I found it arrogant because of he sees his some customers as prostitute and blaming only composers when it's about whole music industry. I can understand him if the article is about people who wants free stuff. He's right about painstakingly and admittedly good work. But he's talking about almost every composer and he tells us what to do. It's kind of a help when I work for free. So, there's one view point in the article. It's like a prostitute is calling the all women "don't make love for free" after some people wanted free sex with her.

My last sentence may be flippantly. I still have respect 8dio, not the article. I hope you just take it as a joke. By the way, I'm not the one of the people who wants free stuff from them Their demos are enough for me.

You shouldn't upgrade posts for free :P

 

First let me say how deeply grateful I am for this and the sister site as they wholly enrich my life. I for one think that you, Catalyst, plus all those with working titles here and all members who contribute, have helped create an incredible place for us, and every day I give thanks for this. We are all the better for it including developers who get tons of exposure to their products. Being listed here is FREE advertising and opens up avenues to potential customers that might not normally know of the existence of said merchandise.

 

So you don't do this professionally.

The point of the article is not that every musician shan't move a finger without payment, the point is that if you're a professional musician/composer/producer you have to get paid or you ruin the biz for everybody who has to make a living from it.

The thing about the music business is that amateurs try to compete with professionals all the time. That's why the line between amateurs and professionals is often blurry but we still distinguish between them. This article does not adress amateurs.

You're a hobbyist. That's ok. Troes statement isn't meant for you.

The article applies to people who want to be professional musicians/composers/producers who make a living from what they do and offer their work to well established companies for free.

No serious company in the world would accept somebody working for them for free.
This would be considered sleazy and unethical business practices.

If you're a professional and if you're confident about your work, you demand payment.
Keep in mind: we're taling business to business here.

If you're a freelance producer and give away freebies, it's not giving away your work for free - it's promotion, and it comes with a price: your time and effort.
If you're a freelance producer and offer your work to a company or another professional who will make money from your work, you demand money. There is nothing snobish and megalomaniac about that.
Nobody who is serious about his or hers business will have a problem with that. And if somebody has a problem with that, he's not to be considered trustworthy, professional, serious, or all of the above.


So to sum up: professionals recieve payment (in one form or another), amateurs don't.
Besides, that's pretty much the definition of "professional", and that's who Troe is talking about.

 

In my experience ALL companys value unpaid labour/work

and the bigger the company, the more they expect for nothing

and its even worse if you are self employed and trying to get paid for contracts you have completed months ago, the bigger the company, the longer it takes to get your pennies

 

Since when there is ethics in business?
I think it`s about who you know/whom you known by, which is quite unethical to the talented & skilled one ... To consider oneself as a brand & the work as accompaniment to other "products (services)", to become finally scudded by money instead of chasing it.
Just two kinds of people in this world ... and both ain`t very kind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pze4NxCOjg0​

 

I shall start my post by "saying" this: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120509-is-it-all-about-the-money Read it. It especially matters when it comes to arts. Always try to find the satisfaction first and then worry about the money. Always do art from your heart, not from your wallet! Art and heart even rhymes nicely...

and yes, we all have to eat and blah blah... I know that, I'm not 12. *yes* But never do anything solely just for profit. That way your life will make much more sense and feel like it's worth more. It'll make you a happier and more satisfied person, more positive, and people will like you. Your work will feel better and have more value. Your art will get better. Help people, and they will help you back. You'll be amazed. Be a greedy always-talking-about-money prick and you'll be amazed at how people will reject you and start avoiding you rather quickly and your art will suck, too.

Having said that, of course I don't work for free, I've got bills to pay and another audio tool to buy, always. but money is always kinda side-issue that I like to put out of the way as soon as possible to be able to focus on far more important things - work and how to make it the best so far. *yes*

Cheers !

 

I can understand their point but I strongly disagree with the conclusions they made.
I would like music to be my work but for now it is only my hobby and I am fine with it even if it stays like that for the time being.
I like orchestrating and composing not because I want to earn money from it but just because I love it to death. A day without music for me, it's like a day without breathing and I simply don't give a single fuck what others think of my work, if they should pay it, if somebody will just hear it or similar bullshit. I live for this and for me playing the piano and making music are one and the same thing just like any primary necessity I have as a human being. This is the only meaningful premise to understand what I do and why I do it.
I never charged a single cent on my work because of that but also because of the different situations I have been involved in the music making. If sometimes I join a friend's band to provide a pianist/keyboardist presence I don't charge money on them because I enjoy making music with them and everything else is just an unnecessary plus. I am an atheist and I even worked for churches providing music for some of their particular religious functions or collected money to restore old organs which are worth preserving. And it's just the same when I prepared a school choir for singing a Verdi's Aria and Minuit Chrétien: I do it to spread the beauty of some arias and to increase people knowledge of a repertoire they have never been exposed to. I did it because I thought and I still think it was worth doing it for the sake of music! It is a pity to think I should take my hat off and beg for money because I just did what I love doing.
I am sorry but this is not being a cunt, a prostitute (BTW, they get paid and they're not cheap at all, you're a fool out of this world if you think otherwise!) or else. It is me, in my personal never-ending journey through music and spreading the little I know of it. I am not giving something away for free, I am giving what I consider the most precious thing the human species has ever produced so that anybody can appreciate it and enjoy it at least one time before they go to listen some crappy stuff they dare to call music. And who knows, but maybe even just one of them will buy a ticket to see a Beethoven concert, will buy a CD or watch a video on YouTube just because they want more!
For me this is enough, this is my own pay: doing the honors to my art and to those who preceded me and to those who will follow in the same path. I don't need anything else.

Sorry if I sounded too much outspoken or like a mad visionary. ;)

 

I have groups of questions, here, which are intended to provoke thought rather than to resolve the matter in question, as the situation isn't black-or-white.

First to pose: Is the music in question considered a product, or a service? What is the relative market-value of the product, or of the service?

Secondly: what is the scale of economy of the situation? Is the person wanting the music-as-service (say, a score for video or film) also producing work for free, or does he/she have any budget for it? If the person wanting to use your music is being paid/getting funding, should you not? How much?

Next: are you being expected to provide music for free or at a scale of payment far lower than you feel you ought to receive? What would you stand to gain for providing it as a favor, or in exchange for credit in the production? Would it lead to paying work, or to being expected to provide more cheap or free music to someone else? Are you getting the gig based upon your willingness to work for free or for less than anyone else?

I was told of an established composer in NYC, with an agent, who was having trouble getting a scoring gig or sync license (in film), but one day was offered $100 by an indie film producer to use one of his songs in a film. That was far below what he'd been used to getting, and quite an insult to him – but he took it. Why? Because someone else, less established (and probably also less accomplished) would have, and he needed another paid credit to his name. And his agent got a percentage of that $100.

Paid credits in films are what render a composer professionally legitimate; $100 is technically "being paid for" one's participation toward the production. (I hope that that composer had speculatively had mechanical and residual rights negotiated, in case the film is a big success.)

While the two realms should be kept distinct in discussion, the digital revolution has had a similar impact upon music-service as on music-product: total deprecation of value. A song which would have been, over a decade ago, licensed for $100,000 to a major film production now gets snagged for $10,000. And some indie film that hopes to make a splash at some festival can get away with paying $100. There is some cross-over, however, in that since now music-as-product (i.e., downloads) is expected to be acquired for free, and musician are told that they should give-away their music-product for free and not to expect to earn any money from it. This has colored the perception of music-as-service, by association. Similarly, there are more people producing "music," as product and as service, so the market for talent (which is now a dubious term, since it takes less talent to produce great-sounding music now) is flooded, thereby devaluing its labor- (as it were) value.

As I'd said, I don't see this matter as an "either/or" situation. If no musicians would give their music-service away, then everyone else would expect to have to pay. But we all can't exactly unionize, especially since it's so much more every-man-for-himself now. Music-licensing sites make matters worse, by presenting music as cherry-pickable for a pittance, since, after all, the market is glutted, which those looking to license music justify as "not wanting to spend too much" on music: on such a site, the 50-year-old conservatory-trained veteran is reduced to being a peer of the untrained 20-year-old with Garageband. Thanks to the new technology, the era of professional standards in music-service is over.

 

It's at least a bit ironic that a company that seeks to create a need and sell as much as possible is concerned with the devaluation of the product. (Which after a point costs virtually nothing to reproduce - you're paying for support, licensing and possibly funding future products and you can't know if it's overpriced unless they share their sales numbers, running costs, etc.) If it's only for professionals then they should afford it even when it costs 4k a piece instead of 400$, no? Why open up to a market of wannabes? iLok it, increase the price 10x and offer it in a golden SSD (and compete with VSL). Point is, if people see value in it and view it as a must-have tool that improves their work (in a price and quality that is in-line with the value of the level of the rest of the other similar activities in a field and the needs of the individual - value for money, purpose of use, justification...) they will buy it anyway.

Consider this... 8Dio can be viewed as an ambitious person. They want to be paid by something music-creation related. This applies to a very specific and small market. They also do what they can. They can't (or don't want to risk) to make a product worth something in the thousands, so they try to cut the costs (and even attempt to expand the market to sell more and reach their initial set profit goal by more sales with reduced prices; a mediation of quality gain for the buyer, personal gain and cost). Include what they think is essential and to a variety and degree of detail that makes sense for the current situation and ambition (plan).

And then I come in and say "Come on, 8Dio. Get serious! You can't possibly charge so little. You are being used!" or "Why are you even in the music business?" or "There's only room for the big guys here" Doesn't it ring nicely? Everybody is looking for a chance.

They help you by offering something affordable but they are also doing it to fulfill their personal need to create something music-related and also get by by doing that. You can say it's (partially) altruistic but it's also gain-related and self-fulfilling.

SO, in the end, it's about scaling economy/markets and money and not (just) helping poor musicians who can frankly benefit from it (accessibility to better quality), but could also live without it if it never existed (or find the next best thing; similar, cheaper or free).

The main sentiment of charging something (or even trading a service) is correct but it doesn't apply to every situation.

~~~

Thanks to everyone who shared their point of view (and probably expressing it better than I would). It's a topic with multiple angles and I think they're all valid. I could write much more but I'm really not in the mood right now. Maybe I'll get back to this.

P.S. Do you really require a 240-piece orchestra even if it costs 1k? Or 150 acoustic grand pianos playing together? Something to consider. (If you do, then good for you) [And I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad that they exist]

 

I have been a student of Sociology and Economics my entire life and my understanding of this entire subject is as follows -

1. Everyone wants to "buy" and "own" stuff. But they cannot because the "money" is not there...

2. Our societies are deeply affected by inflation and lower the person's income the more percentage of his income he spends on essentials like - Food,Transportation, Clothing and Housing. Therefore leaving him with nothing to spend for comforts and entertainment..

3. In the Music business and in the Auto Industry there is an increasing trend towards - Piracy and Pre-Owned respectively. This is because simply put - Products are priced competitively at the established profit margin of 200% to 400% the initial Cost Price of materials and Production Costs. For ex. If something is sold for 100 then the manufacturer probably spent 20 dollars making it. (Not adding Value added in later stages of production + Marketing&Advertising). In our case the Music Libraries are "downloads" meaning that there is no replication costs - technically one can produce infinite no. of these without any problem...

4. Where has the money gone? - The answer is shocking - actually there is not enough commodities in the world to match the money. In other words there is more Money (liquid/electronic) than there are Commodities. But this money is not distributed progressively. There are individuals that can afford to buy and run entire countries for decades without taxation. The Capitalism brigade hopes that people like these spend more - trickle down economics - but it cannot be forced. The Socialists believe these people need to be taxed heavily. The Communists believe these people need to give back to society As A Rule or else are punished! In either case concentration of wealth is ruining the Music Industry - the next door kid has no money to buy music..

5. How can Musicians earn money? - Traditionally, before the Industry hacked into Musician's works, money was made by - Patronage and Performances. Translated for the future it will mean a Musician and his peers will be supported by an ecosystem of Fans and Well-Wishers. He will have to perform Live and Sell Merchandise. His Music will however be FREE and he could only sell the MEDIUM in which his music is telecast - like Vinyl, CD/DVD, Video etc. and he will own the Rights to it. In the future Rights to Music for solely listening purposes will include Free Download. Licensing will be limited to Re-Use and Broadcasts. Also keep in mind that the Recording Industry in an Anomaly and not a Norm. The Norm will be set in the next 30 years or so...

6. For Hobbyists and Weekend Warriors advertising on their websites plus garnering a fan-base will pay off by a slight margin..This is important because Companies that are sitting on huge Cash-Reserves can and should invest in the Music World - this should be included in the Corporate Social Responsibility laws..This is actually being done with Films and Radio and so why not Music?

For everybody else it will be - Live,Merchandise and Broadcasts...

So what can we do? We can make more music..more and more until we have a sizable back-catalog and until we have a fan-base and a hit !!

 

Yes, I've found out about all kinds of things I wouldn't have known about otherwise.

 

This is my theory -

Music is the third Universal Language, after Mathematics and Morality. Even Aliens will understand it, probably, even though their number scales may be in decimals or even if they have a different model of whats good and bad..

So how do you make money with a language? Figure it out and you will have my eternal gratitude..

Right now music is a commodity, but 13 year olds have a very different view..but you still want to get paid right?! So, if you do scores for television you should get paid..How much is a variable and will be different from case to case..

 

Here's people making money with language: Link.

All snarkiness aside, yes, music is a universal language. And yet, people apply mathematics to produce software, products, engineered goods every day. A person's view of morality can even be sold (professional ethicists).

 

The real question here is: who's ready to starve?

Frito did.
Someone else?

 

Well, it's not like people don't have a choice. You can be a starving musician, but you can also work on the side. Some musicians I know earn enough money by getting hired by the studios to play for someone else, for example, and they also play for their own bands. Some musicians I know earn enough by playing live, doing gigs, or simply doing all of that. The problem is mainly for computer musicians who cannot do that, then there's no choice but to have some work on the side. I support myself mostly with computer maintenance and assembling PCs, but I also record musicians, mix and master all kinds of stuff, record live concerts, even trade with audio equipment on ebay. For me having various activities like that is also very interesting. I hate doing just one thing, it's boring.

 

Music is neither a service nor a commodity unless of course it is defined as such. Music is truth and beauty even in it's raw and emotionally turmoilic states, especially so. I have looked in many a dictionary and have found no mention of music defined as a commodity or service, but anything can be degraded in this way, even love. It is a paradigm of this crazy "the needs of money and control as godhead" status quo which kinda sucks to me, but is unlikely to change as long as people still remain asleep and get sucked into this crazy dream we dream. Hopefully one day we will all of us awaken to find this was all just as it is, a freaky, freaky dream. Ha, now I said it and can get back to creating some beautiful (hopefully) service and commodities.

British Dictionary definitions for music
music
/ˈmjuːzɪk/
noun
1.
an art form consisting of sequences of sounds in time, esp tones of definite pitch organized melodically, harmonically, rhythmically and according to tone colour
2.
such an art form characteristic of a particular people, culture, or tradition: Indian music, rock music, baroque music
3.
the sounds so produced, esp by singing or musical instruments
4.
written or printed music, such as a score or set of parts
5.
any sequence of sounds perceived as pleasing or harmonious
6.
(rare) a group of musicians: the Queen's music
7.
(informal) face the music, to confront the consequences of one's actions
8.
music to one's ears, something that is very pleasant to hear: his news is music to my ears
Word Origin
C13: via Old French from Latin mūsica, from Greek mousikē (tekhnē) (art) belonging to the Muses, from Mousa Muse

 

Getting paid is a skill owned by the profesional. You have to know people skills, value, niche, timing, have a pitch, know your legal rights, your role and where to get clients. Not all projects pay upfront but Here is a tip if the client has not figured out how to turn the music you provide into money then he probably can't pay you . Some times what appears to be free is realy paid take face book or pinsado place.in unpaid cases you should be responsible for the extra step required to covert the work to cash

In my book an amature works for free and expects the world to do the same for him because he gets paid in kind not cash.

 

"In my book an amature works for free and expects the world to do the same for him because he gets paid in kind not cash", you say eHeavy, but that is not true, not only for me but for everyone everywhere and at any time. What I am about to write is not to pat myself on the back, but rather to help you to see that what one believes shapes the world around them.

For many years I did healing work called Neuromuscular Re-education which is a very deep and intensive approach to bodywork that helps people to release patterns in their musculature, (many with debilitating injuries) with the added bonus to enable them make decisions both physically and emotionally, whereas before the seemingly hard wired patterns somatically dictated their dance through the world. There were people that could afford to pay me 150 dollars an hour, but so many others that could not. I either asked for monetary recompense on a sliding scale, or if they were poor, not ask for any money at all. I was trained by one of the best body workers in the world and was sought after by many for the work that I did. At least 25% of my clients were not paying customers including a whole afternoon once a week for terminally ill aids patients. I am no amateur but worked every working day on clients gratis. I never asked anything from them but almost 100% of the time they would do what they could, maybe paint me a picture, invite me for a meal at their home or something thoughtful like picking wild flowers and making creative bouquets for me. See what I mean?

 

Sounds like you have your business model down pat. Nothing wrong with probono work, in your line of work that's great advertising espesialy when you reach out to hospitals you cant find a more crdable referral. Word of mouth is king. You my good sir are a pro! NOT an amature. If you read my previous post again you will see why

 

You've summed it all up.
I guess we can close this thread now.