Should music be given away free?

[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.

[TechMouse]

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?

Not sure it's that cut and dry.

The really good open source software caters to the Tech community and provides stuff like development tools and APIs. Generally the kind of stuff that most people wouldn't know where to begin with.

There are some products which challenge commercial end-user applications, but their market share is usually less than impressive.

Why? Because commercial software comes with something that the open source community struggles to reliably provide: support.

If you are reasonably technically minded then there are a wealth of websites, forums, wikis and other documentation that you can use to guide you on your way. But I for one wouldn't forgive many people for giving up and going home.

Sometimes, having someone on the end of the phone who can help with your problem makes all the difference.

There are a few open source firms (Canonical and Red Hat being examples) who have built a business model out of offering support for their free products, and it remains to be seen how that pans out over time.

If open source software really devalued commercial software, then there is no way that Microsoft would still hold a 90% share on the desktop market. Linux is a better, safer product. But the reality is that people need a safety net, and familiarity is as good as any.

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.

Agree completely.

Do the two models cause problems sitting side by side? Undoubtedly.

Well, again - that's a complex question.

It totally depends on the open source licence in question. Not sure how much you know about this, but every bit of software in the world (even the free stuff) comes with a licence. There are multiple open source licences (GPL, Sun, Mozilla, Apache, BSD, multiple variations of each) and the difference usually comes down to how you have to repackage the software.

At the more stringent / idealistic end (GPL) the licence says that you can redistribute the code so long as any derivative work comes under the same licence. So this basically means you can't use a GPL product in a commercial product.

At the other end you have the likes of BSD which basically says "you can do whatever the hell you want", and there are many shades of grey in between.

We do a lot of work with stuff licensed under Apache because we think it strikes the right balance.

[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.

[acidsaturation]

Was gonna get back to you soon re R3tox, like you said a while ago, as I kind have some things ready...

Shouldn't have ranted so much about free music lol

[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.

[acidsaturation]

I think to some extent the problem is self perpetuating, and hence maybe something that instead of worrying about as a problem, we should try and embrace to our advantage. I can totally see where you are coming from, and in an ideal world, yeh people should get something in return for what they give out, but also people should maybe get away from having to put a value on everything.

Though you said yourself that the business model you are forced to adopt doesn't really result in the artist getting paid - so it does seem to go back to people paying for the music?

I think there's 2 sides - in some ways the ease of making ones music available for free has been great for some people to get heard - whether that's as a promotional act in order to get somewhere else, or just to get their art heard by others.

But it does also mean that there is far less quality control. I totally agree.

If it is the case that you really believe that all music that is good enough will get signed/released, then the question is whether the people who will download anything 'cos it's free whether it's good or not would buy records if free music wasn't available. I'm in two minds as to whether they would suddenly start to the extent Henry suggested earlier.

I think at the end of the day though the bigger problem is with people sharing things they should have paid for, rather than people getting stuff that is always free.

I think I would always give stuff away, even if I was selling stuff too. Maybe different styles, experiments and so on.

But I would genuinely like some of the business to be removed from music. Not that that's gonna happen I guess, but it's like the comment about folk music earlier - music is something to be shared in my mind.

[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.