A thing has no value if it costs nothing, either in time, space, or material goods to reproduce. Unfortunately, even ideas take some time, and if they are recorded, take space and material goods to reproduce. Further, any idea of merit probably took a master artist a non-trivial amount of time to create. Perhaps some artists feel the reward of creation is it's own payment--but most people live in the real world, and the time it took them to create their idea was time they don't have to spend to make money to put food on their table or a roof over their head.
Do you mean to imply that the simple act of creating music at personal cost merits an entitlement to compensation? I strongly disagree. Since the measure and depth of exposure that a given composition of music receives is subjective and unquantifiable, how does one put a price tag on it? For the past century, a form of sustained exposure to music has been shipped and sold in physical units. The compensation and artist receives is relative to the number of units sold. Simple. Unfortunately (for some), this paradigm is gradually rotting from view, and the sheer complexity of the issue is beginning to reveal itself. Controlling prolongued exposure (or "consumption", as many would prefer to look at it) of publicly-released music is no longer possible. How will musicians compel listeners to pay them? Should be interesting. As I've said a million times before, risk is inherent to being an artist, and I have no sympathy for anyone who eats out of a can because of this fact (as many already do at the low end of the current model).
Good for them if they can make money via the internet. But let them decide whether or not they want to take that route.
How? Artists have never had any control over how listeners choose to distribute their music. Physical limitations have, in the past, afforded musicians/labels some flimsy level of control over it, but the sharing and trading of music among listeners (regardless of the artist's wishes) has been around since the means to do so became available. Should artists be able to decide the ways in which their music is distributed? Perhaps, but such a scenario does not exist in the real world. So they can either a.) live with this fact or b.) avoid releasing anything publicly.
Stop generalizing. Without free exposure to music, 90% of the CDs I own would never have entered my collection. I use Napster, I use Gnutella, I use FTP, I trade tapes, I trade CDs, I listen to the radio. I listen to a fucking ton of music and my initial exposure to it is always without cost. I end up paying for what I feel deserves to be paid for -- music which I can enjoy for a long time, music whose creator I support and admire. It's a greedy philosophy, but evidently it works, because a I blow more of my monthly paycheck on CDs and concerts than anyone else I know.
While I'd agree that the bulk of Napster users are more into mainstream music, I've found plenty of obscure stuff on there (e.g. Mogwai, Flaming Lips, Stereolab, Pavement, Sigur Rós, Sunny Day Real Estate, the Pixies....) It all kinda depends on timing, I guess.
No... he or she didn't set the stipulation that the listeners would have to pay before the song would be performed.
But isn't the expectation that an artist be paid before one can properly form an opinion about their music an undesirable situation? Oftentimes buying albums can be a crapshoot, since you've only experienced a small portion of the music itself. I know that the free availability of music can result in perpetual abuse, but no worthwhile musician should have trouble amassing a decent fanbase (i.e. listeners with their interests in mind) with that kind of exposure... for this reason, I think it will be the one-hit wonders who scream theft and the talented artists who appreciate the free and widespread distribution of their music.
I am in complete disagreement with the notion that everyone should respect "the rights of the artist". Sure, the law is the law, but I fail to see why a musician deserves to be paid simply because they produce music which is being listened to. If I borrow a CD from a friend, listen to it for a month, and return it to him, should I be legally/morally obligated to pay royalties? What if I dub some tunes onto a cassette tape to listen them on my walkman, is that a crime against humanity? Should such things as used record stores and CD stands at flea markets be banned? Should we instill fees for putting on albums in public places, since anyone in the vicinity could be taking in the music without having paid anything? What if the increased "cost-free" exposure of a band's music ends up benefitting them - is the act itself still a disservice?
Consider this analogy: a busker strums folk tunes on a street corner for three days straight, and hundreds of people walk by, hearing his music as the pass, even stopping to listen every so often, and at the end of it all, nobody has dropped any change into his case. Has he been "ripped off"? Have his artistic rights been violated?
In my opinion, revenue should come from people who are compelled by the quality of the music to the extent that they willingly, consciously shell out their hard-earned cash to support the band and promote the continuation of its music. These people are called fans, and they will not disappear with the advent of MP3. If anything, fans will become easier to acquire, since music communities, word-of-mouth and album sampling will become a more prominent force than ever before. A piece of music could be all over the Internet without the slightest hint of paid promotion - that's the beauty of it. Essentially, it leans toward a scenario in which the middlemen (record companies, CD retailers, commercial radio stations) are cut out of the equation, and a band's financial success is directly proportional to the number of people who, out of their own free will, purchase the albums, go to the concerts, and load up on the merchandise, for no reason other than the fact that they want to.
I also disagree with the idea of a musician having the right to sanction the way in which his/her music is heard. Once the cat's out of the bag, you can't honestly expect people to obey your "conditions". I could release an album with fineprint that says "you may not listen to this music if you wear boxer shorts, nor may you distribute this music to anyone who does, because I created it, so there," but no reasonable person is going to pay attention to that. No matter how fervently you flaunt an artist's rights to his own material, it is ultimately the people who will decide the manner in which music is listened to and distributed. Anyone who releases their music to the public has to accept that.
And yes, it's unfortunate that many will neglect to support the bands they listen to, but that's the way it is. You may call this callous or greedy, but I don't give a shit about the welfare of musicians. They are capable human beings just like the rest of us, and they can get real jobs if need be. If they can live comfortably on their listeners' financial support, that's wonderful. But if ten million people pirate an album and nobody buys it, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the artist - the failure to acquire any passionate supporters speaks volumes about the quality of the music. No one cared, so no one paid, so you find other work. That's life.
Basically, the situation we're headed for with the advent of MP3-trading is this: if people want to get a band's music for free, they will. Under such a system, hit-and-miss garbage like Sugar Ray will generate little revenue, whereas music which inspires dedication and loyalty in its listeners will succeed. People have been so ingrained by years of music being treated like a physical commodity to be bought and sold in units that they forget what it actually is - art. Artists whose work breeds no supporters will make no money, regardless of how much exposure it receives. That's the risk inherent to being an artist. I see little injustice in it.
Well, I wouldn't exactly call using historical tragedy as the backdrop for a multimilliondollar action movie/soap opera hybrid 'arty.' I'm leaning more toward 'shameless commercialism.'
Slashdot Mirror
Is blind adherence to artists' wishes regarding their own works the "morally correct" thing to do?
Debatable, but ultimately irrelevent.
A thing has no value if it costs nothing, either in time, space, or material goods to reproduce. Unfortunately, even ideas take some time, and if they are recorded, take space and material goods to reproduce. Further, any idea of merit probably took a master artist a non-trivial amount of time to create. Perhaps some artists feel the reward of creation is it's own payment--but most people live in the real world, and the time it took them to create their idea was time they don't have to spend to make money to put food on their table or a roof over their head.
Do you mean to imply that the simple act of creating music at personal cost merits an entitlement to compensation? I strongly disagree. Since the measure and depth of exposure that a given composition of music receives is subjective and unquantifiable, how does one put a price tag on it? For the past century, a form of sustained exposure to music has been shipped and sold in physical units. The compensation and artist receives is relative to the number of units sold. Simple. Unfortunately (for some), this paradigm is gradually rotting from view, and the sheer complexity of the issue is beginning to reveal itself. Controlling prolongued exposure (or "consumption", as many would prefer to look at it) of publicly-released music is no longer possible. How will musicians compel listeners to pay them? Should be interesting. As I've said a million times before, risk is inherent to being an artist, and I have no sympathy for anyone who eats out of a can because of this fact (as many already do at the low end of the current model).
Good for them if they can make money via the internet. But let them decide whether or not they want to take that route.
How? Artists have never had any control over how listeners choose to distribute their music. Physical limitations have, in the past, afforded musicians/labels some flimsy level of control over it, but the sharing and trading of music among listeners (regardless of the artist's wishes) has been around since the means to do so became available. Should artists be able to decide the ways in which their music is distributed? Perhaps, but such a scenario does not exist in the real world. So they can either a.) live with this fact or b.) avoid releasing anything publicly.
Stop generalizing. Without free exposure to music, 90% of the CDs I own would never have entered my collection. I use Napster, I use Gnutella, I use FTP, I trade tapes, I trade CDs, I listen to the radio. I listen to a fucking ton of music and my initial exposure to it is always without cost. I end up paying for what I feel deserves to be paid for -- music which I can enjoy for a long time, music whose creator I support and admire. It's a greedy philosophy, but evidently it works, because a I blow more of my monthly paycheck on CDs and concerts than anyone else I know.
While I'd agree that the bulk of Napster users are more into mainstream music, I've found plenty of obscure stuff on there (e.g. Mogwai, Flaming Lips, Stereolab, Pavement, Sigur Rós, Sunny Day Real Estate, the Pixies....) It all kinda depends on timing, I guess.
Mutton Birds.
"No, man, like, uh, your band sucks."
God forbid your own personal distaste in a piece of music not be universal...
No... he or she didn't set the stipulation that the listeners would have to pay before the song would be performed.
But isn't the expectation that an artist be paid before one can properly form an opinion about their music an undesirable situation? Oftentimes buying albums can be a crapshoot, since you've only experienced a small portion of the music itself. I know that the free availability of music can result in perpetual abuse, but no worthwhile musician should have trouble amassing a decent fanbase (i.e. listeners with their interests in mind) with that kind of exposure... for this reason, I think it will be the one-hit wonders who scream theft and the talented artists who appreciate the free and widespread distribution of their music.
I am in complete disagreement with the notion that everyone should respect "the rights of the artist". Sure, the law is the law, but I fail to see why a musician deserves to be paid simply because they produce music which is being listened to. If I borrow a CD from a friend, listen to it for a month, and return it to him, should I be legally/morally obligated to pay royalties? What if I dub some tunes onto a cassette tape to listen them on my walkman, is that a crime against humanity? Should such things as used record stores and CD stands at flea markets be banned? Should we instill fees for putting on albums in public places, since anyone in the vicinity could be taking in the music without having paid anything? What if the increased "cost-free" exposure of a band's music ends up benefitting them - is the act itself still a disservice?
Consider this analogy: a busker strums folk tunes on a street corner for three days straight, and hundreds of people walk by, hearing his music as the pass, even stopping to listen every so often, and at the end of it all, nobody has dropped any change into his case. Has he been "ripped off"? Have his artistic rights been violated?
In my opinion, revenue should come from people who are compelled by the quality of the music to the extent that they willingly, consciously shell out their hard-earned cash to support the band and promote the continuation of its music. These people are called fans, and they will not disappear with the advent of MP3. If anything, fans will become easier to acquire, since music communities, word-of-mouth and album sampling will become a more prominent force than ever before. A piece of music could be all over the Internet without the slightest hint of paid promotion - that's the beauty of it. Essentially, it leans toward a scenario in which the middlemen (record companies, CD retailers, commercial radio stations) are cut out of the equation, and a band's financial success is directly proportional to the number of people who, out of their own free will, purchase the albums, go to the concerts, and load up on the merchandise, for no reason other than the fact that they want to.
I also disagree with the idea of a musician having the right to sanction the way in which his/her music is heard. Once the cat's out of the bag, you can't honestly expect people to obey your "conditions". I could release an album with fineprint that says "you may not listen to this music if you wear boxer shorts, nor may you distribute this music to anyone who does, because I created it, so there," but no reasonable person is going to pay attention to that. No matter how fervently you flaunt an artist's rights to his own material, it is ultimately the people who will decide the manner in which music is listened to and distributed. Anyone who releases their music to the public has to accept that.
And yes, it's unfortunate that many will neglect to support the bands they listen to, but that's the way it is. You may call this callous or greedy, but I don't give a shit about the welfare of musicians. They are capable human beings just like the rest of us, and they can get real jobs if need be. If they can live comfortably on their listeners' financial support, that's wonderful. But if ten million people pirate an album and nobody buys it, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the artist - the failure to acquire any passionate supporters speaks volumes about the quality of the music. No one cared, so no one paid, so you find other work. That's life.
Basically, the situation we're headed for with the advent of MP3-trading is this: if people want to get a band's music for free, they will. Under such a system, hit-and-miss garbage like Sugar Ray will generate little revenue, whereas music which inspires dedication and loyalty in its listeners will succeed. People have been so ingrained by years of music being treated like a physical commodity to be bought and sold in units that they forget what it actually is - art. Artists whose work breeds no supporters will make no money, regardless of how much exposure it receives. That's the risk inherent to being an artist. I see little injustice in it.
Bahh. Triangle Man circumscribes the universe.
What eBay decides to close or let slide tends to be pretty arbitrary.
Get into some bands who release worthwhile albums as opposed to single/filler albums. Hint: you're not likely to find them on the radio.
No way! Monorail ep is a classic...
Well, I wouldn't exactly call using historical tragedy as the backdrop for a multimilliondollar action movie/soap opera hybrid 'arty.' I'm leaning more toward 'shameless commercialism.'