New labels like Savage Yank can be all 'punk' from their position of relative ease, but I wonder if they would be brave enough, and believe in their releases enough to charge for them. No? I thought not.
New labels like Savage Yank can be all 'punk' from their position of relative ease, but I wonder if they would be brave enough, and believe in their releases enough to charge for them. No? I thought not.
I would never give our music away for free. In fact, I feel you'd have to be a fool to do so. (no offense to the people I previously defended) Which is why, as what's his name stated, some other what's his name could not download my music for free on Myspace and complained about it. So if anybody cares, I will clarify my previous posting in a more detailed way, since really, I was just exercising my brain by defending a position contrary to my own in my first post.
My position is based in my theories of the Circular Art Economy, but I will keep it brief. The Art Economy should be circular, in that Art as a whole (in this case music) should always provide a pathway for the less fortunate to become the fortunate. However, for this circular economy to work (as best exemplified in Hip Hop Business Models), each musician that reaches the top must understand it is their social responsibility to step out of the way to make room for the next Artist on the ladder.
This circular economy fails when Artists at the top, cling to the top, usually because of mishandled personal investments or a general lack of belief in their own capacity to move on to something new, like from musician to producer, or producer to enterpreneur. (See new Van Halen tour and GNR album) But like a restaurant failing, the blame is absolutely never the employees fault, but a lack of skilled and decisive management, because the entire structure of human society is based on leadership. If the ladder comes down, the responsibility must be assumed by those who made it wobble. If a Circular Art Economy is functional, artists would not have reason to object to begin with, securely knowing that they will all reach the same destination, whether music is free or not. Simply because its what we believe. On the other hand, if the Circular Art Economy is malfunctioning, the process of toppling the ladder becomes more appealing and those who choose to walk that path cannot be blamed taking it, since they are but the employees.
I believe the key in the current clilmate is learning to navigate the middle road, for example, our "free cd" was not really free but exchanged for labor- 20 emails to friends and only for a limited time. To make up for expected low CD sales, we sell companion visual Art to go along with the music. So as I stated, this has forced a higher level of creativity. Any environment can only cause evolution in all aspects: those causing the ladder to wobble can begin to get off of the ladder or those on the bottom can begin to push harder since the ladder is broken.
So to finish: If the top of the ladder continues to wobble, then I feel Artists should distribute their tracks for free and topple every center of music you can imagine. On the other hand, if the Circular Art Economy begins to function properly, then every Artist would be successful regardless and should simply wait for cues from management as to what they should be doing right now.
As far as my music goes, I already know inside that I'm the best so whether my music is free or not is irrelevant- if music is worth money then start giving me money for it, if music isn't worth money then lets make it official so I can start making dramatic changes in my lifestyle.
