I actually saw this story as a link on Indiehq.com- a blog I check from time to time but is pretty much non-existent and overrun with socialist whining. It is representative of the “artists” doing all the whining- those who think everyone owes them a living and dont make music anyone wants to listen to. They have no fans who care about them, and it is probably their fault.

Now some of the artists I am familiar with aren’t overjoyed at the prospect of “free music.” They might not know a whole lot about economic theory or other things but they GET IT and they “get” their fans. They realize what the reality is.

One artist on a message board I frequent said “you are never gonna stop it. the cats out the bag. the war against downloading is just like the war on drugs or terrorism you cant win.”

Instead of whining, artists like this go about life and keep making their music and touring ( they have fans). This guy also said:

“i think music is now the advertisment for everythingt else. shows, shirts, etc. despite the fact that we might look at ourselves as loyal music fans, there is a whole generation of kids who have never had to buy music in their lives. those kids are the ones who are going to be dictating what happens in the next decade or so. so you will either have to change their habits or adapt your model to make that work. jay and madonna already saw this thats why they signed the deals with the big show promotion companies. thats where the money is. music sales is nothing. and on an indie level, i think that old model hurts artists and labels more. i think you are better off working the radiohead or niggy tardust model and then selling hard to find stuff on the road or limited run stuff on the road.”

That wasn’t a capitalist tech writer or heartless executive who said that but an underground musician who is a second or third tier artist on an independent label.

Note “on an indie level, i think that old model hurts artists and labels more.”

About the “Niggy Tardust” thing- Saul Williams gave it away for “free or $5″ Around 200,000 people took it for free. BUT 60,000 paid. When he put out his last CD on a MAJOR Label it only sold 30,000. I am pretty sure he made more money giving away 200,000 downloads than he did selling 30,000 CDs. Plus he does shows and now has a Nike commercial.

About the limited run stuff- Artists who actually have fans ( you know the ones that have any business trying to earn a living with music in the first place) can press up 500 or 1000 of some CD ( or even LP, musicians with fans can even still sell vinyl!) and it can basically be anything, unreleased tracks with poor sound quality, rarities, b-sides, whatever ( again artists with fans can sell anything they put out) and sell out at $10 a pop or whatever and keep all the money. Plus they move other merch and I’m sure get a decent amount to play. Most of these guys arent rich but they make a living ding what they love.

THESE are the people who are going to keep making music and living while everyone else is complaining.

I wish I could get rich making music in my basement or making software or blogging or commenting on the internet. I don’t. So I do other things to make money. Though, I DO work for myself and make a living “on the internet.” I attribute this to the fact that I am not some whiny socialist who expects society to pay me to do whatever I feel like rather than what it values.

Arrington is right and nothing about what he says takes away the value of music and “the arts.” For many people the reality is that music ( or the arts or making software for free. is a “hobby” or something done as a side gig. And there is nothing wrong with that. And if you have any selfworth and intelligent you can make a living without getting a miserable job and continue to make your music. Just don’t expect society to be forced to subsidize your lifestyle when most of them do not have such luxuries.

Biz-mess and products aren’t sexy, they don’t attract consumers, artists attracts consumers with songs and photos and films or whatever it is that they do. The arrogance that it takes to say that artist’s should be paying these web vultures capitalists because they help promote artist’s is mind boggling… like anyone is going to go to any of their sites just because they seem like a good idea…

Here’s a novel idea how about artist’s stop posting their content on these so-called “free” sites that promise all of this so-called “publicity for artists” and we see how popular they get? We see how much the next multi-million dollar networking site is worth when AOL or Google or Microsoft wanna buy it… without any of the original content that made myspace, youtube and bebo worth so much…

i agree with Bragg, capitalism is killing music, it was killing it with the record companies and now Michael Arrington and his lot wanna pick up where they left off…

In response to post #27, I’ve worked as a graphic artist and software programmer….and those are two careers that typically pay quite well. So those folks were ALREADY paid for their time…whereas the songwriter (unless a big time artist) typically has to rely on revenue from CD sales and live performances.