Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11985
Posted: March 02 2013 at 18:22
I saw a fantastic concert by Steven last night. Tickets were only £22.50 and I'm guessing there were maybe 1000 people there (a full house, seated, at the Manchester Academy). With the stellar band he had on stage needing wages he must have been lucky to break even, though the merch desk was doing a roaring trade,
To me, Wilson is the Peter Gabriel of the new millennium, just without the hit singles. He's out there doing exactly what he wants and on his terms. Anyone who "only" owns a digital copy of his music is a mug.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: March 02 2013 at 18:03
moshkito wrote:
One last thing here on this and bootlegs. Two people that in the late 60's owned the boots were The Grateful Dead and Bob Dylan ... and it was the word of mouth of these concerts and how different they were from the albums themselves, that helped make these folks endearing to at least 2 generations of fans ... and the GF gave away even more than that ... and none of them ever said anything about that. Metallica tried to kill Napster, and instead what they did was start up the digital revolution ... of which you are also a part!
There is a whole world of difference between bootlegs and pirated copies of studio albums which makes any comparison between Metallica and the Grateful Dead totally meaningless (apart from them both being a bunch of tired old wannabe hippies).
moshkito wrote:
It is your work and I respect that ... but sometimes, your child wants to leave home and make its own love and life ... and who are you to stop them?
Are you being serious here Pedro? This album "left home" before it was "born" (ffs!) ... surely you must allow the "parent" some respect in allowing them to decide how, when, why and if.
Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Posted: March 02 2013 at 17:41
Too much testosterone, also misunderstandings happen and this is ok too. Now lets all cheer up and hug each other. Here's an good example of a misunderstanding
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18890
Posted: March 02 2013 at 17:23
Dear Steven
I can appreciate how you feel when some of your work shows up out there ... and was basically stolen before the time that you had meant for it to be released. It's not fun, and if you did that to a woman, the child would be dead.
Maybe, that's a good idea ... time to close the book on something that was "bugged" and not appreciated, or perhaps it was just plain given away accidentally, by someone that left a copy handing around and it was copied/stolen during his sleep.
You know ... I learned about this ... on a Luis Bunuel film ... I think it was "Los Olvidados" ... and the priest keeps giving a child some coins to get something or other tand the kid always manages to lose it or not get what is necessary ... and another priest asks him ... why do you do that, when you know he is not gonna come back with the goods? ... because he will know the difference one day!
Later in my life, I had a screenplay stolen. One of the problems is, that it is ME ... and about me ... and my inner mind and vision, and as such, anyone trying to make a movie of it, will screw it up and make a big mess of it ... and my copy, the original is at the Library of Congress, and you can not steal that! Rewrite it all you want ... but you will never know the main themes, ideas, loves, hates, and what all that visualization was all about.
There is a "psychic" gift, that you have not heard about, btw ... and it applis to you, since you have been ... LUCKY ... in your life ... and it goes like this ... when you think you just have it, and you're done, give it away, and you will be rewarded ten-fold!
Now, I'm not one for the religious bruhaha, but if there is one thing I've come to appreciate, is a state of grace and appreciation by many people, and you have that. It will be hard to meet the total amount of the bills ... well, hell's bells and balls ... I owe money on my car, one credit card, and that's it ... I still manage to find a few dollars to buy "The Incident", and unlike many of your fans, I have stood up for it ... I have not yet been able to purchase your solo albums, and I would love to have a couple of Richard's solo albums! My picture of him at the International Festival in SF 1999, still is one of my fondest memories of what a moment in music is about, and how someone cared so much to make things sound good, despite the worst of circumstances!
Sometimes, you do not get paid for that extra effort. I find it even SADDER still that someone took advantage of your hospitality and took something out ... but honestly ... write your "Not Now John" and let it go. Your memo will not be appreciated by everyone.
One last thing here on this and bootlegs. Two people that in the late 60's owned the boots were The Grateful Dead and Bob Dylan ... and it was the word of mouth of these concerts and how different they were from the albums themselves, that helped make these folks endearing to at least 2 generations of fans ... and the GF gave away even more than that ... and none of them ever said anything about that. Metallica tried to kill Napster, and instead what they did was start up the digital revolution ... of which you are also a part!
It is your work and I respect that ... but sometimes, your child wants to leave home and make its own love and life ... and who are you to stop them?
Take care ... and please, do not become a Mr. Fripp and punish the world for your own lack of inner perspective on your own richness. There aren't very many people that would gladly house you, just to make sure you could have a roof over your head! And they think the world of your music! As do I.
Pedro
Edited by moshkito - March 02 2013 at 17:25
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: March 02 2013 at 13:49
Dayvenkirq wrote:
^ I think there is some sort of confusion between us, but since we've resorted to banging our heads against the wall, then let's not continue this conversation.
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: March 02 2013 at 13:48
^ I think there is some sort of confusion between us, but since we've resorted to banging our heads against the wall, then let's not continue this conversation.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: March 02 2013 at 13:23
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Dean wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
As per the text in bold: You don't believe that there are some people who are exceptions to that?
Then those people are wholly irrelevant because they are not music fans.
I happen to know one of those irrelevant people who is a music fan, been stealing for years but not very long ago his conscience felt some influence, so he started buying the real things.
Then your friend is not one of of those irrelevant people.
That person fails the test of being one of those "people who illegally download music will never buy music anyway" because he has bought music.
You began this by asking if there were exceptions to my assertion that "the people who download 1000s of albums illegally would buy some CDs if the illegal route was not available" - your friend is not one of those exceptions because he is buying the real thing even though an illegal route does exist.
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: March 02 2013 at 13:16
Dean wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
As per the text in bold: You don't believe that there are some people who are exceptions to that?
Then those people are wholly irrelevant because they are not music fans.
I happen to know one of those irrelevant people who is a music fan, been stealing for years but not very long ago his conscience felt some influence, so he started buying the real things, ... albeit he had access to file sharing services all along.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: March 02 2013 at 12:51
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Dean wrote:
The argument that people who illegally download music will never buy music anyway is a perfectly valid statement but it is often used fallaciously. An artist cannot tally-up the number of downloads and count them as an exact number of lost sales, but they can use them as an indication of some degree of lost sales - if the downloads did not exist then they would sell more CDs - the people who download 1000s of albums illegally would buy some CDs if the illegal route was not available.
I've read your whole post, though the italicized part didn't make sense to me ... at least not yet.
A statement can be true but if it is used as justification for something that is not directly related then its use is a fallacy of logic, often an informal fallacy, but a fallacy none the less.
For example "people who illegally download music will never buy music anyway so their downloads harm no one". is a fallacy of logic.
Dayvenkirq wrote:
As per the text in bold: You don't believe that there are some people who are exceptions to that?
Then those people are wholly irrelevant because they are not music fans.
Sorry, but before you jump in with the standard response to that - I don't buy "I can't afford it" whinging and whining that predominates these arguments - if you cannot afford music then you are not entitled to it. Period.
If you can afford a laptop PC, an mp3 music player, headphones and use a broadband connection then you are not destitute.
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: March 02 2013 at 10:36
Dean wrote:
The argument that people who illegally download music will never buy music anyway is a perfectly valid statement but it is often used fallaciously. An artist cannot tally-up the number of downloads and count them as an exact number of lost sales, but they can use them as an indication of some degree of lost sales - if the downloads did not exist then they would sell more CDs - the people who download 1000s of albums illegally would buy some CDs if the illegal route was not available.
I've read your whole post, though the italicized part didn't make sense to me ... at least not yet.
As per the text in bold: You don't believe that there are some people who are exceptions to that?
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: March 02 2013 at 07:22
NotAProghead wrote:
^ Again agree with you, Kati.
I'm sure most people illegally uploading music "feel an urge or need to spread their emotions". I can hardly imagine how someone can share music that he/she hates.
As a result artists are robbed and promoted at the same time.
P2P and filesharing makes money for the people who provide the service and/or the software, (through advertising, donations and contributions), and they encourage people to upload files for sharing by providing incentives, even if that incentive is simply better download speeds for those who provide more uploads (for example the ratio of seeds to leaches in torrents). By this method uploaders can and will share music they don't like so they can download music they do like. None of these methods are illegal as a service - I was using Megaupload to legally share my own copyrighted music, the BBC used a legal bittorrent system to distribute their legally owned content in the early days of iPlayer, but they do encourage illegal uploading by virtue of providing the service.
The argument that people who illegally download music will never buy music anyway is a perfectly valid statement but it is often used fallaciously. An artist cannot tally-up the number of downloads and count them as an exact number of lost sales, but they can use them as an indication of some degree of lost sales - if the downloads did not exist then they would sell more CDs - the people who download 1000s of albums illegally would buy some CDs if the illegal route was not available.
Joined: January 15 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2673
Posted: March 01 2013 at 18:03
Dean wrote:
Sumdeus wrote:
aah, some more honest and sincere observations, lovely!
Here's another: Your less than convincing display of umbrage is like the stroppy pout of a four year-old kid with their hand stuck in a cookie jar.
I said your justifications for illegal downloading were pathetic and extremely silly excuses because that is what they are - I'll not line them up and shoot them down one by one because others' have already done that, suffice to say that their stance is the same as mine so feel free to accuse me of being on a high horse like you did with Karl, but while you're down there looking up at us, fetch a bucket and shovel because you're knee-deep in horse manure.
However, your "Library" example did make me genuinely laugh out loud - that is the daftest analogy I've seen on this subject for a while now, unless of course your bookshelves are groaning from the weight of 10,000 stolen library books that you failed to return to the library under the legal lending-contract you signed them out under - I would expect the late return fines for those would buy a lot of CDs.
When mommy catches junior with his hand stuck in the cookie jar she takes it away from him and puts it on a high shelf out of his reach. When junior wants a cookie he now has to ask mommy very nicely, and instead of junior filling his pockets with cookies she hands him just one (and only if he's been a very good boy).
Roger asked why the record companies haven't used technology to put the cookie jar out of reach, and they are. It's called Cloud Storage and they are busily working away on selling us this new cookie jar as the thing we really want more than anything in the whole world ever. This cannot happen overnight, they have to socially engineer it so we adopt this new cookie jar willingly and completely. It started with ebooks, and now it's happening with software (apps and OSs) - not only do we not have physical copies of our software, we don't own or control the installation and updating of that software - it is streamed direct to our hardware and can be removed just as easily - and there is nothing we can do about it because we bought into the idea. And music will go the same way - we will store our music in the new cookie jar and merrily use it every day and before you know it they won't be selling CDs anymore, the pressing plants that make them by the million will all close down. Everything will be "download" that you don't actually download anymore - it just gets shuffled from virtual store to virtual personal cookie jar in the Cloud - this file that you once downloaded will never touch your PC. So when you want to listen to the music you have paid for 'mommy' will stream it from cloud cookie jar onto our PCs and music players (and only if you've been very good).
Sounds like science fiction? Not any more it doesn't.
I was having the most amazing day in the world until I read this.
Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Posted: March 01 2013 at 15:51
rushfan4 wrote:
You just had to know that Captain Hook was a Prog Fan.
hahahahaha!! Rushfan4, I read your comment and now saw the pic haahahaha he is an odd one out hahaha to funny your words emphasizing looking at this cartoon looolllllll
Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Posted: March 01 2013 at 15:38
NotAProghead wrote:
^ Again agree with you, Kati.
I'm sure most people illegally uploading music "feel an urge or need to spread their emotions". I can hardly imagine how someone can share music that he/she hates.
As a result artists are robbed and promoted at the same time.
, once a band is
I am so happy you understand my point of view too, NotAProghead. Piracy exists, too many available horrid turrent sites, the positive side for new bands is knowing that they did make a mark in the industry enough to make some kind of a mark to be worthwhile (bad obviously in terms of no revenue but in terms of input as taken seriously mostly yes).
To new bands I doubt in terms of mathematical percentage, it has no effect. Artist promoted by big corporations on the other-hand do suffer more from it because they pay a lot for advertising, promo's etc.plus they have sponsor who sign exclusive deals with them, little known bands do not have that pressure although they need to atleast recover the money they spent on their album I believe they can benefit much more with free publicity especially via social network.
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 8077
Posted: March 01 2013 at 15:20
^ Again agree with you, Kati.
I'm sure most people illegally uploading music "feel an urge or need to spread their emotions". I can hardly imagine how someone can share music that he/she hates.
As a result artists are robbed and promoted at the same time.
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Steven Wilson begging in Facebook
Topic Options
Kati wrote:
funny 
Are you being serious here Pedro? This album "left home" before it was "born" (ffs!) ... surely you must allow the "parent" some respect in allowing them to decide how, when, why and if.
Here's an good example of a misunderstanding 
