I've downloaded 2.3 GB today, according to my BitTorrent client. I'm not against the act of downloading by any means in certain circumstances. I download almost exclusively live recordings of independent origin, and out of print records, very rarely i go for rips of an easy-to-find official album, though i admit i'm guilty of that sin. Since i don't spend too much time in front of the computer, only sporadically, i tend to seek out kind of rare stuff related to bands i like rather than something i'd be able to find physically without too much effort.
Respecting the artists that made the music i enjoy has great importance to me, thus i believe it's fair to support them in all their endeavours, and i try to. No matter if the biggest chunk of record sales money might be going to a corporation if they are affiliated with one, having the facility to just grab and run doesn't really justify taking at least a penny away from what they may be gaining if i happen to download a copy of their album. If you've worked on something, you gotta get money in exchange for what you've done, even if what they give you for your effort doesn't really make it square, all things considered. I also have to say i appreciate the material aspect of records in general, an album can be a work of art somehow, not exclusively in terms of the music it contains. Plus, i find it more enjoyable to listen to music on a decent stereo system, rather than through computer's speakers or in a portable device that plays audio files in low-quality (most i-pods and the like don't play lossless audio, right?).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonathan
I feel like this day in age, if you're against downloading music, you're an idiot.
|
One-sided point of view here. I bet most professional musicians in this day and age, are still and will continue to be against the idea of getting their music downloaded by the masses, without getting nothing in exchange for it, not even the possibility of controlling the way they'd like to promote it and make it available (already a touched subject judging by some posts in this thread) . James Hetfield didn't become more of an idiot than he already (probably) was when he first expressed his concerns about file-sharing in the Napster era. I'm aware Metallica is an easy target to bash in this board, so i'll throw another example: If that were to be considered as a truth, then that would mean bad news for Marc Ribot. And even then, i would bet lots of leechers are bigger idiots than the bands they're ripping off, so that would send the notion that somehow downloading has value as an intellectual thing, right into the shitter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atsonicpark
I've heard many bands say that records now exist only as advertisements for the live show -- perhaps it's always been that way, to certain people?
|
I'd consider that a really odd statement. Fuck it. It wouldn't matter if the biggest genius making music today would hypothetically say that, it still sounds to me as if they are lowering an album to pretty much the same level a flyer has in the scheme of things. I can't agree with that. If that were the one and only function of a record, then it would have sense to just release it exclusively on the towns they're touring or fucking forcing bands to tour the whole world over in order to get exposure, which sounds nuts. The contrary (touring to promote the record) seems more reasonable. Since the vast majority of bands i love have never visited my town, and likely never will, i think it's obvious to me, especially considering the globalization, that a consequence of a tour is the spawning of a possibility that your music will get to some ears in far away places somehow, considering that no band can take their act to everywhere in the globe. Agreeing with that concept of what a record is and living in accordance with it, would limit my experience of listening to music to Los Tigres Del Monte, El Grupo Ronco, and all that horrible crock of shit that passes as música popular mexicana these days. Oh my god, that would be so grim.