|
Post by raeni on Oct 30, 2005 22:42:40 GMT -5
ok - I realize everyone thinks they're entitled to have unreleased albums in advance, and to participate in distributing them out to everyone in the world. I realize that if YOU plan to buy the album, you feel it is ok to do this. Whatever. I'm sick of talking about it.
Let's just remember that when the official board was up, Lanegan himself posted generally negative feelings about this practice.
If you MUST do this - use the frigging downloads section. That is why it is there. If you have it/know where to get it, post something about it THERE. If you see something posted there and want to have it yourself, PM the person who made the original post for whatever info/instructions you need.
I am thankful that the person who addressed us in the Isobelle thread was being informative, and not punitive, but you KNOW I have been asked to remove links from this forum before. I'd rather NOT have to delete pages-long informational threads in their entirety, just because people are posting links to things that were not meant to be released.
If you use the downloads thread for this, and I later get any sort of crap, or any sort of threats from enraged publicists, I can easily go in and delete only THAT thread, without screwing up the rest of your conversation.
Call me a prude, or a bitch, or whatever you want - but even if YOU didn't post an album originally, your participation in distribution of it through THIS FORUM can get ME into trouble, and nice people will stop sending me the precious little info that I DO get. So just realize IT'S ALL ABOUT ME, and put things where they go. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by flyingv on Oct 31, 2005 10:46:14 GMT -5
I'm so glad you have addressed this Raeni; I wish you would post more often. Some people don't feel bad about sharing this because they have bought 'Field Songs' and are going to buy this album when it's released (and yes, someone actually said that to me). They seem to think it gives them carte blanche to upload it on to soulseek because they've bought one album. Plus they think it makes them look 'cool' or 'in the know' for having it early.
Even if you've bought all Mark's albums (and I like to think that most of us here have!), it doesn't give you the right to give his hard work away for free. I'm guessing a lot of the people that have/will download it probably won't put their hands in their pockets once release day arrives. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by Trans4mur on Oct 31, 2005 11:53:45 GMT -5
Yeah fair comments I guess
|
|
|
Post by marionnette on Nov 9, 2005 11:05:48 GMT -5
I own all his albums. I do not in any way allow people to download from me. It took me a long time to get all the music for myself, but I vowed to never, ever download an officially released song. I generally don't download music anyway.
But, I have nothing against downloading live performances and such. Maybe if they planned on releasing them I wouldn't do so, but I don't think that's going to be the case. Oh, and maybe if he did a show, say, somewhere in my area (anywhere in Ontario would do!) I wouldn't feel the need to experience the live music.
And what's so special about getting songs early? I think it's better to be there when it comes out and get the real thing. There's more pride in having the real thing than a bunch of crappy files on a shitty CDR.
And also, you're just ripping off your favourite musicians because even if you plan on buying it, there is surely someone else getting the files from you or the same source you did that isn't going to buy it. And for relevance, Lanegan isn't one of those super-popular musicians who can ride their whole life on just being who they are. He actually has to do shit to get somewhere, and it's this shit that we love so much, so support him!!
|
|
|
Post by mongo on Nov 9, 2005 11:14:00 GMT -5
its the elite and cool feeling you get because you can say to your friends oh the new lanegan is finally out?..................pffffft im so like over that already
|
|
|
Post by marionnette on Nov 9, 2005 11:15:25 GMT -5
Sadly enough, that's what some people think...
|
|
|
Post by mongo on Nov 9, 2005 11:18:38 GMT -5
Its like a status, oooo wow so and so is a badass hacker dude he can get everything before it comes out and they stare in awe and think how does he do it.
I am on the fence about the whole thing, BUT it should not be bragged about on a message board dedicated to him for chrissakes
|
|
|
Post by skratch on Nov 9, 2005 11:22:30 GMT -5
Are we talking about people who twiddle their twaddles?
|
|
|
Post by marionnette on Nov 9, 2005 11:25:57 GMT -5
Could be!
But anyhow, whether you pirate music or not, let's keep the chat down on here and not stress out raeni
|
|
|
Post by mongo on Nov 9, 2005 11:26:22 GMT -5
this is a quote from someone I have INFINTE respect for, whom is in a position like Marks but on higher level because he is a label owner as well.........
CMG: As a label head and musician, what is your position on file sharing?
MacKaye: I don’t mind it, doesn’t bother me. I like people to support the label, but as a musician, when I write a song I want it to be heard. So if you ask me would I rather have 200 people listening to that song or $200, I would take the 200 people.
I don’t think it’s nearly as dire as the major labels do. Anytime any corporation or the government starts talking about inflation or they start laying people off, it’s not actually for what is happening, but based on what they speculate will happen. They’re always looking ahead. The uproar over file-sharing, it really wasn’t damaging the major labels as much as they’re saying. They’re just predicting that if they don’t say something now it’s gonna get them later on. I say good riddance. If Dischord has to go as part of it, if it means destroying major labels, then I’m fine with that.
The creation of the record created a consumable. At that point, for the first time, really in the history of music, there was something to sell. I understand you could sell sheet music, you could sell piano rolls, but the idea of owning music as a consumable item had not really happened before. The record labels have had over a hundred years of a monopoly on selling music and they’ve twisted and perverted music to their ends because they want to make money. They’ve had a good run, and if they lose out, tough shit.
|
|
|
Post by dimples on Nov 9, 2005 11:31:00 GMT -5
I can respect that too...
|
|
|
Post by mongo on Nov 9, 2005 11:34:13 GMT -5
don't get me wrong I am not saying stealing is right, but its nice to hear someone directly affected that has the attitude that they just wanna make music, if people buy it fine, if the dont so what......kinda refreshing in my opinion.
Oh here is a more in depth response....
think about, with all the technology changes that we're seeing, how do you feel about people downloading your music from filesharing networks?
IAN: Oh, I'm happy to have them download the music, it doesn't bother me at all, because that's why I made the music, because I want people to hear it, that's it, that's the point. And obviously, someone selling it? They're fucked. But that would just be another example of the sort of avarice and greed that exist in this music world.
"Any way that Fugazi or any band on Dischord or any kind of underground music, any way we have for people to be able to check it out and have access to the world at large, I'm all for."HOLMES: You mean if someone's copying your music and selling your songs ...
IAN: Yeah, if someone's selling downloads and collecting money for our songs I would be unhappy about that but if they're trading it I don't mind, obviously if I make a thousand records or CDs or whatever, I like to sell a thousand. I don't need all the plastic. Obviously I would like people to support us, that'd be great. But at the end of the day, I'd rather people hear the music. You know I don't own any Bob Dylan music, well actually I think I do, but you know when I was growing up I didn't, but I certainly knew his music because of the radio, I didn't pay for that. I only mention him because I just mentioned him, I'm not saying like "Oh he's a huge Bob Dylan fan", I'm just saying that I do have respect for a lot of his work, and I'm glad to have been able to hear it and I think radio is so crucial to be able to have that. And frankly, though I actually recently got DSL, which has certainly helped in the terms of downloading songs, and I found the process a little bit frustrating because everyone seems to be putting up 'in the joint' or 'get the pay' or whatever, but when I first heard about napster, and those kinds of things, the orignal napster, the idea of having a resource where you could hear music-- it was a giant resource library-- was so intoxicating to me. I thought it was the most amazing thing in the world. Most music will never be made available commercially because it just doesn't make any sense for it to be made available commercially, you'll never sell enough copies to merit it, but I want to hear Hendrix practicing something, I want to hear a weird Al Jolson recording, I want to hear these things. The idea of going to a computer and listening to them once or twice like you heard them on the radio I think is incredible. But if I downloaded something and it just blew my mind, you'd better believe I'd go and try and find the fucking record if I could, if one existed. So from my point of view, any way that Fugazi or any band on Dischord or any kind of underground music, any way we have for people to be able to check it out and have access to the world at large, I'm all for. Obviously the major labels have, at this time at least, have fairly sewn up the avenues of the media, they own it all so obviously they have it all sewn up-- obviously it's not a coincidence that on new years eve ABC TV had their New Year's Rockin' Eve with Dick Clark reporting from Times Square, which is sort of the traditional new years thing, but they also reported in from Disneyworld, but they're owned by Disney! So of course, that's why suddenly disneyland is the same thing as Times Ssquare. It's all so disgusting. So the idea that somebody in wherever, whether they're in a small town somewhere in the middle of america or in Pakistan or whatever, if they're interested, and they want to check out Fugazi, I want it out there. I don't want them to have to pay some service to get to it and listen to it and hopefully that would compel them to do further research. I mean, how cool would it be to know that there's some kid in Pakistan who downloaded all our records and listens to them all the time-- I'm happy, I don't give a damn. I mean the argument against it is always just monetary, and again, that's the least interesting aspect of music for me.
HOLMES: So, you just said that you see networks like that as a library, as a resource, but other people, not all people, but some people see the music they make as their property and they're worried that if we don't lock it down, there won't be an incentive to create more music. And some folks in the music industry are actually saying that the music industry's decline means that music is in decline.
"I may have written the song, so I think, 'I authored that song' but it's not property, it's not property for anybody!"IAN: I don't agree with that at all, either one of those sentiments. If people lose their incentive to make music because they're not making money, they're not musicians. They're business people. Musicians don't have a choice in the matter, you gotta make music. There's no choice! It's not a fucking job description, there's no choice! You make music because it's what you do and the idea that it's sort of like saying that, "Well, this person is an artist, they're a painter, but because they can't sell their paintings they're going to quit." If they do, they're not artists! They're business people. I have to say that I feel like music, when I make music, the creation aspect of it, that may be my experience. I may have written the song, so I think, "I authored that song" but it's not property, it's not property for anybody! Now if I make a record, if I make a CD of that song, that's property because I paid to make it. And if I sell that property, the money that comes back is my money-- I'll take that money and I'll share it with the other people involved in making that CD. But this is my position: you can sell CDs, you can sell records and tapes, and you can sell mini-discs if you're foolhardy, and you can sell mp3s and digital downloads, you can sell all of these things, but you can't sell music because music is free. I'm serious about that. I really believe that. Music is like air, you can't sell it. I know that people have, not to fall back to my oft-used metaphors and analogies, but this is the way I process things, but I see music as a river, and the water in a river is there for everyone and anyone that wants to have a sip can have a sip and have some water. Now somewhere along the line someone came up with the idea of putting the river water in bottles and selling the bottles of water. That's the record industry. Music is a river, music is water, and the bottling company is the industry, and it's not inherently evil, because it's frankly, convenient to have water in a bottle, so if you're driving in your car and you're thirsty you don't have to drive to the nearest river and take a sip, you can just reach down and take a sip out of your bottle. The same way if I'm driving in my car and I want to hear a song, I don't have to drive over to the people's house and ask them to play it for me, I can put the CD in and listen to it, or turn on the radio. Where it gets ugly is that when the bottling company, since their aim is to make money-- at some point they may have thought like, "Let's bottle this water and that way we can share the healthful qualities of water with all the people." At some point it becomes, "This is our industry, we need to make money, and how can we increase profits?" Well, the way to increase profits is to try to discourage people from going to the river, and having to buy the bottled water. And they'll start with that but eventually what they're going to get into is they're going to start blocking the river or they're going to poison the river. But water is always moving, and it's very difficult to poison a river, very hard indeed. And that's the good news about music, it can't be stopped, it will always happen, people will always make music, and regardless of whether or not there's money to be made form it or not, it's still going to happen, it can't be stopped. So in my mind with the sales of records, the industry has done their best to claim ownership of music but they don't-- they only own the things that they sell, so when people who are songwriters say, "That's my property and if you give it away for free then I lose my incentive," then, well, good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by marionnette on Nov 9, 2005 11:41:14 GMT -5
Makes sense. I get the whole 200 $/people thing since it is logical for any true musician. But I still think that when someone puts out a CD that's what they want to be heard and should be listened to. Really, in today's society a musician could just put up downloads on their own website as the only honest means of acquiring the music. Having to go through all the production is probably just more of an annoyance, but what do I care if the CD industry dies? I don't, but I still don't think piracy is the way to go. We must all keep in mind that some money (however small it may be) still goes to the artist and without it they can't survive.
You can't just put out something, have a million fans and then just never do anything again. The fanbase won't keep you alive. It's like, one hit wonders...
|
|
|
Post by marionnette on Nov 9, 2005 11:44:32 GMT -5
Shit man, I can't keep up!
I'll just leave it at this for my opinion: I don't care too much what goes on (not like I can do anything about it anyway) as long as our musician friends are alive and well at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by dimples on Nov 9, 2005 11:46:01 GMT -5
I suppose we could always ask them nicely to up their concerts and play somewhere near where we live??? They do make money offa that too right??? Jeesh listen to me... I'm gonna play an old man into the ground...
|
|
|
Post by dimples on Nov 9, 2005 11:59:09 GMT -5
And I swear that I don't have a gun...
|
|
|
Post by katey on Nov 9, 2005 12:19:34 GMT -5
how the music industry deals with stuff leaking is pretty interesting.... the last few Nirvana releases had leaked as much as a month ahead of time. Once they pushed up the release because of the leak. The Box Set leaked online because it was released in like South America a week before the US and Europe.... but obviously it didn't affect sales, as the Nirvana Box is the best selling box set of all time- and it's only been out a year. The last Nirvana release, the 'best of the box,' did not leak, even though I even KNEW people who had promo copies, they all laid low. It's strange.
And the whole reason this Campbell/Lanegan thing leaked was because V2 decided to put out a promo version of it ahead of time! It's really impossible to do such a thing these days without it leaking online.
So I blame the label. People forget about the labels.... it's not just a back and forth equation between the artists and the fans. There's the label in there too, who have their own marketing schemes and prioritys.
I tried to resist downloading it.... but ended up succumbing.
Also, is downloading albums any worse than buying them used? (in neither case do the artists get any money.)
|
|
|
Post by mongo on Nov 9, 2005 12:29:39 GMT -5
Also, is downloading albums any worse than buying them used? (in neither case do the artists get any money.) thats exactly right, ebay is in alot of ways the same thing, also alot of bands will give their shit straight away to GET famous, when they get there it becomes bad again
|
|
|
Post by katey on Nov 9, 2005 12:36:16 GMT -5
and then there are the professional musicians like Lanegan who are well established and well reviewed but dont' get radio play or anything. ...
|
|
|
Post by dimples on Nov 9, 2005 12:43:47 GMT -5
I think I had this conversation like the other day and stuff...
|
|
|
Post by mongo on Nov 9, 2005 12:44:57 GMT -5
and then there are the professional musicians like Lanegan who are well established and well reviewed but dont' get radio play or anything. ... honestly I think he prefers it that way
|
|
|
Post by katey on Nov 9, 2005 12:55:18 GMT -5
yeah, I think so too.
This is from the awesome, cuss filled Melody Maker 1996 Trees article-
"I see it this way," the singer replies. "In this business, there are spinners and there are marathon runners. I'm going to be around while these fucking *pissants* have spent their last fucking royalty check and are living back home with fucking grandma. I'll be still out on the road, playing tiny fucking clubs to 50 people, when I'm f***ing 65 years old. And that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by virgiltracy on Nov 9, 2005 13:45:39 GMT -5
And the whole reason this Campbell/Lanegan thing leaked was because V2 decided to put out a promo version of it ahead of time! It's really impossible to do such a thing these days without it leaking online.
> no the issue has, is that there is an early UNFINISHED version floating around online. Not final vocals, unmastered, initial mixes, etc. Not V2's fault at all. They were pretty good about keeping that under wraps. Someone else however made it available.
The issue isn't really with the people who download it, it's the ones who make it available in the first place. In this case whoever did it should have known better as it was someone who most probably worked at a label or something. Really, there were not that many that were sent out. On boards like this, I know that people will probably go out & buy whatever they have downloaded anyhow, as they are fans.
Anyhow - like I said, the issue isn't file sharing itself, it's the file sharing on an unfinished, unauthorised album. And all too late there.
Anyhow - if you have the 11 song version that ain't the right one.
|
|
|
Post by mongo on Nov 9, 2005 13:50:32 GMT -5
and the other thing is you don't get the artwork AND the quality is usually not as good as the official
|
|
|
Post by dimples on Nov 9, 2005 14:07:59 GMT -5
and the other thing is you don't get the artwork AND the quality is usually not as good as the official Yep I definately had this conversation the other day...
|
|