TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Reasons not to pay for music
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

thats right, benno.

I think we owe benno here for actually inadvertantly restoring some good debate back on the forums, for those who've only been here for a year or two, you'd have missed it when we used to be able to have these debates that don't go too off topic good stuff on that sense.


to the debate, I have always spent every spare penny I have had on music, i've got probably a thousand tapes, and about 200 cds and a small selection of vinyl I bought (I don't even have tt's) and I think i've done my bit for the industry, I download tracks to try and i'm also sent a lot of promo ones, which I never share. By downloading the tracks & albums, I can help decide where my small spare change goes, as I can't afford to buy everything that's out (nor everything i wish i could) so mp3s help that way obviously. I also endorse Ste's post near the start, and those of grim, aj & ishkur. We need to support our artists, but to bring system j into it here, I get a slight feeling that you resent those who've not spent as much on music as you, I can understand that but then it comes down to how much we have, maybe we should measure the percentage of peoples money spent on music, as not all have the spare funds to make a lot.

Onto DC-'s post.

well, money USED to be there for trance hits, but now I honestly think the market is overpopulated with a lot of poor stuff in a trance perspective. There are us people, mainly non-asot esque people who've been buying music since we were 8 or 9 years old by saving pocket money etc, and we do contribute wherever possible, only we dont pay for the stuff available in trance as often due to the lack of quality in it

quote:

Originally posted by Ian^ I think we owe benno here for actually inadvertantly restoring some good debate back on the forums, for those who've only been here for a year or two, you'd have missed it when we used to be able to have these debates that don't go too off topic good stuff on that sense.

LOL, well I am just very interested in what people here think about this matter. I am not pointing fingers, everybody needs to do what they think is right.

But perhaps it can give you some insights and thoughts from someone who is on the other side

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 ok, but my point wasn't so much "lets keep cash out of intermediaries as much as possible" but more like "this system would give more money to the artists". currently we're leading to this: mp3 shop <---------> record label <---------> artist that system would be: mp3 shop/label <--------> artist in theory it'd be more profitable? of course nowadays there's still a lot of physical releases being sold, which kinda defeats this point, but in the future i think it'd be more benefitial. the possible disadvantages are the mp3shop/label getting too much of a monopoly, and the artists not being promoted effectively due to the shop/label not focusing on them, having too many artists signed with them.

I doubt that it'll work in reality. Considering the way the industry works, there will always be a ton of other people involved demanding their piece of the pie whenever someone decides to spend money on an artist's work. And among those people, you will always find the kind of people Benno referred to who only want to make a quick buck, and then we're back to square one.

To restore buyers' faith in this matter, the whole copyright/promotion system needs to be revamped, ensuring in some way that the artist gets the money the buyer feels he/she deserves. Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen, since there are always people in the industry with the only intent to exploit it for their own financial gain.

quote:

Originally posted by Benno de Goeij My A&R understands me, guides me and has his hart for music, and is not after the big bucks in the first place. That's worth very much for me. Same goes for my publisher. I hate the i-am-gonna-quickly-fill-mypockets-with-cash loosers in the industry just as you guys. But not everybody is a bad guy!

I can actually atest to this because when Somatic Sense tried to comission Rank-1 to do a remix, they didn't simply accept becuase of the *extremely* high fees involved, but they actually wanted to know that they can do something good with the track prior to accepting the remix job which shows a lot about this great duo. Needless to say they did not accept the remix because they didn't think they could do justice to it. Had this been any other artist, they would have surely accepted the gig simply becuase it paid a lot.

Despite what a lot of you may think you know about the way this particular part of the industry works, there is no "shady middle men" involved. No guys in big black suits that take all the money away. This is an artist driven industry, with a lot of labels being run by artists themselves.

You can't compare the pop industry to edm. It's apples and oranges, just becuase they both grow on trees doesn't make them the same.

Think of any significant trance label and you'll find an established artist/dj running it. When the profits for a release are in, the share is split amongst the artist and the label. There are no agents, managers, this and that that take the money away.

I have to reitterate again, trance producers make money SOLEY on vinyl sales, not performing, not publishing, not CD compilations, vinyl sales and vinyl sales alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper I doubt that it'll work in reality. Considering the way the industry works, there will always be a ton of other people involved demanding their piece of the pie whenever someone decides to spend money on an artist's work. And among those people, you will always find the kind of people Benno referred to who only want to make a quick buck, and then we're back to square one. To restore buyers' faith in this matter, the whole copyright/promotion system needs to be revamped, ensuring in some way that the artists gets the money the buyer feels he deserves. Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen, since there are always people in the industry with the only intent to exploit it for their own financial gain.

I agree and doubt these things will happen, at least in full scale but we shouldn't stop tryin to decrease the amount of exploiters and get the money where it belongs.

quote:

Originally posted by GrimReaper I agree and doubt these things will happen, at least in full scale but we shouldn't stop tryin to decrease the amount of exploiters and get the money where it belongs.

The money IS going where it belongs, there just isn't a whole lot of it.

quote:

Originally posted by DC- Despite what a lot of you may think you know about the way this particular part of the industry works, there is no "shady middle men" involved. No guys in big black suits that take all the money away. This is an artist driven industry, with a lot of labels being run by artists themselves.

I've heard enough stories about artists getting ripped off by agents, PR men, label execs etc., so either you're very naive or those people are lying.

Hnn... I still buy music from the music shops but I'll admit it's more because it's an addiction than anything else. I tend to get a rush from going into a store (new or used), scouring the racks for a couple hours, then leaving with a handful of new material. Plus flirting with any cute gals should they be working there is a bonus.

I did the download thing for a little while but, after aquiring material that was either super-rare or discontinued (and not always in the best audio format), I've had very little interest in it since. That instinctive thrill of the hunt, even if it's just for music, doesn't come about in me when I'm sitting at my computer point and clicking away. I'm sure vinyl diggers can agree to this. Anyone can go out and get a fish from the supermarket, but it sure tastes better the harder it is to hunt for it.

quote:

Originally posted by DC- The money IS going where it belongs, there just isn't a whole lot of it.

I agree!

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper I've heard enough stories about artists getting ripped off by agents, PR men, label execs etc., so either you're very naive or those people are lying.

There are exceptions to everything, but don't make it sound like its something that happens with every label when the truth is, they are mostly 1 man run operations. There are some bigger labels, generally in the UK, that had a bad rep for doing the things you mentioned, but in general, most labels are not like that.

I am not naive, I happen to have the opportunity to see how a label works from an Artist's and A&R's point of view. I know enough about how much money really circulates around a label, how much things cost, etc, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper I've heard enough stories about artists getting ripped off by agents, PR men, label execs etc., so either you're very naive or those people are lying.

Sure not all guys are good guys, but i think i get 95% of the money thats made in the industry. And i have been treated not the way i wanted in the past. But if i have to be honest: I think the copying is ripping more than those guys you are mentioning. And most of the time a story have two sides and you probably heard only one!

quote:

Originally posted by DC- There are exceptions to everything, but don't make it sound like its something that happens with every label when the truth is, they are mostly 1 man run operations. There are some bigger labels, generally in the UK, that had a bad rep for doing the things you mentioned, but in general, most labels are not like that.

I am not just talking about the trance scene, obviously. And while certainly not everyone is like this, it's enough to make a significant impact on buyer's scepticism towards this matter, which was my point.

quote:

Originally posted by DC- The money IS going where it belongs, there just isn't a whole lot of it.

I know that but obviously there is something wrong somewhere along the way or otherwise this thread wouldn't have been made, would it?

quote:

Originally posted by GrimReaper I know that but obviously there is something wrong somewhere along the way or otherwise this thread wouldn't have been made, would it?

"Something" is wrong alright. People are not buying music. Why? Is it becuase its really that much worse than it was in 99? I'll have to disagree. Take away Strange Worlds, Out of the Blues and 99 was musically and technically a lot inferior. People just choose to remember all the good tracks and not piles and piles of amateurly produced garbage.

To me the biggest problem (aside MP3s) is the high production cost of vinyl. It costs too much to produce and its a very volotile medium that degrades rapidly with extended use. Who wants to spend $12-13 on a record of questionable quality when they can buy an album that is guaranteed to sound good and atleast have 1-2 good tracks. To me it doesn't make sense.

You would think that CD singles would be the solution to this, but sadly this is not true either. People buy CD singles even less!

There is no clear cut solution, I don't know if there will ever be. We just have to hope that Trance can get out of the gutter that its in currently and get back to its feet before it totally disappears.

i support the try before you buy thing.
also not everything is avaliable for legally digital download, and for those who don't use vinyl (ppl who enjoy listening to trance but have no interest in mixing themself) it's a problem.
But it seems like the legally digital download sites is on the way up.

quote:

Originally posted by DC- You would think that CD singles would be the solution to this, but sadly this is not true either. People buy CD singles even less!

Reason being because DJs who made their bread and butter using vinyl for so long never gave CDJs a chance for the longest time, essentially making it uncool to use such a medium if you wanted to become a DJ. It was only when the CDJ technology managed to mimic turntables enough that DJs began to clue in a little more.

quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee Reason being because DJs who made their bread and butter using vinyl for so long never gave CDJs a chance for the longest time, essentially making it uncool to use such a medium if you wanted to become a DJ. It was only when the CDJ technology managed to mimic turntables enough that DJs began to clue in a little more.

That holds a lot of ground today considering many of the top jocks refuse to play vinyls, and seeing how thats the main source of revenue for a label, that's not a ... good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Benno de Goeij Sure not all guys are good guys, but i think i get 95% of the money thats made in the industry. And i have been treated not the way i wanted in the past. But if i have to be honest: I think the copying is ripping more than those guys you are mentioning. And most of the time a story have two sides and you probably heard only one!

Getting yr post count up a bit now with this thread, no longer a TA in training anymore lol.

My view on this is that as long as the tracks people download are not being used in the wrong way, like playing them out or even selling them on a site like ebay for a profit it can't be doing that much damage.

IMO it can only be seen as promotion for the artist and the track, I can't see why it is any worse than downloading a live set which is not really viewed as illegal that much now. Because u will still get the same track you wanted to hear but mabey of a bit better quality.

I do download some tracks using file sharing programs and I do also pay for tracks from sites but like most of the replies in this thread shows 90% of us will always get the vinyl or cd if it is avaliable to us.

To me an mp3 is nothing compared to a record and never will be even if I buy the mp3 from a site I will most likely get it on record as well when I put in an order. So sometimes I think to myself why should I go through the hassel of signing up, putting all my card details etc to just download a track which I am going to have to do the same for again when I buy the vinyl copy.

I also agree alot with the try before you buy theory, an mp3 that has a time limit would be great way for people to test tracks out or even lower quality versions that you know cannot be used by peolple to make profit and are soley just for test purposes. Sometimes 2-3 minute samples on record shop websites are not enough to get a good feel to whether or not you should buy that track.

quote:

Originally posted by DC- "Something" is wrong alright. People are not buying music. Why? Is it becuase its really that much worse than it was in 99? I'll have to disagree. Take away Strange Worlds, Out of the Blues and 99 was musically and technically a lot inferior. People just choose to remember all the good tracks and not piles and piles of amateurly produced garbage.

Sorry, but not only is that a personal opinion, it's a wrong one. In 1999 the new trance formula was just that- new. With classic trance hitting stagnation in the mid 90s, the baton was passed over to more anthemic, melody driven productions. People forget that in 1998, the epic trance sound was genuinely new, and most of the great productions from that era resulted from experimentation.

The problem is that modern trance is now stuck where classic trance was in 1996. It's ran out of ideas and needs another revamp to introduce fresh blood. Since 2001, almost all new trance has been recycling ideas, and the rise of soft-synths and bedroom producers have only increased the process. Trance in 2005 is stuck in a loop, and we need another direction shift to get some more new ground broken.

Listen to any trance compilation from 1998/1999, then contrast it to a new one. It's the same principle idea, but the difference is that the older stuff is being more experimental- it isn't following a formula. The end result is music that sounds like more effort has gone into it. Trance was better in 1999, simply because nobody was following the rule-books.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Sorry, but not only is that a personal opinion, it's a wrong one.

can this sentence even make sense

Rap records don't deserve to be bought, just look at the videos, the bullshti they spend the money on. YOUR money.

i believe music should be paid for especially from independent producers, since its a work of art, who cares in form of what.

now whether a tiesto album should cost 16$ is very objectionable

quote:

Originally posted by Kaybi Rap records don't deserve to be bought, just look at the videos, the bullshti they spend the money on. YOUR money. i believe music should be paid for especially from independent producers, since its a work of art, who cares in form of what. now whether a tiesto album should cost 16$ is very objectionable

I don't get you're point, a rap single cost as much as a trance one or not?

And why should you even care about how they spend there money? I don't ask what the man does with its money who delivers my post...
And if i knew: what the hell.. its his life!

quote:

Originally posted by Benno de Goeij I don't get you're point, a rap single cost as much as a trance one or not? And why should you even care about how they spend there money? I don't ask what the man does with its money who delivers my post... And if i knew: what the hell.. its his life!

he is full of crap

to some extent, i think listning to some tracks at home shouldnt be illegal. I mean its impossible to purchase every track ever. That is something rediculas to ask. But obviously If one likes a track they should buy it.

Now if they are using this track in a mix or for a performance, the track should most deffinately be bought.


For example:
I mean I dont think you can expect people To go out and just purchase "Hidden Sound System - I Know/Secilia - As good as you" blindly. But when that same person goes to buy Airwave to play it in a set he should pay for it. Do you expect people to purchase every track?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.