Members sventvkg Posted May 21, 2012 Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 What exactly level are you at? I don't know, Maybe you'll think I suck.... http://soundcloud.com/seanmormelo/sets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted May 21, 2012 Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 So is water. But it's cheap because it's plentiful. Supply and demand. Technology makes music as plentiful as water. It's not even about piracy. I can legally listen to any song I want any time I want without paying for it. So why would I? Why would I need to own it for the most part? Water is cheap? Well Ok..Lets regulate music like water. If everyone was paying a $50 a month water bill like I do than the music industry would be in good shape, wouldn't it? I agree that the ownership is a failing model as I have railed on about on these forums..I think streaming is the future. I know it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members schmatass Posted May 21, 2012 Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 Take it to the other extreme: if there's NO money to be made creating music, then the ONLY people doing it will be the true artists doing for the love of the MUSIC. From an ARTISTIC standpoint, that might be a better thing. And MIGHT lead to real music having real value again. Not likely. Look at all the vapid crap being churned out right now. Most of it is auto-tuned, soul-less, and without any staying power. Why is that? The internet, social media and bit torrent sites have all perpetuated the current music business. IMHO, REAL artists will stay home and take up something else, especially when there's no incentive for earning potential. You can't have one without the other...not for very long anyway. Earning potential creates incentive and incentive is what drives the free-market to thrive. When that erodes away, the real art disappears. Funny, this is exactly what is happening right now as we speak and has been for the past decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Potts Posted May 21, 2012 Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 I don't know, Maybe you'll think I suck....http://soundcloud.com/seanmormelo/sets LOL.. Suck is the last thing that you are dude! Fricken awesome tunes- great songwriting. Do you write all the tunes, collaborate or...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted May 21, 2012 Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 Water is cheap? Well Ok..Lets regulate music like water. If everyone was paying a $50 a month water bill like I do than the music industry would be in good shape, wouldn't it?I agree that the ownership is a failing model as I have railed on about on these forums..I think streaming is the future. I know it is. Yeah I think that's where we're going as well. And money will still be made. But it won't be as much per single as it was in 1960. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted May 21, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 You can't just throw the word "value" around without defining it. There are values on may different levels-intrinsic value, artistic value, and market value are just three. The problem comes when we conflate these into one. Something can have a market value and no artistic value at all. Or it can have artistic value and no market value. Or it can have just intrinsic value (what it took to produce it) with neither market nor artistic value. I think what Vince Gill was talking about is market value of art in general. That single in 1961 that was 99 cents would be about 6 to 7 dollars today. The fact that the market for music has become so devalued that a fart noise is just as valuable in the market as a great song is just a sad development and says a lot about us as a culture. I don't see it as him crying over lost revenue- he'll do just fine. I see it as a lament over where our culture has taken us and how the technology we have invented to make our lives better has unintended consequences. If the only people who can make a living making music are the folks putting out things like "Poker Face" and "F**k You" and "Red Solo Cup", we're in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted May 21, 2012 Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 You can't just throw the word "value" around without defining it. There are values on may different levels-intrinsic value, artistic value, and market value are just three. The problem comes when we conflate these into one. Something can have a market value and no artistic value at all. Or it can have artistic value and no market value. Or it can have just intrinsic value (what it took to produce it) with neither market nor artistic value. I think what Vince Gill was talking about is market value of art in general. That single in 1961 that was 99 cents would be about 6 to 7 dollars today. The fact that the market for music has become so devalued that a fart noise is just as valuable in the market as a great song is just a sad development and says a lot about us as a culture. I don't see it as him crying over lost revenue- he'll do just fine. I see it as a lament over where our culture has taken us and how the technology we have invented to make our lives better has unintended consequences. If the only people who can make a living making music are the folks putting out things like "Poker Face" and "F**k You" and "Red Solo Cup", we're in trouble. A discussion we've had a million times and has existed for years. I'd submit that great songs have never really had value in and of themselves, except to the degree you can sell them as 'product' and subject them to the marketing process. I don't know that the top sellers of 1960 were really so much better in terms of "art" than the top sellers of today and no doubt the older artists of the time were probably comparing "The Twist" to fart noises. The "fart app" comparison is interesting on one level to me: people who are creative and interested in tapping into that creativity for money have many more options than they did in 1960. Back then you could become a songwriter or an author or maybe a painter. Now, you create apps or do many other things that previously may have only been limited to big corporations. It's easier to be a Joe-Schmo who comes up with the next Angry Birds than a Joe Schmo who comes up with the next Hula Hoop it seems to me. And my point was not that he was crying over his personal lost revenue. Just that he might have been comparing today's revenue to a period of time that was an anomoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LordBTY Posted May 21, 2012 Members Share Posted May 21, 2012 Not likely. Look at all the vapid crap being churned out right now. Most of it is auto-tuned, soul-less, and without any staying power. Why is that? The internet, social media and bit torrent sites have all perpetuated the current music business. IMHO, REAL artists will stay home and take up something else, especially when there's no incentive for earning potential. You can't have one without the other...not for very long anyway. Earning potential creates incentive and incentive is what drives the free-market to thrive. When that erodes away, the real art disappears. Funny, this is exactly what is happening right now as we speak and has been for the past decade. This 'auto-tuned, soul-less' music you speak of generally has significantly more artistic merit than the nostalgia-boner bands. It's not exactly a wild cultural revolution but at least it's something new and creative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted May 22, 2012 Members Share Posted May 22, 2012 LOL.. Suck is the last thing that you are dude! Fricken awesome tunes- great songwriting. Do you write all the tunes, collaborate or...?LOL Thanks man I wrote most of those myself with some collaboration on a few. I have a production partner who I've been best friends with since we were 14 and 13, who lives across the street. We write as much as we can as well but right now we're trying to catch up on demoing my 100 song backlog!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted May 30, 2012 Members Share Posted May 30, 2012 True, but again, I didn't see a bitch about "the man is taking all the profits from MY music" in Gill's comment. Seemed he was just bitching about how a single isn't worth as much as it used to be-- that the GROSS wasn't what it used to be, not just his net. And yeah, I agree. That sucks. I remember stories about how some guys lived their entire lives off of one Top 10 single. And I'm sure that DID happen with the right song back in the day. Those must have been great times to be a songwriter/recording artist. These days, it's not so much. Maybe the 'cheap suit' guys at his label, and his agent. The musicians I've run into with top 10 hits from those days have no money; they rarely even have any teeth.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.