Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

So there is no "best." There IS best-selling; there is "most popular."

But humans have developed a system of ascribing importance due to popularity as well historic significance and impact.

It's just a fact that Bach, Beethoven and The Beatles are all popular but also extremely important in terms of creative impact on the human story the world over.

[Unrealworld82]

I like this thread a lot.

I do tend to support the idea that history will record that the 20th Century marketing machine did, for a time, succeed in making music as a product insanely profitable. But, as of now, that tide has turned in such a way that music will (thankfully) shift from being "product" to being "art" yet again.
And to clarify, I have made a living off of music, though I do not now.

I think music will become somewhat more localized again, and better as a result of not being put through a cookie cutter.

Soon enough, I think a beautiful brick will crash into this industry, and change it, but ultimately save it (music) as a timeless part of the human experience..

Those who took up the music mantle for money alone now get to find something else to do. Those who took it up to make an artistic connection with others, will continue to do so.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by psalad

I was talking about the TOP 20... the actual page I linked to.

How can the "most important" artist only clock in at 41?

Picasso. Dali. Cezanne. Matisse. Some rather impressive names there. One might even say "important."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

My argument is really about the importance of why it is important that there is greatness and its something that we respect and foster, even if it means making hard choices. It's also about why its important to have the ability to recognize it and have an opinion about it and to not ponder on useless things like a list. The two things don't have anything to do with one another.

But, to the discussion at hand: Picasso and friends are all vibrant examples of the art of the 20th century but only Warhol captured and embodied what the world was going to become. A lot of this may be part of being at the right place at the right time, but Warhol's trickle down effect into our Western society and culture is magnitudes greater than any of the artists on that list. I would never put him in the same category as Bach, but Warhol was a singularity . . .

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

Up until recently, most musicians in modern history were more like slaves... they were hired by the rich. Mozart. Wagner had money problems much of his life. Beethoven depended on art patrons to keep him afloat. Very different then the blip of time when artists became some of the highest income earners.

What do you prefer - slave to Burger King, or slave to someone who will pay you to make music everyday?
I honestly think the old getting rich through professional music idea is way overstated.
As I said, I've been working alongside professional musicians my whole life. The vast majority, ordinary working people with average families and average incomes.
I totally reject any notion that it's more healthy to take away the opportunity work full time in music and force creative people to work in a supermarket, building site or even a share trading floor.
Again, you have the choice currently to seek your own path.
I want to hold onto my choices.

[chrisso]

Warhol or not - it's a side issue.
I seem to have spent my whole life working with musicians who think The Velvet Underground were the biggest thing since sliced bread. The Velvets famously nurtured by Warhol.
Robert Hughes is a recognized important voice when it comes to art critique.
He doesn't like Warhol much either.
On the other hand:

He views the market as both a necessary evil and a constant force for struggling artists to combat just to survive. When it came to Picasso, Hughes stated that he "was a millionaire at forty and that didn't harm him." When it came to Warhol on the other hand, Hughes cited the danger of an artist who clings to the market. Hughes admits to liking Warhol's early works, and gives him credit for being savvy and an instrument of cultural change, for somehow presaging the effects of mass media and capitalizing on it.

The Art Story: Artist - Robert Hughes

[adpz]

Originally Posted by Unrealworld82

I like this thread a lot.

I do tend to support the idea that history will record that the 20th Century marketing machine did, for a time, succeed in making music as a product insanely profitable. But, as of now, that tide has turned in such a way that music will (thankfully) shift from being "product" to being "art" yet again.
And to clarify, I have made a living off of music, though I do not now.

I think music will become somewhat more localized again, and better as a result of not being put through a cookie cutter.

Soon enough, I think a beautiful brick will crash into this industry, and change it, but ultimately save it (music) as a timeless part of the human experience..

Those who took up the music mantle for money alone now get to find something else to do. Those who took it up to make an artistic connection with others, will continue to do so.

Why the disrespect to the machine/industry that puts all of these things in front of you? The wanting to tear it down.

Only the Taliban think the world will be a better place if the greatest people on our planet were hidden from view in some local way. That is not a way forward at all. It is no surprise at all that the world's creative societies are the ones that dominate the pace and methods of change in the world - and they do this while remaining fairly fluid.

[brightshine]

So, if I had decided to flip burgers, I get paid. If I decided to teach school, I get paid. If I decided to be a doctor, I get paid. But, If I had decided to be some kind of "artist", I can't make money from the actual art I create? I'm suppose to "merchandise" it with something else to make a living?

Whoever the folks are that think music ought to be free........I ask: whatever you do to earn your living, would it be ok for me to tell you that you no longer get to earn money from it, you need to "merchandise" yourself in some other way and give me your service, product or whatever for free?

Try telling your garbage man that he needs to "merchandise" himself to earn a buck. You are no longer going to pay for his service. Feel free to put yourself in place of the "garbage man" in the above sentence.

I suggest that people need to apply "whatever it is they believe" to their own situation before telling everyone else how to get on with their life and their chosen way to earn a dollar.
As the thread states (my version)
If you don't want me to steal your product, service, or whatever you do to earn a dollar, don't do it for a living.

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by adpz

Why the disrespect to the machine/industry that puts all of these things in front of you? The wanting to tear it down.

Only the Taliban think the world will be a better place if the greatest people on our planet were hidden from view in some local way. That is not a way forward at all. It is no surprise at all that the world's creative societies are the ones that dominate the pace and methods of change in the world - and they do this while remaining fairly fluid.

Lol. That's not what I want at all.

What I want to "tear down" is the peddling of Fergie, Justin Bieber, and The Jonas Brothers rather than anything remotely encroaching upon artistic expression. Video killed the radio star, but not music. I just want to get back to something that is merit worthy , worth hearing. What's good about the major, music peddling infrastructure in 2010? Not much. Why does anyone want to hang on to something that has already failed?

Did I say that greatness should be hidden? Greatness is commands recognition and will always conduct itself as such.

Also, man I think one should be more considerate when comparing people to the "Taliban." That's just not called for.

[Unrealworld82]

Money, itself, is a creation of man. No value to anyone other than the apes with names. Period.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Warhol or not - it's a side issue.
I seem to have spent my whole life working with musicians who think The Velvet Underground were the biggest thing since sliced bread. The Velvets famously nurtured by Warhol.
Robert Hughes is a recognized important voice when it comes to art critique.
He doesn't like Warhol much either.
On the other hand:

The Art Story: Artist - Robert Hughes

I agree with Hughes. Warhol is a very strange case because who he was is as much a part of his legacy as what art he actually made. Its not only that photography and painting and presentation are influenced by him, it's more accurate to say that he changed the entire language of culture to such an extent that it is impossible to be modern without passing through a door that he opened. This applies to artists such as Banksy down to the terrible scourge of the Kardashian sisters.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by Unrealworld82

Money, itself, is a creation of man. No value to anyone other than the apes with names. Period.

Money is just a store of value. Value, as an idea, is not a creation of man; it is an instinct, and it is an organizing principle.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by Unrealworld82

Also, man I think one should be more considerate when comparing people to the "Taliban." That's just not called for.

Don't take it personally - I am just taking a piece of your thought as a jumping off point to my own thought. It's not a rebuttal or reply directly to you - the limitations of web posting . . .

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by adpz

Money is just a store of value. Value, as an idea, is not a creation of man; it is an instinct, and it is an organizing principle.

Money is the new slavery. Simple. There are those who do little and have much, outnumbering those who do much and have little. Its an ideological system that serves only those who created it.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by psalad

I want to tear down the machine that has commoditized music and turned it into mass produced cookie cutter craft. I want to see a new paradigm emerge. I think it's time for a change. Maybe it won't be better... I'm not sure.. but I'd like to see a paradigm where the cream rises to the top independent of commerce.

I won't be disappointed when Lady Gaga and Radio Disney are no longer profitable.

The problem is that piracy is not the right thing to tear the industry down. When someone does not spend money on something, they lose their voice in the marketplace.

I've said it before - we have people like Bieber, Jonas bros, Miley etc. because the tweens and their parents are the ones willing to spend money on it. The tastes of the 20-somethings are not reflected in mass media as well b/c they don't support their likes in the same fashion.

[Studio Addict]

Originally Posted by elginchris

all music should be free in cost.

And when you get your new studio built, you must never charge anyone even ONE cent, because "all music should be free in cost."

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by adpz

I've said it before - we have people like Bieber, Jonas bros, Miley etc. because the tweens and their parents are the ones willing to spend money on it. The tastes of the 20-somethings are not reflected in mass media as well b/c they don't support their likes in the same fashion.

I do agree that seems to be the main, glaring problem. This is a good discussion.

I think what I am trying to articulate is that, I don't think we will "save" the record industry in its current business model. My hope, is that "we" (as in people who like to make/record/listen to music) save it in some other way that still makes it practical to both create and enjoy. That's where I think we will have to be contented to deliver and receive it in a more pre-wax recording era manner, on a more localized scale. That's just where I see it going. And honestly, the proverbial brick I speak of, I do think has been earned by the music industries foolish defiance to adapt to customers across age groups.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by Unrealworld82

I do agree that seems to be the main, glaring problem. This is a good discussion.

I think what I am trying to articulate is that, I don't think we will "save" the record industry in its current business model. My hope, is that "we" (as in people who like to make/record/listen to music) save it in some other way that still makes it practical to both create and enjoy. That's where I think we will have to be contented to deliver and receive it in a more pre-wax recording era manner, on a more localized scale. That's just where I see it going. And honestly, the proverbial brick I speak of, I do think has been earned by the music industries foolish defiance to adapt to customers across age groups.

The problem of industry flexibility is more a confluence events than a choice. As noted before, the label industry still makes 72% of their revenue from "old-fashioned" CDs.

This makes the transition to a more realistic digital model virtually impossible as the majors would go out of business tomorrow morning if they ceased to sell CDs. As well, the transition to digital is painful because of piracy and iTunes single-track purchasing.

If you really wanted a healthy music industry, you'd have majors with all-digital distribution selling whole albums at lower prices along with a very tight clamp on piracy.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by psalad

It's a huge culture shift, and piracy is a symptom of it I think, not so much the main problem. I have NEVER been in favor of piracy. However, we have a legal system that is completely BEHIND the ball, and a bunch of suits running the music industry who don't understand the culture shift (or understood it too late). Things are the way they are now, though, and it's hard for me to see a system where the current industry survives intact.

As per above, this is why one has to be against piracy if you want a powerful music industry to exist. Piracy slows/stops any transition to a lower-cost model that the industry might be able to pull off.

In the current model, all that has happened is that the industry pushes what they think/know they can sell on CDs.

[RaySoul]

Originally Posted by adpz

The greatness of others should make us happy - it is an accessible insight into being human that opens our minds, ambitions, and hopes. It is a terrible thing then to try and turn this on its head and declare the insignificant and mediocre more important and "real" just because it aligns more closely with ones own insignificant and mediocre ambitions.

You sir should teach a class.

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by adpz

The problem of industry flexibility is more a confluence events than a choice. As noted before, the label industry still makes 72% of their revenue from "old-fashioned" CDs.

This makes the transition to a more realistic digital model virtually impossible as the majors would go out of business tomorrow morning if they ceased to sell CDs. As well, the transition to digital is painful because of piracy and iTunes single-track purchasing.

If you really wanted a healthy music industry, you'd have majors with all-digital distribution selling whole albums at lower prices along with a very tight clamp on piracy.

OK. In the old days it was good to have people hear your music on the radio. The labels even did the whole payola bit. the internet is a chance for EVERYONE to hear music.

Here's a different business model:

Get people to like your music by giving it away in decent quality 320k mp3's on your label website.

Sell nice, "CD Quality" loss less versions and Cd's with great artwork booklets to your "true fans" ( you know, the only one who would ever buy your album anyway)

Completely negate all channels of piracy in the process, reach as many ears as one could hope for, and still come out selling the same amount (or more) of CD's as they would under the current model.

Tour the world. Sell tickets. Sell merch. Get rich. Have a nice life.

What's so bad with that?

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by adpz

And apparently you don't bother to read the list anyway. Warhol is on at 41 and 42 . . .

FAIL.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Seriously?
You're linking to someone's personal list as a credible art critique?
Someone who admits to no academic credentials or particular expertise:
Atlas of the Twentieth Century - FAQ - Trust

Fail.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Warhol or not - it's a side issue.
I seem to have spent my whole life working with musicians who think The Velvet Underground were the biggest thing since sliced bread. The Velvets famously nurtured by Warhol.
Robert Hughes is a recognized important voice when it comes to art critique.
He doesn't like Warhol much either.
On the other hand:

The Art Story: Artist - Robert Hughes

I still believe that the Velvet Underground is the biggest thing since sliced bread, am I in the wrong?

Originally Posted by psalad

One might even argue that Jackson Pollack ended up embodying what the world HAS become. He captured events, not paintings. His work wasn't a visual representation so much as capturing the work of a moment, the same way the music of today and art of today has become made up of samples and collages of earlier work.

Of course, it could be that I'm just feeding you a bunch of BS.

Jackson Pollock's work is great, and yes it does reflect very well how our world has become. He was way ahead of his time, and his work still makes sense today, from the brush splatters to the color balance in his work.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by psalad

For me, separating art and commerce has improved my art. You can reject it all you want. No offense.. but I don't care whether you reject it or not. It is what it is for me.

For me.

For me, art and commerce has generated some pretty good money, what's the downside? My self beliefs in music, my decisions on what to release first, and the fact that I am associated with mindless, numbing music. Do I feel the aftermath? yes! Will I change it in the long run? Yes!

[elginchris]

I never intended this thread to become a flame war so to everyone who is shitting their paints - chill out.

i never said piracy wanst wrong or stealing.

The bottom line is all you people who think you will survive strictly on album sales will not survive very long.

A band/artist can give away all their music and still be able to pay the studio.

Also, dont give me this BS about hardware companies not making new equipment because im willing to bet they move more inventory to amateurs then they do to pros. for every zack wild there are tens of thousands of kids playing the his signature guitar. etc..

[Synonym Music]

Originally Posted by Unrealworld82

OK. In the old days it was good to have people hear your music on the radio. The labels even did the whole payola bit. the internet is a chance for EVERYONE to hear music.

Here's a different business model:

Get people to like your music by giving it away in decent quality 320k mp3's on your label website.

Sell nice, "CD Quality" loss less versions and Cd's with great artwork booklets to your "true fans" ( you know, the only one who would ever buy your album anyway)

Completely negate all channels of piracy in the process, reach as many ears as one could hope for, and still come out selling the same amount (or more) of CD's as they would under the current model.

Tour the world. Sell tickets. Sell merch. Get rich. Have a nice life.

What's so bad with that?

It doesn't do that at all. I buy your album, upload it on bittorrent. Boom, pirated.

I bought your product? Doesn't matter.

I'm a loyal fan? Doesn't matter.

[dustyreels]

The more I follow this thread the more pissed off I get. I know so many talented musicians (I admit I place myself in this group) working bull sh*t jobs because of what boils down to people thinking they should get something for nothing. It is a failure of the moral climate of our society of which this is just a symptom. I see people bitch about a $5 cover charge at the pub I work at then blow $50 on booze. I've been buying music since I was 6 or 7 years old (I'm 35) and I will 'til I'm dead or there's no more to buy.
I make a effort to be as conflict free on this site as I can but I can't hold back on this one...
If you steal music - Shame on you!

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

Forget about even recording studios and artist and record companies, what about the writers who now aren't getting paid.

When I heard that publishers are suing Limewire it put a smile on my face.

As far as I'm concerned every single bit torrent site should be sued into extinction.

There actually are pirates who steal your music and then have the balls to sell it. All of you "music should be free" fools should put a year of your life into a project and see it selling for a dollar on a bit torrent site BEFORE THE RECORD IS EVEN RELEASED, and then you can talk to me about music being free.

It's F#@King STEALING.

It sounds so anarchistic and cool to say screw the record companies they've been ripping us off anyway, but they're not just ripping off the majors, they steal from EVERYONE.

When I was a young guy I stole "Steal This Book", sure I was all for ripping off the establishment, but see this is not just the establishment, it's EVERYONE, big and small, independent artist are NOT immune .

When no one is making money from this business see how many equipment manufacturers there are, see what the quality of music actually becomes when no one can devote time to their art, in the past governments subsidized art, in this climate, that might ever happen.

WAKE UP, it's STEALING AND IT"S WRONG, didn't your parents teach you anything

thanks for posting.

[Unrealworld82]

Originally Posted by Synonym Music

It doesn't do that at all. I buy your album, upload it on bittorrent. Boom, pirated.

I bought your product? Doesn't matter.

I'm a loyal fan? Doesn't matter.

I think you've misread my post. I am simply "asking" the record labels to stop pretending there is no piracy, and to eliminate the need for it by presenting music (in mp3) as way to sell CD's, merch, what have you. It's already all out there, whether anyone likes it or not.

Edit: I'd also like to state, so as to clarify... even though I have some serious issues with the current state of the record labels, and I do think that the only thing they should do differently is go ahead and "promote' their "product" by giving away their music, I do not support piracy. I have just accepted that it is here to stay.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by psalad

discern... THANKS FOR POSTING.

You get it, it seems to me. People here in the west have an amazing sense of entitlement. We have been fortunate for SO long, and we think we're being ripped off.

So as long as there are children starving in Africa, we're not we are not allowed to complain about anything here?

Who cares if your work is being stolen? So many others have it worst off. We live in an inherently unjust world.

etc.

Oh and before you say it... that doesn't justify piracy. But discern has posted exactly why nobody owns the moral high ground, peeps.

Apathy does not negate morality. Humans are intrinsically capable of determining right and wrong. But there are always those who want to do whatever they want - damn the consequences for others. That is why we have laws and enforcement.

And fortunately, we are finally starting to get both.

Two-thirds of Irish users face three strikes rule | THINQ.co.uk
Music Week - Three-strikes law in France moves closer to implementation

All your esoteric imaginings about "how the world works" are yours to keep, and you are welcome to them. Laws are a bit different.

[Unrealworld82]

As we sit here, speaking of things to do. Someone did something.

Wow. This is just the kind of thing the MAJORS need to grasp.

(as do many here)

NAPOLEON WASHINGTON: one (hopefully) original project... please comment

(also: I am in no way whatsoever affiliated with this guy) I did donate though, you should too.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by psalad

I KNEW someone would respond like that mobius, and I tried to disarm it with my little disclaimer.

As I said, I don't condone piracy, and I don't think people should roll over.

However, the TRUTH is there are people right here in this very thread with an attitude of ENTITLEMENT, that the world OWES them a working wage just because they create music.

Well actually, I think it's they feel entitled to be paid for music that is obviously in demand enough for people to spend their time pirating and listening to.

If people don't like the music and don't want to hear it, they shouldn't get paid.

The post above that I commented on, though, was really about MORAL SUPERIORITY. Read it again. People who criticize those pirates need to understand the big picture... again, nobody owns the moral high ground. Our incredible overuse of the world's energy resources in the west is just a start. Then it's our toxic waste that we send to other countries. Etc.

Sure, but one injustice does not negate another. If there is any underlying thread to all this it is that people will take what they want when they want if they can.

• Why do us westerners use all that energy? Because we enjoy the luxury and are advanced enough to get and use it.
• Why don't most people want to see increased foreign aid? Because they would rather it spent on themselves and don't really believe in charity.
• Why do people pirate music/games/books/software? Because it saves them money on entertainment and no one is really trying to stop them.

Yes, people are selfish. Yes, people will take what they can get at the expense of their fellow man.

Again, that is why we need laws to maintain order. It doesn't change the fact that one person's intellectual property is not yours to take, and laws across the globe are being updated to reflect this.