>>64241075
make your next album/track release $1+ and then keep it that way from then on

you shouldn't change things that are already free

>>64241075
If you start charging money, you can expect that number to dwindle fast.

>>64241118
agreed, but the name your price option is also very good.

If an artist charges money for their music, I don't even bother listening to them. I just close the window and go about my business, or listen to an artist who gives their music away for free.

If I like your music enough, I WILL give you money. I WILL buy merchandise, and I WILL give you as much free advertising as one person can.

But if you don't offer your music free to me from the start, I have zero interest in it.

t. every music consumer ever

congratulations on the 1200 downloads, friend!

Plug your shit here?

>>64241190
This. Forcing people to buy from you leads to no one hearing your shit.

Especially if you're trying to make music for over-saturated genres like hip hop or EDM.

>>64241118
Thats what I was thinking to do, but I wanted another opinion!
>>64241190
Since I always buy music, from the shittiest to the top tier. I never thought that way, but I guess you guys are right.


Charging money its kinda invasive, going to stay free. Thanks for your opinions.

>>64241278
>No, I've learned that when you post numbers, you should never show your stuff.
Why? easy, people gonna bitch and say things like "you dont deserve that even if its a low number" or critize music that they dont even listen or understand.

>>64241479
Fair point. Yeah if you're still trying to get your shit out at this fragile bit any price would hurt it. Some cunts dont want to give even an email address

$1 for individual songs
$5 for the whole album if you have one
You're right to think the popularity of your music should regulate what you charge for them