>Maluvia, you wouldn't believe me, but this time I agree on everything. :-) I knew we were of the same mind in spirit, Cesare. Sometimes words just really get in the way. [hug] >About the definition, at least according to a google search I've been >the first to use: 'web releasing musician'. I think it says it all. >Music released on the web instead of in shops. This is a perfectly sensible, honest, descriptive term - I just tend to agree with Carotinho that it is not very 'catchy'. (Just trying to think of a term that gets that idea across in shorter, more memorable fashion.) But I also realize you're not interested in 'gimmicky' marketing ploys, either - and I respect that. Unfortunately, it just seems that many people need an extra nudge of that sort to feel like opening their wallets - to feel like they are buying into a concept or image, not just a product. I wish it was not that way. Hollywood has insinuated its mentality into nearly every facet of modern society, and a big part of that mentality is that glamour is the commodity - and *they* get to define what is 'glamorous' - up to now. >I started to see also website that proudly say 'not available in shops', Actually, that sounds like a good phrase to put on one's site - where it's applicable. "Available only online" evokes the idea that someone might be missing out on something if they rely only on bricks-and-mortar establishments to purchase goods, and plays into that - to me utterly bizarre - mentality that something has more value because it is 'scarce'. >About your goal to earn a living with music, what I was trying to >convince you all about is that it wasn't possible for non-commercial >artists to do this before. I've grown up listening mostly to music from >artists who had a day job. This could be possible now thanks to the Web. I agree. It is certainly not a technological barrier - we have all the tools to make it happen. It is a *psychological* barrier that we are challenged to overcome. - Maluvia
