• 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.

Offering music with an "option to pay" plan doesn't work.

#21
I am in process of putting the music back up in a non-downloadable format. Perhaps I will sell them on iTunes or on an actual CD.

Sure, I know I can't expect much - but just think that if each of those people who downloaded that album paid me a single dollar? That's a lot of money, and could have gone towards recouping my expenses. Making music is hard work, even if it is just whale noises.

By the way, Robert Fripp has been selling albums of whale noises for years now. Some of these CDs have sold in excess of 10,000, at around $15 a pop. Ambient and experimental music does have it's place.

Both Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have both complained of the response they got for their downloads. Only around 18% of listeners even bothered to pay for In Rainbows at all. That's really sad.

We live in a society that will think nothing of paying $5 for a single cup of coffee, yet will scoff if asked to pay even a pittance for a work of art that enhances their everyday lives. It makes me sick.
 
#22
In order for someone to pay for a download that they have an option not to there has to a certain respect level for the artist.

I like your stuff. It ambient goodness. I downloaded a few of your tracks but honestly only listened to them once or twice and haven't listened to them since.

I listened to Radiohead for a week non stop.

Get famous, then offer that option. :)

It's good stuff.
 
#24
This brings up an interesting point. Will offering a low quality version of a song for free and a high quality song for pay is a good idea, I wonder how effective it will be. We live in the age of youtube. Honestly, people don't care about fidelity and quality as long as they can enjoy it for free, or else youtube would not be as popular as it is now. The video quality ranges from horrendous to sub-par due to the compression they use, yet people will watch it. Add a price and viewership will slow down significantly.

There's other factors that come into play such as free hosting and the "show off" aspect, but being able to watch videos for free is a big factor. I still wonder how youtube even makes money since it can't be all from advertising.
 
#28
Infernal Affair said:
This brings up an interesting point. Will offering a low quality version of a song for free and a high quality song for pay is a good idea, I wonder how effective it will be. We live in the age of youtube. Honestly, people don't care about fidelity and quality as long as they can enjoy it for free, or else youtube would not be as popular as it is now. The video quality ranges from horrendous to sub-par due to the compression they use, yet people will watch it. Add a price and viewership will slow down significantly.

There's other factors that come into play such as free hosting and the "show off" aspect, but being able to watch videos for free is a big factor. I still wonder how youtube even makes money since it can't be all from advertising.
Click to expand...

Nine Inch Nails have proven that this doesn't work either. Trent recently produced and released a Saul Williams record with a free version at a low quality, and a high quality version for $5. Almost nobody downloaded the quality version. I read somewhere that Trent was very disappointed that people didn't care about quality at all, even when asked to pay an insultingly low price of $5.

Once again: people will pay $5 for a cup of coffee, but not for an entire CDs worth of music. Sad, sad, sad.
 
#31
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well you were the one saying that we all steal images for nothing - so where does the money come from then? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we "steal" them, first of all. I think digital images have changed our morality regarding static images so much that we don't even think of it as "stealing" and therefore it is not.

I don't know where the money comes from, I'm no expert on photography - but if you look into it I bet you'll find sources of money for it that are analogous to ways musicians can profit that don't involve the casual listener.
 
#33
By the way, Robert Fripp has been selling albums of whale noises for years now. Some of these CDs have sold in excess of 10,000, at around $15 a pop. Ambient and experimental music does have it's place.
Click to expand...

There lies the problem, Robert Fripp has a huge name and history. You do not. There are a million bands out there screaming "listen to me" . It's hard to even get someone to listen for free today.

If you want to sell music today, I believe you need to build a following by playing out & or touring.

As far as selling anything out of mainstream music, there is so much you can have for free on places like Sound Click etc. Why is someone going to pay for yours when they can get another artists for free?

It has to be exceptional & vastly different. I don't know of many new artists that are, regardless of talent.

Its become a very competitive market for music and even harder for non commercial music. Record label's are dropping artists left & right.

The only way I can think of to sell music today is to play live & build a following or offer vinyl with lots of free stuff included, something people want to hold.
 
#36
Benjamin Strange said:
Three months ago, I released two Burnt Infant albums on my site for free, with an option to pay. The albums have been downloaded a total of 2600 times, and not a single soul has offered to pay a single dime. I can't believe this. Sure, Burnt Infant is mostly just abstract whale noises, but not a single person bothered to pay anything at all? I find this insulting to an extreme degree.

As of this moment, I'm giving up on the idea of offering free downloads. Music has absolutely no monetary worth in this society any more. I'm going to have to figure out another way of distributing this music... for a price. I hate to do that, but apparently relying on people's charitable nature is folly.

Now I know how Radiohead and Saul Williams feel. Music is my sole means of income... not a glamorous or lucrative profession. This is a bit disgusting... a regular day job in some cubicle seems pretty attractive right about now.

[/rant]
Click to expand...

With all due respect, free means free to most people in my humble opinion. If you want compensation, don't give it away.
 
#37
mobax said:
With all due respect, free means free to most people in my humble opinion. If you want compensation, don't give it away.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with that 100%. Sure, it was free, but I did mention that I make my entire living playing music, and did provide a gentle prod to encourage people to leave some sort of tip. If a single person had paid me $1, I would have been very happy.

To be perfectly honest, Burnt Infant is not designed to be a big money maker. Hell, the name alone scares people off. BI is an excuse for me to modify guitars, experiment with microtonal stuff, and make improvisational music. I put these up with the option to pay idea to gauge whether that might work for my upcoming solo acoustic album (which has actual songs with actual singing!). As it stands, I'm very hesitant to release the acoustic album without some sure way to be compensated for it. I make music for a living, and I have to eat somehow.
 
#38
meev992 said:
snocap
Click to expand...

I've been looking in to that. My concern is that I can't find much info on Snocap in regards to how they make money, and how that might affect me. It also doesn't mention how the files are hosted, or if they are compressed to work with Snocap's store. Also, it doesn't appear that I can include the album artwork with each download - a small issue, but I want to be able to control the quality of my work. I may do the Snocap thing, but I feel like I need to know more before I can commit to it.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back