Automotive Deals HPCC Shop Women's Clothing Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Music forum

I Never Owned Music To Begin With.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 34 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 21, 2012 12:48:20 AM PDT
Rob1965 says:
A certain 21 year old NPR intern gives insight on her generations attitude about music and not owning it.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/06/16/154863819/i-never-owned-any-music-to-begin-with

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 10:24:09 AM PDT
Sad. She's apparently involved in her college radio station and says she hasn't purchased more than 15 CD's in her life. In my college radio days, I must have bought 15 albums a month. How can you be part of a music scene if you don't spend money on it?

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 10:44:46 AM PDT
S. Rice says:
Her argument is stupid. She says she "never supported physical media" yet she spent hours ripping CDs when she worked at a college radio station. She's ok with `ripping' CDs she didn't own, because she didn't illegally `download' them. What's the difference!?

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 11:19:10 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
It's more than stupidity. It's hypocrisy. It's like saying you're not a criminal because you stole the money without using a gun.

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 11:29:21 AM PDT
S. Rice says:
David Lowery had a excellent reply to her post but the best part is his direct question to her and her generation...

"The existential questions that your generation gets to answer are these:

Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself?

Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself?

Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?

This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it's as if:

Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!

Hardware: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!

Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class. Screw you, you greedy bastards!

Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!"

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 1:23:44 PM PDT
D. Mok says:
You pay your plumber for work done to fix your toilet. Why wouldn't you pay a musician for his/her work?

The gross misconception among the public is that music is art, so artists should be content with people just enjoying it, and not expect payment. But music is really product and labour. In fact, a musician's work is more strenuous, costly and time-consuming than a plumber's. A plumber doesn't have to rehearse fixing a pipe. A plumber doesn't have to find and pay band members, book studio time. A plumber doesn't have to deal with the weather messing with his voice. A plumber can work even if he loses an eye, gets a massive scar across his face, or loses a finger. A plumber's job is basically done once he leaves the site. A musician's costs for maintaining his/her job is closer to a hybrid between a teacher (who has to constantly prepare) and a plumber (who has to maintain a lot of tools and gear, and can't expect to be working all the time).

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 1:29:50 PM PDT
Savage Lucy says:
Re: music is art, so artists should be content with people just enjoying it, and not expect payment.

This always bothers me because when it comes to books and visual art, people don't have that weird sense of entitlement to it. I mean, yes, there are those who steal whatever art they want of Deviant Art for their use, but not as many as steal music off the internet.

I actually used to rationalize my downloading by only theiving for music from artists who were wealthy/well established. I know I'm one person, but I've bought almost everything now that I ever fraudulently downloaded. Mostly for my own conscience, but also to send a message to the record industry. This is what I'm willing to spend money on.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 1:31:46 PM PDT
D Mok

Not only the musicians, the songwriters and everyone else who is do royalties. Most acts don't get sponsors and lose money touring. It is the sales of the music that keep them afloat to produce the music that people want to hear. People like her are parasites.

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 2:07:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2012 2:07:49 PM PDT
D. Mok says:
> This always bothers me because when it comes to books and visual art, people don't have that weird sense of entitlement to it.

Well put. That's because music is in the air; the physical medium is not valued. But still, people pay for services and goods that are intangible, such as a massage or a consultation. Somehow they don't apply that logic to music, and that's wrong. Some people even complain about a 99-cent price for a song. Sheesh, you pay more than that for a candy bar, and it takes *way* more talent, resources, time and effort to create a recording.

> People like her are parasites.

Yes, they are. And they dare call themselves the victims.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 5:49:34 PM PDT
Clancey says:
I am in my 60th decade, and a friend of mine showed me some cds someone else had loaned him. I saw they were all Jethro Tull and seeing them I realized that I was missing one of them. He said, go ahead, copy this one. I told him I preferred to own the physical medium. The look of rejection on his face shocked me - he actually got angry!

Posted on Jun 25, 2012 2:05:27 PM PDT
EvenSteven says:
Interesting post's.
I see this as a "generation" issue.
Kids load up their digital devices & are cool with that medium.
Then again I see some "youngins" buying vinyl....go figure?
But, inifinitly more are into the digital medium & if that does it for you, then that's great.

I tried out mp3 wave forms & they sound best when plugged into a car system adaptor or docking station through decent sound reproduction equipment. Hell, they even make an ipod dock equiped with its own tube pre amp!...(this stuff is like a dog chasing its own tail as we try to uncompress or get back to "faux" analog sound). I hate the sound of an ipod & ear buds. I see the digital stuff as very temporary or disposable. (but whatever works for you)

If I like music I tend to want to own it & read about it & know the artist.
I am not for web sites that upload other's music for the world to have at $0 cost. That is hurting the folks associated with the record. There is much time & $ that goes into it.
If a friend offers to burn a personal cd for me that is 1 thing....if I am flipped over what I hear then I have to have the real deal. That's the collector mentality of my ancient generation I guess.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 6:58:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2012 7:03:38 AM PDT
I have to say that while I am a tiny bit older (late 20's) I am a lot like her with my music. I probably buy less than 10 CDs a year. I buy vinyl occasionally for some music I really love and about half that is 2nd hand and no more money is getting to the artist. Pretty much if there is an album I want to hear I just download it, I've taken cost out of the equation for just being able to hear an album.

What I do spend a lot of money on is live shows.

EDIT: and of the music I do buy I almost exclusively buy recent releases.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 8:19:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2012 8:20:28 AM PDT
vivazappa says:
My generation "owns" their music because we had better bands during the late 60's and early 70's!!!

Youngsters---enjoy your downloads while they last because when your hard drive crashes you are S.O.L.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 8:32:35 AM PDT
Well unless you back up your data, or use the cloud, or know how to pull it off an ipod, or just download it again...

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 8:57:11 AM PDT
There are certain sounds, such as acoustic guitar, modern snare drums, modern cymbals, vintage analog synthesizers, vocal choirs, classical string sections, classical kettle drum, etc. that will never sound as good even in so-called "lossless" digital downloads as a physical CD, SACD, DVD-A, or vinyl record. In my opinion, jazz music of the 1950's through 1970's fares much better on an ipod or burned CD-R.

The more times you listen to certain types of music, the more it matters. The problem is many people under 40 years old have forgotten how music is supposed to sound.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 9:03:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2012 9:04:00 AM PDT
Everything you just mentioned with the exception of vinyl are digital formats. There is no reason that a digital download cannot be of a greater quality than any of these other digital formats you've mentioned. In fact some artists have already released better than CD quality digital downloads.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 9:03:42 AM PDT
S. Rice says:
Are you trying to justify stealing music by saying that you spend money on live shows?

Come on man, the 2000's are over. Downloading music without compensating the artist sucks! The least you could do is delete your stolen tracks and listen on Spotify. The artist will at least get something. Is $9.99 a month too much for you!?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 9:11:56 AM PDT
Mogwai Injustice: The better quality downloads are fine for SOME types of music. I'm old enough to remember the 1980's when all the record companies swore those first generation CD's were always superior to vinyl in every way.

Trust me when I say that a Beethoven Symphony, a 1960's Bob Dylan album, A Beatles album, or a Crosby Stills & Nash album will NEVER sound it's best on digital download. In 20 years you will know beyond any doubt that I'm right. For less dense music it's fine; for very dense multitracked walls of sound sound separation is an issue. When you listen to music every day for 30 or 40 years your ears become aware of it.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 9:14:42 AM PDT
Emery Would says:
Hey. I get CDs from the library and add/rip them to my iTunes. That's not illegal.

Nor is trading/borrowing CDs from friends. We've all done that, right?

I buy lots of used CDs (there's no record/new CD store within 20 miles of me).

While I question her taste (15 gb of Velvet Underground and Big Star, geesh), I don't have any problem with how she's acquiring her music. It does suprise me that as a "music fan," she nevers gets so fired up by a new song that she feels compelled to rush right out and pay 99 cents for the song for $7 for the album download.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 9:16:52 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
> In fact some artists have already released better than CD quality digital downloads.

Unless the file for each song is 40MB or greater, those downloads are not "better than CD quality". Bit rate is just one part of the equation. MP3 compression is not the same as lossless formats like AIFF and WAV, no matter how high you push the bit rate. Sample rates can easily be greater than CD quality, since CDs are only 44.1kHz and 16-bit, but the file sizes would have be be enormous. Storage space becomes an issue, negating one of the greatest advantages of a digital music library, which is compactness.

Digital formats can work. They just take a lot more resources and storage than the average music fan is willing to accommodate.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 9:19:12 AM PDT
S. Rice says:
Your taxes go to pay for libraries. The CD's and books at your library are not "free".

I can't believe people are still trying to justify stealing music.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 9:19:35 AM PDT
amen!

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 9:28:06 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
> Hey. I get CDs from the library and add/rip them to my iTunes. That's not illegal.

Yes, it is. You're making a copy without permission, without ever having paid the actual base price. That's piracy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 9:30:20 AM PDT
Well if it helps I already have spotify and use it so they are getting "something" even if that something is a pathetically small cut and they'd get many many more times that if I just bought a t-shirt.

Also if I'm to delete everything I've ever downloaded do I also have to delete anything I've ever bought 2nd hand or got from a friend seeing as nobody associated with the artist or label ever saw that money?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 9:38:42 AM PDT
Yeah, the file sizes do become a bit of a hassle and most portable devices don't support the file formats they use. But he said it will NEVER be better and I just wanted to point out that in some (albiet rare) cases he is already wrong.

I hope that as download speeds and available storage space continue to quickly increase will will soon be at the point where the common digital format will equal or surpass CDs. Actually as streaming becomes more common we might not even need the large hard drives in many cases just better and faster internet.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Music forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  34
Initial post:  Jun 21, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 29, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions