Free Music Revolution
sublvl.com
sublvl.com
This has always been a problem, and still is a problem. Breaking out of your musical bubble is difficult and most of the online solutions don't really do a great job of doing that. They present you more of the things that you're aware of, and if you're lucky they'll give you something very similar to what you have that you really like and haven't heard of, but they do a poor job of presenting you with something novel.
> The second free music became available the traditional music economy was dead. The idea that you would have to pay money to be happy or comforted or angry was gone. No longer will people have the notion as I first did in the early days of listening to music, that their emotions were being used for profit. People now want to be musically satisfied for free, with no-one sequestering money as a result.
The sentiment expressed in this paragraph is abhorrent to me. I'm someone who is happy to pirate a lot of material, but I make sure to pay[1] for it if I keep it or delete it if I dislike it.
> Even with sites like Itunes and Napster who charged much less per music (but still relatively large in comparison to production costs) they still chose free.
The author makes no guess as to the production cost of music. And, really, that's a hopelessly naive view of pricing. In the chain of music production you have musicians trying to make a living from making music.
> Where as before these lablels and artists would have to adhere to the zeigest and merge into it and maybe create something different near the end (for instance radioheads slow morphing into a much different sound but having started as a rock band)
There are two concepts here. The author is wrong; there have been challenging bands for a very long time. Bands making music that they liked, not for other people. Maybe that's made easier by not having to pay to have vinyl mastered and records pressed.
The other concept is also wrong, and will continue to happen for a long time. "I liked their first album but now? THEY SUCK".
That article was a wrong headed mish mash of confused misinformation.
Technology has had countless positive effects on musicians and the recorded music industry but in terms of people who finance the production of recorded music, be it artists themselves or big companies, 'free' music has not been much of a step forward. The only one that comes to mind is the sharp reduction in cost of allowing potential fans to hear music before they buy it, but this also irrevocably blurred the lines of what is free and what should be require a payment.
People think that concerts make money, or that merch makes money, or that royalties from being played on radio makes money.
People don't really know how bands work - where does the money for instruments come from? Practice space? Recording demos? Studio time for recording stuff to be released? Engineering and production? Artwork? Then, if any money is made for the band how is it split up; how do you pay a drummer vs a bass player vs a singer song writer?
So they think "this download is only a dollar, it's nothing really, they won't miss it." not knowing the effect that has on the artist.