Why (not) pay for music?
21–30 of 55 posts
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#22The 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?
#23Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#24Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#25The one problem with this article: citing The Beatles as a group that won big in the business. Not true at all. The Beatles were terribly mismanaged, their manager sold the rights to songs for pennies or even gave them away. Money troubles inspired the song "You Never Give Me Your Money."
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#26>> "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…
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#27This is totally inaccurate. The music industry grew for the first time since 1999 due to digital streaming services:
http://ifpi.no/9-forsiden/43-ifpi-publishes-digital-music-re...
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#28I am pretty much saturated with free music from the many netlabels and happy "amateur" musicians who release music because they make music for music's sake, not money. If somebody wants recommendations, name a genre and I will see if I can drop some links. There is a lot of negative prejudice against free music which is a real shame.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#29Recording an album in your bedroom is almost always a cop-out. It's a way of being able to tell yourself that you tried to have a career in music, without taking any real emotional risk or doing any real work. It's a way of "getting your music out there" that doesn't require the courage to stand up in front of a bar full of strangers and play it. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Musicians with internet-based careers are still absolutely the exception rather than the rule, they're still a rare aberration.
If you want to be in a rock and roll band, then be in a rock and roll band. Don't buy yourself a bunch of recording equipment, buy a rusted-up old Econoline. Don't overdub your guitar tracks onto a drum machine, put up a flyer in your local music shop and find a drummer. Take whatever crappy gigs you can get and hustle like a mofo. At the very least, you'll end up with far better anecdotes.
Re: Why (not) pay for music?
#30The 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.
Yes and no. First of all there are no real indie labels. If a label gets successful enough a major label will come by and make it a sub division. Even the labels with the best intentions need to get their money back at some point the market for them is the same as for everybody. If you are in the right niche at the right time there are of course exceptions - but well these are exceptions
Some of the reactions here are silly. If you love an artist buy their record, tell your friends, go see them in concert. Blaming labels (big or small) as a justification for illegal downloading is [ insert descriptor of your choice ].
Supporting your favorite artists is cool and the right thing to do. Let them deal with their labels whether they wish to have one or not.