Where do you get your music?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Hey, you can't blame me for asking, after all it is you I am asking. Have to be sure, can't rule out any type of idiocy.

Do you think the software he used would have been in place if people weren't paid to produce it?

I absolutely do, innovations, creations and development are not always purely driven by money. Some are, but most are born out of necessity.

People who create, create because it is in their nature to be creative.
People who innovate, innovate because it is in their nature to be innovative.

This wouldn't stop if the money in software dried up. I'm a computer network technician at heart, I do it because I love it, if I could do it after work as a hobby I would, and do. I wouldn't stop because I stopped getting paid.

Some of the best software and art ever developed was done so because the developer loved doing it. Look at true hackers, people who write "homebrew" software for Jailbroken iphones or games consoles. They don't get paid but they love it, so they do it. Would everyone give up their hobby if they knew there was no money in it?
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,155
1
81
7digital
amazon
juno
beatport
cdbaby
Direct from the artist
I also get a ton of free songs from various music blogs (stereogum, gorillavbear, etc.) They're usually only single songs but I've gotten quite a collection of great ones over the years (500+)
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
ah fuck it n/m

Fuck what?

7digital
amazon
juno
beatport
cdbaby
Direct from the artist
I also get a ton of free songs from various music blogs (stereogum, gorillavbear, etc.) They're usually only single songs but I've gotten quite a collection of great ones over the years (500+)

No one said that yet :hmm: Do you have Freddy Mercury's number?

Just kidding, Thanks for the advice :)
 
Last edited:

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
I disagree, certain things should be free to everyone. Music, Software etc. Also I realise that Van Gogh wasn't famous until he was dead, I don't give a shit if people become famous, if people are just making music to become famous then they definitely don't deserve my money.

I just have to point out to you software does have a practical use. By your definition it should not be free however above you say it should be free.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I just have to point out to you software does have a practical use. By your definition it should not be free however above you say it should be free.

I'm not arguing that software is art, I just also believe the world should be open source, it's nothing to do with my art argument... Although there are similarities. :hmm:
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
I'm not arguing that software is art, I just also believe the world should be open source, it's nothing to do with my art argument... Although there are similarities. :hmm:

I think the "artist" should decide whether or not they want their shit to be free, not the consumer.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I think the "artist" should decide whether or not they want their shit to be free, not the consumer.

I'm not trying to put pressure on artists to release their music free, I'm instead saying that I believe that the social convention of paying for music should change.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
I'm not trying to put pressure on artists to release their music free, I'm instead saying that I believe that the social convention of paying for music should change.

i'll go ahead and disagree with you there.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
I've given in and embraced the rental model. I've got a Rhapsody subscription. I can deliver about any tune I want to my PC, my iPhone, my wife's MP3 player, and my whole house distributed audio system for $14 a month. No worries about trojan horses, cease and desist notices from recording industry, crappy recordings, ect. It's all right there easily available.

I've got the $10/month version, which just puts music on my computer and my mp3 player. I love it. I cycle through new music like a madman. Sure, the monthly fee adds up (I've been on either Napster or Rhapsody for about 6 years now), but I've literally gone though hundreds of albums.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
i understand that making good music costs money and am willing to support artists in their endeavors.

Fair enough, conversely I believe that good music can cost nothing, and that if the incentive to make money from art were to disappear then only true artists would emerge.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,093
30,446
136
... Would everyone give up their hobby if they knew there was no money in it?
No, but they wouldn't be able to devote their life to it. They would have less time to spend on it and therefore make less progress in their lifetime, slowing the advancement of everyone else. They would be too busy trying to find a way to put food on the table some other way.

You are also confusing someone who creates 'art' for the money and someone who creates art because they love it and that art is so good that people are willing to spend money on it.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Fair enough, conversely I believe that good music can cost nothing, and that if the incentive to make money from art were to disappear then only true artists would emerge.

artists can't make art w/o materials

in my case materials happens to be cabs/amps/guitars/drums/studio time/pedals/etc

No, but they wouldn't be able to devote their life to it. They would have less time to spend on it and therefore make less progress in their lifetime, slowing the advancement of everyone else. They would be too busy trying to find a way to put food on the table some other way.

You are also confusing someone who creates 'art' for the money and someone who creates art because they love it and that art is so good that people are willing to spend money on it.

this
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
No, but they wouldn't be able to devote their life to it. They would have less time to spend on it and therefore make less progress in their lifetime, slowing the advancement of everyone else. They would be too busy trying to find a way to put food on the table some other way.

You are also confusing someone who creates 'art' for the money and someone who creates art because they love it and that art is so good that people are willing to spend money on it.

I understand that, and they would be free to do so but rather than paying for the music they could donate, the same as open source software. People with connections wouldn't have a leg up on people without, there would be no music production companies you could release your music on radio stations or over the internet for free, everyone could listen and just like a popular youtube video it would spread across the planet. For free.

artists can't make art w/o materials

in my case materials happens to be cabs/amps/guitars/drums/studio time/pedals/etc

But I'm assuming you could buy them without being paid for the resultant music?
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
But I'm assuming you could buy them without being paid for the resultant music?

sure, if you had the money. but where do you have the money if no one is paying for your art?

work? if you work where do you have time to develop good music?
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
sure, if you had the money. but where do you have the money if no one is paying for your art?

work? if you work where do you have time to develop good music?

You have the same time, that Albert Einstein had when he came up with special relativity while working at the patent office. It should be enough.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
You have the same time, that Albert Einstein had when he came up with special relativity while working at the patent office. It should be enough.

once again I'll disagree WRT music and say it's way better for a musician to be a 24/7 professional musician putting food on the table with his art, rather than putting food on the table with a job and being a musician as a hobby.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
once again I'll disagree WRT music and say it's way better for a musician to be a 24/7 professional musician putting food on the table with his art, rather than putting food on the table with a job and being a musician as a hobby.

Fair enough, I disagree naturally, but fair enough.
 

Demo24

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
8,356
9
81
You have the same time, that Albert Einstein had when he came up with special relativity while working at the patent office. It should be enough.


He only worked at the patent office because he had to get a job to support himself/family. The ideas behind this theory were already forming, and somewhat helped by his position there but the final parts of this theory appeared after he worked at the patent office. He was finally able to get a job in his field which let him do both.

That's really not that good of a comparison. Mainly because he worked on the theory IN the patent office during his working hours. Einstein was a fanatic and would lock himself away for many hours when working on these theories, but this occurred largely after he gained a position in the field.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
He only worked at the patent office because he had to get a job to support himself/family. The ideas behind this theory were already forming, and somewhat helped by his position there but the final parts of this theory appeared after he worked at the patent office. He was finally able to get a job in his field which let him do both.

That's really not that good of a comparison. Mainly because he worked on the theory IN the patent office during his working hours. Einstein was a fanatic and would lock himself away for many hours when working on these theories, but this occurred largely after he gained a position in the field.

True. (this has been gone into in similar detail in previous posts) it was just an example of how someone can formulate genius without doing it for money.
 

Demo24

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
8,356
9
81
True. (this has been gone into in similar detail in previous posts) it was just an example of how someone can formulate genius without doing it for money.


Obviously, but how is that even relevant. Einstein ended up getting paid for it (perhaps not directly, but through extremely related events thereafter). Musicians crop up all the time and then they are paid to continue their works because people have deemed them enjoyable. Pretty simple, fail to see any conflict here.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Obviously, but how is that even relevant. Einstein ended up getting paid for it (perhaps not directly, but through extremely related events thereafter). Musicians crop up all the time and then they are paid to continue their works because people have deemed them enjoyable. Pretty simple, fail to see any conflict here.

My argument is that it shouldn't be required, Art should be free to those who don't want to pay, if you want to donate that is your choice but it shouldn't be required.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
My argument is that it shouldn't be required, Art should be free to those who don't want to pay, if you want to donate that is your choice but it shouldn't be required.

isn't that the reality of the current market situation?