Looking for a good free music download site

[Tink]

Suggestions.....anyone? Bueller? lol

[AllieSutherland]

www.kazaa.com Just be SURE you have good virus protections software (hackers have tried Trojans on me, but they'll do that at ALL the sites) and as soon as you've dowloaded, they will automatically place things in your Shared Folder (which means that others can then download what you've just done). Move these immediately to another folder, and you lessen your chances GREATLY for hackers to "come in."

None of the sites are completely hacker-proof, though, and they usually try small time stuff (like Trojans) that are caught by the main virus protectors...

XOXOXOXOX
Allie

[Ysobelle]

Well, I use LimeWire, cos I'm on a Mac, but LimeWire and Kazaa are both programs, not sites. MP3.com is a music download site-- is that what you were looking for?

[Bonnie]

I use WINMX....goto http://www.winmx.com and download their program. I really have had very little trouble with them, and it's easy to use.

[Tink]

Thanks ladies!!!

And I was worried about viruses and hackers...so I'll make sure to move the stuff out of shared.

Can't wait to start making CD's!!! :bananada:

[Bonnie]

problem with NOT sharing is that the ones you're downloading from WILL get pissy. I know that if someone comes into my files to download music, and their files are unavailable for me to browse, I'll often stop their downloads and block them. It's rude...bad file share ettiquette. File sharing is SHARING. If I'm good enough to download from others' files, then by darn I owe them a chance at mine.

Mini rant, cause too often I'll get some shmoe downloading like six songs and queueing up a dozen others... on a slow connection... and when I go to try and browse their files to see if they have anything *I* want, their files are unavailable. It's rather like stealing. They are taking something and offering nothing in return.

Just a rant. Not meant towards anyone...but I've been downloading today, and ran into it several times. So there's your heads up on fileshare ettiquette today...have fun.

BTW, if it helps, I know that my program allows me to specify exactly which file folders I want to share. Folk don't have free run of all files on the comp.

[Tink]

Bonnie....thanks for the tip. Don't want to be rude about getting my music.

Makes sense. :D

[jmthane]

Not to put a damper on your download spirit (I have a couple of bootleg concert recordings and some cassettes that I copied from someone else's LPs, but still, most of what I have copies of is out of print, has been out of print, and shows no sign of surfacing on CD anytime (soon or ever). If I get really lucky, I might find a copy for sale on eBay or in a used record store or something), but...

There are some of us (especially Faire musicians) who kinda depend on you (this is a generic "you" and not directed at any one person in particular) actually *buying* the recordings, not downloading a few cuts. In that regard, I can see where the RIAA is (and has been) getting pissy about people downloading music off the Internet for free. Granted that the ones the RIAA are getting pissy on behalf of are the ones that put money in the RIAA's pocket (and perhaps a couple of bucks in the artists' pockets), which is why I think they're a money-grubbing racket, but still, in this one instance, I can certainly see their point. (Minstrosity is not now, nor has ever been, a member of or affiliated with the RIAA.) What we sell helps us pay for our homes, our food, our car insurance, and eventually for our next album.

[cyd]

Josie, I understand what you're saying, but the biggest problem with the RIAA is that the people who get the most money are the people who get the most airplay, NOT the people whose CD's are listened to the most... It's all based on airplay. Unfortunately the rennie community doesn't pick up most of the residuals they're due if they're attached to a major label, because they don't get the airplay required to actually pick up those residuals.

You know how my hubby goes off on that. I've heard it more times than I can count.

That having been said, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If a person can't get the music by any other means (out of print and never coming back, limited run, "official bootleg", or just plain wants to "try before you buy"), then I have no problem with filesharing. But if the media is available out there, then I think the person should be trying to get the original piece first. Even better, get it from the artist/s him/her/themselves rather than get it from the record store. Because the fewer distribution chains it has to go through, the more money the original artist gets, and thereby the more money they have to produce the next album. Joe (being the music media purchaser in the house) tries to buy from the artist whenever possible (and that usually means purchasing directly at faire). He makes copies for his own purposes only (under the same law that used to allow you to make backup copies of software and such. It's strictly for personal use so the original doesn't get damaged, or so that he can cram five CD's onto one CD for travel purposes and such).

Using filesharing for "try before you buy" purposes or out of print purposes is one thing... But please, try to find out if it's purchaseable first. Because otherwise you ARE taking money right out of the mouths of those who create the music...

Cyd (wife to a guy who hates ASCAP because of just how little money goes to the performers themselves...)

[Tink]

Ladies.....I understand your concerns and for the "little guys", I know every recording sold counts. I know you weren't specifically targeting me with the statements either, but for the record.....

My reason for downloading music off the net is simply because I refuse to buy an entire album for ONE song. I'd never download an entire album, because if I liked it that much, I'd want the actual album, so I get the whole package....pics, bios, lyrics, liner notes, what-have-you.....

My goal is to make my own "music I like" compilation CD's....stuff I'd NEVER find in a store....like WHAM, Guns and Roses and Sinatra on the same CD, for example. :wink:

What I find amusing about this whole net music issue, is that back in the day...I used to record songs off the radio..... I also would copy albums to tape and swap with friends, or make compilation tapes..... so did millions of other people. As, did people tape music videos off MTV when that came out. You're never going to be able to stop people from music sharing entirely...it's been going on for decades.....and even if they kill the free net swaps, people will still find a way.....

[cyd]

Ladies.....I understand your concerns and for the "little guys", I know every recording sold counts. I know you weren't specifically targeting me with the statements either, but for the record.....

My reason for downloading music off the net is simply because I refuse to buy an entire album for ONE song. I'd never download an entire album, because if I liked it that much, I'd want the actual album, so I get the whole package....pics, bios, lyrics, liner notes, what-have-you.....


Yeah, I know. I refuse to buy an entire album for one song either. That's the main thing I think that online downloading has done, is killed the singles market. Not that the singles market ever should have been (paying a quarter of the price of an album for a single song is better than having to buy the whole album... but is still annoying).


My goal is to make my own "music I like" compilation CD's....stuff I'd NEVER find in a store....like WHAM, Guns and Roses and Sinatra on the same CD, for example. :wink:

Well, as I said, Joe does that too... only for most of it, he already owns the music. For our wedding, he put together an entire compilation of music on our computer, 10 hours worth of music (no, we never heard the whole thing). But nearly every piece of music was something he already owned, and had just converted to MP3 format so that he could have the whole thing run continuously and wouldn't have to change CD's or have a DJ there.


What I find amusing about this whole net music issue, is that back in the day...I used to record songs off the radio..... I also would copy albums to tape and swap with friends, or make compilation tapes..... so did millions of other people. As, did people tape music videos off MTV when that came out. You're never going to be able to stop people from music sharing entirely...it's been going on for decades.....and even if they kill the free net swaps, people will still find a way.....

Difference is, the quality. When you taped music off the radio, you invariably got the DJ talking on one end or the other of the music. The quality of a cassette just isn't the same quality as a digital media file, you will always lose SOME quality in the process of recording to tape. At least with MTV, you are paying for the cable or satellite service to begin with, so there is SOME credit going back to the artist, same with radio play. And your recording is NEVER going to have the same quality as the original. Over the years, your tape will degrade, and you will wind up with something that vaguely resembles what you taped off the TV or the radio. But the quality wouldl never be the same as the original. If you wanted a high quality copy, you went to the record store and bought it (and then got really pissed off when your brother scratched it). Even then, fair use laws allowed you to make a copy of your record on tape in case something ever did happen to your record, or for portability purposes, as long as you already owned it. Just like with software. You're allowed to make a single backup copy for yourself. Making a copy of something you already own for your own purposes is still considered fair use under copyright acts. It only becomes illegal if you begin to distribute it.

With the advent of digital media, the quality from copy to copy is virtually identical. There is very little lost from one to the next. So what you have is the same music file as what someone else had, which is the same file as thirty copies ago. There is virtually no change from one copy to the next unless you get some form of file corruption. Literally, what you could wind up (obviously an extreme example) with is only one person ever buying the media, copying it digitally, and the entire world could wind up with a copy while the original artist only gets credit for one being sold.

I'm not saying that I'm going to be the person who goes out there and stops everyone (or even tries to stop everyone) from copying music. By your own logic, there is never going to be a perfect security system on a bank, and people are forever going to be trying to steal and embezzle money, so we should stop trying to stop it. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

What a lot of music swappers DON'T see is that if they never purchase the music, then the music will no longer be there to purchase. If the artist never receives a dime from their music, then they cannot afford to make more of it. No, not everyone is going to agree with this, and many people believe that everything should be free, that they shouldn't have to pay for music or for programs or anything else. But unless people have the integrity to go and actually purchase the things they're making copies of, those artists are going to go broke before they can make another album.

While I can't stand what the big companies are doing to music licensing (and teh fact that the little guy never gets the share of the profits that he should be), their main reason for wanting to shut down the swapping industry ISN'T the little guy who jsut wants to make a copy of something for himself. It's the fact that someone can literally go online, swap all the music files they want, burn themselves a copy, and not a single dime from any of that has to go to either the companies or the artist (they could actually care less about the artist, but their own pockets are getting burned badly). Many people use swapping services just to listen and see if they want to buy. That's fine. But I've heard of people who just collect GIGABITES of electronic music, never having paid for a single song.

It's one thing to do that on music that's out of print and will never go back into print again. In that case, nobody is really losing because the artist and/or the record label doesn't want to make more, and therefore isn't losing anything. On the other hand, there are people who download the entire repertoire of a current band, without ever having the intention to purchase at all. So the band has just lost another sale. And if enough people do that, while the band's music is all over the world, that band will fade into nonexistance, because they can't afford to produce another album.

Sorry, I'll get off the :rant: now. I've just seen my husband actually put money into an album that doesn't exist yet for the sake of actually getting the band to produce more... While there are others out there who will then just proceed to find some schmuck to loan them a copy and then never actually purchase it themselves. And the band goes under because of it.

Cyd (oh my, have I gone off on the box today...)

[Avhiennda]

I actually do this. I do the compilations of older music, usually because I can no longer find them anywhere.

In other news...
If I like a CD. I'll turn it into MP3's for two reasons. 1) to have it on my computer, burn it on a blank CD that I can beat up and not worry about the original getting messed up. and 2) to send select songs around to friends so that they can try before they buy.

And I have a personal rule to ALWAYS by the CD, even if I have the MP3. Because more often than not, there is a song or two or 7! on that CD that I fall in love with but never would have, had I not owned the CD. That and I have met too many musicians that have talent and whom I want to give support to. Mainstream music...I'll never pay for again. Then again, I don't listen to it anyway LOL.

Avhi

[jmthane]

I'm the same way - if I like a song on the album, I'll get the album, 'cause there's a good chance I'll like more than that one song. I'm not someone who ever supported the "single" recording market because it makes no sense for me to pay $X for two songs (oh, boy, I'm dating myself again - cassette or CD singles are up to what, four songs potentially, now; and I'm still using the generic term "album") when I can pay three times that $X for an album with at least 30 minutes (and frequently more) and 10-12-14-? more songs on it, many of which I will likely enjoy.

I don't listen to much mainstream, but I do listen to some. For instance, the group Asia - I picked up their first album because the group had, as one of its members, Carl Palmer (from Emerson Lake & Palmer, another fave of mine). Carl is arguably one of the best percussionists out there. I liked what I heard, so I've picked up the rest of their albums - even though Carl is no longer a member! - because I like what they do.

But I don't generally make "selected hits" albums of my own. I'm just weird that way, I guess... :lumpy: Call me a screwball - I'll agree.