Downloading

Not necesary, for many artist the experience to play live in front of crowds it's simply indescriptible.

Music and Money have been linked for thousands of years - troubadours and minstrels played for money, food & lodging; composers where sponsored by the Church and by the local ruler (Chief, King, Emperor etc) and he who paid the Piper... To be a professional composer or musician you have to be paid for your skill - no professional wants to turn amateur.

Edited by Dean - February 17 2009 at 14:12

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Alberto Muñoz wrote: Not necesary, for many artist the experience to play live in front of crowds it's simply indescriptible. Of course. I'm just saying that there are also artists who are doing well without extensive touring.

Djam Karet comes to mind. I've never seen them live as they don't really tour.  Wouldn't really know them from jack had it not been for an internet introduction.

The T wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The Pessimist wrote: But if the artist is more concerned about their albums selling than people just enjoying their music, then that is also immoral.   Why? The artist has to eat, the artist has a family, most of them except the most successful have a mortgage to pay, they have to care for the money, because that's their work   I will join Ivan in asking why? That idea is ridiculous! The artist can do whatever he/she wants with the product of his work. Anyway, you're defending a completely egotistical cause (artists pleased with people listening to their music... complete ego-gratification...USELESS... ) over a more human cause (the artist wanting to FEED his family) So you say is inmoral to try to earn a living, but is moral to try to have everyone listen to your music therefore making you famous and boosting your ego? I can't help but feel quite repelled towards such a notion.... Well it does depend on how famous you actually are. If you are an underground band, then record sales will be important to you. But underground bands tend not to have many people downloading their music, simply because they are not well known enough and the fans of the band will buy their CDs because they are in the knowledge that they are making a difference. On the other hand, you have such artists as Robbie Williams and Britney Spears, who are pretty much rolling in too much. They are not going to go hungry because 1000 people downloaded their latest album instead of buying it. Now if those artists want to piss and moan about that matter, then I see that as immoral, because they are clearly not in it for the music, and treating it like a business instead of what it actually is - art.   Personally, if I were a popular artist, I wouldn't care less who shared my files, just so long as it's making me famous and selling out my concerts   So my Death-fan friend, what you want is millions of people to boost your ego, you don't care whether you eat or not. Well, that's fine. It is your right. But many others would prefer the other way around. It depends on what matters to you the most. There are bands out there that play for the music (quite a lot of them progressive) and are the way they are because they are in it for the music, not the money. If they were in it for the money, then they would write simple pop songs, a la Mcfly and the likes. However, those that are in it for the money are playing music for the wrong reasons in my eyes. They give me the impression that if they were to sell no records for the rest of their life, then they would never pick up another instrument again. That, to me, is playing music for the wrong reasons, and literally leeching off the industry at the expense of any musical creativity involved. That, of course, is just my view on things.   Even doctors, that most human of all professions (MUCH more human than art) need to charge for their services.... Yes, many are crooks that would choose to earn millions over saving a poor man's life... But we agree that even doctors who can save lifes have to roght to make money off their work... why can't artists, whose work is, at the end of the day, completely irrelevant to the survival of the species? Don't know how doctors collerate with musicians exactly, so I will ignore that bit.   That's very easy to say, i don't know in what you work, but...Would you allow people to take 50%, 60% or 70% of your salary to be famous? Honestly i wouldn't, I have to berak my balls working all day and nobody will put a finger on my money, and I'm sure you wouldn't allow either.   Living on concerts..Ha ha, maybe Yes, King Crimson, and some more, but excellent artists as Anton Roolaart, Lunar Dunes, Factor Burzaco, etc live of their albums because they are not famous enough (even when they  deserve to be) to live on their small concerts.   Fame doesn't pay the bills.   In Perú 98% of the music is ILLEGAL, yes 98 from each 100 albums are sold in the black market in CDR's or illegaly downloaded...is this fair, moral or legal?   Same in my country of origin, Ecuador, where it's even semi-legal now to sell piracy!!!!!???   All the music stores except one have closed, there are no Video Rental business, because you can buy a brand new DVD in 2 dollars in every corner and keep it for ever, but thousands  of persons were left without work because of this.   Exactly the same. There was even a Tower records franchise. Even that one collapsed against piracy.   An illegal store is closed at 10 am and at 1 PM they is open again with the site all covered in CDs an DVDs, but a legal store is closed and never opens again and 20 or 30 families cease to have money to eat.   Where is the morality of that? Oh I guess what's moral is the artist self-fulfilling his fame-desire and egomania....   Iván   .

Rocktopus wrote: Of course our favorite bands deserve to do their art fulltime. Are you nuts? Its possible to create great stuff as an amateur, but being a professional artist is obviously better for the quality and depth. Come on,  we should support our favorite bands as much as we are able. Buy their albums and go to their concerts. We can't expect them to be geniuses in their spare time, as a hobby (altough that happens).  Of course most bands would like to make a living out of their music. Doesn't mean you're not into art for the right reasons.

^^ My favorite part was where we get to take from those who have too much already.  I'm working on my list now and I need to know how much YOU have.  You may have too much.

Edited by Trademark - February 17 2009 at 16:33

Robin Hood is the government 

Edited by Pnoom! - February 17 2009 at 16:57

Pnoom! wrote: Robin Hood is the government

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that too much fuss is being made over it than it deserves. Most people have the same views as all of you, and chose to buy CDs instead of downloading them illegally. But I honestly don't think it's making a notable difference to the industry, as you don't see bands going bust because of it. Someone please correct me on this, but artists are just as rich now as they were before computers, which is why it should be legalised. Nothing ever gets done about it anyway, and there will always be methods of piracy around, so why try and stop it? Just let the thieves be thieves and the people with a conscience buy CDs still, because at the end of the day there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. It's been like this since the dawn of mankind, so I don't see why people piss and moan about something that's an innevitable part of society.

Alex, you're dreaming - the real world isn't like that - there is no descrimination between rich and poor artists by the downloaders - in their eyes all artists are rich. The reality is only the top 2 or 3% make millions, a few make a comfortable living and the rest struggle. Most signed artisits in the Prog world have day jobs to subsidise their "hobby". Dream Theater have sold something like 12 million albums in 20 years - at 5% royalty the band has earnt $6million total - or $300K per year, or $60K per band member per year... that's before they've paid the roadies, techs, the management and all the other staff they need to employ to keep the band going - so the reality is probably closer to $30K per year - that's less than the USA average wage. Now convert those numbers over to a less successful band...