# Amanda Palmer's TED video for the future of music funding



## Laura (Mar 7, 2013)

After viewing this TED video, I instantly became a fan of Amanda Palmer's vision of the future of music funding.

Watch it here-

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html

Now, Amanda Palmer was already famous when she started her kickstarter project, which produced almost 1.2 million dollars. She talks about the real live connections she made with people which over the years numbered thousands.

I'm really curious what you think of her talk and what you think we will see happening in the future of music funding. Personally, I do not pay money to listen to digital music. I also would never charge people to download and listen to my own music. With the technology we have, why not make your music and work readily available for as many people to experience? That's what this is all about. So how does an artist make a living doing this? Not all of us can be Amanda Palmer, but she makes some very good points.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

If this is the future of music funding classical music is dead. Individuals members of the orchestra don't have the capacity to develop branded fandoms save for the conductor, but the conductor is usually middle aged and cranky. This business model works for indie rock and pop stars, no one else. Bjork dropped her kickstarter project due to insufficient funds because she just didn't have the kind of relationship that Palmer had to her fandom. Can you imagine Gustavo Dudamel auctioning off the right to have dinner with him and have him paint your picture for 10,000$? 

I'm still hoping for tax cuts and more billionaire philanthropists holding up the classical music world, just like old times.


----------



## Zanralotta (Jan 31, 2009)

Oh dear.
Amanda Palmer.
Ugh...


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't mind the Dresden Dolls (actually, I enjoy most of their music). I like what Amanda talked about in this video, but it's not like she's original. Bands like Bomb The Music Industry! have already had a culture like this, and that's only recently with digital distribution (the punk scene has been all about helping each other out for a while). I wish the music industry would realize how ridiculous it is to charge for everything that someone does. That being said, I don't necessarily groan when I see people who are classical musicians requiring pricing for their digital albums on bandcamp. It seems more legitimate for somebody whose career and education went into creating that album as opposed to a punk band who has a job doing something else.

I don't like paying for things if it's not physical. Period. The quality on any system (Amazon or iTunes) is just not high-quality enough to suit my needs. I buy many many records (and usually find very great deals in 50-cent bins) and albums and go to plenty of concert/shows, and I definitely see the need to "just ask" the customer to pay. We live in a society that assumes that the people admiring the artists are as greedy as the people behind the business, and that leads to forcing prices, reinforcing laws, etc.

...but even then, I can't _stand_ how Amanda Palmer did that thing where she asked professional musicians to work for free. It's not really the act of doing it (I record and arrange strings/produce albums for many local non-classical artists), but more the way she worded it; she made it seem like there was a bit of a fairyland in which people don't have to worry about their real lives. Yes, hugs and tickets may seem good on the end that has their music as a hobby, but in the long run there are too many performance majors who are out on the streets because they've been honing their chops for an extremely specific career and to take that for granted is really idiotic of her. This is the real world, Amanda, stop romanticizing the punk scene.

...but, really, why the hell do the Beach Boys have to have their own kickstarter? Considering their fame and success that seems really tasteless (and this is coming from a longtime obsessive fan of Brian Wilson)


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

oogabooha said:


> ...but even then, I can't _stand_ how Amanda Palmer did that thing where she asked professional musicians to work for free.


No kidding. I'll work 100% for free the day I can get my housing, food, health care, child care, and piano tunings for free.

(I do free projects occasionally, when I want to and can spare the time. But being obligated to is kind of ridiculous.)


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Also: I happily pay for digital music, CDs, concert tickets, lesson fees, musical instruments, admission prices to middle school musicals featuring my students, and yes those piano tunings.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

hreichgott said:


> (I do free projects occasionally, when I want to and can spare the time. But being obligated to *is kind of ridiculous*.)


it's insulting! this reminds me of those obligatory unpaid internships you had to do in college to get a foot in the industry  _while_ you had to study and pay tuition fees and bills at the same time.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

anyway, now that my gut reaction cooled, I watched the video and I have to agree that this is an unlikely approach for classical music/orchestra. It's not like you can pile up a whole orchestra in a van and drive around the country, sleep on fans' couches and have impromptu concerts at local libraries. It's just too much of a big production. Of course, you could, as a composer, write chamber pieces or solo instrumental bits and pitch them on twitter and see who would like you to drop by and perform them in their lounge. But that still won't work for everybody. First off, you really need a specific type of personality for that kind of life. Not everybody is happy (or even free to be) driving around and sleeping on strangers' couches, even though such experiences can sometimes be fulfilling (especially when you're in your early 20s). Secondly, not everybody likes performing (even among pop artists). It's something that works for some but hardly the future.


----------



## Laura (Mar 7, 2013)

Thanks for the comments guys.

It is interesting that you bring up the controversy of musicians working for free. I've read several articles by musicians who actually played with amanda palmer for 'free' and this is what they wrote -

http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/opinions/33734/Why-I-played-for-Amanda-Palmer-for-free

http://www.eclectictuba.com/#!blog/c13p1

They did get generously paid in the end by money that Amanda was able to put together for each musician on stage.

One blogger comments about how he wouldn't trade his experience on stage with Amanda for a million bucks. He says musicians get into playing music because the love of the art. No one decides to become a musician to make money.

I really like Amanda's video, and I am really not a fan of her music. The reason i am a fan is because musicians and artists SHOULDN'T be untouchable stars. Artists SHOULD be part of the community. Not like Amanda Palmer exactly, but I would never support a musician who only played music when they were getting paid. That's fake.

People want to support passionate artists, and it's obvious that classical musicians need to start thinking about how they can reach their audience in this digital age.

I am currently working on a startup that brings support directly to classical musicians by way of an interactive concert series. It's helpful to hear your opinions. We believe people want to go to performances where they can participate and interact with the musicians and people around them.

I've grown up in a classical music family. I played an instrument for my whole life. I've attended concerts on end, and you know what? The most inspiring performances I've seen were unplanned performances in small rooms where the musicians were my friends and you were up close in their space, experiencing their passion. And those concerts were free, but those concerts are the ones that make your realize there is something important to support here.


----------



## Laura (Mar 7, 2013)

I really do think there are tools now for classical musicians to make a real living. But we need to think more creatively about how one does that. 

Now that you've heard Amanda Palmer's idea, how do you guys think classical musicians can make a living today?


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

UUGGHHhhhh...


If you listen to someones music and enjoy it the artist deserves to be paid.
I am fine with downloading if the artists themselfs want to offer it for free, but i am not fine with the fact that people ***** to your work ( Download it illegally) If you download something free you are really saying " I enjoy your work but i don't respect your work at all etc...", nice words can feel good but the artist can't pay his/her bills with nice words!
Also everyone can give nice words as much as they want because they are free and limitless.
Paying for someones work really shows that you appreciate it because you are offering something for the artists which requires some work from you and its a limited resource.
Recording&producing an album even with a decent sound quality pays a lot of money and takes a lot of time!
Also touring ain't free!
The artists need money to fund their tours specially at the beginning.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

jani said:


> If you download something free you are really saying " I enjoy your work but i don't respect your work at all etc...", nice words can feel good but the artist can't pay his/her bills with nice words!


oh jeez, man, that statement is almost as ignorant as Amanda's words. The point of Amanda's speech wasn't about the morality of piracy, it was about the potential profit of allowing people to download things for free (which HAS worked--site like bandcamp and bands like Bomb The Music Industry!/Radiohead have clearly profited). Don't even bring ethics or morality into this, though. Nowadays music costs so much money that it's literally impossible for most people to pay for all of the music they listen to. I have many friends who "illegally" download everything they listen to, and if they like it a lot, then they go out and support the artist. That's how people become inspired, and that's how people start writing themselves, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, the artist can't pay their bills with words, but don't bring up the word "disrespect" when you're talking about someone trying to listen to an artist. What if they really love the artist but can't afford the album right now? And they need to listen to it before the artist comes to their town, because then they will be able to have a check that gives them the money to go all out with tshirts and tickets?

You're taking the concept of paying people on a very direct level: they pay for the album or not and that's good/bad. Artists have _many_ other ways of being paid, and this _can_ be applied to the classical music scene as well. Amanda doesn't display her case well in the video, but she is talking about something useful.


----------



## Laura (Mar 7, 2013)

imagine if you met a painter. probably you'd say, oh neat, can I see some of your work?
If he said 'uh, you gotta pay me 10 bucks' I'd say 'f*** you, i'm outta here!'


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Laura said:


> imagine if you met a painter. probably you'd say, oh neat, can I see some of your work?
> If he said 'uh, you gotta pay me 10 bucks' I'd say 'f*** you, i'm outta here!'


When you are dealing with music you can pretty much review every track from Youtube or from other source and if you want to get it to your player then you should pay IMO, or use a streaming service which pays royalties for the artist.

If i would a painter i would let people see my work for free but if they would like to have it in hanging on the wall of their home they should pay.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

jani said:


> When you are dealing with music you can pretty much review every track from Youtube or from other source and if you want to get it to your player then you should pay IMO, or use a streaming service which pays royalties for the artist.
> 
> If i would a painter i would let people see my work for free but if they would like to have it in hanging on the wall of their home they should pay.


and with music, if they do want it in their home, they have to pay. for a CD or record. digital distribution is completely different...and stop trying to use services like Spotify and Youtube as ways to justify the fact that you're not paying for things. The record labels (and consequentially greedy people like Lars Ulrich) despise people uploading music to Youtube without permission. There is the phenomenon called the music video, but that isn't strictly for sampling music. As for streaming services like Spotify, the artists get paid little-to-none and it's just a silly way of justifying the fact that you haven't paid for their music but are still listening to it.

I'm part of a music community similar to what Amanda described in the video, and it does work. I've been to more house shows than concert halls in my life, and the community there is what music is made of, whether it be raunchy punk music or experimental noise or jazz or even contemporary classical. People equate the words "music" and "business" too often, and people often foolishly think that if they pursue the career of a musician (classical or non-classical) that they will make money.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

oogabooha said:


> and with music, if they do want it in their home, they have to pay. for a CD or record. digital distribution is completely different..*.and stop trying to use services like Spotify and Youtube as ways to justify the fact that you're not paying for things*. The record labels (and consequentially greedy people like Lars Ulrich) despise people uploading music to Youtube without permission. There is the phenomenon called the music video, but that isn't strictly for sampling music. As for streaming services like Spotify, the artists get paid little-to-none and it's just a silly way of justifying the fact that you haven't paid for their music but are still listening to it.
> I'm part of a music community similar to what Amanda described in the video, and it does work. I've been to more house shows than concert halls in my life, and the community there is what music is made of, whether it be raunchy punk music or experimental noise or jazz or even contemporary classical. People equate the words "music" and "business" too often, and people often foolishly think that if they pursue the career of a musician (classical or non-classical) that they will make money.


I am not doing it!
I am strictly against illegal downloading etc... I think that have made that clear several times.
Also there are loads of official channels on youtube who put videos up from the artists ( record label's and Vevo for example+ some bands do it them self's)
And they should get royalties from it too, if am not completely wrong.
Also Spotify pays royalties for the artist.


----------



## Laura (Mar 7, 2013)

oogabooha said:


> I'm part of a music community similar to what Amanda described in the video, and it does work. I've been to more house shows than concert halls in my life, and the community there is what music is made of, whether it be raunchy punk music or experimental noise or jazz or even contemporary classical. People equate the words "music" and "business" too often, and people often foolishly think that if they pursue the career of a musician (classical or non-classical) that they will make money.


Hey, ok, this is what I've been trying to get at with this thread. I want to hear how you have seen this work in your experience. What do you think makes it successful?


----------



## Laura (Mar 7, 2013)

jani said:


> I am not doing it!
> I am strictly against illegal downloading etc... I think that have made that clear several times.
> Also there are loads of official channels on youtube who put videos up from the artists ( record label's and Vevo for example+ some bands do it them self's)
> And they should get royalties from it too, if am not completely wrong.
> Also Spotify pays royalties for the artist.


I love illegal downloading. hell, i haven't paid for any digital music file for more than 5 years.

I'm trying to discuss something bigger than selling a hamburger at mcdonalds. Because that kind of exchange is pointless when you are an artist. Why should anyone pay for what you do, no matter how many years you have put into it, unless they feel for what you are doing, connect to what you are doing, and in donating to your work, form a relationship with you, rather than an internet PAY ME button.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

jani said:


> And they should get royalties from it too, if am not completely wrong.
> Also Spotify pays royalties for the artist.


Barely any royalties, man. You should seriously look into it, because you'd be surprised to find out that major labels are just shoving artists into heavy amounts of debt. You're using these services to say "Oh, but what I'm doing is _legal_!". The reality of the situation is that the artists aren't really even better off either way. If an artist you're downloading from (or going to go see or whatever) doesn't understand this then they're probably not worth taking seriously anyway


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

My situation is fundamentally different from most musicians because I am not a performer and I do not work with performers. My work isn't associated with any scene, so I don't get a lot of community based exposure and thus relatively little interest, although what interest I do get tends to be consistent and (thanks to the word of mouth of some good friends) has actually been increasing a little over the past year. I release all my music for free under a ShareAlike licence and people are welcome to take it or leave it and use it as they see fit - I think that freedom of information and freedom of choice are very important so I try to make sure that I support that ideal in whatever way I can.

I think the gift relationship based artistic community that Palmer talks about in her video is essentially a positive thing. Although I have never experienced such a community myself, I can't see how a community of like-minded artists and fans working collaboratively to support each other could possibly be a bad thing.

Add.: I notice a lot of the negative arguments specifically attack the examples given and not the principles behind what Palmer is saying. Interesting.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Laura said:


> The reason i am a fan is because musicians and artists SHOULDN'T be untouchable stars. Artists SHOULD be part of the community. Not like Amanda Palmer exactly, but I would never support a musician who only played music when they were getting paid. That's fake.


I have two different opinions about this, one positive and one negative. In a positive vein, I think that free availability of content plus active solicitation of donations is a good and workable model. That is the same model as public broadcasting and public libraries here in the USA. Both must spend huge amounts of time fundraising, and the ones with more than a couple of paid staff members tend to have someone on staff whose entire job is fundraising. Even so, they do much better in places where the citizens are proud to support them with tax dollars as well as voluntary donations.

I think it would be wonderful if all artists could support ourselves in such a way. In fact, some of the places I work are supported primarily through donations/fundraising. So are almost all symphony orchestras in the USA under the current model. Occasionally someone gets a government grant, but those are increasingly scarce.

However, I can't believe that people actually argue that artists who ask to be paid for their work are somehow not genuine. That's the part of this that infuriates me. Consider other people who work in a profession that is their passion. Primary-care doctors. Elementary school teachers. It's probable that these people donate some of their time. They might work a few volunteer hours at free clinics or tutoring programs. The structure of their jobs more or less demands that they will work more hours than they are paid. (Not too dissimilar from musicians' practice time.) But would anyone seriously suggest that, if an elementary school teacher refuses to teach for free, s/he is not passionate about his/her work?


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

hreichgott said:


> However, I can't believe that people actually argue that artists who ask to be paid for their work are somehow not genuine.


let me just clarify that I did not mean to imply this in my most recent post. When I said "they're probably not worth taking seriously anyway", I meant that if they don't understand the fact that not everybody can pay for their music, then they're obviously not paying attention to a wide variety of their fans. There are artists like Metallica (particularly Lars Ulrich) who don't understand this. I know and have heard of teachers who could very well be off making a lot more money at other schools, but stay in their current position because they're more rewarded by helping people who couldn't get a good education otherwise (in specific places). This is something that applies for many careers.

I only made this post to not attack your opinion, Heather, but to actually agree with you. Asking someone to pay for something isn't selfish at all (just clarifying that I didn't say that in my posts). It's about context, and digital distribution is a lot different than records and CDs. It's not about artists just handing their music away for free, but it's about balancing people who will pay hundreds of dollars to support you, and people who can't afford to pay anything.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

No worries, oogabooha, I was responding to Laura.

Hope it's ok if I say publicly that I recently attempted to pay you for your music and you gave me my money back


----------



## Laura (Mar 7, 2013)

Let's get back on track a little here.

hreichgott - thanks for your thoughts! I agree with you that musicians shouldn't be taken advantage of. I've been there, In college I hated it when all of the directors from the film department tried to get us musicians to play on their dumb movie's soundtrack for free. Why? because of the way we were treated and taken for granted. Also, those kids were just so wrapped up in their own film that there wasn't any way that we could take part or collaborate with them. So trust me, I've made my share of denials. But I've also offered my services for free many times because I get really excited about working with an artist I like or knowing that the people I'm doing it for have a really great mentality about this, or that maybe I will get some rich experience in exchange.

Do you know what I'm saying? I would definitely not condone a situation where a musician is FORCED to play for free. And in every example we have given, no one is being forced to perform for free. The musicians who played with Amanda Palmer were thrilled to be part of that experience. Amanda Palmer couldn't guarantee the money but they said, who cares! and in the end they all got paid. I don't see anything bad about this.

Crudblud - what kind of music do you play? Electronic? Word of mouth is a powerful thing. My viola teacher growing up has a program that expands so much every year. Now she brings kids from Venezuela and Puerto Rico (to the USA) to put on a chamber festival. She makes enough from the program to offer many people part and full scholarships. This was all done by word of mouth in our community.

Another example I like is Louis C.K.
I'm going to take this description from another forum.


> Louis C.K. (for those of you who don't know) did something remarkable for a big-name entertainer. Instead of doing the traditional comedy special, where a huge entertainment conglomerate pays him a one-time fee but retains creative control, syndication rights, and other future revenue, Louis said, "Screw that!" He sold tickets to a show for a few nights, hired his own audio/video crew, taped the show, edited it himself, and then (ready?) sold it online for a mere $5 instead of the typical $10-25 the conglomerate would have charged. Louis' costs were about $250,000 which were covered by ticket sales. In a matter of days, he earned almost $2 Million, $5 at a time. He paid his staff a large bonus, kept a small percentage (I think it was about $200-300K) for himself, and gave the rest away to several charities.


another member on that forum posted this-



> The low cost wasn't why the video was so successful. Louis CK is someone who has deeply connected with his fans - he's spent many years talking to them on forums and after shows, asking their opinions on future material, on how his products should be offered etc. He's known for being humble and honest, and ultimately giving his fans great reasons to buy his stuff - they adore this material, they adore him, his video was priced sensibly, personally financed and produced by him rather than a big faceless corporation, DRM free etc. It's not really about the video being 'cheap' - there's much more going on there that made it such a success.
> 
> I don't believe any of your ideas really go anywhere near what Louis CK was doing there. I think if you want to be fully inspired by Louis CK, you need to look into ways in which you can deeply connect with your potential customers. However, I'm not entirely convinced a web developer can really do this - it's much easier for musicians, actors and authors as they tend to have 'fans', not 'customers', and there's typically quite a bond. While you can certainly form more than a faceless corporate connection with your clients, they'll never become 'fans', and I doubt they'll ever put a poster of you up on their wall
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in the various 'free/free-ish' business models (particularly the 'pay what you want' ones), but these models tend to work better in situations where creative individuals are doing a lot to connect deeply with their fans. So for example, Radiohead offer their album on 'pay what you want' - the real fans will choose to pay a decent price because of the bond they have with the band, especially when they know all the money goes to the band and not a bunch of middle men.


one more post -



> Free, ironically, makes you more money when it's motivated by a desire to share rather than a desire to profit, something Ted S touches on above.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Laura said:


> Crudblud - what kind of music do you play? Electronic? Word of mouth is a powerful thing. My viola teacher growing up has a program that expands so much every year. Now she brings kids from Venezuela and Puerto Rico (to the USA) to put on a chamber festival. She makes enough from the program to offer many people part and full scholarships. This was all done by word of mouth in our community.


I use a computer to realise quite a lot of my work for various reasons, so "electronic" is in some sense a pretty accurate word for it, though beyond that common ground it's pretty varied from one piece of work to the next. I also do some free improvisation type recordings on various instruments, but I haven't been doing that so much lately.

The program your teacher runs sounds like a wonderful thing, definitely something to be proud of. And of course again it all comes down to community, that kind of connection between like-minded people is nothing but beneficial for all involved.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Laura, this I can get behind. It's different from what I heard you saying at first. To clarify, I do not mean that anyone is forcing anyone to provide free music in the sense of putting a gun to someone's head and demanding free music on pain of death. What does happen is that people say artists are "fake", money-grubbing etc. if they insist on getting paid. That's disparaging to working artists. 

I agree that fee structure should be related to the community and should help, not harm, the development of relationships between people. I don't quite believe in it in the quasi-religious way Palmer presents it in her talk (or is preacherly demeanor part of giving a TED talk?) But I know it works well in a practical sense. That's what makes our public library work. When I started teaching piano I took my community into account. I live in a small town which has an unusual amount of arts and culture, but it's still a small town. If I charged market rate for lessons, only people who lived on the richest two streets in town would be able to afford me. I might be able to round out my studio with more students from wealthier towns nearby, but I want to support my town. So I purposely charge significantly less than market rate so that it is a fair rate for all families in town. I have a full studio, mostly people who live in town, and my families love the community they have with each other.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I like to pay from my music, i even pay from digital files+cd's, go to gigs+ maybe even buy some merchandise.
It makes me really feel that i support the artist, ALSO 10€ which is usually the price of the digital download ins't really that much, specially if you even have a decent paying job!

OR even less if you use spotify, all you have to pay from using spotify is to listen to the adds and some small monthly payment if you decide to get the premium account!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

jani said:


> I like to pay from my music, i even pay from digital files+cd's, go to gigs+ maybe even buy some merchandise.
> It makes me really feel that i support the artist, ALSO 10€ which is usually the price of the digital download ins't really that much, specially if you even have a decent paying job!
> 
> OR even less if you use spotify, all you have to pay from using spotify is to listen to the adds and some small monthly payment if you decide to get the premium account!


Yes, we get it, we got it the last two times you said it as well, now either debate the principles of the talk or stop posting, please. I'm not trying to be rude but there is potential for good discussion here and I'd appreciate if you (and anyone else) avoid bringing it to an artificial stalemate. Observe the discussion between Laura and Heather in this thread, both are paying attention to and addressing each other's points, they are not simply restating their opening gambit over and over again.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

jani said:


> I like to pay from my music, i even pay from digital files+cd's, go to gigs+ maybe even buy some merchandise.
> It makes me really feel that i support the artist, ALSO 10€ which is usually the price of the digital download ins't really that much, specially if you even have a decent paying job!
> 
> OR even less if you use spotify, all you have to pay from using spotify is to listen to the adds and some small monthly payment if you decide to get the premium account!


It's good that it makes you feel that way. But think carefully about why you feel better; who is telling you that it is good? The labels or the artists? The law or the community? You're looking at this from a very one-sided perspective. Also, I was referring to the fact that ONE SONG is 99cents! That's really expensive!


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

oogabooha said:


> It's good that it makes you feel that way. But think carefully about why you feel better; who is telling you that it is good? The labels or the artists? The law or the community? You're looking at this from a very one-sided perspective. Also, I was referring to the fact that ONE SONG is 99cents! That's really expensive!


I will happily pay 99 cents from a song which i enjoy and knowing that i can listen to it anytime i want.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

jani said:


> I will happily pay 99 cents from a song which i enjoy and knowing that i can listen to it anytime i want.


You're looking at this like that is the only option. If I want an album I can head down to the record store and buy it for 50cents at times and not only have a beautiful record, but also be able to rip it in FLAC on my computer! Don't you see?


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

oogabooha said:


> You're looking at this like that is the only option. If I want an album I can head down to the record store and buy it for 50cents at times and not only have a beautiful record, but also be able to rip it in FLAC on my computer! Don't you see?


Yea, i understand that.
Even if the piece of music is just bits of data it doesn't give you the right get some's work for free without permission.

Yeah i also prefer physical albums, but because of the poor selection that we have today, i am forced to purchase it online and wait until it ships or i could just buy the files and get it immediately and still get the same joy from the music that i would get from a listening to a physical album.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

jani said:


> Yea, i understand that.
> Even if the piece of music is just bits of data it doesn't give you the right get some's work for free without permission.
> 
> Yeah i also prefer physical albums, but because of the poor selection that we have today, i am forced to purchase it online and wait until it ships or i could just buy the files and get it immediately and still get the same joy from the music that i would get from a listening to a physical album.


I understand what you're saying, but you are still confusing this with "supporting an artist". Unless it is on an independent level where it goes right to the artist (like Amanda mentioned in the video), chances are the artist is getting little to no profit due to the extensive loans one must take from labels for recording, production, and touring (which leave the artist in debt, even with their little fan "support"). A lot of these problems could be solved with a community like the one Amanda mentioned.

You don't know if you're actually supporting the artist or not, and that is where the corporate music scene has blurred the line.

Also, I understand what YOU do, but you still have yet to understand that some people can't afford everything they listen to. People can buy most of what they listen to, but there are times when a person's taste (and financial situation) can't support their purchasing habits. I'm lucky enough to be in a place where a majority of artists give away music for free (or don't even care if you tell them you downloaded their music without their permission) because there really isn't a major label airhead to tell people off. And this scene /thrives/, whether it be the underground noise artists, the emo-punk kids, or the avant garde classical musicians.

You'd be surprised how an artist really appreciates people giving their TIME (which is worth more than money). Yes, money is a factor, but anyone who understands what really happens in the music business understands that you don't become a musician to be materialistic. It's a mental conquest to satisfy your need to express yourself and sympathize with others.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

oogabooha said:


> I understand what you're saying, but you are still confusing this with "supporting an artist". Unless it is on an independent level where it goes right to the artist (like Amanda mentioned in the video), chances are the artist is getting little to no profit due to the extensive loans one must take from labels for recording, production, and touring (which leave the artist in debt, even with their little fan "support"). A lot of these problems could be solved with a community like the one Amanda mentioned.
> 
> You don't know if you're actually supporting the artist or not, and that is where the corporate music scene has blurred the line.
> *
> ...


Yes, i completely understand that but i know people who have bought external hard drives so they could store all the pirated music they have downloaded, The part that i don't like is that my generation is growing with the attitude " I have a right for their work because some torrented it blabla...etc..."
I understand also that the ways that we enjoy music&distribute it will always change, who knows how we do it in 2050?
Do we have small wireless chips to were can wirelessly put all of our music and it would planted into our ears and the volume levels and other stuff would be controlled by you or automatic settings, which base the settings on your current mood ( Blood pressure, blood sugar levels etc...)

At the moment i don't have time to finish my post so i will edit it later today.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Yes, we get it, we got it the last two times you said it as well, now either debate the principles of the talk or stop posting, please. I'm not trying to be rude but there is potential for good discussion here and I'd appreciate if you (and anyone else) avoid bringing it to an artificial stalemate. Observe the discussion between Laura and Heather in this thread, both are paying attention to and addressing each other's points, they are not simply restating their opening gambit over and over again.


Looks like I have to post it again.


----------

