would you be mad? are musicians greedy? art....

[NobodyButMe]

if you were a musician and were planning on releasing some music, would you be mad if someone got a hold of it and was spreading it across the internet and everybody was downloading and critiquing it?

i was thinking about that kweli letter that he wrote, and i was thinkin about how much energy eminem and xzibit and all them went through in order to stop their pre-albums from being bootlegged and thought that they spent way too much time and effort trying to wait until their release dates. personally, i don't think i would care. the only reason i would care is if people was downloading it and lovin it and bumpin it but no one was buyin it.

but....it's wierd because if i painted a picture for the world, i would expect to get paid for it once, and then if i saw it everywhere, it would make me happy, and i don't think i would really expect to get paid more for it. that's art. why aren't musicians the same? are musicians greedy? why are we allowed to d/l and copy as many PICTURES as we want, yet we're not allowed to listen and copy songs.

so can music be considered art? i wonder if we can only consider art as art. and music as music.

does anyone else find this strange?

[Trauma-san]

You have a juvenile outlook on this and don't even understand the complications and differences between a painting and a song.  They're completely different objects...


In your vast intellect, explain to me exactly how an artist can get paid "1 time" for a song.  Explain that one to me, I don't understand things on that level.  

[NobodyButMe]

You have a juvenile outlook on this and don't even understand the complications and differences between a painting and a song.  They're completely different objects...


In your vast intellect, explain to me exactly how an artist can get paid "1 time" for a song.  Explain that one to me, I don't understand things on that level.  

ok, no need to be a dick about it. it's a question, not necessarily an opinion. if i already had my opinions formed, i probably wouldn't be asking for feedback on the subject.

now, as for the question you asked, I DON'T KNOW. but maybe, in your 'oh-so-educated-and-non-juvenile-outlook', you could have came up with an idea for that one. it's not a suggestion as to the way things should be, i never said that someone should get paid 'one time for a song', it's to explore the possibilities of a pay off because i feel record companies are screwing both the musician and the consumer.

for example, instead of getting money for every single song sold, maybe an artist can get a lump sum for finishing and handing over his record to a record company. maybe someone that's real popular, say eminem, can hand over his record for 10 million dollars. and if it sells more than say 5 million, he gets a bonus, say another 10 million dollars. it just seems that the record companies rip artists AND consumers off, and i don't believe that there cannot be a better way than the way it is now. but i don't know, that was my point in posting this question.

but just for my clarification, tell me the major differences between a painting and a song. they're both expressions of the 'artist's' outlook on life. what makes a song vastly different than a painting, disregarding the obvious fact that one is for the ear and one is for the eye?

[Suga Foot]

I heard someone on the radio talking about this and it made a lot of sense to me.  He was saying that back in the day, artists would make most of their money from doing live shows and touring.  And the album was basically a bonus, something to take a long with you when you can't see the artist live.  I realize things are different now tho.  But artists still make more from touring than they do selling cd's.  So if they want more money, just go on tour.  You gotta work for it.  Dre made 52 million in 2000, because of the Up In Smoke Tour, the next year he only made like 5 mil.  Cuz he didn't really do shit.  

[W-Side]

you hatin file sharin, cause yo shit is wack

-Tecca Nina