![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Music should cost something whatever the format - youre basically buying the right to use / replay someone else's work. There's a difference between an artist choosing to distribute their music for free and someone else making that choice for the artist by uploading whats not theirs.
Lets face it if youre in the UK and making a living out of techno youre probably doing just that - making a living, not creaming money in left right and centre and wiping your ass with £50 notes
The original artist deserves some return on their ideas - whatever that re
turn is (hard cash / promotion etc)
If you make pies and youre having trouble shifting them then give them away - your choice. If your hungry you dont generally go and steal a pie you buy one. If youre pies taste better than anyone elses around then people will buy your pies........
Just my thoughts
anyone for steak and kidney?
fair enough - I think its 2 sides of the same coin though, the music is still free however you get it and whoever is giving it away.
I just think there should be some monetary value to new original music
I've just got a fundamentally different view here, since I never have considered, nor will I ever consider, my own artistic creativity my job. And I don't ever want it to be. I got into this sound and culture as a direct result of the h/p scene, where I ran a dial up system based on freedom of information and using technology towards something bigger than the acquisition of personal income. What's funny is, I don't ever remember catching crap from techno artists when BBS's were used to distribute original mod files about how this hurt things. It's utterly bizzarre to me that one artist who charges gives a **** about what ohers do for free inside a free scene.
One of the coolest things about this thing for me was that there was now the ability for everybody with access to a machine, or other affordable hardware, to make music consisting of multiple instruments and sounds for the same cost, or cheaper, than the price of one good midrange instrument, nevermind the communication abilities that were opened. It helped smash some otherwise economic barriers that prevented people from realising something they enjoyed. Piracy has allowed for the same when it comes to software.
But, now, because some people have made money, or are relying on making money, with a sound that so many of us have loved and put into, we're supposed to change our ways and not give it away for free if we don't want to? This is peoples' music. It's now become, in a very real way, a newer incarnation of folk music for those of us blessed enough to be part of the world with access to affordable tech. Blaming artists for the downfall of other artists' income sources, simply because they post music on the net for free, is a relatively new excuse. And it's a bogus one. If an artist giving away music for free is so good that they've become a threat to your income, sign them! Though, I just don't know what fantasy land this is where artists who are giving away music for free have had the same promotion and recognition as signed artists, and promoters who are spending dollars on a venue that need door and drink sales are willing to take risks on them.
Last edited by tocsin; 13-05-2008 at 12:58 AM.
A person belonging to one or more Order is just as likely to carry a flag of the counter-establishment as the flag of the establishment, just as long as it is a flag. --P.D.