music should be free!!!

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
pepezabala
Posts: 3499
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: In Berlin, finally

Post by pepezabala » Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:41 pm

two things: when they started to broadcast music over the radio this was leading to the rise of a music industry that didn't even exist before.
Internet is something similar as radio. But it has a huge advantage for musicians, because suddenly there is this new medium for distribution of your music and you have access to it as with no other medium ever before.

The other thing is that suddenly there is the possibilitie for the customers to make digital 1-to-1 copies of your music and distribute them among friends or even everyone interested on planet earth. This is a huge problem if you want to sell your music on a CD or in a webshop without any added value.

So most probably the model of selling cheap CDs for expensive is outdated now. But we have the possibility to create something new, and apparently it lies in our own hands.

Patch
Posts: 2614
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:14 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Post by Patch » Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:59 pm

The time has come that musicians don't need labels, or record companies, or distributors anymore. We're not completely gonna do away with 'em, but they are not completely necessary now.

Is this a bad thing?

Don't forget - an "artist" is someone that does what they do for the love of it, not for the money/fame/notoriety that it generates.

forge
Posts: 17422
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:47 am
Location: Queensland, AU
Contact:

Post by forge » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Rave wrote:
Patch wrote: Don't forget - an "artist" is someone that does what they do for the love of it, not for the money/fame/notoriety that it generates.
I hear you but I don't think the bank manager would. Some people need to make a living and their Art is all they can do.
there have been many artists throughout history, some whose works are now worth many millions who never saw a penny from their art in their lifetimes

I'm not saying that's what we should aspire to, just saying that maybe we need to reset our expectations

like Pepe said - it's up to us - it may take more work than in the past, but you retain all the control you want

Baron von Case
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:21 am
Location: Youngstown, OH USA
Contact:

Post by Baron von Case » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:11 pm

When you pay for an album, you're saying "I enjoy what you are producing and thus I will contribute some money to your cause so that you can keep on doing what you're doing." I'm not saying pay for everything you listen to ever, but fucking support your favorite artists.

Take any example. Do you think the Beatles would've accomplished what they did if they were all struggling desperately to coordinate time around 40-hour-a-week jobs to write together?

If everyone making music is doing it simply as a side hobby, the industry will suffer drastically from it. What the hell am I saying? It already HAS begun to suffer drastically from it.

The fact that you can only make money off gigs and performing music is anything but good. Music is becoming more and more a performance art, which is fine for guitarists who like to remind audiences that they can play every note in a scale in 32nds, shit drum-n-bass DJs playing to drugged out hipsters, and Pop Idol talent show bullshit, but sure as hell not for creative art.

Music as a creative, artistic endeavor is dying a fast death. I don't have the solution, but if one isn't found, then it will continue on this downward spiral.
Image

forge
Posts: 17422
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:47 am
Location: Queensland, AU
Contact:

Post by forge » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:44 pm

Baron von Case wrote: Take any example. Do you think the Beatles would've accomplished what they did if they were all struggling desperately to coordinate time around 40-hour-a-week jobs to write together?

If everyone making music is doing it simply as a side hobby, the industry will suffer drastically from it. What the hell am I saying? It already HAS begun to suffer drastically from it.
actually the Beatles are a really good example

for a long time at the start the Beatles were basically a covers band - they earned their living playing R&B songs in dive bars and clubs - even went to live in Hamburg for a while and famously roughed it playing other peoples music and earning fuck all

in fact until they met Brian Epstein they didn't have a clue how to earn money from recordings - it didn't enter the equation

the point is you have to work with what you have available to you, and these days it's increasingly difficult to live only off CD sales

that doesn't mean you can't make any money at all off CDs, just that you probably want to try other avenues as well if you want to rely on that income

also - don't assume the only kind of income is a 40+ hour job - you can live on less, work part time - point is you do what you have to if you really want to do it

the world just works this way now - the vast majority of the Beatles' fans were teens and young people, the people who today have no concept of paying for recorded music - to just assert what you are saying you are effectively swimming against the tide of a whole generation

but those same people will pay more than ever to see live music

anyway, as I said before, there are still people around who will buy music, just don't mortgage your house to record a CD

heavensdaw
Posts: 1825
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:01 pm
Location: inbetween the inbetween

Post by heavensdaw » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:56 pm

It's true soooo much has changed in the last 25 years or so.. There are some really accurate responses to this debate here.. I think the main thing now is the fact that music has become so easily available, especially through the internet. Also the fact that the tools to make music with have changed considerably.. Before, you need a drum beat? Find a drummer with a kit and a place to set-up, rehearse, record..etc,etc.
Now, write a beat in a sequencer, or play a pre-recorded loop.. you know It's so much easier.. And Everyone can load up their 'next big hit' on the net and.... I remember queuing up to buy an album or standing out in the freezing cold waiting for tickets o a gigs... Now BUY ONLINE... No discomfort, nothing out of control.. But I think like Pepe says ' It's in our hands'. As artists we have to adapt to the changes that take place around us, in whatever way we can.. It's a HUGH debate.. But we are where we are, and we have to make the best of things, and do what we can to keep on rockin! :wink:

Hd

Robert Henke
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Berlin

Post by Robert Henke » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:58 pm

.. and being forced to play live and being forced to ask for a significant fee also has a problematic impact:

- Artists in doubt will shape their music to be more mass compatible, because they need the bookings of bigger venues.

- Clubs will only book those who are more commercial, since they cannot afford paying a huge fee unless the club is packed with people

- Instead of playing as independent artist for a little enthusiastic crowd you become the vehicle of Coca Cola, Red Bull, T-Com, Heinecken, or other companies. I simply do not want to be labled a Red Bull Artist. Red Bull smells and tastes horrible. The next backstage fridge that only contains Smirnov Wodka and Red Bull will be thrown in the T-Com banner.

- The artist more likely plays in front of rich kids who can afford the club life, because the small independent venues which offer cheap drinks and low entry fee will have a hard time competing with the sponsored events.

So, playing live as the alternative to selling products might not work out so well for some poeple.

mantaraffu
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:01 pm
Location: rome
Contact:

Post by mantaraffu » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:00 pm

i'm agree. I've my netlabel with a lot of artist, all the music is free. me and my artists make money only with performances, installations and other stuff a/v related. music must be free. music is free. I don't understand why musicians waste their time for some dollars make with digital store o similar stuff. I've spent years buying cd and vinyls, now I don't buy nothing and I don't download nothing. if I want listen something I play my music or turn on some digital radio like last.fm. is simple and it doesn't waste the planet with plastic derivates.

Robert Henke
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Berlin

Post by Robert Henke » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:11 pm

hmmm, but last.fm needs input from people who create a finished product of some sort. Where shall the motivation to create a finished piece of music come from if you cannot sell it anymore. Playing music is fun. Creating a finished product is fun and a shitload of work.

As far as the creation of plastic waste goes:
Servers are responsible of a growing segment of the total energy consumption. And computers are made from plastic too...

Robert

hambone1
Posts: 5346
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Abu Dhabi

Post by hambone1 » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:17 pm

IMO, it all boils down to the talent and skill of the songwriter. Performers and technicians are a dime a dozen, especially with the technological deskilling brought about by cheap music hardware and easy-to-use software.

Write captivating, compelling, original music that touches people, understand and follow the basic tenets of business in the 21st century, and you'll thrive, artistically and financially.

smartass303
Posts: 880
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:14 pm

Post by smartass303 » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:48 pm

i like the idea of a "cultural flatrate"... everyone dedicating his/her life for music itself should gain money from this flatrate. every digital output/download is free for subscribers of "cultural flatrate".
beside that every artist can do whatever he/she wants, premium packed cds/vinyls, merchandise etc.
with this "flatrate" you can sponsor other odd media too, av art, documentations, movies, whatever.
but playing live will be a big part of a future musicians living.

just a thought,

3
0
3

Aequitas123
Posts: 1204
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:58 pm

Post by Aequitas123 » Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:28 pm

Theres a very good argument against this:

The single most valuable asset to a musician is (or should be) Time.

By selling whatever they can, musicians can pay for rent and food and whatever else, without having to get a job, which would cut seriously into the time they have to create.

nebulae
Posts: 15715
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:16 am
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Post by nebulae » Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:27 pm

I'm not going to get into which format is better (vinyl vs. cd vs. mp3), but I do agree that music has become commoditized to the point where it is basically free...meaning that music is marketing for an artist to sell other swag.

My view on music is that there are basically only two ways for an artist to make money off music: 1) licensing the music to libraries for use in movies, commercials, or compilations, and 2) selling an experience, such as a live show, or collector items like art, nice vinyl, t-shirts, etc. In both situations, the music itself is not worth any money. It's the bait.

Like it or not, this is the new paradigm, and the longer anyone fights it, the more that person loses. Embrace it and you'll see that you no longer need labels or record companies...meaning you're free of the Matrix to live in the real world.
Image Image Image Image

lola
Posts: 1100
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:57 pm

Post by lola » Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:11 pm

I still love vinyl, and love to collect it, i never bought a mp3, and never will buy a mp3.

nebulae
Posts: 15715
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:16 am
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Post by nebulae » Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:12 pm

lola wrote:I still love vinyl, and love to collect it, i never bought a mp3, and never will buy a mp3.
I rest my case.
Image Image Image Image

Post Reply