For some reason the previous post was locked. Not sure why given it breaches non of the guidelines for general forums
In an alternate reality where musical recordings do no exist and you can only listen to live shows:
You like this music band.
In particular you like one of their older album releases so much so that you would happily pay to listen to it again and again.
Their latest album, however, you are not interested in listening to as much as there are long breaks in their shows between each song
But the band are only interested in playing tracks from their newest album.
In every live show they perform, they refuse to play any of their older material, even when asked.
They believe that not enough people in the audience would want to listen to their previous work.
As a highly successful music band, a number of tribute bands now exist, paying homage to the bands older work that made them so successful.
But the band don't like this.
They are actively seeking out these tribute bands and shutting them down.
They believe that if you weren't listening to their old album, the one that made you listen to the band in the first place, then you would automatically return to going to watch them play their new songs.
Of course they are allowed to, its their music by law so why should they let anyone play it, even if they won't themselves.
But is it the right action to take?
Would you do as the band wants and go to their next show, or would you not bother because you know it will be the same as last time?
What if The Killers stopped you and everyone else from listening to Mr Brightside?
What if Macklemore removed Thrift Shop from existence?
What if Bryan Adams stopped you from singing along to Summer of 69?
Would you be happy?
For the record this is completely hypothetical and research based. Any similarity between this and any other situation is purely coincidental. I'm just curious...
In an alternate reality where musical recordings do no exist and you can only listen to live shows:
You like this music band.
In particular you like one of their older album releases so much so that you would happily pay to listen to it again and again.
Their latest album, however, you are not interested in listening to as much as there are long breaks in their shows between each song
But the band are only interested in playing tracks from their newest album.
In every live show they perform, they refuse to play any of their older material, even when asked.
They believe that not enough people in the audience would want to listen to their previous work.
As a highly successful music band, a number of tribute bands now exist, paying homage to the bands older work that made them so successful.
But the band don't like this.
They are actively seeking out these tribute bands and shutting them down.
They believe that if you weren't listening to their old album, the one that made you listen to the band in the first place, then you would automatically return to going to watch them play their new songs.
Of course they are allowed to, its their music by law so why should they let anyone play it, even if they won't themselves.
But is it the right action to take?
Would you do as the band wants and go to their next show, or would you not bother because you know it will be the same as last time?
What if The Killers stopped you and everyone else from listening to Mr Brightside?
What if Macklemore removed Thrift Shop from existence?
What if Bryan Adams stopped you from singing along to Summer of 69?
Would you be happy?
For the record this is completely hypothetical and research based. Any similarity between this and any other situation is purely coincidental. I'm just curious...