Nothing to add on 'common'
So...am I the first to discover the joys of listening to songs alphabetically on my iPod? It gives you pretty much as random a selection as 'shuffle' with the added bonus of hearing multiple versions of the same song by different artists in succession.
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 15:45, 10 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

This is OK in theory.

But I tried this with my 'The Jam' collection the other day. Unfortunately there were various recordings of the same song, for example 'Down in the Tube Station.. (Album version)''Down in the Tube Station...(Live)' 'Down in the Tube Station.. (Live @ The BBC)' 'Down in the Tube Station.. (Live at the BBC 2)'

err you get the idea
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 15:50, Reply)

You are allowed
to skip!

I like comparing, say, versions of 'All along the watchtower'...but then I'm a really interesting kind of guy.
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 15:59, Reply)

Ayepod?
being a luddite I am not entrusted with such things, I have a shitty mp3 player that survives me taking it to the gym.

I also found that itunes fucks up my VPN connections

booo

goes back to cave
(Halfy By light alone, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 16:01, Reply)

Why I'm not inclined to touch iTunes with a barge pole...
www.xkcd.com/488/

Not that I'm trying to seem sanctimonious or anything - obviously the storage capacity of an iPod would be a huge advantage over the little 128MB USB device I'm limited; I just don't like the idea of Apple controlling my music collection and telling me how to play it.
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 16:09, Reply)

Guess I'm just an old fogie
I love my iPod and at least it's not Microsoft. I grew up on vinyl, taped stuff, got a Walkman, moved to c.d.s and now I can't honestly see how music could get easier to arrange or better to listen to.

I illegally copy music borrowed from the library or my daughter with no qualms whatsoever. If someone makes their living from music then they have no right to complain about anything, IMHO.

Didn't really follow that cartoon - too technical for me - but don't bother explaining as I'm not really bothered.

[Was that a rant? I must be losing my touch]
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 16:34, Reply)

That sounds like such a grind.

( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 16:40, Reply)

To be fair, Al
That's more an argument against the amount of money record companies pay their bands than anything else. Being paid pennies per album is a fault with their contract, not with people downloading content.

I don't really see the online piracy issue as any more serious than when blank cassettes came out and people would tape their friends' albums. It didn't cause the doom of the music industry then and it won't now.
( Kroney, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 17:01, Reply)

Punks set up their own labels
Bands now can put out their own stuff too. I know you don't get the marketing if you don't go with a big label, but it didn't do the Arctic Monkeys any harm.

I'm just jealous that a busker in the town centre probably makes more than me by using their (choose own deity)-given talent. If I could make money just writing all day, or making pots or furniture, I'd jump at it. I know it's not all beer and boffing, but there is a bit surely? I've read the stories. Certainly more than you find in the average call centre, factory or shop.

I don't begrudge musicians money, and I still buy music and go to gigs and also give to buskers - but I'll also buy books 2nd hand from charity shops, look at pictures in a free gallery, read an old newspaper found in a coffee shop etc.

Good luck to you - we all make the choices we have to make at the time we have to make them. Talent just makes that choice harder if you have to give up the dream to live the reality.

[Che Grimsdale: making us all common]
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 17:29, Reply)

Musicians Pay.
Downloading doesn't really touch musicians, tbh. Record companies have never paid huge swathes of royalties for record sales and they never will.

So long as you're still going out to watch gigs, or radio stations, TV, and adverts still play music (and pay the song writers through MCPS) then those who are talented to write their own songs will continue to make money from music.

Being an aspiring musician with pretensions still to make money out of it one day I have no qualms with downloading as it just means a bit less money for the labels, not for the song writers/musicians.

And there you have my opinion. Now back to work with me.
( Moey, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 17:30, Reply)

I'm not blaming
the passengers, I'm blaming South West trains.

If a record company charges £12-15 for an album, of which the artist sees maybe 50p-£1 optimistically, then you can't really blame people for being tempted by getting it for free. Albums don't cost anywhere near a tenner to make, even with a record company's overheads. If music was cheaper to buy, you'd probably find a lot less people pirating stuff.

To say downloads aren't on the same scale is probably false. Literally everybody in the country has copied music from the radio or a CD onto a blank tape. Nearly as many have burnt CDs. The only difference is that with online downloads there's more ability to track the amount of copying.

This has been an issue for thirty years. Each generation has said that if the music were cheaper, they'd have bought more of it. I don't really have any sympathy for music companies as this is largely a problem of their own making.

OK, it's a bit of a straw man argument, granted. But that's only because there aren't any solid figures for music piracy until the advent of online piracy.
( Kroney, Mon 20 Oct 2008, 17:40, Reply)