What annoys me about this is that no one is stopping him giving his work away for free in any manner he sees fit, so why does he feel the need to wish for the restriction of the rights of other artists? The two are not mutually exclusive - we can have legal, free music given away by consenting artists AND a working digital marketplace for those who prefer to sell their wares. By all means be pro-sharing of your own work, just not of other artists' against their wishes.

I think he's entitled to express his opinion.

Besides, it does make sense:

If he thinks his music is worthless, it's perfectly natural to give it away.

My music, on the other hand, is valuable so I sell it. And I'll sue everyone who steals it.

Just goes to show how different we all are.

his music is quite worthless

Are we listening to the same song? Where in the song does he wish for for the restriction of the rights of other artists? I didn't hear anything about sharing other artists' work against their wishes.

another hobbyist shill for google, what-ev-er...

But can we so easily separate the artists that want to sell over controlled channels, and those who don't?  

I think the answer is that we can't -- perhaps the biggest, most wealthy superstars can wield a hammer with some success online, but that is a limited upper-crust.  The rest I think are subject to mob rule.

/paul

I agree this is a non-starter as an article.  This musician can do whatever he wants and if he was smart(er) he would keep the free pond as small as possible.  Oh sorry, I forget, making a living from his craft isn't part of his strategy.

Its' all about choice and if the artist, creator, owner, worker doesn't make that choice than it is theft; even if he's a plummer.

Smells like Pirate Desperation... who are these guys now? Warner Bros? They're now the Gate Keepers? Laughable!

http://thetrichordist.com/2012/04/07/smells-like-pirate-desperation/

but it's an old story anyway...

"who are these guys now?"

Convicted criminals.

Aside from that, they're still the creeps who made millions from providing access to child pornography and other people's stolen property.

Is this really worth a headline?

Most hobbyists are pro-'sharing'. And why shouldn't they be?

something about this smells wrong.

first of all, the video is clever & well done, and would have taken quite a long time to produce. a simple google search shows who it's done by (they specialize in music videos). So it serves a purpose as an ad for the video company (who probably didn't get paid for the few weeks work, because it's a relative of the singer).

it -- the song -- also seems to be specifically created to be 'viral', and so no wonder pirate bay/music is free brigade is promoting it.

a couple more seconds of googling & it turns out this guy is signed to a management group, a guy who used to work at artista, etc., so how D.I.Y can you be when you work with a guy who oversaw Mariah Carey's career? 

so i smell a little insincerity here.

also, as someone else pointed out: easy to promote free when you don't need to get paid cuz you have no expenses (no rent, etc) and are still a hobbyist. 

ps i only hope the video production co./songwriter didn't receive money from kim dotcom or whoever

 

"ps i only hope the video production co./songwriter didn't receive money from kim dotcom or whoever"

Very interesting point!

The commercial Piracy Industry is facing unprecedented resistance right now, so we should expect a lot of lame lobbying from organized crime syndicates during the next few months.

The problem here is that while he gets to have a choice to give his music away, those of you who want to sell yours at a fair market price are not given the same choice. Imagine if there was some dude who made candy and gave it out for free at his door like every day was Halloween. His prerogative. Then if you and I run candy stores on the same main street in town, we compete. We find ourselves in the sad situation where it is permissable to steall all the marketable candy and then give it away in bags on the interenet (or charge 1¢ for it) while others are trying to sell it at a profit or give it away on their own terms. The point is the CREATOR (not God, the songwriters and performers) get to choose. I would love to see the reaction if some of the haters and ignoramuses on this board had their work stolen and given away for free. Any work. Writing, brick-laying, web design, whatever. How did music become like rusty tap water and have the same value? What happened?!

"How did music become like rusty tap water and have the same value? What happened?"

Google.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/

"How did music become like rusty tap water and have the same value? What happened?"

The means to create content became cheap as dirt and even easier to use. The music and video here (both very clever) are labor intensive, not tech or knowledge intensive. In combination with an indiscriminate and pervasive search engine (i.e. Google), you get the perfect media storm.

"The means to create content became cheap as dirt and even easier to use."

Pro instruments & gear are more expensive than ever, it still costs $100k+ to produce an album, and it still takes an incredible amount of talent and hard work to make a hit.

This is patently, patently false. It takes talent & hard work, for sure, but records can be recorded as cheaply as you're willing to record them. The rig that Butch Walker recorded his first top 5 hit on could probably be purchased for less than a grand today.

http://www.rspe.com/Music/butch.html

We all know that story just like we know how Springsteen recorded Nebraska on a Portastudio.

But do you know why we know these stories?

Because they are exceptions. That's what makes them bedtime stories in our line of work.

Your statement that "records can be recorded as cheaply as you're willing to record them" is typical Pirate Speak and only true for hobbyists.

I'm glad you agree that it takes talent to make a hit -- but it's strange you don't understand that this required amount of talent is the exact factor that makes it so incredibly expensive to make a hit.

Ask anyone who ever worked with the good doctors Luke and Dre...

They're exceptions pricely because everyone treats them as exceptions. Do you think Dr. Dre could produce a hit record in a hotel room with 1 mic, a preamp, a Macbook Pro, & a pair of Beatz headphones? Of course he could. Absolutely. And no one would be able to tell the difference. There is nothing, technologically, preventing him from doing that. Does he? No. Why? Because there's an ecosystem in place that requires "hit" records to cost six figures.

No one HAS to use studios that were built in a different technological age. No one HAS to use unnecessarily expensive equipment. If for no other reason than the returns just don't justify it.

Practically speaking, not everyone can be Butch Walker or Bon Iver or Bruce Springsteen. And if your argument is that you can't bring in talent for less than $100,000, that's fine. It's not true, but it's not easy to find people who are going to do good work on a budget record. But it's certainly not because "pro instruments and gear are more expensive than ever." It's just not. I mean, that defies logic... technology makes things cheaper, period. It becomes better & cheaper over time. That's elementary. What does anyone need to make a hit record that Butch Walker didn't need? Nothing.

And $1,000 is an unrealistic figure unless you're Butch Walker. Not everyone can do it all themselves, but that doesn't mean $100,000 should be the bar. There's a lot of room for compromise there. And anyone who's hoping to make a profit when 40,000 sales might get you a #1 album ought to be as frugal as technology affords.

We're just not in a period where flying to europe & recording with Dr Luke makes very much sense for all but a handful of multi-million dollar marketing campaign beneficiaries, & even then it's very questionable. And a return to those days is five or ten years away. And it's not going to get any easier to sell records during that period. But you can bet your ass that technology will continue to make the equipment better, cheaper, & more portable.

"technology makes things cheaper, period. It becomes better & cheaper over time. That's elementary."

I don't know where you live -- but it's not in the real world.

All of my instruments, amps, compressors, eq's, microphones, preamps, etc. are more expensive today than ever before.

Do yourself a favour, check the price developments for the stuff pro studios use; neves, neumanns, fenders, gibsons, mesas, UA, etc.

Right, most of us don't use tape machines and plates anymore, but instead we've got ridiculously expensive ad/da converters and bricastis.

Add the price of hired talent, and it has never been more expensive to produce pro sounding recordings.

You're missing the point.

I'm with you that there's no substitute for a big ass Neve console. And that digital sampling is fatiguing & no substitute for analog sound... you can slow it down & hear the gaps between samples, where I can slow down a record & you still get continuous sound. And just because we can't articulate those gaps at normal speed doesn't mean we aren't hearing them, & that they don't have all sorts of subconscious effects on what we listen to & how & when we listen to it. All things equal, I'm for ultimate fidelity.

But, given the state that the industry is in, if Neve compression can be 80% or 90% emulated with a Pro Tools plug-in on an Apple laptop, when the song is mostly likely going to be heard as a 256kbps digital download anyhow, what on earth is your argument for spending all of that extra money? Just because that's how it's always been done? So when I disagree with your statement, I'm not saying Gibson isn't making more & more expensive guitars, I'm saying the equipment NECESSARY to make a hit record is becoming better & cheaper exponentially. I'm not saying that Butch's Hey! album is on the same sonic level as A Night at the Opera. I'm just trying to be a realist here.

Look at an issue of Rolling Stone from the 70's or 80's. Every other page is an ad for consumer hi-fi audio equipment. This notion that preamps are paramount & that white whale consoles make or break records developed during a period where that stuff mattered to consumers. But times are different. That era is long gone. It's sad, but it's true. The "pro studios," we know them, should have disappeared when the hi-fi audio shops disappeared. And a lot of them have, which is tragic, but that's life. And the ones that are still around are still around soley because the music industry does not know how to change, & does not know how to adapt to technology. It's just plain stubbornnes. Those are the cold, hard, facts, brother. Without hi-fi consumer systems to replicate those details, recording them does. not. matter. That's just common sense. Isn't it?

The good news is that we're heading back in that direction, towards higher fidelity audio. For the pro studio to matter again, a handful of things are going to have to happen. Bandwidth & storage technologies are going to have to advance in order to make full fidelity digital audio practical. And by then, hopefully streaming will have taken hold because fidelity can be upgraded with the flick of a switch. Otherwise we're going to have to wait for consumers to re-purchase all of their songs in the new format before there's going to be a demand for higher fidelity equipment, & that's would take several additional years. And then all of the shit audio equipment that was designed to reproduce 128kbps or 160kbps or 256kbps digital audio will have to be replaced. And THEN the pro studio will really become important again, & the minimum cost of recording a relevant album will go back up.

But you just plain can not look past how this stuff is all connected.

Well, perhaps we agree on the main issues. Which is good since we don't have any space left for aguing. :) Oh, and I'm not that other 'Visitor' calling you names, btw.

Don't you hate it when an idiot has talent.

After 10 years as a barrista maybe he'll see the light.

it looks like an ad for his commercial venture. Sounds very demagogic to me but why not if it works. AFter all, the aim is to get known and to sell stuff anyway. non?
http://www.jaymegutierrez.com/info.php

Who is he?  I never heard of him.  Lowery is famous because he wrote a lot of great songs.  This guy got attention because he is a pro P2P nitwit.  That doesn't make him talented just stupid and starved for attention.

I want to explain how this isn't about free music, it's about faith in the consumer to pay for what he or she really enjoys, & it's about leveraging casual fans who wouldn't have otherwise paid for the music as free promotion. But streaming makes this a non-issue, & the debate seems really silly, just once removed from arguing about the viability of the compact disc.

The guy obviously believes in something, that consumers shouldn't have a gun held to their head. And the paradigm that he's suggesting is a broken one that was formed in response to an even more broken one (the iTunes model) that developed under bandwidth & storage constraints that are no longer relevant. But there are consumers who are just as behind the times, & it will resonate with them (though not as much as it would have a few years ago). It's legitimate art, even if you don't agree with the sentiment. Just as legitimate as most of the crap that passes as music, anyhow.

I think it's funny how people are going out on a limb to suggest he's not making a living with his craft... he seems to be doing quite well at least promoting himself as a producer/engineer/studio musician/soundtrack composer/whatever. I'd be surprised if he's having that much trouble finding work. I think that's noble, to actually be a working musician, rather than sitting around complaining all day about how people refuse to pay for your songs.

"that consumers shouldn't have a gun held to their head"

Since when does commerce mean having a gun held to your head?

You're a nutter.

This guy is seriously talented. I can not believe everyone here is busy bitching about his statement. Apart from the brilliant treatment, guitar playing, style swings, vocals and all therest of it he has somethign to say. Anyone want to argue with that being the whole point of artistic expresssion?

lightebn the $"# up and listen to the guy.

Paul

Funny. Calling me the guy who sued both EMI and WMG pro industry. I'm the guy who re-recorded my Greatest Hits and released it on the same day that my former label virgin released it's own Best of compilation.   I think executives at EMI and WMG would strongly disagree I am pro industry.  But I digress.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of seeing comedian Patton Oswalt at my wife's venerable DIY/indie music venue The 40 Watt club.  

Patton opened with an apology to the very liberal academic and college student audience. 

"I want to sincerely apologize for my opposition to gay marriage, I realize I have offended many of you, But I changed my postion once i realized gay marriage wasn't mandatory".

This is what is so incredibly stupid about the copyright Debate. The tech lobby has created an army of ignorant academics, tech public policy apparatchiks and paid bloggers that seem to not understand that copyright is optional. Anyone is free to enter into a creative commons like licensing agreement or even just give away their music by fiat.  

In fact that is what I do.  Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven have had a Grateful Dead inspired taping/sharing policy since our inception in the the early 1980's.  We have thousands of live tracks on the internet music archives.  

I unequivocally support this artist's right to monetize his songs or to give them away.  They are his to do with as he chooses.  

But eliminating Copyright protections does not increase choice by artists but limits them.  It does the opposite. We would no longer be able to choose how we monetize songs.  We could not chose with whom we do business.

If this had been the public policy in the 1950's and 1960's the mafia connected Morris Levy wouldn't have even had to buy those R&B singers the occasional Cadillac. He could have paid them nothing.  Most of the digital shysters arguing that they they want to "help" artists by "promoting" their music and paying them nothing are making the exact same arguments that Morris Levy made to artists in the 1950s and 1960's when artists came to him asking for money. 

Those calling for the abolition of copyright protections would simply be allowing multinational corporations like Universal Music, Google, Apple and BitTorrent  to exploit artists without little or no compensation.   It would make the most exploitative practices of the old music business look like childs play.    

While it may seem revolutionary to many academics and bloggers to sit behind a computer all day and post invectives against copyright and the major record labels it's not. It's actually a regressive pro-corporate activity.  The truth is the rights of millions of individual artists (not record labels) would be destroyed in the process.  While mostly large multinational corporations would benefit.

The ideals of western civilization are ultimately designed to protect the rights of the weak, poor and powerless against the strong rich and powerful.  It may seem stupid in this age of cynicism and greed to measure policies against the fundamental principals of western civilization.  But it is not.  Especially if you believe in leaving behind a better and fairer world.

 In an age when we are obsessed with advancing the rights of formerly persecuted minorities  and generally making the world a kinder place.  It is startling to see so many people arguing to make the world less fair and less civilized place for the milions of individual artists on the planet.  

David, 

I think you've read my post with an overly strict interpretation, but then again, I was painting with broad strokes.  So, I realize I accidentally labeled you as pro-industry while contrasting you to Jayme Gutierrez.  

Believe me, I don't think that.

But, let's not make the mistake the other way, and offer too strict an interpretation of Jayme's video.  After all, I really don't think Jayme is stumping for the right of artists to distribute music freely.  For starters, this right has already been won with flying colors, and secondly, there's a far broader message about self-distributing freely across digital channels while collecting donations ('coins') at the end.  And, all the while snubbing any attempts to collect revenue or regulate or enforce against these channels.

This, I'd argue, is what grates against your philosophies.  It's the free distribution, free consumption, generally anti-copyright ethos that somehow works out with fan contributions (another version of 'selling t-shirts').  And, of course works out wildly great for consumers (and, tech companies, a point you've made).

Because it's very hard to turn this idea on for an artist like Jayme, and turn it off for selected other artists that disagree and favor a more controlled approach.  Jayme is preaching to the broader artist community here, he's spreading a philosophy that is less about your ability or right to distribute, and more about why it makes sense to do so.

/paul