What a bunch of babies

pitchfork.com/news/66252-jack-white-trent-reznor-beck-more-join-petition-against-youtube/

Other urls found in this thread:

pigeonsandplanes.com/2013/10/piracy-isnt-bad-thought/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

as if youtube's copyright policy isn't already fucked enough

The worst part is that they're mad that Youtube makes money off their ads and not them, like youtube doesn't need to make money and run a site and platform.

They're all washed up hacks the lot of them really aside from like 2 artists who I somewhat lost respect for.

Honestly I buy records a lot but if music managed to survive through the tin pan alley and fake book days it's gonna survive through this.

which two?

st vincent and meghan trainor are the only two I think are relevant

Beck is more relevant than Meghan Trainor already.

Ariel pink said in an interview he preferred youtube over spotify
and I've found too many good albums off youtube suggestions
even the comment section gives better recs than Sup Forums

yeah right

what has he done in the last 2 years?

meghan just dropped an easy top 20 aotysf

he won the grammy for best album?

yeah for an album over 2 years old

thats not doing anything

face it he's washed up

Did she? Is it like her first one? I actually did listen to that one and man did I despise every second.

They're not wrong, music sharing services are cancer. And Trent is an OG pirate, he was part of Oink's Pink Palace back in the day.

Fuck 'em. They have way more opportunity for money now than ever.

I only heard the singles from the first one and turned my nose up to it hard. This one seems pretty different at least from those. Very little of the doo-wop angle if any.

they have a point

before the internet, all of you could have been in shitty bands and made enough money to pay rent and eat

now literally no one makes any money at all from music

it sucks desu

people don't value music anymore, music has literally become worthless

if you still had to buy music, you would be far better off, what you had would mean a lot more to you


music was a lot more important before you could just steal it

THIS
FUCK all of them.

wtf happened to jack white??

tidal, now this?

>respecting meghan trainor
what's wrong with you

hey I'm just as surprised as you but her new album is solid as fuck

do you have any other hobbies tryhard. also are you a homo sex?

This desu senpai, most of this thread is clearly teenagers, as someone who's actually made an attempt to make studio music the industry is a broken joke, I've relegated it to hobby status so I can eat.

I collect meme mugs for my tumblr

>people don't value music anymore, music has literally become worthless
>if you still had to buy music, you would be far better off, what you had would mean a lot more to you

Maybe this is a positive development? Is music intrinsically worthless? Are we beginning to evolving beyond our need for music? Will future generations view music and and our irrational affection for it the same way as we view heroin and religious fanatics?

>heroin
What?
It would be all peachy if we lived in a post-scarcity Star Trek-esque society where we could all produce and consume by choice without having to worry about making or spending money, but we're not there yet, and won't be for a very long time if ever. You can't have it be that way for the arts and nothing else, the way things are going music, writing, movies etc will just die out. I feel the Internet will end up being locked down before then, we're on our way to that, I've been saying it would happen since I was a kid. The openness we had say 15 years ago just can't last with a large audience. Then again you're probably just meming.

I was a little sad when I saw that both Annie and Byrne signed it, I respect them a lot but this is stupid.

this answered both questions thank you

I was talking about Vince Staples and St. Vincent.

I mean Taylor Swift is relevant but she's a Snake

>moan all this time about rampant piracy
>something comes along that curbs it and the artist gets at least something
>"WOW NO I WANT MORE"

Fuck it, back to piracy it is then.

> the most successful pop and rock stars of our era are upset we're not giving them more money

I don't know why, but I think I expected more of Trent Reznor. Oh well

t. entitled teen boy

np

you can make money by going out and playing music. you sleep on floors. you buy a bag of doritos and pump some nacho cheese in the bag while the store clerk isn't looking. you travel to gigs in a cramped van.

you do what it takes. if you can't then maybe it isn't for you. that's how to make money playing music. like they did before this shit generation existed. these entitled fuckers who feel like they deserve everything, free college, free healthcare, free music.

books sell because they are a physical, tangible thing. music files aren't a thing. they want you to pay for 8 megabytes of 0's and 1's. paintings sell because they are a physical form of art that you can own and appreciate with more than one sense.

idk maybe the Sup Forums pasta is right. maybe music is the lowest form of art. all i know is that petition form is looking more and more cringy just like the Tidal release pictures.

By music being like heroin, I mean, will the people of the future view music as destructive, dangerous, addictive, a waste of time, and, the only tangible benefit being temporary pleasure, ultimately better never dabbled with?

Maybe music should be illegalized?

nobody would give a fuck about these oldhags if it wasn't for the internet
pitchfork made them

this.
it's as stupid as people who donate money to Trump. Motherfuckers for what? He's a billionaire, supposedly. and yet there they are, giving him $. and there he is asking for it.

>By music being like heroin, I mean, will the people of the future view music as destructive, dangerous, addictive, a waste of time, and, the only tangible benefit being temporary pleasure, ultimately better never dabbled with?

No.

might be a good thing honestly. What has the music industry brought us besides a bunch of derivative shit?

It has nothing to do with the artistic value of music and everything to do with how the Internet has changed distribution, and this goes for any creative content that can be digitized.

This translates into young people, historically the biggest purchasers of music, who never knew a pre-Internet world expecting creative content to simply be free, because that's how it's always been for them.

Yeah, great. Free! Ramifications of that, though, is industry death. Rampant piracy also hurts the "underground bands," more than it punishes the "evil music industry."

The megastars can always profit off touring, which has now become the biggest source of revenue for musicians (and the only musicians really profiting are the big stars). An underground band's biggest source of revenue will usually be album sales, since they can't afford to put on a multi-city tour.

Piracy is parasitic, and every self proclaimed "music lover" should be against it.

why can't the megastars donate money to the underground?

>biggest source of revenue

Adding a chart.

shit nigga what happened to jack white
I only saw him in concert like 2 years ago and he looked fine

Some do, in the form of starting labels with favorable contract terms that doesn't screw over the artist.

Think Trent with Nothing Records, Aphex Twin with Rephlex, Jack White with Third Man, etc.

That's a better way to help struggling/underground artists than just charity.

Even though I believe the graph could you provide a source for it please? Image search comes up with "paper".

yes but why can't these guys pick an underground album/artist they like and give them $1,000
That wouldn't hurt their pockets at all.
especially taylor swift
once a month pick an artist they like and share them on social media

instead of whining. they have the fanbase to promote underground artist with a click of button social media

pigeonsandplanes.com/2013/10/piracy-isnt-bad-thought/

Funny thing is, it's from an article defending piracy, but the author didn't adjust for inflation and didn't examine who is exactly profiting off touring (which are the Kanye's, Swift's, Adele's of the world and not the underground or even middle-of-the-road "stars," (like a Chvrches or something).

>instead of whining. they have the fanbase to promote underground artist with a click of button social media

Yes. That would be neat. If Taylor shouted out [underground band here], they would see a boon in exposure.

But as we've established, since no one wants to pay for anything, would Taylor's fans purchase that band's album or just pirate it?

I'd say some would purchase which is better than 0
diehard fans support anything the artist backs even shitty t-shirts or perfume.
I just think it's kinda rude of these guys whining about money they already made. but haven't made an effort to take the matter in their own hands.
If i was a rich megastar I'd surely promote and share the music that inspired me daily.
thats what michael gira does on his fb which is neat IMO

Yeah. Most here have no idea of the work it takes to learn how to play instruments, write, sing and record songs.

Piracy has destroyed smaller/mid level bands who for me usually made the most interesting music.

>The megastars can always profit off touring, which has now become the biggest source of revenue for musicians
Touring has always been the main source of revenue for musicians, on all levels. From small bands begging you to buy a shirt from the merch table so they can buy gas to the next gig to the larger acts like madonna who snowballs and takes the profits from her last tour to help fund the next one just like george lucas did with the first three star wars films, each one paying for the next.

>Piracy is parasitic, and every self proclaimed "music lover" should be against it.
nobody's saying it isn't. as a person who's purchased more than 600 albums with my own money that i earned at my shit job i can say that there should be a model that compensates artists fairly but provides the listener with something worth purchasing as well. that's not mp3's. i can remember the last time i purchased an mp3 file. it was from amazon. i stopped because it was shitty 256 VBR. at this point the better way to support your favorite artist is to buy a shirt from them, especially at a concert where you can be sure that there's no label head lurking in the shadows to take a cut.

the music industry has had every opportunity to adapt and create a YT like platform of their own and yet here we are again having these same debates about money and who has it and how to get some of it. You don't see this shit happening on /lit/ or Sup Forums or Sup Forums. it's becoming more and more clear with every failed business model that the biggest thing hampering progress in that respect is greed.

not some dozen or so Sup Forumstants pirating an obscure import only release from before they were born or some kids on YT who don't know any better, it's music industry greed. rich white dudes battling each other for bigger slices of the pie. same old story. people clinging to power. rich shits hanging onto their money and not spending it.

I wonder if artists ever have clauses in their contracts that dictate what they can post on social media. I'd imagine promoting competitors would be frowned upon by business-minded labels.

>I just think it's kinda rude of these guys whining about money they already made. but haven't made an effort to take the matter in their own hands.

Even though they are probably doing it out of greed (the optimist in me hopes they're doing it out of protecting not only their own content, but the "little guy's" content, as well), I think their point is valid. You can find tons of full length albums from indie artists on youtube, which weren't uploaded by the artist themselves.

>thats what michael gira does on his fb which is neat IMO

Indeed. Gira has got a lot younger people into the blues.

>all of you could have been in shitty bands and made enough money to pay rent and eat
Absolutely not.
A large majority of bands could not go anywhere because labels, even small labels were tied to release schedules since releasing something meand a physical release, manufactoring costs, promotion and marketing etc, even for small and indemendant labels.
And the bands could sustain themselves by touring because you actually need a smaller personnal income during the tour. And guess what, bands still do that today.
The reason why it seems like more artists can't make a living from their music is because more artists are releasing shit recorded on their phones. of course they are not going to make minimum wage from that, just like the crappy band who couldn't get on any label wouldn't have 20 years ago. And both are just as good in terms of music. The situation hasn't changed that much the only difference is that every artist is now visible.

>You can find tons of full length albums from indie artists on youtube, which weren't uploaded by the artist themselves.
thats true I've asked some of the uploaders in situations in that and alot of have told me that don't monetize the videos
tho maybe some artist should do what dg does and upload the full album themselves on yt.
But I agree the situation is mess but I have loads of friends in punk bands who just wish people could even hear their music.getting promoted IMO is even harder now. unless you somehow make friends with p4k,rolling stone writers

>Vince Staples
>David Byrne
>Bootsy Collins

really?

thank god no one I like is on there
this year's model is overrated

>two egomaniacs and a scientologist

lol how?

>Touring has always been the main source of revenue for musicians, on all levels. From small bands begging you to buy a shirt from the merch table

You saw the graph I posted? Concert revenue was a small piece of the pie before the Internet killed record sales revenue.

A good insight into this is the Twisted Sister documentary (on Netlfix). They were killing themselves touring the East Coast, and didn't really start to make any real money until they decided to release a single through their own indie label. Yes, they also profited off merch, but their first single selling well is what helped them stay financially afloat.

>provides the listener with something worth purchasing as well.

I would say an LP fits that description. You can even do neat things with them like etching holograms into the dead wax.

I don't know how a YT type platform would work, since music fans will just opt to go to the free version rather than pay a monthly fee for Tidal Video or something like that.

I'm not really sure how the industry can adapt. Streaming is probably their best bet. 9.99 month to have millions of albums at the click of a button is a small price to pay for that convenience, but we know artists don't make anything from streaming.

I don't think there's an easy solution other than music buyers being "conscience" consumers.

>hurr why do they want money for their work they should work for free

good thing i don't listen to any of these faggots. my taste is obscure enough to not worry about any of this

>I don't think there's an easy solution other than music buyers being "conscience" consumers.

it doesn't need to have an ethical dimension at all
i invest in artists i like so they'll be able to make more music
pretty selfish really but that's the free market

Vince staples is already a hack to begin with. No surprise there.

>thats true I've asked some of the uploaders in situations in that and alot of have told me that don't monetize the videos


Here's the thing YOU CAN'T


YOU CAN'T MONETIZE A SONG IF YOUTUBE DETECTS IF WITH THEIR AUTOMATIC SYSTEM

AND THEY WILL DETECT IT MAJORITY OF THE TIME.


The problem for new artists isn't just money, it's mostly getting NOTICED, most of them go unnoticed and die, Youtube is a place for them where they can at least try and get some audience, some have succeded


There is TOO MUCH music today and it is much harder for people to come on top especially for those who are small, that is impossible, this isn't YouTube's fault, if anything YouTube gives them some kind of platform to share their songs on.

>i invest in artists i like so they'll be able to make more music

Yes. That qualifies as a conscience consumer to me. You're paying for something you got entertainment value out of and rewarding the content creator for their "service," just like any other business transaction.

>forgetting the part about every artist on that list already being loaded
They just want to keep living pretending they are jet-setters and don't want to adapt to the next form of the music industry with less overall revenue for everybody.
That's why nobody is taking that shit seriously. Nobody is going to feel bad for Elton John, Dave Grohl or Kenny G. ll the musicians complaining are either filthy rich already and want to remain that rich without too much work, aspiring to be pop stars in that same vein, or one-hit wonder who want to live of one or two songs forever.

Shut up you pirating fat nerd.

yeah you can frame it that way if you like, but i'm not doing it for any moral reasons
i'm doing it so i can get some more of that lovely music

>The problem for new artists isn't just money, it's mostly getting NOTICED, most of them go unnoticed and die, Youtube is a place for them where they can at least try and get some audience, some have succeded

The argument isn't centered around unnoticed and unsigned artists who can do as they please with their music since they aren't under any contract.

This is what the argument boils down to:

- You're an unsigned artist who release a two song EP on youtube.

- It somehow gets exposure.

- Based on that exposure, this unsigned artist either gets a record deal or just decides to really a full length album independenty.

- He releases his album.

- The next day, he discovers some pirate uploaded his entire album to Youtube. It has 50K hits compared to the 50 or so legitimate album sales he got on his website.

Anyone would be pissed. Maybe those 50K viewers wouldn't have bought the album anyway, but that can never be proven. Even if he lost out on 500 album sales due to that piracy, it's worth being angry about.

Burn all instruments, imprison all known musicians, criminalize production, possession and use of music, program computers to report musical software, monitor the public through mobile phones. It would solve the problem of people trying to make money from music.

>to really

*to release

>making music is "work"

making good music is work

Imagine if there's Denuvo for music.the shitstorm would be glorious. plus these guys should learn from the vidya industry. denuvo kills both piracy and sales.

only for the producers 2bh and label owners. listen to macs demos vs the actual album.

Damn, this is a good point desu

You never hear film makers complain about this shit

Edgy

When you see Taylor Swift, Trent Reznor, and Jack White claiming that they make valuable art...BE VERY WARY.

no but you might have noticed a lot of shitty remakes coming out

so what?
they want payola now?

Refer to the post above yours.

According to the Koran all music that is made for monetary gain is haram. The only truly acceptable music is played as a hobby for family in a calm setting. Music with the inent of delivering a strong emotional response is seen as dangerous.

The policy isn't strictly enforced but the sentiment is present in some parts of the middle east.

The comparison of music to heroine isn't that illegitimate to some people and there is potential for it to catch on.

If we went to a fundamental communist ideology, it could be argued that since the contributions of the artist to the collective are not objectively quantifiable that they are not worth the collectives resources.

Some food for thought on this topic.

And "sequels" of films from 10,20, and 30 years ago is a big trend right now.

Don't tell me you think any of the people in the P4k article made anything of value.
Paul McCartney was the only one and even he was surpassed by Lennon.

>Deadmau5

Remember he said he didn't cared about any of this when he came here?

Jack White is one of the most talented guitarists of the 21st century. Are you ignorant?

Why do musicians think they are important people? I am genuinely curious why they think they matter as people not even being edgy. I wonder what kind of yes man environment you need to be in to be that delusional

>not wanting college to be free
>heavily indebting people for existing
alt-children, everybody

lol

They're not really wrong; Youtube directly profits from the fact that people illegally upload shit tons of copyrighted music and the only way to deal with it is by sitting around filing DMCA requests all day. (Also, most bands aren't rich.)

It's always the mega rich artists that complain about money. I thought music was a passion.

Small time artists ask you to buy their album or some merch so they can continue living their dream, playing shows and recording music. Taylor Swift does not need any more money.

>take out music off youtube and spotify
>people just start torrenting again

Face it music fags, you're fucked.
Go make money giving blowjobs near the highway or something.

Should we really listen to trent "steal and steal some more " reznor, beck aka HAIL LORD XENU and jack "get me some more donuts meg" white?

An internet acronym isn't a valid argument. Stop being a contrarian for the sake of it and back yourself up with a valid response.

5 classic albums with the white stripes, two great solo albums, in several other musical groups. Denying any of this would be the ultimate contrarian bullshit.

holy kek

The vast majority of recorded music

...

Rich artists have the money, voice and reach to make companies and people more aware. Who's going to listen to someone small like Jeff Rosenstock?

Talented songwriter, yes.

One of the most talented guitarists? Ha no.

The only music left on youtube will be obscure and unfamouse people bringing in the new patrician era of music

Not a valid argument or defence.
He is though. Not even a fan boy by any means but he's definitely up there. You don't need to shred to be talented as hell.