Why (not) pay for music?
smyck.net
Why (not) pay for music?
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#2> Compared to the analog world, where it would take ages to copy hundreds of Tapes or CDs
I think you mean the `physical' world. CDs aren't a part of the analog world; they're digital. Analog has to do with the signal type, not the medium.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#3This is probably the future. Artists will learn to record on their own (they already are), and the good ones will end up with patrons, who will (as patrons do) pay for them to continue working.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#4[deleted]
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#5[deleted]
The difference is that I can obtain music for free. Lamentably, I haven't ever seen a place offering free lasagne.
The point he is trying to make is to encourage musicians to skip the middle man, and make their music available on the internet by themselves. To make that possible we, consumers, need a change of mentality: "I can get music _now_ for free, but if I like it and want more, I should pay for it".
Also, regarding the mixing, I think it could be outsourced to some freelance producer, paid by song, or time, instead of being him the one that gives you cents on the dollar for your own creation.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#6>> "Don’t even care to get on streaming platforms in the beginning. They are all more or less under the control of the labels and you would be the luckiest person in the world if you can buy a box of beer from the revenues after a year or two."
When you can get your music on iTunes, Amazon etc. and all the streaming platforms for $50 (CDBaby) there is no reason not to. I really don't understand the authors reasoning here. It seems to go against everything they said about making your music available legally because people will steal it otherwise. Why withhold from any platform?
Also the advice on recording yourself isn't great. Sure you can pick up a book or look on YouTube but recording and producing music well is difficult. Mixing is difficult, especially without high quality equipment. The only way to get good is through lots of experience I've found, there isn't a shortcut.
>> "Yes you will need some money for equipment"
You will need a lot of money for equipment if you want to sound good. I use an Apogee ONE (pretty basic I/O device/preamp) and that alone is £300. A Shure SM58 mic (for vocals) is £100. An AKG 451 for recording acoustic instruments is £300. All this not to mention the recording software, a decent computer, and your guitars, drums, etc.
If you record in a studio all this is provided (and they provide much higher quality stuff than you could ever afford). They also usually have an assortment of high quality musical equipment (amps, guitars etc.) which you are free to use.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#7The underlying premise that labels are there solely to "promise" artists riches via hit albums is invalid. Perhaps for the mega labels that's the case, but there are a heck of alot of small labels who have honorable intentions and can and do provide quality assistance (of many different kinds) for artists.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#8I'll pay for music that I can get in FLAC or ALAC for a reasonable cost (say, $1 extra than the cost of the WAV). I'm trying hard not to buy physical CDs, but it's difficult.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#9I'll consider paying when the copyright lobby stops taking away my liberties (which is probably never).
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#10I'll pay for music that I can get in FLAC or ALAC for a reasonable cost (say, $1 extra than the cost of the WAV). I'm trying hard not to buy physical CDs, but it's difficult.
I'm pretty sure all music on www.bandcamp.com comes in FLAC and ALAC for no extra charge. It's mostly independent artists but there are a few major names (e.g. Sufjan Stevens). www.beatport.com also offers high quality audio for a little extra (not sure on the format or extra charge though).