"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

[ArrowHead]

The same things apply today; djent and core are still relatively popular, but they won't be in another 5 to 10 years. That's just how this works.

And then 5-10 years after that, Periphery re-forms and does a Vegas residency that sells out for a month straight.

 

[wankerness]

Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?

 

[Semichastny]

He never mentioned a 3 hour gig. He said that working people may only have 3 hours left in the day to listen to, write and play music. And I'll go even further with that statement and make it YOUNG working people, because those of us with families are lucky to get anywhere near that much time in for music.

Re-read what I said it was a comparison.

A person still gets to play more music every day then they would performing live.

He said a potential three hours in the day to write/play music with a day job, I pointed out this is still more time then a person would get preforming each night. Of course you don't have that much time because you have more important priorities to address, you chose financial stability for your loved ones over music, and that was the point I was making. A lot of people can't do music for a living because they need to take care of their priorities. Doing music full time most likely wouldn't be on the table for you anyway so the comparison isn't exactly what we were talking about.

No one decided that music is not WORTH paying for, they were simply given a relatively risk free and convenient means to "steal" it. When you can either pay for something or get it for free, most people in the age group we are discussing will opt for free because they have relatively limited money.

I don't understand your logic, how can you say someone decided to "steal" something and "opt for free" in the same breath that you say no one decided it's not worth paying for? That by definition means that they didn't think it was worth paying for because they have chosen not to pay!

I know it can be difficult to admit for many musicians, but music, especially as it relates to a style's popularity, is trend driven. Jazz was not "out competed", the trend simply changed to favor rock and the jazzers were cast as old people who weren't "with it" anymore. That's just marketing the trend. The same things apply today; djent and core are still relatively popular, but they won't be in another 5 to 10 years. That's just how this works.

I mostly agree with you here; however, What I meant by out-competed was that when certain music styles were faced with a threat to their relevance they choose to resist change, be elitist, and stick their heads in the sand and as a result they allowed themselves to fade away with no resistance. Look at linkin Park and Deftones, both bands sprung from the Nu-Metal scene yet that scene is dead today. They resisted the change in trends by changing/evolving and to this day are successful, while the other bands are long gone. I view rampant piracy as another shift, if bands keep the same outdated views and expectations for their music carrier they will break up and disappear while the others who move forward and change to suit the current expectations of their part of the music market will succeed. Music and bands have come and go without piracy, it's up to them to step up to the challenge or fade away like everyone else who can't manage to change.

 

[tedtan]

And then 5-10 years after that, Periphery re-forms and does a Vegas residency that sells out for a month straight.

That's too funny, man, but only because it is so true.

 

[tedtan]

Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?

Beleive it or not, in my experience the answer is sort of. It definitely doesn't have the fanboyism we see here off SSO, but it has been a bit of a passing fad.

 

[wankerness]

Beleive it or not, in my experience the answer is sort of. It definitely doesn't have the fanboyism we see here off SSO, but it has been a bit of a passing fad.

That blows my mind. I thought it was for progmetal nerds only (like, the same people that would have been listening to Dream Theater or Opeth in the past).

 

[SirMyghin]

I don't want to veer this thread off topic into a discussion of the benefits (or the lack thereof) of welfare, but I must point out that without it, we may well not have Messhugah's music. They didn't come up in today's environment where they can record a song in their bedroom and post the recording on BandCamp or Souncloud the same day. Furthermore, if they were working normal day jobs, would they even be able to remember some of the ideas they have while at their job long enough to get home and work them out/record a demo of them? Would they be able to really practice their more difficult material enough to get it down well enough for live performance? If not, where would metal music be today?

I highly doubt I would have much of a care about a band having trouble scheduling practice time around a job. That is a pretty poor argument basis. Without Meshuggah, metal might be a whole lot better, this who chugging low notes to syncopated rhythm crap is pretty over-rated.

Why the hell are we still paying all those architects? I mean, there's no labor involved, they're just creating blueprints. It's not like they're building the house themselves.

And besides... I can go look at that architect's buildings any time I want. For free. And they will live on long after the architect and I have died. Isn't being part of history the best payment any architect could receive? They should learn to accept the idea they'll be broke forever designing buildings...

Not sure, they don't design it either, and that is a much more difficult portion given their ludicrous imaginations. They draw pictures, they are the artist of the building world. They get all the credit while the team of engineers who made their vision real gets the back burner

 

[tedtan]

Re-read what I said it was a comparison.
He said a potential three hours in the day to write/play music with a day job, I pointed out this is still more time then a person would get preforming each night. Of course you don't have that much time because you have more important priorities to address, you chose financial stability for your loved ones over music, and that was the point I was making. A lot of people can't do music for a living because they need to take care of their priorities. Doing music full time most likely wouldn't be on the table for you anyway so the comparison isn't exactly what we were talking about.

I read your post to mean that only well known headliners played 3 hour gigs. If I misunderstood, then I agree with you.

And for the record, I initially went to school (university for those of you across the pond) as a performing jazz guitar major. That lasted all of one semester. After talking with the professors and other teachers for that single semester about life after school, I took life as a full time performing musician off the table for myself, changed my major and went on with my life. So no, I am not interested in a life as a performing musician. It's not for me.

I don't understand your logic, how can you say someone decided to "steal" something and "opt for free" in the same breath that you say no one decided it's not worth paying for? That by definition means that they didn't think it was worth paying for because they have chosen not to pay!

If someone needing to feed his family were to steal a loaf of bread in order to do so, it doesn't mean that the bread isn't worth what it was priced at. Nor does it mean that the thief or anyone else decided it wasn't worth paying for. It merely means that he found a way to circumvent the system. Sometimes this is due to a lack of money. Sometimes it is done for the challenge or excitement. Some people like to think they are getting away with something. Hell, sometimes it is done just because it can be done.

The same holds for file sharing, though on a larger scale. It is a relatively safe and convenient way to circumvent the system for the time being. I suspect that amount of money being lost by the music businesses and the resulting loss in tax dollars to the governments of the world will lead to this loophole being sewn shut in the next 5 to 10 years. But only time will tell.

I mostly agree with you here; however, What I meant by out-competed was that when certain music styles were faced with a threat to their relevance they choose to resist change, be elitist, and stick their heads in the sand and as a result they allowed themselves to fade away with no resistance. Look at linkin Park and Deftones, both bands sprung from the Nu-Metal scene yet that scene is dead today. They resisted the change in trends by changing/evolving and to this day are successful, while the other bands are long gone.

I will say this holds true for the individual bands in a scene/trend, but the scene/trend itself has to die off. Part of the new trend's sense of cool to the kids is presenting it as something new and better than the last scene/trend. Without that rebellion it doesn't work as the new thing.

I view rampant piracy as another shift, if bands keep the same outdated views and expectations for their music carrier they will break up and disappear while the others who move forward and change to suit the current expectations of their part of the music market will succeed. Music and bands have come and go without piracy, it's up to them to step up to the challenge or fade away like everyone else who can't manage to change.

I was the first one in this thread to bring up the use of file sharing as a promotinal tool. As a practical person, I agree that it is here and would like to learn how to use it to our advantage. How do we use it to our own benefit? I had sincerely hoped this thread might go in that direction, but lacking anything to contribute myself from experience, etc., I couldn't hold it on that heading.

I also need to reiterate something I said to Scar Symmetry in an earlier post. There is a big difference between saying:

- as a practical reality, bands won't be able to make enough money from their music to support themselves financially, and saying

- music SHOULDN'T provide financial support for those who invest their time, effort and money into creating it.

The two are VERY different statements.

 

[tedtan]

That blows my mind. I thought it was for progmetal nerds only (like, the same people that would have been listening to Dream Theater or Opeth in the past).

That's the right audience, but I have seen this outside this board here over the last few years.

 

[tedtan]

I highly doubt I would have much of a care about a band having trouble scheduling practice time around a job. That is a pretty poor argument basis. Without Meshuggah, metal might be a whole lot better, this who chugging low notes to syncopated rhythm crap is pretty over-rated.

Whether it would be better or not is a subjective judgement call. But you can't deny that metal music would be different. We would go from nu metal to what? There would be no Meshuggah, and without Meshuggah there would be no djent.

So how would metal sound? Maybe Nu-Metal-Pop-Punk-Screamo-Bieber-Core.

How would that be an improvement?


EDIT: Added smilies.

 

[fps]

If your argument in this thread is that musicians should be paid for their music by the people who consume it because *MORALITY*, then either you don't understand how things work in the world, or you're in denial about how things work in the world.

 

[The Reverend]

Somewhere in the world right now, Jon Bon Jovi is reading this thread and laughing. I know I am.

 

[ArrowHead]

Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?

Look at the magazine articles, product endorsements, and the fact these bands are touring and playing full time. It's about as popular as metal gets, outside of the most commercial of commercials. And among musicians in general, the technical stuff has always been popular.

We're not talking Rhianna popular, but the stuff is definitely popular.

But then, it was pretty popular long before it was ever Djent. I saw Meshuggah open for Tool 12 years ago. That was a stadium tour.

 

[rectifryer]

Djent is popular anywhere besides this board?

Not really.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

I am a realistic, practical type of person, and agree with the point quoted above. But there is a major difference between saying that statistically speaking, musicians won't be able to earn a living in today's music environment and saying that making music isn't work and musicians shouldn't be able to make a living from their music. BIG difference between the two.

That's not a job, nor is it making music. That's just finding a bunch of sycophants to kiss your egotistical ass, and there are much quicker ways of accomplishing that than through music.

No matter the seeming intent of most musicians, this is their goal. The glory. Some will eventually see it as a means to help others, but really it's an egostroke that never ends, they'll change their sound to fit whatever path they wish to take. On that basis, should their earn their fair share whilst being praised non stop? Not a point I personally would stand by without doubting or claiming as watertight, but definitely worth thinking over before standing by a position of the equal defense.

 

[ArrowHead]

I think the more important question is, how many consumers buy music from Pirates?

 

[ArrowHead]

No matter the seeming intent of most musicians, this is their goal. The glory. Some will eventually see it as a means to help others, but really it's an egostroke that never ends, they'll change their sound to fit whatever path they wish to take. On that basis, should their earn their fair share whilst being praised non stop? Not a point I personally would stand by without doubting or claiming as watertight, but definitely worth thinking over before standing by a position of the equal defense.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

It's extreme. It's based completely in cynicism. And it seems to take a view of the Entertainment profession that really only includes pop culture and musical trends.

 

[abandonist]

It seems in my experience that younger kids think nothing of downloading stuff for free while the older dudes think it's wrong. There's a gap in the thought process that occurred somewhere there. Maybe growing up with the ability at your fingertips? I still remember tape trading, which you can equate this to on some level, but we still bought the music after we found out about the band. Most folks don't do that. They say "I download to try it out" when I can't think of a single band anywhere that doesn't have a few tracks available to listen to (let alone youtube). How often after "trying it out" does anyone buy it? I can only think of a handful of times I have.

As for the valuation of music, this line of thought about it "only being worth what someone's willing to pay for it and I'm willing to pay nothing" is just shameful. I give all my music away for free, but that's my choice to make, not yours.

 

[Xaios]

I give all my music away for free, but that's my choice to make, not yours.

Fucking right. I've been saying the same thing for years.

As the old saying goes, the market sets the value of goods. However, the fact remains that the seller still gets to set the price. If a person doesn't feel like they're getting good value for the asking price, then they don't buy. But for some reason, there's a disconnect in the music world where if a person feels like they're not getting value, instead they'll just take it for free. The issue then becomes that this snowballs as more and more people get it for free, and want it for free themselves, thus diminishing what the value of the product should actually be.

And yes, the reason I take issue with this is *gasp* morality. However, just because the world works a certain way doesn't mean that it's working the way it should.

 

[simonXsludge]

Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection? Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything. Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment. If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it?

Dude, did you think for a second before you started typing that nonsense? Someone collecting stamps obviously does NOT create and craft his own art. A stamp collector is actually the equivalent of a fan (one that's spending money at that, woohoo!), not the equivallent of an artist. Blows my mind that I have to explain that.