Written by IronAngel on 06.11.2012 at 18:26

That's one reason I see something like Kickstarter working for bands. I imagine many fans, myself included, would be happy to participate in funding an album before it's recorded. That way you can focus your efforts where it's needed and you get to see a very tangible result of your support.

Not for me thx. Call me a prick, but I don't feel any attachment to any band. I love music itself but don't see why I should pledge allegiance to a band and support any material, even the shitty one. Because I support the material and not the band behind it, I don't see why I'd contribute to something I'm not sure I'm gonna like in the end.

Come on! Disappointing sales of their last album? Do you know why? It was shit! I love Pantheist and all their previous albums, but the last one was really bad. This is why it didn't sell. Decent album sell. Marcel, did you like it?

Written by Merchant of Doom on 09.11.2012 at 11:35

Come on! Disappointing sales of their last album? Do you know why? It was shit! I love Pantheist and all their previous albums, but the last one was really bad. This is why it didn't sell. Decent album sell. Marcel, did you like it?

It's a great album. Although it did take me a couple of spins to appreciate whereas usually I immediately appreciate an album or find an album crap and it doesn't grow.

Decent albums don't sell either, just look at O, SOlitude and Amartia which sold just as poorly as the last one and the the one before (which was the bad Pantheist album imo)


And although this plea was written by Pantheist it could have been written by so many other bands as well, who come across the exact same problem. Keeping to doom metal, Esoteric springs to mind as does Indesinence, Worship, Faal, Evoken, The 11th Hour, Procession, Poema Arcanus, Process Of Guilt, Officium Triste, Ophis, Ataraxie, Funeralium, hell even Mar De Grises etc etc

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 09.11.2012 at 11:47

Written by Merchant of Doom on 09.11.2012 at 11:35

Come on! Disappointing sales of their last album? Do you know why? It was shit! I love Pantheist and all their previous albums, but the last one was really bad. This is why it didn't sell. Decent album sell. Marcel, did you like it?

It's a great album. Although it did take me a couple of spins to appreciate whereas usually I immediately appreciate an album or find an album crap and it doesn't grow.

Decent albums don't sell either, just look at O, SOlitude and Amartia which sold just as poorly as the last one and the the one before (which was the bad Pantheist album imo)


And although this plea was written by Pantheist it could have been written by so many other bands as well, who come across the exact same problem. Keeping to doom metal, Esoteric springs to mind as does Indesinence, Worship, Faal, Evoken, The 11th Hour, Procession, Poema Arcanus, Process Of Guilt, Officium Triste, Ophis, Ataraxie, Funeralium, hell even Mar De Grises etc etc

Personally, I don't know anybody who actually liked it... but there you go. My theory about the lack of sales is simple: there are just too many bands around these days and it's impossible to buy every single album. Also, because there are so many bands (one man bands, self-produced ones, and so on) the average quality has dropped dramatically. You have to be extremely careful about a band. I listen to lots of samples and only buy albums I really like. I would say my buying habits have decreased these days (in comparison with the '70s or '80s) because in the past you couldn't check the albums out (I'm talking about underground stuff), so you would buy the vinyl. I have a lot of shit because of that. These days you can listen to the samples and make your mind up. In the past, I would have bought the new Pantheist (and then throw it out of the window), today, I didn't, because I listened to it beforehand and decided I didn't like it. Unfortunately, you can't change the way things are. Music is readily available on the 'net and people check it out and choose, or they just download it. Is it wrong? Of course, but you can't ban the Internet...

Written by [user id=125952] on 11.11.2012 at 12:29

(offtopic)
gosh, the rent is more than half your salary! Can't you find a cheaper but decent house? Or housing is just that expensive over there?

We rent our apartment through family connections, and it's actually about 100? cheaper than it would be on the open market. 630? a month for 70m2 is dirt cheap around here, and smaller flats aren't significantly cheaper so there's no point moving. I'm a student, a full-time job generally pays about 1600-2000? a month, minus taxes, in an average, dime-in-a-dozen job where no higher education is necessary.

But yes, usually for a student half your income pays the rent. My girlfriend has a full-time job so she doesn't have any troubles, but it's a matter of principle that I pay half the expenses.

If I was really desperate, I could work more I guess. In the summers I do. But I've made an art of parsimony and I get by, so I'd rather focus on my studies since the plan is to get my doctorate in the next six to seven years and become the best medievalist in the country.

But I don't mean to cite my financial situation as an excuse. It's a matter of priorities. It's always a matter of priorities. If I wanted to work more and use all my available money on music, I could support more bands. And yes, I could refrain from enjoying music I can't afford, and stick to a few albums a month. But I don't want to. I just brought it up since somebody wondered why downloading is an important part of my music hobby.

Written by IronAngel on 11.11.2012 at 12:57

Written by [user id=125952] on 11.11.2012 at 12:29

(offtopic)
gosh, the rent is more than half your salary! Can't you find a cheaper but decent house? Or housing is just that expensive over there?

630? a month for 70m2 is dirt cheap around here,

here as well. I pay 500 euro for 40m2, that is including water, gas, electricity, internet, tv cable. Which is also quite cheap here. Lived here 6 six years now and in that period the landord has not once raised the rent even though he is allowed to do so with 6% each year,

I was going to tell my story, but it seems that people already have covered up all kind of views over this thing ^^

Written by God of shadows on 12.11.2012 at 00:25

I was going to tell my story, but it seems that people already have covered up all kind of views over this thing ^^

Yeah it seems so lol... Well I guess the thing we can keep in mind is ''support the artists you like, in any way you CAN.. and if you can't well shit happens'' LOL

I just think music has just become such a niche thing. I feel bad for Pantheist i like the band quite a lot and liked their last album(took a while to grow on me) and bought it.

Its just that metal (and music in general) is so specialized. The pool in which a band like pantheist can draw from to buy cd's,merchandise,concert tickets is already limited.
On top of Pantheist being a metal, some metal fans just dislike doom metal, which limits the pool of people even more. This isnt just in doom either but in all of metal some people dislike thrash, clean vocals, power metal, death metal growls, some people just like black metal etc.

I would guess that at least half of the bands talked about on this site (probably more) do not recoup their recording costs from album sales and are in danger of losing their record deal as a result, and it is only going to get worse as times goes on. It must be really galling to a band to sell only a couple of thousand albums, and then find that 10 times as many people as that are listening to it according to sites like last.fm, especially if they are losing money.

Sorry for the double post, but what hope is left for the Metal scene when artists get attacked for "not being polite enough" in their replies to leeches who go on to their facebook page to boast about stealing their work? Aeon reposted a rant by Lord K of The Project Hate MCMXCIX on their Facebook page. Lord K for those who haven't come across his band or his site Global Domination says exactly what he thinks, always, with no sugarcoating. He once told me to go fuck a goat on a different forum. Don't like his band? don't like his new album? Fine, don't listen to it. Ignore and move on. If you do download it, don't go and tell him about it and how it is "helping" him that you are doing so. What do these people expect? that he will thank them? But no, he is expected to be polite to you, to pretend to be happy that 5000 people listen to the new album and 100 of them have paid for it.

The album cost 5000 Euros to record, mix and master. It was only possible in the first place because the band had enough fans who were willing to contribute to help pay these costs. The album took 2 years to make. 2 years. Some of the most talented musicians in the metal scene, and one of the most talented artists, contributed their time and skills free of charge. Now, people steal it, which is bad enough, and then they also go to the artist's page to tell him that they have stolen it. Just how much of a dick would someone have to be to go to someone else and boast about stealing their work? Talk about compounding the original crime. And people then complain that the artist is not civil in his response to these people? They think that it is the artist that is in the wrong? Are these people serious? Who would be a musician today in that sort of scene?

Here is the link to the Aeon Facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/aeon666/posts/191225874348943?comment_id=661163¬if_t=share_comment

I think this is a suitable link for this thread. I haven't listened to the band before, but one of the members of The Project Hate recently posted a rant about how frustrated they've become with the downloading era and the mentality it's created

http://www.theprojecthate.net/news/so-some-idiots-in-this-world-think-our-new-album-should-be-available-free-of-charge

Written by Zombie94 on 06.01.2013 at 16:31

I think this is a suitable link for this thread. I haven't listened to the band before, but one of the members of The Project Hate recently posted a rant about how frustrated they've become with the downloading era and the mentality it's created

http://www.theprojecthate.net/news/so-some-idiots-in-this-world-think-our-new-album-should-be-available-free-of-charge

you didn't read the post right abive yours, did you?

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 06.01.2013 at 16:48




you didn't read the post right abive yours, did you?

Whoops... my mistake. It was a case of tl;dr

That's a pretty juvenile rant. "I don't give a fuck blah blah blah." After the first few lines, I'm left wondering why I should give a fuck, either.

Too bad I have no interest in the band. Otherwise I'd go download the album and post a review on their Facebook page.

Apart from all the "fuck this and that", I think he brings up alot of good points.

But anyway, I always abhorred people that think not having money for music (or anything else) gives them the right to steal or try to comfort themselves with "oh, I'll just go to the gig or buy a shirt". So I'm biased on this one.

On the Aeon page, the guitarist from Aborted pointed out that Lord K was saying what all bands think privately but are too scared of alienating their fans to come out and say, and I think that that is likely to be true.

Written by IronAngel on 06.01.2013 at 18:22

Too bad I have no interest in the band. Otherwise I'd go download the album and post a review on their Facebook page.

And you think that it was the rant that was juvenile?

I wish people would stop talking about stealing in this context. You can argue that it's wrong, that it should be illegal (somewhere it might be), or that it's "just as bad" as stealing. But by no reasonable definition is enjoying downloaded intellectual property "stealing." Misuse of terminology is provocative and derails the discussion. Propaganda is never a sign of integrity, and the whole "Piratism is stealing" campaign shows nothing but a lack of real arguments.

If you must have a concrete example for comparison, downloading is closer to crossing somebody's bridge without paying the toll or referencing them in an article without proper citation. You're not taking anything from anyone, you're enjoying something unlimited and immaterial without giving the customary compensation. Right or wrong, that doesn't constitute "stealing."

Written by IronAngel on 06.01.2013 at 21:15

I wish people would stop talking about stealing in this context. You can argue that it's wrong, that it should be illegal (somewhere it might be), or that it's "just as bad" as stealing. But by no reasonable definition is enjoying downloaded intellectual property "stealing." Misuse of terminology is provocative and derails the discussion. Propaganda is never a sign of integrity, and the whole "Piratism is stealing" campaign shows nothing but a lack of real arguments.

If you must have a concrete example for comparison, downloading is closer to crossing somebody's bridge without paying the toll or referencing them in an article without proper citation. You're not taking anything from anyone, you're enjoying something unlimited and immaterial without giving the customary compensation. Right or wrong, that doesn't constitute "stealing."

I think what's actually the most inaccurate analogy used in the downloading debate is when people compare downloading music to going out and stealing a really nice car or TV that you want, but can't afford. Well, if there were people offering you free TVs and cars then both those industries would go to shit as well, because people would leap at the opportunity. People aren't literally going into record stores and taking albums, and I think it's naive to expect the vast majority of people to not take something for free when the alternative is paying up to ?20 for it.

Now, one thing I will say is that it sometimes surprises me that people don't want to buy CDs for the superior sound quality to mp3. Once you've heard a metal album cranked up to high volume on a good sound system, mp3 sounds like shit in comparison.

Written by Vombatus on 06.01.2013 at 18:29

Apart from all the "fuck this and that", I think he brings up alot of good points.

But anyway, I always abhorred people that think not having money for music (or anything else) gives them the right to steal or try to comfort themselves with "oh, I'll just go to the gig or buy a shirt". So I'm biased on this one.

If you think about it rationally, there is nothing wrong with that.

Downloading an album is not stealing in the sense that nothing is lost on the part of the creator, the only reason it can be detrimental is that if you download something for free, chances are you won't buy it for money after, so it means a loss of profit for the creator since a potential buyer got it for free instead of paying.

If someone honestly does not have money for music (like I do, fuck me, I listen to 200 different genres and know shittons of underground bands very few people heard of I really don't have the funds to buy all their stuff), he will buy what he likes regardless if he DL'd it previously or not IF and WHEN he HAS the money for it, so on that account, no profit is lost on the part of the creator since when he has no money he won't buy it because he is unable to, so it does not matter if he does not listen or DLs it.

I've been writing and recording music all my adult life and before, some things I've made have sold and a lot more has been given away free (praise be to the internets). I don't care if people get my music for free, I'm just happy they want it. I certainly don't consider getting it for free (with or without my knowledge) to be stealing; as has already been stated, I have lost nothing but the possibility of a few quid more. That doesn't (in my mind) count as theft.

These days the game has changed. It's important to accept that most people who hear your work will do so for free and being angry about it won't change a thing. Some people will buy it, people still buy merch and CDs at gigs, which they still pay to go to. Being a musician who performs all their own material is not a good living, more people need to accept that they will need a day job to fund the band. Every band I've ever played in has been in that situation, except for a covers band that got paid for weddings and such like - you can still make a living that way and I know a few people who do.

It's important to understand that recorded music is basically self-indulgence and expecting anyone to pay money to hear your self-indulgence is a bit cheeky. The Game Has Changed. Don't expect people to pay for CDs. Play a lot and sell your shit at shows, and be grateful to people who do buy CDs / Tapes / Records.

In other words - your band will make a loss, just like everyone else's. Either play simply because you love playing, or shut the fuck up.

/diplomacy

Written by Uldreth on 07.01.2013 at 00:23

Written by Vombatus on 06.01.2013 at 18:29

If you think about it rationally, there is nothing wrong with that.

Downloading an album is not stealing in the sense that nothing is lost on the part of the creator, the only reason it can be detrimental is that if you download something for free, chances are you won't buy it for money after, so it means a loss of profit for the creator since a potential buyer got it for free instead of paying.

If someone honestly does not have money for music (like I do, fuck me, I listen to 200 different genres and know shittons of underground bands very few people heard of I really don't have the funds to buy all their stuff), he will buy what he likes regardless if he DL'd it previously or not IF and WHEN he HAS the money for it, so on that account, no profit is lost on the part of the creator since when he has no money he won't buy it because he is unable to, so it does not matter if he does not listen or DLs it.

Hmmmmmm maybe, but only in some cases as it would imply that the downloader will buy the albums he likes (regardless of what he downloads), something that I am not sure happens all the time.

I know downloading isn't stealing, but rather copying. Yet I find it unfair to think that copying something that is meant to be sold for money is ok just because you ain't getting anything physical.

But most of the time, what I criticize is the attitude. You can't put all downloaders on the same level, as alot of them buy albums. And as you said, still download because there isn't enough money despite the effort of buying what they can, yet won't mind spending money in something they like. I'm ok with that.
Some others spend all their money in paying house rent, food, family related stuff, etc. and dont' have much choice. I'm ok with that too.
But you have another group, that represents a big part I dare say, that complain about the "prices" or "don't have money" or "they don't have albums here" (online-distros exist for something) and how they can get it "for free", yet have no problem buying videogames, going out to the bar or any other hobby (as music is a hobby after all).This doesn't mean one must spend all their money on music (one can do what they want after all), but I find reeeeeeally annoying this last case coz it is a bit.......... hypocritical. If they prefer to spend their money on other things, and make illegal copies of something they are suppose to like, well, fine for them but they should say it that way.

But isn't it illegal to photocopy whole books because it's a violation to COPYrights? Then the same logic is to be applied to any other form of art and entertainment. Secondly, why is it necessary to have an action punished by a higher authority to know that it's wrong? Don't we all have ethics and values that we live by? Or is the only thing keeping us "in line" is the fear of being punished instead of knowing we're doing the right thing?

Written by Edmund Fogg on 07.01.2013 at 19:15

But isn't it illegal to photocopy whole books because it's a violation to COPYrights? Then the same logic is to be applied to any other form of art and entertainment.

exactly.

Written by Edmund Fogg on 07.01.2013 at 19:15

But isn't it illegal to photocopy whole books because it's a violation to COPYrights?

It depends, but I think it's illegal to copy them for purposes other than private use (and that may include friends and family). I'm fairly sure it doesn't apply to making a copy for preservation purposes or to make notes on.

The term "illegal downloading" usually means that the part of distributing copies is illegal, and thus the files you download are "illegal" but the downloading itself is not. This may vary between countries, of course. That's why torrents and peer-to-peer networks where you partake in the sharing incriminate you. Downloading files from a host like Mediafire is perfectly legal.

But yeah, acting within the confines of law doesn't automatically mean it's the right thing to do. And as much as I oppose copyright laws and today's concept of intellectual property, I agree that the creators (and the middle men like record companies, if they make an investment) should profit somehow. It just can't be through an ethically and intellectually dubious owning the monopoly to something immaterial. If you make an immaterial contribution to culture and world history, you can't expect others to pretend it doesn't exist unless they pay you.

Written by IronAngel on 07.01.2013 at 20:44

Written by Edmund Fogg on 07.01.2013 at 19:15

But isn't it illegal to photocopy whole books because it's a violation to COPYrights?

It depends, but I think it's illegal to copy them for purposes other than private use (and that may include friends and family). I'm fairly sure it doesn't apply to making a copy for preservation purposes or to make notes on.

That would be the books and/or material you already own, not say a book you rent at the library. Making a copy of that, even for personal use is (or should be) illegal.

Written by Edmund Fogg on 07.01.2013 at 21:25



That would be the books and/or material you already own, not say a book you rent at the library. Making a copy of that, even for personal use is (or should be) illegal.

that is indeed illegal.

Same when you rent a dvd/blu ray/video, then it's alos illegal to copy it.

On the topic of libraries, that's a pretty good comparison: by now state and society widely recognizes access to educational and recreational reading as a basic right that should be available to everyone. Nobody guilt-trips people for using library services; I must have read thousands of euros worth of books in the last five years alone. The library's paid for them so that's legal and it seems morally unproblematic. But the same point about supporting the artist/scholar could be made here. If I really think one of my teachers is the best authority on medieval manuscripts in the country and a good writer to boot, shouldn't I be buying all his books rather than borrowing them from the library (let alone sitting on University-funded courses he teaches)? Maybe, but there aren't any angry Facebook posts about that.

I'm not saying the two cases are identical, and I don't have concrete changes to propose (though featuring music releases in state- and municipality-funded online libraries would be a start, as well as cultural grants to recording artists). But are academic literature, recreational literature, popular music and art music really that different? In my opinion, we should have equal rights to enjoy the fruits of our culture. It's shouldn't be primarily business. But at the same time, there needs to be ways to guarantee income for a reasonable portion of artists (even if, I agree with Mojo, the majority shouldn't expect to make a profit - I can't get a dream job in just any crowded field either, and nobody pays me for my hobbies like music reviewing).

Devising new models of financial support is the real challenge. And I'm not saying the money should all come from "society" - that's ultimately us, and as consumers we support the business we want to succeed. But buying individual albums seems antiquated and unfeasible on the large scale. I am not willing to cut my listening to 5% of the new albums I hear per year (released that year or earlier) and buy every album I feel like listening to once or twice. I am, however, willing to pay a monthly fee for a service like Spotify, which gives me immediate access to its huge music library. Unfortunately, that service is not making a profit at the moment, for itself or for the artists and record labels.

We are not talking about profit here, we are talking about the future of bands, and particularly less well known bands in less popular genres such as Metal, being able to record albums. Read this topic's opening statement by Pantheist to get an idea of what is going on. Up until now, the cost of recording has always been paid for by the Record Company, the band then owes this money to the Record Company who deduct the money that the band owes them from the artist royalties. If no CDs are sold then there are no artist royalties to pay for this. In the Metal scene it has always been fairly common for artists to never see any royalties at all because the royalties from the CDs that have been sold do not cover the money that the label has spent on recording the album or the other things like promotion that the label spends on their behalf.

As stated in my post earlier, the Project Hate album cost 5000 Euros to record, mix and master. This is despite the fact that the guitars, bass, keyboards and electronics were recorded at home using expensive equipment that Lord K has bought and paid for himself without any expectation of ever making a profit from his music. Most of the cost is apparently due to mixing and mastering. The Sellaband project that Nemesea used to record their 2nd album without a label had a target of 50000 Euros that the band had to raise to record the album, which seems to me to be higher than necessary but that was the target that they had to reach. Now the question is, in a utopian world where all music is free, who pays for this? CDs have paid for it up until this point, but the number of people buying CDs has dropped to an alarmingly low level because despite the protests of people who download that they will buy the album if they like it, most of them don't, and none of them buy CDs in anything like the same numbers that a typical music fan would have done 10 years ago.