Maybe Tommy Lee isn't so crazy after all.....

S.D. wrote:

The CDR thing happens when a band realizes they'll never be able to make back their money on doing a full pressing. Many jazz CDs are only CDRs now, because the market is so small it's not a valid expense.

Pffft! It happens because it's a cheap cost which maximizes their profit. That's it. There's no other reason to choose CDRs over glass mastered CDs.

they are better off just making the songs mp3s. cutting out all expenses except recording.

Most of us here are 30-40 years of age, and I'm afraid as I get older, I'll be less and less able to want or actively seek out newer bands due to an ever increasing generation gap the older I get.Other than Vektor and a few others, must of the stuff I listen to is from the 80's to early 90's. There are literaly thousands of bands from that era, including some great demo-only bands such as Slaughter Lord and Sinister Black to listen to.

That being said I couldn't imagine Sky Valley, Reign in Blood or even Master of Reality broken up into hit single/EP format.

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The CDR thing happens when a band realizes they'll never be able to make back their money on doing a full pressing. Many jazz CDs are only CDRs now, because the market is so small it's not a valid expense.

Pffft! It happens because it's a cheap cost which maximizes their profit. That's it. There's no other reason to choose CDRs over glass mastered CDs.

and since I've had CDR's last since the late 90's I'm completely unconvinced there is any difference.

It's all 1's and 0's after all, no real wav form even exists, just an approximation of one.

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The CDR thing happens when a band realizes they'll never be able to make back their money on doing a full pressing. Many jazz CDs are only CDRs now, because the market is so small it's not a valid expense.

Pffft! It happens because it's a cheap cost which maximizes their profit. That's it. There's no other reason to choose CDRs over glass mastered CDs.

and since I've had CDR's last since the late 90's I'm completely unconvinced there is any difference.

It's all 1's and 0's after all, no real wav form even exists, just an approximation of one.

Fact says you being unconvinced is irrelevant.

ultmetal wrote:

I listen to albums, not hit singles.

I do both (though no hit singles from the past ten years and very little the five years before that).

ultmetal wrote:

rawr! wrote:

copyright infringement (downloading music) isnt theft---

Sure it is. You took something that wasn't yours (in this case a MP3 of a song) and put in on your computer without paying for it. That's theft.

in that case, taking a picture of a building and putting it on your computer without paying for it is theft as well. making a copy of something is not the same thing as taking something. if we could make a million copies of a sandwich and feed a bunch of people that were about to starve to death, are they stealing the original sandwich even though the person owning that sandwich could still go ahead and eat it whenever he likes? by your logic here, yes. the government doesnt recognize music downloading and uploading as theft and it seems kind of silly to put it in that category in general speech when nothing is being removed (physically, digitally, or in any sense) and nobody is being deprived of the property in question---key elements of the definition of "theft" if you go to the dictionary. whether or not music in general, as opposed to specific physical/digital copies, "belongs" to someone is a philosophical quagmire where absolute statements are beyond tenuous. you can try to make a persuasive argument as to why certain ideas, manifest or not, should be magically regarded as belonging to someone, but the entire theory of ownership youre working with is just a bunch of bullsh*t. its arbitrary and theres no good reason it should be followed in place of another, (especially if another has greater utility and speaks more to the personal ideals of adherants, such as freedom or community). if you want to use the word "theft" in a way the dictionary doesnt jive with just to make downloading look bad or to try to compare it to the socially unacceptable act of stealing, that just opens up the game for me to bend words as well. perhaps i could say paying for music is theft on the part of those receiving funds because art and ideas cant realistically be doled out or hoarded like physical objects because they are transcendent in many important ways.

Troublezone wrote:

Those that think downloading (without paying the artist) "isn't stealing" are the ones that put us in the position we're in now. Even though some of the record labels were greedy... at least there was an industry and music stores.

wrong, its capitalists that have put us in the position we are in right now. if we had a system where artists had the services and accomodations (be it a matter of funding or direct interfacing) they needed to make their art and the output was always free, the material would be flowing and everyone would be happy. but capitalism isnt about everyone being happy, its about the strong taking advantage of the weak, and everyone using each other. many people who download still buy, be it albums, dvds, shirts, show tickets, or whatever else, so the model of music automatically needing to cost the art consumer money just for a band to get by even in this failing experiment of capitalism is ludicrous, as well. many bands, as im sure you are all aware, purposely offer all their material for free.

if people treated music like art for once instead of commoditizing it and reducing it to a product the situation would be far different.

Only young people offer up such stupid arguments. At best it's semantics, the exploitation of words defined centuries before things such as digital downloading were ever conceived. At worst, it's ignorant justification for being a new-age thief.

I've never illegally downloaded a whole album, I can't make myself do it. I take two or three songs to sample the album, and if I like it I seek out the album. If i don't like it, I delete it off my computer. I want to support the bands I like, I just don't always have the funds if that makes any sense.

[quote="rawr!"]

ultmetal wrote:

rawr! wrote:

copyright infringement (downloading music) isnt theft---

if people treated music like art for once instead of commoditizing it and reducing it to a product the situation would be far different.

like sculptures or paintings that sell for hundreds, thousands, or millions of dollars?

or perhaps poetry or books that are works of art that sell much like music for $5, $10, or significantly more?

i've had this intellectual property discussion at work many, many times. intellectual property is seen as something for the masses, until it's YOUR intellectual property that is taken and used without your permission.

did I read that government doesn't consider downloading music as theft

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The CDR thing happens when a band realizes they'll never be able to make back their money on doing a full pressing. Many jazz CDs are only CDRs now, because the market is so small it's not a valid expense.

Pffft! It happens because it's a cheap cost which maximizes their profit. That's it. There's no other reason to choose CDRs over glass mastered CDs.

and since I've had CDR's last since the late 90's I'm completely unconvinced there is any difference.

It's all 1's and 0's after all, no real wav form even exists, just an approximation of one.

Fact says you being unconvinced is irrelevant.

You being convinced otherwise is equally irrelevant.

I too have had CDR's last well over 13 years and sound perfect.

And OF COURSE they press CDRs over glass mastered CDs as a cost effective measure. Who wouldn't? When they sound just as good as glass masters, there's no reason not to. Why should an artist spend extra money in this musical economy just for the sake of not having to place an "R" in their advertising?

Eyesore wrote:

Only young people offer up such stupid arguments. At best it's semantics, the exploitation of words defined centuries before things such as digital downloading were ever conceived. At worst, it's ignorant justification for being a new-age thief.

Yup.

It's pretty simple, If you takes something that does not belong to you without paying for it when payment is expected, you are stealing.

Quote :

I can't see a band like King's X doing 5 song EPs... That concept just doesn't work for all bands.

I can. It would/could allow for a little more experimentation and diversity. 4-5 songs once a year or every 9 months or so? I could see it working for just about anyone, actually.

Quote :

i get that but i think the band should at least say its on a cdr before selling it.

Why? If they are silver CDRs would you honestly have known the difference? Do they somehow play or sound differently than "real" CDs? A "real" CD versus a CD-R in terms of application once you buy them are no different. You play them, you rip them to MP3, you can't erare or recopy them, they have artwork on one side...what's the difference?

There is no difference of course. If we were talking vinyl or tape formats, then the quality of the material definitely comes into play. With CDs it truly doesn't matter, the player does all the work (error correction, etc).

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The CDR thing happens when a band realizes they'll never be able to make back their money on doing a full pressing. Many jazz CDs are only CDRs now, because the market is so small it's not a valid expense.

Pffft! It happens because it's a cheap cost which maximizes their profit. That's it. There's no other reason to choose CDRs over glass mastered CDs.

and since I've had CDR's last since the late 90's I'm completely unconvinced there is any difference.

It's all 1's and 0's after all, no real wav form even exists, just an approximation of one.

Fact says you being unconvinced is irrelevant.

You being convinced otherwise is equally irrelevant.

I too have had CDR's last well over 13 years and sound perfect.

And OF COURSE they press CDRs over glass mastered CDs as a cost effective measure. Who wouldn't? When they sound just as good as glass masters, there's no reason not to. Why should an artist spend extra money in this musical economy just for the sake of not having to place an "R" in their advertising?

Sure. I've had CDRs last a long time, too, and I've never said that every CDR will stop working months later. But they will stop working at some point, for no reason at all other than the fact that the dye the material is burned to degrades. This is a chemical process that cannot be stopped. There are all kinds of different dyes out there, but they all degrade. And you have no idea what kind you're getting when you buy a CDR, nor do bands.

Even the best made CDRs are given an average lifespan of 10 years, but when bands opt for the cheapest product, the fan is not getting the best made CDR, that's for sure.

For some reason CDRs sometimes won't play correctly in my car, which bugs the crap out of me considering the cost of the system in that car.

So, there has to be some difference between CDRs and CDs as far as quality.

rawr! wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

rawr! wrote:

copyright infringement (downloading music) isnt theft---

Sure it is. You took something that wasn't yours (in this case a MP3 of a song) and put in on your computer without paying for it. That's theft.

in that case, taking a picture of a building and putting it on your computer without paying for it is theft as well. making a copy of something is not the same thing as taking something. if we could make a million copies of a sandwich and feed a bunch of people that were about to starve to death, are they stealing the original sandwich even though the person owning that sandwich could still go ahead and eat it whenever he likes? by your logic here, yes. the government doesnt recognize music downloading and uploading as theft and it seems kind of silly to put it in that category in general speech when nothing is being removed (physically, digitally, or in any sense) and nobody is being deprived of the property in question---key elements of the definition of "theft" if you go to the dictionary. whether or not music in general, as opposed to specific physical/digital copies, "belongs" to someone is a philosophical quagmire where absolute statements are beyond tenuous. you can try to make a persuasive argument as to why certain ideas, manifest or not, should be magically regarded as belonging to someone, but the entire theory of ownership youre working with is just a bunch of bullsh*t. its arbitrary and theres no good reason it should be followed in place of another, (especially if another has greater utility and speaks more to the personal ideals of adherants, such as freedom or community). if you want to use the word "theft" in a way the dictionary doesnt jive with just to make downloading look bad or to try to compare it to the socially unacceptable act of stealing, that just opens up the game for me to bend words as well. perhaps i could say paying for music is theft on the part of those receiving funds because art and ideas cant realistically be doled out or hoarded like physical objects because they are transcendent in many important ways.

The great lengths people go to justify downloading music illegally never ceases to amaze me. It is really quite simple - want to listen to the music? Buy it. If you like mp3s - buy them. If you like cds - buy them. If you like records - buy them. A label/band is being deprived of their property when you take it without their permission. They have put in the time, effort and expense to create the product, and they justly hold ownership over how and when it can be distributed and to whom. You are removing the owners (by contractual mutual agreement between the artist and label) ability to control and determine how a resource is to be used, which meets the definition of theft.

rawr! wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Those that think downloading (without paying the artist) "isn't stealing" are the ones that put us in the position we're in now. Even though some of the record labels were greedy... at least there was an industry and music stores.

wrong, its capitalists that have put us in the position we are in right now. if we had a system where artists had the services and accomodations (be it a matter of funding or direct interfacing) they needed to make their art and the output was always free, the material would be flowing and everyone would be happy. but capitalism isnt about everyone being happy, its about the strong taking advantage of the weak, and everyone using each other. many people who download still buy, be it albums, dvds, shirts, show tickets, or whatever else, so the model of music automatically needing to cost the art consumer money just for a band to get by even in this failing experiment of capitalism is ludicrous, as well. many bands, as im sure you are all aware, purposely offer all their material for free.

if people treated music like art for once instead of commoditizing it and reducing it to a product the situation would be far different.

and where exactly does one get the resources for recording? They just dont grow on trees. Someone has to build, maintain and improve the resources. where is the money for that coming from? If artists pay for the recording themselves and want to give it out for free as art - go right ahead. Its their choice. I, however, like being paid for my talents and abilities so i can make economic choices for my family. I dont want to do all the work and have someone come and in take it without me being compensated for it. Socialism and many of the other systems are ideal - until you run out of other peoples money.

ultmetal wrote:

For some reason CDRs sometimes won't play correctly in my car, which bugs the crap out of me considering the cost of the system in that car.

So, there has to be some difference between CDRs and CDs as far as quality.

There is an enormous difference. If there wasn't, every CD would be a CDR.

Eyesore wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

For some reason CDRs sometimes won't play correctly in my car, which bugs the crap out of me considering the cost of the system in that car.

So, there has to be some difference between CDRs and CDs as far as quality.

There is an enormous difference. If there wasn't, every CD would be a CDR.

I would also wager that there is a big difference between the blue-faced CDR you pick up in a multi-pack at Walmart and silver ones used in pressing plants for commercial use.

CDRs have come a long way since 1998 (or whenever...I got my CDR recorder in 1998) and I would wager the current CDR format that would be used by pressing plants for artists having their albums pressed by the likes of Diskmakers or some other commercial pressing plant would be sonically indistinguishable from "real" CDs and would function just as well.

Quote :

But they will stop working at some point, for no reason at all other than the fact that the dye the material is burned to degrades. This is a chemical process that cannot be stopped. There are all kinds of different dyes out there, but they all degrade. And you have no idea what kind you're getting when you buy a CDR, nor do bands.

You're right...degradation is going to happen regardless across all optical formats. But when old, scratched, 4x, 74-minute CDRs from 1998 still play in my car, my home stereo and on my computer it's hard to convince me that there is some cavernous difference between CDRs (especially current ones) and "real" CDs. It's like trying to argue audible differences between 256k and 320k bit rate...it may be there technically, but its so miniscule hardly anyone on the planet will notice it.

The software you use to burn the CDR has more to do with it's compatibility in car stereos and other portable devices.

Ken can think whatever he wants (like that's ever been a problem).

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

For some reason CDRs sometimes won't play correctly in my car, which bugs the crap out of me considering the cost of the system in that car.

So, there has to be some difference between CDRs and CDs as far as quality.

There is an enormous difference. If there wasn't, every CD would be a CDR.

I would also wager that there is a big difference between the blue-faced CDR you pick up in a multi-pack at Walmart and silver ones used in pressing plants for commercial use.

CDRs have come a long way since 1998 (or whenever...I got my CDR recorder in 1998) and I would wager the current CDR format that would be used by pressing plants for artists having their albums pressed by the likes of Diskmakers or some other commercial pressing plant would be sonically indistinguishable from "real" CDs and would function just as well.

Yes, the dye color once indicated the quality of the CDR, but companies have long ago learned how to mask that, turn that blue dye—which is the most unstable—into a different color, like silver.

And I'm not comparing any difference in sound quality here.

Quote :

Quote :

But they will stop working at some point, for no reason at all other than the fact that the dye the material is burned to degrades. This is a chemical process that cannot be stopped. There are all kinds of different dyes out there, but they all degrade. And you have no idea what kind you're getting when you buy a CDR, nor do bands.

You're right...degradation is going to happen regardless across all optical formats. But when old, scratched, 4x, 74-minute CDRs from 1998 still play in my car, my home stereo and on my computer it's hard to convince me that there is some cavernous difference between CDRs (especially current ones) and "real" CDs. It's like trying to argue audible differences between 256k and 320k bit rate...it may be there technically, but its so miniscule hardly anyone on the planet will notice it.

That's not even close to the same. Your personal experience does not change science or facts. This isn't personal experience versus personal experience; it's fact versus fiction.

I'm not trying to sound like a dick here, but if you purchased as much music as I have over the years, then your opinion of CDRs would be completely opposite of what it is now.

S.D. wrote:

The software you use to burn the CDR has more to do with it's compatibility in car stereos and other portable devices.

Ken can think whatever he wants (like that's ever been a problem).

And ignorance is bliss.

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The software you use to burn the CDR has more to do with it's compatibility in car stereos and other portable devices.

Ken can think whatever he wants (like that's ever been a problem).

And ignorance is bliss.

so evidently is being a prick.

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The software you use to burn the CDR has more to do with it's compatibility in car stereos and other portable devices.

Ken can think whatever he wants (like that's ever been a problem).

And ignorance is bliss.

so evidently is being a prick.

Yes, I'm being the prick here. Sure.