Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

'MUSIC industry lawyers will ask the Federal Court to shutdown the Kazaa file sharing network within days, Australian Recording Industry Association chief executive Stephen Peach said.'

source australianit.news.com.au...06-15318,00.html

If I bring a a music file to your house for you to use and you lend me a music file?

We have been doing this for years with Audio cassettes etc

There was a time music producers would beg radio stations to play there music, now stations have to pay for the privilege.

I want to be free to share my music with everyone without over zealous companies litigating.

leave Kazaa and other peer to peer networks alone !!

Who still uses kazaa?

Originally posted by KidRock
Who still uses kazaa?

Word

Morpheous is where it's at.....for porn.

Originally posted by BackFire
Word

Morpheous is where it's at.....for porn.

they plan to shut them all down

Shit! *downloads porn frantically*

Originally posted by BackFire
Shit! *downloads porn frantically*

What will you do?

No matter what they shut down on their Domestic lands; There are ways for it to strive, and no law can reach them.

I don't believe the can shut them all down. File sharing has been deemed legal..as far as I know. It's the sharing of copyrighted material that's illegal. If Kazaa gets shut down it is because they blatantly advertise sharing copyrighted stuff...they don't even deny it. Hell, they're kind of arrogant about it. Plenty of other networks that are much better than Kazaa..and have a lot less adware.

Kazaa has stoped working for a while now.

Limewire pro is the best. Wierd in Canada that all this is still legal.

They can shut down whatever they want. If you have any problems, contact the Principality of Sealand.

Sealand was a disused Gun Tower 6 miles off the British Coast. Sealand was founded on the principle that any group of people dissatisfied with the oppressive laws and restrictions of existing nation states may declare independence in any place not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of another sovereign entity. The location chosen was Roughs Tower, an island fortress created in World War II by Britain and subsequently abandoned to the jurisdiction of the High Seas.

The independence of Sealand was upheld in a 1968 British court decision where the judge held that Roughs Tower stood in international waters and did not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. This gave birth to Sealand's national motto of E Mare Libertas, or "From the Sea, Freedom".

Sealand looks like this

http://www.havenco.com/photos/sealand_sm.jpg

Sealand has encased into its concrete towers a massive AC system that cools down its hundreds of servers, running under HavenCo and I think the name explains it all.

Problem Solved.

Originally posted by KidRock
Who still uses kazaa?

True. I've always hated people downloading anything through illegal means. It's just ripping off the artist at hand. I think downloading music illegally is only acceptable if you haven't heard a song you may be interested in. If your not throw it away, if you are then you should buy it.

For movies I don't think there is any acceptable method to acquire it illegal, because you pay to watch it. Whereas a song you may play a million times over you probably will only watch a movie 3 or 4 times if you like it that much.

If you want to download, just pay for the damn thing. Tightasses.

They print their own money - I saw a peice on Sealand years ago, its status is quesionable.

Originally posted by Nevermind
True. I've always hated people downloading anything through illegal means. It's just ripping off the artist at hand. I think downloading music illegally is only acceptable if you haven't heard a song you may be interested in. If your not throw it away, if you are then you should buy it.

For movies I don't think there is any acceptable method to acquire it illegal, because you pay to watch it. Whereas a song you may play a million times over you probably will only watch a movie 3 or 4 times if you like it that much.

If you want to download, just pay for the damn thing. Tightasses.

Those poor artists and record execs

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I saw a peice on Sealand years ago, its status is quesionable.

Why is it still questionable ?

Originally posted by GCG
Sealand looks like this

http://www.havenco.com/photos/sealand_sm.jpg

What a shit hole.

Well it will be very hard to stop people to get entertainment for free.
I still go to the cinema here and there (like only 4 times this year)
I have like 30 or so DVD's. (proper DVDS)
Its been since foreever since i downloaded a movie

However music is a different story. I wan to hear a new song then i get bored of it and its gone in less then a week.

Originally posted by GCG
Why is it still questionable ?

Something to do with change in water boundaries around the UK as I remember.

Its perfectly in International waters.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Those poor artists and record execs

Dude, downloading is ethically worng and illegal. Why? because it is stealing. It may not feel like it since you're not going into a store to do so but it is. Everytime a person buys an album the artist/"excecs" get paid. It's how they make a living.

Cry me a river!! for the big ass snobby artists

However its wrong to download a song of a struggling new group.

Its mostly the convience factor. Getting a good song you can put on your mp3 player in less then 2 mins is hard to resist for a lot of people

I wouldnt download movies.

Music yes but movies no. Mainly cause the joint effort of making a movie towers high above the making of an album. Movie productions dwarf the Music Production.

Anyone agree ?

However i would download a crappy stupid blockbuster film just to make Hollywood mad and hope it flops so Hollywood would make better films that would actually be worth seeing in a theater.


Yes i saw the big films this year at the cinema.
(star wars, batman, war of the worlds, Harry potter)

Narnia and Kong i will rent those.

Last movie i downloaded was Matrix revolutions.

Originally posted by manny321
Cry me a river!! for the big ass snobby artists

That's the message sent whenever people try to justify illegal downloading.

"They make heaps of money who cares if you download".

Even if it is a huge faceless corporation like Warner Bros. or Universal that doesn't give you a right. Beneath all that is a person just like you trying to make a living. He may be more successful, not that's not the point. Downloading is wrong.

I am not paying 14.00$ for a CD (that has only has one song of interest) i am not even sure is good.

However Itunes is okay. I use that here and there, Like i used it to get Madonna's new Song "hung up".

Originally posted by manny321
I am not paying 14.00$ for a CD (that has only has one song of interest) i am not even sure is good.

However Itunes is okay. I use that here and there, Like i used it to get Madonna's new Song "hung up".

You are stealing from Madonna !

Dont you realise that with your $14.00, you can contribute to have her look fit in 40 years time ! ? ! ?

Originally posted by manny321
I am not paying 14.00$ for a CD (that has only has one song of interest) i am not even sure is good.



Then there is a simple solution: you don't get it.

You wouldn't walk into a shop and say 'call that a T-shirt? It's not even that nice. Why should I pay?', and walk out with it.

Originally posted by GCG
Its perfectly in International waters.

But on Crown Estate owned land, which means if push comes to shove they are in a bit of trouble there, because las landlord that gives the UK Government quite a say.

Originally posted by manny321
I am not paying 14.00$ for a CD (that has only has one song of interest) i am not even sure is good.

However Itunes is okay. I use that here and there, Like i used it to get Madonna's new Song "hung up".

Yes, precisely. Use iTunes or another programs to acquire songs legally if you don't want to whole album or buy the single. Problem solved.

Originally posted by GCG
You are stealing from Madonna !

Dont you realise that with your $14.00, you can contribute to have her look fit in 40 years time ! ? ! ?

What they spend their money on is none of your concern and totally irrelevant to this thread. If your going to listen to what they worked for, buy it.

There is a simple solution.
Make all songs on Itunes. That is useful but certain songs are missing.

Yeah but i also listen to some indian music and you can't get that from ITUNES.

However i never download games. I always buy 1 or 2 best seller a year for my PS2. Like im buying Star wars:Battlefront 2.

Wow you think i do bad things. You should see my friend. He never bought a cd, watched a movie in theaters or bought a dvd in 5 years. He also has not bought a video game in like 5 years.
Why, because he downloads everything for free. Even i get mad at him for downloading all those games.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But on Crown Estate owned land, which means if push comes to shove they are in a bit of trouble there, because las landlord that gives the UK Government quite a say.

How much is that ? 12 miles or something ?

Originally posted by Nevermind
What they spend their money on is none of your concern and totally irrelevant to this thread. If your going to listen to what they worked for, buy it.

Dont let yourself appeased by my humble remark.

Wait what!!! no more limewire

No limewire works perfectly fine.

Originally posted by GCG
Dont let yourself appeased by my humble remark.

I'll try to keep it in .

everytime you buy and kind of media player or blank media, 25% of what you pay goes into a compensation fund to record companies for copywrite infringement. They are already compensated and have no right to shut anything down. besides, they're just a bunch of ****ing fat rich pigs who destroy and exploit their own artists and would rather put out short term crap than talent.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
everytime you buy and kind of media player or blank media, 25% of what you pay goes into a compensation fund to record companies for copywrite infringement. They are already compensated and have no right to shut anything down. besides, they're just a bunch of ****ing fat rich pigs who destroy and exploit their own artists and would rather put out short term crap than talent.

There shouldn't be a need for compensation, because you should be doing it! Yes they still have a right to shut down these program for the fact that compensation doesn't pay for what they should be getting entirely.

Again with the corporate bashing. Being "f**cking fat rich pigs" has nothing to do with it. If you download illegally it's stealing end of story. It's wrong. It's been wrong for over 2000 years. What they do to their artist or how they live their lives doesn't justify the fact of you or anybody else stealing.

since artists are never compensated anyway, i feel no compunction stealing from record company weasils. Suing individuals for sharing is double jeopordy and is illegal in its own right.

You are living in a mythical dream world if you think that record companies are making staggering amounts of money at your expense- quite the opposite, it is a very precarious business and piracy is a contributory cause to bankruptcy.

probably, I download but still buy CD's as well, but only the groups that deserve it IMO.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
since artists are never compensated anyway, i feel no compunction stealing from record company weasils. Suing individuals for sharing is double jeopordy and is illegal in its own right.

Artists get paid royalties, but they can only get those if you buy their music!

I also fail to understand how it can possibly be called double jeopardy.

The amount of sheer uneducated ignorance in this thread is quite depressing.

"Only download from bands who aren't struggling."

No, just don't do it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The amount of sheer uneducated ignorance in this thread is quite depressing.

"Only download from bands who aren't struggling."

No, just don't do it.

-AC

CD sales are still on the rise (Worldwide). This has a lot to do with P2P. People will download a track or two from an artist, then go out and buy a CD whereas otherwise they probably wouldn't have risked the $30 on an artist unless they know they'll like them.

Yeah, a lot of people never spend any monoey on CDs now - but a lot of people buy more CDs because they can get into more music. A lot of people might start off downloading albums, but then they'll become a fan of the artist and want to actually own the albums.

Also, P2P sharing gives the smaller artists a much bigger look-in than they'd otherwise get.

So it's not all bad. Yeah, that doesn't make it legal, but just because a record company is allowed to exploit the artists that doesn't make it morally correct either.

- SWS

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
CD sales are still on the rise (Worldwide). This has a lot to do with P2P. People will download a track or two from an artist, then go out and buy a CD whereas otherwise they probably wouldn't have risked the $30 on an artist unless they know they'll like them.

Yeah, a lot of people never spend any monoey on CDs now - but a lot of people buy more CDs because they can get into more music. A lot of people might start off downloading albums, but then they'll become a fan of the artist and want to actually own the albums.

Also, P2P sharing gives the smaller artists a much bigger look-in than they'd otherwise get.

So it's not all bad. Yeah, that doesn't make it legal, but just because a record company is allowed to exploit the artists that doesn't make it morally correct either.

- SWS

Yeah...so as I said:

"The amount of sheer uneducated ignorance in this thread is quite depressing.

'Only download from bands who aren't struggling.'

No, just don't do it."

People are saying "I only buy the CD if they deserve it." If the album is worth your time, it's worth your money.

I don't understand why people believe they have the right to listen to these albums continually without making an effort to pay.

The only pro (if you can call it that) of file sharing is that it might get bands noticed. There's a con in the pro though, what con? The fact that it's not getting paid for if it's getting shared.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah...so as I said:

"The amount of sheer uneducated ignorance in this thread is quite depressing.

'Only download from bands who aren't struggling.'

No, just don't do it."

People are saying "I only buy the CD if they deserve it." If the album is worth your time, it's worth your money.

I don't understand why people believe they have the right to listen to these albums continually without making an effort to pay.

The only pro (if you can call it that) of file sharing is that it might get bands noticed. There's a con in the pro though, what con? The fact that it's not getting paid for if it's getting shared.

-AC


It would be interesting if someone did a proper study on the following.

Just how much illegal content people get hold of, versus how much they really intended buying and compare this to how much the government skims off now in taxes on people's ISP plans?

Why? To really work out wether it's worth the governments efforts to act as the music/movie industries policeman?

They may find that by closing down P2P will result in more lost tax income from people abandoning their broadband (or higher broadband) plans than what they would derive from the people really would have purchased the material anyhow.

I am sure the record/music industry lie profusely about how much money P2P costs them, so it would be a very difficult study indeed.

-SWS

People (for example Manny in this thread) use that lame old excuse.

"If they're rich it doesn't matter."

Not to their bank account, no. The idea isn't to make them rich though, it's to pay for their work. It's irrelevant how money they already have. I'd go out and buy a Metallica album just as fast as an album by a band not well known. So should everyone else.

It genuinely troubles me when people act as though it's cool to download.

-AC

I know a bunch of musicians who have had successful careers and are now approaching 50 and they really have little or nothing. It's such a sad thing because you spend your life working a career and by the time you are 50 you should be making the best money of your entire life and setting yourself up for an easy retirement. But the reality is hardly any of them are able to do this, they end up working dead end jobs just to get by and at best getting a little royalty check of a few grand every year..

The fact is (unless you become as huge as green day) the people who make the money in music are the labels and the managers etc These days nobody really gets a career, you are becoming irrelevant on your second album.. Some like Shannon Knoll for example might have a bit of success in the last few years but in ten or so years he will be working a shit job like anyone else.. Right now hes drunk on being famous and having too much fun to care and meanwhile everyone else is making the dough.

So my point is the argument that P2P rips artists off carries little credibilty in the majority of cases, what it does do is rip the labels off.

But funny thing is the labels rip artists off left right and centre, you just dont hear about it because its infintely harder for the artist on their own to gain the same attention. They basically have to make themselves heard on the back of their own cash and most dont have the ability to take on the labels. They just accept that its better to save what little money they got out of it rather than waste it on fighting companies with millions of dollars. Go and ask most bands how they feel about labels when the hype has dies down and i guarantee nearly all of them will say they feel ripped of.

So it begs the question if the labels arent squeeky clean in their practises why should they expect everyone else to be ? They are simply copping a taste of their own medicine i think. I strongly believe 2 wrongs dont make a right but they void the moral argument themselves in many ways so its not black and white like they would like to have you believe.

What i see is, this has the potential to crumble the entire industry.. And from the position of a music lover i wouldnt see this as a bad thing. The music wont stop and i only think it would get stronger. Instead of 3 major companies running everything we would probably get a landscape of many independants which would help allieviate the culture of crap that has taken over. Music nowdays is a breeding ground for any old hack who just wants to become famous and thats it. The culture the labels have created doesnt encourage people to find their own style and spend time at becoming good, so there is bugger all integirty and substance. Nowdays the mainstream is all Ashlee Simpson crap, and personally id love for that to change.

-SWS

That's all neither here nor there though.

By not paying for the CD, you are stopping the artists receiving money (however much) for their work.

This is wrong. It's that simple. No need to philosophise over it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's all neither here nor there though.

By not paying for the CD, you are stopping the artists receiving money (however much) for their work.

This is wrong. It's that simple. No need to philosophise over it.

-AC

The music "industry" ruined itself. It decided it was easier to get a bunch of one-hit-wonders covering some old song (usually badly). Fill up the CD with 9 other tracks of garbage that the talentless loser wanted to release then sell it for some figure that is WAY more than the costs involved. The "artist" doesn't actually get close to $1 or 50p from the price of the CD that you pay. It's record company execs that are taking all the profits.

Peer to peer empowered people. Now, it's easy to just go and get the one song you like and not have to pay for 9 other tracks of shit on a CD. Record companies don't like it because it eats their profits - not because people are stealing. The record companies fought tooth and nail to block things like iTunes selling tracks individually because it means they're not ripping people off as much; people will only pay for the few things they actually like. Your argument also fails to hold water becase the people that download heavily on P2P would have never spent the money in the first place so how can anyone say there's lost income there?

Software makers have been dealing with piracy since the inception of commercial software. People don't want to pay for software. They pay so much for their computer that they feel they're entitled to it for free. Software companies have come up with some good inventions to make people pay for software. Some of those inventions are bad too. All in all, they still seem to be making a killing so how can you say that the industry is in a bad state?

The movie industry? Who wants to download some crappy camcorder copy of a prerelease? Who wants to download some crappy rip/encode of a movie when DVDs are dropping in price rapidly? The movie industry has attacked P2P differently. I have noticed CD prices have gone up of late (they're getting up over £18 or $35 in some stores) while DVD prices have dropped. You can get a movie that's about 1 month past release for under £10 or $20 in a lot of places now. That's pretty good value as far as I'm concerned.

-SWS

Posting an essay with about one paragraph of relevance isn't needed, Whirly.

Second, if you like the one song then buy it on iTunes. Buy the single somewhere.

You're obviously under the impression I'm saying go out and pay for an album you don't like. I'm not. I'm saying illegally downloading is wrong. Legally and morally, although the latter is subjective.

Can't justify it.

As for you saying my argument holds no water because people will download anyway:

If one person downloads one album, likes it, then deletes it and buys the record, nothing is legally lost. I morally disagree with it, but it's being paid for in the end. I know many who do that, so you're chatting from your rectum. People who use P2P aren't necessarily people who would never buy.

You're operating under the impression that I'm concerned about the corporate industry, I'm not so much. It's about the artist. If you're not paying them for their job, then why should you get paid when you go to work? As VVD said, you don't look at a t-shirt, diss it, then demand it for free.

"I wanna wear it but I'm not paying for it."

Then you aren't getting it.

You're dodging my point whilst making many more irrelevant ones.

-AC

Again, it is also fairy talw land to believe that destroying the music industry is somehow going to benefit music.

It's not- you can't have music in the way we understand it without an industry to support it. Remove the industry and you remove the money, and don't pretend for one moment we would have any level of decent music if it was not viable career option- i.e. you get money for it.

Downloading music is hardly the worst crime imaginable- but no-one has grounds to complain if it gets shut down; it is absolutely the business of the authorities to enforce such laws if they can.

Removing money does not remove creativity - people will always make music

Destroying the industry means it will be more about Music and less about image. The net means distribution and supply is simple.

No essay all relevant.

-SWS

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I also fail to understand how it can possibly be called double jeopardy.

If they already have a compensatory fund for copywrite infingement, any further monetary compensation they get from suing people would be considered double jeopardy.

Also, NONE of any compensation money goes to the artists. Record companies wouldn't be going bankrupt if they didn't release so much crappy music. Most people don't go out and buy a britney spears album cause they only like one or two songs off it and consider it a ripoff to pay 12 bucks for a CD single. so they download a pirate copy. If they put out something truely brilliant, human nature tells us that people would want to own a physical copy of it.

let's not forget that a lot of times music companies use illegal means to get their evidence. mostly through hacking into people's computers (technically legal under a rider attatched to the patriot act, which is set to expire anyway) and most recently by hacking into college internet II networks, thereby also causing several thousand dollars in collateral damage to network systems.

I download sheerly because I cannot afford to buy and don't really care about breaking the law for my own entertainment.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Removing money does not remove creativity - people will always make music

Destroying the industry means it will be more about Music and less about image. The net means distribution and supply is simple.

No essay all relevant.

-SWS

The industry supplies the artist with far better publicity than mouth to mouth promotion ever could. The industry also supplies the artist with good recording equipment, something most independent artist can't afford. The industry is definitely needed.

Originally posted by eggmayo
I download sheerly because I cannot afford to buy and don't really care about breaking the law for my own entertainment.

If you can't afford it, don't get it. Music isn't a necessity as much as we love it.

Originally posted by Nevermind
If you can't afford it, don't get it. Music isn't a necessity as much as we love it.
I did just say I don't care about breaking the law for my entertainment.. might as well get it while I can.

Originally posted by eggmayo
I did just say I don't care about breaking the law for my entertainment.. might as well get it while I can.

I saw that but thought there was no use mentioning it because I'm pretty sure you know everything that comes with illegal download.

Originally posted by Nevermind
I saw that but thought there was no use mentioning it because I'm pretty sure you know everything that comes with illegal download.
I do know about the old getting arrested thing.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Most people don't go out and buy a britney spears album cause they only like one or two songs off it and consider it a ripoff to pay 12 bucks for a CD single. so they download a pirate copy. If they put out something truely brilliant, human nature tells us that people would want to own a physical copy of it.

Are you reading anyone's post? If you don't want to buy the single or the album spend a buck on the track online. If they don't want to fork over the money for that person's music then it mustn't be worth having. Again! Whether or not an album is up to your standard doesn't matter! If it's worth your time stealing it. It's worth buying.

Originally posted by Nevermind
Are you reading anyone's post? If you don't want to buy the single or the album spend a buck on the track online. If they don't want to fork over the money for that person's music then it mustn't be worth having. Again! Whether or not an album is up to your standard doesn't matter! If it's worth your time stealing it. It's worth buying.

he has a different opinion to you - his post indicates he has read your post but disagrees with it.

Whirly, you say money doesn't join creativity. Sure.

How do you suppose these bands pay to put our records and tour? Pay with air? Bottle caps?

I swear most of you just assume that they accumulate wealth and sit on it. THEY have to pay to go on tour much more than an individual will pay to go see em.

-AC

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
he has a different opinion to you - his post indicates he has read your post but disagrees with it.

First off, his post wasn't directed at me. So therefore, it indicates nothing about my posts. I'm just mentioning that he's being repetitive. Because the arguement put forth by AC, Ush and I have already covered it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whirly, you say money doesn't join creativity. Sure.

How do you suppose these bands pay to put our records and tour? Pay with air? Bottle caps?

I swear most of you just assume that they accumulate wealth and sit on it. THEY have to pay to go on tour much more than an individual will pay to go see em.

-AC

So you think tours don't produce revenue on their own?
hmmmmm........ Mick Jagger might disagree.

-SWS

If you can quote me saying that, by all means do so.

Seeing as I never implied such, don't infer such.

-AC

meh to kazaa, its just full of virus infected porn now anyway

i hope limewire stays.

If it weren't for file sharing programs and illegal downloading, I would've never gotten into music in the first place cause the internet is the only way I found most of the music i listen to. I download a lot.. probably a lot more than the average p2p user.. but I also buy about 3 albums a week. I can't say that it's morally justifiable, nor that it should be legal.. but I'm glad it exists because it helps me find new music and is the only reason that I even spend any money on albums at all.

Another thing is that a lot of artists I like don't even have their albums in local retail stores so I have no way of buying it since I don't have a credit card and can't purchase things online. I'm basically limited to whatever they have at Best Buy.

$1.00 per song is a ripoff and i'm guessing that the artist wont see 99.99 cents of that purchase (rounded up to a dollar due to money calculations)

Considering the average single is $3.99, it's no rip off.

-AC

Originally posted by manny321
Cry me a river!! for the big ass snobby artists

However its wrong to download a song of a struggling new group.

Its mostly the convience factor. Getting a good song you can put on your mp3 player in less then 2 mins is hard to resist for a lot of people

Actually it's always stealing....but I guess everyone has decide for themself....

Originally posted by manny321
Cry me a river!! for the big ass snobby artists

However its wrong to download a song of a struggling new group.

Its mostly the convience factor. Getting a good song you can put on your mp3 player in less then 2 mins is hard to resist for a lot of people
That does not sound about right.
You can't say, u may illegally download music from rich musicians but not from poor ones.
It's either right or wrong, legal or illegal.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If they already have a compensatory fund for copywrite infingement, any further monetary compensation they get from suing people would be considered double jeopardy.

Also, NONE of any compensation money goes to the artists. Record companies wouldn't be going bankrupt if they didn't release so much crappy music. Most people don't go out and buy a britney spears album cause they only like one or two songs off it and consider it a ripoff to pay 12 bucks for a CD single. so they download a pirate copy. If they put out something truely brilliant, human nature tells us that people would want to own a physical copy of it.

No it wouldn't. That's not double jeopardy at all; that is a mis-use of the term. Just because they are compensated for such infrignement, does not make infringement any less of a civil or criminal offence.

Double jeopardy can ONLY occur once the court stage has been reached.



"Removing money does not remove creativity - people will always make music

Destroying the industry means it will be more about Music and less about image. The net means distribution and supply is simple."


Do you like it there in Never Never Land?

I can't believe anyone could be that naive.

No, this would not happen. Without the drive of money, there would not be a fraction of the music we get today. People have to live, you know, and making music is a full time occupation.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
.00 per song is a ripoff and i'm guessing that the artist wont see 99.99 cents of that purchase (rounded up to a dollar due to money calculations)

Considering that an average CD has about 12 tracks and costs around $15.....I'd say not.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Without the drive of money, there would not be a fraction of the music we get today.

ahhh but think of the quality of music in that small fraction, as opposed to the over produced and mass marketed garbage we have today.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
People have to live, you know, and making music is a full time occupation.

no, touring is a full time occupation, and the main source for an artist's income after being bent over by their respective record labels, and mp3s have no effect on that.

actually good points I made earlier in the thread. Well done PVS!!

So just don't buy the stuff you think is garbage....leave it for the 13 year olds that will jump on anything MTV feeds them

Originally posted by Lana
So just don't buy the stuff you think is garbage....leave it for the 13 year olds that will jump on anything MTV feeds them

but thats the problem lana...i dont
there are a rare few bands i like these days.
black label society, sivertide...a couple of others.
but other than that im listening to oldschool shit
because the market is so damn stale.

and even bands that started out kickass have sold out.
and by 'sold out' i dont mean "ZOMG THEY'RE RICH *jealous*"
i mean simply that they allowed their record label and producer
to dictate their sound and turn it sterile and weak. they
restrict the band's creative process and in the end the band
acts as half-creative talent and half-xerox machine for what their
producers want to hear. metallica+bob rock anyone?

record labels cut the heart out of music. and as far as what kids buy,
you can have 4 guys on stage just standing there farting into the mics,
advertise the crap out of it and condition kids to like it on mtv...and
it will be a hit.

and yes, it DOES affect us, because while the market is flooded with crap,
what do we have to enjoy?

Originally posted by PVS

and yes, it DOES affect us, because while the market is flooded with crap,
what do we have to enjoy?

I think that's the eternal condition in the entertainment industry though. The ratio of good to shit is never that favourable.

It simply means you have to search to find the gems, PVS. There are a lot of good bands around right now....you just need to try a bit to find them.

oh damn....guess people can't download their favorite American Idol/Ashlee Simpson tunes anymore

i've heard the words american idol and ashlee simpson in the same sentance...
hmm...
it must be time to wipe my butt.

Originally posted by Lana
It simply means you have to search to find the gems, PVS. There are a lot of good bands around right now....you just need to try a bit to find them.

PVS is actually right most bands are extremely derivative, or out right clones of greats, the only exceptions are in hip hop - which I am not a fan of anyway.

Alas the soon to be departed Kazaa, I'm sure it'll be missed, though not by me, as admittedly I have never used it, or had the need. Oh well, just something that doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
PVS is actually right most bands are extremely derivative, or out right clones of greats, the only exceptions are in hip hop - which I am not a fan of anyway.

As VVD said, that's the case with most mainstream mediums though. The shit always outweighs the good. To say "most" bands is wrong. There are many, many great bands. You just have to know where to look, but if you're not willing to look then you have no right to complain.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As VVD said, that's the case with most mainstream mediums though. The shit always outweighs the good. To say "most" bands is wrong. There are many, many great bands. You just have to know where to look, but if you're not willing to look then you have no right to complain.

-AC

Sorry AC I have gone to gigs since before you were born I have to disagree, It's like that bit in the Simpsons "You'll feel like this one day".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Sorry AC I have gone to gigs since before you were born I have to disagree, It's like that bit in the Simpsons "You'll feel like this one day".

You could have made a credible argument had you not played the irrelevant age card. Shame that.

Either way, doesn't actually change the fact of what I said does it? No. That's just your blinkered, stuck-in-a-time-warp view. If you're not out there actually looking actively for new music, not only are you not that big of a music fan anyway, but you're obviously lazy.

Well then. There will always be great bands as long as music exists and people who appreciate it. I appreciate music from before I was born. Time means nothing because great music is timeless, regardless of when it's created.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You could have made a credible argument had you not played the irrelevant age card. Shame that.

Either way, doesn't actually change the fact of what I said does it? No. That's just your blinkered, stuck-in-a-time-warp view. If you're not out there actually looking actively for new music, not only are you not that big of a music fan anyway, but you're obviously lazy.

Well then. There will always be great bands as long as music exists and people who appreciate it. I appreciate music from before I was born. Time means nothing because great music is timeless, regardless of when it's created.

-AC

Great Music is timeless unfortunately the Age card allows you to have experienced "fads" before. That's why it's relevant.

Strange my hard drive indicates differently having 12000 tracks on it. The difference is they start in the 50's and go up to now. I'm obviously not as seriously into "pop culture" as I was, in any of its variants. You have your "young" image to worry about and for you "cool" is "tool" for those my era it was The Cure or The Wonderstuff that filled the same niche. I hope you still like tool as much in twnty years time. I suspect you won't as the songs which sing to you at twenty don't mean as much as you get near 40.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Great Music is timeless unfortunately the Age card allows you to have experienced "fads" before. That's why it's relevant.

Exactly. Who's talking about fads being good though? When I say look for great bands, I refer to actual great bands, of which there are many. Not MTV bands.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Strange my hard drive indicates differently having 12000 tracks on it. The difference is they start in the 50's and go up to now. I'm obviously not as seriously into "pop culture" as I was, in any of its variants. You have your "young" image to worry about and for you "cool" is "tool" for those my era it was The Cure or The Wonderstuff that filled the same niche. I hope you still like tool as much in twnty years time. I suspect you won't as the songs which sing to you at twenty don't mean as much as you get near 40.

Hahaha, talk about uneducated. Where did you get the idea that "Tool" are a cool band? Hardly anyone I've met outside this forum knows about them and even here it's not a dramatic amount. That just proves my point right there. Tool aren't an easily accessible band, they've been around since 1992 and have remained more or less under the radar since then. I don't listen to bands that are the new thing just because they're the new thing. Then again, I've never discussed music with you so you're forgiven for having the complete wrong view of my musical taste. The Cure, for your information, happen to be one of my very favourite bands.

If your whole problem is that the music you grew up with isn't relevant to you now, then tough. That doesn't mean there are no good bands anymore, it means you are just stuck in an era.

If someone from the 19th century came here, would they be justified in calling all new technology shit, just because he grew fond of whatever they had back in those days? No he wouldn't. Technology has changed for the better. In many ways, so has music. Back when The Cure were around there was still a lot of shit in the mainstream. The Cure weren't everyone's favourite band.

I have no idea from where you extract your reasoning. The age card doesn't work with me.

-AC

Fads are shit. Plain and simple.

And as for the age thing - most everything I listen to, music-wise (which consists of very varied tastes), I listen to because of my mom. The stuff I like how I've grown up listening to, because of my parents and my aunts. Age is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As VVD said, that's the case with most mainstream mediums though. The shit always outweighs the good. To say "most" bands is wrong. There are many, many great bands. You just have to know where to look, but if you're not willing to look then you have no right to complain.

-AC

yes, the good to shit ratio will always be lopsided.
but the recent state of the industry has bloated that one sidedness.
its all shit.

And that's not true, because there are plenty of good bands around right now. Just need to try a bit to find them.

where lana? where do i find them?
i dont give enough of a shit about music to sit around
and sift through thousands of mp3s hoping to find some
cool garage band.

Well, then I'd say you don't have any right to complain about not being able to find good music.

I could easily name off 10 excellent bands that are around right now and are fairly well-known or even considered mainstream, without even thinking. Even more if I get into the ones that aren't widely known.

Wait, wait.

You honestly believe that today there are absolutely no great bands around?

I find that hard to believe.

If you're not willing to make effort to find great music, then you have no right to complain. Don't sit there taking the mainstream shit to the face and then moan about it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly. Who's talking about fads being good though? When I say look for great bands, I refer to actual great bands, of which there are many. Not MTV bands.



Hahaha, talk about uneducated. Where did you get the idea that "Tool" are a cool band? Hardly anyone I've met outside this forum knows about them and even here it's not a dramatic amount. That just proves my point right there. Tool aren't an easily accessible band, they've been around since 1992 and have remained more or less under the radar since then. I don't listen to bands that are the new thing just because they're the new thing. Then again, I've never discussed music with you so you're forgiven for having the complete wrong view of my musical taste. The Cure, for your information, happen to be one of my very favourite bands.

If your whole problem is that the music you grew up with isn't relevant to you now, then tough. That doesn't mean there are no good bands anymore, it means you are just stuck in an era.

If someone from the 19th century came here, would they be justified in calling all new technology shit, just because he grew fond of whatever they had back in those days? No he wouldn't. Technology has changed for the better. In many ways, so has music. Back when The Cure were around there was still a lot of shit in the mainstream. The Cure weren't everyone's favourite band.

I have no idea from where you extract your reasoning. The age card doesn't work with me.

-AC

Tool an not "cool" tahts a shame for you AC

The Cure were cool in the circles I moved in at the time which was University.

Like the Stone Roses were cool when I saw them at spike island and Nottingham Poly.

Yes shit as PVS stated was common in the mainstream.

Music has not really changed for the better - I would put "Waterloo Sunset", "Penny Lane" most of "Pet Sounds" etc against anything today.

ok, then name them. name those 'great bands'

Originally posted by PVS
ok, then name them. name those 'great bands'

Tool
Radiohead
Depeche Mode
Queens of the Stone Age
System of a Down
Foo Fighters
Deftones
Audioslave
Metallica
Weezer

Just a taste; those I all just named off the top of my head without even having to think about it.

Originally posted by PVS
where lana? where do i find them?


Umm....the local music store?

Originally posted by Lana
Tool
Radiohead
Depeche Mode
Queens of the Stone Age
System of a Down
Foo Fighters
Deftones
Audioslave
Metallica
Weezer

Just a taste; those I all just named off the top of my head without even having to think about it.

I saw Mode in 82 before Dave got long hair
Foo Fighters 93
Metallica around 90

new bands

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I saw Mode in 82 before Dave got long hair
Foo Fighters 93
Metallica around 90

new bands

I didn't say new. I said ones that are currently around. Foo Fighters and Depeche Mode both released albums this year; Metallica last year. I know how old they are, being as Depeche Mode and Metallica I've listened to all my life, and I have been a fan of Foo Fighters since they started.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Tool an not "cool" tahts a shame for you AC

The Cure were cool in the circles I moved in at the time which was University.

Like the Stone Roses were cool when I saw them at spike island and Nottingham Poly.

Yes shit as PVS stated was common in the mainstream.

Music has not really changed for the better - I would put "Waterloo Sunset", "Penny Lane" most of "Pet Sounds" etc against anything today.

That first sentance made no sense.

Exactly, in certain circles. It wasn't Curemania was it? No.

There are undoubtedly phases in music, movements, but if bands are genuinely great then their lifespan is not dictated by the lifespan of the phase.

You choosing those older albums over anything today is fine with me. I love Pet Sounds, it's one of the best albums of all time. That doesn't mean that music today is shit though, it's not.

To PVS: Great, is subjective. So I can't prove any bands are great anymore than you can prove they're shit. I could name you all the bands I personally believe to be great and you could think they're shit, vice versa. Although I know for a fact we share some tastes (Slayer, Metallica, Priest? etc)

Lana, St. Anger came out in 03. Not 04.

In light of your reply to Lana, Whirly: You've proven that you don't actually believe there are no good bands today. You just don't like the fact that the music of your youth is no longer around or prominent. Which is tough shit.

If you'd deprive music of it's evolution then you're no music fan anyway.

-AC

Tool-old
Radiohead-very original, but again, old
Depeche Mode-old
Queens of the Stone Age-ill give you that
System of a Down-that too
Foo Fighters-cool band, but only hyped and successful because of nirvana.
Deftones-old
Audioslave-successful based on rage and soundgargen's legacy
Metallica-old (and now suck major ass...sorry)
Weezer-old

now before you reply let me explain.
when i say 'old' i simply mean that these bands exist today and are able to be promoted while at the same time not allowing their creativity to be hijacked and sterilized ala metallica. the reason is because their sound is tried and true, so producers give them freedom. thats why they still sound cool, because they are considered to be a low risk investment.

foo fighters and audioslave are new bands, but instantly shot to fame because of who's IN those bands, so really they are just spinoff mergers of old sucessful bands with loyal followings. so...OLD

unfortunately for new bands, big business takes no risks. they want a sure winner and thus stick to a formula. the proof being all these new bands which sound like carbon copies of eachother, but when you get your hands on an old track or even demo, its like listening to another band entirely. record companies like to think of it as polishing a rough diamond, i think of it as grinding a diamond into dust.

:edit: again, "old" does not imply anything negative. just that they are veterans who's success is proven

Originally posted by PVS
Radiohead-very original, but again, old
Depeche Mode-old
Queens of the Stone Age-ill give you that
System of a Down-that too
Foo Fighters-cool band, but only hyped and successful because of nirvana.
Deftones-old
Audioslave-successful based on rage and soundgargen's legacy
Metallica-old (and now suck major ass...sorry)
Weezer-old

now before you reply let me explain.
when i say 'old' i simply mean that these bands exist today and are able to be promoted while at the same time not allowing their creativity to be hijacked and sterilized ala metallica. the reason is because their sound is tried and true, so producers give them freedom. thats why they still sound cool, because they are considered to be a low risk investment.

foo fighters and audioslave are new bands, but instantly shot to fame because of who's IN those bands, so really they are just spinoff mergers of old sucessful bands with loyal followings. so...OLD

unfortunately for new bands, big business takes no risks. they want a sure winner and thus stick to a formula. the proof being all these new bands which sound like carbon copies of eachother, but when you get your hands on an old track or even demo, its like listening to another band entirely. record companies like to think of it as polishing a rough diamond, i think of it as grinding a diamond into dust.

I don't think it's at all fair to say Foo Fighters, today, are praised because of Nirvana. Their live show is absolutely outstanding, that's not because of Nirvana. You can't make good music because of who you WERE. You make music because of who you are.

In that case, which I mostly agree with you, we're saying that many great bands exist. They're just not new. Which I never denied.

-AC

Originally posted by PVS
Radiohead-very original, but again, old
Depeche Mode-old
Queens of the Stone Age-ill give you that
System of a Down-that too
Foo Fighters-cool band, but only hyped and successful because of nirvana.
Deftones-old
Audioslave-successful based on rage and soundgargen's legacy
Metallica-old (and now suck major ass...sorry)
Weezer-old

now before you reply let me explain.
when i say 'old' i simply mean that these bands exist today and are able to be promoted while at the same time not allowing their creativity to be hijacked and sterilized ala metallica. the reason is because their sound is tried and true, so producers give them freedom. thats why they still sound cool, because they are considered to be a low risk investment.

foo fighters and audioslave are new bands, but instantly shot to fame because of who's IN those bands, so really they are just spinoff mergers of old sucessful bands with loyal followings. so...OLD

unfortunately for new bands, big business takes no risks. they want a sure winner and thus stick to a formula. the proof being all these new bands which sound like carbon copies of eachother, but when you get your hands on an old track or even demo, its like listening to another band entirely. record companies like to think of it as polishing a rough diamond, i think of it as grinding a diamond into dust.

This is why I could never put you on ignore sometimes I agree with you

AC - was it 03? I couldn't remember, actually, I thought it was 03 or 04 but didn't feel like looking it up right now.

PVS - Tool's not been around for 15 years, and they're one of a very few bands who can consistently get better with each album. But how old they are is not my point. My point was that there ARE bands today, currently still recording and putting out music, who are well-known or mainstream, and are very good. Audioslave sounds nothing like either Rage or Soundgarden; with their first album it was mostly because of the former bands of the members that they were known, I'll give you that, but with their second they have certainly grown into their own band. Same with Foo Fighters - they sound nothing like Nirvana, they simply both have Dave Grohl as a member. I have heard many demo and unreleased tracks of these bands, and there are just as good as the polished stuff on the CDs.

Yes, most bands today sound exactly the same - just look at MTV. But there are many bands who are very different and very good. Just they are not always well-known.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't think it's at all fair to say Foo Fighters, today, are praised because of Nirvana. Their live show is absolutely outstanding, that's not because of Nirvana. You can't make good music because of who you WERE. You make music because of who you are.

In that case, which I mostly agree with you, we're saying that many great bands exist. They're just not new. Which I never denied.

-AC

Exactly not much original stuff from "new bands" around which is what I said.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't think it's at all fair to say Foo Fighters, today, are praised because of Nirvana. Their live show is absolutely outstanding, that's not because of Nirvana. You can't make good music because of who you WERE. You make music because of who you are.

In that case, which I mostly agree with you, we're saying that many great bands exist. They're just not new. Which I never denied.

-AC

you make a poor assumption.
im not talking about their sound.
david grohl (spelling?) was famous before foo fighters existed.
thats why they were instantly hyped and promoted. not because
he's so damn talented, but simply because he was part of the most
popular band at the time. producers saw dollar signs and promoted
the hell out of him without question and most important: without suggestion/intervention.


all im saying is that foo fighters, in the eyes of the industry NOT THE FANS was basically (potentially) nirvana 2.0

same goes to your reply lana. im not talking about sound. im talking about artistic freedom, which those (8 out of 10) were granted simply because of their lagacy, not because of their sound. producers dont hear music, they see profit.

Originally posted by Lana
AC - was it 03? I couldn't remember, actually, I thought it was 03 or 04 but didn't feel like looking it up right now.

PVS - Tool's not been around for 15 years, and they're one of a very few bands who can consistently get better with each album. But how old they are is not my point. My point was that there ARE bands today, currently still recording and putting out music, who are well-known or mainstream, and are very good. Audioslave sounds nothing like either Rage or Soundgarden; with their first album it was mostly because of the former bands of the members that they were known, I'll give you that, but with their second they have certainly grown into their own band. Same with Foo Fighters - they sound nothing like Nirvana, they simply both have Dave Grohl as a member. I have heard many demo and unreleased tracks of these bands, and there are just as good as the polished stuff on the CDs.

Foo Fighters are not a new band and whilst I enjoy their music the are very derivative and typical of there genre. PVS is right they were promoted to hell.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Foo Fighters are not a new band and whilst I enjoy their music the are very derivative and typical of there genre. PVS is right they were promoted to hell.

Do you read anything? I did not say anything about new, I said current. Meaning currently recording/releasing music, touring, etc.

And what does them being promoted have to do with anything? They still make good music. Many bands who are promoted to hell make shit, and many who are all but ignored are great.

Originally posted by PVS
you make a poor assumption.
im not talking about their sound.
david grohl (spelling?) was famous before foo fighters existed.
thats why they were instantly hyped and promoted. not because
he's so damn talented, but simply because he was part of the most
popular band at the time. producers saw dollar signs and promoted
the hell out of him without question and most important: without suggestion/intervention.


all im saying is that foo fighters, in the eyes of the industry NOT THE FANS was basically (potentially) nirvana 2.0

I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.

I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.

-AC

Lana is doing something illegal msn-oh

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.

I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.

-AC

Which is what I'm trying to say. Current does not equal new.

Originally posted by TwisterGameX
Lana is doing something illegal msn-oh

No I'm not....

Originally posted by Lana
Which is what I'm trying to say. Current does not equal new.



No I'm not....

I know msn-oh I just felt like saying it

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.

I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.

-AC

Unfortunatly most music today is less original and horrible.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.

I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.

-AC

yes, i mean new bands. new bands who were selected for fame because of their sound and more importantly, their following.

then they are taken in with the attitude of "now we'll make a REAL band out of these kids" and their sound is systematically ripped apart and amputated. whats left is the same abomination thats already on the radio from dozens of other generic crap bands. sometimes they find exceptional whores and thus a boy band is born sugar ray anyone?

and as far as the old bands, they can only pump life into the industry for so long, until they're just another rolling stones. touring when they should have retired years ago, while there are cover bands playing their own classics far better than they can.

And THAT is why I rarely listen to the radio and NEVER watch MTV

If you are of the belief that great bands exist to pump life into the industry as opposed to existing WITH the industry, then I don't know if someone of your point of view will ever believe that great bands can last.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you are of the belief that great bands exist to pump life into the industry as opposed to existing WITH the industry, then I don't know if someone of your point of view will ever believe that great bands can last.

-AC

I stood next to Roger Daltrey in the Crumbles Cinema toilets in Eastbourne, you would not believe how short he is. He was cool I hummed "My Generation" and he laughed, He was taking his grandchildren to the pictures this is a few years ago Maybe 5.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you are of the belief that great bands exist to pump life into the industry as opposed to existing WITH the industry, then I don't know if someone of your point of view will ever believe that great bands can last.

-AC

must you forsake my point just to take yet another pompous contradictory stance?

i never said great bands cant last. i just imply that they cant last forever. eventually they just become old and their shows are more of a novelty, a trip down memory lane for old timers. without NEW (the point AC, pay attention) NEW BLOOD, the industry is doomed. there must be newcomers who will be the next "great bands" and so far there really isnt....

Originally posted by PVS
must you forsake my point just to take yet another pompous contradictory stance?

i never said great bands cant last. i just imply that they cant last forever. eventually they just become old and their shows are more of a novelty, a trip down memory lane for old timers. without NEW (the point AC, pay attention) NEW BLOOD, the industry is doomed. there must be newcomers who will be the next "great bands" and so far there really isnt....

This is also true imo!

"If you are of the belief that great bands exist to pump life into the industry as opposed to existing WITH the industry, then I don't know if someone of your point of view will ever believe that great bands can last."

The quote, PVS. Pay attention.

There are bands around today who didn't "come out" in the early 90's who are great. The Strokes, The White Stripes, Mastodon, Muse, MSI, The Dillinger Escape Plan, many of Patton's other projects, The Datsuns, The Darkness, The Mars Volta etc.

Give or take a band break-up or what not, they're gonna be around for a while. Whether you like them or not is not up to me. I know that I love bands I believe to make great music and bands who will be around for a while yet. So I don't really have anything to worry about, but sucks for you.

-AC

well i hope you're right then.

but to address the countered point: yes. great bands exist to keep life in the industry. without thos bands who are offered artistic freedom, there is no great music. and by 'great' i mean original and posessing a soul. doesnt mean i have to think they sound great. just that they are proven to be one of the greats by the loyalty (not temporary hype) of their fan base.

without said bands, who's going to give a shit enough to spend their hard earned cash?

Well to an extent you're right. There would be no one to distribute said music.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

My Chemical Romance fans might be loyal. Shit band though. Loyal fans don't equate to greatness. Though I am sure that you meant talented. In which case I agree. I don't particularly care for Maiden, I like em, but not massively. I do respect what they've done though. They're honest to music.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well to an extent you're right. There would be no one to distribute said music.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

My Chemical Romance fans might be loyal. Shit band though. Loyal fans don't equate to greatness. Though I am sure that you meant talented. In which case I agree. I don't particularly care for Maiden, I like em, but not massively. I do respect what they've done though. They're honest to music.

-AC

no, i dont mean talent. talent is subjective.
there are extremely talented musicians who cant write a riff
for shit, but can play any cover song spot on, and there are
creative geniuses who are mediocre in regards to playing.

a loyal fanbase however is proof that many see talent in a musician(s).
imho thats what makes them a 'great band' in an objective sense, in that
they touch many people without the aid of commercialism. a bunch of
people listen to them and say "damn i really like this shit" as opposed to
"ehh...after being forced to listen to this for the 600th time...its starting to grow on me."

Originally posted by PVS
no, i dont mean talent. talent is subjective.
there are extremely talented musicians who cant write a riff
for shit, but can play any cover song spot on, and there are
creative geniuses who are mediocre in regards to playing.

Kareoke with a good voice is still kareoke. Talent isn't subjective, music made is subjective. I can't convince someone that Tool make great music, but when it comes down to talented bands, even people who hate Tool's music often put them on the list. So no, talent isn't subjective. Preference is.

Originally posted by PVS
a loyal fanbase however is proof that many see talent in a musician(s).

Yeah but people saw "talent" in the Spice Girls. So that doesn't really mean anything. People can see "talent" in whoever they want. Whether it's actually there is a different matter. There are some musicians who produce music I think is complete shit, but I'd never deny their talent on an instrument eg: Malmsteen.

Originally posted by PVS
imho thats what makes them a 'great band' in an objective sense, in that
they touch many people without the aid of commercialism. a bunch of
people listen to them and say "damn i really like this shit" as opposed to
"ehh...after being forced to listen to this for the 600th time...its starting to grow on me."

Well not all great music is instant. Fan base doesn't equate to the band or artist being great. I'm sure Britney's fans could seem like an army compared to that of one of the smaller great bands.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah but people saw "talent" in the Spice Girls. So that doesn't really mean anything. People can see "talent" in whoever they want. Whether it's actually there is a different matter. There are some musicians who produce music I think is complete shit, but I'd never deny their talent on an instrument eg: Malmsteen.

i drew a distinction between loyal following and hype, but ill explain further.
its easy to tell the difference. pure hype lasts for but a few months and then dies. doesnt decrease or dwindle, but just flatout dies. thus the summer of spice girls and the following winter of "who the f*** are the spice girls?"


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Well not all great music is instant. Fan base doesn't equate to the band or artist being great. I'm sure Britney's fans could seem like an army compared to that of one of the smaller great bands.

-AC

ahh but barney's fanbase is collected through commercialism. thus he is hype, and thus the way kids get sick of him very quickly however, his fanbase is always replenished, thus the purple bastard lives on.

That can be said for many shit "artists" though. It doesn't make them talented.

Fans don't dictate whether a band or artist is talented or not. Robbie Williams could be around for about 5 years. The fact that the man is a complete, talentless mug is undeniable. He just has a lot of stupid people who like him. Avril Lavigne could go platinum every year, it doesn't mean she's great. It means millions are stupid.

-AC

Honestly, I don't see fans of teenybopper MTV garbage as being loyal, because you know they'll jump ship once they're told that what they're fans of is no longer cool and something else is. They are loyal so long as they're told to be.

Or as long as the person/group they like continues to dress the way they like them to.

The amount of people that I heard saying they didn't like Jack White anymore because he had a moustache was ridiculous.

-AC

It IS ridiculous. Like all the 13 year olds that are in love with Green Day because they wear tons of eyeliner right now. Or the Simple Plan fans that like them simply because they think they're cute. It's stupid. Like a band for their music, not their image.

Nirvana song "smells like teen spirt" is waaaaaay overrated.

Its a good song but nowhere near the best.

Originally posted by Lana
It IS ridiculous. Like all the 13 year olds that are in love with Green Day because they wear tons of eyeliner right now. Or the Simple Plan fans that like them simply because they think they're cute. It's stupid. Like a band for their music, not their image.

and sopund like a crap version of the clash.

So hang on. PVS- what is the crux of your point?

I take it to be that while there is good music around, there are no- or less- good bands coming through, to the detriment of the industry.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So hang on. PVS- what is the crux of your point?

I take it to be that while there is good music around, there are no- or less- good bands coming through, to the detriment of the industry.

im saying that the industry (handful of record labels) which is monopolising the task of deciding who will be famous and who wont is killing music as we know(knew) it. there was a time where a band simply generated a following, and after much hard work and touring and pouring their hearts out (years) they would earn a record deal.

now bands are either snatched up as young as possible, based on pretty looks and if we're lucky a shred of musical talent, or they are picked out from those who have managed to fight their way uphill, and are told "if you want the money, you'll play our way"

its killing music imho.

And mine - tear them down and rip them off, music for the sake of art and as a statement is what we need not Ashlee Simpson.

So basically Whirly, you're pissed that great music isn't everywhere? Haha, I'm not. Those who support Ashlee Simpson deserve Ashlee Simpson. Nothing more.

The mainstream and how shit it's become is of no concern to me. Yes, it's horrible but it doesn't bother me. I have my music and will continue to.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So basically Whirly, you're pissed that great music isn't everywhere? Haha, I'm not. Those who support Ashlee Simpson deserve Ashlee Simpson. Nothing more.

The mainstream and how shit it's become is of no concern to me. Yes, it's horrible but it doesn't bother me. I have my music and will continue to.

-AC

No I'm also pissed at the profits companies make off a bit of plastic that costs 40p to make we are talking a 1000% profit thats outrageous.

Although to be fair, the value doesn't arise from the base materials of the CD.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Although to be fair, the value doesn't arise from the base materials of the CD.

Oh the base material is about 5p 40 includes everything else including recording, packaging and promotion.

I can't remember the last time I paid over 9 pounds for a cd anyway. People should stop shopping in rip-off shops.

Most people would genuinely have you believe that there is no kind of small-ish record store around them and they are afraid to order offline, which makes no sense.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I can't remember the last time I paid over 9 pounds for a cd anyway. People should stop shopping in rip-off shops.

That is still 1000% profit

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The system persists due to this attitude VVD.

Slightly simplistic analysis. Everything has a massive mark-up. I'd personally like to pay less, but I know that even if I were to stop buying cds, it'd be a futile gesture. I'm not willing to suffer for the sake of profit margins. To me, 8-9 pounds for a cd isn't excessive.

I would prefer the bulk to go to the artists, though this is nothing I can personally affect.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Slightly simplistic analysis. Everything has a massive mark-up. I'd personally like to pay less, but I know that even if I were to stop buying cds, it'd be a futile gesture. I'm not willing to suffer for the sake of profit margins. To me, 8-9 pounds for a cd isn't excessive.

I would prefer the bulk to go to the artists, though this is nothing I can personally affect.

a simplistic analysis usually cuts to the heart of the matter. Record companies rip us off we should rip them off. It's in the Bible, Old Testament as I understand it.

Clearly don't care about the artist then if you'd spite them to spite another.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Clearly don't care about the artist then if you'd spite them to spite another.

-AC

Hey I would not want to be locked in a room with Bono or Stipe.