Should music be given away free?

[Aratron]

not havin a go at all m8.. just trying to gauge where you're coming from.

my thinking is that if someone owns the copyright then they're entitled to do what they like really.

if you think that you should give music away for free. then do so.
i'll still probably buy some good acid techno vinyl, and ignore the dross on mp3.

[tocsin]

and morally people should pay for their music , end of story.

if you want to give it away fine...thats your choice of course

but i believe you undermine everyone else's hard work by doing so...
and where's it going to stop?

See, I've heard this way too much. And, thankfully, just as so many other artists have felt in the past when faced with such silliness from the self-interested, if it's actually true then I'm happy to have been a part of it. :) Free music doesn't undermine anything you do, unless it is just as good, or better, than what you are doing.

we aren't all as rich as radiohead you know.
if some of us didn't get stuck in and treat our music making as a job 24/7 no matter how big or small or rich or poor we are, there would be no dance music scene to speak of and thats the bottom line.

Meanwhile, in my own back yard, there's music being made all the time, with no shortage of parties or venues playing it, where the artists give the music away for free over the net, on CD, etc. The scene won't disappear. Only you will if you choose to.

[Aratron]

See, I've heard this way too much. And, thankfully, just as so many other artists have felt in the past when faced with such silliness from the self-interested, if it's actually true then I'm happy to have been a part of it. :) Free music doesn't undermine anything you do, unless it is just as good, or better, than what you are doing.



Meanwhile, in my own back yard, there's music being made all the time, with no shortage of parties or venues playing it, where the artists give the music away for free over the net, on CD, etc. The scene won't disappear. Only you will if you choose to.

maybe there is free music, but is it on par with the worst of wot Henry has done? no.
Dave The Drummer is (sorry about this dude) a modern day Mozart. Not some coked up knobhead who knows how to work Fruity Loops.

[rhythmtech]

maybe there is free music, but is it on par with the worst of wot Henry has done? no.

now you're just being silly. ok, henry's stuff is pretty special at times but just because its a commercial release doesnt mean its better than a free release.

go to the sub division media website and there's free music available.. all top-notch.

inigo kennedy runs a free net label thats immense.

i could go on all day.

[detfella]

Dave The Drummer is (sorry about this dude) a modern day Mozart.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha, quote of the decade!!

there is free music that is worse, just as good and better than pay for music.

i agree with what other people say, music should cost what the people who make charge for it.

also i always like to point out in these threads, many high profile techno producers use illegal software and sample copyright material.

[rhythmtech]

i agree ^^

i'd rather see the odd promotional mix coming from the artist themselves rather than the glut of good (and not so good) live ones available.

[Aratron]

i agree ^^

i'd rather see the odd promotional mix coming from the artist themselves rather than the glut of good (and not so good) live ones available.

hmm ty!!

i find it quite irritating looking in the acid techno section and there's whoevers latest mix there for free. esp dave the drummer.
was a time i was like wow dtd omg. and it now it's like i want to hang myself if i see another of his ****ing mixes. No offence Mr Cullen, i'm sure it pisses you off too.
Sure go on there websites download the mixes they want you to listen too for sure.
Wtf do i know. i hardly get out the house much these days.

[module]

ya know, it wasnt until the recording revolution that music was a 'product'

theres earning a few £££ to get by & then theres carl cox & morales & greedy agencies & business class flights & blah blah blah..

theres being paid, then theres makin huge wedges.. stupid riders & ott bookin fees..

****in agencys are the worst.. 10% to tell you if a dj is doing anything that night.. ffs, get up off your arses & do summat.. maybe the greed of the coin has pushed the fees past breakin point & wre pissed off paying thru the nose to see big acts that arent all that, or buy ANOTHER 12 thats the same old shit as the last 6 or 7...


rant over :)

[davethedrummer]

ya know, it wasnt until the recording revolution that music was a 'product'

theres earning a few £££ to get by & then theres carl cox & morales & greedy agencies & business class flights & blah blah blah..

theres being paid, then theres makin huge wedges.. stupid riders & ott bookin fees..

****in agencys are the worst.. 10% to tell you if a dj is doing anything that night.. ffs, get up off your arses & do summat.. maybe the greed of the coin has pushed the fees past breakin point & wre pissed off paying thru the nose to see big acts that arent all that, or buy ANOTHER 12 thats the same old shit as the last 6 or 7...


rant over :)

you're telling me that mozart ( the genius child , as marketed and toured extensively all over europe by his father ) wasn't a product when he was alive?

anyway book me i'm cheap !

[DannyBlack]

anyway book me i'm cheap !

do you swallow? its a deal breaker.

[robin m]

Basically the looming death of the recording industry means (fingers crossed) the death of the likes of the Spice Girls and MC Hammer. It doesn't mean the end of techno, it doesn't mean the end of music born out creativity and passion. No shifting market will kill that...

[tocsin]

It doesn't matter anyways. The aspect of music being "free" is irrelevant. Free music leaves money in the pocket to still be spent on music that is not, if someone was ever part of that market. It is only when something is no longer that interesting that one will not bother spending money on it, assuming they have the money to spend. Lashing out at piracy was silly enough in my opinion, but made buckets' loads more sense than blaming artists who give music away for free for the failures of other musicians. And, like I said, when people feel the need to hang that type of lame trip on me, I just smile and say "you're welcome." :)

[Jay Pace]

Nice topic

Should it be given away? Not without the artists permission or knowledge, just not right otherwise.

Does it do any harm? Debatable.
Yes, if talented people decide that they can no longer make music full time and give up as a result of having their meagre revenues diluted away into nothing, then the scene and music in general is worse off. Artists used to get by on the patronage of wealthy bods who had money and respect for art. Nowadays everyone has money but seemingly little respect.

But, facing stark realities... until it gets easier to buy then steal, I can't see it changing.

I don't understand pricing either. A vinyl 4 track EP sells for 6 quid. It typically requires an artist, a label, a distributor, a mastering engineer, a production house, printing, delivery, shipping and storage

A 4 track WAV EP costs more than the vinyl version. Why? How is that justified?
A 4 track 320k mp3 EP costs about the same as a vinyl. Something seems to be wrong here....

allofmp3 was something like the 3rd most popular site in the UK before it shut down and reopened as another identical clone site. People were buying music. People were paying lots of cash to buy music. It was easier than stealing and nobody minded about the price.

I think music should cost money. It costs money to make it, and if it has value a price isn't unreasonable.

But I think the pricing models are all wrong, and need to be in line with what people are prepared to pay.

So long as its quicker, cheaper, easier and relatively risk free the majority of people are going to keep on stealing. Sites like allofmp3 actually brought people stealing music back into the fold. Formed soulseekers were seemingly happy to shell out a $3-5 dollars for an album, fast download, no waiting with all album art etc included. Shame the sites involved trousered all the money and didn't bother sharing the cash with the people who made the product in the first place.

Vinyl should cost money. Its a physical product and has a ton of costs attached. But I can't understand why MP3s cost as much as they do.

Especially stupid things like mp3s costing a pound in the UK that cost a dollar in the US. No excuse for crap like that.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

interesting read all this.

i'll put my opinion in.

I personally don't think music should be given away free. Art has a value and if you like something you should pay for it.

I 100% agree with promotion and giving away stuff is part of that.

But i feel that all this giving away of tracks is de-valueing the music industry. Particuarly the underground scene, which is already undervalued.

We run the risk of the scene turning into a bunch of part-timers. You need guys out there doing this as there full time job really pushing the scene and the music and generally doing a good job of it.

Loving the scene is not a good enough reason to do it for free. I love my job... would i do it for free? Would i hell.

If you have a good day in work and your boss says "well you've enjoyed yourself today so i'm not paying you" you'd be like what the ****

So why should artists be forced to do the same?

On the other hand i'm being slightly hypocritical here as with my label i like to increase the perceived value by doing full colour artwork and giving away free things in the records... in the process i can't really afford to pay the artists for there tracks as i would be loosing money on each release. So i'm in the dilemma, do i cut production costs and pay for tracks or do i keep going doing what i'm doing? But from a promotion perspective the artists tracks being on my label promotes them... should that be enough... i don't really think so!

It's a tough one

The only thing i do know is that we should support the underground and keep it thriving and buying records is a BIG part of this.

[rhythmtech]

see heres where i think the problem lies.

labels arent in a position to put out as many releases as they used to be. so what if a lad has a really good track but, for whatever reasons, it never gets picked up for release. should he a. sit on for an undetermined amount of time or B. give it away for free, thus (hopefully) raising his profile in an attempt to get gigs/releases

[rhythmtech]

I just think there should be some monetary value to new original music

we'd all love that.

believe me, most of the time labels cant even afford to pay artists for full releases.

its just the way things have gotten.

[Smear]

Yes music should be free, and yes musicians should charge money.

That's about as clear cut and definitive an opinion as you're gonna get on a topic like this i'm afraid.

[DannyBlack]

"Should music be given away free?"

5 pages of bitching later....

[tocsin]

"Should music be given away free?"

5 pages of bitching later....

It's not like you're going to get a be all end all answer to what is a subjective question. For myself, I give my creations to others when I feel like it without charging a fee. Then, sometimes I sign a contract here and there which allows another to charge money for it of which I see a piece. Since it's my creation, it should be whatever I want it to be. And it is.

[DannyBlack]

Since it's my creation, it should be whatever I want it to be. And it is.

I absolutely agree.

There is a simple answer to the question: If you want to give it away free, then do. If you want to charge for it, then do. I think in the electronic music world it is more so controlled by the artist than some big multi billion dollar record company, so you can kinda do as you please me thinks.