Let's Agree, Illegal Downloads Suck - Part 2

It would've been interesting to see what the effect of modern day consumer electronics that you mentioned would've had in the 50's and the 60's. I don't think it would've been that much different to what's happening these days.

 

It's amazing how the compression used in music like Motown is used to justify the loudness wars.

Most audiophiles would say that original Motown recordings are very listenable. A quick look on the DR database shows that the 1986 CD of 'Motown's Biggest Pop Hits' has an average DR of 12.

The series 'The Complete Motown Singles' though, released between 2004 and 2008 had DRs of 7 or 8 - most audiophiles would say that these CDs are victims of the loudness wars.

Given the passion of youth I don't doubt that there are many even more passionate about music than I am. But how many young people do as I did when I was their age - sat down and spent a few hours doing nothing else than listening to music?

 

Their ADD wouldn't allow it. A hour without their phones and they'd be twitching with withdrawal symptoms.....

 

One of the biggest differences between then and now is that say pre-1975 those who bought lots of albums were a passionate minority. Back then a vinyl record cost maybe about $140 if adjusted to % of income earned. The mass market was singles. So back then, as now, those who build up huge collections and good systems to play them on, are a minority.

So in discussing sound quality and the market for music and then illegal downloads, we need to define which market segment we are talking about.

 

That's what I used to think, but it has become apparent to me over this last year or two that more and more people are getting p***ed off with new CD and download releases and re-releases being too loud and compressed. I'm not just talking about people on this forum, but people on a number of different internet forums, album reviews by the media, comments people have made about an album on Amazon and similar website that sells CDs and downloads, talk on TV shows (on quite a few occasions) plus a couple of people I know personally. Look at the fuss that was made when Metallica released Death Magnetic, and that was 2008.

 

Ultimately, Paul Simon is the artist and since it's his art, it should be his decision as to how and what formats are used to sell his art. There's no justification for anyone illegally downloading music. I don't mean to sound like the guy who created the first thread, he strongly disagreed with me on many issues and I was subsequently banned from the original thread. So no, I'm definitely not funded or endorsed by the RIAA. As for the guy who posted the first thread, who knows?

 

Eddiel, I agree 100% with you. Anyone who accuses me of being funded by the RIAA should note that the guy who wrote the first thread disagreed with me on several issues and I was banned. So no, I'm not on anyone's side except that of what is right and just. This is a critical point where art and morality meet each other face-to-face.

 

I don't know what's in Paul Simon's contract with Sony/Columbia, but it would appear to me that it's primarily Sony/Columbia's decision as to how Simon's art is sold.

 

Believe it or not, your views of 'what is right and just' are not universally accepted. That is why there is a discussion.

 

I still believe that's a vocal, very small minority.

 

Agreed. However, you missed my point. Everyone should be entitled to express their views as long as they are not using vulgar language. It's much easier for people to fight and argue over an issue than it is to work together and develop a solution to the problem. I'm all about weighing the pros and cons and contributing to a solution which would be mutually beneficial to all parties involved.

 

It is a very small vocal minority. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.

 

I'm talking about the original 45's from, you know, back in the old days. And just because today's youth may or may not listen to music in the same way you did does not mean they're wrong, that they appreciate it any less or that they don't get the same enjoyment.

 

If a musical material is downloaded illegally is a choice that makes the user. I personally think that as a "collector", download music is like having "nothing" and my choice is to buy the album that I want in physical format (Lp, Cd or whatever)

However if you have multiple copies of an LP or CD and find something interesting (a direct recording of the original Lp, a master that is not obtainable but at high prices because it is not commercially available) it is not a choice to criticize as others have commented here.

Occasionally someone offers me an album, to listen and share with me in digital format "that is download illegally" and my behavior is always the same; to the recycle bin. Incredible is the amount of viruses, malware and corrupt files that come in them.

 

You are exactly right! I never hear this language out in consumer land. They buy the CD, slap it into whatever player they have, pump up the volume and that's it. For the most part, the word "clipping" doesn't exist in their vocabulary. It certainly is not the reason that they are not buying the CD's.

 

As someone who is in the marketing side of the entertainment industry, the origin of the Loudness Wars is pretty obvious. Labels wanted to find a way of selling music to people who already owned the music, so they coined "remastering" and then needed to have the new version sound different, making it sound better was never really the goal.

 

there was a big ruckus over here, too. But, I get the feeling that people weren't upset over the fact that it was free, just that they either don't like the band, or they don't like Bono. I say, what's the big friggin' deal? If you don't like it, just delete it!

 

I'm not touching this subject with a ten foot pole.

Maybe posting in this thread wasn't the best idea...

 

I had this discussion on another forum. My argument is that it doesn't matter if we protest by not buying. They will just not offer the music at all. The major labels are getting really iffy about issuing reissue and comp CDs anymore. They have no problem putting them on iTunes with their little "Mastered for iTunes" AAC files. So, even if enough people would buy the CD, we're just plain out of luck. The relatively low sales figures just don't justify paying for artwork, liner notes, manufacturing, and distrubution.

 

There really is a select group of people who download because they want better mastering, and they just can't find it any other way. There are those who download because things just aren't available. If it isn't the artist rejecting it, or if there aren't any legal issues, it's just a lack of interest on the label's end. And, let's be honest: it's too often about what the person in charge at the label is interested in, not what they think will sell.

 

If you listen to his "apology", in it, he was reasoning that it was "generosity". What U2 could have done is simply offer the album for free instead of pushing it on those who didn't want it for whatever reason. And, there are people who almost violently hate rock music and will not even try it.

 

The worst of it is that the record people, and the artists, are reading this thread right now, and they still don't "get it". They think we're nuts for suggesting that their customers might want product that actually sounds good, not "loud".

 

The Motown engineers I talked to have assured me that those old Motown 45s were NOT compressed. They did cut them hot, though.

 

It's probably a bad idea to do much preaching about morals. Preaching turn people off.

 

I continue to maintain that if you give the average person a choice between watching moving pictures vs. sitting down and listening to music, moving pictures will win 99% of the time. The golden age of recorded music that so many of us cling to was a historical blip when it was possible to own and play music at our convenience at home, but not to do the same with moving pictures.