"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

[tedtan]

Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection?

No one wants to view a stamp collection - there is no demand there. People DO want to listen to music. The demand is there or there would be no pirating and this thread wouldn't exist in the first place.

Just because an individual put time and energy into a hobby doesn't mean that it is intrinsically worth anything. Even when you factor in the costs you may accumulate, it still doesn't justify payment. If that person spent all kinds of money on stamps, binders, gas, and S&H to get their stamp collection established should they make others pay to view it? They voluntarily choose to expend money on their personal hobby and I don't believe that means others should have to as well.

Just because music is a hobby for you and I doesn't mean it is for everyone else. That is a false preconception on your part. Some people dedicate their life to creating music. They live it, breath it, eat it, sleep it, and shit it every moment of every day.

Should these people be subject to the same restrictions as a hobbyist?

 

[tedtan]

musique de chambre doesn't get the bills paid. (I'm pretty sure "bedroom music" wouldn't be a proper translation ).

That would be chamber music in English.

 

[Semichastny]

No one wants to view a stamp collection - there is no demand there. People DO want to listen to music. The demand is there or there would be no pirating and this thread wouldn't exist in the first place.

Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?

Just because music is a hobby for you and I doesn't mean it is for everyone else. That is a false preconception on your part. Some people dedicate their life to creating music. They live it, breath it, eat it, sleep it, and shit it every moment of every day.

Should these people be subject to the same restrictions as a hobbyist?

Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?





Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.

The difference between music and air being that one is a necessity for life, and one that can't really be taxed a certain way. Unless you're talking about the plot for Total Recall, that was an awesome movie. Music is a luxury. Always.

As for musician's making a living playing music, you couldn't be any more wrong. Even going back the 1300's it wasn't uncommon for the truly exceptional musician's to make a living, and a very comfortable one considering the times, by simply being good at music. Whether that meant working as a sales agent for a luthier (just like today), opening up a school of music, or entertaining royalty/well off.

Though, I doubt most musician's are looking to be rich through thier music, but simply compensated in some form.

 

[wankerness]

Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?





Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.

I don't even know where to start. You're saying music should be free cause it's a basic human necessity like air? Do you also think video games and movies should be free? If not, what makes them different from music?

"Musicians have never been able to make a career of it, it's always been a day job?" There were far more musicians who did it as their primary career relative to the overall population in the first half of this century than now, and there have always been tons of people that played in orchestras and all that sheit as their only job throughout history since like, the renaissance. It's only in recent years that people like you decided that "oh anyone that tries to make money as a musician doesn't deserve any money cause music should be free, they should have to have another job that they hate to support the music side of things and spend their remaining 3 hours of free time a day practicing and writing."

I can't think of any classic records that were produced by a band who was doing it as a hobby on the side - basically all the pinnacles of every genre were produced by people who poured all their time and energy into making it. I'm sorry that it really angers you that anyone else could view it as anything but a hobby on the weekends when they're not having their soul sucked out by a terrible day job.

 

[fps]

Slight tangents, but something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, and most people where I work really have no interest in music at all. Not jazz, not classical, not dance, not rock. They talk about music stars sure, but it really is like a soap opera for them, and they don't care one iota about the content, beyond the odd notable phrase.

Not everyone cares that much about music. It seems obvious that the people who go looking for music are the ones who are more likely both to pirate and to buy, which is not in itself a very useful correlation to highlight, or one from which conclusions favourable or unfavourable to pirates can sensibly be drawn.

 

[fps]

There were far more musicians who did it as their primary career relative to the overall population in the first half of this century than now, and there have always been tons of people that played in orchestras and all that sheit as their only job throughout history since like, the renaissance. It's only in recent years that people like you decided that "oh anyone that tries to make money as a musician doesn't deserve any money cause music should be free, they should have to have another job that they hate to support the music side of things and spend their remaining 3 hours of free time a day practicing and writing."

Not quite. A lot has changed since the start of this century, and you're being disingenuous ignoring it. The advent of recorded music, of huge sound systems, of clubs where you can hear your favourite hits all jumbled together, of a single person with a laptop being able to travel the world and bring audiences to utter ecstacy, and a corresponding rise in accessibility for the fans, heightened by the internet, the rise to prominence of rap, hip-hop, dance music, as the most popular musical styles, these are all the technological advances that have been made that make it more expensive, more hard work, and less desirable to get a no-name, let alone a good, band into a venue rather than have a DJ night. As for orchestras, the prices of fuel alone mean tickets are expensive as anything.

Music is worth what people will pay, however they pay it. They have spoken, most music is worthless.

 

[Andromalia]

Music is a luxury. Always.

Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.

 

[rectifryer]

"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

Then would that not infer the converse; that the average consumer pirates? The title is a bit contradicting.

All I am saying, is that they're not mutually exclusive in the first place. This is exactly what the entire statement is alluding to. Thus, its impossible to draw a conclusion from this data one way or the other.

 

[Jakke]

Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.

Luxury as in: not food or air, i.e. something that is not required for your direct survival.

 

[tedtan]

Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved.

My post that you refer to doesn't state that payment should be made due the existence of demand, merely that your analogy doesn't work. Comparing something that no one is willing to pay for because no one wants it to something that people are not willing to pay for because they found a convenient, risk free way to "steal" it just doesn't hold up. It is not a well reasoned arguement.

There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?

This argument goes even further - it is just foolishness.

Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.

This point is simply not true. Musicians and composers have put food on the table writing and playing music for thousands of years. Some are even still able to do so today.

 

[wankerness]

Slight tangents, but something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, and most people where I work really have no interest in music at all. Not jazz, not classical, not dance, not rock. They talk about music stars sure, but it really is like a soap opera for them, and they don't care one iota about the content, beyond the odd notable phrase.

Not everyone cares that much about music. It seems obvious that the people who go looking for music are the ones who are more likely both to pirate and to buy, which is not in itself a very useful correlation to highlight, or one from which conclusions favourable or unfavourable to pirates can sensibly be drawn.

I don't feel like they care about it any less than they did throughout the 50s-90s when the average joe was at least buying albums here and there, it's just that now they can easily get it for free off youtube or whatever and thus get their "fill" for free. A lot of the people I know these days just listen to entire albums on youtube since basically everything ever is uploaded on there, much of it with shady legality. I'm guessing if the corporate lobbyists convince the government to essentially privatize the internet that music sales will pick up again cause many of the new, free venues will be cut off.

Serious question, what did people do just before the internet if they didn't care that much about music? I didn't really become aware of popular music until the internet was already out (napster entered into the equation when I was still in middle school), but from what I remember seeing lying around the house of everyone was at least like, some NOW 10 or lynyrd skynyrd or mariah carey or metallica CDs or whatever even if the person basically didn't care about music and mainly heard it via the radio. Are you saying that in this day and age that kind of person would not go back to buying music if internet regulations get massively tightened (ex, Youtube actually starts removing all the copyrighted stuff not uploaded by the artist/label)?

 

[tedtan]

Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.

You make a good point here. Music as an entity is separate from the recordings, live performances, etc. In many ways it truly is a part of us.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Would likely be too long for here but I'd actually challenge that. Music has been used for ages by working people, each and every society has come up with some kind of music, even if it's just hitting on trees.
While at first glance listening to music on a stereo comfortably seated looks like a luxury, I wouldn't derive from it that music is a luxury in itself. We hum and sing pretty often and I think it's actually a fundamental part of the human psyche.

I guess I should have been more specific. Let's change that to being picky about music is a luxury.

 

[Andromalia]

Luxury as in: not food or air, i.e. something that is not required for your direct survival.

Yeah I got that, but I think it requires more than food and air to be qualified as "human"". Using a language and making music are parts of it, else you're a monk....ape.
Or maybe we'd be depressive humans. The fact that every culture has come up with it makes me think that yes, it is vital to have it. (That's not saying recorded music is, but Max's statement was a bit of a blanket one.)

edit: you ninja

 

[wespaul]

My jazz teacher told me that, hundreds of years ago, somebody made the mistake of calling it "playing music." Now everybody thinks there should either be no charge for it, or very little. I'm surprised to see actual musicians take part in this mindset.

 

[Semichastny]

I don't even know where to start. You're saying music should be free cause it's a basic human necessity like air? Do you also think video games and movies should be free? If not, what makes them different from music?

No I was pointing out that it is ridiculous to think that because there is a demand for something it should have to be paid for.

There were far more musicians who did it as their primary career relative to the overall population in the first half of this century than now, and there have always been tons of people that played in orchestras and all that sheit as their only job throughout history since like, the renaissance.

What your talking about is live performance. Giving out music for free would be a good thing for many touring musicians because it would allow them to spread their name and create a larger following. The music could be given out to blogs, emailed to people, placed on youtube, and streamed on bandcamp. People don't need to pay thousands of dollars to get a professional recording, they can just buy a recording interface and a mic and learn to do it in their free time. A $300-500 total investment allows for unlimited recording time which means a ton of money saved, and more material to show to the public.

It's only in recent years that people like you decided that "oh anyone that tries to make money as a musician doesn't deserve any money cause music should be free, they should have to have another job that they hate to support the music side of things and spend their remaining 3 hours of free time a day practicing and writing."

Who says they have to work a job they hate? That's an overly negative attitude. There are all kinds of different jobs for people to do (if they can find one). If they get an education they could go into a dizzying arrow of different fields that they might enjoy. Either way 3 hours is still a lot of time to be playing music, local artists generally only get a fraction of time at shows while headliners are usually in that ballpark anyway so whats your point? A person still gets to play more music every day then they would performing live.

I can't think of any classic records that were produced by a band who was doing it as a hobby on the side - basically all the pinnacles of every genre were produced by people who poured all their time and energy into making it.

I don't really care about the oldies that's taste, with the amount of free teaching material out there people no longer have to pay someone to teach them/pay for a bunch of books. The free flow of information we have today allows for more people to get into music and do something they enjoy. There are still great records being made the sheer volume of material on the internet just means that they just get lost in the crowd. Coalesce put out Ox as a hobby record and while it might not be a classic they still got good reviews/fanfare and managed to tour on it, play festivals, and put out merch all while working day jobs to support their families.

I'm sorry that it really angers you that anyone else could view it as anything but a hobby on the weekends when they're not having their soul sucked out by a terrible day job.

It's pretty clear your the angry one here not me. I love playing music and I enjoy concerts, I still make efforts to support what artists I like. Honestly though it is not that big a deal because the music I like is overwhelmingly available for free (or not available), made by people who do not care if it is downloaded, or made by people who are long dead. There is more to life then music. Science, social work, and healthcare all offer great opportunities for a person to fulfill themselves while doing a regular job. If a persons interests are so limited that doing anything but music will literally take away their soul then I would guess they have serious underlying issues.

The fact of the mater is the paradigm has shifted. If enough people have decided that recorded music is not worth paying for then bands are left with a simple dichotomy. They can stop playing/recording music or they change with the times. Jazz musicians took a pretentious attitude towards rock music when it became popular and refused to change what they were doing. They were out-competed and lost mainstream popularity. The same can be said for rock music and electronica. While in the 90's rock music was huge among the youth the traditionalist mindset bit them in the ass as tastes and demographics changed. Piracy is another bump in the road, either you change or you don't, but in the end finger point is not going to change a bands situation.

 

[tedtan]

Either way 3 hours is still a lot of time to be playing music, local artists generally only get a fraction of time at shows while headliners are usually in that ballpark anyway so whats your point? A person still gets to play more music every day then they would performing live.

He never mentioned a 3 hour gig. He said that working people may only have 3 hours left in the day to listen to, write and play music. And I'll go even further with that statement and make it YOUNG working people, because those of us with families are lucky to get anywhere near that much time in for music.

If enough people have decided that recorded music is not worth paying for

No one decided that music is not WORTH paying for, they were simply given a relatively risk free and convenient means to "steal" it. When you can either pay for something or get it for free, most people in the age group we are discussing will opt for free because they have relatively limited money.

Jazz musicians took a pretentious attitude towards rock music when it became popular and refused to change what they were doing. They were out-competed and lost mainstream popularity.

I know it can be difficult to admit for many musicians, but music, especially as it relates to a style's popularity, is trend driven. Jazz was not "out competed", the trend simply changed to favor rock and the jazzers were cast as old people who weren't "with it" anymore. That's just marketing the trend. The same things apply today; djent and core are still relatively popular, but they won't be in another 5 to 10 years. That's just how this works.

 

[ArrowHead]

Why the hell are we still paying all those architects? I mean, there's no labor involved, they're just creating blueprints. It's not like they're building the house themselves.

And besides... I can go look at that architect's buildings any time I want. For free. And they will live on long after the architect and I have died. Isn't being part of history the best payment any architect could receive? They should learn to accept the idea they'll be broke forever designing buildings...

 

[flint757]

That would be chamber music in English.

It means room more commonly in french.

Just because their is a demand doesn't mean there should be payment involved. There is a huge demand for air, would it be acceptable for people to charge for it?

Musicians being able to make money off of music in the way we talk about today has been only the fainest blip in history. For hundreds of thousands of musicians who came before this age choosing to play music meant that they accepted that they would most likely be dirt poor and have to suffer in order to do the thing they loved. A person can play every night they get home from a more traditional job as well as the entire weekend if they want.

Supply and demand actually would dictate price since that is the foundation of economics. Another reason, beyond what has already been mentioned, for air still being free is simply that it is unlimited. The supply is so huge that the pricing point, even if there could be one, would be next to nothing. Water (more limited) is a better reference and we pay plenty for that.

No one is saying that this is a problem with a solution and that doesn't even seem to be what is being discussed. This is a discussion about why people think it is okay. I can understand people thinking "who gives a shit it is inevitable", but you are actively saying this SHOULD be the way it is and I wholeheartedly disagree.