If the money is taken out of the equation,so too are the studios,session players,producers,engineers etc.Its a bit of a circle.

Would it really be so bad if there were no money to be made in music? What would happen?

Music would be a calling, not a career. Musicians might have something to sing about besides broken hearts.

Then again... I might be an idealist in most respects, but if you steal my guitar I'm afraid I would have to break all your fingers.

People who want something that they don't think they can afford always wish it was cheaper, or free. Be that a guitar, a song, or a nice car. However, I sort of think that if you're given something for free, then generally it has no value to you.

Those who have spent their money (or their time which is often of more value) for something, can assign what they feel that money or time represents to the value of the "something." Sometimes you might even feel like you've gotten a "deal" and gained more then your money or time was worth to you.

Neither of these is an absolute truth. You can be given something for free that has a very strong emotional value and you can pay for something that turns out to be worthless. But I think for the majority of transactions, what you are willing to pay for something represents it's minimum value to you.

This certainly isn't limited to music. If you're handy with a computer, try helping someone fix theirs and see how much value they assign to your time the next time they lose a printer button, or get a virus, or whatnot.

Here's a good example about music. I'm sure we all know at least 1 someone who filled up their computer with music during the heyday of Napster. Now they have Gigabytes of music, most of which they may not have even listened to in the last few years. Those of us who purchased our music did so because we made an emotional connection to the music, or the lyrics. We may not have gigabytes of songs on our hard drives or I-Pods, but every song, or artist on there can can invoke an emotional response. So our smaller music collection has more value because we were willing to pay for it.

Bingo. Why steal music when I can afford to buy the stuff that I really want? And why should those artists give it away? It cost them time and money to make it. I get paid for what I do for a living; why shouldn't they?

Exactly. But of course there's a whole internet culture out there that works to come up with rationalizations for theft. Many of them actually convince themselves that it's good for the music business, or that they are stealing not from the artist but from the record company, as though that's not also stealing from the artist.

ORIGINAL: Adrys

People who want something that they don't think they can afford always wish it was cheaper, or free. Be that a guitar, a song, or a nice car. However, I sort of think that if you're given something for free, then generally it has no value to you.

Those who have spent their money (or their time which is often of more value) for something, can assign what they feel that money or time represents to the value of the "something." Sometimes you might even feel like you've gotten a "deal" and gained more then your money or time was worth to you.

Neither of these is an absolute truth. You can be given something for free that has a very strong emotional value and you can pay for something that turns out to be worthless. But I think for the majority of transactions, what you are willing to pay for something represents it's minimum value to you.

This certainly isn't limited to music. If you're handy with a computer, try helping someone fix theirs and see how much value they assign to your time the next time they lose a printer button, or get a virus, or whatnot.

Here's a good example about music. I'm sure we all know at least 1 someone who filled up their computer with music during the heyday of Napster. Now they have Gigabytes of music, most of which they may not have even listened to in the last few years. Those of us who purchased our music did so because we made an emotional connection to the music, or the lyrics. We may not have gigabytes of songs on our hard drives or I-Pods, but every song, or artist on there can can invoke an emotional response. So our smaller music collection has more value because we were willing to pay for it.

Wise words..thanks for that.
Kev

Hi there Kev

If you let us all steal your music, instuments and you DAW stuff, we'll all feel better and you won't need to feel guilty any more!

Sorted!

I should work for the UN

Steve

I've recently become a fan of "renting" music, or whatever it may be called. I'm talking about services like Rhapsody, which I'm loving lately. I pay them $15 a month and have unlimited access to music. I can play albums or songs on my computer or on any TiVo in my house. I can load music onto up to three MP3 players. It's all legal as long as you continue to pay your monthly subscription. If your subscription expires, the DRM on the songs also expires and they become unplayable.

It's great if you want to listen to something you liked 30 years ago, but may not listen to again for another 30. I'm amazed by the variety of music available. There are some notable exceptions, as some artists don't participate, notably The Beatles, The Eagles, and Metallica. Maybe they'll come around some day, but in the meantime, I have a ton of music to choose from. The thing I like is that my kids are seeing that you can get your music through legal means.

ORIGINAL: Spaceduck

You know the logical solution to the whole mp3 piracy problem. We need to up the ante on music quality. If we shift to a super hi quality format like DVD-a, complete with amazing artwork and full color booklets like in the old days, then no self respecting kid will settle for a crappy mp3.

At least that's how it was when I grew up with cassette piracy. Sure, some kids would float some muffled, poor quality cassette copies around school. But if you really liked the music, you went out and bought the album so you could lie on the floor and stare at the album art while listening to glorious hifi. Kids today are missing out on that because mp3 is the industry standard. And album art? Who bothers with that anymore?

Basically I'm outlining the law of capitalism. You put out a product. It is imitated & cloned. So you distinguish yourself by putting out a better product. A few bands tried this with interactive CD-ROM albums, and I think that was a great idea (David Bowie, Yes come to mind). But for some reason that petered out.

100% with you there SpaceDuck!

I've thought for a long time how wonderful it would be if they sold CD's (or perhaps the DVD format you mention) in a proper 12inch x 12 inch album cover, even if the disc itself is still 12cm x 12cm!

I am sadly old enough to have very fond memories of full size artwork and especially gatefold sleeves - ahhh... nostalgia ain't what it used to be!

Another point that would repel the home pirates is that 12" album art wouldn't fit onto a standard sheet of A4.

Steve

LOL - just thinking about it has made me feel better though Kev

ORIGINAL: SteveStrummerUK

I am sadly old enough to have very fond memories of full size artwork and especially gatefold sleeves

Plus, it's hard to separate seeds with an MP3.

Damn it all, you capitalist swine. Last night I updated my Soundclick settings. My stuff is no longer free. Fork over 2 quarters or you get nuthin!

Haha, but I've decided to donate all proceeds to an animal shelter in NYC. So no one can accuse me of exploiting the system for selfish gain. Actually, it's a nifty idea isn't it? You charge money for your music (causing your fans to appreciate it more), but then turn around and give that money to someone who needs it more than you do. That way your music remains true to itself, not to the $$.

We'll see how it goes. I seriously doubt anyone buys downloads on Soundclick anyway.

ORIGINAL: Fog

Spaceduck, the thing about all this artwork etc.. older people dig more , looking at the artwork on the sleeve etc. Now younger people don't mind so much about that , just the music content.

True.

ORIGINAL: Fog
As for the dvd format, FSOL and a few more have done that, I think Brian Eno was working on a project in 5.1 also, sure there is more. As for the quality.. it's kinda well a lot will just listen and not mind it being brickwalled etc.. so it's funny in that way.

some of it is just wasted money, sad to say and well the budget for some of the things we got with older albums isn't there now.

True again. Mp3 quality is already very close to the "best" that avg human ears can hear. Even if we raise the bar to 24bit/192kHz, nobody will notice. The only reason why cassettes never became a medium for widespread piracy is that cassette quality reeks.

I'm still going to try experimenting with offering the [paying] fans something extra. I dunno... a comic book or something. Anything to turn them from the dark side of piracy to the light side of economic participation. I don't think the avg mp3 pirate is a bad kid. Just misdirected.

ORIGINAL: tls11823

Now if only it didn't cost hundreds of dollars to take a date to a concert...

You could always tell your date to wait in the car

Would it really be so bad if there were no money to be made in music? What would happen?

Music would be a calling, not a career. Musicians might have something to sing about besides broken hearts.

Then again... I might be an idealist in most respects, but if you steal my guitar I'm afraid I would have to break all your fingers.

Forget morals and ethics for a moment and just answer the above question -- what would happen?

For great musicians, music is a full-time pursuit. If no one could make a living at it, the only music we would ever hear would be made by part-time amateurs like me...and who wants to listen to that?

Bottom line: you get what you pay for.

Personally, I'm happy to support musicians who, in return, give me back music that moves me and inspires me to be a better musician myself.

I'm with you on the finger-breaking thing, though. This incident wasn't some generaton-gap thing. Nobody of any generation believes they have a "right" to take someone's instrument and not give it back!

This guy was was just yanking the OP's chain, as well as openly disrespecting him in public -- very uncool. I'll lay you odds he wouldn't have acted that way towards someone who looked like they could kick his arse. Either he's a thug, an idiot, a sociopath, or some combination of the three.

I liked Spaceduck's music. Wonder what happened to him.

The guitar thief in the OP sounds like someone who had until that point been shielded from reality - I doubt whether he'd ever had to work for a living. Hopefully by this time he's been mugged by reality and grown up.

bitflipper
Kev must have become truly discouraged, he hasn't been around in over a year. That, or he's graduated to kev2222222222.

Dean Roddey hasn't been seen for 2 years either...these zombie threads are a little depressing.

...If no one could make a living at it, the only music we would ever hear would be made by part-time amateurs like me...and who wants to listen to that?

Music is much, much older than the concept of music as a profession. Musicians have really only been able to make a decent living at it for about 50 years. Even the likes of Mozart and Beethoven had to bum off rich people and give piano lessons to their kids.
 
So how did music thrive the previous millennia? People did it because they wanted to, not because it was a path to riches. With big money came pretty models pretending to be musicians, and other corporate-sponsored poseurs. Before money: Muddy Waters. After money: Kanye West.
 
Honestly, I could be content filling my MP3 player with the labors of part-time amateurs. There's an amazing amount of it out there, some good, some not so good - but much of it better than Justin Bieber (a noted professional).