Renissance

[whingknutt]

I am going to try to post any interesting thoughts that I have related to modern society, philosophy, and politics. Hopefully my comments will not always be rants, but rather a solid opening for good conversation. And I also hope that they will not be too long in general, though generally good enough that the long one's are worth reading. Too

Comments

[creatrixx]

I don't agree with you for the same reason I have trouble supporting the libertarians. If the music is available free to the public, our selfish society generally will not put money into the artist. I just don’t believe that enough people will do it. Also, the reason why groups like N'Sync and Brittany are around is because that is what a lot of people like, so maybe groups like that would get more support and whoever can get a better financial backing to get promoted would get more donations. Companies would still find it profitable to support pop artist X because if they can work out a deal that they will get money or promos through artist X, then it is worth it for them to put money in for advertising for the artist. So whoever gets the most advertising gets the most donations because people support what they are familiar with *and* our society is generally susceptible to advertising.

[benana]

Well, much as I don't usually agree with these types of ideas, I doubt it would be worse than what we do nowadays. I also think it would have the fortunate side effect of having the artists who really produce great work that touches people get more money, since people are going to feel more strongly about it, than the crap today that gets bought because it's popular.
However, it would throw things into chaos... particularly with stuff like radio stations, and using the music in advertisements (if the artist makes the music freely available to everyone, he/she no longer has the right to say that they can't use it for something he/she doesn't like... it'd be a definite sore spot with some people).
Actually, from what I recall hearing, they do have options to support artists directly already, albeit without the sanctioned free downloads. I don't know how widely-used they are, but they are out there. I remember David Crosby talking about it on Rockline about a year and a half ago; something related to Apple, I think.

[dontime]

lol I almost forgot to go back and read this!!

I like the idea man. Then again, I am a libertarian lol

I guess the biggest problem would be this: It would be hard to generate the initial capital to get recording time. If no one hears of you they don't contribute and if no one contributes you'll never get heard.

As of now the execs pick up who they want and fund them, but its well known that they screw the artists in the deal and do to this very money issue force them into signing contracts that are bad for them. So the execs make the big bucks and the artists get shit.

So, I definately like your idea but how do you get the initial backing - the people that fund it now wouldn't have anything to gain by it as the money would go to the artist instead of them. Unless you made it literally like a stock market and they got their investment back plus a profit if the artist did well... Thats probably not a very good system but thats definately what the problem would be. Who invests the starting capital?

[whingknutt]

well, other established artists would have to search out talent and give them initial funding. Or people would have to hear a home recorded demo-disc. Or "Art Collectors" would have to seek out talent. Or a studio would have to "lend" time. The last is most likely, and then the studios would be the one's that screw the artists, though they would only be able to screw them once...

[dontime]

ahhh thats not a bad idea. The studio's could 'loan' the time. I bet that would be pretty successful.