|
making money from gigs or music (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zombie0915 |
yeah, free downloads are a good way to do publicity. Actually alot of artists post stuff up to download, just not every single thing that they have made. Usually when you look up an artist you can find enough free legal downloads to get a feel for the sound and decide whether to buy their stuff or not.
I don't think we as fans have any reason to discuss how musicians should make their money though, we should just do whatever we feel comfortable doing to get the music we like. I mean, if it were up to me everything would be free, and musicans would have day jobs where they work on things that people actually need rather than collecting loot by selling these silly luxuries we call records.(please kids dont read too much into this I'm not seriously arguing that everybody should do as I say, it's just my POV, and I realize how this would negatively effect alot of the music we get)
There is no sense trying to play games with your conscience and justify breaking the law. If your gonna be a criminal, then be prepared to act like one. Criminals these days seem to have lost their balls, just break the friggin law ffs.
These electonics are such epensive toys, its no wonder the stuff costs so much, but I do feel sometimes as if there are too many hands in the cookie jar, and that sometimes money just needs to be taken out of the equation. It is nice to be able to buy recordings knowing that the money will be spent to keep a person alive and finance his gear budjet, especially if you like his/her sound(though all too often it doesnt work that way andd the label just keeps it and the musicians fall into debt), but at the same time you wonder if there might be a better way to keep your ears happy and your musicians equiped and employed.
I had this silly idea called "holding your music ransom". You make a tune, and post it in a really low quality format, which people can keep and share and whatever they wanna do with it, then you say "I want X amount of money before I will liberate this music". People can pay towards that sum, earning the favor of the musician, perhaps getting some DRM'ed watermarked copy of the music until the time comes that the artists has the full amount of ransom money. Maybe the people who get these DRM'ed copied can then have their dick measuring contests of how they liked the piece before everyone paid and liberated it. Once a satisfactory amount of money has been raised by the piece of music it is liberated, anyone can get a copy, anyone can share it.
I like the ransom idea because it allows the general public to decide how much a piece of music is worth rather than a record label, and musicians get to decide how much money they think they deserve for their music, and once they are satisfied the piece belongs to everyone which kinda brings balance to the force that is file sharing. More in demand music will get a higher ransom, while at the same time that higher ransom will encourage people to keep finding new artists who ask for less. Of course, that wouldn't work unless everybody did it, because a lone musician holding their music ransom would look like a complete jack ass, and musicians would still have to perform and promote themselves in order to get enough fans to pay the ransom. I just thought that may be an appropriate business model for music in the age of the internet. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| yr ransom idea can't work because of free-riding effects |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
yeah, people will never pay when they know they can just wait until the thing becomes free, thats kinda why I called it a silly idea.
Maybe there could be some sort of extra incentive to people who pay, like the people who pay earn the right to distribute the tunes or sample it or something. It would kinda eliminate record labels and some IP lawyers, fragmenting that whole industry into these hyperconsumer rights purchasing types rather then giant companies who screw over musicians.(but would musicians be willing to sell their rights in this way? this would be difficult to implement)
You are right though, the idea needs some kinks worked out of it before it could ever work, people need some reason to pay, they need something they can get that the free riders can't have and wont try to steal, like preferential treatment in file sharing networks, maybe your level access to the sharing of liberated tunes can be gauged by how much ransoms you pay.(that may make it work, what do you think of a ransom model coupled with a file sharing network that gives preferential tratment to ransom contributors?)
Maybe we could create some new type in institiution that gathers together fans of the music and splits the cost of the ransom, those groups form the core fanbase for the musician and get this elite status that so many people here seem to struggle to obtain. Like legalized mp3 groups, or kinda micro record labels who go around paying ransoms and instead of just liberating the tune the rights for distribution get granted to the group who pays off the ransom(But then that group would be just as vulnerable to file sharing losses as a big record label, argh that would be difficult to implement too)
I would like to think of a way that it could be made to work, there just has to be a way to bring balance to the music industry and also allow the advantages that information technology grant us. Maybe the special file sharing network could make it work, maybe that network could even be financed by a portion of the ransom money. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| if anything the producers should get more money then they do for the tracks they make (well the good ones). there should be some kind of motivation for making great music. |
|
|
| djtroa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shade
So the producer should HAVE to DJ to earn money? From what I gather from his comments (and the idea behind the first post of the thread), he's saying producers should be giving out their tracks for free until it comes to something like a compilation or their playing it out on their own sets. That doesn't sound stupid to you? |
I'm saying a producer should at least perform live for the fans, whether it's djing or manipulating their music which what ever programs they use. I'm not saying they have to give their music out for free. But basically the way things are going when it comes to music pirating and production cost to have a song released an artist has to do some type of live act to make ends meet. |
|
|
| djtroa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
if anything the producers should get more money then they do for the tracks they make (well the good ones). there should be some kind of motivation for making great music. |
Some type of motivation? That's funny. I thought if you produce music, you're motivation was to want to touch peoples lives with it and to also just make a great track, not for the cash. :conf: |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by djtroa
I'm saying a producer should at least perform live for the fans, whether it's djing or manipulating their music which what ever programs they use. I'm not saying they have to give their music out for free. But basically the way things are going when it comes to music pirating and production cost to have a song released an artist has to do some type of live act to make ends meet. |
What do you mean manipulating their songs? And unless the track gets leaked early, it seldom affects the artist directly, moreso the label. By saying they should make ends meet by doing live acts you're essentially saying that all producers should be going out and doing gigs, I don't care if you claimed just now that they shouldn't be DJing, but the only other sort of live act is producing live, and that tends to take either knowledge of Ableton, or the ability to use hardware (which most producers can't do off the bat).
Oh.. and a producers aim should not be to please others (as I've already stated) but to please themselves. Any producer who makes music for the purpose of making other people happy is producing for all the wrong reasons. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by djtroa
Some type of motivation? That's funny. I thought if you produce music, you're motivation was to want to touch peoples lives with it and to also just make a great track, not for the cash. :conf: |
ok bad choice of words...some kind of reward.
when i said motivation i meant it thinking that as things are...producers aren't really rewarded for doing good work. dj's in clubs get the bulk of money instead of those that actually make most of the work. i think that would be somewhat frustrating to those producers that aren't also dj's.
also since most producers that aren't djs have to have other jobs...if they were rewarded more for their great work they could afford to live off their productions and spend more time making great music. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
also since most producers that aren't djs have to have other jobs...if they were rewarded more for their great work they could afford to live off their productions and spend more time making great music. |
so why don't producers sell their own records on their personal websites?
people like avb or pvd will tell you that the bulk of their income is not from producing, good tracks raise profiles, but you need to be djing to make serious money? |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
| maybe producers should ransom their tracks and DJ's should be made to pay them, would be a bit easier to balance the gap between DJ and producer than it would the gap between musician and tech savvy customer. |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdclubber
so why don't producers sell their own records on their personal websites?
people like avb or pvd will tell you that the bulk of their income is not from producing, good tracks raise profiles, but you need to be djing to make serious money? |
Some do sell their own records on their personal websites, HOWEVER individual producers don't get promoted as well without a label of any sort, and the income that would come initially doesn't get factored in if they sell it on their own. Think about it, how likely would it be for you to go and buy a track (even if it sounded good) off some no-name producers website? Also, they don't have the equipment to do things like vinyl pressings, nor the money to cover mass CD production/shipment while still making profit.
And again, most producers aren't making the tracks for the sake of making money (though it doesn't hurt) but the majority are really doing the production for themselves in the first place. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shade
Also, they don't have the equipment to do things like vinyl pressings, nor the money to cover mass CD production/shipment while still making profit.
|
the marginal cost of supplying mp3s is virtually zero, if you neglect server costs.
get over vinyl, it's dead. too bulky to carry , deteriorates with time and is too expensive. |
|
|
|
|
