New album out by October??
- Thread starter gibbo
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
People that dont pay for the entertainment that they get only try to justify it to themselves because they know they are doing something wrong. If you dont like it enough to pay for it you shouldnt need to have it at all. But as I said previously the majority of people wont pay for something if they can get it for free no matter what the product is. Greed is really what it comes down to, the law is very grey in this area regarding digital content but really all it comes down to is a sophistocated form of stealing.
If the content is not available through the artist such as bootlegs and unreleased material that is one thing, and I have no problem with people downloading those files, but in the end it should be the artist/manufacturer/writter that controls the access to the product that they put their time into.
People are greedy thats all it comes down to, this is why currency was invented in the first place to make products and services worth something, and if the product is available through the artist, whether it be on their website or at the music shop, people should be paying the price that is set out to pay and if they dont think its worth that price thats fine, they should not have it at all.
There is many people in music that are getting hammered by this "revolution", the music industry as a whole is only about 50 percent of what it was as far as the number of people it is able to employ as it was 10 years ago, their have been massive layoffs and cuts of support staff.
But why should we care its just music right? Well you should take a good hard look at what you are doing when you download illegally, music, movies, software, documents and everything else that is available without paying for it, this is severly handicapping many industries.
The generalization of rockstars that are bathing in money is just that a generalization that rarely exists these days and wont exist in 10 years if things continue the way they are.
If the content is not available through the artist such as bootlegs and unreleased material that is one thing, and I have no problem with people downloading those files, but in the end it should be the artist/manufacturer/writter that controls the access to the product that they put their time into.
People are greedy thats all it comes down to, this is why currency was invented in the first place to make products and services worth something, and if the product is available through the artist, whether it be on their website or at the music shop, people should be paying the price that is set out to pay and if they dont think its worth that price thats fine, they should not have it at all.
There is many people in music that are getting hammered by this "revolution", the music industry as a whole is only about 50 percent of what it was as far as the number of people it is able to employ as it was 10 years ago, their have been massive layoffs and cuts of support staff.
But why should we care its just music right? Well you should take a good hard look at what you are doing when you download illegally, music, movies, software, documents and everything else that is available without paying for it, this is severly handicapping many industries.
The generalization of rockstars that are bathing in money is just that a generalization that rarely exists these days and wont exist in 10 years if things continue the way they are.
monkeyskin
Refugee
This was a jumping off point to start the discussion. That's the ideal. I think in the past 5 years I've paid for maybe 3 albums, one of which was on an actual CD. I don't mind paying 99 cents for individual songs I like.
Oh I'm sure he lives mainly off of sales royalties from his albums as well as licensing royalties from his songs being in movies/ads/whatever. My point is, did he do more work for that additional money to roll in? He doesn't have to re-record the song every time it gets used in a movie. So there's payment with no corresponding work. This gets to the heart of my problem with intellectual property. Selling 10 songs is the same amount of work as selling a million. You don't have to print any actual discs or anything. They're just files. So the literal work, as in, is completely divorced from the payment, which I find wrong. Otherwise, I could go to work on Tuesday and do a great job and expect to be paid for years, because hey, I did some great work on Tuesday.
Chill Mike D, is it fair to say that you're just a bit sore at the fact that while you have to go to work all week like the rest of us to make ends meet, popular musicians reap far greater monetary rewards for a few months work? I know royalties aren't the only point you've raised in this thread but you have mentioned numerous times how musicians should tour more if they want more money.
Do you expect actors to make films for free and if they want more money they should all do theatre work for months on end. I mean some of them get paid MILLIONS for a few months work and then go on to reap a percentage of the gross profit from box office revenue. I'm pretty sure they don't attend every screening and re-enact out their roles every time.
I download quite a lot, but go on to buy the albums I enjoy listening to and go to gigs when I can. If it weren't for downloading I'd have missed a fair few too through not knowing them. But to me the idea that albums should be free and one is entitled to have them without paying is very immoral, no matter how it's justified, or how many sour grapes you may have at their lucrative royalty deals.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Isn't technology really to blame for this free downloading mess? If we hadn't figured out a way to burn music into computer files, this wouldn't have happened. 
It is not possible to make copies of LPs, is it? We should just go back to records and ban all other media! 
It is not possible to make copies of LPs, is it? We should just go back to records and ban all other media! 
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
yes, I'm with Zoots, lets smash all the computers!
That'll solve all our problems!!
That'll solve all our problems!!
powerhour24
ONE love, blood, life
Exactly, I said more than 3 or 4 times, meaning there are still CDs bigger than those two.
Chill Mike D
War Child
You keep coming back to this, but you keep ignoring the hundreds of people that work in the recording process that don't tour, studio musicians, those that need backing in order to start touring... With your logic new bands would never be able to tour.
So PAY them out of the money you make on tour. On the flip side, studios charge ridiculous rates for their time. It's a kind of usury all around, and it gets passed on to people that just want to listen to some damn songs. I value music a lot. That doesn't mean I feel obliged to be a part of making anyone wealthy. File sharing is a great method of consumers forcing the cost of music closer to its true and fair value. People are willing to pay a buck for a song. But don't package one catchy song in a whole album of insipid shit that ultimately forces a person to pay for eleven things while they only wanted one. I'll pay a buck for a song. That's fine. But don't act like the musician somehow has to do more work for more people to buy the song. No one is "stealing" from them. This is simply the nature of electronic information. Copying something is vastly different from making a new thing, and the difference should be reflected in the monetary impact of a thing.
An original painting costs a lot because you're buying some that can't be reproduced. I can make 10 copies of a song file or 10,000 copies, and there is no difference in the amount of work to me.
rihannsu
Refugee
I feel the same way, but was kind of scared of bringing it up till now lest I be thought rude...the posts of yours that I've read are usually well thought-out and articulated with good research, but I'm guessing a lot of people skip through them because of the large paragraphs. You'll get a lot more mileage by breaking it up.
Geez, what an anal prick I am...
No offense taken. Thank you both for the comments. I guess my problem is that since I read books more than I write I'm more used to long paragraphs. I can appreciate your request and will try to break things up more but I guess I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum from my own pet peeve of people that triple space between almost every sentence. I started using computers online back in the days of Compuserve with a 300 baud modem, so lots of space was definitely NOT something you wanted.
Was that too long?
Dana
rihannsu
Refugee
Only partly. An original painting that is not recognized as a significant creative work is not all that expensive. There are a shit load of original paintings at art festivals all over that don't cost all that much. Just being original isn't the point it is the creativity behind it that makes it valuable. The way you envision things if a songwriter doesn't or can't perform his own work in order to be paid for it then it has no value beyond the time and/or cost of recording it once or otherwise transmitting it to someone who can then perform it ad nauseum and get paid for their performance ever time. Again, you apparently see little or no value in the creative process at all.
Dana
Chill Mike D
War Child
I'm not "sore" that I have to work, and I am comfortable with my standard of living from my income. I do expect there to be a direct correlation between work done and the income that the work can possibly bring in.
This is where electronic information fails. As I've pointed out, there is a complete disconnect in the comparison of a song file to a corporeal product. If I want to sell 1 million t-shirts, I have to make 1 million t-shirts from scratch. With a song, you don't even have to print CDs anymore. Selling a million songs is no more work in the physical sense than selling 10 songs. Therefore it should be obvious that the production-consumption model that works for so many things in the world is not appropriate for electronic information. A new, different model is more appropriate, and the incredible ease of file sharing is a tool that consumers can use to force content producers to agree to a more reasonable model. Would any of you really rather go back to having no choice but to physically go to a store and buy and entire album if you wanted music? I for one am happy that I don't have to leave my home and can buy only the songs I actually like for $1 per song. That's reasonable. Would you rather go back to only being able to watch a given TV show or movie by physically going to a store and renting or buying a disc/tape? I for one vastly prefer to stay at home and either pay $3to pipe the movie directly into my cable box on demand or else watch things on the internet for free thanks to the fact that advertisers paid money to make it free.
The Radiohead album really is a perfect example. I'm willing enough to listen to Radiohead to download their album if it's free and easily available, but I'm certainly not interested enough to go to a store and spend money on them. Direct access to the files is infinitely preferable.
Some of you are right, in a sense. Everyone does want everything for free. That's true. And every media content producer wants more money for their product than it is truly worth. It turns out that right now in the case of music, the advantage is on the side of the consumer, and this is really never a bad thing.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Hope you're willing to pay more for concerts...
Really
doesn't seem like it.:slaphead: A little research would help you not make such bad arguments. The percentage of wealthy musicians vs the overall proffesional musicians is small.
Closer to it's true and fair value? Do you even know what you are talking about? So free is it's true and fair value?
Now you are contradicting yourself once again.
Go to any museum and price how much a print cost. Once again you're making a weak argument.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You would really help your argument if you stopped going back and forth from arguing for file sharing and then arguing for iTunes type purchasing...
Chill Mike D
War Child
"Free" is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "way too much." So if a person doesn't make their media "reasonable" -- which in the case of $1 per song I agree with -- then I have no problem with people deciding to get it for free.
I'm well aware of how much prints cost, and I'm well aware that however much they cost they are still nothing like an original and are priced nothing like an original.
monkeyskin
Refugee
OK, so if every band you like decided to stop releasing albums and only ever played live shows would that make you happy? What if the ticket prices went up and they didn't play anywhere near to you so actually hearing the music you like became a rare occurence? For evey band I've been to see, I've listened to their albums way more times and they continue to entertain me. In that sense buying their music is like paying a down payment for future and continued work, like a builder fixing your roof only does the job once but you sure feel the benefits for a lot longer.
I don't agree with the fact that just because something can be acquired for free it immediately ceases to have a monetary value. I do agree that I'm happier being able to obtain music over the net rather than going out to a store. I download and then order off Amazon what I liked.
Also, how many songs that you have downloaded over the past five years have you enjoyed enough to pay $1 for? I'm sure you've downloaded tracks that you like but don't get played on the radio.
Then you talk about watching TV through prepaid cable or online. Well, you said right there you're paying $3 for the cable movie but I'm a little hazy on the legal issues of streaming episodes of Lost online.
Fair enough, I'm all for try before you buy downloading. If you're not a major fan of Radiohead and end up only listening to In Rainbows a couple of times, then I don't see any problem you with saving your money.
I agree with all that too. You can't argue with human / business nature or the current availability of music, but it's down to how people choose to act that's the issue.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
You kids today.
Have you no respect for the past?
Chill Mike D
War Child
You would really help your argument if you stopped going back and forth from arguing for file sharing and then arguing for iTunes type purchasing...
The two options are not mutually exclusive. People downloading things without paying for them whatsoever was the impetus that led to the success of iTunes and 99 cents per song. Downloading something for free has been a very successful method of sending a message to the music industry, namely "start selling this shit for less money or else we won't buy it at all."
CD and album sales are down over the past decade, as everyone knows. But I'd bet my left arm that music consumption has greatly increased since file-sharing and then iTunes came along. All the people that were downloading individual songs from file-sharing networks pretty seamlessly jumped over to iTunes because that was a very reasonable alternative. In general, most people would agree that 99 cents per song is reasonable, and I still say there should be an incentive discount for buying an entire album from iTunes so that you end up paying less than 99 cents per song. Maybe 40 or 50 cents per song.
Cut out the middle man of the record companies -- as Radiohead has done -- and the musicians themselves end up making more money per song sold even though each song is cheaper for the consumer. This is the best model. And as for the loss of the price-inflating middle-man structure of the record labels? If that ever happens I won't be staying up late at night feeling bad about it.
So, free downloading was and still is a successful method of consumers regulating the price of the product they want.
Chill Mike D
War Child
There are plenty of bands that only play live shows and hardly record anything. They seem to make a living. I might see them, I might not. It would be in the interest of the band to make albums sometimes even if they put them out for free, because that is a kind of promotion that might entice someone to go see a band. Concerts are expensive, but they're expensive to put on, and hopefully it's a good show. I have a lot of respect for live performance of any kind, and I understand that it costs money to be able to see live performances. So I fully expect to pay a fair amount for a live show of any kind.
I didn't say that the songs don't have any monetary value, but that free downloading is a viable lever to force producers to lower their prices.
Honestly, I have no idea how much I've spent on music in the past decade. Not a whole lot. But then again I was never a big CD buyer either. I can tell you that I out of the 3500 or so songs on my iPod, I haven't paid for the vast majority of them. This is because I got them either from the internet or they were ripped from the CDs of my family and friends. If I had to retroactively go back and pay for all of those, I would definitely rather just not listen to them.
That $3 payment is a convenience fee that I pay so that I can watch the movie now, and that's fine. If I wanted to wait for it to hit HBO On Demand a month or two later, I would, and sometimes I do. There have been plenty of movies On Demand where I say "I'll watch this, but I'll just wait for it to be free."
vaz02
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
.......................so. Does everyone think October is best case Scenario or worst case ?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
What evidence do you have of this?
Yeah, this is the best model if you're known like Radiohead. You still don't get it, this doesn't work for new bands.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Originally Posted by Chill Mike D
Actually, this occurs in the everyday, everyperson world too.
For example...
You work for Company X. Company X has stock - you might buy some stock, you might be rewarded with stock or you might be rewarded with stock options.
You do your job and all goes well. You get your yearly reviews and raises, maybe a promotion or two. Life goes on.
Suddenly Company X either goes public, or their shares spike up due to market changes or a new product or change within the company, or Company Y buys Company X causing the spike in stock price. Regardless of the cause, you now have access to a good chunk of money (and this could range from thousands to millions of $$ - many "average joes" became millionaires working at Microsoft). In essence you are getting paid for years because of some good work you did on a Tuesday. Heck, you might be getting paid for years because of the success of a project that you had nothing to do with at all!
So yes, royalties are a big part of the market, just as bonuses and stocks are. Musicians don't get stock options - they get royalties.
Precious few artists make music that not only is popular, but stands the test of time and that can be used in movies, trailers or commercials years after it was created. Kudos to those few talented people - they are not the norm. I don't have a problem with them getting royalties.
The download era really boomed because no longer was it easy for a person to spend $1 or less on a little 45 rpm record to get that one song he/she loved on the radio. CD singles became ridiculously expensive and were filled with tons of remixes and songs one didn't care about. I want one song - here's a $1. I don't want 8 remixes of this song so I can pay another $8 for it! So CD singles started to fade away. The only way to get that one song, many times, was to then buy the whole CD! Now one is paying $12-18 for just one song!
Hence people started making and sharing mp3's of single songs. That started the whole downloading movement. Music labels have themselves to blame, as does the RIAA. They acted way too late, with regards to the downloading issue, and were greedy themselves (forcing fans to buy entire CD's for one song and not offering options). Their short-sightedness and obstinance nearly killed the music industry.
Fortunately, iTunes has come in and presented a legal way of getting that one song. And what are record labels doing? Trying to force iTunes to raise the price! Greed once again! For now, iTunes is holding them off, but it's only a matter of time before prices rise. I hope the record labels and the RIAA realize what a bonanza iTunes has been and how iTunes has basically bailed them out!
I'm all for royalties. But I'm also all for technology and a lack of corporate greed. I have no problem paying artists for songs. But I don't want to pay $15 for a single song. This goes back to my stock analogy. If we sell our stock or exercise our stock options, we get our $$ once and that's that. But if we hold onto that stock we may get dividends for years to come. That's the same with royalties. There's proper compensation for our time, effort and investment, but not outright greed.
Actually, this occurs in the everyday, everyperson world too.
For example...
You work for Company X. Company X has stock - you might buy some stock, you might be rewarded with stock or you might be rewarded with stock options.
You do your job and all goes well. You get your yearly reviews and raises, maybe a promotion or two. Life goes on.
Suddenly Company X either goes public, or their shares spike up due to market changes or a new product or change within the company, or Company Y buys Company X causing the spike in stock price. Regardless of the cause, you now have access to a good chunk of money (and this could range from thousands to millions of $$ - many "average joes" became millionaires working at Microsoft). In essence you are getting paid for years because of some good work you did on a Tuesday. Heck, you might be getting paid for years because of the success of a project that you had nothing to do with at all!
So yes, royalties are a big part of the market, just as bonuses and stocks are. Musicians don't get stock options - they get royalties.
Precious few artists make music that not only is popular, but stands the test of time and that can be used in movies, trailers or commercials years after it was created. Kudos to those few talented people - they are not the norm. I don't have a problem with them getting royalties.
The download era really boomed because no longer was it easy for a person to spend $1 or less on a little 45 rpm record to get that one song he/she loved on the radio. CD singles became ridiculously expensive and were filled with tons of remixes and songs one didn't care about. I want one song - here's a $1. I don't want 8 remixes of this song so I can pay another $8 for it! So CD singles started to fade away. The only way to get that one song, many times, was to then buy the whole CD! Now one is paying $12-18 for just one song!
Hence people started making and sharing mp3's of single songs. That started the whole downloading movement. Music labels have themselves to blame, as does the RIAA. They acted way too late, with regards to the downloading issue, and were greedy themselves (forcing fans to buy entire CD's for one song and not offering options). Their short-sightedness and obstinance nearly killed the music industry.
Fortunately, iTunes has come in and presented a legal way of getting that one song. And what are record labels doing? Trying to force iTunes to raise the price! Greed once again! For now, iTunes is holding them off, but it's only a matter of time before prices rise. I hope the record labels and the RIAA realize what a bonanza iTunes has been and how iTunes has basically bailed them out!
I'm all for royalties. But I'm also all for technology and a lack of corporate greed. I have no problem paying artists for songs. But I don't want to pay $15 for a single song. This goes back to my stock analogy. If we sell our stock or exercise our stock options, we get our $$ once and that's that. But if we hold onto that stock we may get dividends for years to come. That's the same with royalties. There's proper compensation for our time, effort and investment, but not outright greed.
Downloading became a big thing when the average speed of Internet connections increased to the point where it became viable. Why arent people downloading BluRay right now only because they are too large at the moment for the bandwidth that is commercially available. While I agree that in a perfect world you should be able to pick out and purchase what songs you want it is important that they are paid for in some tangible way, otherwise all it becomes is steeling. Its hard to put a price on anything that is concidered art though, who really knows what a song is really worth? The worst song in the world though should not be worth nothing. As Fiber connections become more prevelent the downloading of music and movies and software will only become worse not better and people will not pay for it unless their is heavy fines involved in them being caught and the laws are followed up on.
I agree that there is corporate greed out there no doubt about that, there is also consumer greed though, its human nature to want something for nothing, a wolf eat wolf world.
I dont have a solution to the problem though, but what I do know is that record sales in the last 10 years especially are not realistic with who is actually listening to the songs.
U2 would have sold many more albums then they have if downloading wasnt such an easy thing to do, even with the solid fanbase that we all know they have including everybody here.
I bet their is some people on this forum that dont even own all the physical media or digital paid for media....and in the general public it is much worse then that.
I agree that there is corporate greed out there no doubt about that, there is also consumer greed though, its human nature to want something for nothing, a wolf eat wolf world.
I dont have a solution to the problem though, but what I do know is that record sales in the last 10 years especially are not realistic with who is actually listening to the songs.
U2 would have sold many more albums then they have if downloading wasnt such an easy thing to do, even with the solid fanbase that we all know they have including everybody here.
I bet their is some people on this forum that dont even own all the physical media or digital paid for media....and in the general public it is much worse then that.
kingofsorrow
Refugee
so this discussion should be done by the time the albums comes out?
Chill Mike D
War Child
Consumers have spoken en masse and seem to be saying that a song is worth about a dollar. The stratospheric success of iTunes is perfect evidence for this. Technology made it possible for consumers to find new ways to get their product. This new way called into question the old way of pricing the product, so there were a few years of chaos when the music industry didn't know how to handle it (Napster in the late 90s), and then iTunes came around and codified and legitimized the new method for consumers to get their product. iTunes was successful because it was sensitive to the consumers' desire for a completely different pricing scheme, one that was much more fair and favorable to the consumer.
powerhour24
ONE love, blood, life
So...about this potential U2 album that this forum is actually about...
Chill Mike D
War Child
Hopefully it'll be on iTunes in October.
fin
fin
Similar threads
- Locked
