lonesomexloveus Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Scott, if you get a CD to review in the mail that you REALLY like, do you then go and actually buy a copy of it? (I have no point to prove with this, I'm just curious) It depends on the advance copy. Sometimes, I get full-art copies of albums, so if I really like one of those, I try to buy it on vinyl if it exists in that format. If it's a CD-R or other form of promo (digital is increasing quite a bit these days) and I really dig it, I will go out and buy the CD and/or the vinyl. I'm not an idiot; I know it can look hypocritical for someone who gets all of their music for free to say, "Stop getting your music for free!" But if you've ever been to my house and seen my music room, you know how many tens of thousands of dollars I've spent (and continue to spend) on purchasing music. i'm not sure how what you do differs from what the average person does. both pay nothing for the original music listened to, then both decide whether they like it enough to spend money on the release (be it on vinyl, or on cd). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 It depends on the advance copy. Sometimes, I get full-art copies of albums, so if I really like one of those, I try to buy it on vinyl if it exists in that format. If it's a CD-R or other form of promo (digital is increasing quite a bit these days) and I really dig it, I will go out and buy the CD and/or the vinyl. I'm not an idiot; I know it can look hypocritical for someone who gets all of their music for free to say, "Stop getting your music for free!" But if you've ever been to my house and seen my music room, you know how many tens of thousands of dollars I've spent (and continue to spend) on purchasing music. i'm not sure how what you do differs from what the average person does. both pay nothing for the original music listened to, then both decide whether they like it enough to spend money on the release (be it on vinyl, or on cd). Because artist intend for Scott, or other reviewers to listen to their stuff early and they explicitly do not intend for their music to be given away for free to the audience at large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesomexloveus Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 i'm not sure how what you do differs from what the average person does. both pay nothing for the original music listened to, then both decide whether they like it enough to spend money on the release (be it on vinyl, or on cd). Because artist intend for Scott, or other reviewers to listen to their stuff early and they explicitly do not intend for their music to be given away for free to the audience at large. so i have to be a privileged reviewer in order to be able to listen to it for free, then decide whether to buy it or not. i guess it just irks me a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Because artist intend for Scott, or other reviewers to listen to their stuff early and they explicitly do not intend for their music to be given away for free to the audience at large. so i have to be a privileged reviewer in order to be able to listen to it for free, then decide whether to buy it or not. i guess it just irks me a little. All jobs have perks that not everyone is, or should be, entitled to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedavidescapeplan Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I know that downloading is wrong, but as I said I do it. There are times that I feel it is completely justified. For example, I PO'd the new Alkaline Trio album as soon as it was available (and I bought the three pack no less). I downloaded it as soon as I saw it leaked and I felt completely justified in doing so since I already bought the album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Because artist intend for Scott, or other reviewers to listen to their stuff early and they explicitly do not intend for their music to be given away for free to the audience at large. so i have to be a privileged reviewer in order to be able to listen to it for free, then decide whether to buy it or not. i guess it just irks me a little. Why would that irk you even a little? Do you see people running out of five star restaurants without paying because the New York Times restaurant critic didn't have to pay a bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 intend for Scott, or other reviewers to listen to their stuff early and they explicitly do not intend for their music to be given away for free to the audience at large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesomexloveus Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 so i have to be a privileged reviewer in order to be able to listen to it for free, then decide whether to buy it or not. i guess it just irks me a little. Why would that irk you even a little? Do you see people running out of five star restaurants without paying because the New York Times restaurant critic didn't have to pay a bill? i get the analogy that you're trying to use here, but i don't understand why you're questioning why i am irked by something or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Because artist intend for Scott, or other reviewers to listen to their stuff early and they explicitly do not intend for their music to be given away for free to the audience at large. so i have to be a privileged reviewer in order to be able to listen to it for free, then decide whether to buy it or not. i guess it just irks me a little. I believe bands would benefit from allowing people to listen to their music but that's their decision and its yours not to buy it. Most big(ger) bands certainly are getting in to the swing of allowing people to listen early via all kinds of streams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Why would that irk you even a little? Do you see people running out of five star restaurants without paying because the New York Times restaurant critic didn't have to pay a bill? i get the analogy that you're trying to use here, but i don't understand why you're questioning why i am irked by something or not. I'm questioning why you'd be irked that people who review music for a living receive a lot of music for free because it seems like a silly thing to get irked about. I'd also question people if they were irritated that ambulances get to pass through red lights, or that people in wheelchairs get to skip the lines at Six Flags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesomexloveus Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 so i have to be a privileged reviewer in order to be able to listen to it for free, then decide whether to buy it or not. i guess it just irks me a little. I believe bands would benefit from allowing people to listen to their music but that's their decision and its yours not to buy it. Most big(ger) bands certainly are getting in to the swing of allowing people to listen early via all kinds of streams. streaming seems to be a win-win for both the band/label and the consumer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I believe bands would benefit from allowing people to listen to their music but that's their decision and its yours not to buy it. Most big(ger) bands certainly are getting in to the swing of allowing people to listen early via all kinds of streams. streaming seems to be a win-win for both the band/label and the consumer. Agreed, except I doubt it puts a huge dent in piracy because I'm not thinking too many people are honest when they say the listen before they buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesomexloveus Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I'm questioning why you'd be irked that people who review music for a living receive a lot of music for free because it seems like a silly thing to get irked about. i'm sure that even you are irked by silly things from time to time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benc Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I'm questioning why you'd be irked that people who review music for a living receive a lot of music for free because it seems like a silly thing to get irked about. i'm sure that even you are irked by silly things from time to time. Yup, and if people said that it's silly then I'd agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesomexloveus Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 i'm sure that even you are irked by silly things from time to time. Yup, and if people said that it's silly then I'd agree. i never disagreed! and i also don't think that people in wheelchairs should be riding the great majority of rides at six flags to begin with. (in reference to your above post.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I like music. I do not like the music industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 someone before said about monetizing waffles/what/oink... that wouldn't be hard at all. $15/month fee to use, the site tracks downloads on everything on there, so it'd be simple to total up downloads per month then divide that amongst the total amount of money. if there was a way to do a site like that with that sort of selection and quality and no RIAA involvement, i'd be all over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 support bands, pay for shows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 someone before said about monetizing waffles/what/oink... that wouldn't be hard at all. $15/month fee to use, the site tracks downloads on everything on there, so it'd be simple to total up downloads per month then divide that amongst the total amount of money. if there was a way to do a site like that with that sort of selection and quality and no RIAA involvement, i'd be all over it. You said right there though, "no RIAA involvement." Without record label involvement you can't monetize and they're too stupid to take advantage of a place like Waffles or What. They think they'll sell less music overall, which is far from the truth. Personally, I want an "all-access" pass for an entire entertainment company. I want to pay a flat fee per month to watch movies and listen to music they release. Any of it; all of it; when I want it on my TV. I don't need to own DVDs or CDs. I don't want any kind of physical product taking up space. Just a little box on my TV. That's what I want the most. And I'd pay $50-$100 per month for something like that. It would replace cable basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbypuckett Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 I would love to replace cable, sports are the only thing stopping me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I would love to replace cable, sports are the only thing stopping me. Same here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I know, for the NHL at least, you can get a ton of access to games online. I'm pretty sure the same is true of baseball. Does the NBA have that arrangement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davezer Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 MLB.com has a pretty good deal for watching games online, it'll cost you, but you can watch every game from your favorite team. Living in the midwest and being a Mets fan, I go that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbypuckett Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 I know, for the NHL at least, you can get a ton of access to games online. I'm pretty sure the same is true of baseball. Does the NBA have that arrangement? I don't think it's 100% reliable right now for hockey. I know I've read some complaints on some hockey forums before. Since I'm looking towards buying a new HTPC soon I'll look more into it next season. I signed a 1yr contract for cable at the beginning of the season so I'll have a choice by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbypuckett Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 More fuel for the fire: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.