Dargormudshark

Alot of metal bands do that, mainly power metal. I personally have a problem with it; yes, its public domain, but nonetheless someone wrote those lyrics. Just like someone wrote lyrics to a song that is copyrighted, they are both written by someone. You wouldn't take the song that came out a few years ago (if it wasn't copyrighted) and use the lyrics. The same thing would also apply to poems and exceprts from classical song (metal bands will take a classical song, usually an except and stick it in their song which I think is wrong for the same reason)

I don't believe in impending anything like that on anyone, I think its stupid that you wouldn't put it up for download, if the cd's don't sell after you do that, that would give you a pretty good idea of the sincerity of your fan base. I don't think I have an absolute right to music either, but I guess thats my vice. Some people violate the law by indulging in drugs,etc... I guess my flaw is downloading, oh well, so be it. I pay for the stuff I think deserves it and delete it afterwards thus after thinking about it, I did steal and do, but I give the product back after a while (I know, its still stealing, not trying to make my case any more just). I base my ethical argument on downloading from the standpoint of artists who have a true fan base and not a bunch mindless masses. The whole progressive genre has blossomed due to downloading, when my album comes out I will put it up for downloading everywhere, those who buy it, cool, those who don't, you don't like the stuff anyway and thats fine by me. Illegal downloading has helped an entire genre of music and will continue to do so and I can't see whats wrong with that.

Since you mentioned Cage and i'm only familiar with some pieces...what about 4 33? As far as my defintion I would say Manowar!!!

Yes, I do consider it stealing considering the artsit has not condoned me taking his music nor have I participated in an exchange with her/him for their music, I realize that. My concern about the is not irrelavent considering thats the biggest reason i'm stealing in the first place. If I could go to a store and get an extremely cheap cd i'd buy it, same goes for if I like the music i'm downloading...I will buy it. I know I don't have the right to previews or legal downloading. I am speaking to the people who use those as excuses not to download illegaly where their is a much better selection and a way to find new stuff you've never heard before (example: DC++) As far as what I can't find on legal sites; I'm looking on Napster write now and i'm not finding any of the artists I would usually download or buy a cd from. There was some stuff I was shocked they didn't have and 1 band that I was suprised when I saw them on there. As to those who are telling me to except the hole in my pocket or except that an album may be out of print or that their are no samples; Why should I be content being deprived of potentially good music. There are many great bands I've gotten into as a result of downloading that I probably wouldn't of found samples of at the time much less their cd in a store. As for an album being unattainable and out of print, you are telling me to be content of never hearing the music until the album is back in print (which is pretty rare). Music is much more attainable due to downloading, people are able to have much more eclectic tastes than before downloading. If I had all the money in the world and just bought cd's left and right I would have to wade through so much crap and look at the money that could've gone to something more worthy, but I can't afford that luxury. So I download stuff i've never heard before, some good some bad, but all that money I could've wasted is going to something worth it. If there is music out there that I want to hear I have every right to listen to it, be it illegally or not. If I like the material I will always buy it so I can have the great feeling of being in the posession of something worthy.

Looking at pictures and reading the liner notes while involving the music. If you were just looking at pictures and reading the liner notes that wouldn't have anything to do with listening to music now would it? You might not appreciate the full packaging but there are many music geeks from before the cd generation that will fork out tons of money to buy an incredible stereo in which records have the same quality as a cd, just so they can have the experiance of listening to the album. Now i'm not that die hard about the full package but I am more content when buying a cd than double clicking on an mp3. I guess that's just a difference of fulfillment between us. Now, I totally agree with you on the whole "rewarding the productive" term and how your money is going to a bunch of leeches. Not applying to anything you said, but, some people on here still don't seem to understand that you can't always acquire samples or legal ways of downloading. I know its illegal but i'm not in the postion to waste money on a cd i expect to be good but end up getting let down and with a hole in my pocket.

Fallacy was the wrong word, but 2 million songs is not alot. It also deals with mostly commercial stuff, how many die hard music geeks out there are pulling out their hair desperatly trying to download metallica songs. People like me usually download to find stuff we can't find, such as easily accesible soundclips or out of print cd's/albums. Legal downloading may work for your average person who probably owns 50 store bought cd's, but for a music enthusiasts who has over 2000 cds it doesn't cut it. I'm not saying the artists don't have the right to make money off of anybody who remotly likes their music to the smallest degree, but my question is why would that artist care that the percentage of his fanbase is only on account of the "cool" factor. This has nothing to do with remianing underground or anything like that its simply respecting an elite fanbase regardless of who you are and what you play. This could be applied to all art forms, you think Ayn Rand would be flattered if a bunch of sheep 15 year olds were buying her books and obviously not grasping them. Yeah she'd be making money but she would still hold her more devoted readers with more respect. I'm not saying everyone who downloads legally is a poseur either, yes, I am stating a majority of them are. (my evidence of someone taking on this terms would be how they explain their love for the music, if they don't have a reason for why they like it, then chances are they really don't). Getting back to the ethical standpoint of this, my stance is that those who don't buy the cd's eventually or who are only downloading because they don't appreciate a majority of the album or songs by that artists are justified. Those who download and don't buy the cd's arent enthusiasts and couldn't explain to me why they like the music so why should they even matter. Yes, if it wasn't for dling, artists could be making money off these hollow minds but their not. Instead they are reaching to more enthusiasts and gaining a larger elite audience. So in short, it can be ethical just as long as you apply this reasoning to it and appreciate the music. It's unethical if you are just using it for evidence that you like the band and you arent' just saying you like them because everyone else does. (For those who don't know, most of the youth is like this, up until a few months ago I used ot put up with this everyday)

I only think file sharing is wrong if you don't buy the cd after listening to the material and liking it, you don't have to buy the cd right away but eventually i don't see why one wouldn't. All music enthusiasts who download want the full package, double clicking on a mp3 doens't compare to the feeling of opening a nicely packaged cd and cranking it up on the stereo while looking at the liner notes,etc... I also see that these would only be music enthusiasts who get this feeling, being an aspiring professional musician I only value the opinion of the music enthusiast. Meaning, if your average person who just throws on the radio for background noise told me he liked my music I probably wouldn't think much of it nor have I in the past. But when someone who loves music to the extent that I do tells me his opinion I regard it as meaningful and accept it. Most people who download are either downloading just because they don't like enough of the material on the album to buy it or so they can burn it on a cd and clain they have it to all the kids at school so they are labeled "cool". This is the case for most high school kids, regardless of whether they have money or not, the majority of their music is either on an ipod or burned cd and they will never care to get the full package. As far as justifying the people who only like a few songs on the album or less you have to realize that an album is a collection of songs. If the album doens't flow and there is a certain amount of filler then it is not a good album, it just has some quality songs. Another fallacy is legal downloading; these websites such as Napster have a terrible selection in which music enthusiasts can't find anything they like being that they usually have a vast knowledge of material. To someone who downloads my music and doens't plan on buying it, knock yourself out, its most likely you are just listening to it because you want the approval of others and in that case I don't even acknowledge you.

I didn't say he didn't have the right to charge whatever he wants. But your statement about it not being a gain helped me see the answer a bit clearer, thanks for this insight.

It seems to me that in Welfare States the longer it is in control that less likely it will be voted out. As the article said, the population gets used to these handouts and don't want to reform them.

I've also been curious about this, i'm still ignorant of this aspect. My question is this; If someone creates something like Rearden Metal and it becomes a crucial need for society and the owner charges an outlandish price. I realize that a free market system would mean he could charge whatever he wants and its up to potential competitors to dupicate (Rearden Metal in this case) it. But until potential competitors duplicate the product then that means we're stuck with paying outlandish prices for a product we need. So how does a free markest system prevent this from happening?

Even before I read any Rand I always thought her books would have an impact on me. When I read that line in the fountainhead i was sure of it!

Well it depends what we are reffering to, lyrics with objectivist themes such as Rush or music that makes us think if that person regardless of what their philosophy may be as achieving an ideal status. As far as lyrics go, Rush for sure. Most of the songs do have an objectivist theme. Alot of moments in Rand's novels make me play a rush song on my head as the soundtrack. Example, when I listen to Freewill I get the perfect vision of the first run on The John Galt Line. There are other bands that have songs based on Rand's ideas. As far as bands go, or the leaders behind these bands who have created music that makes me see beond their beliefs and see their achievement. Examples: Daniel Gildenlow (Pain of Salvation), Mike Patton (Mr. Bungle, Faith No More) Frank Zappa, Devin Townsend and many more.

The first thing you have to keep in mind when discussing metal as a genereal genre you have to keep in mind the large amount of sub-genres. Since I am a music fan over anything else and most of my music lies within a metal medium. A break down of sub-genres: Heavy Metal-This is your basic stuff (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Saxon; basically most of your sterotypical stuff) This metal is basically rock music but with heavier distortion, heavier drums, andthe vocals are a little more aggressive. The melodies are more classicaly influenced, in a very basic way, but the differentiates from the blues/country influence of rock music. The guitarist who gets the most credit for bringing in a classical influence is Ritchie Blackmore (Deep Purple, Rainbow). Alot of the stuff he did gave way to the classical influences that would prevalent in alot of metal. Power Metal-It's basically regular metal but it usually has even more of a classical influence, therefore techinique is increased. Alot of times the vocals are very falsetto, but the greatest singers utilize a wide range. Usually the songs are very fast as well. Examples: Stratovarius, yngwie, Rhapsody, blind Guardian, Angra, Kamelot Progressive Metal-This is my favorite sub genre and the type of stuff I play. Although there has been a split in camps, Prog and Progressive mean two different things. The first of these bands were Fates Warning and Dream Theater. Alot of bands now immulate them and havn't actually progressed beyond them, thus not being progressive. Alot of "prog" is not simply related to classical as far as sense of melody, but of structure. Alot of the longer songs would have a similar structure to many classical pieces. In most prog you will find odd time signatures and parts; not just your simple verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus structure. Then moving on progressive this entails a more literal definition. Progressive bands are basically just metal bands doing something different, being unique, pushing the boundaries a little. Examples-Prog:Dream Theater, Fates Warning, Circus Maximus, Pagan's Mind, Symphony X Progressive: Devin Townsend, Pain of Salvation, Arcturus, King Crimson (their sound is becoming more metal as of recently, but they are the epitomy of progression...always doing something new and innovative) *Prog metal is basically just a stem-off of prog rock, same thing just heavier,faster,etc... Death Metal-This is where people begin to really detest metal. Once again alot of sub-sub genres in this category. Most of it is very angry, heavy and pissed off. It's very riff driven and the drums are usually pounding out chaotic double bass. There is alot of extremely techinical stuff in this as well, but there is also alot of ridiculously monatanous stuff. Some Death metal do have melodies despite the harsh and abrasive vocals. In alot of cases as far as the vocals go, sometimes they fit the sense of melody alot better, and good death metal vocalists (yes, there is a level of techinique involved) usually annunciate the lyrics better to where you can understand what is being said (example Dark Tranquillity, who i've noticed a tinge of objectivist influence in). Once again its hard to examine death metal in general terms. Black Metal-Once again this is a sub genre with lots of smaller categories in its own. This is the most contraversial in terms of history. These are your bands that usually put on the show of being overly satanic, shocking, charismatic Norwiegans. They are the ones with the make-up (corpse paint) they are the ones who burn churches, the ones who have inverted crosses and really long song titles. The music is charachterized by blast beats (drum techinque in which snare beat is all eighth notes, sometimes faster. The guitars are mostly played with a techinique called tremolo or sticatto picking. basically you play the fastest aspect of the beat on until the next note change. The vocals are you usually very raspy and harsh differing from death metal vocals which are alot deeper. Recently some bands have been utilizing the original charachteristics and bringing them up to better techinique and applying it more while having a stronger sense of melody and atmosphere. trOO-Black metal (die hard fans, who appreciate bad techinque and bad sound quality- Mayhem, Burzum, Darkthrone other black influenced metal: Dimmu Borgir, older Cradle of Filth, Dissection, Old Man's Child. Those are your most common sub genres. Now this is the best reason i've found for justifying metal and a reasons for working in that medium as well as litening to it. Devin Townsend said the reasons he works in the metal medium is because you can take anything to any extreme possible. That doens't entail shock or lyrics but musically. If I had a 4 minute violin solo, it would be deemed as classical by your average person. But the moment i put drums in it with a touch of double bass or any metal charachteristic it would be metal.Classical isn't the only influence in metal. Some bands have utilized jazz influences, bluegrass, funk, soul, and many other various genres. They are consdiered metal because a metal charachteristic is more of an attention getter. Not taking away from any breathtaking melody from an outside genre (i'm more receptive to melodies which i feel in alot of metal there are some amazing ones). I agree with Twonsend though, and i think the listener feels the same way. Although I havn't read the romantic manifesto yet, I have an opinion on the sincerity of someone's opinion torwards something. My belief is that is they can state a rational reason for favoring whatever it is that they favor be it aesthetics or a philosophy. So if you like metal nad you have a reason for liking it then there is nothing wrong with your opinion. Now if I were to ask you "why do you like metal?" and you replied "i don't know, its just cool" I wouldn't give you the time of day. This is my first post I think, logged in a while back and just now beginning to post here. Since this is my ultimate passion I feel very strongly when people say something as ignorant as "it has no structure". All I can say to those people is "Check your Premises". P.S. Excuse my grammar, i'm not the pinnacle of using the english language.