Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I was fooling around with my iPod earlier and I decided I wanted some old-time Elvis music. I automatically hit the iTunes button, and something occurred to me. I haven't downloaded in the naughty sense of the word since I got that thing. The price that iTunes asks for most things is not enough to get me to use uTorrent anymore. Of course, I've replaced my computer in the meanwhile as well, and the desire to download those programs hasn't really crossed my mind until tonight.

I do have a YouTube downloader and converter, but I mostly use it for music like Reina Del Cid and Abby Simons, who aren't on iTunes. I don't have any guilt about it really because I do buy music from up and coming performers and I go to my share of live shows; nor do I consider it particularly wrong to use programs like Limewire and uTorrent, I just kind of stopped when I discovered iTunes.


Being a pretty frugal bunch, I'm curious how much you would pay for music? I spent $400 on my iPod touch and have easily spent that much more on iTunes, but mostly in productivity software and games. I'm barely using a fraction of it's capacity, and if I had more money on hand and not tucked away in savings accounts I'd prolly buy a lot more. Is .99 per song unreasonable? I have a lot of complete albums that were bundled for like $8, too. Is it worth the money to you?

I wish I could afford to support the artists that I 'borrow' from, there is some amazing talent out there that I'd love to be able to afford to show support for instead of just posting ♥ on last.fm artist pages. Maybe if we got payed more we could have more elbow room to do such things? But where do you draw the line? Should we be able to afford everything we have the time to listen to and watch? Would it be unhealthy to do so? A question of respect and priority?
Do these artists survive happily enough from making money from live shows etc. I Really don't know.. it's a rock and a hard place and I feel bad about what I do but not enough to stop me, I just love music etc too much... it keeps me feeling happy. I Think most artists would rather you listened for free than not at all as well.

*is no doubt going to hell, the really bad bad section with the hottest of flames etc etc*.

I leech and I leech hard!

I support artists by going to shows. and I go to a lot of shows.

to hell with the execs that get 75% or more of the album sales.

Used to. Now I buy the CDs (materialism, I like the album art and the fact that they serve as backups) for the most part. Unfortunately, the used media store near me just closed. So no more older stuff for me. If I only want one song, and I really like it, iTunes. If I only want one song or two, download.

I really just can't stand the crappy quality I usually end up downloading. Static doesn't excite me. Uneven sound levels, "fuzzy" sound, weak bass/treble, meh. So I try to avoid it.

Actually, I used to use a P2P program called Ares. That yielded some pretty good quality downloads. Unfortunately I had to reformat the drive (some screwups- I'm better with my laptop now) and lost it. It was open source and now I can't find the original anymore. Just the derivatives. So if anybody knows, I wouldn't mind if you told me where to find it.

it's really all about usenet if you wanna download and not deal with decoy files. if you want quality, FLAC is awesome but I prefer my rips at 320 since it's the sweet spot between file size and audio quality.

Quote from: beth~chella on February 07, 2010, 04:07:33 AM
it's really all about usenet if you wanna download and not deal with decoy files. if you want quality, FLAC is awesome but I prefer my rips at 320 since it's the sweet spot between file size and audio quality.

FLAC is amazing with traditional instrumentals. The files are huuuuuge, though. I haven't tried FLAC with non traditional instrumental music yet, though. How does that hold up?

I rarely run into problem with 'quality' when I download. If I'm already caught up with an artist, I might buy the CD, but there are times when I'm getting into an established artist and I want all their music and whatnot.

I've always stuck with soulseek (http://http://www.slsknet.org/) for music and never had any problems with not finding what I want there. It's a goldmine to me.. and a safe one at that.
320 is good but I'll take anything over 192.. I usually only play it through my computer speakers for treble and another cable out to my bass amp for the bass... and it works a treat. ^_^
Especially when you're on the loo and the TP holder is vibrating lol (bedrooms next to the loo btw). >_>

honestly, I stay away from FLAC for anything except orchestral or live recordings and some electronica if there is alot of depth to it. pop/rock just doesn't benifit from the higher bitrate IMO and isn't worth the added filesize to store it.

this time of year I download a lot of music becuase it's just after the Coachella lineup comes out and kicks off the summer music festival season. there are so many bands that I'm not familiar with so I will listen to a song or 2 on youtube or last.fm and then download their discography from usenet or a torrent so that I'm familiar with their library when/if I see them.

I'm a damn dirty pirate. Buying albums makes me feel so much better though.

Speaking of rips, I prefer v0 to 320. The file sizes are generally smaller while being pretty much the same quality.

I only download music to see if I like it, if I do I buy the CD.  I can't stand the low audio quality on most shared music files.  Plus I like having the CDs to play in my car.

I used to download a lot of TV shows since I don't own a TV, but nowadays almost everything is on Hulu.

MP3 are to audio quality what Kraft dinners are to gourmet food.  Sorry.  It's hard enough for me to listen to a good CD on good headphones or speakers because its not the live $1/2 million sound system I listen to most of the time.  The MP3 just suck, but then again, so does most of the new music, and it's not recorded at a quality that would make you want to step up and hear it.

I've pirated (games, software, music, movies, books, everything) since 1998 and will not stop anytime soon. I've learned a lot in the past 12 years about formats, quality, scene releases, people argue with other people on how to pirate correctly.. it's a laugh riot.
I've bought a few CDs in that time, of really exceptional artists. I tend to do that when money goes from my hands directly to theirs, and no-one elses.

Quote from: tekla on February 09, 2010, 05:38:13 AM
MP3 are to audio quality what Kraft dinners are to gourmet food.  Sorry.  It's hard enough for me to listen to a good CD on good headphones or speakers because its not the live $1/2 million sound system I listen to most of the time.  The MP3 just suck, but then again, so does most of the new music, and it's not recorded at a quality that would make you want to step up and hear it.

One of the things I love about lo-fi bands like easyworld, GBV, neutral milk hotel, the crabs etc is the characteristics of the sound quality or lack of.. it's part of the personality of the band.
But I do agree with mp3s in the sense that I've heard 128 then upgraded to 320 and noticed subtle background instruments after upgrading. But to me I don't notice a difference between a 320 burn of a album and an original version of the same album. :P

Tell me you're not talking about transcoding something from 128 bitrate to a higher one thinking it will somehow magically pull studio quality out of the ether?

Quote from: IndigeoAliquis on February 09, 2010, 06:17:48 AM
Tell me you're not talking about transcoding something from 128 bitrate to a higher one thinking it will somehow magically pull studio quality out of the ether?

lol.... no I my come across as a dolt most of the time but I assure you... >_>
I mean 'acquiring' the same album again in a higher bitrate. :P

I try hard to by CDs, b/c I'd rather have the physical media at my disposal. Formats are guaranteed to change. I also prefer .ogg to .mp3 simply b/c it's open-source. If I do d/l an .mp3, I use Lala.com. All of the their .mp3s are $0.89 and are DRM free.

That being said, I have d/l both on my iPhone and from iTunes simply for the convenience (like I'm on the road or something).

I used to pirate full time, and often.  Currently I'd have to say 75% of my downloaded music has been pirated.  Though lately, for some reason I have begun paying for my downloads using iTunes.  Not really sure why I changed except for the fact that iTunes works 100% of the time and the software I used to pirate would constantly need a patch, upgrade or simply would not connect.

I do buy CD's on rare occasions. Such as some compilation of greatest hits or if I really like the artist and need a hardcopy of the music for future use.  Such as The High End of Low - Marilyn Manson (Which is the last CD I bought...)

Have a great day.   :)

Ever since we got Steam we stopped downloading computer games illegally.
It's brilliant, simple, and often has offers that appeal to us.
The affordability and convenience of the thing is just awesome.

Music I don't always buy... though a fair bit of what I download is stuff I have/had on CD. (Certain exes and relatives have borrowed and never returned cd's and scratched the f out of others making them unplayable and so on... )
The main reason I do not buy music downloads is that they're often in some other form than MP3 and I can't burn 'em to CD, and so on.. all this protection junk just makes me not want to pay for the file because of the fuss it entails.
I get digital music to play on my MP3 player! When the file won't play on it unaltered, and is protected from being turned into an MP3, then the file's just a waste of space and money to me.
Plus, most music downloads, in my opinion, are overpriced.

Movies.. well...
There's a pizza & video shop up the hill. They have a "movie special" that is a 16" pizza with three topings (+cheese & sauce), 2l soda, and two movies (one new, one old). The pizza is so good that it's ruined us for pizza from "other" places, so we get it sometimes.. and then we get movies with.. cause it's cheap.
Other than that... we download some... occasionally....
If there was an online thingie "like" steam for movies that was as affordable as steam (come on! 2 dollar offer on psychonauts.. the most awesome game I've played in years!!) then we'd probably use that instead.

You could try Amazon Unbox for movies/tv.  I've used it a few times and I didn't hate it.  You can "rent" movies for a day or two for a few dollars and since they stream, there is virtually no wait.  I've only rented, If you buy content from them it's DRM-ed all to hell. 

I used to download, but since getting into the DJ scene professionally, the quality of the music just doesnt match what I need... CDs and vynl... the only digital media I have (50gig or so) is all lossless for performance use. Downloaded stuff just isnt worth it.

EXTRA SPECIAL DISCLAIMER*

Most of the people I work with, and myself included, agree on one thing - the quickest way to get on our permanent ES&D list is to ask us for free tickets, or 'if we could get you into the show.'  And you know right off its not some new little new hip, cool, trendy band that only sold 500 of the thousand tickets (because I could get you into that, if only by telling my boss you'd drink heavy).  No, it's going to be something like the 'usually in an arena' but 'one night only' at the club or theater show that sold-out in a matter of moments, and that was months ago.  Oh yeah, and 'your friend too."

So I ask, and I've heard other ask - "hey, you work in a shoe store, can I come over and pick up a free pair of Bates Tach Boots?  You work at a grocery store or liquor store, could you bring me a couple of bottles of Wild Turkey?  You work at a bank, could I have some free money?"  Oddly enough, they look at us like we are asking them to steal from their place of business.  But somehow they do not see their request from us as being the same deal.

Yeah, you don't like the record companies.  Who does?  Not the band, not the songwriters, not the engineers, not the consumers and not the stagehands either - our only bonus is that we get to tell the execs to GTFO our stage.

I mean what's it take to make a decent recording?
- space, and acoustically neutral space at that (so expensive)
- equipment (very expensive)
- personal - engineers, producers, hands, someone to work the money, catering, clean-up (good people cost, simple as that)

So who is footing that bill?  Who is paying for the space, the equipment, the personal?  The band is.  The big huge record company that me and you and a dog named Boo all hate so much might front the money, but they are going to get every penny back long before the band sees a cent.  I'll put you into contact with people (more than one) who can happily tell you how a band can get a gold record, but little to no gold to the bank with.  Having learned them from the movie industry, who had learned them from the publishing industry that created them, few works of fiction quite compare with the way record companies run their books.

But hey, no one like oil companies either, should you do a drive-away?  I hate banks, should I rob them?  Would either of those things be OK?

It has really hurt a lot of people.  Perhaps that is change, and nothing that can be done about it.  Sometimes the more things change the more they stay the same, so we still do showcases, we don't do it for record company execs anymore (weasels and lizards that they were and still are) but we do them for iTunes people who despite the degree that they came into it (at least in the beginning) as geeks, who have slowly morphed into weasels and lizards.

Now I like iTunes to the degree that you only have to buy the song you want and not like the old record company business model, which was to have you also pay for one (45s) to twelve (33 LPR) songs that you could have miked my ass after a burrito festival and got better music out of it, just to get the one song you wanted.  But I'm also very aware of the fact, that as a friend of mine said "iTunes is music that sounds good on dime sized speakers."

All that being said, the people who I've seen hurt the most by this are not the big corporate business executives, them fat cats - the weasels and lizards.  Nope in every case it's the programmers, the people who make and finance the movies, the songwriters and performers - who oddly enough are the only people in this whole feeding chain you actually like.  Ain't that a kick in the head?  The people the most damaged are the only ones you like.

I don't do it because I don't think I could in good conscience take money from people that are paying me to work for them while I steal from them behind their back.

But I wonder how many of you think that you should work for free?  If these people are supposed to provide for you for free, what are you doing to entertain us - for free?  If you don't value other people's work, why should anyone value yours? 

Oh yeah, I can say this with complete and total authority.  Your favorite band?  Those people who do all those songs you think are so meaningful?  Those people who you think really reach out and speak to you?  If you are downloading their stuff and not paying for it, then they think you suck.



* - I have a dog in this fight, and a rather large one.  For the most part it's good.  The less product these people sell, the more they have to tour to make money, they more they have to tour, the more shows they have to do, the more money I (and my brothers and sisters in this sector of the entertainment industry) make.  Where once upon a time (but it was not forever) bands used to tour to support the record (and the resulting record sales), they all pretty much record to support the tour & selling band merch (we've had many bands who show up with more merchandise then equipment - oh brave new world).  So not buying the recording only serves to make me more money in the long run.  But I also have a relationship with two different recording studios in the area and show up from time to time to load in and set up the bands in the studio, and then show up later to reverse the process.  Less recording (or evermore low-fi) means fewer of those kind of gigs.

The last job I had was managing a casual dining pizza restaurant with 70 tables, and if you had come in Tekla I would have given you a pizza and a pitcher of beer  :-*

That was my perogative though, as long as I made money it wouldn't have been considered stealing by my boss.

Now where's my Nirvana tickets. Wait, what, oh nevermind.

This is one question I have had for a while- if all that is true, why would any band that knows they will sell enough records to recoup the production and marketing costs even use a record company nowadays?  Why sign a record deal?

Another question I have is why in the world do albums in mp3 form often cost more than the actual cd's?

http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Machine-Fiona-Apple/dp/B000B0WOEO/ref=pd_bxgy_m_img_c (http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Machine-Fiona-Apple/dp/B000B0WOEO/ref=pd_bxgy_m_img_c)

/boggle

So.... for love or money?
I think any artist that is out there these days that has their eyes on the $$$ are playing a risky game and if I feel that they are like that then I feel no guilt for d/ling them.
I Think all art is or should be more for the love of it, if you make money from it then it's nothing more than a bonus but to have it as a career I don't know maybe I'm different I could never do that. For one it's just too unreliable and how many artists have you seen that crash and burn once they are famous and rich, the pressure of the world watching etc.
If these people feel a need to record in the most expensive locations and hire people to lift stuff and bring food for them then that's their problem and ...choice.
I listen to a lot of bands that record everything themselves or are part of a small independent record label that helps them out, like one big family and they do fine. NO pressure no bosses no BS.
To me I don't feel as much guilt listening to them as I know they are just happy to have people listen, they don't let money run their lives, in fact a lot of them offer their music for free anyway. For love or money? Backstreet boys can eat a d%&K.

I'm yet to hear a famous band come out and say "look world we would really like to continue as this band and put out records but you know...I had to sell my jet pack the other day just to feed my alligator so it looks like we can't go on... ... ....... .....because people keep d/ling our music which effects our income..... we're in sad days".

My understanding is the artists get only a few pennies from each album sold.

The recording companies recoup their outlay from album sales. This explains why they are often prepared, especially with big names, to spend so much on exotic locatations.

I don't pretend to understand how the system works, or how the publishing companies can domnate so much.

But this might explain why so many artists, especially those who don't own their own publishing company, outright, are not really botherd by downloads. They, presumably, hope to get their revenue from live concerts and appearences.

Perhaps someone here knows a bit more about it.

Quote from: Muffin on February 09, 2010, 06:14:18 PM
I think any artist that is out there these days that has their eyes on the $$$ are playing a risky game and if I feel that they are like that then I feel no guilt for d/ling them.

Don't you think if you make something millions of people love and enjoy that you should be rewarded for it?

A world where artists weren't allowed to become wealthy would be a less beautiful world.

depends how you define wealth.... if money is wealth to you then sure.. but to me most 'good' music is about love not money. It sucks that people are cornered into putting so much worth and importance on money :S

Quote from: Becca on February 09, 2010, 05:38:36 PMNow where's my Nirvana tickets. Wait, what, oh nevermind.

Ha ha! Clever!! I couldn't stop giggling about that while I was shoveling snow!!  :D

Being a musician and producer myself. I actually don't have anything against downloading music. It's always nice to be supported, but if you make good music, people will support you anyway. You don't need itunes or the vicious blood sucking RIAA to make money off of your tunes.

Radiohead did a "Pay what you want" on a recent album called "In Rainbows". Previously they would only sell a few hundred thousand albums, under this new scheme they sold millions. They also sold a record amount of tickets to their live shows, 1.2 million.

"In Rainbows" under the "pay what you want" model is radiohead's largest grossing album of all time.
http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444 (http://"http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444")

Downloading music won't kill the music industry. Because in reality the artists get the vast majority of their money from Royalties and live events. I would dare say that downloading music for free can only help the music industry, people will have more access to these artists driving them to want to see them in concert even more.


But to answer the original question. I don't generally download a lot of music, do to lack of interest. But I do download unlicensed anime by the truckload. It's sort of my addiction.