It's ok, 'Khmeinitsky.' Ok, I'm sorry... :'( I just couldn't resist.

Poor jokish things aside, that sucks. If I'd a known about that, you wouldn't have gotten last place. I'm a fan of your works, more so some than others. Bah, this sucks.

Hehehe. Well, thank you; I appreciate it.

May seems to be going suckish, already. This, and also this.

The Peppers genuinely seem to care about the music. I'm sure they like a few bucks, but, they do charity concerts and the like, and sold some stuff pieces of Flea's jacket, with the proceeds going to charity. That's my kinda band: Good sound, cool people, people that care about the music, and all that stuff. Bah. :'(

I will most definitely refrain from downloading any RHCP song, as I ahve said awhile ago. I love it when people do the same. :)

Soon... Soon. I'm going to see if I can get the CD the day it is released in stores.

Also, I can't wait until they release the ticket launch dates for the October 23-24 shows in Philadelphia, PA. I heard they're performing in Canada somewhere, as well.

With all due respect to the RHCP, whoever wrote that is a friggin' pussy. The facts:

a) It is possible to create a perfect rip - of everything- so all that nonsense about a pirated version being of inferior quality is bullshit.

b) I respect music artists, but I am not buying something I can get for free. I only buy special things, like LPs

That being said, you want to be a good fan and a morally upright person, and I can appreciate it, even if it's not exactly my cup of tea... *shrug*

P.S. What was the first "this" link meant to link to?

Nothing, I'd be linking to this. Yes, it is possible, but unless someone got a hold of the album before it is released, I'm doubting at least a little that the songs would be at perfect quality, though I could be wrong. I would consider this to be a special album myself, considering it is a double album with 28 songs.

The person who wrote that is the bassist of the band. I understand that money plays into the whole thing, but I also believe that they actually like the music, sound, and all else said.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers is just one of the few bands I'd easily buy a new album of, especially with it being what the new album is.

Bah. I hate eArguments.

Wait, wait, what's wrong with eArguments? Isn't that the best kind of arguments? ;)

Anyways, we're talking about this album, right? Well, there's only one way to found out about the sound quality. ;) From what I understand, the torrent is of two CDs, and if the quality is VBR-encoded, then I've got no complaints (other than the music of the RHCP being heavily derivative of itself for the last half-decade...)

Really, why should I owe something to any artist? All cultural information should be free. For example, if I could ever publish a book of poetry, all I'd care about is that it would go out to as many people as possible; living off art is wrong, as far as I am concerned.

I hate how athletes make more money than most artists, and even worse: More money in a year than some people with professions such as teaching, lesser research (probably), being president (pretty sure), architects and other important professions would make in a year!

It'd be nice if things were free. If I had a band, I'd want to, but might not, make things as cheap as they can be with a small profit. I'd really like to be an architect, or something that has to do with computers.

I think that artists and athletes should get payed, but not in the unbelievable amounts some get payed. Maybe enough to go a little farther than 'just getting by.'

Architect 65,000 dollars starting compared to some starting athletes that contracts like 4 million dollars over four years... I really dislike how all the news on actors/tresses and celebrities get on the news, when we could be hearing about something important. It's fine and dandy how some celebrity had a baby and got divorced, but I could honestly care less. I'd rather hear about a fire that was put out in three seconds!

Whew. I think I lost track of my thinking there. Let me know what you think about what I think about what I was thinking. Thanks.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first point, man; why we reward grown men who throw balls, dribble balls and chase around pucks half of the day and act like a prima donna the rest of the day - I will never understand.

To answer your second point: don't get me wrong, I'm not an idealist; it's just that - don't you think there'd be more privilege in art, music and filmmaking if you didn't get paid big bucks for this? Doing artistic stuff would mean actually going out of your way to accomplish something, without being pampered by grants, foundations, ritzy exhibitions and merchandising, merchandising, merchandising.

You kind of lost me during your fourth paragraph, but I absolutely agree with your views on news reports; this is why I don't read the papers - if it's important enough, I'll hear it through the proverbial grapevine. ;)

Come to think of it, I think this is precisely the point of these new bite-size, free, daily newspapers that we've been getting here in Vancouver for the past year or so; "The Daily Show" also attempts to humorously condense news to the most important points (although I absolutely hate their guest segments).

When you cut out the "blah blah blah" of "journalists" and leave just the facts, all the suspicious and interesting stuff can be skimmed off the top with great ease. This is precisely why I love Blogdex (it seems to be down right now): the moment some piece of news breaks out, and bloggers start screaming at the top of their lungs about it, the most important stuff gets noticed faster. Of course, there is a positive feedback effect there, where the most popular news items keep getting more and more hits, but there you have it.

Right, right. I definitely see where your point is. The reason why I think artists should get payed at least enough to get by (living in a small-medium house/apartment) is that if people are entertained, they deserve at least a LITTLE money (most definitely NOT a LOT) for making people who may have had a crappy week/day of work happy, so they can relieve stress and work well for a little while longer.

Here's another thing helping to explain why I personally think they should get some money: Let's say there is an artist, a saxophone player. He can record a CD, and he can get tips outside. Aww, hell. I lost what I was gonna say, but anyways... Errm... Just excuse this.

AHAHA, now you're just like Virginia Woolf and her "A Room of One's Own," which talks about "Woolf's conception that to be a successful writer, a woman needed space of her own in which to work and enough money to support herself. It also refers to any author's need for poetic license and the personal liberty to create art" (Wikipedia).

Mhumm. Well, in that case, there should be subsidised housing, food, heat and water if you are an artist and produce works of art continuously. That sounds good to me: you stop producing out, you've got a week to come up with something or they throw you to the dogs...I mean, to the street (well, the dogs have to eat, too).

Wait, wait, man, don't apologise; where were you going with this? Yes, he can perform for money, on the street or at a concert hall, or even record a CD. The important thing is, though, that the payment must be optional! Otherwise, only privileged people will have art. You know what? Why not government-subsidise all artists?