If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available where you live, is there any excuse for downloading them instead of buying them?

xp iatee: they get scholarships for four years, that's about it.

also both sports and music: depend largely on beer sales

(all I mean by "carnies" is that for lots of recent history, and historically in plenty of cultures, a big part of the social and class category of "musicians" meant sort of hard-living, road-traveling people who were considered sort of disreputable in the aggregate, along with loads of other types of entertainers. obviously this doesn't count the ones who became popular or a lot of high-art and classical music, but by and large "musician" wasn't an auteur category, it was sort of a weird job/lifestyle upstanding people wouldn't necessarily want their kids to marry into.) (NB I don't know how to form a classical model of this re: Beethoven, but consider the composer versus the working musicians who played the compositions.)

sorry, massive xpost

xp nabisco - thanks for clarifying. I was kinda confused by your original post.

^^^totally agree w/nabisco - which is basically what my previous posts on other threads about musicians "being slaves in Rome", etc. were getting at. For most of human history and in most human cultures, being a musician has not been a stable, well-respected career path. Its been the province of poor itinerants for the most part.

John, in my opinion, art is something you choose to do, work is something you have to do. Making art is a privilege, making money from your art is a bonus. T

I can't really understand this at all. Making decent art is hard work; the idea that, since the results are awesome, it shouldn't be considered in the same category as work is disrespectful to both art & work

well Shakey I do think it's a commendable development that we no longer have that class of "musician" -- I would absolutely not say that since it was a marginal position in the past nobody should complain about anything now!

(I know you're not necessarily saying that either, just being clear)

it is interesting how, in Rome, actors & musicians were like the scum of the earth (actors especially) & until recently musicians had it made & actors still do, film actors anyway

we can change that

but of course the #1 most desirable station in life remains indie rock singer-songwriter

being a musician has not been a stable, well-respected career path. Its been the province of poor itinerants for the most part.

partly playing devil's advocate here, but there are other occupations you can say that about as well. Lending money and finance used to be illegal for people of the Christian faith ... that's why Jews ended up in the business. While not poor itinerants, the business was not very well-respected and it wasn't stable, as society would go through waves of needing their services and then kicking them out.

all cards on the table here, I don't expect J0hn and I to ever agree because we're on opposite sides of the professional barrier. I made a conscious decision when I was younger not to pursue music as a profession because it looked horrifyingly brutal and the odds against ever achieving any level of comfort and stability looked unacceptably long - so I found something else that I can do that society deems worthwhile enough to pay me a wage for, and I use the money I make off that to pursue my various artistic interests.

But J0hn's on the other end, as someone who did decide to pursue music as a profession and sees his livelihood endangered by social and economic pressures beyond his control - I don't really expect him to accept that lying down.

x-posts

I agree that it isn't easy to make great art (decent art could be easy to do if you're inspired or talented), but I have no idea where you're coming from with the part of your statement after the semicolon. I said nothing about that.

believe me, if i believed I could somehow obliterate MIchael Bay's profit motive through incessant downloading, I'd do it.

we can change that

lol yes by doing it ourselves, the many excellent films available on youtube demonstrate that the tide is turning against crusty old hollywood

But J0hn's on the other end, as someone who did decide to pursue music as a profession and sees his livelihood endangered by social and economic pressures beyond his control - I don't really expect him to accept that lying down.

I want to stress again that I argue this question only out of interest in the question & enjoyment in the process. When I say "I have no complaints," I am 100% dead serious - I make a living at my job & am grateful. I am just really itchy when somebody suggests that it's anything other than real work for which the worker deserves compensation.

I get way more of my entertainment from youtube than from hollywood these days!

what are your top ten feature-length youtube movies of all time

1. the breakdancing guy who kicks the baby

I totally understand J0hn, I'm not trying to needle you or anything.

And yes, all work deserves compensation, in an ethical sense. But we all know that the economic realities of compensation are often vastly unethical, and that the market that determines the rate of compensation can often be quite callous and stingy.

x-post

This thread title supposes that you have already heard the artist and like them enough to want to invest time/money into their music. I think the question should first read

If an artist is A) not super rich, B) you don't download music cos that is wrong, then how will you ever hear them in the first place?

until youtube can give hugh jackmam adamantium claws, it can suck it as far as i'm concerned

xp Adam the thread title was written by Tuomas.

I am just really itchy when somebody suggests that it's anything other than real work for which the worker deserves compensation.

(altho tbh I am similarly just really itchy when somebody suggests that work done without compensation cannot produce masterpieces - lol)

xp Adam: uh, there's college radio, internet radio, bands' websites and myspace pages?

1. the breakdancing guy who kicks the baby

yeah I'll take the "evil" outdated system thx

(altho tbh I am similarly just really itchy when somebody suggests that work done without compensation cannot produce masterpieces - lol)

you know that politically I feel you! but practically/historically...who can you name? Shakespeare wrote for money, wouldn't have bothered otherwise, and the same's true of most great artists I fear.

also, srsly tho, the hollywood model of spending 100 million dollars on a movie and then crossing your fingers - this is actually worse than the music biz's dysfunction.

xp Henry Darger haha

Exhibit A for the prosecution:
http://themixtapemonster.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/big-green.jpg

that may be iatee but are you stoked to see only movies that ppl paid for out of pocket?

(in re: Darger...I think actually that's OTM - the new art economy will be all "outsider" stuff. super-stoked for that.)

about as much as I am to see the latest $100 million dollar movie

you know that politically I feel you! but practically/historically...who can you name? Shakespeare wrote for money, wouldn't have bothered otherwise, and the same's true of most great artists I fear.

aha! See this is a trick question, because most of the people who created masterpieces without any compensation come from that most hallowed of anonymous traditions - the FOLK tradition. Exhibit A - any number of songs that AP Carter scrounged off of neighbors, acquaintances, itinerant musicians, etc. - many of which have gone on to become "standards", American classics, etc. ("Will the Circle Be Unbroken", anybody?)

but practically/historically...who can you name? Shakespeare wrote for money, wouldn't have bothered otherwise, and the same's true of most great artists I fear.

this isn't really fair...lots of masterpiece-producing artists started out having a day job until, you know, they became well-known enough to live off their art. they didn't all start out as professionals and then create great works (although some did of course).

which is why my hope is that the future of the music industry will be more towards one of the folk tradition and less of the American Idol/pro-sports variety - that music-making will become so commonplace it'll get down to something that people just DO, and the best stuff will circulate and rise to the top via its appeal as something that other people can play and participate in and enjoy.

i don't care what morbz says, star trek was way better than some dude getting kicked in the balls

john you keep bringing up examples of ppl who made a living w/ their art (shakespeare, the beatles) but that doesn't *prove* anything more than me bringing up examples of ppl who didn't make a living w/ their art (uh...dickinson, kafka, any of the thousands of artists who started out rich)

about as much as I am to see the latest $100 million dollar movie

oh you're being disingenuous, you know very well you're not even remotely interested in a zero-budget cinema.

Shakey Mo your deep lefty roots are showin'! :)

goin to a hootenanny in the holler tonight, should be good

this isn't really fair...lots of masterpiece-producing artists started out having a day job until, you know, they became well-known enough to live off their art. they didn't all start out as professionals and then create great works (although some did of course).

yep. one of the best sci-fi writers of the last couple decades - Gene Wolfe - had a day-job as an engineer and editor of trade magazine for the better part of his career.

x-post

oh you're being disingenuous, you know very well you're not even remotely interested in a zero-budget cinema.

I admit I am kinda interested in this $40 zombie movie that's making the rounds

this isn't really fair...lots of masterpiece-producing artists started out having a day job until, you know, they became well-known enough to live off their art. they didn't all start out as professionals and then create great works (although some did of course).

no that is my point though - while some artists (Shakespeare mentions this a lot, in his sonnets) are happy to think of posterity, to argue that profit motive has somehow been bad for art (at any level) seems really silly to me. Pay people and they tend to work harder than when you don't. A good artist working hard is better than a good artist with no time to work. The exceptions are usually outsiders - Kafka, Dickinson, Darger if you're into it. If you really think the Beatles get to Sgt Pepper without a comfortable living to support their experimentation, then I'm open to hearing that argument, but I'm extremely suspicious.

I agree on that point, commerce and art are not naturally adversarial. However, I don't think anyone here is really saying the profit motive has been BAD, just that it hasn't been, strictly speaking, essential.

A profit motive that directly ties money coming in to the work that is being produced is definitely bad for art, as surely as paying journalists directly by how much their articles contribute to circulation would be bad for journalism. Fucking sudoku guy would drive solid gold Benz! (sorry will shortz, you still my homie)

shakey: the initial post with which I took exception was the argument that you "should" work for love, not money. I think a great deal of fantastic art has been made by people whose motivation was largely "holy shit, I can get paid to do this: fucking awesome"

If you really think the Beatles get to Sgt Pepper without a comfortable living to support their experimentation, then I'm open to hearing that argument, but I'm extremely suspicious.

this goes back to my theoretical situation earlier w/ the giving a million $ to our 100 favorite artists and them creating masterpieces. it sucks that this isn't gonna happen! but it isn't!

yes, sgt pepper wouldn't have been created. and there are works of genius that are currently not being created due to lack of infinite money.

shakey: side point, but i know you like hip hop and i don't know how you reconcile that with your point.

wait, which point?