A devastating response to the "free music" generation.

[notverygood]

Invalid Link Removed

Some interesting comments from mandolin players on my other forum that I go to. The back to basics, self made music comments I found inspiring. But I don't make my living playing music.

 

[fingerbun]

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.

I have received crowdfunding requests from a couple of artists. I just supported one for the first time. To be honest it was a no brainer. If the product was produced I got a copy. If they didn't make enough money for the production I got my cash back. So provided they didn't run off with my cash I was ok.

 

[fingerbun]

 

[DeadGoonz]

Dang kids, get off my lawn and stop sharing my music! Now I have to crank up my Model-T and head on down to the 5&dime for a Lime Ricky! Mmmm!

 

[MUSHROOMSeAcOw]

Without debating the ethics of downloading, the section of the letter where he breaks down how much you should pay for the discussed 11k songs is ridiculous. He ignores that the record company charges markup and says that It would only cost roughly $2k, or $18 a month over 10 years. Which is supposed to sound doable. But the simple fact is that you have to pay for the song, not just what the artist should get.

If you buy 11,000 songs in a format where the artist gets a cut of your money (therefore excluding used cds and the like), the bottom line is that you will end up spending roughly a dollar a song. You would not have to pay $2,139 to do right by the artist for enjoying their art. You would pay ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Not an ethical argument or condonation/condemnation. Just a gaping hole in the logic of the letter.