The Pezman Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 For one thing, some popular artists do agree somewhat with the model being purported here. They're already successful, so one could argue they can afford to say/do these sorts of things. But what benefit would it be to them to say/do it if they didn't believe in it? I do think musicians should be paid for their work, but that the focus should switch to live shows and performances. In this age it's all too easy to become separated and disconnected from people and to overuse technology to compensate for bad musicianship. Live touring ameliorates both these issues, and you can't pirate a concert experience. I haven't listened to much of Pearl Jam, but when they came to Columbia three blocks away from my dorm I jumped at the chance to see them. I was alone, sitting in a far away seat, hungry (but not about to buy the overpriced crap) and still had a great time. I'd say most popular bands spend about 40% of their working time touring and 60% in the studio. Before anyone rips into me, I don't have a basis for these numbers and I'm just eyeballing them (and of course they're different from artist to artist). If anyone wants to show me up go ahead, but my point is that I think it should be more of an 85/15 split, with CDs used not as a major source of income but as a promotional tool for live concerts. I know Prince did this to great effect. I honestly think that appealing to the more visceral, personal levels of fans instead of trying in vain to clamp down on piracy is where things should head. After all, until vinyl that's what music was all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayzon Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 what the heck this has nothing to do with artists selling outthis is a hey i made this thing and if you wanna hear this thing i want money doesnt matter if its some big record company or some fat dude in his basement Oh, I very strongly disagree. One, what I said is an opinion shared by many other people: often, when an artist is signed to a big record label, it becomes less about the music and more about the money. For example take a look at this site. Of course, most of you probably aren't fat dudes in you basements, but you put this kind of stuff out here for free, without asking for money. How many record labels do you see doing that? Two, the posts above me are all arguing about many music things, including sellouts. My post was (or at least is now) completely relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atmuh Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Oh, I very strongly disagree. One, what I said is an opinion shared by many other people: often, when an artist is signed to a big record label, it becomes less about the music and more about the money. For example take a look at this site. Of course, most of you probably aren't fat dudes in you basements, but you put this kind of stuff out here for free, without asking for money. How many record labels do you see doing that? Two, the posts above me are all arguing about many music things, including sellouts. My post was (or at least is now) completely relevant. there are plenty of people here that charge for everything they do thats not on this site this isnt a huge group of hey lets give all our stuff for free people they charge and they have every right to do so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleck Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Oh god here comes the opinion train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayzon Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 there are plenty of people here that charge for everything they do thats not on this sitethis isnt a huge group of hey lets give all our stuff for free people they charge and they have every right to do so That's not my point. The point is that people are already putting stuff up for free - not all of it - and that I think this is a step in the right direction. Just putting stuff up here without asking for money is a good thing. For one thing, some popular artists do agree somewhat with the model being purported here. They're already successful, so one could argue they can afford to say/do these sorts of things. But what benefit would it be to them to say/do it if they didn't believe in it?I do think musicians should be paid for their work, but that the focus should switch to live shows and performances. In this age it's all too easy to become separated and disconnected from people and to overuse technology to compensate for bad musicianship. Live touring ameliorates both these issues, and you can't pirate a concert experience. I haven't listened to much of Pearl Jam, but when they came to Columbia three blocks away from my dorm I jumped at the chance to see them. I was alone, sitting in a far away seat, hungry (but not about to buy the overpriced crap) and still had a great time. I'd say most popular bands spend about 40% of their working time touring and 60% in the studio. Before anyone rips into me, I don't have a basis for these numbers and I'm just eyeballing them (and of course they're different from artist to artist). If anyone wants to show me up go ahead, but my point is that I think it should be more of an 85/15 split, with CDs used not as a major source of income but as a promotional tool for live concerts. I know Prince did this to great effect. I honestly think that appealing to the more visceral, personal levels of fans instead of trying in vain to clamp down on piracy is where things should head. After all, until vinyl that's what music was all about. Exactly. I agree 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argle Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 jesus christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 The issue is that many artists don't perform live, and can't perform live. Not to mention the OP wasn't even talking about traditional commercial music, he was talking about gigs scoring to picture or to games. By nature you really can't perform that kind of stuff live, or at least not easily. You get paid to write for a specific purpose. Did I mention that live gigs are paying far less in inflation-adjusted dollars than they ever have before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olarin Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I find the discussions of which sorts of activities are good and bad for musicians to make money off of interesting, because I think an important point is being missed: I would contend that live music and recorded music, although obviously related, are two distinctly different mediums. Each allows possibilties the other does not, and although many musicians can successfully create both some are better at one or the other. To suggest that musicians should expect to make most of their money from touring, for instance, de-emphasizes the art of constructing a good album. Although for some musicians an album is merely a sort of documentation to collect songs they have written, some albums are very carefully crafted works of art, sometimes employing extensive overdubbing and other recording-specific production and effects that cannot be effectively re-created in live performance. Furthermore, the two mediums are often employed for different purposes by the audience. There are many jazz albums, for instance, that seek to capture as much of the energy and improvisational intrigue of a live performance as possible, resulting in an album that is lauded by aficionados who are interested in sitting down and listening intently as they would at a live show, but often ignored by consumers interested in a more "casual" listening experience, usually while doing other activities. Some people advocate one type of listening experience over another as what music "should" be rather than accepting that there may be many different legitimate uses for different kinds of music. As I typed this post, zircon posted essentially the same thing in a lot fewer words. I lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 When you think about the great classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Strauss) how did they make money? Certainly not through selling CDs or records. They made money through live performances, selling the transcriptions(?) of their music to other musicians/orchestras, and not much else. Why should that be any different today? Pretty sure they had rich patrons that commissioned stuff as needed. They certainly didn't write so many dances because of their love of busting moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrototypeRaptor Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Well, great. GJ on ruining my hopes and dreams (zircon). Guess I'll pray to multiple religions that I'll be one of the lucky ones... On topic, I believe that an artist deserves his pay. Why is music considered so different from other industries? If this was a discussion on movies, or business, or ANY OTHER FIELD, no one would be talking about working for free - it's absurd! Music is just as complicated as anything else(if done right) and the time one has to spend practicing to even get to the "listenable" stage is considerable. It's downright asinine that certain people expect artists to give their music away for free - as if it is worthless. Musicians don't owe you ANYTHING; thank them that they even produce the music they do! (/rant) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argle Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 It's a bafflingly stupid argument, musicians have as much right to make money as any other profession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumUltimA Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 woah woah woah woah-- In my studies for being a musician, I have to work a lot harder than almost any other career path out there (maybe with the exception of medicine) so that I can hold a stable career in which I will be making less than Joe Smith who went to law school. But in this highly competitive field, I shouldn't be paid at all? I pay 40,000 dollars a year so I can go into an "industry" that shouldn't be paying me? Music is plenty free--if you want free music, go tap on a table. Or go to the music store and play around on the keyboard until they kick you out. Or sing to yourself. Let me tell you that most "professional" musicians don't do it for the money--if my biggest goal in life was to be rich, I would've been a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaki-LEGEND.sys Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Pretty sure they had rich patrons that commissioned stuff as needed. They certainly didn't write so many dances because of their love of busting moves. No lies there. In fact, many of the more famous composers like Vivaldi were pretty much financially fucked towards the end of their lives, and when he wasn't in that state of affairs, he was in the audience of the fucking prince of Germany during the time. Look guys. I'm not trying to denounce your musical education(although I REALLY disagree with needing to go to college to actually "learn" music) and if you've got talent then go for it, but to think that you'll be able to find work easily is daft beyond all measure. My sister has a master's degree in opera performance. She knows her shit for the most part, and she practices constantly, has an amazing voice, etc. Fast forward to a few years after graduation and she's back home for the summer trying to get a job somewhere, but she can't do anything other than basic stuff, being as she never bothered to study anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Well, great. GJ on ruining my hopes and dreams (zircon). Guess I'll pray to multiple religions that I'll be one of the lucky ones... On topic, I believe that an artist deserves his pay. Why is music considered so different from other industries? If this was a discussion on movies, or business, or ANY OTHER FIELD, no one would be talking about working for free - it's absurd! Music is just as complicated as anything else(if done right) and the time one has to spend practicing to even get to the "listenable" stage is considerable. It's downright asinine that certain people expect artists to give their music away for free - as if it is worthless. Musicians don't owe you ANYTHING; thank them that they even produce the music they do! (/rant) Not trying to kill anyone's hopes and dreams... just telling it like it is. The music industry, whether you want to be a recording/performing artist, producer, or composer, is extremely crowded. It's very hard to find a well-paying job much less a career. If you want to make a living doing music you generally have to expect to work way harder than anyone else for the same pay, as well as apply a lot of non-music skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Nice job getting off topic, noobs. The OP is taking about scoring, not putting out albums. Writing for games, films, commercials, and websites is work. You put time into writing music and you get paid for that. How hard is that to understand? Do you go to your job and tell your boss "hey, don't pay me, because I love what I do and I do it for the love of the job." No. You take your paycheck and wait for the next one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atmuh Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Nice job getting off topic, noobs. The OP is taking about scoring, not putting out albums. hey not my fault i couldnt resist arguing with the dumdumz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkwing Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 While we're at it, let's make food and clothes free. From consumer standpoint that makes sense doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moseph Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Do you go to your job and tell your boss "hey, don't pay me, because I love what I do and I do it for the love of the job." No. You take your paycheck and wait for the next one. And therein lies the problem -- people expect musicians to enjoy what they do, and because the job is "fun" (or art, or whatever) people refuse to believe that payment can legitimately be requested. 'Cause if you need to be paid, then it's obviously not as fun for you as it should be and you need to GTFO and make way for the real musicians who enjoy what they're doing. The ridiculous idea of getting paid to make music is like expecting to get paid to play football, hur hur, owait, people DO get paid to play football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atmuh Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 While we're at it, let's make food and clothes free. From consumer standpoint that makes sense doesn't it? ive already figured out a way to download my clothes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanthos Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Music won't cease to exist without a financial goal. In the modern era, it would probably just dissolve into the process I described. Kids make bands all the time and make no money. Most don't want riches. Most want fame. I mean, why do people make remixes on this site? Because they enjoy it. That's the nature of music. The problem with consumers is that everyone seems to think it's their *right* to have the music they want, when they want it, at no cost. It doesn't make logical or economic sense. I don't have a particularly good studio, but I've spent probably $1,300 on gear (audio interface, two MIDI controllers, guitar effects, amp, mic, and headphones), plus probably $2,000 or more on software, plus a laptop. I'd call my set of gear laughable compared to even a poorly-equipped professional recording studio. I can do what I want with what I have, but the price tag isn't cheap. I'm a hobbyist who happens to have a software development job that lets me afford my audio gear. If I was trying to go pro, I'd need and want a lot of improvements and additions to what I have. And that's not to mention the cost of a music degree, if your styles of performance or composition make it worth going down that road (I paid for my computer science degree through co-op work terms; music students don't have many opportunities in that regard). No one is going to be able to be a full-time musician unless they're making money on their music, someone is otherwise funding them (an inheritance, or something like "I'll give you $1,000 a week to do whatever you want"), or they're married to someone who supports them. It's not as much about people wanting to get rich or even wanting to get paid for their time as it is about people needing money to live. Sure, there are tons of remixers here who have essentially donated *some* of their music to the general public. But make no mistake, every remixer who is attempting to be a full-time musician is also selling their own music independently, teaching, performing live, doing other musical work, or some combination of those. OCRemix is sustainable because it was and is a site for musicians to pay tribute to video game music and composers. It is not sustainable as the sole source of income for those who have posted material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkwing Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 ive already figured out a way to download my clothes well i figured out how to download food. lets trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayzon Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Pretty sure they had rich patrons that commissioned stuff as needed. They certainly didn't write so many dances because of their love of busting moves. No. People commissioned them to compose music and paid them for it. Oh. Well, color me purple. Forget what I said then. My first post still stands, though. Already addressed. Back to the point, regardless of how much we argue over this, the world policy of MONEY MONEY MONEY will make sure that this never happens - or at least won't for a very long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkwing Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Already addressed.No. Besides, regardless of how much we argue over this, the world policy of MONEY MONEY MONEY will make sure that this never happens - or at least won't for a very long time. maybe i should have included a </sarcasm> tag... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayzon Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 maybe i should have included a </sarcasm> tag... I wasn't really trying to answer your question, I thought it was pretty obvious that you were being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Craigslist->>Gigs. I landed two music jobs in the same day. One of them is paid. Craigslist werked fer me. You will have some very low key projects on Craigslist, but you get something on your resume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.