joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
The artist's opinion on illegal downloading is also irrelevant.
None of you better say a damn thing about it on this forum, or I legitimately will report Interference to Jagjaguwar. No damn impressions until there's a legit way to hear it. I'm more serious than not. If there's one band and one label I will violently fight for, it's this one.
I can't believe how unmoderated this part of the forum has become, even mentioning leaks is ultra taboo on the other music forums I visit, as it really doesn't look good to straight up allow massive sharing and communication about leaks all over your music website. I also can't believe how naive many of you are by straight up posting your emails on a forum so everyone can see you sharing it and admitting you've downloaded it illegally.
4 albums makes up for it? So would you steal a Samsung camera because you own a Samsung television? I've likely spent considerably more money on music, cds, music dvds, and concert tickets than anyone else in this thread (or possibly in this section of the forum) so should it be ok for me to walk into Virgin Megastore and claim all their inventory as my own and then ravage the store manager's wife?
I realize the comparisons are over the top and outlandish, but I still think they're valid enough (just because you've paid for something before doesn't entitle any of us to anything else, whether related or unrelated). There is no justification for illegal downloading, the means don't meat the ends no matter how you try to tell yourself in your head that they do. (I spent quite a few years myself trying to make justifications. Having eaten at McDonalds countless times previously does not mean that I should be able to walk in and take any food I want now and decide later if I want to pay them something or not. No sort of market works like that, ever will work like that, or ever should work like that) Stealing is stealing is stealing is stealing. It's wrong, and nothing changes that. Everyone continues to do it because for now they can get away with it and have likely grown callous to the fact that it's completely wrong and they wouldn't do it if it was "stealing an album from a music store". There's no difference except it's easy, they don't fear punishment for now, and "no one knows". If anything, that makes it more sad and disturbing (it's great to know that if people have the choice between right and wrong, the only thing stopping them from doing wrong is the fact that others might know about it or they'll get in trouble). Anyways, rant over. I realize I make this over and over on this forum to completely deaf ears, but it's something I feel extremely strongly about and will certainly argue for more in the future (so please forgive my future soapboxing).
Audiogalaxy was a great music networking site, as good as anything else I've seen. Last FM was the first thing I've felt that has filled some of the gap it left. To label it solely as a "site that illegally traded music" is a bit narrow of a viewpoint, but you're correct that that is also certainly something that went on there (and probably why most were there). And yes, he did a lot of music editorials, lists, and such there. I think you can still find links to them on OR's site. Cool stuff.
The artist's opinion on illegal downloading is also irrelevant.
In the broader spectrum of downloading music, I feel like downloading opens the door to hundreds of artists that I would not be able to hear otherwise. So perhaps the initial action of downloading is wrong, but it leads to a whole lot of good for both me and the artist.
My (and most labels, artists) argument to that would be that there are so many samples you can check out legally all over the internet. No one needs to hear an entire album to decide if they'll like it or not (and even then, how many people actually do end up buying EVERY album they end up liking and listening to a great deal that they've downloaded?). Between artists' websites, labels' sites, youtube, myspace, iTunes, etc, you can almost always hear a massive amount of what's on the album completely legally before buying it. Maybe 5 or 6 years ago I would have conceded on that argument, but at this point there are multiple other options.
Despite any of that, an inability to experience something before purchasing it does not in any ways warrant or justify stealing it. Similarly, just because one of the many many many people involved in making and distributing a piece of music doesn't entirely mind of you download their work, doesn't mean that that validates stealing from all of the other people involved (band members, producers, labels, manufacturers, local retailers, etc).
Anyways, Okkervil River, guys. I recently came across this and thought it was kinda neat:
YouTube - Ukulélé Session Okkervil River
However, if there are so many other ways you can hear an album online, then why does it matter if i chose to download. If instead I just listened to it off of myspace or watched youtube videos of all the songs is that really any worse? Downloading simply brings the album altogether in one convenient source, while using youtube, myspace and last.fm is simply spreading it out. If I go on to buy the album in the end I don't think downloading is worse.
YouTube - Okkervil River "Unless it's Kicks"
I was supposed to go to that in-store but my girlfriend at the time got sick that morning and couldn't go.
In retrospect, I should have just gone alone.
I saw them at Lolla yesterday, they came off as a bit nervous to be in such of a large audience. I think this helped them give a great performance, but I it seems like it also scared them off from playing any songs from The Stand Ins.
Hopefully they'll do the "we'll send you the mp3's months early if you pre-order it" thing again like they did with Stage Names.
Good thing I have The Stand Ins to look forward to, otherwise I'd have just killed myself and left a note that said I did it because of how mean got_edge is to me.