Joe Walsh - The truth about music

personally I know many people who pirate music then pay for the album later.

It's a pretty common thing among most of my friends who are into music, yes some people won't pay for it, but there definitely are people who are willing to contribute money to the bands they support, even if it's just buying T-shirts or other merch.

And we could go into whether or not this is ethical(which clearly is where this is headed), but that doesn't change the fact that artists need to adjust to this, not ignore it.

I don't mean to get into an ethical debate, purely practical. If an artist can't recoup their investment, they are relegated to amateur or non-participant. That's my main point. One of the ways artists choose to adapt is by pursuing another field of endeavor, just like any other business.
 
I don't mean to get into an ethical debate, purely practical. If an artist can't recoup their investment, they are relegated to amateur or non-participant. That's my main point. One of the ways artists choose to adapt is by pursuing another field of endeavor, just like any other business.

I would hate to hear the kind of music made by someone who would stop making music because of financial concerns.
 
I would hate to hear the kind of music made by someone who would stop making music because of financial concerns.

Why is music the only domain of humankind where it's considered an outrage to ask to be paid for your services?

Is it more important to survive or to fuel somebody's fantasy notion of improverished artist? If you can't earn from your craft you don't sit there and starve, you find another way to earn a dollar. That's how the world works...........whether it's the life of a minstrel or the life of a plumber.
 
Last edited:
Why is music the only domain of humankind where it's considered an outrage to ask to be paid for your services?

Is it more important to survive or to fuel somebody's fantasy notion of improverished artist? If you can't earn from your craft you don't sit there and starve, you find another way to earn a dollar.......that's how the world works. Whether it's the life of a minstrel or the life of a plumber.

Here in america, when people have silly jobs that aren't really work, we don't pay them. Football players, for example, make next to nothing because they really only play a game.
 
Why is music the only domain of humankind where it's considered an outrage to ask to be paid for your services?

Is it more important to survive or to fuel somebody's fantasy notion of improverished artist? If you can't earn from your craft you don't sit there and starve, you find another way to earn a dollar. That's how the world works...........whether it's the life of a minstrel or the life of a plumber.


I'm not saying musicians shouldn't be paid. I'm saying I wouldn't want to hear the sorta music made by someone who wouldn't be making music if there wasn't money in it.
 
I'm not saying musicians shouldn't be paid. I'm saying I wouldn't want to hear the sorta music made by someone who wouldn't be making music if there wasn't money in it.

That's my point - these guys were excellent musicians, and you will never have the opportunity to hear what they are capable of. To pass judgement on someone's music because they weren't able to make a living at it and moved on is short-sighted at best. I can truthfully say, it is your loss.
 
Well to be fair, I could be wrong.

I think the challenge of modern musicians will have to be to make people feel privileged to have access to free music, not that they are entitled to it, which of course is going to be quite a hurdle to overcome.

I absolutely think that musicians need to embrace free music though, because it's not going to stop. You can either make the best out of it as you can, or you can ignore it.

A question of whether it is moral or immoral to pirate music is another topic entirely,imo.

Then plummers should embrace the idea of fixing a broken pipe at 3 am on a Sunday in the dead of winter.........for free.

How about our Larry having to go out and fix a shorted out electrical panel box just for kicks.

How about a highly skilled neuro surgeon being expected to perforn brain surgery for free,after some of these doctors are reguarded as artists in their craft.

Just because what someone does for a living is as much art as it is skill or science,dosen't take it off the pay me scale.

My drums cost money.Lessons,time put into practice(time is MONEY period),maintain your instrument.Transportation costs.insurance payments,food,lodging..

For every indie band scraping out a living,there are 100 or more that fall into the play for free,and you'll get exposure line of crap from venue owners.THAT kills it for the next band,and the next band.............

I started getting paid when I was (1969) 15 or 16.School dances,block/birthday parties,what ever we could manage.Typical pay was 25-35 per man a night .

Some guys don't get that NOW.

No ,musicians should NOT get used to the free music thing.The concept of music being a combination of both art and skill has long been established.

And musicians have also LONG been getting paid to perform it.

Screw that free crap.................no pay.........no music.Screw the sensitive artist routine.Plenty of sensitive artists starved to death for their art instead of insisting they get paid to perform and not having good management or business sense.Venue owners screwing musicians out of money in NOTHING new .

Just ask the Eagles,Zepplin,Billy Joel,John Fogery and countless other "artists" who were screwed out of millions for not paying attention to the BUSINESS side of the music BUSINESS

Next time you go to a doctor or a lawyer,try to sell that free crap and that all of their servises should be pro bono.

The sooner you learn that music is a business where everybody else gets paid ,the sooner you'll learn not to play for free, then ask to get screwed,and get PAID instead..

Fun is one thing.Doing it for a living and business is something else.

Steve B
 
Last edited:
That's my point - these guys were excellent musicians, and you will never have the opportunity to hear what they are capable of. To pass judgement on someone's music because they weren't able to make a living at it and moved on is short-sighted at best. I can truthfully say, it is your loss.

I don't know who you're talking about.


But personally, I would be making music at any cost, under any condition. And I would be very weary of any painter of any writer who gave up their craft because of money. If the passion goes away when the money goes away, then you weren't an artist to begin with.

p.s. I'm not sure why people are interpreting what I'm saying as 'musicians shouldn't get paid'.
 
Steve B[/QUOTE]



Guess you're right, well I guess I'm just going to give up on pursuing music as a career even though countless people make a career out of it.

anyone can get music for free, does that suck? Maybe yes, maybe no.

In your opinion, it's clearly the worse thing ever, which is fine, but you also don't have an answer to the problem, others out there, are making money off of their music and it sure as hell isn't because they're whining about how music is distributed.

So even in your view, that free music is the worse thing ever to hit the music industry, guess what? It's not going to go away, ever, either adapt or be left behind.

Personally I'm glad that people who actually would quit playing music because of the current state of the industry have quit, because the bands that make sincere music, and genuinely love music, power through whatever bullshit is in the industry, just look at King Crimson and Tool for example.
 
Also may I also mention that being a electrician,lawyer, doctor, ect ect. is offering practical services to someone.

Music isn't a practical service, it doesn't have any physical product that benefits society in any practical way, it is an art, there should be money in art, but a business musician can not be compared to another "normal" job.
 
just look at King Crimson and Tool for example.

They're your examples? Bands that managed to gain their fair share of income under the so called "old regime" are your examples of those cutting a pioneering path? Really?[/QUOTE]

Not pioneers, I chose them because they worked under the label system and absolutely abhorred it, yet, despite their terrible experiences with record company's and the "good old ways" of doing things, they continued making music because they loved music.

That's all I was trying to say there.

Edit:King Crimson in particular definitely did not get their fair share of income from their works. Just as a side note.
 
I chose them because they worked under the label system and absolutely abhorred it, yet, despite their terrible experiences with record company's and the "good old ways" of doing things, they continued making music because they loved music.
.

Ok. I misunderstood your point. However, the discussion of "free art" (for want of a better term) does extend well beyond the relm of the dud contract with the record company too. Hell, even a guy like Thom Yorke.......only a few years ago lauded for their distribution approach that actively embraces new mediums and by-passes the record companies of old........has said enough is enough with resepct to the wider issue being discussed here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/15/thom-yorke-spotify-twitter

but a business musician can not be compared to another "normal" job.

That's just so very naive. Tell that to the guys who rely on it to put food on the table and a roof over their families heads.
 
I don't know who you're talking about.


But personally, I would be making music at any cost, under any condition. And I would be very weary of any painter of any writer who gave up their craft because of money. If the passion goes away when the money goes away, then you weren't an artist to begin with.

p.s. I'm not sure why people are interpreting what I'm saying as 'musicians shouldn't get paid'.

I assume you mean wary, not weary...

Anyway, I know you don't know who I'm talking about. Again, that is my point. These are people I personally know (or knew), who, despite several people's ignorant, uninformed assertions, where excellent musicians who made better music than most of the crap I hear on YouTube and the radio. They did indeed stop pursuing music as a career, because they couldn't make a decent living at it, and that's what I'm talking about - not just making money, but making a living. They may or may not still play, but they stopped trying to make a living at it, and spending their time and effort providing you with a service that hardly anyone appreciates as valuable. (Someone in this very thread said that music is not a valuable service.)

Yes, I know people find ways to make money making music. I think it's ridiculous and naive to assume that these people are somehow more genuine artists, just because they've figured out how to make ad money off of YouTube hits or whatever it is they need to do. To me, that makes them as much salesmen as artists. The statements such as "if they were true artists they would find a way to make it" are silly and childish, in my opinion.

Perhaps the true artists are the ones who refuse to whore themselves out and jump through whatever hoops the current economy requires, and say take it on my terms or you're not getting it.

Just food for thought.

As an afterthought - I know people say "free" music and the technology that made it possible is here to stay, so get used to it. They may be right, but we'll see. The technology we deal with today was unimagined when I was young, and I daresay there are things on the way that none of us have imagined, too.

EDIT - I want to apologize for the tone of this message and acknowledge that there are still viable ways for an artist to make a living in music, and I DON'T wish to detract from them or imply that those who are successful are necessarily less of an artist. Some of the things I wrote could be construed to say any musician who is successful today is more salesman than artist, and that's not what I meant.

Quite the contrary - what pissed me off was the implication that people who choose NOT to pursue the music business as it exists today couldn't possibly be real artists, and that their choice was somehow an indictment of their love for music and their character as artists. That is simply wrong, and because I know some of these folks personally, it's a heated topic.
 
Last edited:
The economy and business of making music have changed, and will change further, in ways that are hard - if not impossible - to predict.

My 0.05 is that there is less likelihood of an artist/band getting rich from recorded music.

But there are new opportunities as well as threats. A few months back I watched the Counting Crows playing live at the Sydney Opera House. I didn't physically attend the concert, but it was broadcast (narrowcast? singlecast?) on Youtube. I don't know the details, but I'da thunk the Crows earned some money from that.

Maybe, just maybe, this will mean that successful acts will have to stay touring to stay making money, because there isn't the money in recorded music that there once was. And that means that artists will need to remain functioning as live acts to make big money.

Musicians making small-country-GDP money is a new phenomenon. And maybe it's one that is passing.
 
They're your examples? Bands that managed to gain their fair share of income under the so called "old regime" are your examples of those cutting a pioneering path? Really?

Not pioneers, I chose them because they worked under the label system and absolutely abhorred it, yet, despite their terrible experiences with record company's and the "good old ways" of doing things, they continued making music because they loved music.

That's all I was trying to say there.

Edit:King Crimson in particular definitely did not get their fair share of income from their works. Just as a side note.[/QUOTE]

Yes and they also made MONEY doing it.Ask any one of those guys if they would have recorded music,and toured for free.

Danny Carey is one of the highest paid drummers on the planet.

Ask Robert Fripp if he tours or does studio work or speaking engagements for free.

Music is a business,and many that don't want to play the game,have their CD's wind up in Rite Aid Pharmacy's 2 for 1 discount rack.

Listen to the Eagles Rock and roll hall of fame induction ceramony when Don Henly thanks their manager Irvin Azoff for being their "satan".

Talk to Jimmy page about how Peter Grant put the low paying or NO pay gigs to an end for Zepplin."If you wanted Zepplin to play,you pay for them to play."

You can dream about the free music thing and playing for free as a good thing,but that notion is naive.Do you think " I Tunes" dosen't make a boat load of cash.

There are plenty of people out there making money from the labors of the artists who create it,and have those artists convinced that ,that's the way it should be.From small venue owners to arena's to record company,lawyers.promoters and managers.

If you think playing for free or giving away your intellectual property is making it in the BUSINESS,then your more naive than you think.

Just how it it that you expect to pay the bills,rent/mortgage,car,gas,insurance(multiple types,foor,health insurance,doctor visits,hospital stays,pension,education,musical instruments,...and music.

Walk into K Mart and try to walk out with a "free " CD and see what happens.

Steve B
 
Last edited:
Hey you want to hear something really cool Tama?

If you don't want to play free shows you can chose not to do free shows WOAHHHH HOLY SHIT WHO WOULD GUESSED OMG WHAT IS THIS?

there are benefits to playing free shows when you're a small band, it's free advertisement, it's a win for the venue and it's a win for you, if you don't want to do it, you can just chose not to do it.

Big bands don't do things for free (no shit...) because that doesn't benefit them in any way.

I don't even know what you're trying to say, if you don't want to play shows for free, don't do them, it's that simple good luck finding a venue willing to pay you top dollar with no show experience.
 
Hey you want to hear something really cool Tama?

If you don't want to play free shows you can chose not to do free shows WOAHHHH HOLY SHIT WHO WOULD GUESSED OMG WHAT IS THIS?

there are benefits to playing free shows when you're a small band, it's free advertisement, it's a win for the venue and it's a win for you, if you don't want to do it, you can just chose not to do it.

Big bands don't do things for free (no shit...) because that doesn't benefit them in any way.

I don't even know what you're trying to say, if you don't want to play shows for free, don't do them, it's that simple good luck finding a venue willing to pay you top dollar with no show experience.

It's sad that you think you have to play for free to gain exposure. When I was in high school we got paid to play at parties, weddings, bar mitvahs, church functions, school gymnasiums, etc. I got paid better to play in someone's basement than some clubs want to pay today, and it wasn't because everyone was rolling in dough, either. They valued what we did. No one expected us to be seasoned pros, but they didn't expect us to play for free, either.

I think that is the problem that Steve is trying to point out - you've been led to believe your music has little or no value, and you don't see that you're being taken advantage of.
 
Back
Top