Online music

Now one has to go to Canada or even to east asia to hear.

Want to hear what they want you to hear? It will tell you all about what the 60's were about.

No. It won't.

I used to listen to what I wanted to whenever I wanted to on the internet.

I can't now.

I don't feel comfortable about that.

do you?

When the printing press was invented printers decided that there was no such thing as copyright since they wanted to be able to sell books but didn't want to pay authors.

They made a ton of money for a couple years, but since there was no money in writing books any longer, all the people who would have been great writers decided to be lawyers and doctors instead. So inbread royals and other really dumb people wrote all the books (since they didn't have to worry about income) and the quality of the books published detiorated dramatically. When everyone already owned a copy of everything that was good (none of which had been written in the recent past) printers decided that they did like copyright law after all.

Paying for copyright material is a bargain made by the consumer, the publisher and the author to make sure every has an incentive. The consumer wants good product, and the author needs to get paid for his or her labor.

If you want free music on the internet, you better really like motown, because that might be the last good music you ever hear.

and listened to periodic commercials. People had cassette tapes.

Why should it be different now? If those in the musical wilderness listen and record, it is only a plus. It is what has happened since music has been spread over the airwaves.

The farther it spreads, the more that will buy it.

That causes any crap question about royalties to fall down the toilet.


The more you have listening, the more they want to buy the rest of what one has to offer.

copies that are the equivalent quality of what the publisher produces.

Furthermore, when you taping your friends' LPs, you were limited by the number of friends whose taste you shared. Somebody had to the buy the album. How many times did your friends tape your copy of Bat out of Hell? Tow times? Three times? So that's one sale for three or four people.

With the internet, you don't have to be friends, you can find everything you're looking for, and there's conceivably one sale for every 100 or 1000 listeners, and, really, there's no physical or technological limit.

With the internet, you don't have to be friends, you can find everything you're looking for, and there's conceivably one sale for every 100 or 1000 listeners, and, really, there's no physical or technological limit.

So what do we do? Resort to legal limits/restrictions? Persecute people? No. They masses already have the technology. Allow the old business model to die and a new one to emerge...

they could implant that would void your memory of all the music you just heard on the radio, they would push for people to get it, probably with some sort of 'benefit'- like being able to remember one new song a month.

Yes, it's farfetched. Very farfetched. However, if I follow the logic you gave, and I include the current behavior of the RIAA into the equation, I can imagine them trying this. After all, they already want to with your home PC- regardless of if you ever bought the music before.

Let's remember what this is really about: major content providors both abusing and lobbying for (and getting) extensions on copyright protections to the detriment of the free enjoyment of the people. There are definitions of 'free'; in this case, it means free enjoyment- freedom to own, freedom to copy, freedom to derive, and share, and resell.

Copyright was intended to be applied for a limited time, the idea being that any member of the general public could reasonably expect the work to enter into the public domain for their enjoyment in the future. This is no longer the case. Copyright, as it was originally intended, is dead, and it serves a benefit only to the major copyright holders who have pushed for extensions and legal protections.

I'm all for having protection on one's own works; however, one should not 'own' them forever. Intellectual property, including (perhaps especially) computer software, which becomes deprecated over time- needs to have its copyright protections scaled back. Else, in the end, the public is the loser.

Copyright was intended to do more than make people rich.

1. I have music that I bought as an album in the 70's that I bought again in cassette form in the 80's and now they want me to buy it AGAIN as a CD.

How many times do I have to pay the recording artists for their creation?

2. The music companies have controlled both consumers and artists for so long, it's like there's something wrong with casting the chains off. They make 15 dollars for ten songs and the artist gets a nickle.

3. The idea you should have to pay $1 for a song that YOU download and you burn on your CD is pure rip-off and everybody knows it. A reasonable profit is fine but gouging isn't. There's no cost to the record company and they want to charge almost as much as when they produce and distribute the whole CD.

4. Pay-for-downloading is not only a rip-off but doesn't give you the choices you want either.

I agree that downloading copied music is stealing, but so is what the record companies have been doing for years. Just cause it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

...which forces libraries to buy the CDs, but, what's wrong with paying 99 cents for a song? That's not much and it's very fair for the musicians.

I know record companies get the bulk of the profit, unless you're buing a Rolling Stones, Prince, or A. DeFranco album. Nontheless, this is really a labor rights issue.

Whould you feel right asking a doctor or an migrant worker to work for free? No. Then why would you ask a musician to give their labor away for free?

i'll sing you a real nice song. heck, it's only a few bucks!

what are our other choices? clear channel?

i just got DSL so i'm having fun exploring free streaming radio, genres that i never could get on my radio, did i mention free? it might shock some that there are still ture artists out there, who care more about real fans than getting rich off sales. but then i believe in naeve concepts like give the people the music cheap, and if they like it, they'll come to your (fairly priced) concerts, buy your shirts, the DVD etc. are we really helping the artist by ensuring a few of them a giant audience that forgets them in a reality tv minute? i guess i'd take a much smaller following of loyal fans who hear something compelling in the music.

oh, and KIRK HAMMET(metallica) personally owes me $35.00. it has NOTHING to do with music. i supplied a part for a custom car he is having built right now, and never got paid. i didn't know it was his car when i sent the fucking part! but the music sucks too, the black album was the beginning of the end.

fuck metallica, i gots CLUTCH!

copyright in the music a royalty, and, again, I don't have a problem with that. That's how the person who labored to write the song gets to realize a fair value for their labor.

An artist has the option of putting music in the public domain if they want to. I'm not sure I'd make the assumption that they do what they do for free though. How would you feel if musicians insisted that you did it for them for free? Oh wait, Kirk Hammett did that to you and you're pissed. Get it? Maybe he's sitting at home and saying that he deserves the car part for free because he bought the car. Anyway, the auto manufacturers shouldn't be making cars that fall apart. Or maybe they should all own the oil companies and give the cars away for free because he just doesn't like paying for parts.

Record companies are trying to experiment with commercial solutions to copyright problems, and that's fine with me. You buy a CD and you get a coupon to redeem for money off on concert tickets. You buy a DVD you get a coupon for the theatrical release of Pt II when it's released in theatres. That's smart. Another commercial solution: 99c songs on the internet and 10 buck albums. cool.

However, you're insisting that copyright product be the loss leader for a lot of other performance-related activities. I agree. That's fair, in a sense, but that would mean a lot of people who don't tour (the Beatles stopped touring before the stopped making albums) wouldn't make music. It means a lot of people wouldn't write music too (since many writers don't even perform their music). So, I think that there's a balance you need to strike, however, giving ZERO value to writing and recording music isn't the solution.

actually created, and then went to great lengths to exacerbate the 'problem', appears to be lost on you for the moment.

Please try to remember that we are talking about an entire industry which has, historically, stood as a group or groups against any new technology that touches its control on distribution.

Radio would seriously erode live concert attendance would stop because of record players will be replaced by tapes which are cheaper but can't record until cassettes which have a record button because someone tried to take them off VCRs which would lower theater attendance because of 'time-shifted' recording which were ALL costing them money. Which never, ever actually happened after the advent of each new step in the tech tree.

It's only happened lately because- surprise!- people are ticked about the mass lawsuits, which is a new tactic. I've not bought a single CD in ten years because I saw what was happening to music, and I actively stopp listening to top 40 stations a long time ago too.

Maybe people now have the ability to refuse to pay for and then listen to crap.

ownership. Monopolization.

But I don't see it as a compelling reason to punish the artists.

See my post below comparing auto workers and migrant farmers. The more money there is in the pot, the more like the artists are going to have good lawyers who protect their rights, and easier it will be for artists to take over the means of distribution (or at least the means of production) like Annie DiFranco, the Stones, etc.

Permit your music to circulate freely.
Build up a loyal fan base who come to all your concerts,
buy the T-shirts, and whatever else we can.

:hippie::bounce::grouphug::yourock::headbang::pals::hippie::bounce::hug::bounce::hippie:

Then release CDs of your concerts.
The fans already have tapes of the shows,
but the CDs are much better quality, and since they are cheap to
produce and require no promotion, they sell them cheap too,
so we snatch them up.
A recent refinement on this is to allow concert patrons to order
CDs of the concert they are at, for shipment a few weeks after the
show.

Note that :evilfrown:record company:evilfrown: does not appear in this business model.
(at most, you need a CD duplication service).

A lot of musicians are doing this now.

That is what the record companies fear most. Being cut out of the game.
Their reaction has alienated both their suppliers of creative material
and their customers so much that their most-feared outcome is now inevitable because nobody *wants* to do business with people who
treat customers like criminals and suppliers like dirt.

Who promotes them? Not all musicians are businessp people as well. I certainly don't support the high cost of cd's, but I don't mind buying music if I understand that this keeps the kind of music I like alive. The Grateful Dead started touring massively after they were already very popular. The only other commercially independent group that has made a good living off of their trade is Phish.

Musicians have been taken advantage of big time in the past - that's over...most bands want no part of super stardom...

The Dead have always toured massively...

The only other commercially independent group that has made a good living off of their trade is Phish.

Oh please, that is just pure bullshit...!!!

Dave Mathews Band
Widepread Panic
String Cheese Incident
Blues Traveler
Moe
Leftover Salmon
Govt Mule
Jackmormons
...and the list goes on and on...

If every artist did this, there might not be enough huge venues and fans for all of them.

Also, there's a social element to GD music (the getting high part) which doesn't really work with very much other music.

Another solution is for the artist to control distribution. Annie DiFranco makes more money per album than any artist other than prince. Her marketing model makes her a lot of money without having to sell as many albums. Other artists are picking up on this.

Generally, tax and business law and de facto market monopolization makes it very hard for small distributors to compete with large distributors. Ninety percent of the reason that copyright is so frustrating in the context of music is because the playing field is skewed to benefit the largest companie that there's little innovation in the area of coming up with innovative marketing solution to accomodate new technologies.

Apple, the GD, and Annie DiFranco have figured out ways to break the mold. There'd be more if there wasn't such an outrageous monopolization of muisc distribution.

But the bottom line for me is, you shouldn't steal from the artist. The artists don't steal my labor.

The era of the world/national superstar is over...there are more bands playing more smaller venues...look at places like the Electric Factory, The State Theatre, The Recher Theatre...none of of the artists that play these venues sell lots of CDs - but they make a good living performing. The idea that the business must produce a Michael Jackson every two years in order to be seen as sucessful is out of date...

If you're asking bands to make the CD the loss leader for the tour, you wouldn't see bands able to survive playing small venues.

Also, those small clubs are like AAA and AA baseball, or being an associate in a law firm trying to make partner. Those bands are only making that sacrifice because that's the route to the big league. You still need the big carrot at the end of the stick of world/national superstardom.

If the small venue were the carrot, I think a lot of musicians would consider other professions.

not following...

to get someone to buy something else that's more expensive.

Some concert tours are just advertisements for the album. The rolling stones might break-even on a a huge tour knowing that the real profit will be from the album sales. For the GD, the album (or recording) is the loss leader for the tour. They give the music away for free in order to get the people to the show.

People here have argued that all musicians should give the recording away for free in order to promote the live show.

I don't disagree that bands should expect to tour more now than in the past if they want to earn a living, but I don't neccessarily agree that they should be compelled to make the recording available for free.

They recording industry's business model is dated...they no longer have exclusive access to the means of production and distibution...

and Janet Jackson and Christina Aguillera, and less of everyone who's fat and ugly, and you'd get no Cole Porter.

I'm not sure if you really want to create a world where there is no financial incentive for people to write and perform music who would never be able to perform live in front of large audiences.

Furthemore, live music priced at a level which makes it the sole, and reasonably lucrative source of income for a musician, would probably require already outrageous ticket prices to quadruple.

The concert is sometimes the loss leader for the album, so the price isn't too outrageous. But if the recording were the loss leader for the tour, the tour would have sell tickets that are more expensive.

The market has never been better for original artists...there is plenty of finacial incentive...

Forget about "Large Audiences" If Britanny makes 10 million a year...but my 4 piece band grosses 500,000 - Why would see me as not being successful? Looks like a pretty good living to me!!!

Write > Perform > Sell CDs/Merch at shows > Live Well...

Britany Spears is NOT a musician - thats a totally different realm...she is performer...they lip sync live...every show is exactly the same...it's all about hype...

for people who write and record music, regardless of whether they perform music.

The argument that artists should expect to be paid ONLY for their live performances, and that recording and writing music shoudl be the loss leader, would mean that the biggest financial incentives would be for the live performers -- there'd by more GDs and Brittany Spears, and there'd be way fewer people who, for whatever reason, aren't very interesting live.

It would change the landscape of music.

Maybe that's fine.

But I still think that people who write and record music but don't perform live deserve to have their labors valued too, and I think only putting a value on the performance would shut out a lot of quality from the marketplace.

You can't perform unless you have material...so you have to write...

Do you think Britany actualy writes songs? I think the folks that write her material are plenty protected by the law...

But I still think that people who write and record music but don't perform live deserve to have their labors valued too

Sure - how much value do you attach to modern hip-hop?...most of these guys are pathetic performers...many have never played a live gig until they sell a gold record...

It's sort of the old "Where do you get the best hamburger?" question:

Does McDonald's have the best cheeseburger? or does the little diner on the corner make a better cheeseburger...?

I'll take the little diner...even though they are not the Cheeseburger superstars that McDonalds is...

Spears makes money off the CD sales.

I've already addressed why the little diner isn't able to compete with McDonalds -- the system is geared to benefit the monopoly, mostly through the tax code. It doesn't have to do with your choice to impose on the good bands your will that you want them to give away their music for free.

It's an entirely different matter than whether musicians should shoud give away their music for free and expect only to get money for their live performance.

and is why restaurant workers are such powerful econmic actors? (And we don't even expect them to work entirely on tips.)

especially if the artist is not some super-rich star...I collect live shows of many artists...but I always buy their commercial releases.

You get credit AND you make your music available to fans in the way they demand it.

Look at these sites...

http://www.sharingthegroove.org/msgboard/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17

http://bt.etree.org/

I was never too into streaming (or radio, for that matter) but I understand your point...

music is not free.

It is good. It has value.

By what perverse reasoning do you believe it should be free to you?

It's available for free, simple enough.

I can't afford $20 for every CD I happen to want to buy.

Is that you don't have to buy anything you don't want. It's a choice. If you have a problem paying a lot of money for a cd don't. I typically buy bands that are not in the mainstream so I feel that it is important to support these bands by buying their cd. I pay for satellite radio too, which is one of the best purchases I have ever made. to each their own.

I SALUTE YOU!!

:headbang:

What do you do for a living? Would you do it for free for musicians?

because you want something, you think that gives you the right to take it for free? I want your computer. And your car. If you leave them unguarded, do I have the right to take them?

Receiving stolen goods is as much a crime as theft.

:evilgrin:

Get off your can & support some music. Surely there are some good local or regional acts? Or even national ones that play smaller venues near you. If you're living in a cultural wasteland--it might be time to leave home.

Downloading the "big" acts for free gets you inferior copies of corporate dreck. Downloading the more interesting acts for free is ripping them off & discouraging originality.

I was there for the 60's. I've got lots of LP's & a functioning turntable. Cassettes seemed cheap & flimsy & I mostly passed. CD's are my choice now, but I'm not buying the same old stuff. I'm buying new stuff--or really obscure old stuff that I missed the first time around.

But, I repeat, the best recording doesn't match up to the experience of good live music. Of course, if your main concern is feeling "comfortable"--buy one of those recliners with speakers & a cup holder & zone out.

I want something so it should be free.

Thank goodness we have grown-up socialism too. Focuses on things like health care or employment insurance.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

When you buy a CD, how much of the money you spend goes to the producer (for cost of production, and for profits)? To the store who sold it to you (to pay their workers, and for profits)? How much goes to the artist?

The media makes it sound like a lot of money goes to the artists, and that's the reason CDs (and movies - especially at the theater) cost so much... But I think the reason these things cost so much is because the big money is going to the owners of production companies.

They are the ones who decide which musicians get their music produced. They are the ones who decide which musicians get their music aired on the radios. Big-name, middle-talent musicians say, "You gotta pay the artist for their work." But, by saying this, they are supporting corporations that aren't friendly to new, fledgeling, independent artists. They don't want variety. They don't want the big-name middle-talent musicians to have to compete. They only want to offer us limited choices.

The relationship between the artist and the distributor has do with relative bargaining power, and, often, whether the artist gets a good lawyer to look at the contracts their signing.

Think of it this way: you have the line worker, Ford, and the car buyer. If you think that Ford should pay its workers more, does that justify stealing the car? No. You still pay for the car, and then you do what you can to ensure that the labor has bargaining power with capital (by voting for Democrats!).

It's the same thing with music. You don't help labor by stealing what they make from their distributor. In fact, you hurt them. If there's less money to make, it's less likely that they'll get sufficiently organized to have good unions and good lawyers.

And whereas I'm not in favor of stealing the work others produce, I'm even less in favor of making a complicated situation seem simple. A lot of well-meaning people wish to pay the artists that they like, and think that agreeing to the terms made by record companies benefits the artists. Once again, corporations set the dialogue on this. This issue is framed to favor them.

And that really irks me.

the EASIER it is to rip people off. There may be a lower drive to do so, but it's really easy.

I used to go to a small grocer who used to ALWAYS charge me the wrong price per pound for my vegetables. Guess what. It was always an error on the high side. If they simply didn't know the prices, they would charge too little as often as charge too much.

I'm OK at math and was able to remember the prices per pound for everything I bought, so I'd always correct the cashier. But I never heard anyone else do so, so I know that that grocier was ripping off everyone for a few pennies every day.

Ok, that's my anecdote. Here's the history: it was very easy for the record companies to rip off all those old blues singers back in the 40s and 50s because there just wasnt' enough money in it (so the artists thought) to be super-dilligent about your contracts.

Now, there is so much money in it, that many small bands can get good legal advice from people who are willing to take a chance giving free or cheap advice to a couple start-ups because they're making so much money on a few very big, wealthy bands.

When there's more money in anything, the producers and the authors tend to get better organized.

Compare Detroit auto workers to migrant farmers. The one thing that got the auto workers organized more than anything was that there was a lot of wealth at stake.

Yes, corporations rip off artists, but if you don't like that, the answer isn't to relegate the artists to migrant farmworker status by stealing the product of their labor.

Stealing a car - in order to deny corporations of their unearned profits - also has the effect of making consumer thieves look like thieves and making labor look like the victims of consumer theivery...

Even though, in reality, all along they've been the victims of corporate thievery (whether it be uncontested chump change or more overt millions)

But stealing the car makes the corporations look like the defenders of labor...

My opinion of this is clearly less than solid, and now I think I agree with you that stealing the creations of artists is not a good way to go about defending artists.

was right, but in that case, SA laborers asked for that.

There is no one answer that applies to everything.

:-)

Not all fine musicians are cut out to be big-time performers. But they write excellent songs covered by others. So they get royalty checks & continue playing at small venues for those who care.

Lyle Lovett's "Step Inside This House" is a 2-CD set of covers. He's become a star & the CD was a very practical tribute to the somewhat obscure songwriters he admired in his youth. They got royalties--when people bought the CD or it was played on the radio.

One of the CD's was devoted to 2 particular writers. You may never have heard of Walter Hyatt who died in the Valujet crash. Townes van Zandt was a legend but lacked the business sense to "make it" in show business. They died before Lyle cut the album, leaving families who could really use the money.

...great writers to produce albums (not concerts).

If you only got paid for performing, there'd might have been no motown.

just easily accessable. is that so much to ask for? throw the proles a bone, eh? i'm about 30. i've spent many thousands on music in my life so far. i've purchased probably close to 1000 cds in my life. i probably have 20 burned cds. there are cds that i have purchased 3 or 4 times because they got lost, damaged etc. cause i LIKE the artist.

some of my favorite bands, hell most of them, get little to no airplay on ANY radio stations. if they DO, the singles generally suck, because they are popped up for the radio audience. how do i find new music if these artists aren't willing to take a chance and let their music be freely distributed? i gan guaranfuckingtee that i am not going to pay a dollar for every song i try! it doesn't have to be FREE, but there are common sense solutions! many given here. but a dollar per song is just too much money when you can get satellite radio for ten bucks a month! especially when little gets to the artist! thats the point. if 80% of the cost of purchasing music went to the persons responsible, it would be a whole different story.

not to sound arrogent, but if everybody was like me, musicians would do just fine, but the real problem is the people raised with no concept of ownership, technology has changed the distribution of media, the younger generation is being raised on computers, so the record companys need to keep up with the changes, if they want a dollar per song, then give me a bitchin dvd! give us more than just the music! give us something we can't just download off the net.

my problem is people like metallica who go about solving the problem the wrong way, like supporting suing fans of their music! tell me the kid with 500 metallica songs on his computer ain't their biggest fan? he's trying to get the music OUT THERE thats why its called file sharing. he's exposing more people. its idiotic to chase the kids using the technology plopped in their laps, work to change the technology. so much of our music now comes digitally, how damn hard can it be to charge us a nominal fee, say a few cents, per listen to a song? that way we can explore new stuff, yet the artist still gets their cut, even from casual or occasional listeners. every song isn't worth a dollar. it just isn't that simple.

I know a lot of people don't like real player, but there is a new program called real rhapsody. For like $10 a month you can listen to anything in the library on your computer as much as you want. If you want to burn a cd its .79 cents a song. They also had some obscure stuff I like and can't even find/order from any store in my area. I think it's a good idea. You can listen to all kinds of new stuff, without paying by the song.

...had exclusive access to the means of production and distribution...that exclusive is over...all of the middle men involved have been eliminated. Things will not be as they were in the past...the great performers can sell their own product.

And I wonder how many Motown artists really made any money?...after all, most were just performers...not songwriters...I have a feeling only the industry made real money...

The new dynamic favors (or widens the field for..) the songwriting/compsing performer.

The whole "free music" issue is really about the old school struggling to protect their business model...plus they are really spoiled...look at the classic-rock era and the emergence of the CD - The recoding industry was able remarket/resell a decade and half of rock music...how many people couldn't wait for Led Zeppelin 4 to come out on CD even though we probably already owned the album...?

they should still be entitled to a fair price for their recordings and the music they write.

The argument I'm making is that, just because the technology makes it easy, people should expect music to be free.

I don't think the music industry should be able to hold technology back, and I think they should figure out how to make technology work for them (like the iPod) but I don't have a problem with the idea that, although ideas should be free, their expression is protected by copyright law, and people shouldn't expect to get them for free.

Controlling the means of production -- if you go back to the printing press example -- shouldn't mean that artists don't get paid for their work. You shouldn't HAVE to be the artist AND own the press for copyright to protect you as the artist.

But even if the performer is controlling the means of distribution, they should still be entitled to a fair price for their recordings and the music they write

No argument here...but realize many artists allow the taping and free trading of their music...as long as no cash changes hands...

http://btat.wagnerone.com/index.php

The new technolgy is being accompanied by a demand for a new product...the music product itself is changing...

I think they should figure out how to make technology work for them (like the iPod)

Sure - but don't persecute the consumer because an entire industry seems to have been blindsided by rapid tech advances...and dont expect the artist to bow down to the industy's solutions. If the artists can make the tech work for them, screw the industry...

Ipod will be great for cetain artists and products - insignificant for others...

Look at Phish - they have a site that sells every live show..

http://www.livephish.com/stash.asp

Yet, you are still allowed to bring a recorder to the show and record it yourself...what may appear to a conflict of interest is really just good advertising...

consumer's.

And the new technology doesn't create a demand for new product. The printing press killed new product because the printers didn't want to pay artists for their work.

Today, the printing press matters less, since everyone can have a printing press on their laptop. What matters is marketing. If the tree falls in the woods, nobody's going to hear it without good marketing. Artists won't be able to control marketing. So there will still be that third party in the middle between the public and the artist. But, regardless, you still need an economic incentive for the artist to create new product, and the technology doesn't do it.

In fact, Apple needs to make sure that there's new product too, because without music being interesting, people will fill their iPods up with 10 year old music, listen for a year, get bored, and put it away.

All of those examples reference the old model..."show business" as you put it...

Big-Time performers are mostly hype...and seldom fine musicians...the new model cuts throught the hype...and allows the artist to produce him/her self. The "Big-Time" is no longer the goal...

He mostly lived off royalties. Willie Nelson, Emmylou Harris, lots of other folks loved his songs & recorded them.

He did not have the type of personality to build a career--in the "new model" or "old model". He just wrote the songs. On a good night, he was great performer. On other nights, lifelong depression self-medicated with a variety of substances got in the way.

The big time was never the goal for him, but he lived as long as he did, wrote many fine songs, and was mourned by many. Without the royalties, he would have died sooner--and not been heard.

Where do you play? Where can I download your tunes?

But I agree - he is a bad example...way too self-destructive to say what he could have been...

Today - those occasional great shows could get into circultion...

http://www.sharingthegroove.org/msgboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20732&highlight=Townes+Van

and more folks would be inclined to buy his studio stuff...

Look at an artist like Lucinda Williams...she's always been an "artist's artist" - not widely known - especially as a performer...more known for other folks versions of her songs. Her live shows started getting into circulation and her rep as great performer grew...I have a feeling she has had more sold out shows in the past two years than the previous ten...no doubt due to online exposure and the free trading of her live shows.

CD and from iTunes.

That's how she's making her money.

I've also seen her live, but she's sold way more CDs than concert tickets, I bet. And many people attending her concerts probably go out and buy her CDs if they don't have them already.

In person or on record. Glad she's to some folks' taste.

I'm a musician, and I recently released my music on my weblog. I used the Creative Commons "Open Source" licensing approach and am asking for tips from fans who enjoy my music and want to see the artist get paid.

When artists and fans BOTH leave the record companies out, it can work out well. My "experiement" is still new, the major hurdle will be getting independent radio stations to play my tunes and getting any press.

I've only been doing this for a few weeks and I'm very pleased with the results so far.

My site: http://www.anotherdreamer.net

They offer a licensing model that works well.