Fun Stuff > BAND

A Call For Assistance in Changing the Music Industry

<< < (3/5) > >>

Dimmukane:
Yeah, but if you use the donation angle, I think more people are likely to pay.  Most likely because they deserved it.  I'm not just talking about Radiohead, though, in any case.  Many independent artists are releasing their music for free and selling merch and hard copies on their websites, which in turn supports tours and more merchandising.  Asking for donations, while not generating a lot of income, would probably generate enough income to cover the cost of producing the merch.  Maybe even touring costs, too, and website maintenance.  Which gives the artists themselves the profit from selling the merch/tickets rather than taking some money out to pay for it. 

Calaveth:

--- Quote from: look out! Ninjas! on 16 Sep 2008, 18:44 ---Dimmukane: There's one problem. I didn't pay a fucking cent for In Rainbows, despite it being one of the better records of last year. Why? Because I could. People don't care what the artists deserve, majority of people reckon they get far too much money anyway.

--- End quote ---

You didn't, but a lot of people did. I could be wrong, but I think I heard that people paid on average about $3 for the album. I think that must be considered a success. It doesn't matter that you didn't pay for it, as long as the musicians make enough money to continue making music.

It's better for Radiohead that you have the album for free, than that you don't have it at all. Now they have the chance that you play it for someone and create a new fan, who might in turn spend money on concert tickets, merchandize or albums. Of course, they'd rather see you pay for it, but that's out of their control.

Overall though, I think artists need to start looking at recorded music as marketing materials, rather than as the primary product in itself. There might be services that people would be willing to pay for, I'm thinking off-site storage of music collections for example, but I'm not sure that kind of business model would work with current laws. At the very least, major labels would have to be in on the deal.

benji:
You can also walk in to most public museums without making the suggested donation. Most people still do make the donation because they believe the museum should continue to be their. Of course, that's in public, so social pressure has to be taken into account.

pinkpiche:

--- Quote from: Ptommydski on 17 Sep 2008, 11:18 ---
--- Quote from: look out! Ninjas! on 16 Sep 2008, 18:44 ---Dimmukane: There's one problem. I didn't pay a fucking cent for In Rainbows, despite it being one of the better records of last year. Why? Because I could. People don't care what the artists deserve, majority of people reckon they get far too much money anyway.

--- End quote ---

What do artists deserve?

I figure they deserve the ability to make art. Beyond that, we're beyond the realm of art.

--- End quote ---

I don't think "ability" is the right word, as it applies to the artist's skills and/or abilities and not his/her opportunity to make art. What you basically mean is that artists deserve to be able to make art, whenever and wherever, right?

As far as what Radiohead wanted with In Rainbows, it was a reaction to a certain moment - a proposition ie. How much do YOU think we deserve? "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'Fuck you' to this decaying business model." They are not going to publish their music like that again, though, according to Yorke. In Rainbows made, in the first month, over 3 million dollars; so I ask you? How many of those people thought Radiohead deserved something for their art?

Dimmukane:
Moving to the free-but-money-gets-you-cooler-stuff part kind of acknowledges that, I think.  Instead of demanding a price, like a businessperson, they let the public decide, like an artist.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page