Guest sljiva Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 You didn't prove anything, you're just making a fool out of yourself by not looking at the bigger picture and people fortunately see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 where the fuck did you come from plum noob ? do you have any tangible to say ? if no then fuck off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sljiva Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I said that you're a fool and called you an asshole earlier. If that's not tangible, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 You can look at digital files as more environmentally friendly, but more money is going to big corporations because of it, because only big corporations can produce the physical delivery systems to provide you with content (amazon, itunes, etc) vs a small independently owned vinyl pressing plant. (for the music you and I likely buy,) you can usually buy music directly from the artist. middlemen are not necessary! most of the vinyl sales in 2011 went to major label artists, btw. 1. Radiohead 2. Black Keys 3. Bon Iver 4. Beatles 5. Fleet Foxes 6. Tom Waits 7. Wilco 8. Jimi Hendrix 9. Bob Dylan 10. Nirvana http://www.businessw...Industry-Report jus sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 man, your tldr is really not interesting to me atm, my goal in this thread was very simple: to prove that using vynil when you have a pc is a shitty thing to do environmentally-wise, which i believe i did. now you do what you wish with that realization. Just think for a second about this picture... Thats my point. Where you see waste... I see art. You can look at digital files as more environmentally friendly, but more money is going to big corporations because of it, because only big corporations can produce the physical delivery systems to provide you with content (amazon, itunes, etc) vs a small independently owned vinyl pressing plant. The music industry is certainly in a state of shambles despite the finer air quality (lol). but the infrastructure is already here and there's nothing you can do about it ! and the point is that you have a choice to go either with digital or physical media at this current reality of ours, as pointed in that article delivering physical media is much more detrimental. is there anything specific you disagree with ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 You can look at digital files as more environmentally friendly, but more money is going to big corporations because of it, because only big corporations can produce the physical delivery systems to provide you with content (amazon, itunes, etc) vs a small independently owned vinyl pressing plant. (for the music you and I likely buy,) you can usually buy music directly from the artist. middlemen are not necessary! most of the vinyl sales in 2011 went to major label artists, btw. 1. Radiohead 2. Black Keys 3. Bon Iver 4. Beatles 5. Fleet Foxes 6. Tom Waits 7. Wilco 8. Jimi Hendrix 9. Bob Dylan 10. Nirvana http://www.businessw...Industry-Report jus sayin' vs. Top Overall Album Sales 2011 1 Adele 21 2,517,000 2 Lady Gaga Born This Way 1,540,000 3 Mumford & Sons Sigh No More 982,000 4 Jason Aldean My Kinda Party 763,000 5 Bruno Mars Doo Wops & Hooligans 686,000 6 Justin Bieber Never Say Never: The Remixes (EP) 676,000 7 Chris Brown F.A.M.E. 646,000 8 Various Artists Now 37 637,000 9 Nicki Minaj Pink Friday 609,000 10 Katy Perry I see your point about buying directly from the artist, however without something physical I am less inclined to buy it and more and more people are using Amazon and iTunes vs going to a record shop. So for the mass buying market, the music that is advertised on just a few differently owned services will be the music most people buy. The huge differences in those top 2011 album charts seems to be a good indication of how delivery method is important to certain demographics and how it shapes and focuses buying appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 yep, so (for "the masses") you could say it's replacing one corporate infrastructure with another. Unless people choose to buy directly from the artist, which is an option that digital provides but is underutilized at the moment. As for the itunes/amazons pumping out new tastes for the masses: doesn't sound much different than the radios and billboards of yesteryear. marketers gonna market. thinking about this a bit more, one can only buy direct from an artist if the artist is on an indie label or unsigned, so i guess that the market who would utilize direct-artist pay would be outside of the mainstream market anyway, and is analogous to the people who buy indie vinyl pressed in little shops. and for the cooldad black keys fans, it really is just a replacement of one big infrastructure with another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 You didn't prove anything, you're just making a fool out of yourself by not looking at the bigger picture and people fortunately see this. you don't need no bigger picture to analyze day-to-day human behavior you idiot. if you choose to recycle a plastic bottle instead of throwing it to regular trash you're behaving in a more environmental way, if you decide to download a record instead of buying a vinyl which will have to be manufactured and delivered to you, you're behaving in a more environmental way. i don't know what to add anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcock Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 thats great, just button it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 yep, so (for "the masses") you could say it's replacing one corporate infrastructure with another. Unless people choose to buy directly from the artist, which is an option that digital provides but is underutilized at the moment. As for the itunes/amazons pumping out new tastes for the masses: doesn't sound much different than the radios and billboards of yesteryear. marketers gonna market. thinking about this a bit more, one can only buy direct from an artist if the artist is on an indie label or unsigned, so i guess that the market who would utilize direct-artist pay would be outside of the mainstream market anyway, and is analogous to the people who buy indie vinyl pressed in little shops. and for the cooldad black keys fans, it really is just a replacement of one big infrastructure with another. Well if you heard something on the radio, one would still have to go to their local record shop. Each record shop would have their own individual promotions, so there is more diversity... kind of like the top 2011 vinyl list vs the top 2011 album list. Thats all I was saying. Its great that you can sell your music directly to other people, but in terms of people knowing about it, that becomes a real problem. There are two different record shops now basically. Itunes/Amazon and the dying bread of local record stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 hm, I guess we were talking about totally different things then, lol internet promotes diversity far more than storefronts IME, but apparently your mileage has varied. I guess if I had ever bought something from itunes or amazon I might feel differently. you ever notice that all the Sonic Boom records and Easy Street kinda promote... you know... the same thing? It's pitchfork all over their walls, every week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 thats great, just button it then. sure, though you asked how buying vynil is bad for an environment, here's an article that explains "how", which you probably missed, and trust me i have't participated in that research. http://download.intel.com/pressroom/pdf/CDsvsdownloadsrelease.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 posting an article does not amount to proving your point, dude. i'm not saying you're completely talking out of your ass or anything i just think you're stripping the dynamic of its context which imo results in a rather meaningless "conclusion." yes, vinyl is wasteful but it is in no meaningful sense more wasteful than digital consumption which completely and utterly dwarfs vinyl consumption. so, in order to make the point that vinyl is more wasteful you have to treat the situation in a more abstract sense, like it's a tit for tat process (your recycling analogy) which it clearly isn't. you're completely ignoring the greater ramifications. i think it's obvious that far more resource waste and pollution is and will be the result of digital consumption than vinyl, so what exactly is the point of discussing the wastefulness of vinyl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 the article is relevant to the point im making, people (rightfully) don't trust my intuition so i have to bring something academic. i don't understand why i do have to say it for the 5th time, but wth. im not talking about digital waste and digital products consumption in this thread. im pointing at a very realistic scenario: a music fan who has a computer and a turntable, which i'd bet is true for 99% of turntable owners. now i ask, in this particular scenario would it be better for the environment if the music fan consumed and played digital files or vinyl records ? can you answer this question directly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 no because i don't think it works like that. what are the environmental costs of your monthly broadband? the frequently increasing obsolescence of your computer and its numerous accessories? the servers you're using? the little chinese people in glass huts shining your retina displays with their scrotums? (ok, maybe that last one is irrelevant. maybe). etc etc and over time i think this shit becomes much more unclear and it's harder to make an equivalence between consuming a file and an lp. and also, it's not as though for every instance of a vinyl purchase a new vinyl must be created and delivered. clearly most vinyl in the world has already been produced many years ago and is being recycled continuously through the second hand market. in this case i imagine the delivery charges are negligible, especially if you consider all the electronic devices that are probably on the same ups truck. this also makes the equivalence much less clear cut than you are making it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 no, i actually believe that you can answer it but don't want to. the thing is that the behavioral patterns of a vinyl dude and an mp3 hoarder are not that different, turntable is usually an addition to rather than a replacement of something. the environmental costs of broadband for a vinyl fan and a mp3 hoarder are the same as you probably realize, both pay monthly for unlimited internet in most of the cases, so that's not a variable that matters. same goes for computer upgrades, both vinyl people and mp3 hoarders will upgrade them for similar reasons, because even a 10 year old computer can play music. regarding the delivery costs that article makes it very clear, just read the conclusion if you're lazy. the digital file never loses in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 no, i actually believe that you can answer it but don't want to. don't be a dick, i haven't participated in the ad hominum in this thread so leave me out of it you fucking asshole piece of shit. i'm just trying to have a discussion with you on watmm, k? your last post is certainly intriguing but ultimately it strikes me as evasive. it doesn't really matter if one has both a turntable and a computer; what i'm arguing is that in the lifetime of the hypothetical music listener you're proposing the environmental costs of the computer technology they will use and support will far out weigh the costs of the vinyl they buy. also, i don't exactly see what you're saying about the 10 year old computer, could you please elaborate?...i would think after 10 years most computers are pretty shite. i have never owned a computer that long that did not need a new hard drive, disc drive, power cord, whatever, and usually they run like shit by that time and sometimes don't even work with contemporary programs. my turntable on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 I just don't see whats so wrong about music having a physical identity... why should one sacrifice that format because of environmental damage, when the main problems facing our climate have to do with much larger problems? I'm not trying to evade the main point you are making Eugene, but I'm just saying, do you need a computer? Do you need a portable music device? A cell phone? Where is the line in the sand? How many vinyl records does it take to reach a level of actual harm to the environment that exceeds the carbon footprint a person who solely consumes media digitally? I understand the concept that you are making (a record vs a file), but its not just the product that matters but the money. By being digital you are paying technological corporations to pursue their interests of making a profit with sometimes little regard for their actions on the Earth and humans. If you are gonna infer that someone who buys vinyl should stop because they are hurting the Earth, shouldn't the same be applied to your habits as a digital consumer and the implications that has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 let's just put it this way, i think anyone who elevates sitting on their ass downloading an mp3 with rhetoric about how it's more environmentally conscientious than playing vinyl is a cunt. it's the same lazy, consumerist attitude that goes along with the "organic" food activism: you can continue with your completely consumerist indulgences but now you can put a cute "activist" spin on it, like you're doing something good. compson, the aesthetic aspect you've been focusing on is totally cool but irrelevant. i agree with you for sure, i'd rather experience the physical ritual of vinyl. but what we're dealing with here is eugene making a claim about how he's doing something "better" for the environment by using the vast computer technology of the present age to download a track. that's just vulgar. yeah, manufacturing vinyl is wasteful. but you've got to be a total smug cunt to think that sitting around on your computer is somehow better. tell it to the dying planet, dear. it's a joke position to take, squabbling about the environmental benefits of digital music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Good points I hope there are no hard feelings Eugene. But I don't think your logic holds up. Not that you don't make good points, but.... and I hate saying this because its usually overused, but... you come across as trolling, especially since you prefaced this argument with admitted trolling (using hipster as a form of attack). I enjoyed this conversation though. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I just don't see whats so wrong about music having a physical identity... why should one sacrifice that format because of environmental damage, that's up to you to decide, but at least now you realize that it is a worse one. when the main problems facing our climate have to do with much larger problems? I'm not trying to evade the main point you are making Eugene, but I'm just saying, do you need a computer? Do you need a portable music device? A cell phone? Where is the line in the sand? How many vinyl records does it take to reach a level of actual harm to the environment that exceeds the carbon footprint a person who solely consumes media digitally? i just dont understand how can't you differentiate general consumption and this specific topic we're talking about, it's really two separate things. your comparing the footprint of general digital consumption with vinyl consumption and that simply doesn't belong to this discussion. individual day to day behavior IS a larger problem, by choosing vinyl over digital you are behaving in a more environmentally detrimental way. when you already do own a computer and consume vinyl records, in order to reduce your footprint you will have to stop buying vinyl, why isn't that clear already at this point ? I understand the concept that you are making (a record vs a file), but its not just the product that matters but the money. By being digital you are paying technological corporations to pursue their interests of making a profit with sometimes little regard for their actions on the Earth and humans. If you are gonna infer that someone who buys vinyl should stop because they are hurting the Earth, shouldn't the same be applied to your habits as a digital consumer and the implications that has? what evil corporation am i paying to by downloading something from a russian torrent tracker or boomkat exactly ? but generally, do you not use broadband like i do ? do vinyl people not use internet and upgrade their computers periodically ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 let's just put it this way, i think anyone who elevates sitting on their ass downloading an mp3 with rhetoric about how it's more environmentally conscientious than playing vinyl is a cunt. it's the same lazy, consumerist attitude that goes along with the "organic" food activism: you can continue with your completely consumerist indulgences but now you can put a cute "activist" spin on it, like you're doing something good. im not preaching anything, im only here to win an argument. you can do anything you want with that information that comes up from it. compson, the aesthetic aspect you've been focusing on is totally cool but irrelevant. i agree with you for sure, i'd rather experience the physical ritual of vinyl. but what we're dealing with here is eugene making a claim about how he's doing something "better" for the environment by using the vast computer technology of the present age to download a track. that's just vulgar. that way you phrase it still makes me think that you don't quite get that idea, im not using the whole vast computer technology to download an album but a specific selection of technologies that happen to be more environmentally friendly for the task of acquiring an album. yeah, manufacturing vinyl is wasteful. but you've got to be a total smug cunt to think that sitting around on your computer is somehow better. tell it to the dying planet, dear. it's a joke position to take, squabbling about the environmental benefits of digital music. lets face it, none of us will give up a computer to save even one dying seal or whatever, but there are some easy things we can do without seriously fucking with our consumerist habits to make the death of this planet slower. replacing our physical media with digital as a rule of thumb is more environmental friendly, it's true for books and it's true for music, and probably other things too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Before I fully respond, would you be in favor of banning vinyl? What if that meant some labels/artists lost revenue because of this or could no longer stay afloat? I don't think its peculiar or odd for music enthusiasts to illegally download music and then buy the things they like/love on vinyl. I've certainly bought a lot of records, not because it was my top 22nd album of all time or something, but if I am browsing a record store and find something that I wasn't expecting to find (a lot of electronic stuff on boomkat is hard to come across in the states) I will buy it because I appreciate having it rather than seeing it in a sea of files. If I grow to dislike it, I can always trade it in for something else later. However the notion that I would spend as much money on websites dedicated for downloading a file that I already have or could easily have (in the same amount of time)... it unfortunately just feels like a bit of a bummer. It's pretty silly, but alas when you look at how Aphex doesn't release any more music and musicians are solely moving towards live performance for revenues... there is a clear contrast and separation of values. Also to note: I have purchased a lot of digital music online, used to use emusic a lot, monthly subscription for two years and even a good chunk on itunes initially... But then I realized how shitty the DRM protection was and I got into vinyl, to the point that I would get my paycheck on my friday and immediately walk down the street in lower west manhattan and spend $100 at least on records... found a lot of good stuff during that semester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 I also used to buy CDs of my favorite releases, but grew to hate them as the plastic cases would always break when I brought them in the car somehow, or they would get scratched more easily I have found then vinyl... which is such an awkward disc that you kind of have to hold it with care. And the damn inserts on those cds were such a pain. I know they make some cool digipaks stuff, but damn I find them to be shelved most of the time. And one other aspect of emusic I disliked... is I don't even have the files, or a lot of them anymore, due to UPS failing to ship my computer correctly and killing the internal HDDs. I've shipped my records no problem though. Perhaps my fault of not backing things up... but I still just lose digital stuff way easier. Or I will get sick of the amount of music I have to scroll through on my computer and cut some of the stuff out that I am not as into anymore... whereas if they were real records, I could bring em down to the store and trade some of it in for new stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 what you're describing are the ills and the side effects of the outdated music industry model that'll die out completely in the next decade or so. i don't really see a moral issue in downloading or redownloading stuff you've already bought. you can't lose any music because it's all on the internet. the internet is shifting the whole music business towards some sort of socialism instead of strict capitalism. there should not be any money grabbing 3rd parties between the musician and the music fan. aphex isn't releasing music because he's aphex, it has nothing to do with the current music industry situation, he's still very much in demand. drm is obviously a monstrosity and you should never touch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.