Why?
Because the basic aim of my website is to share with other people the music I've written. So charging for downloads is a barrier to achieving this objective. By forcing site visitors to choose between clicking on a 'pay for download' button or not clicking at all, the sensible option is obvious: don't pay. But by giving visitors the option to download for free, you increase the likelihood that they may refer others to the website, or share the music electronically e.g. by e-mail.
Should every artist give their music away for free?
If your goal is to be commercial musician, then by definition you are going to have to charge people. But charge them for what? I'm not sure it's ever a good strategy to charge people for 'owning' a copy of music. I wonder whether it's even morally right? I'll come back to that in a moment, but as regards a strategy, my observation is that most musicians (now, and in the past) create revenue through live performances, making their recordings available on mass media such as film, television and radio, and even merchandising promotional material (t-shirts, mugs, etc,)
If you are already a commercial success, then it makes sense that you can make money from selling CDs and MP3s. As an aspiring artist, though, it doesn't. No matter how good your music is, and even if it's written for mass market popularity, if you're an unknown artist, selling CDs and downloads is very unlikely to make you a living. You would do far better getting your music 'out there' through live performances, etc.
Is it morally right to sell music?
If by this we mean charging people for owning a copy of music, then I'm not sure this is right. How can anyone 'own' music? You can own a CD, but you don't ever own the recording. You can buy a painting, and while the frame and picture is yours to do what you want with, you can't claim ownership for the painting itself.
Is it really right to sell something that consumers can't actually own, or even rent? I don't think it is. I think it's valid to expect payment when other people make use of your music, such as creating a soundtrack to a film, but not for the soundtrack itself. The end product doesn't belong to the end user, so it's at best inappropriate to expect payment. Perhaps it's even fraudulent?
Because the basic aim of my website is to share with other people the music I've written. So charging for downloads is a barrier to achieving this objective. By forcing site visitors to choose between clicking on a 'pay for download' button or not clicking at all, the sensible option is obvious: don't pay. But by giving visitors the option to download for free, you increase the likelihood that they may refer others to the website, or share the music electronically e.g. by e-mail.
Should every artist give their music away for free?
If your goal is to be commercial musician, then by definition you are going to have to charge people. But charge them for what? I'm not sure it's ever a good strategy to charge people for 'owning' a copy of music. I wonder whether it's even morally right? I'll come back to that in a moment, but as regards a strategy, my observation is that most musicians (now, and in the past) create revenue through live performances, making their recordings available on mass media such as film, television and radio, and even merchandising promotional material (t-shirts, mugs, etc,)
If you are already a commercial success, then it makes sense that you can make money from selling CDs and MP3s. As an aspiring artist, though, it doesn't. No matter how good your music is, and even if it's written for mass market popularity, if you're an unknown artist, selling CDs and downloads is very unlikely to make you a living. You would do far better getting your music 'out there' through live performances, etc.
Is it morally right to sell music?
If by this we mean charging people for owning a copy of music, then I'm not sure this is right. How can anyone 'own' music? You can own a CD, but you don't ever own the recording. You can buy a painting, and while the frame and picture is yours to do what you want with, you can't claim ownership for the painting itself.
Is it really right to sell something that consumers can't actually own, or even rent? I don't think it is. I think it's valid to expect payment when other people make use of your music, such as creating a soundtrack to a film, but not for the soundtrack itself. The end product doesn't belong to the end user, so it's at best inappropriate to expect payment. Perhaps it's even fraudulent?
0 comments:
Post a Comment