my teacher raised this point in class today .. she asked us "with all the illegal music downloads going on, what do you think the future development of music will be on a local, national and global level?". what do you guys think? music artists will begin to boycott and not produce songs?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Future of music? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter yups
- Start date
SeCKSiiMiNh
i'm a fireball in bed
wot?
hvf26
Awesome Member
no fucking way will artists stop producing tracks.
even though billions of people download, people still buy legally, by itunes/ CDs/ other electronic methods. this being said, artists still get millions, but only the popular ones do- so id say as pop music is increasingly dominant (all the shit artists like miley cyrus, justin beiber etc etc) the overall quality of REAL music will go down.
but then again, the real artists who are passionate about music will continue to make music for the love of it, but wont get much income from it; which is unfortunate because this music deserves to be recognised
musicians won't 'boycott' making music, it'll just be that there will be a lesser propensity for artists to make money off their music directly and may have to rely further on gigs and whatnot to earn money.
development wise, the average person is more likely going to be exposed to new artists/genres through the internet via the dowloading of music, as opposed being limited to what one can hear on radio or what one can buy in their local sanity/jb hi-fi/etc. a good thing.
edit: also it's not as if pirating is only a recent problem, people have been pirating by copying tapes or recording shit off the radio. the only difference between now and then is that the pirating of media is much more visible with tools like bittorrent and napster presenting a central point for piraters to do their evil deeds.
development wise, the average person is more likely going to be exposed to new artists/genres through the internet via the dowloading of music, as opposed being limited to what one can hear on radio or what one can buy in their local sanity/jb hi-fi/etc. a good thing.
edit: also it's not as if pirating is only a recent problem, people have been pirating by copying tapes or recording shit off the radio. the only difference between now and then is that the pirating of media is much more visible with tools like bittorrent and napster presenting a central point for piraters to do their evil deeds.
Last edited:
Mayazcherquoi
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 59
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
Artists shouldn't just create music for the money... If they do, then they deserve to lose everything!
P.S: Only a small percentage of people who have music actually pirate them (and even a smaller percentage of that percentage that pirate and DON'T buy the music afterwards). It's only anti-piracy agencies that exaggerate this value...
P.S: Only a small percentage of people who have music actually pirate them (and even a smaller percentage of that percentage that pirate and DON'T buy the music afterwards). It's only anti-piracy agencies that exaggerate this value...
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,411
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
- Uni Grad
- 2013
Lol, they do it because they love it, not for the money.
Decent artists will still make money from gigs and merchandise and stuff (I have absolutely no idea but this is presumably nothing compared to actual record sales though) but still, they wont stop just because they aren't profiting.
Decent artists will still make money from gigs and merchandise and stuff (I have absolutely no idea but this is presumably nothing compared to actual record sales though) but still, they wont stop just because they aren't profiting.
I think file-sharing/pirating/whatever broadens the public's musical exposure because they don't have to rely on chain stores like Sanity etc to tell them what music is good enough to be worth stocking. And then this can work out well for artists because more people listening to their music = more exposure = more concerts and more people deciding to go looking for CDs to buy. I can't even begin to count the number of artists that I've gotten into (and bought CDs or concert tickets) because of downloading.
I think if anything, the trend seems like it could work against record companies and chain stores rather than against artists. I refuse to buy music from places like Sanity after learning that they mark up the prices of more 'unknown' artists (I say 'unknown' but only in the sense that these groups don't have their stuff in the top 40 every second week) like NIN because they know that fans are going to pay for the records no matter how much they cost.
Lily Allen had a massive bitch a while ago about how downloading was killing music and in it she talked about how artists are in so much debt to their labels that she, for example, had only just finished paying it all off. So I think that's probably going to be the thing that changes - we've already seen examples of artists marketing directly to the public without a record company acting as middle-man and while these artists (eg Radiohead) are obviously already hugely successful, the format could eventually be adapted for newer artists.
And this thread is timely because right now I am facing the conundrum: get a torrent of the Sleigh Bells album or wait until June 18 for it to end up in stores ...
ETA: Torrent. I'm not waiting 2+ weeks for something that was released in the U.S. last month.
I think if anything, the trend seems like it could work against record companies and chain stores rather than against artists. I refuse to buy music from places like Sanity after learning that they mark up the prices of more 'unknown' artists (I say 'unknown' but only in the sense that these groups don't have their stuff in the top 40 every second week) like NIN because they know that fans are going to pay for the records no matter how much they cost.
Lily Allen had a massive bitch a while ago about how downloading was killing music and in it she talked about how artists are in so much debt to their labels that she, for example, had only just finished paying it all off. So I think that's probably going to be the thing that changes - we've already seen examples of artists marketing directly to the public without a record company acting as middle-man and while these artists (eg Radiohead) are obviously already hugely successful, the format could eventually be adapted for newer artists.
And this thread is timely because right now I am facing the conundrum: get a torrent of the Sleigh Bells album or wait until June 18 for it to end up in stores ...
ETA: Torrent. I'm not waiting 2+ weeks for something that was released in the U.S. last month.
Last edited:
Arctopus
Member
This is so damn stupid. Your music teacher is a moron and you are too for actually mulling it over enough to bring it to the public forum.
Believe it or not, some musicians, if not a lot of them, write music and perform it because they enjoy it! A lot of the time they will have jobs and if they get paid for playing, it's like a bonus. It's not like if people keep downloading then all of a sudden music will cease to exist. Pubs won't go without their pub-rock bands, restaurants won't go without their pianists or string quartets. Besides, even if musicians did "boycott" production of songs, how would that help their financial state anyway? All they'd be doing is taking from themselves.
So many bands don't even give a shit about people downloading their music. Why? Because they're stoked enough that the person has gone out of their way to somehow obtain the album. If that person likes the album then surely they will see the band when they tour or they'll buy a shirt or something. If that person doesn't like the album then the band doesn't want them to spend their money on something the person didn't like. Some bands even release albums for free! These are the sort of bands that nobody talks about when it comes to piracy. These are the sort of bands that care more about people hearing their music than people buying their music.
Believe it or not, some musicians, if not a lot of them, write music and perform it because they enjoy it! A lot of the time they will have jobs and if they get paid for playing, it's like a bonus. It's not like if people keep downloading then all of a sudden music will cease to exist. Pubs won't go without their pub-rock bands, restaurants won't go without their pianists or string quartets. Besides, even if musicians did "boycott" production of songs, how would that help their financial state anyway? All they'd be doing is taking from themselves.
So many bands don't even give a shit about people downloading their music. Why? Because they're stoked enough that the person has gone out of their way to somehow obtain the album. If that person likes the album then surely they will see the band when they tour or they'll buy a shirt or something. If that person doesn't like the album then the band doesn't want them to spend their money on something the person didn't like. Some bands even release albums for free! These are the sort of bands that nobody talks about when it comes to piracy. These are the sort of bands that care more about people hearing their music than people buying their music.
Actually, it's in the syllabus so ye
. and she told us to jot as many different ideas/opinions as possible so i'm just curious what other peoples' perspectives are cos she did tell us to get more than 1 perspective.
Arctopus
Member
I don't see how that makes you and your teacher any less moronic.
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .. maybe because the HSC syllabus requires us to cover that dotpoint?
Arctopus
Member
Well I'm not the one who said "music artists will begin to boycott and not produce songs?".
As for your teacher, well it depends on whether the questions was her own or if it was verbatim from the syllabus.
oh, and seriously, after everything I wrote the only thing you care to reply to has nothing to do with my answer.
As for your teacher, well it depends on whether the questions was her own or if it was verbatim from the syllabus.
oh, and seriously, after everything I wrote the only thing you care to reply to has nothing to do with my answer.
Last edited:
yep ... we read a newspaper article about it today, but in saying "not produce songs" i don't mean till the end of time, i mean for a few months etc.
and yes i value your insights/opinion about the music industry, but i don't value people calling me "moronic".
Arctopus
Member
So you don't value the truth.
ha ha ha
i must admit, i kinda feel sorry for people like you :S
2009'ers who have nothing better to do than come onto forums and try to be internet heroes. . . anyway im off to sleep. toodles
xxxx
Arctopus
Member
Well I feel sorry for people like you too. Y'know, being stupid and all.