The Great MP3 ethics thread

Woebot

Well-known member
GuyMercier said:
I'm not a collector of anything, I buy records cause I like them and they are how music is supposed to be received according to the guys that do them. I'm not into "lifestyles" either, I'm not into MP3s and consumer electronics, ...
etc!

As someone else who (like you) has fallen into the trap of being a record collector by virtue of endlessly having bought records I loved, I'd have to disagree about the mp3 thing being a "lifestyle" option. I don't know how it is in France Guy, but over here mp3s are pretty much the default means most people listen to music now. On the other hand buying records (specifically vinyl) is fast becoming an encultured "classic" pose, much more like a "lifestyle" choice. Though of course I'd vehemently deny it if you cornered me.
 

nonightsweats

Active member
i download and then cut to cd-r. i can't stomach the idea of playing music on the computer, even if it does eventually go though a good amp and speakers (like i have in my lounge room). instead, i love being able to browse through my collection of cds and cd-rs manually instead of via an interface that reminds me too much of those i use for work.

as for the question of sound quality: i find it very, very difficult to hear the difference between a high bitrate (192+) or vbr mp3 and the original cd itself. in normal circumstances i can discern no difference at all. and apple's lossless mp4 format is even better.

and i hate vinyl - all those clicks and scratches were not supposed to be heard.
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
I find that although I've got thousands of tracks in iTunes (the vast majority legal downloads/CD rips), I rarely use them at the moment: I'm writing this on the same computer as all my tracks, but I'm actually listening to my minidisc player. I've only got OS9, so my version of iTunes won't talk to an iPod anyway, so I tend to use it more for compiling playlists for myself which I then transfer onto Minidisc.

As for ethics, I think there's a crucial difference between selective downloading via MP3 blogs and the like, and filesharing entire albums. With the former, you are getting context, a review of the track, and enthusiam from the writer. In my mind it's similar to taping things from the radio - if you like it, there's every chance that you'll buy the record: it's publicity the record companies would love to have. With filesharing, there simply is no (or very little) chance that you're going to buy the thing at all, so that seems ethically more suspect.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
mms said:
that said ... why didn't home taping kill music? hmm. can anyone answer that?
It is demonstrably true that home taping did not kill music :). There is quite a lot of evidence to indicate that home taping drove record sales -- for obvious reasons to do with product sampling enticing consumers, and off-setting post-purchase cognitive dissonance and other factors affecting purchase decisions.

Similarly, there is now quite a good body of evidence which demonstrates that mp3 downloads have driven music sales. Don't forget that in terms of both volume and value, CD album sales are rising. Even CD single sales are rising -- some in the industry thought CD singles would have disappeared by now. If mp3 downloads had one tenth the behavioural and economic impact that the record industry asserts, the effect would have been obvious by now. It is not.

I therefore don't think that the CD album is going to disappear any time soon. Nor do I think mp3s do much harm to the music business.

Hard data is here: http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
 

grimly fiendish

Well-known member
thanks for that link, 2stepfan: i'll read the whole thing when i've got more time. (it was me that asked the original question, not mms.)
 
WOEBOT said:
As someone else who (like you) has fallen into the trap of being a record collector by virtue of endlessly having bought records I loved, I'd have to disagree about the mp3 thing being a "lifestyle" option. I don't know how it is in France Guy, but over here mp3s are pretty much the default means most people listen to music now. On the other hand buying records (specifically vinyl) is fast becoming an encultured "classic" pose, much more like a "lifestyle" choice. Though of course I'd vehemently deny it if you cornered me.

having a great record collection is not the result of record collecting. I have one (die radierer, a german band) pic disc, maybe two (an oxbow LP I think) if I was a record collector I'd have much more of those I guess... what I mean is that I'm not driven by the collecting aspect I'm driven by the thrill of music. much as I understand the commodity of MP3s and the inexpensiveness of it, and although I have tried honestly to get into slsk, it is for me a tasteless experience to have files on my computer. "It don't move me" like the old man said. It is a cold medium, the CD was lukewarm and for me vinyl remains HOT. It's not a pose I assure you, I truly feel nothing towards digitized music
 

boomnoise

♫
The music doesn't change

I truly feel nothing towards digitized music

Guy - I don't understand this. How can, what is ostensibly, just a change of format render you numb to the music. The music doesn't change. CDs superceded formats of old and any argument against them, like those anti mp3s, has a heavy dollop of irrational fetishisation at its core. I don’t go in for that. I love the music. Its point of delivery doesn’t matter.

Across all formats the music is just data contained on the specific media. Now I happen to horde compressed audio data which occupies no physical space and is eco-friendly. I used to horde plastics discs which took up all my space and damaged the environment. MP3 have changed my relationship with sound, yes; but all for the better.

The music doesn't change. The cultural economy and entertainment's relationship to it does and I think that's what warrants discussion with regards to MP3 'ethics'. It's not an argument based on aesthetics and lifestyle choices but ultimately, one which is based on economics and sustainability and crucially where value can or cannot be added to art.
 

Backjob

Well-known member
What interests me about the debate is the way that for some reason all discussion has been collapsed down to the question of revenues from recorded music. i.e. filesharing is wrong because it makes it harder for musicians to make money

Since forever, musicians have also earned money from live performance. Since the days of the mass media there is also the possibility of earning money from licensing (for TV , movies or ads).

So, surely, just as the advent of recorded music didn't kill live music, why should the (potential) death of recorded music as a revenue stream kill recorded music? And if there is a shift away from an emphasis on recorded music to an emphasis on live music, is that even a bad thing?

In the sense that we're always saying technological change in music is neither a good nor a bad thing e.g. effect of laptops on djs, effect of drum machines on drummers etc. then surely economic change in the music industry is also 'neutral'.

It seems unlikely that due to mp3s people will suddenly start hating music. So if we assume humans will still love music and therefore (in a consumer society) still want to spend money on it, it follows that musicians will still be able to make a living.

Furthermore a shift from ownership of physical items, and spending on physical items, to a seeking after experiences and spending on experiences would only put music in line with broader economic trends.
 
boomnoise said:
Guy - I don't understand this. How can, what is ostensibly, just a change of format render you numb to the music.

it is the truth
look I don't want to go into the details of a very technical debate
I found this skimming the surface http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=375592
but specially this paragraph describes my own experience:

Also important in this discussion is the inclusion of the additional
effects added by LPs that trigger the ways in which we listen to the
music we hear. Primarily there's the tactile element of records
(having to flip the record halfway through, larger artwork, etc..)
that makes listening to vinyl more of an active event as opposed to
letting music play in the background. Secondly, the addition of
surface noise from use, dust, mold, etc is quite often more "true" to
the music, the history of the artist, the history of the LP itself,
and the connection the listener has with the particular record.

- I find more truth in my highly-listened-to first pressing of "Kind
of Blue" than I would in any audiophile re-release. Just some
thoughts.


so true!
 

grimly fiendish

Well-known member
long post warning! multiple quotes alert!

Backjob said:
Since forever, musicians have also earned money from live performance. Since the days of the mass media there is also the possibility of earning money from licensing (for TV , movies or ads).

but musicians make nothing from live performance. gigging pays next to NOWT, unless you're *huge* (madonna, U2-style huge). the cost of getting a band around the country/world is enormous; most ticket costs barely cover overheads. it's long been a truism that the only way bands make money on tour is through merchandise such as T-shirts etc. tours exist to promote the product - ie the record - not to make money themselves.

as for licensing etc: this, for good or for bad, has always been seen as "selling out". many bands simply don't want to do it: and why should they have to? if i'd ever managed to get any of my own music out there, i'd have wanted it to be bought and enjoyed as a self-contained entity, not as the soundtrack to a pair of fucking jeans ;)

Backjob said:
So, surely, just as the advent of recorded music didn't kill live music, why should the (potential) death of recorded music as a revenue stream kill recorded music? And if there is a shift away from an emphasis on recorded music to an emphasis on live music, is that even a bad thing?

of course it is. very few people go to gigs. hell, not *that* many people buy records these days (cf ringtones outselling singles); even fewer bother to leave the house and experience a band. if they do, it's some time-served spectacle such as, er, madonna or u2. live music is not a viable way for rock bands to earn a living. hard-working solo artists might just about scrape a crust on, say, the folk circuit ... but even in more "specialist" markets like that, the chances of making a living wage are negligible.

Backjob said:
In the sense that we're always saying technological change in music is neither a good nor a bad thing e.g. effect of laptops on djs, effect of drum machines on drummers etc. then surely economic change in the music industry is also 'neutral'.

?!

what: taking away someone's revenue, their livelihood, is neutral?

Backjob said:
It seems unlikely that due to mp3s people will suddenly start hating music. So if we assume humans will still love music and therefore (in a consumer society) still want to spend money on it, it follows that musicians will still be able to make a living.

people don't hate music: they just don't like paying for it. i'm a deeply strange person, which is why (qv previous post) i've gone out and bought records i've already had copies of: because i feel guilty about enjoying that music without paying for it. i'm not setting myself up as some paragon of virtue, but come on: very few people do that kind of thing. most people don't think about music; if they find a way of getting it for free, they just think, top, and consume as much of it as possible.

Backjob said:
Furthermore a shift from ownership of physical items, and spending on physical items, to a seeking after experiences and spending on experiences would only put music in line with broader economic trends.

er, such as? what, has material capitalism been replaced by spiritual capitalism? i'm sorry: from where i'm sitting (glasgow, uk), i see people stocking up on physical items like there's no tomorrow. houses, mostly. the pricks.

sorry. got sidetracked.

plain and simple truth: musicians might do it for the love, but if they're not getting paid, they're not going to carry on. end of story.

still: interesting viewpoint. i look forward to reading your reply.
 
Last edited:

grimly fiendish

Well-known member
mms said:
on a slight tangent, this from irdial in 1992 [URL snipped]

very interesting. and impassioned. thank god MP3s weren't common currency then :)

but what it seems to overlook is the fact that, for the consumer, vinyl (and don't get me wrong, i love vinyl, if only for aesthetic reasons) is easily damaged, and cassette tape ... well, don't make me laugh. i chucked out hundreds of tapes a couple of months ago because they'd deteriorated so badly. or maybe they always sounded that bad; i dunno. and believe me, i looked after them: they were all boxed and kept neatly in drawers.

my crappy 192kbps MP3s and 128kbps AACs aren't as pure and precise as the sources whence they came (even those evil CDs), but - as another poster pointed out - what's more important: the exact quality of the sound, or the ability to preserve and enjoy (on the move on an iPod, in this case) the songs? it's the same reason my dad has speaker wire as thick as my arm and i've still got the crappy 1p-a-mile stuff i got from richer sounds in 1991: fidelity just ain't a big deal to me. passion, harmony, melody, ROCK ... these are.
 

johneffay

Well-known member
mms said:
on slight tangent,
this from irdial in 1992
why cd is a con
http://www.irdial.com/w33.htm

But anybody who was paying attention when CDs came out knew this anyway: It's just the old valve vs. transistor amp dbate which had been running from the early 70s. Most of these arguments about format quality are redundant unless you have really serious equipment and a room set up to listen to it in because, unless you are right at the top end of the market, buying a new stereo will make all your music sound better.
 

sufi

lala
WOW
What a lot of top responses
thanks all!!

some rilly good links on p3, which definitely put the issue of vinyl vs mp3 to rest
i particularly cherish this un ;) :
As an older person whose hearing range has deteriorated, I am pleased with CD sound and lack of surface noise. My reminiscence of great LP sound is of course subjective.
my take on that aspect is that me & cheekybuddha were totally blown away last time we listened to vinyl, the difference in quality was astounding, after getting accustomed to mp3 over the years... no doubt

I still wanna deal with the ethical dilemmas... here's some case studies

  1. i got absolutely zero sympathy for metallica or the other big acts who are rolling in dosho, but i get a particylar pang about sharing certain tunes from my local sound system, which i myself downloaded,
    i don't wory bout downloading em, cos i paid to see that sound at least 50 times over the years, but i worry that if folks dl from me the sound may lose sales... at the same time, i guess that if i make the live recordings available mebbie more people will get encouraged to see the sound play live.
  2. there's one album i bought on vinyl in early 90's of obscure dub, that i really love, i've never seen it on slsk, and i do have qualms about sharing it... definitely it's out of print for years, so i s'pose my qualm comes from some twisted sense of snobbery that i got it and it's wicked and obscure, no?
anyway, well done all for keeping it civil
cheers
sufi
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
grimly fiendish said:
but musicians make nothing from live performance. gigging pays next to NOWT, unless you're *huge* (madonna, U2-style huge).
From what I read, that's the case for CDs as well. Is there any way of comparing how much people spend on pre-recorded music as opposed to live performances (would going to hear a DJ count? I don't know)?

As far as American jazz musicians are concerned, many use government-funded European concert halls to make a living. I don't think you have to be Madonna-huge for it to be worthwhile. And many carry on even if playing (and recording) music isn't earning them nearly enough to make a living, either by getting a job or teaching (I would guess that 99% of jazz musicians here teach, for example).

I don't think it's that different for the myriad rock/whatever musicians either. Eppy of Clap Clap makes music and works, for example.

hell, not *that* many people buy records these days (cf ringtones outselling singles)
If you're able to make more money selling ringtones of your music, wouldn't it make more sense to do that instead of losing money issuing singles? And people buy less music than in the dot com bubble days, but more than they did in the 80s and early 90s.
 

mms

sometimes
on the issue of touring, i know a band who are fairly big, not a household name but not incredibly obscure, everyone here would have heard of them, 50 quid man might have picked up their lp, they're in the middle of a european tour at the mo, they have sold out a few of the gigs, they stand to come back with maybe 200 dollars each from it after all is said and done.

alot of music, jazz , electronic etc gets funding from the arts council or european arts councils, it's true.

be.jazz said:
If you're able to make more money selling ringtones of your music, wouldn't it make more sense to do that instead of losing money issuing singles? .

because ring tones have even less of a connection to the song, singer, emotional resonance than mp3's do, i felt well sorry for the soul singer who went up at the mobo's to collect his award, you've got talent and you sing your heart out on your new record only for it to be reduced to a minute phone jingle.
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
mms said:
because ring tones have even less of a connection to the song, singer, emotional resonance than mp3's do, i felt well sorry for the soul singer who went up at the mobo's to collect his award, you've got talent and you sing your heart out on your new record only for it to be reduced to a minute phone jingle.
Admittedly, having a "best ringtone" award is a height of absurdity. First I've heard of this, when did this happen?

Still, a ringtone similar to having your song used in an ad, rather than something "inferior to an MP3." Personally, I'd much rather never have to hear that default Nokia ringtone ever again (the most famous short composition of the 90s?)
 

mms

sometimes
be.jazz said:
Admittedly, having a "best ringtone" award is a height of absurdity. First I've heard of this, when did this happen?

it was on the telly the other week.


be.jazz said:
Still, a ringtone similar to having your song used in an ad, rather than something "inferior to an MP3." Personally, I'd much rather never have to hear that default Nokia ringtone ever again (the most famous short composition of the 90s?)


similar i think, but the performance ie the human action is still reduced to 0.
 

cheekybuddha

New member
Hi everyone, this is a good debate. Really there are two issues with mp3's. The first is quality, the second is money.

On the quality issue, there is no doubt that mp3's are inferior - even at 320kbps. This may be because of duff soundcards/poor hifi setup, but as Sufi wrote earlier we listened to some old vinyl the other day and WOW! the difference was huge. The depth and range and richness of sound made me want to chuck my computer out the window! However, quality is a personal choice and if you're happy to make do with a pretty good approximation of the original then who's to tell you not to?

I think the real issue that this thread is trying to address is money. Is downloading masses of tunes from soulseek for free going to kill off artists because they're not getting paid for their work? Frankly, I agree that artists should be paid but for too long now we have been suckered and ripped off by the record companies.

Downloading music provides a new means of distribution which can save the ARTIST costs in getting their music to their audience. How much revenue from cd sales goes on idiot marketing, laywers fees for tying artists into crippling contracts with their record companies who then go on to dictate what an artist produces, swanky record company offices, etc etc.

With the advent of downlaoding the artist is now in a position to take control of their situation and still make money. I bet that if they cut out the middle(hundred)men they could charge 5p a download (which most people would be willing to pay) and make more money than they do through their record companies. This is why the RIAA are so up in arms at the moment - they are SCARED, because they realise it's the pen-pushers and hangers-on who leech money (from us via the artist) and not the artist who will lose out.

Filesharing has provided an opportunity to hear music that just isn't available in shops, specialist or otherwise. It may be a tricky subject at the moment, but I think in the long run it will have a positive effect by forcing a radical shake-up of a very greedy industry where both the artist and us, the consumer, benefit. It may mean a return to artists producing meaningful music rather than so much of the manufactured pop idol shite that we have rammed down our throats everyday. It may cause the death of the album as a musical journey, but we may have already reached that point anyway. How many albums these days sound like three singles and a load of padding just so they can sell the cd's for £15?

I've been rambling too long, but there's my tuppence ha'penny's worth. Let's just hope the formats get better. (Oggs any good?)

d
 
Top