Should music be given away free?

[MorePunkThanFunk]

Should music be given away free?

What's your thoughts on this?

More and more labels seem to be giving away free tracks, or just going completely free.

I'm all in favour of promotion which can involve free things or giveaways but there is a limit on this.

Just want to see what the general feeling is on here.

[Aratron]

seems a nonsense. everything must have a cost otherwise it has no value.

[inigo kennedy]

seems a nonsense. everything must have a cost otherwise it has no value.
that's quite a capitalist sound bite. from another point of view, as an artist, it's a lot more satisfying and i'd say fair. a justifiably romantic outlook perhaps. good question mptf. a different question might be should other people make money from your music? there are a lot of factors and many different aims - label? artist? brand? career? hobby? passion? business? quality control, or the perception of quality, is a problem but that seems to be a growing phenomenon on a massive scale - throwaway culture - free or not. in general i think there's also a growing perception from consumers that everything is and has to be free but more and more of the actual costs are hidden and aggregated - free music doesn't cost nothing but the belief is that it does.

[JamieBall]

It's an unfortunate indicator of the state of the market that so many people are pressured into going this way.

I think it's a GOOD idea in principal, helping spread your music etc but in practise it can prove a bit silly for the artist. Many have basically been pushed into this by circumstance, rather than making a uniform decision I feel. It's kinda like "people aren't gonna pay for this so we've got to make it free for them even to bother listening"

Personally, I've spoken to a few people on Soulseek who were absolutely GOBSMACKED when I told them I buy music if I like it. My cousin, who's about 11, also refuses to entertain the notion of paying for music.

The attitude these days seems to be very much "if I can get it for free, why pay for it?" which I can see to an extent but it still remains a bit of a blinkered view imo. I've noticed many 'big' bands giving away their new albums etc with newspapers n stuff but this is, of course, no problem for them - they've made their money and merely need to keep the wheels on the promotion wagon...

Fair enough artists can use this free music as a promo tool to spread their name/get gigs or whatever but what if you don't do live shows yet spend 24/7 on your music ? This kinda means you'd be doing that for NOTHING in the present climate, should you choose to go the 'free' route.

It's horrid that we live in a society where 'bills' and things appear from time to time, otherwise I don't see the problem with all this free/trading stuff. However, if you spend all your time doing something and you're GOOD AT IT then I, personally, think you have the right to be rewarded for it. If people receive nothing back for hours of work then they're only going to be doing this for so long.

Mind you, the way techno is(nt) selling at the moment, if you've any brains and are actually interested in making money then I suggest you off and make something that'll stand a chance of actually providing a sensible ££ return ratio ;-)

Personally, I've never made a bean from this music really and I'm quite happy about it. It's not about the cash or peoples reactions, if I didn't make music I'd probably be in the clink ;-)

[RDR]

Its a tricky one thats for sure.

I think it all depends on what else people have going on, A touring/gigging artist will have more invested in the live set-up.

There are many instances where music is paid for and in big amounts. but these are one off pieces like music for adverts on commision etc etc.

It all depends on wether or not anyone regards music as intrinsically worth anything or as a vehicle to promote a brand image or the artist as a product. The recent rash of people giving things away for 'FREE' (OT i think the word FREE has much more power than the word F-U.C:K in modern day society) has hardly been FREE, there was always another option for people.

Look at princes recent giveaway in the papers, it was free to the consumer but not really free at all. Most artists in the independant sector 'enjoy' the long tail in terms of sales. Prince didnt do that. How much did he get paid by the papers for having this album given away free? Instant money. Not only that, but he exploited the long tail and gained some more fans in the process (i accept that he aliented some as well) plus the fact that if he had tried to BUY that marketing and publicity it would have been extremely expensive. The consumer accepts a free album on the premise that it is really free, and it is, the cost to them is hidden. Prince on the other hand gets rapid payment, the consumer pays HIM to publicise TO them. Look at the Radiohead and NIN jaunts recently, FREE meant giveaways, but they still made money from it. Not from the sales so much, but the publicity was MASSIVE. something they couldnt buy without spending millions.

For the independant? Well, havnt we always given away music for free in the form of Mix CDS? Isnt that what DJs are meant to do? Record pools have been around for a LONG time and did exactly that, gave away promo's to DJs so they could play them out. I think in the techno scene the problem is that who the hell is buying the music, its not the standard consumer, its the DJs and most of them i meant didnt really expect to pay for music at all. They felt that it should be free because they are 'Promoting' a certain artist. This rings true when you have a product like vinyl, hard to copy etc etc, but not MP3.

One of the side effects (IMO - like everything here else of course) is that all of a sudden the DJ jealously guarding their record collection has gone, no white labels on a CD is there? A DJ lives and dies on their tunes, but that piss and vinegar approach seems to have gone, in the endless round of circle jerk promo action.

/Rant.

EDIT: Just seen jamies comment and wanted to add a +1 for most of that. I know im trying to talk from a commercial perspective here.

[RDR]

free music doesn't cost nothing but the belief is that it does.


+1 Exactly.

[rhythmtech]

if someone wants to give away music for free then its nobodies choice but their own.

from a business point of view, i personally give away some tracks for promotion and to generally "keep my name out there".

i think its especially important for those of us who arent in a position where we have lots of labels clambering over each other to release every track that we write.

everytime i put a track out i get lots of messages of support and thanks - this for me is enough to show that the music has value and if a percentage that do download a free track then go and spend money on damaged trax, i reckon the promotion is working in my favour.

[acidsaturation]

if someone wants to give away music for free then its nobodies choice but their own.


Totally.

I guess there is the potential problem that if more music is given away then it heightens the perception that music is free, and maybe "undercuts" those who need to make a living from it.

And yeh

But at the end of the day, I don't really make music to make money. Yeh it would be nice if I could cover some of the costs, and I'm hoping to work on that one slowly, but at the moment I'm working, I'm hoping to do a PhD next year, so turning it into a business is not my main aim.

I give CDs out, to my mates, to cute girls in clubs, to people who look like they might come to a gig if they recognise my name - that last one is promotion I guess, but if people who put on nights know I'll get folk in then I get gigs which I enjoy, and there's more chance of getting some beer money for playing.

At the end of the day if I have a product from my hobby what good is it if it's sat in my CD player for no one else to enjoy? It's like if I'm sat out in the sun and make a dreamcatcher (yeh old hippy I know), or split up a plant that's too big for it's pot, or make too many pots of chutney - what use is it to me, and I don't need the couple of quid I might be able to flog it to someone for...

[RDR]

Just wanted to make the point that FREE music cannot be considered for the charts, I wonder how that might affect things if there were...

[acidsaturation]

By definition though the charts show how popular a record is with one particular subset of people. i.e. those who by a certain thing in a certain format...

[TechMouse]

Music should be whatever it's creators want it to be.

If people want to give it away free then great.

If people want to try and make a living out of it them great - just remember that the world doesn't owe you a living and if your stuff doesn't sell then that's nobody's fault.

Right now, I'd probably give stuff away for free, though I've sold stuff before.

[DannyBlack]

It's all the one really. If you want to give it away, do. If you don't, then don't.

[RDR]

By definition though the charts show how popular a record is with one particular subset of people. i.e. those who by a certain thing in a certain format...

yeah, of course... was just pointing it out.. its got resonance when coldplay's free giveaway does 2million downloads in a weekend eh????

[acidsaturation]

True...

[module]

take the £££ outta the scene, both in dj fees & album releases & see who REALLY loves the sound as opposed to LIKING the sound & makin a wedge too :)

[rhythmtech]

take the £££ outta the scene, both in dj fees & album releases & see who REALLY loves the sound as opposed to LIKING the sound & makin a wedge too :)

just because someone gets paid for a gig doesnt mean they dont love the sound!!

choosing to give music away is a totally differant ballgame to not paying people for their work. some of us rely on the extra income it generates - while some rely on it as their SOLE income. should we let them starve just to prove a point?

[TechMouse]

I think doing a gig is a vastly different thing to actually making music.

I definitely think people should get paid for gigs, though of course you're only worth what someone is willing to pay. You may rely on it as your sole income, but people aren't obliged to book you. Being a full-time musician or DJ is a privilege, not a right.

[tocsin]

if someone wants to give away music for free then its nobodies choice but their own.


That's how I've always looked about it. I had a few tracks put out here and there, though I never really looked for that or even cared. Before the internet was accessable to most people I knew at high speeds, I usually just gave the shit away on cassette tape. If someone gave me some cash for it, cool, but I never cared. Ovewr the years, I've heard numerous arguments from others that people likemyself destroyed DJ bookings, made it harder for "real artists" to earn a living, that the only reason I would give something away for free is because nobody would listen otherwise, etc. But, it's all a load of crap. Fact is, I don't really care if people listen to my music. It's certainly fun when people do and they enjoy it. But, that was never really the main motivation for doing it. Most of the stuff I've done was made for myself to listen to on long drives, which was pretty much every day for work. At the moment, when I do finish a track here and there, I give it away for free. I couldn't care less that other people charge for music. I don't think there's any greater indication of love for what one does based on whether or not they constantly charge for it. Frankly, I think the back and forth you seen between people who make camps out of it is more reflective of personal creative insecurity than anything else. And people who think they are owed something for free on a consumer level are just spoilt children with contempt for artists.

[rhythmtech]

people are never obliged to book you - same as an employer is never obliged to give you a job.. but if they do, unless you state otherwise, you would expect to be paid.

[davethedrummer]

it's not a tricky one at all in my mind.

no- you shouldn't give it away for free , people should enjoy paying for it , they should think it's totally worth it and get a buzz from paying for their favourite tracks

if all free music stopped overnight and everyone had to pay do you think there would be rioting in the streets?

no- i don't

they would just bloody pay and thats what i wish would happen.

[BloodStar]

i think it's author's thing if he wants to give tracks for free or not.

[rhythmtech]

it's not a tricky one at all in my mind.

no- you shouldn't give it away for free , people should enjoy paying for it , they should think it's totally worth it and get a buzz from paying for their favourite tracks

if all free music stopped overnight and everyone had to pay do you think there would be rioting in the streets?

no- i don't

they would just bloody pay and thats what i wish would happen.

but yet you've given them away for free too?

i know where you're coming from - we'd all love to be able to get paid for every track but thats not always the case. and sometimes, for whatever reason, tracks get put up for free download.

[acidsaturation]

no- you shouldn't give it away for free , people should enjoy paying for it , they should think it's totally worth it and get a buzz from paying for their favourite tracks


Personally I wish that we didn't have to pay or charge for things so much.

I know this brings all kinds of politics into the debate, but actually I don't get a buzz from paying for my favourite tracks. I don't really get a buzz for paying for most things.

I get a buzz from earning something, but this is so entrenched in the idea that money is the whole be all and end all...

I don't think its fair for someone whose set up or occupation is such that they charge for a product to say that someone else should not give that product (providing it is theirs to give of course) away for free, whether that product is music, food, whatever.

As an example, would you say that people should not write free VSTis and other software for this same reason? What about free zines and music mags?

[TechMouse]

no- you shouldn't give it away for free
Are you really saying that if I make some music and I want to give it away for free, I shouldn't?

[Aratron]

that's quite a capitalist sound bite. f

not at all. i am not a capitalist.
this is the way of things. everything must have balance.
For example, i used to read Tarot Cards. I always did it for free.
Anyway one day i learnt off some folk, that it must always cost somebody, even if it was the least somebody could afford. That gave the reading a kind of balance. There must be payment for the effort and labour of love that goes into anything.
Everything must cost.
If i pick an apple from atree, i expend enrgy in doing so.

point and click and save your music in a second for free?

Ain't ever, ever gonna work, unless you are a fool. In which case go for it!!

[Aratron]

no- you shouldn't give it away for free , people should enjoy paying for it , they should think it's totally worth it and get a buzz from paying for their favourite tracks




exactly the art of paying for something for some people, is more important than the product itself.
as is stealing for other people.

[rhythmtech]

so what about the mixes that you do and post up for free download - are they exempt?

[Aratron]

so what about the mixes that you do and post up for free download - are they exempt?

thats an interesting point. however i am not the original artist and i don't pretend to be.
It's a bit like me buying some apples, making an apple pie and then giving everyone some free samples of it, at least i bought the apples (or grew them) myself.
Or in your argument, lots of people investing in apple orchards, and then at harvest time giving all their apples away. And then complaining they are skint. Go figure?
same with music esp, techno the whole point of it, is that it is going to be mixed. So if 100 artists all mix your tunes in their mix, thats an advertisement in itself, and aesthetically pleasing no doubt aswell.

[acidsaturation]

not at all. i am not a capitalist.
this is the way of things. everything must have balance.


It's capitalist if the value has to be monetary. That's not using the word capitalist in any negative way however, just that money being the main object is a theme of capitalism.

I think most of us are capitalists to some extent - it's the world we live in and its very hard to not have to go down that route when you need to get what you need.

But I do agree, that many things do need to have some reciprocity to have value.

But I also think that reciprocity does not need to be linear - i.e. the "payment" may not need to go back the the person providing the goods/service.

[davethedrummer]

so what about the mixes that you do and post up for free download - are they exempt?

come one baz leave it out mate. there has always been a certain amount of free promotion for all music over the history of pop/rock/dance you know that.
you do it yourself mate ,
me too

I see your statement as a splitting of hairs nothing less.

because promotion is promotion, it should be used to inform people of whats going on , whats coming up and whats doing it at the moment.
so no i don't have a problem with dj mixes , they get me work and i need work same as everyone.
they are a necessity for a professional musician, but i do have a problem with people using them to cut out the tracks they like and re-edit them into playable versions which i have seen done.


thing is there is just no way to stop peopl stealing or copying
no magical answer . no special format etc etc
so we are talking about morals really right? hypothetically .

and morally people should pay for their music , end of story.

if you want to give it away fine...thats your choice of course

but i believe you undermine everyone else's hard work by doing so...
and where's it going to stop?
we aren't all as rich as radiohead you know.
if some of us didn't get stuck in and treat our music making as a job 24/7 no matter how big or small or rich or poor we are, there would be no dance music scene to speak of and thats the bottom line.

[davethedrummer]

one more thing
i rarely actually put my mixes up myself
i think i have put up about 10 in total over 10 years or so.
it's actually everyone else that does it for me
and generally i don't even know they exist until someone from this site tells me about it.

[rhythmtech]

thats an interesting point. however i am not the original artist and i don't pretend to be.
It's a bit like me buying some apples, making an apple pie and then giving everyone some free samples of it, at least i bought the apples (or grew them) myself.
Or in your argument, lots of people investing in apple orchards, and then at harvest time giving all their apples away. And then complaining they are skint. Go figure?
same with music esp, techno the whole point of it, is that it is going to be mixed. So if 100 artists all mix your tunes in their mix, thats an advertisement in itself, and aesthetically pleasing no doubt aswell.

so what about people that A. cant get a track signed or B. arent interested in getting a track signed. should they not have the option of doing whatever they want with something that they created and own the copyright on?

c'mon.. since when does anyone have the right to tell others how to run their business.. or am i suddenly on www.freemasonery.fcukoff (http://www.freemasonery.fcukoff) ???

[rhythmtech]

come one baz leave it out mate. there has always been a certain amount of free promotion for all music over the history of pop/rock/dance you know that.
you do it yourself mate ,
me too

I see your statement as a splitting of hairs nothing less.

because promotion is promotion, it should be used to inform people of whats going on , whats coming up and whats doing it at the moment.
so no i don't have a problem with dj mixes , they get me work and i need work same as everyone.
they are a necessity for a professional musician, but i do have a problem with people using them to cut out the tracks they like and re-edit them into playable versions which i have seen done.


thing is there is just no way to stop peopl stealing or copying
no magical answer . no special format etc etc
so we are talking about morals really right? hypothetically .

and morally people should pay for their music , end of story.

if you want to give it away fine...thats your choice of course

but i believe you undermine everyone else's hard work by doing so...
and where's it going to stop?
we aren't all as rich as radiohead you know.
if some of us didn't get stuck in and treat our music making as a job 24/7 no matter how big or small or rich or poor we are, there would be no dance music scene to speak of and thats the bottom line.

not havin a go at all m8.. just trying to gauge where you're coming from.

my thinking is that if someone owns the copyright then they're entitled to do what they like really.

[Aratron]

one more thing
i rarely actually put my mixes up myself
i think i have put up about 10 in total over 10 years or so.
it's actually everyone else that does it for me
and generally i don't even know they exist until someone from this site tells me about it.

tbh i think too many of your mixes are about.

almost i think not another dtd mix in Belarus or whereva.

[Aratron]

not havin a go at all m8.. just trying to gauge where you're coming from.

my thinking is that if someone owns the copyright then they're entitled to do what they like really.

if you think that you should give music away for free. then do so.
i'll still probably buy some good acid techno vinyl, and ignore the dross on mp3.

[rhythmtech]

i agree ^^

i'd rather see the odd promotional mix coming from the artist themselves rather than the glut of good (and not so good) live ones available.

[Aratron]

i agree ^^

i'd rather see the odd promotional mix coming from the artist themselves rather than the glut of good (and not so good) live ones available.

hmm ty!!

i find it quite irritating looking in the acid techno section and there's whoevers latest mix there for free. esp dave the drummer.
was a time i was like wow dtd omg. and it now it's like i want to hang myself if i see another of his ****ing mixes. No offence Mr Cullen, i'm sure it pisses you off too.
Sure go on there websites download the mixes they want you to listen too for sure.
Wtf do i know. i hardly get out the house much these days.

[Aratron]

It's capitalist if the value has to be monetary. That's not using the word capitalist in any negative way however, just that money being the main object is a theme of capitalism.

I think most of us are capitalists to some extent - it's the world we live in and its very hard to not have to go down that route when you need to get what you need.

But I do agree, that many things do need to have some reciprocity to have value.

But I also think that reciprocity does not need to be linear - i.e. the "payment" may not need to go back the the person providing the goods/service.

well i didnt say anywhere the payment needed to be in money.
It's just generally accepted in 2008 that bio-survival tickets equate to money, instead of bartering.
But sure bartering can be fun if someone has something interesting to barter that you don't have. Thats why swapping can be fun.

[module]

ya know, it wasnt until the recording revolution that music was a 'product'

theres earning a few £££ to get by & then theres carl cox & morales & greedy agencies & business class flights & blah blah blah..

theres being paid, then theres makin huge wedges.. stupid riders & ott bookin fees..

****in agencys are the worst.. 10% to tell you if a dj is doing anything that night.. ffs, get up off your arses & do summat.. maybe the greed of the coin has pushed the fees past breakin point & wre pissed off paying thru the nose to see big acts that arent all that, or buy ANOTHER 12 thats the same old shit as the last 6 or 7...


rant over :)

[davethedrummer]

so what about people that A. cant get a track signed or B. arent interested in getting a track signed. should they not have the option of doing whatever they want with something that they created and own the copyright on?

c'mon.. since when does anyone have the right to tell others how to run their business.. or am i suddenly on www.freemasonery.fcukoff (http://www.freemasonery.fcukoff) ???

i didn't say that barry , i'm not telling anyone how to do anything i'm just voicing my opinion.
you can do what you want with your music
it just pays to look at the bigger picture from time to time
and ask yourself if what you are doing is actually helpful to the scene or not.

maybe go here for a better explanation:

www.dontgetyourknickersinatwist.org

[robin m]

If people want to try and make a living out of it them great - just remember that the world doesn't owe you a living and if your stuff doesn't sell then that's nobody's fault.

I totally agree with this... I find it a bit pointless when people lash out about failing to sell their records and start harping on about the evil of piracy and blaming the internet for all their troubles. It's the nature of the world at the moment that people expect to get music for free, like it or not - you can either work with it and try and find a way to package what you're selling that makes people actually want to part with their cash - or stop whingeing and go flip burgers to pay your rent. The playing field has changed - unlucky for some but that's evolution for ya.

I think the music industry (the larger picture, not techno so much) has set itself up for a much-deserved fall. It's only relatively recently that music changed from something that people made because they loved it and could occasionally scrape a living from to massive style-over-content marketing hype bollocks. Now that the internet and disposable technology have exploded and popped the bubble, given the insanely hyperinflated prices of mainstream music, it's not surprising that Joe Public has voted with his feet and chosen to pay nothing at all. Of a new £15 CD in Virgin or whatever how much were the production costs? How much did the artist get? Why on earth is a skint teenager going to pay the other £14 if they can download it for nowt? The RIAA and whoever can throw as much of a paddy as they like, they ate for free for a long time but the world's moved on and their niche has closed. If they're creative they'll find new ways to sell us things that we can't get for free, and actually make us want to open our wallets again - try developing with the times instead of doing things like dragging filesharers through the courts, trying to wind back the clock.

Ever since people came down from the trees they've been making music, simply because they want to. Those that enjoy making it will continue to make it, regardless of sales. For my part I will continue to spend every spare quid I can scrape together on vinyl, because I'm a dinosaur and I love the stupid things. Unfortunately though young people will continue to get younger and grow up in a more and more different world, there's no fighting that... it's adapt or die I'm afraid :hmmm:

[rhythmtech]

i didn't say that barry , i'm not telling anyone how to do anything i'm just voicing my opinion.
you can do what you want with your music
it just pays to look at the bigger picture from time to time
and ask yourself if what you are doing is actually helpful to the scene or not.

maybe go here for a better explanation:

www.dontgetyourknickersinatwist.org (http://www.dontgetyourknickersinatwist.org)

you should go back up there and see what qoute i was answering :wink: wasnt yours h.

[davethedrummer]

ya know, it wasnt until the recording revolution that music was a 'product'

theres earning a few £££ to get by & then theres carl cox & morales & greedy agencies & business class flights & blah blah blah..

theres being paid, then theres makin huge wedges.. stupid riders & ott bookin fees..

****in agencys are the worst.. 10% to tell you if a dj is doing anything that night.. ffs, get up off your arses & do summat.. maybe the greed of the coin has pushed the fees past breakin point & wre pissed off paying thru the nose to see big acts that arent all that, or buy ANOTHER 12 thats the same old shit as the last 6 or 7...


rant over :)

you're telling me that mozart ( the genius child , as marketed and toured extensively all over europe by his father ) wasn't a product when he was alive?

anyway book me i'm cheap !

[davethedrummer]

you should go back up there and see what qoute i was answering :wink: wasnt yours h.


oh right

sorry , ah **** it it's a sunny day what the hell am i doing here anyway?

[robin m]

Basically the looming death of the recording industry means (fingers crossed) the death of the likes of the Spice Girls and MC Hammer. It doesn't mean the end of techno, it doesn't mean the end of music born out creativity and passion. No shifting market will kill that...

[davethedrummer]

tbh i think too many of your mixes are about.

almost i think not another dtd mix in Belarus or whereva.

not my fault

I think theres too many of my mixes about too.

[Aratron]

you should go back up there and see what qoute i was answering :wink: wasnt yours h.

too late now, your in his bad books :wink:

[tocsin]

and morally people should pay for their music , end of story.

if you want to give it away fine...thats your choice of course

but i believe you undermine everyone else's hard work by doing so...
and where's it going to stop?


See, I've heard this way too much. And, thankfully, just as so many other artists have felt in the past when faced with such silliness from the self-interested, if it's actually true then I'm happy to have been a part of it. :) Free music doesn't undermine anything you do, unless it is just as good, or better, than what you are doing.



we aren't all as rich as radiohead you know.
if some of us didn't get stuck in and treat our music making as a job 24/7 no matter how big or small or rich or poor we are, there would be no dance music scene to speak of and thats the bottom line.

Meanwhile, in my own back yard, there's music being made all the time, with no shortage of parties or venues playing it, where the artists give the music away for free over the net, on CD, etc. The scene won't disappear. Only you will if you choose to.

[Aratron]

See, I've heard this way too much. And, thankfully, just as so many other artists have felt in the past when faced with such silliness from the self-interested, if it's actually true then I'm happy to have been a part of it. :) Free music doesn't undermine anything you do, unless it is just as good, or better, than what you are doing.



Meanwhile, in my own back yard, there's music being made all the time, with no shortage of parties or venues playing it, where the artists give the music away for free over the net, on CD, etc. The scene won't disappear. Only you will if you choose to.

maybe there is free music, but is it on par with the worst of wot Henry has done? no.
Dave The Drummer is (sorry about this dude) a modern day Mozart. Not some coked up knobhead who knows how to work Fruity Loops.

[rhythmtech]

maybe there is free music, but is it on par with the worst of wot Henry has done? no.


now you're just being silly. ok, henry's stuff is pretty special at times but just because its a commercial release doesnt mean its better than a free release.

go to the sub division media website and there's free music available.. all top-notch.

inigo kennedy runs a free net label thats immense.

i could go on all day.

[tocsin]

It doesn't matter anyways. The aspect of music being "free" is irrelevant. Free music leaves money in the pocket to still be spent on music that is not, if someone was ever part of that market. It is only when something is no longer that interesting that one will not bother spending money on it, assuming they have the money to spend. Lashing out at piracy was silly enough in my opinion, but made buckets' loads more sense than blaming artists who give music away for free for the failures of other musicians. And, like I said, when people feel the need to hang that type of lame trip on me, I just smile and say "you're welcome." :)

[Aratron]

now you're just being silly. ok, henry's stuff is pretty special at times but just because its a commercial release doesnt mean its better than a free release.

go to the sub division media website and there's free music available.. all top-notch.

inigo kennedy runs a free net label thats immense.

i could go on all day.

now who's deluded?
that what is really destroying the industry too few people of Henry, Guy, Immersion's calibre. And two many big name Techno artists who nobody gives a **** about, the reason they have to give their music away is cos no ****er will be buy it in the first place. don't fool yourself.
law of supply and demand. basic economics. people will pay for a scarce resource i.e a decent SUF (if properly marketed).
will people pay for average dross thats so diluted you can get it for free? no.
don't sell yourself short mate.
your music Baz is good and i would and have paid for it on vinyl. If i was some twat playing it from my pc i would probably pay for some lame mp3 aswell (even of yours, yeah you are that good!)

[davethedrummer]

no-one is saying that the quality of free music is bad
it isn't of course not
it just makes it difficult to sell anything when there is so much for free.
meaning that you have to dj or play live to earn a living now
which is hard on the body and not that well paid either
and it's extremely anti social hours when you have a family at home.

yes ok get a day job you say
maybe maybe not.

but the point is that if i did get a day job that would be the end of it for me
i'm not speaking for anyone else , but i couldn't do both ( well not properly )
and to be honest i love music and i don't want to give it up.

[detfella]

Dave The Drummer is (sorry about this dude) a modern day Mozart.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha, quote of the decade!!

there is free music that is worse, just as good and better than pay for music.

i agree with what other people say, music should cost what the people who make charge for it.

also i always like to point out in these threads, many high profile techno producers use illegal software and sample copyright material.

[Aratron]

no-one is saying that the quality of free music is bad
it isn't of course not
it just makes it difficult to sell anything when there is so much for free.
meaning that you have to dj or play live to earn a living now
which is hard on the body and not that well paid either
and it's extremely anti social hours when you have a family at home.

yes ok get a day job you say
maybe maybe not.

but the point is that if i did get a day job that would be the end of it for me
i'm not speaking for anyone else , but i couldn't do both ( well not properly )
and to be honest i love music and i don't want to give it up.

what would you do for a proper job?
Jesus maybe me and a few other hundred acid techno heads could set up a monthly standing order. I ****ing hate giving money to charity, cos it all goes in Swiss Bank Accounts. Why not be the patron of some fantastic artist like some relatively wealthy Roman citizen. Five pounds each a month. Should pay the mortgage. You get on with selling some quality techno.

[davethedrummer]

i've always wanted my very own ice cream van

[Aratron]

i've always wanted my very own ice cream van

here little girly, lick my wet sweety.

[detfella]

if some of us didn't get stuck in and treat our music making as a job 24/7 no matter how big or small or rich or poor we are, there would be no dance music scene to speak of and thats the bottom line.

who said that? what a load of bull! you think music only started because people made money from it or some one gave them food from a hunt? music is human expression, it dies when we die. that is the bottom line.

[davethedrummer]

who said that? what a load of bull! you think music only started because people made money from it or some one gave them food from a hunt? music is human expression, it dies when we die. that is the bottom line.

no, thats not what i'm saying at all.

[Jay Pace]

Nice topic

Should it be given away? Not without the artists permission or knowledge, just not right otherwise.

Does it do any harm? Debatable.
Yes, if talented people decide that they can no longer make music full time and give up as a result of having their meagre revenues diluted away into nothing, then the scene and music in general is worse off. Artists used to get by on the patronage of wealthy bods who had money and respect for art. Nowadays everyone has money but seemingly little respect.

But, facing stark realities... until it gets easier to buy then steal, I can't see it changing.

I don't understand pricing either. A vinyl 4 track EP sells for 6 quid. It typically requires an artist, a label, a distributor, a mastering engineer, a production house, printing, delivery, shipping and storage

A 4 track WAV EP costs more than the vinyl version. Why? How is that justified?
A 4 track 320k mp3 EP costs about the same as a vinyl. Something seems to be wrong here....

allofmp3 was something like the 3rd most popular site in the UK before it shut down and reopened as another identical clone site. People were buying music. People were paying lots of cash to buy music. It was easier than stealing and nobody minded about the price.

I think music should cost money. It costs money to make it, and if it has value a price isn't unreasonable.

But I think the pricing models are all wrong, and need to be in line with what people are prepared to pay.

So long as its quicker, cheaper, easier and relatively risk free the majority of people are going to keep on stealing. Sites like allofmp3 actually brought people stealing music back into the fold. Formed soulseekers were seemingly happy to shell out a $3-5 dollars for an album, fast download, no waiting with all album art etc included. Shame the sites involved trousered all the money and didn't bother sharing the cash with the people who made the product in the first place.

Vinyl should cost money. Its a physical product and has a ton of costs attached. But I can't understand why MP3s cost as much as they do.

Especially stupid things like mp3s costing a pound in the UK that cost a dollar in the US. No excuse for crap like that.

[detfella]

no, thats not what i'm saying at all.

what were you trying to say?

[MorePunkThanFunk]

interesting read all this.

i'll put my opinion in.

I personally don't think music should be given away free. Art has a value and if you like something you should pay for it.

I 100% agree with promotion and giving away stuff is part of that.

But i feel that all this giving away of tracks is de-valueing the music industry. Particuarly the underground scene, which is already undervalued.

We run the risk of the scene turning into a bunch of part-timers. You need guys out there doing this as there full time job really pushing the scene and the music and generally doing a good job of it.

Loving the scene is not a good enough reason to do it for free. I love my job... would i do it for free? Would i hell.

If you have a good day in work and your boss says "well you've enjoyed yourself today so i'm not paying you" you'd be like what the ****

So why should artists be forced to do the same?

On the other hand i'm being slightly hypocritical here as with my label i like to increase the perceived value by doing full colour artwork and giving away free things in the records... in the process i can't really afford to pay the artists for there tracks as i would be loosing money on each release. So i'm in the dilemma, do i cut production costs and pay for tracks or do i keep going doing what i'm doing? But from a promotion perspective the artists tracks being on my label promotes them... should that be enough... i don't really think so!

It's a tough one

The only thing i do know is that we should support the underground and keep it thriving and buying records is a BIG part of this.

[rhythmtech]

see heres where i think the problem lies.

labels arent in a position to put out as many releases as they used to be. so what if a lad has a really good track but, for whatever reasons, it never gets picked up for release. should he a. sit on for an undetermined amount of time or B. give it away for free, thus (hopefully) raising his profile in an attempt to get gigs/releases

[davethedrummer]

what were you trying to say?

not what you said thats for sure

[DannyBlack]

anyway book me i'm cheap !


do you swallow? its a deal breaker.

[morbid]

Music should cost something whatever the format - youre basically buying the right to use / replay someone else's work. There's a difference between an artist choosing to distribute their music for free and someone else making that choice for the artist by uploading whats not theirs.

Lets face it if youre in the UK and making a living out of techno youre probably doing just that - making a living, not creaming money in left right and centre and wiping your ass with £50 notes

The original artist deserves some return on their ideas - whatever that re
turn is (hard cash / promotion etc)

If you make pies and youre having trouble shifting them then give them away - your choice. If your hungry you dont generally go and steal a pie you buy one. If youre pies taste better than anyone elses around then people will buy your pies........

Just my thoughts

[morbid]

anyone for steak and kidney?

[rhythmtech]

There's a difference between an artist choosing to distribute their music for free


thats exactly what we're talking about here. not illegal downloads.

[morbid]

fair enough - I think its 2 sides of the same coin though, the music is still free however you get it and whoever is giving it away.

[morbid]

I just think there should be some monetary value to new original music

[tocsin]

I've just got a fundamentally different view here, since I never have considered, nor will I ever consider, my own artistic creativity my job. And I don't ever want it to be. I got into this sound and culture as a direct result of the h/p scene, where I ran a dial up system based on freedom of information and using technology towards something bigger than the acquisition of personal income. What's funny is, I don't ever remember catching crap from techno artists when BBS's were used to distribute original mod files about how this hurt things. It's utterly bizzarre to me that one artist who charges gives a **** about what ohers do for free inside a free scene.

One of the coolest things about this thing for me was that there was now the ability for everybody with access to a machine, or other affordable hardware, to make music consisting of multiple instruments and sounds for the same cost, or cheaper, than the price of one good midrange instrument, nevermind the communication abilities that were opened. It helped smash some otherwise economic barriers that prevented people from realising something they enjoyed. Piracy has allowed for the same when it comes to software.

But, now, because some people have made money, or are relying on making money, with a sound that so many of us have loved and put into, we're supposed to change our ways and not give it away for free if we don't want to? This is peoples' music. It's now become, in a very real way, a newer incarnation of folk music for those of us blessed enough to be part of the world with access to affordable tech. Blaming artists for the downfall of other artists' income sources, simply because they post music on the net for free, is a relatively new excuse. And it's a bogus one. If an artist giving away music for free is so good that they've become a threat to your income, sign them! Though, I just don't know what fantasy land this is where artists who are giving away music for free have had the same promotion and recognition as signed artists, and promoters who are spending dollars on a venue that need door and drink sales are willing to take risks on them.

[rhythmtech]

I just think there should be some monetary value to new original music

we'd all love that.

believe me, most of the time labels cant even afford to pay artists for full releases.

its just the way things have gotten.

[JamieBall]

If you make pies and youre having trouble shifting them then give them away - your choice. If your hungry you dont generally go and steal a pie you buy one. If youre pies taste better than anyone elses around then people will buy your pies........

DAMN - I wish there was a "slsk" for pies, could do with downloading a pork n pickle one - and maybe a steak for later on.

[acidsaturation]

But, now, because some people have made money, or are relying on making money, with a sound that so many of us have loved and put into, we're supposed to change our ways and not give it away for free if we don't want to? This is peoples' music. It's now become, in a very real way, a newer incarnation of folk music for those of us blessed enough to be part of the world with access to affordable tech. Blaming artists for the downfall of other artists' income sources, simply because they post music on the net for free, is a relatively new excuse. And it's a bogus one. If an artist giving away music for free is so good that they've become a threat to your income, sign them! Though, I just don't know what fantasy land this is where artists who are giving away music for free have had the same promotion and recognition as signed artists, and promoters who are spending dollars on a venue that need door and drink sales are willing to take risks on them.

I'm 100% behind this. Music is music, it won't die because people can't afford a living from it. Some people always will be able to, some won't. There's plenty of a music scene where people do stuff for free round where I live. Gigs put of for free, bands play for free, etc etc. It's fun. OK they don't get to fly around playing uber big gigs.

At the end of the day: I make music 'cos it's fun. Maybe it's good enough for release, maybe not. At the moment I don't have the time or energy or start-up costs to try and get it on vinyl. And I'm not bothered.

But if I want to give it to someone who might enjoy it no other ****er has the right to tell me not to. Like I said, that's like if Bill Gates tried to stop linux, or Steinberg refused to let people make VSTs for free, or superclubs say we are not allowed to have free parties. (OK that last one kinda happens, and we don't give them any respect...)

If someone who's a name artist is getting scared by bedroom producers giving stuff for free then why is that? Maybe we do all need to look at the value of this commodity, if it can be given away maybe it isn't worth as much as we'd like to think.

But on the flip side, techno (for me at least) was always a little (dare I use the word) underground, subversive, etc etc, and going against big corporate industry models is a part of that.

When people start saying that we have to lose the free diy ethic that was always a part for many people, **** it, I'm going back to punk!

[TechMouse]

now who's deluded?
that what is really destroying the industry too few people of Henry, Guy, Immersion's calibre. And two many big name Techno artists who nobody gives a **** about, the reason they have to give their music away is cos no ****er will be buy it in the first place. don't fool yourself.
Is it really so long ago that we all forget how people like Henry, Guy, Lawrie, the Liberators and the rest of the Stay Up Forever lot jump started a scene based on a free party ethic and giving a big **** you to the music industry establishment?

[MorePunkThanFunk]

I'm 100% behind this. Music is music, it won't die because people can't afford a living from it. Some people always will be able to, some won't. There's plenty of a music scene where people do stuff for free round where I live. Gigs put of for free, bands play for free, etc etc. It's fun. OK they don't get to fly around playing uber big gigs.

At the end of the day: I make music 'cos it's fun. Maybe it's good enough for release, maybe not. At the moment I don't have the time or energy or start-up costs to try and get it on vinyl. And I'm not bothered.

But if I want to give it to someone who might enjoy it no other ****er has the right to tell me not to. Like I said, that's like if Bill Gates tried to stop linux, or Steinberg refused to let people make VSTs for free, or superclubs say we are not allowed to have free parties. (OK that last one kinda happens, and we don't give them any respect...)

If someone who's a name artist is getting scared by bedroom producers giving stuff for free then why is that? Maybe we do all need to look at the value of this commodity, if it can be given away maybe it isn't worth as much as we'd like to think.

But on the flip side, techno (for me at least) was always a little (dare I use the word) underground, subversive, etc etc, and going against big corporate industry models is a part of that.

When people start saying that we have to lose the free diy ethic that was always a part for many people, **** it, I'm going back to punk!


I don't think anyone is getting scared by bedroom producers. I just think that it is a worrying trend that music is given away for free.

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

[rhythmtech]

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

totally. but thats down to the consumer. the onus isnt on the artist to charge, especially if they have no means of doing so. maybe people should start offering donations for free downloads (direct from the artist)... doubt it though :hmmm:

[Aratron]

Is it really so long ago that we all forget how people like Henry, Guy, Lawrie, the Liberators and the rest of the Stay Up Forever lot jump started a scene based on a free party ethic and giving a big **** you to the music industry establishment?

and made some amazing music. with fantastic artwork and sleeve designs. wasn' that chaotic. And i figure nearly all of those guys is doing relatively well for themselves.
I remember about 7 years ago, Chris Lib getting married and going to Hawaii for 3 weeks. whilst my friend Techno Phil would tell everybody he lived with his mum in a council flat in Hackney (sure). Bizarre Counter-Transference.

[acidsaturation]

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

But what if the creator wants to do it for free. That's his/her choice.

Should I say to the guy who does brilliant graffiti all round Leeds he shouldn't do it, cos it devalues people who make a living from fine art.

I notice not one person has answered my question about should this apply to making and giving away software for free. Or is that different 'cos it's someone else's industry. Surely it's the same?

I feel greatly that music has a value, but I personally feel that if you can afford to give something for free you should be allowed to without others saying it's stepping on their toes.

[acidsaturation]

Is it really so long ago that we all forget how people like Henry, Guy, Lawrie, the Liberators and the rest of the Stay Up Forever lot jump started a scene based on a free party ethic and giving a big **** you to the music industry establishment?

This is what has saddened me slightly about this thread too!

[acidsaturation]

I don't think anyone is getting scared by bedroom producers. I just think that it is a worrying trend that music is given away for free.

i just strongly feel that music & art has a value and if you like it you should support the creator and help him/her create more of that product.

As an aside... will you put someones music out, whether it fits your label or not, is saleable or not, in preference to them giving it away?

You say that you don't manage to pay the artists often, that's fine. I don't wanna charge, I will give it to you, and you can charge what you like. BUT if I'm not allowed to give it away, you MUST put out what I give you, 'cos then that makes sure someone who might like it has the chance to hear it, which is the main reason I make tunes.

[RDR]

ya know, it wasnt until the recording revolution that music was a 'product'

I know what you are trying to say, but sorry chief, the publishing industry was around a lot longer than that.

Funnily enough i heard a piece about a man who played violin and went around the appalacians (SP?) recording and documenting country voilin players.

One of the biggest had recently died, but had created recordings. He left specific instructions to his sons that they were not to let anyone take the recordings, only that people could come along, listen to them and take the time to learn them. He knew, even in 1940 that his music was worth something, this backwoods man and his sons jealously guarded it.

This is a really great thread and has got me thinking loads, I agree it is the artists choice to give their music away for free... but it is also NOT the artists choice to have their music ripped and pirated, so whats the difference.

Of course the difference is the money and the method, despite the hope and the fine thoughts in the matter. I think the public wants to buy music, but then the public gets what the public wants, and the public wants what the public gets, so is it a matter of education or promotion?

Like i said before, the word FREE has great resonance here. FREE gives something no value unless the item has percieved value in the first place. Something which becomes FREE has greater nvalue than something that was FREE in the first place no? There are different levels of free, and really as consumers we are tricked into believing through previous encounters with thgins that were free and utter crap (free things in crackers or free stuff with fuel etc etc) that FREE=BAD, I reckon this is indicative of consumer manipulation.

Also FREE is something that advertising agencies increasingly have a hand in, they provide money which goes into the media industries which gives opporunities to artists to earn, and the product is FREE for the consumer to consume. IMO i'd rather not have the adverts... and so damn LOUD as well.

/Rant

[RDR]

As an aside... will you put someones music out, whether it fits your label or not, is saleable or not, in preference to them giving it away?

You say that you don't manage to pay the artists often, that's fine. I don't wanna charge, I will give it to you, and you can charge what you like. BUT if I'm not allowed to give it away, you MUST put out what I give you, 'cos then that makes sure someone who might like it has the chance to hear it, which is the main reason I make tunes.

I wouldnt put something out i didnt think someone would enjoy. Saleale only becomes apparent when you make a sale and without prior knowledge of everyone who looks at/listens to the music it s dark place to be.

[acidsaturation]

Was gonna get back to you soon re R3tox, like you said a while ago, as I kind have some things ready...

Shouldn't have ranted so much about free music lol

[tocsin]

But on the flip side, techno (for me at least) was always a little (dare I use the word) underground, subversive, etc etc, and going against big corporate industry models is a part of that.

When people start saying that we have to lose the free diy ethic that was always a part for many people, **** it, I'm going back to punk!

Fact is, entities or people interested in money have never really given a **** about us except when we proved to be a test market that was open to exploitation. I don't particularly give a **** about any "scene." Scenes are made to die. But, I've been part of a culture, where techno was a big form of expression, that won't die because of sales, simply because it was never about that. I'm not about to let any bitter geezers say why I need to stop expressing myself the way I always have because it's cutting into their income. **** that and **** them. For anyone that has used a "free party" ethic as a means of generating a buzz about themself, it makes me wonder if that was always the ****ing point simply because this argument about musicians giving away music for free is completely irrational.

Anyways, since some of you are so hung up on the concept of art having a monetary value, or are inclined to think that something given away for "free" is considered crap by the market which hurts others' abilities to charge, the fact is, my art is NOT free! I pay for it. I spend the time to make it. I rent the web servers where it's hosted. I put a lot of my own income to it becuase I value it. I also share those resources for others to be able to do the same. The people who enjoy what I do also pay for an internet connection and the tech to be able to listen to it. It's my labor of love and you can seriously just **** off if you have a problem with it. I'm not going to change, particularly for people who never gave a **** about me or others like me anyways. :P After all, I'm not the one feeling my place and activity in all of this is threatened by what others are doing.

[acidsaturation]

But, I've been part of a culture, where techno was a big form of expression, that won't die because of sales, simply because it was never about that. I'm not about to let any bitter geezers say why I need to stop expressing myself the way I always have because it's cutting into their income. **** that and **** them.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

+1000000000000

[Smear]

Yes music should be free, and yes musicians should charge money.

That's about as clear cut and definitive an opinion as you're gonna get on a topic like this i'm afraid.

[DannyBlack]

"Should music be given away free?"

5 pages of bitching later....

[tocsin]

"Should music be given away free?"

5 pages of bitching later....

It's not like you're going to get a be all end all answer to what is a subjective question. For myself, I give my creations to others when I feel like it without charging a fee. Then, sometimes I sign a contract here and there which allows another to charge money for it of which I see a piece. Since it's my creation, it should be whatever I want it to be. And it is.

[DannyBlack]

Since it's my creation, it should be whatever I want it to be. And it is.

I absolutely agree.

There is a simple answer to the question: If you want to give it away free, then do. If you want to charge for it, then do. I think in the electronic music world it is more so controlled by the artist than some big multi billion dollar record company, so you can kinda do as you please me thinks.

[acidsaturation]

"Should music be given away free?"

5 pages of bitching later....

Actually I think this has been fairly bitch free!

[DannyBlack]

Actually I think this has been fairly bitch free!

UNTIL YOU ARRIVED!!!!!!


:lol: only kiddin mate.

[Jay Pace]

I notice not one person has answered my question about should this apply to making and giving away software for free. Or is that different 'cos it's someone else's industry. Surely it's the same?

I was thinking this.

Do open source projects devalue paid for programs? Yup. Why pay when some nice chaps make it for free for the love of it?

Does that mean all programs should be free? Nope, can't rely on altruism to cater for all your needs, and altruism should be a choice of the creators, not an requirement of the consumers.

Do the two models cause problems sitting side by side? Undoubtedly.
But, its just a reality you have to face I suppose.

[RDR]

Was gonna get back to you soon re R3tox, like you said a while ago, as I kind have some things ready...

Shouldn't have ranted so much about free music lol

:lol:

Petard, own, hoisted, your, on.

No worries, just email me please.

chris (aaaatttttt) r3tox(dot)co(dot)uk

cheers!

[TechMouse]

I was thinking this.

Do open source projects devalue paid for programs? Yup. Why pay when some nice chaps make it for free for the love of it?
Not sure it's that cut and dry.

The really good open source software caters to the Tech community and provides stuff like development tools and APIs. Generally the kind of stuff that most people wouldn't know where to begin with.

There are some products which challenge commercial end-user applications, but their market share is usually less than impressive.

Why? Because commercial software comes with something that the open source community struggles to reliably provide: support.

If you are reasonably technically minded then there are a wealth of websites, forums, wikis and other documentation that you can use to guide you on your way. But I for one wouldn't forgive many people for giving up and going home.

Sometimes, having someone on the end of the phone who can help with your problem makes all the difference.

There are a few open source firms (Canonical and Red Hat being examples) who have built a business model out of offering support for their free products, and it remains to be seen how that pans out over time.

If open source software really devalued commercial software, then there is no way that Microsoft would still hold a 90% share on the desktop market. Linux is a better, safer product. But the reality is that people need a safety net, and familiarity is as good as any.


Does that mean all programs should be free? Nope, can't rely on altruism to cater for all your needs, and altruism should be a choice of the creators, not an requirement of the consumers.
Agree completely.


Do the two models cause problems sitting side by side? Undoubtedly.
Well, again - that's a complex question.

It totally depends on the open source licence in question. Not sure how much you know about this, but every bit of software in the world (even the free stuff) comes with a licence. There are multiple open source licences (GPL, Sun, Mozilla, Apache, BSD, multiple variations of each) and the difference usually comes down to how you have to repackage the software.

At the more stringent / idealistic end (GPL) the licence says that you can redistribute the code so long as any derivative work comes under the same licence. So this basically means you can't use a GPL product in a commercial product.

At the other end you have the likes of BSD which basically says "you can do whatever the hell you want", and there are many shades of grey in between.

We do a lot of work with stuff licensed under Apache because we think it strikes the right balance.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

I'm not about to let any bitter geezers say why I need to stop expressing myself the way I always have because it's cutting into their income. **** that and **** them. For anyone that has used a "free party" ethic as a means of generating a buzz about themself, it makes me wonder if that was always the ****ing point simply because this argument about musicians giving away music for free is completely irrational.

Anyways, since some of you are so hung up on the concept of art having a monetary value, or are inclined to think that something given away for "free" is considered crap by the market which hurts others' abilities to charge, the fact is, my art is NOT free! I pay for it. I spend the time to make it. I rent the web servers where it's hosted. I put a lot of my own income to it becuase I value it. I also share those resources for others to be able to do the same. The people who enjoy what I do also pay for an internet connection and the tech to be able to listen to it. It's my labor of love and you can seriously just **** off if you have a problem with it. I'm not going to change, particularly for people who never gave a **** about me or others like me anyways. :P After all, I'm not the one feeling my place and activity in all of this is threatened by what others are doing.

Just to clarify, at no point did i say music shouldnt be free, i whole heartedly agree that giving away free music is important. My own personal opinion is that it is a worrying trend at the AMOUNT of free music available. If people want to give it away free then that is fine that's entirely up to them. my whole idea behind this thread was to try and make people think that you don't have to give your music away free you can get paid for doing something you love. Maybe not make a living but at least cover your expenses and give you something on top.

I never have and never will be into techno for the money, after running the label for nearly 4 years i've made what a couple of hundred... compared to the amount of hours i've put it it adds up to nothing. i do it because i love it and i like putting peoples music out there that i think needs to get out.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

As an aside... will you put someones music out, whether it fits your label or not, is saleable or not, in preference to them giving it away?

You say that you don't manage to pay the artists often, that's fine. I don't wanna charge, I will give it to you, and you can charge what you like. BUT if I'm not allowed to give it away, you MUST put out what I give you, 'cos then that makes sure someone who might like it has the chance to hear it, which is the main reason I make tunes.

Of course not, i only put out what i personally think is quality music that i like and will sell.

I'l reiterate what i wrote in my last post. If you want to put out music free thats fine i'm personally not bothered its your creation you can do what you want.

I just think it's better if artists get paid for there work, makes life easier.

[acidsaturation]

I think to some extent the problem is self perpetuating, and hence maybe something that instead of worrying about as a problem, we should try and embrace to our advantage. I can totally see where you are coming from, and in an ideal world, yeh people should get something in return for what they give out, but also people should maybe get away from having to put a value on everything.

Though you said yourself that the business model you are forced to adopt doesn't really result in the artist getting paid - so it does seem to go back to people paying for the music?

I think there's 2 sides - in some ways the ease of making ones music available for free has been great for some people to get heard - whether that's as a promotional act in order to get somewhere else, or just to get their art heard by others.

But it does also mean that there is far less quality control. I totally agree.

If it is the case that you really believe that all music that is good enough will get signed/released, then the question is whether the people who will download anything 'cos it's free whether it's good or not would buy records if free music wasn't available. I'm in two minds as to whether they would suddenly start to the extent Henry suggested earlier.

I think at the end of the day though the bigger problem is with people sharing things they should have paid for, rather than people getting stuff that is always free.

I think I would always give stuff away, even if I was selling stuff too. Maybe different styles, experiments and so on.

But I would genuinely like some of the business to be removed from music. Not that that's gonna happen I guess, but it's like the comment about folk music earlier - music is something to be shared in my mind.

[MARK ANXIOUS]

i'm gonna say my thoughts on this without reading anybody else's post cause sometimes what other people say can influence you may/may have not said.

should music be given away free? imho NO, NO and NO again.

and the main reason why i say this is primarily because of the artists. i have seen SOOOOOO many talented older people who are just artists (not dj's) leave this game recently because of the fact that they finally come to realise that you do, actually need money to have a decent standard of living. perhaps they have a kid, or get married or whatever. and whether young people like it or not, when you get older, you tend to need more security, and you are forced to become a part of the machine that is human nature - those carefree days of living in squats/student accomadation smoking weed really do become a thing of the past.

the problem has been with techno or electronic music, as opposed to other forms of classic music that came many years ago, is you could actually become involved with it, without the need to perform. until now, you could spend ten/fifteen years or so in a studio without the need to perform and at least make a living when you had to. right now, these guys are having to either perform, or leave the music. this is such a travesty for the music and it will mean that all that knowledge, talent, years of manual reading, purely dedicated studio expertese will be lost forever. it means the main ideas and thoughts going into this music we call techno are now from passionate ppl between the ages of 16-25, or older producers who go out on the road 3 days a week and only have 4 days to work on music.

this deeply saddens me and worries me at the same time. the longest lasting music genres are those that appeal to and are made by all ages, all types of people/colour/creed/culture. techno has been one of those genre's for a long, long time (20 years now). this change is not a good thing imho.

anyway, that's my main reason.

the other reason is that i've come to realise i actually don't like this throw away culture that's evolved out of the internet. i really do love having a product to hold that i paid for, i feel like i've contributed to the guy/gal who made it. that is a very great feeling, knowing that you've contributed or will contribute indirectly to that artist's advancement. bah call me old fashion but this 'fresh air' music is ok to an extent but it's not interactive. if someone was playing an instrument in front of you, you could give them a round of applause. seems like the internet has made a load of unappreciative, sellfish people who only care about who they can block or accept on msn, or what music they can download for free..

jesus i sound like an old man now :lol:

here we go, generation change. i think that's what this is all down to but there's some deep concerns here, that everyone needs to consider. underground music will become a niche market for much younger people than it used to be. and seeing as though i'm getting on a bit these days (hehe), that really isnt a good thing for me. and i thiink if you guy really think about it, it isnt for the music either.

ok rant over, i'm off to make some moooooooooosic!!! (and i thank god that my dj enables me to do this!)

[tocsin]

Ok, Mark. Fair enough. Though, I will respond with your words in mind so you can get a better idea from where I come from.

For one, I never EVER expected to have a release. The only releases I have on a known label is purely accidental. I did not send them a demo. Rather, a CD I had done was passed on to the label by a friend and they got in contact with me. Before that, and largely after, every label I've ever had something come out on were completely DIY with no hope of ever turning a profit. So, I got paid with merchandise. It was a lot of fun, but not something that I ever really cared about. And for where I did care, I had a number of people come in to **** me over in so many ways that just never happened when I just did this for fun without money involved. I'm not talking about the labels either. In my opinion, every label that I've had something come out on has more than honestly lived up to their end of the bargain. However, I am more at home in cyberspace.

I can say that because I do not view computer culture as throw away. Yes, there are a lot of aspects of the modern internet that are entirely throw away. But, there's no shortage of us who were using the internet, both legally and illegally, before the world wide web existed, that didn't have the same corporate outlook that viewed the internet as simply a new marketplace for disposable crap. For us, it was an open library stock full of information that also opened up communication channels for free without risk that we never had before.

I got into this as a direct result of the hacker scene. I ran a relatively well known dial up BBS in the 908 area code that was open to all, with the sole purpose of spreading white, gray, and black information for people to use to benefit society. It was all accessable for free given the amount of time every user had in a day. Myself and my cosysops, and the sysops of the BBSs I was networked with, made no apologies for the information we made available and were willing to fight for it all the way up to the highest courts.

I absolutely HATED techno at this time, based on what I thought it was. My understanding of it was that it was all crap like 2Unlimited. However, based on a number of users on my system who wrote music with computers who wanted a place to distribute it, I created a file section for MOD files. This was, as I would later find out when I was dragged to my first rave by a friend, techno music. However, I just thought it was computer music. It was very much a product of the hacker culture we were all part of. The tools to make it were coded by hackers and distributed for free. The music was distributed for free. It contained messages and concepts that very much demonstrated how technology open up possibilities for people to make change or express themselves, with or without any recognition coming back to people, without any economic or hard learning curves that would prevent people from expressing themselves.

That ethic carried over into my production. Before I started using machines to make music, I played with bands that were all concerned about the money, playing the ass kissing game with labels and agents for exposure, etc. In addition, I dealt with no shortage of rock star egos that drove me up a ****ing wall in all but one band that I played with. At one point, I was playing bass, and sometimes programming beats on a drum machine, for 5 different bands, the majority of which were composed of obnoxious self-interested cunts. Once I started using the tools on a computer that were available to me to do music by myself on one machine, I pretty much stopped playing with bands entirely, and started working on music that was reflective of the culture that I was a part of. Very much around that time, I discovered "raves" and the culture with it, of which many of the people involved who I met in person were old hackers that I knew from the late 80's and early 90s. It all fit and, if the tracks weren't signed, they were available for free somewhere.

The expression of something bigger than yourself that can make you move, feel, and think was the most important part of it for me. Getting it signed never mattered. No artists that I knew, signed or unsigned, would ever think of blaming other artists who gave their music away for free as cutting into their livelihood. DJs who were connected tot he hacker culture never blamed DJs who were willing to spin for less as cutting into our bookings. That was largely because we were confident that, regardless of mass opinion, we all contributed something that was unique and fun and, even if cryptically, educational about a way of life that was out there.

That's my home. If anything, given how secretive my government has become, all while wantonly breaking the law, and how infiltrated the free expression culture has become by corporate or profit-based interests, that I think this shit is more important now than ever before. It's why I am honestly happy to see so many people putting their heart into what they do and distributing it for free. I've honestly found it more stressful for myself when money gets involved for reasons I laid out in earlier posts. Anyone who is smart enough to make music with computers is able to get a job that will pay their expenses while still allowing them to create and tour if they want to. It's why I will not hesitate to tell anyone to **** off if they say to me, with a straight face, that what I do is desttoying what they are doing. If that's actually the case, I say good. I can say that without much care for how one will feel as a result because I already know that I'm not a threat, largely because I never truly have been a part of the same industry they are, and never will be. And somehow, after going though lawschool and working every free day hour I had in the process, to then going to a full time job, it's never prevented me from making art, or having some music released. People like myself are not the enemy since we never gave a **** about the people making music for a living. We weren't trying to destroy it because we just didn't care about it, and the same is true now. Anyone who says otherwise is merely looking for a convenient scapegoat. I'm not about to sit back quietly and let others piss on what I do, and what I care about, just because they need something to blame for not being as popular as they once were. We weren't part of that equation then, and we aren't now. Abd, like it or not, we're not going anywhere. We're only going to get bigger, as has been demonstrated since this culture came to be decades ago and has grown more and more since. We're not the enemy unless you make us one. I am part of the computer underground culture. The internet, with the software running this board tha t transformed a one-way communication protocol into a two way one, is a direct byproduct of that. We are not disposable.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the fact that some people managed to take it to a level that was distributed outside of the hacker or computer culture and make a living off of it. But, don't spit on the rest of us who have been there forever who just never cared to do the same. And that's a general comment, not one directed at you, Mark, as I happen to greatly respect what you and so many other UK and other European techno crews and labels have done.

[tocsin]

Additionally, since I missed my edit time, I don't view the free culture as something that hasn't been paid for. When I got into it, I paid for my contributions because I believed in it, and believed it would continue to grow. It wasn't free. It was, and still is, a gift from all of us which we don't even expect a "thank you" for. That's not the point. It's about enabling and empowering people.

Additionally, nobody has any excuse to let knowledge slip away just because they can't personally use it anymore. This forum is a great example of it. We have a tech forum here where everyone can share their knowledge. I'm notgoing to pretend I write as much music as I sued to, but that's a result of choice since I have more fun VJing now than anything else. On forums, if I happen to read a question from someone where I have personal know how, I provide an answer. The new blood will take it further. That is all that matters. My place in it is as relevant as that, as is all of our's, which is a good thing. Is it about us personally, or is it about something bigger than the self?

[RDR]

perhaps they have a kid, or get married or whatever. and whether young people like it or not, when you get older, you tend to need more security, and you are forced to become a part of the machine that is human nature - those carefree days of living in squats/student accomadation smoking weed really do become a thing of the past.

I understand that, but i dont happen to agree, I got married and had kids and that is what gave the stability to crack on with my music. Sure relationships are difficult and kids take up your time, but it can work.


right now, these guys are having to either perform, or leave the music. this is such a travesty for the music and it will mean that all that knowledge, talent, years of manual reading, purely dedicated studio expertese will be lost forever.

+1, but then thats music isnt it? Change or die?





the other reason is that i've come to realise i actually don't like this throw away culture that's evolved out of the internet

+1 on that, see: my comment on FREE and its meaning.




jesus i sound like an old man now :lol:

Yes, yes you do... welcome to my world :lol:

[acidsaturation]

+ lots @ tocsin again.

I think a couple of issues here are that for some "Free" is not throwaway. The problem however is that many younger people do equate free with throwaway, and don't see the value in things that go outside a monetary system. Does that mean that those who'd like to work with that shouldn't? I think no, shame as it is that it gets abused.

The other thing is that there is a fair polarisation between those whose "job" is music and those for whom it isn't. Which is understandable. But as I said before I think there are worse culprits than people who give their own tunes away. And it seems to be a little bit of an "appeal to the goodhearted" - in the sense that the people sharing files they shouldn't aren't gonna listen, so lets see if the people who are giving legit stuff for free will....

Yeh, you need to make a living, but things do change. Also as tocsin said, there is NO reason for the experience to fade.

As I've said, I'd love it if I can make a few bob against the huge amount of kit I've paid for, but it won't stop me if I don't, and won't stop me giving stuff away. Maybe one day I'll have the time/inclination to promote myself more. But while I'm mainly doing stuff for fun, I don't want it stagnating on a hard drive.

I'm repeating myself here, I know.

But I really can't see how it's such a moral issue. I sympathise if people do think it might be costing them money. But I don't think we know for sure that it's the actual cause.

[Si the Sigh]

Firstly, I buy vinyl, supporting labels and artists.

I also download LOADS of free tracks from various netlabels, always looking to discover something new and fresh, and discover new artists. Isn't that what techno is all about?

Producers / DJ's moaning about losing money, etc. GET A JOB.

I know plenty of people who make quality music, run labels, hold down a 9 to 5 job, DJ and promote events. They have no problem with free tracks / netlabels, etc.

I think the next time I play out I'm going to craft a set from 100% free music I've discovered online...

[Aratron]

Producers / DJ's moaning about losing money, etc. GET A JOB.



i'm not sure i agree with that sentiment.
some people may have one occupation and produce music as a hobby/past-time, extra cash they may or may not need.
some people are born to be artists.
It's well known that most artists throughout history have always had to struggle or be dependent on wealthy patrons to be make a living.

[Si the Sigh]

If thats the case, quit moaning, move with the times and accept that this is the way things are going innit?

Otherwise, realise things are different and adapt to survive. It's not difficult.

I think it's great that new artists who don't want to risk pressing up records, or even selling MP3's through download stores, have decided to give their stuff away so the world can hear it. If it helps that person get a break in life, a record release, remixing dutys or DJ / live sets that make them some money then it's all good.

Seems the only people who have problem with people giving tracks away (bar a few, ie; Inigo Kennedy et al) are the established old skool producers.

[Si the Sigh]

And if these said producers are DJ'ing, or playing out at events, doing gigs and making good money doing so, their moaning hacks me off even more. It's possible for producers who play out to earn in a weekened what I earn in a month at work, yet still they moan. But thats another thread hey...

[koma]

and another thing: many producers are using cracked software and VSTs, riping other people music, using loops from sample cds etc .. to be honest, I dont think they deserve to make a living with that kind of "work"

not all music is art anyway...

[JamieBall]

I don't have a problem giving tracks away, it's fine up to a point as long as the individual understands that's just what they're doing.

The main thing I have a problem with this free 'scene' is the sheer amount of SHITE coming out.

People say net labels are great for people not wanting to risk losing money etc on pressings, well - PRESS SOMETHING THAT SELLS. It don't have to be techno, ya know ?

What pisses me off is that there's some frankly amazing music out there for free (for example inigos' stuff) which is HEAVILY diluted by a veritable ocean of low/no quality dross. I just can't be arsed picking through a lot of this and tend to "stick to what I know" which is a terrible thing to say but at the end of the day, I feel, true. How can we expect new fans to come to the scene when it's just the same old shite as years back only worse ? If I hear one more "TODAY, MATTHEW, I'M GOING TO BE GLENN WILSON" style track....

Fair enough people having it as a hobby or whatever, but keep it as that. You don't see Nadal vs some rubbish kid from a junior tennis club at wimbledon now do ya ? The thing I see as the problem is that, as I've said so many times before, LOADS of people making techno/dance music are NOT MUSICIANS yet they're quite happy to pollute the scene with non-music and derivative crap.

It was the same when lots of people jumped on the 'techno' bandwagon a few years back.... Can't get a label to release your music ? Every door slamming in your face ? Why not release it YOURSELF ! The main reason there's so many techno labels over the years is not cause it's popular, it's cause they're labels mostly full of tracks that have been KB'd from elsewhere.

Now that there's no actual expense in the equation it just opens the floodgates even more imo. I'd be totally happy if everyone released their music for free

A) if they were happy to do so

and (more importantly)

B) If it was REALLY ****ING GOOD

then we could all just move on.

I do think certain people on here are being particularly ignorant with regards to this debate, though. Some people CANNOT do a 9 to 5 and have the headspace for music, if you can more props to ya but don't presume everyone is in the same boat. Surely we're all intelligent enough to realise that broad generalisations don't really 'cut it' on an individual level, no ? I guess it might work if you're coming home from work and painting by numbers, aye, but I do feel there's a certain headspace required for the truly artistic aspect of the brain to function.

Some people CAN work and make tunes, others have to devote all their time to it. Everyone's different, ya know ? (unless you're making techno nowadays, eh ?)

I'll get my coat.

Again.

[Si the Sigh]

and another thing: many producers are using cracked software and VSTs, riping other people music, using loops from sample cds etc .. to be honest, I dont think they deserve to make a living with that kind of "work"

not all music is art anyway...

Ah man, don't even get me started on that shit.

People moaning about people uploading their tracks to Soulseek, etc, filesharing, causing them to lose money, when they are using cracked copies of programs and VST's to produce and quite happily downloading pirate copies of films, etc.

But hey, thats ok they say, those movie guys make millions...blaa blaa.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT.

Anyway, gone a bit off topic here...

[JamieBall]

and another thing: many producers are using cracked software and VSTs, riping other people music, using loops from sample cds etc .. to be honest, I dont think they deserve to make a living with that kind of "work"

not all music is art anyway...

LOL - so, musicians are meant to use the money (which they don't make) from releases (which they can't sell) to buy plugins ?

Oh, the amount of times I've put a 12" back on the shelf knowing that it's been made on cracked software. I tell ya, if I had a fiver for each time that'd happened (I'd have **** all.....)

If you actually open the default MS Windows sounds with a text editor you can scroll around and eventually find an embedded watermark that shows they've been created using a cracked copy of soundforge.

One wonders who actually DOES pay for such programs ?

Also, not that I 'rip off' anyone but to pose a favourite question of mine on this topic - "would you not consider collage a valid form of art?"

[JamieBall]

But hey, thats ok they say, those movie guys make millions...blaa blaa.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT.


Indeed, but they do make exponentially more than say, your average bread-line techno producer ;-)

You don't hear eminem moaning much about illegal downloads. Or maybe you would, but the walls of his 17 castles are too thick I guess.

The MAIN ISSUE here is techno is VERY underground music, so to lose a few sales can kill a label or artist (not literally, of course) as opposed to being on Warner brothers and only selling 250,000 compared to 500,000.

It'd still be viewed as a failure, it's just it wouldn't be the end of the world (or the end of food for the artist)

[Si the Sigh]

@ JamieBall

About picking through shit free tracks / netlabels, what's so different about picking through the shit that HAS been pressed up? Surely there's no difference?

And whats shit to you is gold to others. Different people different tastes. There's been some netlabel releases that I've downloaded that have been so good I would have paid for them if they were on release via legal, paid for download or on plastic.

[JamieBall]

@ JamieBall

About picking through shit free tracks / netlabels, what's so different about picking through the shit that HAS been pressed up? Surely there's no difference?

And whats shit to you is gold to others. Different people different tastes. There's been some netlabel releases that I've downloaded that have been so good I would have paid for them if they were on release via legal, paid for download or on plastic.

There is no difference really, I grew very disheartened with that a few years back too ;-) Well, the main difference I guess is that now there's MORE OF IT...

And I'd argue the shit/gold thing (to an extent). Basically there's good music and bad music, imo. Unless people are willfully into esoteric music to be different or whatever, most people can appreciate what is good and bad. Even if I don't like something that people think is good, if it IS good I can appreciate why people like it - even tho it's not my particular cuppa.

And, as I've said, I also have heard some amazing net label stuff which I would have paid for - sure. However, I've also heard stuff that I'm pretty sure I'd have paid NOT to hear LOL

Dunno, bit of a circular argument/discussion this one (like most of the discussions on here or forums in general, do we actually WANT a resolution?)

[koma]

bottom line is, if you choose to do underground music, dont moan later how theres no money in it. underground is and always will be smaller market, smaller amount of people attending events. lot of artists want to remain faceless and not expose themselves much... which is fine. just dont moan about the money.

[clubsynthetic]

Should music be given away free?

What's your thoughts on this?

More and more labels seem to be giving away free tracks, or just going completely free.

I'm all in favour of promotion which can involve free things or giveaways but there is a limit on this.

Just want to see what the general feeling is on here.

In this day and age people do have the right to ask for pay for there music, but, shouldn't - for there best interests.. (not busting a blood vessle)

One's music will ALWAYS be able to be pirated so thats a lost battle. I think that an artists money is the perfomance they can give on the day (either live or DJing). If there music is good, it speaks for itself, thats the way techno works anyway doesn't it? Its harder to copy someone when they have thier live set or almighty skills on whatever so my conclusion is..

..the money's in the performance. The music is the advertisment (and it is also the music)

[Si the Sigh]

bottom line is, if you choose to do underground music, dont moan later how theres no money in it.

Thats the bottom line IMO.

Anyway, like Jamie said, this is just going to go round and round in circles as everyone has their opinions on it, so this is the last I'm saying on this.

[davethedrummer]

me too
i've had enough of this conversation it'll go on for ever
i have my opinion and i'm sticking to it
i enjoy what i do and thats that , i make music, it's my job and i consider myself lucky to do a job that i get so much enjoyment from
it does get me down sometimes and when things get cancelled or i get ripped off or whatever.
and i can get pretty cynical about the money in times like that because i work hard at what i do.

but at the end of the day i love it , the music that is
i could do without the late nights the long drives and all that stuff
but i do get to sit in the studio and write music as a result so it's all good really

[RDR]

this has some resonance here.

From Digital Music News



Resnikoff's Parting Shot: Where's My Long Tail Playbook?

Amidst the dizzying chaos that is the music industry today, a fairytale exists. Somewhere, over the rainbow, a place exists for Long Tail artists everywhere to thrive financially, creatively, and with total independence.

But the success ratios for developing artists will continue to remain slim, at least over the short- and mid-term horizons. And breakout successes, however rare, will be difficult to capture and duplicate. In short, there is no Long Tail playbook for success, and there may never be one.

Sure, independent and unsigned artists now have unprecedented mechanisms for connecting and cultivating niche audiences. And loyal fans are a powerful bunch, especially when they start opening their wallets, attending shows, and spreading the word.

And, a constellation of easy-to-use, inexpensive services now exist. TuneCore can put your song onto iTunes overnight. And iLike can spread your profile across multiple networks just as quickly. CD Baby can sell your CD, and Zazzle can help you merchandise. Step the game up a little, and effective list management and smart targeting come into play. And P2P applications can quickly lubricate the word-of-mouth process.

But those steps set the stage for a possible breakout, they don't create one. And even if a band starts resonating with a targeted audience, cultivating a loyal following takes repetition, continued word-of-mouth, and lots of time. Just like before.

And, let's face it, most lack the creative capital to truly rally a meaningful following. Of course, every artist makes the best music in the world, just like every entrepreneur has the most revolutionary business model imaginable. And, totally unrealistic self-assessments are often required to overcome the endless naysaying that the world offers.

But in reality, very few have the winning musical charisma and creativity required to attract serious, devoted groups of fans. And, for that matter, most startups end up failing. Only a tiny sliver of new artists actually start a flame, and even fewer can keep it burning over time.

There are just too many bands, too many options for potential fans, and way too many distractions in the current, fragmented media landscape. And, a large percentage of new music is uninteresting, unoriginal, or uninspiring.

Then again, everyone has a different definition of success. And some artists are happy to be scraping by. Selling a few iTunes downloads here, the odd CD Baby disc there, a t-shirt every Thursday, a marginally-lucrative gig on Friday. And why not? Suddenly, this existence is possible.

But what about a higher level of musical existence? Truly breaking out, and enjoying both financial and critical success? Actually, breakouts are happening, but the path towards success for Long Tail artists remains chaotic, and mostly hit-or-miss. And that means that artists must remain scrappy, unbreakable, and committed to scoring the elusive big break - just like before.

Take the case study of Saul Williams. The hard-to-classify urban poet actually scored a nice purse on his recent album, but few saw it coming. And the story was so complicated and unpredictable that it remains almost impossible to duplicate.

Williams, with the assistance of Trent Reznor, started offering his album using the emerging name-your-price sales model. And after a few months, the results were mildly successful. Williams already had some name recognition, and perhaps a niche audience, though most were paying nothing for the album. And probably moving on to something else after that.

Then, something funny happened. An older track, "List of Demands," was featured within an inspirational Nike advertisement. The online experiment quickly careened past revenues of $300,000, and Williams embarked on a string of sold-out club dates. In his words, the experiment had a "marvelous result," thanks to a mix of unexpected factors.

In some ways, a fairytale ending. But a formula? Do enough homework, and you can figure out how to create a name-your-price proposition online. But a Nike ad? Artists like Junkie XL have done it, and even Dockers dusted off the vinyl on Marlena Shaw's "California Soul," just one of several reuses.

But Williams had other advantages, including a leading role in the 1998 film, Slam, a major label stint, and several high-profile touring opportunities. Perhaps not the most widely-recognized of artists, but Williams is hardly struggling at the extremes of the tail.

And those that are face a vexing, unpredictable and improbable path towards success. In contrast, head-of-the-tail artists like Radiohead and Trent Reznor are figuring and defining best practices, and broadcasting the best ways to excite existing crowds and profit in the process.

But for those toiling in obscurity, a playbook remains illusory - and success a difficult and rare result. That said, few can argue against some key ingredients, including proper distribution and promotion, a dogged determination to succeed, and truly amazing content. Some things never change, and probably never will.

Paul Resnikoff, Publisher.

[MorePunkThanFunk]

i think this is an argument that is going to go round and round as everyone has such vastly different opinions on this. its good to get everyones opinion on this though, been interesting.

[Si the Sigh]

God bless and goodnight!

Quick pint anyone?

[tocsin]

I do think certain people on here are being particularly ignorant with regards to this debate, though. Some people CANNOT do a 9 to 5 and have the headspace for music, if you can more props to ya but don't presume everyone is in the same boat.


That's not my problem. The fact is, when I want to, I can and do. I drive 600 miles a week for work. I'm going to be out until at least 3am tonight doing a VJ set, and will be at work which is an hour drive from my place by 9am. When I'm inclined to write music in my spare time, I do. You don't don't hear me bitching about that, or blaming someone else for why I have a 9-5. I'm fine with what I do and know I can pull it off when I want to. Also, I don't care if people choose to do music or art as their fulltime job. I'm all in support of it. Just don't act like the fact that while I'm also doing art, but giving it away for free, is hurting you. It's bullshit and, even if true, I'm not about to care. Any respect from me is going to end the instant someone has the odacity to make me a scapegoat for what they perceive as their own failures. Fact is, I really am not part of any music industry. There's not a soul here running a label who can say I've sent them a demo. So, to somehow pretend it's people like myself that is cutting into their action is simply silly. We're on entirely different ships in the same ocean and I'm not fishing in it.

[detfella]

and another thing: many producers are using cracked software and VSTs, riping other people music, using loops from sample cds etc .. to be honest, I dont think they deserve to make a living with that kind of "work"


so true

[detfella]

should music be given away free? imho NO, NO and NO again.

and the main reason why i say this is primarily because of the artists. i have seen SOOOOOO many talented older people who are just artists (not dj's) leave this game recently because of the fact that they finally come to realise that you do, actually need money to have a decent standard of living.

so is it different for warez or ebooks? you asked for links to torrent sites to download books a couple of months back. or maybe those people don't need the money like musicians?

[detfella]

not what you said thats for sure ooooooooooooooooooook....

[JamieBall]

That's not my problem. The fact is, when I want to, I can and do. I drive 600 miles a week for work. I'm going to be out until at least 3am tonight doing a VJ set, and will be at work which is an hour drive from my place by 9am. When I'm inclined to write music in my spare time, I do. You don't don't hear me bitching about that, or blaming someone else for why I have a 9-5. I'm fine with what I do and know I can pull it off when I want to. Also, I don't care if people choose to do music or art as their fulltime job. I'm all in support of it. Just don't act like the fact that while I'm also doing art, but giving it away for free, is hurting you. It's bullshit and, even if true, I'm not about to care. Any respect from me is going to end the instant someone has the odacity to make me a scapegoat for what they perceive as their own failures. Fact is, I really am not part of any music industry. There's not a soul here running a label who can say I've sent them a demo. So, to somehow pretend it's people like myself that is cutting into their action is simply silly. We're on entirely different ships in the same ocean and I'm not fishing in it.

LOL - u misunderstand me I think, sir (as so many do...)

Wasn't making or trying to make you a 'scapegoat' - that would be >RETARDATION<

I appreciate fully that you can do what you do on your own time, I also wasn't making the example of full time musicians about myself - don't get me wrong. I just know a lot of people as mark has said earlier who have simply stopped producing now there's no income in it. Also some people can't 'work' and 'do music' it's as simple as that. Fact.

Fair play, maybe people shouldn't be looking to music for a 'living' in the first place but when you DO then subsequently go from making money (which is not my concern, rest assured) to not in the blink of an eye I can appreciate they may well find this annoying - surely you can see this too, no?

It's not anyone in particulars FAULT of course*, but you can't deny that the playing field has changed dramatically for music (esp underground stuff) in the last few years. I think it's a great thing in a lot of ways but some people don't, simple as that.

I like to try and see things from everyones point of view, ya know...

*actually it is the fault of AL GORE. He "invented" the internet, I believe

[tocsin]

LOL - u misunderstand me I think, sir (as so many do...)

Wasn't making or trying to make you a 'scapegoat' - that would be >RETARDATION<


I threw a couple general "you" instances in there. A poor writing habit of mine that comes out online every so often and causes confusion. I didn't think you were scapegoating me at all. I apologise for that.



Fair play, maybe people shouldn't be looking to music for a 'living' in the first place but when you DO then subsequently go from making money (which is not my concern, rest assured) to not in the blink of an eye I can appreciate they may well find this annoying - surely you can see this too, no?


No, I don't really see it when I become blamed for it. It's just a repeat trend. The first time I ever remember hearing it was probably around 1995 or 1996 where larger name DJs were whining about "new" DJs, or DJs who charged less or played for free, as cutting in on their bookings. It ignored the very real fact that none of these people playing for free or cheap were ever leaving their home cities at the time and were never considered for any of the slots that these guys were. But, they stopped getting bookings so, rather than admitting that maybe, in some cases, their fees were merely out of reach for the promoters, they instead blamed a bunch of unknown new kids playing for free or cheap in venues they'd never bother with. It's the same dumb argument were seeing made right here involving producers now. "Free" music can simply never compete, since it doesn't cost anything. If the producers who aren't seeing the same income anymore think they are losing sales because other artists write music on their own for free, they're just mistaken. Though, again, it's easier to blame someone else than to simply admit that one may not be creating something that is all that appealing anymore in the same way it was before. If it was still good, the fact that so much other stuff is out there for free would enable people to still buy the music from those who are currently insecure.



It's not anyone in particulars FAULT of course*, but you can't deny that the playing field has changed dramatically for music (esp underground stuff) in the last few years. I think it's a great thing in a lot of ways but some people don't, simple as that.

I like to try and see things from everyones point of view, ya know...


The field has changed, and it's all for the better, since more people are able to create and share. That's a beautiful thing. That's what technology is supposed to enable. I see the opposite view, see why it's essentially wrong, and don't care for it as it's passive aggressive nonsense. It's a "you damn kids" argument. ;)

[Smear]

Another question worth asking, i dunno if this happens at parties that are a lot bigger, but it obviously doesn't at smaller parties.....if you play a record in a club, should the DJ pay royalties to the artist, just like a band who does a cover would, or a pub with a jukebox?

[p_brane]

very interesting reading all the comments on this topic

IMO music is never free. It costs for software, hardware and it costs for the time put into it most of all.

however, i think cost free music at a consumer level can be a really good thing. There are a few labels out there putting great music out at no cost to the consumer and thats sweet, you will usually find that many artists on these labels are also signed to various other labels, be it digital or vinyl that charge.Personally i see it as a gift from the producers to the scene, because like i said it didnt cost nothing.

i can see where the full time producer/DJ's are coming from but in all honesty i dont get it.

the scene has changed a lot since i got into it. Its now more accessible than ever and surely thats a good thing, IMO this in part is due to the accessibility of forums like this that like minded people can get together and promote their 'sound' to the scene,if its free then count it as a gift, it aint gonna make people buy less records from the established artists. there is a progression in the air , you just got to embrace it, gone are the days of the super star DJ, the elite few who can afford equipment, software, studio costs. its as it should be; an open ended environment in which people of all financial situations can express themselves, and with a bit of hard work get good enough to one day make a bit of money from it, but the scene dont owe you a living, you have to earn that.

just my tuppence worth:)

[TechMouse]

Another question worth asking, i dunno if this happens at parties that are a lot bigger, but it obviously doesn't at smaller parties.....if you play a record in a club, should the DJ pay royalties to the artist, just like a band who does a cover would, or a pub with a jukebox?
Technically you should submit tracklists to the venue, who should then submit them to PRS. Any producers who are PRS registered will receive a percentage of the money in the PRS pot.

As it stands, the big name pop acts get the majority of the money because of radio plays and big club plays, but if all the little guys registered and submitted tracklists we'd claw some of it back.

It's especially worth it if you ever get stuff played on Radio (e.g. I had a track played on Annie Nightingale's show a couple of years back, and if I had been PRS registered it might have meant a little bit of cash - maybe enough for a pint or something).

[clubsynthetic]

I totally agree with the pirated software whilst making money on the music from it/them is wrong and cheeky.

As said before if its your choon do what you want with it.

We should try and ban MP3's and the internet.

[RDR]

Technically you should submit tracklists to the venue, who should then submit them to PRS. Any producers who are PRS registered will receive a percentage of the money in the PRS pot.

As it stands, the big name pop acts get the majority of the money because of radio plays and big club plays, but if all the little guys registered and submitted tracklists we'd claw some of it back.

It's especially worth it if you ever get stuff played on Radio (e.g. I had a track played on Annie Nightingale's show a couple of years back, and if I had been PRS registered it might have meant a little bit of cash - maybe enough for a pint or something).

the PRS doesnt require tracklists from clubs, it pointless, they just pay a blanket fee which they then apportion out on a average basis according to whatever formula they are currently using.

also did you have a track played on radio?

[Athar]

"Should music be given away free?"

Nowdays there is nothing givin for free on the western world,

Music its artist intellectual property,
its not just a food or blankets we sending and givin for free in the central africa
music should be protected and born some money for survive artists and scene
its logical in my opinion

[crime]

I spent up until a year ago, 5 years living totally from music ( with a few odd jobs on the side here and there), and in the last year I got to the point where I was really sick of the music side of my life becoming like a chore. The stress caused by the lack of money was totally killing my inspiration, and when I look back, some music I made, although still quite underground, was sometimes being directed by commercial pressures, something I'm not entirely comfortable with.

That last point in particular, I felt, was really not a good one, I came to the conclusion that life would be much more stress free if I actually started working full time, and my music would be purely written from the heart, when I wanted to do it and not because I was gonna earn 500 euro for doing a "banging" e.p. which I didn't really want to do, but had to because it was the only way to pay the rent..

Since working reguarly, I make a lot less music, but what I do make, I'm much more happy with, and it's written to please me, not some label owner...

Because of the pinch in vinyl sales, vinyl labels are much less open to taking music which doesn't fit in with any one sound or genre, and it's also very easy to get typecast in the techno scene, i.e. you make some hard techno records and everybody thinks that's all you make or are interested in.. so when you do try and do something different, the people who like the hard stuff hate it because it's not hard techno, and people who might like it ignore it because they think "oh, he just makes hard techno"...

If you're not relying on money from music you ultimately have much more freedom to do what you want to do, and you are in a much better headstate when it comes to playing gigs.. I re-evaluated everything, and came to the conclusion that I needed to get back into it for the original reason why I made electronic music i.e. because of love for the music..

it's a sad fact that the music market has become saturated, but if you're gonna blame people giving their stuff away for free, why not blame the countless amount of people out there, that used to be bedroom djs who have stopped buying records to instead concentrate on their own productions and live sets...

But blaming others solves nothing, the important thing I think is to remember why you got into this in the first place, to have a career in it, or for the love of music..

I know a fair few so-called "big names" who have their fingers in other pies, such as sound design, studio management, sound engineering, audio visual work etc, and others who are in a similar boat to me, driving vans, diggers, working in shops, warehouses, offices etc, the few I do know that are successfull purely from music are constantly finding new ways to make money from different angles in music, you're kidding yourself if you think seriously in this day and age that you can live just from writing a few techno tunes, and spinning tunes in a few clubs now and then... the only people doing this are the "scene leaders", who have been there since the rave scene, and I suspect that these people have their fingers in many pies...

so I think giving away music for free has become a neccesity for some who wish to do something different.. I gave my album away for free last year, after months of slogging around the labels trying to sell it.. given the good feedback I got after giving it away for free, I don't think it was a bad album at all, the problem I had was that it didn't fit in with anyone's label agenda, and given the commercial pressures these days, most labels want sure fire hits...

in the late nineties, we used to say "everyone wants to be a DJ", nowdays that has morphed into "everybody wants to be a Producer/Live act/net label owner", like it or hate it, you have to live with it, I'm quite glad myself that it made me re-evaluate everything, as I'm enjoying it all much more, ok, my output has slowed somewhat, but I hope that the rise in quality makes up for that..

With so much 2nd rate crap out there, it's important to push the boundaries, and only release music that is really saying something, a luxury that can only be afforded if you are sticking rich, don't mind being really poor or have a full time job...

[RDR]

Because of the pinch in vinyl sales, vinyl labels are much less open to taking music which doesn't fit in with any one sound or genre

Is that not more to do with the retaillers, and by association the labels?


why not blame the countless amount of people out there, that used to be bedroom djs who have stopped buying records to instead concentrate on their own productions and live sets...

I thought the same for a while now. Teaching DJ in college isnt what it was. Hardly ANY DJs coming through, although funnily e-muff the rock kids are MUCH more interested in it than they were as its more exotic.


you're kidding yourself if you think seriously in this day and age that you can live just from writing a few techno tunes, and spinning tunes in a few clubs now and then... the only people doing this are the "scene leaders", who have been there since the rave scene, and I suspect that these people have their fingers in many pies...

Look at the hardcore scene, those boys have been running stuff there for years and years.


given the commercial pressures these days, most labels want sure fire hits...

Surely most COMMERCIAL labels? I can believe there are not people who dont want to put out stuff. Indies cant have lost their love either?


in the late nineties, we used to say "everyone wants to be a DJ", nowdays that has morphed into "everybody wants to be a Producer/Live act/net label owner", like it or hate it, you have to live with it,

Live with it! Love it! Ride it!

Cheers mark ;)

[crime]

Is that not more to do with the retaillers, and by association the labels?

well both, retailers buy from the distributors who buy from the labels, it's all the same thing.... and all the people involved in every side of that business have an effect and influence on what comes out...




Look at the hardcore scene, those boys have been running stuff there for years and years.

yes, but unless you're an absolute cainer, after 10 years + doing this stuff, maybe you don't want to be playing every weekend to a munted crowd... some do, I don't...

plus piano wailing happy hardcore is hardly at the cutting edge of electronic music, and is probably quite a safe bet compared to techno/electronica



Surely most COMMERCIAL labels? I can believe there are not people who dont want to put out stuff. Indies cant have lost their love either?

the books always have to balance, and it appears to me unless your music is either minimal, schranz or club techno, forget it...

labels, however underground have to pay the rent, simple economics.. anything more left field usually means that it's a small closed circle running a label just to release their own works.. fair enough, I wouldn't expect anyone to put their money where I wouldn't put my own regarding a vinyl release, especially in the current climate..

seriously, you listen to doomsday clock, no label would take that, and even now, trying to just get a 12" released from it, there is no interest.. maybe I'm misguided and it's actually a load of shit, but personally I think it's the best stuff I've ever done.. If all I get is people asking me to do another e.p. like my old Djax ones, I'd rather not bother, that sound just isn't me anymore, but unfortunately that's all anyone expects, I get a lot of praise for that stuff, but it's just too damn raw for me now and I feel that they were quite naive records...
I'm more interested in writing electronica now, more varied deeper stuff, and for reasons mentioned before, I'm having to start from scratch, but this is why I've decided not to care about any kind of popularity, and just to do it because I want to make that kind of music, no expectations other than pleasing myself...

[RDR]

well both, retailers buy from the distributors who buy from the labels, it's all the same thing.... and all the people involved in every side of that business have an effect and influence on what comes out...




yes, but unless you're an absolute cainer, after 10 years + doing this stuff, maybe you don't want to be playing every weekend to a munted crowd... some do, I don't...

plus piano wailing happy hardcore is hardly at the cutting edge of electronic music, and is probably quite a safe bet compared to techno/electronica



the books always have to balance, and it appears to me unless your music is either minimal, schranz or club techno, forget it...

labels, however underground have to pay the rent, simple economics.. anything more left field usually means that it's a small closed circle running a label just to release their own works.. fair enough, I wouldn't expect anyone to put their money where I wouldn't put my own regarding a vinyl release, especially in the current climate..

seriously, you listen to doomsday clock, no label would take that, and even now, trying to just get a 12" released from it, there is no interest.. maybe I'm misguided and it's actually a load of shit, but personally I think it's the best stuff I've ever done.. If all I get is people asking me to do another e.p. like my old Djax ones, I'd rather not bother, that sound just isn't me anymore, but unfortunately that's all anyone expects, I get a lot of praise for that stuff, but it's just too damn raw for me now and I feel that they were quite naive records...
I'm more interested in writing electronica now, more varied deeper stuff, and for reasons mentioned before, I'm having to start from scratch, but this is why I've decided not to care about any kind of popularity, and just to do it because I want to make that kind of music, no expectations other than pleasing myself...

Sure the distros have an axe to grind as well, and yup they sure are related!

The hardcore scene really did well IMO because of the events, they either got lucky, or realised which way the wind was blowing. I'd go for the latter myself. I was just pointing out their longevity than saying you'd want to do as de la does ;)

Digital labels have lower costs and can afford to experiment. For r3tox i wanted to release something on vinyl but its looking more distant and if i do, its gonna have to be commercial to keep my investors happy at the prospect of getting even a small portion of their financing back.

I really am supruised no-one would take doomsday clock, but on the other hand im also not suprised as well, times they are a changing and risk taking is way down the agenda for commercial projects.

Hear what you are saying about electronica, i enjoy programming synths myself and that is almost an end in itself for me. mad sounds and brain candy.

[RDR]

This article informs this discussion.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/16/musically_p2p_survey/

and also this spout of crap from apple.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/19/vrs_value_gap_report/

[Kokotorobot]

seriously, you listen to doomsday clock, no label would take that, and even now, trying to just get a 12" released from it, there is no interest.. maybe I'm misguided and it's actually a load of shit, but personally I think it's the best stuff I've ever done..

just listened to the album man, really enjoyed it! good job, and see, i'd probably never came across of it if it wasn't available as a free download. some tracks are definitely 12" material.

you should put these doomsday clock tracks up on last.fm as full free tracks, people will check it out and listen http://www.blackoutaudio.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[TechMouse]

the PRS doesnt require tracklists from clubs, it pointless, they just pay a blanket fee which they then apportion out on a average basis according to whatever formula they are currently using.
AFAIK, the payout is based on a weighting assigned by PRS based on the number of public plays. This includes in clubs. Clubs should submit tracklists. It may seem pointless in individual instances, but if everyone did it it would quickly become more meaningful.


also did you have a track played on radio?
Yes. Years back I did a remix for someone and they played it in a mix on Annie Nightingale's show on Radio 1.

It's a weird thing, hearing your stuff coming out of a radio.

[TechMouse]

I spent up until a year ago, 5 years living totally from music ( with a few odd jobs on the side here and there), and in the last year I got to the point where I was really sick of the music side of my life becoming like a chore. The stress caused by the lack of money was totally killing my inspiration, and when I look back, some music I made, although still quite underground, was sometimes being directed by commercial pressures, something I'm not entirely comfortable with.

That last point in particular, I felt, was really not a good one, I came to the conclusion that life would be much more stress free if I actually started working full time, and my music would be purely written from the heart, when I wanted to do it and not because I was gonna earn 500 euro for doing a "banging" e.p. which I didn't really want to do, but had to because it was the only way to pay the rent..

Since working reguarly, I make a lot less music, but what I do make, I'm much more happy with, and it's written to please me, not some label owner...
Amen to that Mark. That's pretty much exactly my POV.

Different strokes for different folks and all that, but if you rely on something for income then unless you are remarkably lucky there is an implicit compromise between what you want to do and what will put food on the table.

[RDR]

AFAIK, the payout is based on a weighting assigned by PRS based on the number of public plays. This includes in clubs. Clubs should submit tracklists. It may seem pointless in individual instances, but if everyone did it it would quickly become more meaningful.


Yes. Years back I did a remix for someone and they played it in a mix on Annie Nightingale's show on Radio 1.

It's a weird thing, hearing your stuff coming out of a radio.

+1 on the track listing. Radio does it because most of the playlists are computerised with the bigger stations and also because it benefits their listeners to know which tracks they are listening to.

The chances of it happening are pretty low unless there is a sea change in the way clubs manage themselves. The very nature of club management is a bit more than haphazard at best. I could see it being rejected instantly unless there was a system that really takes the effort invloved in the process away from club manager/promoter/dj

Can you imagine them all trying to piece track lists together after the night finishes??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The tune recognition systems that are currently in play might possibly work but it needs the following to be in place:

:: Each tune played to be registered on the database that the system calls on.
:: People to register those tunes
:: Enough money to make it worthwhile

In theory copyright protects people but it is also there to provide a signpost as to who should be paid for the exploitation of that copyright, through collection societies and the publishers of the respective artists.

So who might pay for such as system? The majors? The indies? the collection societies? How does the money get apportioned?

I can seriously see this being of benefit to little artists and those who play live. I can also see it being an excuse for club owners to pay their DJs less as the PRS/MCPS would certainly use this as an excuse to bump up the prices they charge clubs for licenses.

just my 2p

OH AND...

Well done for having a track played on radio! Can i hear it?

[TechMouse]

OH AND...

Well done for having a track played on radio! Can i hear it?

http://mp3.juno.co.uk/MP3/SF1301153-02-01-02.mp3

[RDR]

Nice one mark, i like it!

[qUE]

At the end of the day,

Money makes money

People who love music, make it because it interests them and spend a vast amount of time, effort and their own money with a wall of technology trying to find more and more insane ways to twist sound will probably be too precious about it and only make enough money to tie them over (or buy cIDER in my case) :D

I personally don't see a problem with giving recorded sets away for free, even if it has taken me an age to put the bits and pieces together (quite literally). Individual tracks should be released and sold on vinyl. Lossy compressed data is very poor quality and disposable, besides vinyl can be ripped to mp3/etc. by whoever bought it in the first place anyway.



qUE
mt.3rdevent.net
invertedlightsource.com

P.S. I hoped that made sense, cIDER I UP LANDLORD!

[clubsynthetic]

so, a few years on now is anyone's opinion different?

Sifting through the crap is still an issue....but we can bookmark good artists.

and being "underground" is why free music, IMO, aids discovery...

but in the age of the downloadable media.... I still happily pay sums for quality format music.

[JamieBall]

One of my favourite things about this thread is Joes bizarre u turn from

""I personally don't think music should be given away free"

to

"Just to clarify, at no point did i say music shouldnt be free"

It's quite lolzy.

[JamieBall]

what does "LIVE TOPIC" mean ? Is it some kind of "street" jargon ?

[TVart]

Yes.

[davethedrummer]

I'm sticking to my guns

but I've got to admit that I've been doing pretty regular DJ mixes now
and sending promo's of Hydraulix to just about everyone, hoping it might pick up sales / plays

Hydraulix is now digital only because there's just no money in it any more
and I'm working a lot harder in the studio as an engineer for other peoples sessions than ever before.

I've also started designing websites to keep the cash coming in
and money is STILL tighter than ever.

It is a shame how music has somehow become devalued in this way
it was better when the scene was more affluent ( the music I mean )

but there it is, it's a sign of the times.

[blistanbul]

I thought the gigs would pave the way for techno artists and djs but I guess not.

[qUE]

I thought the gigs would pave the way for techno artists and djs but I guess not.

That's all good except getting booked :/

Certainly not nearly as much Techno being played in the UK as say back in mid-90s to early 2000.
I was personally doing upto 2 gigs a week in Bristol and westcountry back then.

[hardacid]

defo not! people have invested in equipment and time to make these tunes...

back in the day was all gd and im sure the gary d's and the westbams of the time made ****loads of dollar off tunes but nowadays its all dl this an share that

i personally dont think a producer's efforts should be just given away altho im aware that obv to get exposure these days thats the shiz

[hardacid]

Its a tricky one thats for sure.

I think it all depends on what else people have going on, A touring/gigging artist will have more invested in the live set-up.

There are many instances where music is paid for and in big amounts. but these are one off pieces like music for adverts on commision etc etc.

It all depends on wether or not anyone regards music as intrinsically worth anything or as a vehicle to promote a brand image or the artist as a product. The recent rash of people giving things away for 'FREE' (OT i think the word FREE has much more power than the word F-U.C:K in modern day society) has hardly been FREE, there was always another option for people.

Look at princes recent giveaway in the papers, it was free to the consumer but not really free at all. Most artists in the independant sector 'enjoy' the long tail in terms of sales. Prince didnt do that. How much did he get paid by the papers for having this album given away free? Instant money. Not only that, but he exploited the long tail and gained some more fans in the process (i accept that he aliented some as well) plus the fact that if he had tried to BUY that marketing and publicity it would have been extremely expensive. The consumer accepts a free album on the premise that it is really free, and it is, the cost to them is hidden. Prince on the other hand gets rapid payment, the consumer pays HIM to publicise TO them. Look at the Radiohead and NIN jaunts recently, FREE meant giveaways, but they still made money from it. Not from the sales so much, but the publicity was MASSIVE. something they couldnt buy without spending millions.

For the independant? Well, havnt we always given away music for free in the form of Mix CDS? Isnt that what DJs are meant to do? Record pools have been around for a LONG time and did exactly that, gave away promo's to DJs so they could play them out. I think in the techno scene the problem is that who the hell is buying the music, its not the standard consumer, its the DJs and most of them i meant didnt really expect to pay for music at all. They felt that it should be free because they are 'Promoting' a certain artist. This rings true when you have a product like vinyl, hard to copy etc etc, but not MP3.

One of the side effects (IMO - like everything here else of course) is that all of a sudden the DJ jealously guarding their record collection has gone, no white labels on a CD is there? A DJ lives and dies on their tunes, but that piss and vinegar approach seems to have gone, in the endless round of circle jerk promo action.

/Rant.

EDIT: Just seen jamies comment and wanted to add a +1 for most of that. I know im trying to talk from a commercial perspective here.

well said chief...

[pion33r]

I reckon from a music collectors point of view it would be a good idea if labels provided MP3s free of charge with every vinyl purchase. At the moment I believe labels/online stores expect you to buy both at full price if you want both, forcing the decision to one or the other. I doubt many people can really afford to buy both.

Obviously some people probably rip vinyl to MP3 straight away, however I've always found this a bit of a chore and fiddly to get the best sound from the rip. On top of that some MP3s / WAVs are superior to the vinyl pressings from the start...

Additionally there would be the benefit of instant download access to your tunes, with the physical product delivered to your door in the next few days.

Its the best of both worlds solution!

Economically viable for the music labels themselves though I don't know

[hardacid]

I reckon from a music collectors point of view it would be a good idea if labels provided MP3s free of charge with every vinyl purchase. At the moment I believe labels/online stores expect you to buy both at full price if you want both, forcing the decision to one or the other. I doubt many people can really afford to buy both.

Obviously some people probably rip vinyl to MP3 straight away, however I've always found this a bit of a chore and fiddly to get the best sound from the rip. On top of that some MP3s / WAVs are superior to the vinyl pressings from the start...

Additionally there would be the benefit of instant download access to your tunes, with the physical product delivered to your door in the next few days.

Its the best of both worlds solution!

Economically viable for the music labels themselves though I don't know

many mixes i dl now have no vinyl release/discogs info etc from trakkys as its all files,,,so many gd tunes im missin out on tbh...

id far rather pay a fiver for a record than have a file for the tune altho its gettin to the stage now where i am goin to be buyin files as summa the tunes are that gd and i cant miss them

i am an oldskool hardtrance/italiano collector aswell, so many tunes that i could never afford/justify wax price i have on mp3 not to mention all the tunes that were never released on wax back in the day off compilations etc or are just too rare to get is making me buy serato later this year to play them...saves outputting on a cdj and u still get the touchyfeelyness of the vinyl which is what i like tbh

[Little_Otty]

There are far to many wankers making shitty tunes nowadays to be paying for it.

[blistanbul]

There are far to many wankers making shitty tunes nowadays to be paying for it.

such a joke for someone like you to say.

you are cool though.

[MashUp]

Its an unfortunate state of affairs we are in, In my heart i believe that everything should be free to all mankind but thats taking things a little too deep, But obviously considering the social system we have in place where monetary value is placed on living, I think people need to earn a living, Although i think those that make music solely to make money are delusional, Get a real job to fall back on as the music industry could see you rocketing with fame one week and a nobody the next! Music is one human beings soul in essence being portrayed to others (Perhaps not techno because then there are many people with proper ****ed up souls!) hahaha Can a price be put on that? I love making music and i like to think others like my work too, So i try and make as many tracks of mine free as possibly, But i do hold out on some being released on a big record label, Not for profit or fame but just to be recognised as someone who has spent the last 8years of their life dedicated to a craft! - I dont think music should be free these days because any money is helpful!

P.S This comment "seems a nonsense. everything must have a cost otherwise it has no value." - Is the biggest pile of rubbish ive ever heard! Infact i think im going to have to laugh at it otherwise i will cry at how insanely stupid the human race has become :D Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[MashUp]

Would like to add the part about getting a real job doesn't count for the older generations who have already made it lol Also i hold down a standard job and still find time to make tracks because i would rather not sleep in the night and work hard at it than not do it at all, because dance music is my life and i love it!! Everything is possible with a little determination!