Who is to say anything is worth anything? Assignment of value has to be an agreement between buyer and seller, otherwise the market fails. This is Econ 101.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
A devastating response to the "free music" generation.
- Thread starter Benjamin Strange
- Start date
Who is to say anything is worth anything? Assignment of value has to be an agreement between buyer and seller, otherwise the market fails. This is Econ 101.
HA!
You ever tried playing in a gigging, recording, touring originals band? You ever recorded a decent sounding CD and manufactured in any quantity? It costs. A lot.
It's hard enough as an independent musician. If you read this piece by Steve Albini, you get the picture of how hard it might be when you're signed to a record label.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Now, who exactly do you think gets burned when music sales are dropping like they are now? It's all good and fine to give people free music when you're Trent Reznor and you don't owe a record company anything because your band and side projects have been commercially and critically successful for nearly two decades. But, when you're almost any other band, chances are you will be in debt to the record company and come out with absolutely zilch in terms of compensation for your work. Remember this from the article?
That leaves approximately 74,000 albums in 2010 that probably didn't make a profit for the artist. And you honestly think that downloading music free is okay because most artists get enough money as it is?
Economics, like ethics and philosophy, is an imperfect "science" and you will find just as many economists that support free exchange as you will that abhor it. This is a completely unprecedented model everybody is working in, which I doubt Econ 101 anticipated.
I think its silly for any musician to support free trade of private music property.
If youre arguing for free music, AND you read that article, or any other, or even thought about it a little, and STILL want to download illegally, then my generation is ****ed regarding more than the future of music
If youre arguing for free music, AND you read that article, or any other, or even thought about it a little, and STILL want to download illegally, then my generation is ****ed regarding more than the future of music
I think the bottom line here is that you guys assume that all musicians who put out an album deserve to be paid for their work. I don't. Of the hundreds of thousands of bands out there, I think a very, very, very small percentage do something that is worthy of value. Now that's my opinion, but that's all that value is, an opinion. Other people disagree with me on which music has value, which is fine, they'll lend their own value to other people...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that sob stories about the latest Nickelback clone not being able to put food on the table aren't going to tug at my heartstrings. Those guys shouldn't have been making music in the first place, if that's what they call music.
When I say enough money gets to the bands, I mean that enough money gets to the right bands...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that sob stories about the latest Nickelback clone not being able to put food on the table aren't going to tug at my heartstrings. Those guys shouldn't have been making music in the first place, if that's what they call music.
When I say enough money gets to the bands, I mean that enough money gets to the right bands...
It is an unprecedented model, and your approach leaves labor powerless. Big corporations still profit, just different big corporations than before. Creators are left fighting for crumbs from an even smaller pie, with little guarantee that they'll get anything at all. The new model is unquestionably worse for musicians, people involved in the production of music and people who invest in the release of that music.
pmchenry said:
I think youre being brusquely stubborn and ignorant.
Lets say an old woman grows tomatoes by herself, and sell them at the market. Now, these tomatoes are soft and disgusting and brown, and they taste like old farts. the thing is that she is selling them; they're still her property. it doesn't matter if you don't think she should be growing tomatoes, or that your opinion of what they should cost is different; they are her mother-****ing tomatoes.
people like you are the reason that the britney spears and nickelbacks of the world will be the only artists able to survive, suckling off the teet of a convoluted corporate entity in the near future. YOU are the reason, not the other way around
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,831
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
You are an accountant, therefore you speak the language of finance.
You know that the artist's business can be modelled as a financial statement that lists income and expenditure, resulting in a net profit or loss. You know that there are direct costs (eg the electricity used to power the equipment used for recording, cost of transport to and from the studio, etc) and indirect costs (depreciation of gear etc).
Do you study the financial statements of each artist to ensure they will not make a net loss at what you determine to be a fair pricepoint? If not, then how do you determine fair?
No, he isn't. He's obviously smart, just wrong about this issue.
His ideas about free exchange are too pie-in-the-sky. They ignore too many realities that people involved in the music business have to deal with every day. A world where recorded music, movies, books, etc., are free to everyone and artists are still fairly compensated for their work would be great, but until someone comes up with a model that accomplishes BOTH sides of that coin, it is unfair to force content creators into a model where they are powerless. All it will do is drive content creators from the business, especially those who exist outside the mainstream, and we'll be left with a very narrow spectrum of art still being created.
Actually, Econ 101 explains it just fine.
Consumers are smiling and producers are suffering. It's called a market failure, and it's due to the non-excludability of the goods being exchanged. Because of the internet, recordings have taken on features of a public good. Because non-buyers can still use the product, the nature of exchange is also altered in a way that results in economic inefficiency; the significant cost of a recording is unlikely to be recouped. This leads to underinvestment because, over time, the benefits of success are not sufficient to make the initial investment worthwhile. To correct this failure and stimulate investment again, exclusion mechanisms can be applied to the goods in question. Simple as that.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,831
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
beggar98 said:
I deleted the post a little too late...
I just got very angry at people in my own professional for trying to disenfranchise us allbecause they want to justify being cheap about a luxury that they clearly value.
As a young guy, it makes me sick to my stomach to see half of my generation fighting for civil rights and to save our earth into enfranchise artists, and yet the other half of my generation is just as backwards and full of doublethink as the civilization in aldous huxleys 'brave new world'
it's sad- vegans smoking cigarettes, politically motivated teenagers who dont care about our world, and artists who steal from their peers
pmchenry said:
I make no such assumption. If you don't like Nickelback or whoever you are free to not buy their music. If enough people don't buy their music they don't get compensated and have to go get jobs selling used cars. that's how markets work.
What you are not free to do is take someone else's work and use it without their permission. And if you have to pay for their permission so be it.
I read how you choose to pay for works by bigger artists and if that's how free culture or whatever you call it is supposed to work I can't see how it's any better than the market. It strikes me as demonstrably worse . You'd replace a system where two side can freely enter into (or not) a transaction on terms they both agree with with one where the buyer sets the terms and the seller has no choice in the matter. How is that better? How is that "free."?
My pleasure.
Alternatively, if anyone is going to be that gung-ho about making sure people get their music for 'free', you can do some creative cost-shifting back onto consumers via crowdfunding. There will always be a cost involved, but at no point is it carried by the artist. There is, of course, an obligation to produce a product that meets the consumer's expectations, though.
This is probably a good option for people who don't need their music to generate income. All the same, whether sentimentality remains enough of an incentive for fans to donate remains to be seen.
If you do want to make a profit, you can simply charge for the album in addition to having fans fund its creation.
My pleasure.
Alternatively, if anyone is going to be that gung-ho about making sure people get their music for 'free', you can do some creative cost-shifting back onto consumers via crowdfunding. There will always be a cost involved, but at no point is it carried by the artist. There is, of course, an obligation to produce a product that meets the consumer's expectations, though.
This is probably a good option for people who don't need their music to generate income. All the same, whether sentimentality remains enough of an incentive for fans to donate remains to be seen.
If you do want to make a profit, you can simply charge for the album in addition to having fans fund its creation.
Crowdfunding, I've heard of a few artists using it, but their names escape me at this time. There's a positive use for musicians on the internet since most crowd sourcing relies on the social media and low cost online banking.
Your generation is $#%^ed regardless. Of course they still want to download for free. They've been raised by profit loving, win at all cost parents and schooled by colleges who teach that people are nothing more than resources. They go to work in offices where it's only illegal if you get caught. And it's only wrong if the fines outway the savings. There is no stopping it now. It's in the culture, from 60yr old men to teenagers.
Edit: My point being, best to discover a way to adapt rather then point fingers at the kids or holler for more gov. regulations. That can of worms needs to stay shut.
