Warm Machine
Member
What should music be worth?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Taylor Swift pulls music from Spotify because music shouldn't be free
- Thread starter jwk94
- Start date
- Status
What should music be worth?
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
OP is is a fan of bands I like. Nice.
The Shadow
Member
You can also turn on a radio and hear "free" music that way too. Taylor Swift is kind of an idiot.
What do you mean?
Warm Machine
Member
How much do you think a song should be worth?
shacklesmcgee
Member
I think 99 cents to own a song is pretty fair
StopMakingSense
Member
Weirdly enough, most of her stuff still seems to be on Rdio, save for the latest.
And_Gignac
Member
Art is not work. Work is not self-expression, is just a mean to get money. Art isnt that mundane.
You are just being a naive apologist for rich celebrities you dont have a personal relationship with (correct me if I am wrong).
How do you own a song
Warm Machine
Member
I agree. A $12 album is pretty fair too. Ideally a artist takes home $4 of that. More than likely they take home 0 cents of that with the label involved.
outunderthestars
Banned
She is also one of the few artists who can bring more attention to this issue as she doesn't need the money. Kudos to her for taking a stand against what is a rather shutty deal for artists.
shacklesmcgee
Member
So movies, television shows, video games and music aren't art then? Or are you saying movies, television shows, video games and music aren't work?
an mp3, not licensed on a service kinda thing. Like Apple can't just go bankrupt and there goes my music
Making art is most certainly work and hard work at that. Getting money and self-expression are not mutually exclusive.
I don't have a problem with whatever they are charging for their album. I am not going to buy it anyway. But don't completely discard the streaming option. It's not like everyone is streaming these days. She is still selling millions regardless.
Someone posted this in the popgaf mega thread:
Crazy considering how popular Spotify is. I wonder where Pandora falls on that scale.
All artists are rich celebrities now? I can't wait to tell my wife we're rich and famous!
Warm Machine
Member
Don't act like record sales by a label = dollars in her pocket. As of 2012 30 seconds to Mars is said to still owe EMI 1 million $ plus for fees associated with their contract and this is after they sold millions of albums. So they sold millions of copies and have never made a dime of royalties off their records. The music industry isn't cut and dry like game dev.
And_Gignac
Member
I really dont want to go all "angsty higschooler trying to be philosophical" on you but oh well:
Art itself isnt work, but we live in a capitalistic society where everything has to be given a monetary value, art too. But the very essence and nature of art has no relation with the modern concept of "work", imo.
I was addressing that particular user and his stan culture shenanigans which clearly cloud his judgement.
Ingueferroque
Banned
... what the fuck? Holy shit. WTF post of the fcking year right here. Are you kidding? How old are you?
You must be insane. Or have never worked a day in your life. Or created anything worthwhile. Or had to pay for rent, food, clothes, ...
Spotify: listen to albums in order, on demand, for free.
Radio: listen to a crapshoot of songs and ads and maybe you'll hear the single you've heard a hundred times, but most likely you'll arrive at your destination before that happens.
shacklesmcgee
Member
Thank you for confirming you are an angsty high schooler, from now on you should probably shut up before you tell a vast amount of people that they shouldn't get paid for what they do, or that it's not "work". People might think you're an idiot or something.
Sure but let's be honest here,Taylor Swift is like the top tier pop singer right now. There is no way that streaming is making her lose potential dollars.
Anyway, in respect to the streaming in general, it is quite evident that this is the future of movies/music. By 2016, streaming will take over Blu ray/DVD market.
Taylor Swift can't stop this. It's just about getting ahead with time.
EDIT - Also then the problem is with the Music Industry itself if even after selling millions, you end up paying almost all of it in royalties. Just like in gaming, when SE didn't make shit when they sold million of TR copes. The problem was never with Steam/ PS plus sale.
The point he is trying to make is that a number of people will still make art whether or not they get paid. The same is not true of more traditional work. If there was no money involved people would not stand in an assembly line and make cars, but people would still make music even if they weren't getting paid. Of course if no one was getting paid, the kind of music getting made would be greatly changed.
And_Gignac
Member
I never implied that. I am just talking about what I think the nature of art is, and how it shouldnt be restricted because of monetary limits. Not everyone in this planet is a first worlder with enough money to pay for every art form they want to enjoy. People shouldnt be restricted of the enjoyment of art because of capitalistic rules, specially with Spotify, which offers the best solution yet for this moral dilemma without piracy.
Ugh.
Thanks for expressing it more eloquently that I was able to, lol.
IrishNinja
Member
Syphon Filter
Member
pop gaf gon get ya breh.
don't worry, Popgaf hates Her as well.
IrishNinja
Member
Stefan;138007987 said:
exactly, my popgaf brethren mostly have finer taste
Spotify gemerally pays 400000+ dollars in royalties per month to the artist with the most succesful album out. A top 10 most listened album generwlly makes 100.000+ a month for that artist. I don't call that a pittance.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Volunteer work?
100 k for Taylor is not even worth the effort of opening the envelope (or email).
Only first worlders should have to pay for things?
This shit isn't art. It's entertainment. You want to buy this not to revel to the wonders of sound, but to make girls dance at your party. Why exactly should this be free
While dissing the quality of her music is an easy target, can't deny that spotify isn't exactly paying their artists very well. Swift is big enough that she can ignore it as she doesn't need the exposure. Hard to hate on that
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Valtýr;138008161 said:
Music will always have worth. How publishers and labels will exploit that is another thing. She's made millions of her new album already. I think her reasons are misplaced, and not articulated enough.
They warned us that people would start thinking that way back when Napster was around. "If piracy isn't stopped people won't value this stuff at all!".
I laughed because it sounded ridiculous, but it seems clear now some people really do believe these folks don't really deserve anything. Or that once they reach this mystical 'wealthy' status that they should have no say in where their work is sold and for how much.
Valtýr;138008161 said:
Speak for yourself cheapskate. I have no problem paying for music I enjoy. No problem at all.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Many wealthy artist have and will continue to be and work with streaming sites. And also will time release new albums. That's the industry now. It isn't about who deserves what. It's how about the market is operating.
Her wealth is completely irrelevant. It's her choice, and she thinks it doesn't pay enough. That's it.
If you were a billionaire, and you were selling an old car, and someone offered you a grand under sticker, you're not morally obligated to accept it just because you will never spend that grand.
Maybe you'd think that billionaire is a twat, but people aren't obligated to be good either.
If you were a billionaire, and you were selling an old car, and someone offered you a grand under sticker, you're not morally obligated to accept it just because you will never spend that grand.
Maybe you'd think that billionaire is a twat, but people aren't obligated to be good either.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
But she is reasoning on how music loses its value. I think it gains value when you can have many people not able to purchase your album listening to it.
And I do think wealth is relevant. She's made a lot of money from this album. Way more than any independent career artist can dream of. The revenue she will lose/gain from this is minuscule. The audience isn't. I certainly listened to her on Spotify. I am iffy on whether I should buy her new album because of this.
Joanna Newsom certainly doesn't make this kind of money.
And I do think wealth is relevant. She's made a lot of money from this album. Way more than any independent career artist can dream of. The revenue she will lose/gain from this is minuscule. The audience isn't. I certainly listened to her on Spotify. I am iffy on whether I should buy her new album because of this.
Joanna Newsom certainly doesn't make this kind of money.
It's hard to know if she believes it does devalue music. Maybe she really does, and wishes to reduce its popularity to help the lesser known artists who aren't making as much money.
And Joanna Newsom is rich, she just moved into a six million dollar house.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
...and she's still on spoty.
There are two points that utterly dismantle this argument:
1. Admitting that a lack of payment would severely impact the art form - why would we even entertain the notion that "art should be free" if we know as a fact that the outcome would be negative? People cannot dedicate their life to an art if they are not able to sustain themselves. What this is proposing is art as part time - nothing more than a hobby.
2. Following the above - that art without payment would be reduced to a part-time hobby - and arguing that "art" is different from "traditional work" because people would elect to do the former for free and not the latter is patently false. Unless you despise your line of work, I would argue most everyone would gladly volunteer or take up their line of work intermittently for free - even assembly line workers (hard to imagine volunteering to assemble a car, but the concept of doing assembly line work for free exists in food banks as an example).
I am not going to get into arguing whether "art is work" as that is a blatant deflection from "art should be free." Regardless of the argument, however, art is an outcome of work - and you cannot dedicate full-time to any work without being paid; and anyone that has worked a day in their lives would not even entertain the notion that work should go unpaid.
But I'm not done:
The purpose of incorporating concepts of "capitalism" is redundant since there is no permutation of society that would lead to art unrelated to the concept of monetary value. Not in a capitalist society, not in a communist society, not in anything in-between. Not in the present, or in the past.
The closest we have gotten to art being separate from monetary value, ironically, is the one related to piracy - the utter THEFT of someone's property.
Another incredible irony given that "first world" conditions is the only thing making us entertain the notion of art without pay. Some would-be artists in poorer countries don't even have the energy to lift an instrument because of an utter lack of basic humane conditions.
And lastly -
Attempting to appear impartial while flinging this non-sense is a hysterical self destruction. Try better.
- Status