What do you use to buy?

[SRN]

I have never bought anything digitally, as in music or tracks. I much rather prefer to own the physical CD, mostly because I like glaring over my collection at random times and flicking through it, to see all the awesome artwork. I dont know how much royalty or pay a band gets for every bought CD, I could imagine they would make much more on merchandise sold, but I feel good enough when I buy a CD.

A vinyl collection might be of interesting but I dont see the point since I have no means of playing them at all.

EDIT: Proof read for clearification.

Edited October 4, 2008 by bretboy1

[Cactus Drags]

It's ridiculous how little bands make off their own CDs, so I do try and see as many as I can if they're playing, and I hate how gung-ho the industry is over piracy, I know pirating isn't the answer to that, but still. I bought 5 CDs this week, I'm well proud of myself

[lari]

But the music isn't made by the band only. There's studio engineers, people who loan their equipment and studio, session musicians, songwriters/lyricists (if there's cover songs/samples), artists and all involved in making the music as good as it is. Those guys get paid salaries by the label, and the label doesn't hire them unless the record is expected to sell enough to cover the costs. They get nothing if you buy a t-shirt. These people don't deserve to live off of their work? But guys who manufacture t-shirts are okay in your books though, with all the hard work they put in the music?

And don't tell me about Radiohead either - they are a major established band, of course they can afford to do what they want. But do you expect a new, talented, young band to be able to afford a quality record on their own money? Would they be willing to risk their futures and get a huge loan just for studio time and a dream? Probably not. And imagine the hassle of promoting your new album with no contacts, no channels - just a computer, a telephone and a million asses to kiss to get yourself on radio or to any media anywhere so you can actually have someone coming on your tour where you can finally sell your merch. Touring isn't exactly a good business for most bands - especially if you need to fly with a big crew. You need big venues to make it worth your while. A lot of the touring funds come from labels that think touring will indeed promote the band and help sell more copies of the album, so they can call it a wash. You need someone to help the smaller bands. Not everyone is Radiohead from day one.

Nothing against band merch and live shows though. I buy plenty of merch if I like something, but it's a secondary thing for me. I go to concerts a lot too, but I don't consider going to live shows an extra expense, since I usually end up saving money compared to a regular night out - damn those long beer lines at jam-packed venues.

Anyway, yeah, I don't like it how people who know very little talk trash about the music industry just so they can justify illegal downloading, but back on topic - I see a lot of people mentioned vinyl. I like the idea of owning vinyls, but never could imagine myself starting to hunt down all the albums I want on vinyl. Not to mention searching for a player I like. If I was more of an enthusiast that I am already, I probably would get vinyls too though.

[tristy]

If you want a young, upcoming band to actually make money, it's more beneficial for them to be completely independent. Not only do they get more money that way, they can actually do what they like with their own music, as opposed to having record label input on each album. Now, if you want them to get very popular and eventually over-saturate the market, sure, sign with Warner Bros. or Interscope, by all means.

Also, mainly to Cloudy (or anyone else that goes to Hastings), ever bought an album on a whim from the little description tags on the "new releases" rack? I bought the Fleet Foxes debut CD a few months ago due to what the thing compared them to, and the tiny little review from Pitchfork they had on it. I thought it was a pretty cool touch.

EDIT: Oh, and Nine Inch Nails haven't really been a force in mainstream music since the Fragile. By that, I mean they haven't charted very high on the Billboard 100 or whatever, or had singles in heavy rotation on MTV or the radio. But, to put it in some perspective, alot of money was going to Interscope after Nothing closed down, but now that they're independent, they made around $750,000 alone from the $300 ultra-deluxe edition of Ghosts I-IV. Of course, ALL of that money didn't go to Trent, but a good chunk of it did.

+1 for independents.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Tristy

[Cactus Drags]

But the music isn't made by the band only. There's studio engineers, people who loan their equipment and studio, session musicians, songwriters/lyricists (if there's cover songs/samples), artists and all involved in making the music as good as it is. Those guys get paid salaries by the label, and the label doesn't hire them unless the record is expected to sell enough to cover the costs. They get nothing if you buy a t-shirt. These people don't deserve to live off of their work? But guys who manufacture t-shirts are okay in your books though, with all the hard work they put in the music?

And don't tell me about Radiohead either - they are a major established band, of course they can afford to do what they want. But do you expect a new, talented, young band to be able to afford a quality record on their own money? Would they be willing to risk their futures and get a huge loan just for studio time and a dream? Probably not. And imagine the hassle of promoting your new album with no contacts, no channels - just a computer, a telephone and a million asses to kiss to get yourself on radio or to any media anywhere so you can actually have someone coming on your tour where you can finally sell your merch. Touring isn't exactly a good business for most bands - especially if you need to fly with a big crew. You need big venues to make it worth your while. A lot of the touring funds come from labels that think touring will indeed promote the band and help sell more copies of the album, so they can call it a wash. You need someone to help the smaller bands. Not everyone is Radiohead from day one.

Nothing against band merch and live shows though. I buy plenty of merch if I like something, but it's a secondary thing for me. I go to concerts a lot too, but I don't consider going to live shows an extra expense, since I usually end up saving money compared to a regular night out - damn those long beer lines at jam-packed venues.

Anyway, yeah, I don't like it how people who know very little talk trash about the music industry just so they can justify illegal downloading, but back on topic - I see a lot of people mentioned vinyl. I like the idea of owning vinyls, but never could imagine myself starting to hunt down all the albums I want on vinyl. Not to mention searching for a player I like. If I was more of an enthusiast that I am already, I probably would get vinyls too though.

Yeah, that's totally what I said, only the band deserve to profit from the CDs, no one else. Fuck off. Of course the periphreary guys deserve to get paid, my gripe is that the guys who write, play and record the music, tour their asses off to promote it etc. etc. get a shitty percentage - I can't remember the actual figure these days, but I'm sure I remember reading it's less than 5-10%.

[Psicosis]

I occasionally buy on iTunes, but only if it's something that's exclusive to iTunes (they have a lot of live sets/"Originals" type things) or if I need to get an album for a review quickly and don't have the time to go to a CD shop.

I much prefer buying the physical CD and ripping to MP3/Flac etc.

[livid]

But the music isn't made by the band only. There's studio engineers, people who loan their equipment and studio, session musicians, songwriters/lyricists (if there's cover songs/samples), artists and all involved in making the music as good as it is. Those guys get paid salaries by the label, and the label doesn't hire them unless the record is expected to sell enough to cover the costs. They get nothing if you buy a t-shirt. These people don't deserve to live off of their work? But guys who manufacture t-shirts are okay in your books though, with all the hard work they put in the music?

And don't tell me about Radiohead either - they are a major established band, of course they can afford to do what they want. But do you expect a new, talented, young band to be able to afford a quality record on their own money? Would they be willing to risk their futures and get a huge loan just for studio time and a dream? Probably not. And imagine the hassle of promoting your new album with no contacts, no channels - just a computer, a telephone and a million asses to kiss to get yourself on radio or to any media anywhere so you can actually have someone coming on your tour where you can finally sell your merch. Touring isn't exactly a good business for most bands - especially if you need to fly with a big crew. You need big venues to make it worth your while. A lot of the touring funds come from labels that think touring will indeed promote the band and help sell more copies of the album, so they can call it a wash. You need someone to help the smaller bands. Not everyone is Radiohead from day one.

Nothing against band merch and live shows though. I buy plenty of merch if I like something, but it's a secondary thing for me. I go to concerts a lot too, but I don't consider going to live shows an extra expense, since I usually end up saving money compared to a regular night out - damn those long beer lines at jam-packed venues.

Anyway, yeah, I don't like it how people who know very little talk trash about the music industry just so they can justify illegal downloading, but back on topic - I see a lot of people mentioned vinyl. I like the idea of owning vinyls, but never could imagine myself starting to hunt down all the albums I want on vinyl. Not to mention searching for a player I like. If I was more of an enthusiast that I am already, I probably would get vinyls too though.

Yeah because you TOTALLY know more than I do about the music business right?

Yeah because I haven't researched what's going on and done papers on it because it's a subject that I think needs to be looked at (not politically of course) but seriously. The reason the music industry is dying isn't because of downloading music it's because the RIAA and their ilk don't change the way music is distributed - they need to embrace the downloading culture rather than shun it because it doesn't pad their wallet. And don't give me that bullshit about the techs either because first of all, most bands have their own roadies and techs that they brought themselves because they know how to work with them. Producers? Independent contractors for the most part. They're like directors, they can go from project to project at different places but they might have a deal with a certain company to do such and such. And artists? Oh yeah, guess what, a majority of the better design work in the world is done by people who freelance.

And with technology today, yes smaller bands CAN make quality records by themselves. For example, did you know that Serj Tankian (not a small name guy but I'm making a point) mixed, made and fine-tuned his entire album on his computer by using a $250 program. So...yeah...

Anyways, I don't think we should get this anymore off-topic than it already is.

[MalaCloudy Black]

Also, mainly to Cloudy (or anyone else that goes to Hastings), ever bought an album on a whim from the little description tags on the "new releases" rack? I bought the Fleet Foxes debut CD a few months ago due to what the thing compared them to, and the tiny little review from Pitchfork they had on it. I thought it was a pretty cool touch.

I'm sure I have, but I can't remember what. I usually shop in the used section. I've seen a bunch of quality albums in that section, and I bought an album of Tchaikovsky songs for less than $5 in the same section. It's wonderful, sometimes you'll find great albums for like $2-3.

[Benji]

I'm not particularly on either side, but I'd like to note, those saying bands get more money being independant, that's quite often a half truth, they get more mainstream exposure more often than not with a major label and thus get more people buying the money, yes they get a lesser percentage, but they also get more people potentially listen to it, not everybody goes online and hunts out music, most just hear it on the radio and go that route. Keep in mind, therefore, that the labels also have to pay for more advertising. If you 'make it' then you generally make more money, if you don't, your label will likely dump you and you can go back to making more money away from a label. There of course exceptions, but at the end of the day it's all down to the band themselves what they do, you could put up albums online for free and make ALL your money from touring and merch if you wanted, that's a choice you have to make as a musician.

I'm not on either side, but it always seems to me that both sides are flawed in their arguments but on the pro piracy side people that you see more of online often seem to be half-informed, the anti piracy side is just as bad, but you don't tend to see many of them online for obvious reasons. [/Trying to be nice about it version of devil's advocate]

Edited October 4, 2008 by British Benjdog

[SRN]

Woah, hey lari, about the t-shirt thing, since I obviously stated that bands make more money on merchandise the on CD's, I had no idea. It was merely a simple guess. But if they do make more money on CD's then merchandise, then yay.