Do you feel any guilt about the cheapness of music these days?

I think I dumbed it down to VBR @240.
So YT converted 240 to 192 I believe that might be the max.
Oops I need to go lower

 

It's the first time I hear music is cheap specially with all the double and triple dipping with new releases fixing the problems of the previous ones. Sometimes I use youtube for sampling and that has only caused me to buy more music because I always find more things I like and I didn't know I like.

 

no -I mean who is this artist

 

Syntax, a band out of the UK had one album a few singles + an EP from a few years ago consisted of Jan Burton and Mike Tournier of Fluke.
Fatal was a joint effort between Jan and Andy Grey (Perfecto remix team with Paul Oakenfold) He also does US tv/movie soundtracks. This album I think was intended for soundtrack use as it never got an official release
Limb to Limb I believe was used in the movie Let Me In.
I'm a huge Syntax fan (Jan Burton) so I was buying up anything related. I came across it about ten years ago.
Andy Gray (musician) - Wikipedia

 

if you register your music correctly then you will get paid from anyone uploading your songs, if you don't you wont.

 

No guilt. What I rather feel is frustration that not every single musical release, film (including every concert film, music video, etc.), television show, book, sporting event (including every past game), visual artwork, etc. is available for streaming.

 

I feel endless guilt. Whenever I listen on YT to anything I haven't bought, I weep in inconsolable penitence, just like I used to punch myself in the face every time I taped my friends' vinyls back in the day.

 

No. Not at all. Most of the music I listen to is old, real old. The artists and their families are so far removed from any financial gain, if they were even involved in the first place, that I have no problem here. The "suits" know the game and the cost of doing business. It's their problem not mine.

I still buy a lot of materiel but I am way more picky and only buy what I love and have heard and particular issues that have great sonics. The days of spending hours at Tower Records and picking up 3 or 4 of the latest albums are long gone in my rear view mirror. I love those memories but I love what we have now... which is the ability to find and listen to an unbelievable amount of music in every genre from all over the world and control your whole catalog with an Ipad!!!!!... I'm still amazed after being able to do this for a while now. It's a great time to be a music lover and an an audiophile.

Regarding new artists... My "responsibility" is to go see live music. And if it moves me... How cool is it to be able to come home and buy the show online!

I just cant understand peoples criticism of today's music world. Although, I suppose the artists might have a hard time with certain aspects... but they have always had a hard time. There is a reason why our parents didn't want us to try to make a living from being in a band... its just about impossible and very few get to do it. That's just a cold hard fact that wining about isn't going to help.

 

Not really. I spend money on the people I like. If anyone wants to see the average price I've paid to see The Rolling Stones (or The Who) over the last 30 years and still call me cheap, then have at it. You'd be more in the right calling me a dumba$$ for the money I've spent

 

No guilt here. I spend a fortune on music and in fact I should be given a discount because I'm obviously paying towards these scroungers who listen on YouTube and Spotify free. I buy on average one album a week and everything I get is a deluxe version or box set. I have yet to see music being 'cheap' because even old albums I buy are expensive. In fact new music is cheaper than old music unless you avoid these newfangled deluxe/archive/boxset things which are all the rage.

 

why are they scroungers?
its strange that a lot of people here think youtube is a dirty place. why not embrace it?

 

I don't feel guilt because I still buy a lot of music. But, as a fan of the album format, I do feel concern that musicians will make less great music if they can't make any decent money off of it.

 

If they are in it just for the money then I doubt they are making great music.

 

Never said "only in it for the money." Where did you get that from?

 

Gillian Welch is right.
And it does not apply just to the music industry but to society as a whole.

Shirts and ties in office buildings were smart enough to pull the Beatles and Bob Dylan into our world along with many other great talents.

But if we were gathered around a campfire discussing this Roland would raise his hand in annoyance and twirl his fingers and say "the world has moved on."

 

I kind of get your point about really old stuff that is still protected by the increase in the length of delaying public domain status. Literature is a good example. Some writers like William Faulkner have been dead for over 50 years so what harm would it do to download a book without paying? Not to him. But someone, even if it is not the family, owns his works right now and maybe that person employs people. At the least he or she uses proceeds from Faulker's book sales (probably miniscule but who knows) to put money in the economy. For that reason I still don't feel comfortable downloading stuff without paying even when the original author or artists has been gone for many years.

 

Whether you mean only for the money or not is irrelevant the point is still the same. Artists will create because they enjoy it not because of money even if they work as waiters. If money is part of the equation then is a money making exercise and not a art.

 

Since I perfer quality over quantity I don't youtube much but here and there. It is a way to see if you like before you buy.

 

It's good enough to determine whether or not it's worth finding a better source. Youtube is a godsend for me.

 

"the sound of the free music on Youtube is crap."

no it isn't. this is a very old and dated view

 

I don't know if you are a fan of classic rock, but there really isn't one major 60s or 70s band that was not at least partially in it for the money and the women (or men). Great art was usually a happy accident.

 

No, it's the right view. It's garbage but let's just disagree and not make this about you tube music.

 

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson

 

Well I hope you are wrong, they all may dream to become rich superstars but most new groups devote a lot of time, effort and their own money to achieve nothing as it'll be only very few that actually make it big. Most have to be content playing in bars and private parties but it doesn't mean they are bad.

 

YouTube streaming is *not* right at all.

Having said that, I've used it many times to sample songs from an unknown artist (to me) before I decide to buy the album. For that, it is quite handy.

But anybody who streams from YouTube instead of paying the few bucks a month for a subscription to a streaming service is a jerk. Even if it isn't much, the artists should get *something* for their work/art.