hello there ladies and gentlemen

Connexion Bizarre has published a new Ad·ver·sary interview that I did for Wounds of the Earth. It’s a lot more disarmed and personal than other interviews I’ve done, because I didn’t really expect it to see any kind of traffic at all (which is why I never posted it here). Let’s see how many angry messages I get about how I’m destroying music:

What is the motivation behind the choice to give your music away for free?

There are a lot of reasons behind it – I want people who download music to get a high-quality version instead of some ‘FWYH’ release full of errors, I think if more people hear the album more people will support it by buying it or spinning it, I download a lot of music myself and I’d have to be a pretty big jerk to tell others not to download mine – but the only reason that matters is that I think music should be free. I don’t agree at all with this artist-centric view of intellectual property; I think the idea that you’re not allowed to listen to something or read something unless you get permission first is completely absurd.

12 thoughts on “hello there ladies and gentlemen

  1. I personally believe you have it right. I don’t think you are destroying music at all. Maybe the industrial complex surrounding music but not music. And for the record, I think destroying the machinery at is the music industry in its current form is probably a good thing.

  2. Movies don’t keep getting made because they’re free though. Well, unless everyone was a private investor, but then it would be up to the people with the most money to decide what to watch, and then what if they liked only boring documentaries? Same with music. If only the people who have money to throw around pay for the music then what if they like only classical. You’d get sick of it being played on the radio all the time. All the other bands would die off quicker and quicker until there was no point in trying anymore because they were drown out by one type of music that people were willing to pay for.

  3. I don’t consider movies to be art, for the most part; I see them as entertainment, and I do see them as commodity — but as far as music/literature are concerned, I’m not really interested in supporting a failing business model.

    I don’t think that by virtue of writing a book or an album that you’re entitled to money for it. I think it’s only worth what people are willing to pay for it, and in the case of music the internet has shown that the value of most music very closely approximates zero.

    If I want to make money from my music, then it’s my job to figure out a reason to convince people to give it to me — but the burden is on me to convince people to support the music, rather than the prevailing wisdom that I am owed money by anyone who has heard or downloaded it.

  4. Movies are similar to plays, like phantom of the opera etc. though, which is dramatic arts.

    See this is the problem i have with the star trek universe. Who dictates where the resources go? If they cut out doing anything for the arts, then no resources would be given to advance in things like design and creativity would be a waste of time, it would be function over form. Star trek universe would become a dystopian society for sure. How do we prevent this from happening but keep everything free?

    I guess this is going from debate to world planning. I should really create a forum for this so we could discuss how to build the perfect world. That would be kinda cool actually.

  5. I see (most) movies as a high-budget entertainment business, not as performing or dramatic arts. Like video games or roller coasters.

    Or Star Trek.

    God I love Star Trek.

  6. Plays can have huge budgets and obviously, musicals are meant to be as entertaining as possible (although I think they fail really).

    I think really as far as my opinion is, i think that the middleman should be cut out. the money should go straight into the artist’s pocket.

  7. I agree about the middle man — the problem is that then great artists also need to be great promoters and great businessmen, and very few people can do more than one of those things at the same time.

  8. If the art is good enough it speaks for itself no? Art is marketing or a hobby. If you want to make money off it then you have to get out there and market yourself. If you do it because it pleases you then, by all means do nothing more.

  9. I don’t think good art speaks for itself, no. Most of the most talented artists I know are never going to be seen or heard widely because they’re too busy making art, and they don’t give a fuck about trying to figure out marketing or navigating the legal/social hurdles necessarly to distribute it. If no one hears or sees the art, it’s impossible for it to speak for itself.

  10. if they don’t give a fuck then they don’t give a fuck. If they wanted to make a buck then they would probably be out of luck even if they didn’t suck.

    I tried to put “duck” in there but I couldn’t think of anything. :P

    Art is really about opinion, but it’s hard to even make an opinion if you never see it if the person who’s making it is not trying to get it out there. For instance, my mom, she never tries to market it and then gets annoyed that she isn’t selling anything.

Leave a Reply