Do you feel any guilt about the cheapness of music these days?

I'm admittedly a bit old school and obsessive, but I don't actually feel like I own music unless I have a hard copy. So no, I don't feel guilty because I spend a ton of coin on music...more than ever, in fact.. A lot of the bands I follow are using crowd funding, or releasing vinyl singles at ten bucks a pop plus shipping, and double that or more for a full cd. The whole scene calls for a lot more consumer involvement than it used to.
One example of many is Dan Baird and Homemade Sin. They are managed by Jerkin Crokus in the UK, which is also where all their music and merch comes from. I love them, want to support them and buy literally everything they release, which means ponying up the bucks for cd's, dvd's, shirts, posters etc. and then paying import shipping to the US. I've got several hundred dollars invested in this one band, but IMHO it's worth every penny and I'm thankful these guys are so prolific and release so much quality material to enjoy.
I know a few people who are content just to covert YouTube to a low quality mp3 and load it on a device, but honestly, were those kind of people ever going to buy music anyway ?

 

It's not "garbage" and I don't agree with that view at all. Garbage would be an AM radio broadcast, IMO. Do you think YouTube's quality is as bad as AM radio reception?

 

I remember getting music for free on the radio... oh wait it still exists.

 

according to here, then you are a scrounger haha

 

Some of my favorite artists from prior to the Internet era ended their careers technically owing their record labels and management money (a relatively well-known example is the band Angel).

Not owing a record label money is being ahead of the game.

The percentage of artists who have made any significant money off of recordings is pretty slim. Even someone like Jack Bruce was only making in the neighborhood of 30k per year off of his royalties towards the end of his life. Allan Holdsworth's family had to start online fundraising efforts in order to pay for expenses after his death. And tons of musicians who are as well known as those two have required fundraising efforts to pay for health care when they've unfortunately had health crises.

So the idea that musicians are only creating music because they're making money off of recordings is pretty bogus. Musicians making a lot of money off of recordings have always been a very, very small minority.

Most of us do it because we basically have a need to regularly create music, and we're crazy enough to risk forgoing a "regular" job to attempt to eke out a living doing what we love--however we can make a few bucks by doing that, and often with the generous assistance of family members who don't mind working normal jobs so that we don't wind up being evicted.

The upshot of this is that the idea that musicians are not going to keep creating music just because they're not making money off of recordings is nonsense. Musicians have already been doing this for decades. Current technology makes it easier and cheaper than ever. At least now you can do it without owing money to a record company.

 

Not really; I only use youtube (ear bleeder...avoid at all costs) and streaming for preview and still buy cds/lps from my favorite artists that are still going.

 

You only listen to music made by multi-millionaires? Sounds boring.

 

Bollocks. Art and commerce not only can't be separated, they shouldn't be.

 

"Guilt"...

 

On the other hand we wouldn't have Abbey Road if the Beatles had not been getting paid what they deserved.
Success and financial wealth must have a postive impact on the creative process.

 

Not at all, when you consider what albums used to cost and the "price per song" on the late 70s.

 

...I like a little “Cheepnis”

 

I still buy the albums
usually directly from artists site even if more expensive

never ask for or take comped tickets for local clubs even when the performers are friends

still buy lp and cd on music I like

youtube live performances, videos or special "concerts" I paid $ for in the "old grey whistle test" market

bought sheet music instead of copied

I've bought way too many $15-20 cds over the years to not justify today's prices and abundance

 

Music has been free on the radio for decades, and the only difference between YouTube and radio is the listener's ability to be their own DJ. That said, I don't use YouTube unless I feel like watching a bunch of music videos or performances - but I certainly do not feel any guilt over it, nor should anyone. Like many music lovers, I buy what I want to own, and stream what I don't want to buy. I've been buying music on vinyl or CD for 30 years and see no sign of stopping anytime soon. Guilt is for people who have done something wrong.

 

Most of what I stream I bought. Either physical media or downloads through sites like Bandcamp(great site, btw). The relatively few downloads that I have are mostly old Dead shows. And I don't feel guilty downloading those. So I guess, music is probably one area of my life that I'm relatively guilt free.

 

I wish that "shareware" were commonly accepted as a feature for all musicians. Not just as a Kickstarter for a specific project- more like a tip jar on every website. I know that it's common for musicians with career ambitions to look down on "playing for tips"- it's widely considered one step above rank amateurism, if not charity begging- but I think that attitude should change, in this era. It is not "begging" to have an account publicly available for your fans to send you $5 to your Paypal account because they think you deserve it.

I don't download music, at least not yet. One reason for my late adoption I don't like the fact that the people who run Spotify etc. are raking off huge profits, while aspiring musicians are getting chump change. But that doesn't mean that I feel guiltless on this score- because the vast majority of my LPs and CDs have always been purchased used! Musicians don't reap any reward for that, either.

The thing is, even in the pre-digital era, I used to wish that there were some way I could simply reward an artist in proportion to what they've meant to me. This is especially true in the case of musicians with out of print records and catalogs- but even in the case of those with new music available, I'd rather send $10 directly to an artist as a patron than purchase one of their new records and have them split the take with everyone else and end up with, I dunno, $2 or whatever it would be. I can think of several "cult" artists with low name recognition and sales figures that I'd send $100 to, just on general principles. But I'd have to know that the money was reaching them, and not being siphoned off elsewhere.

Also, this really doesn't work all that reliably unless it gets to be a Thing- until core groups of fans assemble to crowdsource patronage, or to take part in a subscription as a group. Until music consumers take responsibility for providing artists with revenue commensurate with the value they've added, to put it in bottom-line materialist terms. I really don't like quantifying things like that- but it's more honest to give someone $5, or $50, or even $.50, than to moon over their music as "priceless" while providing them with $0.003 for each song you download, or whatever it is.

The other thing that needs to happen is the universal adoption of a micropayment transfer system, of course. So that you can send someone $0.10 without being charged an exorbitant fee by Paypal, or whoever it is that facilitates the payment. And if entrenched interests within The System obstruct this, they need to be fought until the rest of us prevail over them. We've needed accounts for fluid micropayment transfer- without exorbitant added fees that discourage the process- for the past 20 years.

 

I didn't think that Spotify has ever generated a profit. Where did you hear about this?

 

I admit to my ignorance. But I'm also using an expansive, general usage of the term "profit." Are you saying the owners or administrators aren't making a living from Spotify? Who's getting the money? It certainly isn't the musicians.

 

Close but no, not as bad but I haven't used AM for music since the 60's.

 

I use YouTube myself for looking at live performances and rarities but I don't go searching for free albums or free films on there. I call people who buy no music and download films for free 'scroungers', or those who think that Spotify is "too expensive" at $2.50 per week.

 

I remember when youtube started having full albums.....it was kind of a shock the final straw allowing the people who couldn't figure out how to dl thru the usual questionable places to get music for free and that was a wrap. maybe it will turn around for musicians someday, ya never know. if an artist suddenly arrives that is so big he says, nope. y'all got to pay 10 bucks for my album and it starts a trend.

 

Pretty much everything I buy is out of print so the only one making money is the seller. The rest of you are guilty as sin and you will suffer the consequences. You have been warned.

 

If we could return to the days of $6.00 concert tickets, and even adjust those prices for inflation, I would feel guilty about it.

 

Actually, it's the record companies that should feel guilty. I've bought many albums precisely because of Youtube. Truth be told, I only buy records (and some cds), so Youtube is a great way for me to evaluate the music before I run out to my favourite record store.

 

As anyone who's read Appetite for Self Destruction, the music industry dug its own grave and put a bullet in the chamber.