tim hall wrote: >On Thursday 08 September 2005 23:54, Russell Hanaghan wrote: > > >>My statement "muddying the waters" was >>actually more a chilidish jab at Tim for the same statement he made >>toward me for some twisted diatribe I used in a previous thread >> >> > >Heh :) > >I'm going to attempt to get back on-topic for a moment. > >The issues with making music for a living are not specific to Linux. Only a >very small percentage of performers and writers become rich through their >music. It's possible to have a number one hit and still be living on the >equivalent of welfare. Many people who get signed to major record labels >discover that all their money has been spent and mysteriously ended up in the >hands of some lawyers. For many musicians 'success' lasts a couple of years >and then they go back to the day job, being nobody special. > >There are other ways to make money from music, you can slog your way around >the pubs and clubs playing covers. You will notice that the engineers always >get paid. You could run a studio, write film music, teach guitar, lead stress >management workshops for corporate businesses. Linux doesn't really change >any of this. > >What we do have is a potential solution. It is possible, using Open Source >software to record an album for minimal outlay. A couple of hundred quid on >hardware. Using Creative Commons we also have a potential free distribution >network. So you can easily give your music away. > >How does this help us earn a living? I'm not talking about being a breadhead >here, I'm talking food, rent and bills. This must be the quandary faced by >most free software writers too. The software is free, music is free, what's >the problem? The problem I'm most acutely aware of is that in order to get >_good_ at anything you have to make certain life choices, you have to do that >thing every day, often to the exclusion of other activities that could be >making you stinking rich, well, maybe. > >Singles, remember them? Who ever made any money releasing singles? We have the >ability to release singles for free now, so release 2 or 3 singles on CC >licenses and if they want more they can buy the album. You can dramatically >save on the cost of producing demos this way too. We still charge for live >performances, although it has to be said, I still do a lot of that for free - >running a local folk club, benefit gigs, etc. And not forgetting, we can >charge people for setting up and providing support for their computer music >systems. > >At the end of the day, I write music and I want that music to be heard by >anyone who wants to hear it. I would dearly love not to have to do all the >other boring stuff that I have to do to survive and be able to concentrate >one-pointedly on my creativity. Wouldn't we all? > >The reality starts right here, right now. :) > > Agree. In fact I think it is better to earn a living doing something else (any day job would do) and leave the need to make music and express ourself to the time other people use to watch TV and play videogames. Wait a minute... I'm talking like my father! But this is also what experience told me. Nobody ever talk about this topics pointing out that bad music is also a kind of pollution. It is a mental and heart and soul pollution. Bad music is music made just to make money, not because someone is earning a lot of money, but because of the whole media landscape, that pushes its junk inside our heads. Thanks, c.
