ive been meaning to ask this for a while, but havent got the chance. the limewire thread jogged my memory. are there certain artists whose music you refuse to buy?

mine:
any artist who's dead (refer to the limewire thread for my explanation on that)
beatles (do the really need any more money? plus, i disagree strongly with paul mccartney's stand on seal hunting)
rolling stones (pretty much the same thing, less the seal hunting of course)

I use this rule as well. It's funny---people often seem surprized when I mention it to them... and then it kind of clicks...

I have no problem with copying or downloading dead artists. I guess I still buy some of them becuase in some cases the reissues include nice linear notes, etc. and if it's a favorite artist then I enjoy owning it---e.g. Arthur Russell.

so how do you differentiate between say like the Doors where Jim Morrison is dead, and then Gram Parsons? Does only one person in the band need to be dead, or all musicians? Do you have a list of bands and or artists who are about to die that you want to listen to but refuse to until they are dead? I just don't get this line of thinking.

Yes. Their death = my saved dollars.

I refuse to buy polka music.

Why wait though? Obviously you have some moral objection to downloading while they are alive. When they die, it seems like you make an excuse to push that moral objection to the side, cloaking it with death and that it saves you money. So if saving dollars is so important why not dl everything? Why not use emusic? Its cheap, and they have a wide array of dead artists to choose from.

metallica (their whole stand against downloading insured that i'll never buy anything from them again)
the doors (they just suck)

I don't understand moral stances regarding music purchases.

my point exactly.

I use downloading as a means to decide what to purchase anyway.
So possibly my moral stance is that of wanting to support artists I like. Or possibly I just don't want to leave songs on my hard drive long enough to get random RIAA notice. Regardless, I buy as much music as I can reasonably afford, and certainly far more than the average person.

if it sucks, i don't buy it.

quite simple really.

anything with DRM

Indeed.

I'm agreeing with FR here. Not buying from dead artists is bullshit.

I'm also with Jagged, and I won't buy a damn thing with DRM, or anything from Sony for that matter.

The only things I refuse to buy are items I used to own and sold. I can't justify paying for an album twice just because I'm a flake.

the only music i refuse to buy is by people that i don't personally like. for instance, i will never buy anything by robert pollard because i think he's a dick. (and i also think his music's awful.) the same goes for don caballero because of damon che, but i actually do kinda like don cab's music, so that's unfortunate.

I also refuse to buy anything by Steve Earle until he puts the protest flag down and starts writing good songs again.

ooh, I agree with this one. The first time I saw him (back when he was only singing about jail, not the war(s)), I loved the show. The songs were great and he was in an upbeat mood. When the flag started flying, his shows became angry and too political for me.

If I don't like it, I won't buy it. I probably will never purchase another Liz Phair album which is pretty sad considering how much I love her first three albums. I hate that she's become a parody of herself.

Not only that, but it's also hilariously stupid.

then go over to the limewire thread and explain why im wrong, and what you feel is hilarious.

I have a problem buying something for a second time. Like discs that get scratched or stolen. I have a hard time justifying to myself to buy it again. I feel like I could get something new instead, and seem to never get back to buying it again.

I don't think he needs to...

I've bought Jeff Buckley's Grace at least 5 times. I know someone who has done the same for this exact cd.

It simply can't be owned for more than a year. It just goes.

Why would you care what kind of person the person making the music you listen to is? Most of these people are egomaniacs to some degree - you may just not know it or see it because they keep it well hidden. Listen to Don Caballero because you like the music, not because you think Damon Che is a swell dude. They're not your friends - they're providing you a product, and if you like said product, then all is good. If they happen to be good people on top of that, awesome, but if not, so what? What difference in the world should that make to you? You're only cheating yourself.

I think I mentioned this last week, but IF I liked them I would refuse to buy Metallica's music because of not just their stance, but the way they acted over the whole Napster thing. My disdain for them would override any enjoyment I would get from their music.

I have no doubt there's a lot of huge egos in the music biz, and probably at least several in my collection, but none have done enough (or I haven't heard about it) for that to make me dislike their music, so I'll continue to buy happily.

I do, however, refuse to buy cds at the full retail price the labels/chain stores demand (which I think is fair enough when it is $32 Aus). I'll always go somewhere I know it'll be cheaper.

On a similar note, I refuse to pay over $20 for a cd that has sold bucketloads - like Beatles, Rolling Stones, Radiohead. Which is annoying since the Beatles in particular never seem to be less than about $28