10 ms·

Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perf

Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. EDIT: Let me elaborate in regards to ehnto's argument. DVDs, clothing and cars are all physical items I am paying for and therefore I am happy to pay for that. I am also happy to pay to see a movie because movies could not exist prior to being able to film. Movies are the end product that I want to see. All of these are different to music. Music existed well before the ability to record it did. All that recording did was make it more accessible. Back when you had to purchase a record or CD there was a physical item you ended up with to listen to that music. Therefore something that was worth paying for. I bought a lot of CDs. The music is not the end product. The live show where I go to see the musician perform is. I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for? This is why I love artists like Hoodie Allen and Chance the Rapper. They release the majority of their music for free. Hoodie Allen was unable to release one of his albums for free on iTunes, so he charged the minimum. He was constantly on social media telling people they can download his album for free from multiple locations and that they didn't have to buy it on iTunes. People still paid for that album like crazy. On that note... fuck the music industry.

invertedPustule 10y ago
Agreed, and very much so. I pay hundreds of dollars for the wire to my house I pay hundreds or dollars for the radio signals to my antenna. I pay hundreds of dollars to stand in the presence of a live performance. How many more hundreds of dollars shall I pay? Hundreds more for a spoon-fed recording I could have already made? Hundreds more to stream each recording sent my way, every time it's sent my way? Hundreds per month for a subscription that provides artists D, F and H. And then hundreds more for yet another subscription which provides exclusive access to artists A, B, C, E and G? When do I get paid?
shivsta 10y ago
Do you not like listening to music from home?
- simplexion 10y ago
  I think you need to read my comment again.
etchalon 10y ago
You shouldn't pay for advertising if you don't want to. The issue is that, as the creators of the work, artists have the right to decide what they want to charge for access to their creation. You do not have a right to access that content without paying whatever price it is the artist has decided to charge. If any artist WANTS to release their music for free, they can. If they do not want to release their music for free, they can also do that. But it is their right and choice. Not yours.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  Should that right include the option to have people jailed and fined for behavior nobody can prove is harmful to anybody?
  - whiddershins 10y ago
    But that criticism could be leveled at any law or regulation, except assault, theft, and murder. Why single out copyright? If you want to be an anarchist, great, but stop picking on creators of intellectual property.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      What makes you think I don't use that criticism against everything equally? Law is supposed to prevent harm, not to satisfy feelings.
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        Many artists feel that the current state of affairs does harm them.
        Natanael_L 10y ago
        As far as I see it, the big media companies are the cause for most of their troubles. To a large part through resisting better business models, and through forcing themselves into the position as gatekeepers. Artists should be supported, but I can't see any sane justification for letting them dictate the terms for how a society may interact with its own culture.
chongli 10y ago
Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. That's a very limited view of music. Tons of music/audio workers out there neither sing nor play live instruments. Songwriters, composers, electronic musicians, recording engineers, mixers, Foley artists, etc. To them, recording is their only product.
- simplexion 10y ago
  Yep. They should be paid by the musicians. Not sure of the problem here.
  - whiddershins 10y ago
    You keep using this word "musician" but I believe the term you mean to use is "recording artist." That's that person you go see at shows, like you know, famous rappers and pop stars and rock stars. These are professional entertainers. Beethoven was a musician. So is Aphex Twin. So is a guitar player in a bar cover band. Each have a work output that take very different forms. Many musicians are composers whose work ONLY exists as a recording. I don't know how it is possible for you to hold such strong opinions about this topic without understanding these concepts.
    - simplexion 10y ago
      Definition of musician: a person who writes, sings, or plays music. If their work is only a recording they can make money off of donations. This is how it works in my example of Hoodie Allen. He was directly telling his fans they could download his album for free and they were still paying for it. I truly don't see how anything you have said here detracts from what I said.
zambal 10y ago
I think your view of records is a bit unfair. > I am also happy to pay to see a movie because movies could not exist prior to being able to film. I am happy listening to records, because records could not exist prior to being able to record. See, some album music is really unique in its own right and could not be easily reproduced live. The same as some movies could not easily be translated to a theater play. > I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. Isn't it a bit the same as with software? When I buy some software, the developers also aren't putting any hours for me at the moment I'm using it. Still, most people are ok with paying for software.
- collyw 10y ago
  You can get plenty of software for free. Most people I know seem to have dodgy or OEM installed versions of software, and use free products on top of that. The ones who do pay for software usually have it paid for by their work.
ComodoHacker 10y ago
>The music is not the end product. The live show where I go to see the musician perform is. Hey, how much of all the music you listen to you listen live? One percent perhaps? Don't be hypocritical please. Without recording you wouldn't get a chance to hear the best musicians from around the world. Also a lot of people don't see or don't care about the difference between recording and live performance. For them music is the end product.
thirdsun 10y ago
> Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. No. Just no. Concerts and merchandise are lame excuses for people who prefer not to pay for music. You don't decide what the artist is selling. In most cases the album is the actual product. You may see it as an advertisement, but it has a very real price tag attached. If you don't want to pay for it, fine - but please don't feel entitled to it because you attended a concert or bought a shirt. Furthermore, do you realize that not every artist is a rock band? An ambient artist releases intended for home listening, may have a hard time a) selling t-shirts to a mature audience that isn't all that interested in colorful prints on hip shirts b) filling anything but the smallest venues since the music might be less suited for clubs and stadiums compared to that band you probably had in mind > I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for? I can't believe how naive this sounds. You probably don't sell any kind of digital good, do you? Would you say the same thing about software, apps, books? The artist put a lot of hours into the original work and that's what you pay for. Do you think you paid for the medium or the distribution process back when you bought CDs? That was a fraction of the price. > On that note... fuck the music industry. The music industry is much more than the handful of major labels. There are countless small, caring and niche labels that absolutely have the interests of artists and listeners in mind in everything they do. Your view is very narrow in that regard.

invertedPustule 10y ago

Agreed, and very much so. I pay hundreds of dollars for the wire to my house I pay hundreds or dollars for the radio signals to my antenna. I pay hundreds of dollars to stand in the presence of a live performance. How many more hundreds of dollars shall I pay? Hundreds more for a spoon-fed recording I could have already made? Hundreds more to stream each recording sent my way, every time it's sent my way? Hundreds per month for a subscription that provides artists D, F and H. And then hundreds more for yet another subscription which provides exclusive access to artists A, B, C, E and G? When do I get paid?

shivsta 10y ago

Do you not like listening to music from home?

simplexion 10y ago
I think you need to read my comment again.

etchalon 10y ago

You shouldn't pay for advertising if you don't want to. The issue is that, as the creators of the work, artists have the right to decide what they want to charge for access to their creation. You do not have a right to access that content without paying whatever price it is the artist has decided to charge. If any artist WANTS to release their music for free, they can. If they do not want to release their music for free, they can also do that. But it is their right and choice. Not yours.

Natanael_L 10y ago
Should that right include the option to have people jailed and fined for behavior nobody can prove is harmful to anybody?
- whiddershins 10y ago
  But that criticism could be leveled at any law or regulation, except assault, theft, and murder. Why single out copyright? If you want to be an anarchist, great, but stop picking on creators of intellectual property.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    What makes you think I don't use that criticism against everything equally? Law is supposed to prevent harm, not to satisfy feelings.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      Many artists feel that the current state of affairs does harm them.
      - Natanael_L 10y ago
        As far as I see it, the big media companies are the cause for most of their troubles. To a large part through resisting better business models, and through forcing themselves into the position as gatekeepers. Artists should be supported, but I can't see any sane justification for letting them dictate the terms for how a society may interact with its own culture.

chongli 10y ago

simplexion 10y ago
Yep. They should be paid by the musicians. Not sure of the problem here.
- whiddershins 10y ago
  You keep using this word "musician" but I believe the term you mean to use is "recording artist." That's that person you go see at shows, like you know, famous rappers and pop stars and rock stars. These are professional entertainers. Beethoven was a musician. So is Aphex Twin. So is a guitar player in a bar cover band. Each have a work output that take very different forms. Many musicians are composers whose work ONLY exists as a recording. I don't know how it is possible for you to hold such strong opinions about this topic without understanding these concepts.
  - simplexion 10y ago
    Definition of musician: a person who writes, sings, or plays music. If their work is only a recording they can make money off of donations. This is how it works in my example of Hoodie Allen. He was directly telling his fans they could download his album for free and they were still paying for it. I truly don't see how anything you have said here detracts from what I said.

zambal 10y ago

I think your view of records is a bit unfair. > I am also happy to pay to see a movie because movies could not exist prior to being able to film. I am happy listening to records, because records could not exist prior to being able to record. See, some album music is really unique in its own right and could not be easily reproduced live. The same as some movies could not easily be translated to a theater play. > I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. Isn't it a bit the same as with software? When I buy some software, the developers also aren't putting any hours for me at the moment I'm using it. Still, most people are ok with paying for software.

collyw 10y ago
You can get plenty of software for free. Most people I know seem to have dodgy or OEM installed versions of software, and use free products on top of that. The ones who do pay for software usually have it paid for by their work.

ComodoHacker 10y ago

>The music is not the end product. The live show where I go to see the musician perform is. Hey, how much of all the music you listen to you listen live? One percent perhaps? Don't be hypocritical please. Without recording you wouldn't get a chance to hear the best musicians from around the world. Also a lot of people don't see or don't care about the difference between recording and live performance. For them music is the end product.

thirdsun 10y ago

> Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. No. Just no. Concerts and merchandise are lame excuses for people who prefer not to pay for music. You don't decide what the artist is selling. In most cases the album is the actual product. You may see it as an advertisement, but it has a very real price tag attached. If you don't want to pay for it, fine - but please don't feel entitled to it because you attended a concert or bought a shirt. Furthermore, do you realize that not every artist is a rock band? An ambient artist releases intended for home listening, may have a hard time a) selling t-shirts to a mature audience that isn't all that interested in colorful prints on hip shirts b) filling anything but the smallest venues since the music might be less suited for clubs and stadiums compared to that band you probably had in mind > I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for? I can't believe how naive this sounds. You probably don't sell any kind of digital good, do you? Would you say the same thing about software, apps, books? The artist put a lot of hours into the original work and that's what you pay for. Do you think you paid for the medium or the distribution process back when you bought CDs? That was a fraction of the price. > On that note... fuck the music industry. The music industry is much more than the handful of major labels. There are countless small, caring and niche labels that absolutely have the interests of artists and listeners in mind in everything they do. Your view is very narrow in that regard.