Active Member
Please remember that artists are people too who need money to survive in the capitalist society that is the West. They shouldn't work for free.Originally Posted by richardp
Back in The Beatles' day, money was made from physical albums, and money was lost touring the material. These days, new music is essentially worthless and all the money is gained from touring and merch. If they release the album now, they will lose a lot of money.
Active Member
That's easy to say when the majority of people do not buy the music they listen to anymore. Comparing the time when Beatles released music to the landscape now is comparing apples to oranges. Back then, an artist could actually make money soley on album sales. The Deftones have to put in the work touring and playing every night so they can actually see a reaction from the audience to their album. Plus make some money to support their families. Now, everyone Spotifys everything thinking they're actually supporting the artist. They're not. Let's drop money to record and bust my ass for 6 months to a year putting all my energy into writing an album you'll love so someone can Spotify it for less than a penny. I'm sorry, but they've got a point. And the only ones to blame are the listener because they're too cheap to buy music and support the artists they say they they love. The listener's cheapness has turned the music industry into an all you can eat food buffet.
Last edited by neorev; 05-14-2020 at 07:44 AM.
Banned
You're right, you don't know..
And once again, @neorev slams it out of the park. Nobody buys music anymore. Touring and merch are the livelihoods of bands everywhere in the modern day. Hence why you see so many turning to Kickstarter and Gofundme, which also have their hurdles, as we've recently seen. You don't need to be involved in the music industry in any way, shape or form to understand that dropping an album and giving it zero support is about the dumbest thing a band can do..
Remember last year when they were releasing all those festival dates on their social platforms, and I said it was because they were going to be promoting new material during that time? It's all part of a business plan. Gone are those halcyon days of the mid-90s when you could sign a recording contract for $200 million like R.E.M., release a new album and not do so much as a single tour date for promotion because you have a pile of money you go to sleep on every night..
You know what really blows in this case? Those of us who have bought their albums several times over each time they release something, pay top dollar to go see them on tour multiple times, buy their beach towels and beer coolers from their official store, and now have to wait even longer for new music because the world went to shit andtheir means of making money to livelive music is cancelled until god knows when. How many of these indie bands we love and adore so much are even going to be indie banding anymore by the time this is all over? That shit sucks..
They just wanna get paid? You and me and everyone else. The music doesn't mean shit though? That's just incredibly misguided logic, I'm afraid. Even this band's worst stuff has been created with a love and care most other bands could only dream of aspiring to..
Active Member
If you people think the Deftones don't bring in enough money to survive during a pandemic based on royalties alone, you should consider that. Chino has how many bands? They have a beer line they get paid for, they have all their merch bundles they are doing.
Like I get it, bands need to make money to survive, but to simply act like music cannot exist without capital gain is fucking stupid. Trent gives out albums for free, but when I suggest the Deftones can do that too, everyone jumps my shit?
Music is art. Art is not capitalism. If it is, it's not art. Throw shit at me all you want, and then go do another 100th round of ranking Deftones albums.
Active Member
Of course it can exist without capital gain but they, as well as their label, have put time and effort into it. Especially from the label's perspective, they're not going to want to put anything out without getting the maximum back for their investment. The record industry shows that music is simultaneously art and capitalism and pretending otherwise is a bit obtuse.
Active Member
Perhaps we should all just work for free while we're at it then. Music is work, like any other field.
It is disheartening to see that art is the one field people show the least respect for. It seems the listener is greedier than the artist in this situation. I find the whole music is art vs capitalism argument nonsense. Music is work and an artist deserves to be paid for their work.
Trent's being able to give music away for free is different. First off, him and Atticus do it all themselves, except maybe for mastering. They work in their own studio at home. There's no real overhead cost there. Whereas Deftones are a band made up of multiple individuals who must all travel to a studio to record their music. They have to hire people to produce, mix, and master their record. It's a bit different and I imagine more costly.
And also you make it like having to pack up and leave your family behind to go tour all over is some fun and easy thing to do. It's just another vacation. Touring takes a lot of work and dedication to put on a show every night at 100%. This is the way they must make money off a record. So I find it strange how that could upset someone and be disheartened by a band putting in the work deserving money for that work. It ain't like they're just being handed money for nothing. They gotta work hard for it, not just write an amazing album, but then all the work that goes into promoting and touring for it.
Last edited by neorev; 05-14-2020 at 01:31 PM.
Stubby Member
I think most listeners need services like spotify, too. I would probably want to spend upwards of 100 dollars on music every month if I didn't have my spotify subscription. With wages being more or less stagnant and necessities like rent eating up more and more of what I make each month, it makes me sad to think of how much music I'd be missing out on if I had to buy physical copies of everything. I still do what I can to support artists-- I go to lots of shows, and I buy lots of merch. But Spotify has changed how I listen to music, and also which music I listen to. It *feels*like a really great thing.
That being said, I know I don't get as close to a spiritual connection to the music I listen to if I was forced to be more economical and discerning with my listening habits. Limiting my collection to just what I have purchased would force me to relisten to a lot of albums I have more frequently, and in turn, to develop a closer connection with them. I'd also probably take way fewer risks about branching out-- I could imagine my tastes being stuck in 90s indie/alternative and progressive rock/metal forever, which is the type of stuff I was most inclined to when I first got into music. The rate I consumed new music would be much slower, and therefore the risks I'd take in listening to a new artist would be far less radical. Spotify has allowed me to branch out to more avant garde electronic and ambient music that would have been too intimidating to try if things were still being done "the old way", and its also allowed me to discover more obscure influential artists from previous eras that I probably wouldn't have been able to find if I was stuck to just buying physical copies. Not sure I'd be interested in any rap or folk music without spotify making everything so accessible.
This is a tough argument. The all you can eat buffet of music analogy is a good one. I like going to buffets on certain occasions, and I love going to them as an opportunity to try foods I wouldn't order under normal circumstances. I've found new favorite cuisines thanks to buffets. But it would be horrible for me if I ate nothing but buffets, obviously. Ultimately, I think technology has evolved to a point where a capitalistic model just isn't healthy for anyone involved. It ultimately becomes very isolating. Think of this: if we were still listening to music on CD's, you'd probably need to do things like loan albums to friends or have listening parties to ensure you got to experience more of the music you wanted to. Now, it's really easy for music to just be *my* thing. I'm not compelled to share much with other people, because they all have their own spotify habits as well. I think we really underestimate the connections that something as simple as loaning a cd to a friend can be. I feel like im always alone and in a constant binge mode. It's not good.
Last edited by ZeroSum; 05-14-2020 at 12:59 PM.
Active Member
What absolute tripe. Almost every work of art has a price tag associated with it. It's an *incredibly* capitalist field.
And yet, thousands of small artists are starving and either don't have a job or have to find multiple bit jobs to make ends meet, simply because their name isn't Damien Hirst or Andy Warhol. Artists have been laughed at, scorned, and often are made to work for 'exposure'. People expect to experience art for free and not give back to those who made it. I've suffered this my entire life and it sucks. Fuck that mentality.
Art is so disposable these days. Music, television, movies, books. Everything is so easily accessible on streaming services. Why even bother paying the individual who made it when it doesn't benefit the consumer? There's so much content that there's no way to consume everything, especially not more than once. Experience it, move on to something else. @neorev has it completely correct that no one wants to pay for music anymore. I say that no one wants to pay for art anymore (but they will pay for a package deal on a monthly basis).
Last edited by katara; 05-14-2020 at 01:04 PM.
Throbbing Member
Definitely with you @katara on this - don't want to veer from Deftones heavily but agreed that art and music is absolutely disposable now and it doesn't look to change anytime soon. As a musician myself it pisses me off that people expect everything for £10 a month when it's just not enough to pay musicians for the music. I know people have bills to pay and stuff but I guess when bands release special edition albums and stuff that you can't get digitally, the fans will shell out if they want that product.
The band won't make much money on this record when it's released so yeah the touring is where it's at. To a lot of bands recording albums now it's an absolute passion project that will eat up money. They deserve to wait a little and drop the record and tour behind it - they are one of the rare breed of bands this far into their career still putting out very wonderful, relevant music without simply trading on past glories and there is a lot of life in them yet.
Matador de Froot Loops
Pearl Jam released their new album during the pandemic.
I heard once that they don't make a buck from album sales due to their contract, that's why they are a touring band.
Other artists decided to delay the releases, because they are unable to tour, maybe NIN and PJ can do this, because they now the audience will be there when they are able to tour again, why the Deftones don't do this?
Active Member
If you truly want to be disheartened, go read the comments section on any streaming service, such as Qobuz or Tidal, that tries to charge more than $10 per month. You'll see a whole bunch of whining and bashing the streaming service that dares to charge $20 for having access to a huge catalog of music in lossless/hi-res. It shows you how much people have devalued art. God forbid a streaming service that decides to charge members more money so that they can pay the artists what they deserve, it won't happen. And you can't blame the labels/corporations on this one, it's the listener who doesn't want to pay, especially when a good chunk of them use Spotify for free because they find $10 per month to be too much.
Throbbing Member
That's right. But: 10 $ per month is not exactly cheap. I bet the majority of people that use streaming sites did not invest 10 $ per month in music before Spotify was a thing. In total the consumers are there, the money is there. It just doesnt find its way to the artists somehow.
Active Member
Well, NIN's Ghosts V-VI isn't exactly tourable material. It mostly consists of lengthy ambient, almost drone-like pieces that would not go down well at all at a rock concert. Both TR and AR seem like workaholics who are compelled to make music. So, if they were going to make something anyway and can't take it on tour, it only makes sense that the music would be experimental.
By the way, Deftones didn't say they *wouldn't* release their album come Summer. All Chino said was that he didn't know what was going to happen. I wouldn't hold your breath, though. I fully expect to be listening to this album for the first time in 2021.
I don't really get why having to wait a few months more because of a global pandemic is so hard to understand. Just be patient, appreciate what you already have, and if that's not enough, there's essentially infinite entertainment that can be pursued in other avenues.
BADGERS
Yeah man, Spotify is like the blood pact. You get 10 bucks a month, I don't torrent lol. Btw making things more accessible for people with lesser means is always good. I'm gonna say it: physical media sucks and it feels outdated.
We had a good thing going with video streaming for a while, but the pact has been broken.
Last edited by Wretchedest; 05-14-2020 at 06:32 PM.
Active Member
I'm an artist and give all my shit away for free and barely charge anything for it. To expect anyone to pay for my own personal art makes me feel like a greedy scumbag. So yeah, I think art should be fucking free. Fuck capitalism.
Banned
Forget about finances.....Just the idea of releasing an album in July 2020 that they may not be able to tour until July 2021 is stupid because by then the album will be 1 year old and people will already be bitching they want another new album. Better to tour when the songs are fresh and new to the fans rather than when they are 1 year old.
Throbbing Member
Exactly. I'd imagine they planned on debuting some new songs before the album came out, too, to generate more interest.
I think of it more as supplementing the income needed to continue making that art. It's not you trying to steal money from people, it's you trying to make something off of it to allow you to keep going. Unless you already have everything you need to make music, you're eventually going to need things to continue working on it. Painters charge for their work in order to finance new supplies (or at least that would make sense to me), the same can be said for music. New strings, new picks, new sticks, new drum heads, new speaker cones, etc., etc. That's not capitalism, that's surviving in a capitalist world.
Last edited by wight rabbit; 05-14-2020 at 08:14 PM.
BADGERS
They were touring last year and they didn't debut shit. Used to be they'd play songs quite far in advance..
They played an Eros song for a while!
Idk I don't think an album release would factor into my decision to by a Deftones ticket or not
Throbbing Member
Last year they may not have had anything that was fully fleshed out TO debut. My point is that they were planning to release the album over the Summer, so we probably would have gotten a single and some new songs live until the album was released.
Matador de Froot Loops
I'm being patient, i was just wondering why Pearl Jam released their album and Deftones didn't; i have plenty of music to listen to, from all time periods, not to mention all Movies and youtube stuff available.
I would love to listen to the new Deftones, but i understand why they aren't releasing the album.
BADGERS
Are singles still a thing?
Throbbing Member
Is that a serious question?
BADGERS
Kind of. Like I know pop music top 40 is still on the radio... I haven't listened to the radio for more than 10 years. So I don't know. Are there stations that would spin a single from this album? Or is it just a Spotify reccomendation for a few songs that they out out in advance? I know that's a thing sometimes. The notion of it being a "single" seems obsolete to me in the streaming era. The whole album is right there. I'm not gonna pay for it either way.
Active Member
I'm sure singles, in the traditional sense, are still a thing. It's just promo. As for bands like Deftones or whatever, they usually release a couple of tracks ahead of time or videos during the album cycle. These are probably technically classified as singles.
Only By Night
Yes, singles do exist, but they aren't as prominent of an item or release as they used to be. I miss the old days walking into The Wall (Music store) and seeing the gigantic section of just singles to buy. For instance, Phantogram released 4 tracks from their new album and considered 3 of them singles so I guess it is just up to the artist what they call the track at this point.
Throbbing Member
I think these days singles are either what the band finds most "marketable", their favorites from the album, or just ones that they think will look good as a music video.
BADGERS
I mean I definitely recognize when bands put out a promotional track like doomed user or something but for some reason I guess I didn't really register it as a single. Are we getting less b-sides and covers, then? I feel like we are... Is that why?!
she/her/hers
yeah, the days of singles as physical items, containing non-album tracks as incentive for people to buy them, seems to have fizzled out. i always loved collecting stuff like that (and not just because i'm an obsessive NIN collector). there were a bunch of bands i bought singles from in the 90s because i loved the song, but didn't care about getting the whole album. and i usually ended up liking the extra tracks that were on the CD/tape, so it worked out pretty well. i miss it, too.
Active Member
It may be more of their managers/labels saying it's not a good idea instead of what they want...but who knows.
FATUM NOS IUNGET
New album completed, a POSSIBLE September release; Eros may be released as a condensed EP.
The drummer was also asked about Deftones’ shelved album, Eros, which was started before bassist Chi Cheng was in a horrific car accident in 2008 that left him in a semi-coma and eventually led to his death in 2013.
“It was never completed, and that’s what people don’t get, like, ‘What, you’re just sitting on it?’ And I mean no, we’re not just sitting on it, we never finished it,” said Cunningham. “And then [Chi] got in his accident and that’s kinda where it just stopped. And quite frankly it’s not that good. There’s some songs that are really good.”
He continued, “But I gotta be honest … we were just trying to get back to it and see what we can come up with then … and it’s not that it’s not good, it’s just … there’s a lot attached to it as well, you know? And I understand that people are passionate about that and they want to hear Chi’s last musical contribution.”
When he was pressed about potentially releasing the Eros album, Cunningham answered, “We’ve talked about putting out maybe a condensed version or an EP of four or five songs, something like that, and that kind of makes sense. But we have to get into all the legalities of it and all that stuff and also we have to finish it. But yeah, it would be nice for that to see the light of day, definitely.”
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
