11th
Download killed the radio star
Reposting a comment I left on a blog post which was, itself, a response to another blog post:
“Saying music must be free removes the artists from the art. Or it will have that effect, eventually.”
Maybe you are considering the wrong model? If what you’re concerned with is the up-front cost of composing and recording music, why are you trying to cover those costs through distribution fees? Especially when distribution has more value to you, as an artist, then it does to your audience?
If you could figure out a way to get paid specifically for the creative process, you could give away the results without harm. If anything, lowering the barriers to distribution should make it even easier for you to obtain funding for future creative endeavors: larger audience, profounder impact, etc.
Just because patronage and government funding for the arts are out of style, it doesn’t mean they are bad ideas. If, as an artist, you don’t like performing or teaching, then you should probably be cultivating sources of funding, or hooking up with someone who is. That way if the whole cheap download thing works itself out, you get a big bonus; but if not, you don’t have to quit or starve.
It’s the same argument I make for open source software: it only works (financially) when the original project is paid for by some entity that needs it. Once the large, up-front development costs are covered, the community can cover the cost of mantaining and distributing the code.
