Spotify?? or iTunes?? Which do you hate more??

[sherrynoland]

P.S. All,

Is it a "rant" to ask to solve, or at least improve the situation by asking each one of us to BE the solution? We could do this, together, without lawyers and courts. There have always been thieves, and always will be, but never so many.

[Facelift]

This is all new and still evolving. We're going down this road a ways, it seems. Just wait. Great music and great musicians aren't made overnight. REALLY good music—the kind that's remembered and enjoyed 30-40-50-100 years from now won't be there if musicians aren't paid enough to live and continue their work FULL TIME.

Yes, there are still good, young musicians trying to make their music available any way possible in the current ridiculous environment. But they'll give up or be driven to mediocrity because there aren't enough hours in the day to feed their families with a "job" and still do great music. You're kidding yourselves if you think otherwise. I know this from firsthand experience! And a lifetime watching this happen to great musicians who are lost to us forever.

Maybe you're young enough and brash enough to think you can dodge this bullet, but you're wrong. It's already apparent to me every time I turn on the radio or TV and see the "latest, greatest thing". And this is why Classic Rock is so popular and stations like Deep Tracks.

It'll only get worse until this is turned around and we pay for the music we love, not just settle for "okay" because it's free and easy. Just wait.

I generally agree with you in principle - that a reduction in demand (paying customers) will result in a reduction in supply. But, I don't agree with some of your specific points. First of all, most music released today is already mediocre. But that was also the case in the '90s, '80s, '70s, and '60s too. There is a staggeringly LOT of music out there, and most of it is rather formulaic/derivative/uninspired.

Secondly, "starving artists" have produced masterpieces in all genres since the beginning of art. Money, or the lack thereof, doesn't seem to factor much into it. Certainly, one wouldn't presume that the highest-paid artists around right now are the best, do we?

Lastly, if Charles Ives and various other composers were capable of producing numerous *classical* masterpieces while having to work day jobs, I have full faith that that good rock music will be possible as well.

All that said - yes, I obviously understand how a thriving economy for recorded music results in a music scene more healthy than one where the money isn't as prevalent.

[sherrynoland]

The issue is STEALING. If you're taking music from the artist without paying him, you're stealing, even if our f'd up society is handing you the means to do it on a plate. It's stealing. If you're doing it, you're part of the problem. Did your parents ever say, "I don't care if "everyone else is doing it". You're not going to"?

The issue is individual responsibility and honor. Choosing wisely. Because what I'm suggesting is also WISE—for all musicians AND music lovers.

[Facelift]

The issue is STEALING. If you're taking music from the artist without paying him, you're stealing, even if our f'd up society is handing you the means to do it on a plate. It's stealing. If you're doing it, you're part of the problem. Did your parents ever say, "I don't care if "everyone else is doing it". You're not going to"?

The issue is individual responsibility and honor. Choosing wisely. Because what I'm suggesting is also WISE—for all musicians AND music lovers.

OK... but in the post I quoted, you seemed to be making a completely different argument.

Of course people should act with responsibility and honor, and of course stealing is not acting in that manner. However, there are plenty of legal means for listeners to enjoy music without compensating artists for it (internet radio, Youtube, utilizing the library and borrowing from friends, buying used physical media), that aren't stealing. Numerous people on this thread have already stated that they widely do one or more of these things. Presumably, if enough people do this, the effects thereof would be the same as if they were stealing it, no? Anyway, I was commenting on your post in which you make a detailed case for rather apocalypic *effects* of reduced artist compensation.

[Plasmatopia]

Just curious -- has the legality of YouTube ever been challenged in court?

[Just Eric]

The issue is STEALING. If you're taking music from the artist without paying him, you're stealing, even if our f'd up society is handing you the means to do it on a plate. It's stealing. If you're doing it, you're part of the problem. Did your parents ever say, "I don't care if "everyone else is doing it". You're not going to"?

The issue is individual responsibility and honor. Choosing wisely. Because what I'm suggesting is also WISE—for all musicians AND music lovers.

That much is clear. But, regardless of how the product is obtained, most music is consumed for free or little cost these days and artists have to adapt. Chasing the stealers will not solve the problem. Chastising the stealers will not solve the problem. I'm not saying give in to what is illegal, just recognize that unlike counterfeit purses and jeans which "honest" consumers are willing to pay full price, music is a product where the honest expect free or close to.

So, keep pressure on piracy and illegal activities, but at the same time the primary mission of artists who want to get compensated should be looking for other avenues to build revenue.

[Facelift]

Just curious -- has the legality of YouTube ever been challenged in court?

I would think that the only trouble Youtube could get into, legally, is if it did not remove content at the copyright holder's requests, or did but didn't do so in a diligent/timely manner. I have no idea how their system works. I do know that I have clicked onto numerous links where the material had been removed, so I know that they are removing things.

[sherrynoland]

I can assure you, the way youtube is currently operating, dumping entire albums on there, will not stand.

[sherrynoland]

Facelift,

The agencies that collect performance royalties are scrambling to adjust and will. And there have always been "fair use" rules to allow limited sharing with friends (LIMITED numbers), and if you're buying a used item, the artist was already paid (supposedly). These solutions strike a fair balance. There's nothing fair about stealing. And we're talking about on a massive scale.

As for "struggling artists" creating masterpieces, is that what you require of your artists? The very best artists used to get patronage, prey on family, and even die paupers. Are you a proponent of all that? Ridiculous. We're supposed to be evolving, not going backwards. A society can be measured by the quality and breadth of it's culture. Who do we want to be? The lowest common denominator (which is the state of music we've reached in the last decade of the internet), or the highest we can be? You PAY for what you get. It's fair. It's right. It's wise.

[Digital_Man]

Sherry, thanks for finally making your text larger.

[Facelift]

Facelift,

The agencies that collect performance royalties are scrambling to adjust and will. And there have always been "fair use" rules to allow limited sharing with friends (LIMITED numbers), and if you're buying a used item, the artist was already paid (supposedly). These solutions strike a fair balance. There's nothing fair about stealing. And we're talking about on a massive scale.

As for "struggling artists" creating masterpieces, is that what you require of your artists? The very best artists used to get patronage, prey on family, and even die paupers. Are you a proponent of all that? Ridiculous. We're supposed to be evolving, not going backwards. A society can be measured by the quality and breadth of it's culture. Who do we want to be? The lowest common denominator (which is the state of music we've reached in the last decade of the internet), or the highest we can be? You PAY for what you get. It's fair. It's right. It's wise.

You're kind of all over the place here.

With regard to your first point, I gather that it was a response to my statement about the effects of listening to music without paying for it - which concerned people choosing to listen to music *legally* without paying for it, and how the *effects* of this behavior on the industry should be similar to those same people obtaining the music via illegal copying. In either event, these people are using music without paying for it. This was just a thought experiment that I was doing, and I don't know why it wouldn't be true.

As for your second point, I didn't state a preference for any particular model. All I did was point out how some of your assumptions in one of your posts were probably inaccurate.

I don't think I've said anything that could be construed as an endorsement of obtaining illegal copies of music. I certainly don't support that.

[Phlakaton]

Generally speaking, I have my own justifications for doing what I do when it comes to listening to music and I don't feel the need for anyone's approval. So I don't go around saying the reason I do this is because of A, B or C so please like me. I don't care. I bought plenty of music in my lifetime (I'm 50) and I'm done with it barring a few rare instances. I don't buy much Prog anymore because of the thousands of dollars I pissed away over the years buying crap based upon some huckster dealer's overblown descriptions. "If you love THAT then you'll love THIS. THIS will blow your socks off because it's so much like THAT". Blah, blah, blah. I buy it and find after one listen that it's crud and it goes on the shelf with the other crud. No more. I have much better use for my money than that. Forget the Classical genre. I can't afford anything approaching a sliver of a comprehensive collection of late 19th and 20th Century music. Ah, but YouTube lets me enjoy it all. No fuss, no muss and Jimmy crack corn.

I'm with you 100% on the wasted money problem over the last 20 years... I bought too many things that were recommended by someone and felt totally punched in the ears when it wasnt what I hoped. Oh well. It happens.

[Gruno]

I don't buy much Prog anymore because of the thousands of dollars I pissed away over the years buying crap based upon some huckster dealer's overblown descriptions. "If you love THAT then you'll love THIS. THIS will blow your socks off because it's so much like THAT". Blah, blah, blah. I buy it and find after one listen that it's crud and it goes on the shelf with the other crud. No more. I have much better use for my money than that.

So because you fell hook-line-and-sinker for someone's hype, you are now going to 'stick it to the man'.

That's interesting.

[Poisoned Youth]

Yes, there are still good, young musicians trying to make their music available any way possible in the current ridiculous environment. But they'll give up or be driven to mediocrity because there aren't enough hours in the day to feed their families with a "job" and still do great music. You're kidding yourselves if you think otherwise. I know this from firsthand experience! And a lifetime watching this happen to great musicians who are lost to us forever.

Maybe you're young enough and brash enough to think you can dodge this bullet, but you're wrong. It's already apparent to me every time I turn on the radio or TV and see the "latest, greatest thing". And this is why Classic Rock is so popular and stations like Deep Tracks.

From my point of view, there's just not much to back up what you're saying and all the evidence points to a thriving music scene.

Yes, gone may be the classic rock tracks of 40 years ago, but there are several reasons for that, most of which have nothing to do with how much the artist got paid. Conversely, the highest paid artists today aren't making the best music.

What has changed is how we get the information. Record labels who signed and promoted certain artists got radio play, but we also lived in a "3 channel" society back then. When an artist on a major label came out with a new album, you were going to hear it. These days, that is still the same with top 40 music, but for the most part, we live in a society where information and content comes to us ....overwhelms us. We can't take in it all.

But make no mistake, as long as people are inspired to create music, they will. They may not make a career out of it, but it's always been tough to do that. Yesterday's hope for a record deal is today's "going viral".

[Splicer]

So because you fell hook-line-and-sinker for someone's hype, you are now going to 'stick it to the man'.

That's interesting.

Feel free to be as interested as you like. Nothing changes. If you'd like, you can call me mean nasty names too. It doesn't bother me.

Prohibition never works and never will because someone will always find a way around any mechanism that prevents people from getting what they want. As for YouTube, it's the flavor of the moment when it comes to music listening and it's a pretty big flavor since it is owned by a company, Google, that can crush the life out of a lot of other companies and be able to absorb legal costs far easier than anyone suing them. Plus, the cosy relationship they have with the U.S. government (you can draw your own conclusions there) have so far made them impervious to legal challenges. They remove the offending audio whenever they are told about it and then it pops up again. They ban one user and a slightly different username pops up doing the same thing. Or maybe two. Or three. Who knows?

People can argue morality all they want but reality trumps it every time. Everything else simply becomes academic.

[sherrynoland]

What an ugly world you create for yourself, Splicer. It's true there are many like you who will "Do what thou wilt", whatever can be gotten away with. What you fail to realize is that you cut off your nose to spite your face.

Like I said, we may have to go down this road to see where it leads. You won't like it. I'm trying to save you time and suffering. If you truly love good music, you'll learn, sooner, or later, that you have to pay for it, just as the artist does with his blood, sweat and tears.

[Jerjo]

Sherry, your posts are showing up with a really tiny font. It's a strain for middle-aged eyes. Can you fix that?

[Splicer]

As an atheist, I have no need for salvation. So thanks but no thanks. But I've said my piece and put a period at the end of the sentence. I'm off to YouTube to enjoy some music from The Turkish Five -- apparently a group of 20th Century composers from Turkey who combined local folk melodies with Western compositional techniques. Never heard any of it before so it should be illuminating.

[sherrynoland]

Sorry, Jerjo. Just got a used 2010 MacBook Pro and the print everywhere on the computer is tiny. I've been using the size button on this site and pressing #1 which makes it look larger to me. This time I pressed #2. Anyone know how to increase the font size on my computer in general?

P.S. Splicer, "Do what thou wilt" is a reference to Alistair Crowley, not Jesus. I'm not trying to save your soul. Only you can do that.

[Splicer]

sherrynoland: I understood the reference. I was referring to your tone which to me comes across as somewhat evangelical. I'm merely practical. Right now there are ways for me to listen to music that someone has uploaded onto YouTube. It's there and I'm going to listen. If it goes away then I'll probably find the next thing that pops up to provide the same result. I don't care if anyone else does it or not nor do I proselytize uploading, downloading, sideloading or unloading. I speak for myself only.

[NogbadTheBad]

I tend to use youtube to investigate new music prior to deciding to buy. I do get annoyed with full album uploads. Never used Spotify.

[sherrynoland]

sherrynoland: I understood the reference. I was referring to your tone which to me comes across as somewhat evangelical. I'm merely practical. Right now there are ways for me to listen to music that someone has uploaded onto YouTube. It's there and I'm going to listen. If it goes away then I'll probably find the next thing that pops up to provide the same result. I don't care if anyone else does it or not nor do I proselytize uploading, downloading, sideloading or unloading. I speak for myself only.

You make my point beautifully. You'll settle for whatever you can get for free. That will become less and less entertaining. Eventually worthless, or a sort of audition process for beginners only.

[Sunhillow]

As an atheist, I have no need for salvation. So thanks but no thanks. But I've said my piece and put a period at the end of the sentence. I'm off to YouTube to enjoy some music from The Turkish Five -- apparently a group of 20th Century composers from Turkey who combined local folk melodies with Western compositional techniques. Never heard any of it before so it should be illuminating.

Supposedly the best of those Turkish Five is Saygun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Adnan_Saygun. I've illegally downloaded most of his symphonies and concertos, which brought me to buying this one: http://www.amazon.com/Saygun-Cello-C.../dp/B000YPW5IG. Didn't even buy it second-hand! Full-price.

I'm an atheist like you, and I dispise religions that divides people in different categories (and I know quite a few world-religions who do, and also some who don't), and listening to the music of Saygun actually gives you hope that someday, somehow, all will be well with the Turkish people.

If you PM me, we could set up a Dropbox, and I could share some. Maybe you'll like it!

[Splicer]

You make my point beautifully. You'll settle for whatever you can get for free. That will become less and less entertaining. Eventually worthless, or a sort of audition process for beginners only.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. If a late Romantic composer like Joachim Raff is available for free listening then in your mind it is somehow progressively less entertaining than if I were to pay for it? So in your world quality is tied to monetary worth and in my world quality is a personal thing. A piece of music is only worth something to me if I am willing to spend the time listening to it. I despise Brahms. There is something in his music that just rubs me the wrong way. Whether free or not, I would not spend five minutes of my time listening to his symphonies because I quite simply don't like them. They are worthless to me. Another person has a different perspective. However, the price-tag attached to it has nothing to do with my dislike. I can listen to Brahms any time I want on YouTube but I won't waste my time doing so since his music does nothing for me emotionally or intellectually.

I'm sorry to say that there is a good amount of Prog that is released every week that I would not care to spend more than a minute total listening to. Fortunately, a lot of groups put up samples on places like YouTube so that I can hear what it is that they are producing so I can decide for myself whether I want to purchase it or not. Not only is most of this music something I wouldn't buy, I wouldn't waste my time listening to it because to me it is not worth the effort.

[sherrynoland]

If something is old enough to be in the public domain and you can listen for free, fine. That's a completely different story. You're grasping at straws to divert the issue—stealing. I'm talking about listening to albums for free ( not individual songs that are offered with permission)—entire albums that are for sale. Not paying the artist. Music, rock, has been in a state of decline for at least a decade because of this. I don't care what you listen to. I care that you pay the artist for what you enjoy enough to listen to.