[davenotdead]

fail.

but for those who care, crypto has said he likes SJ way better.... its fine to have that opinion, but its also wrong

[StevOK]

Originally Posted by AllHandsOnTheBigOne

Honestly, I'm not too impressed with this album. Not as punchy as Strawberry Jam, but they don't bring anything new to the table, either. Perhaps with more listens it'll grow on me, but so far this has the quality of a somewhat cohesive Animal Collective B-Sides record.

Thanks for your pearl of wisdom, bimplizkit.

 

[davenotdead]

"they don't bring anything new to the table"

//?? a joke?

this band changes from to album unlike any other... their rotation changes... they go from 4 to 3 to 2 duder band just like that. without losing a step.

they changed engineers so drastically for this one. you can't hear the bass? not at all present on SJ

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

So, technically, we're both right. Sounds like they're okay with it, though.

stop making excuses for the fact that you don't buy records and download leaks. it's lame.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by davenotdead

dude of course thats for SJ... see the date?

Oh haha. I don't pay attention.

[acousticrock87]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

stop making excuses for the fact that you don't buy records and download leaks. it's lame.

I wasn't going to buy this at all until I downloaded the leak. Now I'm going to buy it. I'm all for supporting bands.

But if people are going up to a yardsale and stealing shit, it's good to know that the seller doesn't actually mind before running them down.

[Derek]

People download records to listen to them and check them out. And if someone likes it enough, they'll buy it. I remember reading somewhere that the biggest buyers of music were also the biggest downloaders.

[acousticrock87]

Music is kind of on an honor system now. I can't really see the difference between downloading and not downloading, if I'm capable of getting it for free anyway. I'll give them money if I would have given them money without it.

Plus, I personally can't stand not having a physical copy.

[davenotdead]

word to both derek and acousticrock.

i listen to so much music that i can't afford to buy shite. I d/l, if i like i buy...simple. simpletons do the same thing with the 30-second itunes previews. Can't people able to find the full album preview it that way?

Ok, so what if everyone uses that lame logic, and musicians find themsleves feeling the pinch, so putting out records or even playing live in other parts of the world becomes much more difficult for them, or just plain impossible? Does that make you a lame thief? Yes, it does.

[acousticrock87]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Ok, so what if everyone uses that lame logic, and musicians find themsleves feeling the pinch, so putting out records or even playing live in other parts of the world becomes much more difficult for them, or just plain impossible? Does that make you a lame thief? Yes, it does.

It doesn't make me a thief, cause I'm still buying.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, but there's a difference between downloading and buying, and downloading to avoid buying. If the latter is not being dealt with, then I take advantage of the former, and the bands don't get less money from me personally.

I wouldn't complain at all if downloading was stopped, but only because other people abuse it.

I spend the majority of my non-essential money on music (and books, I guess).

I'm pretty sure that those who downloaded this record don't even think of buying them before they have listened to them, even though they profess to like the band. And to that I'll add that they probably do the same with artists who have slim chances of moderately big sales, like the one in question.

And what about streaming a record without downloading it? What about it, eh?

[Derek]

well I can't speak for others but I certainly plan on buying the record when it comes out.

[acousticrock87]

I agree. I'm just saying that for my own purposes, I will buy the record. I can't control what other people do, and if the band--the only one making money off of it (although, I suppose the label and other people involved need a say, too) don't care, then they're clearly not in a pinch.

The same can apply to buying music used. Technically, you are not supporting the band by doing so. But I mean you do what you can.

Second-hand records have been bought by someone once, so they don't count.

I mean, this comes down to a certain ethic that you should apply to underground music, which is something discussed on this forum in various forms. If the leaks concerned mainstream bands that have other means of making money, I wouldn't give a shit. If the same attitude you apply to more obscure and 'difficult' bands, though, you just contribute to putting them out of business, or indeed making their existence more difficult.

[davenotdead]

i think downloads have made some bands way more popular than they would be without it. its a double-edged sword.

and if we are talking abou tthe band in question, well I have already ordered 2 of the LP. thats $50 right there. and I am flying to NYC in Jan to see 2 of their shows.

[acousticrock87]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I mean, this comes down to a certain ethic that you should apply to underground music, which is something discussed on this forum in various forms. If the leaks concerned mainstream bands that have other means of making money, I wouldn't give a shit. If the same attitude you apply to more obscure and 'difficult' bands, though, you just contribute to putting them out of business, or indeed making their existence more difficult.

That's completely true. That's why I specifically looked up the band's stance on it.

I guess I feel that leaking albums is wrong (with the exception of bands that are okay with it, though that's usually not possible to find out), but not necessarily downloading them. If you stick to your own ethic of buying them anyway, there's no harm in downloading. It's a personal responsibility.

But I do see your point. The attitude propelling it is damaging to struggling bands.

[davenotdead]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I mean, this comes down to a certain ethic that you should apply to underground music, which is something discussed on this forum in various forms. If the leaks concerned mainstream bands that have other means of making money, I wouldn't give a shit. If the same attitude you apply to more obscure and 'difficult' bands, though, you just contribute to putting them out of business, or indeed making their existence more difficult.

this is something I am interested in... I think many obscure/difficult bands would credit file sharing as helping them... if they don't then they aren't very smart/informed. the people who seek out illegal/difficult music are likely to be fairly involved with music, right? wouldn't you think they spend at least a decent amount of their income toward concerts/vinyl compared to 'regular' people? and even if they don't spend it themselves, they are involved in blogging/talking/promoting it.

Originally Posted by davenotdead

i think downloads have made some bands way more popular than they would be without it. its a double-edged sword.

and if we are talking abou tthe band in question, well I have already ordered 2 of the LP. thats $50 right there. and I am flying to NYC in Jan to see 2 of their shows.

You did, what about those who feel like being more dishonest about it all, though? They'd still find the means of downloading the album, sure, but at least you'd feel better for not making it blatantly easy for them on another band's forum. Would you like that happening if it was your band? I think not.