You decide the value of music!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- The value of music is decided by you--especially in the digital age.
===================================
Subscribe: bit.ly/1pBqGCN
Official site: theneedledrop.com
TND Twitter: / theneedledrop
TND Facebook: / theneedledrop
Support TND: theneedledrop.c...
===================================
Y'all know this is just my opinion, right? What did you think of this album? Love it? Hate it? Why? What should I review next, eh?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #30 ДВА В ОДНОМ [Один человек]• Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nrXy15orKhY/mqdefault.jpg)
You forgot to say trans before the transition Anthony. Are you feeling alright? Is everything ok at home?
***** MY DOGS ARE GETTING A DIVORCE!
theneedledrop again?
***** Did he ever say Trans...Sexual!! Or is that just a crazy fantasy of mine?
theneedledrop iwrestledabearonce new album please. Or Breaking Ben. You already reviewed High On Fire.
He's full up on free Pizza Hut. UA-cam indie has signed corporate. Fantano is a pussy sellout.
Now I am not speaking for myself when I say this but I don't think people have lost respect for the value of music just because they pirate it. I believe they pirate it for the simple fact that it is free vs the alternative of $15. Look at it this way. We as humans value food for obvious reasons. So we go to the grocery store to buy food. What if somehow there was an alternative to obtain food for free? Not as many people would go to the grocery then. Now has the food lost it's value or is it just as valuable as it was before just more accessible?
I logged on just to like that comment, I absolutely agree
forever sition
I used to think the good thing about all this "free music" issue was that you didn't get to buy an album on what it "promises" and end up deceived. I mean, for many decades, all we had to decide wether we'd buy an album or not was what it "promised", judging from the single(s) heard on the radio and the front cover (and sometimes just the front cover when an artist wasn't well known...). And then internet allowed us to really CHOOSE that album for its content.
But I found that even this is not such a good thing anymore... Especially for teenagers who just dismiss an album after a couple of listens, when it really should deserve to be given more time.
But maybe it depends on the albums I guess... Maybe some albums REALLY deserve to be thrown away after a few spins lol. I don't know really. It's a tricky issue... It's really hard to generalize about it and be relevant.
Maybe the only key PROGRESS about internet and easy access to music is EXPOSURE. The fact of having all these platforms and possibilities given to bands to make their music known. Even though big music industries have learned to use internet and these marketing possibilities to their benefit as well, underground artists and self-produced bands still have a better chance to be discovered today than 20 years ago.
But then, this democratization of music brings more and more artists out there, more competition, which also makes it harder for an artist to be discovered among a "sea of other artists"... So then again, there's just too many socio-economical elements to take into account to really say something relevant about it and give a definitive answer on wether internet's easy accessibility for music is a good thing or a bad thing.
Funny thing: In germany we have a set price for books (called "Buchpreisbidung"). All stores in germany have to sell german books for the same price as the government thinks books have a cultural value worth protecting.
We don't have something like that for music though.
*****
Yeah, it's unique to books and everytime I think of it I'm surprised that it still exists in germany. I don't like it too much either, it has led to me buying more and more english books. I paid 25€ for the books series "A Song Of Ice And Fire" (5 books, 5€ each), the german version would have cost me 150€ (10 books, 15€ each). On the plus side, the books usually have high quality paper, nice covers etc.
R0DisG0D Didn't Germany ban reprinting of Mein Kampf up until the beginning of this year? How long have the books being the same price thing been around? Seems a bit hypocritical to ban the bad parts of your past culture.
Kenny Kendall
As far as I know you are only allowed to purchase "Mein Kampf" as an edited version with comments as to not expose people to the propaganda, but I'm not sure about that. Germany has also banned a variety of other things connected to the Nazi regime.
According to Wikipedia the "Buchpreisbindung" has it's origins in 1888 and has developed since. Also, according to WIkipedia, some other european countries as France have it as well.
R0DisG0D Thank you.
***** we actually did have something like that until fairly recently called the Net Book Agreement. When it was declared illegal supermarkets and massive book chains (not that we really have many of those) benefited by being able to slash prices but many independent bookshops closed being unable to compete. So you tell me. Are all restrictions on competition necessarily bad?
Wanna support an artist? See them live if given the opportunity
Teenage Hermit Yeah, speaking of artists that make chump change from their label. Concerts are where they really make their money.
Teenage Hermit Cant. Every artist I want to see is 18+ here in Stockholm. I just buy vinyl of my favourite records instead, plus I have Spotify Premium. Its better than nothing.
***** They have insane amounts of immigrants coming into the country every year. That's where the increase in violence comes from. No joke.
Teenage Hermit Great idea. Not so much in Malaysia. Most tickets are priced at RM150 or more.
RM 150! That's the price I pay for 9 meals!
*****, Phaeer its a bit more complex than that, but to simplify, ya, immigration isn't going to well.
The world is such a nice place now that Cal is back
john gleason the world is a beautiful place & that's because cal is back
The world is such a nice place now that Cal is black
john gleason Who is Cal? Calories!?
So does that mean that U2 think their new album is worth nothing at all?
Yes 😂😂
Well Apple thought it should be free. U2 still made bank
Hey at least they were right about something. For once.
Sam Turner well, since they were probably paid handsomely by apple to give it away for free, no.
theneedledrop hi wassup melon
thanks cal
PaeroPwns Hey Tsukasa ^-^
PaeroPwns TSUKASA!!!! XD
weeaboos please go away.
PaeroPwns u hve a cute profile pic.
*****
What makes u think im a weeaboo. I've only watched one anime, and it was only 10 episodes long.
Being a teenager that likes music, games and to hang out with friends I feel the necessity of pirating music. My parents give me 20$ a month and taxes in my country are really high. Plus, I take average 1 hour to from home to school and vice versa and it's really boring without music, that's why I pirate. I still buy my favourite band's albums tho, when they are selling at the store.
Fantano has a mother? I always assumed he was born out of a tree in the middle of a rustic garage or something.
You decide the value of these nuts Fantano!
*deez
Julian Towers I didn't wanna say "deez" because my username is "deecool" and I didn't want it to be too personal.
***** those nuts are zero
I
Decide
The
Value
Of Music
XXVX yes you do!
theneedledrop id buy that for a dollar-cal chuchesta 2015
Lmao
Dude, it's easy to say when you live in USA, you guys got all the records avaible and good preices, good deals, if I wanted to get some records I would pay a fortune. US and Europe got it good, but not all the countrys are the same. If you get a 15$ LP right here in Brazil that would cost like 50 R$, ain't nobody got money fo' dat.
919deezy I live in Sweden, but not in any of the three biggest cities, which makes a huge difference when it comes to quantity of records.
Oh damn!
That's why you should be buying vinyl, it isn't just worthless digital code.
It's holds its value, more or less.
Besides, most LPs come with a free flac download, which would usually cost $10.00 alone.
will Philip Amen. That's exactly what I do.
Amen to all of this. I usually either pirate or just listen online to music but when I like an artist such as Earl Sweatshirt or Tyler the Creator I go out and actually purchase the actual CD's because I actually want those people to have my money.
Wow, Anthony, great moves! Keep it up! Proud of you!
MajorAppreciator hahahahahaha
MajorAppreciator H3H3 FOREVER
Last I counted my CDs, I am up to 833 in total. I used to have a cassette player in my Jensen Stereo but that bit the dust due to static shock a few years ago. Mainly deal with CDs since they fit in the car player. Always nice having music for the road wherever I venture. Plus holding the album in hand and smelling the inks and reading the lyrics, poems, essays, words of advice to fans are quite priceless. Digital makes me feel like I am becoming something I loved as a kid: a robot. Rather be real and out there helping with local promotion of shows than yuck up dead fish in the mainstream. Music is a big deal in my life, I would hate to see it go to the silverspooners who know nothing and feel nothing. Support working-class musicians. Do not forget your roots. Namaste!
Nice to see Cal back in business.
I guess you're okay too Anthony
Rottomanable lol, thanks!
If you think the main reason people don't purchase music is because they're "lazy" then you need a dosage of reality. I listen to so, so, so, much music. I sure as hell don't purchase every single album I listen to. That would be insane. The problem for avid music listeners is that if you really want to purchase every single album you listen to, then you'd have to be rich practically. Or at least extremely financially stable. Most of us are not that. I'm not saying that lots of us don't just listen to music for free because we don't want to pay for it, but I think way more of us would be willing to purchase many more albums that we listen to if we were in a financial situation that permitted it.
To say "If you can't buy it, don't listen to it till you can." is excruciatingly limiting, and the only way that an avid music listener would be making such a statement is if they are in a prosperous financial situation. If most people followed that rule, then we'd get to hear an album a month on average. I wouldn't even be able to do that much, personally. Do you have any idea how much music there is? Do you have any idea how much music avid music listeners listen and want to listen to? Do you have any idea how much music you basically have to listen to if you even want to partake in the music community?
Seriously, I think you should support the artist when you can. Whenever I manage to come by some money I typically purchase vinyl, but I don't have a consistent income of money that would allow me to purchase all the music I wish to hear. In other words, people that argue that you must buy it or you shouldn't listen to it are arguing that if you are in a financial situation where you can't afford to do that then you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the exciting world of music. That's horrible. Do you have any idea how many artists wouldn't of even been able to take off if the active music community was limited to such a select amount of people?
Not buying their album? They probably wouldn't of ever gotten to the point where they would or could of made that album in the first place!
Sedrick Essentially, it doesn't matter if the people who listen to your album buy it, if hardly anyone can listen to your album in the first place then you're not going to go anywhere.
Sedrick 1 album a month, bruh that is worse than financially unstable you're living in poverty
As an aspiring professional musician, I listen to a lot of music too, and you are not necessarily reqcuired to buy everysingle album out there because you liked a song from it. What i do is that i just buy what i enjoy the best, and i do it to support the artist, and to own the music so that i can listen to it on my way to school etc.. I personally dont believe in piracy; therefore, I'd rather give the artist a couple cents than nothing.(spotify,pandora,etc)
Sedrick that's like saying the cinemas should just let u watch as many movies as u want for free everyday just because u are an avid movie fan and u don't have enough money to be constantly watching movies
It's probably more moral to pirate music than stream it - at least then you're not supporting the services. Especially not if you're gonna start paying for shit like "premium exclusive" tracks, which is so desperate that the only possible earning the artist can make off of it is that just for that one track, someone will pick dropping 15 quid for an album over pirating it.
I still buy an album here and there, but I'm really just waiting for an actually likable way to support artists other than buying physical copies that I don't even use 90% of the time because I can just start up the digital version.
I think were still in the stage of converting old media (i.e. traditional music, videos, and publications) into a new media format and will be for a long time. I liken it to how books weren't mass produced and accessible to everyone till 150 years after the printing press because people used printing presses to make big goliath books to look hand transcribed by monks instead of using it the way we now see as obvious. So cable and record companies are constantly trying to keep you away from their content if it isn't payed for instead of realizing the value in this age is that its much better establishing your self as a medium and then worrying about pricing.
I feel that we’ll see not only the way in which we interact with and use media drastically change but it will change the content itself change drastically as we’ve already seen with live streaming and being able to make a living with a pretty small but consistent viewer base. In other words being anything like the gatekeeper of digital content won’t cut it anymore. I don’t think it will hurt content creators, were just in a weird state where we don’t know how to pay for content people create we’ve always been told. We need to quit viewing media as a commodity.
bmurph24 Also, I should add I don't pay for anything mostly out of principle, but somewhat out of laziness, I don't think any of the artists I like go hungry because I won't by something on Itunes. I haven't payed for a textbook all 4 years of college and have been able to find 90% of them in pdf format, if you buy your textbooks your getting taken for quite a ride at an institutional level. Texbook publishers see the writing on the wall and pull all the strings related to when institutions adopt books so they make a version with nominal changes to constants every 2-3 years, and charge as much as your willing to pay for it. Seeing as how they have most people over a barrel already investing thousands of dollars for courses, they get away with robbery. Yet if one person scans it or a digital copy gets in the wrong hands it literally has no value.
I feel like pirating music may hurt the sales of a crappy radio artist but it probably boosts the sales of a small-time up and comer. There have been many artists that I've pirated the crap out of before purchasing their new album or going to see their live show or putting on countless friends to their music, buying (overpriced) merch etc.
I live in Serbia, where month salaries are about 200$, and nobody here is paying for music, we all use torrent or youtube (we don't have acces to streaming services). Great review, i think we also decide the quality of music and the artists too. Keep up with good work, you have fans in Serbia. Peace.
Personally, these days I only ever buy music on vinyl (and hope for a nice download code as a bonus!) and only use digital services such as UA-cam and Spotify to have a quick 'taste' of the music before buying *but* sometimes that means I miss out on releases as they are too expensive on vinyl. For example the new St Vincent record was everywhere for £23 which I find pretty expensive for a single slab of vinyl, it's only now gone down in price so I'll get it and give it a proper full listen so although I decide the value of music sometimes the price of music is too high (unless it's Devo in which case TAKE MY MONEY... sigh)
I don't really see very big moral distinction between people using spotify and people illegally downloading, artists get chump change from spotify anyways. You're basically paying for the streaming service, not the music.
I've downloaded shit ton on music over the years, but I've also bought shit ton of records based solely on those discoveries, usually smaller artists that can't be found on spotify and whatnot.
You're in the minority then. Most people that illegally get songs don't ever spend a dime.
OrangeVision Spotify pays to add music to their library
paulgtmovies I give coins to beggars, do I solve their problem? dont be so naive
Tí mó tàihòu shū. In my experience people who share a lot of music on the internet are also the ones who buy the most. It's just the way things work: (It's sad that people use the term pirating to talk about sharing or that sharing is seen as a crime. Sharing is part of our culture and we will always have an incentive to do so no matter what kind of fancy copyright licensing BS majors come up with).
Sharing and Buying have always coexisted and probably will continue to do so (for the best).
Same here. I think we should test before we buy. I've bought several albums after downloading them online and listening to them.
When possible, I like to buy directly from the musician. Like when Radiohead had a pay-what-you-want sale for an album I got to give them a fair price increased by my appreciation as a fan. Like fifty bucks or so. A video game's price. However, it was disappointing to hear about "fans" paying only a penny. Support for the artist is most important.
Remember when Anthony downloaded and reviewed the wrong version of Blur's _The Magic Whip_? Yeah, that's why I don't download music. Questionable quality and it doesn't help the artist where it really counts.
I also think that, in the last 10 years or so, the model for generating revenue from music has changed and diversified. Whether that revenue is generated through advertising, through live shows, through vinyl prints, through online sales, depends on how that music is distributed and through what works. Yes, artists lose a lot of money through pirating, but if an album is being pirated so much so that it is generating no revenue in distribution, it is still gaining by being popular, which generates revenue in other streams. So it's not dead, it's just changing.
Foreversition
As a consumer, music is a commodity. Just like your water analogy. I can pay extra for a fancy bottle of water. Or I can use my tap and get it free (minus paying for my water bill).
I can also stream music from my "tap" for free (minus paying my internet bill).
As an artist, I don't think my music is a commodity. I put in a lot of myself into it, and I think it's different from all other artists' music. And I feel my effort should be compensated.
And that's where conflict is... consumers vs. artists. And consumers win because they justify what an artist does... by paying them.
So as an artist, I need to find a way to add value so my music isn't a commodity.
As a consumer, the only reason I pay for music is because I want to support the artist... because I like them... I like their music... and I'll buy their album. But only after I've listened to them for free.
Hope that makes sense.
I'm poor. I barely have money to keep afloat, but I absolutely love music. For now, I don't pay for shit, and I'd like to believe that one day I will begin to support the artists that I love, but I don't know for sure that I will at some point begin dropping money on albums. As it stands though, I listen to one new album a day and if I paid for everything I listened to I would be spending thousands of dollars a year on this stuff. I do occasionally pick up shirts of artists that I like, so in that small way I do support them and I think later on down the line I would like to start a record collection but even when I do that, I won't be buying everything that I listen to. If I were an artist, I think it would be shitty to see how the value of music is being treated, but as an avid consumer, the current model fits my budget.
I'm a music lover and a collectionner since 21 years now and I agree with what Anthony is saying!
Since I also organized events for years such as concerts and festivals, I can only say one thing! The industry has changed, before the CD price was divided between the label for the big part and a small part for the artist. Thus "industrial" artists (Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, etc) continue to touch something out of the album sales, 99.99% of artists don't receive anything or barely something out of the album sales... the artists nowadays exist mainly out of concerts and non-musical products sales. That is the reason why in Europe you pay prices such as 350$ to go to a Lady Gaga or Nicki Minaj concert. That is why you pay 40$ a T-shirt when 10-15 years ago it was 15$. The industry has changed and somewhere has died because of Labels! Young talents are now obliged to pay to be accepted in a tour and get the public to know them!
I personally am a collectionner, that is why I buy albums even though I download the most part... knowing that my money isn't gonno help the artist but get the label become even richer is the main reason I do that!
I love being able to buy physical copies of albums. As a teenager I built up a fairly considerable CD collection, and more recently have been purchasing vinyls when I can. I do it because I really do want to support the artists I like, and also I think they're nice things to have. I also think having a physical copy of the album means that I'm more inclined to sit and listen to the whole thing as opposed to just certain tracks. That said, I don't have the money to buy every album I want, so I supplement that with a Spotify premium subscription that I get a lot of use out of. I consider that the next best thing I can do for myself and artists when I obviously can't afford all the music I love.
Labels make money from advertisements that play on UA-cam, Spotify, Pandora, local FM radio stations, or even MTV. Advertisers are paying for music sites, radio stations, TV stations to be able to pay music labels for the music for the public to listen to for FREE.
The jist is, music is not free, but it is free for you and I in exchange for the attention we pay to ads.
Whether or not you want to own your music physically or digitally is on you. What ever brings you happiness. But towards the middle of the song you're listening to you don't really think about how you got your music, you just think about your connection with the music. An artist is an artist for a reason, they want you to hear their art. Any down to earth artist would be flattered to know you're listening to their music, they enjoy making music for the world to enjoy (On some level they made it just for you). But I guess some have been a little greedy (I think Taylor Swift's been payed more than enough money).
Anyway, there are other ways to support your favorite artists, by actually buying merch, show tickets, or tipping indie bands.
I know I listen for free and don't lie awake at night.
I stream music to get to know it. If I like what I hear I purchase the vinyl and attend shows (if possible).
That's because I have the old fashioned thought that artists I like might stop doing their art, if I (and others) don't support them. They might decide to work at a supermarket or restaurant instead, which would be my loss then ...
As a musician, I personally don't think that giving my music for free is a bad thing. The greatest way to value music is to listen to it and to support an artist who you want to see making more music. Digital music should be free, and in return fans should buy physical copies of the music and go see it in a live setting.
Kack Jerouac If you are a musician you should know that producing music, even on the digital level, costs money. I think it's only fair to give something back to the artists who put time and money into their work, even if you only listen to the digital version.
I just recorded a demo with my cell phone in a tunnel. It sounds great and was free to record.
Kack Jerouac
Now I can't prove you're wrong, but honestly I doubt that.
Edit: Unless of course you went for a Low-Fi Black Metal vibe.
theghostofjune.bandcamp.com/ I'm going to be adding drums and other instruments, but it does the job well enough. Feel free to download it.
Kack Jerouac
It's okay for a demo, but not for a release in my opinion. But nice atmosphere and melody.
Yay, Dire Straits. Great video btw
I used to torrent all of my music until I started writing more, then I started feeling more guilt (when keeping music I liked, not just downloading to try out first), only because I knew I could afford the few bucks here and there, it just sucked not supporting the musicians I truly loved and especially the ones who directly influenced my style and guitar playing. Feels amazing to give a little to the artists that mean something to you and have given your life a lil extra PIZAAAZZZZ.
There's plenty of artists who would put out their music for free under the idea that not limiting who can listen to their music helped to expose it to a larger audience and thus led to higher ticket sales and more contributing fans. Look at death grips for example.
I try to pay for as much music as possible - supporting artists is incredibly important to me, but being a teenager with no job who doesn't receive pocket money, that becomes very difficult. Spotify is useful, but I have found myself downloading music so I can listen to it on the go, seeing as I can't afford to pay for spotify premium.
Lovin call being back
InternetBlast he's a peach
theneedledrop he's a plum
theneedledrop
more of a apple
Music is cheap because supply and demand: so many bands, almost too many bands.
There is no filter between beginning bands and established acts like back in the day. Now every band that's been together for 5 days has an EP available on a million platforms to access
Sulthany of Swingtano
"the only time you pay for music nowadays is when you want to own the music"
just like when you "paid" for the early blur rip??
Jamie Boon yep
Jamie Boon I knew this would come up, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. Anthony obviously buys music, just not all the music he listens to as that would not be possible.
For me, I downloaded music in the past and received no value except for the sound. Last year that has changed and now I've been looking for a quality sound system. My musical spectrum has broadened and some albums are not available through digital download. Now I am accumulating a pile of vinyl without a sound system. But for what I do have digitally, I like to play in my car, which let's be honest, our cars are now fully adapted to accommodate our digital music while still possessing that CD slot.
Agree to an extent. The audience plays a huge role. But that role is played more as a collective than as individuals, and an individual can't choose the behaviour of a collective or influence it in the same way the a major record company, or streaming service, for example, can. Listening to music on youtube or downloading it for free or cheap is partly opportunistic on the listeners end but it's also the product of the current environment. If I only listen to music that I can afford to buy at shelf price then I can only discuss with friends or show friends or colleagues a minuscule amount of music, who meanwhile are accessing music at a rate of knots. Unless the industry - and maybe some other industries as well - take some responsibility then I either have to be fucking loaded, or be de-valuing music in order to access enough music to be a valued and educated member of the music community. Now I love music and share as many acts and bands that I love as I can, putting out the good word and trying to give valuable feedback for artists and insights for fans or potential fans, all of which is enabled by cheap or free listening. Am I de-valuing music more than someone on 200k who buys 5 records a week to look good in their collection but rarely gives them a listen or promotes them or discusses them with members of the music community?
I use streaming services primarily for the more successful artists I enjoy because if I bought all the music I love and adore, I'd be (broke and) mainly supporting record labels, not the artists.
Artists make the most of their money from live shows. So if one of my favorite bands are touring near me, heck diddly yes I'm going to see them. They gave me music that made me happy, I should reciprocate that notion by supporting them so they can make more music.
However, if I'm listening to a more obscure artist and end up falling in love with their work, I make a staple to buy some of their stuff, because it's not like they'll be touring near me anytime soon.
Eh, I never really purchase a record until I've listened to the album a couple of times. It's the idea of owning it that makes purchasing the music so appealing for me, but it has to be an album that I at least like.
I pirates a lot of music but the "pay what you want" model if Bandcamp is really encouraging to me and I find myself getting albums cheap from that site rather than pirating nowadays
While I wouldn't exactly like higher prices. I can say that the rarer and more unknown something is, the more it's worth. I mean, Opeth would and should cost less than an Arcturus or Kayo Dot album because the latter two aren't as well known. Even still, I find myself streaming music online and when I do get an album, I will try not to lose it or any contents of it so it is pretty valuable to me because of my love for music. It's like a homeless or orphaned person getting like a simple toy car. I don't have much in my CD collection and I would like to start on my Vinyl and Cassette collections soon as well as continue the CD collection that I need to build pretty largely. Besides, as long as I like their work, any of it, I consider it supporting the artist.
I usually listen to it on youtube or so (for free) and if I like it a lot, I go to bandcamp or so and purchase. Not only because I have digital copy in decent quality but mostly because that's the only way I can appriciate the artists.
On the other hand, in (non-main-stream) music is not as much money any more so people do it more for themselves than for public. It's not as _likable // commercial_ because there's very low chance they'd make a bunch of money. And that's exactly what I like. Artists doing art for personal pleasure and then letting people enjoy it and appriciate it.
This is a great piece of advice. This doesn't apply to just music. It also applies to video games, movies, etc. only because it's priced something doesn't mean that's the real value. You decide the value and buy it if the price is worth it.
I'd really love to see a video of yours on how our not paying for music changed the quality of it. At least this is what many old (and also younger) music lovers keep repeating that mesmerizing music made in the 60s, 70s, or 80s is incomparable to today's music. Is that really so? Or are we just doing what our grandparents did? Sort of: Contemporary stuff is always crappy.
Or would you say that there is an objective decline in quality and innovation? Pink Floyd, James Brown, Prince - are they really as big as they are? Does today's music scene have the same calibers which we are unable to see? Is music too cheap to have value like in the previous decades? Thanks for your work. Love to watch your stuff.
the idea that money defines the value of music to me is wrong.
Music is not worth as much as people are willing to pay for it, but as much as people are educated towards it and appreciate it.
Most artists understand that people will not buy a record unless it's really important to them. Does that mean they value more some records and less some others? I don't think so: it's just that their pockets aren't that full.
Even if the value of music would be decided through money (and it shoudln't), I still don't think we decide it. If that would be the case then we'd only have services with free donations. But no: of course we have to pay the amount they tell us: the only power we have is that of refusal...and let's be frank (hi Frank!) when peer pressure and commercials urge kids to buy a certain song/album because it is "cool" ...they'll buy it.
After that will they listen to it more because they paid for it? Will it become more "valuable" because you had to pay for it. I don't believe that for one second. I think people will hear a song again and again if they're captured by it. and that's the real value of music. All the rest is just commercials and hyping.
So my final thought is:
Money is what makes the world go round, but it certainly isn't what makes good art. So you can go ahead and value music through money if you think that the right way to gauge music tastes. I on the other hand will keep on singing outside the choir.
Oniric Project Sentimental value and monetary value are two different arguments. Personal value is more of a variable. I could make the argument that considering the work effort and sometimes years it takes to create an album that an albums monetary value should be more, which is a fair argument. Artist do need to make a living as well and not all artist are Katy Perry's and Tayler Swifts ya know..some are out there making great work that moves people and all that crap and still need to work second jobs... Low album sales also equal more jacked up concert and merch prices.
Oniric Project I mean you have a point but from a fan stand point. But from a starving artist point of view..it's pretty weak.
I too get your point but history teaches us most artists have to have other jobs to make a living. I'm an artist and I make a living through graphic design, most of my musician friends have side jobs because merchandise and concerts don't nake the real money (I'm talking friends that played on the same stage with Dream Theater). I believe only true pop stars make money exclusively through album sells...I might be wrong though..I haven't done my research: I'm talking through personal experience.
But look at the past: some artists that today are extremely famous, like for instance Van Gogh, were broke, at their time. Would it be fair to say that when they lived the value of their art was low because they weren't selling? And who decided that? Was it "common people"? I think it was, has always been and always will be the industry itself. A few people, not a lot.
But I'm not saying it's black or white: there's lots of shades of grey here.
Sry for the english. I'm Italian and writing from my phone right now ;)
Oh it's okay, and yeah it's a shame some painters and even world renown composers back then were broke..I'm certain they rather have not been. I'm also certain that if your friends could make a living off music they would. I also understand the nature of the business though there's just not enough money in it for every artist good or not to make a living off it. Sometimes I do feel as though we take for granted that were getting such free access to something that can be as awesome as music can be you know particularly us born in the 90's and 00's.
Oniric Project yeah, but nobody is having a discussion about whether or not we value music less an in emotional way. in that sense, we all still value music highly. the issue is there are artists being fed through the grinder and not getting paid. they deserve groceries, too. we shouldn't ignore the artist's efforts to support themselves just so that we can pat ourselves on the back for not "valuing" music monetarily.
If you like popular music, then music streaming is for you. If you don't, it's not. I want to buy records because I don't believe anything will feel as satisfying as me having the large hardcopy of music and putting that shit on the platter. Pirating is good for those who want to check out music first or are casual listeners who don't appreciate music as a whole regardless of genre.
I agree, to a degree. The customer can't control the cut the artist gets, in the case of album purchase or streaming services. On the other hand, technology affects the price of music. Digital delivery is cheaper than pressing vinyls, also recording music is more affordable than before. Patreon, digital tip jars etc. are a way to support the creators directly, but rely on the good will of individuals. My solution is that a percentage of the broadband fees would be paid to the musicians, writers and film makers whose work is streamed free and torrented.
No, i also decide the value of music with the time i spent listening and reading about'it, and going to their concerts (that sometime can be a free concert) , and watching reviews about that artist, not only paying for the *way i get to hear that music*, witch is the most important experience BUT ironically the least cost part of making music AND where the labels decide to put out there for free by stream, youtube and others simply because sharing tools just changed the game. Defining value for music as how much you pay for it, can make a deaf value music.
I bought Ghettoville strictly on your recommendation. I didn't even like it yet. I bought it on vinyl before owning a turn table. Not a cheap vinyl. It actually turned out to be a good purchase as I was transitioning away from performing contemporary christian music. That happened last year. Currently, my google music subscription is the only music I pay for. If I had the money I would probably buy anything on your "i love these' list. Reserving the purchase of a physical copy for albums I grew to love beyond their status as a "light 8" or higher. I personally see this channel as a "light at the end of the tunnel" during this time of cheap music. Why? Well I've already typed to much.
Trap music, dubstep, electro house/big house/ pop songs with dubstep drum breakdowns, songs with ooh ooooooh or uuuh oooh, songs with pitbull on, beyonce..worth 1/10th of dollar/pound.
The quality of the music is also a factor. For example; To Pimp a Buttetfly is only available on cd and mp3, I bought the mp3 on amazon. When the vinyl comes out, I'm going to buy it again because I think it is WORTH it.
Other albums I stream them with the intent of buying them later but decide by the end of the listen that they're not WORTH the buy.
"The audience decided that music is cheap." This is so spot on! Man this is so great. Thank you!
Completely agree. What music streaming services have devalued in the music world, in my opinion, is the experience of listening to music for the first time , or at all for that matter. But the same argument could be said- its up the listener. Not fan of streaming services except when at the work place.
Thanks for making this video. To me, it raises the question "Am I paying for (valuing) the music or the delivery system of that music?" For example, I'm willing to pay a lot more for an LP that a CD, and this while knowing I can listen to the same music digitally for "free."
Yeah, you are pretty much 100% correct, I find myself prioritising buying stuff from smaller bands for obvious reasons.
The value of anything is up for debate when we live in a capitalist system. It's the same system that we all have jobs that pay us a value that isn't really fair. If I made more money, or if I had more money I would probably buy more albums, but I don't. I think bands like Bomb The Music Industry did a great thing by putting on tons of all ages shows, giving away their music, and asking for fan support/donations for their music.
theneedledrop I don't think felix meant the "value" of music as monetary value, I think he means the "sentimental" value of music, and that with the now abundance of music through the internet, in the form of streaming services, youtube, bulk piracy, and even massive hoards of indie-producers and bandcamp.
For example, way back before even vinyl, before gramophones, generally before the ability to manufacture and produce recordings of music, the "value" of music, was being able to hear it at all. you had to have live performers. the result is you only ever heard local music, and you might in fact travel to hear new music, or musicians would travel. and the value of music was a rarity. Then later when we gained the ability to record music, the recording of the music was largely valued at production cost + performance, and it was a rare collectors thing and most people did not have such a technology. Once we had the invention of mass produced music recordings, and radio transmission of music that anyone could buy or listen to, peoples perception of music changed, and the value in terms of sentimental value and quality all changed dramatically. Maybe someone heard music on the radio and said to one of their friends "hey man, I've heard you play things way better than this, you should get famous man, get on the radio, get something recorded" Or maybe somebody else heard music and said "wow, this is so much better than anything i've ever made. I thought I was good but now I know i'm not" the value of individual pieces of music in comparison to one another.
the "value" of "music" in Felix's question I believe is in regards to this type of value, in relation to the abstract concept of "music" itself. For instance an over-abundance of low-quality, un-inspired music, brought about by literally anyone and everyone being able to record ANYTHING and put it on bandcamp or soundcloud, and get it into indie streaming services, or onto youtube, or whatever, is effectively diluting the quality, and therefor sentimental attachment to, music in general as a concept, and the internet is largely responsible for this change. with record lables, and AM/FM broadcast, and mass-produced records, we had a hand-full of content distributors serving as arbitrators of quality and standards, and anyone wanting to be a musician had to go through them. Now with the internet we have as many distributors are we have people. back in the 80's-90's self distribution meant manually creating copies of music and distributing them yourself, which if it was good would not only take off, but eventually get you noticed by a label and signed, which was the end-goal. Now there's SO many people encouraged to do this, without the goal of getting a label, that there are SO many artists of such extremely varying quality. because everybody thinks they're Bobby McFerrin, but really they're not even wesley willis or TISM.
I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment, simply that I understand it and think that's what felix meant by "the value of music". but it's also the same principle behind disco demolition night, and opposition to sampling and hip-hop. the argument that music production becoming easier, with a lower bar to entry in terms of both money and skill, is degrading to music, rather than permitting new styles. I can only imagine what those people think of FL Studio and it's full-featured demo.
If people don,t pay anything for music it means musics holds no value for them i support a artist if i enjoy there music i rather own a physical copy then a download off itunes i also notice the price on downloads is almost the same as a cd
I love my vinyl and my FLAC copies. I do end up spending a lot of money on it, but since music is one of my primary hobbies/obsessions and has been since I was just a child, it's very much worth it.
Björk is my favourite artist of all time and I currently own three of her albums. Debut, Post and Homogenic. I really wish I could own all of them, but I don't have the money right now, aaaw, bohoho. I think it's a matter of priorities, and so far it's just a dream, but someday, it will happen. Music is not that expensive in my opinion, cd's have the same prices now that they had when I grew up, and I love that.
But until then I can borrow physical Björk cd's from the library and wish they were mine :)
As a teenager its reeeeally hard to listen to the music you like and to have a bigger knowledge about it without pirating music because of the money..for a lot of young people music is extremly important but when you dont have any money to buy some records you get stuck..but I feel better when I can buy my favorite records and that makes me happy afterwards..if I would earn money I would buy more but I cant.
Think of it from a socio-economic standpoint, It use to be only the wealthy that could afford a large collection of music, now everyone with a internet connection has the chance to listen to whatever they please and purchase what they love the most.
I wouldn't know and love a lot of the music I do today if it wasn't for this, also I wouldn't have purchased the large amount of music I have. If I had to pay for every album I listened to,
I'd have a small collection and a small variety in personal taste.
I use spotify to listen to music but I still buy physical copies if I listen to an album multiple times and I'm a big fan of the artist. Spotify is a good thing for me because I get to hear the music first before deciding if it is worth buying. I also buy some albums just because I like the art and the little booklets and stuff like that.
I've found myself pirating more and more lately, simply because some older, more obscure music is not easy to find if you want to find the (lossless) files. Apple only sells compressed files, and fysical copies are not always easy to come by either. It's often easier to find a .wav or Flac file of an obscure japanese jazz artist on a peer to peer platform than on an online seller.
Music is more valuable to me than just about anything else. For most of my adult life I've spent as much as I could to make music. Last year that was over $20k. I also purchase music. I by new and used records. I buy from digital download services, and I pay a subscription for streaming ( the hi-fi from Tidal). But I have friends and family who don't have the money to purchase music. They still want music, and I believe that they should have access to it, even if they don't have money for it, because music is that important. So my philosophy is if you can afford it, by it. If not get it for free, no one should be without music.
The whole concept of "owning music" and music having a value is always a bit alien to me. Yes, you own the physical copy of a record or the license to download it, but I don't think you can really "own" music. When I buy a record, I always do it as a way to support an artist. Maybe it's because I grew up with the internet and music always being available for free, legal or not.
Oh, and I guess I have to add that I'm a music lover and a musician, so I can't really talk for the average person who just wants to listen to a single song quick and fast or whatever.
Most likely I am like many ,who decide the value of music through different avenues. Mostly paid streaming in Rdio for exposure to a variety of music, but owning music for me has to be at full CD quality.
I've been a subscriber to "Rdio" for a few years, primarily because I am able to listen to a lot of artists, related artists etc. easily and quickly, while still supporting part of the machine that is the music industry. I am a supporter of independent artists, through paying the prices set on artists' bandcamp etc. pages. I have also been a supporter of independent and "big" labels, buying music through their online stores rather than iTunes. When all of those avenues are exhausted with no ability to purchase directly, I then go to iTunes and if I feel confident enough, purchase a copy there.
However, no matter the avenue of purchasing music (besides "Rdio" streaming) if I will buy music and value it, it has to be at a quality of lossless full CD (or better?). I dislike the idea of going to iTunes and buying an AAC copy, which is "mastered for iTunes". I also have grown to disliking owning physical music CDs, since once transferred in FLAC to my PC, there's no reason for me to use the CD again.
If in a perfect world, every record label could sell their artists' music in a lossless format, I would be satisfied. Not everything is available in lossless formats, and while I can understand that iTunes is the main storefront every label now uses, there's a level of murky marketing talk on the encoding front and what they're delivering. I never feel confident with iTunes purchases, even though engineers at Apple claim to be audio-fanatics, it still feels like more marketing talk than honesty.
In the end, if it all comes down to wanting to own a copy of the music, for me, it has to be in every-right the artists' full intentional sound and scope. NPR listening-tests be damned, I'd rather know what I "own" is what the artist, engineer and producer feel is going to give me the best possible experience at the source of whatever chain of devices I then filter that vision through.
I really wish music pirating didn't exist, because I really wish people would support artists more. People are willing and able to pay for music, but it's just too daunting of a task when you know you can find it for free on some website. Hopefully at some point the powers that be find a way to end internet music pirating.
I listen to music on spotify and then buy records from independent record stores (mainly). I just don't have the money to buy every album I want to hear, in this modern age where there is SO much new music everywhere, I can't afford to waste money on music that I might not like
As a sympathizer to the Austrian School of Economics (yes, that is a real thing) I believe, and the theory clearly states, that value is a subjective thing. On a market level price can be fluid and decreased scarcity or access tends to drop the cost of any good. If you look at production costs, distribution, and access of music today compared to what it was 30 years ago it's like what coal or petroleum did for industrialization; that is industry exploded and the prices of everything dropped. Same for what the internet has done for/to music. In the wake of this development people voted with their dollars and the price of music has fallen greatly, which is only natural to expect and it should come as no great surprise to anyone who understands markets that it has. The industry will continue to exist but it'll have to alter itself in the face of the realities of a changing market. Many will go belly up but those who adapt and innovate, be it in the form of subscription based payment to access, live shows, merchandise, or special edition art release hard copies, those people/businesses will remain. They'll still be with us and theirs is the future of music as an industry.
I think the value of music is whatever the artist says it is and I think that is how it should always be. I think that we are kind of changing the value of music rather then decide what it is. I think people are cheap and they aren't giving the artists the credit they deserve. It takes so much work and time and money to make an album and I don't think there is a person on this earth entitled to free music that the artist wants to sell. Ten bucks an album or some shit is nothing compared to the amount of money that went into making the album. That's why I freaking love CD's and why I will continue to spend hard earned money on them.
What you're saying here is pretty obviously true; the consumers determine the price of the product. I'd only like to mention a couple thoughts I've been having recently regarding my own habits and how they've been effected by music streaming services. Since I have such a bewildering number of options (thanks to Spotify), at best, when I put on music, it hardly seems special, and I barely listen to it. At worst, I never even settle on a particular album to listen to because there are so many f(*^%& options. I think Spotify and other similar services have foregrounded the unfortunate fact that, for me, there is such a thing as too much freedom. One can have so many options that one isn't liberated but bored or paralyzed. I've been wondering: isn't it better (again, for me -- not for everyone) to own maybe a hundred records that you really love, to acquire new music only when the old has been properly and thoroughly digested. I'm starting to feel like I have musical dyspepsia. Any one else out in internet world know my feels?
I use a subscription service to listen to most of my music, but I also have a growing vinyl collection that I use to support artists and record stores I like. I also just enjoy having a physical copy of an album sometimes.
Yeah I'm broke most of the time but I buy music, whenever I think that artist is undervalued and should deserve more attention/some support, so if I buy something it is usually some small label/independet artist on bandcamp...
btw, what site is your favorite for discovering "new" music?
Actually what I do is... I watch your reviews then I go to Spotify and listen to the album and I see if I like it. Music is life, it's a huge part of my life...
I used to torrent everything, but stopped after receiving a bunch of DMCA's. I still grab a lot of free music of band camp and really dont pay all that much for music. That being said, i go to a lot of shows and buy a ton of merch.
If I ever release music, I honestly dont care if people pirate it. I know for a lot of people, its either go to a show or buy the music, and if I were the artist, id much rather have people come to a show and pick up a shirt, sticker, etc. than buy my music.
Very good point, Anthony. With album and ticket sales declining the way they have been why would we expect the value of music to not do the same?
The value of music fluctuates from person to person - anything that strikes me in some way is valuable to me, but that doesn't mean it is valuable to someone else. I'lll usually buy something physical for projects I love, but some things I value less and choose to stream. I feel like a lot of people are doing similar!
i absolutely do not think today the music industry is deciding the value of music and choosing to make these prices the way they are. the music industry is of course a business and is the price of it is subject to consumer taste and supply and demand as any product is. HOwever, yeah, streaming services definitely encourage people to believe they should have this service of music for free (given that is an option). And thats not surprising bc artists are always the first people to be asked to do something for free...
I actually do all of the above however if I really enjoy the artist music I purchase it. Sometimes I buy both physical and digital and buy merch to show support. I also subscribe to Google Play music so the advantage is I can check out artists I'm not sure I'd like or want to just jam some old classics. One thing I never do is listen to leaked music or Rip it from a torrent site. I am proud to pay I'm support
This conversation is really bigger than just music. Who enjoys paying for anything when there's a free alternative? A lot of industries are going to get fucked up in 20 years when everyone has sophisticated 3d printers.
Hey, Anthony, i'm from Argentina and here we don't have amazon or any delivery sistem of that sort, so if i want an album i can either wait for someone to go to the states and bring it to me, pay like 50 bucks if the record is able to be found in any record store here or listen to it for free off of the internet. So, as you see, my hands are pretty tied up.
By the way, you're great
I've listened to a lot of music, downloaded most, may not seem as the most fitting thing to do, but I've also bought some CD's. The thing is that some music is just "chewing gum", as you've said, it loses its taste after 2-3 minutes of chewing. I dislike the way everything now is buying and then "feeling" the product. What if you don't like it? It sounds a bit pretentious, maybe even perfectionistic, but I do not like paying for things I do not see value in. If said record was THAT good, then okay have my 10-15 euros/dollars. I find myself only liking 2-3 songs from albums and most of that time THAT 1 song, that made you think you'd love the whole album, but you didn't.
Edit: If I had more money, then it'd have less value and therefore I'd buy more records.
Music is invaluable to me.
In fact, I'll buy a record multiple times, even if I already have it. Simply to say I own a physical copy.
If I like your record, consider it bought.
I hardly care about the price tag.
I listen to music for free but if I decide it's worth supporting the artists I buy it on vinyl. I don't buy into mp3's anymore because it's something I can get for free anyway (whether it's legal or moral or not). Vinyl is the only way I support artists now.
I used to listen to A LOT of pirated music. Most importantly cause I didn't have my own money to pay for the music back then. Now that I do, I feel like I shouldn't really listen to the albums that I don't think are worth their price on iTunes. I mean, I've listened to a lot of stuff and now I'm pretty sure that I know what I want from my music. If I'm not sure about the album, then I just listen to singles/the whole thing on UA-cam and then decide if I like it enough to pay for it.
I also want to say: the value of music is highly dependent on the rarity of it. The first three Graham Coxon albums, which is a lo-fi indie rock fest, are going for at least 20 dollars used. His Happiness in Magazines album, which is his hi-fi rock album, that sounds better, better production quality, etc, sells used for like a cent. So just because it's expensive or rare doesn't mean it's necessarily good.
I only buy albums from my favorite artist to show them support but i download everything else from torrent
I think the best option for musicians and labels in the digital age is to have a name-your-price system for mp3s and sell cds, vinyls, and other merch as well for a higher, set price, and to fill the download site to the brim with ads. shit like tidal just encourages piracy
Really enjoyed this video Anton Quinntano. I don't really listen to music much but I really appreciate your reviews and thoughts on the general culture/industry.
If I'm ever listening to music it's through streaming but I always feel a twinge of guilt for the artist since I'm using adblock or it's being reuploaded by someone else.
It is a hard problem to fix if you see music as being priced too low and I'm afraid i wouldnt have many meaningful inputs to the problem, especially with the internet being how it is now.
Anthony is right about the whole trend of people putting out free music thing. One example to think about is Chance The Rapper and Acid Rap. That mixtape put him on, and I think that the project being free actually was what made Chance the massive artist he is today, he didn't have a large fan base before Acid Rap, so if he released the project as a paid $10 album, which is easily what it's worth, it wouldn't have got anywhere near as big as it did, obviously meaning neither would Chance have.