go to top

IdahoIdaho music Message board


Good, bad, a horrible thing?

Post new reply Cancel

10 + 10 =

RE: Idaho and Napster | from idahoSep 24 2001 - 13:45

not idaho

RE: Idaho and Napster | from Virginia Sep 24 2001 - 10:56

'ALAS' is on eMusic, so somebody is getting paid.....right?

RE: Idaho and Napster | from aSep 24 2001 - 09:53

People who claim "Ideally music should be free. Ideally." are missing the entire point. just because you want someting, does not mean that you should be able to steal it. if you want a new car, should you be able to go to a dealership, grab the keys and just drive off the lot? independent musicians are providing a service. while it's different than most other services, they still deserve to be paid for it.

RE: Idaho and Napster | from WilliamSep 23 2001 - 11:33

I downloaded Idaho from Napster a year ago and was nearly instantly hooked. I would have never gambled $12 on my own, on a band which was unfamiliar to me. Now I own many of Idaho's discs and hope to get more when I can get the scratch together. I want the album art, posters, t-shirts, and the whole deal. The mp3 files I originally listened to have long been forgotten and discarded.

Put me down as an Idaho convert, via Napster.


idaho on napster? grrr | from j trueSep 22 2001 - 00:38

yeah, i know this was beaten into the ground a long time ago, but i just read these posts and got riled up again- lol. on any free download website, artists are generally getting ripped off. true, some bands have lots of money, so it doesn't hurt them, but a lot of smaller bands DON'T make their money by selling out stadiums. they depend on the sales of their self-produced albums to be able to record more music in a timely fashion. some small artists say it's great that they get all this exposure now, and ant their music to be free, but that's THEIR choice. these websites should give artists the option to give away songs for free, and likewise, give band the chance to decline. as far as exposure goes, a song or two is enough. you don't need all the songs in their entirety available just to get a band some exposure. that's rediculous.
a few years ago the internet brought the world tons of new bands, people in their garages making music, and selling their home made CDs on the internet.. some of these bands were able to quit working at McDonalds to do it full time thanks to the exposure the net got them... however, these bands also were able to make money by selling their CDs online. take that away, and the band has to stop working on their new album and get back to Burger Schwing.
way to support indie rock!

RE: Idaho and Napster | from JCDec 24 2000 - 15:07

Hey but Jeff has got a nice trust fund anyway....So who the fuck cares.

RE: Idaho and Napster | from eraserheadDec 24 2000 - 09:06

Chris, I was being sarcastic. I
say ideally (which is far from
reality), people have to eat,
especially starving musicians. I
think what Napster is doing is
wrong for bands who rely
upon the income. And sure you
can share my cd collection...for a

RE: Idaho and Napster | from ...Dec 18 2000 - 12:28

My comments:

To those who think music should be free, yes... it should be free and is free. You can listen to music on the radio, you can make music at no cost whatsoever. But when somebody is spending a good part of their life contributing to the music that large masses of people listen to, they deserve to be paid, and need to be paid.

Napster is most certainly not an easy way to find out about cool music. Internet Radio is(www.shreddingradio.com is a great one), as stated above magazines help... word of mouth is great too, but from what I have seen of Napster, it is basically searching for a song and stealing it. This is convenient, and has definite potential, but the whole stealing thing needs to be worked on.

So, music IS free... but if you want somebody else's commercially produced music you ought to pay for it, because this is their job. How would you like working for a week and having somebody take your paycheck because they think our system of money is wrong?

RE: Idaho and Napster | from ChrisDec 18 2000 - 12:17

RE: Idaho and Napster | from eraserheadDec 15 2000 - 22:53

Ideally music should be free.

RE: Idaho and Napster | from ChaseDec 15 2000 - 18:15

You guys raise some good points- the last thing I would want to do is rob someone like Jeff Martin of even a part of his livelihood. From a theoretical sense, the whole "sharing" idea of Napster may (I emphasize "may") be a good idea, but I would conclude there are indeed too many problems with the way it functions now. I agree that someone that downloads just a few Idaho songs is not likely to buy Hearts of Palm, but I'm not sure that the effect is necessarily negligible. Much of the problem with most of the mainstream garbage people are bombarded with is that they don't know where else to turn to find quality bands. At the very least, it can be a band like Idaho instead of another that Carson Daly is hyping up on TRL that some dude and his friends start talking about. I see fundamental problems with the existing napster, but I'd like to think there's some positive aspects as well. And again, the last thing I want to do is undermine Jeff's integrity and ability to make good music on a continual basis, so I hope you guys aren't cursing me. I do appreciate your feedback, because I really do want to come to some more absolute conclusion about the whole thing.

RE: Idaho and Napster | from ChrisDec 15 2000 - 12:20

Seth raises some interesting points
that my initial post only hinted at.
I think commodification is behind the Napster phenomenon,
but in addition there is plenty of
blame to be laid at the feet of the
corporate record companies. How long
will it take, how many billions of
downloads will it require, before they
understand that we won't tolerate
their backwards ways? There is no reason in the world I
should not be able to purchase and
download any song EVER released by
Atlantic Records. In print or not, it's
all in their vaults. So (duh) use
the technology to make it available!
We'll buy it, for a reasonable price.
Then Napster and its ilk will have no
reason for being, except for those fools
who don't care that Brian Wilson decided
not to put out Smile. Anyone who take music
under those circumstances is nothing
but a common thief - fandom is no excuse.
Seth is right: Keep following Shawn Fanning
the Pied Piper and it's pure commercial music
for us all. You want musical artistry? Go to the symphony.

As for Idaho downloads, I suspect that the
effect is negligible - a lot of thievery
is not resulting in a lot of purchases of
Hearts of Palm, for example. These faux fans -
whose real goal is quantity, not quality - are
content to burn a coupla CDs and move on to
the next indy band they can rip off. Jeff may be
pleased that his music is heard, but wouldn't it be a shame
if he had to mow yards and wait tables in between
recording sessions?

RE: Idaho and Napster | from Seth HowardDec 14 2000 - 18:53

What would an Idaho album be without the beautiful cover art?

I read an interesting take on the Napster issue in Seattle's now defunct Rocket a months back. The guy who wrote it was raving about how he was able to find almost all the songs from Brian Wilson's never-released "Smile" on Napster. He thought it was the greatest thing.

The downside is that Wilson didn't release that record for a reason. The songs may still be great, but they were never approved for release by the artist. Shouldn't the artist have the ultimate say in how (or if) his or her material is released?

If I'm a famous artist and I paint a picture that I hate, don't I have the right as the artist to show it to a few friends and then keep it in the basement without the whole world coming in an taking Polaroids? Shouldn't the definition of art be determined by the artist? Isn't that the whole point?

This all comes back to the point Chris made. The whole Napster mentality is that music is just another commodity. A Korn song is made up of 1s and 0s, and so is an Idaho song. What's the difference? So what if the artist never intended this music to be released this way (or released at all). That's not for them to decide anymore. It's out there, so it should be ours for the taking. Right? Wrong.

I think Napster poses some interesting issues for the music *industry*, which is still living in the stone age, but few musicians I know have much positive to say about it from an ethical/artistic standpoint.

Don't get me wrong. I think Metallica and Garth Brooks both need to stuff a sock in it. Is home taping (or buying used CDs) destroying the record industry? I think not. Lars and Garth are hardly in positions to elicit sympathy on these points.

But, I agree with Chris that the Napster mentality is corrosive. If we continue on this path, the only way to make a living as a musician in 10 years will be by singing the praises of Coca-Cola, the GAP or Tide. Judging from other recent discussions on this board, most folks who love music cringe at that idea, and with good reason.

I'm not perfect, but I think if you believe in the spiritual value of music as an art form, you should kick down a few bucks when the collection plate comes your way.

Chase, do you think that the people who are downloading this stuff from you are more or less likely to run out to their favorite record store and but "Hearts of Palm" now?

RE: Idaho and Napster | from ChrisDec 14 2000 - 14:34

Chase -

I think you've answered your own
question. The essential thing to
consider is this: What other art
form could survive the onslaught of
the arrogant piracy that is Napster?
Painting? Sculpture? What if I
could simply download an ORIGINAL
Picasso, for nothing? If a visual
form of Napster and the like had
been available during Picasso's
lifetime, do you think he would have
welcomed it? How would he have
made a living? How would he have
made an impact on our world? I
think Napster is damaging for one
simple yet profound reason: It
completely obliterates the idea
that music is a form of art.
Its message is corrosive: "The
music should be free, dude." No,
it shouldn't. A very long line of
composers and musicians, stretching back hundreds
of years, would find fault in that
statement. I would never pretend to
speak for Jeff Martin, but I know
that I cannot in good faith take
the art that he makes and offer
nothing in return. The promulgation
of any other art form would not and
will not tolerate such blatant piracy.
Why, then, should music? I think it's
important for music lovers to
consider that, and do what
they can to protect the
artist-listener relationship.
Anything less threatens all musics,
and, in turn, diminishes us in
fundamental ways. If you want bands
like Idaho to "get more exposure,"
just buy their music. The rest will

Good, bad, a horrible thing? | from ChaseDec 14 2000 - 13:44

I just wanted to get a concensus on what people think about (Jeff Martin included) on being able to download bands like Idaho off Napster. I own every Idaho CD that has been put out, so getting the music for free isn't necessarily the issue all the time- for me, at least. I've downloaded a few songs from Hearts of Palm and Three Sheets- just for the sake of having them on my computer- and it seems like everyday I'm connected someone else is uploading them. In that sense, I am glad that Idaho gets more exposure. However, I'm still aware that bands can be robbed of potential profits. Tell me what you think-

photo by Lara Porzak, all rights reserved.
webdesign by Roadsign Studio / hosting: Godaddy
messageboard.idahomusic.com - Idaho music 2024, all rights reserved.