What do you think of people sharing early leaks?
desu being the one to leak an album is a pretty shitty thing to do
any musician that gets mad about their album leaking is living in an alternate fantasy universe where they're deluded faggots for thinking the derivative sound they make is worth even a penny
>>63904393
are you saying that all musicians make derivative music?
>>63904393
i mean, it might be worth a penny, but you'd have to be delusional indeed to not expect an early leak every time
should just leak it themselves t b h for quality control purposes really
>>63904393
i think the problem for me arrises from the idea that music is a consumer good. i would never pay for music. it inherently reduces it from profound concept idea, and conveyer of thought and feeling into a purely meaningless consumer good made to perpetuate a capitalist pay cycle where people asked to perform meaningless tasks (related to making or selling meaningless objects for consumption) to attain meaningless currency to buy more meaningless things. why anyone would want their art to be reduced to that is beyond me.
>>63904589
(sent from my iphone)
>>63904204
if death grips can control their shit where it never gets leaked. these clowns can too
James ferraro/dean blunt stuff leak early and they never complain. Main priority as an artist is getting your stuff heard early leaks aren't a big deal.
>>63904589
>why anyone would want their art to be reduced to that is beyond me
Because if they didn't get paid for their art, they wouldn't be able to make more. Quit trying to pass your cheapness off as some sort of philosophical bullshit
>>63904589
Did you even read his post
He said money is the least of the problems, it's about disrespecting art
>>63904756
Before I destroy you post proof of you purchasing music.
>>63904774
did you even read my post? paying for something is disrespecting art. in fact i think it reduces art from art to a meaningless consumer good.
>>63904926
And that's stupid
Art barely gives artists money but that doesn't mean it should be free
I download leaks to figure out if I like the album, but I genuinely do try to support artists I feel deserve it. Not all bands are in it for money, hell, most underground ones aren't, but it is still way more expensive than most people realize to put together any kind of respectable release. Money you give them goes back into them making more music in the future. To the people who act like they're making some brave marxist statement about muh capitalism in art: You're not fooling anyone, and it couldn't be more obvious that you're trying to justify being a freeloader. Everyone who supports music looks down on you.
People who are the first to upload a leak are fucking assholes though, and I agree that it's a middle finger to the band, doubly so if you're working with them. I feel bad for bands when they put together a release, with everything planned out leading up to it, then the excitement gets crushed by some record store worker leaking it for what.cd credits or something.
Illegal downloading isn't a problem, but leaking is. It needs to stop; the band should be the only ones in control of when their art is released.
I feel bad when albums leak, it's depresing seeing a halfhearted "The album released today guys" post when everyone heard it a month ago.
That said, Mariner kind of sucked.
>>63904682
>death grips
DG are different because they exclusively handle their own music now from what I can tell. If you're working through a label or outside producers/masterers or promotions, a leak is guaranteed, which sucks.
>>63904589
t. Marxism 101 student with Macbook
I understand not wanting your work to be heard until you think its finished, but they need to get over the idea that they can control and monetize copies of art. The internet killed that brief fad.
Friendly reminder that nobody made money selling copies of art for thousands of years until recorded mediums and mass production were invented.
>>63904464
not him but this is actually true and not a pejorative assessment. everything is a variation on something else
>>63906305
>DG are different because they exclusively handle their own music now from what I can tell. If you're working through a label or outside producers/masterers or promotions, a leak is guaranteed, which sucks.
That's because the label/studio system was always inherently broken and prone to this sort of shit.
Now that bandcamp and digital music are saving the music industry FOR ARTISTS AND FANS, who can now actually get real returns on their product, it becomes more and more clear how the big studio system benefited nobody.
Yeah I mean, I don't think the CoL dude comes off like a cunt or anything, but we all need to get over the Old Ways and realize that the internet saved music.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full
>>63904589
#FeelTheBern amirite?
>>63907927
>refusing to acknowledge that your bubble has been burst
>>63904805
I doubt you would destroy me at all but I have numerous CDs at my house and a decent digital library as well because I like supporting the artists I like. Making money as an artist of any time isn't an easy thing to do, and I like giving support to those who I think deserve it so they have the resources to continue making art
Even artists that don't care about the money they make still appreciate money from supporters because it can help them get better equipment and opportunities. Also, it shows that people are liking what they do
>>63908034
Keep in mind though that historically, supporting artists through traditional venues (buying CDs at tower) didn't help them at all. It was EXTREMELY rare for a band to sell enough copies to get out of the debt they owed their record labels.
Study after study shows that artists get a bigger return on their music now that everything is digitally distributed. If you buy 1/20th of the music you listen to (like, the occasional voluntary bandcamp donation, vinyl at shows, etc) you are probably putting a much larger percentage of it into the pockets of the artists NOW than you were ten years ago.
There are also lots of statistics about how artists' proportional returns on playing shows has increased by a staggering amount as well.
Basically, the end of the story is that digital distribution has been so overwhelmingly beneficial for artists (way more $$) and fans (way cheaper music, and more of it) that every time somebody cries about muh piracy I die a little inside.
>>63908243
I get that CDs don't support artists a whole lot but I just enjoy physical copies. But at any rate, most of the artists that actually need the money don't have enough to release many physical copies anyway. My second choice for buying music has been bandcamp.
But that's not exactly the point of the other anon's post. He was saying that artists shouldn't sell any of their art for monetary value at all, which is a ridiculous view
>>63908497
Well right, I mean he's being silly but some artists sort of agree with him. For example milo sells hand-painted cassettes, thus explicitly saying that the value is in at least part in the physical copy rather than in the actual music itself which he allows you to listen to for free.
in fact you could argue the whole streaming vs physical copy thing supports the idea that the *music itself* is beyond monetary value.
>>63908001
everything is meaningless in the grand scheme of things so we each get to assign our own value of meaning to whatever we want. you can justify your taking however you want but thats not how it works for everyone and thinking that you're right about where you put your meaning and others are wrong for where they put theirs makes you a massive blight on society
>>63908889
what are you on about m8
it's not about me and what i want. i am absolutely certain that i spend more money on music than 99% of people. i spend 2-300 a month on records and go to shows almost every weekend.
it's not about me and what i want. it's about recognizing that CD sales were a fucking bubble that was burst. you can't shame people into unbursting your bubble by calling them a massive blight on society. it's not going to un-invent p2p sharing. the artists who have adapted to the new regime have found it MUCH MORE PROFITABLE. you are a fucking idiot.
>>63904589
this anon is right, keep being butthurt you dumb fucks
>>63904589
You're completely correct but assuming that's you responding to the posts responding to you you should probably tone down the fedora a bit
>>63909005
my bad meant for
>>63904589
im in agreement with you though, i think we're just in a purgatory kind of period where clearly what we had is beyond dead but all of the internet stuff is still birthing, it just needs to be capitalized on more. at this point theres barely any middle-men left and i think p2p helps artists a shit ton but its also not a one-size-fits-all issue either.
>>63908626
I get what you're saying. That's why I try to buy merch at shows for artists that I really like. I buy physical copies for the sake of having it, and I think it can also be a good way to show that you support the artist even if it doesn't get them much money in return. Plus, some artists are on record labels that I really enjoy, so it's a good way to help them out too
And saying music is beyond monetary value is way different than saying it isn't worth anything. I don't think assigning a monetary value is maybe the best way to measure the quality of the art or artist, but it is kind of necessary. Should You Suffer by Napalm Death be the same value as a movement from a Beethoven symphony iTunes? Probably not. But assigning a monetary value to art means that whoever buys that art is supporting the people who helped make it happen in some way
>>63909179
Yeah people like you, who think about where your money is going and the bigger picture, really help artists and cool indie labels that benefit from our spending power. I think there is more awareness today than there used to be in the era of the rich rock star, and you will get better music on average being made as a result.
Streaming services like spotify tht only pay artists literal pennies are killing music, not leaks. People listen to leaks before they decide to buy the album. (At least that's what I do)
>>63909311
Well the spotify model is good, unfortunately they are in trouble over what seems to be 19th century style low-level embezzling. So money is not going where it needs to go. The blockchain can fix this though (for example), or something like Tidal that has better contractual terms, or just better accounting.
But getting paid pennies EVERY TIME SOMEONE PLAYS YOUR SONG is a fucking great deal for artists, you silly person.
>>63909481
>>63909311
I would much rather get paid a penny for each listen, than a penny for them to buy the album once and then give digital copies to all their friends.
>>63909481
Maybe for super popular artists that get millions of plays, but it means nothing to up & coming underground bands. I would know since my music is also on spotify. I get less than 5000 plays every month which is nothing
>>63909242
Yeah I agree. I think it's generally good that there's more independent music, but there's still some great artists on great labels that I think will continue to put out quality, and I think that it only helps when you buy their stuff
>>63909311
Vulfpeck funded a tour through Spotify once
>>63909549
Yeah Spotify seems to be broken, even the ceo or whatever has acknowledged there is an issue
I wish you luck anon
>>63909616
depending on the type of tour you mount, you can break even just from the nightly returns, so it's not necessarily impressive that they were able to do this.
usually tours help drive record sales, not the other way around.
>>63909549
well are you going to fucking tell us the name of your band or what?
>>63904204
If they want people to buy it maybe they should more than 1$ on the artwork. I mean, wtf is what that shit-tier Bandcamp cover? Make nice editions and people will buy them.
>>63904204
"this will be a long one so bare with me"
>bare with me
>bare
Stopped reading.
>Musicians, everybody.
>>63910799
He's Swedish, fag
