A mishmash of topics to discuss as everyone (on this side of the world at least) slacks off on a Friday afternoon...
- I'm failing to see what's so special about Vampire Weekend; I can't get into it. (The "Is This It" comparisons are a stretch).
- Death Cab for Cutie has a new album coming out in May. What's the consensus here at AM? Are they the torchbearers of 21st century soft-rock, or a decent indie-pop act?
- Has anyone "Rockboxed" their iPod?
- And finally, what's the worst musical purchase you've ever made?
My worst musical purchase was Ultraforever by a band called Fold Zandura. Not only could I not get through the whole thing without losing my lunch, the top of the CD was unnaturally sticky, so every other album I listened to for two weeks after got stuck to the top of the player. I'd've been better off throwing my five bucks in the furnace.
My worst purchase could be my Kool Kat CD. It's a mix cd with the worst of Norwegian music, done by the guy behind Jive Bunny and the Master Mixers. He moved to Norway, you know. Just horrible.
It could also be when I swapped the The Doors soundtrack CD for a cd by Roxette.
It could be the Edith Piaf tribute CD I bought on eBay, but that was very cheap, so how wrong can you go.
Could it be Hulk Hogan's Hulk Rules? Or Vanilla Ice's To The Extreme, which I bought two-three years ago? Or what about Jimmy Sommerville's lost gem Manage the Damage?
Looking through my LP collection I found the marvellous Eurovision Song Contest 1986, and also a samba LP with a girl showing her tits on the cover. There's two of the same picture on the front of the cover, actually. Come to think of it, that's a great purchase.
Vampire Weekend- I haven't listened to it in full yet. Just a couple songs here and there.
DCFC- Decent but just barely. They used to be great (Photo Album) but their act and that brand of emo has kind of worn thin.
Rockbox- I wish I could. The new generation (Classics) can't be Rockboxed because of heavy encryption. One of my biggest gripes about Apple is that they lock you out of stuff you've paid for. I bought it-I can do what I want with it. But, Apple says "Try your best". I don't like giving too much of my money to those companies and it's why I'll never by an Apple computer. But, I don't like my other options when it comes to MP3 players so I went Ipod.
Worst purchase- The Beatles Anthologies. Not the DVD but the CD's. I'm not a big fan of outtakes and demos so I don't know why I ever bought those things. I never listen to them. The DVDs are great though.
That 'rockbox' thing looks interesting,although never tried it...
Well,not sure what my worst music purchase would be(there's been so many) - but I'm pretty sure it would involve these guys:
I thought Vampire Weekend was decent, but certainly not a contestant for best album of the year. 7.0 at best. I liked Oxford comma though.
My worst musical purchase is non-existent, I've only bought good albums so far (I only have a very small collection)
I don't have an iPod, so I'm afraid I can't be of much help there either.
As far as Death Cab For Cutie goes, I think they make quite decent records, even a few good ones. Transatlanticism (the song, and to a lesser extent the album) is really quite good.
I still recall going to Woolworths and purchasing the double whammy of 'Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go' and Bronski Beat's 'Smalltown Boy'.
Honestly, this is a true story and not just an excuse to say I simultaneously got hold of 7 inches from George Michael and Jimmy Sommerville.
Stephan - are you a "download first, purchase later only if I really like it" sort of person?
At the risk of losing any respect that I might've gained on this forum, I'm actually looking forward to the new Death Cab album. I'm not the biggest fan of theirs, mind you, but I can appreciate what they do. Singalong melodies without being cliche, intelligent sentimentality, interesting production. But above all, I can count of them for a handful of good songs on each album (a couple of which are usually really great). "Transatlanticism" (the song) is epic; the album is on my top 100 list.
Re: Rockbox, I'm seriously considering modding my iPod 5.5 gen. to Rockbox (for no other reason than to enable .flac playback). I've reached the point where I'm willing to forsake quantity for the sake of great sound wherever I go (especially now that my car is iPod compatible).
Worst musical purchase? The last Strokes album comes to mind, although I've probably done worse but just can't remember when.
- Vampire Weekend : only 1 listen. Promising, good ideas (the African style guitar) but, like a lot of bands now, they cannot write more than 2 or 3 good songs. But it's just a first impression.
- Death Cab for Cutie : I don't know what you're talking about
- I don't have an Ipod but a Creative Zen. It works, 8Gb, recorder, radio. 100 dollars cheaper than the iPod
- Worst musical purchase (of 2007) : I downloaded Panda Bear and Battles
Anthony, I don't know if I'd mod your Ipod if you're looking for increased sound quality. I'd mod it for the ability to play multiple formats but it's still coming out of an Ipod. Flac or Mp3, it isn't going to sound as good as a CD. There are a ton of other great things about Rockbox but I just don't think it has the ability to change sound quality.
By the way I like Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go, that wasn't a bad purchase! Well, I guess I wouldn't pay full price for a single.
Yes Anthony. Until recently I was a "download and never buy" person when it came to music. I did have a reasonably extensive film collection though (legal), so I figured it might be time to get some music albums as well. That was last year though, and I'm not planning on buying dozens of albums at once, so my collection right now is pretty limited.
My music collection on the computer is a whole different story though.. 
John - I agree. I went with an iPod for similar reasons.
Re: the rockbox mod, .flac is a lossless format, and I've experienced the sound quality of flac from an iPod - the difference between it and a high-quality mp3 is astonishing.
Really? I've listened to an ALAC file or whatever Apple lossless is and while they sound great on my computer I didn't feel that the Ipod could reproduce that sound.
Speaking of ALAC have you tried using that? It's a proprietary format but it is lossless and actually smaller than a flac file. But, you'd have to rip everything again and ripping to a lossless format isn't exactly speedy.
I seem to be alone here in thinking the Vampire Weekend album is really good. If it had come out last year, it would have been my second favorite album.
I like Death Cab for Cutie, but I'm not a huge fan. I'll give them local support, though, considering the lead singer grew up in the same county where I live.
Not an iPod person enough to know about that.
'Trout Mask Replica' I was 18 and just getting into acclaimed music. It made me physically ill to listen to. Maybe I was coming down with something and that's just a coincidence, but I felt better when it was over. Luckily I was able to shrink wrap it and return it to the store for 'The Magical Mystery Tour.' This was back when CD cases were sold in long cardboard boxes half the size of vinyl sleeves.
I'll need to check out the Vampire Weekend album, I'm always a bit late listening to albums. I'll go on a album "binge" every now and then though. As for buying bad albums, I don't do that either. I'm more of a "download first, then buy" person as well. I don't have enough disposable income to have impulse purchases.
And Rockbox looks interesting, but I don't think I'll mess with my iPod yet. Knowing me, I'll screw something up. Also, I'm not exactly and audiophile and can't really tell the difference anyway unless it's cheap speakers vs. good speakers. As for 192 kbps .mp3 vs. .flac files, I honestly can't tell a significant difference.
Really? I can quite clearly hear the difference between 192 and flac.
The only really disappointing thing I've bought in the last couple of years was The Good, The Bad and the Queen. I really wanted to like it...
when i purchased a portable music player, i spent some time doing some research beforehand to see what would best suit me. as my car stereo also has an aux input, i wanted to buy a player that sounded good. i found one study that i concluded was relevant and unbiased and took that into consideration. i can't remember what player sounded best... i'm going to do some googling. see if i can find a link...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-6247126-1.html?tag=txt
there you go! unfortunately the ones that did well in that test, i couldn't get my hands on. i eventually went with a toshiba gigabeat. in the end it was a bit of a waste of time. i don't think i ever had ideal listening conditions (nor good headphones).
the vampire week end album is growing on me
a critic said they sound like late Talking Heads material played by the early Talking Heads
and some Paul Simon too
I have an Ipod and my wife has a Zune. Zune wins when it comes to sound quality.
Stephan: Yes Anthony. Until recently I was a "download and never buy" person when it came to music. I did have a reasonably extensive film collection though (legal), so I figured it might be time to get some music albums as well. That was last year though, and I'm not planning on buying dozens of albums at once, so my collection right now is pretty limited.
My music collection on the computer is a whole different story though..
--------------------
Wow you're the complete opposite of me, I download films and have a reasonably extensive album collection. Though on my computer I have 13gb of music o.O
I download films too, but I buy a fair amount as well. I have over 100GB of music on my computer at the moment. 
It sort of breaks my heart that the majority of that 100GB isn't bought and paid for.
uTorrent Statistics of mine:
Total Upload: 89.2 GB
Total Downloaded: 89.9 GB
Total Ratio: 0.992
Total Running Time: 591:46:52
Number of files added: 57
For some reason I find downloading movies a lot worse than downloading music (illegally). I don't do either anymore but it seems for 99 percent of movies, you watch them and then that's it, you'll never even think about buying them. Plus, unlike music you could go and rent that movie for a dollar at a Redbox and if you don't have a Redbox it's still only 4 dollars at a video store for a new release. Heck, go ahead and burn the movie if you don't want to watch it in that time frame. But, it's not expensive to watch a movie, and if you don't want to pay to go to a theater you should wait until it comes to DVD.
I'm not trying to be anyones mom, I'm just thinking out loud.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend I'm a saint either; I occasionally speed, regularly fail to signal, often jaywalk. I break my fair share of laws.
But when it comes to digital media piracy, whether it be films, music, TV shows, etc., I can't justify stealing it. I'm not sure how anyone can.
I can understand music because there's no cheap option and the way it's being operated economically is decades behind the times. Major labels don't like it because it takes sales away from their artists since a downloader can sample more music. I think downloading has been good for music, not the major labels. But, I gave that up years ago.
I download my music, but all of it is actually legal (although possibly a bit shady). My Napster subscription lets me download as much as I want for a small fee. The illegal part is where I rip off all of the DRM encoding to use on my iPod...
Penguin - I have no qualms about that. Short of selling those files or giving them to someone else, I feel that once you purchase any sort of digital media, in a sense you've purchased all rights associated with them. Whether it's cracking the DRM-encoding or burning 20 discs, it doesn't matter - they're yours to do whatever you want with.
Ah, but it's different Anthony. DRM is a necessity if we want to have subscription plans. What he's saying is that he pays 10 dollars or so a month to download unlimited songs and strips the DRM off it. Do you still have the same opinion? To me, I don't have a problem with that as long as people keep paying for it. But, there has been a lot of abuse- people downloading all they can: GB's and GB's of music and then cancel at the end of the month. I think that's pretty risky. You are downloading straight from the source. I haven't heard of any litigation coming from it though.
I don't think downloading music is always wrong.
Responsible music blogs are a great way to spread the word about artists that might not get heard otherwise. They are a lot better than radio or store-based promos, because they are based on the love of music rather than a profit motive.
What is a responsible music blog? My definition is a blog that posts only 1 or 2 songs instead of a full album, for a short period of time, links to buy the full album, makes no revenue, and does not contradict the artists' or labels' stated wishes about sharing.
I read a lot of music blogs and I've discovered a ton of great stuff through them. Many albums I purchased would not have been bought if I did not discover (and sample) the music through a blog.
My experience as somebody who runs a responsible music blog is that the artists are more than happy to be featured in such a format. I get lots of requests from record companies and artists to post their stuff. I do this out in the open and no rightholder has ever complained. The fact is that it's good publicity.
This is the same conclusion that the music industry has reached. While the RIAA has gone after P2P file sharing, no litigation has ever been brought against responsible music blogs like the kind I described. And its not like this kind of "file sharing" is done in secret. To the contrary, it's wide open, the record companies know about it, and--for the most part--they welcome it. (At least for the time being.) When they have a problem with a particular mp3 link, they just ask for it to be taken down.
I have a music blog because I love music and I want to spread the word to others. As far as I can tell, the artists and labels are happy to be featured. (I have heard from some of them). And they send me free stuff.
So I don't want to be called some kind of pirate. But I would be happy to hear contrary opinions.
No problem with music blogs. I don't think there are many people who do have a problem. Most blogs who post full albums aren't blogs but just links to Rapidshare.
What blog do you run?
I don't have any real hangups with responsible music blogs, such as the ones you describe Paul. A blog that features a few songs, posted for a limited time, is purposeful - it's not completely ok in my eyes because it's still offering an otherwise valuable product for nothing. But I can see the value; it's a "loss leader" - giving something small away for free (or next to nothing) for the sake of potential larger gains.
It's the difference between Starbucks giving away free samples to waiting customers and opening the store for a free-for-all. Lattes for everybody! P2P is a free-for-all; I can't imagine anyone being able to accumulate 100GB of music from blogs.
http://www.settingthewoodsonfire.com/
Is anyone up to the task of convincing me why I should feel the slightest bit of guilt about downloading all the music I want?
I like to think I have an open mind and I am genuinely interested in hearing a strong argument against file sharing. However, keep in mind that you will be dealing with someone who has ZERO ethical qualms about downloading music.
Moses: I got scruples too, you know. You know what that is? Scruples?
Addie: No, I don't know what it is, but if you got 'em, it's a sure bet they belong to somebody else!
I don't think I can Greg. The only reason I don't download music is because it would be terrible if I was caught so I don't do it. I really hope that a reasonable option becomes available so that downloaders seriously have a reason to feel guilt. But, right now there isn't. I don't even think indie labels have anything to whine about because they have a bigger audience than they've ever had before.
I can't say the same about movies. There is no reason to download movies because inexpensive options exist for watching full quality films. That doesn't exist when it comes to music.
Personnaly I download music when I really can't find a record elsewhere. But never movies.
Here are my other options :
- I have suscribed to emusic, which provide alot of indie labels music for 20 dollars a month
- I go to the library
- I have free access to EMI catalog through my Internet provider
- Streaming (Deezer, Songza, etc..)
And I buy records (once a month these days because I'm broke)either if I can't find them elsewhere or when I really like them.
i actually don't download music... every single song on my computer, i own on CD... i'm not against downloading music. i support it. i think that most decent artists benefit from having their music available for free. the reason i don't download music is simply because download programs have a habit of giving my computer viruses. since i stopped downloading music, i haven't had a single one (in 4 years). when i was downloading music, i got one a year at least. apparently there are programs that are safe now, but don't bother recommending one. even if it is 100% safe. there's a certain degree of pride that comes with having a relatively impressive legitimate music collection. besides, i've been not downloading for so long, i've learned to live with it.
I'm with Greg, I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for downloading music. Most of the albums I'm buying now I would never have bought if I hadn't downloaded music in the first place. Same goes for films, when I download a film I and love it I want to have it for my collection so I buy it. Most of the stuff I watch or listen to I don't buy though, but I wouldn't have bought this in the first place because I'd likely never have heard of it. I actually think my spendings on music/film increase due to downloading, but of course I cannot be sure of this.
There's no 'danger' of getting caught here either, since downloading is legal (uploading is illegal), and I make sure all the proof of uploading illegal files doesn't get saved on my computer and nobody is allowed to check what I actually upload.
there's a certain degree of pride that comes with having a relatively impressive legitimate music collection.
I couldn't agree more, Moeboid.
The reason all of you downloaders don't feel guilty about it is simple: 1) most of us live in a modernized, technological bubble where downloading is so effortless that it doesn't actually feel like stealing, and 2) millions of other people do it and get away with it, with breeds a culture of "if I don't do it, I'm almost falling behind". In other words, the thinking is: why should I play the morality card when millions of other people get away with it?
Theft is theft, no matter how you slice it. You're taking something that is a valuable commodity, but justifying it by claiming the moral high ground that you spend more in the marketplace than you would without downloading. It sounds noble, but it's not; I'd venture that there are more than a few things (song, albums, etc.) in both of your collections that you enjoy (and probably enjoy a lot), know that you should purchase, but still haven't and probably won't.
I'd like to own a Porsche, but I'm not about to steal one off the lot, drive it around for a few years, and then keep it in my garage for a few years until I get the urge to drive it again. The fact is, if you love something as much as music, you should work hard for it, not steal it.
The definition of theft is "The illegal taking of another person's property", which means what I'm doing is not theft, since downloading is legal here. Either way, it's way too expensive for a student like me to buy every album that sounds promising to find out whether it's good. I like having a physical collection of films, and now that I've bought a couple of albums I like that as well, but that won't stop me from downloading. I'll buy what I like, and I'll download the rest. Sorry. 
Anthony wrote: I'd like to own a Porsche, but I'm not about to steal one off the lot.
You cannot compare stealing a car with downloading a music file. When you are downloading the mp3, you are copying it, and the original owner would still own it. But when you are stealing a car, the owner would be without a car. If you could copy that Porsche, I'm sure a lot more people would have done it.
I don't think this is a black and white issue asking "Is stealing right/wrong". It's a case of the world rapidly changing and everybody's adapting except the music industry. If they don't want to adapt people are going to go on without them. The TV industry and the movie industry have adapted to some extent to make changes that need to happen and both have affordable options. The music industry is still living in 1988 and consumers aren't going to wait around for them to adapt. Just like any business, if you're not willing to adapt you're going to lose money.
John, I see your point, but failure to adapt does not automatically allow someone the right to steal.
And Rune, the comparison might be extreme, but it illustrates a very simple premise that I fear is lost among the file-sharing generation. That being, everytime you take something of value from someone without paying for it, someone always loses out.
The reality of mass file-sharing frustrates me, because as an amateur musician, the idea that someone out there could be reaping enjoyment from something that they haven't rightfully obtained, but something that I've put a lot of time, thought, money and effort into, is just wrong. If I had 100 copies of my album in a box in my home, would you come into my house and take one without giving me anything for it? Sure, I'd have 99 left, but you're still a thief.
Anthony says "everytime you take something of value from someone without paying for it, someone always loses out."
I don't agree when it comes to file sharing. An artist/label only loses out if the person takes the file INSTEAD of actually paying for the CD.
My guess is that vast number of free downloads are not REPLACING actual sales, but instead are the only way that the music in question would ever be consumed. In other words, a lot of people will listen for free but won't pay. From the perspective of the musician, there is no real difference, since nobody gets paid under either scenario.
Other possible reasons for low sales of CD are (1) the relative crappy nature of the heavily marketed acts of today compared to the quality of heavily marketed acts of the past, (2) competition from other entertainment sources/activities that were not so big in the past, like video games, and MySpace/Facebook, etc. There is just way more to distract us now than in the past. There used to be three TV stations, now there are 100s. Each one gets less viewers.
I don't deny that file-sharing may hurt some artists, but its ridiculous for record companies to simply assume that all of those free downloads would have been bought and paid for otherwise.
Record companies were stupid trying to maintain their stranglehold on distribution in the digital age. They should have used a little more foresight and figured out how to profit from a legal, digital file-sharing system. But it might be too late now.
Those are two good points that weren't mentioned yet.
To add to that, file sharing has made millions of people music lovers and collectors instead of people who like a few bands and listen to the radio. These people attend concerts they wouldn't have gone to before and might even buy the product. Like Paul said, they would have never even heard the band before file sharing. Of course major record labels hate file sharing. It promotes artists that they don't own. What I don't get is small indie labels who are kind of against it. They are getting more exposure than ever before.
Anthony wrote: If I had 100 copies of my album in a box in my home, would you come into my house and take one without giving me anything for it? Sure, I'd have 99 left, but you're still a thief.
In this example too, there's a physical object being stolen. You could say the same about the Porsches. The car dealer could have 100 Porsches, and you stole one, and they would have 99 left. But that's not the case with downloading. In that case, I would come into your house, copy a CD, and you would still have 100 CDs to sell. And one of them could be sold to me if I liked what I heard.
Anthony's right Rune. He's not saying you're stealing from a neighbor or a friend. It is a physical object to the record label.
For all the reasons above it seems to benefit more than help, but you can't say that it isn't a physical object. You're just looking at the wrong person that's being robbed.
Looters! We’ve got looters here!
It’s just principle – theft is theft. But hey, if you guys can sleep at night knowing that you’ve taken something that you should’ve rightfully paid for, then good on ya. I’ll still continue to pay my hard-earned buck because I know the work that’s gone into it.
No, he is not right, and it isn't a physical object. If one person "steals" an album on mp3, it doesn't mean that what he stole can't be sold. Nor does it mean that the "thief" would have bought it had it been the only possibility.
I'm not a downloader myself (though I, like everybody else, have downloaded a couple of tracks), but I find the whole downloading mp3s = stealing physical objects unlogical.
"Nor does it mean that the "thief" would have bought it had it been the only possibility."
I'll give you that and I agreed to that when Paul said it. But, it can be a CD not sold in which case it is a physical object because it's something a person would have bought but decided they could just download it instead.
The question lies with how many albums have actually been stolen and how many are albums that would have never been bought in the first place and that's really hard to say because we don't have an example in history when so many bands existed and there were so many different options. All due to file sharing of course.
"It’s just principle – theft is theft. But hey, if you guys can sleep at night knowing that you’ve taken something that you should’ve rightfully paid for, then good on ya. I’ll still continue to pay my hard-earned buck because I know the work that’s gone into it."
Wouldn't even give it a second thought...
Anthony wrote: Looters! We’ve got looters here! It’s just principle – theft is theft.
I hope for your sanity's sake that this is a mask you're putting on while online. If not, I've got news for you. You are surrounded by looters, lowlifes, scumbags and petty thiefs. Your neighbour has downloaded music illegally. Your co-workers too. Spouses, children, parents, relatives, friends, enemies, people you meet on the streets, and practically everybody else too. They've all downloaded music. I'd like to see you scream "looters!" to their faces while they are stating their beliefs.
Whoa there little man, it was a joke. Simmer down.
i did a little research on this a while ago. lesser known bands generally benefit from their songs being downloaded. the extra exposure boosts their album sales (because, remember, some people will both download and buy). the ones that suffer are the big hits. my theory as to why hits suffer is because they are single tracks. people don't want the album, they just want the song, so why pay so much for an album? yes, they could just buy the single, but buying singles has never really been all that popular... around here anyway.
anyway, there has been a huge decline in album sales over the past few years. various studies blame downloading for anywhere between 0 and 100% of the decline. i read one study where someone tried to make sense of all of the information and they said that a likely statistic would place illegal downloading about 30% responsible. the other factors were things like the increase in popularity of DVD's (some people started building up their movie collection rather than their album collection). i'm sure a quick google search could find this information. i'm happy to know that downloading isn't 100% responsible, as i stated earlier, i do support downloading...
as for downloading as stealing... i think there is a difference. if i thought about it for a bit, i could probably put that difference into words... let's see how i go: i suppose what it all comes down to is the reason for downloading. some people download music to see whether they like it, then go out and buy it if they do. no one steals a TV to see whether they like it, and they certainly wouldn't be going out to buy another one if they decide that they do. that's ridiculous. however, i am sure that some do exploit the fact that they can avoid paying for something. as for people who wouldn't buy the album anyway, well that's borderline. i mean... there's always a small chance that that extra exposure to a song might convince them to buy. who knows.
so yes, i still support downloading (and i feel that the record companies should too). and i think that it can be stealing, depending on the motive.
Wow, how'd I miss most of an argument on P2P?!?!
Here are the facts:
- The major labels are losing money and cutting employees faster than ever before
- The music industry as a whole (including radio, television, publishing, concerts, merchandise, etc.) is in a downward slide that could very well see its extinction. Concerts were holding out well for a while and now they're starting to wane (most likely due to overinflated ticket prices).
- The downward spiral began with the introduction of P2P piracy.
- The music industry was born with Tin Pan Alley, grew up when Elvis sold 1 000 000 copies of Heartbreak Hotel and entered its teens when the Beatles went on Sullivan (not exactly, but you get the point). We've existed for millenia without an industry. Professional music is not a right, it's a privilege.
- Many have noted this generation's increasing devaluation of music. Many people under 30 believe they should be able to access music for free.
- The internet has been the biggest change for music...ever, including the invention of recorded music. It completely changes everything.
Now some positives
- The independent labels have dramatically increased their market share over the past 6 or 7 years.
- Most independent label contracts give the artists much more control and higher royalty rates for their material than major label contracts.
- The cost of recording a professional album has plummeted from a minimum 250 000$ to 25 000$, and even less if the artist records themselves.
- The equipment and knowledge to create professional quality audio is more accessible today than ever before.
- More music is being made today than ever before.
Of course this whole dilemma is the rotten major labels' faults. No kidding. Their stone age mentality and protectionist reaction to Napster destroyed them (which has been admitted by more than of their high-level executives). I personally think music is going to get back on its feet and start making money again, but there's going to be a huge cleaning of house before that happens, and when it does come back it will be in a form we haven't yet seen.
"Is anyone up to the task of convincing me why I should feel the slightest bit of guilt about downloading all the music I want?"
I haven't decided whether its immoral to download music. Regardless, it's unsustainable. You like music but you don't want to contribute to paying back the large amounts of resources that go into creating it. What? You think it grows on trees?
Jonmarck said
Here are the facts:
- The major labels are losing money and cutting employees faster than ever before
i believe the problem is worse in canada than it is everywhere else in the world. from memory, you live there, so have probably been exposed to an exaggerated version of the problem. here, i would call the problem quite minor, and i wouldn't even blame p2p for most of it.
- The music industry as a whole (including radio, television, publishing, concerts, merchandise, etc.) is in a downward slide that could very well see its extinction. Concerts were holding out well for a while and now they're starting to wane (most likely due to overinflated ticket prices).
radio and television are dependent on advertising. i don't think there's much of a connection between that and p2p. as for concerts, it might be different where you live, but here, most concerts sell out within minutes (international artists i'm talking about here).
- The downward spiral began with the introduction of P2P piracy.
i'm not sure when it began, so you are probably right, but i do know that the biggest drop in sales correlates more to the rise in popularity of DVD's.
- Many have noted this generation's increasing devaluation of music. Many people under 30 believe they should be able to access music for free.
call me an idiot, but i agree, i think that it should be accessible for free... then again, i'm also under 30.
- The cost of recording a professional album has plummeted from a minimum 250 000$ to 25 000$, and even less if the artist records themselves.
there's no way that has anything to do with p2p.
- The equipment and knowledge to create professional quality audio is more accessible today than ever before.
there's no way that has anything to do with p2p. (the sharing of knowledge over the internet, and the affordability of professional digital audio)
- More music is being made today than ever before.
and there's no way that has anything to do with p2p. (the affordability of instruments and the attraction to being a musician)
"- The cost of recording a professional album has plummeted from a minimum 250 000$ to 25 000$, and even less if the artist records themselves.
there's no way that has anything to do with p2p.
- The equipment and knowledge to create professional quality audio is more accessible today than ever before.
there's no way that has anything to do with p2p. (the sharing of knowledge over the internet, and the affordability of professional digital audio)
- More music is being made today than ever before.
and there's no way that has anything to do with p2p. (the affordability of instruments and the attraction to being a musician)"
I think you are wrong on all counts Moebid. You forget where a lot of amateur producers or home producers get their software....P2P.
P2P has made music more popular than ever. Because of that more bands exist. Without, P2P streaming songs on MySpace would never have existed. That has made more bands exist. File sharing reaches farther than you think, and most of the time the impact is good for music.
Actually I wasn't thinking of that John, but you're right. P2P has helped in those regards (though I'm currently having the hardest time trying to track down a cracked copy of a Waves plug-in bundle for Mac. Grr....Macs........).
My comments weren't all meant to comment on P2P but rather on how the whole industry is being completely revolutionized by new technology (computers, the internet, etc.), and P2P has a huge part to play in that. The way music is being created and experienced nowadays is radically different from even fifteen years ago.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info from Moeboid but over the past year I've read and heard of thousands of layoffs, huge downsizing and mergers in record labels from people who used to hold important positions in them, and it's not just with labels. Almost all of the large recording studios in Toronto have closed and CD retailers are all but completely gone. I'm fortunate to work in a small studio with flexible and talented people who are capable of adapting to an always-changing industry, but many are not so lucky.
The major label business model, which the whole industry is built upon, is being abandoned. A new model hasn't yet been found, but when it is it will have more to do with internet marketing (specifically youtube) and give less control to the label and more control to the manager. So basically what I'm saying is P2P and its fellow technologies are destroying the industry, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It was a downright sleazy, awful industry that really should have been destroyed decades ago. A new industry will be constructed from the wreckage of the former. It will be more reliable, give the artists more control, serve the public better and integrate these new technologies in a way the current labels are simply incapable of imagining.
There's one more major positive thing that's happening right now that I didn't mention earlier. For the past sixty-seventy years there has been an upper class of musicians and a massive lower class. No middle class. What we're seeing now is a large amount of artists who are able to make reasonable livings without being superstars. It's kind of like the novel industry, where there are the major writers (the J.K. Rowlings, Tom Clancys, etc.), a large amount of unsuccessful hopefuls, and a large sea of small-name niche novelists who all write at a professional, worthwhile level, and who each has their own little fanbase. I think that's what music is turning into. The way it's looking now, the musicians of the future aren't going to be required to be celebrities too.
oh, my bad, i thought we were talking about p2p as in illegal downloading of music... silly me.
i must say, i think a few of my arguments still stand though. i mean, i still fail to see how the cost of recording an album has plummeted due to p2p... unless you're talking about not recording in a professional studio. i do agree about people getting their software for free though. that probably happens. but if you're talking about knowledge, then that's just the internet in general. forums and stuff... and i think my point about the digital audio thing was the fact that you can do it with just your computer, and spend $500 on an Mbox or similar (you do have to spend some money). this is just my opinion, but i think that has had much more of an impact than p2p illegal software/plugins.
and about more music being made, i didn't consider myspace to be p2p... if it is, then i agree. myspace has made music cool...
anyway, throughout that post, i was pretty much only talking about CD sales, and illegal downloading of music. i think that's where we disagree. as for where i get my info from? well mostly personal experience... i mean, i see concerts selling out like crazy, i see jb hifi opening up CD stores and actually making money out of them (their stores really have adapted to the industry. brilliant management). i talked about one study in one of my posts before, but again, that wasn't p2p and the music industry, it was CD sales and illegal downloading. if you googled a bit, you could probably find it, and i recommend that you do so. it's a good read. i found it unbiased.
so yes, i don't think we disagree too much here, we're just talking about two completely different things. i'll take the blame for that. p2p involves a lot more than just illegal music downloading.
You're right that P2P doesn't have much to do with the lowered costs of recording an album. That's more to do with the steady improvement of DAW's, digital audio and lowering costs of gear across the board. But the lowering costs of recording an album has much to do with P2P. The biggest hurdle for a band has always been distribution; getting their music to people who might be interested. P2P allows these people to do just that. Now anyone with a bit of talent and knowhow can record a professional album for around 20 000$, put it on the internet and be career musicians by next month. They don't even NEED a label. That was simply unheard of even fifteen years ago.
As for CD stores, they're closing faster than mousetraps. Towers is gone, here in Canada we just lost our oldest record store, Sam's, and Musicworld is closing their chain with Sunrise close behind. HMV seems to be the only chain able to keep afloat and that's mainly due to DVD and video game sales. There are still many boutique record stores, ones that are small and hip and trendy, that are actually improving their sales for the same reason that indie labels have increased their market share. Anything that smells corporate is going down the toilet.
Music piracy is destroying the industry, but it's a model that really should be destroyed and if history has proved anything another completely different model will rise to take its place.
as i said before, i think the problem is worse in canada. there's even a separate wiki page for specifically for it. so i would say you have been exposed to an exaggerated version of the problem... here where i am, it's much less prominent.
Where are you? Everything I've heard and read says major label downsizing is happening everywhere. Have you also noticed how they're not trying to break as many bands nowadays and they're not releasing as much product? It's a long, cold winter for them.
i live in sydney. but again, i'm talking about cd sales and illegal downloading. in case you didn't check out that wiki page, here's a quore from it:
Canada has the greatest number of file sharers per capita in the world according to a report by the OECD. 
As well, the same report states that the number of file sharers in Canada is steadily rising unlike the number of file sharers in the U.S.A., bringing to the forefront issues dealing with the legality of file sharing.
that may be why so many CD stores are closing near you. near me, stores are regularly opening, and they appear to be making money.
Canada's been a strange animal in this because it never outlawed filesharing. I disagree with the reason for why it remained legal (the judge likened it to the way libraries have photocopiers, which is hardly analogous) but I don't entirely disagree with the fact that it is still legal. I haven't really made up my mind on the issue.
Still, the fact that Towers (which used to be THE American music retail chain) closed down is evidence enough that CD's are quickly becoming extinct. The sales have been steadily plummeting since 2001 and retailers are quickly abandoning the product. The only music stores that seem to be unaffected are trendy, boutique, indie-focussed stores, where it was always more about the experience, culture and atmosphere than the actual product.
Here's a recent Rolling Stone article that supports some of my information:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15137581/the_record_industrys_decline
"Rosen and others see that 2001-03 period as disastrous for the business."
Funny. I started working at Music World in July 2001, and left HMV in December 2002. It was hell being an employee of a dying business; 20 people quit that month.
i can't back this up, this is just what i think based on what i have seen with my own eyes, but i think that the CD is here to stay for quite a while yet. as i said before, i think that jb hifi have adapted to the industry.
i just looked up wikipedia, and it seems that my guess was correct. here's a quote:
Recently, while many music stores claim to have been losing money, JB Hi-Fi has increased profits by 50% in the years 2004-5 & 2005-6.
it should be noted that it says "citation needed" after that.
anyway, if other stores copy jb hifi's strategy, then i guarantee, the CD will be here for a long time yet.
That's weird, I wonder what they're doing that no one else is.