- Relevant artist taggings:
- None
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
- Drowned in Oxford: Past, Present & Future...
- Kanye West - Yeezus
- Smith Westerns - Soft Will
- In Photos: Parklife Weekender 2013 @ Heaton park, Manchester
- In Photos: Isle Of Wight Festival 2013
- Champion Sound #13: Part 1 – Ten Yeezus Pieces
- Parklife Weekender 2013 – The Drowned in Sound Review
- ATP Deerhunter preview, including Bradford Cox's mixtape
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Lars Ulrich...was right.
meh
There's nothing terrible profound/prophetic here
Not really. Still, what he says about Durst is correct but then Limp Bizkit were always a fucking joke.
*Lars Ulrichtig
RIGTIG!
Alright, Denmark.
I'm guessing that's also what you were thinking
when Lars Ulrich took Napster to court.
Yes
He was.
Robert Smith articulates it more eloquently here:
http://www.thecure.com/blog/default.aspx?nid=21082
like creakyknees in all caps
aye, like I'm going to read that
No he doesn't.
What he's doing there is claiming that someone who writes 25 songs in a year (that /they/ think are 'good' enough to be heard by someone else) should be on £25,000 (the median national wage) by default.
Which is a nonsense. A complete and utter nonsense.
You're worth what the market will pay. Tough shit if you can't earn your £25k with those 25 songs that you've put your heart and soul into.
He was kinda doing ok up until that point, though. And I still stand by my broad support for respecting the copyright of an artist: there's sufficient legitimately freely available music being distributed with artists' consent to make wholesale copyright infringement by listeners a pretty pointless and hollow activity.
Which is not to say that artists are always logical by being overly protective and precious about their dittys - the best 'justice' for those who attempt a total lockdown on their work is simply to ignore them, not to continue to download and listen to their music and give them the oxygen of publicity.
I think you're coming round TheWza
;)
;-)
My beef is watertight, bro.
I thought he was right from the outset
to the annoyance of many people I know... it's just that he went about it in the wrong way.
None of the counterarguments hold any water for me. Just one example: "it's not like every single illegal download is one lost sale". I know that, I'm not stupid. And?
fairly certain
in some kind of monster he admitted he was wrong
FUUUUUUUUUUUCK
about what?
all I know is who really cares about what he has to say. It's like he voted himself somebody of merit.
No, he wasn't
Sure you can't look a gift-record label in the mouth, but you also can't bite the hands that feed you, e.g. the fans that spend their hard earned money on their records. Considering the dire quality of pretty much all their release post-black album, I'm not going to hand over any money until I've had the chance to at least stream the album before hand. So that I can make up my mind if it's any good or not.
If he doesn't understand that then he's an idiot.
Point in hand, I've been listening to the new Deftones album on Spotify for a week now. I realise how much I love, so I buy the mp3 version for my phone. The other day I started looking around for a vinyl copy to buy as well. See the difference Lars?
Who buys two copies of the same album?!
The difference is, you're mental.
I've bought a digital and later on a physical copy
what's so odd about that?
You've honestly never bought a cd twice after losing the first one?
^^ Patrick Bateman
There are a lot of people who listen upfront and then buy
...one of whom is me, but there is a massive majority of people that are not doing that.
They knew they handled it badly, hence the contrition of tone afterwards, and stuff like giving away something like 6 or 7 live albums for nothing with a code you got inside St Anger. But the central point... lots of people grabbing albums for nothing, because they can... still stands.
A massive number of those guys wouldn't have bought in the first place, though.
For years the record labels creamed a large amount of money off people who could afford to spend £15 on a Britney album because they liked one or two singles and didn't really care a great deal.
I wouldn't argue that record companies were, by and large, not great
...but I maintain that by and large the proliferation of getting stuff for free is not because people are protesting against record companies but... because they can.
i clicked on the wrong "This"
and then i realised that ive bought things on vinyl recently that i already own on cd.
Now im not sure who is mental.
still a cunt though
He's such a terrible drummer
worse these days. Death Magnetic has got some atrocious stuff on it.
Lars Ulrich? Metallica's Lars Ulrich?
Haha. hahahaha. no.
Something something shared culture, something something make money off gigs.
End of contribution.
something something stealing, something something copyright infringement, something something not being to understand the difference
One day soon you'll get to a salient point mate but I won't hold my breath.
it's tough being wrong huh?
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4420530#r7182315
aw, diddums
Classic stuff.
Of course he is
Is this a thread about illegal downloading?
It's about Some Kinda Monster
That cure one is spot on
and from someone who knows what they're talking about. I love it when a consumer who hasn't bought music in years blasts the artist for daring to not like or approve of this "new model" that ONLY benefits the lazy downloader.
I'd never blast Robert Smith's right to have an opinion
no matter how wrong it is.
And you disagree with him because...?
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4420530#r7177555
Hard to say without reading it
I thought the research showed that illegal downloaders spend more on music than others, so consumers who haven't bought music in years isnt really a fair characterisation (admittedly I dont understand how that squares with falling music sales).
I think Smiths argument is pretty weak, seems to be based upon a world where everyone pays nothing which is a bit extreme
As I said above
the actual number of sales was generally boosted by people who didn't care that much.
I guess in my view music is somewhat like TV, in the sense that a lot of us like a lot of programmes but few of us bother buying all the shows on DVD that we enjoy. If you could only see a couple of episodes on TV ever on endless repeat and the only way to see the whole series was to own the DVD/VHS then we'd all have been buying loads of them.
Now we have access to music via lots of means so only the people who really love a band enough will buy it. Obviously this analogy has a lot of wonky bits, particularly in the field of consuming and reconsuming of TV vs. consuming and reconsuming of music (and plots between episodes, etc.) but I think it's broad enough to put across the gist of what I'm saying.
Fundamentally the only way musicians will make big money now is via live performances, incredible popularity (so that their music is bought by people who love them enough) and being paid for the 'broadcast' of music. It's really that last thing that isn't happening but then I don't see how music can be the EVENT that a show like Game of Thrones is to the point where it can weather all the free downloaders who watch it.
Didn't read, but I would say
No
because, Lars Ulrich is a cunt.
Ironically this was his last relevant contribution to music.