Should there be a 'music industry'?

[gwilendiel]

The plagiarism thread made me remember this... not that it's related really, but anyway.

I was just thinking... is it really a good thing to sell music itself? Or even to sell your 'image'? Really. I'd imagine the concept of paying for art or music came out of demand, in ancient times. It was not a way to get rich (even though you could).

What I mean to say is, it was the listener/viewer which had the control then. The ONLY reason artists got paid is the logic that if the artist doesn't have to work another job to make a living, they can spend more time doing what the listener enjoys. I'd imagine this is why kings employed residential musicians, artists, and poets. The listener was doing the artist a favor back then, NOT the other way around - and in some eras and cultures, some arts would be considered frivolous and a waste of time, so these artists would NOT be paid... so the starving artist comes along.

So yeah... should an artist (or publisher... ESPECIALLY publishers, those evil bastards...) really be able to lord over the listener? Should they be the ones DEMANDING money at every turn? I do wonder...

[relyanCe]

actually, in earlier times (1500s-1800s), musicians employed by nobles were pretty much indentured servants. They were given food, clothing, lodging, and a small stipend to play and compose music pretty much at the whim of their masters. The majority of these musicians also worked in some other form of servitude on the side (horse grooming, gardening, etc.). Music as a profession only really came about because having live music at fancy parties/personal chambers was a fad of the wealthiest 5%. It wasn't until the time of Mozart/Beethoven that musicians received any real money for their trade. Anything before that was either servitude or popular folk music played by amateur working-class people.

i really have no idea why i typed that.

[gwilendiel]

actually, in earlier times (1500s-1800s), musicians employed by nobles were pretty much indentured servants. They were given food, clothing, lodging, and a small stipend to play and compose music pretty much at the whim of their masters. The majority of these musicians also worked in some other form of servitude on the side (horse grooming, gardening, etc.). Music as a profession only really came about because having live music at fancy parties/personal chambers was a fad of the wealthiest 5%. It wasn't until the time of Mozart/Beethoven that musicians received any real money for their trade. Anything before that was either servitude or popular folk music played by amateur working-class people.

i really have no idea why i typed that.

It's alright, thanks for the correction.

Though it's similar ideas, I was just a bit off with my time frame.

Edit: What I'm getting at is, publishers are bunk, and so are some artists. Especially with the advent of the internet. Pre-internet (and especially before the ability to record at home became common) publishing was a legitimate service, it was often the only way you could get something without actually going to a performance in person. (which as an aside is why copyright was more lax back then, copying was actually beneficial because it was actually a difficult job that only a select few had the time for)

Anyway, in modern times, publishers and artists need the consumers more than the consumers need them...

[sgx]

It's true, it is cheaper to distribute music and it is cheaper to produce it than it has been. There is a much wider choice of music out there now, and more of it, de-valuing the product by quite a bit. However, MORE music is consumed as well since it is so easy to find, get, and pay for (or steal).

However, that cost to make it and distribute it is not and never will be 0.

Computers, software, musical instruments, microphones, studio time, etc necessary to produce music all cost real dollars. There is an investment of money on someone's part.

Learning to play an instrument, learning to compose, learning to record, etc all cost TIME. This TIME could be used at some day job, or even second side job, to make money needed to live off of. Some guy who learned to play the guitar because it was a fun thing to do may not care to record his songs. He see's there's some money in it, so he's got to learn how to record it himself and spend money and time learning a new skill, or he's gotta pay for studio time. He's gotta spend time marketing himself in some fashion on the internet which takes A LOT of time, or money, otherwise you'd never find his stuff.

I'm sure there are a few magical musicians out there who make music for the love of music, record it so they can distribute it to make people happy and make the world a better place, already know how to record at a pro level because they work at Digidesign engineering the gear and get free equipment as the company Christmas bonus, and use their library internet to upload free mp3's to effectively let you hear their wonderful music.

It's ok not to give this guy any money.

However, I don't think there's more than a few of them out there. The rest of us spend money to make our music better, spend time to make it, spend time learning to make it SOUND better, spend time to distribute it so you can hear it, etc.

If a musician doesn't want any money back for the music, they're still getting what they want in return for distributing it; maybe satisfaction that they made someone's day more enjoyable, or some sort of ego-boost. That's nice. He got paid what he wanted.

I think people should respect the price that artists ask for for their music. If you think the label is asking too much, blame it on the artist for signing a paper to let the label use their discretion on the price. Asking too much in this market is the artist's own mistake to make.

So no, all music shouldn't be free. Some could be, but there are costs involved in most every aspect of creation and distribution. Spending money and or time on music creation and distribution makes the music better and gets it to more people.

[gwilendiel]

re sgx:

Well, there's a little thing about service that people have forgotten in modern times.

There is such a thing as demand out of necessity. Art is great, art is wonderful. Art should be supported. But art is not NEEDED. You will not die without it.

It's understood that food is something you should compensate for when you receive it, it is keeping you alive. Somebody truly worked for your physical benefit. But music? Music doesn't NEED to be done. It's done because somebody feels like it. Somebody FELT like spending thousands of dollars on gear. Can they be compensated? Well absolutely! Should they be able to hold you over a barrel as if you can't survive without them? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Nobody asked them to be a professional musician. They aren't doing something people can't live without either. There are better (albeit more sinister) ways to basically extort money if that is the goal... like being a doctor. Or a lawyer. People actually have a need for those.

Edit: And again, don't get me wrong. I totally think music is worth paying for. It's the industry principal that I hate. It could even be argued that it HURTS music. Record labels appeal to broad demographics because they want money. And they will make damn sure they can get that money everywhere possible. And to some extent they tell artists what songs to make, for the sake of their money. That is limiting.

It shouldn't be 'if you like this you must pay me' - it should be 'i like this, so I feel like paying you'. I mean really. It isn't even a basic commodity either... like gold, it costs money to mine gold. But at least you can resell gold.

Edit edit:

What is the price of happiness? More than the cost of living, apparently. Maybe I should give in to the industry. Heck, even if I spend $100,000 on a hit production that makes at least ten million, I can sit back on my laurels and never work another day in my life while the 'impoverished peasantry' who are struggling on minimum wage buy the CD at too high a price and find a little joy in their lives. Joy that I won't give two craps about because I have TEN MILLION DOLLARS. >:\

[gwilendiel]

You know what else galls me? Elvis has been dead for over 30 years, but they still sell his music and his image. This is the kind of crap I'm talking about.

Where's his compensation? He's fricking dead! He doesn't need to make a living! And they can't use the excuse of providing a service or getting his music 'out there'.... his music is some of the most proliferated ever. But yet he is still under copyright. Heck there is a whole enterprise dedicated to him. But they can't say it's a service, it isn't unique, anyone could do what they are providing. All they have is some papers that say they 'own' it and are entitled to the oodles of money it generates. May as well be a mafia racket if you ask me.... I don't care if they do good things with the money either, because everyone else could too, but no, we aren't allowed!! So that excuse is BS too.

But now that I think of it, record labels should be done away with entirely, aside from existing contracts that must legally be completed. That would get rid of this extortion mentality.

What we would only have instead would be promoters. I have no problem with an artist selling music as a service. I have problems with the industry selling the whole idea of music itself.

So, instead of labels, you have more services like Tindeck or Myspace music. The artist holds the rights to be paid, and the artist pays the promoter if that is what is required. And the artist can set the price. If the artist dies, or copyright limitation has exceeded or lapsed, the work becomes public domain. There is no excuse to keep hawking something after the author is dead, everyone with a PC can publish now so that is no longer a legitimate service.

[Bahamut]

Sounds like you're arguing against the whole entertainment industry in general - why charge for entertainment? Because there is a demand for it and where there's demand, there's a price that most companies charge to satiate that demand.

[The Vagrance]

There's too much focus on the "industry" in this thread. Ultimately its about ensuring your product gets to your customers, something that an industry used to be required for but now the question is up in the air about the uses of such a mediator.

The real problem is this: people have been way too comfortable getting music for free for too long, largely in part to the RIAA throwing up complete resistance towards digital distribution of music of any form - paid or unpaid. The "industry" part of music doesn't matter, it is only a means to achieve an end. The real problem is: how do artists make money off of music? How many artists can even make a living off of music?

There are a lot of answers to this question but honestly, everything everyone is suggesting is pure speculation and only time will tell.

[Hy Bound]

I guess i understand where you're coming from, but i think you are placing the sense of entitlement incorrectly on the musician's side of things. If the musician doesn't feel like giving out his or her music, then they don't have to. Expecting them to give you something out of the goodness of their heart seems a little naive and far-fetched. As someone who would like to be able to sell my music and make some form of a living off of it, I would be more than happy to give out a couple songs here or there as an appreciative measure for everyone who has chosen to support me. Thats the key word though, support. Expecting someone to put the blood, sweat and tears into their artistic expression, then demanding more for it without making it known that you appreciate their work enough to support them is a little childish.

You are correct, you don't NEED it, but you decide that you enjoy it enough to where you spend a significant amount of your free time investing in finding new artists. Even if you have never bought a single song in your life, you have spent the time investing in that experience. That time you spend on it shows that you have a certain thirst to continue to have that experience, an experience that wouldn't be there if the artist hadn't decided to spend the money to make themselves known. Thats where the financial aspect comes in. As much as I want people to hear my music, I am spending enough time and money on the music aspect of it that its a little hard to swing the extra money and time on promoting myself to get you to listen if im not getting reimbursed for it. I honestly don't give a shit if you listen or not. I obviously would like to be able to share it if i could, but seeing as how I would have to invest my own money to get my music to you, i couldn't care less. So really, it takes a general well-being on both sides to make music work. You are paying me to get my music to you. You are paying for a service, a service that may not be a necessity, but a service that you enjoy enough to support.

[BardicKnowledge]

re sgx:

Well, there's a little thing about service that people have forgotten in modern times.

There is such a thing as demand out of necessity. Art is great, art is wonderful. Art should be supported. But art is not NEEDED. You will not die without it.

It's understood that food is something you should compensate for when you receive it, it is keeping you alive. Somebody truly worked for your physical benefit. But music? Music doesn't NEED to be done. It's done because somebody feels like it. Somebody FELT like spending thousands of dollars on gear. Can they be compensated? Well absolutely! Should they be able to hold you over a barrel as if you can't survive without them? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Nobody asked them to be a professional musician. They aren't doing something people can't live without either. There are better (albeit more sinister) ways to basically extort money if that is the goal... like being a doctor. Or a lawyer. People actually have a need for those.

What a load of bullshit. How would you like to go six months without access to a computer or the Internet? It's not like you'd die or anything -- it's not a need. Therefore, because it's a "want", I should be able to get it for free. No one asked those guys to be computer engineers.

I also "want" a 32gb iPod Touch and a new graphics card. Get on it.

Edit edit:

What is the price of happiness? More than the cost of living, apparently. Maybe I should give in to the industry. Heck, even if I spend $100,000 on a hit production that makes at least ten million, I can sit back on my laurels and never work another day in my life while the 'impoverished peasantry' who are struggling on minimum wage buy the CD at too high a price and find a little joy in their lives. Joy that I won't give two craps about because I have TEN MILLION DOLLARS. >:\

If you are trying to tie happiness into money, you need to re-evaluate your definition of happy.

[Nabeel Ansari]

In the Renaissance, artists made their living off of their patrons.

Here, we don't have patrons. You're right, we can make money with a job.

But it's our OWN music and work. We can choose to or not to distribute our music for money. Why NOT take the money? It gives you more money so that you are encouraged to create better music, and for some of the more perfectionist/technical people, they can spend the money on new recording equipment, samples, synthesizers, etc.

It's all right to require money for a service. Remember, they don't have to buy your music. There are plenty of people who will make cool music for free. :/

In this situation, compare music to video games. If you applied what you said to video games, would it still hold? No, it would shake and you would take it back.

You don't need music? You don't need video games either.

We don't have to buy either of them, yet we do because we want to.

It costs money to make a video game, right? That's why they need money.

It also costs money to make music. Samples, synths, equipment, programs, etc. Even if they don't need much money for all that stuff, they can still choose to make some extra cash if they want to.

[zircon]

Yes, it is a good thing to sell music. Money is one of the best motivators in the world, and music has been sold successfully for centuries. This process ultimately leads to better and better music.

[gwilendiel]

Figures a forum full of people who make music wouldn't get what I'm saying.

Music is different than anything else. And yeah, I apply it to most of the entertainment industry too.

It's funny that some times more goes into making a hamburger than what goes into making a CD.

I think the entertainment industry is one of the few industries where a corporation keeps getting paid for work that is already long done, and they want to make sure it stays that way. There's a difference between selling music as a service and just selling the music.

Maybe I got a little out of hand, but the topic gets me heated. I just can't stand the principal. How much does a company need to make off of an idea? As much as they can, it seems. 50 year copyrights are already unnecessary and they are trying to make them even LONGER. Just because they got this idea and they 'own' it.

The whole 'selling time' idea is WAY out of proportion. My need vs. want idea was to illustrate this comparison. Say one group does a year of work on an album, and the album is sold for fifty years. How is that fair? They do nothing and get more money just because somebody wants what they have? If that's fair, why doesn't EVERYBODY do it? Why don't companies who do legitimately more work band together and do some price gouging?

Like internet companies. They actually do a lot of work, and it is CONSTANT, they don't just work for a year and reap the benefits. So since they do proportionally more work, and are proportionally in more demand, they should get more money! RIGHT?? Why not $100 a month! Or $500!

You know why they don't do that? Because it's stupid. And probably illegal.

[zircon]

But the thing about music is that you might write a song that makes no money for 30 years, but then suddenly becomes hot. That has certainly happened before. It's not really fair to cut off that potential income stream. For example, I write a ton of music every year, but very little of it makes any money. Randomly, a song I've written years ago will pop up in some production and I'll get paid. That's the only way I can make some semblance of a living, and the same is true for MANY other artists and composers. While big companies may have pushed for longer copyright duration, it's ultimately beneficial for all musicians.

Moreover, if music isn't a "need", why should you get free access to my work anytime in my lifetime? How does that make any sense? You can't have it both ways. If music is unimportant and has no value, then artists and companies should have complete, unlimited control.

[big giant circles]

No, we get what you're saying, we just think it's a little too *idealist* or something.

(Not very well founded, either, after reading more).

[gwilendiel]

But the thing about music is that you might write a song that makes no money for 30 years, but then suddenly becomes hot. That has certainly happened before. It's not really fair to cut off that potential income stream. For example, I write a ton of music every year, but very little of it makes any money. Randomly, a song I've written years ago will pop up in some production and I'll get paid. That's the only way I can make some semblance of a living, and the same is true for MANY other artists and composers. While big companies may have pushed for longer copyright duration, it's ultimately beneficial for all musicians.

Moreover, if music isn't a "need", why should you get free access to my work anytime in my lifetime? How does that make any sense? You can't have it both ways. If music is unimportant and has no value, then artists and companies should have complete, unlimited control.

I think you are starting to get it now, but aren't quite there.

Did you read my idea about doing away with record labels?

You got the artists should have complete control part right at least. As I said, we need more Tindeck and Myspace music. Artists pay promoters rather than give up their music to a label. They sell music on demand. they provide a service and set their own competitive price for their service, and hold the copyright.

So you can still sell music. We just stop selling music IDEAS. I don't mind paying an artist for his song if that is what he wants and I like it... I WAS NEVER AGAINST THAT.

With my idea, it does work both ways. We don't have companies making money off The Beatles just because they are who they are. If The Beatles want money, they negotiate, with the promoter as their helper if they need to.

And if a song gets hot after 30 years, the artist can still sell it. But what if he's dead by then? Who gets to sell it then?

[Hy Bound]

I think what you are getting frustrated about us not understanding is because your argument is becoming less and less realistic and more and more about how things benefit you and your values of things being a relative "outsider." I don't mean to say that you are out of touch and we are completely correct, but telling people off for attempting to make a living off of something they enjoy doing seems to not really make a whole lot of sense.

EDIT: Oy, my sentence structure is good not so much.

[big giant circles]

I don't see why you're worried in the first place. Record Labels are losing grip on things anyway, now that people can self-produce and distribute through other things like iTunes and CD Baby, etc.

Yes, I agree that music is usually better when it's not manufactured to a brainwashed demographic (read up on Payola sometime), but you also have to be careful with the whole premise that making and selling music for X amount over X amount of time is something that YOU have the right to decide, because you don't. If you can't tell already, you're "Music is not a need and therefore blah blah blah" perspective already bit you in the arse.

[sephfire]

Figures a forum full of people who make music wouldn't get what I'm saying.

You do know the way to our hearts.

I think the entertainment industry is one of the few industries where a corporation keeps getting paid for work that is already long done, and they want to make sure it stays that way. There's a difference between selling music as a service and just selling the music.

Say one group does a year of work on an album, and the album is sold for fifty years. How is that fair? They do nothing and get more money just because somebody wants what they have? If that's fair, why doesn't EVERYBODY do it? Why don't companies who do legitimately more work band together and do some price gouging?

If you made an album that people still crave fifty years down the line, then yeah, you probably deserve every cent.

The entertainment industry is hardly the only industry that works this way. Consider a hypothetical Make-Up producing company. This company spends six months in R&D on a new kind of eyeliner. Then, with their new product tested and ready, they mass produce it and sell it to the world. That same eyeliner may be on shelves for years. It will be there as long as there is demand for it. But the company isn't just sitting on it's laurels! They are working hard to keep producing more of this new eyeliner to keep the shelves stocked. And they are simultaneously working hard to develop their next big product. How is that terribly different from what the music industry does?

Maybe we would better understand what you're getting at if you described how you think the entertainment industry should be running things. What's your ideal scenario?

[Nabeel Ansari]

I think you are starting to get it now, but aren't quite there.

Did you read my idea about doing away with record labels?

You got the artists should have complete control part right at least. As I said, we need more Tindeck and Myspace music. Artists pay promoters rather than give up their music to a label. They sell music on demand. they provide a service and set their own competitive price for their service, and hold the copyright.

So you can still sell music. We just stop selling music IDEAS. I don't mind paying an artist for his song if that is what he wants and I like it... I WAS NEVER AGAINST THAT.

With my idea, it does work both ways. We don't have companies making money off The Beatles just because they are who they are. If The Beatles want money, they negotiate, with the promoter as their helper if they need to.

And if a song gets hot after 30 years, the artist can still sell it. But what if he's dead by then? Who gets to sell it then?

I don't recall you talking about "music ideas" in your first post, but I do agree with you on this point. If the artist is dead, we shouldn't be selling their music, because it's not ours.

The answer to your question:

"So yeah... should an artist (or publisher... ESPECIALLY publishers, those evil bastards...) really be able to lord over the listener? Should they be the ones DEMANDING money at every turn? I do wonder..."

Is what everyone has been posting. My answer is YES, they should be able to, because it's their work.

"Say one group does a year of work on an album, and the album is sold for fifty years. How is that fair?"

That is completely fair! You created something, if someone wants it, they gotta pay for it. No matter how long it takes for them to stumble upon it.

What you're saying is:

"I create something and put a year's worth of work into it, so I can only sell it for a year." Is THAT your idea of fair?

[gwilendiel]

I think what you are getting frustrated about us not understanding is because your argument is becoming less and less realistic and more and more about how things benefit you and your values of things being a relative "outsider." I don't mean to say that you are out of touch and we are completely correct, but telling people off for attempting to make a living off of something they enjoy doing seems to not really make a whole lot of sense.

I never said you can't make a living! I said you shouldn't hold anyone over a barrel disproportionately. That's far more offensive than I could ever be.

I said art should be supported. A long time ago in this thread. Turning it into a mere cash cow doesn't help it along in my mind... it turns it into a homogeneous disgrace. yes, it attracts artists to make money, but it doesn't necessarily make better art. It only makes more rock. And heavy metal. And hip hop. And things that sell.

To be honest with you, I have heard better music from people that willingly GIVE it away than people who do it for money. I'll pay those people first, if you don't mind.

[big giant circles]

I don't recall you talking about "music ideas" in your first post, but I do agree with you on this point. If the artist is dead, we shouldn't be selling their music, because it's not ours.

Why not? If the record company owns the song, then it IS their music. Just because the writer is dead does not mean suddenly the product does not belong to them.

If the guy who builds your house dies, do you suddenly have to move out because it doesn't belong to you anymore?

Are we going to stop selling [insert commonly used item here] when the guy who invented them

*edit*

I never said you can't make a living! I said you shouldn't hold anyone over a barrel disproportionately. That's far more offensive than I could ever be.

I said art should be supported. A long time ago in this thread. Turning it into a mere cash cow doesn't help it along in my mind... it turns it into a homogeneous disgrace. yes, it attracts artists to make money, but it doesn't necessarily make better art. It only makes more rock. And heavy metal. And hip hop. And things that sell.

To be honest with you, I have heard better music from people that willingly GIVE it away than people who do it for money. I'll pay those people first, if you don't mind.

The core problem with your argument is that it is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. Let me fix this for you.

I said art should be supported. A long time ago in this thread. Turning it into a mere cash cow doesn't help it along in my mind... it turns it into a homogeneous disgrace ACCORDING TO ME. yes, it attracts artists to make money, but it doesn't necessarily make better art ACCORDING TO ME. It only makes more rock. And heavy metal. And hip hop. And things that sell THAT APPARENTLY I DON'T LIKE.

To be honest with you, I have heard better music IN MY PERSONAL OPINION from people that willingly GIVE it away than people who do it for money. I'll pay those people first, if you don't mind.

[gwilendiel]

re: bgc

That post was going by the varieties of available music and production quality, so yes, it is objective.

I think you only have to look at OCR itself to see that in action.... but believe me there are better examples out there,

[big giant circles]

If by objective you mean SUBjective, then yes.

[gwilendiel]

If by objective you mean SUBjective, then yes.

Then why is OCR even around in the first place?

I don't see Metallica doing any video game remixes (forgive my dated example)

So there. Less variety. Plainly objective example.

Secondly, many pieces on here are undeniably equal or better than CD quality. Objective again. This is ensured to some extent by the submission rules.

If you don't agree with me, then don't agree. Just don't try to discredit me to break my argument... that's using a straw man.