Darth Id said:
First off, you should note that this thread begins on pp. 79-80 of the SWonBlu thread, since those won't be the "last few pages" for long.
Second, in response to a remark you made there, I suspect that there is a great deal on which you and I would agree, aesthetically speaking. However, there's inevitably a great deal more on which we would disagree.
And third, I still see no reason to click on any of your links. I tend to hear new music in two ways: seeing a new band play with a band whom I have already paid for a ticket to see; or based on a recommendation from an established credible source (meaning, personal friend) who likens or relates it to a different band whose music I have already deemed worth buying.
There is simply no rational basis upon which I will blind-click links to music based only on the advocacy of a random forum commenter. The expected return on the investment of time just isn't there. (I prefer to reap value from the thrust and parry of arguments and flame wars.)
You clearly participate in an entire community of hobbyists who mutually produce and consume music that is freely distributed. You value this participation in an enormous number of ways, I'm sure. I on the other hand am content to be a discriminating consumer of music, and I value the work of professionals. If, some day, one of your compatriots has a chance to open up a gig at the Mercury Lounge for someone I go see, maybe I'll come to realize its great. But without such reliable hallmarks of value (to me), I won't pursue what I'm virtually certain will be a waste of time.
You're changing your argument. You said that free music must be worthless because it is given away for free. That the time, energy, and passion put into free music is somehow less than commercial music.
You're now calling the music a waste of time on the basis of me linking it to you instead of you finding it for yourself or through one of your friends. The music is the same either way. If one of your friends sent you the link, would you still hold the same opinion of all free music as being worthless?
If I played a show at the Mercury Lounge and you dug me, would the free CD's I give away be worthless to you? By your logic, an album is only as good as it costs. I guess I should be charging $100 for my CD's. People would think it was better because they paid so much for it! :D
And OF COURSE it's not about the software, but I had no idea if you thought I was linking scratchy home recordings through a cheap mic. i wasn't sure if you thought that professionally made music was better because of its production values (I see that you don't).
I did the soundtrack to an upcoming Xbox Arcade game (not out for a long while). I was paid, and I will also receive royalties. Is this music somehow better than my usual stuff just because it's connected to a commercial release?
I'm not asking you to listen to the music I linked so you would LIKE it (these aren't my friends after all). But anybody who listens and can appreciate artistic integrity in music can see it has just as much artistic value as the "professionals" (and if we're talking indie rock, half those guys recorded in their basements).
Well, maybe not my music.....:D
And you didn't answer my other question: if one of these artists were signed, would they suddenly have more merit?
But you said it yourself that you like flame wars, so I have to assume you're being stubborn just to be stubborn. How can I possibly have a discussion with someone who refuses to look at the examples I've given, despite having a very strong opinion on the matter?
I don't care if you're not interested in free music, but don't go calling something worthless with no rational basis.
"Oh boy, that new Spence Edit of RotJ sure does suck."
"Have you seen it?"
"No.....because it sucks"