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

[chrisso]

I like music, not so keen on merchandise/advertising.
Actually, my opinion on the current state is hardening.
The stupidest thing creative people ever allowed to happen was the taking of their work without payment.
There's a backlash going on.
More and more content providers are closing their freebie internet sites and applying fees for access.
The days of a free-for-all on the net might be numbered.

[Musiclab]

bullshit, I guess you don't do music for a living

[bitmob]

Originally Posted by psalad

I don't either, and I agree with him. Does that negate my opinion too?

It doesn't negate it, but it does mean your opinion doesn't hold much weight.

[elginchris]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

bullshit, I guess you don't do music for a living

Its understandable to disagree with me if your livelihood depends on the old business model but sooner or later you will have to adapt.
Remember the days of the TV repair man? There used to be one in every town but now they are few and far between.

Think about it, what will the world do first: revert back to the glory days of a rich music industry, or, continue on its no-holds-bar path of free downloads (legal or not) ?

First they tried to push DRM and it FAILED.

The only way to stop downloading is for ISPs to control every bit of data that cosses the wires and i dont think anyone wants that.

( ** I do want to say that I am not a music pirate. I was a subscriber to eMusic for 3+ years until i switched to lala.com which is now defunct thanks to Apple buying them out.)

[dustyreels]

I want to start by saying I respect all opinions here. Everybody is entitled to their point of view. I have no desire to see the old industry model come back. However, I think artist that work really hard to bring enjoyment, healing, and many other aspects of music that benefits individuals and society as a whole deserve compensation. Some artist would never reach the level they are at if they had to work other jobs. Musicians have to eat too.
Making quality music is expensive. I don't need to convince gearslutz that fact. We may know that better than anyone.
Music shouldn't be free. Not any more than a bartender workin for free. What motivation would a doctor have for giving up their prime years going to school and working ridiculously long hours to heal the sick. Should they do it for free?
Seriously???
I'm not going to pretend to know the answer, but I can't wait to rally behind the leader that offers a real solution.

[SeniorityFedup]

I was thinking about this last night.

Just wanted to say that IMHO Mark Twain comes into mind. His passion was literature and he was damn good at it. I doubt he cared much about money. But more of the beauty of the soul and expressing it through novels and what not.
Not much has changed in regards to wonderful art music poetry etc. There are still diamonds in the rough. Technology cannot and will not change that.
In other words GO DO IT.

[Robert Randolph]

Originally Posted by DISCERN

It is art after all. Creative self expression.

...not business.

Unfortunately the fact is that it's the reverse. That doesn't change the fact that you (and I) think it should be what you said.

18 hours of my day is music. From playing to engineering to design to customer service. 16 of those hours are business and I've yet to meet someone who operated otherwise The creative aspect only propagates through the business aspect. Business is the gate to let the torrent of creative juice flow.

That said, I still agree with the OP.

[elginchris]

thanks everyone for the thoughtful and respectful comments.

-OP

[dustyreels]

Originally Posted by psalad

BTW, part of the problem is creating music is easy, everyone has a studio, and as a result, people with bedroom studios are undercutting for the same work. That brings the level of compensation down as well.

That doesn't make them any good tho. Good music should still prevail, whether it was done in a spare bedroom or multi-million dollar facility.

Originally Posted by psalad

Impermanence is the only constant.

Wise words

Originally Posted by SeniorityFedup

Technology cannot and will not change that.

Yep, technology is just another instrument. It still takes talent and vision to produce real, quality music.

Originally Posted by Robert Randolph

The creative aspect only propagates through the business aspect. Business is the gate to let the torrent of creative juice flow.

Absolutely! I was twice the guitar player when I worked a side job about 10 hours a week and made the rest of my income off of gigging. Now that I have a family and need more money to keep it all afloat, I have to work full time at a bar and I engineer part time just to make ends meet. There's very little time to actually excel as a artist like I once did. Grrr... I never thought I'd say those words.


...it's too thick to navigate and it's too thin to plow

[Tringboy]

If the music is good enough people will buy it, simple as.... yes people will still get it for free too.

[Robert Randolph]

Originally Posted by DISCERN

Reverse? Not at all. If the business dies, does the music? Heck no! Music has existed for millennia without any business involvement at all. It is really only in the last century (then further amplified by recorded, reproduced and distributed music technologies) that business in music has really made it's mark.

Out of music and music business, the only one that can exist by itself is music. The business aspect is a by-product, not the means itself.

You need to take a music history course. Even well back to pre-roman times music was extremely business oriented. During the 'common practice' it was perhaps even more commercialized than it is today.

I have had opposite experiences as well. Not just in music, but the art world. People really shine when they stop with the business. It makes the purpose of art money driven... not personal self-expression. In fact, some of the later 20th centuries most influential works in the art world are by anonymous artists that probably haven't even made a cent on their work. Take Banksy for example.

Business and money exchange are not mutually exclusive. Business is simply the quid pro quo interactions with other people not specific to your process. Just posting your music on myspace is business. Your support of their website through driving traffic to their ad-driven business model is repaid through the hosting of your material. Some goes for playing a venue, or having a friend play on your record and doing him a favor in return later.

If you are truly working 'business free' then I'm quite jealous of you, though I supposed unless you have an amazing manager, or that absolutely no one has a clue that you exist. (and that all your equipment/maintenance/electricity/snacks/etc... were un-requested and unrequited gifts)

As for banksy, I struggle with the idea that you acknowledge that he's anonymous then claim he doesn't make a cent off his work. That logic doesn't seem to flow very well. Money aside, we have no indication of how he handles his work, what his 'day job' is, if he's contracted or endorsed or if the works are even from the same single person rather than a conglomerate.

[chrisso]

To the two guys who've never done music for a living.... and who think making money from your work is 1) unimportant and 2) dilutes the value of your art.
I guess you are both living under a misapprehension.
I've worked in music for a living for 30+ years.
I would never say it made me 'rich'.
99% of the other musicians and studio personnel I've collaborated with have not been rich either.
It is a job.
We choose to charge a fee for our work. If no one partakes of our toils we wont be paid. Of course people are taking our work and not paying for it, which is the current problem damaging our art.

Society decided long ago that artistic people should be compensated financially.
That way they can concentrate on their art, instead of stacking shelves at Walmart all day and grabbing a handful of hours a week to create.
This is a good thing for art AND for society.

This artists do it for love idea truly is BS.
If you look at any great art - Mozart, Picasso, The Beatles, Frank Zappa, Wagner - they've all made a living from their artistic creations.
If you don't think so, please list the thousands of important works of art created by amateurs.
Believe me - Banksy is making a mint!!!!

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by DISCERN

You seem to only approach "creative people" from the business side of things.

...as the saying goes, "Don't mix business with pleasure". An argument could really be raised that the stupidest thing creative people ever did was try and charge money for their work.

What makes your art more valuable than the majority of people that make art for personal passion? Looking at the top 40 charts... "Quality" has absolutely nothing to do with it. We work in an industry based on marketing... creating economic viability where there really isn't any. It an idea of pure genius, but the bubble was always going to burst as distribution technologies became more efficient.


You like music... but you like money more. For the majority of the world, the two are completely mutually exclusive and they wouldn't have it any other way...

It is art after all. Creative self expression.

...not business.

Name one non-economically viable artist who's been made viable?

There's no truth to that at all. Label have no control over what sells. If they did, if it was just a question of spending enough money, then they would and every artist would be financially successful. But that's not the case.

[MichaelAngelo]

Originally Posted by chrisso

To the two guys who've never done music for a living.... and who think making money from your work is 1) unimportant and 2) dilutes the value of your art.
I guess you are both living under a misapprehension.
I've worked in music for a living for 30+ years.
I would never say it made me 'rich'.
99% of the other musicians and studio personnel I've collaborated with have not been rich either.
It is a job.
We choose to charge a fee for our work. If no one partakes of our toils we wont be paid. Of course people are taking our work and not paying for it, which is the current problem damaging our art.

Society decided long ago that artistic people should be compensated financially.
That way they can concentrate on their art, instead of stacking shelves at Walmart all day and grabbing a handful of hours a week to create.
This is a good thing for art AND for society.

This artists do it for love idea truly is BS.
If you look at any great art - Mozart, Picasso, The Beatles, Frank Zappa, Wagner - they've all made a living from their artistic creations.
If you don't think so, please list the thousands of important works of art created by amateurs.
Believe me - Banksy is making a mint!!!!

Hey Chrisso

Thats a excellent post..

And I feel anyone thinking music should be free or think stealing anything in this world is OK .. I am sorry to say, are very senseless..... or still living with mommy...Ask those same people if I can steal there car for a few years?????

[adpz]

You're right, knuckleheads. All art should be totally free. Please make sure that no artistic field returns any money to the artist. The world will be a much better place when the only professions that make any money to sustain a family are banking, laywers, and doctors. The world will be a much nicer place when those people are the only ones who have any money - there usually such nice folks anyway.

Here's what I think: you don't really care about music, or art, if you don't think you deserve the right to make money off of it. The amount of blood sweat and tears that goes into this work is enormous. If you don't know what that last sentence means I'll take a page from Philly Soul Man and point you in what may be a more meaningful path for you:

BURGER KING®

[chrisso]

thumbsup

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by elginchris

the old system of selling music will never work again. anyone who thinks otherwise might as well stop reading this post right now.

all music should be free in cost.

as an artist/label, the only way to make money 'selling' music is through advertising and merchandising.

---end of story---

Fans are not the only ones who want what is "hot". Marketers make entire careers "breaking" underground artist to the main stream. Thats where the deals should be made.

Ha! You're just looking at it from the label side.

Artists have never made significant portions of their income from selling music. Because they're paying their advance back out of their small percentage of the profit, they generally have to generate 10x the revenue they were advanced before they can earn their first penny in sales.

An advance of $1 million means they will probably have to sell 2 million copies before they recoup - assuming that video costs and tour support are not recoupable.

If you've sold 2 million copies of an album, you should have no problem generating $10/per fan per year, or $20 million.

Now lets say you sell 4 million, that puts you at $40 million from non-record sales income. In the black x2 million records which you're probably getting 10% of 90% or 1.8 million at $5 each. That translates to the record company cutting you a check for $900k boosting you're income from $40million to $40.9 million.

If you have to recoup other costs besides the advance, then it's far less.

Artist's have never really earned real income off of their album sales.

That doesn't mean that they don't need albums to sell to be successful. That's what's funding their ability to earn through all of those other revenue streams and fund the venture capital that is the record label. If you take the VC away, the whole thing falls apart, which is what's happening. Labels don't have the capital to function properly because 90% of record sales revenue is no longer enough.

Had the model been more 50/50 the current problems probably wouldn't be happening and labels would have seen Napster as a tool rather than a threat.

[Suda Badri]

OP is keen to record/mix for free.... so be it... hey OP I have a couple songs unmixed you wanna have a crack? Ill give you $200 which will be 20% of profit on my tshirts.... (but of course if they dont sell you will get no money)

How about it?

[adpz]

Most Important Artist of the 20th century: Andy Warhol

Most Influential Artist of the 20th century: Andy Warhol

Richest Artist of the 20th Century: Andy Warhol

Art is not something you even have to buy, but right-minded people from my perspective find it right to value and reward greatness around them. What is broken then is not the industry, but the consumer.

The argument that art and money have to be separate, or cannot co-exist, or corrupt each other is total rubbish. Greatness finds its reward and to wish that was not the case is misanthropic.

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.

I mean - what's really at the heart of all these pro-piracy discussions? No matter the flavor? It breaks down to this:

1) Other people make too much money / other people should not make too much money

2) My entertainment is too expensive


fuuck

[chrisso]

One of the best posts I've seen in a long while.

[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

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Artist's have never really earned real income off of their album sales.

How did The Beatles, Kraftwerk and Steely Dan build their wealth so successfully?

Had the model been more 50/50 the current problems probably wouldn't be happening and labels would have seen Napster as a tool rather than a threat.

I think a large section of the musical fraternity have already rejected the major label model, initially by installing their own studios, thus reducing their need for huge advances and as a result wrestling more control from the label. Secondly, the independent label and distribution network has been a viable route since the late 70's.
I agree, the indie artist is never going to sell as many records as The Black Eyed Peas, but when I get really worried about the future of music when I see self funded, independent artists (with international reputations and fanbase) almost giving up because their sales have slumped so much.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

FOR ME. That is what both of those points have in common. Two words. "For." "Me."

Is there something that intimidates you about the choices of others?

But you came on a public forum to post in support of the original post - that music should be free to the consumer.
That edict takes away MY choice.
You can do what you like, but I see you mostly supporting ways to break up the economic model in place for musicians for 100 years.
That hurts professional musicians all over the world. Like I said, you can do what you like with your own career.
I also think it's fair to say Andy Warhol is regarded as one of the most important artists of recent times.
The artists moving the current art trends (by common agreement) are also highly motivated by sales (Damian Hurst and... yes, Banksy would be typical; examples)

[adpz]

Originally Posted by psalad

BULLSHIT.

Warhol???? Of all the artists of last century? Not for me cowboy, for a LONG shot. "Most important".. I always LOVE that phrase, as if there is no individual discernment possible in art. Good freaking lord.

ART is not about sales, it's about emotion. The art that YOU think is "the greatest" falls flat on it's ASS for me in this case.

Art is not a popularity contest. Leroy Neiman sold more work then Warhol ever did. Enough said.

Bullshit on you, cowboy.

You are using the wrong measuring stick if you think the Leroy Neiman argument has any weight.

Yes, Andy Warhol is the most important, most influential, and was the richest artist of the 20thy century. Who is your choice then?

[chrisso]

Sorry, the third poster - my mistake.

The third poster who claimed I liked money more than music - even though they know virtually zero about me.

Originally Posted by psalad

As I've posted elsewhere, I believe we'll look back in history to see a short blip where a small number of musicians got rich from their craft. Then it will go back to "normal."

The quote above shows a misunderstanding of the industry IMHO.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by psalad

BULLSHIT.

"Most important".. I always LOVE that phrase, as if there is no individual discernment possible in art.

This is exactly the type of thought I am talking about. That because there is someone who can legitimately be called great or the greatest it somehow engenders this feeling of negation in others.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by psalad

It doesn't actually matter who my choice is. The point is, your choice is yours, mine is mine. "Most important" is in the eye of the beholder. Such a presumptious load.

Just to add fuel, I did a google search, randomly, for "most important artists of the 20th century."

Here's the first link that wasn't about music.

100 Most Important Art Works of the 20th Century, page 1

Funky... NO Warhol. Who'da thunk it?

So funny, how people really think they have a hold on something like "best" or "most important" as if it some universal truth.

And some people have to hold on to their feelings of negation because someone else has an opinion.


Maybe the problem is that you don't have an opinion. You don't name anyone besides my choice, and then you turn to Google to look into the matter and are happy when Warhol isn't on the list that you found.

I don't mean to get too personal here, but the above speaks volumes to me.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by psalad

100 Most Important Art Works of the 20th Century, page 1

Funky... NO Warhol. Who'da thunk it?

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

[adpz]

Originally Posted by psalad

I
Funky... NO Warhol. Who'da thunk it?

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