Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Dammit, I work hard at composing, and I'm no longer giving my stuff away....

J.Smith wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
>
> "I would be up for making links to scores, sure, but at my site, and not
> for free. Dammit, I work hard at composing, and I'm no longer giving my
> stuff away.
>
> The whole downloading thing is the death of music as a vocation, as I
> see it. People are expecting that we who compose and perform just keep
> pluggin away at day jobs and give them our hard work for free."
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, now that you mention it -- what's my percentage of the box office
> receipts from the MicroFest concert going to be?
>
> .1%

> Laughing all the way to the bank,
>
> Me too.
>
> PS: Of course, one could always make downloading the PDF scores
> contingent upon some sort of performance fee or other arrangement, if
> one really wants to be mercenary. However, it might be a good idea to
> get a few public performances under one's belt -- just to get
> attention, mind you -- before demanding royalties for a music that's not
> in any huge demand at the moment.
> Hey, I'm not talking about huge demand here. but I wish I had 50cents for every download ever of my music. It might buy me a nice vaction somewhere at least.

That said, I see your points. But we live in a capitalist society. I need to eat. In a state-sponsored culture society, it might not be an issue.

The truth is, it probably will be that composing will be an avocation for a long time to come.....

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗plopper6 <billwestfall@...>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

This is why publishers and record companies and performing
rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI exist. To be a writer
member of ASCAP you have to have something published. I
don't think web publishing qualifies, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, your publisher gives you royalties for selling sheet
music, your record company gives you royalties for selling
recordings, and ASCAP gives you royalties when your stuff
is performed. ASCAP also gives you an annual honorarium
if you are an active composer and you apply for their standard
award each year. It's the old-school model, and although
the web has changed the market, it is still the way the
industry works. The artist never gets the biggest cut in the
old-school model, but if you took everything into your own
hands and started charging 50 cents a download, you can bet
the result will probably be zero downloads. That's no comment
on the quality of anyone's work. People tend to download free
stuff because it's free.

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "plopper6" <billwestfall@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > >Hey, I'm not talking about huge demand here. but I wish I had
> 50cents
> > >for every download ever of my music. It might buy me a nice vaction
> > >somewhere at least.
> >
> > Hard to charge 50 cents it is.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
> Very hard! I've paid $0.99 for some mp3s through URGE, but we're
> talking album length downloads from major artists.
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗danieljameswolf <djwolf@...>

I make money as a composer directly from commissions and grand rights
(for my puppet opera and music for dance), both of which I have to
negotiate and collect myself.

Through membership in my performance rights organization (in my case,
GEMA; most Americans will have either ASCAP or BMI), I get license
fees for non-grand rights performances, recordings and broadcasts.
Performance licenses are the most substantial part of this for me,
especially as I dislike recordings of music not intended specifically
for recorded media, so I discourage recordings.

(That said, the entry for most composers into a performing rights
organization happens at the time of their first commercial recording.
While some serious composers occasionally have "break away" works
that earn some money in recorded form -- i.e. a Gorecki or a Glass --
these are rare exceptions, and for most serious composers the
recording has not direct income potential: it's a document and,
potentially, advertising for further live performances or
commissions).

There is essentially no money to be made in selling sheet music,
except for score/parts rentals for large ensemble music. If you go
with a publishing house, you have to be prepared to share 1/2 of the
fees collected by the performance rights organization. I would only
advise this if (a) you don't want to deal with the hassle of renting
parts, (b) the publisher, at their expense, creates beautiful
editions, extracts parts, etc.., and (c) the publisher is
contractually obliged to promote your music. If a publisher cannot
provide all of these, there is no sense in not publishing your
materials yourself, and several composer colleagues of mine make a
substantial part of their income from their rental business (enough
in at least two cases to be able to give up day jobs teaching).

If you publish your music yourself, there is really no good argument
against placing your scores online. If a score is online, it has a
public presence, and can be perused by potential performers. If
someone does perform your work, the important thing is that
performers and presenters register the performance with you as well
as with the local performance rights organization. Most musicians
will respond with goodwill to a composer's request to be notified of
performers. In most cases, presenting institutions have blanket
licenses with these organizations, so your fee has, essentially,
already been collected, but cannot be claimed unless the performance
is registered.

Placing a score online, unlike a recording, also preserves a certain
amount of control for the composer. A composer retains the right for
only the first recording or broadcast of a work (which is the legal
basis for "covers" in pop music) and with the publication of a score
a composer does not automatically license the score user to do as
they please.

djw

🔗Doctor Oakroot <doctor@...>

If you release your CD on CDbaby.com, they can get you on iTunes. It's
otherwise pretty much impossible for an unsigned artist to get there -
Apple only deals with labels.

> We (Apple) don't seem to have a problem charging for
> downloads. I don't know what it takes to get on the
> iTunes store... probably not too much. But just like
> the other old school models... we keep most of it.
> So you'd actually be paying me to download your music.
> I'm all for it.
>
> -Carl
>
> At 01:39 PM 9/19/2007, you wrote:
>>This is why publishers and record companies and performing
>>rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI exist. To be a writer
>>member of ASCAP you have to have something published. I
>>don't think web publishing qualifies, but I could be wrong.
>>Anyway, your publisher gives you royalties for selling sheet
>>music, your record company gives you royalties for selling
>>recordings, and ASCAP gives you royalties when your stuff
>>is performed. ASCAP also gives you an annual honorarium
>>if you are an active composer and you apply for their standard
>>award each year. It's the old-school model, and although
>>the web has changed the market, it is still the way the
>>industry works. The artist never gets the biggest cut in the
>>old-school model, but if you took everything into your own
>>hands and started charging 50 cents a download, you can bet
>>the result will probably be zero downloads. That's no comment
>>on the quality of anyone's work. People tend to download free
>>stuff because it's free.
>>
>>Yours,
>>Aaron Hunt
>>H-Pi Instruments
>
>

--
http://DoctorOakroot.com - Rough-edged songs on homemade GIT-tars.

🔗Brian Redfern <brianwredfern@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

Hi Daniel.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "danieljameswolf" <djwolf@...> wrote:
> There is essentially no money to be made in selling sheet music,
> except for score/parts rentals for large ensemble music.

Sad but true!

> If you go
> with a publishing house, you have to be prepared to share 1/2 of the
> fees collected by the performance rights organization. I would only
> advise this if (a) you don't want to deal with the hassle of renting
> parts, (b) the publisher, at their expense, creates beautiful
> editions, extracts parts, etc.., and (c) the publisher is
> contractually obliged to promote your music.

Also true!

A composer makes and edits his own score and parts anyway
(using Finale or whatever).

> If a publisher cannot
> provide all of these, there is no sense in not publishing your
> materials yourself, and several composer colleagues of mine make a
> substantial part of their income from their rental business (enough
> in at least two cases to be able to give up day jobs teaching).

Really? That's impressive. Are you sure they aren't married to the
bread-winner in the family? Seriously, the only composers I know who
quit their day jobs were married to the bread-winner.

The only way I know of that a composer can make any
money with sheet music is to write band music and/or pedagogical
music. Forget orchestral music. Try solo flute. And even then, the
income is sad. There is some money in marching band music. (Always
keep in mind anything connected with college sports has money in it,
as anyone who has ever had anything to do with academia knows. The
marching band director can easily make twice as much money as
a tenured musicologist).

> If you publish your music yourself, there is really no good argument
> against placing your scores online.

A good compromise to placing the score online (which essentially makes
it totally free and reproducible for anyone and you get nothing for it) is
to place only part of it online, and put a watermark on that. Then put an
option to buy the complete un-watermarked pdf for some $.

> If a score is online, it has a
> public presence, and can be perused by potential performers. If
> someone does perform your work, the important thing is that
> performers and presenters register the performance with you as well
> as with the local performance rights organization. Most musicians
> will respond with goodwill to a composer's request to be notified of
> performers. In most cases, presenting institutions have blanket
> licenses with these organizations, so your fee has, essentially,
> already been collected, but cannot be claimed unless the performance
> is registered.

This is also the way ASCAP works.

> Placing a score online, unlike a recording, also preserves a certain
> amount of control for the composer. A composer retains the right for
> only the first recording or broadcast of a work (which is the legal
> basis for "covers" in pop music) and with the publication of a score
> a composer does not automatically license the score user to do as
> they please.

If you decide to put it up there complete and unwater-marked, it
would probably be wise to also put a notice for fair use, etc.

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Everyone acts like putting "all this work" into music automatically
makes it valuable. I think that's utter BS.

I would work just as hard at composing and performing music if there
was no money to be made at it. Oh wait, so far as I'm concerned,
THERE IS NO MONEY to be made at it! I've never made a dime off of
music in my life!

Aaron, would you not make this music if you couldn't make money off of
it? And if you would still make it, but no one would pay for it,
would you just let it rot unlistened-to on your computer/in your
filing cabinet/on your shelf/wherever?

I agree that the internet may be the death of music as a vocation, at
least of meticulously-composed and recorded music as a vocation
(you'll always be able to make at least SOME money as a gigging
musician if you are unscrupulous enough), and I think that's great. I
believe it is the PEOPLE, the LISTENERS that determine the value of
our music, and if they determine that it has no monetary value, then
that places the onus on us: are we making music because we love it, or
are we making it to turn a buck? And if we're doing it for love, then
money shouldn't be an issue...but rather a "bonus" if people elect to
offer it to us.

And there's so much music out there, really. If there was no free
music, we would all have to live knowing there was some music that we
just couldn't afford to listen to. I'm sure a lot of you like to
think, "well, MY music would never be anyone's list of 'Music I'd like
to listen to but can't afford to', anyone who'd want to listen to my
music would be willing to pay for it!" But that ain't true. I think
it's sad that any of us would rather be passed over by prospective
listeners than not make a few bucks.

And really, if you can't pay your bills without making money off of
your music, or if you can't afford the time to make music unless it
pays for itself, you're working the wrong day-job. Repent, quit your
job, and SLACK OFF!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
>
> Aaron wrote:
>
> "I would be up for making links to scores, sure, but at my site, and not
> for free. Dammit, I work hard at composing, and I'm no longer giving my
> stuff away.
>
> The whole downloading thing is the death of music as a vocation, as I
> see it. People are expecting that we who compose and perform just keep
> pluggin away at day jobs and give them our hard work for free."
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, now that you mention it -- what's my percentage of the box office
> receipts from the MicroFest concert going to be?
>
>
>
> Laughing all the way to the bank,
>
> jls
>
>
>
> PS: Of course, one could always make downloading the PDF scores
> contingent upon some sort of performance fee or other arrangement, if
> one really wants to be mercenary. However, it might be a good idea to
> get a few public performances under one's belt -- just to get
> attention, mind you -- before demanding royalties for a music that's not
> in any huge demand at the moment.
>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@...>

Igliashon Jones wrote:
> Everyone acts like putting "all this work" into music automatically
> makes it valuable. I think that's utter BS.
>
> I would work just as hard at composing and performing music if there
> was no money to be made at it. Oh wait, so far as I'm concerned,
> THERE IS NO MONEY to be made at it! I've never made a dime off of
> music in my life!
>
> I have a different experience, I make the most money off the music I'm least interested in making (most of the time, anyway).

> Aaron, would you not make this music if you couldn't make money off of
> it? And if you would still make it, but no one would pay for it,
> would you just let it rot unlistened-to on your computer/in your
> filing cabinet/on your shelf/wherever?
>
> Given that I've been one of the most frequent posters of quality free music on this list since 2003, what do you think?

> I agree that the internet may be the death of music as a vocation, at
> least of meticulously-composed and recorded music as a vocation
> (you'll always be able to make at least SOME money as a gigging
> musician if you are unscrupulous enough), and I think that's great. I don't think it's great. I think playing trash for mass consumption to make a living is a painful waste of time. I'm glad you like it, though.

Boy, you must think anyone who makes money at anything enough to live is a whore, the way you talk.

So, gigging musicians are unscrupulous? What planet are you from? Are farmers who don't give tomatoes away unscrupulous?

> I believe it is the PEOPLE, the LISTENERS that determine the value of
> our music, and if they determine that it has no monetary value, then
> that places the onus on us: are we making music because we love it, or
> are we making it to turn a buck? And if we're doing it for love, then
> money shouldn't be an issue...but rather a "bonus" if people elect to
> offer it to us.
> You are placing a false dichotomy before us: either love it, or make money at it. Ever considered that both are possible?

Again, what's the value of a tomato or potato? You'll pay for those, no problem, you need to eat....but apparantly if no music were free, you'd simply not listen to music, right?

Think about all the things you pay for more expensive than a 99cent download per day. What's happening is that the market is overcorrecting for the value of music in the opposite direction---it is undervalueing it. CDs were overpriced for years, mostly to line the pockets of record company execs and producers. Very little to the artist. And now you are telling me that the artists deserves it--nno---you are telling me that the artists' fragile ego should be thankful that anyone is listening at all, and just accept that people will leech off of their existence.

A commodities' current price says nothing of it's inherent value, or even it's true economic value. You can buy something today for $10 that could be worth $300 in three years.

> And there's so much music out there, really. If there was no free
> music, we would all have to live knowing there was some music that we
> just couldn't afford to listen to.
Bullshit. I don't know when you were born, but I was born in 1970, before the internet. When people wanted music, they bought a thing called an LP.
Music started being free because people started giving it away, and because big labels stopped catering to niche tastes. It became all about money. Big money.

Plus, are you seriously saying you can't afford to buy a CD, ever?

> I'm sure a lot of you like to
> think, "well, MY music would never be anyone's list of 'Music I'd like
> to listen to but can't afford to', anyone who'd want to listen to my
> music would be willing to pay for it!" But that ain't true. I think
> it's sad that any of us would rather be passed over by prospective
> listeners than not make a few bucks.
> Again, the false dichotomy. And prospective listeners take what they are given. I'm sure if everyone everywhere stopped giving away free music, it wouldn't be that all of a sudden no-one would be listening to any music, as you seem to think.
> And really, if you can't pay your bills without making money off of
> your music, or if you can't afford the time to make music unless it
> pays for itself, you're working the wrong day-job. Repent, quit your
> job, and SLACK OFF!

I can and do pay my bills, making music. I would like to continue this, except making more and more of my music.

It's this terrible idea that we've been sold that as creators, it's our priviledge to be listened to, and that's enough. The consumer of free music enjoys the situation, and is not about to let the artist know that they are being taken advantage of. But for the artist to think this? It's a sort of suicide, or at best a low-grade masochism.

Should a dentist provide free fillings? Should lawyers always work pro bono? Should potato farmers just give away their potatoes? You've bought the myth of the worthless creator, hook, line, and sinker, just like the pigs who started it (the record labels and iTunes execs who take 90% of the royalties) want you to. *That* is what's sad to see.

-A.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I think the same questions need to be asked of doctors and lawyers. If they aren't willing to do it for the collective good then out with them!!
The Latin Community has no problem paying for music and this is not the wealthiest community by far. It is BTW the only type of music that is making money. No rap is not!

Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> Everyone acts like putting "all this work" into music automatically
> makes it valuable. I think that's utter BS.
>
> I would work just as hard at composing and performing music if there
> was no money to be made at it. Oh wait, so far as I'm concerned,
> THERE IS NO MONEY to be made at it! I've never made a dime off of
> music in my life!
>
> Aaron, would you not make this music if you couldn't make money off of
> it? And if you would still make it, but no one would pay for it,
> would you just let it rot unlistened-to on your computer/in your
> filing cabinet/on your shelf/wherever?
>
> I agree that the internet may be the death of music as a vocation, at
> least of meticulously-composed and recorded music as a vocation
> (you'll always be able to make at least SOME money as a gigging
> musician if you are unscrupulous enough), and I think that's great. I
> believe it is the PEOPLE, the LISTENERS that determine the value of
> our music, and if they determine that it has no monetary value, then
> that places the onus on us: are we making music because we love it, or
> are we making it to turn a buck? And if we're doing it for love, then
> money shouldn't be an issue...but rather a "bonus" if people elect to
> offer it to us.
>
> And there's so much music out there, really. If there was no free
> music, we would all have to live knowing there was some music that we
> just couldn't afford to listen to. I'm sure a lot of you like to
> think, "well, MY music would never be anyone's list of 'Music I'd like
> to listen to but can't afford to', anyone who'd want to listen to my
> music would be willing to pay for it!" But that ain't true. I think
> it's sad that any of us would rather be passed over by prospective
> listeners than not make a few bucks.
>
> And really, if you can't pay your bills without making money off of
> your music, or if you can't afford the time to make music unless it
> pays for itself, you're working the wrong day-job. Repent, quit your
> job, and SLACK OFF!
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Aaron wrote:
> >
> > "I would be up for making links to scores, sure, but at my site, and not
> > for free. Dammit, I work hard at composing, and I'm no longer giving my
> > stuff away.
> >
> > The whole downloading thing is the death of music as a vocation, as I
> > see it. People are expecting that we who compose and perform just keep
> > pluggin away at day jobs and give them our hard work for free."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, now that you mention it -- what's my percentage of the box office
> > receipts from the MicroFest concert going to be?
> >
> >
> >
> > Laughing all the way to the bank,
> >
> > jls
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: Of course, one could always make downloading the PDF scores
> > contingent upon some sort of performance fee or other arrangement, if
> > one really wants to be mercenary. However, it might be a good idea to
> > get a few public performances under one's belt -- just to get
> > attention, mind you -- before demanding royalties for a music that's not
> > in any huge demand at the moment.
> >
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

This is a point of view I don't share. In fact, it may be because
of this type of thinking that the idea of music as a profession has
become such an absurdity. I've probably said here before that I
started telling music students if they wanted to do something
like have a family, they should get out of music as soon as possible
and find a different career. Most people I know who have degrees
in music are working in a different field, or they are trying to make
a career change because they can't make ends meet workin g in
music. It's not becausee they aren't good enough, believe me.
If they are doing fine in music, it's usually because they have a
spouse who works in another field (often that does not even
require a college education) who is making the real money!

But maybe music as a profession has always been an absurdity.
I don't quite buy the comparison with farmers, doctors and
lawyers, because it's much easier to show how those things are
necessary. Food, health, justice ... but (gasp) ART? No, art is not
necessary. It is recreation, however you look at it. It may range the
gamut, from light entertainment to deeply spiritual recreation of the
soul (as Bach used to write in his dedications), and it may have more
meaning to those who partake of it than would a piece of bread, a
dose of medicine, or ... a just verdict?

I happen to think that music is the greatest riddle in the universe,
which will in time illuminate the structure of the entire universe.
That's pretty important, I think. It is also necessary to me, personally.
I think that's the only type of necessity that can be claimed for art -
a personal one.

At the same time, one could say all these same things about sport,
and yet look at the all the money in sports.

What would Plato have to say about all this?

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Everyone acts like putting "all this work" into music automatically
> makes it valuable. I think that's utter BS.
>
> I would work just as hard at composing and performing music if there
> was no money to be made at it. Oh wait, so far as I'm concerned,
> THERE IS NO MONEY to be made at it! I've never made a dime off of
> music in my life!
>
> Aaron, would you not make this music if you couldn't make money off of
> it? And if you would still make it, but no one would pay for it,
> would you just let it rot unlistened-to on your computer/in your
> filing cabinet/on your shelf/wherever?
>
> I agree that the internet may be the death of music as a vocation, at
> least of meticulously-composed and recorded music as a vocation
> (you'll always be able to make at least SOME money as a gigging
> musician if you are unscrupulous enough), and I think that's great. I
> believe it is the PEOPLE, the LISTENERS that determine the value of
> our music, and if they determine that it has no monetary value, then
> that places the onus on us: are we making music because we love it, or
> are we making it to turn a buck? And if we're doing it for love, then
> money shouldn't be an issue...but rather a "bonus" if people elect to
> offer it to us.
>
> And there's so much music out there, really. If there was no free
> music, we would all have to live knowing there was some music that we
> just couldn't afford to listen to. I'm sure a lot of you like to
> think, "well, MY music would never be anyone's list of 'Music I'd like
> to listen to but can't afford to', anyone who'd want to listen to my
> music would be willing to pay for it!" But that ain't true. I think
> it's sad that any of us would rather be passed over by prospective
> listeners than not make a few bucks.
>
> And really, if you can't pay your bills without making money off of
> your music, or if you can't afford the time to make music unless it
> pays for itself, you're working the wrong day-job. Repent, quit your
> job, and SLACK OFF!
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Aaron wrote:
> >
> > "I would be up for making links to scores, sure, but at my site, and not
> > for free. Dammit, I work hard at composing, and I'm no longer giving my
> > stuff away.
> >
> > The whole downloading thing is the death of music as a vocation, as I
> > see it. People are expecting that we who compose and perform just keep
> > pluggin away at day jobs and give them our hard work for free."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, now that you mention it -- what's my percentage of the box office
> > receipts from the MicroFest concert going to be?
> >
> >
> >
> > Laughing all the way to the bank,
> >
> > jls
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: Of course, one could always make downloading the PDF scores
> > contingent upon some sort of performance fee or other arrangement, if
> > one really wants to be mercenary. However, it might be a good idea to
> > get a few public performances under one's belt -- just to get
> > attention, mind you -- before demanding royalties for a music that's not
> > in any huge demand at the moment.
> >
>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@...>

Well put, Aaron.

Farmers are still grossly underpaid, and we all need food. Teachers are still underpaid, and education is the foundation of a just and enlightened, stable society.

Everybody needs music of some sort. I don't know a single individual who doesn't consume it. It's not as basic as food, but it's up there with justice, in that people can survive without it, but as Nietzsche said, "Life without music would be a mistake".

Plato believed in philosopher kings, so he was bold but naive (at least for our times).

-the other Aaron.

Aaron Andrew Hunt wrote:
> This is a point of view I don't share. In fact, it may be because
> of this type of thinking that the idea of music as a profession has
> become such an absurdity. I've probably said here before that I
> started telling music students if they wanted to do something
> like have a family, they should get out of music as soon as possible
> and find a different career. Most people I know who have degrees
> in music are working in a different field, or they are trying to make
> a career change because they can't make ends meet workin g in > music. It's not becausee they aren't good enough, believe me. > If they are doing fine in music, it's usually because they have a > spouse who works in another field (often that does not even > require a college education) who is making the real money!
>
> But maybe music as a profession has always been an absurdity. > I don't quite buy the comparison with farmers, doctors and
> lawyers, because it's much easier to show how those things are
> necessary. Food, health, justice ... but (gasp) ART? No, art is not
> necessary. It is recreation, however you look at it. It may range the
> gamut, from light entertainment to deeply spiritual recreation of the
> soul (as Bach used to write in his dedications), and it may have more > meaning to those who partake of it than would a piece of bread, a > dose of medicine, or ... a just verdict?
>
> I happen to think that music is the greatest riddle in the universe, > which will in time illuminate the structure of the entire universe.
> That's pretty important, I think. It is also necessary to me, personally.
> I think that's the only type of necessity that can be claimed for art -
> a personal one.
>
> At the same time, one could say all these same things about sport,
> and yet look at the all the money in sports. >
> What would Plato have to say about all this?
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I will agree that the professions i mentioned are more necessary at particular moments. but if you want anything you pay for it.
these things in able you how to live. Art in general gives reasons why. Living without becomes intolerable and the lack of it on some level is part of the discontent we find where cultures that are poorer often have a more enjoyable life. Who do you see smiling on a downtown street. One has everything one could want just around the corner. But it is ugly in order to be "efficient". Tourism has dropped drastically all though the US. Why? cause there isn't anything worth seeing and when it is , guess what it is. So art does have a value and people spent big bucks to take it in. Without music are art Bali would be in as bad as shape as east Timor. There is no tourism without art. And whole economies exist on it.

I whole heartedly agree that music is a spiritual activity. But such endeavors need to be protected or at least watered a bit. For instance clubs used to be thankful people would come and play there. Now many ( not all, and these should be the only ones we support by our presence) seem to think they are doing you a favor that they allow you to play there. On the other end there is not a bar in Louisiana that doesn't give the band some money. One of the poorest states. There becomes situations where one can be taken advantage of if you do things for free.

Art can only be done so well as a part time activity. What most composers have done they did not accomplish in an atmosphere of having to do two jobs to pay the rent.

Aaron Andrew Hunt wrote:
>
>
>
> But maybe music as a profession has always been an absurdity.
> I don't quite buy the comparison with farmers, doctors and
> lawyers, because it's much easier to show how those things are
> necessary. Food, health, justice ... but (gasp) ART? No, art is not
> necessary. It is recreation, however you look at it. It may range the
> gamut, from light entertainment to deeply spiritual recreation of the
> soul (as Bach used to write in his dedications), and it may have more
> meaning to those who partake of it than would a piece of bread, a
> dose of medicine, or ... a just verdict?
>
> I happen to think that music is the greatest riddle in the universe,
> which will in time illuminate the structure of the entire universe.
> That's pretty important, I think. It is also necessary to me, personally.
> I think that's the only type of necessity that can be claimed for art -
> a personal one.
>
> At the same time, one could say all these same things about sport,
> and yet look at the all the money in sports.
>
> What would Plato have to say about all this?
>
> Yours,
> Aaron Hunt
> H-Pi Instruments
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, "Igliashon Jones" > <igliashon@...> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone acts like putting "all this work" into music automatically
> > makes it valuable. I think that's utter BS.
> >
> > I would work just as hard at composing and performing music if there
> > was no money to be made at it. Oh wait, so far as I'm concerned,
> > THERE IS NO MONEY to be made at it! I've never made a dime off of
> > music in my life!
> >
> > Aaron, would you not make this music if you couldn't make money off of
> > it? And if you would still make it, but no one would pay for it,
> > would you just let it rot unlistened-to on your computer/in your
> > filing cabinet/on your shelf/wherever?
> >
> > I agree that the internet may be the death of music as a vocation, at
> > least of meticulously-composed and recorded music as a vocation
> > (you'll always be able to make at least SOME money as a gigging
> > musician if you are unscrupulous enough), and I think that's great. I
> > believe it is the PEOPLE, the LISTENERS that determine the value of
> > our music, and if they determine that it has no monetary value, then
> > that places the onus on us: are we making music because we love it, or
> > are we making it to turn a buck? And if we're doing it for love, then
> > money shouldn't be an issue...but rather a "bonus" if people elect to
> > offer it to us.
> >
> > And there's so much music out there, really. If there was no free
> > music, we would all have to live knowing there was some music that we
> > just couldn't afford to listen to. I'm sure a lot of you like to
> > think, "well, MY music would never be anyone's list of 'Music I'd like
> > to listen to but can't afford to', anyone who'd want to listen to my
> > music would be willing to pay for it!" But that ain't true. I think
> > it's sad that any of us would rather be passed over by prospective
> > listeners than not make a few bucks.
> >
> > And really, if you can't pay your bills without making money off of
> > your music, or if you can't afford the time to make music unless it
> > pays for itself, you're working the wrong day-job. Repent, quit your
> > job, and SLACK OFF!
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Aaron wrote:
> > >
> > > "I would be up for making links to scores, sure, but at my site, > and not
> > > for free. Dammit, I work hard at composing, and I'm no longer > giving my
> > > stuff away.
> > >
> > > The whole downloading thing is the death of music as a vocation, as I
> > > see it. People are expecting that we who compose and perform just keep
> > > pluggin away at day jobs and give them our hard work for free."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, now that you mention it -- what's my percentage of the box > office
> > > receipts from the MicroFest concert going to be?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Laughing all the way to the bank,
> > >
> > > jls
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > PS: Of course, one could always make downloading the PDF scores
> > > contingent upon some sort of performance fee or other arrangement, if
> > > one really wants to be mercenary. However, it might be a good idea to
> > > get a few public performances under one's belt -- just to get
> > > attention, mind you -- before demanding royalties for a music > that's not
> > > in any huge demand at the moment.
> > >
> >
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> Boy, you must think anyone who makes money at anything enough to
> live is
> a whore, the way you talk.

You misunderstand me on one crucial point, and that has colored your
entire response.

I do not think it is bad to make money for making music that you like.
I think it is bad to DEMAND money for something you ALREADY DO FOR
FUN ANYWAY. That is my point: if we are all real musicians, we would
all continue to make music, whether it was profitable or not. If we'd
do it for free, just for the fun or the love of it, how can we DEMAND
that people pay us for it?

> So, gigging musicians are unscrupulous? What planet are you from?
> Are farmers who don't give tomatoes away unscrupulous?

Again, you misunderstand. What I was referring to is that,
statistically speaking, it is hard to make money as a gigging musician
if you have a lot of artistic integrity (unless of course your
artistic vision happens to be exactly what most people want to hear).
The most money to be made is in playing shameless popular music,
which for a lot of musicians, would be a compromise of their artistic
scruples. Hence, "unscrupulous".

> You are placing a false dichotomy before us: either love it, or make
> money at it. Ever considered that both are possible?

No, I'm NOT placing a *false* dichotomy. The dichotomy is not "make
money, or do it for love" as you have grossly mis-stated it. The
dichotomy is "demand money, or don't." Never did I mention anything
wrong with *accepting money*, which is a VERY different
process/concept than *demanding* or *requiring* money.

> Again, what's the value of a tomato or potato? You'll pay for those,
> no
> problem, you need to eat....but apparantly if no music were free,
> you'd
> simply not listen to music, right?

Depends on the cost. I'd certainly listen to a lot less. It's supply
and demand, basic economics. If music got too expensive to buy
(which, for me, it frequently is), I'd just make my own. That's what
people did before recorded music anyway.

> Think about all the things you pay for more expensive than a 99cent
> download per day. What's happening is that the market is overcorrecting
> for the value of music in the opposite direction---it is undervalueing
> it. CDs were overpriced for years, mostly to line the pockets of record
> company execs and producers. Very little to the artist. And now you are
> telling me that the artists deserves it--nno---you are telling me that
> the artists' fragile ego should be thankful that anyone is listening at
> all, and just accept that people will leech off of their existence.

It's not a matter of deserving things or what we should be "thankful"
for. The market is given. As artists, we have choices: we can demand
money and lose listeners, or we can give it away and reach as many
ears as we can. As I see it, if we already make the music for fun,
i.e. the music would exist regardless of economic incentives, i.e. WE
CAN ALREADY SUPPORT OURSELVES without charging for the music, why not
make it free and reach as many people as we can? It has nothing to do
with putting the common good over our own good: the music is ALREADY
valuable to us, whether it is part of an economy or not. It's
something we make for ourselves, so its very existence has worth to
us. So I don't even think of it as giving my music away for free. In
actuality, the act is not an act of giving, it's an act of allowing
people to take. I don't stand on a corner handing out CDs, I upload
my music to free websites and let people come download it.

> Bullshit. I don't know when you were born, but I was born in 1970,
> before the internet. When people wanted music, they bought a thing
> called an LP.
> Music started being free because people started giving it away, and
> because big labels stopped catering to niche tastes. It became all
> about
> money. Big money.

Yeah, well in the 1970s--pre-internet--there was also EXPONENTIALLY
more music going on in the world than you could hear about. Finding
out about new music was limited to record stores, radio, TV, and
magazines--and for one to get one's music exposed through any of those
mediums required a great deal more luck, effort, time, and promotion.
Nowadays the amount of music that I can discover is functionally
LIMITLESS. Any jack ass with a computer and access the internet can
create music and make it available to everyone else with a computer
and access to the internet. Being that I tend to encounter new
artists at a rate of hundreds per week, if all of them charged money
for their music, I would have to ignore vast amounts of them.

> Plus, are you seriously saying you can't afford to buy a CD, ever?

Oh, I still buy CDs occasionally, of artists I really love...but only
maybe 5 CDs every few months. Not because I can't afford it, per se,
but because it's such a luxury item and I have to ask myself: is this
REALLY the best thing I can spend money on? It usually isn't.

> Again, the false dichotomy. And prospective listeners take what they
are
> given. I'm sure if everyone everywhere stopped giving away free music,
> it wouldn't be that all of a sudden no-one would be listening to any
> music, as you seem to think.

No, that is not what I think, and I never even suggested such a
ridiculous extreme. People would listen to LESS music, but not NO
music. And not even "LESS" music, they would still obviously spend
the same amount of time listening, just to a smaller diversity of
artists. You can't possibly believe that people would intake the same
quantity of new music if the price went up, can you?

> It's this terrible idea that we've been sold that as creators, it's our
> priviledge to be listened to, and that's enough. The consumer of free
> music enjoys the situation, and is not about to let the artist know
that
> they are being taken advantage of. But for the artist to think this?
> It's a sort of suicide, or at best a low-grade masochism.
>
> Should a dentist provide free fillings? Should lawyers always work pro
> bono? Should potato farmers just give away their potatoes? You've
bought
> the myth of the worthless creator, hook, line, and sinker, just like
the
> pigs who started it (the record labels and iTunes execs who take 90% of
> the royalties) want you to. *That* is what's sad to see.

Again, you have misunderstood and misrepresented my views, and made
one REALLY inappropriate analogy. Do dentists fix teeth for fun? Do
lawyers go to court for fun? Do potato farmers farm for fun? No,
they don't. Do musicians make music for fun? Yes, they do. A more
proper analogy would be, if a potato farmer who grew for himself and
his family ended up with more potatoes than his family could consume,
should he give away the rest rather than let them rot into compost?
YES!

And you haven't answered my question: if it was never possible for you
to earn money making music, WOULD YOU STILL MAKE IT?

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

there are all type of jobs where people have fun doing it!
Barter is also an option though so you don't think it is about cash. Anyway that is going to be worth much very soon!

Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
>
> > Boy, you must think anyone who makes money at anything enough to
> > live is
> > a whore, the way you talk.
>
> You misunderstand me on one crucial point, and that has colored your
> entire response.
>
> I do not think it is bad to make money for making music that you like.
> I think it is bad to DEMAND money for something you ALREADY DO FOR
> FUN ANYWAY. That is my point: if we are all real musicians, we would
> all continue to make music, whether it was profitable or not. If we'd
> do it for free, just for the fun or the love of it, how can we DEMAND
> that people pay us for it?
>
> > So, gigging musicians are unscrupulous? What planet are you from?
> > Are farmers who don't give tomatoes away unscrupulous?
>
> Again, you misunderstand. What I was referring to is that,
> statistically speaking, it is hard to make money as a gigging musician
> if you have a lot of artistic integrity (unless of course your
> artistic vision happens to be exactly what most people want to hear).
> The most money to be made is in playing shameless popular music,
> which for a lot of musicians, would be a compromise of their artistic
> scruples. Hence, "unscrupulous".
>
> > You are placing a false dichotomy before us: either love it, or make
> > money at it. Ever considered that both are possible?
>
> No, I'm NOT placing a *false* dichotomy. The dichotomy is not "make
> money, or do it for love" as you have grossly mis-stated it. The
> dichotomy is "demand money, or don't." Never did I mention anything
> wrong with *accepting money*, which is a VERY different
> process/concept than *demanding* or *requiring* money.
>
> > Again, what's the value of a tomato or potato? You'll pay for those,
> > no
> > problem, you need to eat....but apparantly if no music were free,
> > you'd
> > simply not listen to music, right?
>
> Depends on the cost. I'd certainly listen to a lot less. It's supply
> and demand, basic economics. If music got too expensive to buy
> (which, for me, it frequently is), I'd just make my own. That's what
> people did before recorded music anyway.
>
> > Think about all the things you pay for more expensive than a 99cent
> > download per day. What's happening is that the market is overcorrecting
> > for the value of music in the opposite direction---it is undervalueing
> > it. CDs were overpriced for years, mostly to line the pockets of record
> > company execs and producers. Very little to the artist. And now you are
> > telling me that the artists deserves it--nno---you are telling me that
> > the artists' fragile ego should be thankful that anyone is listening at
> > all, and just accept that people will leech off of their existence.
>
> It's not a matter of deserving things or what we should be "thankful"
> for. The market is given. As artists, we have choices: we can demand
> money and lose listeners, or we can give it away and reach as many
> ears as we can. As I see it, if we already make the music for fun,
> i.e. the music would exist regardless of economic incentives, i.e. WE
> CAN ALREADY SUPPORT OURSELVES without charging for the music, why not
> make it free and reach as many people as we can? It has nothing to do
> with putting the common good over our own good: the music is ALREADY
> valuable to us, whether it is part of an economy or not. It's
> something we make for ourselves, so its very existence has worth to
> us. So I don't even think of it as giving my music away for free. In
> actuality, the act is not an act of giving, it's an act of allowing
> people to take. I don't stand on a corner handing out CDs, I upload
> my music to free websites and let people come download it.
>
> > Bullshit. I don't know when you were born, but I was born in 1970,
> > before the internet. When people wanted music, they bought a thing
> > called an LP.
> > Music started being free because people started giving it away, and
> > because big labels stopped catering to niche tastes. It became all
> > about
> > money. Big money.
>
> Yeah, well in the 1970s--pre-internet--there was also EXPONENTIALLY
> more music going on in the world than you could hear about. Finding
> out about new music was limited to record stores, radio, TV, and
> magazines--and for one to get one's music exposed through any of those
> mediums required a great deal more luck, effort, time, and promotion.
> Nowadays the amount of music that I can discover is functionally
> LIMITLESS. Any jack ass with a computer and access the internet can
> create music and make it available to everyone else with a computer
> and access to the internet. Being that I tend to encounter new
> artists at a rate of hundreds per week, if all of them charged money
> for their music, I would have to ignore vast amounts of them.
>
> > Plus, are you seriously saying you can't afford to buy a CD, ever?
>
> Oh, I still buy CDs occasionally, of artists I really love...but only
> maybe 5 CDs every few months. Not because I can't afford it, per se,
> but because it's such a luxury item and I have to ask myself: is this
> REALLY the best thing I can spend money on? It usually isn't.
>
> > Again, the false dichotomy. And prospective listeners take what they
> are
> > given. I'm sure if everyone everywhere stopped giving away free music,
> > it wouldn't be that all of a sudden no-one would be listening to any
> > music, as you seem to think.
>
> No, that is not what I think, and I never even suggested such a
> ridiculous extreme. People would listen to LESS music, but not NO
> music. And not even "LESS" music, they would still obviously spend
> the same amount of time listening, just to a smaller diversity of
> artists. You can't possibly believe that people would intake the same
> quantity of new music if the price went up, can you?
>
> > It's this terrible idea that we've been sold that as creators, it's our
> > priviledge to be listened to, and that's enough. The consumer of free
> > music enjoys the situation, and is not about to let the artist know
> that
> > they are being taken advantage of. But for the artist to think this?
> > It's a sort of suicide, or at best a low-grade masochism.
> >
> > Should a dentist provide free fillings? Should lawyers always work pro
> > bono? Should potato farmers just give away their potatoes? You've
> bought
> > the myth of the worthless creator, hook, line, and sinker, just like
> the
> > pigs who started it (the record labels and iTunes execs who take 90% of
> > the royalties) want you to. *That* is what's sad to see.
>
> Again, you have misunderstood and misrepresented my views, and made
> one REALLY inappropriate analogy. Do dentists fix teeth for fun? Do
> lawyers go to court for fun? Do potato farmers farm for fun? No,
> they don't. Do musicians make music for fun? Yes, they do. A more
> proper analogy would be, if a potato farmer who grew for himself and
> his family ended up with more potatoes than his family could consume,
> should he give away the rest rather than let them rot into compost?
> YES!
>
> And you haven't answered my question: if it was never possible for you
> to earn money making music, WOULD YOU STILL MAKE IT?
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> there are all type of jobs where people have fun doing it!

It's not about whether you have fun, though. It's about whether you
do it specifically FOR fun. You can have fun doing darn near anything
if you have the right mind set.

> Barter is also an option though so you don't think it is about cash.

It's not the cash concept that bugs me. It's the demanding of some
sort of economic compensation for something that would have been
created (or perhaps WAS created) in the absence of any economic
incentive. It's saying, "I made this for no other reason than because
I enjoyed the process of making it. But now I want *you* to give me
something for it...even though you are effectively paying me not for
rendering a specific direct service to you, but so that you can enjoy
something I already did, for free, which would continue to exist
without any economic support from anybody." It's like charging people
to look at the garden in front of your house as they walk by on the
street!

Especially in the case of microtonal music, people need to be exposed
to this stuff, and I sincerely doubt any of us are MMMing with the
hope of striking it rich! I mean, if you are turning a profit at it,
would you stop MMMing if you stopped turning that profit? If you
wouldn't, then why hold out for that profit in the first place?

If you WOULD stop making music if it stopped making money for you,
well, that's another thing all together. There's nothing wrong with
that. If you'd tear up that front garden (or never have planted it in
the first place) because no one would pay you to let them enjoy it,
that's you're prerogative and I have no issue with that. If that's
the case for people on this list, then that's fine. But at least be
honest about your motivations, then. Heck, this ain't about right
reasons and wrong reasons for making music. If you're doing it for
money, fine. We all need money. But if you're doing it for love, and
charging money (or barter) anyway, I find that a bit disingenuous.

> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
<http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

well the same would be true of those that do paintings, write books, weave blankets, take photos.

Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, Kraig Grady > <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> > there are all type of jobs where people have fun doing it!
>
> It's not about whether you have fun, though. It's about whether you
> do it specifically FOR fun. You can have fun doing darn near anything
> if you have the right mind set.
>
> > Barter is also an option though so you don't think it is about cash.
>
> It's not the cash concept that bugs me. It's the demanding of some
> sort of economic compensation for something that would have been
> created (or perhaps WAS created) in the absence of any economic
> incentive. It's saying, "I made this for no other reason than because
> I enjoyed the process of making it. But now I want *you* to give me
> something for it...even though you are effectively paying me not for
> rendering a specific direct service to you, but so that you can enjoy
> something I already did, for free, which would continue to exist
> without any economic support from anybody." It's like charging people
> to look at the garden in front of your house as they walk by on the
> street!
>
> Especially in the case of microtonal music, people need to be exposed
> to this stuff, and I sincerely doubt any of us are MMMing with the
> hope of striking it rich! I mean, if you are turning a profit at it,
> would you stop MMMing if you stopped turning that profit? If you
> wouldn't, then why hold out for that profit in the first place?
>
> If you WOULD stop making music if it stopped making money for you,
> well, that's another thing all together. There's nothing wrong with
> that. If you'd tear up that front garden (or never have planted it in
> the first place) because no one would pay you to let them enjoy it,
> that's you're prerogative and I have no issue with that. If that's
> the case for people on this list, then that's fine. But at least be
> honest about your motivations, then. Heck, this ain't about right
> reasons and wrong reasons for making music. If you're doing it for
> money, fine. We all need money. But if you're doing it for love, and
> charging money (or barter) anyway, I find that a bit disingenuous.
>
> > Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> <http://anaphoria.com/index.html <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>>
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp > <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp>> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
> >
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

Iglashion, you say:

> If you're doing it for
> money, fine. We all need money. But if you're doing it for love, and
> charging money (or barter) anyway, I find that a bit disingenuous.

What I read from this, as well as your initial statement, is
that for some reason you find it objectionable for artists
to ask to be paid for their work. Moreover, I get the sense that
you feel artists don't really deserve to be paid for their
work. I'm not sure you hold these views, and I'm not asking
that such views be defended, or that you need to clarify.
I just find such a view perplexing. If one has talent for an
art form, and one dedicates oneself to that art form, and
acquires over time through dedicated effort not only
competence but considerable skill in that art form, then
appreciation shown for that kind of work in the form of
money seems to me a very natural thing and a correct
outcome for such a person. If a person has worked very
hard and is dedicated to anything which can be considered
positive in the world or useful, they should be compensated,
in some manner, and it should not have to be in the form of
some kind of charity, in my opinion. Just my thoughts.

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@...m, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> >
> > there are all type of jobs where people have fun doing it!
>
> It's not about whether you have fun, though. It's about whether you
> do it specifically FOR fun. You can have fun doing darn near anything
> if you have the right mind set.
>
> > Barter is also an option though so you don't think it is about cash.
>
> It's not the cash concept that bugs me. It's the demanding of some
> sort of economic compensation for something that would have been
> created (or perhaps WAS created) in the absence of any economic
> incentive. It's saying, "I made this for no other reason than because
> I enjoyed the process of making it. But now I want *you* to give me
> something for it...even though you are effectively paying me not for
> rendering a specific direct service to you, but so that you can enjoy
> something I already did, for free, which would continue to exist
> without any economic support from anybody." It's like charging people
> to look at the garden in front of your house as they walk by on the
> street!
>
> Especially in the case of microtonal music, people need to be exposed
> to this stuff, and I sincerely doubt any of us are MMMing with the
> hope of striking it rich! I mean, if you are turning a profit at it,
> would you stop MMMing if you stopped turning that profit? If you
> wouldn't, then why hold out for that profit in the first place?
>
> If you WOULD stop making music if it stopped making money for you,
> well, that's another thing all together. There's nothing wrong with
> that. If you'd tear up that front garden (or never have planted it in
> the first place) because no one would pay you to let them enjoy it,
> that's you're prerogative and I have no issue with that. If that's
> the case for people on this list, then that's fine. But at least be
> honest about your motivations, then. Heck, this ain't about right
> reasons and wrong reasons for making music. If you're doing it for
> money, fine. We all need money. But if you're doing it for love, and
> charging money (or barter) anyway, I find that a bit disingenuous.
>
> > Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
> >
>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt"
<aahunt@...> wrote:

Hello, Mr. Hunt,

> What I read from this, as well as your initial statement, is
> that for some reason you find it objectionable for artists
> to ask to be paid for their work. Moreover, I get the sense that
> you feel artists don't really deserve to be paid for their
> work. I'm not sure you hold these views, and I'm not asking
> that such views be defended, or that you need to clarify.
> I just find such a view perplexing.

And perplexing is just how you should find it, if in fact what artists
are doing is "work". Work, by its very nature, is something that
entails the concept of compensation. It also, in common use, would be
taken as the antonym for "leisure". So indeed, I do NOT hold the view
that musicians--for whom music is work--should not be compensated for
their efforts.

> If one has talent for an
> art form, and one dedicates oneself to that art form, and
> acquires over time through dedicated effort not only
> competence but considerable skill in that art form, then
> appreciation shown for that kind of work in the form of
> money seems to me a very natural thing and a correct
> outcome for such a person.

And indeed that is fair (natural and correct), given of course that
the person's reasons for dedication to the mastery of that art form
stem from a desire for appreciation and monetary compensation.

> If a person has worked very
> hard and is dedicated to anything which can be considered
> positive in the world or useful, they should be compensated,
> in some manner, and it should not have to be in the form of
> some kind of charity, in my opinion. Just my thoughts.

What you are prescribing here is not an attitude for the artist, but
an attitude for those that appreciate art. It was never my aim to
suggest that artists should not be paid by their listeners or that
"art" in all its forms is not a legitimate form of commercial enterprise.

This is my last clarification before dropping this horribly off-topic
rant I have embarked upon: music does not have to be *work*. Music,
for me, has never been *work*. It is, has, and hopefully will always
be, a *leisure* activity. It's what I do *for fun*. Some people play
sports, other people customize cars, other people collect stamps, etc.
etc. I make music. It's my hobby. I put time and money into it for
no reason other than that I love it. I feel indeed privileged to be
able to take such a light-hearted view of this art when there are so
many people that take it deadly serious. I presumed that more people
on this list viewed music as a hobby, or at least microtonal music as
a hobby. To get paid for your hobby strikes me as absurd--you're
getting paid to play for yourself, basically, considering the
negligible cost of making your music available for the enjoyment of
others. To demand to be paid for your hobby is...beyond absurd. Art
made for art's sake should not be a commodity. Art made for the sake
of commerce obviously IS and SHOULD BE (naturally) a commodity.

Dammit, I work hard at composing, and I'm no longer giving my stuff away....

🔗J.Smith <jsmith9624@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗plopper6 <billwestfall@...>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗danieljameswolf <djwolf@...>

🔗Doctor Oakroot <doctor@...>

🔗Brian Redfern <brianwredfern@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>