Dubstepforum.com

b&w wrote:

Jennifer wrote:I am not letting my emotions get the better of me, but you're not really making so much sense.
Sure, sharing can be great.. Doing what radiohead did can be great.. but ultimately that is up to the producer as to whether they'd like to share their material or not. I understand that one way or another it all ends up on the net anyway, but downloading an album that you know is unreleased is plain wrong. downloading something you know an artist didn't put on the net is wrong, too.


An artists may or may not benefit from it.. reality is, they don't make a fortune as it's going right now. I don't believe people are honest enough to pay for what they're getting all the time.

p.s. it's impossible to yell with my keyboard

I'm making perfect sense. If you could prove to me that sharing an artists music ahead of a "release date" hurts said artists I would shut my mouth immediately. Problem is you can't. And I'll bet you even wonder if it possibly helps the artist.

I'm curious Jennifer, do you produce music?

No, I don't, but I have many friends that do. Read seckle's post because I think he explains it perfectly.

b&w wrote:

Jennifer wrote:I am not letting my emotions get the better of me, but you're not really making so much sense.
Sure, sharing can be great.. Doing what radiohead did can be great.. but ultimately that is up to the producer as to whether they'd like to share their material or not. I understand that one way or another it all ends up on the net anyway, but downloading an album that you know is unreleased is plain wrong. downloading something you know an artist didn't put on the net is wrong, too.


An artists may or may not benefit from it.. reality is, they don't make a fortune as it's going right now. I don't believe people are honest enough to pay for what they're getting all the time.

p.s. it's impossible to yell with my keyboard

I'm making perfect sense. If you could prove to me that sharing an artists music ahead of a "release date" hurts said artists I would shut my mouth immediately. Problem is you can't. And I'll bet you even wonder if it possibly helps the artist.

I'm curious Jennifer, do you produce music?

Sharing a whole album's worth of work could mean one less sale from the person who has downloaded the piece of music. Multiply that by hundreds and thousands.

One does not need to produce music to see this.

Please try to not make this personal.

b&w wrote: They in turn buy releases by the artists they like and support local dubstep club nights. What price are you going to put on that?

In a perfect world, maybe.

why are you denying reality? I have several friends who have spent plenty of $$$ on dubstep releases and club nights because I turned them onto it via mix CDs that I made myself. As far as I'm concerned I've been doing more than my fair share of spreading the word and promoting the music. If you can't grasp the logic here I can't help you grasp it at this point.

P.S. I'm not trying to make this personal. I'm just interested in understanding where people stand with regard to the changing landscape of the music "business".

And thank you Jennifer for not yelling at me

b&w wrote:why are you denying reality? I have several friends who have spent plenty of $$$ on dubstep releases and club nights because I turned them onto it via mix CDs that I made myself. As far as I'm concerned I've been doing more than my fair share of spreading the word and promoting the music. If you can't grasp the logic here I can't help you grasp it at this point.

making mixes to promote music and sharing whole pieces of work are 2 different things..

you are still using your false analogy i.e...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges

selector.dub.u wrote:

b&w wrote:why are you denying reality? I have several friends who have spent plenty of $$$ on dubstep releases and club nights because I turned them onto it via mix CDs that I made myself. As far as I'm concerned I've been doing more than my fair share of spreading the word and promoting the music. If you can't grasp the logic here I can't help you grasp it at this point.

making mixes to promote music and sharing whole pieces of work are 2 different things..

you are still using your false analogy i.e...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges

Thank you. 100%

seckle wrote:

selector.dub.u wrote:

b&w wrote:why are you denying reality? I have several friends who have spent plenty of $$$ on dubstep releases and club nights because I turned them onto it via mix CDs that I made myself. As far as I'm concerned I've been doing more than my fair share of spreading the word and promoting the music. If you can't grasp the logic here I can't help you grasp it at this point.

making mixes to promote music and sharing whole pieces of work are 2 different things..

you are still using your false analogy i.e...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges

Thank you. 100%

yes.

So, apples and oranges eh? How do y'all feel about people who buy used CDs? The artist certainly doesn't see any of that money, and there are plenty of promo copies sitting in those bins...

b&w wrote:So, apples and oranges eh? How do y'all feel about people who buy used CDs? The artist certainly doesn't see any of that money, and there are plenty of promo copies sitting in those bins...

How many Dubstep Label cd promo's are sitting in those bins? I bet you couldn't find 3 in your whole state. This is a small genre, not some record conglomerate.

You're going nowhere fast with this train of thought.

b&w wrote:So, apples and oranges eh? How do y'all feel about people who buy used CDs? The artist certainly doesn't see any of that money, and there are plenty of promo copies sitting in those bins...

oh come on now. this is getting tedious.

you seem to be an intelligent person-you can see the point that is being made here- i am sure.

the kode 9 mix you referred to has small portions of whole pieces which evoke the desire on the part of the consumer that appreciates what they hear to want to own the music they are hearing.

Sharing a whole release before it is even in the stores and announcing it to the world is removing the incentive for some people to buy it. Not to mention it disrupts the artist in introducing their work in a way they see fit.

Two very different things. one the artist approves of the other the artist usually doesn't.
^^^^^^^^^
This is reality.


As far as the alternative music marketing and distribution models you brought up I think they are alternatives to the current system that bare watching and further research as to their effectiveness. There are a lot of variables involved here.

I don't want to write an essay on this right now so forgive me if my thoughts are disjointed.

Seckle, if I'm not doing well with my reasoning, why are you answering my questions with more questions rather than just answering them?

selector.dub.u wrote:Sharing a whole release before it is even in the stores and announcing it to the world is removing the incentive for some people to buy it.

How do you know this? What if it builds a buzz and actually gets more people to buy it? Why does this possibility not occur to people?

b&w wrote:

selector.dub.u wrote:Sharing a whole release before it is even in the stores and announcing it to the world is removing the incentive for some people to buy it.

How do you know this? What if it builds a buzz and actually gets more people to buy it? Why does this possibility not occur to people?

Well you are asking me to prove a hypothetical- which is impossible.
All I can do is deduce from examining human nature, that- given the choice between getting something for A) free and or B) paying for it. Most human beings will choose option A.

The possibility does occur to people.
The one thing i see as being even remotely beneficial to artist's whose work is shared without their consent and without renumeration is that they could garner a wider audience and the possibility of more bookings.

once again.. this is all hypothetical

b&w wrote:Seckle, if I'm not doing well with my reasoning, why are you answering my questions with more questions rather than just answering them?

Is there some sort of underlying guidebook to having a discussion with you? If I don't feel that your questions merit answers, then I'm not going to draw a map for you, so it feels better.

selector.dub.u wrote:The one thing i see as being even remotely beneficial to artist's whose work is shared without their consent and without renumeration is that they could garner a wider audience and the possibility of more bookings.

once again.. this is all hypothetical

Thank you for at least engaging in this dialogue rather than just ignoring questions. And yes, this is all hypothetical.

I will restate that I am a (small time) producer of music, and I truly believe that I benefit from having my music shared freely.

I realize many people disagree with me, and that's ok, we can agree to disagree right?

seckle wrote:Is there some sort of underlying guidebook to having a discussion with you? If I don't feel that your questions merit answers, then I'm not going to draw a map for you, so it feels better.

No guidebook man, however, engaging in a true dialogue entails responding to basic questions, otherwise you're just talking at me and may as well not be posting at all.

b&w wrote:

selector.dub.u wrote:The one thing i see as being even remotely beneficial to artist's whose work is shared without their consent and without renumeration is that they could garner a wider audience and the possibility of more bookings.

once again.. this is all hypothetical

Thank you for at least engaging in this dialogue rather than just ignoring questions. And yes, this all hypothetical.

I will restate that I am a (small time) producer of music, and I truly believe that I benefit from having my music shared freely.

I realize many people disagree with me, and that's ok, we can agree to disagree right?

sure. you are free to share your own music and have your beliefs about whether it is beneficial or not to you. but please do not assume that all artists have the same philosophy as you and want their music shared before they release it.

I am guessing you would probably get angry if someone hacked your computer, removed some work you have done that has not been completed and shared it on a blog.

Would that be the case?

selector.dub.u wrote:I am guessing you would probably get angry if someone hacked your computer, removed some work you have done that has not been completed and shared it on a blog.

Would that be the case?

Tough question. On the one hand I would be totally flattered and I would imagine that this would mean that these cats really wanted to cop my music when it was actually completed.

On the other hand...hacking my computer for it? That's a bit extreme eh? And perhaps I wouldn't want the tracks out prematurely.

Very good question though...looking at the extreme end of things...

b&w wrote:

selector.dub.u wrote:I am guessing you would probably get angry if someone hacked your computer, removed some work you have done that has not been completed and shared it on a blog.

Would that be the case?

Tough question. On the one hand I would be totally flattered and I would imagine that this would mean that these cats really wanted to cop my music when it was actually completed.

On the other hand...hacking my computer for it? That's a bit extreme eh? And perhaps I wouldn't want the tracks out prematurely.

Very good question though...looking at the extreme end of things...

well the analogy is really not that far off to the one you were positing earlier.

so for the sake of discussion- lets just forget about money and the music business for a second and examine artistic integrity a little . as an artist in most cases presentation and timing are 2 very important factors in maintaining artistic integrity and for the the vision of the artist to be realized .

do you think this is true?