Topic: Do you buy music? (Read 36385 times)

KvP · « **Reply #50 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 16:03 »

Personally, wearing a band's t-shirt is the result of my having paid for the shirt, as getting merch at a show is the most direct way I know of supporting the artists I like. I wear them because I have them. It has nothing to do with being defined as a member of a subgroup. I want nothing to do with some of the fanbases that you say are associated with my shirts.

Hell, I'm wearing a Ray Davies shirt right now. I couldn't care less about his solo work (though I do like the Kinks) but my dad brought me along to his show a few years ago and got me this apparel. I'm not the sort of person to meticulously choose anything I wear. I suppose that's worse than the opposite.

As far as the original question posed goes, when I started going to school full-time and left my job was probably the last time I bought music with my own money, and that was... a year and a half ago. So I'm part of the problem. But I'm getting a new job and itunes has lifted its bitrate and DRM restrictions, so I'll probably start buying again soon.

Tom · « **Reply #51 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 16:26 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 29 Dec 2007, 15:49

I see it as tacky because it's branding. I highly doubt that wearing a band's t-shirt has any effect other than alllowing other people to recognise you as part of a certain subgroup. Just wearing a shirt that says BAND is not "endorsing" them. It's not like people are going to pass by you on the street, see your shirt and think "Wow, I should buy that album!"

If the band t-shirt is artistically pleasing, that's cool. But, at least everywhere I've been, there is a certain very prevalent kind of person who meticulously chooses which BAND t-shirt to wear for maximum Style Points, especially when going to a show. Speaking for myself and most people I know, it's better to dissociate oneself from that demographic.

And that is not even getting into "ironic" t-shirt wearing.

What about patches and armbands?

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #52 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 16:32 »

The only people around here who wear patches are 14-18 year old "punk" kids who cover their jean jackets and pants in Crass and Dead Kennedys patches.

They're funny.

(NB: Some of them are my friends, admittedly.)

GenericName · « **Reply #53 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 16:42 »

Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 29 Dec 2007, 16:03

itunes has lifted its bitrate and DRM restrictions

Why have I not heard about this? It seems like a happy thing that I should have been alerted to the moment it happened.

EDIT: Apparently I checked and it's just for some EMI stuff? Darn.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #54 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 16:47 »

Quote from: Anyways on 29 Dec 2007, 16:36

Wait, hang on. Since when was the desire to meet people who likes the same music as yourself become tacky? And what's bad about identifying yourself with a particular demography? Meeting people with common interests is a bad thing?

I've never "met" anyone just because of a t-shirt. I've never had someone walk up to me and say "You like that band? I like that band! Let's be pals!" Nor have I ever done that to another person.

In my experience, liking the same music as someone else is hideously low on the priority list wrt judging how well I'll get along with them. Most of my best friends have atrocious or mediocre taste in music, and many people I know with awesome taste in music are not very cool at all.

I mean, there are only so many conversations you can have that go "This band is awesome." "Totally." "I like this song." "Yeah, this song is good."

Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer talking about more substantial things.

Tom · « **Reply #55 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:09 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 29 Dec 2007, 16:32

The only people around here who wear patches are 14-18 year old "punk" kids who cover their jean jackets and pants in Crass and Dead Kennedys patches.

They're funny.

(NB: Some of them are my friends, admittedly.)

I have one of these

squawk · « **Reply #56 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:12 »

Quote from: tommydski on 29 Dec 2007, 16:01

In the UK, it's very hard to meet anyone who likes the same kind of music I like. In fact, apart from at shows I never actually have.

So yeah, I would like to be spotted wearing a band t-shirt, just for the kinship of someone who likes a band that I like.

Hasn't happened yet admittedly.

Didn't you get your Wii with the help of a Sonic Youth t-shirt?

Spinless · « **Reply #57 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:15 »

I'd wear band shirts, but the band shirts I'd wear don't exist. Like...
The Ghost drinking Vodka on the cover for Precious Blood? I'd wear that on a tee. It doesn't exist! I am seriously going to make a stencil for that.

Now, I'm pretty poor. But I must have spent £800 on CDs in 2 years. I regret it! Sure, I helped to keep my favourite stores in business, but I spent £800 on bits of plastic!!!!
Each time I see a band live, I end up spending all the money I have on me on merch. Unless I end up hating the band. But still, I do it because I'd like their support if/when I eventually do the same thing.

Support your artist, support your distributor. I hear people talking about buying merch at shows, but even though that might feed the band for a few days, record labels and music stores are still getting shut down because people just don't buy things anymore.

STOP FUCKING POSTING YOU ASSHOLES! Why is there a new reply EVERY TIME I click submit? CUT THAT SHIT OUT!

RedLion · « **Reply #58 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:16 »

For a time, I refused to even buy an iPod or download songs at all, from linewire or Kazaa or anything. But eventually I just couldn't hold out any longer..I had to give in to the "dark side," as it were. I feel guilty about it, though, and it's no substitute for having that feeling of having purchased something, of it being truly yours, of it physically being in your hands. It's a sort of cheapening of music...but then again, it's also opening up the music scene to bands that never would have gotten any exposure before. So..I don't know where I stand on this question. I still buy albums from time to time, but I often use bittorrent, or things like the mediafire thread here. I need money for other things. But I feel bad, as I'm a semi-aspiring musician myself.

KvP · « **Reply #59 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:24 »

Quote from: GenericName on 29 Dec 2007, 16:42

EDIT: Apparently I checked and it's just for some EMI stuff? Darn.

It seems I was mistaken, then. Drat.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #60 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:24 »

I do have friends I talk about music with, it's just that generally it takes up a pretty small percentage of our conversation-time.

Anyways, I'm not totally down on talking to someone because of how they're dressed - I fully admit that I try and "dress cool" - I'm just saying that unless a band t-shirt looks really awesome, I don't see much point in wearing it just to show off that I'm a fan. There is precedent for this kind of thinking, I'm not just a lone nutjob: Pavement made their t-shirts intentionally hideous looking so that no one except hipsters would be dumb enough to buy them.

Tom · « **Reply #61 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:35 »

Quote from: godinpants on 29 Dec 2007, 17:14

One last thing to the downloaders, what happens when your computer fucks up and you lose everything?

I always have a backup of my hard drive.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #62 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 18:31 »

I make my own band t-shirts, and own two patch covered jackets of differing design.

I guess I can't play with the cool kids now.

RedLion · « **Reply #63 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 18:37 »

Ah But its so much easier to judge people by the Band shirts they wear than to actually acquaint oneself to them.

sk8brder40 · « **Reply #64 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 19:06 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 28 Dec 2007, 16:30

So you find absolutely no joy in browsing a used/new record store and stumbling across new or weird things? Legitimate question, because it has been brought to my attention that there are people under the age of 23 or so who have literally never set foot in a record store.

I'm old.

Would you be angry if I asked what's a record store?
Hahaha, I really don't think there are any record stores where I am..
I always buy from itunes, occasionally from stores, and sometimes illegally dl'ing :X

est · « **Reply #65 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 19:13 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 28 Dec 2007, 21:54

I think that one appreciates music more if one doesn't have 9,000 mp3s, but rather a collection of albums, all of which were purchased, listened to and considered rather than just downloaded on a whim.

I can agree with this. I upgraded my hardware a while back and with that I reformatted, reinstalled, etc. I only pulled across the mp3s I was liking at the time and as a result I found I actually listened to more music. I am guessing it was because less choice translated to less sifting through crap to get to what I felt like listening to. As a result instead of about 80gb of music and growing I now try to keep it under 10.

The way I am doing this relates back to the original question. I am someone who has pirated basically everything in the past. I am slowly coming to realise though that I am in the position where this is totally inexcusable and am working toward stopping that. However, I am not the kind of person who likes poking about in music stores, buying things on a whim and seeing if I like it. Instead I am taking the following approach: Download things that you might be interested in. Give it a month to sink in, then if you like it buy it from your favourite music store to encourage them to stock more of that kind of music. If not, delete it. I am currently attempting to catch up with purchasing cds and such for things I already have and know I like.

That said, though. I have about 50 cds on my desk and about 250 more in a container in my spare room, so I guess I have been buying cds in the past, just not everything I've been downloading. If I had the money right now I could probably go out and buy another 25-30 cds and still not be totally in the clear, so I have a bit of work ahead of me.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #66 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 20:10 »

There are not very many decent record shops near here, sadly. As a result i don't really buy that much music. When i do find one though, i often spend too much money on it! I have lately been more discriminating about downloading stuff and as a result i enjoy things more.

Shadows Collide · « **Reply #67 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 23:48 »

In answer to the question... as much as an unemployed, somewhat privileged 18 year-old who doesn't have a large sum of money inherited to him can (cough- ishotdanieljohnston - cough)

Statik · « **Reply #68 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 00:18 »

Id like to buy everything I have acquired illegally, and I slowly work on it. For important (to me) new releases, such as Clutch - Beale Street, I go to a local store (non big electronics store, although, I have to say, after working for best buy, they do get some surprisingly hard to find metal releases..) anyway, big new release, I will very RARELY go in to purchase, say, the new Clutch album and not come out with 2-4 more CDs of stuff I have downloaded.

I buy them as I have spare money to spend on them.

HOWEVER, there is a problem, the vast majority of what I listen to (outside of some underground hip hop and rap) doesnt come from this country. And while I will purchase albums by bands who release here, for some bands, Im not spending $25-$30 on a SINGLE CD just because it wasn't officially released here. A lot of the metal I listen to just does not exist in this country outside of insanely overpriced imports. Additionally, I wouldnt know of many of the bands if it werent for things like slsk. So its kind of a double edged sword, I get exposure to all these great bands, but I cannot really afford to "support" them in the sense of buying their albums. For the price of ONE imported CD from Russia, or Germany, or wherever, I can buy three CDs of bands who do tour here.

I could have a whole discussion about the moral issues with MP3s, but I would assume that the subject has been just as beaten here as everywhere else on the net. Everyone by this point probably has their opinion on it, and no one is going to change peoples minds anymore.

Johnny C · « **Reply #69 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 01:10 »

Quote from: est on 29 Dec 2007, 19:13

Quote from: zerodrone on 28 Dec 2007, 21:54
I think that one appreciates music more if one doesn't have 9,000 mp3s, but rather a collection of albums, all of which were purchased, listened to and considered rather than just downloaded on a whim.

I can agree with this.

I definitely agree with the sentiment behind it, which is that having a hard drive full of music doesn't mean that you are actually any more knowledgeable or passionate about music.

Beastmouth · « **Reply #70 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 01:27 »

I bought a Korg Polysix tonight. ^__^

On topic: I buy records at shows and cool ones when I'm at the record store. Of course, I only go to the record store when my wallet's too heavy...

Thrillho · « **Reply #71 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 01:54 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 29 Dec 2007, 16:47

I've never "met" anyone just because of a t-shirt. I've never had someone walk up to me and say "You like that band? I like that band! Let's be pals!" Nor have I ever done that to another person.

In my experience, liking the same music as someone else is hideously low on the priority list wrt judging how well I'll get along with them. Most of my best friends have atrocious or mediocre taste in music, and many people I know with awesome taste in music are not very cool at all.

I think that these are the two most relevant things you've said so far.

I wear a band t-shirt becuase I like that band, and yes I have made friends with people who like those bands. And it's not like I buy shirts that look like shit, of course I find them 'artistically pleasing' otherwise I wouldn't wear them. I'm not some fucking Calvin Kleine clothes horse or something, I wear the clothes I want to wear, not the clothes the adverts say I should wear.

Johnny C · « **Reply #72 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 08:55 »

Not wearing band t-shirts doesn't mean you're subscribing to anyone else's idea of what you should wear.

I don't think it's tacky because I don't mind my artistic taste being a defining part of my person. It is a defining part of my person, whether I like it or not. I can see where you're coming from though, because a lot of bands have really ugly-as-sin shirts. Metric springs to mind almost instantly - the shirt I bought was pretty nice but the rest were ugly as shit. Someone buying them just to show off that they're a Metric fan is something I can see and something I wouldn't condone. I bought a shirt because I'm a fan but also because it doesn't look like someone drew it with the wrong hand, and in fact it fits nicely in the rest of my wardrobe.

Though I guess theoretically an incredibly ugly shirt could fit in someone's wardrobe too.

snowball · « **Reply #73 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 10:16 »

I use downloading as a way to find new music.

I do buy music, I order everything i can on vinyl. (from insound, music direct or e-bay mostly) I use my local independent stores if they have what i want.
I've been buying one album every other day for a while now. Im an audiophile so downloads don't cut it for me.

Scarychips · « **Reply #74 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 10:22 »

Yes I do buy music, I'm the only one of my age (around 14-15 years old) that I know who keeps buying music, even after downloading it, I'll go buy the record. And I plan on buying more since I recently discovered my father have a turntable. It's easier for me to buy records too, since my mom works at the Archambault Headquarters in downtown Montreal, I can have the records at a low price since they have an employee-rebate (I think it a 50% rebate on records).

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #75 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 11:03 »

I almost never buy something I've downloaded, it would have to be something that had become one of my very favourites for me to do that. I do much prefer records but there's so much stuff I'd like to get hold of I always go for something I can't find online, which is almost always DIY stuff of one kind or another, rather than something I already have mp3s of. Because of this record shops aren't much use, distros (online or at gigs) or direct from bands is cheaper and vastly more likely to have what I want. Of late I haven't had enough money to buy any records at all (aside from the odd incredibly cheap second hand purchase), preferring things which I can't get a very good approximation of for free.

sandman263 · « **Reply #76 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 11:42 »

Hmmm, I see a big discrepancy with this one....

"So, are you part of the problem? Do you download amazing albums from the Mediafire thread and then NOT actually buy the album? Are you a music leech or do you vote with your wallets to keep good musicians out of the poorhouse and making more good music for you to listen to? If you have a local used/new store, do you shop there, even though you can go on Amazon and feed the corporate whoremachine because a used disc on there might be a couple dollars cheaper? Do you buy new albums from Amazon instead of directly from the label, which is almost always cheaper anyway?"

Buying an album through the label (and even through Amazon) equates to the usual revenue split for musicians - about 10% of the CD's value (check out http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne for one of the most interesting and relevant articles on music trends in the last year - buying on iTunes means even less for the artist). So while it's cheaper, it's not helping the artist in any way whatsoever - so you're not keeping them out of the poorhouse, you're keeping them in it. Artists revenues come through merchandise and touring, and not through CD sales in the traditional sense. So even when you buy through your local independant shops, you're probably not helping, unless you know what % of the sale goes to the artist.

As for me, I download & buy, and when I buy, I buy off some of the large independant online CD suppliers catering to artists, where up to 90% of the money goes to the artist directly ( CDBaby.com is a great example of this). When I download, I do it to discover new music. The sheer amount of music I've purchased since I started downloading is huge - downloading helps me discover, and keeps my options (and mind) open to new artists and genres. When I find someone I really love, I buy everything I can by them.

I'd love to say I browse my local CD store - but my local CD store is 30 minutes away by car, and the average cost of a CD is around $40 (when converted from Euro). Throw in the fact that the people working in the stores are hired in bulk, and with about enough muscial knowledge to tell me about the new Britney Spears album, and you have the main reasons I'm an advocate of getting your music online, or buying your CD's online, where it benefits the artist - and this means not in local or national stores....

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #77 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 11:57 »

Quote from: sandman263 on 30 Dec 2007, 11:42

Buying an album through the label (and even through Amazon) equates to the usual revenue split for musicians - about 10% of the CD's value (check out http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne for one of the most interesting and relevant articles on music trends in the last year - buying on iTunes means even less for the artist). So while it's cheaper, it's not helping the artist in any way whatsoever

But you are helping independant labels and stores.

Also, as has been pointed out, an artist receiving a little money from a sale is better than nothing.

Quote

Artists revenues come through merchandise and touring

Did you read the whole thread before posting? I already addressed this. There are many artists, and many I know personally, for whom touring is at best a "break-even" endeavor, due usually to the nature of reproducing their music in a live setting.

Quote

and not through CD sales in the traditional sense. So even when you buy through your local independant shops, you're probably not helping, unless you know what % of the sale goes to the artist.

The point was not just to help "the artist", but to help "the industry" - mostly independant labels - by actually paying them for what they are providing you. This is a pretty simple point.

Johnny C · « **Reply #78 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 12:02 »

A lot of artists whose releases are actually on labels have to first purchase quantities of their records for sale. A lot of folks don't seem to realise that. The costs of those quantities cover pressing, designing and associated costs that the label has likely covered or helped to cover. In the end buying from CDBaby and the like benefit unsigned artists the most, but for the rest of it you make only a bit more of a difference. Besides, in a case like Dischord, Touch & Go or Mint I'd much rather show the label that I appreciate what they're doing.

I buy from the local record store, the artists at gigs and the labels and artists via the internet. That way, I cover my respective bases: I financially support someone who runs a business I appreciate, I financially support arists when they are in town and I financially support artists that I may never actually see live.

Thrillho · « **Reply #79 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 12:03 »

Quote from: sandman263 on 30 Dec 2007, 11:42

Hmmm, I see a big discrepancy with this one....

"So, are you part of the problem? Do you download amazing albums from the Mediafire thread and then NOT actually buy the album? Are you a music leech or do you vote with your wallets to keep good musicians out of the poorhouse and making more good music for you to listen to? If you have a local used/new store, do you shop there, even though you can go on Amazon and feed the corporate whoremachine because a used disc on there might be a couple dollars cheaper? Do you buy new albums from Amazon instead of directly from the label, which is almost always cheaper anyway?"

Buying an album through the label (and even through Amazon) equates to the usual revenue split for musicians - about 10% of the CD's value (check out http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne for one of the most interesting and relevant articles on music trends in the last year - buying on iTunes means even less for the artist). So while it's cheaper, it's not helping the artist in any way whatsoever - so you're not keeping them out of the poorhouse, you're keeping them in it. Artists revenues come through merchandise and touring, and not through CD sales in the traditional sense. So even when you buy through your local independant shops, you're probably not helping, unless you know what % of the sale goes to the artist.

As for me, I download & buy, and when I buy, I buy off some of the large independant online CD suppliers catering to artists, where up to 90% of the money goes to the artist directly ( CDBaby.com is a great example of this). When I download, I do it to discover new music. The sheer amount of music I've purchased since I started downloading is huge - downloading helps me discover, and keeps my options (and mind) open to new artists and genres. When I find someone I really love, I buy everything I can by them.

I'd love to say I browse my local CD store - but my local CD store is 30 minutes away by car, and the average cost of a CD is around $40 (when converted from Euro). Throw in the fact that the people working in the stores are hired in bulk, and with about enough muscial knowledge to tell me about the new Britney Spears album, and you have the main reasons I'm an advocate of getting your music online, or buying your CD's online, where it benefits the artist - and this means not in local or national stores....

All you shitty newbies, make note - THIS is the way you start on this forum.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #80 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 12:18 »

Is helping the industry necessarily a good thing? Even if it is the independent side of it. I'm not sure if I have a good answer to that myself.

For example, there's a great little record shop here in Leeds called Out Of Step which specialises in punk music of one kind or another. When it opened I was about 15 and it was a revelation, all of a sudden there was somewhere I could go to buy all these punk records that I'd heard about in zines and pick up gig flyers at the same time. Now, it seems to be dying like many other shops of its type. Part of me is very sad about this, I used to love that place. On the other hand I can't remember the last time I went to it for something other than a gig ticket. Part of the reason for that is that I just don't listen to punk and hardcore as much as I used to and if I do feel the need I've already got a pretty hefty collection of the stuff to dip into. The other part is that when I do want something like that these days it's much more convenient and cheaper for me to order from a distro like SuperFi. Sure, it's not as pleasurable a shopping experience as flicking through a pile of records in a shop where Black Flag is on the stereo in the background, but is that really a good enough reason for me to pay the extra? It seems not, since I don't. I guess what I'm getting at with all that is that although the independent record shop is a nice place and I will be sorry to see it go, does it really have that much a function anymore?

Independent labels and distros on the other hand are a whole different kettle of fish, I think they'll always be around since the purposes they serve (distribution, promotion, fronting recording costs, helping out with tour money, organising split releases etc) will probably always exist in one way or another.

I agree with zerodrone about touring though. I have met very few DIY artists who make money touring, most of us would be ecstatic to even break even. Breaking even on a record is much more common though.

sandman263 · « **Reply #81 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 12:23 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 30 Dec 2007, 11:57

But you are helping independant labels and stores.

Also, as has been pointed out, an artist receiving a little money from a sale is better than nothing.

And what is the point in having hundreds of independant stores, if there are no artists providing the music? Supporting the independant labels is different - I heartily agree with supporting these.

As for artists receiving a little money from a sale - I recommend Steve Albini's article (found at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html ). A typical band member earns about 1/3 as much as they would working as a store clerk off any new release.

Quote from: zerodrone on 30 Dec 2007, 11:57

Did you read the whole thread before posting? I already addressed this. There are many artists, and many I know personally, for whom touring is at best a "break-even" endeavor, due usually to the nature of reproducing their music in a live setting.

Indeed I did. Most of my friends still pump money into the merchandise stand of most of the bands we go and see, and these are people into their 30's. You didn't address this - you gave your perception. And I gave mine - most the artists I know personally, and have talked to after gigs, say that merch is where they make their money. I'm sure that everyone has a different view on this, based on the artists they know and have talked to.

Quote from: zerodrone on 30 Dec 2007, 11:57

The point was not just to help "the artist", but to help "the industry" - mostly independant labels - by actually paying them for what they are providing you. This is a pretty simple point.

The industry is based on the output of the artists - they are the lifeblood of the industry. Therefore, I base my buying habits on what supports the artists. Ask yourself which will allow the industry to thrive - every artist getting $8 on each album sale, or your local independant record store getting that $8, and throwing an extra $1 the artists direction? Which would you prefer an artist? Which would encourage you to keep creating music?

Independant labels are a great thing, when I know that the artist is getting a fair deal. In short, I buy where the artists gets the best deal - wherever that may be.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #82 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 12:48 »

Quote from: sandman263 on 30 Dec 2007, 12:23

As for artists receiving a little money from a sale - I recommend Steve Albini's article (found at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html ).

I, and people much more inside the industry than I, have gone into great detail about why that article is ridiculous and inaccurate and only applies to a relatively small percentage of bands. I'm not getting into it again.

Quote

Independant labels are a great thing, when I know that the artist is getting a fair deal. In short, I buy where the artists gets the best deal - wherever that may be.

I don't know why you're derailing so massively. My original question was do you buy music. You say you do; fine, you're not part of the problem.

The initial sentiment stands, however, that a lot of the younger generation does not buy music in any form, or buys a very small percentage of the music they own and enjoy.

"Musicians should make enough money from their day jobs! Music shouldn't be a job!" OK, fair enough, but you know what? It takes a pretty damn good day job to even afford to be a musician. Do you have any idea how much money I spend on amps, pedals, guitars, mixers, PA systems, microphones, strings, etc.? Just having a day job isn't necessarily enough to afford to be the best musician you can; you need to get some supplemental income from the music itself.

The one album I've ever released commercially made the band about $10,000 in the first two years after it was released. That was pre-Napster and high-speed Internet. That money helped a lot.

Today, if even only 25% of the people downloaded it, that's a loss of $2500. That's not pocket change, that's enough to finance a small tour!

sandman263 · « **Reply #83 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 12:57 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 30 Dec 2007, 12:48

"Musicians should make enough money from their day jobs! Music shouldn't be a job!" OK, fair enough, but you know what? It takes a pretty damn good day job to even afford to be a musician. Do you have any idea how much money I spend on amps, pedals, guitars, mixers, PA systems, microphones, strings, etc.? Just having a day job isn't necessarily enough to afford to be the best musician you can; you need to get some supplemental income from the music itself.

I'm not sure where in my earlier points I gave the impression this was my opinion? My point is that musicians shouldn't need to make enough money from their day jobs, in my perfect world (the real world, alas, dictates otherwise).

My point is that I buy music from whatever source offers the best revenue cut to the artist themselves - and in many cases, independant labels and independant stores are not the answer.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #84 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 13:07 »

But a polite audience owes me the courtesy of not stealing from me.

It's like inviting people to your house for a party. At least some of them should bring their own beer and weed, and not eat all your leftover pizza in the fridge without asking.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #85 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 13:13 »

No, not all musicians need a good day job as well as supplemental income from music. I have neither and probably never will but over the years I've accumulated most of the bits and bobs I need. I'm not saying this is the case for anyone else of course, by the sound of it what you do zerodrone is far more equipment-intensive so you do need that money, just that not everyone needs that to make the best music they can. I doubt I will ever release something where the cost is not purely that of the materials and labour of making the record and possibly studio time. Sure, a little extra to help offset the cost of touring, playing gigs and equipment would be nice but I can't see it ever happening and this is fine with me.

As for those downloaders representing a loss of income this may not be the case. Downloaders aren't necessarily people who would have bought the physical record at all. There are those like me who will buy a different record because they downloaded something but still the total amount of money going to bands remains the same. Then there are those who simply wouldn't have bought that many records at all. Sure, they'd have bought a few but possibly not that many. Also, a lot of people mention spending the money in their budget earmarked for music on going to gigs instead of records. They're still loss-making ventures for most people, yes, but as much as they would be without internet downloads? I'm not so sure, there have been plenty of bands I've seen that I wouldn't have bothered about if it weren't for the fact that I'd downloaded their music. Also, I always end up thinking about 'MTV Get Off The Air' when the fall in total sales comes up:
'But sales are slumping
And no one will say why
Could it be they put out one too many lousy records?'

The best part about downloads is that more people are listening to what you made. I like that. Just think, maybe something you or I did will get reviewed somewhere and some kid in Malaysia will then grab it from soulseek. Amazing! Who cares if they never bought a record? Maybe they used the cash to buy a drum kit and make something cool of their own. I call that a fair trade.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #86 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 14:19 »

Quote from: a pack of wolves on 30 Dec 2007, 12:18

Is helping the industry necessarily a good thing?

Almost certainly not! The music industry is horrible.

Hell, those two words together, 'music' and 'industry'...just no.

Unless we mean:

Also, is anyone else kind of pissed off when people who mainly buy go on about how only they love music? I fucking live for music. Thats why I download so much. I cannot see any other feasible way I could have discovered most of my favourite artists. I've never seen even a specialist store that sells Blood Axis.

Also, the back catalogues of a lot of my favourite artists are partly, or largely, out of print. So downloading is the only way to hear them apart from second hand records, which are surely worse than downloading, because someone is making money off of it and not a penny goes to the band.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #87 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 14:33 »

Yeah, that's another good point. I've got quite a thing for old emo bands like The Hated and Guyver-One and the only way to get their physical records is to pay crazy money on ebay. Fuck that, I'm not paying £70 for an LP no matter how good, and I can't see how the downloading resources to get those records would realistically exist if they weren't also used by people for piracy of available records.

As a tool for DIY distribution file sharing is superior to record shops any day of the week. If it's a choice between the two then it's DIY for me every time, and if that means no more record sales then that's that (although I really can't see that happening in my lifetime).

the-artful-dodger-rodger · « **Reply #88 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 15:28 »

I buy my music, sometimes you cant beat cool album cover art and I like owning something real as a cd.

I usually buy my music at amazon/barnes noble or cd baby

besides dont worry the music industry is dying, a slow painful death.

Ryder · « **Reply #89 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 17:15 »

I was curious about how people stand on this, too.

I buy records if I find a good store, but usually it's just a bunch of Norah Jones and Arcade Fire displays, and gaggles of hipster kids. A lot of my library is borrowed cds, but if I really follow a band, I buy their cd no matter what. Mostly as a donation to them, but it's also pretty nice to have something to hold in your hands. To claim as your own! iTunes Music Store is nice convenience sometimes. The selection is better than a record store, but sometimes they just don't have what your looking for. Paypalling ten bucks to buy the cd from the band is usually what I'd do if they're too underground for iTunes, which they usually are.

I just don't think music should be as hoarded as it is, I'm really pro music sharing. Not with copywrited junk, but I always try to explain to musician friends and stuff how important it is to start sharing themselves instead of having torrent sites do it for them behind their backs. I mean, I don't know if anyone's heard of CASH Music, or the last 50 Foot Wave EP Free Music, but it's a really great idea to share your music yourself. It's really worth it to have music available to everyone.

jeph · « **Reply #90 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 19:09 »

I only buy albums occasionally anymore.

For one thing, probably 90% of what I am listening to is European electronic music that is impossible to find in stores near me. I'd use Beatport, but their downloader app refuses to work on any of my computers. So I'm left with Amazon (iffy, kind of a pain in the ass, I don't like having to wait for mail) or BitTorrent (has almost everything, instantly).

Also, if I like a band I yell about them on my website, which has a pretty large audience. So they get free promotion to a couple hundred thousand people in exchange for me downloading their music. Obviously the doesn't benefit bands whose stuff I download and don't enjoy, or don't get excited enough about to mention on my site, but considering that I've made a business out of this very system I don't feel particularly guilty.

Don't most bands make more money off touring and merchandise sales anyway? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #91 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 19:32 »

Quote from: jeph on 30 Dec 2007, 19:09

Don't most bands make more money off touring and merchandise sales anyway? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

"Most" bands barely make enough money from a show to make it to the next show.

A band like Radiohead probably makes more money off touring than albums, yes. But "most" bands - 99% at minimum - don't do large tours in expensive venues that sell to capacity.

Ryder · « **Reply #92 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 20:32 »

Tours are for publicity when you're not a superstar. If you're the leader of the band, you want followers when you do it, since making money is almost impossible.

Maybe ten years ago it was better, but now it's all BitTorrent and iTunes. You don't buy cds at the shows, or even hear about them there. It's all word of mouth.

Plus, you've seriously got to consider how loyal fans can really support music.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #93 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 20:42 »

What on earth are you talking about? Tours are to play in new places, meet new people and generally have a great time, they are an end in and of themselves. Leader of the band? Followers when you do what? And I can't remember the last time I saw a band who weren't local that didn't have some kind of record for sale at their gigs.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #94 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 20:52 »

But the fact remains that "most" bands - and in fact, the overwhelming majority - don't make much more than enough from a tour to "break even", especially when you consider that you have to take time off from your "day job" in order to tour in the first place.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #95 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 21:01 »

Or get fired from it because they wouldn't give you the holiday time and you just disappeared on them instead.

However, to get this back to the whole buying music thing I feel the fact that touring is expensive doesn't translate into the fact that people ought to give musicians money for bits of plastic and paper they're happy to do without. Maybe if more bands put out records with really worthwhile packaging then not so many people would be willing to forego them. But here we are, and all in all I don't think it's a bad thing that there are people out there growing up with the idea that music should be free lodged firmly in their minds.

Ryder · « **Reply #96 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 21:41 »

Quote from: a pack of wolves on 30 Dec 2007, 20:42

What on earth are you talking about? Tours are to play in new places, meet new people and generally have a great time, they are an end in and of themselves. Leader of the band? Followers when you do what? And I can't remember the last time I saw a band who weren't local that didn't have some kind of record for sale at their gigs.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Band mates get wages, the leader loses money on a lot of tours.

Tours are for publicity, getting fans, getting your music out into the world.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #97 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 05:02 »

None of what I said is remotely similar to what you're saying. You seem to be describing the life of some woeful bunch of second-rate musical hacks, doomed to get one brief mention in the NME or on local television, believe it will be their route to fame and fortune and then end up being the assistant manager at a Travelodge near Swindon, shaking their head and wondering where it all went wrong as they shed a tear and stare mournfully at a copy of the one CD single they put out on their manager's label.

Johnny C · « **Reply #98 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 08:53 »

Quote from: zerodrone on 30 Dec 2007, 20:52

But the fact remains that "most" bands - and in fact, the overwhelming majority - don't make much more than enough from a tour to "break even", especially when you consider that you have to take time off from your "day job" in order to tour in the first place.

I'm going to use this as a springboard to briefly talk about the New West Concert Series.

New West is something we have here in Regina down at The Club, which is this smaller, more intimate venue located beside a larger venue. The Club isn't big enough to have monitors or anything, it's basically just a tiny bar with carpeting and a spot for bands to play. Now, New West gives emerging bands an opportunity to play without paying to rent the space, and it pays a flat rate of $150 to the headlining act. The Club takes twenty percent of the door and the opening acts get the remainder. Even better, $150 is only about $50 and two beer short of playing a really popular local pub, which doesn't have a cover charge, so after playing there the first time you can probably play a New West show the second time and through merch sales and attendance make enough money off the night that it wasn't a total bust.

They afford do it through grant money, and so far as I can tell it's been successful enough that it's entering its third year.

What I'm saying here is, I wish more cities had a scheme like this so that artists with lower profiles could tour comfortably without completely going bust.

Ryder · « **Reply #99 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 10:26 »

Quote from: a pack of wolves on 31 Dec 2007, 05:02

None of what I said is remotely similar to what you're saying. You seem to be describing the life of some woeful bunch of second-rate musical hacks, doomed to get one brief mention in the NME or on local television, believe it will be their route to fame and fortune and then end up being the assistant manager at a Travelodge near Swindon, shaking their head and wondering where it all went wrong as they shed a tear and stare mournfully at a copy of the one CD single they put out on their manager's label.

Oh come on. Real good music rarely appeals to the mainstream MTV ear that's used to being fed mind rotting candy. Artists struggle. They either give up and "sell out" and start doing mindless hooks and poppy garbage because it's what makes money, or they can believe in what they're trying to do, and keep going. It's a hard life if you don't have some kind of steady income.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Do you buy music? (Read 36385 times)

Spinless

sk8brder40

Shadows Collide

snowball

Ryder

Ryder

Ryder

Ryder