phlux bboard - MP3's

Home : Message Boards : PHLUX Misc. : MP3's

I wanna take a poll. How many think the Napster/ "movement" is doing a good thing? Then I wanna know why. Then I wanna know what everybody thinks the long term effects will be and how it will effect the larger social picture, 'cause there are more things out there than just music, man. Art, literature, inventions, innovations all fall under the same umbrella as music, and the probability that one shoe will drop after the other seems pretty high. Is Napster going to force people to give away their ideas regardless of whether they want to or not? Is the Courtney Love (see the salon article ) tip based" career going to work for everybody? People pay what they feel like for something if they want to? Perhaps the Record Co.'s don't like it cause they already know it's a travesty to make people pay 20 bucks for a 35 minute CD from which they've only heard one overplayed song. Who in their right mind would dig down in their pockets for that if they didn't have to? Will there be a backlash against artists unaffiliated with the big corporations just because the big businesses have done such a bang up job of raping their own consumers? In this era of slick PR and super high glossy full color promo packs that you can make on your computer and which have become necessary for the suvival of any endeavor, the general public can't really tell who's a puppet of corporate greed and who's not, so do you think that the little guys will get mowed under in this blind-side attempt by a silicon valley corporate upstart to rip the beating heart out of the slow-to-react corporate dinosaur that now controls the record industry. So which evil do you vote for? Which set of corporate treads would you like to be crushed under?
posted by Clint Phipps on Jun 21, 2000 05:31PM

I think it has good and bad aspects... for example: bands like Phlux can get their music out to more people, who wouldn't be able to hear them otherwise(Napster has a program for new artists who want to get their music out via mp3[]), but those people are hearing your music without paying the 12 bucks for your cd(unless they decide to buy the cd after hearing the mp3)...
I like napster, just because I can hear music that I would never hear otherwise without it, because I live in downeast Maine, where there is one decent radio station, and MTV has turned into the damn disney channel.
I can see why big shot artists like Metallica don't want to have their music "stolen" by napster users, but how many people heard their first metallica song on an mp3, and then went out to buy the cd??
I can honestly say that when I download a song on napster, I either have the cd in my bedroom, and just want to listen to that song while I'm sitting at my computer, or I'm downloading it to see whether or not I want to buy the album... and in most cases I delete it and buy the album, or just delete it because I didn't like it.
The biggest reason that I am pro napster, is because I can download rare stuff that isn't on cds, like acoustic versions of songs, live stuff, and other unreleased material, only available(to me) on mp3...
I would say, that out of the 385 mp3s I have, 250 or more are songs that are not available on any studio album.
I like napster, but I can see why recording artists would have a problem with it...
What's Phlux's view on Napster??
posted by Evan Ackley on Jun 22, 2000 09:51AM

As for PhLuX as a whole im not sure how we feel....but i can tell you what i think! As far as im concerened Big record companies can shove it up their ass. They "rape" the shit out of bands've seen the article written by courtney love correct? I've always thought that record companies were ass holes. All they want is the moula! They remind me alot of greyhound tracks and owners. As long as the dogs huffin its guts out and pulling in the big bucks...the owners happy and things seem...."good." But when the dog starts getting old and doesn't pull in the cash....time to either kill it, or in a "lucky dogs" case....get adopted by a loving family! Just like the record company man! As long as their bands pullin in the moula, they're happy, get all the attention, get all the help they can....dont get paid well (compared to the company) but i suppose the grey hound doesn't get paid too well either, they have to sleep in small ass cages for example. Sure they get a nice steak tossed at them once in a while. But do you think the tracks buy steak for all the dogs....NOPE just the good ones, and when they're not good anymore they dont get steak...they get a bullet! Really nice isn't it. Well hey Big Mr. Record company=greyhound track. Only difference is, by law ya can't shoot people, so they just get left behind instead. Bands in the music scene today, unless they're very smart...or generationally popular.....are simply work hoarses for the "music industry." If the band does happen to be very smart or generationally popular...the record company tosses its idea's of granduer out the window and get on their knees to grovel for the band, again to keep the big bucks. Thats my feeling on record companies. Now as for Napster. I dont know much but i do know little. Now one thing I wouldn't like is if whole albums were downloadable....because thats just're we gonna get paid so we can live and write and play more if everyones downloading our shit for free!? y'know!? If its a song or two...well shit who gives a fuck! Its more exposure if you ask me, you can record a song or two for free off the radio! Also computers are where its at man! Someday, probably soon....computers will be life. Money transactions, stores, libraries....the webs amazing and growing fuckin fast man! Who knows perhaps some day a "napster" type company will be the thing......because who'll need stores when eventually everything can be bought on the net and delivered next day. If that were to happen, shit cd's you wouldn't even have to wait'd swipe your card and pay for it over the net and then download your shit! It'd make sense too because think about it! Today record stores buy a shit load of cd's from record companies. They pay alot too im sure! Not as much for each individual cd as we do when we buy one.....but in one lump sum they pay a shit load for a bunch of cd's. Now imagine this...the world operates by computer buying selling whatever. Then the "napster" company would, say, pay for one cd, but in turn pay ALOT. Like thousands, maybe millions who knows....because:::: they'd be allowed now, because they purchased the rights to do it, to sell it over the net for people to download. To me, as long as Napster aint selling whole albums without the artist or owner getting what they deserve for it, well we're just taking step by step into the future of computers. As long as the artist gets what they really deserve, let it be, and let it evolve. I just dont like seeing people get screwed!!!
posted by StU aRt on Jun 22, 2000 11:48AM

I think greed is too much of a factor. Every kid dreams of rock stardom (at least once) but nobody dreams of being a record mogul asshole to screw the bands.

This is just my opinion so If Clint, Codeman or Stu has a problem I hope they tell me.

I think Phlux is about the music and the fans and the last thing they think of is "how much money can I make doing this?". I think its more they wanna write great music and get lots of people to hear it. And I think yeh, they do want some money gain from it but its not about the money for them. Making a cd costs lots of money. But I think Phlux would allow their music to reach new people - as long as it only set them forward and not back at all.

- c -

posted by Chris Hancock on Jun 24, 2000 08:19AM

I have to correct my fraternal siamese twin who was switched at birth Stu (whattup dog?) on something he said. Not so much what he said really but to enlighten him (and Lars Ulrich, and everyone else who doesn't quite know what Napster is).


Think of Mp3s as a rumor.
Think of Napster as a telephone and the 2 people on either end are Napster users (i.e. me)

Now the two people are swapping rumors over the phone and everyone blames the phone...not the people.

Napster in and of itself does not distribute Mp3s despite popular belief (I would love to demonstrate sometime how it werks)
basically its a tool and what it does is it allows its members to point napster toward files on their computer and then let other users search those files out and download them. now, this is all agreed upon in the terms of service when you download it. pretty basic really you wouldn't download Napster unless you wanted to share. Its just MP3s that people use it for but I know that people also use it for movie clips and .wav files.

Its not Napsters fault that people have copied their entire cd collection into Mp3 format for people to download. Do they have a responsibility? Not really.

I hope this clears some stuff up. Please feel free to ask any questions on the subject.

posted by Chris Hancock on Jun 24, 2000 08:30AM

I know what your thinking "damn chris, how many messages on this topic do we need?" well it's Clint's fault. He asked a load of loaded questions.

Besides I forgot a major point in my how to use napster post.

Napster doesn't have Mp3s. Napster doesn't make Mp3s. Its the users.

Okay thats all ...for now.

- c -

posted by Chris Hancock on Jun 24, 2000 10:16PM

Okay... I have to say that I'm not really informed on this subject - even though I want to know what's going on, I've only heard people talking about it I don't really know what's going on...:
I heard something about how Napster just paid a ton of money to the record companies to be able to have the right to have the capabilities to distribute - or make available - MP3 files... If Napster is getting hit in the finacial department because of it's users swaping files, why does it encorage it's users to keep trading MP3 files by paying for the right to make them available? (First of all, do I have my info. correct or am I completely in the dark?)
I am also unclear on whether or not one has to purchase MP3 files... (Though, from what I've heard and understand, even if the files were purchased, the money wouldn't go to the band (right?), they would go to the Napster user who made them available on the net...)
posted by Amanda Phipps on Jun 28, 2000 05:19PM

If you know where to look MP3 files are free. And you don't have to look very hard at all. Napster is just one of many. Some places require you to pay like 1 - 3 dollars for a MP3. That money would go to the artist I believe. But since Napster (and MIRC, and Abe's MP3 Finder etc..) give free MP3 nobody is making money. What money they are hoping to get from Napster I dunno since they aren't making any.
posted by Chris Hancock on Jun 28, 2000 09:19PM

Napster has its advantages and disadvantage. I log on to find songs that I have heard a couple of times and like. I don't get much chance to listen to the radio except for at work so it is pretty good for me. The disadvantages are for groups like you who aren't making much on your cds already, but more people would be able to be exposed to you guys. I do think that it is a bad thing for people to be stealing (I can say this because I frequently still go out and buy the cd), but it is also bad for the record companies to be screwing over the consumers by over charging us. Yes Napster is a good thing and yes it is a bad thing.

By the way, just so everyone who reads this knows...there is something out there that it 1000 times better than Napster everthought of being and if you are really nice, I will share my secret. I will just say this...I can download just about every Simpsons episode ever and much more. Ok I am done babbling.

posted by Cat Bartash on May 17, 2001 11:38AM

I like what Maynard James Keenan said about Napster- "My music is not yours to give."
posted by Evan Ackley on May 19, 2001 09:12AM

"There is no must in art, because art is free."
posted by Piper -- on May 25, 2001 03:08PM

My apologies, that was a bit terse. I know this isn't just an issue, it's an ISSUE. It's a big fucking deal. It's the question of whether or not the value (unfortunately it's most often the monetary value) of artistic creation can or should be arbitrarily assigned. Do we pay the mafia their $20, or do we pick it up out of cyberspace for next to nothing? It's a paricularly grating question, especially for the artist who has found music as his calling.
I feel that music is priceless. Each piece is totally unique in that each piece only happens once. Real music is what you hear when it's being created, right there, in front of you. For convenience of listening the brilliant human devised the recording, manifested as it is as an overpriced shiny disc, and in a certain way to my ear cheapened the entire creative outlet.
Recording music is an industry. The connotations of the word are at best impersonal, cold, MANUFACTURED. The whole system is fucked up. I don't like either option. I think the record companies are greedy and Napster is all strung out. It's too, too sad that sometimes people really do have to sell their soul.
posted by Piper -- on May 25, 2001 03:24PM