That's an interesting point dc. If music was free, artists would have to work regular "9-5" jobs and buy all of their own recording equipment. They would then have to practice and record in their free time. We'd probably wouldn't see new material very often.

And if the music was free, wouldn't the concerts then have to be free also?

I think people put to much faith in Wikipedia anyway. They know it's true because they read it on Wikipedia...
It is user created, you could pretty much put up anything you wanted until someone disputes or edits it...

If someone wants to give out their music for free, that's their own business and they can do so via soundclick and other sites. But you can't force that on anyone.

The only system where everything belongs to everyone for free is communism and last time I checked it is still not a very popular option. You can't have free anything unless you change the entire political and financial system.

If you want free music, you gotta make it yourself. So get off your sorry ass, pick up an instrument and start making some!

i fail to see a comparison here. with wiki you stand the chance of getting false information. using that analogy..you are saying the artists will what?...writes incorrect notes and chords ????? or are you trying to say that uploaders will post the wrong songs??? that's been going on since the beginning of the download craze. if anything, that has gotten a lot better. i guess i'm just not understanding what you are trying to ask. if it is simply wether or not music should be free, then ,of course, you have allready gotten my opinions(in great detail) in previous threads about the topic. so i won't bore with a rehash of that. but as far as qualitly contol goes, there's an interesting paradigm occuring these days where as time goes on, computer recording and home recording is getting better and better as more and more programs are being developed and used. and it's getting easier and easier to use these advancments for the average musician. with programs like pro tools and Sonar, it is getting easier to make HIGHER quality home recordings thus eliminating the need for high dollar studio charges. even traditional studio equipment has been and still is affordable to the home recording community. Creed spent about $5 k on thier equipment and set it up in a living room to record their first album. of course you still have to have the knowledge to run said equipment and programs. so the need for good engineers will always be there. and there are tons of tutorials and a lot of information online that delve into these areas in great detail as well. so the info IS out there for those with the patience to shuffle thru it. as well as trial and error. and ,of course, home recording has been going on for as long as the music industry has existed in a variety of forms.

so as far as quality control goes, i don't really see that there is any negative effects occuring in that field. if anything it has gotten much,much better as time has passed. the average artists has a plethora of tools at his disposal. but there will always be a need for studios as most musicians do not and will not take the time to learn how to use all those tools. and the record industry still has major control over radio content and playlists that the staions use. so they will always have that control which will always provide them with the upper hand they need to stay in business and to be a vialble part of the system.

If kids use wikipedia as a source in their homework, then they shouldn't graduate. When I was in high school, my teachers always said not to use wiki as a source, but we could still use it if we wanted.

And while you're putting the old encyclopedia on a pedastal, wikipedia isn't as bad as you say it is. People can edit it, but now you can't edit it without some sort of link to provide a source for your information. So, you won't find people saying George Washington was a in the closet muslim just for laughs anymore.

And as for this relating to music downloads? I don't really see a big connection between the two.

Wikipedia is brilliant, it has become the go to source for on line information despite concerns about it's accuracy, despite the fact that it is part of the worlds biggest library, the Internet. So who is to blame for this popularity, you are.

Concerns about free music and the quality of it and what it will do to working musicians and music in general. So who is to blame for this, you are.

Oh I know a bunch of you will steadfastly claim to have never taken free music or used wikipedia and I'm not here to argue about your Internet usage. But these two things are big and are being used the world over, for good or ill. Wikipedia is "close enough" and free music is everywhere, we even post free music. If I posted a song and everybody downloaded it for free I would be flattered. If Tool releases a song and everybody downloads it for free then Tool goes out of business and we all cry foul. Of course there are big differences between me and Tool but at what point do people who are use to having advertisers support their TV and Radio habits going to realize that art is not free. But the statue is in the town square, the painting is in the museum, and the song is on the radio it all seems free.

Well, As far as home recording, there are those like Eddie Van Halen, who build their own, or 311, for that matter, who invested in the bands musical interests by renting a space, and setting up their own recording equipment. I believe their music has gotten better since they learned how the process is supposed to be done. As far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's someone writing the info down, just like every other book or encyclopedia. We have history books that still say that Columbus discovered the free world. Come on. Encyclopedias are only going to be as accurate as the intellect of the people writing them.

word of the day "paradigm"......lol

if you wanted to discuss music downloading AGAIN, i believe it would have been easier to just post a thread on THAT topic. i think this current topic is confusing ppl. that being said, for those who wish to see what everyone's opinions were on this topic the first time it went around , simply click on the link and read thru to your hearts content.

http://www.guitar.com/forums/offbeat/topic/downloading_86

fact of the matter is that many 'pro' studios are moving towards using the same programs and techniques the the "home computer hobbyists" are allready currently using such as SONAR 7 and Pro Tools....granted, a seasoned studio pro can accomplish a lot more in a shorter time than the average home user.....but i know guys that can run these programs with their eyes closed. and they can put out excellent recordings. it really comes down to how good your ears are. some have great ears while others don't. and as time goes by, and these programs become easier to use, the home recorders can and are putting out as high a quality product as many studio "pros" can. i would put Zombres' recordings up against just about any studio project. you should check out his web page. chock full of very high quality recordings done on his home system. same can be said with many folks around here and the "other" sites....and myspace has millions of them to compare with. it's just the sign of the times. but those studio 'pros' will ALWAYS be in demand. THEY have the ears for it. so you need not worry about putting them "out of business". there are plenty of lazy artists out there who do not have the time or will to learn how to use these programs.

but i digress........i know you wish to discuss the evil music downloaders so i will discontinue the discussion of quality recordings "home versus studio".....perhaps that can be discussed in a new thread...........

i just thought is was amusing being used in both of our posts..........it IS a cool word.........

Right... you get the best quality... but you know its money that counts...
i prefer to buy the albums though.