5 ms·

Remember - music existed before money. Selling recorded performances is relatively new - how long have records been around? I doubt the first users of the tech

Remember - music existed before money. Selling recorded performances is relatively new - how long have records been around? I doubt the first users of the tech in the early 1900s spent enough on records to support any type of professional musician, let alone create Lady Gaga like stars. Yet, somehow, there have been professional musicians for likely thousands of years. Record companies solved the distribution problem. The Internet proved them obsolete and for the next few years they'll continue their death rattle until they blossom into something that looks like Spotify (which is replacing radio as well), or someone else will fill their shoes (as Spotify is doing today). And then no one will care about programs designed to put lipstick on my 80gb mp3 pig as iTunes does... Unless they roll out their own all you can eat service :)

gurkendoktor 14y ago
> music existed before money ?? Before money, artists still needed food and shelter... > Yet, somehow, there have been professional musicians for likely thousands of years. But does anyone really want to go back to the patronage system?
- oofabz 14y ago
  I want to go back to the system where musicians are not rock stars trying to sell you a product, they are ordinary people with a day job who enjoy making and sharing music for their own entertainment.
  - yardie 14y ago
    We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? I want to go back to the system where musicians were rewarded with money to put invest into their next project. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think Spotify nor Pandora are the answer. My musician friends feel like it's the new Payola. They don't like to be on there because the royalties on 1000 plays is not even worth the postage. Yet, they can't afford not to be there because so many other musicians and listeners are using it.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? Nobody is demanding anything of artists; it's artists (well, mostly labels, but also some artists) that are demanding monopolies from society.
      - yardie 14y ago
        ¿Que? I'm not even sure how to interpret this statement. Monopolies of what exactly?
        Karunamon 14y ago
        The ridiculous copyright extensions pushed for by the mafiAA? Ridiculous suits against network printers, computer illiterate grandmas, and children, sometimes for more than the GDP of the entire world?
        icebraining 14y ago
        Monopolies over the creations. Thomas Jefferson's proposal for the Amendment that granted copyright and patents was: Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding — years but for no longer term and no other purpose. Madison, on the other hand, wrote: Monopolies, though in certain cases useful, ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness against abuse. The Constitution of the United States has limited them to two cases--the authors of books, and of useful inventions (...)
    - yarrel 14y ago
      Your favourite authors and artists have day jobs. Why should musicians be any different?
  - objclxt 14y ago
    > "I want to go back to the system where [musicians] are ordinary people with a day job who enjoy making and sharing music for their own entertainment" I am not sure this system ever existed, and I would be sad if it did. People have been writing music as their 'day job' since the 16th Century - the difference was their salaries were being paid by patrons rather than the general public. A system where musicians have to spend 8 hours a day on a 'day job' rather than spending time improving their craft, composing, and playing doesn't sound like a very good system to me.
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    I don't care if they have a day job or not; but I don't want rock stars selling a product either, which is why I don't think artists making money only through concerts/t-shirts/crowdfunding is a good idea. iTunes and Spotify don't care if an artist is introverted or not.
jbigelow76 14y ago
>Remember - music existed before money. Selling recorded performances is relatively new You're conflating two different phenomenon here. Music may have existed before money, however, RECORDED distributable music did not. If you had to pay the opportunity cost associated with seeing a live performance every time you wanted to listen to music your argument would hold water.

gurkendoktor 14y ago

> music existed before money ?? Before money, artists still needed food and shelter... > Yet, somehow, there have been professional musicians for likely thousands of years. But does anyone really want to go back to the patronage system?

oofabz 14y ago
I want to go back to the system where musicians are not rock stars trying to sell you a product, they are ordinary people with a day job who enjoy making and sharing music for their own entertainment.
- yardie 14y ago
  We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? I want to go back to the system where musicians were rewarded with money to put invest into their next project. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think Spotify nor Pandora are the answer. My musician friends feel like it's the new Payola. They don't like to be on there because the royalties on 1000 plays is not even worth the postage. Yet, they can't afford not to be there because so many other musicians and listeners are using it.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    We don't demand this of any other profession yet musicians should have a day job and make music for the love of it? Nobody is demanding anything of artists; it's artists (well, mostly labels, but also some artists) that are demanding monopolies from society.
    - yardie 14y ago
      ¿Que? I'm not even sure how to interpret this statement. Monopolies of what exactly?
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        The ridiculous copyright extensions pushed for by the mafiAA? Ridiculous suits against network printers, computer illiterate grandmas, and children, sometimes for more than the GDP of the entire world?
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Monopolies over the creations. Thomas Jefferson's proposal for the Amendment that granted copyright and patents was: Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding — years but for no longer term and no other purpose. Madison, on the other hand, wrote: Monopolies, though in certain cases useful, ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness against abuse. The Constitution of the United States has limited them to two cases--the authors of books, and of useful inventions (...)
  - yarrel 14y ago
    Your favourite authors and artists have day jobs. Why should musicians be any different?
- objclxt 14y ago
  > "I want to go back to the system where [musicians] are ordinary people with a day job who enjoy making and sharing music for their own entertainment" I am not sure this system ever existed, and I would be sad if it did. People have been writing music as their 'day job' since the 16th Century - the difference was their salaries were being paid by patrons rather than the general public. A system where musicians have to spend 8 hours a day on a 'day job' rather than spending time improving their craft, composing, and playing doesn't sound like a very good system to me.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  I don't care if they have a day job or not; but I don't want rock stars selling a product either, which is why I don't think artists making money only through concerts/t-shirts/crowdfunding is a good idea. iTunes and Spotify don't care if an artist is introverted or not.

jbigelow76 14y ago

>Remember - music existed before money. Selling recorded performances is relatively new You're conflating two different phenomenon here. Music may have existed before money, however, RECORDED distributable music did not. If you had to pay the opportunity cost associated with seeing a live performance every time you wanted to listen to music your argument would hold water.