Should music be given away free?

[rhythmtech]

There's a difference between an artist choosing to distribute their music for free

thats exactly what we're talking about here. not illegal downloads.

[morbid]

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.

[morbid]

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

[tocsin]

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.

[acidsaturation]

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.

I'm 100% behind this. Music is music, it won't die because people can't afford a living from it. Some people always will be able to, some won't. There's plenty of a music scene where people do stuff for free round where I live. Gigs put of for free, bands play for free, etc etc. It's fun. OK they don't get to fly around playing uber big gigs.

At the end of the day: I make music 'cos it's fun. Maybe it's good enough for release, maybe not. At the moment I don't have the time or energy or start-up costs to try and get it on vinyl. And I'm not bothered.

But if I want to give it to someone who might enjoy it no other ****er has the right to tell me not to. Like I said, that's like if Bill Gates tried to stop linux, or Steinberg refused to let people make VSTs for free, or superclubs say we are not allowed to have free parties. (OK that last one kinda happens, and we don't give them any respect...)

If someone who's a name artist is getting scared by bedroom producers giving stuff for free then why is that? Maybe we do all need to look at the value of this commodity, if it can be given away maybe it isn't worth as much as we'd like to think.

But on the flip side, techno (for me at least) was always a little (dare I use the word) underground, subversive, etc etc, and going against big corporate industry models is a part of that.

When people start saying that we have to lose the free diy ethic that was always a part for many people, **** it, I'm going back to punk!

[MorePunkThanFunk]

I'm 100% behind this. Music is music, it won't die because people can't afford a living from it. Some people always will be able to, some won't. There's plenty of a music scene where people do stuff for free round where I live. Gigs put of for free, bands play for free, etc etc. It's fun. OK they don't get to fly around playing uber big gigs.

At the end of the day: I make music 'cos it's fun. Maybe it's good enough for release, maybe not. At the moment I don't have the time or energy or start-up costs to try and get it on vinyl. And I'm not bothered.

But if I want to give it to someone who might enjoy it no other ****er has the right to tell me not to. Like I said, that's like if Bill Gates tried to stop linux, or Steinberg refused to let people make VSTs for free, or superclubs say we are not allowed to have free parties. (OK that last one kinda happens, and we don't give them any respect...)

If someone who's a name artist is getting scared by bedroom producers giving stuff for free then why is that? Maybe we do all need to look at the value of this commodity, if it can be given away maybe it isn't worth as much as we'd like to think.

But on the flip side, techno (for me at least) was always a little (dare I use the word) underground, subversive, etc etc, and going against big corporate industry models is a part of that.

When people start saying that we have to lose the free diy ethic that was always a part for many people, **** it, I'm going back to punk!

I don't think anyone is getting scared by bedroom producers. I just think that it is a worrying trend that music is given away for free.

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

[rhythmtech]

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

totally. but thats down to the consumer. the onus isnt on the artist to charge, especially if they have no means of doing so. maybe people should start offering donations for free downloads (direct from the artist)... doubt it though

[acidsaturation]

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

But what if the creator wants to do it for free. That's his/her choice.

Should I say to the guy who does brilliant graffiti all round Leeds he shouldn't do it, cos it devalues people who make a living from fine art.

I notice not one person has answered my question about should this apply to making and giving away software for free. Or is that different 'cos it's someone else's industry. Surely it's the same?

I feel greatly that music has a value, but I personally feel that if you can afford to give something for free you should be allowed to without others saying it's stepping on their toes.

[Jay Pace]

I notice not one person has answered my question about should this apply to making and giving away software for free. Or is that different 'cos it's someone else's industry. Surely it's the same?

I was thinking this.

Do open source projects devalue paid for programs? Yup. Why pay when some nice chaps make it for free for the love of it?

Does that mean all programs should be free? Nope, can't rely on altruism to cater for all your needs, and altruism should be a choice of the creators, not an requirement of the consumers.

Do the two models cause problems sitting side by side? Undoubtedly.
But, its just a reality you have to face I suppose.

[acidsaturation]

I don't think anyone is getting scared by bedroom producers. I just think that it is a worrying trend that music is given away for free.

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

As an aside... will you put someones music out, whether it fits your label or not, is saleable or not, in preference to them giving it away?

You say that you don't manage to pay the artists often, that's fine. I don't wanna charge, I will give it to you, and you can charge what you like. BUT if I'm not allowed to give it away, you MUST put out what I give you, 'cos then that makes sure someone who might like it has the chance to hear it, which is the main reason I make tunes.

[RDR]

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

I know what you are trying to say, but sorry chief, the publishing industry was around a lot longer than that.

Funnily enough i heard a piece about a man who played violin and went around the appalacians (SP?) recording and documenting country voilin players.

One of the biggest had recently died, but had created recordings. He left specific instructions to his sons that they were not to let anyone take the recordings, only that people could come along, listen to them and take the time to learn them. He knew, even in 1940 that his music was worth something, this backwoods man and his sons jealously guarded it.

This is a really great thread and has got me thinking loads, I agree it is the artists choice to give their music away for free... but it is also NOT the artists choice to have their music ripped and pirated, so whats the difference.

Of course the difference is the money and the method, despite the hope and the fine thoughts in the matter. I think the public wants to buy music, but then the public gets what the public wants, and the public wants what the public gets, so is it a matter of education or promotion?

Like i said before, the word FREE has great resonance here. FREE gives something no value unless the item has percieved value in the first place. Something which becomes FREE has greater nvalue than something that was FREE in the first place no? There are different levels of free, and really as consumers we are tricked into believing through previous encounters with thgins that were free and utter crap (free things in crackers or free stuff with fuel etc etc) that FREE=BAD, I reckon this is indicative of consumer manipulation.

Also FREE is something that advertising agencies increasingly have a hand in, they provide money which goes into the media industries which gives opporunities to artists to earn, and the product is FREE for the consumer to consume. IMO i'd rather not have the adverts... and so damn LOUD as well.

/Rant

[RDR]

As an aside... will you put someones music out, whether it fits your label or not, is saleable or not, in preference to them giving it away?

You say that you don't manage to pay the artists often, that's fine. I don't wanna charge, I will give it to you, and you can charge what you like. BUT if I'm not allowed to give it away, you MUST put out what I give you, 'cos then that makes sure someone who might like it has the chance to hear it, which is the main reason I make tunes.

I wouldnt put something out i didnt think someone would enjoy. Saleale only becomes apparent when you make a sale and without prior knowledge of everyone who looks at/listens to the music it s dark place to be.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

As an aside... will you put someones music out, whether it fits your label or not, is saleable or not, in preference to them giving it away?

You say that you don't manage to pay the artists often, that's fine. I don't wanna charge, I will give it to you, and you can charge what you like. BUT if I'm not allowed to give it away, you MUST put out what I give you, 'cos then that makes sure someone who might like it has the chance to hear it, which is the main reason I make tunes.

Of course not, i only put out what i personally think is quality music that i like and will sell.

I'l reiterate what i wrote in my last post. If you want to put out music free thats fine i'm personally not bothered its your creation you can do what you want.

I just think it's better if artists get paid for there work, makes life easier.

[tocsin]

But on the flip side, techno (for me at least) was always a little (dare I use the word) underground, subversive, etc etc, and going against big corporate industry models is a part of that.

When people start saying that we have to lose the free diy ethic that was always a part for many people, **** it, I'm going back to punk!

Fact is, entities or people interested in money have never really given a **** about us except when we proved to be a test market that was open to exploitation. I don't particularly give a **** about any "scene." Scenes are made to die. But, I've been part of a culture, where techno was a big form of expression, that won't die because of sales, simply because it was never about that. I'm not about to let any bitter geezers say why I need to stop expressing myself the way I always have because it's cutting into their income. **** that and **** them. For anyone that has used a "free party" ethic as a means of generating a buzz about themself, it makes me wonder if that was always the ****ing point simply because this argument about musicians giving away music for free is completely irrational.

Anyways, since some of you are so hung up on the concept of art having a monetary value, or are inclined to think that something given away for "free" is considered crap by the market which hurts others' abilities to charge, the fact is, my art is NOT free! I pay for it. I spend the time to make it. I rent the web servers where it's hosted. I put a lot of my own income to it becuase I value it. I also share those resources for others to be able to do the same. The people who enjoy what I do also pay for an internet connection and the tech to be able to listen to it. It's my labor of love and you can seriously just **** off if you have a problem with it. I'm not going to change, particularly for people who never gave a **** about me or others like me anyways. :P After all, I'm not the one feeling my place and activity in all of this is threatened by what others are doing.

[acidsaturation]

But, I've been part of a culture, where techno was a big form of expression, that won't die because of sales, simply because it was never about that. I'm not about to let any bitter geezers say why I need to stop expressing myself the way I always have because it's cutting into their income. **** that and **** them.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

+1000000000000

[MorePunkThanFunk]

I'm not about to let any bitter geezers say why I need to stop expressing myself the way I always have because it's cutting into their income. **** that and **** them. For anyone that has used a "free party" ethic as a means of generating a buzz about themself, it makes me wonder if that was always the ****ing point simply because this argument about musicians giving away music for free is completely irrational.

Anyways, since some of you are so hung up on the concept of art having a monetary value, or are inclined to think that something given away for "free" is considered crap by the market which hurts others' abilities to charge, the fact is, my art is NOT free! I pay for it. I spend the time to make it. I rent the web servers where it's hosted. I put a lot of my own income to it becuase I value it. I also share those resources for others to be able to do the same. The people who enjoy what I do also pay for an internet connection and the tech to be able to listen to it. It's my labor of love and you can seriously just **** off if you have a problem with it. I'm not going to change, particularly for people who never gave a **** about me or others like me anyways. :P After all, I'm not the one feeling my place and activity in all of this is threatened by what others are doing.

Just to clarify, at no point did i say music shouldnt be free, i whole heartedly agree that giving away free music is important. My own personal opinion is that it is a worrying trend at the AMOUNT of free music available. If people want to give it away free then that is fine that's entirely up to them. my whole idea behind this thread was to try and make people think that you don't have to give your music away free you can get paid for doing something you love. Maybe not make a living but at least cover your expenses and give you something on top.

I never have and never will be into techno for the money, after running the label for nearly 4 years i've made what a couple of hundred... compared to the amount of hours i've put it it adds up to nothing. i do it because i love it and i like putting peoples music out there that i think needs to get out.