Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
This is true regardless of your career path. In regards to art, as an artist, i both download art and free distribute my own art as best as possible. Art should come first, then the ability to feed and clothe and supply the artists. Let the art shine above the commercialization. If the people like the art, assuredly they will inevitable contribute their money. And if they do not, just them listening to a band and promoting it will inevitably get other people to spend $$$ down the chain. Radiohead especially proved this a reality when they publically gave away In_Rainbows, and yet at the same exact time from the same exact source as the free copies, sold millions of copies! IT WAS COMPLETELY FREE! I paid NOTHING! and yet millions of people spent upwards of $70!
BESIDES, ARTISTS DON'T MAKE SHIT ON RECORD SALES, THEIR MONEY IS TOURS! SUPPORT THE SHOWS! SUPPORT THE MERCH! STEAL THE ALBUM! FUCK THE BOGUS CAPITALIST PROCESS WHICH IS DESTROYING YOUTH CULTURE with the RECORD LABELs
|
instruments/pedals/studio time/recording costs etc. all cost money. i think that music should be something which is accessible to all - both to create and consume. didn't sonic youth rely on the money of a couple of wealthy scene ppl in nyc to get their stuff recorded at first? not everybody can afford to take out loans. and music should not be hierarchical (with only the stuff that the rich like being produced...the competitive nature of capitalism makes it so that people have to compete to get the $$$ approval of a relatively select few)
also yeah, i'm talking about ppl who download music for free from their favorite artists but dont ever support their tours/merch etc.
anywho, i think that we can all agree that the problem rests in the music industry