"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

[Scar Symmetry]

The love for the art should be something that the artist and fan are sharing. So if an artist is not only investing his love, time, and creativity, but also the money and craftsmanship to create art for (himself and) his fans, then I fail to see why the fan should feel right about refusing to pay for it. That's selfish and ignorant.

Anyone who's job is to make labours of love is highly priveleged IMO. As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following (which let's be honest, who doesn't want one of those) and you will have a sense of identity and purpose amongst your peers that will be very comforting - a sense of job satisfaction that few people achieve. See where I'm going with this? Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job". In my book, if you get to play music (whether overpraised or underpraised) for a living, you're one lucky fucker, especially in this day and age.

If you record something you have put effort into it. That equates to labor.

If you've bought time or a computer to record you spent money and invested in your art.

This isn't about getting rich - this is about getting your investment back so that maybe - just maybe - you can do it again. Just because you feel that art has no value and should be free to any/everyone does not make it so. And in real terms it isn't free even through the venues you site.

If you can see/hear art on the web it's because someone 1) created the art. 2) converted it to something web friendly. and 3) posted it or hosts it. Every step has required investment at minimum in time, but certainly at some point
in money. Nothing that you feel ought to be free actually is - and the creator of the art you feel is important enough to devote your time and attention to ought to in some way be compensated.

All art exists because someone invested in it - that you feel no responsibility in returning the favor is sad.

Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour? NO ONE. Also, who said art has no value? Free music breeds huge fanbases and will set the band up for whatever platform comes next to deliver music. You mustn't forget: this isn't how things will be forever, just how things are now.

 

[Semichastny]

We have cheap instruments, cheap recording equipment, tab software, and free audio-editing software. Unlike so many musicians before us we have incredible opportunities to play music without risking our finances, why should we demand people support our hobby?

 

[tedtan]

Art, in this case music, is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The advent of the internet has allowed people to essentially pay zero if they so choose.

Yes, but let's extend this. Nothing has an inherent monetary value, so everything is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.

Maybe on the plus side it might weed out those that are only in it for the money.

If someone gets into music for the money , they deserve what they get.

 

[flint757]

We have cheap instruments, cheap recording equipment, tab software, and free audio-editing software. Unlike so many musicians before us we have incredible opportunities to play music without risking our finances, why should we demand people support our hobby?

Not everyone deserves that support. However, just like any era, those that are great deserve compensation if you are gaining something from them. I don't have to watch every shitty local band in existence and never did so obviously not every band is owed 'support'. Just like anything those that do a job well typically get paid for their work. In any case no one said 'support', but that you pay for what they gave you, it is a transaction after all.

If I spent countless hours coding some new software that revolutionized the world as a hobby does that mean I shouldn't get paid because it was secondary to another job? When did hobby dictate everything should be free? Should the luthier's on this forum give their guitars away because it is a hobby?

 

[tedtan]

Anyone who's job is to make labours of love is highly priveleged IMO. As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following (which let's be honest, who doesn't want one of those) and you will have a sense of identity and purpose amongst your peers that will be very comforting - a sense of job satisfaction that few people achieve. See where I'm going with this? Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job". In my book, if you get to play music (whether overpraised or underpraised) for a living, you're one lucky fucker, especially in this day and age.

Anyone who's work is sub-par should be compensated as such, not only the musicians.

But, more to my point, who is making a living playing music? Only a handful of people backing up country/pop singers are eking out a megre living. I have interviews where Fredrik (or maybe Marten) from Meshuggah state that they have to live on welfare when they are off the road. Now, in their case this is clearly not a passing fad or mere hobby. So why should they have to live on welfare? How does that make their art better or more true. How does that help you or anyone else?

Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour?

You must not have ever recorded, played live or toured.

The actual playing is great. The problem is the driving, lugging equipment, "hurrying up to wait", being stuck in the car/van with three or four other people who drive you insane, etc. that go into live performance, and the editing, editing, editing, mixing, mastering, etc. that go into recording. These are work. Not physical labor like digging ditches, but they are absolutely work.

 

[abandonist]

A lot of mental and philosophical gymnastics going on to justify bad behavior...

 

[ilyti]

How has a thread about piracy vs. buying your music lasted for 7 pages and not gotten locked? It's a great discussion, but usually descends into madness. Let's see how long we can keep this up...

 

[knuckle_head]

Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour? NO ONE. Also, who said art has no value? Free music breeds huge fanbases and will set the band up for whatever platform comes next to deliver music. You mustn't forget: this isn't how things will be forever, just how things are now.

Then make music if that is your take - and avoid the music business.

Free music doesn't guarantee a fan base no matter how good your music is - the fastest/best way to GET a fan base is to tour/play out. This is indeed work. Just because you enjoy the process does not diminish the effort required.

Doing shows costs money. Touring costs money. Recording costs money. Printing ANYTHING for promo purposes costs money. Volunteer your time to do all of this as its the only way to get it done, but there is no avoiding having to shell out.

Art doesn't fill a gas tank or rent a van. ANY revenue stream is essential. And NONE should be forsaken.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Anyone who's job is to make labours of love is highly priveleged IMO. As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following (which let's be honest, who doesn't want one of those) and you will have a sense of identity and purpose amongst your peers that will be very comforting - a sense of job satisfaction that few people achieve. See where I'm going with this? Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job". In my book, if you get to play music (whether overpraised or underpraised) for a living, you're one lucky fucker, especially in this day and age.



Yes, but it's a labour of love! Who actually sees making music as true labour? NO ONE. Also, who said art has no value? Free music breeds huge fanbases and will set the band up for whatever platform comes next to deliver music. You mustn't forget: this isn't how things will be forever, just how things are now.

By your logic, anyone who truly loves what they do isn't really working.

I make beer for a living. I love my job. Does that negate the labor of it? I sometimes work 60 hour weeks, often third shift (11pm to 7am), I go days without seeing my fiance awake, work in 32 degree to 120 degree environments, and usually have to lift a whole bunch of heavy crap constantly. I go home sore, tired, and beat to hell every day and wouldn't change a thing.

Working in the music industry, and I mean truly working, can be very similar. Not everyone is a bedroom shredder or playing in "bands" with gigs only a day a week if that. A lot of folks are playing their ass off nearly every day. It's work.

 

[simonXsludge]

As an artist, if the work you make is sub-par, you should be compensated as such. By the same token, if the work you make is incredible then you will likely have a cult following

The quality of music has very little to do with music pirating. If the work an artist makes is sub-par, then why would you even download it? That would be plain stupid. We're not talking about the quality of music here, we're talking about illegal downloading of music people deem good enough to listen to on a more or less regular basis.

Which brings us to:

Most jobs involved in playing music aren't exactly the classic sense of the word "job".

If the demand for your music to be heard is getting big enough to go on tour professionally and regularly, it clearly turns into a job (and even more actual work at that) by any means. Still, the record sales of a shitton of bands that go on tour and play packed shows every night are beyond horrible, yet everyone is begging for new music constantly.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

Anyone who's work is sub-par should be compensated as such, not only the musicians.

But, more to my point, who is making a living playing music? Only a handful of people backing up country/pop singers are eking out a megre living. I have interviews where Fredrik (or maybe Marten) from Meshuggah state that they have to live on welfare when they are off the road. Now, in their case this is clearly not a passing fad or mere hobby. So why should they have to live on welfare? How does that make their art better or more true. How does that help you or anyone else?

Not really sure where the point is in this bit so I'm unsure of how to respond.

You must not have ever recorded, played live or toured.

The actual playing is great. The problem is the driving, lugging equipment, "hurrying up to wait", being stuck in the car/van with three or four other people who drive you insane, etc. that go into live performance, and the editing, editing, editing, mixing, mastering, etc. that go into recording. These are work. Not physical labor like digging ditches, but they are absolutely work.

Are you kidding? You think I'd be sat here sounding off about it if I hadn't? I've done all 3. Did any of them feel like work? Heck no! Nothing about them felt laborious, arduous, tedious, like you wanted it to hurry up so you could go home... Absolutely work? Not to me.

Then make music if that is your take - and avoid the music business.

Free music doesn't guarantee a fan base no matter how good your music is - the fastest/best way to GET a fan base is to tour/play out. This is indeed work. Just because you enjoy the process does not diminish the effort required.

Doing shows costs money. Touring costs money. Recording costs money. Printing ANYTHING for promo purposes costs money. Volunteer your time to do all of this as its the only way to get it done, but there is no avoiding having to shell out.

Art doesn't fill a gas tank or rent a van. ANY revenue stream is essential. And NONE should be forsaken.

I realise it's a sensitive issue as many people on this forum want to believe that a career in music is possible and I am perhaps being a bit defeatist. However, at this point in time, I truly believe it's the most realistic view. Again, it's just not something I see as work. You are essentially selling yourself as someone to be praised and when you have a fanbase that is basically thousands of people saying "Fuck yeah, I'll praise you! You're awesome!"... that's the kind of thing dreams are made of. I of course realise it's not all rainbows and unicorns but that's a pretty fucking cool job description.

By your logic, anyone who truly loves what they do isn't really working.

I make beer for a living. I love my job. Does that negate the labor of it? I sometimes work 60 hour weeks, often third shift (11pm to 7am), I go days without seeing my fiance awake, work in 32 degree to 120 degree environments, and usually have to lift a whole bunch of heavy crap constantly. I go home sore, tired, and beat to hell every day and wouldn't change a thing.

Working in the music industry, and I mean truly working, can be very similar. Not everyone is a bedroom shredder or playing in "bands" with gigs only a day a week if that. A lot of folks are playing their ass off nearly every day. It's work.

That's exactly what I'm saying, Max. My point has been throughout that making music is hardly labour. If anything, it's a labour of love and always has the overlying tone of doing what you're doing because you feel so closely connected with it. If the beer you made was your own recipe, imagine how much you'd be invested in it... It'd be your product that thousands of people enjoy

The quality of music has very little to do with music pirating. If the work an artist makes is sub-par, then why would you even download it? That would be plain stupid. We're not talking about the quality of music here, we're talking about illegal downloading of music people deem good enough to listen to on a more or less regular basis.

Which brings us to:

If the demand for your music to be heard is getting big enough to go on tour professionally and regularly, it clearly turns into a job (and even more actual work at that) by any means. Still, the record sales of a shitton of bands that go on tour and play packed shows every night are beyond horrible, yet everyone is begging for new music constantly.

Actually it has a lot to do with music pirating. A lot of people use pirating as "try before you buy" kind of thing, the folk who would feel guilty if they didn't buy the product once they knew what they were getting. I'm personally fine with that, even people doing it to my music.

It's a job sure, but it's one hell of a job! Even the long touring hours in vans with sweaty hairy men only to jump on stage for half an hour at the end of the day... if that's not worth it, stop doing it!

And yes, the demand for music is always there. People will always love music. I personally believe that to labelling downloading as WRONG or IT'S JUST STEALING is in fact missing the point entirely, pissing in the wind. It's not ideal, I know, but you have to work with how things actually are, be realistic, and then look to the future for what will come next. Sitting around complaining about it won't get us anywhere!

 

[SirMyghin]

That's exactly what I'm saying, Max. My point has been throughout that making music is hardly labour. If anything, it's a labour of love and always has the overlying tone of doing what you're doing because you feel so closely connected with it. If the beer you made was your own recipe, imagine how much you'd be invested in it... It'd be your product that thousands of people enjoy

This is where you are horrendously wrong, I have a friend who makes music for a living, and he does fairly well. His life is so much busier than mine it is insane. He plays in a gigging band, runs 2 open mike nights, does sound on other nights at various bars and another band. During the days and early evenings it is all about rehearsal, networking, doing website work (often related to those bands and opening mike nights). If I had to put the bar to it, he works harder than me the half the year I am working .

You are giving it far to much of a dreamy overtone. That is what max was trying to say.



As far as bands like Meshuggah being on welfare Ted, no I don't think they should be on welfare, they should get a freaking job

 

[Scar Symmetry]

If you carefully read what I've said throughout I'm not glorifying it as a perfect job! I've managed a band before, I know it's not easy. But it was like raising a child, it was a no brainer, I did it because I loved it unconditionally and what I got out of it was so great that any effort put in was automatically worth it. I do have some idea of what I'm talking about

 

[simonXsludge]

Actually it has a lot to do with music pirating. A lot of people use pirating as "try before you buy" kind of thing, the folk who would feel guilty if they didn't buy the product once they knew what they were getting.

I wasn't talking about that either. I was talking about music piracy, not try before buy. Specifically about people who just download and keep the music they want to listen to, without paying for it at all. I know that this is the way things are but it's always gonna piss me off, as a musician and as a fan.

The try before buy-folk you're talking about, I don't mind them.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

If you carefully read what I've said throughout I'm not glorifying it as a perfect job! I've managed a band before, I know it's not easy. But it was like raising a child, it was a no brainer, I did it because I loved it unconditionally and what I got out of it was so great that any effort put in was automatically worth it. I do have some idea of what I'm talking about

Why perhaps not glorifiying it, it certainly seems you are romanticizing it quite heavily.

At least that's what I'm getting sitting over here.

 

[wespaul]

It's hilarious to read people talk about how there's no labor involved, if that is the basis by which anybody should be paid, even if its nothing at all.

 

[Semichastny]

If I spent countless hours coding some new software that revolutionized the world as a hobby does that mean I shouldn't get paid because it was secondary to another job? When did hobby dictate everything should be free? Should the luthier's on this forum give their guitars away because it is a hobby?

Should a person expect others to pay them because they assembled a great stamp collection? 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. Both coding and instruments have established criteria for market value, but music has only vague standards and is subject to taste and opinion.

 

[Andromalia]

Go tell a musician that has to play Carmen 20 nights in a month it's not work...
Yeah he enjoys playing, but maybe he'd rather play Vivaldi with his quatuor, but musique de chambre doesn't get the bills paid. (I'm pretty sure "bedroom music" wouldn't be a proper translation ), certainly not playing a piece he doesn't like every work day for a month. And musicians in orchestras don't get to choose what's in the season program.

 

[tedtan]

I realise it's a sensitive issue as many people on this forum want to believe that a career in music is possible and I am perhaps being a bit defeatist. However, at this point in time, I truly believe it's the most realistic view.

I am a realistic, practical type of person, and agree with the point quoted above. But there is a major difference between saying that statistically speaking, musicians won't be able to earn a living in today's music environment and saying that making music isn't work and musicians shouldn't be able to make a living from their music. BIG difference between the two.

Again, it's just not something I see as work. You are essentially selling yourself as someone to be praised and when you have a fanbase that is basically thousands of people saying "Fuck yeah, I'll praise you! You're awesome!"... that's the kind of thing dreams are made of. I of course realise it's not all rainbows and unicorns but that's a pretty fucking cool job description.

That's not a job, nor is it making music. That's just finding a bunch of sycophants to kiss your egotistical ass, and there are much quicker ways of accomplishing that than through music.

 

[tedtan]

As far as bands like Meshuggah being on welfare Ted, no I don't think they should be on welfare, they should get a freaking job

I don't want to veer this thread off topic into a discussion of the benefits (or the lack thereof) of welfare, but I must point out that without it, we may well not have Messhugah's music. They didn't come up in today's environment where they can record a song in their bedroom and post the recording on BandCamp or Souncloud the same day. Furthermore, if they were working normal day jobs, would they even be able to remember some of the ideas they have while at their job long enough to get home and work them out/record a demo of them? Would they be able to really practice their more difficult material enough to get it down well enough for live performance? If not, where would metal music be today?