The Cure

MUSIC FOR FREE?

SO
IT SEEMS A FEW PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS (YOU HAVE TO LOVE THEM!) OUT THERE DISAGREE WITH MY "EVERY ARTIST SHOULD VALUE THEIR ART" MUSING
AND THINK ITS OK FOR ART - MUSIC IN PARTICULAR - TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FREE FOR ALL...

NO I AM NOT CONFUSING 'ARTISTIC VALUE' WITH 'COMMERCIAL VALUE'
MERELY QUESTIONING THE DUMB ACCEPTANCE OF THE 'FREE ART IS THE 'NEW' PARADIGM - THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS' MANTRA

IN THE WAY OF OUR BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD
THESE IDIOT CRITICS HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO TURN MY GENERAL POINT - A POINT I MADE USING RADIOHEAD'S 'IN RAINBOWS: PAY WHAT YOU WANT' MARKETING RUSE AS IT IS THE MOST WIDELY KNOWN EXAMPLE - INTO A MOCK SHOCK HORROR "HOW DARE ANYONE QUESTION THE FAMOUSLY INDEPENDENT AND ANTI-CAPITALIST RADIOHEAD, THEY SELL MORE 'PRODUCT' THAN THE CURE SO THEIR STRATEGY OBVIOUSLY 'WORKED' (HUH?!!)... AND ANYWAY, ROBERT SMITH IS WAY TOO OLD TO COMMENT ON CONTEMPORARY CULTURE" MOMENT...

MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL
NOR EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT RADIOHEADS 'IN RAINBOWS'

BUT IT IS I FEEL STILL COMPELLING

ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE (OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' OR TWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS...
INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSS LEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'

ALL WELL AND GOOD (WELL... NOT REALLY! 'LOSS LEADER'? 'BUILD THE BRAND'? AAGH! BUT THIS IS THE LINGUA FRANCA... )

HOWEVER
IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM
THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?

HEY
HANG ON
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON'
LIKE... A BIG RECORD LABEL?
EXCELLENT!
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SIGN UP AND AGREE TO ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AND IT WILL MARKET YOU DECISIVELY
AND IF YOU PLAY IT RIGHT ITS EVEN WEALTHIER AND MORE POWERFUL PARENT COMPANY WILL AIR YOUR WORDS AND PICTURES AND VIDEOS AND MUSIC AND ADS ON ITS MANY AND VARIOUS WEB/TV/RADIO CHANNELS

AND CHARGE ADVERTISERS HUGE AMOUNTS TO ADVERTISE TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CONSUMING ALL YOUR FREE ART...

AND YOU THE ARTIST WILL OF COURSE GET A 'FAIR' REWARD FOR YOUR EFFORTS... ?

BAH
SOME 'NEW' PARADIGM!

SO
I STAND BY MY POINT:

AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE
OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART

I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING

AND QUITE HONESTLY
AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT
IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST
I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!
I JUST WROTE ALL THIS BECAUSE I GOT PARTICULARLY FED UP TONIGHT WITH THE SQUEALING HIGH DRAMA OF THE 101 STORIES A DAY AND NONE OF THEM PARTICULARLY TRUE BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD MEDIA THAT WHINES ON AND ON WITHOUT RESPITE OR REFUTATION…


CRETINS!

OR MAYBE ITS JUST MY POST BIG GIG HANGOVER TALKING?!!

ONWARDS...
RSX

PS
I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUT THERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?

HA!

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

I'm wondering about these Russian websites that make you pay a few bucks for a whole MP3 album. I feel their rates of $0.15 per song (and even a further discount per song if you buy the whole album) is a better value for a digital "copy" of the artists work, than paying iTunes $0.99 per song/$9.99 for an album. I think if the artist is getting a cut of these transactions, all is good, but if it's only going into the Russian Mafia's pocket's then maybe not so good.

Does anybody know if these sites are somewhat legit?

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

andrewebb24 wrote:
I'm wondering about these Russian websites that make you pay a few bucks for a whole MP3 album. I feel their rates of $0.15 per song (and even a further discount per song if you buy the whole album) is a better value for a digital "copy" of the artists work, than paying iTunes $0.99 per song/$9.99 for an album. I think if the artist is getting a cut of these transactions, all is good, but if it's only going into the Russian Mafia's pocket's then maybe not so good.

Does anybody know if these sites are somewhat legit?

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

No sites are legit nowadays, somehow, someway, somewhere there's a band getting so screwed, that they can't sit on their asses for a fornight....free is a taboo...i've read what Smith writes but does he mean free download or band/musicial integrity because money is evil that makes the music industry turn and, unfortunately, it will never change.
Do i download music for free? Hell yes, because my ass is poor and i am music lover, that just can't afford to pay for all the music i want. But i also, have to buy it from itunes (HMV never has what i want)

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

"AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE
OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART"

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. And people who value art, and substance know the difference.

If I buy it, I believe in it. I think people underestimate the process, heart, sweat, and tears that is invested in an album. It doesn't magically appear, and it doesn't come easy. It just seems that way because all we see is the final product. The critics seem to take this for granted.

If critics truly believe in the statement that the arts should be a free for all, then why don't we stop paying the critics to give their opinions, because after all, opinions should be free right? That may put in all in perspective for them.

And the fact that people think music should be free because most of the artists are wealthy is really an absurd statement. Most fashion designers and clothes manufacturers are wealthy as well, however, you never hear critics complain that clothes should come without a price tag attached to it. And as far as I am concerned music, just as clothes, is a necessary commodity. Without music, or the arts for that matter, life would not be worth living.

Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

ad191138 wrote:

andrewebb24 wrote:
I'm wondering about these Russian websites that make you pay a few bucks for a whole MP3 album. I feel their rates of $0.15 per song (and even a further discount per song if you buy the whole album) is a better value for a digital "copy" of the artists work, than paying iTunes $0.99 per song/$9.99 for an album. I think if the artist is getting a cut of these transactions, all is good, but if it's only going into the Russian Mafia's pocket's then maybe not so good.

Does anybody know if these sites are somewhat legit?

Here is the site "absolutely free MP3"...Enjoy! http://musicmp3.spb.ru/
Actually, I don`t like this way of... But! What the heck can we do?

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

CURE:ROBERT wrote:
SO
IT SEEMS A FEW PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS (YOU HAVE TO LOVE THEM!) OUT THERE DISAGREE WITH MY "EVERY ARTIST SHOULD VALUE THEIR ART" MUSING
AND THINK ITS OK FOR ART - MUSIC IN PARTICULAR - TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FREE FOR ALL...

NO I AM NOT CONFUSING 'ARTISTIC VALUE' WITH 'COMMERCIAL VALUE'
MERELY QUESTIONING THE DUMB ACCEPTANCE OF THE 'FREE ART IS THE 'NEW' PARADIGM - THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS' MANTRA

IN THE WAY OF OUR BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD
THESE IDIOT CRITICS HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO TURN MY GENERAL POINT - A POINT I MADE USING RADIOHEAD'S 'IN RAINBOWS: PAY WHAT YOU WANT' MARKETING RUSE AS IT IS THE MOST WIDELY KNOWN EXAMPLE - INTO A MOCK SHOCK HORROR "HOW DARE ANYONE QUESTION THE FAMOUSLY INDEPENDENT AND ANTI-CAPITALIST RADIOHEAD, THEY SELL MORE 'PRODUCT' THAN THE CURE SO THEIR STRATEGY OBVIOUSLY 'WORKED' (HUH?!!)... AND ANYWAY, ROBERT SMITH IS WAY TOO OLD TO COMMENT ON CONTEMPORARY CULTURE" MOMENT...

MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL
NOR EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT RADIOHEADS 'IN RAINBOWS'

BUT IT IS I FEEL STILL COMPELLING

ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE (OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' OR TWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS...
INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSS LEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'

ALL WELL AND GOOD (WELL... NOT REALLY! 'LOSS LEADER'? 'BUILD THE BRAND'? AAGH! BUT THIS IS THE LINGUA FRANCA... )

HOWEVER
IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM
THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?

HEY
HANG ON
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON'
LIKE... A BIG RECORD LABEL?
EXCELLENT!
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SIGN UP AND AGREE TO ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AND IT WILL MARKET YOU DECISIVELY
AND IF YOU PLAY IT RIGHT ITS EVEN WEALTHIER AND MORE POWERFUL PARENT COMPANY WILL AIR YOUR WORDS AND PICTURES AND VIDEOS AND MUSIC AND ADS ON ITS MANY AND VARIOUS WEB/TV/RADIO CHANNELS

AND CHARGE ADVERTISERS HUGE AMOUNTS TO ADVERTISE TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CONSUMING ALL YOUR FREE ART...

AND YOU THE ARTIST WILL OF COURSE GET A 'FAIR' REWARD FOR YOUR EFFORTS... ?

BAH
SOME 'NEW' PARADIGM!

SO
I STAND BY MY POINT:

AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE
OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART

I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING

AND QUITE HONESTLY
AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT
IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST
I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!
I JUST WROTE ALL THIS BECAUSE I GOT PARTICULARLY FED UP TONIGHT WITH THE SQUEALING HIGH DRAMA OF THE 101 STORIES A DAY AND NONE OF THEM PARTICULARLY TRUE BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD MEDIA THAT WHINES ON AND ON WITHOUT RESPITE OR REFUTATION…


CRETINS!

OR MAYBE ITS JUST MY POST BIG GIG HANGOVER TALKING?!!

ONWARDS...
RSX

PS
I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUT THERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?

HA!

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

'I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING'

This is the reason why I am much happier buying the album in person, rather than download. I'm not happy about buying secondhand, from eBay, but sometimes you have to.
And there's that elevating feeling when you leave the shop, with a bag, and then to get hope, rip the cellophane and security sticker off, and stick the CD in. And I don't know if I'm alone with this, but I also like to take the sleeve out, and have a look....

There is that added extra with buying it,rather than downloading it, and, for me, i like to feel that i could have helped that artist to create another piece of art, because i bought rather than downloaded....

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

xXTheCureXx wrote:
'I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING'

This is the reason why I am much happier buying the album in person, rather than download. I'm not happy about buying secondhand, from eBay, but sometimes you have to.
And there's that elevating feeling when you leave the shop, with a bag, and then to get hope, rip the cellophane and security sticker off, and stick the CD in. And I don't know if I'm alone with this, but I also like to take the sleeve out, and have a look....

There is that added extra with buying it,rather than downloading it, and, for me, i like to feel that i could have helped that artist to create another piece of art, because i bought rather than downloaded....

Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

TheOnlyBoy wrote:

xXTheCureXx wrote:
'I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING'

This is the reason why I am much happier buying the album in person, rather than download. I'm not happy about buying secondhand, from eBay, but sometimes you have to.
And there's that elevating feeling when you leave the shop, with a bag, and then to get hope, rip the cellophane and security sticker off, and stick the CD in. And I don't know if I'm alone with this, but I also like to take the sleeve out, and have a look....

There is that added extra with buying it,rather than downloading it, and, for me, i like to feel that i could have helped that artist to create another piece of art, because i bought rather than downloaded....

LOL.....I do just the same Cure. I'm glad that vinyl is making a comeback....I can almost read the sleevenotes with these shitty old eyes!!!

Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

TheOnlyBoy wrote:

xXTheCureXx wrote:
'I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING'

This is the reason why I am much happier buying the album in person, rather than download. I'm not happy about buying secondhand, from eBay, but sometimes you have to.
And there's that elevating feeling when you leave the shop, with a bag, and then to get hope, rip the cellophane and security sticker off, and stick the CD in. And I don't know if I'm alone with this, but I also like to take the sleeve out, and have a look....

There is that added extra with buying it,rather than downloading it, and, for me, i like to feel that i could have helped that artist to create another piece of art, because i bought rather than downloaded....

LOL.....I do just the same Cure. I'm glad that vinyl is making a comeback....I can almost read the sleevenotes with these shitty old eyes!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

xXTheCureXx wrote:

TheOnlyBoy wrote:

xXTheCureXx wrote:
'I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING'

This is the reason why I am much happier buying the album in person, rather than download. I'm not happy about buying secondhand, from eBay, but sometimes you have to.
And there's that elevating feeling when you leave the shop, with a bag, and then to get hope, rip the cellophane and security sticker off, and stick the CD in. And I don't know if I'm alone with this, but I also like to take the sleeve out, and have a look....

There is that added extra with buying it,rather than downloading it, and, for me, i like to feel that i could have helped that artist to create another piece of art, because i bought rather than downloaded....

LOL.....I do just the same Cure. I'm glad that vinyl is making a comeback....I can almost read the sleevenotes with these shitty old eyes!!!

Is it? yay! :P

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

I'm a bit late responding to this... But I'm very glad you've expressed your opinion on this matter; it's opened up my eyes a little more to this whole issue. I know this is a little off track from what your thoughts on the matter are, and well, not nearly as important lol but one reason why I still love to buy CDs is because it's a pretty great feeling bringing them home and listening to them for the first time, while flipping through the front cover booklet. You just don't get quite the same feeling downloading the songs... Even if you did pay for the mp3s.



A good example... The first Cure album I bought... Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me, I still remember the day I brought it home and started listening to it, and being absolutely enamored by it... Ah feeling very nostalgic right now!



As I said, a little bit off topic. But anyway! I love the part where you say:

"PS

I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUT THERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?



HA!"



Thank you Robert!

x

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

As a Radiohead and Cure fan, I'm kind of on the fence, so here are my thoughts.

Yes, Radiohead could only do the In rainbows thing because of their position. However, this meant that they were in the unique position of being able to find out what people really thought the value of their music was, and this was demonstrated NOT to be nothing. The consensus seems to be that they got more for the album than they would have done had they released it in the traditional fashion.

No, this model wouldn't work for a new band. An established following is required.

The problem stems from the maturity of the music industry as a whole, culminating in the digital download era. Access to music no longer requires a physical exchange. Couple this with the sheer volume of music available and constantly being produced, and it becomes clear that the problems facing a new band are getting their music heard at all.

the same applies to movies: how many terrible films have you paid to see in the last few years, and wished there was a way you could get your money back because you simply were not entertained?

So, how can we (the consumer) find out if we like a band without having to pay up front? Radio? Music channels on TV? facebook/myspace? All these are run by the 'big corps' and so are slaves to the corporate bosses.

My thought (and this is not a solution, just an observation) is that a two track system is called for. One that promotes new bands and gets them an audience in the first place. The second is for those with an established brand (and branding is a fact of life: lets face it, most of us hear would happily buy a new Cure LP simply because it's Cure, without listening to it first, because we trust the brand).

The needs of a new band and the needs of an established band are clearly very different.

If I have a product to sell, I have to acknowledge that I will need to pay someone to promote it for me (advertising, getting it in a reputable shop, etc). Why should it be any different for an 'artist'? Selling a product is selling a product, whatever form it takes. Once the product is established, then the control can and should shift to the producer of the product.

The record companies are nothing more than speculators in the music market and as the current economic conditions should be pointing out to us very clearly: speculators are not the ones who should be controlling the produce in any market!

In conclusion, of course music should not be free, and of course Radiohead only got away with their stunt because they are who they are. That doesn't make it wrong though, evidenced by the fact that it worked very well in their favour. But it doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

the old system is dead, new systems will vie to replace it and more than one will be adopted, in all likelihood. Radiohead may have swung the pendulum further than necessary, but they did at least spark a huge debate.

Finally, how many of you know that Ed O'Brien is on the FAC , fighting for the rights of artists?

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Robert,

As a longtime fan who has fond memories of buying The Top as a teenager on a cassette tape and listening to it pretty much every day until HOTD came out, I am sympathetic of your desire to value your art.

That said, time and technology has changed, and it ultimately doesn't matter what you or I think as far as the longterm trends in the music business, because you're competing against free. Every musician is. Indeed, you're competing against your own music being given away for free by everyone out there who loves your music.

As a teenager, I didn't think much about my friends borrowing my cassette tapes. In fact, many of them became paying fans of my favorite bands by doing so. I didn't ask them whether they made a copy, but I would assume that many did. I certainly copied some of their tapes.

The difference being, it was -- and is -- entirely legal to copy cassettes for personal use. Americans pay a surcharge on blank cassettes, which allows it. Indeed, I believe that the Canadians are going this route with digital media, putting a surcharge on hard drives, CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, etc., because ultimately that's a model that is the most practicable, the most traditional, the least invasive, and that makes the most sense.

And yet, today, the music industry... RIAA, BPI, IFPI, etc. fights against the rights of consumers to do the same thing. Indeed, they sue manufacturers and lobby for laws in order to hobble technical features which have lots of perfectly legal applications, which *could* be potentially used to make digital copies of music.

They hobble technology... just like the last Cure album I bought was specifically -- and inadequately -- hobbled, with the intent of preventing those who purchased it from backing it up to listen to it on their portable music players, on their computer, or, by using various legal apps to listen to it streamed from their computer to their portable devices, work computer, etc.

You most certainly have a right to value your work... but when you approve of or simply fail to say a single word about misguided actions which protect the *financial* value of your work, while degrading other people's laws, their ability to use their increasingly legally-shrinkwrapped Cure products, etc. Well, I have a problem with that.

The value of an artistic work is not primarily a financial one to anyone who seriously cares about the art involved -- and that includes yourself. It's emotional and personal... and when that emotional, personal work is legally shrinkwrapped with laws as to what you can and cannot do with it, and backed up with an army of lawyers and government lobbyists who are out to impose "three strike" laws worldwide... laws which could strip people of their internet access -- which is practically a necessity for many ordinary people nowadays to do essential things, such as get a job, use VOIP phone service, take college courses, send emails, etc. -- and when those laws are designed specifically to deny people a day in court and due process of law, and basically require them to lock down and technologically secure their WiFi -- a near-impossible task -- in order to prevent friends, neighbors, or anyone else from possibly downloading something that could get them in trouble...

Well... let's just say that when that when musicians profit from such a system and yet do not speak out against such things, it makes me question what's important to them.

There is much about The Cure that is independent and admirable. They most certainly aren't U2, who function as a $900M business operating out of a Netherlands tax haven, avoiding the very reasonable tax levels for artists in Ireland, while at the same time telling the Irish people that they should support Eircom's "three-strikes" provisions against "suspected" piracy, and pay taxes -- which they fastidiously avoid -- to help combat global warming and world hunger.

Clearly, digital technology complicates the traditional music business model. As such, it's important for you to search for a solution that works for you and your fans, by all means... But at the same time, I find it profoundly unhelpful of you to call people cretins who may have a -- poorly expressed -- point, without offering up any solutions other than the existing music industry ones which are thuggish and repressive.

There's no need for insults, Robert. There *ARE*, however, needs for solutions. What I am seeing from you are insults against those arguing for change, but none of your own inner thoughts on what *you* think is fair, of what *kind* of solutions might be helpful, both for you and for your fans, and of what you think the recording industry should be doing -- or not doing -- to move forward from here.

Because, for me, as someone who still has a shoebox of old cassette tapes -- some of them copied -- on top of wall-mounted racks that contain over a thousand CDs... and about a terabyte of digital storage for all kinds of media and a WiFi hub that is completely unsecured and open to my friends and neighbors, I have a real problem having to technically "work around" a recording industry who views me, one of their best customers, as one of the enemy.

By all means, say something... anything... other than insults.

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

I LOVE YOU ROBERT!!!

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

hahaha (in a wierd accent...)

"I see you at Coachella love!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

TheOnlyBoy wrote:

xXTheCureXx wrote:

TheOnlyBoy wrote:

xXTheCureXx wrote:
'I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING'

This is the reason why I am much happier buying the album in person, rather than download. I'm not happy about buying secondhand, from eBay, but sometimes you have to.
And there's that elevating feeling when you leave the shop, with a bag, and then to get hope, rip the cellophane and security sticker off, and stick the CD in. And I don't know if I'm alone with this, but I also like to take the sleeve out, and have a look....

There is that added extra with buying it,rather than downloading it, and, for me, i like to feel that i could have helped that artist to create another piece of art, because i bought rather than downloaded....

LOL.....I do just the same Cure. I'm glad that vinyl is making a comeback....I can almost read the sleevenotes with these shitty old eyes!!!

Is it? yay! :P

Yes indeedie!!! It means I don't have to take my glasses to the "platter emporium" or even more embarrassing....my credit card magnifying glass to see what the F**k I'm trying to look at!! LOL

Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

ad191138 wrote:
{q a=[[andrewebb24]]} I feel their rates of $0.15 per song (and even a further discount per song if you buy the whole album) is a better value for a digital "copy" of the artists work, than paying iTunes $0.99 per song/$9.99 for an album. Does anybody know if these sites are somewhat legit?

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

I have a real problem with equating "EVERY ARTIST SHOULD VALUE THEIR ART" with valueing it financially.

To me, this is like saying "every person living on the earth should value it"... and then suggesting that the Native Americans were "cretins" because they didn't view land as something which could/should be "owned".

Indeed, The Cure make their money based on copyright laws, which, in the U.S., were originally designed to encourage the "useful Arts" by protecting the exclusive right of the creator to sell their product for "a limited time".

The whole reason the creator had exclusivity for "a limited time" was to not only reward them for their creation, but also to encourage them to keep creating... not to set them up on some sort of permanent social welfare, like that of the old ladies who created "Happy Birthday To You", and to this day still get royalties from that song!

The original limitation was about ten years... today, it's the life of the artist, PLUS SEVENTY YEARS.

This, of course, is a ludicrous legal landgrab of media that should really fall into the hands of the public, as part of their common history. How do such laws benefit anyone other than the record labels / MPAA?

Re: Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

markkraft wrote:

ad191138 wrote:
{q a=[[andrewebb24]]} I feel their rates of $0.15 per song (and even a further discount per song if you buy the whole album) is a better value for a digital "copy" of the artists work, than paying iTunes $0.99 per song/$9.99 for an album. Does anybody know if these sites are somewhat legit?

The recording industry says no, but many others say yes.

Basically, there are numerous music licensing organizations in the various countries of the world, with the right to establish licensing fees that are appropriate for their country. As the world's economies and wealth-per-person varies greatly, the licensing fees also vary... and in Russia, these companies can license and sell the the songs for a profit quite literally at pennies on the dollar.

The problem comes when they try to sell them on the global market. The recording industry thinks they shouldn't be able to do so at such rates, and that fees should be set by the country that a person resides in.

Of course, if the recording industry had their way, the latest iPod, which holds 30,000 songs, would cost about $30,000 to fill up, if you used iTunes.

This price, of course, is criminal exploitation in every way that really matters.

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

markkraft wrote:
I have a real problem with equating "EVERY ARTIST SHOULD VALUE THEIR ART" with valueing it financially.

To me, this is like saying "every person living on the earth should value it"... and then suggesting that the Native Americans were "cretins" because they didn't view land as something which could/should be "owned".

Indeed, The Cure make their money based on copyright laws, which, in the U.S., were originally designed to encourage the "useful Arts" by protecting the exclusive right of the creator to sell their product for "a limited time".

The whole reason the creator had exclusivity for "a limited time" was to not only reward them for their creation, but also to encourage them to keep creating... not to set them up on some sort of permanent social welfare, like that of the old ladies who created "Happy Birthday To You", and to this day still get royalties from that song!

The original limitation was about ten years... today, it's the life of the artist, PLUS SEVENTY YEARS.

This, of course, is a ludicrous legal landgrab of media that should really fall into the hands of the public, as part of their common history. How do such laws benefit anyone other than the record labels / MPAA?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

"criminal exploitation? like hell! 9.99 for an album is a fractional percentage of what a hard copy album is at various higher prices, so where is the criminal exploitation?"

I didn't say "99 cents for a song" or "9.99 for an album". I said an estimated $30,000 to fill up a modern iPod with music. And if you don't like me comparing it to criminal exploitation, how about highway robbery, as the phrase may be more accurate.

It's a ripoff to pay $30K to legally fill up a top-of-the-line $250 portable music player... one that can be easily lost or stolen, or have its drive -- or your PC's drive where the originals are located -- crash, have its electronics zap the drive, potentially wiping out the entire investment... so is it any wonder that so many people do not pay that kind of money?

And really, it's foolish to buy $30,000 worth of mp3s, especially considering where the technology is going. These devices are all getting Wi-Fi or accessing the net at high speeds via their phone component, so soon enough, people will be able to legitimately stream all the music they want to hear -- and pretty much any track they want to hear -- from the web. There are services you can already listen to that do this, or that implement it, some of them for free or at very minimal expense per month...

So, why "own" 30,000 mp3s, all of which you can lose in a heartbeat, in an overly "lossy" format with a considerably larger file size than what's around the corner in a few years, when the future is distributed internet storage / cloud computing, allowing you to rapidly "get" anything you can think of?

The fact is, "ownership" of mp3s is nebulous and transitory. It's like saying you "own" a tapeloading copy of Space Invaders for the Commodore 64. You may, in fact, have one around somewhere, but you don't use it. Even if you did use it, you'd find it competing against 30,000 other song titles... so if you're talking an average song length of 4 min, that means you'd have to listen to your music all day long on random play for 120 days in order to hear that song.

Given the a hopeful lifespan of such devices/files of, say, four years -- assuming you don't have a crash, bad virus, need to reinstall the OS, etc. -- you'd be lucky to hear it a dozen times if you had that many mp3s.

So, yeah. My point is that 99 cents per track is completely unrealistic for where we are going to in the future that is practically here right now. If people truly valued mp3s at 99 cents a track, there'd be a huge market for used -- oftentimes stolen -- mp3 players or hard drives, chock full of mp3s... but of course, there isn't.

What you are buying for your 99 cents is convenient -- but temporary -- access to your favorite songs... and soon, thanks to web services, the price to do that will be a fraction of the "ownership" model and will actually be considerably more convenient than in the past.

The 99 cent mp3 is *ALREADY* a dinosaur... and that's a very serious thing that both musicians and the music industry need to find a way to deal with, because their business model *STILL* doesn't address the reality of the situation.

Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

"i don't understand what you are saying here. do you feel that the artist should NOT have a lifelong copyright on his/her own works?"

The US Constitution was clear that copyrights were only intended for a "limited time" in order to encourage the arts, after which it falls into the public domain. That doesn't mean that the artist *CAN'T* sell their work after that point... indeed, nobody else could sell it better. It just means that they don't have the exclusive right to do so.

The creators of copyright law were very much aware that too long a time period would stifle growth, competition, and fair use, and remove the incentive to keep creating and improving... while too little time would punish the creative. That's why it was initially so low. I tend to think copyright would be more appropriate to be something owned about 30-40 years, IF the owner exercises their rights to renew the copyright, should it be worth anything. Perhaps a minor fee or percentage of copyright revenue could be paid by the artist to maintain it a bit longer than that. Many aren't worth much commercially, and should fall into the public domain much earlier, because otherwise, copyright extensions become a kind of theft from the public and its heritage.

"your last sentence gives me the impression that you feel that ONLY the record label benefits from a copyright."

After an artist is dead, yes... the artist isn't going to benefit from their copyright. Only the label is. And copyright law wasn't intended to protect the artist's grandchildren or great great great grandchildren, as you might expect with the current copyright regulations saying "life of the artist + seventy years". Indeed, many artists lose ownership to their own copyrights during their lifetime, forced to trade it, or parts of it, away for a little attention from the industry that passed them by.

I knew Cab Calloway's family, who were in precisely this situation, with a music industry person claiming that Cab had signed away his rights. The family had to fight legally for years to gain back a section of his music's rights, so it's oftentimes a very nebulous and litigious thing, where rights naturally tend to flow from the artists to the industry, often in an exploitative manner.

"To have their work "fall" as you say "into the hands of the public, as part of their common history" is for after death. Not during life, when their LIFE'S work is depended upon to pay the bills."

Firstly, this was clearly not the intent of the Constitution, which set the time period as limited, in order to encourage new creation and new arts. Secondly, you're suggesting that copyright law *SHOULD* do exactly what the RIAA was created to do back around the 1920s.

The RIAA was set up because classic performers and songwriters whose songs were still being played on the radio and performed routinely by other artists were destitute and oftentimes homeless after their careers ended. That's why radio royalties were created.

Unfortunately, the RIAA has been wildly unsuccessful at actually achieving their intended purpose of providing for musicians. Instead, the system oftentimes make those in the music business who least need the money -- including the lawyers -- richer than they already were.

Copyrights haven't done much better. A good case-in-point is the musician Momus, who recorded for 4AD and Creation Records, which is now a subsidiary of Sony Music. He also currently writes for Wired. Sony has no intent to redistribute most of Creation's back catalog -- which includes many of Momus' albums -- so last Christmas, Momus gave his Creation Records catalog away online for free, digitally, via his blog.

"Loss leaders", indeed... and he might as well have, as it drove people to his site who bought his latest album. In that sense, Momus actually does what copyright law suggests he should... he keeps creating, and uses digital distribution more than most to keep his costs low.

That said, Robert Smith is right, in that Momus isn't making a lot of money this way. He isn't through the labels either, and certainly not through the RIAA and other music industry associations. If the social safety net that developed after the Great Depression didn't exist, and if he didn't write and teach, he probably wouldn't have much of a retirement to look forward to.

So, artist ownership of their works isn't a panacea. Oftentimes, ownership gives the music industry reasons to exploit artists a second time, arguably when they are most vulnerable. Either you make a deal that greatly benefits them and oftentimes has the artist assume most of the actual risk, in order to get *some* attention to their works... or you get ignored.

These sorts of deals work great, perhaps, if you're Radiohead and have a bit of pull... and fine if you're The Cure... but not so well if you're like most everyone else... the other 99.999% of musicians.

So, yes, I would like to see solutions that protect and reward artists. Unfortunately, the existing solutions are increasingly broken... and your suggestion that somehow average musicians are going to be protected by extending copyright ad infinitum, despite what the founders of the U.S. Constitution had to say about it, is empty... a hollow promise, because 99% of the value of musical copyrights are derived in the first few years of ownership... and there are a lot of bigname bands who got gold records only a few years ago who saw almost all of that money go to the recording industry.

So, if they can't even be counted on to make money with the music industry when they're young and popular with a brand-new hit getting significant airplay, how are they supposed to do it when they're old and gray?!

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

I agree with Robert. All music can't realistically be made free or only people of large income could afford to make music. (Unless there is some weird plan to make the state pay minimum wage for all artists for composing for the nation.) However, let's keep in mind that this average income of 25 000 is only an average. This means that there are huge amount of people like me for instance who earn 12 000 per annum for working full time. They can't afford home insurance, to eat out or anything else these average of £25 000 earners do. And still, their life can be completely fulfilling. Obviously getting 12 000 people paying a pound for a song would be less challenging than trying to get 25 000 buyers. That would not be impossible but would probably sadly decrease the diversity of music.

Re: Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

markkraft wrote:
"i don't understand what you are saying here. do you feel that the artist should NOT have a lifelong copyright on his/her own works?"

The US Constitution was clear that copyrights were only intended for a "limited time" in order to encourage the arts, after which it falls into the public domain. That doesn't mean that the artist *CAN'T* sell their work after that point... indeed, nobody else could sell it better. It just means that they don't have the exclusive right to do so.

The creators of copyright law were very much aware that too long a time period would stifle growth, competition, and fair use, and remove the incentive to keep creating and improving... while too little time would punish the creative. That's why it was initially so low. I tend to think copyright would be more appropriate to be something owned about 30-40 years, IF the owner exercises their rights to renew the copyright, should it be worth anything. Perhaps a minor fee or percentage of copyright revenue could be paid by the artist to maintain it a bit longer than that. Many aren't worth much commercially, and should fall into the public domain much earlier, because otherwise, copyright extensions become a kind of theft from the public and its heritage.

"your last sentence gives me the impression that you feel that ONLY the record label benefits from a copyright."

After an artist is dead, yes... the artist isn't going to benefit from their copyright. Only the label is. And copyright law wasn't intended to protect the artist's grandchildren or great great great grandchildren, as you might expect with the current copyright regulations saying "life of the artist + seventy years". Indeed, many artists lose ownership to their own copyrights during their lifetime, forced to trade it, or parts of it, away for a little attention from the industry that passed them by.

I knew Cab Calloway's family, who were in precisely this situation, with a music industry person claiming that Cab had signed away his rights. The family had to fight legally for years to gain back a section of his music's rights, so it's oftentimes a very nebulous and litigious thing, where rights naturally tend to flow from the artists to the industry, often in an exploitative manner.

"To have their work "fall" as you say "into the hands of the public, as part of their common history" is for after death. Not during life, when their LIFE'S work is depended upon to pay the bills."

Firstly, this was clearly not the intent of the Constitution, which set the time period as limited, in order to encourage new creation and new arts. Secondly, you're suggesting that copyright law *SHOULD* do exactly what the RIAA was created to do back around the 1920s.

The RIAA was set up because classic performers and songwriters whose songs were still being played on the radio and performed routinely by other artists were destitute and oftentimes homeless after their careers ended. That's why radio royalties were created.

Unfortunately, the RIAA has been wildly unsuccessful at actually achieving their intended purpose of providing for musicians. Instead, the system oftentimes make those in the music business who least need the money -- including the lawyers -- richer than they already were.

Copyrights haven't done much better. A good case-in-point is the musician Momus, who recorded for 4AD and Creation Records, which is now a subsidiary of Sony Music. He also currently writes for Wired. Sony has no intent to redistribute most of Creation's back catalog -- which includes many of Momus' albums -- so last Christmas, Momus gave his Creation Records catalog away online for free, digitally, via his blog.

"Loss leaders", indeed... and he might as well have, as it drove people to his site who bought his latest album. In that sense, Momus actually does what copyright law suggests he should... he keeps creating, and uses digital distribution more than most to keep his costs low.

That said, Robert Smith is right, in that Momus isn't making a lot of money this way. He isn't through the labels either, and certainly not through the RIAA and other music industry associations. If the social safety net that developed after the Great Depression didn't exist, and if he didn't write and teach, he probably wouldn't have much of a retirement to look forward to.

So, artist ownership of their works isn't a panacea. Oftentimes, ownership gives the music industry reasons to exploit artists a second time, arguably when they are most vulnerable. Either you make a deal that greatly benefits them and oftentimes has the artist assume most of the actual risk, in order to get *some* attention to their works... or you get ignored.

These sorts of deals work great, perhaps, if you're Radiohead and have a bit of pull... and fine if you're The Cure... but not so well if you're like most everyone else... the other 99.999% of musicians.

So, yes, I would like to see solutions that protect and reward artists. Unfortunately, the existing solutions are increasingly broken... and your suggestion that somehow average musicians are going to be protected by extending copyright ad infinitum, despite what the founders of the U.S. Constitution had to say about it, is empty... a hollow promise, because 99% of the value of musical copyrights are derived in the first few years of ownership... and there are a lot of bigname bands who got gold records only a few years ago who saw almost all of that money go to the recording industry.

So, if they can't even be counted on to make money with the music industry when they're young and popular with a brand-new hit getting significant airplay, how are they supposed to do it when they're old and gray?!

Re: Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

markkraft wrote:
"i don't understand what you are saying here. do you feel that the artist should NOT have a lifelong copyright on his/her own works?"

The US Constitution was clear that copyrights were only intended for a "limited time" in order to encourage the arts, after which it falls into the public domain. That doesn't mean that the artist *CAN'T* sell their work after that point... indeed, nobody else could sell it better. It just means that they don't have the exclusive right to do so.

The creators of copyright law were very much aware that too long a time period would stifle growth, competition, and fair use, and remove the incentive to keep creating and improving... while too little time would punish the creative. That's why it was initially so low. I tend to think copyright would be more appropriate to be something owned about 30-40 years, IF the owner exercises their rights to renew the copyright, should it be worth anything. Perhaps a minor fee or percentage of copyright revenue could be paid by the artist to maintain it a bit longer than that. Many aren't worth much commercially, and should fall into the public domain much earlier, because otherwise, copyright extensions become a kind of theft from the public and its heritage.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Meritaten, that was exactly well put.

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

I think the idea of artists providing music for free is asinine. This is not even fit for debate--do people make movies for free? Write for free? etc? How is an artist expected to produce if they have no means to pay the bills?

BUT

(and here comes a rant, but I swear it's all in good fun)

As I found myself buying The Clash's London Calling for the fourth time (I'm 40--I have an excuse), I felt that, upon scanning the CD and seeing the name on my credit card, the lovely clerk should have said "Sir, I'm showing here that you have had to purcase this particular Clash album three times previously, so now this one is on the house. If a drunk roomate nicks it, or (more likely at my age) your three year old daughter uses it as a drink coaster, just come in and pick another one up." I have, since the cd was released in 1989, owned at least 5 copies of Disintegration. Now sure, it's not Bob's fault I've had to do that, but how many times do I have to re-buy Rocket to Russia or Bad Music for Bad People? My music collection would be at least three times bigger, if not for all the damn beer.

In all seriousness, being an artist is, at the end of the day, a JOB, one that should be rewarded with the means to support one's self and produce more art. Anyone that says otherwise is really a cheap, selfish bastard.

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

I agree. I work in the building trade and wouldn't want to give my services for free. I have a living to make. Apply it to your world and circumstances and it takes on a whole new meaning. All work, if you care about it, can be Art.

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

many people have their main hobby as listening music. In the modern days fast culture music is keen in every party example for birthdays, marriages, etc. They are various songs available in the entire music world. The best ways to Download songs for clubbing and dancing are provided my us for more details on best music..
_________
Haddin



Download Songs

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

See, now that isn't nice. Virtually everyone agrees we need to pay for what we use. And so the guy posts a link for free downloads. For all we know you'll get trojans and you'll be joining the local botnet ... your PC will awaken in the night and do the zombie thing for them stealing passwords and distributing Viagra spam ...

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

J24SevenBob wrote:
See, now that isn't nice. Virtually everyone agrees we need to pay for what we use. And so the guy posts a link for free downloads. For all we know you'll get trojans and you'll be joining the local botnet ... your PC will awaken in the night and do the zombie thing for them stealing passwords and distributing Viagra spam ...

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

it's not actually free when you're selling your dignified soul for a few "free" songs from a questionable site.

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

ti8tgowbb wrote:
it's not actually free when you're selling your dignified soul for a few "free" songs from a questionable site.

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Post again your hotness!

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Ghostpetals wrote:
Post again your hotness!

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Ghostpetals wrote:
Post again your hotness!

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Free music really is an unrealistic concept (especially when there's no firewall on your computer! (I will have my revenge Sorcha!)). Plus, most of the sites with free downloads are illegal as it is (ie: sites like limewire are full of viruses, not music (glares at Sorcha for not realising this and destroying computer (I'm using the laptop)). But then you have the people from really mainstream bands who seem to be doing much better than the rest of us but still sell their music at ridiculously high prices. My dad wanted to get U2's new album, so I was going to get it for him for his birthday... untill I saw the price! 15euro! And that was the cheapest I could find without using ebay (I have to use my dads ebay profile so he'd know what he was getting for his birthday), and I refuse to pay that much for any album (unless its a CD/DVD album that is), no matter how good the band is! In the end I replaced an Iron Maiden album for him instead (since I was pissed about my mum throwing out aswell). I got Powerslave for a fiver in a second hand record stall (can't remember where that market was, but they had loads of stuff), and it was in near perfect condition (the cover's a little dog-eared, but the record plays perfectly. It was a real help that we have a USB turntable so we don't have to spend the next few years trying to track down all these albums on CD (most of which were probs never released on CD anyway).

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Nothing....just bump

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Flammatory words!

Writing as one of those artists who has been giving away their art for free via the internet - the question of so what then next?

I remember starting my career as a "professional" musician in the early 90s being told by the Musician's Union that initially I should be prepared to do some work for nothing to get known... two years later the same people told me I had a psychological problem because I was giving my work away for free... I was known as a musician who'd work for the love of it. As soon as I demanded a fee the calls actually stopped coming.

I have funded "official" registered releases, being careful to make sure it was all done according to good sound Prince's Trust approved advice... but after lots of reading/writing up paperwork/reports and following protocols and encountering the red-tape, I simply ran out of money and the studio still needed paying - I found myself selling equipment and painting the studio, feeling quite shattered.

Since going online in 2000 there has been a steady outflow from my website, many downloads of my work - ok not bucketloads, but if each visitor to the site paid even just 10p I'd easily reduce the financial impact of my fuel bills and actually on most months I could even be paying the mortgage and saving a bit!

My work is published directly to my own, written and managed website...
BUT DESPITE ADDING CLICK BUTTONS TO ALLOW PAYPAL DONATIONS; CREATING EMAIL LINKS TO ALLOW ANY USERS TO PLEDGE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OR BUY CDR; AND THE LIKE (EVEN GETTING MY ART AVAILABLE THROUGH LEGAL MAJOR MUSIC DOWNLOAD SITES)... to date I've made NOTHING (not even from advertising)

BAH
but waiting & forever onwards

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Spider Swings wrote:
Flammatory words!

Writing as one of those artists who has been giving away their art for free via the internet - the question of so what then next?

I remember starting my career as a "professional" musician in the early 90s being told by the Musician's Union that initially I should be prepared to do some work for nothing to get known... two years later the same people told me I had a psychological problem because I was giving my work away for free... I was known as a musician who'd work for the love of it. As soon as I demanded a fee the calls actually stopped coming.

I have funded "official" registered releases, being careful to make sure it was all done according to good sound Prince's Trust approved advice... but after lots of reading/writing up paperwork/reports and following protocols and encountering the red-tape, I simply ran out of money and the studio still needed paying - I found myself selling equipment and painting the studio, feeling quite shattered.

Since going online in 2000 there has been a steady outflow from my website, many downloads of my work - ok not bucketloads, but if each visitor to the site paid even just 10p I'd easily reduce the financial impact of my fuel bills and actually on most months I could even be paying the mortgage and saving a bit!

My work is published directly to my own, written and managed website...
BUT DESPITE ADDING CLICK BUTTONS TO ALLOW PAYPAL DONATIONS; CREATING EMAIL LINKS TO ALLOW ANY USERS TO PLEDGE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OR BUY CDR; AND THE LIKE (EVEN GETTING MY ART AVAILABLE THROUGH LEGAL MAJOR MUSIC DOWNLOAD SITES)... to date I've made NOTHING (not even from advertising)

BAH
but waiting & forever onwards

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

...Spider Swings...went to your my space...your music is good...I know it is hard...I could come up with a million ideas ...I do know that my space is kind of dead and not cutting edge any more...I myself don't do Face Book but everyone I know goes there...try that and You Tube...I do that...and I go there for some good Indie music and to network a little...I won't give out that address here, too much history here and too many nutty people...you can put faces and vids to music there...good luck don't know what else to say...

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

thank you - that means a lot
I'm now off to createspace!

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

It seems there is no space for any kind of appreciation in society any more. It's all 'What can I get for free?'. People only care about themselves.

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

...good Spider....

....and Lament...that is different from when?...I'm sorry but people have always been selfish bastards...it is part of the survival mechanism...there is no "Golden Age" at least not for the working class...one has to claw their way to the top and to feed themselves and their family....sad but true...and then you die...

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Free music ? Nah just good music is important and I'll happily pay for it.

Internet has many advantages but it kind of ruined the magic of the moment when one waits for a new release.

The music most of the time is out there before its physical appearance.

I'm probably old fashioned but paying for a data file feels like paying for air. I want plastic for my money with a booklet and lyrics.

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

If I'm gonna pay for something it needs to be in physical form. Sorry, but since the whole MP3 thing I have only paid for some Cure songs and maybe one or two other songs via MP3 downloads. I just rather have a CD/DVD in my hands. Btw, an interesting thing, music pre-loaded onto flash drives, replaying CD's and DVD's, I could go for that, maybe. Check this service out.. http://www.aderra.net/ Has The Cure ever done this?

Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

Basileus wrote:
...good Spider....

....and Lament...that is different from when?...I'm sorry but people have always been selfish bastards...it is part of the survival mechanism...there is no "Golden Age" at least not for the working class...one has to claw their way to the top and to feed themselves and their family....sad but true...and then you die...

Re: Re: Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

frostedwheats wrote:

Basileus wrote:
...good Spider....

....and Lament...that is different from when?...I'm sorry but people have always been selfish bastards...it is part of the survival mechanism...there is no "Golden Age" at least not for the working class...one has to claw their way to the top and to feed themselves and their family....sad but true...and then you die...

What about the exceptions? I certainly do not expect kindness from strangers, I know, but sometimes you have to admit it truly does happen...some people have and do lift themselves up from their survival instincts (or their hedonism) and act for the benefit of someone else...with no strings attached...either that or there are people who just don't think that way.
There is a certain group that has let folks in to see them for free with no strings attached...just to be nice. I know because I was one of them. So please don't think the whole human race is like a pack of wolves, there are some truly kind people out there...(among the ones clawing to the top).

Re: MUSIC FOR FREE?

This is partly why I chose and choose to be an Artist. Music has been with us for so long, we can't do without it.. it makes us whole in living. But what is that thing?!

Something about us being alive and working at the moment where maybe nothing is next but staying there to find out; the evidence that there was at least for now... And, if I've chosen to that and know many receive it so whole-heartedly positive and with gratitude, should I not be paid!? It is a job that needs doing and I am only complete doing it. Whether I'm paid or not doesn't change what I'm doing.

The Tele/Communication Network Industry surely owes Artists pay as a matter of course. After all, we are providing at least a chunk of content via the internet (upheld by the time users spend downloading on the telephone lines paid for); and in turn making Network Industry expense at improving communication lines all the more worth it.

Should I look to a wholly different type of A&R department and Record Company???