The state of the music world

Going to a gig, going to another festival, or want to tell people about the awesome riff that you just worked out.
hash pipe
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: The state of the music world

Postby hash pipe » Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:35 am

I always used to use spotify then they fucked their free accounts over (recently reversed) won't be going back to that now. Youtube is actually ace for music, can make playlists and there are gooseberry loads of whole albums on there.
Image

User avatar
billytheweed
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:45 pm
Location: rossendale valley lancashire

Re: The state of the music world

Postby billytheweed » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:50 pm

interestingly prince has dropped his action as the bootleggers have removed the stuff off the internet seems that the threat of court made them do it , if more artists took this stance then the music world would be a better place for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25960300
ImageImage
' hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'
FMC code1k910248

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Preston

Re: The state of the music world

Postby Rick » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:08 am

Lots of interesting points being raised here, I do agree with Kip on the postive side of P2P being that it can introduce people into new bands that they simply wouldn't ever take up otherwise. But Zero makes a good point by saying their are other ways to do this such as spotify etc. however it does depend how and where you listen to your music.

Personally I think the Kickstarter ideas are also great ways for bands to ensure people pay for stuff. MSI's latest album was essentially held hostage until the kickstarter reached a set amount as they said it was the only way they could ensure getting enough pay for it. And if you choose to donate more than the base £5 (which is cheap for an album anyway) then each level got perks like special T's, props, track named after you etc.

One of the things I have never understood about music however is that it doesn't seem to correlate to any other form of entertainment media and with regards to piracy seems so stuck in its ways and unwilling to change. I find it annoying with the music industry that there doesn't seem to be any level at which point music becomes cheaper due to its age. If you look at any other form of entertainment (Books, Films, Games) then they are always released at a price and that price steadily decreases over time to reflect its age.

As I see it in the games industry for example Steam has done wonders to at least tackle piracy as the offer a product at what most find to be an acceptable price. I purchase many an old game on there as they are £2 each meaning some money goes back to publishers. Another example of this is the Midkemia series by Raymond E Feist, there is 30 books in the series and as I prefer the feel of a hardcopy over kindle I purchased the entire series some time ago and have been collecting the final ones as they were released. When I made the original bulk purchase I was paying around £3-4 each for the earlier books and which crept up to full price for the newer ones. Yet if I decide I like 13 by Black Sabbath and decide I will check out their back catalogue the difference between the first album and the latest album is negligible, and is there any real reason as to why that should be?

I know this wouldn't help the new up and coming bands but with all the above examples I am happy to pay for something when I am saving on the older stuff. If you got used to something similar with the bigger established bands then you be more inclined to help the smaller bands imo.
Camp Bitchfist: Ozzfest 2002, Download 2004, Download 2005, Download 2006, Download 2007, Download 2008, Download 2009, Sonisphere 2010, Sonisphere 2011, Download 2012, Download 2013, Sonisphere 2014, Download 2016!

User avatar
ThornDavis
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: The state of the music world

Postby ThornDavis » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:31 am

Rick wrote: I find it annoying with the music industry that there doesn't seem to be any level at which point music becomes cheaper due to its age. If you look at any other form of entertainment (Books, Films, Games) then they are always released at a price and that price steadily decreases over time to reflect its age.


Nonsense - most big album releases will drop steadily in price over time, unless the CD gets the 'special edition' treatment. You can get the back catalogue for the likes of Green Day and Eminem for around a fiver a piece (the first two acts I thought to check) as a matter of course, less if they're in a sale.

And then there's those 'complete album series' box sets where you can get the entire back catalogue of some bands - like Faith No More - for a tenner! That's £2 each! When these albums came out they were around the £12.99 mark. I don't think there's any sense at all in what you've written here.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Preston

Re: The state of the music world

Postby Rick » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:49 am

ThornDavis wrote:
Rick wrote: I find it annoying with the music industry that there doesn't seem to be any level at which point music becomes cheaper due to its age. If you look at any other form of entertainment (Books, Films, Games) then they are always released at a price and that price steadily decreases over time to reflect its age.


Nonsense - most big album releases will drop steadily in price over time, unless the CD gets the 'special edition' treatment. You can get the back catalogue for the likes of Green Day and Eminem for around a fiver a piece (the first two acts I thought to check) as a matter of course, less if they're in a sale.

And then there's those 'complete album series' box sets where you can get the entire back catalogue of some bands - like Faith No More - for a tenner! That's £2 each! When these albums came out they were around the £12.99 mark. I don't think there's any sense at all in what you've written here.


13 on Amazon - £7.90
13 on Play - 6.99

Paranoid on Amazon - £7.99
Paranoid on Play - £5.55

Fair enough Play is cheaper, and the older album is slightly less but not dramatically, and not to the same scale as the other forms on entertainment I mentioned. Also your counting on a band releasing the box set and having it readily available when your purchasing which not all bands do. Maybe your financially better off than myself, maybe your searching harder than the average punter for a low cost, or maybe you simply have a vastly different opinon but to imply there is no sense in my statement is plain daft imo.
Camp Bitchfist: Ozzfest 2002, Download 2004, Download 2005, Download 2006, Download 2007, Download 2008, Download 2009, Sonisphere 2010, Sonisphere 2011, Download 2012, Download 2013, Sonisphere 2014, Download 2016!

User avatar
ThornDavis
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: The state of the music world

Postby ThornDavis » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:18 pm

I'm confused. Both of those are about 40% cheaper now than a new release, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The fact that 13 is £7.90 just tells me that the depreciation is happening much faster than it used to. You'd have paid nearly twice that for a new-ish CD twenty years ago.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Preston

Re: The state of the music world

Postby Rick » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:59 pm

I think we are looking at this from different angles, I am referring to a new album as one out within the last year or so. So to me 13 is a new album as it is the latest album from the band being around 7 months old and is weighing in around the £8 mark. Compare that to Paranoid which comes in at around £6 and its not vastly different in price for an album that has been out for 43 years when the band has clearly made their money off it already.

The way i see it is that piracy has become the norm for the majority of people, and the above is one of the clear reasons I can see why. If your just getting into music and you want to get to know the old classics and are going to pay a substantial amount then people are going to be tempted by piracy, and once your used to it whats the chance of you changing. If the price is very reasonable then it makes it less likely and gets you into a habit of paying. That way when a new release comes out at £8 you may be like hmm, yeah I will pay for that as all in I don't feel cheated.

Similar to how I view the cinema, they moan about piracy but the costs are astronomical for a 2h experience if you want to sit in the comfy chairs with a decent view. I will only go on Wednesdays as I am with orange, and its only that difference makes the cinema worth while for costs, or I would not pay for films. Again these are all just my opinions but I think the costs in the music industry combined with lack of change just promote piracy further and further.
Camp Bitchfist: Ozzfest 2002, Download 2004, Download 2005, Download 2006, Download 2007, Download 2008, Download 2009, Sonisphere 2010, Sonisphere 2011, Download 2012, Download 2013, Sonisphere 2014, Download 2016!

whothefoo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:00 pm

Re: The state of the music world

Postby whothefoo » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:25 pm

The only positive to music piracy is that ultimately people will only release albums in order to attract people to their live gigs, this in turn will see a decline is the Simon Cowel managed - miming drivel I suspect.
I download, but I buy as well, if I like an album i've err 'borrowed' i'll buy it, if not I won't. If I like an album then I'll buy more albums by that artist and then head to gigs etc, but I am in the minority now, most simply don't buy music full stop.

The future is surely in making money from gigs, but again there needs to be an overhaul and the ticket touting theiving companies like Viagogo need to be prevented from buying up entire sections of tickets before the gigs even happen.

hash pipe
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: The state of the music world

Postby hash pipe » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:26 pm

You can pay upwards of £10 for old 'tallica albums on amazon. Can also pick up DM for £3.

Out of interest these days how much would you expect to pay for a new release?
Image

User avatar
zebby
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: The state of the music world

Postby zebby » Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:14 pm

With inflation a new release cd should be 20 or 25 quid (new cds were app 14 quid , 15 to 20 years ago)
Happily the price has remained static or even reduced.
I have a couple of boxes in the attic that are full of cd's best guess is I spent over 5 grand on these. I stopped buying for two reasons (now three....)
1 I wasnt getting to gigs, peers were changing scene and I was getting older, so I was losing touch/interest in the periphery of the metal scene.
2 I came to realise the industry was making 10 times more than the bands were (panorama doc way back when...)

I do (did) rummage in music stores and bought the occasional oddity or rarity and in some cases a new release. Pricing was sometimes a factor.

A psychological barrier is 14.99 euro for some reason. (About 12.99)

My consumption fell from excess 100 units a year to app 5.

Now I have had my interest rekindled where do I hear music before I buy it? Youtube? Nope I listen on headphones while walking dogs or phone docked in car, so streaming doesnt work for me.
Spotify? Not sure, but isnt that streaming also?
Buy them all? I am keen to check out all the bands playing soni, so disregarding the music I have for app 10 bands already announced, that leaves 90 odd bands 1 or 2 albums a piece, so excess 100 cd's. Over a grand? Sorry no, especially as I dont know I will even like em.
So that leaves the above mentioned option. Not condoning or justifying, but I personally feel I have contributed enough over the years to the "industry" to allow myself to sample some of the work.
Those that I like, I will possibly buy during a future foraging trip.
Those I don't like get binned. I would probably have never bought it anyway, and if I had really felt it necessary, I would have found it on YouTube..... For free. ...

Dont judge me, I wont judge you.

But anyway, yeah... about 10quid seems reasonable. ...
A kid once said to me “Do you get hangovers?” I said, “To get hangovers you have to stop drinking.

Lemmy

User avatar
ThornDavis
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: The state of the music world

Postby ThornDavis » Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:24 pm

But rather than torrenting stuff (which presumably you don't do while you're walking the dog), why not just head straight to YouTube, check out the band you want to know about and use that as your yardstick and then if you like them then, like, buy the album like an honest person? I can't quite cover the distance between "I listen to music whilst walking the dog" and "therefore I have to steal it", logically speaking.

User avatar
zebby
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: The state of the music world

Postby zebby » Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:30 pm

I do get your point, and agree with it, so I am not arguing.

When walking the dog, , driving etc I can have a few tracks back to back without que ing them up etc. I rarely have time to sit at a pc with youtube.

I can listen to an album my way, and appease my guilt by reminding myself of all the money I have shunted into an executives pocket....
A kid once said to me “Do you get hangovers?” I said, “To get hangovers you have to stop drinking.

Lemmy

User avatar
diggerboot
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:46 pm
Location: Christchurch

Re: The state of the music world

Postby diggerboot » Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:44 pm

This sort of discussion has been going for decades , in fact ever since the introduction of cassette tapes (probably before then) , I can remember having bootleg cassettes and naughty copies of lp's on cassette. If I'm going to reminisce properly then where are those local record shops where they had loads of booths with headphones where you could take an LP up to the clerk at the desk and say I'd like to listen to that and he'd allocate you a booth . Many saturdays spent listening to music all morning ...
Now ? well yes I buy MP3's online generally (though sometimes the CD as well) I'll listen to 30 secs of each track on Amazon (or similar) and decide whether I want to buy it. I've used Spotify Napster etc somehow cant get on with them, do I P2P stream ...no I draw the line at that cos in my mind that is theft. Do I get MP3 rips of CD's my brother or a mate has ... well yes I do and possibly yes that is theft but at least I can say yes the Band /group has the benefit of one sale for two of us having copies.

A lot of the problems arise (imo) because we have so few "record companies" they're mostly huge media companies and they act like the behemoths they are.

CC Deville
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: The state of the music world

Postby CC Deville » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:18 am

Record companies are still in the dark ages when it comes to digital media.
They fail to see the problem with charging £8 for a CD in the shops or on a site like Amazon while the MP3 download version is £7.99 and you often get that for free now via Autorip. So where is the incentive to switch to digital as your preferred source? I can see the day where musicians simply sell from their own website/online store and it is run by some kind of not-for-profit organisation which takes a cut to pay costs. The crowdsourcing projects are a good idea too. BTW I think Youtube is great for checking out new bands and I have bought plenty of albums after listening to them several times on YT.

User avatar
ThornDavis
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: The state of the music world

Postby ThornDavis » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:33 am

If you look at the prices, Auto-Rip is usually a way of getting you to buy the CD + MP3 at the same time. Sure, the MP3 version is 'free', but the Amazon CD price is often double what you see from Marketplace sellers (which don't include A-R). So you usually pay about 85% of the price of the CD + download combined. That doesn't sound like being stuck in the dar ages to me - it sounds like an ingenious way of getting people to pay twice for the same album, and doing it in such a way that the buyer actually feels like they're getting value for money.

CherryInHove
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:03 pm

Re: The state of the music world

Postby CherryInHove » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:28 pm

I have a question about what people's thoughts are about a quite specific reason for "illegally" downloading albums.

Currently I have a some Iron Maiden on Vinyl only, so I have no access to this on CD or mp3. Now, this is fine as I like sitting down and listening to records, however I do a lot of listening to music on my commute (about 3 hours a day), and I'd really quite like to listen to Iron Maiden on some of these journeys.

However, without doing something clever to rip my records to the computer which to be honest I have no idea how to do, it appears that my only option to get access to this on my mp3 player is to buy an album I've already paid a fair amount of money to own albeit on vinyl. I'm loathe to do as you try explaining to the mother of your children that they can't have new shoes this month as you've spent the money on albums you already own.

So, in this situation, what are people's thoughts on torrenting an album? (Not that I'm going to do it as I don't want to go to jail).

User avatar
Xale
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:39 pm

Re: The state of the music world

Postby Xale » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:50 pm

By law you're allowed to have a digital copy of a CD; the article I read didn't say anything about records but I'd imagine it's the same. However, it also says that you have to take the copy from your own CD and rip it onto your computer. My opinion, though, you've already payed for the album, go ahead and download it.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Preston

Re: The state of the music world

Postby Rick » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:57 pm

OMG torrenting is very naughty :p

Personally I would say go right ahead as you owned the music at one point. I torrented pretty much my entire CD collection as they had got scratched as frakk in the car so I would never have got a good rip from them. Also if you don't want to torrent it just get someone else to send you the back catalogue... you cant be blamed for simply accessing an email link with an attached file.
Camp Bitchfist: Ozzfest 2002, Download 2004, Download 2005, Download 2006, Download 2007, Download 2008, Download 2009, Sonisphere 2010, Sonisphere 2011, Download 2012, Download 2013, Sonisphere 2014, Download 2016!

User avatar
ThornDavis
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: The state of the music world

Postby ThornDavis » Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:34 pm

Xale wrote:By law you're allowed to have a digital copy of a CD; the article I read didn't say anything about records but I'd imagine it's the same. However, it also says that you have to take the copy from your own CD and rip it onto your computer. My opinion, though, you've already payed for the album, go ahead and download it.


Yeah, according to the letter of the law you'd have to make the copy from your own original rather than downloading someone else's. But morally it amounts to the same thing: owning an MP3 of an album that you've paid for in another format, which the law indicates is OK. That said, if you're using uTorrent or whatever, then you're also simultaneously distributing the file, which would be illegal under any circumstances. Unless you're the copyright holder. But I guess if you were the copyright holder for Maiden's back catalogue, you wouldn't bother torrenting their albums in the first place.

CherryInHove
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:03 pm

Re: The state of the music world

Postby CherryInHove » Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:04 pm

I've just dug through my legal folder and it appears that I'm not the copyright holder for Iron Maiden's back catalogue.

That's ruined my day, I was hopeful for a while there. Thanks for getting me all excited about nothing there Thorn. :angry-cussingwhite:

Spiritinthesky
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:24 am

Re: The state of the music world

Postby Spiritinthesky » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:28 am

I don't think we can just blame the digital age. The lack of live music venues is really hurting new artists who need places to play to learn their craft.

User avatar
ThornDavis
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: The state of the music world

Postby ThornDavis » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:51 am

Yet another wasted opportunity, along with not buying the first shares in IBM and failing to spot Amazon as an investment opportunity back in 1999. How many of these blunders do you have to rack up before you seriously question your ability to do your job?

User avatar
Grables
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Hove, Brighton.
Contact:

Re: The state of the music world

Postby Grables » Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:05 pm

CherryInHove wrote:I have a question about what people's thoughts are about a quite specific reason for "illegally" downloading albums.


I don't download a lot of music any more, but when I did, I did it by the tonne. I honestly don't remember the last time I paid for music.

My main reason being I'm too poor to pay £10 per album, it really isn't worth it. Especially when I don't know what I'm getting in terms of quality. When I got into a band, I wanted to hear everything by them, so I downloaded the discography. The music meant a lot more to me than morals, I didn't really give a frakk, I just wanted to hear it and enjoy it.
The reason I was so poor for a long time was I was a student, (ironically, studying at a music college), how many students do you know can afford music in the 100's of pounds?
Also, a point I would like to raise is that when I was a student, I was doing some music businesses modules, so I am fully aware of the economic workings of the music industry. With the very fact that bands on a major record label earn as much from each sold record as the government do on tax (about 70p), whilst all the middle men take an individual cut, and the label itself taking by far the biggest portion, I began to question what was the point in having these corporate recording behemoths in this day and age.

One thing I noticed was most of the bands of whom I was download their music, they were mostly big established acts who had already released a few albums or more and file-sharing wasn't going to affect their income. Also, most of those bands I got into, I saw live at least once. I've been to dozens of gigs over the years and bought plenty of t-shirts. So I was pumping my fair share of money into the industry and I could sleep easier at night knowing I wasn't frakking it over.

With smaller bands It was different, as they need record sales in order to support them. Of course this discussion has already happened, small bands can't just support themselves through touring, ect. Most of them are on indie labels, which do pay a much larger cut per sale than major labels. Luckily for them, I don't tend to get into many smaller unestablished acts (I don't know, I find it hard to find small bands that don't bore the frakk out of me), and for those I did get into, I always came out to see them on their little tours which probably meant a lot more to them.

The main reason I download music today is because of the file types. Recently I started getting music in .FLAC (for those that don't know, its a type of lossless audio format, basically HD mp3's that have a much higher sound quality), and it made me realise how gooseberry a format mp3 is. They actually sound terrible in comparison. Problem is, you can't buy music en mass in .flac. Some tech savvy bands will let you download it from their website if they've had the thought to allow it, but on the most part the only way to get hold of them is via torrenting because someone had got hold of the original master and ripped it at a very high bit-rate. Hopefully one day .flac will become the norm, but at the moment its just not feasible because of the large file sizes.

Having said all of that, It doesn't mean I agree with all this file-sharing, I just had to do it. Yes it is is wrong, and yes it has fucked over the industry to a point of no return. But at the same time as it being the fault of the consumer, I think it is also the fault of the industry itself for refusing to change and sticking to old business models (that may have worked brilliantly in the 80's and 90's, but not anymore). Record companies and other copyright holders have spent the last 10 years frantically (and rather pathetically) trying to cling on to their old ways because they like the amount of control they had when It came to distribution. It was their industry, and then the internet came along and said "nope, its now mine". They didn't embrace the change, and as a result it has become the shithole that we know today. Just look at what lengths people (both artists and labels) go to just to make a success. The internet is just littered with millions of advertisements for bands you don't give a gooseberry about, who are struggling to get heard, and 99% of them wont make it, no matter how hard they work. There are just too many people trying for a peace of the action, and along with the advancements in technology, its all far to difficult to keep up with. Almost everything has been tried, in both sound, image and creativity to the point its almost impossible to be original, and its all the Internets fault. The way I see it, the great age of music was never meant to last, and while good music still exists, it will never be the same again and I fear what it will be like in the future.

I don't want to go to jail


LOL, bless :lol: I don't think in the history of downloading music, anyone has ever gone to prison for it. Unless they have hosted masses of mp3s on a private website or some gooseberry.
The worse that could happen if the copyright holders caught you is they would try to fine you about £200, but if you torrent correctly, no one will ever know but its impossible to track. There is absolutely no way you would be prosecuted and sent to prison, that would be about the most petty thing in the history of law :lol:
Image


Return to “Music”