Should music be free?
  • I say yes, all music should be free. I make music because i love making it. If people don't like what i do (which they will. lol) i am fine with that.
    You used to buy an album, you had to pay for it, i understand how it works, but nowerdays all music is online. Okay, i understand some artist had to pay to get to album produced by producer, but if you go out of tour (if you are any good) you should earn enough to do that.
    Do you remember Radiohead putting an album free online!!! and Prince's last two albums were free if you bought a news paper. Music should be free, thats my opinion. I ask this question, how many people have used limewire of frostwire? think about it.....
  • :bigsmile:
  • how about this? it COSTS FUCKING MONEY TO MAKE A FUCKING RECORD OF FUCKING QUALITY. GOOD RECORDING EQUIPMENT ISN'T FREE. how about this: IT'S NOT FUCKING FREE FOR ME TO MAKE A RECORD ON PAR WITH FUCKING MADONNA'S SHIT. WHY SHOULD YOU EXPECT ME TO MAKE ONE ON PAR WITH THAT DIRTY FUCKING SKANK FOR FREE? oh, you say that recording quality doesn't matter, but it fucking does. what a bag of fuckng shyit.

    stop saying that just because radiohead has made a million dollars off their record that i should. nobody pays me to do this. nobody fuckign gives a shit about me, but frankly, i fuckign do it anyway. fuck you.

    i'm not radiohead. i don't have millions of fans. i can put out a record and no one will give a shit about what i do. i can put out fucking epic shit, and no one will give a fuck because i don't have the same fucking marketing machine behind me, so fuck you. stop comparing me to those fucking pieces of shit.

    in conclusion, your question gets on my last fucking nerve. why should music be free-er than fucking anything else? why should it be freer than cars or fucking movies or fucking your whore of a mother? go die you fucking sack of shit.
  • HOW ABOUT THIS? IF MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE, LET ME LIVE IN YOUR FUCKING HOUSE FOR FREE. I WANT TO SHIT IN YOUR FUCKING TOILET AND YOU CAN FUCKING FEED ME IN EXCHANGE FOR WRITING YOU FUCKING BALLADS. EAT MY BALLS, YOU FUCKING GAYLORD.
  • or maybe this: go to the fucking music shop and buy me some fucking microphones. then after that, go to recording school and ship your retarded ass across the fucking pond. move into my basement where you will record my music for me at my leisure. don't have time for that? oh well, how about you stick your "music should be free" bullshit straight up your fucking ass, twat?
  • officernarc said:
    officernarc said:


    So is that a yes or no. :bigsmile:
  • LOL

    First define "free" . . . as in "money"? That item that keeps people from having to live under a bridge? In that case it is up to the people who want that item, or the people who are willing to give it . . . they have the freedom to dispense or take money as required during their interactions.

    "Free" as in freedom of expression? Yes . . . all things are free in that case . . . philosophically . . . as free as you can get.

    "Free" as in some people want to give away their own stuff? And other's want to take it? Sure . . . why not?

    Its all in the perspective and the definitions I think. Officernarc has a good point which he expressed freely (let's try to tone down the language, please, a gentle request from me). In this world, money talks the loudest when it comes to needs and living . .. we all know that . . . its been discussed endlessly.

    I have a friend, in Portland, who is a musician and he told me that as hard as they worked to make their last album, they expect to make next to nothing on it . . . its the other promotional stuff, the gigs, the commercials, and other stuff that earns the bread and butter for them . . . but in the end the members of the band are all keeping their day jobs.

    M^^W
  • officernarc, please keep your language in check. Respect others that do not want to see such in these forums.

    I believe that with most artists on Jamendo that it is about sharing their music. Should they receive monetary remuneration that is a plus!
    In the outside world that we live in, though, everything has a price. Known bands started out in clubs, doing cover songs and then come to the conclusion that they want to get "their" songs noticed. So they work at it, push countless demos from one radio station to the other, might get heard and then the dance begins; get an agent (money), get a manager (money) and play like mad in order to pay all of those associated with the rest! With hard work and diligence maybe, just maybe, the group will become recognized and then off they go! Until that happens, as Barb said, they keep their day jobs.

    ALL music should be free? Never going to happen; not in this capitalistic world...

    Mike
  • Thats not an easy question actually, but i think that sites like this is good.
    Where its up to the artist to share or not, i dont think its possible to make all music free tbh.:confused:
  • sometimes i think, people can feel the value of things they paid for much more. the more hard it is to get a thing, the bigger the value seems to be.
    so maybe the zero-cost tons of free albums may have negative effects too.

    nevertheless i love it, to give away my music for free. and i´m glad to get responses to them. maybe that´s a kind of 'price' to pay? a simple 'thank you'?
  • To most people importance and valence are revealed exclusively some seconds after a loss.
  • pan said:
    a simple 'thank you'?


    I remember when I first discovered Jamendo, in 2007, and I came just to get an album or two so I could play music for my students (we didn't have music classes then, in our school, and I felt they were missing an important element in life). I found this great site, Jamendo, and all the music was free . . . I made sure it was legal . . . super!!!

    Then there was a time when I started downloading albums for me . . . and I began to feel guilty . . . what are the musicians getting out of this? I didn't realize that I could write reviews and that would make them happy . . . I thought the review writing was only for "experts" at music and I wasn't an expert at all, so I just started starring the albums I liked. I thought of that as my thank-you.

    Eventually I realized that I could write reviews and sometimes people liked what I wrote. That gave me a huge involvement with the community on Jamendo and I loved that. It also encouraged me in my own art . . . writing poetry.

    Now, Jamendo is like family . . . with big welcoming arms for everyone who wants to come and share. It doesn't have to be music . . . just a listening ear, or writing . . . but its a good place to hang out . . . you always find someone here, and we have a lot to learn from each other. That's how I feel . . . and I always feel that there is never any excuse to feel lonely, when you can come and participate by listening, sharing and communicating here on Jamendo . .

    I don't know where I was going with this . . .. ah . . . yes, Pan's statement about the simple "thank you." I was trying to explain why its hard for people to feel part of the community . . . and sometimes they take the music without knowing what else they can do . . . and how they might not realize that they can become part of Jamendo. How they can feel at home here, whenever they have the time . .. to feel welcome, come and visit and share . . . I think that's part of the "thank you" that musicians and all of us like . . . to be realized as valued human beings, as part of the greater human "family" which loves and values each other . . . Its nice . . .

    I wish I could listen to more music and write reviews for everyone who asks, let alone everyone who shares their music. I wish there were more people willing to write a simple review . .. like "Great Job . . . I loved it . . " .... whatever! That would be a nice thank you for the musicians and their gifts to the listeners. But I believe that for every reviewer who says, "I loved it," there are a hundred who think the same but never say a word . . . perhaps because they are shy, like I was.

    So, I hope I made some sense . . . if not . . . please forgive me for my rambling!

    M^^W
    LOVE
  • Thank you orangeupurple, you said precisely and exactly what I feel about Jamendo : it should be a place where people share things :
    musicians give their music and listeners give their comments in return and all this doens't cost a penny. :wink:
    Van Syla
  • I don't think music 'should' be free as of right, however, if the artist(s) wish to share it then I think at least a review by the listener is in order, a sort of payment in kind, if you like. Not everyone who has created something wants paid in hard cash, sometimes it is simply enough to know that one's efforts have been appreciated. My reviews may not be the most detailed, however I do like to let the artist know their music has given me enjoyment, and hopefully that makes them feel it has been worth their while sharing. I have allowed people to use photos I have taken and I'm happy if all I get in return is a kind word and a short description of what they were used for. Fortunately not everyone measures success in monetary terms. I think it's known as karma, or 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' :smile:
  • Of course I'd love to be able to legally download whatever the heck I want and not have to pay for it, but I'd love to be able to do anything without having to pay for it. The fact of the matter is artists generally put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their craft and for someone to come along and say "I don't think I should have to pay for this" is basically saying "this isn't worth any money at all." I'd love to be able to treat music like a full time job and spend all day writing, practicing, and promoting, but that's just not going to happen unless someone pays me for my music.

    I do, however, think artists can really benefit from offering small portions of their works for free. When Radiohead did it, they had the money that they could afford to give an album away, and they had a great catalog otherwise that new fans who got hooked on In Rainbows, they'd be more willing to go back and shell out some cash for their other albums. In my opinion, exposure is everything in music, and what better way to get exposure than to offer free, legal downloads of some of your music to a music culture that feels entitled to free entertainment?
  • Well said, Tay Hoho :thumbup:
  • Process Services Provider-
    This range of service is for BPOs or KPOs already functioning or starting venture, where you are looking for a VOICE or WEB Based process to run at your end. WE provide both kinds of processes and related support with written guarantee of payout to other Call Centers or Contact Centers.
    ==========
    [url=http://www.sapiencebpo.com]bpo projects[/url]
  • [quote=officernarc]fucking [/quote]

    Clearly the word "fuck" (and all it's derivatives) is free for non-commercial use. ;-))

    My opinion is that the matter is not if the music should be free or not. I think that the Artists and Creators should be free to decide whatever they want to do and not be under the contracts "small letters" slavery. It's a shame to hear the commercial music, with all the limitations that labels impose their musicians.

    On the other side, I want to say do officenarc that I am currently doing something (that costs me money and a lot of time) and giving it to other people for free. It's not an attempt to mirror Jamendo, much the opposite, is just another place for some friends to post their music: http://creators.menal.org

    Precisely, when I learned about jamendo (and the world of GPL open source software) I experienced the same guilty feelings about not giving anything back to all these people that work so much for free, so I decided also to share some "music" I try to make and create a platform for fellow musicians.

    If everybody used a 5% of their time to create art and utilities for free, this would be a better world. It's not a fantasy nor uthopy, it's happening now in Linux, GPL, CC licenses and Jamendo.

    We can do it, but everybody has to be free to choose their path and ask for money or give it for free, if they want to do it.

    Best regards. David.
  • Actually music is free . . . as summer gets hotter in my home town . . . the boys drive their vehicles around with their windows down .. . and entertain us all with their musical choices . . . at a pitch which is designed to blast out the eardrums of anyone within 1000 meters .. .. thank you boys for your free music .. .. grrrrrr . . . and if you come near me .. .. I will bite your butt as a special thanks . ...


    So Says,
    Mother Wolf
    :devil::wink:

    edit: sorry . . . I hope "butt" isn't a bad word or offends anyone . . . except for those (grrrr) boys!:confused:
  • To give it for free, or not to give it for free ?
    Whatever !
    What kills the world and its humanity is the lack of concern, indifference.

    The rules that rule nowadays are :
    - not seen, not caught !
    - the others are perfectly capable of doing it, why not me !

    What makes it it easy ? Anonymity !


    david.bluecame said:
    If everybody used a 5% of their time to create art and utilities for free, this would be a better world.


    Paul H said:
    I think at least a review by the listener is in order, a sort of payment in kind, if you like. Not everyone who has created something wants paid in hard cash, sometimes it is simply enough to know that one's efforts have been appreciated.


    orangeupurple said:
    I think that's part of the "thank you" that musicians and all of us like . . . to be realized as valued human beings, as part of the greater human "family" which loves and values each other . . . Its nice . . .


    pan said:
    sometimes i think, people can feel the value of things they paid for much more. the more hard it is to get a thing, the bigger the value seems to be. So maybe the zero-cost tons of free albums may have negative effects too.


    Frank Harper said : To most people importance and value are revealed exclusively some seconds after a loss.
  • If someone reviews or comments then that is a form of payment (time is money).
    I think all recorded music these days (sadly) has very little commercial value other than to fans of an act.
  • maybe the artists should pay the listeners for the time, they spend listening. (time is money).
  • Pan must want to hear crickets at the shows :rolling:

    If artists had to pay the listeners, wow... empty seats, because the stage would be bare...


    Pan doit veulent entendre les grillons à la montre: le laminage:

    Si les artistes ont dû payer les auditeurs, wow ... sièges vides, parce que le stade serait nue ...
  • pan said:
    maybe the artists should pay the listeners for the time, they spend listening. (time is money).


    It isn't time that is money (an oft quoted quote) but it is commodities . . . the product itself . . . If we like what we are getting there should be some sort of exchange . . . for example = money or 'time' (it takes time to write a review) BUT - It doesn't NEED to be so much time - a nice "thank you for the great music" would suffice, I think. I think its important that musicians get SOME KIND of feedback . . .
    :wink:
  • [quote=pan]maybe the artists should pay the listeners for the time, they spend listening. (time is money).[/quote]

    The artist does by letting them have the song for free. And by writing a review/leaving a comment/passing on to their friends the listener gives something back to the artist.
  • A musician friend of mine is often asking me why people would download an album and then not say "thanks" or give a review . . . I often wonder that myself, but then I was also thinking that listening (in and of itself) and downloading also could be considered compliments . . . for after all . . if we have something to say, and someone is listening, isn't that the ultimate goal of communication (art/music/poetry being communication)? Many people have little to contribute or feel they don't . . . more often than not people appreciate in silence . . . with an inner thought of applause.
  • maybe there could be a 'thank you' button next to the albums. maybe this whouldnt be too much work to make a click, if anyone likes those corresponding albums.
  • pan said:
    'thank you' button next to the albums


    there is that little heart button that people call "starring the album" - I will often star an album, though, to remind myself to listen later and maybe write a review if I like it enough . . . If I don't care for it I unstar (unheart) it.

    Maybe there could be a simpler system with the rating stars that are associated with the review . .. have those separate from the reviews, and so people can rate - ONLY if they have downloaded or listened . ..

    Sometimes I don't care to rate the albums, I only want to review . . so that would give people a choice . . .
  • i dont know the amount of unregistered people which love music from here too. i think they cant star.
  • OH - I didn't realize that . . . they should be able to star if they can listen . . . and download . . hmmm . . .
  • maybe it has to do with the possibility to unstar later. if you are not registered, there is no link between you and the star.
    i dont really know what to think about an anonymous rating-possibility. if there are no real faces behind a rating, anyone could bomb any album with a load of 0-rates out.
  • If a person is new and not logged in they can listen and download - that's all.

    Once they are registered then they can write reviews and "star" music...
  • so what speaks against a 'thanks' button, which anyone could use? (even the unregistered)
  • I agree, that little "heart" button is a nice thank you but is associated with a user . . . I think it would be easy to set up a "Register your thanks" button which would just be sort of a counter . . . and at the least would encourage the musician or could be used in association with the popularity counts.
  • Many travel to other free music sites. Perhaps they have a system that works for them? Or do they bother with reviews etc?
  • Didn't have the time (or patience) to read every response in this topic, but here are my two cents:

    Firstly, officernarc, you are entitled to your own opinion (and you actually make many valid points), but that does not excuse showing total disrespect towards other people. If you want to have your opinion, then you have no right to call people 'a fucking sack of shit', and other offensive terms, just for having theirs. There is no need to shout people down like that.

    Secondly, in regards to music being free - my simple answer is that it is up to the artist, but no, it shouldn't.

    Music being totally free devalues the importance of it. If you appreciate someones art, then they deserve some kind of payment for their hard work, whether it be money, a simple thanks, or you helping promote their music, writing reviews etc.

    Some musicians are content with a payment other than money. This is usually because they have the time and money to record their music without needing financial support. But if a musician does need financial support, and we really enjoy their music, we should help them out.

    It makes me sad when I get people coming up to me at shows telling me how much they loved my set, and yet they rarely want to buy a 3 track CD for a mere £1. I know how it is, it's not possible for an individual to support every artist they like, when they have bills to pay, and other things they want to support or enjoy their money with. I get that. But it just saddens me how little the value of music means to most these days, particularly my generation.

    It's not the money (although I do need it, as I am a full time musician, and so it's my income), it's the principal behind it.
  • As long as most individuals draw self-esteem from possession, life will be about how to get everything for nothing and not about value, the balance of give and take and the quiet peace of self-restraint.
  • marcreeves said:
    But it just saddens me how little the value of music means to most these days, particularly my generation.
    Value isn't necessarily equal to a price one pays. Actually, I think there is some truth in the claim that folks never paid for the music on the CD they bought but merely for the service to get it, that is, for a kind of distribution service. Nowadays where everybody can do even world wide distributions using a PC or laptop and an internet connection, the value of this service decreased considerably. A different story is that I'm pretty sure there is much more music published nowadays than in the 80ies or even 90ies. Sum up these effects and it should be obvious that trying to sell CDs or downloads for a living isn't such a good idea anymore as it used to be. This source of income for musicians will dry out eventually. The other sources like performing life or merchandising still work, but "selling music to the masses" (who should just pay to listen to it at home) will go down regardless of whether music shoud be free or not.
  • In the late `60's early `70's, when our band played we made minimal money. We did cover songs, and practiced them faithfully. After we finished our set, our "other" payment was a smattering of applause. To me, that was more of a payment than remuneration through the client. The audience was saying "Good job." Sure, there were some that heckled & jeered, but then we ALL know there are those that just don't like anything, so those people just did what they did.
    I think the same here applies; the musicians/artists would like/need the income, but a good review or any review is that "applause" that comes from the masses. If they happen to get a track/album licensed then Great! They've made monetary gain.
    Did "Dire Strait's" say it best with "money for nothing, and get the chicks for free?"
  • SouthOMike said:
    money for nothing, and get the chicks for free?"

    :shocked::shamed:
    and the girl bands . . what do they get? ?
    OK let's not go there . . .

    I think in the end, music IS free . . . to the listener . . even if you're living on the streets without a penny in your pocket, you can still have music.
    But, I think it costs the musician . . . investments in time, energy, creativity, and the tools of the trade. So the perfect balance is????
    As I said before, my musical friend (he teaches with me) keeps his day job . . . but I see him with a dream in his eyes . . . a longing to pursue his artistic goals . . . to become a big name in the music business . . . but there are so many others with the same dream . . .
  • orangeupurple said:
    So the perfect balance is

    ... uncalculable according to terms of trade but there's a sense for it inside us.
    orangeupurple said:
    to become a big name in the music business

    As far as I'm concerned the true spirit of music is incompatible with ambition, pride and the spirit of business which are turning music into cheap showmanship using psychological tricks to stimulate the listener. Music felt inside is a indescribable gift which only wants to give away itself (as love is).

    Business has perverted and abused the power of music. And many people lost their sense for it. Now the tide turns, the internet opened new ways, business loses controll of distribution and almost everyone who wants to do is able to share his creations. Perhaps it's a chance for music because people have the chance to become more independent from the commercial pap. And finally to redevelop a sense for the meaning of music and the value of supporting those individuals who are able to bring it to them. But that change will take decades.

    My feelings.
  • i think its like payment of politicians. they get enough money to have the time to be fulltime-politician. the less the payment, the more the necessarity to make other jobs in paralell. the more other work, the less time for being a good politician.

    if you like an artist, you may buy him time to make music. thats the spirit.
  • [quote=frank.harper]Business has perverted and abused the power of music.[/quote]
    I agree, Frank. Add the media to that as well. Had Andres Segovia continued to play his guitar at the local venues, and never entered a recording studio, he'd still be just a simple man that played excellent guitar. Once the recording studio/record label [business] took over this man's life took a turn that may not have been his goal. He wanted to play a song that could be appreciated and was heartfelt, to someone, but then it became a job because the label said "we're paying you, now get out there and make us some money!"

    [quote=orangeupurple]and the girl bands . . what do they get?[/quote]
    They get the likes of Jim Magnus (Black Oak Arkansas) strutting around in white spandex that allows you to see what religion he is! :peace:
  • frank.harper said:
    Business has perverted and abused the power of music.

    SouthOMike said:
    Add the media to that as well.


    True, BUT, blame the public also . . . the listeners out there who prefer the big names, because, the media tells them who to listen to . . .. I have a friend who came to listen to Jamendo for a short time (at my instigation) . . . long enough to find out that there were no famous people here. (In my opinion, "famous" is a matter of perspective) He actually yelled at me for sending him to a music site with nobodies. Grrr. I think its like a vicious circle . . Big business -> media -> public -> and on and on . . . (But then I think he slammed the door on his own fat nose and consequently isn't blessed with the exquisite music and friendships that one can find here on Jamendo.)

    pan said:
    if you like an artist, you may buy him time to make music. thats the spirit.

    True . . . I had a friend once, who was a struggling artist, and was discovered by a wealthy woman who became his patron by buying all the art books he could fill up . . . helped support him through college. It's human to need a community to survive, to be psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilled. Part of that interaction is in regards to tokens . . . tokens of acceptance . . .. whatever that may be that is sufficient to the individual .. . be that money, fame, hugs or verbal praise . . . or even just that inner glow when you are finally able to accept yourself and what you did as sufficient unto the day.
  • I myself think music should should only be free if the artist wants it to be.
    Some people like to tour and use their music as a way to make money to live on.
    That is great if they can do something they love to do and live off the money made from doing it.

    I myself have always given my music away for free because i don't rely on it to live.
    I create music only because i make songs in my head and then have to create them in sound so i can get them out of my head.

    I don't wanna be famous or try and make money off what i make.
    I became somewhat well known years ago and did not like strangers approaching me during my normal life.
    It felt weird and i did not like it.
    I have made music for a movie and a video game and other things, but have never asked for anything but thanks in return.

    My payment is knowing someone enjoyed what i did enough to think others would like it too. :)
  • It's interesting why nobody mentioned the work "Free culture" by Lawrence Lessig in this discussion. Did you read that book? If not, than do so NOW -> http://www.free-culture.cc/
    The author is THE person who started the whole Creative Commons licenses idea and movement, on which Jamendo is based on.

    I guess the word "free" in the topic's question refers to the price not freedom. The price is an economic concept so it should obviously be set by the rules of the market. If there is demand for certain music and there is also supply of it at price $0, then be it, let that music be free, why not?

    But the whole subject is really about the law. Music recordings can be so easily copied by digital means that they are not a scarce resource anymore. Why would anyone want to pay anything for something that is so easily available for free? The supply of the ideal copies is unlimited. In this case the scarcity is artificially imposed by the laws of copyright. The internet and the culture around it had developed so fast, that the laws couldn't keep up. The copyright laws need to be changed to reflect the reality of internet. This is happening, but it's happening very slowly, because of powerful lobbysts, like big record labels and publishers, who want to defend their old business model.

    Think about the old days, when genious composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others created the foundation of all that we know as music today. There weren't any copyrights then, they weren't rich and their fame was pathetic in comparison with today's pop stars, they didn't get all the chicks and glory, they were living solely by means of patronage and yet they composed and performed amazing, immortal music.

    Regardless of whether you pay for music or not, it will not stop the music from being composed and performed. People need music and they will find a way to play it and share it with the others.

    Usually, with goods and services, the price reflects quality to some extent. I dare say, that the price of the music recording does not reflect the quality of music, at all.
  • I can't help but think of "Caveman" with Ringo Starr & Barbara Bach, and the scene in which there is a neandrethal jam session... Percussion at its finest, now I can't get that song out of my head... Nahnah nahh Nah, nahnah nahhh nah, nanannannan...ARGH!!!

    Good & valid thinking, saxum. Did visit the site you mentioned and was amused to find "Free Culture" had a price at Amazon... hee hee
    Yes, I know it was available in PDF format, so I did grab that to go through. No way I'm printing 352 pages!

    Mike
    :peace:
  • As much as I'd like all music to be free, I still think Entertainers deserve to get paid for their work.
    If someone can bring up a different, profitable system where musicians can get paid (via studeos, tours, concerts, etc) while the internet gets everything for free, I'd be all for it. I however, am not nearly clever enough to think of such a system.
  • In the real world, yes, I agree, that entertainers should be remunerated for their craft/services. Coming to Jamendo, though, allows that same group/act to offer a part of themselves that perhaps might be of a lesser work (something not quite good enough for an album) but still worthwhile for others to listen to/download. The profit from that comes in the payment of a review or two or more. Would all depend on the song(s). If nothing else it allows exposure to the world, and not just to one single country that the artist may be from.

    Be well
    Mike
    :peace:
  • In the commercial music world one often finds bands releasing albums with only two or three good tracks, the rest being merely filler material. I have listened to numerous albums on Jamendo where there isn't a bad track to be heard. Rather than offering lesser works I would argue that Jamendo artists often offer greater works than their commercial counterparts. A case of not having to keep a few good tracks back for the next album release, maybe? :smile: