I'll read your pieces with great interest, David.

One thing that's hard for most music fanatics to admit is that there is a strong element of consumerist addiction to all this buying of music we do. I freely admit to it.

So I've also resolved this year to buy less, and to try to be more thoughtful and less impulsive in my purchases. The hope is that I'll listen more and revisit what I already own more often as well.

72 virgins? You didn't specify if they were to be male or female.. not that it makes any difference: you'd still be in a bloody wheelchair at the end of it all. Maybe the Bill Dixon box too.

Does the sex with 72 virgins await you, or does it await Bill Dixon?

I'd agree with Adam re: damping down one's acquisitive streak..... I prefer quality time with a few discs I like a lot, & try to cut down on the amount of stuff I have hanging around "for reference".

Don't suppose someone can resize that image of fleshly delights, it makes IE push the sidebar to the

bottom

of

the

page!

I made the picture a bit smaller, Nate. Hope that helps.

Re Adam: One thing that's hard for most music fanatics to admit is that there is a strong element of consumerist addiction to all this buying of music we do. I freely admit to it.

As should be apparent from my entry, I freely admit to it as well. But I also think that sometimes critics play an important role in enabling that addiction, by inserting language that almost seems to challenge the reader to buy the product, or risk being labeled a fool.

Nice piece David, looking forward to more to come.

As a fellow confessed buying addict I have been running these questions through my head as well lately. Last year was a bit stupid, with so many CDs lying about around here I genuinely couldn't remember what I had heard and what I had not at times.

As I clearly wasn't giving any one CD enough of a chance it became clear something had to break, so initially I came to the same conculsion as everyone else here, perhaps its time to slow up, buy less and listen more.

However at the weekend I realised where I am going wrong, and I don't believe that I need to purchase less music.

It was whilst kneeling down in a dusty corner of the Arnolfini Gallery in Bristol with my ear two inches from the floor straining to hear the tiny environmental sounds coming from the small porcelain bowls that made up Rolf Julius' contribution to the excellent 'Playing John Cage' exhibition that it came to me.

I don't need to listen less, I need to listen better...

I really believe that I (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) do not treat a piece of music with enough respect once I have popped it into the CD player drawer. I don't alway give things my full attention... I'll check my emails, make a pot of tea, change out of my work suit, make the bed, write a contentious post at an online forum.... anything to keep me from just sitting down and truly listening. Some music works better as background sound, something to tap your foot to, hum along with, but the narrow band of music I currently purchase tends to demand a little more.

Coming home from London Sunday night after presenting a radio show during which I listened properly to absolutely nothing I put the new Eliane Radigue on Shiiin into my discman, and after frantically searching the floor of the empty train in vain for a discarded newspaper, an unfinished Su-Doku or anything to occupy my focus other than the music, I was forced to just sit and listen for an hour with only raindrops running down the train window as any form of distraction....

And you know what? That CD sounded bloody great.....

So there's my contribution to the addiction problem... don't go into rehab, just pump your veins full, sit back and truly enjoy :)

David: "But I also think that sometimes critics play an important role in enabling that addiction, by inserting language that almost seems to challenge the reader to buy the product, or risk being labeled a fool."

Absolutely.
O these strange cravings to buy more music--many are to blame and all should be ashamed!

I think buying too many cd's and books may be how I fool myself into believing I've avoided the grotesque consumerism of the culture. But really I haven't. And a huge personal library of music and books can also come off as simply another form of status consolation.

(I write this sitting in a room decked with over-stuffed shelves....)

More power to more music. Dash the guilt over "consumerism." You will not live long enough to soak it all up. So dig in.

Sometimes I regret the time each day spent playing music; there is so much to listen to, and I won't get to it all. The poet Derek Walcott once wrote about the beauty of being a great reader (and that could be transposed to being a great listener or a great viewer). I will have trouble listening in several years to as much as you have listened to in just this year alone.

Looking forward to reading more from the person whom, I assume, is the "old" crawjo. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm with Richard on this one. I bought a similar number of CD's last year and though I probably won't break that record this year, I have no plans to slow down either. Of course the real thing driving a lot of this is the "limited edition of" 100, 150, 500 that you know will be gone and then everyone you know is talking about some rare Sugimoto disc but you. Why? Because it slipped through the cracks while you were thinking that it was going to be available for more than five minutes. Trying getting into No Fun stuff, Hanson records announces a new Dilloway release on IHM and six hours later all 90 of those cdr's are gone, or that Boris set that was fetching $150 on ebay two weeks after it came out (thank god I got mine). Of course as long as one doesn't read bags archives, or looks at the listings on the IMJ web site or read anything on the interweb, then it should be possible to manage one's desires. Now if you actually listened to all those discs then more power to you. My New Year's resolution is to listen to everything that comes in the door as it comes in the door. If I let it pile up another package arrives and then the piles bury the piles.

I absolutely agree with Richard that the key is to listen better so I guess that means I should shut up and get off this here forum and listen......oh but I just want to read one more thing........

Well, one problem for me is that the kind of intense listening that Richard advocates is really a solitary act. And to listen to 366 discs in a year, with that kind of intensity, you really would lose out on a lot of human interaction. I think coming on here and reading and conversing is a way of kinding of building human relationships around this music, which is, I think important especially considering how few people in the world listen to most jazz, let alone eai.

As for me, I think I can cut down on my purchases, because looking back at the list there was just a lot of stuff that I really didn't care for. (Actually, none of the discs I listed in my entry, those were all good to great), but plenty of other ones that I look back and think, "Yeah, that was a waste of time/money." I think 2005 was, for me, a year of discovering what it is I really connect to in music, and what I don't. Hopefully through understanding my own tastes better, I'll be able to be more selective in my purchases and not fall in for every rush to buy the next must-have cd.

I wish there was a public library that stocked these sorts of cd's, or a 'centralized' online library where artists could submit tracks, something like ubuweb. You could explore these things without having to purchase everything 'for reference' or because its in an ultra-limited edition that sells out very quickly.

Furthermore, not everyone is in the same socio-economic position. A library could make more of this stuff accessible for those who cannot afford it or very little of it. On the other hand, I also somewhat agree with the comment on how critics (and I'll add, some fans) make other people feel foolish (perhaps without the conscious intent to, perhaps in a more 'systemic' way) for not buying this stuff. If people are not able to purchase all of this stuff, and if nonetheless they are made to feel foolish/excluded for it, a library seems like a good idea.

Has anybody here ever felt a need to stay on top of things? Does anybody here spend too much money on things?

Furthermore, alot of this stuff is hard to download I imagine (i don't really download --- i just purchase alot of music), and many people would be uncomfortable with that anyways. A sort of library might be more palatable. Artists could choose not to submit, submit fragments, or individual tracks....if they didn't want to submit entire albums.

I bought alot of music this year too, and there was defintely a thrill of consumption, the ritual of researching, ordering or finding, purchasing, anticipating arrival, opening, possessing, holding and finally playing the music. I defintely have a backlog too, and I need to listen better, or simply more often in some cases.

Ross B- Has anybody here ever felt a need to stay on top of things? Does anybody here spend too much money on things?

Hi Ross... I imagine the vast majority of people that post here would answer yes to those queries, unless of course they get sent them all for free.

Bu then, there are worse addictions to have, and the choice is always yours.

As for downloading/sampling etc its surprising just how much of the music discussed hereabouts can be found on Soulseek. Of my personal top ten from 2005, only one did not show up on a basic soulseek search in December...

Personally though while I do use slsk as the kind of reference library you mention i always ALWAYS purchase any music I download and enjoy. This is partly an moral decision as I do not like stealing from musicians, but also partly because as you state above, the pleasure of ordering, unpacking, playing and enjoying the disc itself is irreplaceable.

"This is partly an moral decision as I do not like stealing from musicians, but also partly because as you state above, the pleasure of ordering, unpacking, playing and enjoying the disc itself is irreplaceable."

and, perhaps most importantly, it needs to be added that 192 MP3s (the format of choice on SLSK) simply don't do justice to the music contained on a CD, especially for the kind/s of music that Richard listens to. even something you'd think was fairly straight forward like John Tilbury-Barcelona, a solo piano piece, sounds quite different when listened to as a 192 MP3, and I'm not talking about audiophile playback here.

but most people don't care, and I know that has some musicians very upset and frustrated, Otomo (violently anti-MP3 and iPod evidently) and Jim O'Rourke (one of the main reasons he's mostly left the music world and moved to working in film, at least for now). it's hard to be obsessed about the quality of your production when an increasingly smaller percentage of your listeners will actually hear any difference.

what SLSK is great for (for me) is to check out those records that someone makes sound exciting enough to pick up, but that I know I have very little chance of actually caring about. it's also been essential in my exploration of Houston hip-hop, and I've spent a few hundred dollars so far that I wouldn't have otherwise, because I would have had no idea where to start.

Yes, Jon's points are also very true. The 192 bit rate isn't as good as CD quality, though it is usually good enough for me to sample things reasonably enough.

Also, you need some decent computer speakers or a line direct to your amp to get any kind of decent reproduction from Mp3's.
i guess all of these factors will change in the future, and there will be little difference between a download and a CD, but maybe by then everyone will have developed a conscience and they will all pay the musicians somehow for their downloads....

and of course in the future pigs might fly...

"what SLSK is great for (for me) is to check out those records that someone makes sound exciting enough to pick up, but that I know I have very little chance of actually caring about."

I'm afraid to inquire further.

For me, SLSK's best feature is the chat room, but as far as music goes I use it mostly to download stuff that is OOP or extremely hard to find.

Well, if the anti-mp3 movers in the avant/improv world are so worried by the army of insensitive people "stealing" their stuff and then listening to it over shitty conditions (a lie, I'd say: mp3s sounds dandy in general)... well then, the best thing they could do about it is to try and be VERY careful about what they choose to put out, instead of overflowing the planet with tons and tons of records only hardcore fans or maybe those with steel pockets would be willing to pay for. I mean, guys, why don't you just try a little bit more of restraint over your own stuff for a change?

People like Otomo or Jimbo, they release roughly a dozen records a year (probably a little less but you get my point anyway) and then expect I happily pay for any one of them???? I would buy one or two if I get the chance -that's perfectly reasonable to me- but then I'll be downloading all the other stuff without hesitation. The main reason for this: I can't keep the pace of a music market that keeps growing and growing every year with ridiculous amounts of records being thrown at us day by day, a situation which FORCES me to only purchase the stuff I consider essential and then discard all the rest, and then of course find the best possible way to get it for free in this case. Hey, musicians who shit records at an alarmingly huge rate and labels with zero to none quality control over them, those are the ones who made the decision easy for myself... I'm not the one to blame!!!

So, the way I see it, this whole mp3 drama is clearly a problem of quantity (i.e. too much disposable stuff overflowing the market) over quality, that's it. Let guys like O'Rourke being complete jerks about the issue and at the same time deny they're a big part of the problem... doesn't matter anyway. It's just sometimes I got sick of certain musicians having that kind of sour attitudes over their audiences, their whole superiority deal is just disgusting. We "The Consumers" have the best intentions in the world, period. Don't make things more difficult for us: less records, less bombast, that's all I say.

(Hi all, btw)

I'm having a ball right now downloading a whole shitload of mp3s and oggs from various places - there's a lot of Mattin, Workman related stuff out there - and, though I can see why Jim O gets het up about loss of quality, the vast majority of ordinary mortals listening to music on a normal not-too-expensive hi fi in normal (ie noisy) conditions won't be able to appreciate the loss of a few dB here and there and a bit of extra compression. As Jeff pointed out, Audacity is free to download and can convert ogg files to wav at the click of a mouse, after which burn to CDR and off you go. It's great stuff, dig in. When I get some time myself (haha that's a good one) I intend to upload a few hitherto unreleased projects of my own, including the album that never came out on Meniscus with Frederic Blondy and Martine Altenburger. You will be warned.

The sonic difference of Audiophilia vs. MP3 is like the difference between having 15 nymphettes (or nymphs if that's your preference) giving you a blowjob on a rotating basis or masterbating to cartoons. Or if you prefer something less erotic, it's like the difference between a Big Mac and a souvlaki on a real spit. Have your McDonalds if you like. Don't blame me though if you have a sonic heart attack from a lack of nutrition.

Otomo needs to work a bit on this too. Some of the recordings coming from GOK sound in Tokyo have been noisy and veiled. MP3'ers won't notice obviously. let them have their junk food.

Whoops! I meant "eunuchs" in the parenthetical. Please excuse the infelicitous redundancy of the previous post. thanks.

o o
/\
~~~~~

Bill: "15 nymphettes (or nymphs if that's your preference) giving you a blowjob on a rotating basis or masterbating to cartoons"

Even when eunuchs are substituted for nymphs, this still gobsmacks me. Obviously I'm missing something hugely important when listening to music.

Does viagra help one to appreciate music more?

Are Rock God guitar soloists faking their musical orgasms?

Does playing free jazz make you go blind?

well...listening to free jazz hasn't caused me to go blind, but it could explain why i now have to shave my palms???

oh...and...um...wait...what was this thread about again???

Karl, you're missing the point in that wildly offbase and obnoxious post above. O'Rourke isn't complaining publicly (I got this from a reporter friend of mine who interviewed him last week about the new Beth Orton record), in fact he's simply doing what you've asked, he's withdrawn from making music, at least temporarily. obviously shitty MP3s aren't the only reason for this, but if you could look past your self-centered ball of excuses for a second, you'd see that maybe he has a point from his perspective. if most people aren't going to hear the nuances in what you do anyway, why bother to continue to be obsessed about it?

and while I think Bill overstates the case somewhat above, people really should be aware that they're simply not hearing the music adequately in many cases via a 192 MP3. to think otherwise is simply self-delusion, or possibly an inability to listen very well in the first place. are they better than nothing? certainly, I listen to plenty of them myself. do they replace the CD listening experience adequately? they really don't, sorry.

"Does playing free jazz make you go blind?"
Where's the fucking bacijsapovenbuurron

OUCH

shit

"the new Beth Orton record"

Is that the one with Tim Barnes?

And re: mp3 quality, Sheer Hellish = double anal in a wetsuit

i'm can completely understand the concern that Jim O'Rourke may have about listeners mistaking a poor quality MP3 for the end work he had envisioned, but that person is likely not his audience anyway. if someone is content to listen to a low quality MP3 then the details will be lost on them anyway regardless of how great an album may sound in it's intended form. this is the person that would choose to look at a great artwork in a book rather than bothering to see the actual painting. is Mr. O'Rourke really interested in reaching the masses anyway? if so i think he's chosen the wrong genre. as far as the attitude of "why bother"...that answer is obvious...some people really do care and more importantly the artist has to care! personally i can't stand to listen to MP3's more than a couple of times to see if they are worthy of purchase before filing them away. besides you miss out on the whole process of the treasure hunt through the musty smelling record store and the dirty fingers that are the dead give away of the obsessive music listener. or perhaps it's just me?

there is definitely a concern with quality going on with many people who post here. what if my imagined "online public library" were to contain uncompressed wave files, and also to have a physical existence? an actual section of a public library that stocked a wide-range of music that would be of interest to people on this thread?

again, artists could choose to not participate, or could participtate in a limited way.

as for file sharing: i truly cannot purchase everything (even everything that i will love). is it better that i don't download? or should i just go ahead and do it? it doesn't seem to make a difference, or does it? i make my music and art and it seems to me that it would be better if people listened to my music and engaged with my art, even if they could not afford to buy it, rather than not listen to/engage it all. i realize there are alot of grey areas here, and room for exploitation, but i think i'm onto something.

i see music and art as being more than a product and a way to make a living. i see interest in it, from a fan's/listener's point of view as being more than an addiction. it seems like a significant cultural activity to me, with many potentials. of course there are hierarchies within it, but it also engages in important cultural dialogues, causing shifts in the cultural terrain. i don't want to be too quick to dismiss 'stealing' for these reasons. also, some people really don't have much money to begin with!

oh yeah, i agree with jon that filesharing can also be good for exploration, for those who can preview and then purchase what they discover.

please forgive the overzealous use of "anyway" in the above impassioned speech. my heart was in the right place...

For those who cannot afford to purchase audiophile equipment, and rely on less expensive machines(ie.,ones that sound crap), there is very little,if anything at all, in my experience, to choose between an mp3, an mp3 converted,downloaded and ripped to cd, any one of a legion of lossless/lossy formats and the actual release itself, while remastered versions of discs we already own sound identical on the equipment we're talking about, as do SACD and CD.
If we're concerned about sound quality, why not lobby for the return of the LP?
I realise that with Meridian or Krell gear the difference is huge, but for those who cannot afford this kind of gear, the differences are so minor they are'nt even a consideration.

"what SLSK is great for (for me) is to check out those records that someone makes sound exciting enough to pick up, but that I know I have very little chance of actually caring about."

in other words, it's ok to steal something if you're pretty sure you're not going to like it

"If we're concerned about sound quality, why not lobby for the return of the LP?"
I vote for the 8 track cartridge. Now that's lo-fi..

"For those who cannot afford to purchase audiophile equipment, and rely on less expensive machines(ie.,ones that sound crap), there is very little,if anything at all, in my experience, to choose between an mp3, an mp3 converted,downloaded and ripped to cd, any one of a legion of lossless/lossy formats and the actual release itself, while remastered versions of discs we already own sound identical on the equipment we're talking about, as do SACD and CD."

this is my only point here: THIS SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. I am not using audiophile equipment to compare, it's more than obvious playing CDs and MP3s through my computer with Boston Acoustics speakers and a small subwoofer attached.

Karl- "Well, if the anti-mp3 movers in the avant/improv world are so worried by the army of insensitive people "stealing" their stuff and then listening to it over shitty conditions (a lie, I'd say: mp3s sounds dandy in general)... well then, the best thing they could do about it is to try and be VERY careful about what they choose to put out, instead of overflowing the planet with tons and tons of records only hardcore fans or maybe those with steel pockets would be willing to pay for."

Karl, with all due respect no-one twists your arm behind your back and forces you to pay for things you cannot afford or do not agree with paying for...

I don't see what difference it makes if Otomo releases twelve albums a year or fifty... if you choose to download something that you would otherwise have paid for you are effectively depriving an artist of money.

Of course, the benefit of slsk is that you can listen and decide upon the purchase of one of those many Otomo discs that otherwise you would not have risked spending out on. This is essentially the good point of slsk, and I think also what Jon approves of, the ability to vet things that you otherwise not have bothered with, giving released music more of a chance to be eventually purchased.

I think it does make a difference if Otomo releases 12 or 50 albums in a year. There's a significant loss of quality control there, and the glut makes it harder to find the stuff that is interesting. In general I think too many cds get released every year as it is. It would be better, in my opinion, if artists and labels exercised more restraint in choosing what they want to have released with their name on it.

A few nights ago on SLSK Jon and I were talking about something related to this, how Toshi Nakamura's releases over the last several years have been of an almost uniformly high quality, a result that is only possible because, as I understand it, he is careful about which material he lets out into the marketplace and which gets consigned to the dustbin. I wish more artists were this way, to be honest.

Ah David, I completely agree with you here, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I totally agree that more restraint and less releases would obviously result in better quality releases all round, but I was pointing out (probably quite badly) that it makes no difference how many releases an artist puts out as to whether you should download them without eventually paying for something you want to keep. Using slsk to sort through the masses of releases is fine with me, but deciding to keep something rather than pay for it if you possibly can is wrong in my book. (Agreed hardly the crime of the century, but still something I try and avoid doing)

This is a moral decision a person makes, in that they choose to take something for nothing and keep it rather than sample it and pay for it if they want it to remain in their collection. How many releases that musician puts out makes no difference ot this decision, its still a choice someone makes.

Well, I seem to be in the minority in feeling that the consumerist music geek cd fetishism is in fact detrimental to one's health. For one thing, like everybody else I had a bunch of stuff I only listened to once and sometimes only half-assedly at that; For another, there was the utter ridiculousness of the whole music geek competitiveness phenomenon; most importantly, however, I just came to a point where the cd fetishism was affecting the way I listened to music. In short, I just wasn't enjoying listening as much because all I could think of was about getting the next hit.

So, in the last year I've made an effort to cut down. The results were mixed, but overall positive. I'd say I cut at least about 1/4 of my purchases compared to previous years. I'm not passing moral judgement on others or how they deal with this. Everyone's at a different place. Also, I can appreciate Richard's comments about listening better. To me, part of that was not henryfordizing the listening process so much. Oddly, one way I have found of listening to music better is to not listen to music constantly.

The argument could be that music has been cheapened from the concert hall to vinyl records to CD to MP3.. and so on (notice how I skipped wax cylinders and cassette tapes).

The mechanism used to playback records (the cartridge & the needle) is closer to how the human ear works in that it is a harmonically resonant system, mechanically transmitting vibrations. A great pressing and a great stereo = better sound than any other medium except the thick analog tape music is less and less frequently recorded on to.

The first people I came into contact with that really championed vinyl were punk-rockers who all had the crappiest stereos you could imagine, but then going to shows was the most important listening experience. (I find it funny that a certain well-known punk rock audio engineer is so purist when it comes to the recording and playback medium because the sound systems this stuff is listened on are mostly crap).

so yeah, vinyl. not very portable, skips, more maintenance and fussing around with the stereo required. crackle = higher noise floor.

CD. inferior to vinyl, but can last indefinitely if stored properly since the playback doesn't involve friction like vinyl or tape. the sampling rate and bit depth (44.1Khz and 16 bit) could be improved but it's too late, it's already standard.

MP3. known for weak sound - harsh highs and wobbly bass - but the important info is still there and it takes up even less space than any other medium out there.. but no artwork.

I guess I'm saying that CDs are a compromise too, but that's what I listen to most stuff on because it's pretty convenient and I need something that I can take from the computer to the discman to the stereo to the car.

I'm a fan of Jim O'Rourke's delightfully wayward discography (perversely, the only material of his I have on vinyl is I'm Happy, I'm Singing..., which was made on a computer, the rest I have on CD), it's too bad that the cheapening of music is part of the reason he's leaving it for now - but then he always wanted to make films, right?

Film has had a similar problem with home theatres and such, as already mentioned. This year will see the first release of a major motion picture in theatres and on DVD simultaneously (Soderbergh's "Bubble").

All this stuff is getting more and more antisocial. but who wants to go and see a movie they're really into and have some dude talking behind you the whole time as if they were at home in their living room? WHo wants to go to some music performance at a smokey bar and drunk people talking over everything?

More and more it seems like the old ways of doing things don't work and wear out their usefullness. Artists and labels need to exercise their creativity when it comes to the medium music is distributed on, because it's gotten cheaper and cheaper and more disposable. There's been plenty of new and exciting stuff for my ears, but the distribution of it needs to change. Make it irresistable, and not with some limited edition of 30 for something mediocre, but by only releasing that good shit (Erst), and by making that packaging badass (John Fahey "The Great Santa Barbara Oil Slick").

New mediums, new venues, new ways of experiencing the same thing. Sounds in the aether, sounds in 1s and 0s on my hard drive vs. importance of the transmission medium. How to direct focus to the physicality of the art object/packaging/weight of sound being more than just something that can be messed around: We need definitive versions, not merely data that can interchangably be on record or tape or CD or MP3.

I think music in general used to be more special from both sides - the making of it and the experiencing it. It's too easy now to produce and acquire. Someone needs to make it more difficult. :)

all you guys and your "anybody who can stand to listen to an mp3 has shit in their ears" rhetoric . . . puh-leeze. it's hilariously impotent, like some kind of "i like music more than you do" argument. "junk food" = mp3? give me a fucking break. it's a means of audio compression! whatever!

i love mp3s. i happen to be a professional musician and a mastering engineer. mp3s - encoded properly - sound fucking fine. i'm listening to them on advent two-way speakers and a NAD 3140 amp. big whoop, huh?

i also happen to be an impoverished person with ZERO budget for entertainment. i don't have a lot of space or a hermetically sealed listening room with a hi-end stereo set-up. nobody i know does either and they don't inherently listen "less carefully" than any bagatellen snob. i suppose i have shit in my ears and like music less than you whiny babies fetishizing stacks of cardboard and plastic in order to get your sacred metaphysical 20 hz/20K hz belly rubs. back to wax cylinders with the lot of you.

i can hear it now . . . mp3s are killing musicians! e-gads! we've been being slaughtered by apathy and commercialism long before mp3 compression technology came along and ruined music for everyone. it's no better or worse than before. those who survive will survive and those who can't won't. and i'll see some of you at the finish line, by the way.

i hate to break it to everybody, but listening to recordings will always be a completely subjective experience. unless you are sitting in the chair the artist okayed the master in you will never, ever, ever, ever experience exactly what the artist "intended", so just knock it off.

ww

Amen.

There is this other side of downloading music, movies, books, etc ... that has been overlooked in this debate. You all (mainly) come from countries where there is a distribution network for such music, movies, books, etc ... (althou a small one) I' am coming from Shitenia or in wider sense from ex Yugoslavia where the distro doesn't exist at all so file sharing plays an improtant role of presenting and opening an unknown field of art production to many people wheater it is music or movies or books ... The dominant streams of commercial society doesn't cover that (no shops, no medias) they re left only with occasional concerts (the only chance for them to buy cds, at least in Slovenia. In Serbia it is much harder since their monthly payment doesn't cover even half of the money some of you may spent for cds in a month. The problem in Serbia is also that in Milosevic regime there was a big black market selling 10 albums of Coltrane, Zorn or Erstwhile on one cd-r, so if you ask me they re not even used to pay for a proper release) and few small movie festivals, where they can see something out of the hollywood production.

You're right, Sergio. Dead on.

And, with Weasel, I don't need no bellyrubs. But it's not a moral issue. (WW has said, essentially, "You're not better than I am, because HAH--I'M BETTER THAN YOU ARE!" These are just preferences. Gotta learn a little tolerance for the belly-rubbers: when only the other (bad) guys are fetishists, only you get to be the (YAY!) normal person.

Isn't there something in Herman Hesse about the pleasures of listening to Mozart over a transister radio. BTW, how hi-fi is the radio Rowe uses?

Who gives a fuck about hifi anyway? If you're going to go to your grave without ever hearing any of the Sun Ra Saturn recordings just because the recording quality is total shite, it's your problem. It's the music that counts. If I had 1000 bucks to spend and the choice of whether to buy music or hifi equipment, you know damn well what I'd choose.

Girls with banjos?

I know right now I'd choose hifi equipment, I have way, way too much music as it is.

to clarify something earlier:

I said: "what SLSK is great for (for me) is to check out those records that someone makes sound exciting enough to pick up, but that I know I have very little chance of actually caring about."

mr. eekamouse responded: "in other words, it's ok to steal something if you're pretty sure you're not going to like it"

not that this is really worth an answer, but when I use file-sharing for releases that are available for purchase, it's generally to see whether or not I actually think I need them in my collection.

so if before I was buying 5 CDs a week (a low estimate), now maybe I buy 2 or 3 unheard, and check out another 7 or 8 via fileshares. I buy some of the latter batch later on, so it ends up (for me) that I buy about the same number of discs, I'm just much happier with my purchases.

There was that study some years back that examined how long museum-goers actually stood in front of a painting. Turned out to be something like 6 seconds.

What was behind this, the study concluded after speaking with some museum-goers, was not only short-attention span, but the overhwhelming number of works to view and the feeling that they should see most if not all of them. So of course, they saw nothing, really. But they could say the saw a Van Gogh or Matisse, and that seemed to matter quite a lot.

Just to clarify, I only have a problem with someone making the choice to replace a CD purchase they may have made with an illegal Mp3 download. If someone couldn't afford, or couldn't find the music on CD anyway I have no problem with them getting it however they can.

Of course, another good way to audition music before you decide to buy it or not is to find a good radio programme that plays the kind of music you enjoy. Maybe a bit like this one; :)

http://auditionradio.blogspot.com/

"If someone couldn't afford, or couldn't find the music on CD anyway I have no problem with them getting it however they can."

Yee-ha! I love that kinda talk! How about if they just couldn't afford it or find it that particular day? (week? month?)

How about if they couldn't afford it because they just blew a load on a Hummer?

How about if they couldn't find it because, well, they didn't really look soooooo hard....

I have no idea what the problem is with that sentiment Walto, I sense that you take me to be some sort of snob looking down on people that can't afford to buy CDs or something. I can guarantee you I certainly am not.
Of course the precise criteria or reasoning over when it is right to download illegally is impossible to dictate for all of the reasons you state above and more. Simply, it is a moral decision that someone makes when they download something illegally for free. Only they will know if they could have/should have paid for it, and noone will ever be able to stop them.

Thats all i am saying.

weasel -
seems like your beef is this whole democratization vs. elitism thing, but then you'd want to squash ("knock it off") a discussion about audio format because it doesn't fit with what YOU think. ah well.

If you want to take issue with format as a tech thing that doesn't mean shit to most people who listen individually and subjectively, alright.

hate to sound petty, but in your calling out of "the snobs" you sound like some kid on a playground... probably every person in this listens to MP3s every day. but you're the enlightened one, so... I forget shootin the shit on topics that don't please you.

"Walto, I sense that you take me to be some sort of snob looking down on people that can't afford to buy CDs or something."

Oh, no--quite the contrary! What I was wondering was whether you'd think it was OK for somebody to take something of YOURS either because they couldn't afford to buy their own or because they couldn't find it elsewhere. Those seem like odd rationales to me--this side of the French Revolution, anyhow.

I guess it's nice, at any rate, that, for some, music is the equivalent of bread.

OTOH, if downloading is never stealing in any case, the business about what people can afford/find is obviously irrelevant: there's no moral question in the first place....

Ah OK, I see what you mean Walto, and its a valid point you make.

I guess we have to be realistic about this, music has not been treated as a possession in the same way as other things for years, in fact ever since someone invented tape to tape cassette decks. I'm not saying that this is right, but music exists in society in a different way to other possessions, and therefore cannot be considered the same.

Music means a lot to me and I value it and the creative rights of the musician that made it a great deal. It bugs me that downloading is one of the reasons we are losing record labels faster than ever and that's why I think we all have to ask ourselves that moral question.

I also can understand why someone unable to purchase music for whatever reason would resort to downloading because of a similar love of music though.

In my opinion, it is morally wrong to download music as a way of replacing a purchase that would otherwise be made. I agree with Richard however that there really aren't any precise objective criteria that can be used to define what is right versus what is wrong. The nature of the medium makes it such that each person has to be responsible about their downloading. Aside from a few counterproductive lawsuits by the RIAA, there really isn't any way to police this activity, so de facto this becomes an individual ethical question.

A side thought, music that relies too much on state-of-the-art technology probably isn't going to stay with us for long...

Regarding the morality of mp3 downloads - like I've said before, stop fucking rationalizing it. No matter how you put it, it is theft. Is it the worse crime in the world? No. Does it make you an odious, vile human being? No. But it still is what it is. If you can't live with the discrepancy between your ideal behavior and your actual behavior, change one or the other. What you shouldn't do is try to rationalize the discrepancy away. What's even worse is the people who feign victimhood as a means of rationalizing what in any other circumstance they would believe to be wrong.

"It's everybody else's fault, not mine".

NOBODY here is that fucking poor, and this is neither food or shelter we're talking about.

If you wanna download mp3s and not pay, go ahead, do your thing, it's cool, whatever. Just do your thing and shut up about it. But please spare me the contrived explanations.

A+, Sergio

OZ, he speaks the truth.

OZ confirmation hearings begin 2/13

Personally I prefer listening to vinyl and cds. I don't listen to mp3s myself, but I love the fact that they pretty much leave no excuse to be ignorant about the historical and contemporary state of this (or any other) music anymore.
Not that we are actually going to see an improvment in some of the shoddy dribble that gets passed off as journalism (Glarring example #1 Phill Freeman in the Wire: "I don't think Grimes ever played with Sharrock" of course he did on Pharoah Sanders' "Tauhid", hardly an obscure release) , but there is no longer any excuses for it.

Mm, good catch. Tauhid is the only Impulse! Sanders disc I don't own, because it bores the crap out of me. But I should have checked to see who played bass on't.

Mm, good catch. Tauhid is the only Impulse! Sanders disc currently available on CD that I don't own, because it bores the crap out of me. But I should have checked to see who played bass on't.

I keep Tauhid because I am an early Grimes completist, unfortunately I am not continuing to be a completist with his current work after that horrible cd from the review in question with Ribot. Hopefully he will get some good recoridngs out soon.
Tauhid is one of the few clean recordings of Grimes, and there are some good moments with Sharrock.

Oz, I really do think that is an oversimplification. I don't think it is rationalization to recognize that there are different kinds of downloading, with different effects, and thus involving different ethical questions.

Just a couple more words about mp3s. There's no morality in it for me, but I noticed that, at least with the iTunes encoder, things like Tenney percussion music and anything by Xenakis -- i.e., music with lots of complex hi-frequency sound -- sound like SHIT after encoding. Bad distortion.

If what we "...shouldn't do is try to rationalize the discrepancy...." 'twixt our ideals and our behaviour in relation to theft, then why is it relevent that what we are discussing is mp3s,and not " food or shelter" ?

You seem to be doing the very thing you condemn.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to hear more musician's voices in this conversation. Come on! Are you guys cool with the notion of people freely downloading your own stuff? Or you're not? Any thoughts about making music easily available on the net for the masses to dig in?

Oddly, when it's time for me to download I make a conscious decision of not taking too many stuff coming from non-centric places (Latin America, Africa, Asia). I know how hard it is for these people to just get a lousy record out, plus they hardly make a living with music in 99% of the cases, so in the end I guess I feel a little bit more concerned for them. On the contrary, I couldn't care less about the matter when it comes to first world countries with solid economies and well developed music communities such as the States, Japan or the UK. "RIP THE SHIT OUT OF THEM BASTARDS, THEY'LL SURVIVE ANYWAY!!!!" or something in that vein is what my inner voice repeats every time I face situations like these. Truly. So there you have it: third world resentment coming straight at you people... hope it won't sound extremely harsh this time, that's the way I feel about the whole issue after all.

"Mm, good catch. Tauhid is the only Impulse! Sanders disc currently available on CD that I don't own, because it bores the crap out of me. But I should have checked to see who played bass on't."

You could always dig on the Marzette ESP - more high jinks than Tauhid and it, too, has prime warped Sharrock and Grimes in thrum-mode. 'Course, I love the Pharoah, but the Watts is bananas.

C

...and you could probably download both!

Many (all?) ESP titles were available through eMusic, as far as I remember.

well, if that's not enough, then here:
i would like to invite you to visit my new mp3 site http://www.futurevessel.com/orphansound/
did anyone listen to tomas korber's mp3 on bags listen series? i thought it sounded fantastic. i can't imagine it could be better. maybe huge orchestral pieces are not favored in such (bit) depth (but, hey, the last time i listened to a CD of KRAANERG, for instance, it sounded like poop too!) but any music created in the current media ecology where mp3 is a ubiquitous option has every chance to sound more than passably good if you do one simple thing: compose for it. think in terms of what it CAN present. one of the things overlooked in this thread is that people are making their new music heard and not feeling the need to play the market game. listeners are getting their new music and happily and not needing to play the market game. (btw, i was told recently that the chinese have a saying "to steal a book is not to steal"--i have a similar ethic about musical information). another thing overlooked is that the type of personal listening space, at least as important as with the cd, is unique and owing to the variety and speed, this access to new ideas is very compelling (for me, it's like the shortawave radio used to be or cassette tape comps). third, the musician working in the digital mode does not(of necessity) have the same needs for acoustic verisimilitude and therefore there is no ground for the view that music composed in this format has to be seen as inferior to anything else. it's just something else. maybe it doesn't even have to be music. many times we hear music paralled to the visual arts (keith draws parallel of his "flat guitar" to the break with representation in the visual arts). but isn't it kind of odd that musicians are still frenzied up in a knot over the "representation" of a sound? now, the sounds can be created (organized) in the very same medium (code) in which they are rendered to be listened too. don't get me wrong. i love Neumann, Sennheiser and AKG microphones and i think recording studios are fun and acoustic musicians should do their best to ply their trade. but the fact is, a new form of presentation of sound has come into being. and i think this chicken is not even entirely hatched yet. above all, the mp3 is best understood a method for communication. once a better option exists, i'm sure we'll all grab onto it. but for the meantime, it can work wonders. roden's putting on the web a 5 hour sound-walk that i for sure would probably have to pass up as a 5-cd set.

if you take something that's meant to be sold without paying for it without the permission of the rights-holder it is theft. rationalize all you want, but there it is. illegally downloading an MP3 is no different from sneaking into a museum without paying in order to stand in front of a painting for six seconds. in the old days you didn't get to sample the wares at Tower; you put down your money and took your chances. mr. abbey, does your favorite restaurant serve you free samples of all the food you *might* be interested in ordering, to help you make up your mind? your weasel words make me nauseous...

Davy Jones:"Oz, I really do think that is an oversimplification. I don't think it is rationalization to recognize that there are different kinds of downloading, with different effects, and thus involving different ethical questions."

While I really liked what SOZ wrote I immediately thought the same thing. My buying habits are such that I don't have time and have no interest in downloads for the most part. The quality issue is one thing, after compression a significant portion of the data is gone and nothing can bring it back. I would think that if I had crappier equipment that would matter to me more because I would want all I could get to overcome the limitations of my system. However whether people care about that or not is their business. I have downloaded some items for various reasons; I am reading a book/article that references certain songs and I download, listen, then delete. If the critic mentions some old blues/jazz/folk or classical artist that I don't have, I'll go find a CD that has the song and buy it. If the critic mentions some current flavor of month I will likely download and listen to it. If it's something that I will listen to more than once then I will go out and buy it. I hardly ever do this though.

The other reason I have downloaded is in the case of out of print stuff. Sure I'd buy it if was available but so much material that say, Richard Pinnell, owns is out of print. I don't see anything wrong with downloading something I can't buy. I would ask RP, to burn it for me before downloading it so I can get a better quality copy, but if he's too busy then I'm left with either living without or downloading. Let's say I want to listen to a bunch of the items on that Nurse With Wound important records list. Good luck finding that stuff. In these sorts of cases I don't see any ethical problem with downloads. If some label wants to put out something in an edition of 100 and the artist is okay with that then they're going to have to realize that we're going to get it by downloading it.

Then of course there is that items that were never available, I downloaded that MIMEO HoC live thing when all that hubbub was going on and burned it to disc. I don't feel that I'm stealing from anyone there. I owned the Erst release so I wasn't replacing it with this.

As for sampling something, I buy way too much stuff ( I bought around 400 CD's last year) to worry about trying out things on downloads. Considering how I value my time, it's cheaper for me to just buy it.

In the end I don't think MP3's are worth the trouble for the time it takes and the quality issues, but I also don't lack for music to listen to. After scouring ebay and various sources there are things that at some point I will probably end up downloading and burning, such as the Taku Sugimoto discs that I lack. I have to admit that if someone had a server with .wav files up on it then I would probably download more but even then it probably wouldn't be be much more. As it is, I've been on soulseek less than ten times in my life resulting in a like number of downloads.

I have to say that if I was broke and had to hear a bunch of CD's by an artist I would just steal them and would think of it that way, as theft. Of course the collector in me would have to own it since I could never be satisfied with a download. Even if it was a .wav or a burned copy of the CD. But that's more to do with OCD than ethics......

"if you take something that's meant to be sold without paying for it without the permission of the rights-holder it is theft. rationalize all you want, but there it is. ... mr. abbey, does your favorite restaurant serve you free samples of all the food you *might* be interested in ordering, to help you make up your mind? your weasel words make me nauseous..."

I'm not rationalizing anything, asshole. I'm telling you what I do. my words make you nauseous? gee, I wonder which of us is more impacted by illegal file-sharing...

"I'm not rationalizing anything, asshole. I'm telling you what I do. my words make you nauseous? gee, I wonder which of us is more impacted by illegal file-sharing..."

I have no idea you self-important cocksucking piece of shit. are you a musician? I sure as fuck never heard of you...

try clicking on my name, genius.

"try clicking on my name, genius."

ah, so you run a pathetic little vanity label. bfd. you stand to lose, what, 50 cents a month?

hehe. yep, that's what I do, little man with a big pseudonym. how about you? how is filesharing adversely affecting your life?

never said it affected me, loser, other than the fact I can sleep at night knowing I don't rip off musicians. believe it or not, some people actually consider how their actions affect others. you got some bad karma goin' there, buddy.

Yo, how 'bout you two take the pie fight elsewhere,'kay?

At least Joe Morris has the guts to use his real name.

Perhaps it's Mat Maneri...

Nah. Isn't it obvious? He's a spokesman for the " industry ".

I don't care if he's Matt Dillon, Matt Monro, Matthew Barney, Mattin, Muscle Mary Mats or Mat King Cole (I'm assuming it's a "he", women have more sense than to get embroiled in this kind of slanging match), he's still got no balls if he has to hide behind a silly pseudonym.

Very true. Anonymity breeds cowardice. Or is it the other way around?
Stooping to ugly, personal attacks while remaining safely sheilded by a pseudonym, is cowardice defined.

Two behaviors here that are pointless:

1) the need to jump in and add fire when two people are flaming each other--what good does this do? it sure doesn't end the ugliness.

2) this attitude that it's somehow unmanly to 'hide behind a silly pseudonym.' most of us are hiding behind pixels, because I doubt most of us would say the nasty and insulting things we sometimes say to anyone's face.

lol, a friend of mine sends me a link to a site she thinks I might be interested in...i click on it, follow the threads for a few days, then decide to post. immediately i'm called an asshole by this abbey fellow...i give it back to him, and suddenly the other five or six geeks who apparently comprise the total readership of this site rush to his defense, calling me a "coward." if you idiots had a life, you'd know that it's common practice on boards like these for people to adopt pseudonyms, but apparently your sad little community is so tiny, you can't imagine someone outside it showing an interest. how pathetic.

Well, my intent wasn't to throw more gas on this fire, but sometimes boorish behavior needs to be called out. But Mr eekamouse ( slackness fan eh? ) outed his own ignorance in his last post.
I need ad nothing more. Civility should rule however and I'll shut my trap from now on.

Adam, I actually think it's pretty essential on the web for other members to step in and voice their opinions when two people are flaming each other, assuming you think that one is more right than the other. I wish it happened more often and quicker most of the time, to be honest.

eekamouse, read back the sequence of posts here, you couldn't have been more condescending. I didn't call you an asshole until you said "my weasel words made you nauseous". maybe you never heard of Erstwhile before, but about four people cited it earlier on this same thread, even if this was the only thread you've ever read on this site. and if you knew anything about online communities, you'd know that rule one is you don't go shooting your mouth off before you've gotten a feel for how the place works.

and maybe you are that one person in the world who's never taped a record from or for someone else, or borrowed a CD from a friend to see what you thought before purchasing. but even if that's true, you're way offbase in your statements here. I think Doug was probably right that you're somehow "industry"-related.

Jon: "Adam, I actually think it's pretty essential on the web for other members to step in and voice their opinions when two people are flaming each other, assuming you think that one is more right than the other. I wish it happened more often and quicker most of the time, to be honest."

It's rarely an issue of right or wrong anymore when two people are calling each other names. So stepping in to simply toss out more insults accomplishes nothing more than adding few more rounds of nastiness.

It seems nearly every thread here that runs on for a few days will innevitably deteriorate into a fight of some kind. Maybe resisting the urge to pile on might help end these things faster. That's all I'm saying.

ok, that's cool. my experience is that these back and forths tend to end quicker, or at least progress past simple name-calling, if other people step in and voice their opinions.

Name calling is one thing but to be coming to this of all sites, and call Erstwhile a "vanity label" is fightin' words. It isn't like Jon is releasing the Jon Abbey Singers Plays the Beatles Songbook. This is someone putting their money where their mouth is and doing a damn fine job of supporting this community. Not that he's the only one, I doubt any of our favorite labels for this music is making any of the people who run them rich.
The thing is eek, you didn't just make a comment, you made an attack. Now that's weasely behaviour.

And let's face it, downloading isn't killing the music industry, the major labels inability to adjust to a changing market is. The internet has brought about a huge fragmentation of its various markets and provided an easy way for information to get dessiminated and for labels and distributors to sell directly to the consumer. Who needs the majors anymore? The only thing they hold of interest is back catalog. Perhaps new classical recordings if yr into that sort of thing. Downloads to try out music is a great marketing tool and actually leads to sales. We've already established here that most people consider downloading as a means to replace a sale ethically wrong. And Tower does allow you to sample lots of new releases on their listening stations. And they used to have a more liberal return policy. Many indie stores that have open products have listening stations as well. The restaurant analogy doesn't hold because a download isn't actual material the way food is. But if you go to a food court there are lots of resturants that allow you a little spoonful to sample. All this exists because everyone knows the proof is in the pudding, and not in marketing rhetoric.
So get a grip.

jeff gburek said - "any music created in the current media ecology where mp3 is a ubiquitous option has every chance to sound more than passably good if you do one simple thing: compose for it. think in terms of what it CAN present."

OK, that was one of the most sensible things in this thread so why can't we steer back into that direction. Jeff's comment makes me think of Bjork making "Vespertine" and using sounds that she felt would sound good as MP3s. BTW, I haven't listened to her album but the idea stuck with me.

Certain sounds present themselves well as MP3s, and others do not.

PS. what's wrong with a pseudonymn? most people wouldn't know each other from Joe Schmo, unless you're a "name" in this industry. Folks just shouldn't say things to each other that they couldn't face to face. - and this is something I admire about Jon Abbey although he can get prickly (and rightfully so..) is that I get the sense that he would make the same statements whether he was on a board like this or in person.

PPS. maybe a pseudonymn is good if you have a very distinctive last name and you don't want to receive phone calls from the "industry"

PPPS. what's with all the "weasels" lately? the only weasel here was the real one - weasel walter.

PPPPS. don't let all these addendums detract from the quote from jeff!!!

""try clicking on my name, genius."

ah, so you run a pathetic little vanity label. bfd. you stand to lose, what, 50 cents a month?"

- Dear dipshit: Abbey has a real label, I have a vanity label (try clicking on my name, genius). If you want to insult someone do it right.
I doubt Jon would ever put out one of my records, but anyone who can't see how hugely important and visionary the work he is done with erstwhile is has to be a real moron.
I would also guess he compensates his artists fairly, meaning he does have something to lose by illegal file sharing.
It is a shady thing to do to living artists not that that needs to stop anyone, but don't try to pretend it is not.

Sniping over? Hope so.

As a "living" player of music, I recently found that filesharing has its benefits. I got on slsk & started sharing my music. Lo and behold, people I knew from online forums listened to it, liked it, spread the word. Now I can boast of *at least* 15 people who like one of my discs, a minor miracle. Some of them have even bought the disc, subsequently, and my batch of 78 copies disappeared in a couple months.

I've released (too) many cdrs in the past, but never got much feedback or interest, mainly because I'd distributed them only at shows or traded them with other players. While I have no aspiration to make a living from my music, I can understand how it does affect others, so I try not to let illegally acquired files interfere with my (marginal) legitimate music consumption.

The hand-wringing is moot, however, since freely-downloadable musis is here to stay.

/me np: In the Red (the ballad of the RIAA)

Here is something for you from an anticopyright web based label Destexa run by Mattin where you can dwnload at least two interesting recordings:

1.) Ruth Barberán/ Ferran Fages/ Alfredo Costa Monteiro: Nantes

2.) Tomas Korber: DO1+

www.mattin.org/desetyea.html

You can check how serious is Mattin w his anticopyright philosopy here:

www.mattin.org/discography.html

You can now dwnload his complete discography for free:) including also his release w Lucio Capece under name NMM:

www.mattin.org/NMM_audio.html

enjoy

Sorry for mistake. Here is the right link of the label that says COPY AS MUCH AS YOU CAN:

http://www.mattin.org/desetxea.html

I don't have much understanding of this whole downloading business. I take it there are sites, like the one mentioned above, where there's no moral/legal question whatever. These actually encourage downloading. OTOH, the term "illegal downloading" which has been used here a bit, suggests to me that some stuff gets online without authority from the artist/label, where it can be, well, ripped off. Now, when this is the case, as I indicated above, I agree with SOZ. Taking this stuff isn't the most heinous crime imaginable--I suppose it's pretty venal. However, the rationalizations are a bit hard to listen to (though maybe not literally nauseating). I've already mentioned the business about "not affording" or "having trouble finding." That one spends as much as one would otherwise is also obviously irrelevant, as is the explanation that one is now happier with one's purchases. Imagine those rationales used by somebody who steals your couch.

It's not these acts so much as it is the bullshit surrounding that galls.

Following the mattin link, try hazard records, who operate on a similar anti-copyright philosophy. A fair bit of Costa Monteiro there too (including his Paper Music album).

www.hazardrecords.org

"OTOH, the term "illegal downloading" which has been used here a bit, suggests to me that some stuff gets online without authority from the artist/label, where it can be, well, ripped off."

i personally never go looking for downloads to avoid paying for cds. i don't go to slsk for instance. but i find it is not neccessary for me. i have mentioned elsewhere that i know most music by live experience except that which i made by people who have no access to playing live for any audience. and all these people are capable of making interesting music. the site that posted the workman set from last erstfest has thousands of artists putting their work out for the love of it. i have found very intersting things going on there. there is more at issue here than this illegal download business. it is a new vehicle. i think it is not useful to continually compare it to something else. mattin's gestures are very important to me in this regard.(singing songs into your laptop is a nice emblem of organization from the grassroot level) the issue of silence for me have also to do with those who are made silent by not having access to a means to spread a message. the mp3 is one way to bypass the mediators.

As indicated, I can't see why anybody would have a problem with the downloading of stuff explicitly made available for that purpose by the creators!

"That one spends as much as one would otherwise is also obviously irrelevant, as is the explanation that one is now happier with one's purchases. Imagine those rationales used by somebody who steals your couch."

an absurd comparison, of course, since what one is doing here is creating an additional copy of something that wouldn't exist otherwise, not a physical object. Walt, you've never made a tape or borrowed music from anyone to see if you like it? some of the judgmental stuff in this thread sounds right out of the mouth of the RIAA, from some people I really wouldn't expect it from...

"some of the judgmental stuff in this thread sounds right out of the mouth of the RIAA, from some people I really wouldn't expect it from..."

Just to clarify my earlier position if it wasn't clear, I wasn't passing moral judgment on folks who do download (obviously I mean illegally). Like I said, that's your thing. And yes, I do it too (though not that often). In fact, that is precisely my point - what I have issue with is not the act itself but the justifications people make to clear their conscience.

My take is the same as OZ's. Nothing special about me: I've taped LPs, CDs, etc. since I was in my teens. My point has been only that, it's not really much of a justification either that I do it or that I'm comfortable with myself.

Re the difference between couches and downloads, it's an interesting point, but I don't think it actually changes anything essential. Both creators and legitimate owners might be harmed by the illegal activity. Why not just say: "Yeah I admit it's probably wrong, but, hell, whoever said I was perfect?"

No, Walt, I think the analogy does change something essential. If my couch is stolen, my primary complaint is not that my exclusive rights to the object have been violated, it's that I don't have a couch.

I think illegal downloading is only an issue to the extent that it denies money to artists. I can honestly say that I have never once downloaded something as a substitute for a purchase. In fact, downloading material illegally tends to increase the odds that I will purchase something from the artist, and there are many instances where I have bought something that I otherwise never would have bought because I first heard it or something similar by the artist through an mp3 illegally downloaded from a site like slsk.

it all depends on where you get your ethics.

if there's right and wrong in this world and artists are fountainheads then it makes sense to control music.... if it's every man for himself and music is a product of the culture that you are a participant in then you have to get what you can out of this life before you're dust.

there's too much music and too many people trying to make a living off of it in a society that still thinks of music as entertainment only. - something has to crumble somewhere.

...is that what this is about?

'cause I gave up a long time ago in believing that people get rewarded for working hard or that there's karma and we get what we deserve. if it's out there, I don't see it.

this stuff is making me grumpy.. I could get hit by a truck on the interstate in a minute.. and there are impoverished people out there that don't have the money to purchase music, and don't have a computer to download any either. what is this about?

I think illegal downloading is only an issue to the extent that it denies money to artists. I can honestly say that I have never once downloaded something as a substitute for a purchase.

I don't know what that means. If you illegally download something you weren't going to buy anyhow, it's OK? And, as to the couch, is it ok with you if people you don't know use your couch when you're not around so long as they don't take it with them?

Re. Walto's couch analogy: it may not be a particularly good analogy, but it isn't absurd.

Sure, someone downloading an album rather than buying the CD is not the same thing as someone stealing that musician's couch. They haven't removed a tangible possession of theirs.

But if enough people among the listenership of a musician's music are downloading for free as opposed to buying a CD, then that musician won't be able to afford to buy a new couch when the upholstery goes.

I've read the testimonials from all the regular SLSK users who say they buy just as much music as they ever did - or even more. I don't doubt their sincerity. But I know plenty of people who simply don't ever pay for music any more.

The best analogy was provided by whoever it was above who suggested that *illegal* downloading was like sneaking into an art exhibition without paying. An even better analogy would be that it was like sneaking into a concert without paying. And knowing that you could do it at every other concert anywhere in the world ever, and that so could everyone else.

I don't know what that means. If you illegally download something you weren't going to buy anyhow, it's OK? And, as to the couch, is it ok with you if people you don't know use your couch when you're not around so long as they don't take it with them?

To answer your two questions:

1. I illegally download things that are out of print, or as a way of introducing myself to an artist. If I don't like it, it gets deleted from my computer. If I do like it, I buy whatever I downloaded, provided it is available. If it's OOP and comes back in print, then I buy it when it comes back in print. Artists whose music is downloaded by me are more, rather than less, likely to receive money from me had I not downloaded anything from them in the first place. Downloading for me is like listening to sample tracks in a music store, except that I can hear the whole track (or album) instead of just a portion.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that mp3s can replace CDs. Perhaps for some, but certainly not for me.

2. I have no problem with anyone sitting on my couch provided that they don't damage it.

1. I illegally download things that are out of print, or as a way of introducing myself to an artist. If I don't like it, it gets deleted from my computer. If I do like it, I buy whatever I downloaded, provided it is available. If it's OOP and comes back in print, then I buy it when it comes back in print. Artists whose music is downloaded by me are more, rather than less, likely to receive money from me had I not downloaded anything from them in the first place. Downloading for me is like listening to sample tracks in a music store, except that I can hear the whole track (or album) instead of just a portion.

Sounds like you're ready for the court case! As indicated, I don't have any such rules, so you're certainly better than me--if you keep all those, you're probably better than everybody.

2. I have no problem with anyone sitting on my couch provided that they don't damage it.

What's your address and where do you keep that extra back door key? Oh, and is the remote handy? You somehow manage to (honorably-but-at-no-cost) get all the cable channels too, right?

;>}

David- 1. I illegally download things that are out of print, or as a way of introducing myself to an artist. If I don't like it, it gets deleted from my computer. If I do like it, I buy whatever I downloaded, provided it is available. If it's OOP and comes back in print, then I buy it when it comes back in print. Artists whose music is downloaded by me are more, rather than less, likely to receive money from me had I not downloaded anything from them in the first place. Downloading for me is like listening to sample tracks in a music store, except that I can hear the whole track (or album) instead of just a portion.

Walto- Sounds like you're ready for the court case! As indicated, I don't have any such rules, so you're certainly better than me--if you keep all those, you're probably better than everybody.

Actually Walt, David's paragraph above describes my way of thinking precisely. Thats exactly what I was trying to get across a day or so back before giving up with a headache!
And I do keep to those rules... if I download something and like it, i will (as long as I can find it) then purchase it. Always, without fail, 100%.

I stand corrected. I should have said better than everybody except Richard.

Again, I don't know anything about these sites from which one can illegally download. Depending on how the stuff gets up there in the first place, it seems that if people learn how to download music without paying there could be a danger of a prisoner's dilemma--even if there's no particular harm to the artist whose stuff you're downloading (though you'd need to know more about what you'd buy without the sites to actually know if that's the case, in spite of your intuitions that you're buying more).

Getting back to the prisoner's dilemma, if SOMEBODY is paying for the use of these sites and you benefit from these payments without making your own contributions, it seems like they'll disappear., since everyone would benefit from being a free rider. OTOH, if somebody puts these tunes up without expecting reimbursement, that problem won't materialize, but the sites will likely disappear anyhow, because they're depending on gratuitous effort (like Vince K's old site).

But I should really let somebody who (a) knows more about how these sites work and (b) is a better person than I am continue as village stone-caster.

What's your address and where do you keep that extra back door key? Oh, and is the remote handy? You somehow manage to (honorably-but-at-no-cost) get all the cable channels too, right?

Sorry, we don't have an extra key hidden anywhere. But you are welcome over any time, and you can sit on my couch for as long as you like. I'll pour you a drink and everything. As for cable, we only get basic-basic, and yeah, we pay for it.

I think it's kind of funny that in most cases the people who defend downloading are the people who spend more of their money than most supporting the music industry. Between Richard and myself, we probably bought something like 800 discs last year.

As for not knowing what you would buy if there was no downloading, yeah, that's true. I also don't know what I would be buying if I didn't frequent places like JC, Bags and recently, the SLSK chatroom. That's what downloading is for me: another source of information on what I should be spending my money on when it comes to music.

David, add me to the mix with you and Richard and we get to 1200 CD's in 2005!

I've spent the last 30 years spending what disposable income I've had on records. From the occasional 7" back then to my new record set last year. Prior to all this internet stuff I've never had a problem finding music to spend my money on. I guess I've always known record collectors, people who worked in record stores or worked in record stores myself (though I quit that about 9 years ago). Magazines, fanzines, books and the like rounded out other information sources. The main difference is that I used to get out more and meet people. Though I used to spend a fair amount of time thumbing through mail order catalogs (my first experiences with Forced Exposure distro were that way) and want/sell lists you'd find via those same mags and catalogs. Now I can do most of it from home without the postage. Though I still support my local stores when I can.

And walt, soulseek is mainly what we're talking about here in terms of finding music to download. That's how people were able to download Sean Meehan's Sectors CD the week after it came out so it's all there. Somebody's always sharing something there both illegally and not. I don't have the time but it's a valuable resource for many here. But I think David and Richard are correct, it comes down to a matter of individual ethics and actions. Me, I just wanted to take your couch for a spin. I promise to have it back by midnight and if you throw a blanket over it those stains won't show.

i'm curious to know if everyone faces this moral dilemma when purchasing a used cd or lp. the situation is similar in that the listener gets the music without the artist benefiting financially. i realize that there is not the possibility of a potentially infinite number of copies that you have with MP3, but it certainly takes a sale away from the musician. if i listen to an MP3 and like it i will most likely buy the cd at some point. if i purchase a used cd and like it i will definitely not buy a second cd from the artist because i feel that he/she has been deprived of a sale.

David, add me to the mix with you and Richard and we get to 1200 CD's in 2005!

Jeez, it's bad enough being morally inferior to you guys, but having to admit you're also better hung is just too much!

Regarding buying used discs, it's interesting to me that states generally require the licensing of ticket resellers and outlaw "scalping"--but nobody seems to care too much about the reselling of CDs. The main difference between this activity and and illegal downloading seems to be the "illegal" part. But the moral grounding (as well as the disposable income) of the civil disobedience gang in these parts has now been well documented.

The one time I investigated soulseek, it seemed to me that they charged a membership fee. Am I wrong about that?

mudslidetheo: i'm curious to know if everyone faces this moral dilemma when purchasing a used cd or lp. the situation is similar in that the listener gets the music without the artist benefiting financially.

Don't forget that a private individual profits on the resale of hard media, which is rarely the case with the digital route.

If a label or a musician sells every copy of a release, then there is success. I suppose that the illegal transfer of MP3's often dictates whether or not there will be a second or third pressing.

"I suppose that the illegal transfer of MP3's often dictates whether or not there will be a second or third pressing."

my guess is it's beginning to dictate whether or not there will be a first pressing in some cases.

I guess a depressingly capitalistc spin on file sharing is that the monetary value of music ( pop music in particular ) is being set by the market. And it's not very high. Divorced from an object, music is now just another disposable bit of data. This isn't new though, Cassettes did the same thing to the recording industry in the developing world. A piece of new technology comes around and blows holes in the fantasy mill that is the music business.

Phil- "The one time I investigated soulseek, it seemed to me that they charged a membership fee. Am I wrong about that?"

Yes you're wrong there Phil.

They do try and ask for contributions to pay for further software upgrades, but there is no charge for anything as such.

Soulseek is not a website with downloads as such, it is a piece of software that allows your computer to connect with other people's computers so that transfers of music move directly from one person to the other. At the minute, I do not believe it is illegal to distribute software of that type, it only becomes illegal when someone puts up a piece of copywrited music for others to access. Hence the phrase 'sharing' and hence the difficulty in ever being able to shut slsk down, as its not as simple as just closing a website.

"Hence the phrase 'sharing' and hence the difficulty in ever being able to shut slsk down, as its not as simple as just closing a..."

and perhaps, richard, it is because "sharing" is the one sign of civilization that differentiates the meat-markets of capitalism from the consciousness of those who look toward a time where property is held as common-sense.

it's quite amazing how tenaciously the thread veers back towards the money box and the inability to think outside of it. why not start ethics back a few steps: making things available to those who want and need them, hmmm? the way i look at it you must consider the music essential information and that people should have access to it somehow if they cannot afford it, otherwise you are just trafficking in luxuries. how many time have you read a review that used the word "essential". what does it mean?

"we cannot resolve the problems of our existence at the same level of thinking that created them."

here's what i am trying to get my head wrapped around:

http://www.ctheory.net/printer.aspx?id=500

http://www.s2s2.org/content/view/96/124

that's for starters. the holes in the system can be seen as it's functional space. look for what's in the cracks, or, rather, what isn't...

BTW,i heard the best concert of the new year so far last night: bossetti and nakatani. and alessandro speaking excitedly afterward about an ipod rip he made of "THE BOOKS".

over and out

Those ideas are real nice, really, they are. Trying to force cultural change by ripping off those at the bottom still does not fly.
I am all for a civilization that shares, but talk to us when the electricity company is on board.

The way this threads unravels here with this last comment makes it look like I was advocating “stealing” music through file sharing. I’m not the straight-man to pin your complaints on. I think anyone reading carefully will discover that I am simply pointing out the more democratic aspect of the ability of people (those who don't make cds) to have their music heard. In tandem, what I said in the thread about computer software was parallel. In order to provide a sense of balance, I will affirm that I think certain quiet music and music with extremely low frequencies recorded (without the lower bit rate encoding taken into consideration) may not sound very good on mp3’s (or the open platform ogg counterpart) and in fact I highly recommend that people buy cds directly from Jon Abbey and Damon Smith and other artists because they are careful in how they record onto their medium of choice and you want ultimately to know the truth of an artist’s choices. Not all of us need to have only one medium to work in however and those of us who want to communicate with everyone possible, not just the monied classes, need to use whatever tools are available and we can make strong statements using them if we take that medium and it’s limitations seriously. You won’t cease to hear me speak about these kinds of openings and empowerments because they do represent a small step in the direction of the kind of society I would prefer to be living in. Optimistically speaking, you have more chances to reach people with your music than ever before. I just learned that google is trying to reconfigure to a linux platform, so let your imaginations ingest that. German browser companies, for example, are upset about this because google is really becoming “pandemic” or maybe “pan-cratic”. I am not sure however that once you are “hooked” into such a system that another class of elites might not arise to limit accessibility. On the other hand, you have a unique opportunity to create your own conditions for existence in the medium if you learn how to use it.

jff gbk, nicely put...

"why not start ethics back a few steps: making things available to those who want and need them, hmmm? the way i look at it you must consider the music essential information and that people should have access to it somehow if they cannot afford it, otherwise you are just trafficking in luxuries. how many time have you read a review that used the word "essential". what does it mean?"

I (directly or indirectly) use slsk-downloaded music, I neither have money to pay for the music, nor I have such option, even if I had money...

I know many more like me around the globe...

copyleft

"I neither have money to pay for the music,"

This argument doesn't wash with me. It's all about priorities. Musicians have to eat, just like you do. Once you have a roof over your head and food on the table, how you spend what you have left is up to you to prioritise. If you want to hear music that someone has created it is only fair that you give them something in return and, as you're unlikely to be near (say) Taku Sugimoto to offer him whatever skills you use to make your living, some cash for his music (by buying his CD) is only fair. If the music is offered for free by the musician, that's up to them and there's plenty of it about (Mattin's site, Klingt.org, Julien Ottavi's site and so on) if you don't have the extra cash. And then if you only have a limited amount of cash to spend on music you prioritise what you want to hear and buy the stuff at the top of the list. There's no need to buy everything and there's no need to hear everything.

"nor I have such option, even if I had money..."

Well, that's clearly bollocks. You've admitted to using soulseek or gaining music indirectly from there, which I assume means someone's downloaded stuff for you and passed it on to you in some digital format . You therefore have either a CD player or MP3 player. You've posted here, so you've an internet connection. You can therefore buy CDs or legal downloads from anywhere in the world and have something to play them on. Talk sense.

1) cd's don't come to Serbia...out of 5, you may end up with two.."may"...
2) my father's sallary is 180 euros...about that...
my mother is unemployed...when we sum up monthly expenses, you think I have 15-16 (often more) euros for ordering cd's from the west ?
anyway, how many cd's I'd have if I'd go with that tempo ?...one cd in 5 months...

and I wouldn't like to be determined on what I can and what can not hear...
that's why democratic peer2peer is here...
I'm really sorry for any advanced musician in scarce living conditions, maybe I'll follow similar path after I (maybe) become musician, some day...
but - that's not my fault, neither is his/hers...
it's question of priorities...

1) cd's don't come to Serbia...out of 5, you may end up with two.."may"...
2) my father's sallary is 180 euros...about that...
my mother is unemployed...when we sum up monthly expenses, you think I have 15-16 (often more) euros for ordering cd's from the west ?
anyway, how many cd's I'd have if I'd go with that tempo ?...one cd in 5 months...

and I wouldn't like to be determined on what I can and what can not hear...
that's why democratic peer2peer is here...
I'm really sorry for any advanced musician in scarce living conditions, maybe I'll follow similar path after I (maybe) become musician, some day...
but - that's not my fault, neither is his/hers...
it's question of priorities...