Fun Stuff > BAND

Musicians suing fans?

<< < (4/13) > >>

Slick:
Leaked albums do not appeal to me at all. If you're dying for it and know you'll like it that much, grab the shiny new CD as soon as it comes out. You should respect the artist there. As well, the reason for staggered release dates is so that the artist can tour in suport of the new album when it comes out, but the internet is changing that, probably for the worse.
And for not giving enough of a damn to get the record, fans need to eat as well, and if it comes down to going and seeing you live once, meeting fellow fans, and enjoying your presence, or having one compact disc of your music, I'll take the live show anyday. It's not a matter of giving a damn, it's a matter of preference, and live shows trump studio albums in almost every case for me.

Der Golem:

--- Quote from: DynamiteKid ---Well that may be so, but if your fans don't give enough of a damn about you to buy your records then what're they doing at your shows?
--- End quote ---


There are hundreds of artists I would love to see live and thousands of artists that I would go see if they came to my town. However I am in no position to buy all those albums. So, I download. And buy if I feel I have reason to do so.

I love the Pixies, went to a show an bought a T-shirt, yet I own none of their albums. All I'm saying, appreciation of music is not equal to the amount of money you are willing to spend on it.

Thrillho:
Well obviously this does all depend on the band and the person.

All your points are valid. But there are still loads of people who I'm damn sure would be able to afford to buy the CDs, who don't just want to see a band live, but just don't buy them. And it's them who make me sick.

Rubby:
The big four are the people that are suing though. The artists don’t do it (with a few exceptions) because they’re not the ones making money off album sales. The record companies are essentially a group of investors who lend the band the money to make a recording and promote it. When the money comes back in from record sales it goes to investors, not the artists. It’s kind of like some investor purchases a lot downtown to build a skyscraper. Obviously the investor needs a construction company to erect the building, but he’s not hiring a crew to showcase their architectural talent because he’s such a good guy, he hirers them as a means to an end. Once the investor pays the agreed upon fee to the construction company, whatever money comes in from renting space in the building is profit. This is how every big business works. There is not empathy for the artists; they are simply the labor power used by this particular segment of the market. If I were to walk into a candy factory and steal a crate of candy, it’s not the person manning the assembly line that looses out; it’s the big guy who is trying to generate capitol from his investment. I know this kind of talk sounds harsh when dealing with a beloved cultural art form like music, but this is the way it works. The reason so much emphasis has been placed on live shows in these kinds of arguments is because it’s an independent venture not sponsored by a higher power. In this sense the artists themselves become the ones making the investment, making an agreed upon payment to the promoter and venue and collecting surplus profit. In the past, the situation was a win-win phenomenon, where the record companies collected profit from record sales while at the same time giving the artists “free” promotion for the live shows where the artists collect the profit. Downloading however, essentially allows the artists to cut out the middle man and promote the shows themselves. It’s not a hindrance to the artists because the recordings that are made under the investment of big name record companies don’t actually belong to the artists. The rights to perform the songs are the artist’s properties, but recordings made under a contract are completely owned by the investors lending the money to record the songs.

qtownstegy:
Music should be seen as an art form, and if people want to pay you for it then that's a bonus. I'm sick of hearing pop bands bitching about losing money from record sales being down. Take it as a hint that either your music sucks or it costs too much to buy your shit.

Music is an idea that should be shared; not necessarily controlled, but if the artist wants to be a prick then his/her music better be good, otherwise no one is gonna fork over $15-$20 to listen to shit. They also better not be surprised when their popularity drops.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page