All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows Geniune Pain in the Arse
Calum:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 9 June 2010, 14:19 ---Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.
--- End quote ---
not a good start tbh. why didn't you read what he said before putting your oar in?
--- Quote ---The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants.
--- End quote ---
that's definitely one opinion. Is it true? i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.
So, let's take the travel out of the equation, since that's what's obviously causing the expenses, yes? This means playing gigs in Edinburgh. Edinburgh's not that big, but there are literally dozens of gigs a night, many of them free. You expect me to be able to charge for a gig and make money? I have done it before, but this was a special case (of the three bands, one was launching a CD, the other were making their debut appearance). It's DEFINITELY not an issue of being good enough, it's an issue of looking at a situation where punters could go to any gig, and they are less likely to choose the one that costs a fiver to get than the one that's free. In my world money can ONLY be made on merch sales, which is why it confuses me that many of my favourite Edinburgh bands have no CD even!
--- Quote ---For one a million more people will get to enjoy his work (is that not important to an artist? I think you're being very one-dimensional), the more people that do will not only go to his gigs, but will probably offer donations e.g. he could raise around the time of new releases.
--- End quote ---
hmm, millions? How much will that kind of promotion cost? We always hear the "radiohead released their album on a 'pay what you want' model..." argument, but they were already huge, and they had EMI pushing them. Where would i or any of the hundreds of similar performers i know get this kind of money, or have this kind of time? I do agree with you, by the way. You can listen to my album as many times as you like for free on bandcamp.com but i made it so you have to pay to download it. To me, this is the compromise at the moment. Other musicians draw the line differently. i know plenty who release extra non-CD tracks for free, and one person i know has made it impossible to download tracks individually from iTunes, to make people pay for her whole album if they want one or two songs in particular.
--- Quote ---Besides, everybody's stealing music already and the artists are getting no money from their customers!!111 (did I make my sarcasm clear enough?)
--- End quote ---
no you actually didn't, where's your sarcasm? This issue is actually one with such diversely held opinions and no clear truth in it that sarcasm is virtually indetectable. Anyway, unauthorised copying is NOT stealing, it's perhaps a violation of the owner's rights (if they didn't allow copying in the licence the stuff was released under) but it is not stealing.
--- Quote ---Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.
--- End quote ---
i was at a music industry forum this week, and one of the panelists in a seminar about the future of music said that home taping was ok in the 80s when tape copies were usually crap, and forced you to buy the album if you liked the music, but now you can copy a perfect digital copy so this is no longer true. My opinion is that that's crap. But that's the sort of opinions you hear, even from industry professionals. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe that guy was right? I'm not an industry professional.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Calum on 12 June 2010, 11:49 ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 9 June 2010, 14:19 ---Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.
--- End quote ---
not a good start tbh. why didn't you read what he said before putting your oar in?
--- End quote ---
I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants.
--- End quote ---
that's definitely one opinion. Is it true?
--- End quote ---
In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).
I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.
Anyways, this seems to be the question everyone wants to know: how will artistic volume be effected in a free culture world. I hear a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that all the money will be sucked out of the industry, but in my opinion A) this isn't even the most important question and B) these people don't know this. The thing is, if you are simple minded about it, all of the money being sucked out of the industry seems like a no-brainer, but what I'm saying is it is NOT a simple problem, and even if money is sucked out, there are other societal benefits of a free-culture world to be considered.
--- Quote ---i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.
--- End quote ---
If you're making a loss on this tour, how are you paying for it?
Btw, we get plenty of free small gigs in our town sometimes, but that normally means the pub is paying the band. Some of my local friends get 50 quid each a night in a band, a nice price for students who learned to do the music because they enjoy it.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.
--- End quote ---
i was at a music industry forum this week, and one of the panelists in a seminar about the future of music said that home taping was ok in the 80s when tape copies were usually crap, and forced you to buy the album if you liked the music, but now you can copy a perfect digital copy so this is no longer true. My opinion is that that's crap. But that's the sort of opinions you hear, even from industry professionals. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe that guy was right? I'm not an industry professional.
--- End quote ---
I don't think you need to be an industry professional.
Kintaro:
I think the problem is, you don't really explain what the benefits of a so-called 'free-culture' world are, that and I just don't see any. In fact I see nothing more than detriment in the concept. It alienates everyone but the artist from the concept of contract and profit which both as an end to themselves are not a bad thing. You basically want to turn artists into rightless slaves who perform like beggars for that de-facto pittance of goodwill. I believe artists just like any other provider of a service should be entitled to the implied agreement of copyright. That those enjoying the artists work are expected to uphold certain contractual obligations. Everyone else gets this benefit in a civilized society with courts and the law. It seems you are trying to promote the slavery of artists for the so called greater good of your consumption of art, and personally I think it is disgusting and will have no more of this pointless conversation with a rotter.
worker201:
--- Quote from: Calum on 12 June 2010, 11:49 ---I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy.
--- End quote ---
I recently finished a book about the DIY histories of some of the American bands who booked their own tours and released their own albums in golden age before Nirvana's "Nevermind" flipped the music industry inside out. Bands like Minor Threat (and later Fugazi) actually made money on their tours, because they lived so spartanly - booked their own shows and slept on people's floors. Spending a couple weeks in a sleeping bag on someone's floor could make you a lot more money. Or rather, you would save money that could be used for other things.
Aloone_Jonez:
Well I can see plenty of advantages of a society free from copyright, at least in the music industry: people will be free to exchange information, artists can freely mix and improve the work of others and it will result in a more level playing field.
Who really benefits from copyrights anyway?
Certainly not the small unsigned artists who probably couldn't afford a lawsuit, even if they manage to catch people pirating their music. The people who benefit most are the big artists and record companies who have plenty of resources available to take on even the most minor breach of copyright.
A world of free music wouldn't be a world without music, it'd just be a world without large record companies and pop stars who get paid huge sums of money to record a few songs. The music industry would probably go back to how it was before the big record companies existed. Before most people owned a record player, there were classical music concerts and Broadway for the rich, the poor people would only listen to folk and a gospel at Church which probably differed greatly depending on where they lived. Of course the Internet and better transport would mean, it wouldn't be quite like that but it would mean that most music would return to being mostly produced by those who do it for the joy of it rather than for the money which might not be a bad thing.
Hell I can see the downside, I like pop music just as much as real music, sometimes even more so. I think if a record producer can get hold of the best singers and song writers, it's no surprise that they often produce some of the best music. I accept the criticism that too much attention is often paid to appearance that the music suffers but I don't think this is always the case. For example I think the cast of Glee's cover version of Journey's Don't Stop Believin' is musically superior to the original, the harmony is near perfect and it seems more in tune than the original. Normally I prefer originals to covers, probably because of nostalgia and that the cover is often a totally different style but Don't Stop Believin' is an exception to the rule, I'm too young to remember the original and it's in the same style as the original. I'm not knocking Journey as they probably didn't have the same technology when they released it: pitch correction was unheard of back then.
EDIT:
Here's links to the Youtube if anyone living in a cave hasn't heard either of the songs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ffuCVLECpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version