 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to BF69
Re: Why bother? said by BF69:No you can't grasp the concept is that if you don't want to pay for it you should not have it. With respect, I have to disagree when it comes to what artists want fans to do with recordings of music. Some artists will agree with you, but I have a hunch they'd be in the minority. Artists are exhibitionists (in the non-sexual meaning). They want the art to be experienced.
Artists tend to live for the ability to make the expression, communicate the thought/emotion/story/song to sympathetic and/or appreciative people, and perhaps collect the recognition (applause). That a business can be built around that is important (as it sustains the work), but it is a secondary consideration.
I noticed this first in the 1970s, when a successful recording artist named Keith Green bought out his contract with Sparrow Records so that he could sell his music for whatever people were willing and able to pay, even if that was nothing.
As I got into performing myself, I met other artists who freely performed a 20-30 minute set -- stuff they'd get $2000 a night for -- just for the opportunity to do it for other singers and those of us hopefuls (I never made it much past 'hopeful'). The fact is pretty plain: Art is just not about the money, not primarily at least. It's about the sharing.
I last saw this phenom again a couple of years ago when Radiohead and Nine-Inch-Nails released their music online pay-what-you-can style. Both indicated that such releases not only spread their music farther, but actually made more money than hard sales.
Note: An artist struggling to emerge won't make enough money on the pay-what-you-can sales of recordings -- but that fact is true of the $15/CD model as well. First you get famous, then you make money on recordings as a result.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
