The poor guy is just conflicted, and wants the best of both worlds: he wants it free for people to listen to, but they gotta pay for it to make him rich.
I find it interesting that the more I read on music, the more apparent it is to me that there are a very few (dozens, maybe hundreds) out of the millions of bands that actually make rock-star kinda money.
For the rest: it's just a dream the label sold them.
Aw, come on now, give us musicians a little more credit than that. Some of us, like Damien, are educated, motivated, quick-thinking folks who are trying to make a *living*, not necessarily millions, from playing music. Does that make us stupid? It shouldn't, not if music fans still want music to listen to.
This is clearly a two-way street: musicians should be figuring out the best way to produce good music and get it to fans and potential fans, and fans should be concerned about whether the system encourages the good musicians at the bottom to rise to the top.
One facile answer is to say, "Give the music away for free and make your money from playing live. If you can't play a live show, you shouldn't be trying to make a living this way."
The problem with this argument is you'll lose out on all the great musicians who (a) construct amazing music using the studio itself as an instrument (vide Radiohead, who still put on a great live show, Praxis, you name it -- even Mingus overdubbed a bass solo from time to time), and who (b) have something to offer you but for one reason or another can't tour. Ever tried touring? Ever tried it with kids? With a job that doesn't let you take more than a few days off at a time? With a bad back?
The easy answer is not the right one, not in a situation where we want good music from both the well-known and the obscure. And don't think that indie labels are somehow the be-all, end-all; any musician on an indie label can tell you plenty of stories to put an end to that fantasy. Some indies have their hearts in the right place, but no money to realize their intentions; some are little people trying to be industry players; and others, a very few, do it right.
The labels owe it to the musicians and to the fans to put out music in a format and at a price that makes sense. The fans owe it to the musicians to support them financially if they like the music. One positive model for P2P is this: download some tracks by a band you've never heard, or from an album you don't know; if you like the music, go buy the album. If you don't like the music, you won't those tracks on your hard drive anyway, so erase them.
The question for my model, and for many other similar suggestions, is this: can we all trust each other?
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be over NYC in ten minutes or so...I'll set an alarm to look out the window. Too bad we can't just ping.
The poor guy is just conflicted, and wants the best of both worlds: he wants it free for people to listen to, but they gotta pay for it to make him rich. I find it interesting that the more I read on music, the more apparent it is to me that there are a very few (dozens, maybe hundreds) out of the millions of bands that actually make rock-star kinda money. For the rest: it's just a dream the label sold them.
Aw, come on now, give us musicians a little more credit than that. Some of us, like Damien, are educated, motivated, quick-thinking folks who are trying to make a *living*, not necessarily millions, from playing music. Does that make us stupid? It shouldn't, not if music fans still want music to listen to.
This is clearly a two-way street: musicians should be figuring out the best way to produce good music and get it to fans and potential fans, and fans should be concerned about whether the system encourages the good musicians at the bottom to rise to the top.
One facile answer is to say, "Give the music away for free and make your money from playing live. If you can't play a live show, you shouldn't be trying to make a living this way."
The problem with this argument is you'll lose out on all the great musicians who (a) construct amazing music using the studio itself as an instrument (vide Radiohead, who still put on a great live show, Praxis, you name it -- even Mingus overdubbed a bass solo from time to time), and who (b) have something to offer you but for one reason or another can't tour. Ever tried touring? Ever tried it with kids? With a job that doesn't let you take more than a few days off at a time? With a bad back?
The easy answer is not the right one, not in a situation where we want good music from both the well-known and the obscure. And don't think that indie labels are somehow the be-all, end-all; any musician on an indie label can tell you plenty of stories to put an end to that fantasy. Some indies have their hearts in the right place, but no money to realize their intentions; some are little people trying to be industry players; and others, a very few, do it right.
The labels owe it to the musicians and to the fans to put out music in a format and at a price that makes sense. The fans owe it to the musicians to support them financially if they like the music. One positive model for P2P is this: download some tracks by a band you've never heard, or from an album you don't know; if you like the music, go buy the album. If you don't like the music, you won't those tracks on your hard drive anyway, so erase them.
The question for my model, and for many other similar suggestions, is this: can we all trust each other?