Stealing

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1340192935' post='1700683']
But it's the same old argument against it. The same old sh*te getting pulled up. The artists may be getting poorer but the Execs are getting richer.

Maybe instead of fighting against the so called illegal downloader artists should fight against who are really destroying the industry.
[/quote].

What execs?

We are our own label. I don't see us getting any richer when we're trying to whip up enough funds to allow us to record and put out our next release.

The depressing thing is that the very medium which allows small bands like Dick Venom to be totally in control of our music is also the one that is making it even harder than before to be in a situation where it is possible to make a living out of creating, recording and playing music without having an alternative source of income.

[xilddx]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1340193231' post='1700703']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but earlier in the thread you said that piracy was a black and white issue and that anyone who stole as much as a single song was a thief and a c**t. Now you're saying that stealing a song is alright, so long as its just to put on a mixtape for your mate.

Seems like you agree with me after all. Some piracy is bad. Some piracy is ok. Hooray, everyone wins.
[/quote]

No, not what I meant at all. One is bad, one is worse.

[RCMJ]

What really grates with me is that the likes of Megaupload and their ilk are making a shitload of dosh from advertizing, and NONE of this money foes to content creators.

Oh and don;t forget the money Goggle makes out of it all.....

[Earbrass]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340192522' post='1700665']
No, can't find it. Where is it?
[/quote]

It's here:

[quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1340191696' post='1700634']
For example, there's a guy who works in my office who sings in a choir in his spare time. They do a fair few international concerts at top venues, and have had their performances at the Royal Festival Hall broadcast on Radio 3. By your definition, that would be "underdeveloped hobby music", I presume, yet the quality of musicianship far exceeds the majority of commercial pop acts.
[/quote]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340193595' post='1700712']
You have not understood me. Where do you get time to develop as an artist?
[/quote]

Some people will "develop as an artist" despite having many claims on their time, others will never develop even when they have all the time and money in the world. There is no simple correlation between the quality of music produced and whether the artist is getting paid or not. There are plenty of stunning amateur musicians out there making great music, and plenty of highly-paid professionals churning out dross.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1340194046' post='1700727']
It's here:
[/quote]

The music in a choir is written by a professional, your choir is conducted by a professional in most cases at that level.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340193689' post='1700716']
The depressing thing is that the very medium which allows small bands like Dick Venom to be totally in control of our music is also the one that is making it even harder than before to be in a situation where it is possible to make a living out of creating, recording and playing music without having an alternative source of income.
[/quote]

Well that's just the way it goes; can't have your cake and eat it. If being a big name in the music biz was that easy, I think half of us lot on this forum would be rockstars by now...

Edited June 20, 2012 by EdwardHimself

[xilddx]

What a depressing thread.

[wateroftyne]

[skankdelvar]

Well, anything that involves 'morality' is never going to end well, because we've moved away from a general consensus of what's right into a pick'n'mix culture where the primacy of self enables one to take without payment yet still feel like a stand-up guy and a principled 'rebel'. How convenient.

Still, that's another story. The fact is, copyright infringement, music theft - whatever you call it - [i]wouldn't[/i] be happening if it wasn't technically possible and - effectively - condoned by inaction. I'm surprised that The Biz never saw this coming and - when it arrived - sat on its arse and made feeble whining noises.

So why has their response been so unutterably pathetic? It's like hundreds of TV's being walked out of your local Tesco and - rather than standing a couple of burly chaps on the door - the manager just puts up a notice saying 'Please don't steal our tellies'.

The artists don't seem to get it either. It's always amazed me that the drumming dullard Lars Ulrich bitches at his diminishing number of 'fans' rather than pop round to his record company and give them a stern talking-to with the business end of fence-post. Prat.

Leaving aside the 'moral' (spit, p'tchoo) issue of putting temptation in the way of the weak-willed, it seems to me that the (major) artists and their backers are a bunch of total pussies. And - by failing to mobilise their firepower - have dropped the smaller musician right in the clag.

Of course, were the likes of Don Arden, Mike Jeffery and Peter Grant still around, it would have been a different story. First hint of trouble and some leery villains in flares would have been dangling whimpering downloaders out of sixth-floor windows. Not these days, with these camp little hedge-fund twits in their t-shirts and designer specs running the labels.

As for some of the specious excuses here about the practise being 'good for the musician'? Well, use your eyes. Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Is more good music being made or less?

Thought so. Bad dog. Back in your box.

And don't give me that great for music-lovers nonsense. The plethora of 'outlets' and the encouragement of fragmentation has made finding good music much more difficult for the average punter upon whose cash we all rely. I'm not talking about swivel-eyed, early-adopter music fans. I'm talking about normal, healthy people who don't want to waste their time twatting about 'searching out great new stuff'. What's bad for them is bad for us.

The old set-up acted as a very efficient sh*t-filter. Not now. The web is like a giant-fire hose connected to the outlet of a sewage farm and every little turd has his own little website and microscopic coterie of followers that want to keep it all exclusive, the better to nurse their low self-esteem in like-minded company.

So Joe Normal shrugs his shoulders and we're all up the Swannee.

To put the sour cherry on the stale cake, a sizeable minority of musos are so keen to 'bring down capitalism' that they're busy sawing off their own cocks by defending copyright infringement. In other circumstances, they'd be sectioned for lacking the capacity to act in their own best interests. But this is Rock 'n' Roll and they've fallen for the old 'rebellion' fantasy so we have to indulge them or we get called 'breadheads'.

O tempora, O mores. Back to mono and a flick of Richard Cole's foot.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited June 20, 2012 by skankdelvar

[4000]

[quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1340194046' post='1700727']


It's here:





Some people will "develop as an artist" despite having many claims on their time, others will never develop even when they have all the time and money in the world. There is no simple correlation between the quality of music produced and whether the artist is getting paid or not. There are plenty of stunning amateur musicians out there making great music, and plenty of highly-paid professionals churning out dross.
[/quote]

This is true. However it's a bit of a red herring. For one thing, one man's dross is another man's genius. But I digress. Most people, given time and the correct environment, will improve on what they were initially. If they were totally crap, they may now simply be pretty crap. If they were pretty good, they may be great. But they will, or certainly should, improve. My point is, how much better would all those people potentially be if they were able to devote their entire lives to writing, playing and recording?

I seem to be getting the impression, although I could be wrong, that some people feel that making a living as a musician, or more specifically as an artist, that the possibility of developing your art or craft without the distractions of a full-time job, is no longer something to aspire to.

If that's really the case I need Nursie to get my pills...

[discreet]

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1340196258' post='1700778']
If that's really the case I need Nursie to get my pills...[/quote]

Yes, more pills Nursie, AND QUICK! Weeble weeble, cupcake, otter-wax, simian thorpe-thing dunderhead spatula snot, snot, snot! EEEEP! EEEPPP!! EEUUURGHHHHHH!!! * climbs up curtain and crouches on top of wardrobe. Flings dung at assailants * EEUURRGHH!!

[xilddx]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1340196254' post='1700777']
Indeed I never knew we had so many members locked into an archaic way of doing things and refusing to move with the times

[b]always thought we were an enlightened bunch willing to embrace new ways of doing things. [/b]
[/quote]

Not when the only basses that matter are Fender Ps and Js, and the occasional Oly White Jag of courseseseses.

[Twigman]

All this talk of making a living from being in an originals band makes me laugh.
It is and always has been extremely difficult to make a living from writing, recording and performing music.
A very small percentage of those who embark down that road succeed.
This is no different today than it has always been.
Many artists back in the day maintained other full time employment after signing possibly lucrative recording contracts.
Things are little different today.
It's not the illegal distribution that is preventing artists from making a living from music.
It's probably more to do with the poor marketing behind the music.
To get a hit takes pots of cash in marketing.
Many artists don't have that support. This is no different now than it was back in the day.
Our record company spent next to nothing on promotion.
We were lucky: John Peel liked us. Some radiojocks in Spain,Italy and Greece liked us.
We have never been in a position to give up our day jobs.
We're recording our 7th studio album at the moment.
Even if this was to 'do an Elbow' and go platinum, I think only one or two of us would give up our day jobs - I don't think I would.
To earn a living from original material is an unrealistic expectation.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773']
Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? [/quote]

I'd guess more, what would you guess? Anyone got any stats?

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773']
Is more good music being made or less?[/quote]

MORE deffinitely more.

I find new music through friends sharing music with me. They will find it in the same way or on straming services such as spotify or last FM.

I like the project Piratebay have where they'll stick a new artist's torrent (with their permission) on the homepage to publicise it.

There are plenty of grey areas here and I would never dare to suggest I have it sussed.

[discreet]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340197122' post='1700805']
To earn a living from original material is an unrealistic expectation.[/quote]

Tru, dat. Doesn't stop us from trying though!
There have been times when I've made a living out of it and times when I haven't!

[Earbrass]

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1340196258' post='1700778']
I seem to be getting the impression, although I could be wrong, that some people feel that making a living as a musician, or more specifically as an artist, that the possibility of developing your art or craft without the distractions of a full-time job, is no longer something to aspire to.
[/quote]

It's a nice position to be in if you can manage it, but my point was that it's not a [i]necessary condition[/i] for making great music, and that it's quite wrong to assume that anybody who is making music on an unpaid basis can only be producing, in Nigel's choice phrase, "underdeveloped hobby music".

Having said that, I should perhaps add that it probably [b]is[/b] a fair description of my own output.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Earbrass

[Wil]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1340192781' post='1700679']
Because it is making out that someone on here making music for fun is not as good as someones who does it "Professionally".

That perhaps is part of the problem. Maybe the problem is not the sharing but some people see their music as more valid and better because they get a cheque from it when an album is sold. Without the money they are no longer getting the validation that their music is better than their best mate from high school who works during the day, records at night on Audacity, uploads it to youtube and gets their pleasure simply from people listening and enjoying their music.

[b]Music was an entertainment, an art to be enjoyed by EVERYONE. songs got passed about and the writers long forgotten. Now it's no more than a newspaper to be bought used and forgotten about when the next one comes along.[/b]
[/quote]

Amen to that. I don't think music needs a dollar value attached or the backing of a big label to be great music, or to be valuable music, just not necessarily in terms of money.

We all take it for granted that music is something to be bought and sold - why is that? I honestly don't like it and I hope that in time that will change.

I can't keep up with this thread...

Edited June 20, 2012 by Wil

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340197418' post='1700816']
I'd guess more, what would you guess? Anyone got any stats?[/quote]

Well, obviously I'd say [i]fewer[/i] than 20-30 years ago.

For one thing, all those medium sized gigs are gone. Basically, live music is either Enormodrome gigs by dreadful old dinosaurs / simpering pop kids. Or it's a bunch of no hopers down the Frog and Dog. Nothing in the middle, see. In my day you could see name bands in 1000 cap venues. Where are they now, the likes of ... (cont p.94)

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340197418' post='1700816']
MORE deffinitely more.
[/quote]

Less. Definitley less. The internet has helped thousands of musos to find interesting bands both new and old. And copy them.

Cookie-cutter dross, these days. Play me any new band you like and I'll find you a clear precedent inside half an hour. Everyone's ghastly and everything's bollocks.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340187155' post='1700526']
[i]What's the practical difference between having immediate, on-demand access to 1000 music files stored at home on a hard drive or having immediate, on-demand access to 1,000,000 music files stored on a hard drive in the server room of companies like Spotify or YouTube?[/i]


Convenience. Accessibility. Portability.
[/quote]

I'd suggest that ubiquitous internet access and mobile devices is against you there.

[Wil]

Just had a thought.

If all music were free, the only people with any reason to make music would be those who had something to say or a deep love of it.

So long, Cheryl Cole!

You can all thank me later.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Wil' timestamp='1340198681' post='1700867']
Just had a thought.

If all music were free, the only people with any reason to make music would be those who had something to say or a deep love of it.

So long, Cheryl Cole!

You can all thank me later.
[/quote]

Or rich people who don't need it to generate them an income

[Twigman]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773']
Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer?
Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer?
Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult?
Is more good music being made or less?
[/quote]
Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? More
Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? About the same number
Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Easier
Is more good music being made or less? More

What's your point?

[Twigman]

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1340196258' post='1700778']
that the possibility of developing your art or craft without the distractions of a full-time job, is no longer something to aspire to.

[/quote]
It may still be something to aspire to but one is no less likely to succeed now than one was 30 years ago

Edited June 20, 2012 by Twigman

[cheddatom]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340198365' post='1700853']
Well, obviously I'd say [i]fewer[/i] than 20-30 years ago.

For one thing, all those medium sized gigs are gone. Basically, live music is either Enormodrome gigs by dreadful old dinosaurs / simpering pop kids. Or it's a bunch of no hopers down the Frog and Dog. Nothing in the middle, see. In my day you could see name bands in 1000 cap venues. Where are they now, the likes of ... (cont p.94)[/quote]

Yes but I think "your day" is longer ago than you realise, and the decline of these medium sized gigs started in the mid-80s when I was born! Way before the internet. I'm always ready to be proven wrong though, as I often am!

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340198365' post='1700853']
Less. Definitley less. The internet has helped thousands of musos to find interesting bands both new and old. And copy them.

Cookie-cutter dross, these days. Play me any new band you like and I'll find you a clear precedent inside half an hour. Everyone's ghastly and everything's bollocks.
[/quote]

Again I think it's always been the case that the majority of music will not be particularly original. A lot of bands people think are original actually grew out of a "movement" or "scene" consistnig of several bands which all sound the same. If not, you can be sure some bands will follow and produce similar sounding stuff. This is always going to happen.

I really don't think there's any rational argument to say that the internet has diminished the possibilities for "original" music.

On the other hand, along with other technology, it has meant that a lot more bands can record and share their music than before, and obviously this means that the few actually good/original acts do have a chance of being heard. Compared to the tiny few who were picked up by the music industry in the past, I think it's obvious this is an improvement.

[bigjohn]

Gigs are a lot more expensive than they used to be too.

I think moaning about filesharing etc is a bit of a waste of energy. It's here to stay and there's little if anything that can be done about it.

If you rely on making music for an income, then finding alternative ways to monetise your music other than selling CDs or downloads is where energy should be spent.