The Events, The Music, and the Future : The Limitless Decade

[timmay9]

With only a few months left in this current decade, I figured starting a thread to look back about everything: the events, the milestones, the bands, the musicians, the changes, the legal battles, and everything in between.

This decade changed music without a doubt for the better.

No longer is someone bound to the amount of music they can get due to money, location, or background.

No longer does a band have to desperately struggle to get people to listen to their music due to websites such as Youtube, Myspace, and last.fm. Whether for the good or the bad, it’s given the chance for some musician to mix two famous albums together and become a sensation and an acclaimed producer.

With the internet came those who fought hard against everything. Legal battles, lawsuits, and PSA’s have proven to be highly ineffective, as music downloads have only began to rise. What does this mean for the future, and could we see the death of the major label?

What about the new music? The amount of bands has absolutely exploded, and new developments in production and genres have arisen. Hip-hop has dominated the radio, and while album sales have waned, the popularity of music has not.

On a somber note, some very important people in music died this decade. Bo Diddley, Johnny Cash, George Harrison, Les Paul, Joe Strummer, Ray Charles, and Michael Jackson are just a few of the legends who have passed on.

Live music has still remained extremely popular, despite ticket prices on major shows facing major criticism. The rise of the corporate summer festival also occurred. While there were a few in the 90’s, they have exploded in terms of the number of them. This decade has seen the decline of the rock club in many areas, while others still remain. Famous clubs such as CBGB's have closed their doors.

And what does all this mean for the future? What new developments in music do you think will come out of the current landscape? How will the major labels try to fight piracy, and how miserably can they fail?

All some questions and stuff I thought should be asked.

RIP
Abbot, Darrell (Dimebag Darrell)
Bates, Ellas (Bo Diddley)
Brown, James
Cash, J.R. (Johnny)
DuBrow, Kevin
Entwistle, John
Hansen, Mary
Harrison, George
Hawkins, Jalacy (Screamin' Jay Hawkins)
Jackson, Michael
Mellor, Joe (Joe Strummer)
Polsfuss, Lester (Les Paul)
Robinson, Ray (Ray Charles)
Schuldiner, Charles (Chuck)
Smith, Steve (Elliot Smith)
Stanley, Lane
Taylor, Arthur (Arthur Lee)

[Fizzeler]

Some great bands have re-united to record new material this decade as well as an explosion of new genres and many other crossover genres forming



And what does all this mean for the future? What new developments in music do you think will come out of the current landscape? How will the major labels try to fight piracy, and how miserably can they fail?


Music: New genres and as always bands using the sounds from previous decades and using in the modern decade

Developments: New audio interfaces for concerts, recording equipment giving every person the same materials major record labels use, and better visuals for concerts

[afterstasis]

space reserved for my incredibly important thoughts and opinions that are so important they'll have to wait until i finish some things around the house and have a few drinks.

[timmay9]

space reserved for my incredibly important thoughts and opinions that are so important they'll have to wait until i finish some things around the house and have a few drinks.

We are honored.

[ArmsAreLoud]

I think one of the major points of this decade is that most everyone was incredibly dissatisfied with the mainstream. I expect a major flip in what's popular due to this; after all, it's not like we haven't seen a ridiculous shift in what's cool before.

[wcarnation]

As the capability to exchange ideas and information increases in depth and speed, so will the creations and expressions of those ideas and information.

Music of this decade was in hyperform.

[Cubecubed]

I think one of the major points of this decade is that most everyone was incredibly dissatisfied with the mainstream. I expect a major flip in what's popular due to this; after all, it's not like we haven't seen a ridiculous shift in what's cool before.

one huge change in this decade is that listening to music outside of the mainstream is a far easier task to accomplish because of the internet,and thus far more common now.

[afterstasis]

As the capability to exchange ideas and information increases in depth and speed, so will the creations and expressions of those ideas and information.

Music of this decade was in hyperform.

agreed.
this has been a very quickly moving year in terms of musical developments, trends, and so forth.

[polishdog90]

This decade music was made.

[willdabeast21]

This decade was not my favorite decade music-wise (that would be the 90s), but it was good none-the-less.
Personal music-related highlights include -
Alice in Chains' reunion and upcoming album
Audioslave
The Black Eyed Peas' first 2 albums
Eminem's Encore
The 2 Chili Peppers albums released this decade
Chickenfoot
The Our Lady Peace/Sloan/Chickenfoot/Finger 11 concert I went to this summer
Quo Vadis
Learning to play bass/forming a band/writing original material
Brave New World, which will always be my favorite Maiden album. The Wicker Man = first Maiden song I mastered on bass

I'd also like to pay respect to Layne Staley, who died in '02

[tridentgum0]

Highlights:

Judas Priest reunion/tour (Nostradamus was a pretty meh album tbh)
Genre fusions go to a whole new level
One of my favorite decades for metal (Bloodbath, Opeth, Arsis, etc.)
Iron Maiden's Dance of Death (the lyrics remind me of Bob Dylan on the title track.)
Depeche Mode's Sounds of the Universe
Shoegaze

Also, he may not be a legend, but Kevin DuBrow of Quiet Riot passed away on November 26, 2007.

[NormanCoxwell]

The Yeah Yeah Yeahs formed in 2000. About the single greatest event in musical history.

[TheClashTheClashTheClash]

Joe Strummer also died this decade. He should be up there with those names listed.

I hope Hip Hop dies though. Its sad seeing a bunch of white upper middle class suburban kids trying to act "gansta"

[timmay9]

I hope Hip Hop dies though. Its sad seeing a bunch of white upper middle class suburban kids trying to act "gansta"

How nice of you to pigeonhole an entire genre of music.

[Cubecubed]

The Yeah Yeah Yeahs formed in 2000. About the single greatest event in musical history.

if we are going with personal events,mine would be Shabutie changing their name to Coheed and Cambria in 2001,lol.

[timmay9]

Wow, I really thought this would get more replies.

[overcookedbacon]

With the internet came those who fought hard against everything. Legal battles, lawsuits, and PSA’s have proven to be highly ineffective, as music downloads have only began to rise. What does this mean for the future, and could we see the death of the major label?

I would love to touch on this subject. The internet made accessing infinite amounts of media (including music) completely effortless, and even free. Obviously this conflicted with modern copyright law, so organizations like the RIAA and MPAA started a massive campaign against media piracy on behalf of the labels and corporations they represent.

The current business model of the music industry is no longer feasible. What's happening now is that major record labels and the corporations that own them are attempting to hold together that business model which is quickly falling apart.

File sharing is already one of those "everyone's doing it" sort of things. Yeah there are people who don't download music illegally, but the sheer number that do is overwhelming. So much so that the music industry's crusade against piracy can hardly be called "cracking down" or "regaining control."

The RIAA's lawsuits are not accomplishing anything. They're not saving their business model, they're more like the death throes of a wounded animal.

That's what happens when something like that is allowed to live for too long. The business model they're trying to save might as well be an antique at this point. The internet brought about such revolutionary change that it basically re-wrote every single aspect of our lives. The music industry is refusing to change with the times, and will eventually be completely taken down. It's as inevitable as the tide.

Hopefully that rant was what you had in mind when you said you wanted more replies, timmay9.

[timmay9]

I would love to touch on this subject. The internet made accessing infinite amounts of media (including music) completely effortless, and even free. Obviously this conflicted with modern copyright law, so organizations like the RIAA and MPAA started a massive campaign against media piracy on behalf of the labels and corporations they represent.

The current business model of the music industry is no longer feasible. What's happening now is that major record labels and the corporations that own them are attempting to hold together that business model which is quickly falling apart.

File sharing is already one of those "everyone's doing it" sort of things. Yeah there are people who don't download music illegally, but the sheer number that do is overwhelming. So much so that the music industry's crusade against piracy can hardly be called "cracking down" or "regaining control."

The RIAA's lawsuits are not accomplishing anything. They're not saving their business model, they're more like the death throes of a wounded animal.

That's what happens when something like that is allowed to live for too long. The business model they're trying to save might as well be an antique at this point. The internet brought about such revolutionary change that it basically re-wrote every single aspect of our lives. The music industry is refusing to change with the times, and will eventually be completely taken down. It's as inevitable as the tide.

Hopefully that rant was what you had in mind when you said you wanted more replies, timmay9.

I'm trying to think of words to say what you said more better, but I seem to unable to be do so.

[overcookedbacon]

I'm trying to think of words to say what you said more better, but I seem to unable to be do so.

Thanks, I think. Though I was kind of tired at the time, so I may reword a bit of that post today, because I'm obsessive like that.

[Soror_YZBL]

I think one of the major points of this decade is that most everyone was incredibly dissatisfied with the mainstream. I expect a major flip in what's popular due to this; after all, it's not like we haven't seen a ridiculous shift in what's cool before.

With the way our society is changing, soon there won't BE a mainstream. We're quickly splintering off into cliquish subcultures. :)

What we're seeing is death to the mainstream, and all it represents.

[Alright_Computer]

With the way our society is changing, soon there won't BE a mainstream. We're quickly splintering off into cliquish subcultures. :)

What we're seeing is death to the mainstream, and all it represents.

Well, damn, I guess after generations of posers saying "death to the mainstream", something had to happen eventually.

[timmay9]

Thanks, I think. Though I was kind of tired at the time, so I may reword a bit of that post today, because I'm obsessive like that.

It was a complement dude. Couldn't have said it any better.

[JukeBoxHero]

Well, damn, I guess after generations of posers saying "death to the mainstream", something had to happen eventually.

Huzzah, but cliquish sub cultures don't sound like a lot of fun either.

[timmay9]

The whole subcultures thing is more frightening. Back in 85, black people weren't being called the n-word over a music video on the internet.

While the mainstream might die, the stereotypes won't.

[Mega-Tallica]

This decade was great for music. It killed Nu-Metal with post-grunge(thank god), many old bands from the 80's/90's have reunited (Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, etc.) and I've been to too many good live shows to talk about. All in all a great decade of music and I expect the next decade to be just as good.

[DrewLee865]

Post Grunge is just as bad as nu metal.

[tridentgum0]

Timmay, I'm disappointed. Some guy named John Entwistle died in 2002. Don't think you've ever heard of him though. ;)

[neckermanncj]

http://pitchfork.com/p2k/

/shameless plug for a biased internet magazine


KID A!!!!

/fanboy screaming for the best album of the decade (it really isn't my best album of the decade but if i wanted to sound smart and elitist, i would choose it ;))

[Rocket2Russia]

I'll always remember 2000-2010 the decade that I first discovered music. I turned 5 in 2000, so my entire musical life has been in this decade.

As far as stuff that everyone will remember, I hope that this is looked back at as the quiet before the storm. After a decade-long lull in mainstream popularity, I hope that next decade brings rock back alive and well, bursting back into mainstream popularity.

[timmay9]

Timmay, I'm disappointed. Some guy named John Entwistle died in 2002. Don't think you've ever heard of him though. ;)

I said something about this because I clearly am not going to fit all of the great musicians who died this decade into a sentence.


http://pitchfork.com/p2k/

/shameless plug for a biased internet magazine


KID A!!!!

/fanboy screaming for the best album of the decade (it really isn't my best album of the decade but if i wanted to sound smart and elitist, i would choose it ;))

Funny enough, I agree with the number one song choice (Both Outkast songs, the Radiohead song, and "Crazy" all deserve to be in the top 25-50 or so imo).


I'll always remember 2000-2010 the decade that I first discovered music. I turned 5 in 2000, so my entire musical life has been in this decade.

As far as stuff that everyone will remember, I hope that this is looked back at as the quiet before the storm. After a decade-long lull in mainstream popularity, I hope that next decade brings rock back alive and well, bursting back into mainstream popularity.

Rock isn't dead though...

[MrFruitLord]

The whole subcultures thing is more frightening. Back in 85, black people weren't being called the n-word over a music video on the internet.

While the mainstream might die, the stereotypes won't.

This generation doesn't show signs of being good for the world.

[timmay9]

Not to be morbid, but I've added a RIP list at the bottom with everyone's given and stage names.

[overcookedbacon]

Not to be morbid, but I've added a RIP list at the bottom with everyone's given and stage names.

Some people to include on that list:
Elliot Smith
Mary Hansen
Layne Staley

[Rocket2Russia]

Rock isn't dead though...

I never said it was, but its mainstream popularity seriously waned this decade, and it did lull compared to previous decades.

[Fragory123]

I will always remember this decade as the decade I discovered metal, the first metal band I enjoyed being The Sword which I discovered in 2007 (I was 13) thanks to the song "Iron Swan" being featured in the first teaser trailer for the video game Mercenaries 2: World In Flames.

I loved it and slowly I delved deeper and deeper into the genre, getting into some of the older artists like Iron Maiden and Metallica while embracing some of the current nu metal artists like Disturbed and Slipknot. I still couldn't stand death metal, and thought "the instrumental stuff is awesome but the vocals just ruin it for me".

Then about four months ago I heard Gojira for the first time thanks to a recommendation through Mastodon on Last.fm. I was blown away by their awesomness and slowly I got into all of the sub-genres of metal. Death metal is now one of my favorite genres and it's even gotten to the point where I'm trying to learn to do death vocals.

For me this decade has been awesome, particularly the last third of it.

[Alright_Computer]

The whole subcultures thing is more frightening. Back in 85, black people weren't being called the n-word over a music video on the internet.

While the mainstream might die, the stereotypes won't.

I think this is a perfect example of this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg). They only say that stuff because they can say it with no repercussions; I seriously doubt anyone doing that would say those things in the real world.

[JukeBoxHero]

I agree with all of your points for this decade timmay, some good observations.

What I'll remember this decade for the most though...

That music is my passion and one of the few things that I can truly say I care about.

[Runesmith]

I am still busy exploring other decades, so I really don't have much to say about the 2000s other than thank the powers that be for creating the rock rhythm game.

[svartikins]

I started playing guitar this decade. Maybe next decade you all will know of me. :rolleyes:

And of course, how can we forget BrokenCYDE.

Seriously though, as much as we might bash it, there was some good stuff this decade.

[timmay9]

I think this is a perfect example of this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg). They only say that stuff because they can say it with no repercussions; I seriously doubt anyone doing that would say those things in the real world.

This decade has given birth to the 13 year old dipsh*t rock critic, so not everything is hunky dory.

The problem is, I think some people are going to get used to saying these ridiculous statements irl because their brain is going to be taught that there are no repercussions. Hell, even on Facebook people are starting to flame their own acquaintances.

[overcookedbacon]

In light of recent people (Lily Allen) making statements about the evils of file sharing, I've decided to revive this thread.

Lily Allen recently posted a blog entry discussing at length about how big of a problem file sharing is for musicians. One section in particular caught my attention:


For new talent though, file sharing is a disaster as it's making it harder and harder for new acts to emerge.

The context of the above quote is that emerging musicians will have trouble paying back their record label if they don't sell enough albums, or have a popular enough music video. She also states that it's easier for popular bands like Pink Floyd and Radiohead to support file sharing because they're already rich and successful.

She does bring up some valid points in her post, but not when it comes to the effect that file sharing has on emerging musicians. File sharing makes it possible for anyone anywhere to get a copy of virtually any new album. So basically it gives new musicians an unprecedented level of exposure that they would likely have otherwise never received.

Yeah, that's really bad for new musicians. What Lily Allen (and most people who support her views) seem to miss is that those criminals who download music would probably not go out and buy that album, even if they weren't able to download it. No, they just wouldn't hear that music at all, which is the bigger crime in my opinion.

File sharing doesn't damage a band's record sales in significant way. Yeah, there are a few people who steal albums that they would otherwise buy, but those are a tiny minority. In the long run, all that file sharing does is gain fans... Fans that enjoy your music... Fans that will likely spend money on your music, other merch and/or live shows in the future...

Viewing file sharing as a crime is stupid. File sharing is an incredibly powerful tool that can be used by bands of all shapes and sizes, and more and more musicians are starting to realize that. The current business model for the music industry is falling apart, and people sharing music over the internet is not a "problem," nor is it going away.

As I said in my previous post, I think the era of the big-name record label has come to an end. Musicians on those labels will likely take a big cut in pay when that era ends, and will have to back to working for their success. Music will go back to being a form of artistic expression, rather than a product, and that is the most beautiful thing about it.

[Soror_YZBL]

In a way you're right, but the problem is that if all of a sudden there was no more copyright law, and you could download anything you wanted for free, no one will be able to support themselves as a musician (regardless of what folks say about "live shows" being where you make your money), and because of that, no one will do it. Now personally, I'm a commie and as such believe free music is as important as free food, free shelter, and free doctors, but we don't live in Soviet Union. We're capitalist here, and unless musicians are given incentives to create, less and less people will make music. I'm sure you're also forgetting the fact that making music actually costs a LOT of money. Even if you record yourself, you'll need to invest a good 10 grand in order to have a decent home studio.

As for live shows, it's obvious you've not been in a band before. Unless you're an established act, you don't make ANYTHING when you play live, other than maybe a hundred bucks or so at the door. 100 bucks divided by 4 people, after expenses is about 50 cents. As far as merch - it's not really a money maker. You may sell some t-shirts or stickers (because, really, anything else is just a novelty item with your band name on it), but the majority of merch sales are ----wait for it... CD's.

So going by your model, you'll have a million amateur musicians, making amateur music amateurly through their amateur PC's, sharing it with their amateur friends who are also musicians.

So the point is that file sharing, i.e. taking away most musicians' primary income source, pretty much kills any incentive to make quality recorded music. The RIAA does, too, that's why I say buy indie.

Finally, to end on a funny note,


In the long run, all that file sharing does is gain fans... Fans that enjoy your music...

You can't eat fans.

[Parodygm]

How do artists profit off secondhand music sales, and where was the massive outcry against that when there was such a store on every second city block? File sharing probably took most of that territory (and then some).

[Soror_YZBL]

How do artists profit off secondhand music sales, and where was the massive outcry against that when there was such a store on every second city block? File sharing probably took most of that territory (and then some).

It was there, they *****ed a *lot*. Garth Brooks in particular was very upset about the second hand store market.

[overcookedbacon]

In a way you're right, but the problem is that if all of a sudden there was no more copyright law, and you could download anything you wanted for free, no one will be able to support themselves as a musician (regardless of what folks say about "live shows" being where you make your money), and because of that, no one will do it.

I didn't say that there shouldn't be copyright law, but current copyright laws are way too restrictive. The simple fact of the matter is that file sharing shows no signs of stopping or even slowing down, and the music industry will have to adapt to that, or it will die out. A new business model is needed, and if that business model can use file sharing as a tool it will certainly thrive.


Now personally, I'm a commie and as such believe free music is as important as free food, free shelter, and free doctors, but we don't live in Soviet Union. We're capitalist here, and unless musicians are given incentives to create, less and less people will make music. I'm sure you're also forgetting the fact that making music actually costs a LOT of money. Even if you record yourself, you'll need to invest a good 10 grand in order to have a decent home studio.

It's like I said though, the vast majority of people that download music illegally would not buy that music if free downloading wasn't an option. That exposure creates fans that will quite possibly buy that music in the future. I know that I use file sharing as a sort of "preview" system, and I almost always end up buying something that I've downloaded if I like it. There are a lot of people out there like that. The best example I can give is Radiohead's Kid A. It sold better because it leaked on the internet prior to release, and let Radiohead reach an entirely new audience.


As for live shows, it's obvious you've not been in a band before. Unless you're an established act, you don't make ANYTHING when you play live, other than maybe a hundred bucks or so at the door. 100 bucks divided by 4 people, after expenses is about 50 cents. As far as merch - it's not really a money maker. You may sell some t-shirts or stickers (because, really, anything else is just a novelty item with your band name on it), but the majority of merch sales are ----wait for it... CD's.

I don't expect musicians to make all their money from other merch and live shows. Many (especially indie) record labels and bands are starting to include additional incentives for people to buy their CDs rather than download it illegally. That is the appropriate response to file sharing, and not RIAA lawsuits for tens of thousands of dollars.

I believe with every fiber of my being that suing someone out of house and home for downloading an album is a mortal sin. I'm not religious, but if there is a hell then that would damn sure get you a VIP pass.


So going by your model, you'll have a million amateur musicians, making amateur music amateurly through their amateur PC's, sharing it with their amateur friends who are also musicians.

That's not what I said. My point is that file sharing is an incredibly powerful tool that could easily be exploited by musicians if the music industry was willing to change their business model. Major labels are refusing to change with the times, which will ultimately result in their downfall.


So the point is that file sharing, i.e. taking away most musicians' primary income source, pretty much kills any incentive to make quality recorded music. The RIAA does, too, that's why I say buy indie.

It's like I said though, file sharing shows no signs of slowing down much less stopping. It's not a realistic goal to try and defend an old business model when it's already well beyond saving. The RIAA and major record labels are trying to do just that, and they're failing miserably. Indie record labels seem to be more willing to adapt, and like I said they've already started creating more incentive to buy music as opposed to downloading it.

[timmay9]

The only one of the four big labels that is really starting to lose money is Warner, and that's due to horrible business practices on their end.

So any argument by critics that the industry isn't turning huge profits is lying to you.

And overcooked, if there is a hell, the people at the RIAA will get VIP passes. They've f*cking suggested to people to drop out of college so they can pay their settlements. That's so f*cked up I can't comprehend it.

On top of that, the artists themselves don't see a cent of it.

The RIAA has been ruining numerous lives for the last 10 years.

[afterstasis]

i stopped buying non-secondhand major label releases almost 10 years ago (i believe the last one i bought was "kid a").

i still try to spend a good chunk of change on music, though i download more than my share. i buy based on a combination of music, packaging, price, and how cool the folks selling it seem to be.

[overcookedbacon]

The only one of the four big labels that is really starting to lose money is Warner, and that's due to horrible business practices on their end.

So any argument by critics that the industry isn't turning huge profits is lying to you.

I know they're turning huge profits, which is why file sharing isn't nearly as much of a problem as those labels are making it out to be. The losses incurred because of file sharing are almost negligible for both the label and the artist. They're blowing it way out of proportion with the RIAA and ridiculous lawsuits. All they're doing is making themselves out to be the bad guy.

I'll say this again: At this point file sharing cannot be stopped, or even slowed down in any meaningful way. Even public opinion has more or less shifted in favor of those who download music. For starters, so very many people do it, and secondly the music industry has attempted to deal with file sharing in perhaps the worst way possible.

All the general public sees is every now and then some poor person gets sued for a ludicrous amount of money, and essentially has their life ruined completely. Whenever that happens, those hundreds of thousands of people who download music illegally go "holy s**t, I do that too, that could be me."

What should have happened if the music industry wanted to combat file sharing, is that they should have either figured out a way to exploit this new technology, or offered incentive for people to actually buy music as opposed to downloading it. Many indie labels have started to do both of those things, but major labels are refusing to change with the times.


And overcooked, if there is a hell, the people at the RIAA will get VIP passes. They've f*cking suggested to people to drop out of college so they can pay their settlements. That's so f*cked up I can't comprehend it.

On top of that, the artists themselves don't see a cent of it.

The RIAA has been ruining numerous lives for the last 10 years.

Ruining lives in the name of greed is an evil and pathetic thing to do. They call file sharers criminals, and then proceed to destroy their lives and often the lives of their families just for the sake of money. Yeah, and they're the real criminals here. I applaud the few judges who throw those cases out, it at least shows that there are some people left who still believe that the law should defend good from evil.

[neckermanncj]

some good arguments in here! :D

[Dante1847]

The only one of the four big labels that is really starting to lose money is Warner, and that's due to horrible business practices on their end.

So any argument by critics that the industry isn't turning huge profits is lying to you.

And overcooked, if there is a hell, the people at the RIAA will get VIP passes. They've f*cking suggested to people to drop out of college so they can pay their settlements. That's so f*cked up I can't comprehend it.

On top of that, the artists themselves don't see a cent of it.

The RIAA has been ruining numerous lives for the last 10 years.

the RIAA is an aggressive SOB, no question, and if what you say is true, then I would agree that they're suggestions are pretty extreme

that said, having gone through high school and college downloading music for free, Ive now come to realize that there is a better way.



What I saw from this decade was a reaction to the file-sharing that has exploded...and that reaction is innovation. And fortunately, assuming my facts are right, that innovation has been expressed by two of my favorites--Radiohead and NIN--that effectively let people name a price and/or pick up their recent works for free. Unfortunately, it seems clear so far that only established bands--however you may define that--are in a position to do that.

The RIAA is ruining lives. Ok. That is true, because I feel they aim, as bacon said, to absolutely destroy people's lives for being caught in a commonly-practiced act that is marginally harmful to the artist.

However, with the channels through which people can now listen to music for free online, I fail to see how anyone can now claim an excuse for not buying music that they enjoy. its simple math now: you hear or are exposed to a musician online, and like them enough that you want to sample more of that bands/artist's music, and after sampling them ever more you decide that you are a "fan"....I fail to see how people are entitled to then exploit that by just downloading bands' music for free.

Support the artists that you enjoy.

[timmay9]

the RIAA is an aggressive SOB, no question, and if what you say is true, then I would agree that they're suggestions are pretty extreme

that said, having gone through high school and college downloading music for free, Ive now come to realize that there is a better way.



What I saw from this decade was a reaction to the file-sharing that has exploded...and that reaction is innovation. And fortunately, assuming my facts are right, that innovation has been expressed by two of my favorites--Radiohead and NIN--that effectively let people name a price and/or pick up their recent works for free. Unfortunately, it seems clear so far that only established bands--however you may define that--are in a position to do that.

The RIAA is ruining lives. Ok. That is true, because I feel they aim, as bacon said, to absolutely destroy people's lives for being caught in a commonly-practiced act that is marginally harmful to the artist.

However, with the channels through which people can now listen to music for free online, I fail to see how anyone can now claim an excuse for not buying music that they enjoy. its simple math now: you hear or are exposed to a musician online, and like them enough that you want to sample more of that bands/artist's music, and after sampling them ever more you decide that you are a "fan"....I fail to see how people are entitled to then exploit that by just downloading bands' music for free.

Support the artists that you enjoy.

While it's doesn't apply to me, not everyone's pockets are lined with gold. Those college students are pretty much broke as it is with tuition, board, college loans, etc.

Plenty of artists do release their music for free (and did this before either NIN or Radiohead). Best example is Wilco, who after being dropped by their label, put up their album for free, received big attention, got signed again (to the same major label, though a different division), and the album sold 600,000 copies.

[Dante1847]

While it's doesn't apply to me, not everyone's pockets are lined with gold. Those college students are pretty much broke as it is with tuition, board, college loans, etc.

Plenty of artists do release their music for free (and did this before either NIN or Radiohead). Best example is Wilco, who after being dropped by their label, put up their album for free, received big attention, got signed again (to the same major label, though a different division), and the album sold 600,000 copies.

and thank you timmay for the obvious response, one that i used to emphasize with. cept now, Ive come to known this as a valid response: just set a budget for your music. build your library gradually if you have to, because to "own" music is a privilege--and the beauty is, that still doesn't limit you from having to experience music new or old. there are virtually no limits to your ability to be exposed to music with the internet. your pockets need only be big enough to afford a computer, using your logic.

[Soror_YZBL]

I didn't say that there shouldn't be copyright law, but current copyright laws are way too restrictive. The simple fact of the matter is that file sharing shows no signs of stopping or even slowing down, and the music industry will have to adapt to that, or it will die out. A new business model is needed, and if that business model can use file sharing as a tool it will certainly thrive.

So **** the little guys who depend 100% on merch sales? Great way to get back at the RIAA.


It's like I said though, the vast majority of people that download music illegally would not buy that music if free downloading wasn't an option. That exposure creates fans that will quite possibly buy that music in the future. I know that I use file sharing as a sort of "preview" system, and I almost always end up buying something that I've downloaded if I like it. There are a lot of people out there like that. The best example I can give is Radiohead's Kid A. It sold better because it leaked on the internet prior to release, and let Radiohead reach an entirely new audience.

I can tell you now that I will never ever buy Kid A, because I downloaded it. In fact, I haven't bought a radiohead album since OK computer, since I've downloaded them for free. Most people are like that, they'll download it, shove it on their iPod and never think twice about purchasing it. I will, however, take issue with your example - dunno if you noticed (or were listening to music more complex than Barney) but their prior release, a small indie record called OK Computer, was kind of popular, in the "Sold millions and millions of records" sort of way. It was kind of a given that Kid A would be successful, and you're right, less people would have had it if it wouldn't have been leaked. But as I said before, you can't eat fans. It's illegal.


I don't expect musicians to make all their money from other merch and live shows. Many (especially indie) record labels and bands are starting to include additional incentives for people to buy their CDs rather than download it illegally. That is the appropriate response to file sharing, and not RIAA lawsuits for tens of thousands of dollars.

So musicians should do something other than music to make money. Gotcha. Like work a drive through at Wendy's, maybe work as a copy repair man, or, as you advocate, a graphic designer and make pretty pictures so that some people will throw them some bread crumbs.


I believe with every fiber of my being that suing someone out of house and home for downloading an album is a mortal sin. I'm not religious, but if there is a hell then that would damn sure get you a VIP pass.

I do, too, but that's because I consider capitalism a mortal sin. :) And you're right - **** the RIAA, they're bastards, you can walk into their headquarters and take all of their office furniture for all I care - but this isn't about them. This is about Joe Schmo and the Schmotones, your local starving artists who are working full time jobs (if they're lucky), on top of spending tens of thousands of dollars on equipment, studio time, pressings, etc, all so they can pursue the dream of being full time professional musical artists. Your model tells Joe that no matter what he does, he won't get paid for his music, only for his time, and whatever ancillary talents he may have.


That's not what I said. My point is that file sharing is an incredibly powerful tool that could easily be exploited by musicians if the music industry was willing to change their business model. Major labels are refusing to change with the times, which will ultimately result in their downfall.

I's like I said though, file sharing shows no signs of slowing down much less stopping. It's not a realistic goal to try and defend an old business model when it's already well beyond saving. The RIAA and major record labels are trying to do just that, and they're failing miserably. Indie record labels seem to be more willing to adapt, and like I said they've already started creating more incentive to buy music as opposed to downloading it.

Here's a f'rinstance. I really like that band the Material, I heard them on RB, and downloaded their songs from emusic (which means I paid for it, although the band probably saw one dollar if they're lucky). Last night they played the Donkey, which is maybe 10 minutes from my house. I had other plans and as such didn't go. So while they got my dollar from my download, they didn't get my 20 dollars to see them live. If I would have just downloaded their EP for free, they wouldn't have gotten a thing. In other words, there's pretty much NOTHING they can do to make money. Look, I love live music, but I don't go out to see it as often as I'd like. I'm too old to go to an emo concert, I hate to spend outrageous prices on drinks, not to mention if I would like to see a band like U2 or the Cure, I'd spend a few hundred bucks on a ticket.

Bottom line - if people don't pay for recorded music, musicians (and labels) won't invest in recorded music. If that's fine with you, then go ahead and jack sparrow that **** all you want, but when you're 40 and stuck listening to the same music you did when you were in your teens because there's no more recorded music, don't come crying to me. Mostly because I hope I'll be dead by then. I couldn't live in a world where I wasn't surrounded by music.

[overcookedbacon]

So **** the little guys who depend 100% on merch sales? Great way to get back at the RIAA.

I'm really trying hard to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion from what I said, but so far I've had no luck. What I'm saying is that relying exclusively on selling CDs in an environment where many people download music is a surefire way to plunge yourself into debt.

It may not be fair, but that's just how it is. I don't like it any more than you do. So far all methods to counter music piracy have either completely failed, or only made things worse. Got a better way?


I can tell you now that I will never ever buy Kid A, because I downloaded it. In fact, I haven't bought a radiohead album since OK computer, since I've downloaded them for free. Most people are like that, they'll download it, shove it on their iPod and never think twice about purchasing it. I will, however, take issue with your example - dunno if you noticed (or were listening to music more complex than Barney) but their prior release, a small indie record called OK Computer, was kind of popular, in the "Sold millions and millions of records" sort of way. It was kind of a given that Kid A would be successful, and you're right, less people would have had it if it wouldn't have been leaked. But as I said before, you can't eat fans. It's illegal.

Then congrats, you're officially part of the problem...


So musicians should do something other than music to make money. Gotcha. Like work a drive through at Wendy's, maybe work as a copy repair man, or, as you advocate, a graphic designer and make pretty pictures so that some people will throw them some bread crumbs.

Are... Are you purposefully misreading my posts? I actually agreed with you that musicians have to make money from music sales, and that they can't rely on live shows and other merch...

My point is valid though, if musicians want to keep selling CDs they'll have to make it more appealing than downloading that music for free. It's really a simple concept of free market, whoever has the most appealing product wins. And I know you hate capitalism, but face the reality: The music industry is dominated by capitalism, and that's not likely to change.


I do, too, but that's because I consider capitalism a mortal sin. :) And you're right - **** the RIAA, they're bastards, you can walk into their headquarters and take all of their office furniture for all I care - but this isn't about them. This is about Joe Schmo and the Schmotones, your local starving artists who are working full time jobs (if they're lucky), on top of spending tens of thousands of dollars on equipment, studio time, pressings, etc, all so they can pursue the dream of being full time professional musical artists. Your model tells Joe that no matter what he does, he won't get paid for his music, only for his time, and whatever ancillary talents he may have.

When did I propose a business model? What I said is that the old model is failing, and that a new one will likely be necessary in the near future. The grim reality of it is that emerging artists who fail to adapt will not survive. Again, it sucks but that's life. I have no idea what that business model could be, but unless someone devises a realistic way to combat file-sharing, there needs to be a change.


Here's a f'rinstance. I really like that band the Material, I heard them on RB, and downloaded their songs from emusic (which means I paid for it, although the band probably saw one dollar if they're lucky). Last night they played the Donkey, which is maybe 10 minutes from my house. I had other plans and as such didn't go. So while they got my dollar from my download, they didn't get my 20 dollars to see them live. If I would have just downloaded their EP for free, they wouldn't have gotten a thing. In other words, there's pretty much NOTHING they can do to make money. Look, I love live music, but I don't go out to see it as often as I'd like. I'm too old to go to an emo concert, I hate to spend outrageous prices on drinks, not to mention if I would like to see a band like U2 or the Cure, I'd spend a few hundred bucks on a ticket.

So everyone is just thoroughly screwed? That's a very good outlook.


Bottom line - if people don't pay for recorded music, musicians (and labels) won't invest in recorded music. If that's fine with you, then go ahead and jack sparrow that **** all you want, but when you're 40 and stuck listening to the same music you did when you were in your teens because there's no more recorded music, don't come crying to me. Mostly because I hope I'll be dead by then. I couldn't live in a world where I wasn't surrounded by music.

You seem to still be under the impression that I believe musicians should give up on selling their music and make money in other ways. That's not it at all.

[timmay9]

I'm really trying hard to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion from what I said, but so far I've had no luck.

Don't worry, knowing her, alcohol was involved. She's cool though, sometimes the commie in her manifests itself in ways it shouldn't. :p

[Soror_YZBL]

I'm really trying hard to see how you could possibly draw that conclusion from what I said, but so far I've had no luck. What I'm saying is that relying exclusively on selling CDs in an environment where many people download music is a surefire way to plunge yourself into debt.

And how is this not telling musicians to stop trying to sell music?


It may not be fair, but that's just how it is. I don't like it any more than you do. So far all methods to counter music piracy have either completely failed, or only made things worse. Got a better way?

the iTunes model works very well. Emusic is even better. Subscription services are awesome. Pay 20 bucks a month, get 50 songs. No physical media, the only costs are bandwidth and server space. Seriously, if you can't afford 50 cents a song, your worries should be a lot more than just the price of music. I'm seriously wondering how you can eat. If a song isn't worth 50 cents, it shouldn't be worth the bother of even downloading it.


Then congrats, you're officially part of the problem...

LOL yeah I was. I don't pirate free stuff as much anymore, unless it's some super rare import only thing that I can't find for sale. It happens more than you think.


Are... Are you purposefully misreading my posts? I actually agreed with you that musicians have to make money from music sales, and that they can't rely on live shows and other merch... My point is valid though, if musicians want to keep selling CDs they'll have to make it more appealing than downloading that music for free. It's really a simple concept of free market, whoever has the most appealing product wins. And I know you hate capitalism, but face the reality: The music industry is dominated by capitalism, and that's not likely to change.

I understand what you're saying, and appreciate that you understand what I'm saying, but unfortunately, we'll disagree for the simple fact that when you're a band playing shows, you make money off of merch. No one wants your t-shirt unless they're a fan, but they might want to hear your music. In ye olden days, you'd sell them a cd, and you could maybe have a cheeseburger on your drive home. Nowadays, they go home and download it, which means you don't get a cheeseburger, you sulk in the van all the way home about how it cost you 300 dollars to get to Pittsburgh but you only made 100 bucks at the door and that greasy old guy who won't stop flirting with you bought a t-shirt, which puts you in the hole about 185 dollars. Think I'll play pittsburgh again? Not anytime soon. I'm not a "marketer" or "investor", who has a ton of money to stick into this band thing. I can barely pay rent and feed myself (heaven help me if I have a child, or am unemployed or whatever).

The point is, if bands don't make money touring, they won't tour. If they don't make money selling music, they won't make music. I'm not sure if you've ever been in a touring band, but it's freaking expensive. What you're advocating is musicians to STOP making music, and start doing other stuff to make money. Hell, I can save the expense of a new amp and effects processor, buy a silk screen machine, and just sell t-shirts. If I want to make music, I'll just play guitar in my living room, record it on a crappy usb adapter, and shove it up on bittorrent for people to download for free. and it'll sound like ass.


When did I propose a business model? What I said is that the old model is failing, and that a new one will likely be necessary in the near future. The grim reality of it is that emerging artists who fail to adapt will not survive. Again, it sucks but that's life. I have no idea what that business model could be, but unless someone devises a realistic way to combat file-sharing, there needs to be a change.

Unfortunately, the only model that can work is paid digital distribution. While everyone *****es about the "big famous rock stars and their million dollar mansions", everyone seems to forget that those people make up less than 1% of working musicians in the world. So yeah, you can steal the latest Metallica record without a lot of impact, but if you steal the new Kylesa record, those guys are going to feel it.


So everyone is just thoroughly screwed? That's a very good outlook. You seem to still be under the impression that I believe musicians should give up on selling their music and make money in other ways. That's not it at all.

Nope, simple business model - COMMUNISM. :)

Actually, there's at least one other, but it will likely never really work. It's a combination of a Last.fm/Pandora streaming service with an emusic/rhapsody style subscription model (or a more complex licensing model). Your device contains no actual content, it's all stored on the server and you stream it directly via the net. Problems with that are we'd need a massive (talking massive) upgrade to the wireless internet (think 5g networks), and you'd have to be constantly connected. Not to mention you'd have to maintain the license and/or subscription. On the bright side, you'd never have to worry about losing your stuff in a hard drive crash.

Of course, musicians should just start making DVD's instead of CD's. Shove on the full album, plus a live show, maybe some music videos or additional content on the DVD, but that's expensive, and goes back to the "having musicians make money by doing things other than music" thing I was *****ing about earlier.

I guess the point of my whole rant on this topic is this:

Stop pirating from indies. The RIAA gets no ****ing from that. Support your local music scene. Go to their shows, buy their CD's, PAY for their digital files, etc etc etc. You're supposed to be a fan of this band. How is it that you can hate a company like Microsoft, whom everyone still ends up giving a ton of money to each year, yet love a band like Isis or Amesoeurs and steal their music? Steal from Microsoft!

[Soror_YZBL]

Don't worry, knowing her, alcohol was involved. She's cool though, sometimes the commie in her manifests itself in ways it shouldn't. :p

I'm actually sober today. :) I'm at work.

[timmay9]

I'm actually sober today. :) I'm at work.

A JOB? That's a first! :p

[afterstasis]

how to hear all the music you want while still showing financial support in 3 easy steps

1. set aside a determined amount of money for music, whether it be on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis.

2. sample all you can. note your favorites.

3. buy as many of those favorites as your budget allows while trying to show support to the runners-up via spreading their name. feel free to allow things like record label alliance, political agendas, wicked packaging, or whatever you can think of influence your decisions... it's your cash.


sure, i really dug a lot of stuff this year that i can't afford and that i'll continue to jam my mp3 copies of, but it's not like i would have purchased them if i hadn't downloaded them and found out how much they rule...
however, i will definitely be keeping an eye out for lowered prices, local shows, and future albums from those bands.

[hmxhenry]

Bottom line - if people don't pay for recorded music, musicians (and labels) won't invest in recorded music. If that's fine with you, then go ahead and jack sparrow that **** all you want, but when you're 40 and stuck listening to the same music you did when you were in your teens because there's no more recorded music, don't come crying to me. Mostly because I hope I'll be dead by then. I couldn't live in a world where I wasn't surrounded by music.

First of all, I am totally going to start using "Jack Sparrow" as a euphemism for "pirating" from now on.

Beyond that, I think that all the discussion so far, both pro and con, shows how important digital media has become in the last decade. File sharing is nothing new. I've been copying my favorite songs to cassette and giving them to friends for free for over 25 years now. It's the distribution that's changed, and in some respects the distribution has become even more important than the music.

While digital distribution improves visibility of small bands, simplifies the marketing process (make a myspace page, BOOM, you're done), and even allows them to set up on line merch stores, this shift in distribution has made music a less personal experience. You don't need to go to a show to see your favorite band any more, you can just hop on You Tube. You don't even need to go to an actual retail store to talk to a real person to buy an album any more, you just click to buy. Personal media devices serve to further isolate people as music becomes an increasing insular experience.

But, to touch back on Soror_YZBL's post above, I'm not so convinced that digital distribution will completely eradicate all traces of recorded music. While there are obviously drastic social, financial and artistic side effects to digital distribution, there is still hope for physical media.

I am comforted to see a steady rise in vinyl sales, despite the fact that records are big, fragile, "out dated", require fairly unique hardware to play, they are almost completely non portable, and they require the most amount of upkeep. So even with all of that stacked against it, vinyl sales have still risen almost 90% in recent years (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/01/music-sales-up-10-in-2008-thanks-to-downloads-and-vinyl.ars), which says a lot about the affinity for physical media.

You can't frame an MP3. You can't hear the pop of the needle hitting the wax or the crackle of the speakers on your ipod. You can't pour over the layout, the insert poster or the lavish cover art of a digital download. I think we are already starting to see more people embracing tangible media, partly borne from nostalgia, but also because there's a lot to be said for the connection you make with something you actually own, hold and interact with.

I think we'll always live in a world where we're surrounded by music, and some of it will be that impermanent background noise through disposable mediums, the kind of stuff we download on a whim and immediately forget about, but what will remain important is the music that we choose to immerse ourselves in... the bands that we follow from venue to venue, the zines and interviews we trade, the band shirts we fly like flags, and the records (not MP3s) that we horde for all time.

[Dante1847]

how to hear all the music you want while still showing financial support in 3 easy steps

1. set aside a determined amount of money for music, whether it be on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis.

2. sample all you can. note your favorites.

3. buy as many of those favorites as your budget allows while trying to show support to the runners-up via spreading their name. feel free to allow things like record label alliance, political agendas, wicked packaging, or whatever you can think of influence your decisions... it's your cash.

exactly

[Soror_YZBL]

how to hear all the music you want while still showing financial support in 3 easy steps

1. set aside a determined amount of money for music, whether it be on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis.

2. sample all you can. note your favorites.

3. buy as many of those favorites as your budget allows while trying to show support to the runners-up via spreading their name. feel free to allow things like record label alliance, political agendas, wicked packaging, or whatever you can think of influence your decisions... it's your cash.


sure, i really dug a lot of stuff this year that i can't afford and that i'll continue to jam my mp3 copies of, but it's not like i would have purchased them if i hadn't downloaded them and found out how much they rule...
however, i will definitely be keeping an eye out for lowered prices, local shows, and future albums from those bands.

I thought of a better way - Product Placement. Think of how much money Snoop Dogg made from Tanqueray, or how rich Cyco Miko got from saying "All I want is a Pepsi" over and over again. The possibilities are endless!

[afterstasis]

I thought of a better way - Product Placement. Think of how much money Snoop Dogg made from Tanqueray, or how rich Cyco Miko got from saying "All I want is a Pepsi" over and over again. The possibilities are endless!

i'm willing to put my music in commercials for medical marijuana and/or goya black beans.