Should ALL music be free?
 

Some music is art, some is just pure buisness, and is only made to make money. Most of the people who makes music for the art, does not have the making of money as a main priority. I've seen it alot the past years, artists like Britney Spears, which hires a sweedish music expert (Max Martin) to make money. By the way, Max Martin have made songs for many artists *COUGH* artists...

Does this change the way you though of music?

I'm not very tempted to buy as much music as I used to. Mostly listen to radio, cause that is how much money I think the commercial artists derserves.

I am sure you can pin out lots of artists which are artists, but there is mucho crapo out these days.

A muscician shouldn't be greedy, he/she should be proud of it, get a job, and play for fun instead. Commercial music isn't any better than other music, but the commercial music spits so much money into promotion, it almost brain-washes you to like it.

Anyone?

If they gave guitars out for free...

Who needs guitars anyway? :p

Why would music be free!? They work atleast just as hard as you do at your job, yet you don't give your services away for free.

That's what I am trying to say, most of the artits of the commercial music, isn't their own work, only preformed by some "chosen" star after auditions... if you wanna do something, you should do it yourself. Better to preform music by heart and not what the label tells you to.

I am no fan of covers either by the way, and the amount of ppl trying to make money on others art is almost sick these days.

If you play covers, I think one should play it cause it's a good song, not to make it into something to make money of.

Any artist who makes any kind of profit from album sales probably isn't worth listening to.

Buy me all of the equipment I need and I can make you great music. I am currently penny pinching so i can RENT a flute. It took me forever to acquire the saxes.

I've bought all my music equipment by saving money. Of course I don't get to choosen by the most expensive stuff, which I really wish I could, but I have a guitar, some studio equipment like mixer, microphone, I've got a couple of synthesizers and some EFX modules, and some sofware for audio on my computer.

Have anyone heard the latest song from Britney by the way? I've seen it on MTV a couple of times, the video, and can anyone tell me what on earth is so great about that tune? I didn't catch the tracks name... also the latest of JLO brings shivers down my spine, cause I know she can do better than that.. :p

I'm ashamed to own that album...

I think artists should be paid for their work. Are you saying britney doesn't work hard? sure she can't sing but it's not easy to learn all that dance shit and whatnot. Additionally, what about the people that write her music? they get a part of the profits from album sales, they worked hard to write the pop song, don't they deserve some money?

I don't think music should be free, but I do think it should cost much less than it does. If the entertainment industry can sell a DVD (1.5 - 3 hours of video and sound) for 10 bucks, then a CD (.5 - 1.2 hours of just sound) should cost about 5-7 bucks max.

Music is the intellectual property of the person or company who owns the copyright to it. Yes, it's art (well, most of it ;) ), but legally it's licensed and protected similar to the way software is.

And as for artists being greedy, I agree that neither they nor anyone else should be greedy. But greed is practically human nature. Insisting that music artists not be greedy is no more valid than expecting bankers, car salesmen or ditch-diggers not to be greedy.

If someone plays, records and gives away their music because they think that's the way it should be can certainly do so. But those who want to make a living at it have this right too.

The bottom line is that music artists should be able to make money just as the rest of us do. Their products (songs) are protected by law. Music is licensed to fans, not sold to them. When music is sold that means the rights to it are sold.

I'm not preaching anti-piracy. Goodness knows I've "remotely archived" plenty of music without paying license fees. :) I'm on your side, PulseDriver. I'm (yet again) torn between what I want and what is right. My argument on this subject is practically playing devil's advocate.

But like it or not, musicians have the right to make a living at what they're good at. I do, and most other people do as well. Expecting them to only make money from concerts and merchandising isn't realistic. Not many artists could make enough to reasonably survive that way. And expecting them to do the noble thing and live in cardboard boxes as they give away "what should belong to the world" isn't realistic either. I sure as hell wouldn't give away my work as an IT manager.

The DMCA was created to protect the rights of the owners of music. Whether any form of art should be licensed is a huge, well-worn argument (that's been discussed in many threads here and in many other forums).

Anyone who truly believes that musicians should give away their music should only acquire and listen to free music.

I agree. And actually, I never pay full price for CDs anymore. Since I rip my CDs losslessly on my home network, I buy them used for most often between $0.50 and $7.00 apiece. The CD gets one trip through my player, then is stored away in a closet as original backup media. Even used, if a CD reads once successfully, it'll do so the few rare times I'd ever have to put it in a CD player again.

I recently got tired of the sucky encodes I got with a lot of downloaded music...poor lowpassing, dropouts, ripping with DSP turned on ( :igor: ), bad gain settings, clicks/glitches, using full stereo with lossy compression ( :igor: ), etc. I decided to buy CDs to replace all the music I.....*ahem*...don't have the original discs for. This past week I spent around $150 and got around 50 CDs. Beats the hell outta paying $15 per disc. I don't care so much if the case or liner notes are worn...I'm interested in sound quality, and in controlling exactly how extraction, compression and tagging are done.

This is why control freaks usually aren't downloaders. :p

Well for starters: I don't buy music cause I think the artist is good at dancing... whatsoever. I have a totaly different opinion on the people that actually make the music for these artist... like Max Martin, and his friend that died some years back cause of cancer, Dennis Pop, alos a great music writer.

Yeah, I agree that it would be better a little cheaper. Let me put it this way: Do you think Britney Spears work X many times as you do, since she got a villa X times more expensive than your appartment? :D

EDIT: Also, even if most games created today are crap (based on the same reasons) of making them into big business, however much of the music is really great (often greater than the game itself), and I can mention games like Icewind Dale, some tracks of Shadow Warrior and Little Big Adventure... so on. Lots of great music I think, and they do it for much less money, and is twice as good as any of the commercial artists I've heard lately.

Also Michael Hönig made some good music for baldur's gate.

Also I found this playlist while I was looking for some links to some of the music I mentioned, but I didn't find it. However, I think the person that generated that playlist is kinda too fond of game music lol.

so buy the soundtracks to those games, find out who the composers are and buy more music by them.

I can't really argue the merit of buying britney spears' music because I think it sucks and I can't even imagine buying it. No britney probably doesn't work any harder than I do but she creates something that millions of people have decided to pay her to own a copy. Occasionally I create art and if 5 million people decided to pay me 20$ for a copy of that art, do you think I shouldn't deserve it because I don't work any harder than you do?

I don't think Donald Trump works any harder than I do either, but he deserves whatever money he can earn. We all do. Welcome to the Free Market™. ;)

Yes, but if you promoted the work you do (prolly somethin that can't be copied like music), but you could probably start your own firm, hire more ppl, as you getting bigger. Imagine getting brain-washed by Mattress Special Service 50 times a day on television.. think you would sell some services then :D

ScorLibran: I don't know who Donald Trump is (an American Super Hero?) but there is a difference of the satisfaction of art, than doing business. I think it's wrong to make music on greed, and when the outcome is crap as well, I really don't think that can even be called work.

Most good music is made by emotion, such as Alanis Morrisette's first album, which got good critics, and her second or third lacked the emotion and got dumped by the critics (prolly since her life turned around and she didn't miss anything in life anymore). It's almost like you can hear the sound of greed these days...

I think they should sell music with a 1 year warranty :D

wait 20 years, I WILL OWN YOU ALL!!!

He's one of the richest people in the world. He's owns many companies, and over the years made all of his money from almost nothing. I personally don't like him much...I think he's a snotty worm.....but he's a rich snotty worm, and he's earned the right to be so.

Capitalism is a powerful thing. I agree with you that art shouldn't be treated like any other item of work, but I'm torn between that idea and the concept of protecting intellectual property. It's up to the artist as to how much money they want to (try to) make. The ones who agree that art belongs to the world will give their art away. Those who want to make a living at it will charge money for their art. And both kinds of artist will be right in their actions.

Yes, indeed. But it's the way of the world, like it or not. As I've said, I don't like it either. But we each either accept it or we don't.

That's a great idea! Even a one week warranty would suffice. Long enough to sit down and listen to an album all the way through.

Not gonna happen, though. :(

Well, I for sure know none of this is never gonna happen, but I admire the artists that can make really good music wihtout having to promote them selves by commercials...

They strive for satisfaction, and that's what art should be.

Glad you see my point of view ;)

Ashamed!! THAT CD OWNS!!... As an eerie enough fact, I was listening to that right now... That's creepy... And for the record, I actually bought it.

That's an even better example by the fact that her first album was recorded in the engineer's house with limited equipment. It wasn't an album about production values.

I know :) That's what I call art, and really applies to me. I also think if I know the music is a cover or a commercial release, I automatically get distant to it, even if it's "good" music, but if I know that, I no longer see it as good music.

Lately I've heard some good stuff from Foo Fighters... and isn't the vocalist an ex-member of Nirvana? Anyways, I've liked what I've heard so far. Don't know much about them though. Think I am going to the music store to listen within this week.

IMO it should be just as with software:
Free and donate money if you like it.

But much software is like that. I have yet to see music which is free but you can donate if you feel like it.

Dave Grohl is his name, and I don't think he was ever with Nirvana.

(And I like him too, he's an amazing musician. He's a songwriter, singer, guitarist, bassist, drummer, pianist and many other things as well.)

Um he wasn't with Nirvana? M'kay take a look at this :)
http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Dave_Grohl.html

Also notice this in the right column:

performed with:

Nirvana
Foo Fighters
Queens of the Stone Age
Nine Inch Nails
Kurt Cobain
Chris Novoselic
Chad Channing
Taylor Hawkins
Mike Watt
David Bowie
Butch Vig
Mark Plati
Steve Albini
Kristeen Young
Martha Mooke
Gregor Kitzis
Gerry Leonard
Mary Wooten
Tony Visconti
John Read
Brian Rawling
Gary Miller
Scott Litt
Tony Levin

....and many more

Also with Tenacious D. He's the evil in "Tribute".

As an example of how greedy artists can be, the band faithless sued a french musician for using a sound which sounded almost like the sample they used on their track Insomnia, and I have heard both... (this is not about ripping) it's a sound for a synthesizer, it's not even a similar melody.. it's just the sound of the instrument that have similareties...

I mean WTF!! Should I sue everyone that use a "piano like" sound cause I used piano in my song... or sue someone cause they bought the same synthesizer as I did? Hello, how greedy can one be... *sigh*

EDIT: They lost at least... they couldn't win with such greedy intent

you havn't seen my latest paycheck.

When I do buy music I buy used cds but I still do pay for music.

I download all my songs because 9 times out of 10 i only like that one song and buying the album of that artist would be a waste of money. Most of the stuff i listen to is from sites that offer free music though or sites that offer radio.

VanKatoen, one of my favourite (Dutch) bands, they've been in the top-40 but you still can download their albums from their website. Latest album: http://www.vankatoen.nl/gratiscd_form9.html just fill in the form (with nonsense if you like) and start downloading. They even recommend it. :D

Excuse me! But the album is to result of hours of time & lots of money invested in studio time & advertisments. To lable any artist who makes a profit off of their album worthless is just......retarded. Wow, I just quoted a really stupid post. :eek:

Re: Should ALL music be free?
 

I won't go as far as to say all music should be free. But I'll go this far:

Record labels should be abolished. They are the reason many bands can never get exposure, we hear and see the same homogonized crap on TV and radio and are the sole reason for nearly 80 % or more of the price of a CD.

With current technology a band can record it's own music, hire their own producers, have their own CD's pressed and released and pretty much everything else the record labels do.

Since it's pretty well known artists average twenty five cents to sometimes as high as a buck and a half on the price of an 18.99 CD eliminating the record labels would allow a CD to be sold for six bucks, the artists income would double and the world of music would again belong to the musicians and the music fans. Right now billions and billions of dollars go to the pockets of the fat bastards at the record labels, musicians get next to nothing and the world of music suffers from their control.

So, no, music should not be free - it should only be free of the record label monopoly. If one would disagree with this I'd have to ask them why the labels deserve to make 16.50 when the artists who make the music only make 1.50.

Obedo, You just like to argue with me.
95% of musicians go in the hole when recording, because not only do they make a measly 00.5% of album sales, they have to foot the bill for recording costs and media exposure.

Most bands make thier money from touring and merch sales.

Anyone who makes a living off selling recordings (at this point in music) is a just another record label tool, and therefore, really not worth buying.

Actually, I do really enjoy arguing with you. You usally have really good arguments (thats a compliment) Okay, so their a tool, but even the biggest tool like Metallica can rock....at least at one point in their lives. Just becouse a band is a complete sell out & overly greedy, doesn't mean that their music is worthless...

That's your opinion. :p

About arguing or music?

Actually he has played with many, many people. You could make the "Who's Dave Grohl played with?" list a lot shorter by just saying "Everyone". ;)

I used to have the same problem...liking a song, buying the CD, and never liking more than one or two songs on it. Paying $15 for one or two songs in insane.

But I need losslessly encoded music, which for the most part rules out downloading.

So here's my solution.....I find a song I like, and:

(1) Look up the song on allmusic.com and find the artist it's from and the album it's on.

(2) Go to amazon.com and sample several songs from the album. If I like the album enough, I'll look for a used copy of it. (NOTE: Each album I consider has an opportunity cost. I'll think "OK, I'll pay up to $9 for this one. But no more than $4 for that one." And so forth.)

(3) If I find a copy of the CD for a price I'm willing to pay, in an acceptable described condition and from a seller that's trustworthy, I'll buy it. If not, I go to the next step.

(4) Go back to allmusic.com and get a list of what various artist compilation album(s) the song appears on. This works for pretty much all except the newest songs (which aren't on any various artist compilations yet).

(5) Sample each compilation album on amazon.com. If I find one that I like, and if there's a used copy for sale within my opportunity cost (and from a seller I trust, etc.), then I buy it.

The whole process takes about 5 minutes.

And if I end up not finding a deal I like, then I repeat steps (4) and (5) once every few weeks until I find an acceptable deal, or look for another source to buy from, or decide I like the song enough to raise my opportunity cost, or decide I don't like the song enough to ever buy it at all.

Using this method I haven't come away empty handed yet, having bought some 100 CDs this way, and only spending a few hundred dollars. Buying them all new would have cost me $1500 or so.

And most importantly I'm assured every time to have an album I like, and one I can rip losslessly myself. No more $15 "one hit" CDs, and no more downloading crappy encode-jobs. Not to mention leaving behind the fear of getting that dreaded "RIAA" letter from my ISP. :)

Basically any sound that has been put on any type of material...sucks. Basically all music that is not being currently played live for free... sucks. Sorry but I agree with Obedo.. that was an incredibly stupid thing to say (at least if you meant it seriously).


Art is a craft, its a skill, its a talent. I don't know where this whole "art should be free" bullshit came from but it certainly wasn't an artist. Creativity and art is beautiful and all but I don't know why people think it should be given to them for free, as if its some right they are entitled to. If you think that you deserve to listen to music for free or admire art for free then (because art is a skill just like any other) you should also think that your accountant should do your taxes for free, that the bus driver should drive you for free. Basically anybody that has the skill to do something you can't or don't want to, should do it for you...for free.

Damn. Now THATS one idiotic fool if I've heard of one.

How fucked up is it to walk down the street and see your favorite band beg for change and you say to them "Hey I like your music, good thing you're doing it for free LIKE YOU SHOULD!" oh but when the band gets off their asses gets in touch with people that can make it so hundreds of people listen to their music you end up sending them hate letters like "FUCKEN SELL OUTS!! YOU SUCK!!"

Art is a craft, its a skill, its a talent. Its something you should pay for if you want to experience it just like ANY other skill, talent, or craft.

Wow! what a mis-read.

See, I'm not the only one convenced that your an idiot...:p j/k

you're :p