|
Unsung Forum » Fileshare and illegally download now! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 02:40
|
||
They all do there own thing. I can't speak with any authority about Synths...not my instrument. I do have a Stylo-Phone though. Its a little monophonic gadjet. Bowie used one on Space Oddity.
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 08:26
|
||
|
so do not own any bootleg lps then D1, i hold my hand up to owning a bunch of Sabbath,Zeppelin & Who boots, plus others. guilty as charged of ripping off the artist, after all I already had all the records, went to theconcerts, bought the t-shirt sometimes D1 you want to think before you write, nothing in this world is as black n white as you think
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Nov 22, 2009, 09:19
Nov 22, 2009, 08:32
|
||
|
IanB wrote: mingtp wrote: IanB wrote: Do we have any left-leaning libertarian academics on this board? That would fun. Er.. hello. Hello yourself. Surely you don't mean Cope? He wants to get paid like everyone else. Otherwise why the constant monetisation of old catalogue and the eking out of archive material? No, that doesn't fit at all. He's better than that. He has a family. He knows what to means to need to get paid for what you create and what you own. A few hours of busking doth not a revolutionary solcialist make. Yes, I do mean Cope. And no one said he was a revolutionary socialist. He is indisputably a left-leaning, libertarian academic, though - there is a vast difference between the two terms. Hell. I'd class myself as a left-leaning libertarian , but that doesn't mean I'm going to give all my posessions away. As for repackaging the back catalogue, Julian has no control over that. The only music he owns the rights to is the stuff he's released himself through Head Heritage. Phonogram and Island can do whever they like with his back catalogue, irrespective of whether he approves or not. Yes, he's a practical man and he wants / needs to get paid, but he's also a rarity among rock stars in that he doesn't believe in ripping off his fans. He's given interviews before in which he's advised fanms not to buy that el cheapo "The Collection" CD by the Teardrop Explodes that Phongram released, and that "Followers Of St. Julian" comp that Island put out. He also agreed to take on all the money owed by the Teardrop Explodes just because he didn't want to tarnish their legacy by releasing a shitty third album, and formed his own record label so he could put put music, both by himself and other artists, that no major label would touch because it doesn't attempt to fall in line with whatever the industry believes to be current. Those don't sound like the actions of a man who values money over artistic integrity, so I'd put him down as a classic example of an artist whom, in your words, publishes his own work because he doesn't want the market to influence his work. Moreover, given that both his daughters went to Marlborough, I'd be willing to bet that either he or Dorian have a private/inherited fund they can dip into if times get hard. So the description does fit. Like a glove, in fact.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Nov 22, 2009, 08:53
Nov 22, 2009, 08:50
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: Popel Vooje wrote: Dodge, those krautrock albums that folk post on here about aren't that difficult to get hold of on CD these days. In fact, many of them are probably more widely distributed now than they were in the early 70s. There's a glut of re-issue labels such as Spalax, Cleopatra and Repertoire that specifically cater for that market, as specialised as it may be. Aside from your arguments about file-sharing, I think your description of "Soundtracks of our Lives" as a vanity list is a little harsh. I know from the number of real-life encounters I've had with HHers that there are many people on this forum who virtually live, eat and shit music - I'm one of them, to the extent that it often leaves me with little time for anything else. Again....as i posted, it's sheer #'s of items every week that have me staggered. I make a very respectable living, and can't approach near the volume of music that is supposed at in those posts. I guess there are VERY wealthy members on this site. And more power to 'em if that's the case. It's taken me a span of 35 years of steady but sensible buying habits to put my pile together. I do not even come close to some of the reputed weekly listenings....and i DO 'own' over 7000 individual recorded items. Just has me wonderin' for sure...... For the record, everything I post about on "Soundtracks of our lives" is owned. Admittedly, I do get to hear a lot of stuff for free, as I work in the NSA and listening to new releases is part of my job, but frankly about 70% are so mediocre they go in one ear and out the other. The ones I like, I will always buy, unless they're out of print, in which case that's not an option. Other than that you state you you own all your music, as physical media, i assume, I'm not too sure about what it is your pointing out here.[quote] All I'm saying is that I think you;re suspicions that a lot of the albums highlighted on "Soundtracks..." are illegal downloads is incorrect. If a person is highly passionate about music, and doesn't have a family to feed, most of their disposable income may end up being spent on CDs, even if they are in the low income bracket. [quote="Popel Vooje"] The only thing I object to is being expected to pay for the same album two or thrree times over. "The Beatles In Mono" box set was an example of this - if EMI are going to charge loyal Beatles fans - many of whom have probably paid for those albums several times - £200 for a box set of CDs that could easily have been issued separately, or as two-fers with the stereo mixes, they have only themselves to blame if people opt to download rather than buy. Same with "The Velvet Underground & Nico" - having already paid for, and worn out, that album three times (on cassette, vinyl and CD). I reckon I'm entitled to download the mono mix for free rather than fork out for a fourth edition.[quote] [quote="Dodge One"] This is the true crux of the matter for me. I own all the Beatles records. Most as original pressings from the 1960's. Now....if i understand you correctly, The Beatles catalog is 'OWED' to me gratis as free down-loads?Is that right? This assumes that YOU actually have owned the MONO releases of those Beatles albums, as the original purchaser,....something that i would find astonishing in the extreme for someone 8 years my junior. Alternate universe timelines aside....How has it effected me any, that i did not purchase these MONO {or otherwise} box-sets. In full re-mastered fidelity? Or downloaded them as copied MP3 files? Am i at a serious loss here? How so? Do i miss the chance to brag up that i got 'em? Or complain that i think they sound like shit on my IPOD?....so many questions..... Same applies for the Velvet Underground.... If my coat were's out, does the coat store owe me another as replacement? What about the coat of paint on my house? What about my LP copy of the Leather Coated Minds? Incredible......the ENTITLED mind-set.[quote] I haven't owned the original mono albums, but my parents do - which is how I know they sound better, as more time was spent over them, and they had the full participation of the band, unlike the stereo mixes, which were mixed by EMI engineers (as was customary in the UK prior to 1969 or so, when stereo became the dominant format.) That's why they're worth having one your I-Pod. My argument isn't that I have the right to own them for free, just that they should have been releaseed as individual CDs rather than a box set. If they had been, I'd have bought them - but I'm in the low income bracket, so there's no way I can afford to shell out two hundred squid for a blatant rip-off. If you bought a coat for $40, it had worn out, and the store clerk said to you "I'm sorry, we don;t sell these individual coats anymore, but you can have a box full of them for $350, would you buy? I don't think so. [quote="Popel Vooje"]When it comes to less established artists who struggle to eke out a living from their music, though, I'm against file-sharing myself - but with CDs having been kept at an artificially high price for so long, I do feel that the industry is partly to blame.{quote] It is an extroadinary thing that you can decide for yourself what and which artists are not worth regarding in the ILLEGAL down-loading scheme. But when you call it "FILE SHARING" it's got such a harmless ring to it. Artificially high prices? When i can't afford something...i just won't get to own it. Thats life. No one OWES me a thing. It's not extraordinary, just logical. If I see two buskers in the street, one of whom is homeless, whilst the other is a multi-millionaire who's doing it just for fun, I'm going to give my money to the homeless person, as s/he needs it more - simple as that. I know that on your side of the pond people are brought up to believe that life is a meritocracy and that anyone can be successful so long as they work hard enough, but I don't see it that way. Financial success has as much to do with background, and luck, than it does with conscious effort. And for what it's worth, I'm a musician too, so Ian B isn't the only poster on here who's views originate from that position.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Nov 22, 2009, 12:57
Nov 22, 2009, 09:19
|
||
|
Popel Vooje wrote: IanB wrote: mingtp wrote: IanB wrote: Do we have any left-leaning libertarian academics on this board? That would fun. Er.. hello. Hello yourself. Surely you don't mean Cope? He wants to get paid like everyone else. Otherwise why the constant monetisation of old catalogue and the eking out of archive material? No, that doesn't fit at all. He's better than that. He has a family. He knows what it means to need to get paid for what you create and what you own. A few hours of busking doth not a revolutionary solcialist make. Yes, I do mean Cope. And no one said he was a revolutionary socialist. He is indisputably a left-leaning, libertarian academic, though - there is a vast difference between the two terms. Hell. I'd class myself as a left-leaning libertarian , but that doesn't mean I'm going to give all my posessions away. As for repackaging the back catalogue, Julian has no control over that. The only music he owns the rights to is the stuff he's released himself through Head Heritage. Phonogram and Island can do whever they like with his back catalogue, irrespective of whether he approves or not. Yes, he's a practical man and he wants / needs to get paid, but he's also a rarity among rock stars in that he doesn't believe in ripping off his fans. He's given interviews before in which he's advised fanms not to buy that el cheapo "The Collection" CD by the Teardrop Explodes that Phongram released, and that "Followers Of St. Julian" comp that Island put out. He also agreed to take on all the money owed by the Teardrop Explodes just because he didn't want to tarnish their legacy by releasing a shitty third album. Those don't sound like the actions of a man who values money over artistic integrity. Given that both his daughters went to Marlborough, I'd be willing to bet that either he or Dorian have a private/inherited fund they can dip into if times get hard. So the description does fit. Like a glove, in fact. Well I would probably class myself as left-leaning (if I have to pick) with some pronounced libertarian tendancies. Speaking as someone who has made his living in music since 1981 what I resent (and of course there is self interest in here) about the half-baked bleatings of Lessig and co is the idea that they (from their ivory towers) get to determine what kinds of work are worthy of protection. Worse still they suggest that because music (and other art) can be made at home there is little or no cost attached to that creativity. The same as the fan who looks at a £15 cd and £1.50 royalty and says "rip off". Not seeing the cost of the VAT, publishing, the manufacturing, the huge discounts demanded by retail, the cost of retail itself, distribution, pr, marketing etc etc. I would lay money that Lessig hates rock n roll and comes at this knowing that the music he loves will be protected. He's never going to have to worry about the Lincoln Center or the South Bank closing down. I am always going to be concerned when academics from both extremes of the spectrum are so far out on a given subject that they join hands. Anyway the solution to a partly unfair business model is not to blow the whole thing up and go to a record biz year zero. Why? Because other than what the Arts Council deems worthy of support there isn't an alternative universe where artists who can't get paid for their work (but whose work is being consumed by the thousands) can still get paid. Not to mention all the support industries. As for Cope I was not saying that he values money over art and I was not talking about the Teardrops catalogue either. I was saying he wants to get paid for his performances and recordings. Just that. He puts out releaes (old music and new music) and wants to be paid for them. There is nothing wrong with that at all. In many ways his is the most sensible and sustainable business model for someone who used to be a rock star and still has something to say and an audience of passionate listeners to carry with him. The arhival releases are not over priced, the new releases are beautifully packaged. He knows what it is to be a fan and so his audience get treated respectfully. My argument is not with what Cope does but with how his shtick gets represented as something politically "other". I don't think he is a revolutionary in any tangible sense, in fact his writings these past three years actually seem to express a deal of social conservatism, but there are people who see the drums and flags and believe that it all means what it says it means. When it is really all so much "Sandinista" or TRB. Honestly made but there is no call to arms. It's a work of art AND a product AND a call to thought. If he is sending his kids to private school then that just reinforces my belief. And if he can afford it and he thinks that it is what is best for his kids then I have no problem with that. I don't ask artists to live their work. I ask the people who consume their art to see the difference between the performing/performance artist and the person. Anyway I cannot imagine you will ever hear people like Roy Harper, Bill Nelson or Cope (all formerly famous, self determining artists with micro labels) say "my music is meant for the world to enjoy - download your hearts out" because those £13s and £15s they get for their new releases and self-owned catalogue are their bread and butter. The fact that you don't hear many artists arguee the ownership side of the download debate is because they are scared of how uncool it will make them look. Privately you hear a lot more of that side of the argument and then you get people like Spiritualized who deal with the problem of declining revenues by coming up with a £125 per pop limited edition. At least that is honest. The big lie is that musicians do not get paid so therefore we should feel free to ram raid the music business. The greatest failure of the music industry has been one of lack of imagination and a failure to educate. And yes I have done my share of downloading, torrenting etc etc but that doesn't mean that I can't see there is a problem. It's not a moral issue it's about the cultural health of our society. I don't want to work and live and consume within a musical culture where orchestras are not available to recording artists and where you will never hear new "big forces" recordings because, short of governmental or corporate patronage, there is no way of paying for them.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Nov 22, 2009, 13:40
Nov 22, 2009, 09:21
|
||
Double post. Deleted.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 12:29
|
||
|
Yes , But Ian Makes fine points, YOU sir, Don't. What Spin you put on points that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with ILLEGAL Down-loading. Meritocracy?......? Nice diversion from the point. You sure have ME figured out. And yeah.....My parents own a shitload of old records too. How the fuck is that relevant? The sound quality? Packaging as a Box-set? How on EARTH do you equate that to 'STEALING' them from a blog. I guess that i can make as grand an ASS-umption about the British as you have made about us YANKS.....Its' Ok to steal shit...YOUR side of the pond. Have i got that right? The Coat point you made.....What??????? The Busker? ........ What?????? You know what i do when i see poor buskers? I give em down-load links to current catalog Beatles box-sets.....is what i do. Then i spits on em. Is what i do. It's what us YANKS do.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 12:38
|
||
|
machineryelf wrote: so do not own any bootleg lps then D1, i hold my hand up to owning a bunch of Sabbath,Zeppelin & Who boots, plus others. guilty as charged of ripping off the artist, after all I already had all the records, went to theconcerts, bought the t-shirt sometimes D1 you want to think before you write, nothing in this world is as black n white as you think Sometimes i want to think? Oh....don't we all, ELF. Bootleg L.P.'s....as a matter of fact, YES i do. I own approximatley 10 WIZARDO L.p.'s from the 70's. Featuring various Pink Floyd outtakes and concerts. All quite collectible too. THAT's 10 pieces of VINYL of 'BOOT-LEG' status that i own from the 1970's. I guess it completely Taint's the other 6990 or so other pieces of Media i bought with legitamate status. How that compares to a blog that uploads a brand-new release of an Artist and see's {What?} ......Thousands? of ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS that DAY.......and then goes viral to other BLOG sites..... IS COMPLETELY BEYOND ME. But yes.....i have NOT thought this through at all.
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 13:23
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: THAT's 10 pieces of VINYL of 'BOOT-LEG' status that i own from the 1970's. I guess it completely Taint's the other 6990 or so other pieces of Media i bought with legitamate status. How that compares to a blog that uploads a brand-new release of an Artist and see's {What?} ......Thousands? of ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS that DAY.......and then goes viral to other BLOG sites..... IS COMPLETELY BEYOND ME. But yes.....i have NOT thought this through at all. because you only have ten illegal lps that doesn't compare to someone who has some downloads on his computer, let's see,how many towns does the US have http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=509183 25375, now in each of those towns there is one person who likes a band[s] enough to own 10 boot lps that makes 253,750 illegal lps at say 10$ a shot, that's $2,537,500 that isn't in the band[s] pockets yes it's just the same, I honestly can't see how it is COMPLETELY BEYOND YOU
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited May 07, 2015, 16:38
Nov 22, 2009, 13:32
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: Yes , But Ian Makes fine points, YOU sir, Don't. What Spin you put on points that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with ILLEGAL Down-loading. Meritocracy?......? Nice diversion from the point. You sure have ME figured out. Then i spits on em. Is what i do. It's what us YANKS do. OK, I'll give you that, even if you are twisting my words to give them a meaning that I never intended. The point about Americans being brought up to believe that anyone who works hard enough can be financially successful is a generalisation that's probably out of date by now. So I apologise for that - maybe I've just read "Death of a Salesman" too many times. You're not helping to disabuse us Limeys of stereotyped assumptions about Americans by coming out with statements like "If I can't afford something, I don't buy it. No one owes me anything ". That sounds suspiciously similar to much of the "It's a tough world out there, son, but you gotta roll with the punches" rhetoric spouted by reactionary American bullshit merchants like Rush Limbaugh. Dodge One wrote: The coat point you made ... WHAT??/" It was you who introduced the coat analogy, not me: Dodge One wrote: If my coat's worn out, does the coat store owe me a replacement? Dodge One wrote: And yeah ... my parents own a shitload of old records too. How the FUCK is that relevant??? I was answering a question you asked me about the point of owning the mono mixes of Beatles albums: Dodge One wrote: How has it affected me, that I haven't purchased these mono box sets? Am I at a serious loss here? How so? Do I miss the chance to brag up that I got them? The reason I mentioned that my parents owned the original mono pressing of those albums was to answer your question about why anyone would want to own them. I know from listening to my parents' vinyl, that the mono mixes sound richer and more powerful. That's why I want them on my I-Pod, as opposed to the stereo versions that I already own - it has nothing to do with "bragging up". Besides which, sir, there is no need to swear. There were no profanities in my post, so there's no reason for you to dish them out to me. Re.the busker analogy - again, that was a response to a statement you made to me about how "extraordinary" it is that I choose to differentiate between those who can afford to lose a small amount of money from downloads and those who can't. This is one part of my post that I'll stick by without any reservations. You're right about one thing - when it comes to "stealing" a 0.000001 per cent slice of income from overpaid rock stars who earn more in 60 seconds than I do in a year, I couldn't care less. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but even if it is wrong, there are far greater evils in the world than depriving multi-millionaires of an insignificant slice of their income, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over doing it. On the other hand, when it comes to an artist like Bobb Trimble who has to live off government assistance due to health issues, and whose work has been heavily pirated in the past, I'll buy the officially sanctioned reissues of his albums as a matter of principle, because his need is obviously greater than mine, or Paul McCartney's, or Lou Reed's.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
