Just currious to see how many of us download songs or file share (from sites like napster). Feel free to comment...
Comments
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
What the RIAA is doing is about the same thing the government does with drugs. They are going after and punishing the end users, hoping to affect the demand.
Ok - i read the above, but today i did something i haven't done before now - i actually went and read (at the RIAA website) what they're doing... "technically" they are persuing the "pusher"
They are not setting up scams to try to get anyone to illegally download music from them - but they are looking for the "givers" on the PTP network.......
So they are targeting the pushers vrs the users...
Unfortunately the pushers are often little kids... and are certainly not king a profit at this - however - then again - the illegal gift of a drug is still a crime (seeing as we began with that analogy)
rod
Rod, I'm referring to the Berne convention, in which your country is also signed.
Obviously it has to be 'tangible', or it couldn't have been 'created'.
How would anyone copy it if it wasn't tangible?
And don't say 'oh, they'd overhear you playing it', public performances are covered by copyright law as well ;)
W.
If you're allergic to opinion, please skip this post.
mitz
Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Here we go again-One more time-
Stealing is stealing. People who steal belong in jail.
:p:
Uncle,
If there is a law that says such theft is 'legal' does that make it morally right, or at the least, not wrong?
The first corportations were blatant thieves. Theft to me is much more subtle than going to a store and lifting a candy bar. We bought Long Island for $24. Is that theft to you? It is to me.
When an artist has lost rights to his own music, that is theft to me, even if he did so willingly, for pay, because he had no other choice.
**** a law. What about morality, what about God's law? What about fair dealing because you have a conscience. To me the record companies are no less guilty than the P2Pers.
An artist, if successful, pays his own production costs from his profits. If not successful, then he pays it from his pocket. In my eyes, the record company buys his product for a song and sells it to us for fifty songs (or whatever currency you use), whilst he is very poorly compensated. This, to me is akin to asian sweat shops. Not in the same ball park, but similar concept. While not illegal, and definitely desirable, it is definitely a morally bankrupt practice.
To me, record companies are venture capital companies, who, through trickery, have managed to stack the deck so well that they basically transfer most risk and all costs to the lendee (if you will). To me they face the same risk as any other venture capital lender. The risk that the business venture will fail and they lose their investment.
Not only that, but they have guaranteed their old way of business by monopolizing all outlets to music except the internet, that's why they're so scared of it. But its at least five years away from being a viable threat IMO. Best believe they recognize it and are moving to neutralize it.
Originally posted by mitzelplik:
When an artist has lost rights to his own music, that is theft to me, even if he did so willingly, for pay, because he had no other choice.
There's always a choice. Look at Ani Difranco. Look at any of the thousands of independent artists that have creative control over thier music and make a decent living at it. These days, it's easy and cheap to tap into distribution channels that were unimagined a decade ago. Sure, you probably won't be on the cover of Rolling Stone or People magazine or become a "superstar" without signing to a mjor label with a huge marketing budget, but there's always a choice.
You're really just saying that capitalism is theft. I disagree, but that's a whole different issue.
Some additional points and replies;
Originally posted by Rod Gervais:
Originally posted by TheRealWaldo:
All material is copyrighted the moment it is created. This includes that which is made by home recordists.W.
Waldo,
That may be true in Canada, but is not true in the USA...
However - in the good old USA it is automatically copyrighted the minute it is in TANGIBLE FORM,
The following is taken directly from the US Copyright Office (i wonder if it's copyrighted?)
§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general:
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
So it has to be in some form or another "tangible".
For a song that would mean either recorded - or written AND scored..... otherwise the written words become copyrighted (as a poem would) but the arrangement (as a whole) does not.
If someone else were to take an arrangement that you made - but that you had not committed to tangible form - and they stole it from you - you really have no copyright - thus no protection.
Rod Rod the answer lies within; “(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” The key to this is the part where it says “in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” When it says “which they can be perceived”, which in my opinions would be any performance of the song. So essentially, the description covers just about any scenario. As Waldo pointed out, once the song is composed, it is considered copywriter unless the song only resides within the writers mind and had never been expressed or performed, regardless whether it has been performed in public or in private.
********************
Originally posted by pmolsonmus:
Kurt,
I pay income and real estate taxes and yet I don't get welfare, my house hasn't needed firemen yet, I haven't really declared war on anybody for the use of our military and the expense it requires. And while I know these are gov't agencies that I don't USE I still have to pay taxes.
Phil
Phil,
You do benefit from the infrastructure the city provides, sewer, water, roads, schools, libraries etc. and you (and all of us) benefit from the technological developments that military spending produces. One only has to look as far as the medium we are currently communicating across for a perfect example of this.
Your idea of a tax deduction is a good idea as long as you show a profit but you have to make money to claim a deduction. I still think a media “surcharge” is a good idea but I also still think that producers of original material should be exempt.
***************************
Originally posted by Rod Gervais:
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
What the RIAA is doing is about the same thing the government does with drugs. They are going after and punishing the end users, hoping to affect the demand.
Ok - i read the above, but today i did something i haven't done before now - i actually went and read (at the RIAA website) what they're doing... "technically" they are persuing the "pusher"Rod,
I saw on the news the other night that they are going after anyone who has downloaded more than 1000 songs. This is what I was referring to. Kurt
Kurt,
As much as i respect you and your opinion..... I have to dissagree on this one...... a simple unrecorded performance is not a tangible thing... I cannot touch it - i cannot see it - it is fleeting - it is there one split second and gone forever the next........ The federal requirement is explicit and it states: "any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." I stipulate that an unrecorded preformance - public or private - does not meet the requirements.
Waldo - you are right - any public performance is copywrite protected - which is to say - if you perform in public - you have instant rights to that - i cannot record that and claim it as my own - once again - a record copy makes it yours - however - if you were to sing a little ditty - that you never placed on paper - and it was not recorded at the performance - and i remembered it - without that being in your possession - IN TANGIBLE FORM - it is not copywrite protected......... I am sorry - the creation itself is not enough - there must be a physical - TANGIBLE form of this somewhere.
Rod
[ September 26, 2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Rod Gervais ]
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
I saw on the news the other night that they are going after anyone who has downloaded more than 1000 songs. This is what I was referring to. Kurt
Kurt, if you do not have your computer set up for peer to peer file sharing - they cannot tell how many songs you have downloaded. It is not physically possible.
What they are doing is going out looking for anyone who is offering to share - and is thus considered a "supplier" (by them) that has in their possession (in their "shared file") 1,000 files or more.
You call this a user (as do i personally) they call it a pusher because they allow others to download from their machine.
If one turns off the sharing - and just downloads - they aren't able to (can't) touch them.
Rod
Originally posted by Rod Gervais:
a simple unrecorded performance is not a tangible thing... I cannot touch it - i cannot see it - it is fleeting - it is there one split second and gone forever the next........ The federal requirement is explicit and it states: "from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." I stipulate that an unrecorded preformance - public or private - does not meet the requirements.
That is absolutely correct. Kurt, the problem with your explanation is that you have ignored the word "tangible".
Originally posted by TheRealWaldo:
Rod, I'm referring to the Berne convention, in which your country is also signed.And don't say 'oh, they'd overhear you playing it', public performances are covered by copyright law as well ;)
Waldo,
I respect you as much as anyone here.. but i beg to differ my friend,
I have read the Berne Cenvention and would quote you the following:
Article 2...... subsection (2)
"It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form."
A simple public (or private) performance is not "fixed in some material form". There is no physical (material) form to a performance.
Also:
Article 3... Subsection (3)
" The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work , the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication. "
(The bold is mine to create clarity in my point)
I don't feel that anything i presented is not in holding with either US copywrite laws or the Berne Convention
They would be protected against my recording their performance and selling copies of that for profit - because THE PREFORMANCE ITSELF IS COPYWRITED - however the performance itself does not instantly grant copywrite to individual pieces of the performance.
Respectfully,
Rod
[ September 26, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Rod Gervais ]
Rod, I've never seen documentation/legislation stating that the US opted to not protect unfixed material (i.e., intellectual property). If you could point me to that, it would be helpful.
As far as 3,3, performance and publication differ, and is only part of the paragraph 'The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work.' Being so, it's unrelated. Performance rights are covered elsewhere.
W.
Originally posted by TheRealWaldo:
Rod, I've never seen documentation/legislation stating that the US opted to not protect unfixed material (i.e., intellectual property). If you could point me to that, it would be helpful.
Waldo,
the following is taken directly from the US Govt site:
"When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
You can view this yourself at this link:
As far as item 3.3 goes - i went back and re-read that section -- and i will agree that i was viewing it out of context..... please accept my apology.
I would point out that the position of the US Govt on this is consistent with the Bernes Convention....... the work must be created and then fixed in a tangible manner.......
Under the definitions of the actual "Copywrite Law of the United States of America" which is located in Chapter 17 of The United States Codes, Chapter 1, Section 101 - entitled "Definitions" I quote:
A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.
If it is not fixed - legally it is not created........ so doing it in your mind and playing it back to yourself does not meet the requirement.
I further quote:
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
And that puts it to bed....... Joe preforming in the park - puts together a little song on the spot - and sings it in public........ this is not copywrite protected material unless it is recorded in some manner during the transmission.
You can view the above quotes at:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.governme… "]click here[/]="http://www.governme… "]click here[/]
I also think that i have somehow "hijacked" this thread - and for this i apologize to those involved.
Thus - if anyone wishes to continue this - please feel free to PM me - but i think we should let Chris have his thread back.
Rod
[ September 27, 2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Rod Gervais ]
Well it's been some time since I've checked out US copyright law, but the Berne convention provides the 'choice' to each of the signed countries. I.e, a country choosing to say the material must be recorded or not is flexible.
As far as 'definitions', that's fine, but simply defining what they mean by 'create'. Could you site the specific section of the document pertaining to musical works that states 'the work is copyrighted only when it is created'?
BTW: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ is the official location, even though the disclaimers will tell you that nothing is to be considered accurate, and to contact lawyers for accurate information ;)
Also, I think this is very relevent to the subject, so keep on posting, we all need education!
W.
Ack, sorry, going in circles.
Spoke to a lawyer (friend of mine), he states that yes, if you write a song, and do not 'publish' or 'record' it, yet someone overhears you playing it, and copies that, you can go after them under copyright law, even if the copyright is not registered.
However, without a registration, it would be difficult to go after that person.
You can also register a copyright for an un-published, un-recorded work, by providing written material to the copyright office. This of course improves your chances of winning in the event of a breech.
Anyhow, I guess it's all in how you 'interpret' the law. Technically, if you made it, it's copyrighted, and you're the owner. Proving it is a whole 'nother boat.
W.
Originally posted by TheRealWaldo:
Ack, sorry, going in circles.Spoke to a lawyer (friend of mine), he states that yes, if you write a song, and do not 'publish' or 'record' it, yet someone overhears you playing it, and copies that, you can go after them under copyright law, even if the copyright is not registered.
I agree with your lawyer friend - but read carefully what you just said, you have to "write" the song - you have to commit it to some "tangible" form of medium - and then, as long as you meet the remaining requirements established under law.... you have the protections established under the law.
This (again) is direct from the Govt Site:
"§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general 26"
"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works."
This is the Staute itself...not my interpretation of it..... and while using this you have to then go back to reading the definitions (they are put there to properly interpret the law) and using them.
Understand - it appears to me that you are viewing the definitions as something that could be argued against under interpretation of the law... but this is not the case - they are not something of an "aside" from the law - they are incoprporated into and are a part of the law.....
This is not the case of the FAQ section of this site - which is basically meaningless in a court of law....... the definition section is just that:
Chapter 1
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright
101. Definitions
102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
Note that these 2 sections of the Statute i have been using to make my point are the actual law... not fluff.
Thus:
The material has to be "fixed" in accordance with the law.
A person performing something in public which is off the cuff and not "fixed" - for example: if it is not recorded in some manner or has not been previously put down on paper - or some other fixed medium - does not automatically possess a copywrite of that material, not in the legal sense of the term anyway.
Could this person afterwards place this on paper, meeting the requirements described under the code and bring witnesses forward to back his claim to copywrite ownership - and win in a court of law?
The answer is "possibly"....... but he is LEGALLY then placing the cart after the horse....
The requirements of the law are very specific:
1.) It must be an original authorship.
2.) It must be fixed in any tangible medium of expression.
If it does not meet any one of the requirements - it does not pass muster.
The law then goes on to define what it means by those terms..... and note that "A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
I still have to maintain that a simple performance in the park - that is not recorded in some manner - is a fleeting thing - with a transitory duration. It does not meet the requirements of "fixed" as defined under the law.
No matter that i personally find this to be morally wrong....... it is a matter of law - not morals.
Please read for yourself...... I see no protection (especially in the area of the arts) for intellectual ownership.
Seeing as you asked to keep this going here - i welcome your response,
Sincerely,
Rod
I see what you are saying, however, there is differences to point out.
Copyright
Registered Copyright
And Proof of Copyright (evidence)...
Copyrights exist when you are the inventor of a musical work, regardless of what form they are in.
Registered Copyright is when you've filed with your government a tangible copy of that work (whether it be recorded, written, sheet music, etc.).
And evidence, well, either having it registered, or in tangible form is the only thing you got.
Needless to say, I have sat in on cases here (Canada) where people have won without registered copyrights, and only a scribbled on napkin with lyrics... Of course, the napkin was from a place that had gone out of business before the 'infringment', so there was timeliness on his side, etc..
I agree, a 'tangible' form is about the only way you could prove copyright ownership (as I stated above), but technically, your work is 'supposed' to be protected under intellectual property laws, even before it hits paper/discs... At least, according to the lawyer I spoke to.
Anywho, I think we got all the information out that we can, the main point for everyone to seriously consider is, TALK TO THE LAW if you want absolute answers ;) Then, if they are wrong, you can sue them instead of us!
W.
Originally posted by TheRealWaldo:
'twould be evidence, yes, but absolute is nothing unless it's registered.W.
And yet another thing we can agree on 100%... the best policy is always to register... the fact that one owns a technical copywrite does not change the fact that it could take a very expensive legal battle to prove that..........
The cost of registering is so very little (in comparision to the time effort and costs associated with a lawsuit) that i cannot see it making sense to chance it.
:c:
Rod
Rod , I know this is late but have you ever dubed a tape or vinyl from your friends? When you dub an album you are making it availible to one person, the person you dubed it for; also you can asses your friend deciding not to give it to them considering you never see them buying Cd's and figure there cheap bastards. On the other hand on a peer to peer networks make it availible to anyone who has an iternet connection.
Originally posted by missilanious:
Rod , I know this is late but have you ever dubed a tape or vinyl from your friends? When you dub an album you are making it availible to one person, the person you dubed it for; also you can asses your friend deciding not to give it to them considering you never see them buying Cd's and figure there cheap bastards. On the other hand on a peer to peer networks make it availible to anyone who has an iternet connection.
OK - i looked back and realize that i have never actually answered this. SO here goes,
I do not use peer to peer services..... for a variety of reasons......
I do not make copies (for myself or anyone else) of someone elses music. I will borrow a CD to listen to and then buy it if i liked it - i have also (unfortunately) bought things like "Sweet Potato Pie" by Robert Cray - just because it was him - only to find that i had to choose between losing it in a landfill or giving it away....... I did find a sucker to take it off my hands......
I do download mp3's of any artist that i like who has allowed me to do that legally.... and (seeing as they have made it free) i will have no qualms sharing that with friends to introduce them to the artist.
I do make copies of anything i buy........ for my own purposes - and store the original away for future copies in the event of damage to my copy..... I only intend to buy something once.
The only thing i do that could be considered illegal (although i do not consider it immoral) would be the fact that i will make copies of a song to distribute to my band-mates in order for them to have a chance to practice at home.
However - this is a song at a time - not entire cd's - and i am not about to pay for 5 or 6 cd's everytime i want to play a song off someone's album.
However when i play out BMI (or whomever) is already collecting for us having learned that song.
I am not trying to justify this to anyone - tis my conscience....... and i have no problem looking myself in the mirror...... ever.
I would point out however - if a cd was stolen from me - i would not be reluctant to download it - knowing that i had already paid for my right to have a copy of the music (which is what i AM paying for) - but only if insurance did not cover the loss. If insurance covered my loss then i would just buy it.
So now you know - the rest of the story..........
Rod-
Originally posted by TheRealWaldo:
Copyrights exist when you are the inventor of a musical work, regardless of what form they are in.
Sorry, but that is just not true. It has to be in tangible form. You have either misunderstood your lawyer friend or he has misunderstood you.
Registered Copyright is when you've filed with your government a tangible copy of that work (whether it be recorded, written, sheet music, etc.).
Most countries do not require a tangible copy to be filed in order to register copyright. The U.S. requires it. Canada, among others, does not.
Needless to say, I have sat in on cases here (Canada) where people have won without registered copyrights, and only a scribbled on napkin with lyrics... Of course, the napkin was from a place that had gone out of business before the 'infringment', so there was timeliness on his side, etc..
Had it not been scribbled on a napkin though (or otherwise reduced to some tangible form), there would have been no copyright.
...technically, your work is 'supposed' to be protected under intellectual property laws, even before it hits paper/discs...
No, no, no, no. TANGIBLE FORM! It has to be TANGIBLE for copyright to attach. It is very clear in the act.
hmmmn... this thread seems to have gone off-topic... in respons
hmmmn... this thread seems to have gone off-topic...
in response to the original question....
(The opinions expressed hereafter are mine, and in no way reflect the views and opinions of my employers, the EMI group).
I personally use P2P downloading as a way of auditioning music. I have very specific music tastes which aren't catered for particularly on radio stations or tv in England.
I got sick of buying albums on the basis of a single I'd heard at a nightclub, or on a late-night tv show etc., only to get it home and find that I hate the rest of the album and get sick of the single pretty quick, certainly not getting my £17(GBP)-worth of use out it.
By downloading an entire album that I think I may like, I can verify whether or not it's my 'cup of tea', and if I like it, I go out and buy the CD, if not, I delete it from my hard drive pretty quickly.
I have bought MANY MANY CDs this way, and have a completely clear conscience about it.
CDs are very expensive in England, old budget albums are around £6, chart/new albums are up to £17, and if you have to have the album imported because it's not been released in England due to the A&R guys having their heads up their backsides, up to £22 for an album!
I believe this is roughly double the price they are in the USA. Is this fair? That's another issue, but regardless, it's certainly as unfair that people can't trust labels to release albums that are worth listening to from beginning to end, and pay through the nose to get screwed.
If I were to add up the amount of albums that I've bought, then only listened to once or twice because on getting it home I discover they suck, it would be well into the hundreds of pounds.
Is it possible to return these albums to the record companies on the basis that the music is rubbish, and get a full refund?
I severely doubt it.
When we tune in to a radio station to be fed the music that the promoters want us to listen to, yes the band gets paid, but Joe Public doesn't pay per song they listen to. The music police doesn't follow radio waves around, forcing the man on the street to cough up for the latest Coldplay single that they happen to catch an earful of through the window of someone else's car, so why should it be a big deal that people choose to listen to music they WANT to listen to?
If you want the inlay card, the nice box, the info about the band, then you buy the cd / dvd.
If you like a band enough to download their songs, then chances are, at some point you're going to go and see the band live, maybe buy a t-shirt, at any rate, you're still supporting the music of an artist you like, and in the end, the band won't lose out.
We all watched (and some of us laughed) at how the music-loving public turned on Metallica after the Napster fiasco.
When will the executives of the industry learn to butt-out of this arguament? The labels are alienating themselves from the public with this anal viewpoint.
Quality Assurance levels need to rise considerably in the industry if the labels are going to win back the public. Until that happens, I for one will continue downloading music as my own personal answer to rubbish radio.
This trend of lowest common denominator, formulaic crap that's being churned out constantly by the majors is dragging the unfortunately musically-uneducated public into a gutter of blandness.
The sad fact of it is, that the world is in musical poverty. The standard of musicianship in the industry has declined horrifically over the course of the last 30-40 years. Attitude and looks have replaced talent and hard work as the reason for signing an act.
What we now have is an industry full of karaoke glamour models.
Until the labels shape up, they won't win back public confidence.
*// Quality Assurance levels need to rise considerably in the in
*// Quality Assurance levels need to rise considerably in the industry if the labels are going to win back the public. Until that happens, I for one will continue downloading music as my own personal answer to rubbish radio. //*
This is just ridiculous!! Do you go out to the clothes store and steal just because you don't like the designs of the shirts? It's a subjective matter, you can't judge it on your own. Who the hell do you think you are?
*// The standard of musicianship in the industry has declined horrifically over the course of the last 30-40 years.//*
The standard of music has improved 100 times. Now, this is again a subjective matter but complexity in music has definately gone up. You can hear it objectively if you really listen to music. And to make anything complex, you need more creativity.
The music industry is going thru a phase. People said the same things when radios were first introduced. Downloading has kind of become a norm now. I have heard a lot of people who get frustrated because they have to wait for long to download the song they want to listen to from illegal websites and end up buying for 99 cents or something from legal websites. This will become even more common. More people buy music as downloads instead of going to the music stores to get CDs. Some people are going to still download from illegal websites and not pay for it but it's all part of the business.
I'm sorry to contradict, but regarding the levels of musicianshi
I'm sorry to contradict, but regarding the levels of musicianship, that's just rubbish, as anyone that knows any music theory would tell you. Production standards have improved VASTLY, and that's probably what you mean when you say music's "better" nowadays but the industry is using this improved sound quality to hide the fact that the bands are rubbish.
With the exception of a minority of acts like Incubus and Tool, most musicians that the industry are promoting are 4-chord, 4 beats to the bar wonders.
Are you telling me that you've never bought an album on the basis of a single you've heard, only to discover that the rest of the album's utter crap?
Like I said, I'm not STEALING their music... I'm auditioning it... creating my own personal radio station on my hard drive because the established radio stations don't cater for people that actually understand music (both the theory and the production side), and then I go out and buy the albums I actually DO want. I have over 300 legitimate bought CDs in my collection... that's about £4500 of my money I've spent on CDs.
Your analogy simply doesn't fit.
Who do I think I am? Someone that's been a musician for 24 years and has been getting more and more repulsed by the crap that's been forced down my throat by the media.
We live in a society where mediocrity is deified. Probably because the vast majority of people in the world are never going to be much more than mediocre at anything themselves.
In sports, if someone trains themselves to the peak of their potential, pushes the boundaries, and goes one step further than the rest of the pack, they get the gold medal, in music, the majority will say "it's too widdly, put some Oasis on".
Is it fair that the likes of Oasis have made millions from being not much more than dodgy pub bands with an attitude whereas the likes of Steve Vai, arguably the best guitarist on the planet, is virtually unknown (relatively)?
Does that make Oasis better than Steve Vai? Or does it just mean that the majority of the media-hype-sheep that buy the CD's that MTV tells them to buy are just too stupid to know good music when they hear it?
Complexity in music hasn't gone up. Complexity of the sounds available with synthesizers has gone up, so if you hold down a single note on the latest synth, it can sound more complicated than
a Jon Lord Hammond organ solo. Does that make the music better, or does it just promote lazy songwriting?
The technology that's so widely available nowadays has made real creativity completely unneccesary to become a famous musical act. (I don't want to use the word musician, because if you can't play an instrument to a reasonable standard, you aren't a musician).
I'm not saying that all electronica is rubbish, as the pseudo-indie pop-rock world is just as guilty of relying on attitude for sales as the electronica world relies on the latest synths. That's not creativity, it's accessibility.
Creativity is about pushing the boundaries of songwriting, and any band that follows the "Intro-verse-bridge-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus-middle8-chorus-end" pattern that has dogged the pop world for the last 2 decades simply isn't being creative. Some of them don't even bother with the bridge! Tell me that's creativity not laziness... go on...
With the technology we now have available, we should be in a musical rennaissance, and yet almost every song we hear has an almost identical structure because the people that generally end up in bands are just actors and karaoke glamour models, not musicians... these people don't even REALISE that they're just pumping out the same crap over and over again.
If you want a song to judge all the rest by, try Bohemian Rhapsody. This song is arguably one of the best chart songs ever written (25 years ago I might add). Look at the structure... the key changes... the tempo changes... the variety of genres it encompasses... the musicianship... the quality of the vocalists (REAL SINGING TOO - they hadn't invented ANTARES AUTOTUNE* at that point). Tell me that Crazy Frog is a better song.
That song has set a standard that simply hasn't been matched in the pop world.
*for those of you that don't know - Antares Autotune is a plugin (and now also a hardware device that can be used LIVE) which takes your vocal line, and puts it PERFECTLY in tune... taking away the need for a vocalist that can even hold a tune... [surely my favourite bands don't use this???] Yes, they will... you can hear it's more extreme uses in Cher's "Life After Love" and that Posh Spice single that she did with that dance producer, and if you have a trained ear, you'll hear it everywhere... "I'm Outta Love" by Anastasia... she's got a great voice... until you realise it's been Autotuned.
Most songs that hit the charts over here don't even have a single key change in them, let alone (god forbid) a time signature other than 4-4.
Where are our "Stairway to Heaven"s? Our "The Wall"s?
Yes, we have Steve Vai, Dream Theater, Satch, and various others that CAN actually play, and DO put SERIOUS effort into their songwriting, but because they choose not to buy in to the "attitude is more important than talent" frame of mind, they're virtually unknown! These sorts of artists simply don't get anywhere near the airplay they deserve.
The public are being cheated. Most of them don't even realise it. If this sort of thing is OK, then why the hell shouldn't people download? Hell, some of these artists even go into studios to record their LIVE parts, because they know that they'll never hit the notes when they're in concert.
If anything is a miscarriage of justice, it's that... not the public downloading the music... ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN THEY GO AND BUY THE ALBUMS THEY LIKE ANYWAY.
God! I don't have as much time to write such long posts but I wi
God! I don't have as much time to write such long posts but I will tell briefly what I think. You are right when you say that production quality has improved but I also feel the overall quality standard of music is still awesome. Music doesn't become interesting just by making it complex, sometimes the songs with just 3-4 chords sound unbelivably appealing. It's all a very subjective matter. I might hate what you like listening to or vice versa. Just to give you an example, a lot of pop/rock musicians hate opera music and classical pianists hate rock. It's not that general but I have seen that being the case a lot of times.
I have bought CDs where I liked only 1-2 songs but that doesn't mean I could just download those from illegal websites. I could in fact get those singles from the legal websites for as cheap as 99 cents. That's peanuts for anybody! I have been a musician for 15-17 years and I have bought about a 1000 CDs.
Public is not cheated, musicians are.
*//Hell, some of these artists even go into studios to record their LIVE parts, because they know that they'll never hit the notes when they're in concert.//*
It is not about playing (or hitting notes) as much as it is about conceiving an idea. You don't need to be a virtuoso to produce quality music.
OK, we're having 2 separate discussions now I think, one about t
OK, we're having 2 separate discussions now I think, one about the morality of DLing and the other about the decline/rise of music.
Music first:
It's true that the chords don't necessarily have to be complex to be interesting, and that you can have a really interesting song that has only a few chords... a look at Pink Floyd's later works backs that up, but in those cases, there's an underlying talent and subdued virtuosity that sets bands like Floyd apart from the likes of Coldplay, who only play a few chords because they CAN only play a few chords. Floyd had amazing musicians on every instrument and it showed. It didn't matter that The Great Gig in the Sky only had 2 chords for the vast majority of it, or that there were no lyrics as such. The song was amazing because amazing musicians were playing interesting dynamic music, and amazing vocalists were expressing their inner-pain through "oh"s and "ah"s.
You just don't see that from the likes of The Verve, Cast, or Coldplay. What you get is 4 or 5 avarage (at best) joes that you could've picked up busking at any train station, stick them in an expensive studio with a big-name producer/engineer and get a collection of avarage, badly-played-but-corrected-by-a-very-patient-pro-tools-operator, cheesy pop-rock tracks that sound like everything else that's been released in that genre over the last 10 years.
Like I said, nowadays the media (speaking for the british media - can't speak for the rest of the world) deify mediocrity whereas in years gone by, the best were known for being the best. Jimi Hendrix didn't become famous for 3-chord songs, he became the 'Rock God' he was through being amazing at his instrument, pushing the boundaries of what was possible with music. He wasn't trying to sound like the other artists that were selling the most records at the time, he was creating his own sound, a sound that set him apart from the rest.
Anyway, briefly on to the downloading issue:
I have specified in both my previous posts that I don't use this as an excuse to download albums for free that I will listen to more than a few times.
I download an album, listen to it once or twice, then if I like it, I buy the CD.
(Surely no different from going to a friend's house and listening to their copy?)
If I don't like it, I delete it. Nobody loses out.
Back to the music issue:
All I'm saying is that our radio stations in the UK have literally nothing to offer me in terms of music, our "chart shows" are essentially rigged, as people can only buy the latest things they hear on the radio, and (as we now know since it emerged in the papers a few weeks ago), record companies PAY the radio stations to include their latest releases in their A-List airplay... which essentially means that the radio is a 24/7 advert break / infomercial for bands that are about as inspired as any you can see playing in pub gigs around the country.
I can hear well-played 3-chord music at the Dog and Duck (hypothetical random pub name), I don't need it shoved down my throat by the radio and TV. I certainly don't need some Top Of The Pops bimbo telling me that the latest Oasis album is the best album ever written. I find this kind of subjective fascism from people who know nothing about music (apart from how a song or genre makes them feel) to be insulting.
Whether or not you like a piece of music is subjectivity. As a musician, you must be able to hear when a band is practiced and technically proficient, as well as being able to "catch a vibe". Yes, there's quite a lot of music out there that satisfies JUST the technical ability question but seems to have no soul at all.
I personally feel that for a band or artist to be given the full A-list airplay treatment, they should fulfill all sides of the equation, not just be the record companies' latest trend-based cash machine.
A band should a: be physically able to play complex material whether they choose to or not, b: be able to express more than just a single emotion through their music. Otherwise, what exactly have they got to say to us?
It's unfortunate, but nowadays it seems that record companies aren't concerned with either of these two ideas, and are more concerned with how the band looks, and how it fits in to the current trendset.
In my opinion, that's a fashion show, not a gig, and our radio and tv presenters should be knowledgable about the subject matter and be able to comment on it in an intelligent manner, not be leading the public astray by conditioning us to like the latest thing that's come out of the money camp by playing it over and over.
"...and then play it again and again and again, until your mind is locked in... believing all the lies that they're tellin ya, buyin all the products that they're sellin ya, they say jump and you say how high" ( Rage Against The Machine, 1992 )
[/code]
last i checked, bands write music, not record labels. maybe a ba
last i checked, bands write music, not record labels. maybe a band wants to make it big so they write mainstream music, maybe the labels only pick out mainstream bands, depends. killswitch engage isnt really that mainstream, and i would hear them on the radio plenty of times (how i found out about them), even though it was their calmest song. to me it seems not as much the labels weakening music as much as public taste. the general public likes music thats easy to listen to and that is catchy, always have.
over the past year ive wrote a lot of different types of music, from idustrial to happy hardcore to death metal, but the one i was writing for a while was more alt metal, stuff on the radio, because thats just what i felt like writing.
theres always internet radio stations (itunes has a decent list). want to listen to more intelligent metal, try snakenet. they usually play what the radio stations dont. lot of music ideas on them without having to actually pirate a song.
as for me, yes and no. i have because im very poor and was studying other genres, also replacing CDs ive lost over the years. but im not the type to just download thousands of songs a year. i usually end up deleting all my songs every few months anyway. a lot of bands put their main songs up for download or at least to listen to on their website, especially mainstream, as well as music videos. the industry knows how powerful mp3 is and they are trying to use it creatively, instead of conntinue to fight it.
from an artist standpoint, its just more publicity, which = more shows. you may lose like 10 cents off of that sale, but gain a few bucks from the shows you do in their area.
I try to stay away from downloading music because i know it hurt
I try to stay away from downloading music because i know it hurts bands and record labels andi plan on eventually having my own record label but downloading does do alot of promotion because someone hears you play live and they want to hear it they can download the song listen and if they really like your band they will most likely buy the cd. But their are a**holes who will just download the whole damn thing.
I agree, there ARE a lot of arseholes out there that download lo
I agree, there ARE a lot of arseholes out there that download lots of music and never buy CDs. Whenever I meet one I try to convince them that what they are doing is harming the industry and ultimately, hurting MY job security.
I truly hope that more people that just DL and DL and DL without ever buying will start just using it as an audition medium like me. No doubt CD sales would rocket if everyone that does it changed to my system.
How I feel about the state of the industry and the music the labels put out is largely irrelevant to this arguament, but as an employee of EMI, I get a monthly allocation of 6 free CDs or music DVDs anyway, and after working here for 18 months, I find that I've run out of 'good' (imho) modern music and am stocking up on old 80s stuff that I never got round to buying when I was a child. Now for one of the world's top 3 labels, that's a distinct lack of 'decent' music.
I think one of the main problems is that you don't have to know anything at all about music* to work in A&R.
(* where 'music' means music theory and classical composition methods and how they relate to modern music).
As such, the majors just end up signing new bands that sound as close to existing big-sellers as is possible, then they spend all their money promoting these acts, saturating the marketplace with middle-of-the-road dross (which the public laps up because most of them don't realise it's uninspired pap) as oppose to TEACHING the public by giving them more challenging and more classically intelligent music. How will the 99% of the public with little or no knowledge of music theory ever know they're listening to crap if it's all that gets played on Top Of The Pops or CD:UK or Radio 1.
It's not just irresponsible, it's CRIMINAL.
maybe we need to define "good music" With technologies like sat
maybe we need to define "good music"
With technologies like satelite radio, internet webcast, and the fact that basically anyone with a phone line and a pulse can promote music online, there are more avenues than ever to discover amazingly talented and creative new artists. I'm personally thankful that MTV and ClearChannel have a 24 hour stream of musical feces to satiate the masses (most of which really don't care enough to even have an opinion on the quality of today's artists) In fact, I would argue that music is less an artform and more of a commodity for most of the modern world. People that listen to, and buy the mass-produced garbage buy it because they've heard it a million times....the same way they order a Coke at a restaurant, and don't notice when the waiter brings a Pepsi. It's all the same to them.
Bring on the filesharing! That's my opinion. The fact of the matter is, the music that the RIAA is trying to hard to protect, ISN'T the music that's getting swapped at the highest volume or with the most regularity. With sites like myspace, purevolume, and the extensive list of others that have been listed in this post it's obvious file sharing will never go away. While it's unfortunate that bands like The Arcade Fire or Bright Eyes may never be played on mainstream radio, these acts along with a host of others have made successful and profitable careers by putting out music that their fans with enjoy and promoting it in ways that would reach their target markets. All in all, a great album is a great album regardless of which corporation foots the bill. Ignorance is bliss, so let's all just let the fans of mainstream radio and MTV enjoy themselves. If all else fails....just buy a Beyonce CD and act like you really do like it.....
Kurt,
I don't want to start a flame war or anything remotely close. I really respect your input on this website and the good it provides. But...using your carnival analogy. I pay income and real estate taxes and yet I don't get welfare, my house hasn't needed firemen yet, I haven't really declared war on anybody for the use of our military and the expense it requires. And while I know these are gov't agencies that I don't USE I still have to pay taxes. Should the RIAA have the same priveledges as other agencies? In essence, its an aspect of their product to license for good or bad. Should pros get a tax break on the purchase of said media - ABSOLUTELY. But for that, my friend, you need money and some friends in Washington. (They don't call it capital hill for nothin'- you definitely need some capital!) And the best way to do that is to become vocal, organized and affluent. Perhaps this website could be the grassroots beginning of that lobby.
Peace. :p:
Phil