I agree, work of an artistic nature has soo many wonderful qualities. I think one of the root problems currently is that we live in a society of quantification. Everything must have a value and worth assigned - which just doesn't fit into the artistic perspective. Something can be trash to one person but a masterpiece to the next. For example many people must consider cave paintings to be primitive and unworthy of their time, but to me there's such immense beauty at sites like Cueva De Las Manos or Laas Gaal. Art's too subjective to be confined to one price - and I think the nature of art is so enigmatical it's an area that's bound to be underfunded and disregarded as important..

Question

Do you think art should be free or that it should become a product for profit?

Im asking for your personal opinion cause ive always thought art should be free and accessible to anyone but i also think artists should be able to live of their art.

i has a dilemma.

Your comment is a logical fallacy. Computers did not exist in the 60s.

"I wonder why those cavemen stopped singing?"--illegal downloads:

...doesn't work, bro.


Different world...different reasons. Most likely a poor marketing strategy. The fact that people bought Neil Young or Bob Dylan albums tells me that it's not that the music sucked. Crappy music sells millions of copies every day.

My comment was a sarcastic remark.

Funnily enough computers did exist in the 60's, if you know the history of them...

I've been signed several times. Bargaining power? Labels are banks that loan artists money to polish the band into a marketable product, from the way they dress to the kinds of social issues the bands back. Once the label molds the band and it's image, they throw in some tour support and sell the band to fans with a marketing package that includes radio, venue support and SWAG. If the label doesn't recoup in X amount of time, they drop the band and write them off on their taxes. The only way you have any say in your art is if you've already made your own record and proven you can sell lots of records by yourselves. Some labels have tiny networks, and some have huge networks. A full package deal from Halogen Records will be completely different than a full package deal from Atlantic. You need to know a lot before you sign with the devil. Just get yourself an good entertainment attorney, you don't really need the label until your lawyer advises you.

Other than those items, Labels are completely useless. If an artist already has a following and sells their own records, books their own shows, they don't need a label, they need a distribution house and a tour manager.

I have a PhD in literature with a minor in philosophy. I've taken a few university level history classes in my day. The difference in technology between now and the 60s is like comparing a plastic ice scraper to a Go-Pro digital camera.

:laughing:

The World Wide Web did not exist.

I wasn't comparing them was I?

For some reason I want to say Zero knows that. But I could be wrong. :laughing: Edumacation is a powerful bro.

I know. Ha! I'm just mess in' too. :)

This looks like a cool site. Is the gang pretty regular here?

Well...you compared them when you used The Monks example in reference to "illegal downloads in the 60s."

It's called juxtaposition. :)