Can anyone tell me the best place to download all types of music for free that also doesn't take an age to download.

[JohnG]

I don't think you'll get any answers to that here.

Originally posted by dpc
Can anyone tell me the best place to download all types of music for free that also doesn't take an age to download.

You can bypass the slow download speed by getting music from a 'shop'. Can't help with the 'free' bit though.

The bonus side of doing it this way is that the artist gets some money, meaning they can make some more music. Novel idea that.

[alle v]

Originally posted by dpc
Can anyone tell me the best place to download all types of music for free that also doesn't take an age to download.

...Anyone probably could but I think he's on holiday

[Sick Boy]

Ahh.......We are all so honest when we think someones watching.

Ask your local magican or arabian knight

[ianlecompte]

you do realize that by participating in such activities the artists loss money,rather than earning their predicted 50 million quid for album sales they will probably get more like 45 million quid,could you live with yourself with this knowledge in mind.bang goes the malibu estate not to mention the fine works of art to add to the ever expanding collection.why not try a site were you pay a monthly fee in return for a certain number of downloads,this way the multi nationals are happy and you get something for a slightly cheaper price.or just ask elsewhere, where you will get the answer you are looking for.p.s it all depends on your connection speed,if you have a dial up connection forget it,broadband is best.

"Slightly cheaper" for DRM-ladened inconvenience. (had to rebuild your machine? Well, get ready to buy all your music again sucker!)

The new music services are a start, but they're certainly not cheap or convenient enough to get any of my £££ yet.

[Miyazaki]

is it something like 5p in the £1 artists get for each cd single sold, and i warrant only a little higher per album. Yet you'd be lucky to buy a cd single for less than £3 in the shops, and less than £13 for an album.

I'd never condone piracy, but isn't it funny how things that go around come around, eh RIAA etc?

I'm surprised that no one on here uses KaZaA. It is a file sharing, peer 2 peer program.

[Zone]

Originally posted by xa200
I'm surprised that no one on here uses KaZaA.

I'm not suprised in the least!

[JayX]

i'll openly admit to downloading music, i have a ton of it. doesn't bother me, cos i spend all my money on dvds cds and vinyl anyway, and half the time i buy second hand meaning the filthy corporate label ceo's don't get my money.

also most of the music i listen to , the artists condone free trading. it doesn't bother them, because not all musicians are whores who are only interested in the money, and would rather the gigs have people there when they come into town, so they can afford to go to the next town. i think practically everyone i know into punk/hardcore has no problem with this. download mp3s, go to gig, spend all money on the merch desk which goes directly to the people on the stage.

[dfield2000]

Hi dpc,

I use WinMX which seems quite good - but to get the speed you need it's got to be broadband really.

P.S. If I were you I would ignore all the sarcastic comments - some of these guys are so far up their own rectum it's unbelievable.

[seany]

WinMX.

I don't believe for one second, that anybody here has not made a copy be it from tape to tape or burning.

[Dimmy]

I've copied music for myself and one or two friends - so what? I've paid for it in one form or other, I should be able to do what I want with it .

[bob mushroom]

how many times have you bought an album put it on then thought "shouldn't have bought that!!!" by downloading you can check before you buy and if you like it buy it!!!

if we keep buying tat they'll keep churning tat out - and that's why the industry is scared they may have to make real artists and real music

[Dimmy]

Originally posted by bob mushroom
how many times have you bought an album put it on then thought "shouldn't have bought that!!!" by downloading you can check before you buy and if you like it buy it!!!

if we keep buying tat they'll keep churning tat out - and that's why the industry is scared they may have to make real artists and real music

Very good point - sums my view up perfectly.

[seany]

I know if i burn an album, i wont buy the original no matter how much i like it. So thats not the reason i copy them.

I copy some that i would not normally buy, but it has then got me into them, and i've then gone and bought other stuff, or later stuff they have done

[JohnG]

I use Itunes these days to listen to music on the computer. If you go into the music store option (although you can't buy tracks in the UK yet) you can listen to 30 second snippets from every track on the album. This is a good way of seeing if you might like it or not

[paulr]

Kazaa lite.
Much better than Kazaa.
Basically i set it to download then go to work.
Then if i like the music i buy the cd from HMV or Play.com.Basically i use it as a way of "trying" out certain bands or listening to music that i would not otherwise buy.

I also find downloading good for finding music that isn't available. Weird indie bands, or live tracks from some of my favorite bands that were never actually released.

[paulr]

Same here...i have two cd's worth of live stuff from Coldplay...doesn't do anyone any harm.

Still bought the live dvd/cd this week.

[Dimmy]

Speaking of obscure tracks, I've menaged to find an Elvis Rendition of Johnny B Goode - quality.

[TranceFan]

Soulseek - miles better than Kazaalite. may be if retailers like the tw@ts at hmv didnt charge £16 for a cd, filesharing woudlnt be such a prob.

[MRW]

I don't want to get into an argument about the morals of downloading for free recently released tracks/albums, but I can't help but feel absolutely no sense of sorryness for illegal downloads, especially if record companies have the money to pay Robbie Williams an estmated £80 million quid.

It sounds like they have money to burn...

Personally, I don't downlaod music for free, but probably would if I could be bothered!

Because of record companies paying artists like RW £80 million or whatever, I can't beleive that the record companies can justify their calims that illegal music downloads will stifle the introduction of new talent.

Surely they could have paid RW £50 million or even £70 million and put aside the rest for up and coming artists without having to moan about illegal downloads.

If the prices of the CD albums in the shops were more or less what they cost to produce (plus some profit, of course) then I can't help but think that illegal downloads would not be so popular. I mean £15+ for an album.... is it any wonder that ordinary folk try to get the same album for next to nothing.

Do we feel that record companies have had it too good for too long?

Originally posted by MRW
Do we feel that record companies have had it too good for too long?

Exactly.

Of course, they are still clinging to that old business plan. Apple recently announced that nearly the entire cost of buying an iTunes track goes to the RIAA. They are making nothing on the sale of songs, but are making a killing with their iPods.

[seany]

How much bigger do you guys think this form of copying is to the old tape to tape method?

We all know it will be much bigger- but i can't remember a big fuss about taping back in the old days.

[Miyazaki]

Artists always make the bulk of their money from gigs and merchandise.

It's the labels that get all the money from the cds.

If they released a program similar to itunes, except the ENTIRE 99p went to the artists rather than the RIAA or the British or European equivilent, i'd never download another song for free again.

Originally posted by keanyboy
How much bigger do you guys think this form of copying is to the old tape to tape method?

We all know it will be much bigger- but i can't remember a big fuss about taping back in the old days.

I'm not sure about tape-2-tape, but there was a HUGE fuss when VCRs hit the shelves, with the powers-that-be thinking that this would spell the end of their monopolies. But... it didn't.

If they released a program similar to itunes, except the ENTIRE 99p went to the artists rather than the RIAA or the British or European equivilent, i'd never download another song for free again.

That will never happen until the major labels are out of business. I give it about 5 years.

[driver8]

Hi keanyboy - two main differences from tape IMHO -

- the digital copies are obviously perfect, so every copy can spawn a 100 or a 1000 perfect copies, so it can soon mushroom. Back in the days of recording vinyl onto tape, you wouldn't really want to copy that cassette via tape-to-tape (even with Dolby-C or HxPro or whatever).

- time - excepting twin-speed cassette copiers (!) and major-league pirates, these were all done in real-time, so it took HOURS ! How long to rip a CD (10 mins) to share with the web-world, or to burn it (5 mins). And of course when you start adding your own extra tracks (live and bsides) your burnt CD quickly becomes more desirable than the original ...

The record companies really need to start releasing the stuff we want to hear, and at a reasonable price. What's with the latest trend of re-releasing a new album with extra stuff ?? Placebo & Norah Jones spring to mind - this can only serve to pi55 off the real CD-buying fans ! We need these extras with the initial release, plus quality back-catalogues, like has been done for Madness, The Jam, etc.

[JohnG]

Well after all that I've said I've actually given it a go
I took on board what someone said about getting hold of deleted tracks etc and thought of a few that I own on vinyl with no chance of ever getting them on CD. I must say it's seems remarkably easy to get anything through these P2P things.
I have one problem however, a couple of the tracks I downloaded start off OK but part way through a high-pitched squeel occurs. Any ideas ?