Making a living as a musician
-
One of the threads on /. today is about OLGA, an online guitar tab database, being shutdown by lawyers for copyright violation. I browsed the comments, and almost everyone decried this as an unjust move. The music industry is universally considered greedy and evil, and besides, now the Internet lets musicians go right to the people, so we should probably do away with all those corporate types anyway. So, I thought I'd do a quick check to see how much the Internet has improved life for professional musicians. All recorded music should be downloadable and free Although some people do seem willing to pay iTunes for downloads, that's dwarfed by the number of mp3s shared for free. If you try to block free download sites people throw a fit. Message? "We expect music for free." All lyrics, sheet music and tab should be posted online and free Sheet music and every other printed form of music is another tiny slice of income for songwriters. However, as in OLGA's case, protecting this revenue is seen as evil. Message? "We expect music for free." Bar gigs still pay the same as they did in 1976 I'm not kidding. If you thought it was hard making a living on $75 a night in the late 70s, try it with today's cost of living. And yet, across the country, pay for musicians in bars remains the same. For those of you without a pocket calculator: working 4 nights a week 50 weeks a year (a challenge to stay booked even that consistently) nets you a whopping $15k annual salary. Hope you didn't want fries with that. Message? "We expect music for (almost) free." Let's review. You can't really make a living playing bar gigs, and if you write or record music it should all be made available for free on the Internet. However, I continually read that "the Internet is ushering in a bold new era, giving musicians tremendous opportunity by enabling them to bypass the traditional music industry and go right to the people." Wow, that would really be great. I mean, you know, if "the people" were actually interested in paying for tbe music that they so obviously enjoy. However, they're hostile to the idea of musicians making money from any aspect of recorded music, and live performance doesn't pay squat for 99.9% of all working musicians. So, since it's socially unacceptable for us to expect money from recorded or live music, I'm curious. What's an acceptable way for us to make a living with our trade?
Author of
I'm continuously amazed at how much people think they have a right to free entertainment. Whether it's pirating games, movies or music, the majority (it seems) thinks their rights are being infringed upon if their entertainment costs "too much" and so they justify theft. People don't seem to understand that affording these luxuries(among others, of course) is what is supposed to help drive you to further your career and earn more money. Access to it isn't a right. By the same logic, it should be OK for me to go steal an M6 or Boxster, because after all those things are priced out of my range and damn it I deserve more fun out of my vehicle. :sigh:
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
I feel like I'm in the minority. I'm prepared to pay for music. I even sometimes take the punt and buy an album without hearing it first because it is by an artist that I consistently like (Jean-Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield, Queen and Steve Vai are all artists where I've bought an album without hearing it first and for the most part I've enjoyed the music).
* Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I feel like I'm in the minority. I'm prepared to pay for music.
i buy almost everything i listen to. sure, my father and i swap CDs now and then, but that's because we're both music junkies and love to share our latest discoveries. but i've bought something like 1500 songs from iTunes, and i have 800 CDs in my closet.
-
I'm continuously amazed at how much people think they have a right to free entertainment. Whether it's pirating games, movies or music, the majority (it seems) thinks their rights are being infringed upon if their entertainment costs "too much" and so they justify theft. People don't seem to understand that affording these luxuries(among others, of course) is what is supposed to help drive you to further your career and earn more money. Access to it isn't a right. By the same logic, it should be OK for me to go steal an M6 or Boxster, because after all those things are priced out of my range and damn it I deserve more fun out of my vehicle. :sigh:
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wrightbrianwelsch wrote:
Access to it isn't a right.
I completely agree. It's amazing how many people I've met who really care about social injustices in countries I'd never heard of, but are willing to steal from the poor musicians right next door. It's complete hypocrasy, if you ask me.
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
One of the threads on /. today is about OLGA, an online guitar tab database, being shutdown by lawyers for copyright violation. I browsed the comments, and almost everyone decried this as an unjust move. The music industry is universally considered greedy and evil, and besides, now the Internet lets musicians go right to the people, so we should probably do away with all those corporate types anyway. So, I thought I'd do a quick check to see how much the Internet has improved life for professional musicians. All recorded music should be downloadable and free Although some people do seem willing to pay iTunes for downloads, that's dwarfed by the number of mp3s shared for free. If you try to block free download sites people throw a fit. Message? "We expect music for free." All lyrics, sheet music and tab should be posted online and free Sheet music and every other printed form of music is another tiny slice of income for songwriters. However, as in OLGA's case, protecting this revenue is seen as evil. Message? "We expect music for free." Bar gigs still pay the same as they did in 1976 I'm not kidding. If you thought it was hard making a living on $75 a night in the late 70s, try it with today's cost of living. And yet, across the country, pay for musicians in bars remains the same. For those of you without a pocket calculator: working 4 nights a week 50 weeks a year (a challenge to stay booked even that consistently) nets you a whopping $15k annual salary. Hope you didn't want fries with that. Message? "We expect music for (almost) free." Let's review. You can't really make a living playing bar gigs, and if you write or record music it should all be made available for free on the Internet. However, I continually read that "the Internet is ushering in a bold new era, giving musicians tremendous opportunity by enabling them to bypass the traditional music industry and go right to the people." Wow, that would really be great. I mean, you know, if "the people" were actually interested in paying for tbe music that they so obviously enjoy. However, they're hostile to the idea of musicians making money from any aspect of recorded music, and live performance doesn't pay squat for 99.9% of all working musicians. So, since it's socially unacceptable for us to expect money from recorded or live music, I'm curious. What's an acceptable way for us to make a living with our trade?
Author of
just to play Devil's Advocate... what makes you think "musician" should be a viable career ? after all, it's a very crowded field, with a very sketchy business model.
-
I'm continuously amazed at how much people think they have a right to free entertainment. Whether it's pirating games, movies or music, the majority (it seems) thinks their rights are being infringed upon if their entertainment costs "too much" and so they justify theft. People don't seem to understand that affording these luxuries(among others, of course) is what is supposed to help drive you to further your career and earn more money. Access to it isn't a right. By the same logic, it should be OK for me to go steal an M6 or Boxster, because after all those things are priced out of my range and damn it I deserve more fun out of my vehicle. :sigh:
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven WrightI don't want to come off as justifying theft but: If a person cannot afford or will not pay what you are asking you are probably charging way too much. $25 for 10 tracks of hip hop is theft just as much as walking out of the store with the CD is. To debunk the car stealing analogy: if you steal an M6 the insurance company loses 60 grand, if you download a song you would never buy the music industry loses zero. To paraphrase Trey Parker or Matt Stone: "We love it when people download South Park, it means there watching it" Also see the South Park episode on stealing music.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
The real question is whether mucisians indeed deserve to make millions for their profession and I think the public is speaking loud and clear on the issue. Personally, I like to buy CD's but I won't pay more than $12 unless it is a double set. Of course the wealth is also being spread. "Working" musicians now actually have a chance to be their own label, sell their own music, and make their own videos netting a decent income if they work at it on the business side. As for your question, charge for your music but charge a fair price for the value offered. If you only make $1(net) per cd but go platinum that is still a million dollars.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
Let me just say up front that I'm speaking more to the issue than poking at you personally...
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
The real question is whether mucisians indeed deserve to make millions for their profession
Your information isn't really very accurate. An infinitesimally minute percentage of all recording musicians make even 6 figures a year, let alone millions. And the number of recording musicians is but a several decimal point percentage of all musicians out there who are trying to make a living. For the most part, a record contract is an opportunity to immediately go half a million dollars in debt to the record label. They don't pay for the studio time, the MTV video, or a host of other things. That's considered money they loan you, which you have to pay back before you see a dime. Didn't know that? Understandable, if you've never read a recording contract. By and large (most certainly proportionally), "musicians making millions" is an urban legend.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
musicians now actually have a chance to be their own label, sell their own music
That doesn't do much good if people insist on their right to download for free. Screw the musician working for a record label indirectly, screw the self labeled musician directly. Works out to the same spiral pattern either way. I also consider it very weak logic to justify theft by saying that people shouldn't charge that much. I personally think the current price of gas is legalized robbery, but I still pay when I pump. I also don't slip a loaf of bread under my coat and walk out of the store because I don't like the price. Not paying for a product that isn't offered for free is stealing, regardless of how cleverly the culprit tries to spin it in an effort to justify something they know to be immoral.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
I'm continuously amazed at how much people think they have a right to free entertainment. Whether it's pirating games, movies or music, the majority (it seems) thinks their rights are being infringed upon if their entertainment costs "too much" and so they justify theft. People don't seem to understand that affording these luxuries(among others, of course) is what is supposed to help drive you to further your career and earn more money. Access to it isn't a right. By the same logic, it should be OK for me to go steal an M6 or Boxster, because after all those things are priced out of my range and damn it I deserve more fun out of my vehicle. :sigh:
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven WrightWell said! :-D
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
brianwelsch wrote:
Access to it isn't a right.
I completely agree. It's amazing how many people I've met who really care about social injustices in countries I'd never heard of, but are willing to steal from the poor musicians right next door. It's complete hypocrasy, if you ask me.
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Yeah, I don't get it. And yet, it's an undeniable social trend. Got any idea why this is?
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
One of the threads on /. today is about OLGA, an online guitar tab database, being shutdown by lawyers for copyright violation. I browsed the comments, and almost everyone decried this as an unjust move. The music industry is universally considered greedy and evil, and besides, now the Internet lets musicians go right to the people, so we should probably do away with all those corporate types anyway. So, I thought I'd do a quick check to see how much the Internet has improved life for professional musicians. All recorded music should be downloadable and free Although some people do seem willing to pay iTunes for downloads, that's dwarfed by the number of mp3s shared for free. If you try to block free download sites people throw a fit. Message? "We expect music for free." All lyrics, sheet music and tab should be posted online and free Sheet music and every other printed form of music is another tiny slice of income for songwriters. However, as in OLGA's case, protecting this revenue is seen as evil. Message? "We expect music for free." Bar gigs still pay the same as they did in 1976 I'm not kidding. If you thought it was hard making a living on $75 a night in the late 70s, try it with today's cost of living. And yet, across the country, pay for musicians in bars remains the same. For those of you without a pocket calculator: working 4 nights a week 50 weeks a year (a challenge to stay booked even that consistently) nets you a whopping $15k annual salary. Hope you didn't want fries with that. Message? "We expect music for (almost) free." Let's review. You can't really make a living playing bar gigs, and if you write or record music it should all be made available for free on the Internet. However, I continually read that "the Internet is ushering in a bold new era, giving musicians tremendous opportunity by enabling them to bypass the traditional music industry and go right to the people." Wow, that would really be great. I mean, you know, if "the people" were actually interested in paying for tbe music that they so obviously enjoy. However, they're hostile to the idea of musicians making money from any aspect of recorded music, and live performance doesn't pay squat for 99.9% of all working musicians. So, since it's socially unacceptable for us to expect money from recorded or live music, I'm curious. What's an acceptable way for us to make a living with our trade?
Author of
I agree with your statements. Most people try to find as much music to download for free. I did this for a long time and I have seen the error in my ways. Now I always purchase a cd and then I will put the cd on my ipod. I don't trade any music that I put on my ipod or go and download music from different sites. Most of the time if I am unsure about any music I always listen to samples on Amazon. I still see a few issues with the music industry. I have read a bunch of articles saying the record companies believe we should pay for every place we want to play our music. I also have a problem with downloading from iTunes because they try to control how many times you can copy the song. I am not looking to distribute my music but I don't think its fair to pay for multiple copies of the same cd/song. As usual I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The record labels are greedy and want everyone to pay for each place you can play the music and "the people" are looking to get music for free.
We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
-
The real question is whether mucisians indeed deserve to make millions for their profession and I think the public is speaking loud and clear on the issue. Personally, I like to buy CD's but I won't pay more than $12 unless it is a double set. Of course the wealth is also being spread. "Working" musicians now actually have a chance to be their own label, sell their own music, and make their own videos netting a decent income if they work at it on the business side. As for your question, charge for your music but charge a fair price for the value offered. If you only make $1(net) per cd but go platinum that is still a million dollars.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
I agree. CDs are far too expensive and very few bucks get to the artists.
regards, Mircea Many people spend their life going to sleep when they’re not sleepy and waking up while they still are.
-
One of the threads on /. today is about OLGA, an online guitar tab database, being shutdown by lawyers for copyright violation. I browsed the comments, and almost everyone decried this as an unjust move. The music industry is universally considered greedy and evil, and besides, now the Internet lets musicians go right to the people, so we should probably do away with all those corporate types anyway. So, I thought I'd do a quick check to see how much the Internet has improved life for professional musicians. All recorded music should be downloadable and free Although some people do seem willing to pay iTunes for downloads, that's dwarfed by the number of mp3s shared for free. If you try to block free download sites people throw a fit. Message? "We expect music for free." All lyrics, sheet music and tab should be posted online and free Sheet music and every other printed form of music is another tiny slice of income for songwriters. However, as in OLGA's case, protecting this revenue is seen as evil. Message? "We expect music for free." Bar gigs still pay the same as they did in 1976 I'm not kidding. If you thought it was hard making a living on $75 a night in the late 70s, try it with today's cost of living. And yet, across the country, pay for musicians in bars remains the same. For those of you without a pocket calculator: working 4 nights a week 50 weeks a year (a challenge to stay booked even that consistently) nets you a whopping $15k annual salary. Hope you didn't want fries with that. Message? "We expect music for (almost) free." Let's review. You can't really make a living playing bar gigs, and if you write or record music it should all be made available for free on the Internet. However, I continually read that "the Internet is ushering in a bold new era, giving musicians tremendous opportunity by enabling them to bypass the traditional music industry and go right to the people." Wow, that would really be great. I mean, you know, if "the people" were actually interested in paying for tbe music that they so obviously enjoy. However, they're hostile to the idea of musicians making money from any aspect of recorded music, and live performance doesn't pay squat for 99.9% of all working musicians. So, since it's socially unacceptable for us to expect money from recorded or live music, I'm curious. What's an acceptable way for us to make a living with our trade?
Author of
Christopher Duncan wrote:
$75 a night
Man, I'm way overpaying for the band for my wedding... :-D
Logifusion[^] If not entertaining, write your Congressman.
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
$75 a night
Man, I'm way overpaying for the band for my wedding... :-D
Logifusion[^] If not entertaining, write your Congressman.
That's per player of course, but still, wedding and country club gigs usually pay better. However, you're often treated like a minimum wage worker. I've played country clubs where they made the band sit in the kitchen with the dishwashers between sets. Really. As if that would make it harder for us to steal the silverware... :-D
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
I don't want to come off as justifying theft but: If a person cannot afford or will not pay what you are asking you are probably charging way too much. $25 for 10 tracks of hip hop is theft just as much as walking out of the store with the CD is. To debunk the car stealing analogy: if you steal an M6 the insurance company loses 60 grand, if you download a song you would never buy the music industry loses zero. To paraphrase Trey Parker or Matt Stone: "We love it when people download South Park, it means there watching it" Also see the South Park episode on stealing music.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
Then why isn't stealing an M6 okay, since you're just taking a car that you would never buy?
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
I don't want to come off as justifying theft but:
In fact, that's all that this sort of logic ever amounts to. You know, I actually have much more respect for those who hoist the Jolly Roger and proudly proclaim that they're theives than I do for everyday people who steal and then try to justify their poor ethical behavior.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
I think sharing should be a gift from the individual musician, not a global expectation from the public.
That's actually what I meant. Anyone demanding a riff of my creation would most likely end up with a finger in the eye. Or a headstock. Or a beer bottle. Pretty much whatever's at hand. :)
kulazfuk wrote:
would most likely end up with a finger in the eye.
Or at least a finger hoisted, eh? :-D
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
I don't want to come off as justifying theft but: If a person cannot afford or will not pay what you are asking you are probably charging way too much. $25 for 10 tracks of hip hop is theft just as much as walking out of the store with the CD is. To debunk the car stealing analogy: if you steal an M6 the insurance company loses 60 grand, if you download a song you would never buy the music industry loses zero. To paraphrase Trey Parker or Matt Stone: "We love it when people download South Park, it means there watching it" Also see the South Park episode on stealing music.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
If a person cannot afford or will not pay what you are asking you
... won't sell any product and go out of business. Law of supply and demand will bring the price down to a price people are willing to pay. After all, no one is forcing you to buy CDs are they?
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
if you download a song you would never buy the music industry loses zero.
So people are downloading all these songs they never listen to? There are Gigs of music being swapped that no one is listening to? If they listen to it they should buy it. Unless it's being played on the radio, is a sanctioned demo, etc. Do you also think it's OK to watch a movie before deciding to pay for it? How about paying for meals you didn't really care for? We buy all kinds of things before using them, most things in fact, but for some bizarre reason we think music should be available for in infinite trial mode, before we decide the song was worthy enough for our $1. About the price of a 16oz. Coke.
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
That's per player of course, but still, wedding and country club gigs usually pay better. However, you're often treated like a minimum wage worker. I've played country clubs where they made the band sit in the kitchen with the dishwashers between sets. Really. As if that would make it harder for us to steal the silverware... :-D
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Hmm, it's a shame really. Because I consider my time to be of a certain value, I consider other people's time the same way.
Logifusion[^] If not entertaining, write your Congressman.
-
I agree with your statements. Most people try to find as much music to download for free. I did this for a long time and I have seen the error in my ways. Now I always purchase a cd and then I will put the cd on my ipod. I don't trade any music that I put on my ipod or go and download music from different sites. Most of the time if I am unsure about any music I always listen to samples on Amazon. I still see a few issues with the music industry. I have read a bunch of articles saying the record companies believe we should pay for every place we want to play our music. I also have a problem with downloading from iTunes because they try to control how many times you can copy the song. I am not looking to distribute my music but I don't think its fair to pay for multiple copies of the same cd/song. As usual I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The record labels are greedy and want everyone to pay for each place you can play the music and "the people" are looking to get music for free.
We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
BrockVnm wrote:
I still see a few issues with the music industry.
The corporate music industry is exactly what people think it is. If you think they screw you guys, you should see the deal that musicians get. Unfortunately, most people don't do the math. If we're getting screwed by the industry already, and then people screw the industry, we get it twice as bad.
BrockVnm wrote:
iTunes because they try to control how many times you can copy the song.
This is a big technical problem, and I believe that the solution is one of those Killer Apps just waiting out there for some programmer to get rich discovering. When you pay for music, you should be able to copy it to every one of your music players. You paid for it, that's what we care about. Where you want to listen to it is your choice. We hope you listen to it in lots of places and enjoy it thoroughly! Unfortunatly, from the technical side of things, without some form of copy protection it just ends up on a p2p site. In a perfect world, you can download the music one song at a time, and copy it to all the players you own, but you can't put it on the Internet for people to download for free. How do we make this happen? I hope the programmer who eventually solves this problem gets incredibly rich.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
One of the threads on /. today is about OLGA, an online guitar tab database, being shutdown by lawyers for copyright violation. I browsed the comments, and almost everyone decried this as an unjust move. The music industry is universally considered greedy and evil, and besides, now the Internet lets musicians go right to the people, so we should probably do away with all those corporate types anyway. So, I thought I'd do a quick check to see how much the Internet has improved life for professional musicians. All recorded music should be downloadable and free Although some people do seem willing to pay iTunes for downloads, that's dwarfed by the number of mp3s shared for free. If you try to block free download sites people throw a fit. Message? "We expect music for free." All lyrics, sheet music and tab should be posted online and free Sheet music and every other printed form of music is another tiny slice of income for songwriters. However, as in OLGA's case, protecting this revenue is seen as evil. Message? "We expect music for free." Bar gigs still pay the same as they did in 1976 I'm not kidding. If you thought it was hard making a living on $75 a night in the late 70s, try it with today's cost of living. And yet, across the country, pay for musicians in bars remains the same. For those of you without a pocket calculator: working 4 nights a week 50 weeks a year (a challenge to stay booked even that consistently) nets you a whopping $15k annual salary. Hope you didn't want fries with that. Message? "We expect music for (almost) free." Let's review. You can't really make a living playing bar gigs, and if you write or record music it should all be made available for free on the Internet. However, I continually read that "the Internet is ushering in a bold new era, giving musicians tremendous opportunity by enabling them to bypass the traditional music industry and go right to the people." Wow, that would really be great. I mean, you know, if "the people" were actually interested in paying for tbe music that they so obviously enjoy. However, they're hostile to the idea of musicians making money from any aspect of recorded music, and live performance doesn't pay squat for 99.9% of all working musicians. So, since it's socially unacceptable for us to expect money from recorded or live music, I'm curious. What's an acceptable way for us to make a living with our trade?
Author of
Christopher Duncan wrote:
However, as in OLGA's case, protecting this revenue is seen as evil.
It's been years since i've used OLGA. At least since '98, when i last remember taking an interest in this whole mess (yes, Harry Fox was suing them back then already). I thought the tactic stunk back then, and i think it stinks now. (if you're already thinking, "Oh, it's Shog the commie again, always against anyone making a living off their ideas", then just stop reading. I'm sick of that argument.) There were, last i checked, more companies out there selling Office toolbar lookalikes than i can count on my fingers. On top of that, there are scores of free knock-offs, complete with source, on sites like this one. Why? Because lots and lots of people saw Microsoft's implementation, liked it, and tried to figure out how to do the same thing on their own. I've yet to see anyone make the case that these people are all evil free-loaders, trying to take advantage of poor Microsoft's hard work. If bar gigs aren't paying much, it's probably due more to 1) people not properly supporting their local bar scene and 2) every kid and his brother wanting to start a band as soon as they turn 13. Much as i'd like to believe i can make a living on raw skill, the biggest reason i have a shot at a job in this industry is because my oldest two brothers, who are a fair bit better at coding than me, gave up programming for guitar playing/building. ;)
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for c
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
If a person cannot afford or will not pay what you are asking you
... won't sell any product and go out of business. Law of supply and demand will bring the price down to a price people are willing to pay. After all, no one is forcing you to buy CDs are they?
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
if you download a song you would never buy the music industry loses zero.
So people are downloading all these songs they never listen to? There are Gigs of music being swapped that no one is listening to? If they listen to it they should buy it. Unless it's being played on the radio, is a sanctioned demo, etc. Do you also think it's OK to watch a movie before deciding to pay for it? How about paying for meals you didn't really care for? We buy all kinds of things before using them, most things in fact, but for some bizarre reason we think music should be available for in infinite trial mode, before we decide the song was worthy enough for our $1. About the price of a 16oz. Coke.
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven WrightA new CD costs a little bit more than $1.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
A new CD costs a little bit more than $1.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
I meant a dollar for a single song. But even a full CD is only about $15. Which is about the same price it's been for 20 years. At least here in the states.
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright