|
Free music devalueating music itself?
Viewed 1442 times. 22 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: hecanjog, room, jogn, delete, bodo, gamatam, minisystem, bbwax, mlbot, daswesen, subset, opticecho, zach, quicks, Ochre, infradead, ignatius, utofbu, implexgrace, nicknotis, korgborglar, cbit
-->
the guys from audio damage posted another provocing blog.
this time it's about the question, if the music, that is given away for free like trent reznor did, is not totally destroying the understanding that music itself is a cultural value. and moves like that make the avarage music consumer think, that music is just some sort of artistic extension for merchandise, tours and such. making it hard to earn at least a little bit of income through records for the normal indie or subindie artists.
i'm still not quite sure about the answer, especially when i look back at the history of netlabels and such and the vital scene that has evolved around that, but i can see the point they are making.
nevertheless interesting topic.
discuss!
link
| |
Comments
05/10/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Hikikomori
i personally do not believe that all music can be classed as entertianment.yes, all art is probably entertaining on some level but not all music is art.
one of the commonalities when experiancing art is self development,we search for art to become more intelligent within ourselves i believe,wether that's emotional or logical or otherwise.art makes us more aware of 'stuff' around us and within us,part of this awareness is often that we could never actually afford these experiances if it was put in monetary terms and also that the art didnt just fall off a tree,it came from someone dedicating themselves to making it.
so we know we could never really afford this stuff becuase it it so rich and basically enhances life to such a degree where it can actually make you happy or sad or whatever.so what do we do,we support it to the degree that we are able to.
a personal choice to support based on what you have gained from it in one way or another.
to not support something that has highly affected you and enriched your life is only tricking yourself,your on the road to a bad place eventually.
a place where you see no value in anything anymore because you have been basing everything on terms of cash.
entertainment is one thing,yes we pay for it and it crosses over so many times in different mediums of art but there are major differences.
i'm not saying all art deserves to be supported,it's not a perfect world and things arent organised so well where you can go looking for exactly what you want and you dont always know what you are looking for,but i do think the idea of a recording artist is just as beautiful an idea as any other type.
creating an abstract experiance in which people can learn,enjoy and lose themselves in is a step in the right direction for some sort of universal happiness if you ask me,unlike enterianment which usually never asks obvious qiestions never mind open-ended ones in which we can maybe understand things more clearly.
sorry if im rambling now,the worth of art of any kind is a massive question,i believe in short we should supprt the art that has affected us.
to not is support what you love is basic neglect of somesort.
05/10/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
utofbu
to be honest. Depending on what genre you are attempting to define/fit into, your consumer market may have alot more than a clueless level of involvement.
If you are trying to broad base your music exposure, then yes, they are fickle little creatures.
Faceless too. The game has changed. And I never got to be too involved with the old game(with the exception of some broadcasting work and a few small contracts) and am having quite a time trying to see what I can do with music as a carrer. I find that most intermediate labels are shutting doors to new artists due to the lack of capital investment and confidence in the industry.
the argument that free music might be seen as an extention of retail: IT IS! thats what folks(money hungry people who own firms and big labels and invest in stuff) want! A viable market.
I dont claim to understand the industry, how it is changing, how it will be in the near future.But I can tell you this.
Capitalism is about to become an interesting game. And In my opinion, the years and years of standardizing against the majority consumer is what has delivered us to this point.
You cannot avoid the fact that the structure of any industry is to make as much money as possible using the standard mediums available.
nor can you be suprised that there is a very obvious transition occuring not only in music, but in the realm of intellectual property and most assuredly the commodity of "Information"
Everywhere I see this rift, and it manifests itself in so many ways. My mother is a writer. She has an amazing book. And she is having a hell of a time getting it seen or read. Those who have read it see that it is unique unto itself in the related field but... PR firms were scared to support a book tour because????
It didnt sell a pharmaceutical. It didnt have a direct retail application outside of the book. I think that this can be translated to the problem of free music.
It doesn't necessarily sell show tickets. As a matter of fact its really equivocal to fast food. And now artistic intent is compromised. How many people believe in listening to an album straight through to truly appreciate the artists perspective. I bet all of us will raise a hand. But we are like rome, the culture is only alive in each individual who holds that affinity close.
I can find the lyrics online but why bother? I have 500 more songs to shuffle on my playlist and thats just from today.
ok Im only 130 lbs or so and i broke my soapbox. mah bads
05/10/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
implexgrace
as an artist, if you want to support me you can get me to play shows. anything else is minor cock stroking, IMO. nobody really busy CDs anymore, and if they do, they are typically almost immediately ripped and converted into some other audio format to use on MP3 players or whathaveyou.
the point being, i'm more interested in live show / playing live than i am selling records. this is why i give my music out for free. and if other artists feel devalued by this, well.. stop making music that you think is so awesome and worth selling and you'll be a lot happier.
art vs. commodity. this argument is so old.
05/10/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
implexgrace
i might even go as far as to say that selling what you love makes you a whore. there are other ways to show support besides giving money out. promoting is a huge one, since i don't have a lot of time to do it, if you love the music.. promote it!
the problem is that most people are busy promoting themselves and their own work and they have their hands full already.
i don't know... i'll probably sell vinyl of my work eventually, but only to recoup the costs of the pressings and a bit extra to put towards more later on for other artists. but really, everyone has their own idea about the 'right way' to deliver music. ultimately, music is about spiritual enlightenment. it puts us in a mental space we enjoy, that makes us grow as individuals, even toe-tapping "non-serious" music delivers a degree of spiritual enlightenment and self-revelation. you can't put a price tag on that, nor can you really devalue it.
05/10/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
utofbu
Implex Grace
I hope you didnt think I was arguing for the side of art as a commodity. And yes intellectual property as a commodity is very old. Older than copyright law.
As a matter of fact you might be able to track it right back to Cacao being traded for goods. Or prized rare minerals and metals. Who was it that decided to make gold a standard and for what reason? Was it asthetics? Perhaps.
Who decided to paint on a cave wall or a pyramid crypt? To document the flow of animals in herds across an icy landscape or the glorious life of a noble? Only to be re-discovered and sold to a museum for millions. Zawhi Hawas? And who was before him? Napoleon(acquisition)? Tomb Robbers(torrents,p2p)?
This whole argument is old. On any side you might want to be on. It comes down to one thing. Humans as a society inter-relating and also on a massive scale will consume. And why they decide to consume for what reason is inconsequential to the people who might want to profit from it.
Do I view art as such a beast? of course not! I write music so that I dont kill myself. For me, and me only. Its a vigil. If anyone else likes it, great! If not? Join every record label I have tried to contact!
but the reality of being an artist is one of business which is the reason I chose my name Going o----utofbu-----siness
going out of business
to quote Scott Bruzenak "Every artist is a corrupt institution "
I tend to agree. Its nicer than the word whore in my opinion. But ostensibly it brings about the same connotation.
implexgrace said: "the problem is that most people are busy promoting themselves and their own work and they have their hands full already.
"
people think about themselves and how they fit into the picture they see. Its how a human rationalizes their daily work.
and it will also be what dismisses us from reality outright because we fail to consider the bigger picture outside of us.
what questions are we really trying to ask about art and how does this translate to the larger picture outside art, outside capitalism, and back into the mind of an individual being told to want want want, find out what you want and consume it however you can. Are we combating this? How are we combating this?Can we combat this?
A resounding no comes to mind.
05/10/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
korgborglar
get a real job you hippies
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
CTW
I have an amateurish and sporadically updated blog, Catching The Waves, in which I enthuse about netlabel releases that have tickled my fancy. I became interested in netlabel music because it allowed me to hear styles of music that I was curious about but couldn't afford to buy. It allowed me to explore genres that were new to me: chiptune, ambient, minimal, IDM, dub, electronica, breakbeat, experimental and so on. Now that I've heard some of those genres I am far more likely to buy songs/albums in those genres. The other day I bought a song from Jonathan Coulton, an artist I would not have heard of but for his online presence and habit of giving away free music. Similarly, I downloaded an album by Brad Sucks (Brad Turcotte) and liked it so much that I intend to buy his new album. Those are two artists who are going to get my money who would not have done so otherwise.
I don't make any money from my blog. In fact, it costs me money, but it's my way of saying thank you to people who have given away their music: the more publicity they receive, the better. I always link to the netlabel and the artist's own website, and I encourage visitors to my blog to make a donation or pay for some of the artists' other fare, whether that be albums, merchandise or concert tickets. Many netlabel musicians give away their music for no other reason than because they want to, though many use it as a marketing tool, building up a fan base that hopefully will “tip” them for their current music and/or pay for future releases. It's up to them. Either way, these people have made albums that might not otherwise have seen the light of day. The quality may vary greatly but no one is forced to listen.
It's not just one-way traffic. Netlabels spread the music; a website like Eventful allows music fans to “demand” that their favourite bands visit them. If a nascent band learn that 100 people in Nowheresville want to see them then they can stage a concert there, with a very good chance of a great reception and merchandise and record sales.
I'm not proposing an either/or music world. All I'm saying is that the netlabel/own-website scene can complement the existing music industry paradigm, allowing people to hear music without hindrance from financial constraints or perceived wisdom. Perhaps a site like Magnatune is a good compromise, allowing people to stream artists' music as much as they want to and, if they like it enough, to pay for a DRM-free mp3? There's also Jamendo, which offers over 8,000 albums of Creative Commons music, and allows listeners to donate to artists who might otherwise struggle to see any payment for their music.
Piracy is a bad thing. I am fully in favour of paying for music. If I want U2's latest record then I'll hand over the cash for it: I don't want to rip off musicians or companies. But the internet, whether in the form of netlabels or artists' own websites, allied with cheap software, now allows anyone to attempt to make a living as a musician. Most music, like most art, isn't very good. But the “long tail” theory of the internet allows people to find the music that chimes with their taste. Compose an opera for xylophone and noseflute and no record company will give you the time of day – but the internet allows the xylophone and noseflute lovers of the world to search for their favourite genre and discover your opera, which you've recorded and released under your own steam. Who on earth is to say what's good music and what isn't? The record companies?
Admittedly, everything is up in the air; it's difficult to predict what will happen to the music industry in the next few years. If I thought that netlabels were harming music and musicians then I would close my blog. But I don't think that netlabels and “free” music will hurt the Madonnas of this world. The large record companies will continue to dominate the charts and make money from sales, merchandising and tours. But those artists who sell “only” 1,000 albums, and can't continue because their record company has dropped them, might now be able to carry on because, thanks to the methods I've mentioned, they too can make money from sales, merchandising and tours. It depends what you want from your music-making. There might be fewer multi-millionaire musicians in the future but there may be more people who are able to make a living as full-time musicians. And there will be far more choice for the listener. That's a good thing, surely?
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dkarma
this is retarded. are the myriad of street performers wasting their time simply because they aren't paid? sure people often charge for making or performing music, but IMO good music CANT be devalued by simply failing to charge for it. what does devalue music is turning it into a purely capitalistic venture that encourages talentless hacks like creed, boy bands, and the like to pretend what they do is truly music and not industry fabricated bullshit.
and for the record trent reznor did charge for some of the music he gave away and he ended up making 1.4 million on the Ghosts release. So I'm not sure where the OP is getting his information. Sure artists offer music for free at times, but it's not like they're not still making money somehow.
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
room
i'm going to try out an experimentation in "value & appreciation & support" next month based upon some thoughts i've had since this thread started
not sure what i'm aiming to achieve - but i'll do it anyway
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
license
license
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Ochre
This seems to me to be less about commodity value and more about leveraging popularity, capitalising on a high profile -- probably the most important currency in an overpopulated and attention-starved online culture. The more you feature in blogs, the longer you capture the attention of net users, the more valuable your music is, regardless of how much you sell it for. The only way to raise your profile in such a saturated domain amidst a sea of free legal music from unknowns giving their music away is to create something worth selling. Reznor clearly hasn't devalued music if he can gross almost a million from selling boutique versions of his music -- he has done quite the opposite, reinstilling his music with enough of an 'aura' (as Walter Benjamin would call it) to make it appealing and interesting, recapturing an increasingly jaded gaze. As for mp3s being given away... what's new?
The trick for us, not having been through the same money-making marketing factory as Reznor/Radiohead etc., is how to raise our profile enough to be able to capitalise on the potential generated by our profiles. It's pretty much a safe bet that mp3s won't be a primary factor in this, as even given away their effect is marginal these days (and again, I don't think this has any bearing on the 'value' of music, just a net effect of so much music being available -- it's not unusual to find free mp3s).
CTW mentions Jonathan Coulton -- he knows how to make the tools on the net work for him well, and serves as an example of how to create an awareness about your 'brand' (sorry, but that's what it is if you want to make money from your music). He also knows how to gain listeners using gimmicks such as writing tunes like Ikea and Tom Cruise Crazy. And he knows who his core audience is.
I don't really think the value of music per se rests on the creators' actions, but rather the consumptive practices of listeners. It could be argued that we might spend more time replaying and intently listening to an album we've spent a tenner on than one we've downloaded for free, but in practice there are plenty of albums I've spent money on, listened to twice, and dismissed as crap, never to be heard again. Similarly, I value good music I've downloaded for free (Mr Projectile's old free mp3s, for example, which I've sadly lost... bah ephemeral mp3s) just as much as any CD I've paid for. The amount you pay for music has little bearing on its worth.
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
implexgrace
utofbu, i apologize if you think my comments were directed at you. they most definitely were not.. it was more of a general comment.
based on ochre's post, i'm going to go ahead and say that the core intention is what defines what direction your music will take. if you are seriously just making music for yourself, then this whole argument becomes moot. if you are making music "for yourself" but have the intention of allowing others to hear it, this argument is still moot because if someone likes it, there is value. if they do not like it, there is no value. (of course, we could get into logic divisions and say that there are X values inbetween nothing and something.. but let's not)
chris you also said something else interesting. you talked about a "brand" and i think this might be confusing. i agree there are qualities that make a musical identity have similar behavior to how a brand works (ie. logos and such) but this is absolutely not required to deliver music to large audiences. that *is* required is a centralized, self-sustaining network of availability. what i mean by that, is that you have to make your sounds accessible as possible, otherwise the chance of people actually getting to hear the music you write besides some wack word-of-mouth description is lowered because most people do not want to have to dig for their music. "most" i say, because i do, on occasion, dig very far to find music i love. be it free or otherwise.
yes, cost has really nothing to do with any of this. i've seen people sell CDs for $15 that you couldn't have paid me to purchase, as harsh as that may sound, i love music i have strong opinions about it and there's not a whole lot of music that i would actually consider buying because i don't really like it that much. money is tight as it is, and i can't really see paying for spiritual enlightenment. however, if i have been moved enough by the music, i would certainly com out to see you play and yell and scream and cheer and all that. maybe buy a t-shirt if you did a good job. t-shirts are way better than CDs in a lot of cases.
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
audiobulb
even downloading a free digital download has a cost of electricity and more importantly "time"....
so the artist (or even the tune) as a brand - as an object that is worth something ( in the widest sense of worth) is an issue
quality music + quality brand = the creation of something that the audience trusts
add in marketing/PR + accessibility/availability (in terms of outlets) and you have the total "maximised" output
this can be packaged into a output that is paid for in monetary terms or not..... but at the end of the day (from my point of view) the artist and the label/management are all investing time and money (not to mention knowledge & skill) at each point of the process ....
processes and systems don't have to be exploitative - they can seek to reach equilibrium (i.e. output = input)
05/11/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Ochre
Michael -- sure, the term 'brand' may suggest a certain manipulativeness, but it isn't necessarily something we have control over; I use the term to describe how we're perceived on the net, whether it's something we consciously shape or not. Obviously, if we look at NIN, there's quite a strong brand identity present there, no matter what Michael T. Reznor might say. Likewise with 'JoCo' -- Jonathan Coulton. Even Audiobulb -- there's a strong brand right there: a clear identity, unifying aesthetics.
It's one of the more annoying necessary evils of being your own boss as an indie musician -- knowing how to market yourself to present yourself in the best light to the most receptive audience. Nothing I have a clue about, to be honest, which is why I think there's still plenty of power left in the 'industry' despite all the hoohaa about a revolution etc. You only have to log in to MySpace to get an idea of the average attempt at marketing one's music -- spam the fuck out of each others' pages. Obviously this is futile, as the more people shout, the less left to listen. Again, Reznor knows how to market himself with his Year Zero ARG (Alternate Reality Game), having the money and contacts to do so. The rest of us find our fifteen minutes of fame making goofy lofi YouTube vids of our tunes, (see OK Go's treadmill vid) or remixing major artists, aping film trailers (There Will Be Bud), in fact aping anything it seems...
As far as I'm concerned any talk of value around music downloads is now totally moot anyway. Musical discovery is a far more important subject, which is why we get David Jennings dedicating a recent book to it. link
05/12/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
thehydrax
Since late 2006 when I started putting my music online in a big way, i've had hundreds and hundreds of downloads. The hydrax stuff not so much but tnerm and halfmartian have been very sucessful which i never expected at all. I wonder what would happen if suddenly you had to get my music of iTunes or some such place instead of archive.org...
I have only just started wondering since '3 electro-acoustic tone poems' from 2005 has had well over 500 downloads now but if i was selling it what would happen. I'd be lucky to get 10 sales considering the kind of music it is. actually i was surprised more than 50 people took it even for free...
But then 'Appetite for Deconstruction' has had well over 200 in only a few weeks. Are people into minimal micro glitch willing to cough up when there's mountains of it for free anyway and a lot of it fantastic?
it's quite unrealistic that i could make a living from my music but is it also unrealistic that given these factors I could even earn some pocket money?
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
