formed and the future is led by the desires/expectations of a different consumer mindset.
I don't necessarily think much of this will be a problem, will be interesting to see how the actual music begins to morph in order to adapt to new listening habits though ... shorter songs? ad's in the middle of tracks? albums that automatically play at different times of the day based on the weather? who knows? ... the form will change in some way though, happened with every art form as it reacts to technology and consumer change.
blah blah, bloody love music, that's my point.
Make a distinction between music as an artform
and music as a commercial product and this conundrum falls away.
This one is easy!
Sonic Youth = art
ABBA = commercial product
Easy.
Not sure if serious.
I can only assume it's a joke
The evening began at the Gentleman's club, where we were discussing Wittgenstein over a game of backgammon.
Whilst I don't really like filesharing
I am quite enjoying how the world and their dog are queueing up to write blogposts putting the boot in on a 21 year old intern
so you're down with us having
less choice in music?
I'd much rather a value was dictated and the artist received some money.
Thus allowing them to continute creating music professionally than have you dictate that they should receive no fee and that you're doing them a favour by listening to them.
Their product does have a value and more importantly a inherent cost to produce, even home production costs a bomb in terms of equiptment to get anything sounding good. If they haven't said it's avaliable for free and opted in then it's not up to you to do that for them.
`` If they haven't said it's avaliable for free and opted in then it's not up to you to do that for them.``
What on earth do you think gives someone the metaphysical right to constrain your behaviour like that? I'm sorry, but if you publish a song/album, you can hardly complain that people are listening to it / changing it / making fun of it / sharing it / deriding it / etc etc forever.
I agree with everything you said apart from the sharing it.
I find it pretty reductionist to equate playing/lending an album to friends to be the same thing as uploading an album on to something like the Pirate Bay making it avaliable to everyone with a decent internet connection and thus damaging the abilty of artists, most importantly smaller ones, to make enough from that to continue making music for people to enjoy.
not sure that it does damage the ability of artist to continue making music for people to enjoy
in fact, it definitely doesn't. It's much easier now because distribution is free.
Advocating it is fine but in the meantime you're happy to follow a course that offers no
financial support for the artist rather than one that, while definitely flawed, at least offers some.
If you were given the ability to counterfit gig tickets for free then how long would it take
you to do this and justify it on the basis that well I still buy t shirt and recommend music to friends.
Slippery slope old bean but in the end I accept that I'm never going to convince people with your view point that it's wrong. So whatever.
Nope, the only difference is you can't download gig tickets.
People do what they can get away with and bolt on an argument to justify it afterwards.
Either way it's your call like and I detest cicular arguments and this is definitely one of them. We fundamentally disagree about the consequences of file sharing upon music and I suppose one side of the aisle will end up being proved correct.
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR
this ^
the current argument only really makes sense if you see it in set along a really short historical axis...
Read an article once about the first uses of the telephone... people used it to essentially stream music (two phone, one in opera house, one in yours) ... Spotify on your iPhone?
For a long time, people thought Parrots were proof of the afterlife (they could mimic the voices of the dead) ... the gramophone was further proof.
we will look back and laugh about this filesharing debate some day.
however
you can have ways of sharing music with each other without downloading tracks - as you have said.
However records were an equally democratising effect as the printing press did - you no longer need to go and see a band, their music will come to you. Do we need MORE bands? And why are there so many bands when there is no chance of making much money?
What is the point of loads of people listening to your music if no-one goes on to buy it?
Is it just going to mean that being in a band is going to become a hobby of those that can afford it?
``What is the point of loads of people listening to your music if no-one goes on to buy it?``
Well, there's a question. I'll re-phrase it to help:
``What is the point of loads of people listening to your music?``
or better yet:
``What is the point of anyone listening to anyone else's music?``
so
why does anyone sell their music then?
the only reason to sell your music
is to make money. For any number of good reason.
The reason to go into music is rarely to make money. But once you are there, not many musicians give away their music for free (sure, some do).
However there was a quote from a band interviewed on this very site saying 'oh we dont have a rich middle class background to fall back on so we have to succeed'. It is still seen a viable career...
I dont think that i am essentially disagree with you, just the idea that bands benefit from people being able to download their albums for free is a benefit to them, when there are other ways to do it.
make a bit of cash
more money from hobby = less money needed from proper job
would be my guess. Also to recoup the costs of production and make the activity cost neutral.
You can still make it
just that Rock music isn't where the money's at right now.
As I said above: Skrillex - Worth $15m, 1 hit single, no albums, not even a household name yet.
No one can say you can't make money out of music any more. There were struggling indie artists in the 90s too... they weren't all millionaires.
Didn't he produce a Korn album though.
Bet he got points on the package and I presume there is a generation of 15 year olds getting down to that sweet nu-metal goodness somewhere.
From a glance at the wikipedia
it didn't sell that well. And only 3 tracks were produced by Skrillex. I think he makes money by doing 365 packed out live shows a year to sweaty shirtless frat bros. Just like those who made sweet nu-metal goodness in the past.
But as a comparison he's about as wealthy as mega, multi platinum 90s super producer Fat Boy Slim.
Aside from all of this, where did you get that figure on Skrillex?
Is he really worth $15m? Must get some fucking crazy sponsorship.
Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/profile/skrillex/
what a cunt
he's pretty much Elvis.
Bloody youngsters stealing music
In my day we'd spend a fair proportion of our student grants and the dole money we got for signing on during holidays on buying records. Why can't the young do that? Why can't this Emily girl spend some of the fortune she earns as an intern on supporting artists financially?
Tsk, such a selfish generation, keeping all the wealth and not sharing it with the needy middle aged.
Is fenella a collective?
Can I hang out?
fairly sure it was an ironic post
a pretty good one, too.
enjoyed it.
But 'technological and commercial interests are attempting to
change our principles and morality' continuously in each era and not just Emily White's (ours). Just saying.
dissapointing lack of brightonb ITT :(
RU