Music Downloaders Or Lets Have Another Arguement Over The Forum Wheeee

[Hendrix]

I call bullshit. There will always be new, good musicians coming through the ranks to become successful.

Not specifically true. The funding which record companies use to put into their artists has shrunk a lot, also the up front money artists use to get has gone from £100k to £18k. At the current rate of decline new musicians will stop becoming as rich and famous as before, but will be there. Hell, there are loads of better bands on the London scene at the moment than there are on the chart - that's London alone. No funding to sign them, though..

[ZeroMatt]

Never knew music was purely about making money.

[JD™]

What about the A+R guys who get paid to find these new talents? If there are less of them than there were (and there are, and it's declining all the time) then there's less of them to be in the right place at the right time to find the good bands.

I was playing the Pocket Rocket CD to a guy a few weeks back, and he then decided to tell me he was in A&R and would have definitely been interested in talking to us about signing up. It was only a small label, but big enough to have made me have to work part time only and do the music properly. We weren't spotted by him or someone similar because there's less of them about. There's less of them about because people download music illegally. We weren't the only band to split up before we got the chance, many other better bands will have done the same.

[Hendrix]

Never knew music was purely about making money.

To the musicians, 90% of the time it's not (but it's nice to make money isn't it?) - to the people that make you famous, money is where it's at.

If they can't get paid, you don't get out there. If you don't get out there, they don't have money. If they've got no money, then they don't get paid. Repeat.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that any business is a vicious circle. To make any business succeed there has to be profit, and with profit come investors. If a company is making profit, but not as much as they could, the investors won't come (or as much as they could). I can't remember the exact figure of loss from illegal downloading, but it is quite substantial.

As has already been said, nothing we can say or do will change your mind about this - but think. If you love music and you keep doing this, high quality - nice sounding - good music will start to diminish. You won't be able to see your favorite band at the O2 because they're not big enough, and they won't have enough money for a UK tour.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Hendrix

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

We weren't the only band to split up before we got the chance, many other better bands will have done the same.

Your band split up and stopped doing something that you loved doing because you weren't likely to make hideous amounts of money out of it? As was said above, I didn't realise music was purely about making money.

If you love music and you keep doing this, high quality - nice sounding - good music will start to diminish. You won't be able to see your favorite band at the O2 because they're not big enough, and they won't have enough money for a UK tour.

Again, there will always be music. The quality coming out of the recording studio will always be the same (or, in fact, improving as technology allows). As such whoever might upload the track to a P2P site isn't going to have been recording it on a hand held tape recorder at the door...

I also very much doubt that's the case with regards tours. If you define 'big enough' as having a big following of fans then how much money they and their record label make (which is likely to be substantial regardless what you say) then they will be able to sell tickets to a tour. If you fill out Wembley Arena and charge £40 for the tickets you'll be turning over half a million quid a night. Say 20 nights at various places and you've just turned over £10 million in ticket sales.

Tours are about popularity of a group, not how much money Sony have lost in illegal downloads vs. legal ones. As said before, if a load of idolised artists started saying how much they and their industry was being hurt people might take notice. When it's some unnamed suit trying to bring down Pirate Bay because he only got a $5 million bonus instead of a $6 million bonus people are going to support the Pirate Bay guys who are trying to 'fight the establishment'... something which in the past the artists have always tried to do. Interesting, no?

[JD™]

Your band split up and stopped doing something that you loved doing because you weren't likely to make hideous amounts of money out of it? As was said above, I didn't realise music was purely about making money.

No, we split up because me and the bassist fell out massively in a bit of a power struggle. If there was a deal there and gigs to be played then we'd have been less likely to just let it go. It was never about the money, it was about playing to as many people as possible. When that number is 3 sometimes because you can't promote yourselves properly on 20p it gets a little frustrating.

[Pashley26]

Your band split up and stopped doing something that you loved doing because you weren't likely to make hideous amounts of money out of it? As was said above, I didn't realise music was purely about making money?

Don't be so narrow minded, do you not understand the link between money and producing music ? You need money to get your songs on CD/MP3/whatever format so people can listen to it, it's not really possible for your average band to ever make enough money to get there music out there and produced without some kind of backing. It's getting harder and harder to get studio backing, or record label backing due to the substantial loss of money in the music industry (which has been caused by illegal downloading).

If there is less money coming back into music, how dumb would you have to be to put money into a new band who have nothing but there ability to play the instruments behind them ?

This wasn't the case a few years ago, the right people would get excited about new music and would want to back your band to try and get in on the money you could make for them/yourself.

Even then, it was a vicious circle or the musician working there ass off and getting minimal for it but hard work is better than no work !

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

It was never about the money, it was about playing to as many people as possible. When that number is 3 sometimes because you can't promote yourselves properly on 20p it gets a little frustrating.

But in this day and age do sites like Myspace and Facebook not make life much easier? Invite all your friends, they invite some random people and with a bit of luck you may end up with a hardcore following.

Don't be so narrow minded, do you not understand the link between money and producing music ? You need money to get your songs on CD/MP3/whatever format so people can listen to it, it's not really possible for your average band to ever make enough money to get there music out there and produced without some kind of backing. It's getting harder and harder to get studio backing, or record label backing due to the substantial loss of money in the music industry (which has been caused by illegal downloading).

If there is less money coming back into music, how dumb would you have to be to put money into a new band who have nothing but there ability to play the instruments behind them ?

If you're really good, people will know about you. You start by playing little local venues, maybe get the odd slightly bigger gig off of that. You're not telling me that every successful artist out there funded their own first recordings and album production so they could get themselves out there? You certainly don't need to mass produce your own CD album to let people hear what you can do. At worst they record what they do in the best way they can (be it mic recording, camcorder or whatever) and get it to as many people as possible. Otherwise they could scrape together and book an afternoon at a small recording studio and go from there.

You're calling people like Simon Cowell dumb? Yes people put money into new bands who have that something special. Every artist out there was a gamble of some sort to begin with surely?

[Pashley26]

At the end of the day, it's f**king hard to get into the music business these days and by downloading illegal music you're only making it harder for these guys who are already dedicating their life to it.

You guys have got three people who are well connected, and pretty well studied in the music world telling you the effects that illegal downloading is having on the industry but your still arguing otherwise.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Pashley26

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

You guys have got three people who are well connected, and pretty well studied in the music world telling you the effects that illegal downloading is having on the industry but your still arguing otherwise.

Come on, you're not exactly Douglas Bubbletrousers are you?! You three are still seeing it from the outside to some extent. Ok you're far more into it than I am but I still believe that if the artists were the ones complaining things may change. While they're apparently not giving two shits and are happy with the money they're making people will continue to steal music.

Of course the other side of it is that it is way too easy to steal music. Surely it's easy for the fraud squad to track down the big players who're sharing hundreds of thousands of illegal tracks rather than trying to scare everyone who leaches the odd album to see what it's like.

[Pashley26]

Come on, you're not exactly Douglas Bubbletrousers are you?! You three are still seeing it from the outside to some extent. Ok you're far more into it than I am but I still believe that if the artists were the ones complaining things may change. While they're apparently not giving two shits and are happy with the money they're making people will continue to steal music.

Of course the other side of it is that it is way too easy to steal music. Surely it's easy for the fraud squad to track down the big players who're sharing hundreds of thousands of illegal tracks rather than trying to scare everyone who leaches the odd album to see what it's like.

The easiest way to stop the illegal downloads and uploads would be to simply shut down the sites as apposed to going to downloaders' doors, but unfortunately the law can't even stop people from walking down the street with guns so they've got f**k all chance of minimizing/stopping illegal music downloads

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

The easiest way to stop the illegal downloads and uploads would be to simply shut down the sites

That's the problem though, the sites are pretty much 100% legal. They're not daft. And so long as the sites remain legal and functioning people will continue to download, it's inevitable.

[cox.]

you lot suck..

[weirdoku]

Ha, look what you've done cox?

Anyway, like someone else said, the programs themselves are not illegal, it's what you download with them.

[cox.]

Ha, look what you've done cox?

Anyway, like someone else said, the programs themselves are not illegal, it's what you download with them.

yeah i know, i know lol.

yeah its great isnt it.. once again

[MadManMike]

Ramble Ramble Ramble...

My perspective on things - being a music producer myself, albeit a slightly different scene to the band members on here, I personally make music to get my name known in the DJ'ing scene. More tracks being played by DJ's = more gigs in better clubs. More tracks being played by DJ's = a small cut from sites like trackitdown or beatport.

For me, money is a bonus - if I get a gig in a fairly big club it's great to play on a huge soundsystem and amaazing DJ setup, if they also offer me £50-£100 for the hour I play then even better.

I may be wrong, as I don't know about how artists are paid, but I would guess most acts make more money doing tours and live gigs than they do selling singles.

Now STFU and GTFO, all of you

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

you lot suck..

Oh get over it. Your question was answered in the first few posts so whatcha complainin' about?!

[JD™]

Not that I want to restart this debate... But I just found this on thedailymash.co.uk and it made me giggle: (it's part of a larger article)

Stephen Malley, an 18 year-old thief from Hatfield, said: "I don't have the balls for shoplifting which means I am forced to help myself in the privacy of my own bedroom.

"When will the government realise that no-one owns music, with the possible exception of the people who wrote it and the people who then the paid the people who wrote an agreed sum of monies?

"But what gives them the right - enshrined in legislation, mind you - to recoup those monies from me just because I want to have a permanent copy of it that I can listen to whenever I want?"

He added: "I've just realised - I am exactly the same as Gandhi."

[JT!]

Haha ^

What really annoys me is when people say it's like going into a shop and stealing something.

No, it's nothing like that, it's like going into a shop, picking up a magazine, taking a picture of every page and then reading what's on the pictures when you get home.

I have never bought a CD in my life, and probably never will. Illegal download are what go me into music and certain bands anyway. I'd much rather be a musician that was earning 10 million a year, knowing that people were listening to my music illegally than earning 100 million a year knowing that some people aren't listening to my music because they didn't want to pay for it.

[Pashley26]

I'd much rather be a musician that was earning 10 million a year, knowing that people were listening to my music illegally than earning 100 million a year knowing that some people aren't listening to my music because they didn't want to pay for it.

Sounds good to me, I'm sticking legal if thats the case...