When U2 put their new album on everyone's itunes accounts there was a backlash from some musicians right? Pink Floyd remarked that it wasn't a good idea and devalued their music. What's your opinions on music being free? Does it devalue the music? If music is free, should it just be available for download on the artist's website, like NIN and the Foo fighters have done?
>>60958361
>If music is free, should it just be available for download on the artist's website, like NIN and the Foo fighters have done?
Yes, any other way just seems to be forcing it down the throat of the listener.
Nowadays, where pretty much all music can be found for free online (YouTube, torrents etc), pricing music just seems to be symbolic.
Radiohead started off the whole trend with In Rainbows, and I think a model like Thom Yorke did with his last release (charging next-to-nothing for it, but still a small amount) is the best way to release an album and still earn money from it if you're a big artist
No, all musicians should pay companies to put their music into everyone's library like a virus.
>>60958432
Think it was the other way around. Apple paid out U2
I can definitely see where people with the opinion that making it free devalues the music are coming from. On the other hand I'd rather support an artist directly or subscribe to a PWYW model than throw my money at a record label. I mean, labels are good for promotion and distribution but the amount of money that goes to them in proportion to the amount of money that actually goes towards the artists is rather disconcerting.
>>60958623
>proportion to the amount of money that actually goes towards the artists
I'm okay with this, specifically in cases where the artist has a deal for them have control over their music in exchange for a reduced share of royalties.
they should have done what Radiohead did and have you pay any amount you want
>>60958361
Does it devaluate music? No, it still sounds the same.
>>60958684
Their music isn't even worth giving them $0
>>60958646
Oh yeah, I can definitely imagine in that case. I've heard some horror stories about record labels concerning kerfluffles about ownership of the music.
Normally I'd be on board with >>60958401 but as he says, this only really works for big artists who already have a large established fanbase. I mean, if you're small-time or only just starting out you can throw it on bandcamp all you want but no-one is gonna see it without ome promotion from a label or something.
>>60958361
The problem is that there's really no obvious solution to the problem. I fucking refuse to pay £8 per album because I listen to new albums daily, and that would be way too much for someone like me to pay. But with that said I hate the fact that when I download - it kinda does hurt the artist. Which is why when I listen to a new album I like - I tend to buy the vinyl as well.
>>60958698
It sounds good to have control over your music, but it could also backfire.
I heard that before Pink Floyd got big, they had a similar contract, but were getting screwed over because their records weren't selling very well, and they only got a tiny percentage of the royalties.
But then there's someone like Taylor Swift who can afford to give up that money for control because she makes an absolute killing from merchandise and live shows. It's a two way street and a huge gamble. But I've heard lots of stories too about the rights over music, especially young and upcoming bands and musicians who just jump at a deal which would give them a whole heap of money. I think Michael Jackson got into some trouble with Sony a while ago about the the rights to his music. I think they basically owned all of it, and he couldn't do shit.
>>60958782
>I fucking refuse to pay £8 per album because I listen to new albums daily, and that would be way too much for someone like me to pay.
You poor entitled little shit.
>>60958401
>Radiohead started off the whole trend
They didn't start it, they just popularized it.
Jeff Rosenstock started it.
>>60958361
no music shouldn't be free
if people can cough up dough to support adele. then indiefags>>60958782
like this guy need to save up cash and support the artist instead of being entitled cunts
TOP 40 garbage will always dominate because their fans pay for the music. the music industry is all about making money
>>60958970
Top kek you can't stop me though can you?
>fuk u nan I do wot I want
Most artists who say that giving their music out for free devalues it are already rich, and just want more money.
Is their music inherently worthless? I don't think so, and I don't think that people paying for music increases the music's worth, either.
Most music can be pirated, so there's not much reason to force people to pay, when you can give it to them for free on bandcamp and, at the very least, have a decent idea of how many people like your music, and which songs they like more, etc.
I usually buy music from bandcamp artists when their albums cost less than $6-8 though, because it feels like they're not asking for much.
Of course with the U2 album I can see where people came from, not because they gave it out for free, but because they essentially forced everyone with itunes to have their album. This did two things; create disdain from anyone that didn't like U2, and attach a gimmick to the album. Does anybody really remember anything about the album other than the publicity stunt? I don't even remember the album's name.
I dunno.
I still buy all of my music mostly because I like having a physical copy. I don't give a shit how much the artist is getting, and most of the stuff I buy is second hand because it's out of print or not stocked by a large store.
Most music is practically "free" now anyway because it's so easy to pirate. Buying an album is no longer necessary to hear the music — it's a way of showing support.
Releasing your music for free is a bit strange in this situation, because it means denying your listeners the possibility of supporting you.
I do buy the releases I like best among the ones I download, when the artists are offering it for free or very cheap on Bandcamp I give a few euros more.
digital files should be free anything else should not be
>>60958361
>What's your opinions on music being free?
Shouldn't be free, art requires labor, and artists need to survive.
>If music is free, should it just be available for download on the artist's website, like NIN and the Foo fighters have done?
Well yes.
I think at some point, when you get successful enough, you can release material for free.
>>60959016
Best post in this thread desu.
>>60959096
>I don't give a shit how much the artist is getting
People who say things like that kind of surprise me.
Would you also steal the albums from stores instead of buying them if you knew you'd get away with it?
>>60960512
>digital files should be free anything else should not be
I didn't like buying mp3s at first because it's basically paying for what I can get for free, but now I'm okay with it. It means supporting the artist, and it's not like I need a physical copy on a shelf that badly — it's the mp3s I will listen to 99% of the time anyway.
>>60960592
>If music is free, should it just be available for download on the artist's website
I like it when artists have creative control over how their material is released/distributed.
>>60960617
No, because then I could have whatever I want, and there would be nothing special about having to choose which album I can afford today. Atop of that, stealing is still wrong regardless if you get caught, and I couldn't in good conscience enjoy a stolen album.
And when I say I don't care much they get, I mean they're probably either dead, or old and retired, and won't miss the couple of bucks because I bought it second hand instead from a distributor.
Apple Music
Spotify Premium
Google Play Music
Amazon Prime Music
/thread
>>60958361
I tend to enjoy free music more than music I have to pay for anyways. If anything, it brings up the value. I also tend to be more irritated if I have to pay for music, especially if it turns out to be shit. I usually just pirate and if I like it, maybe purchase a CD or merch.
>>60960743
That's not free. And paying streaming services are the worst option in my opinion: you keep paying every month for something that will just vanish if you stop paying or when the service ends, and the artists barely get anything in return.
The music business is a new invention, musicians have always existed.
I dont care that some fucking jew cant buy a 3rd yacht now because the internet.
The internet is the greatest invention of mankind, greater than the printing press.
The most disruptive technology ever made.
Movies, music, tv, news, books, everything is going to be free.
The point of the internet was to share information not make money you jew fucks.
3d printers will get better, who knows what shit we will be able to print 100 years from now, you will be able to download a car!
self driving cars will replace truckers, cab drivers, any job that involves driving.
The middle class is disappeared, it will just be the 1% hiding behind their robot drone guarded gated communities while me and you and the rest of the unwashed masses get replaced by robots.
Yeah, a mexican took your job, well a robot is going to take his.
The only jobs left will be the ones who make the robots and the ones that require humanity (for now)
>>60958361
A brief rundown on shit that music people say and what it really means:
>Famous Artist: "We're releasing this for free because we live in a different time now and are trying something experimental"
Translation: We're rich enough to tolerate the fact that fat fucking self-entitled neckbeards can't stop themselves from stealing our music, but because our success depends upon pretending we like them and any recognition of their theft would spoil relations, we're capitulating to them and taking a hit to salvage our sinking ship.
>Amateur musician: "I think times are different now, I release all of my music for free on Soundcloud and I am happy to do this"
Translation: My music has absolutely no commercial appeal and I'm talentless so I have to give it away not through choice but even if I could require people to buy it to listen, I'd never sell a single fucking copy anyway and I can't admit this to myself because I'm an -ARTIST-.
>Music consumer: "I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's ok for me to download it for free"
Translation: I can't admit to myself that I just like taking things for free, and that I can't imagine that I might be suffering from cognitive bias here that blocks me from realising that I could have afforded this music if I had to buy it.
---
If you are for free music, you don't give a shit about music. You're just a shit tier consumer that has no real appreciation or respect for the art, a total pleb. Even teenage girls buy music which is why the commercially viable stuff is all pop music and not adult contemporary which was what ruled the charts a few short decades ago.
