Page 1 of 2
#1
In my Survey of the Music Industry class, we debated whether music should be just free to download, but royalties still exist if the music is played on the radio, movies, television, as well as identical copyright laws for performing acts and recorded files.

The blanket licensing fee still applies to all establishments. The only thing that would change is if there was this 'master' website that legally allows you to download any song from any artist.

My questions are:

1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?

so, debate. Don't list.
Last edited by metalcore123 at Nov 11, 2009,
#2
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) depends on how much i like said work of music
5) Big record labels would die and indie would be come the new major. I also predict that in 50 years time the record industry would be right back to where it was.
There is a war going on for your mind.

If you are thinking, you are winning.


Resistance is victory.


We are building up a new world.
Do not sit idly by.
#3
1.
I would

2.
If they were in it for the music, yes.

3.
Most probably.

4.
Most probably

5.
Record labels will survive somehow, I'm sure of that, but they would have to be smart to do so.

6.
I think the quality will go up when people realize there's less money in it, leaving the passionate people there to make the music they love.
DeVillains!
#4
1. yes

2. some

3. hopefully

4. yes

5. major labels would still exist but would cease to be major

6.it would go to the extremes, there would be less money in it to produce and stuff so the sound quality may go down, but it will leave the artists that actually care so the actual music would get better
#5
I think it should happen, it would eliminate all of the bands who are in it for the money, rather than making music from the heart.
#6
I, personally, would (will?) give my music for free. I understand the argument about labels needing money for tours, etc. and although I'd love to have a career in music, it would be more about the fun of writing/performing music and meeting other musicians that really appeals to me, not so much the money. I kinda feel like you either get to do what you love or get paid to work but not both. The music industry is so watered down that the bands don't care about labels and labels don't care about bands. It's all about money, money, money. Kinda sad, really.
#7
Had a discussion about this in class today too. We figured the labels should put their music on a website so we can listen to it and make playlists. In between every 3 songs they could stick in a commercial break for teh moneyz. You can compare it to how several TV shows are streaming on the internet (mostly US only though, aside from South Park).

CD and vinyl would hopefully still be available for the lovers. I would die a little inside if the physical album died without a good alternative.

Film and software is a whole other discussion though.
#8
I'd love to be able to make music for a living and not have to have a second job on the side to distract me. I'm sure that gigging would help, but if there was no monetary incentive in making new music apart from the odd royalty, then I don't think people would be as productive. As it is at the moment, and probably will always be for me, I don't get paid any money and I still play and write a lot of music. If I were paid more to do this then I could spend more time on it and hopefully develop it into something better. Basically what I'm saying is that the quality of music available is likely to be higher if people are able to dedicate themselves entirely to it, rather than have to have "real" jobs and do the music on the side.

If the website paid the musicians a fair amount of money for every listen and there was an advert or subscription system in place, exactly like Spotify, then it might work - but I don't know how much money goes to the people behind the music with Spotify.
Last edited by Les Paul Ell at Nov 11, 2009,
#9
Quote by frankv
Had a discussion about this in class today too. We figured the labels should put their music on a website so we can listen to it and make playlists. In between every 3 songs they could stick in a commercial break for teh moneyz. You can compare it to how several TV shows are streaming on the internet (mostly US only though, aside from South Park).

CD and vinyl would hopefully still be available for the lovers. I would die a little inside if the physical album died without a good alternative.

Film and software is a whole other discussion though.



Would people actually do this when they could download torrents for free and they get to listen to the music wherever and whenever they want?
#11
1. Yes.

2. They probably wouldn't be professionals if they couldn't live off their musical income, would they... generally speaking though, some of them would and some of them wouldn't.

3. Some yes, some no.

4. I'd do a lot of physical buying and a bit of downloading, as I do now.

5. If all downloads were free, I doubt there would be very many labels left at all.

6. Won't change. Some people actually like pop.


Quote by frankv
Had a discussion about this in class today too. We figured the labels should put their music on a website so we can listen to it and make playlists. In between every 3 songs they could stick in a commercial break for teh moneyz. You can compare it to how several TV shows are streaming on the internet (mostly US only though, aside from South Park).


Welcome to spotify (well, the music anyway).
Last edited by webbtje at Nov 11, 2009,
#13
1. Nobody buys my music anyways. I just plug a guitar into Pro Tools and play, and it's all for my own enjoyment, so of course I would still make music.

2. The one's who make it for the music, absolutely. Those who make it for the money, absolutely not.

3. Again, absolutely

4. Depends how much I liked the music/supported the artist.

5. I don't follow the industry close enough to know about the current status of the music labels, so I don't really have an opinion on this.

6. The quality of music would definitely go up. However, in terms of sound quality, like sk8nalmost1394 said, would probably go down due to lack of money for production.

There is a problem though. As much as I make my music from the heart for the sole purpose of making music, I still want to make a living doing it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be in a band just to make money. But I can't lie and say that if my band doesn't make some sort of income I wouldn't be disappointed. The truth is, I want to be in the music business so that I can make the music I want to make, and for that to be the way I make a living, so naturally I want to make money off of my music. The difference between me and artists like the Brittany Spears, who don't even write their own music or lyrics, is that I want to make money off of music that I'm proud to call my own, music that I'm proud to say "I wrote this! This is MY story! This is from MY heart!" If life isn't so kind to me, I will be disappointed, that much is guaranteed. But I won't stoop myself so low that I would start making music that I'm not proud of, that I'm not ashamed to say that I wrote.
Fender 72' Deluxe Tele
Schecter Damian Elite 7
Fender '62 Reissue Jazz Bass (MIJ)
Peavey XXX 212 (back on the East Coast)

Macbook Pro 15" Retina
Logic Pro X 10.0.7
Revalver 4
LePou Amp Sims
Ignite Amp Sims
LeCab2
RedWirez Impulses
#15
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download? Yeah sure, I'll make money off gigs.

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download? Probably, depends on if you ask Lars ulrich or a musician...

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)? They do anyway.

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD) You bet your arse I would, If I like something, I'll definitely buy it.

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.
Record labels would be severely hit by this I would think, and would find new and more evil ways to smite musicians, and smite listeners pockets worldwide.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general? Who knows... Maybe we'll go slowly back into the folk music era where the KKK burn negros in the open and the soggy bottom boys reign.


And you know a list is the best way for this thread to go. If we don't list things here, we end up going off on a tangent about shit we all know already.

By the way, I was making a reference to o brother where art though, I don't like the KKK or it's actions.

|_|0|_|
|_|_|0|
|0|0|0|
▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄
Last edited by osXtiger at Nov 11, 2009,
#16
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download? Yes, Musicians create with the artform as the superior motive, and not the money to be earnt.

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download? Yes for reason stated above

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)? No, An artist stands to make nothing compared to there overall wealth from songs and album sales, they will make majority through merchandise, live performances, contracts for t.v shows etc.

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD). I don't download music, i always either spotify (stream when im not near a cd player) or buy the physical copy.

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? No indie labels would not become new majors, Considering the big 4 of record companys own a huge majority of music coming out, indie labels would suffer more.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general? Nothing really. it would stay the same, however more people would get a can do atitude which would be good for the scene, however you can guarantee that for every band that makes it thanks to this new route, 10 crap bands would.
Quote by ZanasCross
I'm now so drunk that even if my mom had given me a blow job at aeg 2, i'd be like I'm a pmp, butches.!

If this even madkes sense... if yhou sig this, Iw ll kill you.
#17
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?

-Absolutely

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?

-Some would probably stop. The true musicians would continue, I think.

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?

-Those people don't play for wealth. The rights to their music are bought by people who think their music will make them a lot of money.

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)

-I'd continue to spend the same amount of money I do now.

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.

-Not sure.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?

-It could probably improve slightly, but overall I don't think it would change much. I don't believe that any artist starts making music solely for the money.
E-married to ilikepirates

Quote by bloodtrocuted93

How are you so fucking awesome at music?


>¦<
¦
#18
Quote by darkcheef
I think it should happen, it would eliminate all of the bands who are in it for the money, rather than making music from the heart.


*facedesks*

PROVE that certain bands/artists/groups are in it "only for the money." Has it ever occured to you that, say, Britney Spears and the Jonas Brothers love performing? If you don't enjoy the touring or the performing, there's no chance in hell you'll survive the schedules they have. Grow up, really. Things are nowhere near as black and white as "in it for the money" or "in music because they love it." It's shades of grey. I signed a contract because I want music as a job. I love it. I love performing, I love writing all kinds of music. I don't want a 9-5 job. In order to facilitate that dream, I need to earn something from music. Shade of grey right there.


Quote by Les Paul Ell
I'd love to be able to make music for a living and not have to have a second job on the side to distract me. I'm sure that gigging would help, but if there was no monetary incentive in making new music apart from the odd royalty, then I don't think people would be as productive. As it is at the moment, and probably will always be for me, I don't get paid any money and I still play and write a lot of music. If I were paid more to do this then I could spend more time on it and hopefully develop it into something better. Basically what I'm saying is that the quality of music available is likely to be higher if people are able to dedicate themselves entirely to it, rather than have to have "real" jobs and do the music on the side.


Absolutely. I want to be in a position where music is my full time job. Obviously, I need money to live in this world so money is an important factor. In all careers you sometimes have to do things that you may not really agree with in order to keep doing something you enjoy doing. It's not selling out- it's doing what you need to do in order to keep doing what you love.
#19
Quote by osXtiger

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.
Record labels would be severely hit by this I would think, and would find new and more evil ways to smite musicians, and smite listeners pockets worldwide.


Just FYI, without labels, there would be no tours, no musicians could live off of their music. NONE. There would be no Slayer. There would be no Beatles. Are you familiar with what an advance is? This is how those artists afforded to record their first few CDs and got to tour to support their albums.

No record labels = no CDs.
No CDs = no MP3s.
No MP3s = ice age.
#20
Quote by metalcore123
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?


Most definitly. I create music, not because I wan't it to make me filthy rich, but because I enjoy it, and I strive to make music others enjoy.

Most indie bands dont really make any money from their music, it's more of a self-sustaining project while having 'normal' job to pay bills/rent/buy stuff.

Quote by metalcore123
2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?


I don't really know what you mean by 'professionals', to be honest...

Quote by metalcore123
3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?


I have a bit of a problem with branding artists as 'playing for wealth'. Sure, the majority of pop seems to be manufactured to sell and make money, but no-one in their right minds would think "I need to make some money... I know, I'll be a pop artist!!".

But, seeing as though I know what you're getting at, I think that the musicians you speak of would not really suffer. They are the exact types that would willingly get a contract with a big name brand, promoting some kind of footwear, or perfume, or whatever. Their popularity would still sell out arenas, making them thousands.

Quote by metalcore123
4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)


I don't particularly like downloading music, I prefer having a physical CD, something to put in a collection. I think, if downloading were to be made free, I'd probably download the album first, and if I like it, I'd buy it.

Quote by metalcore123
5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.


Record labels need to re-invent the way that they work in order to cope with music downloads. Basically, there is no way they will be able to stop the masses pirating music; sueing individuals for thousands hasn't worked, threatening to cut individuals off the internet hasn't worked.

They need to give consumers more incentive to buy the album. Put a free version online, but maybe offer bonus content with the disc, or reduce the price of an album.

Quote by metalcore123
6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?


This is an interesting one... Face value might suggest that it will get worse, as labels are likely to pick market-ability over talent and musicianship.

I think the key is that we're living in a time when it's possible to record your own band in your own front room. So, even without a record label, you can get your music out there. Through word of mouth on the internet you can build yourself a name.

I don't think quality will suffer at all, just the quality of music that gets air-play. Which is mostly shite anyway.

Quote by metalcore123
Just FYI, without labels, there would be no tours, no musicians could live off of their music. NONE. There would be no Slayer. There would be no Beatles. Are you familiar with what an advance is? This is how those artists afforded to record their first few CDs and got to tour to support their albums.

No record labels = no CDs.
No CDs = no MP3s.
No MP3s = ice age.


Look up indie.
#21
Quote by frankv
I heard about that and that would be great for me, were it not that I live in the Netherlands and can't use it...



Ah fair enough, I thought you could in most of Europe by now. It's gone a bit shit now anyway, there's a waiting list to join here in the UK (I suspect it might not be as viable a business model as they first thought).
#22
^^ I am familiar with indie labels. The only difference is the distribution between them and majors. But since the internet came along, indies can distribute online. Granted, if there weren't ANY labels, then you would not know about any bands, at least until the internet came around, but as I said, bands like slayer, the beatles, iron maiden, all of the bands that are pre-internet, would not be around.

Once the internet hit and pro tools was put into a lot of musicians homes, then sure, you might hear their music online. You still woudlnt see any of them live though.
#23
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?
My music is free to download now...

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?
Probably. See: NiN, Radiohead, the Hybridize and FiNRG labels...

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?
Brittany. It's funny because it's a dog
Doubtful, as long as the people selling physical copies still run the radio stations.


4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)
F'sho.

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors?
The big ones would eat the small ones, probably, just to own more of the market...


6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?
Impossible to say.

I'll look for people to debate later

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

Last edited by SteveHouse at Nov 11, 2009,
#24
This is rediculous, its like saying "lets not pay sports players" or "lets make all milk free". These people create a product and if you want to use it they should be reimbursed accordingly.
#25
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?

Yes, I would. I've honestly ever wanted to create music with the intent of monetary gain. I make the music for the music.

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?

I don't understand what you mean by "professionals", but I'd imagine that the bands the make music for the music would still create music.

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?

I'd like to hope so. Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad thing, if after a while there would only be quality bands that play the music for the music left. Or at least a lot less crap bands.

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)

Sure. I like to actually have the albums.

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.

I couldn't see there being "Majors" more so labels with the generally better bands.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?

I could see it going up, as the artists playing more than likely wouldn't playing for the sake of making money, but, just for making music. With less bands making generic un-inspired music for thye money and more making music just to make it.
#26
Quote by acd
This is rediculous, its like saying "lets not pay sports players" or "lets make all milk free". These people create a product and if you want to use it they should be reimbursed accordingly.



Everyone so far has said they would still create music.

Sports players do not create a product. They will deny a contract if it is for 55mil instead of 60mil.

Horrible metaphor. Doesn't answer any of the questions.
#27
Quote by metalcore123
Everyone so far has said they would still create music.

Sports players do not create a product. They will deny a contract if it is for 55mil instead of 60mil.

Horrible metaphor. Doesn't answer any of the questions.


Professional sports players do create a product- entertainment. Why else would there be these huge sporting arenas that millions of people attend to worldwide every week?
#28
It makes me that this thread died, so I'm picking the last post and fighting it.
Quote by Deliriumbassist
Professional sports players do create a product- entertainment. Why else would there be these huge sporting arenas that millions of people attend to worldwide every week?

beer.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#29
Downloading is stupid.

The enjoyment of actually possessing real music is lost when you download. I will always buy CDs no matter what. Not so much for moral reasons, more because I simply enjoy buying and having the physical copy of an album that I can touch, feel and stick my penis through the hole in the middle. If I download then I do not own it and cannot properly enjoy it as far as i'm concerned.
Quote by the_white_bunny
your just a simpleton that cant understand strategy apparently.

Quote by the_white_bunny
all hail king of the penis sucking(i said balls. you said dick for some reason?) Isabiggles
#30
Quote by acd
This is rediculous, its like saying "lets not pay sports players" or "lets make all milk free". These people create a product and if you want to use it they should be reimbursed accordingly.


Difference is, the only people who are REALLY hurt by downloading music is record stores, and they'd be hurt whether it's free or paid.

Most artists believe, as do I, that downloading music for free does not hurt album sales. Many artists even place their work online for free now. Also, the music that already rich artists make is the only kind you can find for free. If you can find the people who actually depend on album sales for free on the internet, I'd like to see that site.
#31
Quote by metalcore123


My questions are:

1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?

i write music (in fact i just spent a ton of my own personal money for a studio and new guitars) and record and give it away for free. i encourage it, i'm going to setup something in the future where if you WANT to buy the music you can or you can download the low quality mp3's for free. i'd rather people enjoy my music for free than not at all
Quote by metalcore123

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?

pro's create free music ALL THE TIME. not just NIN and Radiohead but theres tons of bands doing the same as them and on top of that theres tons of musical samples and loops that are public property.
Quote by metalcore123

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?
nope, their labels would just push their advertising and sales more
Quote by metalcore123

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)

i still buy physical copies of what i download. i'll download a cd and if its any good i'll buy it, if it's not then i'll delete it. its a skewed honor system but i know i'm good for it.
Quote by metalcore123

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.

the record labels will have to switch their marketing tactics, thats just in general.
Quote by metalcore123

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?
ideally it will get better because people who actually love their music and believe in it will get to release it on their terms. i think right now the problem with music is that the record co's won't take a risk on something new, they're sticking with the same rehashed garbage because they know it appeals to an unfortunately large demographic.
#32
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?
---------

1. Yes, I love it, so I won't stop just cuz I'm not making a profit

2. The ones that really love it would.

3. Hopefully they won't because those kinds of musicians aren't exactly the best.

4. Actually, I would. I already sometimes buy songs on the iTunes Store, and then actually buy the real CD or Vinyl because...well...I don't know, it feels better haha.

5. They wouldn't exist anymore to be honest (if ALL music would get downloaded)

6. It'll get better.
"You have brains in your head,
You have feet in your shoes,
You can steer yourself,
any direction you choose,
You're on your own,
And you know what you know,
And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go."

- Dr. Seuss
#33
Quote by metalcore123
In my Survey of the Music Industry class, we debated whether music should be just free to download, but royalties still exist if the music is played on the radio, movies, television, as well as identical copyright laws for performing acts and recorded files.

The blanket licensing fee still applies to all establishments. The only thing that would change is if there was this 'master' website that legally allows you to download any song from any artist.
So basically you're saying sources of publishing income will be exactly the same as they are right now, except without mechanical royalty due to elimination of record sales?

The problem with that is that most musicians get their initial revenue solely from composition royalty, which is determined by how many records will be printed of those compositions. If the standard is little to no record prints, that would eliminate their biggest revenue stream.


1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?
Right now, yes.

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?
No. Nor should they. All of you saying "those who are in it for music will" are naive idiots who live off your parents.

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?
Very little. There's no musician that plays just for wealth, except for some rappers.

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)
No. I don't care about physical copies.

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.
Hard to predict.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?
Hard to predict. Especially since you're saying that blanket license fees are going to be the only sources of revenues. This is almost communist and may eliminate incentive for artists to be better than their competitions.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
Last edited by Xiaoxi at Nov 11, 2009,
#34
You know, there was a time when records were just promotion tools. They were sketchy live recordings to give you a feel of a band, so that when they came to your town you would go see them play. Music was a social thing, and listening to a record by yourself with headphones on, isolated from the world, would have seemed a profoundly introverted thing to do.

Recommended reading: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music by Elijah Wald
#35
my question is what makes you think brittany spears and jonas brothers only produce music for wealth...thats possiblibly the dumbest statement i've ever heard(unless of course you can back it up by them specifically saying i only do this for the money) just because everyone hates them (including me) and there music appeals to a younger generation. how does that mean that they only do it for the money?

basically what your saying is....your music gets famous...younger kids like it...you automatically only do it for the money....yea bright thinking
#36
1. Would you still create music, if it was free to download?
I already do, but I like having the option to sell it if I want (I do).

2. Would professionals still create music, if it was free to download?
I think it would depend on the person.

3. Theoretically speaking, would all of the musicians who play just for wealth vanish over time (e.g, Brittany spears, Jonas Brothers)?
I think so.

4. Would you still download music, as well as buy physical copies of what you just downloaded? (e.g, Vinyl, CD)
I think so. I really do value owning the physical copy of an album.

5. What would happen to record labels? Would indie labels become the new Majors? They are almost balanced as of now anyways since the major difference is the distribution the majors have control of which is slowly becoming old news.
They would probably just take on a different role in the process.

6. What will happen to the quality of music in general?
I think quality would go up.

Ultimatly though, I think it's really up to the artist. If a band doesn't want to give away their music for free, that's their choice and their right.
#37
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) One can only hope. They would probably make money mainly off of touring as most musicians do already though.
4) Yeah, I doubt I would change anything.
5) Hopefully the music industry would fall, and all that would remain are musicians who are in it for the music, or are willing to make money solely off of touring and merchandise.
6) I doubt it would go up or down, but eliminating the music industry may weed out from the mainstream, musicians who do not deserve to be there.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
#39
Quote by GezzyDiversion
One day it will get to a point where up and coming bands cannot make it big because there is no money to support them.

You cannot get by in this world without money.
You do realize that there are other ways for musicians to make money than selling records?

My logic (however flawed it may be) is that free downloading could potentially make underground music easier to surface, widening its fanbase, and therefore leading more people to come to certain concerts.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
Last edited by food1010 at Nov 11, 2009,
#40
It's quite hard to justify theft.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever." 1984.
Page 1 of 2