Why do we pay for music?
 

Let me be exact with the premise because it's more complicated than the question in the title.

Why do we pay for music that we simply listen to in our homes in a digital format?

I want to cover a few points:

1: I'll just go back to just before the record player. Music wasn't privately enjoyed unless it was privately performed and with the advent of the record music was purchased to be privately enjoyed on a tangible medium. You weren't just buying music, you were buying a "thing". 8-Track, Cassettes, CDs... The customer has always been buying a tangible thing. There is no mandatory "thing" to be purchased today.

2: Cost of production. To produce those tangible things that had to be purchased in order for the music to be enjoyed there was a cost. The vinyl/tape/disc, the cover or case and any printed material. With digitization there is *almost* no cost of production or replication. Just disk space.

3: What's fair? How do you define fair? I have to work every day to collect a pay check, so do you. I have to create all kinds of new ideas: presentations, power points, spreadsheets etc. However, if I want to keep getting paid I have to keep doing new work and so do you. What is it about music that someone can write 1 song, once, and get paid for a lifetime?

I'm really stuck on #3 because I feel that if I use someone else's IP (in this case music) in something that makes me money, then I owe a percentage to the owner of the IP but if I'm not making money or I'm simply enjoying it as entertainment then I feel that a financial contribution to the artist should be voluntary, not mandatory. I don't agree with licensing IP for consumption/entertainment but I do agree with licensing regarding usage in producing something.


Where do you stand?

I could almost agree with your points above except: that you only pay for the music once. Then you get to listen to it forever.

Kind of like most other things in the world.

And you DO pay for a "thing" ("tangible" is debatable): a unique bit pattern on your storage media.
The courts would definitely say it is a "thing" since they can convict people for "pirating" such "things".

However I think that the whole business model is under-going a massive change.
The whole Spotify underpaying the artists issue will cause a giant shift in how money is made in this business.

I think it's obvious you are probably not a musician. Outside of cars, music is my primary hobby. I'm into producing/mixing, and I play guitar/bass/keys (synths). The reality is it takes a lot of time and money to invest in quality gear, quality recordings/mixes, merch, advertising, marketing, touring, a vehicle for touring, and on and on and on... especially if you are involved in a rock or metal band or any other type of band that focuses heavily on live instrumentation. Many pop and electronic artists are able to get away with spending much less, but music is not a cheap hobby/passion/career... and if you aren't a world famous EDM or pop star, it's a struggle just to come out positive after tours, especially when so many people have the mindset that supporting artists isn't necessary. A lot of these guys have normal jobs back home and can barely pay the bills. I think we live in a different world now, and we can't expect everyone to buy their music, but people should show support by making donations and/or buying merch and/or attending shows. It's about helping fund the people whose art you admire and appreciate, and many artists need that funding.

With that said, not everyone can make a career out of music and live comfortably doing it... and as much as I love music, I don't think everyone really should be able to... nor do I think it's realistic that everyone will be able to. A lot of factors come into play... the genre, how much money is backing your marketing, and even luck.... This is why I chose to be a software developer for a living and not break my back trying to turn music into a career.

I like to "pay" music beacuse i only pay for the songs i like. If an artist launch a new album and
i like 3 songs, i dont have to buy the entire album for those songs. For me is way more cheap in that way.
Also if i buy a specific song/track (i listen EDM) i let know the artist i like that style and i want something
similar or better next time at least

I pay for specific music I want on CD or better, SA-CD if it is available... I have a full audiophile setup at home (A nice Yamaha CD/SACD transport connected in analog to NAD receiver used as a pre-pro/preamp with a nice NAD amp to drive the mains...). On the go I rip CD's to high quality digital format for my iPod to use in car or at work with high quality in-ears or headphones - really need a headphone amp though.

But I also have digital music I listen to in car/work that it is Vocaloid music videos ripped off youtube... Vocaloid music is using virtual singer software developed by Yamaha to create music with and can range from commercial produced albums (minority) to individual artists producing personal work (majority). The quality is fine for car/work because it is not a critical listening environment with all the noise present. Certain Vocaloid albums I have bought the CD due to wanting high quality physical release of the music. Still the saved 480p-720p Youtube files that use the higher resolution audio than 360p are good enough when played through my home system... but not a substitue for CD rips of course.

This quality music is good enough for car/personal work use with good earbuds, but not even close to critical listening level:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXMsfE8AYpw"][OkameP feat. Hatsune Miku] heart's cry [english translation + subtitles] - YouTube[/ame]


This is closer to critical listening level, but still falls short of the CD, which is phenomenal - especially since it's nearly SA-CD quality level in presentation:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5uhUguZbNY"]Trentemøller - Always Something Better [The Last Resort] - YouTube[/ame]


Nothing beats a well mastered SA-CD when it comes to recorded music fidelity and presentation... you've never heard Mariah Carey until you hear her SA-CD No. 1's album... a simply unreal recording that no digital download or anything you ever hear online could EVER do justice to.

What about the costs involved for making the music? The musicians themselves, studio time, labour costs?

.

The cost doesn't really matter if there's no demand to directly pay for it.

It costs a lot of money for web companies to run their servers for free services. They find other ways to monetize, because it's good business. There are a million ways to spend money to make some product that will incur a loss. Musicians need to figure out what is good business as well, and if they can't figure it out they're in the wrong business and need to find another way to make a living.

From a consumer ethics point of view, if you like a musician, you can donate directly or pay for a concert ticket: That helps their bottom line way more than a few cents royalty from some recording.

Wait... People still pay for music? I remember buying a song back in 04. LOLOLOL


Thanks torrents
*Flamesuit*

Following your logic, a group of very talented people (composers, musicians, producers, editors, etc) spend 10s of thousands of hours each honing their craft to the point where it resulting into a product (a single song). They then sell the song once on iTunes for $0.99 of which Apple keeps about 50%. They split the remaining $0.49 or so between them, and everyone else in the world should get the song for free from that one guy.

Yea, don't think so.

There are lots of people that make money off producing something once, then reaping the rewards. Patents are another example. You can license the patent to someone willing to produce it, sit back and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
What you don't see is the time it took to get there, and the effort required to produce the product.

[Soapbox]Full disclosure.. I have direct family members in the music business so I believe they should be paid what they are worth. If you enjoy the fruits of their labor you should pay for it, period, end of story. If you don't it is no different than going down to the liquor store and swiping a bottle of Jack right off the shelf. After all the store owner did nothing to produce that bottle, why should you have to pay for it.[/OffSoapBox]

The difference is those "free" web servers are making money in other ways. The product they provide you for "free" is not the real business they are in. It is what makes the money that defines their business. So, for example, Google is an advertising company pure and simple. Anything else they do is aimed at driving that portion of their business.


Musicians are a very small part of the music "business". Only a few musicians, for example, compose all their own songs or write all their own lyrics. They don't all own the studios used to produce the music, nor the distribution mechanisms for it. Donating directly to the musician does not cover those costs. It's just not that straightforward.

I am wondering if it is just us older guys that think this way? I generally shy away from the whole "kids these days" thing (we were the "kids" referred to once upon a time) but it seems to be socially accepted that if it is on the internet it is free to take as you wish.
This whole "I will donate to the artist if I like it" thing is just pure BS as the artist is only one small part of the whole industry.
My son did a few years of band promotions for some up and coming bands. These were not little garage bands but had regular radio play and seemed destined for greatness. They all folded for pure and simple economic reasons even though very popular. Hell, they lost money on tour because more people snuck into the shows then would pay the $7 cover charge!

Very good point. In fact, there are entire consulting and "motiviational" firms based on this very thing. They have a series of very good, structured documents, change a few words and get paid big bucks for it.

Nobody cares where you got your Barney songs from.
(Couldn't let you waste that flamesuit)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...y_2265600b.jpg