So, what is music worth to you...talking actual dollar value.

D

Dogsinplastic

avuncular to no one
I realize that I like paying $10 (give or take) for CDs or downloads, but that for as much as I love music I'd pay a lot more. Of course my collection would be smaller and/or more selective. Given everything I know about what goes into learning to play and then creating music further coupled with its impact on me I'd find a way to pay up to $50 an album for that stuff I love.

While I don't get to make these decisions and wouldn't ever expect them to be implemented, my caveat is as follows:

At that cost, I'd also want a significant majority (75% or more) to go directly to the artists, at least those that write and perform their own material.

For those that deal in songs written by others, it would only be right that they split that profit with the writers, arrangers, and musicians that help them make the records. I realize a lot of this stuff is already in place in regards to performance royalties and publishing royalties. But the significance of the contributions of the artist's band and/or studio players could also be quantified and people be compensated justly. Obviously it gets quite tricky.

I try to buy direct from the artists when I can, which should give them a greater percentage of profit per sale. However, I'm not too sure about that for any artist signed to a label of prominence.

That's my worthless $0.02
 
Not that anyone cares, but here's what got me thinking about it:

I've been working a certificate in copyright management after having spent a good part of the previous working on determining what we can use in various courses (including MOOCs) and seeking permissions when needed. I also just watched Downloaded, the documentary about Napster, and had previously watched Artifact about 30 Seconds to Mars and their conflict with EMI (which turned out to be about a lot more than just Leto's band).

In Artifact the band's manager mentions how there's at least a generation that thinks you're a chump for paying for music when it's all free. The Napster movie pointed to that and it turns our Sean Parker (Fanning's partner in Napster) was instrumental in helping Spotify gain traction in 2010. All of this and previous knowledge of how the RIAA has been screwing over musicians under the guise of inflated (and colluded) studio costs, promotional costs, and various other bullshit, they take way too much of the money and leave the artists with a laughable percentage of sales. Now they do the 360 deals that have them taking a percentage of live revenues, merch profits, and any other way they can capitalize on the success of the artists.

I love reading, but usually I'm one read and done. With music I'm always revisiting the music and just adding to list of artists that speak to me.
 
When I did buy albums, the vast majority of my collection was bought from the used bin. So regardless of what I paid for it, the artist saw zero dollars in their bank account. I try to get out to shows to make up for it, and maybe buy a t-shirt if you're not price gouging me. I'd probably spend $500 a year on albums.

Now I pay $120 a year for a streaming service (was MOG, now Beats, likely moving to Google Play). The artist still sees none of my money, and I still try to get out to shows and maybe buy a t-shirt if you're not price gouging.

While I don't think music should be free, I also don't think I should over pay for it. For an artist to make .01 cents instead of 10 cents surely builds up over time. And maybe that's why a concert t-shirt is $40. But my $10 to $100 ticket hopefully does far more for them.
 
The older I get, the less it's worth. Technology obviously is a major factor; we simply don't listen to music the way we used to, back when an album was an event and it lived on your turntable for weeks. Now we load up "devices" and shuffle through countless random tracks, hoping for a pleasant surprise.

When I was younger, I spent at least $100 a month on recordings and devoted a considerable amount of time going to record collector shows and reading music zines to make sure my money was well spent for what would amount to a few hours of music at most. Nowadays I spend a tiny fraction of that amount and have access to more music than ever. That rare import I would have paid $25 for at the local shop is now probably online in its entirety on YouTube. And I'm still bored out of my gourd.

So what's it worth? Not much. I still pay regular prices for new stuff from ever-dwindling list of current artists I like. But everything else is just out there and free.
 
I don't often buy music (I don't really listen to music all that much, either). I'm comfortable paying 99 cents a song and $10 an album to download, and I'll pay $15 for a CD if I'm buying it in person from the artist. I probably spend less that $50 purchasing recordings a year, but I wouldn't buy more if it were cheaper.
 
Hard to say. I still buy digital albums sometimes, but I mostly stream stuff or listen to the giant collection of music I have acquired over the years. I find I listen to less an less new music these days. I may buy a couple of albums a year now, whereas I used to buy that a month about 15 years ago. Everyone has theories as to why album sales are so poor today, but I think at least some of that falls on the artists themselves. One or two 'good tracks' and 9 filler songs that suck doesn't make for a compelling reason to purchase. It just seems years ago, that ratio was reversed, with 9 good songs and one to two fillers. Maybe it is just me. Of course, I don't paint all artists with the same broad brush, as there are many that put out kickass albums, and those are the few I buy.

I think a digital download album should cost 8-10 bucks, and I would like to see the artists get a big cut of that, and the label and distribution channel get way less.
 
Let me put it another way, regardless of what we pay and have accustomed to, would you pay $50 for albums (or a collection of songs from an artist) if that's what the price was? Similarly, do you think a book selling for $27.99 MSRP is worth that over a CD that lists for $15.99? I know you can get the book for up to 40% from Amazon and 30% off the CD (or more if you go download), but are you okay with other art being valued higher than music?

I'd gladly pay more for the music. Going to concerts is a huge expense because in addition to the tickets, we have to hire a sitter, worry transportation, figure out dinner for the boys (and the sitter), etc. As such I end up spending my music dollars on recordings. I have about three hours of crappy commuting Mon-Fri, so I get a lot of time to listen to music or read. Often I'm doing both, but I spend most of my time listening to music. New music and artist, old music and artists, unfamiliar genres, forgetten/missed, stuff I thought I "hated" but have grown to appreciate and/or love. As such, the way that works best for me is buying their music, and I wish more of my money was going directly to the artists.

I guess I'm in the minority as I'm still buying music regularly. I have a subscription to emusic.com, I'm always scouring Amazon for back catalog stuff, and I use Spotify to confirm intended purchases (e.g. Chrissie Hynde's latest will next). I even take a look at the shitty recommended/"you might also like" lists on Amazon, Spotify and elsewhere. There's also this crazy group of weirdos that I know from an online forum that expose to new or different stuff all the time...some of it is actually quite good!? Go figure.
 
This is a tough question for me, and it's something I've thought about a bit. From the listener's point of view, it's a simple matter. The music has a price, is that price worth the music? If yes, buy. If no, don't buy. But from the artist's point of view, it's much more difficult. If I price my CD at $10, I sell to everybody who values it at $10 or more. However I miss out on selling to people who might pay $8 or $5 or $3 for it. The perfect system would sell the music at $10 to those who value it for $10, and at $3 to those who will only pay $3 for it. But that doesn't work in reality for obvious reasons. Once the $10 folk find out they can get it for $3, they'll stop paying $10.

I listen to a lot of music through free streaming services (8tracks, iHeartRadio, Last.fm, Pandora, etc.). There's a lot of music I listen to while working or reading (classical, jazz, hip hop instrumentals, etc.) that I'd probably never pay for. At least I wouldn't pay as much for that music as I would for music from someone like Rush or other favorite bands. But it doesn't cost these musicians a dime (practically) to distribute another download since we're in the digital age. So if it's between selling me their music for $0.50 or not selling it at all, they're better off to just take $0.50 economically.

I think the best model I see these days is something like the kickstarter campaigns. Sell the music for really cheap, or make it donations. But for people who donate at a certain level, offer bonuses. A T-shirt, a signed CD, a poster, a sticker, a vinyl copy, backstage passes, etc. That way the people who will only pay $2 for the album still get to listen to the music, and I really believe in making music available to the masses, yet the die-hard fans can still support the band and get something extra in return.

Selling 1 million albums at $2 because "Meh, what's $2? No biggie." is a lot better than selling only 10,000 to your die hard fans at $10. But, I'm no economist, and I've done no research, so I have no idea what the price point charts would look like for most music in the real world.

So to (not) answer your question, it really depends on the music, even within the same band. I wouldn't pay as much for Snakes and Arrows as I would for Moving Pictures. :shrug:
 
eloydrummerboy said:
This is a tough question for me, and it's something I've thought about a bit. From the listener's point of view, it's a simple matter. The music has a price, is that price worth the music? If yes, buy. If no, don't buy. But from the artist's point of view, it's much more difficult. If I price my CD at $10, I sell to everybody who values it at $10 or more. However I miss out on selling to people who might pay $8 or $5 or $3 for it. The perfect system would sell the music at $10 to those who value it for $10, and at $3 to those who will only pay $3 for it. But that doesn't work in reality for obvious reasons. Once the $10 folk find out they can get it for $3, they'll stop paying $10.

I listen to a lot of music through free streaming services (8tracks, iHeartRadio, Last.fm, Pandora, etc.). There's a lot of music I listen to while working or reading (classical, jazz, hip hop instrumentals, etc.) that I'd probably never pay for. At least I wouldn't pay as much for that music as I would for music from someone like Rush or other favorite bands. But it doesn't cost these musicians a dime (practically) to distribute another download since we're in the digital age. So if it's between selling me their music for $0.50 or not selling it at all, they're better off to just take $0.50 economically.

I think the best model I see these days is something like the kickstarter campaigns. Sell the music for really cheap, or make it donations. But for people who donate at a certain level, offer bonuses. A T-shirt, a signed CD, a poster, a sticker, a vinyl copy, backstage passes, etc. That way the people who will only pay $2 for the album still get to listen to the music, and I really believe in making music available to the masses, yet the die-hard fans can still support the band and get something extra in return.

Selling 1 million albums at $2 because "Meh, what's $2? No biggie." is a lot better than selling only 10,000 to your die hard fans at $10. But, I'm no economist, and I've done no research, so I have no idea what the price point charts would look like for most music in the real world.

So to (not) answer your question, it really depends on the music, even within the same band. I wouldn't pay as much for Snakes and Arrows as I would for Moving Pictures. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I agree with everything, but I'm also wishing I project my passion for music to the masses as well as an appreciation for a broad spectrum of music. Basically I think music is incredibly undervalued, even within the business and most shockingly by the musicians. I mean some people will spend thousands of dollars on a suit they'll wear a few times and when I goes out of style within a a few years, they'll drop another few grand on a new one. Conversely, that favorite album they've been listening to for years and has priceless and wonderful memories attached to it...they would never have purchased it were priced at more than $20.00. Same with easily dropping $50-100 bucks on a bar tab with some regularity, $40 on a case of smokes, whatever an once of weed costs, even thousands of dollars on computers that they might use to avoid buying music. But paying more than $10 on a cd or download...FUCK THAT NOISE!

But fuck my bullshit. I'm just being frustrated vicariously for all the amazing artists that I love that haven't reach the prominence I'm projecting on them.
 
Dogsinotpalc said:
Let me put it another way, regardless of what we pay and have accustomed to, would you pay $50 for albums (or a collection of songs from an artist) if that's what the price was? Similarly, do you think a book selling for $27.99 MSRP is worth that over a CD that lists for $15.99? I know you can get the book for up to 40% from Amazon and 30% off the CD (or more if you go download), but are you okay with other art being valued higher than music?

I'd gladly pay more for the music. Going to concerts is a huge expense because in addition to the tickets, we have to hire a sitter, worry transportation, figure out dinner for the boys (and the sitter), etc. As such I end up spending my music dollars on recordings. I have about three hours of crappy commuting Mon-Fri, so I get a lot of time to listen to music or read. Often I'm doing both, but I spend most of my time listening to music. New music and artist, old music and artists, unfamiliar genres, forgetten/missed, stuff I thought I "hated" but have grown to appreciate and/or love. As such, the way that works best for me is buying their music, and I wish more of my money was going directly to the artists.

I guess I'm in the minority as I'm still buying music regularly. I have a subscription to emusic.com, I'm always scouring Amazon for back catalog stuff, and I use Spotify to confirm intended purchases (e.g. Chrissie Hynde's latest will next). I even take a look at the shitty recommended/"you might also like" lists on Amazon, Spotify and elsewhere. There's also this crazy group of weirdos that I know from an online forum that expose to new or different stuff all the time...some of it is actually quite good!? Go figure.
Click to expand...

Well, you touch on something interesting there with your mention of "confirming intended purchases". Looking back, with 20/20 hindsight, and knowing what I know now, and other cliches that won't be mentioned, yeah, there are probably a couple of albums that I would pay $50 for. That is, in some odd scenario where I'm robbed, and the only way I'll ever listen to that music again is to pay the "ransom". But when I first purchased those albums would I have paid $50? No fucking way. There's really no way of knowing how much you're going to like an album before buying it. You can guess, if it's a well established artist with a good history, or if you can preview the album a bit, but it won't become a personal favorite, a "classic", for you until after 1,000 listens. And that's the point, long after having originally paid $10 for it, that you can look back and say "You know what, this album is worth much more than $10 to me."

How do you know the true value of something before you can experience it?

With my "kickstarter" model, you could always come back, after paying $3 for the digital download, and cough up some more dough for the vinyl, or a T-shirt, or concert tickets, or a signed CD. I mean, a lot of this you can do right now, and have been able to do all along. But the problem is that society needs to be reminded of how the system works. Right now people have a disconnect between the music they hear and the artist who struggles to write and perform it. Same way that people have a disconnect between the burger they eat at McD's or buy wrapped up at Wal-Mart, and the cow it came from.

I listen to a lot of podcasts and I really like the model there. It's all free, and you donate if you like it. And they remind you, the only way they keep putting them out is if you keep donating. You pay them directly, they get the money, (and some from advertising), and they keep making the content you like. It's simple and you feel the connection.

The music industry isn't like that. There's that big corporation in the way. "The Man." And nobody cares about making "The Man" rich. He's already rich. So nobody wants to pay very much for music. It needs to go back to a system where the money goes directly to the artists and people need to be aware of it.
 
To the OP -

I would pay $50 to support an artist I believed in. That said, I'd probably less inclined to take random chances on the unfamiliar.

Not necessarily a good example here, but I go to the movie theatre way more often than I buy Blu-Rays.

That's just me, though.
 
I spend a lot on music these days. But that's probably largely because I'm aiming my addictive personality at records. And I don't really pay to go to shows any more, so I feel like I should support my favorite artists by buying the albums.
 
I feel comfortable paying around $15 for CD's and $5-$10 for local stuff. If the case and artwork is fancy I don't mind paying extra. I have yet to buy digital music but I think $.50-$1 per song is fair.
 
I'm a big jerk where art is concerned. Art makes life more enjoyable but it's not essential to survival. Moreover, artists create for their own enjoyment.

Despite what the self-help personal success bullshit books say, almost nobody makes a living doing something they would do for free. If I come upon enough money to survive without going to work, my employer can fuck right off. I won't read another fucking contract or sit in a meeting with bullshit-throwing consultants (including my sociopath boss) ever again.

...uh sorry... got personal there for a second...

Anyway, I might be like the typical art consumer. I have no patience whatsoever for the "everything should be free" fucknuts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their ilk. You aren't about free speech. You're about free beer. Stop bullshitting. If the artist doesn't want you to share the work without compensation, don't fucking do it. If the artist signed away his/her rights to an evil corporate empire, that's not your concern. Sooner or later, you will cross the line from hurting Sony and start hurting Joe Bedroom Musician. That makes you a thief and an asshole.

If I like a tune and want it in my playlist, I'll purchase the privilege. I might give it a few free spins on Youtube first, but I eventually end up getting it because $1-2 is a very reasonable price. The problem with buying a $10-15 "album" concept is you are lucky to get 2 or 3 good songs. The rest is stuff that needs to be reworked or out-and-out filler. The only time I will do that is if I'm really interested in everything the artist does rather than just wanting a tune I like.
 
Around 10-12 dollars for an album, plus or minus. More if there is something extra. I generally prefer a physical album on CD or otherwise, and like good album art. I also greatly prefer cardboard holders rather than jewel cases. I hate jewel cases.
 
USian Pie said:
Anyway, I might be like the typical art consumer. I have no patience whatsoever for the "everything should be free" fucknuts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their ilk. You aren't about free speech. You're about free beer. Stop bullshitting. If the artist doesn't want you to share the work without compensation, don't fucking do it. If the artist signed away his/her rights to an evil corporate empire, that's not your concern. Sooner or later, you will cross the line from hurting Sony and start hurting Joe Bedroom Musician. That makes you a thief and an asshole.
Click to expand...

Based on how most folks are, you're far from typical. It seems the new typical art consumer think it either is or should be free. Part of this assumption is based off of how disposable art is to them. Again, they'll spend more on a pair shoes than they're willing to spend on music for a year. But I'm ranting too much.
 
The value is getting less and less for me. When I was a kid, your only option for free music was FM radio or (later on) MTV. So if those places didn't play music you liked, you had no choice but to go out and buy the record. With Pandora, Youtube and Spotify, I can listen to whatever I want pretty much wherever I am, so the need to buy it isn't as important. That and just growing up and having more financial responsibilities really limits the funds I have available for music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top