Let's Agree, Illegal Downloads Suck - Part 2

They don't complain about the compression, but I do believe that the respond to it.

In the olden days people used to sit down and listen to music - listen without doing anything else. Because you could get so immersed in the music it was valuable - like a good painting.

With highly compressed music the brain turns off if you try to pay attention for a full hour. The mind will wander and you will pick something up to read or play with, and the music will become just background. The music is now just wallpaper - it doesn't have much value.

But things most people pay attention to these days do have value - be it a movie or a computer game.

So IMHO the loudness wars have subconsciously made music far less valuable to the average person.

 

One could argue that if you purchase pre-owned music from another person, that in theory frees up money to purchase other music from somewhere else.

 

I too, have purchased numerous copies of titles that have been my favorites over the years. 45's, vinyl LP's, 4track stereo cartridges, 8track cartridges, some reel to reel tapes, cassettes, and yes CD's. I have absolutely no remorse for buying all of it.

The issue is not that you illegally downloaded a track here and there. What is important to realize is that you want to support an art that you have a passion for and keep it healthy. We have all had those situations where we got the short end of the stick of some product or whatever. We have heard all the stories and yes record companies could do more to he make good some of those issues. As I mentioned in a previous thread, lets contribute to keep recorded music going and strive for better and better products.

 

doesnt matter to me. They ripped me off. At least then. Its possible that they liked it and then bought a CD online.

Impossible to know.

 

Yup, and I prefer not to go into the issue of morals. There are different morals.

 

Downloading sucks! It was totally wrong of U2 to download their new album without asking people first!

JG

 

I was just posing a scenario for further discussion.

 

Why? No one was harmed by it.

 

Nobody died, but there was great anger over this side of the water, about imposing their download on people who didn't want it! And I'm from Ireland (the home of U2)!

JG

 

I don't think compression has one thing to do about it. You are right in that they don't care and think they can get something for free. I will make the accusation that these people are not really into music at all. What are they getting really? A bunch of dubious sounding mp3's saved at whatever bit rates. Completely worthless in my opinion. It's like owning a can of compressed air.

I love my music collection. Its all legal and in really good condition. And I love pulling out various titles when friends are over and putting them on the turntable or CD player and enjoying it. The album jackets are like the poor man's art collection.

These download people are the same folks that would be content with "Pandora" or whatever they can squeeze into their cell phones. It's all background music to them and they could care less on whatever creativity or expertise was required to make it. They are what I consider music "Hoovers".

 

No there was not. The only anger I can see is from the be-grudgers who post on the internet.

 

I am not a candidate for purchasing music this way, but it's their material and they can release it any way they want. The best message to send to them is to not buy it. That is the language they will understand in a hurry.

 

Ironically, yet another blatant reminder that those who constantly make pseudo-hipster, "in the know" claims are really part of the problems they are railing about.

 

So I am a begrudger! In an interview I saw with Bono he even admitted it was a mistake! There are a lot of younger people who weren't happy with U2's music music taking up space on their phones.

Here's an article you might like to read...

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/ne...logises-For-iTunes-Songs-Of-Innocence-Release

JG

 

Where else can i get the latest , more complete or new discovered bootleg from some show taped by a fan , that NO record company will EVER release ?Is it illegal ?Yes.Is it wrong ?No.But wait , there's hope

http://www.daggerrecords.com/story.html

 

That's exactly one of the same reasons I mentioned in my post in Part 1 of this thread (post #484). The record companies know that over compressed and clipped CDs are not popular with a large number of music listeners, but they just refuse to listen to the music buying public. People who upload better versions (such as a vinyl transfer or an earlier CD pressing) of an album do it purely because they think people should have access to better sounding albums. DR ratings and scanned artwork/CD booklets are usually always included as well. iTunes don't include digital artwork very often. These uploaders don't gain financially at all for this... they do it as a labour of love. Pity record companies don't work in a similar way, although I do believe they should be able to make money, just like any other business does.

 

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking. In the scheme of things it's a relatively small number of music listeners that are even aware of what "compression and clipped" means.

 

Exactly, something like 95% of the regular consumers don't even know what clipping is and they would say that it sounds better because it's louder. Does anybody thinks that we would've had the loudness war if it was hurting the CD sellings?

 

What world do you live in? In my world the music industry has been losing market share of the consumers spending over the last few decades.

By producing a product that is just background they have destroyed the value of music.

 

Correlation doesn't necessary mean causation, and then many CD's from the recent years aren't mastered as loud as they were in the past (both remasters and new albums), and yet it doesn't help the CD market.

 

Correlation doesn't equal cause, but as sales are dropping significantly there must be some reasons for this. Though I don't have a study to prove this, I think I'm right in saying almost no-one these days sits down and just listens to music on a good system. Rather music is now background both when out-and-about and at home. If CD (as opposed to mp3) is the quality listening experience, then that market is next to dead.

 

Not sure what 'old days' you're referring to but a lot of popular music has been extremely compressed over the years (Motown, anyone?). Also, I know a good many people who listen to current compressed music and they're no less interested in the music as you or I.

 

More like the introduction of new consumer electronics that didn't exist in the 50s and 60s (video games, VHS and DVD players, cable and satellite TV, smartphones that can play videos, etc.) have destroyed the primacy of the home hi-fi/stereo system as the only home entertainment option the consumer could control (back then, you could play whatever album you wanted whenever you wanted to hear it, but there was no way to record TV or watch pre-recorded video on discs or tapes).

 

Repeating my last post, but, in my opinion, the average person would rather watch a movie or TV show than listen to an album. In the 50s and 60s, it wasn't possible to own a movie for home viewing, but now it is. Therefore the home stereo has lost its primacy in the living room.