Why Are You Giving Your Music Away?

[Fender&EHX4ever]

I hope to never be reduced to a weekend warrior!

 

 

I hope to never be reduced to needing this kind of inflated sense of identity.

[christianatl]

Still?

[Guest Guest]

I hope to never be reduced to needing this kind of inflated sense of identity.

 

 

Which kind? We've had a variety of flavors introduced in this one thread alone.

[penelope twee]

As far as I'm concerned bands can approach music as a career, regard their 'products' as intellectual property and refuse to play gigs unless they receive some form of remuneration. It seems a bit unseemly to me and I would prefer to regard music as primarily a communicative medium but it isn't of too much concern.

However, people can complain all they like but computers and the internet have fundamentally changed how music can be created, recorded and disseminated. It has also had a major impact on how music is even conceptualised. Teenagers are no longer restricted to a few records a month, they can download entire back catalogues for free without having to leave the confines of their bedroom. You only have to look at a site like last.fm to see that many young people consume music voraciously listening to hundreds of songs a week. For every record that is genuinely cherished many others will be dismissed as disposable.

Those people presumably enjoy listening to music as much as previous generations. However, as Brian Eno stated recently music has always had a social dimension for young people and that has changed due to the internet. Websites like last.fm place users' listening habits within the public domain. As such the consumption of music becomes an expression of status, identity and mood and provides an opportunity to interact with 'like-minded' people across the world. Sharing music also becomes a form of communication in itself. The artistic content of the music may sometimes be secondary.

'Consumers' can not only download a band's precious recordings, they can also edit, contort or bastardise them with a modicum of skill and a free program. Anyone can make music and thousands of people 'release' their recordings online each year. The boundaries between 'amateur' and 'professional' musicians are not always particularly distinct. While some posters on this forum may feel they have served an apprenticeship and should reap the (monetary) rewards as a result, those 'qualifications' are not necessarily recognised by listeners. It's not like completing a medical degree.

In many respects music has been 'democratised' but I'm sure there are lots potential disadvantages. Yet the shifts have been brought about through a dynamic process which cannot be easily curtailed by internet providers, labels, bands or nation states, let alone the members of this forum. It seems unlikely that the refusal of a few (largely unknown) bands to participate in the culture of free downloading would make many people see recorded music as inherently valuable. Little is sacred and value and meaning are never fixed, that's post-modernity for you.

[less_cunning]

whoa this thread really exploded.

[satannica]

The unwritten rule is out the window. I know where you are coming from... I was there all through the 90's making good music to a decent reception, with little talent for the rest of it... and yeah, $5 was standard... but people only got music from the store... $10 minimum, and half the bands I was into were on import only... so maybe $15? You could get used CD's for $6 or $7... if you were into past it's prime top 40 stuff... but your options were limited. This is not that anymore. Recorded music has been severely devalued. We can sit here and bitch about how {censored}ing lame it is, etc... but it doesn't change the fact that songs are worth an absolute maximum of $.99... and usually free. It is what it is... and make no mistake, it is.

 

 

Hmmm - I only just ran out of stock on a CD for a band I was in years ago. I average about 12 CD sales per month - and that's with zero promotion, no live stuff as the bands are defunct. I guess I am a legend or something lol! I highly doubt it!

 

In fact, when I was going with my last serious band, we sold a grand total of 3000 CDs (bar the give-aways every so often). I know that because I was about to order up the fourth 1000 run when the band imploded.

 

OK, it's not make a living money. But like I keep saying. If you're good enough, people will buy the product. Be it CD or, as some have mentioned, download cards. {censored} it, if it works, who are you or I to say it should be free? {censored} that, let them pay you. They'll appreciate it more, you get paid to put money into your next album.

[renula]

As far as I'm concerned bands can approach music as a career, regard their 'products' as intellectual property and refuse to play gigs unless they receive some form of remuneration. It seems a bit unseemly to me and I would prefer to regard music as primarily a communicative medium but it isn't of too much concern. However, people can complain all they like but computers and the internet have fundamentally changed how music can be created, recorded and disseminated. It has also had a major impact on how music is even conceptualised. Teenagers are no longer restricted to a few records a month, they can download entire back catalogues for free without having to leave the confines of their bedroom. You only have to look at a site like last.fm to see that many young people consume music voraciously listening to hundreds of songs a week. For every record that is genuinely cherished many others will be dismissed as disposable. Those people presumably enjoy listening to music as much as previous generations. However, as Brian Eno stated recently music has always had a social dimension for young people and that has changed due to the internet. Websites like last.fm place users' listening habits within the public domain. As such the consumption of music becomes an expression of status, identity and mood and provides an opportunity to interact with 'like-minded' people across the world. Sharing music also becomes a form of communication in itself. The artistic content of the music may sometimes be secondary. 'Consumers' can not only download a band's precious recordings, they can also edit, contort or bastardise them with a modicum of skill and a free program. Anyone can make music and thousands of people 'release' their recordings online each year. The boundaries between 'amateur' and 'professional' musicians are not always particularly distinct. While some posters on this forum may feel they have served an apprenticeship and should reap the (monetary) rewards as a result, those 'qualifications' are not necessarily recognised by listeners. It's not like completing a medical degree. In many respects music has been 'democratised' but I'm sure there are lots potential disadvantages. Yet the shifts have been brought about through a dynamic process which cannot be easily curtailed by internet providers, labels, bands or nation states, let alone the members of this forum. It seems unlikely that the refusal of a few (largely unknown) bands to participate in the culture of free downloading would make many people see recorded music as inherently valuable. Little is sacred and value and meaning are never fixed, that's post-modernity for you.

 

 

Frame this. Well said.

[Sad Darwin]

Frame this. Well said.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

So the question everyone in this thread fails to ask themselves and their fellow musicians is "what are you going to do about it?".

[Fender&EHX4ever]

 

Agreed. So the question everyone in this thread fails to ask themselves and their fellow musicians is "what are you going to do about it?".

 

 

We'll keep theorizing in an internet forum for effects instead of writing good songs... thank you very much.

[Sad Darwin]

We'll keep theorizing in an internet forum for effects instead of writing good songs... thank you very much.

 

 

OK, that's step one. You've written a good song.... what happens next?

 

It used to be (in theory, rarely in practice) that you wrote a good song and if the song was "good enough" there were channels that would help you to answer that question.

 

This thread is essentially about the fact that those channels have atrophied if not completely disintegrated. So the question is "what are we going to do to replace those channels?".

[pbone]

In my mind, I'm a professional musician, not an amateur. Professionals get paid.

I Don't Really Think of Myself as a Musician

[christianatl]

"when people start talking about technique or scales or whatever I just nod right off."

[Fender&EHX4ever]

OK, that's step one. You've written a good song.... what happens next? It used to be (in theory, rarely in practice) that you wrote a good song and if the song was "good enough" there were channels that would help you to answer that question. This thread is essentially about the fact that those channels have atrophied if not completely disintegrated. So the question is "what are we going to do to replace those channels?".

 

 

Viral videos seem to have jump-started quite a few sensations in the last few years. I certainly think that is an avenue that hasn't been well-exploited yet by great songwriters - but again, I think the real problem is the lack of great songwriters.

[humancertainty]

Just curious, to you guys who want to make a living through music or are currently making a living through music, what constitutes a living to you? I know most people aren't very open about their money situation, so it doesn't necessarily have to be what you make now but rather how much you realistically think you can (or in a couple of cases here a ball park figure of what you make currently with it). BTW SAL you said you wouldn't play a show for free, are you serious? I have been paid for tons of shows but have also played plenty of free ones. If I play locally with a friends band from out of state who are touring I always pass everything along to them... Also some of you guys value your opinions waaaay to much.

I did make a living at it for a while. But that was living pretty thrifty, having roommates, and touring a lot. I'm not sure what my income averaged out to, but it was probably equivalent to a semi-skilled clerk/service industry type of job.
I'd like to do it again and perhaps I will someday, but I was always in it for the touring and traveling, as opposed to fame/popularity, money, etc. The money was nice and helped make it possible, for sure, but it was all about the touring and playing for me.

[TheHarakiriEnd]

I did make a living at it for a while. But that was living pretty thrifty, having roommates, and touring a lot. I'm not sure what my income averaged out to, but it was probably equivalent to a semi-skilled clerk/service industry type of job. I'd like to do it again and perhaps I will someday, but I was always in it for the touring and traveling, as opposed to fame/popularity, money, etc. The money was nice and helped make it possible, for sure, but it was all about the touring and playing for me.

 

 

I'm 100% about the music and experience too, so if my post came off otherwise I didn't intend for it to. I guess what I am saying is even when people are talking about 'making a living' from their music, they aren't really talking apples to apples about what a lot of people consider a living.

[THAT4301]

One thing that does annoy me is when people feel they have a right to make a living selling CDs, and whenever that's not possible to blame everything; labels, consumers, whoever; rather than accept that just because you wish you could run your own business producing and performing music, doesn't mean you're entitled to, any more than someone running a market stall or a huge Ltd company is 'entitled' to be able to do what they want to profitably.

 

You want to do music as a business? Good for you, but stfu about the very notion of 'artistic integrity'.