How do you support the band/ artists you are a fan of, Cred Forums?
I am not sure of the current situation when it comes to music and money. But I am fully encouraged to support the bands I am fan of to show them how much I love their music, if say going to their concerts is not an option, how else do you do it?
Is buying albums (physical, google play and so on) good enough? Most money goes to the record lables, right?
Other urls found in this thread:
agriculture.vic.gov.au
metalsucks.net
tonedeaf.com.au
techdirt.com
twitter.com
first and foremost you keep bitching and asking about the new NIN (and "other stuff, too") they promised for 2016 on twitter.
you buy the record and go to see them live when/if they tour, and maybe buy a couple of shirts if you're still a teenager, that's pretty much it.
I buy their music and sometimes go to concerts. I don't like merch. You don't have an obligation to go out of your way to support artists, they provide a product or a service and you pay for it.
I go to their concerts if/when they come to Sydney, I try to buy their work on vinyl if I really like it, otherwise I guess streaming and stuff is supporting them
I don't really consciously think "wow I am supporting them by doing this!" I just do it cause I like it
I don't believe that art should have a price.
>giving a dancing monkey your money
ishygdrdt
Spread and share their music, buy their music, merchandise and concerts. That's pretty much it.
Objectively correct
if they come around I'll always go and see them
if they have decent t shirts and other merch I'll buy some
I have never and will never buy a digital album, but I might get a CD or record for sentiment. haven't actually bought a CD in ages, and I'm a bit wary of vinyl these days because most new albums tend not to be mastered any differently to CD.
if I buy an album now I expect a decent package. I'm not paying money for a shitty jewel case containing the exact same songs in the same quality I could get from rutracker or spotify.
the album is dying (or dead) as a legitimate means of income. I can pirate albums but I can't pirate merch or shows. I respect anyone stubborn enough to still pay for every album, but it feels like a waste to me when I could get it for free or on spotify in seconds
I actually think an underrated scummy thing is fake merch. sites like redbubble where you can get a t shirt with a band's logo on it and they don't get a single penny from it.
Why do parents always give kids dumbass haircuts?
I really don't get this. Yes, you can easily pirate albums, but it's literally the one thing you will enjoy on a daily basis or at least for many many hours. You don't pay for the physical disk or for the little printed booklet inside, you pay for the music itself.
right, but I'm going to enjoy it on a daily basis for hours on end whether I pay for it or not
if I buy a t shirt or go to a show, it may have limited use, but I'm still getting something
music to me doesn't have a monetary value in that way. it's abstract. physical items and entrance to a physical space do have objective value
>You don't pay for the physical disk or for the little printed booklet inside
speak for yourself. I love getting deluxe or special edition albums with more stuff inside, or vinyl with a nice gatefold
I always write them a message in Facebook how much I love them. Sometimes they write back
>right, but I'm going to enjoy it on a daily basis for hours on end whether I pay for it or not
I just don't get this kind of logic, here is something you like and seriously enjoy. You get serious value out of it too. But because you get away with it you decide not to pay for it?
>..entrance to a physical space do have objective value
With an album you're basically paying the sound engineer, the band members, renting the studio, etc. All the things that made it possible to listen to that music right now. Pretty sure that has objective value as well.
If you're stupid enough to work for free you deserve everything you worked for which is nothing.
>But because you get away with it you decide not to pay for it?
Yes. It's not just "getting away with it" either, I'm talking about legal methods like streaming as well
>With an album you're basically paying the sound engineer, the band members, renting the studio, etc
Good point, but in practice it doesn't quite work like that. Bands tour their albums to make money back too. You could argue the album works as promotion for tours. If you look at a lot of bands' websites these days they actually encourage you to go to Spotify as much or more than they encourage you to buy
Oh I don't have an issue with normal streaming services that license the music and compensate the musicians. I personally just don't like streaming my music.
>Most money goes to the record lables, right?
Reminder that the record labels give the bands an advance, so they literally have ALREADY been paid before the album was even recorded.
Except that art costs money to create. So objectively it DOES have a price.
>music doesn't have a monetary value in that way. it's abstract
This is incorrect though.
Everything has a price, you are just not willing to admit it.
(to me)
Not relevant.
it's very relevant
How so?
the thread is about how you (in this case me) support bands. my take on the value of what they offer is very relevant to answering that question
Oh OK.
Just so you realize you are wrong.
>Just so you realize you are wrong.
not really understanding this non sequitur
What do you not understand? You thinking the sky is orange "to you" doesn't make it not blue.
What I didn't understand was the wording of your sentence and how it followed logically from mine.
>You thinking the sky is orange "to you" doesn't make it not blue.
False dichotomy. The sky is blue, there's no way to change that. If an album is sold for $10, I can still get it for free. My perception of its value is therefore extremely relevant, because it dictates whether I choose to pay.
>I am not sure of the current situation when it comes to music and money.
all music is free what do you not understand about that
>What I didn't understand was the wording of your sentence and how it followed logically from mine.
Because your perception is (willfully?) ignorant of reality. Let me show you:
>If an album is sold for $10, I can still get it for free
The fact that you can get it for free doesn't change the fact that there is inherent value in the sound itself, with costs thousands upon thousands of dollars to create. The artist paid money to write, rehearse, record, mix, master and press the music. The actual physical entity of a release is only one possible manifestation of the money invested into the music (as quantified by the mastering and pressing stage of the aforementioned costs list), but the music itself is a manifestation of all stages.
Your logic works if you think music just magically happens out of nothing. Which is fine, it's OK if you believe that. But I should just be aware that you are wrong.
>Everything has a price, you are just not willing to admit it.
FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT.
I absolutely hate all these "hurr art doesn't have a price, it should be free, entitled millennials."
>The fact that you can get it for free doesn't change the fact that there is inherent value in the sound itself, with costs thousands upon thousands of dollars to create.
I can eat thousands and thousands of dollars worth of caviar, that doesn't mean the giant turd I shit out afterwards has any inherent value.
Try again.
No.
You implied that because something "costs thousands upon thousands of dollars to create" then it's inherently worth thousands upon thousands of dollars. If I create a turd with thousands of dollars worth of caviar you literally just claimed that turd is also worth thousands of dollars by extension.
But it's not because you're wrong.
False dichotomy. Food and music are inherently different because was can only be consumed once, while music can be consumed over and over.
Try again.
>Food and music are inherently different because was can only be consumed once, while music can be consumed over and over.
lol, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're discussing here.
If I create a shitty album with thousands upon thousands of dollars (or millions and millions, see Chinese Democracy) that doesn't make the music more valuable by extension which is what you implied.
You're an idiot and you've now been proven wrong.
>which has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're discussing here.
Which is why the analogy is a false dichotomy. Why bring it up in the first place? Another example of wilful ignorance?
>If I create a shitty album with thousands upon thousands of dollars (or millions and millions, see Chinese Democracy) that doesn't make the music more valuable by extension which is what you implied
"shitty" (read: if I like it or not) is relative to the listener and is subjective and thus relevant. The inherent value of the art (read: what the actual cost in making the music) is not relative at all and is objective.
If it costs you thousands to make, that's what it costs you. If it costs you that much, why would you give it away for free? Wouldn't you want to recoup your costs so you can continue making shitty music?
We're not talking about inherent value, we're talking about value to me.
But if you want to go down that rabbit hole, you should know that labels pay artists advances to create albums, and recuperate that money not only through album sales, but through streaming services, merch sales and ticket sales. The album is already paid for by the label, being the important part.
>But I should just be aware that you are wrong.
What?
>We're not talking about inherent value, we're talking about value to me.
See
Again, that's a non-sequitur.
>If it costs you thousands to make, that's what it costs you.
lol, it's cute you don't know what "inherent" or "value" means though.
Cost and value are not the same thing. Creators and consumers are also not the same thing. Maybe an understanding of the difference would make these arguments easier for you to digest
"Oh OK" is a non sequitur?
in·her·ent
inˈhirənt,inˈherənt/
adjective
adjective: inherent
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
val·ue
ˈvalyo͞o/
verb
verb: value; 3rd person present: values; past tense: valued; past participle: valued; gerund or present participle: valuing
1.
estimate the monetary worth of (something).
>chinese-democracy-now-only-slightly-more-expensive-than-a-roll-of-toilet-paper/
Not relevant. See this guy He understands that costs and value are not the same thing. He's on my side.
>existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
lol, you just refuted your own argument.
Not really. The cost to create art is a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. How can you not understand this?
Yes, I get it. You're merely "pretending" to be retarded. You're just so smart, making everyone look so stupid with their replies.
Anyway. We're talking about the inherent value of the art itself (your original argument before you attempted to move the goalposts), not the cost to create it. The cost to create it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the end product.
You're boring me now though, you need to step your game up.
Putting money into recording an album doesn't mean the album is worth the amount of money put into it.
Ultimately it's an investment to create a consumer product, and like many investments, it doesn't always pan out or become profitable.
>maybe buy a couple of shirts if you're still a teenager
Its not just about wanting things to be free, even if you realise they have a value, that's understandable, but that literally everything can be valued and everything is indeed valued. There are even lists who value human life in money according to different hospitals, insurance companies, etc.
>but that literally everything can be valued and everything is indeed valued.
Of course it is, and it's not even just capitalism or taxes, it's reality. Living costs energy, everything costs energy or means to obtain energy in some way, which is often underlined in a financial sense.
>Anyway. We're talking about the inherent value of the art itself (your original argument before you attempted to move the goalposts), not the cost to create it. The cost to create it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the end product.
The inherent value of the art = cost to create
Art should not have a price. But objects needed to make it do have, and so do people that use those. What are you like 7?
>The inherent value of the art = cost to create
Nope.
lol, you so got your ass handed to you in this thread.
>nope
Nice argument, I really got my ass handed to me!
Yep, you sure did!
How so?
lol, enjoy your very last (you).
That's fine, you have yet to post an argument.
value =/= cost.
>support
>buying
>music and money
music is free if musicians wanted money they should have gotten real jobs
>How do you support the band/ artists you are a fan of, Cred Forums?
tonedeaf.com.au
>ways-to-support-your-favourite-bands-when-youre-broke
lmao
>music is free
Not to the musician, no.
for the musician yes. he placed no value on his labor and did it for free
>and did it for free
What about the cost for gear? For gas money to rehearsal space? The rehearsal space itself? Paying session musicians? Paying for studio? Paying engineers to mix and master? Pressing plant to press the record?
All that costs money and is not free.
the musician made the determination that all that was valueless when he decided to make free music
No but the music is for sale. It is not free.
today musicians know that all music is free which makes it valueless. deciding to utilize your time talent and money to make free music is a choice albeit a stupid one
>today musicians
What about all the pre-internet musicians? "today's musicians" are in the minority of all the the history of music.
pre internet musicians also know that all music is free which makes it valueless
How so? The music was for sale.
i don't see what's wrong with that
>was
exactly. now it is valueless
What about music that is not on the internet?
what about it?
It's not free. Disproves your notion that all music is free
no sorry a piece of plastic designed to deliver information is not music
It contains music.
a container is not music
however, isn't the advance used to record the album, and the band 1. has to earn it back before they get anything from their sales so it's not really pay and 2. of whatever sales come after that, they get only a fraction
no?
you can choose to support the musician if you think their work has value, to encourage them to make more (possibly as a job as *real* as any other if enough people agree)
>today musicians know that all music is free which makes it valueless.
not live music, for example.
nor any music for which someone is willing to pay money, even if we only talk about monetary value which is somewhat a strange thing to do on Cred Forums
>deciding to utilize your time talent and money to make free music is a choice albeit a stupid one
depends on whether you value the music more than the money, though. if you don't value money much, it would be stupid to chase it rather than something you value more.
>you can choose to support
or you can choose free
>for which someone is willing to pay money
>willing
or you could choose free
>or you can choose free
yes. but the user was asking how to best support the artists he or she likes so as to help them continue making music. to say you can get the music for free doesn't answer the question.
if enough people choose to support a group, the group can even do it for a "real job" which is nice for everyone.
it's up to you to choose how much value, monetary or otherwise, to give something.
>19 posters
>83 replies
lol, I like how you were defeated, gave up, and tried to start up again after & (still me btw), and now you're all the way back to square one. lmao, what a weak-minded faggot.
Love letter? Ok, love letter.
Seriously though, I had fun running you into the ground in this thread over and over again, but now I'm beyond bored.
Anyway, I'm sure long after I'm gone you'll keep on desperately replying in your pathetic DOA thread where you got your ass handed to you multiple times by me.
And on that note: come on by /gg/ for another healthy helpin' of debate ass whoopin' anytime! Tell em ol' Froosh sent cha!
Nite nite, dumbass. Enjoy the rest of your sad, lonely ride to the inevitable 404.
i don't know what you are talking about or who you are
this is my first post, sorry if i entered the conversation and seemed like someone else i'd like to hear a proper argument though.
i'm just confused now
Don't be too upset, I do this to spergs on Cred Forums all the time. It's how I entertain myself at work to pass the time.
Maybe next time I'll even let you say my name.
Luckily I am talking about the music, not the container. You were the one talking about the container here
>however, isn't the advance used to record the album
No, the label pays for the recording of the album
>1. has to earn it back before they get anything from their sales
That's fine, because they were already paid. The label is essentially a bank for the artist
>2. of whatever sales come after that, they get only a fraction
It depends on the record contract, which the artist willingly signed.
>buy their shit (alba, tickets, murtch, etc)
>see their shows
>share their facebook stata
>get the word out
there's nothing else we can do.
>or you could choose free
That doesn't change the fact there is inherent value to the music.
>5 replies later
>20 posters
>88 replies
C'mon now, lil' buddy.
You want Froosh to apply some ointment?
lol, just show Daddy where it hurts.
You can buy their music too.
i mentioned that user
Nice just making sure.
i don't get it
Awwwwwww did someone get butthurt in /gg/ once?
>still 20 posters
>97 replies
lol
>No, the label pays for the recording of the album
i had read something to the contrary before; googling quickly found this:
techdirt.com
according to it, recording (as well as promoting) costs are recouped from their sales
>It depends on the record contract, which the artist willingly signed.
yes, but the question wasn't an ethical one (i think) but one about how to best support the artist
artists get little if anything from sales so it makes sense to ask if there is a better way to support them
is this a meme i haven't heard before or is user losing it?
>recording (as well as promoting) costs are recouped from their sales
So? Again, the band isn't paying for it. The label is. They should get their money back.
>yes, but the question wasn't an ethical one (i think) but one about how to best support the artist
By helping the artist out of their contractual obligation, to pay off the debt they racked up?
>artists get little if anything from sales
Incorrect. They were already paid in ADVANCE
>still 20 posters
>101 replies
Eh, your samefagging is probably more autism than meme to be honest.
It's still no less hilarious though.
why would we samefag a conversation with each other? how many posters are supposed to be in a thread, anyway?
>why would we samefag a conversation with each other?
I don't know, why did you*?
(*I don't know if you can tell but I really like posting out of my John folder after a wicked savage but plungin' troll)
...
>(*I don't know if you can tell but I really like posting out of my John folder after a wicked savage but plungin' troll)
Looks like he was trolling you.
>six minutes in MS paint
Too slow, family. Step your paint game up.
>a troll within a troll
Oh shit, bruh... Mom's gonna freak.
>mfw still 20 posters
>and now 106 replies
>Too slow, family. Step your paint game up.
Sorry I was also cooking dinner for the kids.
Yea, I bet your wife's son was probably gettin' really hungry.
>mfw still 20 posters
>and now 106 replies
i don't get it, how many posters are there supposed to be?
>By helping the artist out of their contractual obligation, to pay off the debt they racked up?
i guess you're right. if the album is made with the label's money and the artist is signed to the contract, it's a moot point to think of other ways to support them.
however, isn't the remaining debt usually waived at the end of the contract period and even if it's recouped, the artist will get little from the sales after that point? so even buying it doesn't necessarily net the artist anything.
>i don't get it, how many posters are there supposed to be?
Just you and me, autismo.
Just you and me.
what made you think we're samefagging anyway?
You really wanna know?
You seriously want me to tell you?
yes please!
Ok, but first you have to beg me.
i bought all his stuff on bandcamp
i guess it'll have to stay a mystery
You said wanted to know, right?
Then beg me like a thirsty ass bitch.
>isn't the remaining debt usually waived at the end of the contract period
No. There are tons and tons of bands (think of every major label band that isn't famous) who owe the label money.
>even if it's recouped, the artist will get little from the sales after that point?
Not relevant
>so even buying it doesn't necessarily net the artist anything.
It will show the Label that the artist has interest, who will then try harder to promote the artist. it's a win-win situation