Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale
I care because I can guarentee that if we sat down together in the same room and played your faveroite track, first from a purchased CD, and then from an mp3 (say, 192kbps) it would be fairly obvious how degrading the sound of mp3s are. And if not, the differences could be explained, and then you may not be able to stand listening to mp3s again.
The most perfect environment most listen to music in is their cars. So maybe try ripping a faveroite track as a .wav file and then as a 192kbps mp3 into your ipod and give it a listen. The idea being that you will understand the value of purchasing the CD, as .wav file are much too large to transmit over the internet.
And its wonderful you own lots of music. But like gas, it doesnt appear from thin air. A long, hard process goes into making the final product that requires skills that take years of development (hey, just like being a pro hockey player!) and as such its producers must be fairly compensated.
If NHL hockey player's were a dime a dozen you wouldn't be shelling out 50 bucks a ticket to see them play live! If top quality music, musicians, and live performances were a dime a dozen, music would be free and concerts would be given by holograms!
When you do not purchase your music, it makes it's integral worth seem less and the pirates feel even more justified. Just because it is SO EASY TO GET doesnt make it worth any less that any other commodity that requires a life time of commitment to manifest.
Its called ethics, bro. When you download it makes music worthless. If you could download the feeling you get watching Iggy tear it up, you wouldn't think its all that special anymore would you?
|
Digital quality from a raw CD to a 192kbps Mp3 is not that different, even if it were, there are higher bitrates or other non-lossy formats (.ogg) available. In any case, if you are truely that much of an audiophile (as your point of view seems to be), you'll know that CDs themselves are lacking in audio fidelity and you would prefer vinyl to capture the full warmth and range of the original recording (that is, if it wasn't digitally recorded in the first place which almost everything is these days). I have absolutely no real interest in the quality that CD versus digital file quality provides because I don't inherently believe it is substantially relevant. In any case most of the music I care about isn't even readily available on CD in any easily purchased way anyway. I probably own more vinyl (more and more groups are releasing on vinyl again) than CDs.
Most music is made to express the feeling so of the musician and to be listened to, most musicians would rather their music be heard that care about every last dime they receive. Many musicians are waking up to the fact that the internet and shared music is really a way to spread their music to as vast an audience as possible in the easiest manner possible...and then using that popularity then to make money through online album sales or the growing trend which is live venues and concerts.
Musicians should see file sharing and the internet like radio or online radio, a way to have their music heard and a way to enhance their popularity and listener base versus being trapped in a plastic jewel case in a dusty bin at the music store that nobody will ever pick up and nobody will ever hear. Your argument about the long hard process it takes to create music is not relevant in today's day and age. At home production of music with the latest digital technology is easier than ever and I know many musicians and bands that produce their own tracks with nothing more than PC and off-the shelf equipment, instruments, and software and the difference from professional studio outputs is not apparent. As far as the personal development the musician puts into his/her craft, much of it is for themselves as a musician. You give the example of quality musicians and live performanes as being important and that is probably where musicians will make a larger degree of money in the future. Smaller musicians will always have their niche and loyal followings to support their music.
And I don't think ethics really is at the heart of it, it's value and it's subjectivity to everyone personally. Personally I don't see real value in most music purchased and most music produced is not top quality. I can easily download the value of watching Iggy tear it up with an online stream, it makes no difference to me and in fact, makes me feel even better in that I got a bargain versus paying through the nose for the real game at the dome which could potentially leave me dissatisfied. I will pay when I feel it is valuable to me and that how the market works. People pay when they feel that something substantially interests them and proves a value to them. I listen to a lot of music casually, and I will search it out to download, but to me, it has the same intrinsic value as most music I hear on the radio, I'll simply listen to it, but it is not valuable to me. Music that I deeply care about I will purchase and music I truely love I will go to clubs, concerts, venues for, etc. but the truth is, the majority of music that one downloads probably isn't that good anyway or worthwhile to purchase. I fancy myself as a (albeit totally lame) musician myself and I truely value, adore, and appreciate music and muscianship but I don't see the value of most music reflected in the prices charged for a simple recording. I will pay through the nose of a live performance because you get the added value of communual experience and socialization but hardly ever for one static performance recorded onto a CD that is the same everytime you listen to it while sitting by yourself stuck in traffic in your car...unless it's truely from one of my favorite muscians or something rare.