onsmash.com

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Mac Jesus

Girls send me your nudes
May 31, 2003
10,752
54,027
113
40
#62
Does anyone else find it interesting that some artists, many of whom are relatively unknown in the greater scheme of things, see downloading/torrents whatever as extremely threatening to their music sales.

I see the argument and I get it's basic premise...

But think about artists such as Immortal Technique, Blue Scholars, Macklemore, Necro (whom is a faggot but that doesn't take away from the fact that he used the internet masterfully to market his product), etc., etc., all used the internet/torrents in order to promote their music and make a name for themselves.

These are acts that are highly successful, and now known world wide.

Artists need to learn to adapt to the changing marketplace and learn to use torrents/downloads to their advantage. Blue Scholars release mp3s for free all the time, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis recently released that VS ep for free, etc.

If people hear your music and actually like it, they'll buy your shit, even more so if they know you are an independent artist. If your shit is hella mediocre, well then that's on you.
 
Sep 24, 2002
2,016
3
0
41
#63
if their shit was worth buying people would buy it. not when its 12 songs on a album, 10 songs that SUCK one thats a skit and one decent one. artists need to step up the quality and shut the fuck up
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#64
Does anyone else find it interesting that some artists, many of whom are relatively unknown in the greater scheme of things, see downloading/torrents whatever as extremely threatening to their music sales.

I see the argument and I get it's basic premise...

But think about artists such as Immortal Technique, Blue Scholars, Macklemore, Necro (whom is a faggot but that doesn't take away from the fact that he used the internet masterfully to market his product), etc., etc., all used the internet/torrents in order to promote their music and make a name for themselves.

These are acts that are highly successful, and now known world wide.

Artists need to learn to adapt to the changing marketplace and learn to use torrents/downloads to their advantage. Blue Scholars release mp3s for free all the time, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis recently released that VS ep for free, etc.

If people hear your music and actually like it, they'll buy your shit, even more so if they know you are an independent artist. If your shit is hella mediocre, well then that's on you.
Maybe, but Metallica was the first group to put up a big fuss about it several years ago.

Make no mistake about it, no one who makes music wants their stuff illegally pirated.
 

Mac Jesus

Girls send me your nudes
May 31, 2003
10,752
54,027
113
40
#65
I saw a lecture by chuck d a few years back, there was a guy there who never heard his music before, after the lecture the guy was so impressed he told chuck d he was going to go buy his albums, chuck d said download it first.

If you make good music and can gain a fan base you shouldn't be worried about people illegally downloading your music.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#66
I saw a lecture by chuck d a few years back, there was a guy there who never heard his music before, after the lecture the guy was so impressed he told chuck d he was going to go buy his albums, chuck d said download it first.

If you make good music and can gain a fan base you shouldn't be worried about people illegally downloading your music.
In a place like America, greed is always going to overcome rationality. Furthermore, people who do music for a living (aka "work"), they are going to want compensation for it. Would it be OK if you went to your job today, and your boss said to you "BTW, you are going to work for free today"?

Im guessing no. I sure the fuck wouldn't.

Look, both sides can argue until they are blue in the face, but the fact remains: pirating music is not only morally wrong, it is ILLEGAL.
 

Mac Jesus

Girls send me your nudes
May 31, 2003
10,752
54,027
113
40
#67
You'd be hard pressed to find someone in todays society who has never downloaded a song, I Pukokeki Ioulo Momu.

You can say it's morally wrong, ILLEGAL, whatever. But I'd love to see one person on this message board or anywhere else come forward and say "I have never downloaded a song illegally"

You're right that both sides can argue until they are blue in the face, but the fact it this is going to continue to happen regardless.

Artists are going to have to change their mindset if they want to make it in the industry. When Metallica first sued Napster this shit was just beginning.

I pointed out already how downloading music opens up a new fan-base, and if you market yourself well then you'll be able to do well.

If you want to make music for a living, you're going to have to be willing to face that fact. You can either bitch and moan about how it's hurting your sales, or work towards using it to gain more fans, and hence more money.

Also, if you're doing this as a full-time job you shouldn't just be releasing one or two cds every couple of years, you should be touring, constantly doing shows and selling other merchandise at your show.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#68
You'd be hard pressed to find someone in todays society who has never downloaded a song, I Pukokeki Ioulo Momu.

You can say it's morally wrong, ILLEGAL, whatever. But I'd love to see one person on this message board or anywhere else come forward and say "I have never downloaded a song illegally"
I never said I did or didn't do anything, but it doesn't matter because that is not what this debate is about.

You're right that both sides can argue until they are blue in the face, but the fact it this is going to continue to happen regardless.
This is a given.

Artists are going to have to change their mindset if they want to make it in the industry. When Metallica first sued Napster this shit was just beginning.

I pointed out already how downloading music opens up a new fan-base, and if you market yourself well then you'll be able to do well.
Well, that is the IDEA. But tell me this: if music can be had for FREE, with seemingly no consequences to the "consumer", why buy? And this is where human nature gets tested, and where the debate over "downloading music = publicity = sales" comes into play. They are not necessarily synonymous.

If you want to make music for a living, you're going to have to be willing to face that fact. You can either bitch and moan about how it's hurting your sales, or work towards using it to gain more fans, and hence more money.
And as I do understand that, the folks who have been doing music PRIOR to the internet being a main source of music dispersion, that is a HARD pill to swallow. What was once a fruitful career, is now becoming an up hill battle to even want to MAKE new music. So while MC 90's Baby is OK with it, MC OG 1993 G-Funk sees that what he is doing is now not worth his time.

Also, if you're doing this as a full-time job you shouldn't just be releasing one or two cds every couple of years, you should be touring, constantly doing shows and selling other merchandise at your show.
True, but doing a show without an album out is pretty meaningless, and for the most part, will bring your touring and merchandise selling to screeching halt.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#69
I fucked your mom, I don't know how you can sit here and say downloading music is morally wrong. Who are you to judge what is morally wrong or not?

There have been boatloads of artists that have supported music sharing and like Jesus said, for many artists their popularity has only increased thanks to music sharing. I wouldn't know who the fuck 98% of the people I listen to if not for the internetz and my story is not unique.

The industry has changed due to technology. 93 g-funk rappers need to either get with the times or they get left behind. It's no different then how newspapers had to rapidly change to online news and be innovative or they go under. And that's exactly what happened. The music industry has changed and it will never be the same and people need to accept it, move on.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#70
I fucked your mom, I don't know how you can sit here and say downloading music is morally wrong. Who are you to judge what is morally wrong or not?
Who says I am the one who is judging? We all live by societal norms, do we not? Either way, when a person puts out something to be consumed using money, but instead is turned around and given to others for free by a group or a person that is NOT the artist, how can that NOT be viewed as "wrong"? Is it wrong for someone to steal your car?

There have been boatloads of artists that have supported music sharing and like Jesus said, for many artists their popularity has only increased thanks to music sharing. I wouldn't know who the fuck 98% of the people I listen to if not for the internetz and my story is not unique.
"Butloads" doesn't constitute an actual amount, and doesn't even support any claim. Neither you nor I know the amount of artists that do or dont support downloading, and to what degree they feel is OK. Do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim of "buttloads"?

The industry has changed due to technology. 93 g-funk rappers need to either get with the times or they get left behind. It's no different then how newspapers had to rapidly change to online news and be innovative or they go under. And that's exactly what happened. The music industry has changed and it will never be the same and people need to accept it, move on.
And "getting with the program" means what? The issue here is music being taken, ripped, and distributed by people that are not the artists/record companies. Are you saying that artists just need to accept the fact that no matter what happens, their music is going to be stolen and that what they do as a job, may be less that what it should/could be?
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#71
^how do you expect social evolution to take place, and when it does, what happens to societal norms?

Its not on the people that system is outdated. They might as well find a new way to make a living.

and morals and ethics are a personal thing to me.

A scenerio was brought up in my friends psych 101 class which im sure youve gone over.
Say your wife is dying and you were too broke to afford the medicine, you asked the pharmacist if you can keep a tab and pay it off with interest and the guys a dick and rejects.
Do you rob the guy or abide by societal rules and legality?
do you follow personal morals or societal morals?

ps. I only dont do illegal things so i dont go to jail. Apart from that the law is a joke and i follow my own morals.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#74
^how do you expect social evolution to take place, and when it does, what happens to societal norms?
I dont expect anything to take place. However, if it does, it does. Paradigm shifts have happened over the centuries, and we have adapted. However, that doesn't mean there hasn't been resistance along the way.

Its not on the people that system is outdated. They might as well find a new way to make a living.
And this is where the next turn was going to come in the convo.

and morals and ethics are a personal thing to me.
They are to everyone. However, society has a hand in how those are shaped.

A scenerio was brought up in my friends psych 101 class which im sure youve gone over.
Say your wife is dying and you were too broke to afford the medicine, you asked the pharmacist if you can keep a tab and pay it off with interest and the guys a dick and rejects.
Do you rob the guy or abide by societal rules and legality?
do you follow personal morals or societal morals?
Well, you can do whatever you want, however, some of those morals are also bound by laws. You have to think of the consequences as well when thinking of breaking your own or society's moral lines.

ps. I only dont do illegal things so i dont go to jail. Apart from that the law is a joke and i follow my own morals.
And this is the major conundrum of which you outlined with the dying wide scenario. Do we go outside what we think is right, to make things better even though in the long run, they could mean its worse for us, i.e going to jail? At what point is our moral fiber tested by what is given to us by society? We are all bound, as humans, by things such as "morals", even thought they may differ from person to person...they are several "norms" that are there to either abide by or tweak.

Either way, we may be getting off track with the original topic.
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#75
I dont expect anything to take place. However, if it does, it does. Paradigm shifts have happened over the centuries, and we have adapted. However, that doesn't mean there hasn't been resistance along the way.
Whether there is resistance or not doesnt imply that the resistance is well-founded. The fact is change is all there is, and the only thing stopping us from getting ahead is our futile grasp at this currently failed society.


They are to everyone. However, society has a hand in how those are shaped.
society does have a hand but society is dictated by the individuals, and the society is a failed invalidated society if these individuals that make society up do not follow personal morals.

And this is the major conundrum of which you outlined with the dying wide scenario. Do we go outside what we think is right, to make things better even though in the long run, they could mean its worse for us, i.e going to jail? At what point is our moral fiber tested by what is given to us by society?
in the end the morals followed , even in relation to society go back to our own personal morals.
I avoid jail because my own morals for myself are to be a physically free individual. Do i agree with the laws that will sentence me to jail? of course not, and thats why the argument of legality and societal morality shouldnt be an argument used for anything really.

We are all bound, as humans, by things such as "morals", even thought they may differ from person to person...they are several "norms" that are there to either abide by or tweak.
Either way, we may be getting off track with the original topic.
my "hypothesis" is that current societal norms are the cause of a lack of morality in people.
I might talk about anarchism while somebody starts to ask me about issues that are only relative to a capitalistic society.
example, they might say "what about crime" as if poverty will exist or crimes that exist in a capitalist society will also exist in an anarchist one.

its always time for a social evolution.
 
May 2, 2002
3,895
163
0
#76
You guys are getting off topic...but some of the earlier convo reminds me of that Andre 3000 verse...one of my favorites.

[Andre 3000:]
We work nights, we some vampires
Niggas gather round the beat like a campfire
Singin' folk songs, but not no Kumbaya my Lord
You download it for free, we get charged back for it
I know you're saying, they won't know they won't miss it
Besides, I ain't a thief, they won't pay me a visit
So if I come to your job, take your corn on the cob
And take a couple kernels off it that would be alright with you
Hell no! Yeah, exactamundo
But we just keep recording and it ain't to get no condo
And Candy Bentley fanny with no panties in Miami
And that cute lil' chick named Tammy that you took to the Grammys
See we do it for that boi that graduated
That looked you in your eyes real tough and said 'preciate it
And that he wouldn'ta made it if it wasn't for your CD number 9
And he's standing with his baby momma Kiki and she cryin' talkinbout
That they used to get high to me in high school
And they used to make love to me in college
Then they told me 'bout they first date, listenin' to my tunes
And how he, like to finger nail polish
I say hate to cut you off but I gotta go
I wish you could tell me mo' but I'm off to the studio, gotta write tonight
Hey, can you put us in your raps? I don't see why not
Devin it's the Dude you gon' probably hear him talking 'bout
 

Mac Jesus

Girls send me your nudes
May 31, 2003
10,752
54,027
113
40
#77
I never said I did or didn't do anything, but it doesn't matter because that is not what this debate is about.
I think this is very pertinent to the debate, you mentioned morals and societal norms. Who creates these norms? Society. If you are going to be hard pressed to find people in our society who have not downloaded music, it says a lot about these societal norms.

This is a given.
No doubt, so artists and record labels are going to have to learn to adapt.

Well, that is the IDEA. But tell me this: if music can be had for FREE, with seemingly no consequences to the "consumer", why buy? And this is where human nature gets tested, and where the debate over "downloading music = publicity = sales" comes into play. They are not necessarily synonymous.
The market has shown if artists can connect to their fans; they will be able to sell a lot of albums. Look at even an extremely mediocre musical group like ICP. There's diehard juggalo fans who will buy anything they put out. It all comes down to how well the artist is able to market themselves.

And as I do understand that, the folks who have been doing music PRIOR to the internet being a main source of music dispersion, that is a HARD pill to swallow. What was once a fruitful career, is now becoming an up hill battle to even want to MAKE new music. So while MC 90's Baby is OK with it, MC OG 1993 G-Funk sees that what he is doing is now not worth his time.
Then as 2-0-Sixx said they will need to learn to get with the times. Public Enemy did it, The Coup did it, NIN's did it, the list goes on. If artists don't have the heart to adapt to the new market place then maybe they don't have the heart to be in the business.

True, but doing a show without an album out is pretty meaningless, and for the most part, will bring your touring and merchandise selling to screeching halt.
So make an album, promote it on the internet, do some shows, sell merchandise including cds at the show. Most people now a days won't buy an album until they download it first, especially if it's coming from a new artist.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#78
I Pukokeki Ioulo Momu said:
Who says I am the one who is judging?
You stated it's morally wrong.

We all live by societal norms, do we not? Either way, when a person puts out something to be consumed using money, but instead is turned around and given to others for free by a group or a person that is NOT the artist, how can that NOT be viewed as "wrong"? Is it wrong for someone to steal your car?
Like SeriouslyThug said morality is a personal thing. But even then, if we go by "societal norms" obviously, and quite CLEARLY it is not morally wrong to download music, or else this wouldn't be a "problem" would it? Everyone and their mama downloads music. Quite the contradiction if this was so morally wrong. Not everyone steals cars now do they? How come?

Do you think it's morally wrong to download porn? Isn't that taking money out of the pockets of the pornstars who work so hard? What about downloading a picture off the internet? Didn't some photographer take that picture?

"Butloads" doesn't constitute an actual amount, and doesn't even support any claim. Neither you nor I know the amount of artists that do or dont support downloading, and to what degree they feel is OK. Do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim of "buttloads"?
The word I used was boat loads. lol. not butt loads, just to be clear.

There isn't any way to measure the amount of artists that support or oppose file sharing, we can agree that's impossible. I'm just going by what I know and what I hear on the radio and interviews from artists, etc. A lot of artists I hear, independent artists, thank file sharing for their success. I wouldn't know who the fuck Mel Gibson and the Pants are if not for torrents or shit like that, but somehow stumbled upon then, and copped a CD. Most recently, I wouldn’t know about Tyler the Creator and company if not for file sharing, and now I am a fan of theirs. This is just personal experience and common sense on my part. Maybe it's just me I dunno. I don't listen to mainstream shit so I probably fall into a different category. People who download justin timberlake or Kanye West or shit like that, maybe that's different in some way.

And "getting with the program" means what?
It means exactly what I said, the music industry needs to adapt and be more innovative to the times, just like the newspapers had to adapt. They can't continue living like its 1995. It's almost 2011. Music is free on the internet. They must accept that. It cannot be stopped. Ever. So they must adapt, find new and other ways to create money other than just selling CD's or songs on iTunes.
Are you saying that artists just need to accept the fact that no matter what happens, their music is going to be stolen and that what they do as a job, may be less that what it should/could be?
In a sense, yes. That doesn't mean they can't still make money. It doesn't mean the music industry is ruined. It just means the days of selling crappy CD's for $17.99 at the record store are over and dead.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#79
You stated it's morally wrong.
Yes, i stated is was wrong from the "social norm" viewing. That was the point.

Like SeriouslyThug said morality is a personal thing.
True, but as i said, and he agreedf with, our morals are partinally shaped by those very norms.

But even then, if we go by "societal norms" obviously, and quite CLEARLY it is not morally wrong to download music, or else this wouldn't be a "problem" would it? Everyone and their mama downloads music. Quite the contradiction if this was so morally wrong. Not everyone steals cars now do they? How come?
Again, i touched on that. Just because something is morally or even ILLEGALLY wrong, doesn't mean people still don't do it.

Either way, you're again using non-emprical evidence to present your argument with "everyone and their mom". My girlfriend nor my mother have EVER DL music or an album because quite frankly, they wouldn't know how even if they WANTED to.

Do you think it's morally wrong to download porn? Isn't that taking money out of the pockets of the pornstars who work so hard? What about downloading a picture off the internet? Didn't some photographer take that picture?
Again, what i think is morally wrong or right is not the issue here. But looking at it from the societal scope, yes, if the initial intended purpose was to make money off of those products. Which is what is being debated here: money being taken out of the pockets of artists due to pirating.


There isn't any way to measure the amount of artists that support or oppose file sharing, we can agree that's impossible. I'm just going by what I know and what I hear on the radio and interviews from artists, etc.
And thats fine, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of musical acts around the world. Just because you heard 5 or 10 or even 20 bands say "we don't give a shit". doesn't constitute "a boat load". Its a very SMALL sample in a rather gigantic pool.

A lot of artists I hear, independent artists, thank file sharing for their success. I wouldn't know who the fuck Mel Gibson and the Pants are if not for torrents or shit like that, but somehow stumbled upon then, and copped a CD.
And here is where im going to stop you. The problem these artists have is people DL there music...and never buying it. Thats it. Thats what this debate is about.

Most recently, I wouldn’t know about Tyler the Creator and company if not for file sharing, and now I am a fan of theirs.
OK...but they dont SELL their albums. They PURPOSELY give their albums away for free. That is irrelevant to the debate.

This is just personal experience and common sense on my part. Maybe it's just me I dunno. I don't listen to mainstream shit so I probably fall into a different category. People who download justin timberlake or Kanye West or shit like that, maybe that's different in some way.
Possibly. Again, Metallica is the first group to bring this to the forefront.

It means exactly what I said, the music industry needs to adapt and be more innovative to the times, just like the newspapers had to adapt.
And some have. Amazon, iTunes, and the likes are progressive. And that isnt the issue here.

They can't continue living like its 1995. It's almost 2011. Music is free on the internet. They must accept that. It cannot be stopped. Ever. So they must adapt, find new and other ways to create money other than just selling CD's or songs on iTunes.
And that is where the problem comes in. What is going to motivate someone who does music for a living, when their art gets stolen and put up for free? Espcially if they spend a shitload on promo FOR the album? Sure, not every artist sees this the same way, but obviously some do.


In a sense, yes. That doesn't mean they can't still make money. It doesn't mean the music industry is ruined. It just means the days of selling crappy CD's for $17.99 at the record store are over and dead.
Right, but those mark ups are from the stores and the likes, and thats not the issue on their side because the price THEY get as artists, only fluctuate with inflation, not the means of which it gets out to the masses. The only cost they actually gain in is the lack of packaging (cd cases, cover sleeves).

And through all this, have we even touched on bootlegging? People literally taking an album and reselling it like at swap meets and the like. I think that is one of the major issues some of these artists are touching on. Although, i dont think its as big as it was back in the early 2000's, because music is so readily available for free.

I said YEARS ago that eventually, albums would be on sold on flash drives rather than CD's, and that has essentially happened with MP3 sales. And i an in full agreement that its much easier to do it this way because lets be honest...the CD player is dead. EVERYONE owns an MP3 player. We are going through a complete paradigm shift in the way art is being distributed and sold. And with that, comes not only pros, but cons as well.