| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Pnoom! 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
 Posted: February 17 2009 at 16:57 |
Robin Hood is the government 
Edited by Pnoom! - February 17 2009 at 16:57
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 16:38 |
 The Pessimist wrote:
Well it does depend on how famous you actually are. If you are an underground band, then record sales will be important to you. But underground bands tend not to have many people downloading their music, simply because they are not well known enough and the fans of the band will buy their CDs because they are in the knowledge that they are making a difference. On the other hand, you have such artists as Robbie Williams and Britney Spears, who are pretty much rolling in too much. They are not going to go hungry because 1000 people downloaded their latest album instead of buying it. Now if those artists want to piss and moan about that matter, then I see that as immoral, because they are clearly not in it for the music, and treating it like a business instead of what it actually is - art.
|
Doctors should be there to cure the people and lawyers to defend the ones that don't have money to pay an expensive defense....But in what world do you live?
I for example am a lawyer and give two hours on thursdays in the church to help single mothers to obtain the support of the fathers of their sons, but that's all, the rest of the time i work for me and my family, the real charity starts at home..
In the same way the artists are PROFESIONALS and work for money, yes they love what they do, but Rick Wakeman said once "You can't make good music if you don't know where are going to get the money to live" or something similar.
I may not like Robbie Williams or Britney, as a fact i hate their music, but they earned the last penny they got because people like what they released and belñieve it or not, they work hard, yes their music is crap for most of us, but there are millions who love it, so are we to decide if they are wrong?
Learn it, art is a business, like or not, and the artists are proffesionals who deserve every penny they get.
The Pessimist wrote:
It depends on what matters to you the most. There are bands out there that play for the music (quite a lot of them progressive) and are the way they are because they are in it for the music, not the money. If they were in it for the money, then they would write simple pop songs, a la Mcfly and the likes. However, those that are in it for the money are playing music for the wrong reasons in my eyes. They give me the impression that if they were to sell no records for the rest of their life, then they would never pick up another instrument again. That, to me, is playing music for the wrong reasons, and literally leeching off the industry at the expense of any musical creativity involved. That, of course, is just my view on things. |
Why? If people like their music, they fullfuil a service to the community, and they must be paid for that, if 20 millions buy their albums, well, they must deserve what they got.
The Pessimist wrote:
Please guys, don't take this the wrong way. I buy my songs of iTunes because I personally see it as immoral to steal. But, what I do believe is, that file sharing should be legalised, giving people the choice of either enforcing their favourite bands' success or stealing from the artists that have too much of it. |
So it's OK to steal from the Rich?
Robuin Hood was a legend.
The Pessimist wrote:
Please don't take this the wrong way though. I just think that people should have the choice, otherwise it would lead to how it is now: the artists with the most advertising capabilities having an utter monopoly over the industry, leaving the good bands behind in the dust to suffer. |
Good bands are left behind because most people don't care about what we consider good music, not because this guys leach, they give people what they want and that's not a crime.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 16:31 |
|
^^ My favorite part was where we get to take from those who have too much already. I'm working on my list now and I need to know how much YOU have. You may have too much.
Edited by Trademark - February 17 2009 at 16:33
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 16:27 |
|
The Pessimist, you're trying to say that it's immoral for people to make art for profit? Do you have any justification for this, because it seems absolutely absurd on the surface?
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 16:11 |
Rocktopus wrote:
Of course our favorite bands deserve to do their art fulltime. Are you nuts?
Its
possible to create great stuff as an amateur, but being a professional
artist is obviously better for the quality and depth. Come on, we
should support our favorite bands as much as we are able. Buy their
albums and go to their concerts. We can't expect them to be geniuses in
their spare time, as a hobby (altough that happens).
Of course most bands would like to make a living out of their music. Doesn't mean you're not into art for the right reasons.
|
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 15:57 |
|
Of course our favorite bands deserve to do their art fulltime. Are you nuts?
Its
possible to create great stuff as an amateur, but being a professional
artist is obviously better for the quality and depth. Come on, we
should support our favorite bands as much as we are able. Buy their
albums and go to their concerts. We can't expect them to be geniuses in
their spare time, as a hobby (altough that happens).
Of course most bands would like to make a living out of their music. Doesn't mean you're not into art for the right reasons.
|
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
|
|
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 15:40 |
The T wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The Pessimist wrote:
But if the artist is more concerned about their albums selling than people just enjoying their music, then that is also immoral.
Why? The artist has to eat, the artist has a family, most of them except the most successful have a mortgage to pay, they have to care for the money, because that's their work
I will join Ivan in asking why? That idea is ridiculous! The artist can do whatever he/she wants with the product of his work. Anyway, you're defending a completely egotistical cause (artists pleased with people listening to their music... complete ego-gratification...USELESS... ) over a more human cause (the artist wanting to FEED his family) So you say is inmoral to try to earn a living, but is moral to try to have everyone listen to your music therefore making you famous and boosting your ego? I can't help but feel quite repelled towards such a notion....
Well it does depend on how famous you actually are. If you are an underground band, then record sales will be important to you. But underground bands tend not to have many people downloading their music, simply because they are not well known enough and the fans of the band will buy their CDs because they are in the knowledge that they are making a difference. On the other hand, you have such artists as Robbie Williams and Britney Spears, who are pretty much rolling in too much. They are not going to go hungry because 1000 people downloaded their latest album instead of buying it. Now if those artists want to piss and moan about that matter, then I see that as immoral, because they are clearly not in it for the music, and treating it like a business instead of what it actually is - art.
Personally, if I were a popular artist, I wouldn't care less who shared my files, just so long as it's making me famous and selling out my concerts
So my Death-fan friend, what you want is millions of people to boost your ego, you don't care whether you eat or not. Well, that's fine. It is your right. But many others would prefer the other way around.
It depends on what matters to you the most. There are bands out there that play for the music (quite a lot of them progressive) and are the way they are because they are in it for the music, not the money. If they were in it for the money, then they would write simple pop songs, a la Mcfly and the likes. However, those that are in it for the money are playing music for the wrong reasons in my eyes. They give me the impression that if they were to sell no records for the rest of their life, then they would never pick up another instrument again. That, to me, is playing music for the wrong reasons, and literally leeching off the industry at the expense of any musical creativity involved. That, of course, is just my view on things.
Even doctors, that most human of all professions (MUCH more human than art) need to charge for their services.... Yes, many are crooks that would choose to earn millions over saving a poor man's life... But we agree that even doctors who can save lifes have to roght to make money off their work... why can't artists, whose work is, at the end of the day, completely irrelevant to the survival of the species?
Don't know how doctors collerate with musicians exactly, so I will ignore that bit.
That's very easy to say, i don't know in what you work, but...Would you allow people to take 50%, 60% or 70% of your salary to be famous? Honestly i wouldn't, I have to berak my balls working all day and nobody will put a finger on my money, and I'm sure you wouldn't allow either.
Living on concerts..Ha ha, maybe Yes, King Crimson, and some more, but excellent artists as Anton Roolaart, Lunar Dunes, Factor Burzaco, etc live of their albums because they are not famous enough (even when they deserve to be) to live on their small concerts.
Fame doesn't pay the bills.
In Perú 98% of the music is ILLEGAL, yes 98 from each 100 albums are sold in the black market in CDR's or illegaly downloaded...is this fair, moral or legal?
Same in my country of origin, Ecuador, where it's even semi-legal now to sell piracy!!!!!???
All the music stores except one have closed, there are no Video Rental business, because you can buy a brand new DVD in 2 dollars in every corner and keep it for ever, but thousands of persons were left without work because of this.
Exactly the same. There was even a Tower records franchise. Even that one collapsed against piracy.
An illegal store is closed at 10 am and at 1 PM they is open again with the site all covered in CDs an DVDs, but a legal store is closed and never opens again and 20 or 30 families cease to have money to eat.
Where is the morality of that? Oh I guess what's moral is the artist self-fulfilling his fame-desire and egomania.... 
Iván
. |
|
|
Please guys, don't take this the wrong way. I buy my songs of iTunes because I personally see it as immoral to steal. But, what I do believe is, that file sharing should be legalised, giving people the choice of either enforcing their favourite bands' success or stealing from the artists that have too much of it.
Please don't take this the wrong way though. I just think that people should have the choice, otherwise it would lead to how it is now: the artists with the most advertising capabilities having an utter monopoly over the industry, leaving the good bands behind in the dust to suffer.
|
|
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:22 |
If you have a day job where you work 40 hours a week or less and can leave work at work, having a good band is not unreasonable at all. Many of my favorite bands stay local, keep it fun, but still are good. The thrill of playing live probably peaks at a couple hundred, max 2000 people anyway. You can actually see faces, interact with the crowd.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:17 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Alberto Muñoz wrote:
Not necesary, for many artist the experience to play live in front of crowds it's simply indescriptible.
|
Of course. I'm just saying that there are also artists who are doing well without extensive touring.
|
Djam Karet comes to mind. I've never seen them live as they don't really tour. Wouldn't really know them from jack had it not been for an internet introduction.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:11 |
Alberto Muñoz wrote:
Not necesary, for many artist the experience to play live in front of crowds it's simply indescriptible.
|
Of course. I'm just saying that there are also artists who are doing well without extensive touring.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:11 |
Music and Money have been linked for thousands of years - troubadours and minstrels played for money, food & lodging; composers where sponsored by the Church and by the local ruler (Chief, King, Emperor etc) and he who paid the Piper... To be a professional composer or musician you have to be paid for your skill - no professional wants to turn amateur.
The concept of creating music as a non-profit art-form is a relatively new one.
Edited by Dean - February 17 2009 at 14:12
|
|
What?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:10 |
crimhead wrote:
I get the majority of my stuff from DGM live.
|
Are you sure Flo isn't slipping you some stuff here and there? 
Edited by Slartibartfast - February 17 2009 at 14:17
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:10 |
Not necesary, for many artist the experience to play live in front of crowds it's simply indescriptible.
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:04 |
|
^ I don't think that artists have to tour. I've always preferred the studio albums ... they're like paintings to me. Why would I have to watch the artist painting? Now, I'm not saying that live performances have no appeal - but I think that it's quite possible for artists to do well without them.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 14:01 |
Negoba wrote:
Why can't one have just a reasonable day job, create and play great music, hopefully break even on it, and leave the fame and riches to other fools? |
Because you can't concentrate on Art if you have to work all day and come home at 7 or 8 pm tired, wanting to see your family, eat a hot meal, rest a bit but instead you have to go to make music, sooner or later you will hate music because the human needs rest.
Now, if you have a busy week or month, you will be working on music but thinking in what you have to do in the office, so at the end you will not give your best.
Also...How can you tour if you have a day job?
Plus the desire to be the best in your field is the only thing that gives you a chance of success, if you want to be the best, probably you'll be good enough at least, but if you take music as a hobby, you'll probably have to leave it.
Iván
|
|
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 13:55 |
|
I get the majority of my stuff from DGM live.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 13:47 |
Why can't one have just a reasonable day job, create and play great music, hopefully break even on it, and leave the fame and riches to other fools?
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 13:31 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ well, it's up to the artists to untangle art and economics. Maybe we'll see more and more artists resorting to a model where they keep their day job at least to some extent and make music in their spare time - like Shadow Gallery (RIP Mike ). |
Do not day-dream too much Mike... In this world where money is every day more important in every field, I think art and economics will become even more tangled in the future. Those days of romantic artists dying for the cause are over. Actually, very few really did. Art has always been b*****dized by money. Most of the great art has been created thanks to money, and for monetary reasons (survival the primary one). The only artist that truly can afford to have economics and art separate is he who has art as a side-hobby, not as his primary source of income. But the people who can afford a side-hobby are those well-off in the first place, the wealthy ones, or coming from rich nations like Sweden or Norway where the government can help you live off your art.
Really...
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 13:29 |
|
^ you can upload your music on last.fm - there people can listen to it for free, and you'll get a share of their advertising revenue. Also, providing your music as free downloads doesn't mean you can't still sell it on CD or vinyl. Remember, people are already downloading music illegally ... it can't be helped. Why not give it to them as mp3, and if they like they can also purchase the "physical version"?
|
|
Wilcey
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
|
Posted: February 17 2009 at 13:26 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Wilcey wrote:
It'll only be "Free" when you don't mind "Dark Side of the Moon" sponsored by duracell torch batteries, or "The Tall Ships" sponsored by seasickness pills or whatever........... the very idea makes my toes curl, I can't even listen to commercial radio without screaming, this (music) is about something more spiritual than that surely?
|
I agree that it will probably take a few decades until we can listen to Dark Side of the Moon for free, and without advertising - the rights are owned by a major label. But today there are already some artists who give away their music for free, and maybe that catches on. I'll definitely try to compile a list of those albums at Progfreak.com - they need all the support they can get!
|
They really do need all the support they can! But if you have a million albums downloaded for free, or 5 albums downloaded for free I am assuming you make the same ammount of money. NOTHING, not a sausage not a drop. SO, when the mortgage company comes a calling you are going to say "have a slive of my fame instead of money, it's free" I don't wish to be pedantic, but How does this FREE model work? How you supposed to pay for recording let alone living? 
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Downloading
