R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Total Members Voted: 0


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Poll: Should Music Be Free?  (Read 9627 times)

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2006, 04:36:33 pm »

covert wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 11:35

Music should be available at cost plus.  That would be, enough so that the artist is recompensed reasonably, and the people that really make the process can earn a decent living.  For the most part, record company types aren't necessary to the process.

The question that never seems to come up, in these discussions of downloading etc., is, Would you happily pay the artist royalty (around a nickel per song) for the stuff you take free?


the typical artiste deal on a major is anywhere from 12-20 percent of retail.

that's the ARTISTE royalty... the songwriter ALSO gets a Mechanical royalty per song.

plus, let;'s say you pay the artiste that amount, say $3.50 an album... who pays him back for the cost of rehearsing, recording (including engineers and producers and strings and sticks and housing and whatever during the making of the record) and the cost of production (mastering and manufacturing the CD's/printing the sleeves), promotion (did he pay for ads so that you KNOW about this CD in the first place?)...

you can;t expect to give people 5 cents a track and expect them to actualy be able to create something viable; at least not for a LIVING.

so then the argument becomes: should the actual recording and sale of music be a loss leader to simply promote OTHER money making activities such as t-shirt sales and live performances?

I think the music ITSELF should be valued more highly.

Why should an artiste be "fairly compensated" just enough to "make a living" ?
Is that how EVERYONE should be paid?
People DO get rich in this country and this world.
Are they more valuable than artistes and writers?
I think not.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

kraster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2006, 05:12:55 pm »

DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 17:37



You buy an 'album'. It's a harshly played acoustic guitar, with a drunk, singing flat.

M


Nothing new about this. Shane McGowan has ben doing this for years. Smile
Logged

chris haines

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2006, 05:22:03 pm »

wwittman wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 22:36


so then the argument becomes: should the actual recording and sale of music be a loss leader to simply promote OTHER money making activities such as t-shirt sales and live performances?



yes, and they should start in Spain where I spent 26 American dollars to purchase the new Death Cab For Cutie, Plans.  This price encourages theft and suggests that the label doesn't care if the band breaks here.

wwittman wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 22:36


I think the music ITSELF should be valued more highly.



yes, i do too.  I want DVD audio players put in all the new cars and I want everyone to re-release all their records at 24/96 and be able to hear the added dynamic range in the recordings when I'm playing stuff parked in my driveway with the engine turned off.

Unfortunately, I'll get a standard in-dash .mp3 player instead...so then what...?


Logged
Rinkydink Audio, studio
The Vulcan Freedom Fighters, band

ex-weasel
ex-publisher
ex-pat

Linear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2006, 05:52:53 pm »

Charles Dye wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 06:37

maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 05:39

i have worked as a doctor since 1991, and i have never charged a patient

as far as they're concerned, their medical care is free

I find this very interesting. Could you please explain how your patients do not pay for their medical care?

If you're gettin' paid, somebody's payin' for it.


Exactly. Somebody pays for it, nothing comes free.

Here certain establishments 'Bulk-bill' whereby a person with a Government Medicare card can walk in to a 'bulk-billing' practice and pay nothing for a doctors appointment. The Government sets the minimum fee they pay and some practices charge more (so you pay the gap) and some don't (ie they bulk-bill).

Considering however that I paid over $1k Medicare Levy last year I don't consider it to be 'free'. In fact, considering I didn't visit a GP once in the past 12 months I consider it to be a huge ripoff.

But I digress, this is slightly off-topic.

I don't agree that music delivery should be free, unless the band wants their music to be free. In most cases here, bands that are signed to labels make no money from record sales anyway, most of their income is derived from touring.

So an unsigned band may be better off giving their CD's away for 'free' (or a nominal amount) and hope that it promotes them enough to sell more tickets on their tour (which is kinda like radio anyway, and what band doesn't want to be on radio).

In a general sense though, people don't really appreciate what they don't pay for, so it could be a double whammy.

Chris
Logged
http://www.linear-recording.com.au

"Fashions change, the laws of physics don't"
Steve Dove

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2006, 06:56:01 pm »

charles wrote:

"I find this very interesting. Could you please explain how your patients do not pay for their medical care?"

in australia we have free medical care

there is a medicare tax

in effect, i pay for my patients care out of my own taxes

unfortunately, this government has been trying to dismantle the system, so now, it's virtually impossible to find a doctor who doesn't charge at least a nominal amount

me, however, i don't believe in that, so i'm prepared to take a smaller fee, so that my patients continue to receive free care

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Logged

Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2006, 07:00:29 pm »

Each and every one of us should work to the maximum of our ability for the common good and be compensated according to our needs...

Great utopian ideal.

It's been tried before.

Rather unsuccessfully.

My iPod gets filled up at $.99/song and/or after the $10-18 the kid plunks down for a CD.  

My daughter's iPod gets filled up for the same $.99/song... but it's her sister who seems to be buying most of the CD's around here [that are listenable... the one with the iPod has vile taste in music... WhuddaYaGonnaDo?].  
Logged
CN Fletcher

mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid


"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.  
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and  they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too.  It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2006, 07:04:42 pm »

ivan wrote:

"Now let me ask you this,, do you feel,I mean you personally, that music is important to you?"

yes

" Are you willing to pay Money to see a great Musician play?"

yes, admittedly, not very often, but then, i get to play with great musicians for free anyway

" Or should we just play for free??"

as i said before, you should do whatever you feel is appropriate

should i NOT play for free?
Logged

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2006, 07:09:41 pm »

chris haines wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 17:22

yes, and they should start in Spain where I spent 26 American dollars to purchase the new Death Cab For Cutie, Plans.  This price encourages theft and suggests that the label doesn't care if the band breaks here.


Sorry but I find this argument specious.

First off, no one FORCES you to "overspend" on anything.
If Death Cab isn't worth 26 dollars (and I think this record isn't worth 10) buy something ELSE that is.
B ut that's not an "invitation to theft" anymore than the aforementioned Rolls ROyce is.

I can't afford it, or I perceive it to be overpriced so I steal it?

Sorry, I don't buy into that.

and similarly with quality.
The audio quality of the final product may not be what professionals would like to see... (god knows I think CD's sound like crap next to analogue 2 track certainly) but that's ALSO not a reason to steal.

If I don't perceive something as being of value, I don't BUY it.
And then I don't miss it.

It's why i own no C-414s.
or Steely Dan records.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2006, 07:11:21 pm »

as for internet downloads, it doesn't cost me a cent if someone makes a copy of my work, so why should i charge for it?

if i produce an actual hard cover record, and someone steals it, well, that's my money and time gone, but information, well, it just wants to be free

sure, i'd like to see the same system as exists on the radio, apply to the internet, so the kazaas and  the itunes of this world get charged a general fee for broadcasting and then split between the artists, and it may just happen

steve wrote:

"Music has always been free. Records, those cost money. Attaching music to another commercial enterprise, that costs money. Both of them still do. Concert tickets, those cost money."

ditto


Logged

bbkong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2006, 07:15:35 pm »

Quote:

It's why i own no C-414s.
or Steely Dan records.

William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)



That's about the strangest thing I've seen on my screen in months.
Logged
"ottotune that bastard till he sounds like a sine wave"

seriousfun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2006, 07:21:42 pm »

Just about everything we need in life is available free.

Air, water, dirt, food, bibles, music (yes, just start humming).

Fortunately or unfortunately, we have built an economic system where one person with more or better stuff can get compensated by another for a taste of this stuff.

Making music doesn't directly put food on the table, only agriculture does this, so we have to figure out a way to get fairly compensated for making music, so we can pay (or barter...) for food, shelter, etc. I figured it out for fifteen years or so, and still do indirectly, and so can you.

Unfortunately, the music industry is royally screwed up right now. It's top-heavy and blockbuster driven, leaving little room for middle-class musicians. This is what must change. Kids trading files aren't taking meals away from my kids, who don't trade music files. Let's figure out a way to compensate copyright holders for file trades on the internet, and this transitory problem goes away.
Logged
doug osborne | my day job

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2006, 07:24:35 pm »

ivan wrote:

"I think it's cute that as a part time music guy you feel all warm and fuzzy about "music being free" but I can tell you this..... "

the patronising tone doesn't suit you, leave to kenny g and eric s

he also wrote:

"The music that I value as an individual the most, is music that was made by people who spent all their time playing music."

who told you i don't

besides, would you not see a doctor or discount their opinion if they worked part-time

if so, you will have a lot of trouble finding one
Logged

Charles Dye

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2006, 07:28:08 pm »

maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 18:56

in australia we have free medical care

there is a medicare tax

And the contradiction in the above statement somehow escapes you?
Logged
Turn Me Up!™ – Bringing Dynamics Back to Music

MySpace – Our network of narcissistic sycophants...
MiLaR Forum – Advanced Mixing Forum + MiX iT! Global Mixing Event
Mix It Like A Record – DVD/DAW Based Mixing Course

bbkong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2006, 07:48:46 pm »

maxim wrote on Tue, 03 January 2006 16:24

 

who told you i don't  [people who spent all their time playing music.]

besides, would you not see a doctor or discount their opinion if they worked part-time

if so, you will have a lot of trouble finding one


Isn't this a glaring self contradiction?

Let's see, you're a doctor who plays music full time?

Hm.

I think I'd rather pay you play me a song than consult me about my body, since by your own admission you are a part time/free doctor.


Funny, but my recent relationship with an osteopathic surgeon was
predicated by the fact that he said he had no hobbies (like music) and spent most of his time in surgery. I (and my insurance company) happily handed over close to $400K for his professional skills.


Methinks you could self-administer a dose of serious laxative.



Personally, I prefer the services of professionals and don't mind one bit paying for it.

Amateurs with free music?


Well, you gets whatcha pays for.
Logged
"ottotune that bastard till he sounds like a sine wave"

chris haines

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re: Poll: Should Music Be Free?
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2006, 08:28:35 pm »

[quote title=wwittman wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 01:09First off, no one FORCES you to "overspend" on anything.
If Death Cab isn't worth 26 dollars (and I think this record isn't worth 10) buy something ELSE that is.
B ut that's not an "invitation to theft" anymore than the aforementioned Rolls ROyce is.

I can't afford it, or I perceive it to be overpriced so I steal it?

Sorry, I don't buy into that.
[/quote]

music consumers have a choice to download for free or pay retail.  most of the time, they have no way to assess the value of the recording until AFTER they have consumed it...ie...I don't know if it's worth the 26 bucks 'til after I've listened to it or downloaded it.  ("what sarah said" is worth 10 bucks in my opinion but i'm a fan...so I shelled out the dough...but this is not the choice I would have made were I still in college and broke)

while it's convenient for you to 'not buy into' it, you're ignoring the consumption habits of 200 million plus kids...theoretically the bread and butter of new music purchasers...the retail price of a CD, does, in fact, influence the decision of a kid to either download or purchase music...some will download regardless of price, others will choose to purchase or download based on the price of a retail CD/cost of a commercially availble download.

If you want to get into the Economics of it, I'd argue that there is a demand curve for illegal downloading that looks exactly like a supply curve...higher the retail price, the more people choose to download instead of purchase...

As long as we consume music in a digital format it will be available for free.  Bandwidth is the enemy...who's gonna fight it?  It's time to accept that the paradigm has changed.



Logged
Rinkydink Audio, studio
The Vulcan Freedom Fighters, band

ex-weasel
ex-publisher
ex-pat
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up