The music industry is broken. The original sentiment behind what kahl just said I have to agree with: why should being a musician not constitute as means towards a respectable income? It should, of course. But should said income be arranged in regard to popularity? Or maybe in regard to some abstract scale of 'worthwhile music' that a group of art-fags came up with? In the first case, does it mean that just because the world is mostly uneducated and base say Britney Spears should be making billions and Psychotic Waltz live in their garage off t-shirts and demo sales? In the second case, on what terms should an elected group regulate what is 'worthwhile' music and what is not?
I belive public opinion and/or current trends and 'good taste' should not be a factor to how an artist is able to live off his music. A suvival of the fittest model does not suit music, because it exists an unfortunate paradox that in this case the stupidest music would survive and anything eclectic perish. This is because everybody seems to be into music, as opposed to say, visual arts. And when everybody's into something, chances are the vast middle ground of it is going to be stupid. Music has been marketed as a perishable commodity thusly castrating it of any actual political relevance right after when it was most prominent as such a political force in the US. If drugs hurt the rock scene to a degree, then the complete and total commercialization of it did many times the same degree of damage.
Anyway, obviously one reason why public oppinion shouldn't be a factor to whether an artist should be able to live off his music is that of artistic integrity. If there is a kind of music that seems to pay better (simpler, shorter, normalised and stupider music as it is) any left-field artist would be tempted to gravitate towards this so he can have a better chance of living a respectable life. And that hurts the progression of music as a whole. Polyphony is key in pushing the envelope of expression. A more extreme example is how an artist making say, sludge grindgore music would starve to death if he were to stick to his guns. As to the other case, nobody should ever be the one to tell you what is of good taste and what isn't in a free country, not to mention tell you that you're not worthy of being a musician.
So I believe a uniform system of social provision for artists should be employed, where any man that can provide evidence of his musical creation or desire towards the creation of said should be provided with a base budget to use in order to live at least respectably. A sum of money not much more or less than minimum wage. No man should be rated against a set of criteria of what is considered 'good music', and every man involved in artistic creation should be provided with special benefits like recording time at some higher end studio, instruments and education in his specialised musical field. Obviously the money would not be enough to live a glamourous material life, but if such is the desire of an artist, just like with any man, he would be expected to go at extraordinary lengths to achieve them and the extraordinary is not what I am discussing.
What I am proposing stems from my belief that music requires neither public acceptance to be worthy of support, nor any material extravagance to be produced. When those sentiments develop into public opinion it will not be far when they are also practice.
The music itself should be freely provided. Donations, live shows and any other related activites would provide more than enough money to offset the costs of maintaining any given project and getting some money aside to upgrade aspects of it, if basic needs are covered.
There are some obvious counterarguments to my position such as the chance of this system being exploited to an economically counterproductive degree. To this I say that in any country where culture is so reenforced as to create such a provision for artists, it would be highly improbable that many freeloaders would exist. In any society where education and culture is advanced to a tolerant degree, people would show a healthy disposition towards creation in all fields, be them practical or artistic. The person who is seeking to undermine any system is the person who is feeling left out of it. Obviously this system that I suggest would operate under a socialistic environment rather than that of a capitalistic one. This is where Vinth calls me a doped out commie fag.
Given what I believe should be done, my current views on the music industry as it operates now are understandably those of disgust and irritation as well as a solid determination to oppose it. I am a musician who has resorted to having other jobs (teaching english, some translation work, the occasional graphical art or gameart freelance gig) in order to support my music making, in which I've invested countless hours of practise and study. I've resolved to making my band's music available freely (besides costs of shipping, although stable webspace would make that redundant too) and any profit gained if at all (tshirts and demos at shows) would be redirected in the group fund. I will not sign with any label, even if some interest be manifested from any. My goal as a musician includes having a dynamic moblie group operating under the sole direction of our inspiration, and does not include any social ambition. I'm stating this so you know I put my money where my mouth is, no pun intended.
To the best of my knowledge filesharing is illegal. But if it's continued use pushes this industry into collapsing unto itself, I am prepared to not condemn it for the time being. Laws function when they are relevant and obviously they misoperate when they are reactionary to the social situation as is the case since the mp3 explosion. Much of what I speak of has existed as a sentiment in people since a good while before mp3s but it is now that the tools have finally been developed that piracy is actually in the face of the industry. And obviously they will try to break it before trying to work around it, and then they will try to work around it before embracing it. But is it possible for such a music industry to actually embrace filesharing? I think it would be an oxymoron. The reason is simple. The music industry, as with any capitalist industry operates under one simple rule: The maximization of profit. Whereas artistic creation as applied to a social structure apparently has a whole different set of goals inherently.
Personally, I own about 400 original recordings of various bands. My collection has been the result of about 10 years of trips to various record stores and countless letters to strange german mailorders. I almost never buy in major cd stores because they're overpriced. Flea markets and shady vynil stores is where it's at. I have spent approx. 4000 bucks on cds and vinyl. I have about 100 mp3s but that would probably more be attributed to my lack of fast internet access and my habit to clean out the mp3s from below average stuff in my monthly reevaluations than in any actual attempt at moderated downloading. I usually download mp3s from bands I have been unable to find cds of. Very rarely do I download something without knowing something about the band and direction of the music since I am very informed about the 'scene' or scenes I'm following and I don't like wasting 2 hours or more to get crap
Maybe it's easier for you guys where you click on a song and in 30 seconds it's on your HD. I usually buy CD's from bands I've downloaded music from, if such fortunate choice presents intself. The most recent example of this was with Confessor and Saturnus.
I try to get in contact with the bands and artists I partcularily like to tell them personally that their music has had an impact of whatever sort in my life and if I where in their position, I think that that would be better than my 14 nameless cents.