Should music be given away free?

[MorePunkThanFunk]

Should music be given away free?

What's your thoughts on this?

More and more labels seem to be giving away free tracks, or just going completely free.

I'm all in favour of promotion which can involve free things or giveaways but there is a limit on this.

Just want to see what the general feeling is on here.

[Aratron]

seems a nonsense. everything must have a cost otherwise it has no value.

[inigo kennedy]

seems a nonsense. everything must have a cost otherwise it has no value.

that's quite a capitalist sound bite. from another point of view, as an artist, it's a lot more satisfying and i'd say fair. a justifiably romantic outlook perhaps. good question mptf. a different question might be should other people make money from your music? there are a lot of factors and many different aims - label? artist? brand? career? hobby? passion? business? quality control, or the perception of quality, is a problem but that seems to be a growing phenomenon on a massive scale - throwaway culture - free or not. in general i think there's also a growing perception from consumers that everything is and has to be free but more and more of the actual costs are hidden and aggregated - free music doesn't cost nothing but the belief is that it does.

[RDR]

free music doesn't cost nothing but the belief is that it does.

+1 Exactly.

[Aratron]

that's quite a capitalist sound bite. f

not at all. i am not a capitalist.
this is the way of things. everything must have balance.
For example, i used to read Tarot Cards. I always did it for free.
Anyway one day i learnt off some folk, that it must always cost somebody, even if it was the least somebody could afford. That gave the reading a kind of balance. There must be payment for the effort and labour of love that goes into anything.
Everything must cost.
If i pick an apple from atree, i expend enrgy in doing so.

point and click and save your music in a second for free?

Ain't ever, ever gonna work, unless you are a fool. In which case go for it!!

[acidsaturation]

not at all. i am not a capitalist.
this is the way of things. everything must have balance.

It's capitalist if the value has to be monetary. That's not using the word capitalist in any negative way however, just that money being the main object is a theme of capitalism.

I think most of us are capitalists to some extent - it's the world we live in and its very hard to not have to go down that route when you need to get what you need.

But I do agree, that many things do need to have some reciprocity to have value.

But I also think that reciprocity does not need to be linear - i.e. the "payment" may not need to go back the the person providing the goods/service.

[Aratron]

It's capitalist if the value has to be monetary. That's not using the word capitalist in any negative way however, just that money being the main object is a theme of capitalism.

I think most of us are capitalists to some extent - it's the world we live in and its very hard to not have to go down that route when you need to get what you need.

But I do agree, that many things do need to have some reciprocity to have value.

But I also think that reciprocity does not need to be linear - i.e. the "payment" may not need to go back the the person providing the goods/service.

well i didnt say anywhere the payment needed to be in money.
It's just generally accepted in 2008 that bio-survival tickets equate to money, instead of bartering.
But sure bartering can be fun if someone has something interesting to barter that you don't have. Thats why swapping can be fun.

[JamieBall]

It's an unfortunate indicator of the state of the market that so many people are pressured into going this way.

I think it's a GOOD idea in principal, helping spread your music etc but in practise it can prove a bit silly for the artist. Many have basically been pushed into this by circumstance, rather than making a uniform decision I feel. It's kinda like "people aren't gonna pay for this so we've got to make it free for them even to bother listening"

Personally, I've spoken to a few people on Soulseek who were absolutely GOBSMACKED when I told them I buy music if I like it. My cousin, who's about 11, also refuses to entertain the notion of paying for music.

The attitude these days seems to be very much "if I can get it for free, why pay for it?" which I can see to an extent but it still remains a bit of a blinkered view imo. I've noticed many 'big' bands giving away their new albums etc with newspapers n stuff but this is, of course, no problem for them - they've made their money and merely need to keep the wheels on the promotion wagon...

Fair enough artists can use this free music as a promo tool to spread their name/get gigs or whatever but what if you don't do live shows yet spend 24/7 on your music ? This kinda means you'd be doing that for NOTHING in the present climate, should you choose to go the 'free' route.

It's horrid that we live in a society where 'bills' and things appear from time to time, otherwise I don't see the problem with all this free/trading stuff. However, if you spend all your time doing something and you're GOOD AT IT then I, personally, think you have the right to be rewarded for it. If people receive nothing back for hours of work then they're only going to be doing this for so long.

Mind you, the way techno is(nt) selling at the moment, if you've any brains and are actually interested in making money then I suggest you off and make something that'll stand a chance of actually providing a sensible ££ return ratio ;-)

Personally, I've never made a bean from this music really and I'm quite happy about it. It's not about the cash or peoples reactions, if I didn't make music I'd probably be in the clink ;-)

[RDR]

Its a tricky one thats for sure.

I think it all depends on what else people have going on, A touring/gigging artist will have more invested in the live set-up.

There are many instances where music is paid for and in big amounts. but these are one off pieces like music for adverts on commision etc etc.

It all depends on wether or not anyone regards music as intrinsically worth anything or as a vehicle to promote a brand image or the artist as a product. The recent rash of people giving things away for 'FREE' (OT i think the word FREE has much more power than the word F-U.C:K in modern day society) has hardly been FREE, there was always another option for people.

Look at princes recent giveaway in the papers, it was free to the consumer but not really free at all. Most artists in the independant sector 'enjoy' the long tail in terms of sales. Prince didnt do that. How much did he get paid by the papers for having this album given away free? Instant money. Not only that, but he exploited the long tail and gained some more fans in the process (i accept that he aliented some as well) plus the fact that if he had tried to BUY that marketing and publicity it would have been extremely expensive. The consumer accepts a free album on the premise that it is really free, and it is, the cost to them is hidden. Prince on the other hand gets rapid payment, the consumer pays HIM to publicise TO them. Look at the Radiohead and NIN jaunts recently, FREE meant giveaways, but they still made money from it. Not from the sales so much, but the publicity was MASSIVE. something they couldnt buy without spending millions.

For the independant? Well, havnt we always given away music for free in the form of Mix CDS? Isnt that what DJs are meant to do? Record pools have been around for a LONG time and did exactly that, gave away promo's to DJs so they could play them out. I think in the techno scene the problem is that who the hell is buying the music, its not the standard consumer, its the DJs and most of them i meant didnt really expect to pay for music at all. They felt that it should be free because they are 'Promoting' a certain artist. This rings true when you have a product like vinyl, hard to copy etc etc, but not MP3.

One of the side effects (IMO - like everything here else of course) is that all of a sudden the DJ jealously guarding their record collection has gone, no white labels on a CD is there? A DJ lives and dies on their tunes, but that piss and vinegar approach seems to have gone, in the endless round of circle jerk promo action.

/Rant.

EDIT: Just seen jamies comment and wanted to add a +1 for most of that. I know im trying to talk from a commercial perspective here.

[hardacid]

Its a tricky one thats for sure.

I think it all depends on what else people have going on, A touring/gigging artist will have more invested in the live set-up.

There are many instances where music is paid for and in big amounts. but these are one off pieces like music for adverts on commision etc etc.

It all depends on wether or not anyone regards music as intrinsically worth anything or as a vehicle to promote a brand image or the artist as a product. The recent rash of people giving things away for 'FREE' (OT i think the word FREE has much more power than the word F-U.C:K in modern day society) has hardly been FREE, there was always another option for people.

Look at princes recent giveaway in the papers, it was free to the consumer but not really free at all. Most artists in the independant sector 'enjoy' the long tail in terms of sales. Prince didnt do that. How much did he get paid by the papers for having this album given away free? Instant money. Not only that, but he exploited the long tail and gained some more fans in the process (i accept that he aliented some as well) plus the fact that if he had tried to BUY that marketing and publicity it would have been extremely expensive. The consumer accepts a free album on the premise that it is really free, and it is, the cost to them is hidden. Prince on the other hand gets rapid payment, the consumer pays HIM to publicise TO them. Look at the Radiohead and NIN jaunts recently, FREE meant giveaways, but they still made money from it. Not from the sales so much, but the publicity was MASSIVE. something they couldnt buy without spending millions.

For the independant? Well, havnt we always given away music for free in the form of Mix CDS? Isnt that what DJs are meant to do? Record pools have been around for a LONG time and did exactly that, gave away promo's to DJs so they could play them out. I think in the techno scene the problem is that who the hell is buying the music, its not the standard consumer, its the DJs and most of them i meant didnt really expect to pay for music at all. They felt that it should be free because they are 'Promoting' a certain artist. This rings true when you have a product like vinyl, hard to copy etc etc, but not MP3.

One of the side effects (IMO - like everything here else of course) is that all of a sudden the DJ jealously guarding their record collection has gone, no white labels on a CD is there? A DJ lives and dies on their tunes, but that piss and vinegar approach seems to have gone, in the endless round of circle jerk promo action.

/Rant.

EDIT: Just seen jamies comment and wanted to add a +1 for most of that. I know im trying to talk from a commercial perspective here.

well said chief...

[pion33r]

I reckon from a music collectors point of view it would be a good idea if labels provided MP3s free of charge with every vinyl purchase. At the moment I believe labels/online stores expect you to buy both at full price if you want both, forcing the decision to one or the other. I doubt many people can really afford to buy both.

Obviously some people probably rip vinyl to MP3 straight away, however I've always found this a bit of a chore and fiddly to get the best sound from the rip. On top of that some MP3s / WAVs are superior to the vinyl pressings from the start...

Additionally there would be the benefit of instant download access to your tunes, with the physical product delivered to your door in the next few days.

Its the best of both worlds solution!

Economically viable for the music labels themselves though I don't know

[hardacid]

I reckon from a music collectors point of view it would be a good idea if labels provided MP3s free of charge with every vinyl purchase. At the moment I believe labels/online stores expect you to buy both at full price if you want both, forcing the decision to one or the other. I doubt many people can really afford to buy both.

Obviously some people probably rip vinyl to MP3 straight away, however I've always found this a bit of a chore and fiddly to get the best sound from the rip. On top of that some MP3s / WAVs are superior to the vinyl pressings from the start...

Additionally there would be the benefit of instant download access to your tunes, with the physical product delivered to your door in the next few days.

Its the best of both worlds solution!

Economically viable for the music labels themselves though I don't know

many mixes i dl now have no vinyl release/discogs info etc from trakkys as its all files,,,so many gd tunes im missin out on tbh...

id far rather pay a fiver for a record than have a file for the tune altho its gettin to the stage now where i am goin to be buyin files as summa the tunes are that gd and i cant miss them

i am an oldskool hardtrance/italiano collector aswell, so many tunes that i could never afford/justify wax price i have on mp3 not to mention all the tunes that were never released on wax back in the day off compilations etc or are just too rare to get is making me buy serato later this year to play them...saves outputting on a cdj and u still get the touchyfeelyness of the vinyl which is what i like tbh

[rhythmtech]

if someone wants to give away music for free then its nobodies choice but their own.

from a business point of view, i personally give away some tracks for promotion and to generally "keep my name out there".

i think its especially important for those of us who arent in a position where we have lots of labels clambering over each other to release every track that we write.

everytime i put a track out i get lots of messages of support and thanks - this for me is enough to show that the music has value and if a percentage that do download a free track then go and spend money on damaged trax, i reckon the promotion is working in my favour.

[acidsaturation]

if someone wants to give away music for free then its nobodies choice but their own.

Totally.

I guess there is the potential problem that if more music is given away then it heightens the perception that music is free, and maybe "undercuts" those who need to make a living from it.

And yeh

But at the end of the day, I don't really make music to make money. Yeh it would be nice if I could cover some of the costs, and I'm hoping to work on that one slowly, but at the moment I'm working, I'm hoping to do a PhD next year, so turning it into a business is not my main aim.

I give CDs out, to my mates, to cute girls in clubs, to people who look like they might come to a gig if they recognise my name - that last one is promotion I guess, but if people who put on nights know I'll get folk in then I get gigs which I enjoy, and there's more chance of getting some beer money for playing.

At the end of the day if I have a product from my hobby what good is it if it's sat in my CD player for no one else to enjoy? It's like if I'm sat out in the sun and make a dreamcatcher (yeh old hippy I know), or split up a plant that's too big for it's pot, or make too many pots of chutney - what use is it to me, and I don't need the couple of quid I might be able to flog it to someone for...

[RDR]

Just wanted to make the point that FREE music cannot be considered for the charts, I wonder how that might affect things if there were...

[acidsaturation]

By definition though the charts show how popular a record is with one particular subset of people. i.e. those who by a certain thing in a certain format...

[TechMouse]

Music should be whatever it's creators want it to be.

If people want to give it away free then great.

If people want to try and make a living out of it them great - just remember that the world doesn't owe you a living and if your stuff doesn't sell then that's nobody's fault.

Right now, I'd probably give stuff away for free, though I've sold stuff before.

[RDR]

By definition though the charts show how popular a record is with one particular subset of people. i.e. those who by a certain thing in a certain format...

yeah, of course... was just pointing it out.. its got resonance when coldplay's free giveaway does 2million downloads in a weekend eh????

[tocsin]

if someone wants to give away music for free then its nobodies choice but their own.

That's how I've always looked about it. I had a few tracks put out here and there, though I never really looked for that or even cared. Before the internet was accessable to most people I knew at high speeds, I usually just gave the shit away on cassette tape. If someone gave me some cash for it, cool, but I never cared. Ovewr the years, I've heard numerous arguments from others that people likemyself destroyed DJ bookings, made it harder for "real artists" to earn a living, that the only reason I would give something away for free is because nobody would listen otherwise, etc. But, it's all a load of crap. Fact is, I don't really care if people listen to my music. It's certainly fun when people do and they enjoy it. But, that was never really the main motivation for doing it. Most of the stuff I've done was made for myself to listen to on long drives, which was pretty much every day for work. At the moment, when I do finish a track here and there, I give it away for free. I couldn't care less that other people charge for music. I don't think there's any greater indication of love for what one does based on whether or not they constantly charge for it. Frankly, I think the back and forth you seen between people who make camps out of it is more reflective of personal creative insecurity than anything else. And people who think they are owed something for free on a consumer level are just spoilt children with contempt for artists.

[DannyBlack]

It's all the one really. If you want to give it away, do. If you don't, then don't.