Why should music be free?

Question

It really annoys me that a generation is growing up thinking that music should be free and that the best way to listen to it is through a cra ppy speaker on a mobile phone. Do these people not realise just how much work actually goes into making music? How much creativity, ingenuity and people power it takes? I think alot of people need to rediscover music as it should be, and look beyond the world of modern pop music which is unrealistic to say the least, but what do you think?

Answer 1

it shouldnt be at all, but here are two things that encourage piracy.

1. most music shops have a limited stock, with access to the internet we have access to music the world over. theres so much that is not available to buy.

2. itunes gives paying for downloads a really bad name. its £8 for an album, which is the same as a cd costs but they clearly don't have to incur the costs of making a cd. so its a huge rip off. and for that price the quality is terrible, mp3 instead of aiff. and on top of that the files are protected. i cannot back up itunes tracks off my ipod, which as its apple hardware is likely to break down at any point.

i personally do not download music illegally or otherwise anymore. but its nothing to do with any moral obligation to record companies, i have other reasons. the way i see it, if there is an artist whose album i really want and i want to support them i will buy it. but i would happily copy a beatles album off my friend, they're rich enough. it's a convenient and middle of the road argument. :)

Answer 2

music is something which has been part of our society as far back as it goes, even back to before trade existed, and something which we will always be able to create no matter what happens to us. so i guess this is why it *should* be free. however with modern music you have the dilemma that musicians have to pay lots to do their job, so i can justify paying for my music based on this - and i know that all the money i pay for the music i buy goes to the artist who wrote it (and the record label). if, for some reason, i wanted to get hold of a mainstream, manufactured track from which a lot of the income goes to people who have had no involvement in the creative side of the track whatsoever, i wouldn't feel guilty about downloading it

assuming by "modern pop" you mean chart music, this is largely aimed at teenagers and children, so i don't think it's at all unrealistic to expect people to look beyond it at some point in their lives. a lot of the people i've met, although they may, once upon a time, have only listened to chart music, now have an interest in a style of music which isn't at all popular, or have looked deeper into a style which surfaces in the mainstream. so don't lose hope!

however, if by "modern pop" you literally mean everything spanning alternative and electronic music, then of course that's unrealistic, just like telling people who lived in the classical era to revert to renaissance music would have been.

and total agreement on failing to see how listening to music off a phone satisfies people. it's far better quality when you use a pair of headphones, and quieter for everyone in the vicinity...

Answer 3

Oh, a lot of work goes into it. But then there's the price-fixing and the rather sinister (and still yet-to-happen but not too far off) pay-per-listen pricing model.

It's a very large and difficult question to answer, but a brief synopsis of things would be:

* CD's, by current prices, are no longer an attractive product

* Paid downloads, by virtue of being crippled with DRM and being too expensive by far, are still unattractive to many. (disclosure: i get my music via the iTunes store, because it's more convenient.)

* Having MP3's available for free download has, in the only empirical study ever performed on the subject, been shown to increase sales and act as a really, really powerful marketing tool.

* Music should cost money to *own* but not to *hear* - it raises the old question 'how do i know i want to buy it if i can't hear it first?' This is what makes radio so powerful - millions hear your music and those who like it will buy it. Replace radio with the web and you're getting the idea.

* It should be a decision made by the artist, not by one of the big five companies who employ them.

But most, most, most of all:

* Music is too valuable to be wasted on the wealthy.

Answer 4

Music is distributed on public air waves, there is a huge precedence for music being freely provided.

True, this is paid for by commercials or donations, what have you. It did however create the precedence for music being freely provided.

On top of that the recording industry has turned a blind eye to people making custom tapes from LP's and recording LP's onto tapes in your home for many years. In fact, LP's have been available at the library for many years.

My wife and I own hundreds of CD's I have also worked with bands as a roadie and security. I know how little they make from their songs and albums. I also know musicians who download music using gnutella and bit torrent and who still buy the CD's they like.

I like my digital music and I don't have a gnutella or bit torrent client. I don't think downloading is wrong and I don't think it stops me or anyone else from buying an album they would have other wise purchased.

I think this is a whole lot of garbage over nothing. I miss LP's, but between LP's and digital, I would rather have digital.

Answer 5

Out of every dollar you pay for a cd or legal download, do you know how much actually goes to the artists and the technical personnel that was needed to record it and make the support?

When you see that it should cost so little and ends up being so expensive because the studios, media and PR people, and all the parasites take those hugemarkups to maintain their mansions, big cars and coke supplies, well, you can validly think it ought as well to be free and that support to the artists and tech personnel should be taking another road.

Answer 6

I say if you are going to pay for music, patronise the Indy bands. Some are really spot on.
Legally I think we can still record for our own use from broadcasts, we simply can not sell.

Agreed mobile phone headsets and most MP3 players are phew. I have a good set of super bass amplified speakers hooked into my computer. Works very well. The bass can be heard though out my rooms and into the street on full.

--That Cheeky Lad

Answer 7

People don,t like to pay its part of life ...............


Bittorants are Free ( Free Music )

One question you should answer my friend and thats this .


People that Release Music say Radio 1 Top 40 Still make over the Million pound mark, so saying that they get the money they wanted ,

Sp does it matter if people download Music Free ? Answer is No because Record Companys make loads of money as it is , and there will always be people that buy CD's / DVD's even if its Free on the Net , Like it is !

Answer 8

I have "music appreciation"days at my business regularly.I play a variety of great music from Miles Davis,The Dead,early Dylan,and contemporary bands like Moe.I play it over quality equip.These dolts will go around the corner to work and play crap on a $30 radio.It is a lost cause but like a Jehovah witless,i keep hoping to reach a few.

Answer 9

Music should be free to hear once or twice without buying (radio, streaming websites like yahoo and pandora.com), but beyond that I believe our generation should stop pirating.

I love itunes, anyway. The price of music has gone down to a reasonable amount vs. 10 years ago.

Answer 10

yeah but the artist only gets a pittance, why should we pay £10 for something that costs 30p to produce? I agree with the sound quality thing though, but also feel if music was more realistically priced then there would be no market for piracy.