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?

(when they're faced w/ the 21st century)

If you're not inspired and you don't have anything to say, i'm not going to feel bad that you are rushing to put out something to make a buck.

That's a massive and mean-spirited "if" -- there are plenty of people in the world who are inspired and have something to say but have to do some serious back-breaking and ass-kicking in order to find the time and energy to do it around whatever it is they do to pay the bills. And if there's an added reward at the end of all that work -- say, the opportunity to pay the bills easier, so you can spend more time on your inspiration and your things-to-say -- that is a good motivator to keep breaking backs and kicking asses to get it done.

imo ^^^^^^^^^ this is canceled out w/ the internet's democratization of creating and exhibiting your work

spending your time hawking and marketing the things that are threatened by downloads and chasing after 'lost profits' rather than concentrating on your art seems as good a demotivator as any. what do you think of the idea of music labels having artists on salary rather than some silly sales-based profit scheme?

spending your time hawking and marketing the things that are threatened by downloads and chasing after 'lost profits' rather than concentrating on your art seems as good a demotivator as any.

(20th century version)

I'm not sure that's some kind of plus or minus to be "canceled out," just a statement that talented/creative people may really, really struggle to have the time, space, and energy to get things done -- and the thought that, if people like what you come up with, you might be allowed a bit more time/space/energy to do more is an important motivator. I suspect we all agree/acknowledge that this is a goal the bulk of creative people have in common, to be able to survive off working on their art full time.

(I'm also assuming we all agree -- and maybe some don't! -- that making art is genuine hard work that requires serious commitments and investments of your time, energy, focus, etc., all things that are in shorter supply when they're dedicated to another job.)

also Phil I have no idea if that's in response to what I said, and I get the feeling we are talking about different things entirely here

imo ^^^^^^^^^ this is canceled out w/ the internet's democratization of creating and exhibiting your work

i think this is a often-heard fallacy these days. sure, you put some music online and it's possible for tons of people to hear it, but to actually get people to care you've got to put some serious time and effort into promotion. and unless you hit the blog hype lottery, most bands are still making their name through relatively old-fashioned methods, i think.

payola?

"sure, you put some music online and it's possible for tons of people to hear it, but to actually get people to care you've got to put some serious time and effort into promotion"

Dude, did you not check out the Finnish rap at the top of the thread?

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.

um wut abt every1 that hates shitty folk music and wants 2 listen to gleaming and crisp r&b???? like i think its generally true that even w/o financial incentive ppl will still be making music but there's a professionalism and a, i guess, structure that happens when something is an industry that wld be lost with this and with it i think certain types of music. like its not just a drive to make "art" that makes something like a dream album possible but what about trained, skilled sound engineers and other tech jobs - those ppl need money too.

i remember talking w/ i think s1ocki about this w/r/t to movies its dope to make your own low-budget films but the difference even a trained lighting tech can makes is huge and w/o ppl buying tickets and DVDs who's going to train for that? and who's going to pay these ppl once they're trained?

"the difference even a trained lighting tech can makes is huge and w/o ppl buying tickets and DVDs who's going to train for that"

CG is probably going to kill this particular profession off faster than illegal downloads is my bet.

i think by folk tradition he means diy not just beardos with dulcimers
also gleamimg & crisp has had a good run but the game changes every so often and new aesthetics come into play

that's maybe a bad example, cause gleaming/crisp modern r&b can actually be made in pretty low-investment way

i guess my point was less abt any specific aesthetic than just that - there are a bunch of ppl from editors to sound engineers that perform imo valuable functions but aren't really "artists" or w/e term shakey et all want to use that i think arent getting work in the new diy folktopia. and if u consciously create a situation where making any money from creative works is really hard then there's no incentive for these ppl to exist, and thus certain kinds of art arent really possible any more.

i mean lol im pretty happy making flash and iphone games for little to no money but w/o a major publisher fronting not just cash but also ppl - coders, designers, testers &c &c &c - i'm never going to make games as ambitious and interesting i think im capable of

they performed valuable functions at a point of time when their contribution helped create a product that made money. now that it doesn't, they don't.

that some brutal economic determinism bro - in a world where any1 can self-publish digitally do u really think a professional editor has *no* value??

if nobody is willing to pay them then yes, in a strict economic sense, they have no value

i'm not sure the crap to gold ratio is gonna be that diff. in whatever comes after the deluge, but yes certain styles/genres or whatever are going to be harder to pull off.
¯\(°_o)/¯

"i'm never going to make games as ambitious and interesting i think im capable of"

As is the case with many aspiring novelists, the personal distractions of life will probably be the larger obstacle than the theoretical loss of a support infrastructure that would aid you in your quest, starfighter!

if nobody is willing to pay them then yes, in a strict economic sense, they have no value

umm mr iatee sir do you concede that there are forms of value other than economic

yes, which is why I prefaced that with 'strict economic'...

if we believe that expensive-to-make music has important social value, then yeah, in the long-term we need to find a way to fund it, because the current system isn't going to for much longer. see: newspapers

Well I've been hesitant to get involved here, because A)it seems to me we've all had this same discussion in the recent past on another thread B)I don't personally know what the answer is, I don't pretend to, and I don't care, I only have faith that it will eventually appear.

What I WILL say right now is that what I do most of my downloading for is to TRY things. TRY B4 YOU BUY. Either that or I'm just catching up on some record or other I already bought years ago and no longer have access to, etc. So speaking as an American who has not yet tasted what Spotify must be like, it seems to me that model is a good way to start as far as I know. A place where music can be played, tried out, maybe paid for after a certain number of plays, whatever. But this endless downloading and dumping into folders and not ever getting around to listening to it drives a person (me) mad. If everything was instantly available, there would be no need for that excess.

Like say, 25 cents to play a song one time, 50 for two...topping out of course at some level or the market will allow. Moving to an ad for the album after three plays. It isn't hard folks! Pardon my impatience with the technological progress of the human race, thanks.

Bimble, you should look into Lala.com. It is for US citizens, and it allows a free first time streaming and then a very cheap purchase for permanent streaming abilities. There is a thread about it here that was bumped recently.

I say this as an ex-user that moved on from the company as it's focus shifted, but it kind of fits an attempt at a different digital model.

Last.fm has been good to me lately; most everything that I'm hesitant about dropping cash on is streamable, with a big increase in lo-fi punk shit in the last couple years (something that I find particularly hit and miss).

But what this thread has really convinced me of is that I should be bootlegging Jay Z albums and sending the money to Finnish rappers in some sort of copyleft global arts socialism.

I think it will be interesting the see where the whole internet/cloud computing/futuristic technologies takes us in the sense of music production and how this affects things in the long run. Like now it's about digital copies of songs, what about in 15 years when everyone has 3d printers that can download models to recreate virgin vinyl first pressings on the molecular-scale?

yeah, wow dude, can't wait for that

15 yrs from now is gonna be more like this I think
http://arcona.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/statue_planet.jpg

can't remember if the apes had 3-d printers, though

http://www.hear2.com/images/2007/12/29/natgeo_musicsales2_6.gif

Wonder if this chart account for changes in inflation?

...this is the stuff with which I took issue; it still strikes me as wrong, most especially the "art should be made for the love of it" - sez who?

― worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, May 29, 2009 6:07 PM (5 days ago) Bookmark

Love seems to be worth more than money to those crazy beatnik beardo art types.

yeah I know Devendra is begging for change on Melrose Ave as we speak

Begging for LOVE.

that's a beautiful chart