Paid Music vs Free Music

Hey fellas, this is the continuation of a discussion on the "Star Wars coming to  Blu-Ray" thread.  I'm moving it here because, obviously, it has no place in that thread.

Anyway in a nutshell, people were bringing up pirated music, then I chimed in (long time lurker) and said I was a musician who has never charged for a release or show and all of my stuff is available for free download.  Then I went on to discuss the VERY large DIY music scene and how it's all for free (citing examples of stuff I thought was just as good as any commercial release).

One member said that if music is given away for free, then it reflects the content of said music.  IE, it's worthless (despite the fact he refuses to listen to any of the examples I gave).  More people chimed in (Ady defended me!!:D) and it is starting to take over the thread (okay, it HAS taken over the thread!).  Read through the last page or two of that thread, if you're interested.

Anyway, I'd love to read what other member's opinions are (and continue the discussion with the members already involved).

Here are some examples of the music I'm talking about.  A lot of DIY music has no vocals, but all the ones I'm posting DO have vocals.

This is all free:

-Adam and Alma (dreamy electropop): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_728Osa1RA

From this album http://www.23seconds.org/043.htm

-Grand Pocket Orchestra (low-fi rock):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJch_y2maHk

From this album: http://www.rackandruinrecords.com/releases18.php#album9

-IG88 (Gotta get a Star Wars reference in here!)(glitchy ambient pop?):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-6ke792dlk

From this album: http://label.idmforums.com/idmf006.html

Triceracorn (hip hop, but not gangsta or anything): http://triceracorn.bandcamp.com/track/insects-feat-ricky-wilson

From this album: http://triceracorn.bandcamp.com/album/surreal-mccoy

-And to put my money where my mouth is:

MY music - some have been released on netlabels, but here is my main hub (everything from electropop, ethnic instrumental, Nintendo music, and punk rock with Japanese girly vocals): http://vlantis.bandcamp.com/

Weather or not you care for the music, I'm pretty sure you can see that they at least SOUND like professionally made music (well, I'm not saying that about MINE :D).  These people have just as much passion as the any commercial musicians, the only difference is that they don't ask for money for their music.

What are your guys' thoughts?

Interestingly it's not just breaking talent that gives away music.

Prince, formerly the artist formerly known as Prince, released the albums Planet Earth and 20Ten in the UK by giving them away with a national newspaper, stating  it was "the best way to go... no charts, no internet piracy and no stress,".

This created a bit of a problem as it's now impossible to buy those albums brand new in the UK (they would have to imported, purchased second hand or downloaded illegally) because Columbia refuses to market them in the UK because of the deals struck.

The albums got good reviews in the papers who made the deal with him but so-so reviews with the papers who didn't.

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.

^

The most recent Prince album I own is Musicology (which, incidentally, he gave away with a purchase of tickets to his Musicology tour).

I would have loved to get his last two albums for free, but I would never, ever buy a newspaper.  So it looks like his move hurt UK fans in a position similar to mine, by actually INCREASING  the real cost to his fans willing to buy it, by forcing them to subscribe to some limey tabloid buttrag or import the record at a huge premium.  At the same time, I suspect it was a massively wasteful campaign, and that a huge fraction (majority?) of tabloid subscribers simply let the jewelcase-free, scratched up discs float around on the cradenza for a week, and them tossed them.  It's an absolutely perverse manner of media distribution.

But, I guess Prince is Prince (is the Artist Formerly Known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince), so he can do whatever the fuck he wants.  Budding artists making difficult economic decisions do not have the same luxuries.

I don't know, the people with the good sense to put the disc into a jewel case and stash it away may have a good little investment for their parrot cage liner.

There are lots of different things you can do with a newspaper.

You can make a nice hat, or mix it with glue to make papier mâché (the creative possibilities are endless).

It was only one paper (no subscription necessary).

You can look at it as buying a new album by Mr Squiggle really cheap with a free snoozepaper.

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"

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.

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.

So basically what you're saying is that you have no taste or thought on your own, and no one should pay attention to what you have to say. Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

Now I don't know whether you're expecting anyone here to buy that your day is really so damn busy that you literally have no time to "risk" spending some time on a potentially bad musical experience (that would still enhance your view, knowledgea and tastes), while constantly posting comments that take hardly less time to write than to click on a few of those links and give some stuff a shot - but one thing is certain, by openly take such a passive, "selective" approach to what you watch or listen to in the first place, you completely destroy your credibility as any sort of critic with an opinion from the get-go.

Not to mention the whole story about "commenting on things you don't know about" - as soon as you find yourself at a place in a discussion where you don't have the "time", or interest, or are too lazy to look into someone's examples or arguments, the only step you can reasonably take is BOW OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.

So continue on your life as a "proud and conscious consumer who only invests in credible sources", which basically translates to "listening to stuff for easy enjoyment when it comes your way", and stop commenting.

You know, as an aside I really don't get most of the jpgs/gifs interjected as pictoral commentary by the regulars on this board.  I'm not being a "hater" and I certainly don't hide behind a purse.

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.

But more importantly I also never changed my argument.  I said that price is a reliable signal of value--not perfect.  The placement of a piece of music as a free-for-all mp3 on an unrestricted website is, all else being equal, simply an indicator (with a pretty high degree of confidence) to me of the value I am likely to derive from it.  For someone else, who is into that kind of thing, it might be a badge of honor and a hallmark of worth.  But for me it's got the trappings of that with which I need not be bothered.

Might I be wrong?  Sure.  It might be great...but the likelihood of that doesn't even justify the expenditure of time to verify one way or the other.  Again, I started by saying that price colors the "perceived" value.  Perceptions are often wrong, but that doesn't mean we should abandon them.  [See, heuristics.]

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

Given the premises you stated, in this situation I would have a far greater number of signals than price alone to predict the likely value of the CD.  If I had already seen you play and it was good, then I would have good reason to expect the CD to offer value, unless the production quality was so poor as to negate the potential value of the songs/performance (which, believe me, has happened many times).  Again, the price is not determinative of the value, but only indicative.  As you obviously point out, an item is the same regardless of its price.

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?

Now this is a very rich example for illustrative purposes.  Microsoft (or whatever) commissioned those pieces precisely to reap an expected value, based I assume on a portfolio that you let them hear (for free!) that they took as strong evidence that you could produce work of high value for a particular purpose.  Everybody who buys that game, in turn, pays a price that includes a component that goes to you, and based on the expectation that the game will have awesome music.  A very wide range of market signals will be integrated by each of those purchasers.  Even if they game were free, the developer name or score composer credit would serve as a good signal of value.  In any event, it might be better than your usual or worse.  It depends on you mental processes during production.

And you didn't answer my other question: if one of these artists were signed, would they suddenly have more merit?

Again, price is indicative, not determinative.

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 know, yet here we are.

So basically what you're saying is that you have no taste or thought on your own, and no one should pay attention to what you have to say. Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Now I don't know whether you're expecting anyone here to buy that your day is really so damn busy that you literally have no time to "risk" spending some time on a potentially bad musical experience (that would still enhance your view, knowledgea and tastes), while constantly posting comments that take hardly less time to write than to click on a few of those links and give some stuff a shot

 

That's why I volunteered the bit about valuing forum chatting.  Also I stream radio while working/chatting, and I would have to interrupt it to put on youtube clips.  That's called an opportunity cost, and one that I'm not willing to expend.

- but one thing is certain, by openly take such a passive, "selective" approach to what you watch or listen to in the first place, you completely destroy your credibility as any sort of critic with an opinion from the get-go.

Passive and selective are diametrically opposed concepts, BTW.

Not to mention the whole story about "commenting on things you don't know about" - as soon as you find yourself at a place in a discussion where you don't have the "time", or interest, or are too lazy to look into someone's examples or arguments, the only step you can reasonably take is BOW OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.

I AM THE DISCUSSION!

As it so happens, price is NOT indicative of quality in any way, because the amount of total cheap horseshit produced both in mainstream cinema, and mainstream popular music business, is way too overwhelming.

I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

but the likelihood of that doesn't even justify the expenditure of time to verify one way or the other.

Except the likelihood in the case of "professional releases" isn't much higher - how about that complete cheesefest James Cameron crapped out recently? - and once again, as soon as you decide not to look at something for whatever pretentious reason you happen to come up with (how detrimental can "investing" the time of 5-15 minutes into checking out some music track you don't know much about, really be?), you automatically have no valid opinion on it.

By going the easy root of shielding yourself from "probably mediocre" experiences, you deprive your position of any substance. Ironic? Well, that's life.

/dismiss

Passive and selective are diametrically opposed concepts, BTW.

Not if "selective", as in your case, means selecting that which costs you the least active effort, and ensures you only bother with stuff that comes your way (which is the definition of "passive").

So yea, does anyone else see any reason to continue talking to this guy? He doesn't have any valid insight or opinion, and he proudly doesn't care - he just can't be bothered to do a few mouse-clicks / stand up from his chair and walk a few steps and interrupt his radio stream in order to put on a few youtube clips.

I know I don't.

Endorse 100% xhonzi's above missive.

Darth Id said:

You know, as an aside I really don't get most of the jpgs/gifs interjected as pictoral commentary by the regulars on this board.  I'm not being a "hater" and I certainly don't hide behind a purse.

Your "economical principle", though, heavily relies on familiarity with both commercial and free material, and you're not building up your position by refusing to listen to either of them.

And when did I ever say I "hated" Cameron? Actually, I'm not the only one in my opinion that his latest one was a pure, shitty cheesefest while some of his earlier work actually had some quality to it.

And yea, that's the whole point, the "ungodly" amount of people lining up to see Avatar is NOT, ANY sort of indication for how good the movie is objectively, or ANY sort of indicator for my opinion on it.

People previous stormed into the theaters to see the Star Wars prequels, and they sucked. I have NOT REASON WHATSOEVER to believe that just because a bunch of people pays for some commercial, hyped release, it's going to be ANY good.

I could've picked a random amateur production on Youtube and it wouldn't be any more likely to contain some dumbass plot contrivances and cheesy dialog.

As for the music examples in the OP, can't say I particularly liked any of those - the second two were quite "nice", the second "rock" one sucked (and not just because of the video).

IG88 (the last one) was pretty appealing. Pretty much the same what I get from commercial releases of this sort, some of it is plain embarassing and sucks my balls, some is nice and decent, some is original, fun and awesome.

No difference at all. I remember going through some metal bands on MySpace, some of which were non-commercial (at that point), and I did enjoy quite a bunch of that stuff. Listening to "Vader", on the other hand, makes me puke (it's just an impression I got way back, though, not offering this as valid criticism).

Also listened to some stuff by the OP - the first track started with rock-ish part with somewhat sloppy, but certainly fun fast-pased singing in the style heavily reminding me of The Hives - remember watching some of their (and other rock bands') live shows and the vocal work there is just as unpolished, but "entertaining".

Some nice, catchy stuff there, but nothing I could personally get into or "show all my friends".

This is a non-commercial recording (certainly given away for free on Youtube), not sure about the recital itself, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BdP90ITgFo

From what I could find out, this guy still does his music master at some conservatory. A lot of high quality performances at conservatories are completely free.

The guy certainly knows what he's doing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzgOf97kZ-4

Have no doubt he could've easily afforded a better camera, though - lazy prick :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8dP0LW0Ps8

TV's Frink said:

Darth Id said:

You know, as an aside I really don't get most of the jpgs/gifs interjected as pictoral commentary by the regulars on this board.  I'm not being a "hater" and I certainly don't hide behind a purse.

You are so awesome :D

Darth Id said:

Now this is a very rich example for illustrative purposes.  Microsoft (or whatever) commissioned those pieces precisely to reap an expected value, based I assume on a portfolio that you let them hear (for free!) that they took as strong evidence that you could produce work of high value for a particular purpose.  Everybody who buys that game, in turn, pays a price that includes a component that goes to you, and based on the expectation that the game will have awesome music.  A very wide range of market signals will be integrated by each of those purchasers.  Even if they game were free, the developer name or score composer credit would serve as a good signal of value.  In any event, it might be better than your usual or worse.  It depends on you mental processes during production.

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 know, yet here we are.

For your first point: that's a whole lot of nothing you just typed. 

Part of my contractual stipulations was that I get to retain all distribution rights for my music and I am allowed to release it free on the internet.  I'm obviously doing this because I think the music is worthless. ;)

For your seconds point: thanks for letting me know I'm wasting my time.

I'm just baffled by your reasoning.  My friends show me music all the time.  I hate a lot of it and like a lot of it.  I click on links from "random people on the internet" and I hate a lot of it and like a lot of it.

At least you admit that ALL free music isn't worthless.  Maybe you'll find some you like someday.

xhonzi said:

I wanted to follow up on my comments.

There's a lot of music out there.  So much, that I couldn't spend 16 hours a day listening to everything once and do a very good job of keeping up with it.  So I can either randomly choose (or let be chosen) music to listen to or I can go at it with some kind of strategy. 

Like most people, my strategy is "I will listen to the music that I like and not listen to the music that I don't like."  I exectute this strategy by listening to music that I already know I like and music that I think I will like, based on the culmination of other factors.  I also execute this strategy by not listening to country stations or anyone that plays John Tesh.

So! Listening to music I already know I like is simple, but how do I identify music that I will probably like?  Recommendations from friends/family/clever software algorithms that know my tastes and make suggestions is one good way.  Listening to Radio Stations that play a mix of things I like with things I don't yet know about is also another good way.  Buying (or receiving for free, if you like) CDs (little plastic things with bits on them) by groups I like, that might contain a few songs I already know I like beside several others I don't yet know about is good.  Otherwise, I watch TV and see films and sometimes just walk around public places or whatnot and encounter new songs that way as well.

None of these methods are guaranteed to bring me more music that I actually like.  But, it's statistically more likely to work than randomly listening to ANY music.  I NEED SOME KIND OF FILTER.  I never said (and I won't say now) that free music, by uncompensated musicians, can't be good and won't be a song that I will like, but I can say that it's proven to not be worth my time to go through uncommerical music because there are no decent filters out there that I can trust.  Say what you will, but commercial music is "targeted" and therefore it's more worth MY time to look for new music there.

Of course I would check out a free song recommended to me by someone whose opinion I trust.  Of course I would accept a free CD from a band that I enjoyed.  (Not a good comparison- I'm so cheap I would accept most any CD handed to me for free, I just might not go through the trouble of actually listening to it).

I listened to your Youtube song, eiyosus.  Not my kind of thing, but it sounded clean.  As I'm sure you know well, there's no accounting for taste.  But you're right, your production values were high enough, if I enjoyed that kind of music.  I didn't mind listening to it- I just wouldn't go out of my way to hear it again or chose it over the music I do enjoy.

And a slight change of tact here at the end- I recently read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers.  I recommend it to anyone.  Part of the main point of the book is: the people that are really good at things are really good at them almost invariably because they have spent a lot a lot a lot of time working on their skills.  I would extend this theory to this conversation by restating what I said before.  Someone who is paid to make music can focus their time and talents on making music.  Someone who does it for free must either be independently wealthy, impervious to hunger, or be conscripted to devote a majority of their time to working for "the man" and therefore have much less of their time, energy, and talent to dedicate to their music- for which their music MORE THAN LIKELY suffers.

 

Nice well thought out response!

Thanks for taking the time to listen to one of the videos I posted (I'm not sure which one it was, but it couldn't have been one by me, because I didn't post a video. :D)  My reason for posting them wasn't to try to get people to like them (I don't like some of what I posted), just to show some examples of the countless free projects out there.

And that's cool about not wanting to dig through countless free music to try and find the good stuff (MOST of it is crap).  To get around this, most netlabels will focus on one genre.

And I just want to let you know, that I never hand out my stuff to people.  It's there for them to take it if they want it. ;)  How many of them listen to it, I have no idea.

I must respectfully disagree with the last point (what a surprise, eh?), because all signed musicians get signed on the strength of their work, which was made before they were signed, ya' know what I mean?  Plus, some musicians/bands get better as they get more money, and some get worse.

Cheers.

twooffour said:

Your "economical principle", though, heavily relies on familiarity with both commercial and free material, and you're not building up your position by refusing to listen to either of them.

And when did I ever say I "hated" Cameron? Actually, I'm not the only one in my opinion that his latest one was a pure, shitty cheesefest while some of his earlier work actually had some quality to it.

And yea, that's the whole point, the "ungodly" amount of people lining up to see Avatar is NOT, ANY sort of indication for how good the movie is objectively, or ANY sort of indicator for my opinion on it.

People previous stormed into the theaters to see the Star Wars prequels, and they sucked. I have NOT REASON WHATSOEVER to believe that just because a bunch of people pays for some commercial, hyped release, it's going to be ANY good.

 

I could've picked a random amateur production on Youtube and it wouldn't be any more likely to contain some dumbass plot contrivances and cheesy dialog.

 

As for the music examples in the OP, can't say I particularly liked any of those - the second two were quite "nice", the second "rock" one sucked (and not just because of the video).

IG88 (the last one) was pretty appealing. Pretty much the same what I get from commercial releases of this sort, some of it is plain embarassing and sucks my balls, some is nice and decent, some is original, fun and awesome.

No difference at all. I remember going through some metal bands on MySpace, some of which were non-commercial (at that point), and I did enjoy quite a bunch of that stuff. Listening to "Vader", on the other hand, makes me puke (it's just an impression I got way back, though, not offering this as valid criticism).

 

Also listened to some stuff by the OP - the first track started with rock-ish part with somewhat sloppy, but certainly fun fast-pased singing in the style heavily reminding me of The Hives - remember watching some of their (and other rock bands') live shows and the vocal work there is just as unpolished, but "entertaining".

Some nice, catchy stuff there, but nothing I could personally get into or "show all my friends".

 

This is a non-commercial recording (certainly given away for free on Youtube), not sure about the recital itself, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BdP90ITgFo

From what I could find out, this guy still does his music master at some conservatory. A lot of high quality performances at conservatories are completely free.

 

The guy certainly knows what he's doing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzgOf97kZ-4

Have no doubt he could've easily afforded a better camera, though - lazy prick :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8dP0LW0Ps8

Nice points! 

Yeah, since when did ANYTHING indicate the quality of ANYTHING?  I've lived my life making my own decisions based on my own first hand experience.

Those vids were just the first things that popped into my head.  I actually don't like that rock song either! ;)

Darth Id said:

You know, as an aside I really don't get most of the jpgs/gifs interjected as pictoral commentary by the regulars on this board.  I'm not being a "hater" and I certainly don't hide behind a purse.

I'm really not surprised to read that you have not only not caught the reference in that image but have inverted it's meaning in your mind.

The image is from a television show which wasn't made by a commercial broadcaster therefore in all probability beneath your taste.

You are not inferred to be hiding behind a handbag. Instead the handbags are wielded in mocking defense against your ineffectually limp catty posturing.

If you allow yourself to be more open to influences outside your narrow sphere you may receive more than just a broader appreciation of posted images.

lol

TV's Frink said:

lol

^ TIE fighter?