Should there be a 'music industry'?

[big giant circles]

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.

I'm not man. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of subjectivity in what you're saying. By all means, I personally don't listen to much of the crap that record companies produce because it generally doesn't suit my tastes. But that doesn't mean that nothing good ever comes from it or that I have the right to personally and solely dictate how much it's worth or how much they should be making off of it.

And I was pointing out that objective and subjective are not the same thing.

[gwilendiel]

or that I have the right to personally and solely dictate how much it's worth or how much they should be making off of it.

You do have the right. That's free market economy at work. People have just lost their minds when it comes to music, simply because the industry controls copies.

With everything else, with the possible exception of movies, you are able to negotiate. Even the sports industry CATERS to it's customers in some fashion. They do make money hand over fist, but we have some control based on attendance numbers, plus it is an ongoing process.

You do have the right to get what you want and pay what you think is fair. That is the benefit of capitalism, fair competition. But you know what? If you are a musician, and people don't like you, they are going to kick you out. And if you are on a label, the label will likely drop you like a hot potato. THAT'S how it works. With the caveat that if you are good you will be milked for all you are worth instead of kicked out.

Trust me, if you plan to make a living doing music, you will most likely not get to do the songs you like to do, because of the mass appeal of the market mentality. But art should have never been a commodity in the first place.

[DramaNoMore]

Listen, "wathever works" is the only rule. Publicity sells more than quality, so the Industry invests on that.

People that want to sell make what's more in fashion.

People who want to express themselves artistically shouldn't try to make a living out of it.

Some like it, some dont. Some come to web forums to disrespectfully impose their opinions,.

[Nabeel Ansari]

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

I think my argument could've only applied to something that can be copied and distributed without effort, like music.

lol I changed my mind because when you put it that way, as long as the record company has rights to the song they can sell it if they want. It's not like they can sell it forever, anyway.

In your (gwilendiel) example of Elvis music still being sold, the company had/has rights to that music, so they can still sell it. They HAVE THE RIGHTS. It's all about who has what rights.

You do have the right. That's free market economy at work.

Just cuz it's a free market economy doesn't mean you can go up to someone and tell them how much they can sell their stuff for. That's a command economy centered around you. xD

[big giant circles]

I do NOT have the right. Any single person NEVER has the right personally to tell anyone else where to set their price. Now the collective public has a bit more chance of influencing that, but it's still not the same thing. If you think X amount of money is too much to pay for say, a TV, you have no right to tell stores how much they should sell you the TV you want for. Especially if other people ARE willing to pay the advertised price. If eventually people stop paying that price then it might benefit the sellers to consider lowering the cost but that doesn't mean that the TV wasn't ever worth its original price, it just means the value has changed.

Again, I think you're thinking too much in ideals here, and it's a bit too heavily founded on your own personal opinions and appraisal.

Nothing wrong with saying "Hey, I think OCR (etc.) is great because people are just making free music because they love the music." I think the thing that tripped you up was the bit about trying to say when it's ok to sell music, and under what terms.

[gwilendiel]

Listen, "wathever works" is the only rule. Publicity sells more than quality, so the Industry invests on that.

People that want to sell make what's more in fashion.

People who want to express themselves artistically shouldn't try to make a living out of it.

Some like it, some dont. Some come to web forums to disrespectfully impose their opinions,.

Maybe I was disrespectful, but I don't see me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to share my opinion. Or read this, or reply to it.

And people who want to express themselves artistically shouldn't make a living from it? Holy crap you summed that up quite nicely.

So yes, industry music is fashion. That totally works for me.

So lets stop calling people artists and call them fashionable music creators instead. Well maybe that's too long. How about just 'fashionators' or maybe 'fashionists'.

[gwilendiel]

I do NOT have the right. Any single person NEVER has the right personally to tell anyone else where to set their price. Now the collective public has a bit more chance of influencing that, but it's still not the same thing. If you think X amount of money is too much to pay for say, a TV, you have no right to tell stores how much they should sell you the TV you want for. Especially if other people ARE willing to pay the advertised price. If eventually people stop paying that price then it might benefit the sellers to consider lowering the cost but that doesn't mean that the TV wasn't ever worth its original price, it just means the value has changed.

Again, I think you're thinking too much in ideals here, and it's a bit too heavily founded on your own personal opinions and appraisal.

Nothing wrong with saying "Hey, I think OCR (etc.) is great because people are just making free music because they love the music." I think the thing that tripped you up was the bit about trying to say when it's ok to sell music, and under what terms.

You are part of the public, in case you had forgotten. And you do have the right to say what price you want. You don't have the right to GET that price necessarily, but you have the right to not buy until you find that price. It's called shopping.

[Darklink42]

I don't entirely understand your argument either, but I will say that the record industry (if that's what you're talking about) as it stands now, is past it's prime. It's been far too slow to adapt to change, and ineffective in it's efforts to deal with piracy. I've always felt that the RIAA should be dismantled and re-built from the ground up around newer ideals and fairer practices focusing on the artist's survival, and not the survival of the organization itself. There is a lot of new talent out there that never goes under their banner, and even more artists that just give out their stuff for free. And I'm all for musicians getting paid (they've got to eat too). I guess my point is that, yes the music industry should exist. Can't really have a functional distribution and payment system without one. But what needs to change is the rules under which it operates.

[gwilendiel]

I don't entirely understand your argument either, but I will say that the record industry (if that's what you're talking about) as it stands now, is past it's prime. It's been far too slow to adapt to change, and ineffective in it's efforts to deal with piracy. I've always felt that the RIAA should be dismantled and re-built from the ground up around newer ideals and fairer practices focusing on the artist's survival, and not the survival of the organization itself. There is a lot of new talent out there that never goes under their banner, and even more artists that just give out their stuff for free. And I'm all for musicians getting paid (they've got to eat too). I guess my point is that, yes the music industry should exist. Can't really have a functional distribution and payment system without one. But what needs to change is the rules under which it operates.

Finally!

Thank you thank you. You said what I was too stupid and frustrated to say.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Maybe I was disrespectful, but I don't see me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to share my opinion. Or read this, or reply to it.

And people who want to express themselves artistically shouldn't make a living from it? Holy crap you summed that up quite nicely.

So yes, industry music is fashion. That totally works for me.

So lets stop calling people artists and call them fashionable music creators instead. Well maybe that's too long. How about just 'fashionators' or maybe 'fashionists'.

What you're forgetting is that publishers and the actual WRITERS themselves are totally different.

The producers and whatever usually decide the price because THEY want the money, and the artist gets a portion of it.

And why not call them artists? Music is art, they create music, therefore they create art. Law of syllogism xD.

So they ARE artists.

You are part of the public, in case you had forgotten. And you do have the right to say what price you want. You don't have the right to GET that price necessarily, but you have the right to not buy until you find that price. It's called shopping.

That's actually called "boycotting", not shopping, which doesn't work when it's just a few people.

EDIT: I realize that's not what you meant, sorry.

I don't believe you can "shop" for music, usually the price is the same every unless it's discounted on an online retailer.

You DO realize that businesses and corporations don't care what a single person wants, right? They care about the money, money, money. If a greater number of people buy than you're idea of boycotting, then the business/corporation/record company will do nothing and continue to sell music at the price they had originally intended to sell it at.

[gwilendiel]

What you're forgetting is that publishers and the actual WRITERS themselves are totally different.

The producers and whatever usually decide the price because THEY want the money, and the artist gets a portion of it.

And why not call them artists? Music is art, they create music, therefore they create art. Law of syllogism xD.

So they ARE artists.

Yeah, you got me there.

Anyway, I think we can delete this thread if it should be deleted.

I was a total ass. I can't think straight when I get flustered and angry. Plus I was a bit disillusioned by some recent events which I won't go into.

Anyway, I apologize.

[Cerrax]

Music is a paid service because it is just that, A SERVICE.

Can you make songs?

Do you have the time to make every song you would ever want to hear?

Do you have the equipment, ability, or drive?

No to any of those questions and you're going to end up paying for it, because frankly put, you want it, they have it, and for the right price, they will give it to you.

[big giant circles]

You are part of the public, in case you had forgotten. And you do have the right to say what price you want. You don't have the right to GET that price necessarily, but you have the right to not buy until you find that price. It's called shopping.

You have completely misunderstood me. Don't confuse the right of SAYING what price you want with GETTING the price you want.

If I write a song and say that I'll sell the single for $100 on iTunes, you have NO right to dictate that I should not charge that much. Naturally, it's pretty unlikely that I'll sell much/any, but its still MY product. I put in the work, and I can charge however much I feel that it's worth. If I think it's worth that much people are paying me that much but you still think its too high, then I'm not really going to care what you're personal appraisal is. I'm not going to lower my price just because you're too cheap to pay it.

And I realize the general public has sway over price, but that still doesn't mean any single one of us can tell someone their work should be cheap/free just because we want it to be.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Yeah, you got me there.

Anyway, I think we can delete this thread if it should be deleted.

I was a total ass. I can't think straight when I get flustered and angry. Plus I was a bit disillusioned by some recent events which I won't go into.

Anyway, I apologize.

It's fine.

I used to be totally for selling music, but now this thread opened my mind... and I'm still totally for selling music.

IT DID open my mind, though, and now I can look at things from a different perspective a little better.

[gwilendiel]

Music is a paid service because it is just that, A SERVICE.

Can you make songs?

Do you have the time to make every song you would ever want to hear?

Do you have the equipment, ability, or drive?

No to any of those questions and you're going to end up paying for it, because frankly put, you want it, they have it, and for the right price, they will give it to you.

Well, I understand your reasoning but it doesn't apply to me... I guess that has biased my view of things.

I often do make songs that I want to hear. Not every song, but a lot of them. And I don't like most of what the 'industry' has to offer. I pretty much avoid 90% of it, except for when I happen across it. And I don't pirate mp3's - I either buy something or get things that are freely given. But when I do buy something, it is from somebody who I want to help that I think needs a chance.

Anyway, I'm done here.

[Nekofrog]

tl;dr: i need to justify getting things for free simply because i enjoy them and my enjoyment should have no dollar value attached to it

or

enjoyment should have a dollar value of what the consumer believes the work is worth with no actual understanding of what went into the product that made it cost so much in the first place

wait second sentence was still tl;dr goddammit

[sgx]

That was a wonderful thread of repeating each other.

On a related note, I'm going to be experimenting with releasing a full free version of my new album in a couple months and then sell higher quality digital copies and CDs. You free music people better jump on board with your money or I'll remove the free option!

[gwilendiel]

tl;dr: i need to justify getting things for free simply because i enjoy them and my enjoyment should have no dollar value attached to it

or

enjoyment should have a dollar value of what the consumer believes the work is worth with no actual understanding of what went into the product that made it cost so much in the first place

wait second sentence was still tl;dr goddammit

You don't know that. Stop assuming.

Also I pretty much know EXACTLY what goes into the music I have interest in. I make it my business to know. In fact, how it is made is often more interesting to me than the result itself.

And also it's funny to find out that a lot of times it isn't that hard to whip up something that somebody will buy. And certain people are famous for their ability to do this, I've heard parody artists who could barf up up any song ever, except for the fact that the songs don't take them seriously - they instead mock how lame things have gotten and they usually are spot on. But if it took itself seriously people would buy it and have no clue they are actually being insulted.

But that's just my opinion there. My subjective opinion.

[big giant circles]

'atta boy, now you're catching on

[Nekofrog]

You don't know that. Stop assuming.

Also I pretty much know EXACTLY what goes into the music I have interest in. I make it my business to know. In fact, how it is made is often more interesting to me than the result itself.

And also it's funny to find out that a lot of times it isn't that hard to whip up something that somebody will buy. And certain people are famous for their ability to do this, I've heard parody artists who could barf up up any song ever, except for the fact that the songs don't take them seriously - they instead mock how lame things have gotten and they usually are spot on. But if it took itself seriously people would buy it and have no clue they are actually being insulted.

But that's just my opinion there. My subjective opinion.

i would wager you don't know one goddamn iota what goes into making a song. one person can slave for hours upon hours getting just 30 seconds written whilst another might have a spur of creativity that allows them to do the same in 15 minutes.

there is no set amount of work that goes into creating music. but it's easy looking from the outside in and thinking you have everything figured out isn't it

tl;dr stfu and gbtw

[Nabeel Ansari]

tl;dr: i need to justify getting things for free simply because i enjoy them and my enjoyment should have no dollar value attached to it

or

enjoyment should have a dollar value of what the consumer believes the work is worth with no actual understanding of what went into the product that made it cost so much in the first place

wait second sentence was still tl;dr goddammit

That's not what he was saying at all;

Read the thread.

[Meteo Xavier]

You free music people better jump on board with your money or I'll remove the free option!

I'm sold on this sentence alone. Gotta look at my upcoming finances though. When's it dropping?

[Nekofrog]

That's not what he was saying at all;

Read the thread.

I did and that's exactly the message that he is putting forward. That one's work should have a value at what he thinks it is, not what the creator of it does (or the ones that fund an allow the creation of it, the "music industry")

[gwilendiel]

i would wager you don't know one goddamn iota what goes into making a song. one person can slave for hours upon hours getting just 30 seconds written whilst another might have a spur of creativity that allows them to do the same in 15 minutes.

there is no set amount of work that goes into creating music. but it's easy looking from the outside in and thinking you have everything figured out isn't it

tl;dr stfu and gbtw

That's what asking questions are for. Or doing research. Or even trying it myself.

And I HAVE slaved over music. I've sat for 20 hours straight without even EATING just to perfect one bar.

But then there's the crap that I throw together too. I could make a song that a DJ would spin at a rave in probably two hours or less, because I know the popular elements.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I did and that's exactly the message that he is putting forward. That one's work should have a value at what he thinks it is, not what the creator of it does (or the ones that fund an allow the creation of it, the "music industry")

No, he said that you have the right to say what you want even though you might not (and usually won't) get it and that you can refuse to buy until you get that price.

However, I believe this statement was not very necessary to say because it wasn't what BGC was talking about when Gwil said it/ used as an argument against BGC's argument.