Music/$$$

Just a few thoughts...I am a professional performing musician/teacher/composer. And, this is the way I make my living...so, I think I should be paid for my services, be they recorded music, a performance, teaching, whatever. Unfortunately, I live in a society where I am expected to pay bills, buy food, gas, clothes, etc...if I didn't have to pay for the privilege of living in this world, I really wouldn't mind if my music was given away (and I do give away a lot of CD's, mostly in swaps with other musicians). But, since I need $$$ for my very survival, I feel I should be paid fairly in exchange for what I do. I've worked very very hard for many years to play and compose music, and I think I'm pretty good at it...and yet, a mediocre attorney, physician, and folks in many other professions often make more $$$ than I do. Anyway, just an observation, life isn't necessarily fair...but if you have $$$, and I give of my services to you, I think you ought to respond by sharing your $$$ with me, not unreasonable, I believe...Hstick
myspace.com/microstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree completely that we should be paid for our
services as musicians. The problem is that what
people define as "payable musicians services" has
changed throughout time and across different cultures.
We must find ways to make a living (or merely live)
in whatever world we live in... if this was 12th
Century Europe I'd enter a monastery and live
comfortably writing organum. If it was a little later
I'd chum up to some aristocrat and write music for
their parties. If it was the mid-20th Century I'd
make a record deal. And here and now?
I'll keep teaching, gigging, writing... and working my
day-job!

Seriously though, as media becomes increasingly easier
and easier to copy, transfer, share, and store,
recorded music will depreciate. (Even now it's
becoming more and more common for people to exchange
musical libraries, histories, and identities instead
of individual songs or albums: "trade u 300gig
history of freejazz for ur folktronica collection")

When recording technologies first became used for
profit, there was a period of adjustment where
musicians who had only been paid to play live must
have felt very threatened, then some realized they
could make a whole lot more $$$ and reach a wider
audience by adapting to the technological/economic
changes. Same's true for right now.
Whether filesharing is right/wrong is moot - it's
happening.

(Opening up a whole 'nother can of worms, but perhaps
more on topic: It's also possible now to pirate many
high end softsynths, music apps, vst's, etc. with
microtonal capabilities...)

--- microstick@... wrote:

> Just a few thoughts...I am a professional
> performing musician/teacher/composer. And, this is
> the way I make my living...so, I think I should be
> paid for my services, be they recorded music, a
> performance, teaching, whatever. Unfortunately, I
> live in a society where I am expected to pay bills,
> buy food, gas, clothes, etc...if I didn't have to
> pay for the privilege of living in this world, I
> really wouldn't mind if my music was given away (and
> I do give away a lot of CD's, mostly in swaps with
> other musicians). But, since I need $$$ for my very
> survival, I feel I should be paid fairly in exchange
> for what I do. I've worked very very hard for many
> years to play and compose music, and I think I'm
> pretty good at it...and yet, a mediocre attorney,
> physician, and folks in many other professions often
> make more $$$ than I do. Anyway, just an
> observation, life isn't necessarily fair...but if
> you have $$$, and I give of my services to you, I
> think you ought to respond by sharing your $$$ with
> me, not unreasonable, I believe...Hstick
> myspace.com/microstick
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Don't quit your job - take classes online
www.Classesusa.com

Kevin,

Sorry, but you seem to be completely at ease with being amoral.

{you wrote...}
>I agree completely that we should be paid for our services as musicians.

Apparently you don't.

>I'll keep teaching, gigging, writing... and working my day-job!

Day-job? Oh, how wonderful. I'm also assuming you teach for free, gig for free, as well as write for free. Why should anyone pay you for such services?

>Whether filesharing is right/wrong is moot - it's happening.

Because something is happening does not invalidate the ethical stance behind the action. People commit rape, but the fact it is happening does not make it ok. Simply making an action easy does not make it acceptable. But, hey, if you can rip all that music and not pay a dime for it, why not?

>(Opening up a whole 'nother can of worms, but perhaps more on topic: It's also possible now to pirate many high end softsynths, music apps, vst's, etc. with
>microtonal capabilities...)

OK with you?

Some day we'll talk about Harry Partch. Damn, I sure am glad Harry didn't live this long...

Somebody PLEASE say when metatuning is appropriate!

Cheers,
Jon

Hi people.

A few texts for reflexion:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

kevin ryan escreveu:
> I agree completely that we should be paid for our
> services as musicians. The problem is that what
> people define as "payable musicians services" has
> changed throughout time and across different cultures.

My question here:

Is there any `service' when someone just *allows* other people copy/distribute some collection of bits?

I think not. The service can be the act to *copy/distribute* itself, including the supporting media (a `product').

To maintain a site which makes works available in digital format also can be a service. How to properly get money from such a service without hurt people rights is still an open question. Are donations an optimal solution? What are the alternatives?

> We must find ways to make a living (or merely live)
> in whatever world we live in... if this was 12th
> Century Europe I'd enter a monastery and live
> comfortably writing organum. If it was a little later
> I'd chum up to some aristocrat and write music for
> their parties. If it was the mid-20th Century I'd
> make a record deal. And here and now? > I'll keep teaching, gigging, writing... and working my
> day-job! Today, composing is more an investment (for teaching, playing etc.) than a service in itself. Only in certain cases --that is, at request-- composing is a service, which remuneration is paid directly, only once.

This model can lead to issues, concerning to the creation of complex art: long works, for big groups, orchestra concerts, operas etc. Finding ways to fund such complex (and dispendious) realisations is a challenge in the new world in which free copying is a public `right' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copynorms ) .

> > Seriously though, as media becomes increasingly easier
> and easier to copy, transfer, share, and store,
> recorded music will depreciate. (Even now it's
> becoming more and more common for people to exchange
> musical libraries, histories, and identities instead
> of individual songs or albums: "trade u 300gig
> history of freejazz for ur folktronica collection") Of course, this is a good thing for the public.

> > When recording technologies first became used for
> profit, there was a period of adjustment where
> musicians who had only been paid to play live must
> have felt very threatened, then some realized they
> could make a whole lot more $$$ and reach a wider
> audience by adapting to the technological/economic
> changes. Same's true for right now.
> Whether filesharing is right/wrong is moot - it's
> happening.

Lawrence Lessig states (in `Free Culture') that several technologic advances apearred as forms of `piracy', from the previous points of view.
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

The adaptation to the new circustances is a must.

(DRMs are only a --bad-- way to try holding the old paradigm, against public interest and rights. http://www.defectivebydesign.org )

There are many open questions posed by the current circunstances ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html ) and there are several tries to find solutions (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Performer_Protocol ).

The free/open source software licensing model, as well as its derivative CreativeCommons ``some rights reserved'' models are important steps.
http://www.gnu.org/
http://www.opensource.org/
http://creativecommons.org/

In special, such licensing models allows legal use of P2P and file sharing in general; thus, they allows one to say: FILE SHARING IS NOT ILEGAL OR BAD.

Authorized file sharing is good and legal.

> > (Opening up a whole 'nother can of worms, but perhaps
> more on topic: It's also possible now to pirate many
> high end softsynths, music apps, vst's, etc. with
> microtonal capabilities...)

Never mind. We can create/use/share/modify free software rather than use proprietary software (`piracy' is good for proprietaries holding user dependency).

http://linux-sound.org/
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000104
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000096
http://www.agnula.org/
http://linux-sound.org/distro.html
http://www.musix.org.ar/

Cheers,
Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda http://br.geocities.com/hfmlacerda/

*THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS: http://costofwar.com/

microabc -- free software for microtonal music
http://br.geocities.com/hfmlacerda/abc/microabc-about.html

*N�O DEIXE SEU VOTO SUMIR! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Ap�ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ O Yahoo! est� de cara nova. Venha conferir! http://br.yahoo.com

[Kevin]
>> I'll keep teaching, gigging, writing... and working my day-job!

[Jon]
> Day-job? Oh, how wonderful. I'm also assuming you teach for free, gig
> for free, as well as write for free. Why should anyone pay you for
> such services?

If I undestood well, Kevin wants to say that just copying a ready work does not demand effort from its author. (Kevin, please tell us if I am wrong.)

By the other hand, teaching and playing are `presential' services, which do demand effort from the teacher/player at every lesson/show.

The author `service' (effort) finishes when the work is ready. How he/she is paid for such a service --an important question-- was omited by Kevin. But his idea was, I presume: the act to (third-part people) make digital copies is not a service provided by the author. In the words of Richard Stallman (in ``Why Software Should Not Have Owners''):

<<<
One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.

But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me.
>>>
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

How to fund art creation in this context can be a difficult issue. Comparing music and software, we notice that software needs to be written and maintained for specific technical demands: free software authors have their jobs guaranteed. But for a composer, it seems that specific demands grant only *ocasional* requests. It is more likely that composing will become mostly an investment (for other musical services like teaching/playing) rather than a sevice itself.

Cheers,
Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda http://br.geocities.com/hfmlacerda/

*THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS: http://costofwar.com/

microabc -- free software for microtonal music
http://br.geocities.com/hfmlacerda/abc/microabc-about.html

*N�O DEIXE SEU VOTO SUMIR! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Ap�ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Voc� quer respostas para suas perguntas? Ou voc� sabe muito e quer compartilhar seu conhecimento? Experimente o Yahoo! Respostas !
http://br.answers.yahoo.com/

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, kevin ryan <bentivi_cdo@...> wrote:
>
> I agree completely that we should be paid for our
> services as musicians. The problem is that what
> people define as "payable musicians services" has
> changed throughout time and across different cultures.
> We must find ways to make a living (or merely live)
> in whatever world we live in... if this was 12th
> Century Europe I'd enter a monastery and live
> comfortably writing organum. If it was a little later
> I'd chum up to some aristocrat and write music for
> their parties. If it was the mid-20th Century I'd
> make a record deal. And here and now?
> I'll keep teaching, gigging, writing... and working my
> day-job!
>
> Seriously though, as media becomes increasingly easier> and easier
to copy, transfer, share, and store,
> recorded music will depreciate. (Even now it's
> becoming more and more common for people to exchange
> musical libraries, histories, and identities instead
> of individual songs or albums: "trade u 300gig
> history of freejazz for ur folktronica collection")
>
> When recording technologies first became used for
> profit, there was a period of adjustment where
> musicians who had only been paid to play live must
> have felt very threatened, then some realized they
> could make a whole lot more $$$ and reach a wider
> audience by adapting to the technological/economic
> changes. Same's true for right now.
> Whether filesharing is right/wrong is moot - it's
> happening.
>
> (Opening up a whole 'nother can of worms, but perhaps
> more on topic: It's also possible now to pirate many
> high end softsynths, music apps, vst's, etc. with
> microtonal capabilities...)
>
> --- microstick@... wrote:
>
> > Just a few thoughts...I am a professional
> > performing musician/teacher/composer. And, this is
> > the way I make my living...so, I think I should be
> > paid for my services, be they recorded music, a
> > performance, teaching, whatever. Unfortunately, I
> > live in a society where I am expected to pay bills,
> > buy food, gas, clothes, etc...if I didn't have to
> > pay for the privilege of living in this world, I
> > really wouldn't mind if my music was given away (and
> > I do give away a lot of CD's, mostly in swaps with
> > other musicians). But, since I need $$$ for my very
> > survival, I feel I should be paid fairly in exchange
> > for what I do. I've worked very very hard for many
> > years to play and compose music, and I think I'm
> > pretty good at it...and yet, a mediocre attorney,
> > physician, and folks in many other professions often
> > make more $$$ than I do. Anyway, just an
> > observation, life isn't necessarily fair...but if
> > you have $$$, and I give of my services to you, I
> > think you ought to respond by sharing your $$$ with
> > me, not unreasonable, I believe...Hstick
> > myspace.com/microstick
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sponsored Link
>
> Don't quit your job - take classes online
> www.Classesusa.com
>

The problem is, throughout documented history, musicians have been
known to be poor, with the exception of the "few greats" who work for
the elites or churches. For those who didn't have cozy jobs they would
have to travel and preform like the French "Jongluers" which where
traveling minstrals, actors, dancer, and just overall entertainers.
Besides these traveling musicians there were others country like them
traveling all over Europe. Such as (another french)Troubadors,
Trouveres, Menestral(spain),and others. These traveling musicians
would also have festivals were only performers where allowed. There
they would exchange songs, story's, dramas, and dances. To my
recollection this is the first open sharing of music. Only traded by
musicians. They new nothing else but to help each other in their
respective jobs/lifes/existences and learn from each other. Today we
don't help each other as much, we don't share Ideas, and everyone
seems to know everything so there nothing the teach. Yes we should be
payed for our work, but no we shouldn't start complaining when people
don't buy our albums and just rip a tune off it. Really we aren't
doing are jobs very well if there is only one tune people want to hear
from us. What is the point in buying a whole album of crap when you
only like one song or piece. Me personality I do not share music, I
collect record albums (12, 45, Lp's) and avant guard music and I
support the Artists, but I think most of the music that is being
shared today is from artist that deserve it.

Thanks for your time

Rian

Jon,

you wrote:
> Sorry, but you seem to be completely at ease with
> being amoral.

It depends on whose morality you're talking about. An
anti-capitalist could claim that buying cd's is amoral
just as easily as you claim file-sharing as amoral...
(See Stephen and Tristan's wonderful dialogue on
morality/religion in metatuning) I actually haven't
yet stated my opinion on the morality of any of the
issues - just that they are moot in the face of how we
prepare to deal with them. (I may have made ethical
implications)
I don't like being called "amoral" but I am completely
at ease with being morally ambiguous. To paraphrase
Milan Kundera: It is the role of the novelist [and,
in many cases nowadays, musician] to demonstrate the
complexity and moral ambiguity of life.

>
> {you wrote...}
> >I agree completely that we should be paid for our
> services as musicians.
>
> Apparently you don't.

See Hudson's response (obrigado de voc�). I would
just add that I was trying to show that what society
considers a service has changed over time (and from
society to society), thus I wouldn't expect to be paid
for singing while walking down the street because
society doesn't view it as a payable activity. If I
made a record 20 years ago I'd expect to be paid for
it, but now things are different. We can point
fingers, whine, and complain all we want but the world
changes anyway. I think adapting is healthier
(economically, emotionally) than fussing.

> >I'll keep teaching, gigging, writing... and working
> my day-job!
>
> Day-job? Oh, how wonderful. I'm also assuming you
> teach for free, gig for free, as well as write for
> free. Why should anyone pay you for such services?

I think you've completely missed the boat. Again,
see Hudson's response. I was also pointing out that I
too am a struggling musician and I make a living how I
can so I can make the music I want to make.

> >Whether filesharing is right/wrong is moot - it's
> happening.
>
> Because something is happening does not invalidate
> the ethical stance behind the action. People commit
> rape, but the fact it is happening does not make it
> ok. Simply making an action easy does not make it
> acceptable. But, hey, if you can rip all that music
> and not pay a dime for it, why not?

Here's our dilemma: I've been trying as hard as I can
to avoid the ethical/moral debate on the issue,
striving for a historical, pragmatic outlook. You
seem to want to only look at the right/wrong aspect,
which I am no more interested in than in arguing about
God.

> >(Opening up a whole 'nother can of worms, but
> perhaps more on topic: It's also possible now to
> pirate many high end softsynths, music apps, vst's,
> etc. with
> >microtonal capabilities...)
>
> OK with you?

Ok with me that it's possible? I don't really have a
say in that matter... ;)

> Some day we'll talk about Harry Partch. Damn, I sure
> am glad Harry didn't live this long...

I would, at this point much rather talk about Partch
or anything more directly musical than be called
"amoral." One intent of my original posting
(requesting CD's at local libraries instead of P2P)
was to suggest a means of getting more microtonal
music into our communities. I didn't expect for it to
turn into a debate. If you do have more to say on the
matter then please respond in Metatuning.

Thanks!
K

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Compare mortgage rates for today.
Get up to 5 free quotes.
Www2.nextag.com

> Sorry, but you seem to be completely at ease with being amoral.
//
> Somebody PLEASE say when metatuning is appropriate!

It's inappropriate to post something like this first sentence
on either list, in my opinion. -Carl

Kevin,

To address your very last point, good call: we'll move this to metatuning. There is just *one* thing I want to leave here on this list:

{you wrote...}
>I don't like being called "amoral" but I am completely at ease with being morally ambiguous.

And you have my apologies for that. I should have made a more concerted and careful effort to use a truly appropriate term, but the reply was written a bit quickly after a long day of performances. Sorry about that.

Cheers,
Jon

Hm, well,for me, this conversation has veered off into the
"isn't about making Microtonal Music" weed patch. I wouldn't
mind if it got taken to Meta tuning...
I'm not saying it isn't important, just that it's pretty far off topic
at this stage...

Thanks,
Rick

What does anyone think of this:

http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian/newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

Can you imagine Beethoven being sued for performing a Bach
prelude in a coffee house?

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Because something is happening does not invalidate the ethical
stance behind the action. People commit rape, but the fact it is
happening does not make it ok. Simply making an action easy does not
make it acceptable. But, hey, if you can rip all that music and not
pay a dime for it, why not?

You seem to be assuming the ethical issues are unambiguous. If, as has
been suggested, file sharing helps the majority and hurts a minority
of especially successful artists, is it unambiguous?

A book I would recommend is "The Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few
at the Top Get So Much More Than the Rest of Us", by economists by
Robert H. Frank and Philip J. Cook. It discusses things like why a few
artists scoop most of the bucks, and why management gets paid more and
more, and everyone else less and less.