MyPlay.com is shutting down permanently

[Nano]

Quinny: I won't start with your argument on what companies do or should do, how they pay their artists, etc. I would want to, just like I did in the past when this subject came up. But probaby somewhere in the way "politics" would came up and now this is not allowed. You can read my old posts -if they still exist- regarding this.
Now you talk about compilations and the "risk" these guys have. Frankly, it's laughable. What's the fuckin' "risk" of putting together "YMCA", "Funkytown" (that is, a heavily edited version) and "Ring my bell"???? That's ZERO risk!!! Disco lovers had claimed this in unison since this forum was created!!!
I already have more than 30 different "compilations" like those. I have "YMCA" like, 5 times! And I didn't even want that song! But there's worse: CDs with 10 forgettable tracks by virtual unknowns next to 1 good song. Why do I have to buy a CD with 10 "shit" tracks for just 1 good track I really want? And these guys wouldn't even release the original album on CD!
The only answer to these guys behavior is: GREED. That's the main problem.
Now they want me to buy "Ring my bell" for the millionth time, in a normal-priced CD, just to get another wanted track they were hidin' in the vaults?? Well, FUCK them!!! I will buy the original vinyl or download it.
Regarding your comment about used vinyl: my quote is not malicious!!! How do you say that? Look at your earlier posts and don't edit them!

[Nano]

Quinny: I won't start with your argument on what companies do or should do, how they pay their artists, etc. I would want to, just like I did in the past when this subject came up. But probaby somewhere in the way "politics" would came up and now this is not allowed. You can read my old posts -if they still exist- regarding this.
Now you talk about compilations and the "risk" these guys have. Frankly, it's laughable. What's the fuckin' "risk" of putting together "YMCA", "Funkytown" (that is, a heavily edited version) and "Ring my bell"???? That's ZERO risk!!! Disco lovers had claimed this in unison since this forum was created!!!
I already have more than 30 different "compilations" like those. I have "YMCA" like, 5 times! And I didn't even want that song! But there's worse: CDs with 10 forgettable tracks by virtual unknowns next to 1 good song. Why do I have to buy a CD with 10 "shit" tracks for just 1 good track I really want? And these guys wouldn't even release the original album on CD!
The only answer to these guys behavior is: GREED. That's the main problem.
Now they want me to buy "Ring my bell" for the millionth time, in a normal-priced CD, just to get another wanted track they were hidin' in the vaults?? Well, FUCK them!!! I will buy the original vinyl or download it.
Regarding your comment about used vinyl: my quote is not malicious!!! How do you say that? Look at your earlier posts and don't edit them!
And one more thing: stop getting into matters that does not interest you! What's the point on getting in a topic made by people who obviously does not share your vision of it? It's pointless and childish. YOU grow up and stop playing with other people's temper!

[nrgbeat]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

NrgBeat: The argument is quite easy really. Lets say a record company wants to seel a CD compilation. They spend all the money tracking down the records, they pay all the royalties to the various copyright owners. They spend good money to produce the CDs, market, distribute etc.
Now lets say that the CD has 10 tracks and there are possibly 5000 people who would buy the CD because of 1 track. That's 50000 potential sales. However, half those potential buyers find their track on the web for free. Out of those half say to themselves "I have a copy, I don't need to buy one". That's a quarter of potential sales lost straight away.
The other, stronger argument, is this. Why should music be free? Can you get a plumber to fix the pipes in your house for free? Does a car mechanic fix your car for free?
Whether we like it or not, record companies are there to sell records. That's how they make a living.
Why should they and musicians be expected to work for free or sell their most valuable assets for free?

If I already bought my copy of a song at a used record store or flea market or even Ebay, then I'm not going to want another copy. Sales are still lost even though I didn't download it. If I went on Ebay, I bet I could find several copies of "Funkytown" for sale.

I don't expect musicians or record companies to work for free. However, if I buy the song from one of the three places I just listed they aren't going to make any money off those sales either. Would you suggest shutting down Ebay, closing used record stores and banning all flea markets?

Most of the songs I have downloaded are rare older songs or dj remixes that are not easily available to the general public. Many times these songs are not available on cd.

[Funky Dude]

Okay okay Quinny, I know record companies need to make their record sales, but as NRG and Nano said they are constantly releasing MAINLY disco compilations with the most typical disco songs that radio stations belt the living shit out of :evil: . I can also confirm this as I go to CD stores and have bought several disco compilations and the majority of them have the usual "YMCA", "Ring My Bell", "Stayin' Alive", "I Will Survive" which are normally the bloody short versions and even worse some of them are techno remixes, I swear I hated the techno remix of Tina Charles "I Love To Love" because it goes "get get get get" it sounds so stupid, I like the original though. Now you's know why I say there's fuck all at the CD shops.

Okay sometimes record companies do release disco compilations full of rare stuff, but that's not that often. I know on Amazon a lot of albums have been remastered, but it's mainly of the more noticeable groups. I can assume record companies mainly release compilations and albums that were good sellers because they KNOW they can make a squillion out of it and if they try to release unknown albums they feel they won't sell as much because a lot of people only know pop music and cling to pop music. Don't you see Quinny this is the major problem with record companies, they mainly think economically so they stick to what's gonna make the most money, it's the same with bloody mainstream radio stations that belt the living shit out of you're usual mainstream music.

When I download MP3s I too most of the time download the really rare stuff and I still buy the records when they are within my grasp. Sometimes I get records of the songs I want and the record is scratched as hell, so I download a better quality copy of the songs to listen to them without the nicks and scratches for example a couple of years back I bought Macho's "I'm A Man" 12" and it was really scratched and I could hear pops, clicks, scratches so when I found Audio Galaxy I downloaded a good version of it. When I'm downloading MP3s I normally search up on the net lists of really obscure disco/funk music and then go to Audio Galaxy and search for them there and download them and normally check out funk45.com and look at the super rare stuff there and go to AG and download whatever I think sounds really cool from funk45.com . Now I know there's no chance in hell record companies would wanna release most of the 45s from funk45.com onto CD, I know it will never happen because the majority of the masses have never heard those 45s before and wouldn't bother buying them whereas funky junkies like me and a lot of you's would love to buy them. Also to find these records you have to search the earth for them. This is my big gripe with record companies.

Now what as made me really demean these record companies is they go as far as not only shutting down MP3 sharers, they jack up the prices of having 30 second sound samples of music on sites which Bernie had to remove the sound samples because of the rising costs, now Quinny what have you got to say about this, do you think it's fair that record companies go this far :cry: ?

Now as far as MP3 sharing is concerned, Quinny is right about the big mainstream artists losing royalties, but the underrated artists whom have done some fantastic music but didn't quite make it to the top, they are not losing out as record companies are virtually not going to ever release those artists records on CD to hit the markets, the vinyls will still circulate and these underrated artists would have already made their bucks way back when those vinyls have been released but aren't going to make any more bucks as the vinyl is getting sold mostly privately or at groove and it's the record owners who are likely to make the money, not the artists. I reckon it be better if these record companies just put blocks on sharing of the big artists and allow sharing of songs which the record companies know they'll never make a buck out of it if they tried to release them on CD. But then there's the problem of people coding the file names to make it past the filters. But still the filters will slow down the sharing of popular artists. All I can say is banning MP3 sharers is going to make it a hell of a lot harder for people to discover the more obscure music and these underrated artists are now going to be virtually never known and I think that sucks :evil: :x .

Also you're not going to like it when I say this Quinny, you and DJ Phil think alike in terms of this MP3 sharing issue.

Now I know this arguement ain't going to get anywhere because I know Quinny is going to come up with something that will blast my points to pieces. But I felt I needed to say all of this. This is the big problem I'm pointing out about record companies and this problem needs to be fixed and barring MP3 sharers ain't going to fix all the problems, it's just going to make people who want to discover the really obscure stuff cry :cry: :cry: :cry: .

Okay everyone including Quinny, say all of your pieces and let's put this MP3 sharing issue to rest, I've said my bit.

[QUINNY]

And they are not available 'cos they probably wouldn't sell enough to make the artists, or record company, enough money. If the record company's motive is greed, then surely they'd release everything that would make 'em a buck or two?
I admit, seeing 'Shame', 'Y.M.C.A.' et al on virtually every compilation is frustrating. Perhaps a more enlightened approach might work better, but for how many people? We just have to accept the fact that the number of people clamouring for even semi obscure full length Disco tracks is gonna be fairly limited, and are many of those actually interested enough to want to buy the product? This site has just over 700 'members' of which only 15 or so are regular posters. That's in over a year with a worldwide potential. Draw your own conclusions.

Funky: I'm saying this as a matter of fact not as a snide remark. You and others who post here are obsessive and fanatical in your quest for music. 99.9% of the population probably don't share your fanaticism or obsessiveness. Please accept that most of the population don't care. Now, if tommorrow, everything became available would you still be as fanatical about '70s disco music? Surely it's the fact that they are obscure and difficult to find that makes your own personal quest worthwile? I think that most people would agree that the search, the hunt, the chase is far more interesting and satisfying than the eventual ownership of anything.
Record companies are no more greedy than any other industry in my opinion. However, their business is fairly unique in that they have the opportunity to make money from a product many years after initial placement into the market. They are also fairly unique in that they have laws which protect their products.
Maybe your (and others') gripe is more with politicians than the record companies.

[BrunoRepublic]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

Maybe your (and others') gripe is more with politicians than the record companies.

November 18, 2002, 4:06 AM EST...

QUINNY GETS THE POINT!!!

[QUINNY]

Graham: thanks for that!!!! NOT.
The fact that I was saying this to FunkyDude means that I've always known it and possibly Funky doesn't. Not what you think!!!!

[Outsider]

Well, I'm on Funky Dude's side on this whole issue. He's pretty much said everything that I said about file sharing. I know that I'm probably more adventurous about hearing music than most people. Like Funky Dude, I know there's a whole world of music other than the hits (not that I have a problem with the hits). I think that file sharing would actually help the record industry, espcially with obscure artists (a point I've made only a zillion times). It makes music much more accessible, and that's how to get people to buy albums from those artists. Then there's the case of albums are that are difficult if not impossible to find (or out-of-print albums which will never be rereleased), which speaks for itself. It's not so much the idea of finding obscure artists as it is about discovering music outside of the mainstream that we may end up liking (some we may like, some we may not, but that's the case with all music). Enough said. :evil:

[BrunoRepublic]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

Graham: thanks for that!!!! NOT.
The fact that I was saying this to FunkyDude means that I've always known it and possibly Funky doesn't. Not what you think!!!!

Just playing your game, Quinners.... i.e. replying to a post, disregarding the main points of it, and throwing in a somewhat condescending remark.

[QUINNY]

Graham: Duh!!!!!!

[Outsider]

I think this thread should be shut down permanently. :evil:

[Funky Dude]

Quinny wrote:
Surely it's the fact that they are obscure and difficult to find that makes your own personal quest worthwile?

Yes it is, but what if I can never find certain records and if I do the records are overseas and are too expensive for me to be bothered paying for? I've seen on the internet that some rare funk records are something between $100 and a $1000.

$100-$1000 FAIR CRACK OF THE WHIP :x !!!!! NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO BLOW HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS PER RECORD!!!!

You'd have to be a really extremely serious collector to blow THAT much money on a record. I personally wouldn't normally spend more than $20-30 on a record and if I'm spending that much it would have to be a REALLY good record. If I were a millionare like Wacko Jacko or Bill Gates, yeah I'd buy all of the over $100 funk records I want :lol: .

Basically Quinny you have your opinions and I respect them although I don't agree with all of them, but my attitude is if there's an easy opportunity to get rare funk/disco for free through MP3 sharing I won't suck eggs and say "this is morally wrong, I ain't downloading" I'll go RIGHT for it :D ![/quote]

[Funky Dude]

Originally Posted by Outsider

I think this thread should be shut down permanently. :evil:

Yeah, I agree too, we're just going in circles AGAIN with this MP3 sharing arguement. So Bernie the opportunity is there for you to lock or delete this thread, go for it :D !

[QUINNY]

Funky: Last post from me:
Let's say you paid $1000 for a rare record and found it some weeks or months later on an MP3 site for free. How would you feel? Even more pissed off than you feel now!!
MP3 not only negates record company's efforts. By it's very nature it is incredibly subversive and without any morals or scruples.

[nrgbeat]

That would never happen, because Funky doesn't have $1000 to throw away on a record.