|
Discussion: Why shouldn't music be free?
Member Since: 12/4/2009
Posts: 6,471
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 8thPrince
Devil's advocate: Art in museums and public works like sculptures are free for multiple people to enjoy. What's the distinction between art and music that makes it necessary for music to have a price tag?
|
Art in museums is like music on the radio. If you want to actually own it, you should purchase it.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 8,969
|
Making music and art costs money, and I believe artists deserve to have their art be their livelihood.
Earning money through your art doesn't make you less of an artist.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 21,331
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cake
People are downloading their music from pirating websites at growing rates, giving absolutely zero reimbursement to the creator of the art. Albums downloaded on these sites are "truly free".
|
Well that's not legal obvi
I wasn't talking about illegal downloads
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,021
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rama
It should. Artists should get the $$$$ by touring.
I really believe 20 years from now it will be like that.
|
Not every artist can reliably make money from touring. If you're a hot new Billboard-topping artist or an old legend, then it's easy to get a ton of people to pay money to see you live. But what if you're just starting to put your name out there? What if you're an indie artist without major label support?
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/13/2012
Posts: 3,421
|
Why shouldn't paintings or books be free? Why shouldn't everything be free? Are you serious?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 23,368
|
Quote:
Originally posted by funnychick
Art in museums is like music on the radio. If you want to actually own it, you should purchase it.
|
Very nice analogy!
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,225
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
What? How does art lose its value if it's free? Putting a price tag on creative expression seems far more cheapening than anything.
Like, I get that selling their works is essentially the primary source of income for most artists and it's how they fund their future endeavors, but to imply that any piece art should have a price in order for it to have worth is just
|
Because someone's hard work should be rewarded. It being worth a certain amount of money means it has value. Should visual artists start giving away their canvases for free?
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/25/2012
Posts: 10,673
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cake
Many would counter this argument saying that touring and brand deals are ways that artists should make money rather than selling their records. What would you say to those people?
|
Only artists (and mostly big artists at that) get the luxury of touring and having brand sponsorships. How else are producers, writers, and engineers supposed to make money? They're the ones who actually do all the work creating the music for these artists to tour off of, and they're the ones who get screwed over the worst.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,225
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cake
This is not a rare argument. Taylor Swift, in fact, used it in her article for the Wall Street Journal on this topic.
Do you disagree?
|
That user disagrees with literally anything that comes out of Taylor's mouth just for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/15/2012
Posts: 35,409
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
How is this even a question.?
How can you be so entitled that you think you have a right to others' creations and hard work, for free?
Move to Cuba.
|
/end thread
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 12,615
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
1) Most museums charge a fee to everyone except certain demographics.
2) You're only viewing/experiencing the work. You're not taking it home to "own" it, to use/appreciate it whenever you want.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by funnychick
Art in museums is like music on the radio. If you want to actually own it, you should purchase it.
|
And most artists don't see a red cent of those fees.
But you don't really own music when you buy it, either. You legally don't have permission to alter it, perform it (or rather play it for an audience), copy it, or sell it, all those being rights associated with ownership of almost any other product.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/9/2012
Posts: 59,872
|
You could say the revenue sustained from free streaming versus paid streaming and buying music isn't a realistic ratio and the music industry as a whole cannot survive off of it.
Paid Subscription Streaming earned the US industry $799.1 million in 2014. Ad-Supported Streaming earned the industry $294.8 million by comparison. This is despite the fact only 7.7 million people paid for Subscription Streaming in 2014, it made more than double more than ad-supported.
- RIAA's 2014 Music Industry Report
Even in markets where Streaming is beneficial and keeps the industry afloat, bringing it the majority of the income; ad-funded / free streaming absolutely brings almost nothing to the table.
Norway for example, has revived as a market in the music industry due to the success of streaming. In 2015 their industry made the most money since 2010; and it's only growing further with the complete dominance of Streaming.
However, ad-supported even in a time where Streaming completely rules the industry brings no money despite pulling the biggest audience of any other way of consuming music.
Music will continue to evolve like anything else in the digital age, however that doesn't give a reason to erase it's value. Especially when paying an amount for music (a $9.99 monthly subscription) lower than ever, with more access to music than ever, still benefits and increases the industry. Ad-funded / free Streaming not only erases the value of music, but decreases the industry.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 1,824
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PrettyHurts
Well that's not legal obvi
I wasn't talking about illegal downloads
|
Legal or not, illegal downloads have created the biggest shift in the history of the music industry in terms of obtaining music. Do you see the music industry continuing down the path of allowing consumers to have what they want (free music) and do you think that is a bad thing?
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 8thPrince
And most artists don't see a red cent of those fees.
But you don't really own music when you buy it, either. You legally don't have permission to alter it, perform it (or rather play it for an audience), copy it, or sell it, all those being rights associated with ownership of almost any other product.
|
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...?
Artists' agree to exhibit at museums. And keeping with the radio analogy, the museum, like radio, is more or less promotion/exposure.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 1,824
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MissedTheTrain
Music is art. It is the result of hard work and should have value placed on it, not just thrown out for free..that cheapens and devalues it IMO.
If an artist wants to release something for free then that's fine but overall I don't think it should be a standard.
|
Do you agree that once successful artists who can afford to release their music for free start doing so, those who can't afford to do the same are put at a disadvantage?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 19,910
|
It shouldn't be free, but it should be a lot cheaper. The soon the industry realises this, the better chances they stand to save the album medium. It's ridiculous to charge $12-14 for a digital album no matter how many "bonus" tracks it has. Digital albums should cost no more than a fiver. It doesn't cost anyone almost anything. Tracks should be 50c or so. The industry is greedy, trying to cling to former physical prices. It's not working.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/4/2009
Posts: 6,471
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Brando
It shouldn't be free, but it should be a lot cheaper. The soon the industry realises this, the better chances they stand to save the album medium. It's ridiculous to charge $12-14 for a digital album no matter how many "bonus" tracks it has. Digital albums should cost no more than a fiver. It doesn't cost anyone almost anything. Tracks should be 50c or so. The industry is greedy, trying to cling to former physical prices. It's not working.
|
Music is a luxury. If you can't afford a $12-14 album, then go listen to the radio or get a job. The greedy ones are the people who want music for free or for pocket change and download it illegally when others don't cater to their sense of entitlement.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,099
|
Because people spend time and money to make it and therefore they should be compensated for their work.
Plan and simple.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 37,384
|
Most artists make most of their money through touring anyways. If anything the songwriters and producers deserve the money from streaming/single sales/airplay
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 351
|
It COST to make music. Do you know how much studio time is? How much top producers charge for beats? How much it cost to distribute? Hue much it cost to promote? How much music videos cost?? How much music engineers charge ?? Making music is not easy and it is not free. It takes time and money.
|
|
|
|
|