4 ms·

> It's normally used as the backdrop to a party, or exercising, or some other such thing This is way off. Music changes peoples lives. It defines generations.

> It's normally used as the backdrop to a party, or exercising, or some other such thing This is way off. Music changes peoples lives. It defines generations. To many, it is one of the most important things in the world. > The entire system of copyright and recorded art needs to be abolished, and any music that is recorded instantly becomes the public domain. No way, artists deserve to be paid for their works.

blhack 11y ago
>This is way off. Music changes peoples lives. It defines generations. To many, it is one of the most important things in the world. Sure, but you can't discount that for most people, the majority of time spent listening to music, it is being used as a backdrop. I listen to music while I'm driving, while I'm working, while I'm working out, etc. I certainly also spend time sitting down and really taking time to appreciate the music as an artform, but the majority of time it's just in the background. I think that's what the parent is saying.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ssalazar 11y ago
>> The entire system of copyright and recorded art needs to be abolished, and any music that is recorded instantly becomes the public domain. > No way, artists deserve to be paid for their works. I agree, but the fair market value of a digitized recording is evidently close to zero and in general too low to sustain an artistic career save for exceptional cases. The era in which a musician could support himself or herself via selling recordings has basically been a blip in the history of music. We can try to sustain this blip, which appears to be a sinking ship, or we can reinforce traditional models like patronage (e.g. Patreon, NEA, private endowments, etc.) and live performance.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
> No way, artists deserve to be paid for their works. Unfortunately for the artists, what they value their work at (living income) and what the market does (close to zero) is drastically different. You can't will music to be worth something because you're nostalgic over times gone by.
- thegayngler 11y ago
  People are stealing the music. If they actually made the music unavailable to streaming services then the artists have a shot at people actually purchasing the music. I actually think that they need to double the price of subscriptions. People listen to music as much as they watch TV and maybe even more so... Cable TV doesn't give you unlimited everything but we pay like 10x that per month and we still have to listen to the ads in many cases. So I definitely think maybe they need to hike the price to $25 or $30 per month.
  - learc83 11y ago
    >then the artists have a shot at people actually purchasing the music. Or they'll just pirate it. >So I definitely think maybe they need to hike the price to $25 or $30 per month. Spotify will charge what the market will pay. They think that $10 a month is the sweet spot, any more and they will lose more revenue in lost subscribers than they gain. >Cable TV doesn't give you unlimited everything but we pay like 10x that per month and we still have to listen to the ads in many cases. And cable TV is currently losing subscribers. I'm not sure that's a business model you want to emulate.
  - curryst 11y ago
    Music fills a different void, though. I don't know many people who just sit down and listen to music the same way that they watch TV. I tend to agree with the other poster. Music is good, but any more is typically more of a backdrop to our lives than a driver of our lives. Music is something I put on in the background while I work, or while I exercise, or when the house is just too quiet. I'm a Spotify subscriber, and they can't go much over $10 a month or I'll just stop subscribing. Spotify's real value is that it's cheap and it's easier than piracy. With younger generations becoming more technical, the percentage of people able to download uTorrent and get on TPB is getting larger. The value of music is declining as free (though illegal) methods of getting it are getting easier, and as music is starting to take less of a focal point in our lives. Music just isn't worth what it used to be.
curun1r 11y ago
> Music changes peoples lives. It defines generations. To many, it is one of the most important things in the world. I agree that music is incredibly valuable to us as a society. Ever since we crowded around the tribal campfire, our species has been almost pre-wired to appreciate music in this way. So the question I'd put forward, is how much of that value is created by the artists and how much of that value is created by the listeners? In the absence of the songs that "define generations" would we not have seen other songs fill the gap to define those generations? Or are those generation-defining songs so unique that, without them, there would be an unfilled void? This is where I believe the current copyright laws err. While I'm genuinely posing the above questions, I've also mainly formulated my opinions on the answers to those questions and I believe that most of the value that you're recognizing in music comes from the fact that so many of us have, collectively, listened to the music rather than some inherent virtue of the music or skill of the artist. Once you accept that premise, it argues for things like vastly expanded non-commercial fair use rights or a loosening of the control that artists have to maximize the value realized by communities experiencing music together. > artists deserve to be paid for their works Most reasonable people would agree. Just how much and how often they're paid is an entirely different question and one where I strongly believe the artists (and record labels) shouldn't be the only ones with a say in the matter.

blhack 11y ago

>This is way off. Music changes peoples lives. It defines generations. To many, it is one of the most important things in the world. Sure, but you can't discount that for most people, the majority of time spent listening to music, it is being used as a backdrop. I listen to music while I'm driving, while I'm working, while I'm working out, etc. I certainly also spend time sitting down and really taking time to appreciate the music as an artform, but the majority of time it's just in the background. I think that's what the parent is saying.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ssalazar 11y ago

>> The entire system of copyright and recorded art needs to be abolished, and any music that is recorded instantly becomes the public domain. > No way, artists deserve to be paid for their works. I agree, but the fair market value of a digitized recording is evidently close to zero and in general too low to sustain an artistic career save for exceptional cases. The era in which a musician could support himself or herself via selling recordings has basically been a blip in the history of music. We can try to sustain this blip, which appears to be a sinking ship, or we can reinforce traditional models like patronage (e.g. Patreon, NEA, private endowments, etc.) and live performance.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> No way, artists deserve to be paid for their works. Unfortunately for the artists, what they value their work at (living income) and what the market does (close to zero) is drastically different. You can't will music to be worth something because you're nostalgic over times gone by.

thegayngler 11y ago
People are stealing the music. If they actually made the music unavailable to streaming services then the artists have a shot at people actually purchasing the music. I actually think that they need to double the price of subscriptions. People listen to music as much as they watch TV and maybe even more so... Cable TV doesn't give you unlimited everything but we pay like 10x that per month and we still have to listen to the ads in many cases. So I definitely think maybe they need to hike the price to $25 or $30 per month.
- learc83 11y ago
  >then the artists have a shot at people actually purchasing the music. Or they'll just pirate it. >So I definitely think maybe they need to hike the price to $25 or $30 per month. Spotify will charge what the market will pay. They think that $10 a month is the sweet spot, any more and they will lose more revenue in lost subscribers than they gain. >Cable TV doesn't give you unlimited everything but we pay like 10x that per month and we still have to listen to the ads in many cases. And cable TV is currently losing subscribers. I'm not sure that's a business model you want to emulate.
- curryst 11y ago
  Music fills a different void, though. I don't know many people who just sit down and listen to music the same way that they watch TV. I tend to agree with the other poster. Music is good, but any more is typically more of a backdrop to our lives than a driver of our lives. Music is something I put on in the background while I work, or while I exercise, or when the house is just too quiet. I'm a Spotify subscriber, and they can't go much over $10 a month or I'll just stop subscribing. Spotify's real value is that it's cheap and it's easier than piracy. With younger generations becoming more technical, the percentage of people able to download uTorrent and get on TPB is getting larger. The value of music is declining as free (though illegal) methods of getting it are getting easier, and as music is starting to take less of a focal point in our lives. Music just isn't worth what it used to be.

curun1r 11y ago

> Music changes peoples lives. It defines generations. To many, it is one of the most important things in the world. I agree that music is incredibly valuable to us as a society. Ever since we crowded around the tribal campfire, our species has been almost pre-wired to appreciate music in this way. So the question I'd put forward, is how much of that value is created by the artists and how much of that value is created by the listeners? In the absence of the songs that "define generations" would we not have seen other songs fill the gap to define those generations? Or are those generation-defining songs so unique that, without them, there would be an unfilled void? This is where I believe the current copyright laws err. While I'm genuinely posing the above questions, I've also mainly formulated my opinions on the answers to those questions and I believe that most of the value that you're recognizing in music comes from the fact that so many of us have, collectively, listened to the music rather than some inherent virtue of the music or skill of the artist. Once you accept that premise, it argues for things like vastly expanded non-commercial fair use rights or a loosening of the control that artists have to maximize the value realized by communities experiencing music together. > artists deserve to be paid for their works Most reasonable people would agree. Just how much and how often they're paid is an entirely different question and one where I strongly believe the artists (and record labels) shouldn't be the only ones with a say in the matter.