Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
People get music for free - detrimental to artists?
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Thessaly
57 posts

Re: People get music for free - detrimental to artists?

Their music is played frequently during story transitions on NPR shows. I don't know what they get from that - probably not much

Oct 09, 2008, 20:40


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

GaryB
GaryB
1554 posts

Re: People get music for free - detrimental to artists?

Yeah The Smiths' and Morrissey's record company like to milk it. Moz's (latest) Greatest release had a bonus live CD in the 'deluxe' format, which I would have bought for ?10, but not ?19. I subsequently illegaly downloaded it for free!!

I really do fancy the new Smiths best. Did you hear about the 12x7" box-set - its pretty cool?!

Oct 09, 2008, 21:47


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

GaryB
GaryB
1554 posts

Re: People get music for free - detrimental to artists?

Its a pretty nice arse though. Its gotta be said.

Oct 09, 2008, 21:47


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Bytor Peltor
Bytor Peltor
165 posts

Re: People get music for free - detrimental to artists?

Kazak wrote:
Actually they didn't play Dallas this time around either. I know because I live in Norman, Oklahoma and had to drive all the way to Austin to see them. perhaps they decided on Austin as a way to split the difference between Houston and Dallas?


Thanks for clearing that up. It just doesn't add up that they would come all this way to Texas and not play Houston & Dallas. Where is the loyalty to their fans? IF they play Houston on their next tour, it will be close to a decade between visits : (

Beware the re-packaged extra track trap......no good comes from that at all! NOW - I don't look at Sonic Youth's re-issues of 'Dirty' & 'Daydream Nation' in the same way as they include ALL of the extra tracks, demos and live versions of things recorded during that time. A great way to get everything for new and old fans alike.

Oct 10, 2008, 00:39


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

waxenpith
waxenpith
1529 posts

Re: People get music for free - detrimental to artists?

GaryB wrote:
Its a pretty nice arse though. Its gotta be said.


as an arse expert, i'm giving it a 7 out of 10. I withhold the right to change my rating upon closer imspection. be it with my eyes, hands or .... never mind.

Oct 10, 2008, 03:25


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Thats a silly question

Of course its detrimental to artists.

It's theft. Period.

No amount of silly arguments about someone collecting sports cars or airplanes makes it less than theft. Thats what it is.

Don't ge me wrong, I'm not making a moral judgement. I download stuff myself, all the time. But its theft, and I know it.

And why should artists give away their work for free? The ultimate goal of art is not for others to enjoy it. The ultimate goal of art is self-expression. You don't work for free, why should anyone else? People put their time and effort into creating music, they should be rewarded.

Oct 10, 2008, 03:43


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5914 posts

Re: Thats a silly question

Cheeso wrote:
Of course its detrimental to artists.

It's theft. Period.

No amount of silly arguments about someone collecting sports cars or airplanes makes it less than theft. Thats what it is.

Don't ge me wrong, I'm not making a moral judgement. I download stuff myself, all the time. But its theft, and I know it.

And why should artists give away their work for free? The ultimate goal of art is not for others to enjoy it. The ultimate goal of art is self-expression. You don't work for free, why should anyone else? People put their time and effort into creating music, they should be rewarded.


I agree.

Oct 10, 2008, 04:52


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Stereo Mouse
Stereo Mouse
634 posts

Re: Thats a silly question

Cheeso wrote:
Of course its detrimental to artists.

It's theft. Period.

No amount of silly arguments about someone collecting sports cars or airplanes makes it less than theft. Thats what it is.

Don't ge me wrong, I'm not making a moral judgement. I download stuff myself, all the time. But its theft, and I know it.

And why should artists give away their work for free? The ultimate goal of art is not for others to enjoy it. The ultimate goal of art is self-expression. You don't work for free, why should anyone else? People put their time and effort into creating music, they should be rewarded.


Good points. Except that I'd still defend the very concept of file sharing, because at its best it does build a sort of a micro-level gift economy, where the users can share the music between each other because audio files aren't zero-sum, like records or tapes, but instead, can be copied to another computer. Of course, reckless parasitism regarding official records isn't really the way to go, but such a gift economy concept has been wonderful in areas such as live recordings (or loosely called "bootlegs"), an area that many recording artists tolerate.

I haven't bought any digital files as a music format yet. I still prefer physical formats. Because physical format is zero-sum, and thus it is justified to ask money for it. Files can be copied easily so if someone downloads your files you won't lose the files. Thus it's not zero sum and one wonders whether or not there is any point in making music available for paid download.

Oct 10, 2008, 07:08


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

JS
JS
489 posts

Re: Thats a silly question

Cheeso wrote:
Of course its detrimental to artists.

It's theft. Period.

No amount of silly arguments about someone collecting sports cars or airplanes makes it less than theft. Thats what it is.

Don't ge me wrong, I'm not making a moral judgement. I download stuff myself, all the time. But its theft, and I know it.

And why should artists give away their work for free? The ultimate goal of art is not for others to enjoy it. The ultimate goal of art is self-expression. You don't work for free, why should anyone else? People put their time and effort into creating music, they should be rewarded.


So, to you, there is no difference between an artist who can collect airplanes and an artist who can barely survive?

Yes, I don't work for free, because I need the few money I make in order to survive and buy me a little comfort in life, but if I had more than enough money, I would gladly work for free. At that point, the reward from my work would be something else than monetary, that's all.

About the ultimate goal of art you mentioned (self experssion), what is the difference between an artist expressing himself in front of an audience of a few people and an audience of a few million people? It's still self-expression if your audience is just a single person, right? Some even say that artists doesn't need audience at all... If self experssion is the ultimate goal of art, then no audience, a small or a huge audience would make no difference to the artist, right?

I don't know, I am not an artist. But I suppose that most artists want their creations to be seen/heard by as many people as possible... What better way to achieve this than giving your art for free, then? Of course, you need money to survive, but what should you do when you reach a point where you won't have financial worries for the rest of your days? Maybe then it's time to stop hoarding...Maybe then stealing from people who keep on hoarding more than they need isn't such a bad thing...

Oct 10, 2008, 20:30


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cybele
cybele
736 posts

Radiohead - In Rainbows

Now that some time has passed, I wonder what the consensus is regarding the way Radiohead released "In Rainbows". Was this method a win win? Did they make money? Did they release a lot of units?

I ask because I'm too lazy to pilfer through all of the spin and find out.

Cybele

Oct 10, 2008, 21:04

Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index