Continuing the copyright discussion...

[teleharmonium]

Which is fine, but I don't think that's what Jason or myself are wanting to do. We are all approaching music from different angles and have different goals. Mine is to play music for a living and to be a performer, and to make that happen you have to look at more aspects of the music business than just the music and getting your royalties.

Yes I see that, although I would point out that I am in fact a performer, and I do want to make a living from music - just not from live music.

I don't necessarily expect that to happen, but it is a goal.

 

[TRichardsbass]

I've read some great discussion so far. Sondogue, I appreciate your philosophy. Personally, I don't believe the the utopia, and therefore while I do live by the "change the things you can, tolerate what you cannot, and know the difference" I still will get on the idealogical soap box to see if we can get people to be honest and fair. I will take actions to protect my rights because there are many who don't care about rights, period. And they are the ones who destroy it for everyone. Sometimes you have to fight the good fight even if you know you will lose, just to waken the sleeping giant.

Jason and others make some points and use the term "market". Market is really based on supply and demand, nothing more. Jason wants to place market on the value of the medium that transmits the product. A CD is worth $5, so that is what music is worth. I take a different look. The media you can get music on has changed. Since an iPod now costs $145, does that now make all music worth $145? No. But the iPod exists because the desire, the need for music is bigger then its ever, ever been. Music has VALUE.

Music is soooo heavily downloaded that the "market" for music is HUGE! If music had no value, if it was just fluff, no one would download it, free or not. What actually makes it even more attractive is the feeling of many that they can get something of value, ie they would have to pay $1.99 for each song, for FREE!. The argument being made is convoluted with the thinking that because they want it for free its worth nothing. Quite the opposite. It is worth much more.

I often laugh. There are people who work for me that if I made the worlds greatest brownie, just out of the oven, and put a sign saying, "brownies, $.05" they will never take any. They will want it, they will crave it. They will beg for the crumbs of others. But if I put them out the next day, stale and moldy, with a sign that says "free", they will eat the entire tray before anyone else can get them. They want the brownies. They can actually afford the brownies. But they would rather feel like they got something of value for nothing. (This is a true story, by the way.)

Like many of us here on TB with G.A.S. I will always try to spend the least for a bass I really want. I just paid $575 for a Guild Pilot, which was $100 less then the guy was selling it on eBay for. You can find Guild Pilots on Craigs for around $300 (although not the early model I got) and one person here found a MIA Pilot, from the late '80s in near mint for $99. Does that mean all Guild Pilots are now only worth $99? No. Would I have scooped that up had I found it at that price? You bet, because even in the "market" it is worth much, much more. My Pilot is not worth only $99 now. But I'd definitely rather pay $99 then $575.

Music as a commodity is the same. Like I said, the market for music is huge. There are people who will pay for it, and many who would search for years online using P2P to get it for free. Music has a great value. An immense value. But now technology allows people to steal it. And you know, the general sentiment is that its "stealing" from the huge, faceless corporation, so it doesn't hurt anyone. The music biz is really the guy like you and me, who gets $.09 for every unit produced and pennies for each use. I'm not a faceless corporation. That is why I'm so soapboxy right now.

Sondogue made some points but I also have to wonder why he would be okay with people copying his work and profiting from it. If the goal is to make a living, and your work is valuable enough that someone can copy it and make money from it, then you shoud be able to make the better living. And Sondogue, in your world is it okay that someone can take your exact work and make more then you ever did, even with it having your name on it?

As an artist you certainly know about art fakers. There are people who for centuries could mimic nearly perfectly the works of the great masters, and cell them as such for huge money. They weren't right, honest, moral, ethical or good.

As for performing, everyone can make some money from performances. However the market is starting to dry up, in my opinion, because of the "free" mentality. There will always be someone who will buy the $300 bottle of house vodka for the exclusive feeling of being at the coolest club and feeling like a VIP, but more and more lately I see people walking away from a bar with a $3 cover for the best cover band in NJ because there is a cover. Its not the economy, because many of these kids will spend $8 for a pack of cigs, which has no redeeming value.

All this talk about bands putting there stuff out for free for donations is dumb. I have never seen how much they made from that, but I hear from label guys it backfired in a big way. They anticipated it making them money but found out that very few donated. I did a quick web search and came across a majority of YouTube posts that actually had people talking about how they cannot wait for the next "free" Radiohead stuff.

I am not, nor have I been, filthy rich. Clearly you never see me on TMZ TV or featured on the red carpet at the Grammys. I have been able to make a very good living from recording music and playing out. Very few artists have ever made huge dollars from record sales. But you know who did? Don Kirshner, Carole King, Louis Goffin, Neil Sedaka, Neil Diamond, all the SONGWRITERS from the Brill Building. None of them started as feature performers. I don't think I've ever seen Mr. Goffin do a solo show. But he lives comfortably here, because of his writing and the copyright system. They were lucky enough to have had their creative peaks during the vinyl era, where the rampant "sharing" of today could not happen.

The biz today actually, with copyright protection, should make it even easier for the artist to make money from their own creation. The middle man, the label, is disappearing. I can write, record and distribute my own music. I should be able to sell it for a darn $0.99 and make my $0.09 from copyright mechanicals for each download. P2P software is just a distribution method, which, even in many other countries in the world, are regulated and must pay.

Not sure if we can ever stop it, but we can educate the young ones about it and try to curb it some. Hell, I can't stop my neighbor from blowing his leaves on my lawn, even though its illegal. But I can get his attention and make him think about it by sending the local code enforcement officer to his house to make him take down his illegal fence. That one cost him more then he ever imagined...

 

[Sundogue]

There are two aspects at play here...

Creating/Performing and Buying/Stealing.

The two are intertwined. As I mentioned in other posts, even people who are predisposed to stealing seldom steal from someone who they have a connection with.

In this day and age, people in general are in a state of disconnection. With regards to the music industry, even more so.

Unless as artists we learn to make real and meaningful connections with our customers, the majority are going to look upon the merchandise as having less value than the price tag suggests.

As an artist I can tell you flat out, it does not matter what price you put on something. It is only worth what people are willing to spend on it. Period. End of story.

You can write, record and put all the music you want out there on some plastic discs, or as a digital file on the internet. And you put whatever price you want on it. But so long as people have no real connection with you, your work may very well be valued as nothing but a cheap piece of round plastic, or just another file to download that will entertain them for a few minutes. And face the facts, everything in life is nothing but a series of experiences where there are degrees of value to them.

So what are they willing to pay for that experience? No connection with you = little to no value.

Consider that there are so many musicians sitting in home recording studios cranking out more music than ever before in the history of the world, where almost anyone can do that...what value does society place on that product? The product of music these days is about right up there with gumballs in a gumball machine. Sure gumballs only cost a quarter, but how many try to get that gumball machine to drop the candy without paying for it?

It's all about connections. We simply have to make a connection again with the fan base and it has to go beyond the music itself, because for all the gumballs out there, there is a ton of great music. Whose going to pay for your gumball and at what price?

 

[Sundogue]

Sondogue made some points but I also have to wonder why he would be okay with people copying his work and profiting from it. If the goal is to make a living, and your work is valuable enough that someone can copy it and make money from it, then you shoud be able to make the better living. And Sondogue, in your world is it okay that someone can take your exact work and make more then you ever did, even with it having your name on it?

You make excellent points and I wish there was a way to police the theft of music. But as far what we as musicians can do about it, I've already said my piece on it.

By the way...I don't sign my work any longer. Don't care to. The "idea" isn't mine...it just comes through me. I share it with the world, but I have to eat so I charge for my work. I don't need to make a "better" living. We live in a world of so much excess that it seems so natural for people to always want more. I don't need more. I only need what I need.

If others want more than they need, hey have at it. It's the American way. America, land of the hoarders. We discard more than the rest of the world consumes...even while people starve to death all over the world. Some are borderline right down my street, and on streets all over our great wealthy country. Oh yeah, I need to make a "better" living. Better than what? The family down the street that I buy groceries for occasionally and help the father get to work every day because he doesn't have a car?

You could argue that if I made more, I could give away more and that would be true. But I have my own reason for living my life as I do and it would take more space than the servers on TB could handle to explain why.

 

[Jason P Bass]

I'm not sure why you're saying this, ie, what is it you think I don't understand about their approach ?

Lots of musicians go the route of going on the road on a constant basis for as long as possible. I don't think that's any way to live and it would never work for my music. Not all music is about or even relevant to live performance. 3 or 4 gigs a month is what I prefer, and I assume that will decline as I get older.

One of the good things about the internet is the potential out of that vast pool to cobble together an audience for music (or whatever) that just is not commercial enough to be picked up by a publisher or to find a sizable local audience anywhere other than a really big city.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too. Got it.

In another metaphor, you want to make a living as a professional elevator operator in the age of electronically controlled elevators.

In yet another metaphor, you want to build a pay telephone empire in the age of cell phones.

It's fine with me, but please realize that you won't persuade me to follow your path. It just seems to me that you're getting angry that the sun rises each morning, and that doesn't seem like a very pleasant way to live.

 

[Jason P Bass]

I am not, nor have I been, filthy rich. Clearly you never see me on TMZ TV or featured on the red carpet at the Grammys. I have been able to make a very good living from recording music and playing out. Very few artists have ever made huge dollars from record sales. But you know who did? Don Kirshner, Carole King, Louis Goffin, Neil Sedaka, Neil Diamond, all the SONGWRITERS from the Brill Building. None of them started as feature performers. I don't think I've ever seen Mr. Goffin do a solo show. But he lives comfortably here, because of his writing and the copyright system. They were lucky enough to have had their creative peaks during the vinyl era, where the rampant "sharing" of today could not happen.

The biz today actually, with copyright protection, should make it even easier for the artist to make money from their own creation. The middle man, the label, is disappearing. I can write, record and distribute my own music. I should be able to sell it for a darn $0.99 and make my $0.09 from copyright mechanicals for each download. P2P software is just a distribution method, which, even in many other countries in the world, are regulated and must pay.

A Songwriter can use copyright to defend himself against the ONE SINGLE PERSON who "steals" his song and re-records it. The violator is probably registered with BMI or ASCAP, and the profits from his song are dutifully recorded by an accountant somewhere. This is a STRONG protection where someone, very publicly and very non-anonymously (nonymously?) violates your copyright, and creates a paper trail that records all the money gained. This is, and always will be, a very strong copyright protection.

A Recording Artist who has his recordings leaked onto P2P is faced with thousands or millions of anonymous people who commit a crime with a value of $1 to $10. It's like a flash mob robbing your grocery store. It is also illegal and unethical.

So what lesson can we take away from this? As a practical matter in the world of 2011, copyright is effective for protecting songwriters, and ineffective at protecting recorded music.

PS - Wikipedia says that Radiohead received an average of 4 GBP for 1.2 million downloads of their "free download / donation" album. They also released it as a traditional CD. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a plan that "backfired" as I would be delighted to sell 1.2 million downloads for an average of 4 GBP. In fact, that pretty much supports teleharmonium's idea that it should be possible to make a living by selling recorded music in the modern era, not that the Radiohead download model "backfired," IMHO.

 

[Jason P Bass]

As an artist you certainly know about art fakers. There are people who for centuries could mimic nearly perfectly the works of the great masters, and cell them as such for huge money. They weren't right, honest, moral, ethical or good.

I think this is an EXCELLENT parallel for this discussion.

I have never, ever bought an original work of painted art. However, I have bought several poster prints of extremely valuable art. As collectibles, they're worthless. As something to hang on the wall, they meet all my criteria. It looks close enough to the original and provides me with all the aesthetic pleasures that the original would. I'm no connoisseur - an approximation is all I need.

Further, I would be perfectly happy to buy a CORRECTLY LABELED copy of a masterpiece. I'm not a collector and I'm not interested in rare items, but it would be nice to upgrade from a poster print to an actual painting that is aesthetically identical to the original.

I think I probably represent a MAJOR component of the "art" buying public - the unwashed masses would never consider buying a masterpiece, but would gladly buy a poster print or, possibly, a CORRECTLY LABELED copy painting.

Switching to music / sampling -

P. Diddy sampled The Police song "Every Breath You Take" and called it "I'll Be Missin You". Police fans groaned, but P. Diddy's audience ate it up and he probably made a billion dollars from the recording, video, product placement, and related sales of liquor, clothes, and jewelry. Sales of The Police recording might have even seen a little bump.

But the unwashed masses, the vast majority of the music loving / buying / stealing market, had no objection to P. Diddy's copy of the masterpiece (i.e. sampling the original work). P. Diddy sold us a poster print of the original song with a bunch of glitter and macaroni noodles glued to it, and the market loved it.

I'm sure that whoever owns the publishing rights to "Every Breath You Take" got a nice juicy cut of P. Diddy's money, but the point is that, in music, just like paintings, most people couldn't care less about the authenticity of the original. They don't care that MP3 is a lossy format and ride cymbals sound like poop. They don't care that modern recordings are compressed beyond all recognition and they don't care that everyone sings through auto-tune.

In this world, if you have dedicated your soul, entire physical being, and precious time on Earth to creating really very high quality, authentic, beautiful original recordings of the type of creative, original, unique music that fills your heart with gladness, AND you want to find a market that adequately rewards you for your life's work... good luck. You're stuck on Earth.

 

[teleharmonium]

So you want to have your cake and eat it too. Got it.

In another metaphor, you want to make a living as a professional elevator operator in the age of electronically controlled elevators.

In yet another metaphor, you want to build a pay telephone empire in the age of cell phones.

It's fine with me, but please realize that you won't persuade me to follow your path. It just seems to me that you're getting angry that the sun rises each morning, and that doesn't seem like a very pleasant way to live.

I don't think there's anything all that special about wanting to get paid for my work. Who doesn't ? "Having/eating cake" is overly dramatic, don't you think ?

I could come up with unflattering metaphors for your position too. What does that prove ? You say you aren't going to be persuaded; do you think I am ?

It's really not about technology. It's about exploitation. There will always be people that want to take advantage of others, and opportunities to do so come and go over time.

The particular opportunity we are talking about has more to do with, again, law enforcement, terminology, and group ethics, than it does technology.

There are all kinds of opportunities for exploitation that used to be commonplace and no longer are. Society found ways to fix those problems. Sometimes it takes a while, or is a rocky road. Some people never get fair treatment in their lifetime. But progress still occurs. Everything changes, sooner or later.

If you accept the identity of helpless victim, and your exploitation as an inevitable attribute of your class, I don't see how that is preferable to my viewpoint in any sense. In other words, you can keep it, because you have no positives to use to sell that viewpoint to me.

 

[teleharmonium]

PS - Wikipedia says that Radiohead received an average of 4 GBP for 1.2 million downloads of their "free download / donation" album. They also released it as a traditional CD. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a plan that "backfired" as I would be delighted to sell 1.2 million downloads for an average of 4 GBP. In fact, that pretty much supports teleharmonium's idea that it should be possible to make a living by selling recorded music in the modern era, not that the Radiohead download model "backfired," IMHO.

If you compare it to nothing, as if any of us could just walk into their shoes, it sounds pretty good. But it makes little sense to compare it to nothing - instead it should be compared to other albums before and after it by the same band, which made more money.

Sure, it's possible to make a living if you happen to already be world famous, but they didn't get that way from pay what you like downloads of artsy music. They got that way from large promotional budgets and being very commercial. And as for a living, 4.8 million GBP isn't as much as it sounds considering that it's gross income for the whole thing, not net to musicians. They had (significant) production expenses for the album, probably a management cut, and I don't know what else, but if they were on a label, the label gets something; if not, it costs something to run the website, and they did advertise for that record, which can be very expensive. And it's not like they put out something every 6 months; it might represent income for a couple of years, as far as recordings are concerned.

It ends up looking like a fairly modest income per musician, from the recording alone. And that's fine for them, but if a hugely famous band gets that from a long awaited album, that tells me that a little known artist simply cannot depend on that sort of strategy for a living.

 

[teleharmonium]

Unless as artists we learn to make real and meaningful connections with our customers, the majority are going to look upon the merchandise as having less value than the price tag suggests.

As an artist I can tell you flat out, it does not matter what price you put on something. It is only worth what people are willing to spend on it. Period. End of story.

You can write, record and put all the music you want out there on some plastic discs, or as a digital file on the internet. And you put whatever price you want on it. But so long as people have no real connection with you, your work may very well be valued as nothing but a cheap piece of round plastic, or just another file to download that will entertain them for a few minutes. And face the facts, everything in life is nothing but a series of experiences where there are degrees of value to them.

Actually price matters a great deal when consumers evaluate something. There's a science to it, and it varies by market and product, but there's a point where if you price too low, people won't buy, and pricing high (consistently) can have the effect of drawing a lot of attention, so long as the product seems consistent in kind and placement to the price.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Music is soooo heavily downloaded that the "market" for music is HUGE! If music had no value, if it was just fluff, no one would download it, free or not. What actually makes it even more attractive is the feeling of many that they can get something of value, ie they would have to pay $1.99 for each song, for FREE!. The argument being made is convoluted with the thinking that because they want it for free its worth nothing. Quite the opposite. It is worth much more.

I don't think you are seeing things quite clearly. There is a demand for music. Scratch that. There's a demand for FREE music. Most people do not want to pay for music at all. It's similar to the big television days of the past. Like an iPod, you pay for the interface in which you are able to access enjoyment, but by and large the programs are free*. You're only paying for the physical aspect of the interaction (ie. the tv and the iPod).

Now some artists are making a killing off of recordings, but if you pay attention you'll notice that these are the artists that sell an image and lifestyle to their audiences. They get them hooked into seeing what's the cool new thing on the block that they need to be doing. They want that connection with the artist (as another person mentioned). They want to be involved with the changing of modern culture and they are willing to pay for it to keep up with the change. What we're seeing here is a demand for a lifestyle, image, and idea that people can connect with and identify themselves as being a part of.

 

[teleharmonium]

In this world, if you have dedicated your soul, entire physical being, and precious time on Earth to creating really very high quality, authentic, beautiful original recordings of the type of creative, original, unique music that fills your heart with gladness, AND you want to find a market that adequately rewards you for your life's work... good luck. You're stuck on Earth.

So what's the alternative ?

Do you think it's wrong to want things ? Who doesn't want things ?

Who is being unrealistic here - the person that wants to earn a middle class living off of obscure music, or the person that is willing to give it away for free in the hopes of eventual larger fame or a lucrative touring career? 'Cause neither of us are especially likely to get what we want, if we're being realistic.

If you're recommending that we just tell ourselves everything is peachy keen, or lower our expectations because we have no direct control, well, my expectations are already lowered, so I've got that covered. As for the rose colored glasses, I'll pass on that. It's a bit 1984-esque to sell oneself on an illusion.

You seem to equate wanting (unlikely) things as a perpetual state of unhappiness. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; there's more to life than what other people think and pay for our music. Why give other people power over your success ? Especially people that you know are willing to steal from you and who you know like a lot of crap. That doesn't sound wise.

But the alternative - giving up on what you specifically want and doing something else instead - can also be a perpetual state of unhappiness. So pick your poison, but you'll never know what the other one tastes like. That's life. You have to make a decision and live with it.

Just making the music can be great and rewarding. While I'd like to make a living from recordings, it's not necessary to my fundamental happiness as a person.

I just want what limited flow there is of my stuff to be above board, and this is for reasons of ethics and for the critical role of art in society more than it is about money. Culture as an arm of society is a problematic thing; it has noble aspects and despicable ones, and what I seek is a way to have only positive interactions. I have no interest in having my stuff be the soundtrack for the sort of dehumanizing, date rape-y, cynical exploitation that constitutes much of society.

I want to be part of the solution rather than the problem, and being a very small part of the solution is vastly preferable to being a larger part of the problem.

 

[younggun]

Most people will do what is in their own self-interests, making justifications about why they believe their own gratification is a higher priority than being ethical. For most, the only thing stopping them is the fear of getting caught and punished. People know when they're stealing, the rest is just B.S.

 

[teleharmonium]

Here's some stuff that will shed some light on non monetary reasons for avoiding exploitative business practices in music:

1) Joko's Anniversary by Roland Topor

Link Removed

Joko's Anniversary by Roland Topor - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

2) Asphyxiating Culture by Jean Dubuffet

Amazon.com: Asphyxiating Culture and Other Writings (9780941423090): Jean Dubuffet, Carol Volk: Books

3) this quote from Terence McKenna -

What civilization is, is 6 billion people trying to make themselves happy by standing on each other's shoulders and kicking each other's teeth in. It's not a pleasant situation.

And yet, you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us - the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.

This is something, culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people's convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture.

Yet we glorify the creative potential of the individual, the rights of the individual. We understand the felt-presence of experience is what is most important. But the culture is a perversion. It fetishizes objects, creates consumer mania, it preaches endless forms of false happiness, endless forms of false understanding in the form of squirrelly religions and silly cults. It invites people to diminish themselves and dehumanize themselves by behaving like machines - meme processors of memes passed down from Madison Avenue and Hollywood...

 

[Fergie Fulton]

There is an old saying that goes " if it was not for lawyers we would not need lawyers".

Copyright is a legal document of ownership that can be bought or sold, it is in all intents who has the legal right to use it free of charge, or charge others to use it.

Because of the markets that have been built up by the music industry, and more importantly regulate and controlled by the music industry, there is vast amounts of money to be made by someone....potentially. In the music industry because a % is available, then a 1% share of a million seller is £10.000 and that is just as a player taking a studio % in place of a fee ( or a point percentage plus a lower fee). As the songwriter the percentages rise and fast. As standard radio play rules and regs can see a hit song played once an hour,then multiply that by the amount of radio stations per day by the longevity of the song release classified as being "hot", then copyright becomes an important issue.

The issue is that for say a song, it will earn a vast amount of revenue.....so who gets it?
Take everything out of the equation apart from the top line of revenue earned and the question becomes who gets a share of it?

The same principal applies when you buy a concert ticket for say £70, what do i get for my £70 and why the high price?
Point of reference is that if a venue holds 1000 people and another holds 10'000 people then the work rate and effort is the same, but 70 x10'000 beats 70 x 1000 everytime. So when bands tour they look for venues to maximise the return for the same amount of effort.

So for copyright those that pay for its use do so knowing that they can earn money from it. Whether that turns out to be true or not is not the point, the point is they have to pay to be proved right. Those that listen to music are paying the companies that produce, market and release the music, because they have paid to have the right to do so, and/or are paying the listeners share or % for them when they buy the music to either pass on to the artist, or to recover there own investment in the music.

Copyright in the modern world is complicated because the end user of any product does not want to pay for it, but want the association of it. Example, want a Fender P bass but not the price tag so buy a copy. It is not the real thing, but the player wants the association of it being a Fender P bass????????
So it can be said that the association has a value and that brings in counterfeit products, a form of copyright infringment in its own way.

So if it was not for lawyers we would not need lawyers, and if it was not for the buying public we would not need copyright.
We only have to look around our homes and lives to see why copyright exists never mind believe it is evil, maybe it is the people that use are, but not the idea of it.

 

[kuys]

I think this video is relative.

Invalid Link Removed

There has to be a point when your work becomes the property of the public.

Disney, through extensive lobbying, has essential built their entire business model around it as well many old record labels and artists. The Beatles catalog should be public domain now but of course it's too lucrative to allow it to pass on to the public; where new forms of music could be created from it's melodys and hooks. The way the copy-write law was intended to be used.

Thank you, lawyers?!

 

[teleharmonium]

There has to be a point when your work becomes the property of the public.

Why ?

And when does that point occur for, say, the work of construction and oil magnates ?

Clutching on to old tomes with fists of iron; robs us from breathing new life into those old flashes of creativity and soul.

That's kind of a contradiction. If you can breathe new life, why do it into pre existing things ? Wouldn't that mean it isn't really new life ? Why not just make new things with new flashes of creativity and soul ?

Maybe the paradigm of rearranging other people's stuff is robbing us of having truly new things ?

 

[Jason P Bass]

I don't think there's anything all that special about wanting to get paid for my work. Who doesn't ? "Having/eating cake" is overly dramatic, don't you think ?

I could come up with unflattering metaphors for your position too. What does that prove ? You say you aren't going to be persuaded; do you think I am ?

Sorry man, I didn't mean to upset you.

I'm just saying that it sounds like you want to get paid for making recordings, but you don't want to live on the road, make personal connections with fans through your shows, sell merchandise, or do any of the legwork that everybody else goes through to provide for their musician life style.

You seem to be arguing from the perspective that you could have this dream-come-true lifestyle IF ONLY it weren't for illegal downloads. I don't think that's true. Without the tours, merchandise, self promotion, cross marketing, and personal interaction with the fans, nobody will be interested in your product to begin with - and if they're not interested, they're not going to pay $10 for your CD.

Delving deeper - your plan to sell recordings without touring, etc., is already an established industry - Books on CD. Or better yet, sell CDs of sound samples. But you're fitting a square peg in a round hole - you don't want to sell books, you don't want to sell samples. You seem to want to sell original music using the books on CD business plan.

I just don't see what's stopping you, aside from illegal downloads, but that's only going to be a problem once you're successful and popular... so what's stopping you?

 

[Jason P Bass]

So what's the alternative ?

Do you think it's wrong to want things ? Who doesn't want things ?

Who is being unrealistic here - the person that wants to earn a middle class living off of obscure music, or the person that is willing to give it away for free in the hopes of eventual larger fame or a lucrative touring career? 'Cause neither of us are especially likely to get what we want, if we're being realistic.

Wow, slow down. I am supremely confident that you can make a living off of PERFORMING obscure, high quality music. But making a living off of selling the recordings? In my opinion, never gonna happen.

For an unknown, unsigned musical group, I think you are FAR more likely to find future financial success by giving away FREE download cards to your recordings at your shows than by trying to turn a profit on your self produced, debut CD.

I think you are FAR more likely to build a financially successful BRAND (as a solo artist or a band) by viewing your recordings as promotional advertisements that draw people to your shows. Between shows, those recordings live in the car CD player and remind people about your music, and expose new passengers to your music, all of which advertises your brand and your performance.

To be perfectly honest, I would be THRILLED if my band's original music was popular enough to show up on P2P searches (it was not, I since quit the band). This is a real, tangible sign that your popularity has reached a point that you can charge $10 for tickets, demand a guarantee from your gigs, and justify further financial investment in the band. And all those people who download my music for free? They're basically "stealing" commercial advertisements for my band. Be my guest. I wish I could have emailed free MP3s of our studio album to everyone in the world, but that would have been spam.

Anyway, I realize that the quest to be a rich & famous rockstar is unrealistic, but every journey starts with the first step. In my opinion, the idea that you can turn a profit by selling studio recordings is wildly unrealistic, and starts your journey with a step in the wrong direction.

 

[kuys]

Why ?

And when does that point occur for, say, the work of construction and oil magnates ?



That's kind of a contradiction. If you can breathe new life, why do it into pre existing things ? Wouldn't that mean it isn't really new life ? Why not just make new things with new flashes of creativity and soul ?

Maybe the paradigm of rearranging other people's stuff is robbing us of having truly new things ?

(Response to the semi-unrelated area of industry and architectural endeavors)


The way the system was setup was to allow an idea originator to get a head start on the competition. After a set number years the idea was to pass into the public domain. The system has been abused by large corps and vested interests through the artificial lengthening of patents.

If really want to get into the debate about rearranging work. First you better go tell top 40 radio of the last 50 years that they've been ripping off Pachelbel's Canon in D. In all seriousness there is no original ideas in music.

My original material is atonal mixed meter jazz or what have you (it's hard to classify) but I'm totally aware that I'm not doing anything wholly original. Being as I'm heavily borrowing from Bartok and other late 19th century and early 20th century composers. I think the idea of copy-writing music and art that by it's very design is derivative of everything that came before it is an indefensible position.

I'm not against artists making money though. I simply think we need to adjust to the situation we find ourselves in. Which is one were CD-sales will not and cannot be the sole source of income.