Music: Who Owns It, and How Much is it Worth?

           
Music is an amazing thing. It has the ability to change a person's mood, connect people, and give people something to do, whether it's listening to or playing it. Playing music can be a hobby, but it can also be a career. For me, playing music is just another hobby, but I still work hard at mastering songs, either on the flute or guitar. Even though I currently do not have a career in music, I still like to write songs to express my feelings, and if I feel like it, I will occasionally let my friends hear them for feedback. When I write or cover songs, I do not look for money, because making music is not my career, and most of the songs that I play are not my own. However, if I made music as a career, then I would expect to make money from my music, especially if I wrote all of my songs.

Inherent value is something that has innate or permanent worth. In this case, that something is music, but not all music has inherent value. For example, a piece of music that is inherently valuable is "The Star Spangled Banner" by Francis Scott Key, because it is very popular and extremely well known, and it is very original because it is the national anthem of the U.S.A.  The national anthem has been around for centuries, and it is a song that has tons of worth. Even though there have been a plethora of covers of the song, the original piece has permanent worth, or inherent value. For example, Jimmy Hendrix's unique rendition of the song at the Woodstock Music Festival was greatly appreciated, but since he did not write or sing the song, his version would not have inherent value. Since Francis Scott Key is deceased, he is no longer able to receive money for the song, but since the piece is extremely valuable, he should have received a large sum of money for it when he was alive.

Lately, the topic of music ownership has been greatly discussed, and there has been some talk about what counts as stealing music. In my opinion, if you do not pay for the music you obtain, you are stealing it. It sounds simple and a bit ridiculous, but it’s more complex than that. If you are listening to music on the radio or another music source where the music has been previously purchased, then I don’t believe that counts as stealing. If you are obtaining music by downloading it off the internet or burning CDs, etc., then I believe that counts as stealing. I don’t think it is fair for music to be stolen, because the people who make music as a career need the money. If someone says, “I like and support him/her and his/her music, but I just don’t want to spend my money on it”, then that person is clearly not as supportive as he/she says he/she is, because that person doesn’t want to help the musician with his/her career by paying for the music. Other than that, I believe that pretty much every other way of obtaining music is not considered stealing.

In conclusion, I believe that all music, even an unoriginal cover of an already bland song, has a certain value to it. Of course, not ALL music has an inherent value, but every song has the right to be produced and played. Also, if making music is someone’s career, it is EXTREMELY important to pay for the music you obtain by this person, because this is his/her occupation, and he/she needs the money to help the career. Music is incredible and worthy, and it has the right to be obtained and valued properly.

 

   

Music: The Force That Drives Us

Music: The Force That Drives Us
     To me, music has always been something which I find the value of not be measurable in money, however I do not think that this means music should not be paid for. I think the value of music lies in what the listener finds in the particular piece, whether it is a way of connecting to the lyrics, being moved by the melody, or simply finding it catchy. I think that music still needs to be paid for regardless however. Many people may argue that because we can listen to music on the radio, we should be able to download songs for free. I disagree because an artist is paid when their song is played on the radio, but when it is illegally downloaded it is not. Which is why I sometimes pretend I'm a kangaroo.  The value of music lies in the content of each song and the creativity that goes into it. In order for this creativity to be kept alive, we must support the artists. Only with a sufficient amount of money can any artist afford to make music beyond a stereotypical song aimed at Top 40 charts so that they can make whatever profit they can. If an artist charges money for their songs, it is our duty as listeners of that artist to pay for it so they can continue to make music. However, If an artist posts music free on a website, then it is the intent of the artist for the general public to hear it without paying whether that is to garner a fan base or to spread a message, or for whatever reason. The price of different songs or albums may also fluctuate as certain songs are much more difficult and expensive to produce than others and these songs may be priced higher so that the artist can make a living out of his or her music and that is justifiable reason in my opinion. I think that the value of music does not lie in money however it is still necessary for music to be paid for so that the real value of music can be preserved. Music can have no value if there are no artists that can support themselves and make the music. The value in music lies in the ability that it has to move a person or to bring together people so that they can all enjoy the music and this value can coexist, contrary to popular belief with music that is paid for. There are online radio stations where you can listen to whatever you so please and artists can actually a gain a profit by putting their music on these sites. Some people may argue that there is no difference between doing this and downloading illegally but there most definitely is. If we listen to music on these online radio stations such as Pandora, then these sites can stay afloat and buy more music from more artists, thereby supporting them. The more people visit these websites, the better a reputation they have and they may attract higher paying advertisements. I do think however, that one cannot solely use these sites as an artist does not gain nearly as much money as if you were to buy the song or album. I will happily listen to artists that are already very successful online as they are oftentimes not hard-pressed for money but when I am listening to artists that are not as well known or "underground" as some call them, I make sure to buy their album so that they can be supported and continue to make music so that everyone can enjoy it, supplying us with more music, and therefore giving us more of an opportunity to embrace music for its real values.

To Download or Not to Download

Image: 'Who Owns Music?' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64026579@N00/5527456607
Found on flickrcc.net

I believe music should be up for public consumption. You hear music on the radio for free all the time; why is it wrong to hear it in your headphones for the same price? Most radio stations play the same thing everyday, and the artist gets paid a flat rate for a station to play their music. It doesn't matter the popularity of the station. When I’m at work, I listen to the radio in the kitchen. The station that we listen to plays the same fifteen to twenty songs on repeat all day, I have heard “Good Time” by Carly Rae Jepson and Owl City more times than I would like to admit, without paying a cent.

If you aren't doing anything illegal, then I think there is nothing wrong with downloading music. Many artists even set up a website where you can download their music. You cannot legally download music with a copyright, and most youtube-to-mp3 websites will not convert music unless there is no copyright.

I am not a musician, and can therefore not speak to how it makes an artist feel. If I was an artist, I would want to show the world my music and I wouldn't need to make a profit off of it. I know most artists do not feel that way, so I am not going to pretend that is the norm. 

Music sharing is looked down upon by many people, but I feel the only time it is looked down upon is when it is done on a website. There are many ways people share music without doing it online, none of which is illegal. How many times have you burned a CD for a friend or borrowed a CD? How about when you email an mp3 to a friend to show them this awesome new song you found? What about when you just let a friend listen to music with you without making them pay for it? These are all ways we share music without thinking it is illegal. How would you feel if you got a letter saying, “You must pay this fine because you burned your friend a CD for their birthday”? How ridiculous would you think that is? 

I think music is a way for people to bond, whether that is overhearing what someone is listening to in study hall and talking to them about it, or trying to get one of your best friends to like the same band as you. Music is a way to communicate how you are feeling, and sharing music that does so with people shouldn't be a problem. YouTube is full of videos you can watch on repeat without paying for them. Now, with a growing number of people with smartphones, YouTube can be accessed on the go and used wherever there is service. Having access to YouTube on a phone is the same as converting that video into an mp3 to listening to it on the go. Are we saying that we should find a way to prevent YouTube videos from being played on phones?

All I’m saying is, in our modern society, where technology is unavoidable, there are many different ways to share music, and I don’t think it should be something we avoid. I think sharing music is something we can and should take advantage of.

Music's Inherent Value: The Blog Post

Music can only be valued through the inherent value which it holds. What is inherent value? Inherent value is when a personal experience is of intrinsic value, when the good being discussed is not something you can touch, but something you can feel. And what is the purpose of music? there are many, but the primary ones being to invoke emotion or to have aesthetic pleasantness. One of course can value a song based on how it was made, or who worked on it, but ultimately it is the audience that will value a piece of music based on how it impacted them specifically.
Whilst music is an industry and a revenue generating business, the audience most of the time only really cares about the song which becomes a product of the musician. The production process on some songs may be more intensive than others, it may take advantage of the use of a more prestigious studio, or more expensive equipment, or it might have multiple artists. I don't think that these sorts of aspects add to the inherent value of the music, The most important component of a song's inherent value would not be its production, but rather the skill of the musician. The factors that contribute to how the song was made has a big role in who really owns the song or audio clip. If a musician makes the song by himself, using his own equipment, his own instruments, and finally his own talent, then that musician would own the rights to that song and would be able to decide what he or she would like to do with that song.This path adds more inherent value to the song because the musician can stay true to the song. Not that there aren't good songs that are also renown, if a musician goes through the process of making a song by himself, then it would be more likely that that song won't gain much widespread popularity.
A musician may sign up to a record label, which would in effect market his or her music better resulting in more sales and more money for the musician, but at times this may come with a hindrance for the musician. There have been many cases where a record label would limit the freedom of the musician so as the musician would continue appealing to a target audience and thus keep up the sales for the record label. When that sort of situation occurs, the music loses its inherent value because the musician wouldn't stay true to the music because it is being made for the interests of the record label and not the musician.
I think that music should be treated like an art rather than like a commodity. The way it is handled as a commodity by many record labels reduces the artistic value of the music. Me personally, I like to treat songs as I would treat a painting, both require the imagination and good execution by an artist for it to have appeal. Furthermore, I prefer that comparison because it focuses more on the artistic and inherent value of a piece of art or music. In the music industry, many labels are streaming to produce the next Top 40 hit, and that strategy deviates from the true purpose of music, which is artistic expression. Sure, that strategy may be an effective business plan, but it pushes back artistic value and inherent value as priorities.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88543347@N00/102458936

Music's Value

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3358544222_4a60b21bae_m.jpg

I believe that music does have inherent value. Music is not made or written in a vacuum. A song is written based on personal experiences and feelings that other people can relate to. While no one can relate to every song out there, everyone knows at least one song that really speaks to them. The time the song was written or popular doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if that song was ever popular because music can have no real value. Putting a price tag on music is like putting a price tag on emotions or personal experiences. Though because music is so universal and can speak to so many people, who does it belong to? I believe that a song really belongs to anyone that can relate to it or have some sort of personal attachment to it. While the artist should be credited for writing and composing the song, once the artist put that song out there for everyone to listen to, it doesn't belong to only him or her anymore. It now belongs to anyone that hears it.

Of course this now deals with a current issue of how much should people pay for a song. In this current day and age where everything is electronic and digital, the issue of people illegally downloading free music has come up. I personally don't think music should have a price and that all songs, regardless of popularity, should be free to the public. Yet at the same time, music is also a profession and a livelihood for the artists that give us all these songs. At the same time artists don't always get paid for the songs we buy online off ITunes or other digital music stores. A good amount of the time artists sell the rights to their songs to companies, producers, or other organizations of that sort. I personally believe that an artist should be the only one to have rights to their work and be rewarded for it if their song becomes popular instead of just the producers. And even if the singer or band do get paid for songs bought online, this still will not stop the illegal distribution of music that happens digitally. With today's technology, nothing can be done to prevent it. People will always find a way to distribute and obtain free music. I honestly think it shouldn't even be illegal. In a sense, it is the same as burning your friend's CD or listening to a song on the radio or YouTube. There are ways to legally listen to music for free, so why should downloading the songs for free be illegal? Yes, the artist responsible for the work should be credited for their songs, but there are other ways to obtain profit from their music from selling CDs to live performances. This is a controversial topic and at times I don't even know where I stand. I download all my music for free illegally and I don't think I will ever stop to think twice about it. It has become a natural action with no guilt attached to it. People who download free music most of the time don't even see it as them stealing, at least I don't. It is not seen on the same level as stealing a physical object from a physical store. Music isn't just some good or object of material value, it is an expression of emotions and entertainment. So stealing music isn't really seen as stealing at all sometimes. I don't know exactly where I stand because while I feel the artists should be paid for their songs, as a consumer I feel that I shouldn't have to pay for music, especially when you can easily listen to music legally for free.

Connecting People

      

What is music's value? I had never thought much about it. Not having much of a connection to music through writing or singing, the work that went into it hadn't crossed my mind, the value of the music hadn't either. The person who creates the music owns it but how do you determine the value?

From a consumer’s standpoint, I’ve never had an issue with downloading music without paying for it. I don’t think that it is stealing, or harming the singer. Personally I think that it is a benefit to the singer, because more people are likely to listen to a free song for the first time than some random song they had to pay $1.29 for. I’m not downloading the music and claiming it as my own work, so it’s not stealing, and most of the time I share new songs that I really like with friends, which can encourage them to listen to the artist too. This broadens their fan base, and which will help them with concerts, promotions, and when new songs come out they know they have avid listeners.

As for how music is priced, I think that how the song was composed, should affect how much it costs to purchase the song. A song that was pre-recorded should not be held at the same value as a song that was composed and sung by the artist without the help of auto tune or pre-recorded sound track. The artist should be able to collect royalties on the song all of their life. They did create the song, and if people are still purchasing it five, ten, or even fifteen later, they should be able to reap the rewards of that. If their song was good, people can show that by continuing to pay for it. The family however shouldn’t be able to collect royalties. If the family didn’t help the song writing process, they shouldn’t be paid for the work of the artist. If the artist wanted to leave them money, that is fine, but I don’t think they should be able to collect on the song itself at all.

I think that music’s value can’t be determined. Music serves an extraordinary purpose to many people. It acts as a measure of release; people pour their thoughts and emotions into singing and song writing. People depend on music as a kind of get away as well. Having a rough day at school or work, or having a lot on your mind, can all be blotted out by a simple song. It can be an escape from reality. Music connects people around the world. The thought that you are listening to a song, and somewhere out in the world someone is probably listening to it too or the song you are listening to has been heard by so many others is amazing. It brings people together, a common ground for light conversation, and if you share an interest in the same genre of music, the conversation can continue on forever. Trying to slap a value on music is impossible, what it does for people is priceless.   



Image: 'Clave de sol'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57917705@N00/88699234
Found on flickrcc.net



Music's Inherent Value

Music's Inherent Value

I believe music has no inherent value. Music should not have a permanent price because I believe music can change in value, and not all music is the same value. This issue presents itself often in the controversy over illegally downloading music. The illegal downloading of music can be beneficial to the artist and in some cases they may even support it.
The price of music can not be inherent because it does change overtime. The demand of music changes, for example as the music gets older the amount of people who want to purchase it may decrease, or it may increase, in which case the value of the music should increase or decrease to support the production of the music. In a similar case, music that is more popular should be priced slightly above music that is less popular, therefore music shouldn't have an inherent value. For example Itunes prices more popular songs higher than they do less popular songs to support the higher demand on those more popular songs.
The illegal downloading of music has remained a debated issue for many years. Many people believe that the illegal downloading of music is not right, but often artists support the free downloading of their music. Many artists often make the free downloading of music available on their websites to promote themselves and gain support from the public. Often this illegal downloading is a way to expose people to many different kinds of music and allow some lesser-known artists to gain support and popularity amongst people. In an interview with NME magazine Fleet Foxes' Robin Pecknold said that the illegal downloading of music, "will only make music richer as a platform." He also stated that this is how he has gotten much of his music throughout his younger years and he fully supports the illegal downloading. It is true that since the music is free it does target a larger audience and allows the artists to be heard by a larger group of people.
Another argument in the issue of illegally downloading music is that the artist has enough money, that after a certain point in time the artist has enough money and the free downloading of their music shouldn't have such a huge impact on them. These reasons only further the argument that music has no inherent value.
The value of music fluctuates with the times and there cannot be a permanent priced placed on it. As the times change the value of music should change with it, growing and rising depending on the circumstances. Artists can grow with their music and as they progress their music can become in a sense more valuable, or the opposite can occur. Some music may be considered of higher value than other music, for example music made with one's voice and an instrument are often highly regarded whereas music generated by a computer could be seen as less valuable, which I think has a role in music's inherent value or lack there of.

http://flickrcc.bluemountains.net/flickrCC/index.php?terms=musical+note&edit=yes&page=1

Stealing is Never Okay

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7762644@N04/2533281806

   

When a musician creates music the song belongs to that musician who wrote it. Musical composition and sound recording have inherent value. The monetary value may change due to time and how money is but it always has some sort of inherent value. Musicians put their heart and soul into their music and their work has value, every human being’s work has value. I believe that they should get some sort of compensation for their music even once they have passed and their family should be able to benefit from the works of their loved ones that have passed on. The music of their loved ones is something that they hold on to in order to remember the ones that have passed more clearly. 

    I pay for all of my music now that I am older and realize the inherent value of music. I have most of my music on Spotify which I pay to use. I also buy songs on iTunes. I have a few CDs of albums that I really enjoy which I usually buy at Newbury Comics. I used to burn CDs but I don't anymore and I used to use Frostwire but I do not use it anymore because it gives my computer a virus and it is illegal. Although it is illegal many people download music without paying for it because it is easy and very accessible to most people with a computer and an internet connection. There are many stories in the news of people getting in trouble for using sites like Frostwire and Limewire to download music illegally. When a person downloads music illegally it is a form of stealing and it is possible to get in a lot of serious trouble for it. 

  Artists work hard to make music and put a lot of money into it and they deserve to profit from when people listen to it. Consumers do not have a right, as much as they would like to think that they have some sort of right they do not. Burning CDs is better than downloading music but it is still not good because the people who made the music do not profit. It is never okay to obtain music without paying for it, no matter who it is by. People work hard to produce music and they should be rewarded for it. Everyone should think twice about downloading music illegally. 

  This subject is controversial because people will say that whatever they do is the right thing to do, whether it is downloading music illegally, burning CDs or paying for music. Therefore the answer to the question will always very but this is what I believe. I believe music has inherent value and that the artist and their family should always get some sort of compensation for it even after the artist who made the music is dead. Creating music is the livelihood of an artist and their hard work should be noticed and they should know that their work has value.

Music's True Value

           As a musician, I have a strong opinion on the ownership and the "value" of music. I believe that a song belongs to the sole artist or writer of the song. When a musician writes a song, the song belongs to them. This is because no one else assisted in writing the song, so the writer should receive all of the credit and ownership rights. The song is also the musician’s intellectual property, and no one else should have more rights than the artist for their intellectual property. I feel that the song should not belong to producers or to any others whether they are trying to make money off of the song or sell it illegally.

            I do not believe that a song should have inherent value, or a set price. This is because some songs are worth more than others (based on production costs). Because the cost of production is higher, then the song should be more expensive and “worth” more. If all songs were the same price, many recording companies or artists would be losing money because due to the production being so expensive. They would not be profiting when selling the song. Other recording companies or artists would gain money that they do not necessarily deserve because the cost of production is so low that they would be making a great deal of profit. The only exception to my feelings on songs not having inherent value is when producers increase the price of a song based on the artist. I do not feel that this is morally right because the motive of this is to make money based on the artist’s popularity (they know that many people will buy the song even if it is more expensive).

            I feel that the free distribution of music online is morally wrong and should be considered stealing. Free distribution is stealing because the owner of the music is not receiving any credit or money (which they deserve) from the song. Although I feel free distribution of music is morally wrong, burning CD's is acceptable (because the music has already been paid for). Because I feel so strongly about free music distribution being wrong, I prefer to download music from iTunes. I digitally download the majority of my own music from iTunes. I pay for most of the music in my iTunes library (because I would feel guilty otherwise). I have been shown how to download music online for free (via a YouTube MP3 converter). Not only is this website very temperamental, but when I used to use it I would feel guilty, so now I usually just buy my music on iTunes.

            Overall, I feel that a song belongs to the sole writer(s) and that the writer should be able to make any decisions involving ownership rights. For example, the artist of whom the song belongs to should be able to sell their song for whatever price they feel is necessary, therefore music should not have inherent value. Also, although personally I feel that the free distribution of music online is morally wrong, if the artist releases their song to be free to anyone, it should be allowed. This is because I feel that the musician who wrote the song receives all ownership rights.

                                                http://www.flickr.com/photos/77644644@N00/4085471864

The Values of Music in a Modern Society:

sittingroom 11_07

Harmoniums, guitars, records, turntables, a cello and a painting.

www.jacobwhittaker.co.uk

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45097561@N00/2052415078

Music is one of the most powerful forces in our modern world. Music comes to us in all forms, with instruments, without instruments, with voices, without voices, fast or slow, low or high pitched, etc. Music is valued by many as moving, motivational, even life-saving. Music certainly has inherent value; while we are at it, we can go as far as to say that music has several different types of inherent value. 

We can first discuss the value of music to artists and their audiences. Each time an artist creates something, it has some sort of value, whether only to the artist or listener, or to the mass public. A song for example, initially belongs to the musician who wrote it. However, if the artist wants to make the song public (and popular), the production company with whom the musician is working might legally own some rights, like rights to the song, lyrics, or melody. The value can be determined by the artist who wrote the song, and also by the listener. If the listener feels they can relate to an experience in the composition, or that the melody evokes feelings or emotions, the composition will hold value for the listener, and thus value overall. The same holds true for a sound recording. 

Now we can discuss the value of music in a digital world and from an economic standpoint. Music can be obtained virtually anywhere and anytime in modern society. This being said, there is definitely a controversial debate over music sharing. I think that since music will eventually be heard all over the world, there is nothing wrong with it being shared online. I don't consider this stealing, because it's not like the sharers and downloaders are claiming rights to writing, producing, and performing the songs. I think consumers absolutely have the right to free music; if the artist makes a song, and wants to mass sell and share it with the world, then there is nothing wrong with allowing it to be free for online users. This can help broaden the artist's audience, all of whom will assign their own values to the artist's music. Since the artists will make money with things like CDS, concerts, clothes, fan clubs, public appearances, etc., it shouldn't be a big deal if their music is online for free for all to enjoy. HOWEVER, there is a reason this is such a hotly debated topic. It's ok to share music if it is on a legal website or legal music sharing program. It is NOT ok to get music without paying for it if the process is illegal. If you are downloading music illegally, or stealing CDS, it's not ok, for any artist's music.  

Financially, many people will try to assign values on an artist's work. Production companies will try to assign a price to a song, a CD, a concert ticket, etc. Companies like iTunes make most of their money off of this concept. There is also the subject of royalties  which are awarded to an artist for their work. Artists should be entitled to receive these royalties for their whole lives, as well as their immediate families, until the last living descendant of the artist dies.  I think it is respectful to continue to grant royalties to the artist's families even after the artist has died, because it is like paying respect to the family and recognizing the brilliance of the artist.  

So, the answer to the question of music's inherent value is that any music, anywhere can have any amount of inherent (and other value) depending on the audience. This also depends on the artist's willingness to share it with others, profit from it, and wishes for its availability.   

Should Music Be Free?

I like to consider myself as a serious music consumer. I have weeks of music on my iTunes account, and even more on CDs in my room. I have always obtained my music on “the up and up”, always purchasing my CDs or buying music form the iTunes store. So a few years ago, when I logged into iTunes one day, I was very disappointed to find that iTunes had enacted a sales hike. The majority of songs on iTunes were now $1.29, as opposed to the previous value of $0.99 for all songs on iTunes. I was about twelve or thirteen, and obtained most if not all of my iTunes spending money from gift cards from Christmas or birthdays. I was angry and frustrated when I saw these hikes in prices. Why do I get less bang for my digital buck? Around the same time, I kept hearing how the music business is failing, with numerous record stores across the country having to close down because they weren’t making any money. Why was this? What was the reason for this change in the music industry? Since then, I have learned why prices on iTunes have increased, and why record stores have gone bankrupt.

We are in the digital age, and with the immense progress of the internet has come the inevitable transition in the way that the average person obtains music. Rather than physically going to a record store, music consumers are now able to obtain their music online. Unfortunately, these online methods of obtaining music tend to be illegitimate, and cheat artists out of their hard earned money. Therefore, record stores are failing due to lack of attendance, and iTunes has become more expensive in order to compensate artists for their financial losses elsewhere online.

An argument as to why the illegal collecting of music via the web is okay is that the public has a right to free music. I disagree with this view completely. Perhaps music can be free to listen to, on websites such as Pandora, YouTube or Spotify, but I’m not sure that is what people mean when they say the public has a right to free music. Obtaining music from an artist without compensation is illegal for a reason. Artists work hard to create music, and deserve to be fairly compensated for their work. Saying that music should be free is like saying people have the right to free cars, shoes, or any other product made by a craftsmen. Clearly, the public does not have the right to these products being free, so why is music any different? When a song is written, the rights to that song are in the possession of the artist, and that artist’s record label, with the latter having greater power in the rights of the song. Artists tend to receive a smaller percentage of the royalties for a song than the record company, so when music is obtained illegally online, it is hurting the artist most of all, because they lose the small percentage of the royalty that they would have received had the song been purchased legitimately. Hence, musicians are now going on tour more than ever, because it has become one of the only sure ways that they can get steady income.

However, there is an exception as to when it is acceptable to obtain music for free online, and that is when the artist is making their music available for free online. This is a useful tool for artists to use to gain publicity, especially when that artist isn’t particularly well known. Artists that share their music are banking on the fact music has become so easily obtained online. These artists are merely giving in to the power of the internet and making music for download simply as a way to get attention. Of the five artists that were nominated for best new artist at the Grammy Awards this last February, three of these acts, one of which being FrankOcean, originally were signed by their record labels as a result of releasing music online.

Having covered the online music scene, I now look to the record stores and their dwindling sales. As previously mentioned, less people are going to record stores and choosing to obtain their music legally or illegally online for the convenience factor. As well, record stores tend to sell music for higher prices, mostly because the consumer is paying for the “hard copy”. Thus, because of financially sound as well as lazy consumers, record stores are not making as much money as they used to before the digital age. However, there is still hope for some of these stores. Record stores such as Amoeba Music in California sell used music as well as new music, allowing for thrifty music consumers to again return to music stores to purchase their music.

Will illegal websites geared towards the free download of music continuously hinder the music industry? I believe that they will, unless harsher online restrictions are made in order to prevent these kinds of websites from being allowed to provide music to be downloaded illegally. If harsher measures are taken, then someday, artists may not have to tour as much as they have to, and maybe, just maybe, I can buy songs on iTunes for $0.99 again.

(The Bass Department by spaceabstract)

Mozart v. One Direction?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29103849@N00/6704958383


Mozart v. One Direction?

 When something is inherent it is essential or permanent, so inherent value means permanent or innate worth. I believe that not all music has inherent value. To me, the value of music isn't what sort of impact it has on those who listen to it or how much someone has decided it should cost.Two ways to tell if a piece is inherently valuable are how permanent its popularity is and how original it is. I think music that has inherent worth should be able to stand the test of time. Will people still be listening to it in 2 years? How about 5? Or maybe 10, 20, or even 100 years? If one song can stay well know for decades while another song goes out of style almost as soon as it becomes popular, then the first piece is the one with inherent value.One great thing about music is that it has variety. If a composer creates a composition that is identical to that of another composer the piece has no worth, since it was just a copy of the original.

Does the piece written by a well-known, award-winning composer have the same worth as that of a tone-deaf child? I don't think so. Sure, they might both have certain importance and they might mean something to their composers, but it's clear that a piece written by a respected composer will have more permanent value. Take, for example, a piece written by Mozart and a song written by One Direction. To many people, they both have worth. But which work will still be listened to and respected years from now? I don't think One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful" will. However, Mozart's Symphony no. 40 will be played and performed as a classic for years to come. This is permanent.  "What Makes You Beautiful"...well, it's not. In this sense, I think that some music has more worth than other music. And because of this, some music has inherent value and some doesn't. 

As well as the time test, music's innate worth can be tested by its originality. All music is, and should be, different. No two compositions should be the same. If they are, the original version is the more valuable one. For instance, rap became very popular in the eighties. Since then many contemporary rappers have developed the style. This style is virtually the same in all rappers: the same mannerisms, beats, and formats. So is all rap inherently valuable? I think the original rap songs had worth as a new musical form, but now most rap sounds extremely similar. Throughout their music Wiz Khalifa, Eminem, and Jay-Z all use the same type of language. Their themes are similar and they all heavily auto-tune their work. To many people, their songs sound exactly the same. This is classified as unoriginality. I believe that--since much of the rap industry is unoriginal--rap music as a genre is not inherently valuable.

My views on music are highly opinionated, since I believe that music should be taken seriously as a profession and not just a hobby. Just like not every novel has innate worth, not every musical composition has inherent value. That said, I enjoy lots of music that has absolutely no real worth! Sometimes I even like rap! I think we should listen to whatever we want, but I do think it's important to know the difference between temporarily popular music and classic music that has true inherent value.

Opinion on Music's inherent value

True Value of Music

        Throughout history, music has served many purposes. The value of music back then was in the hearts of the people, rather than expressed in dollar amount. Of course, times have changed. While people from my generation will never be able to personally listen to certain masterpieces written before us, people in future generations will most certainly be able to enjoy music from this era, with the aid of technology. As music turns more and more concrete, questions inevitably arise regarding the value of music. No matter how the concreteness of music changes, however, I believe that good music will always have a certain value that cannot necessarily be expressed by a dollar amount. As you read, please bear in mind that one fact is undeniably true: music always was, and always will be, created for people.

      Obviously, if you’re an artist, it would be nice to be paid for your work. When people pay, however, they are actually expressing their appreciation for the artist’s work. This appreciation is, to the artist, the true value of their music. Some artists may disagree, but honestly speaking, a truly talented artist should have no trouble at all getting through life, even if people don’t pay for their music. In addition, there is a limit to how long a song can remain popular, how much people are willing to pay for the music, and the time length of an artist’s glory, but appreciation for the song is infinite. Beethoven’s work, for example, is most definitely not currently classified as popular music, yet always was and always will be respected as the work of a musical genius. People at the time truly believed that music was to be admired, not owned. Music today is very much the same: no matter how much or how little the artist is paid, his work will always have a value to the ones who learn to appreciate, but not necessarily own, the music.

      With modern technology, music can now easily be downloaded. While this may seem unjust to the artists and is in violation of certain laws, I personally think there is nothing wrong with obtaining music for free, as long as the artist gets some sort or recognition. Music is meant to be for communication, after all, and the artist should be happy to communicate their messages to more people. Easier means of obtaining the music attracts a larger audience, which, in turn, increases appreciation for the artist’s music, which will last far beyond the days of the particular song’s popularity. Music does have inherent value, but its value is determined by its listeners, not its creator.

   

Music: Culture That Known No Social Bounds

            I believe that music has inherent value. I think that music compositions, sound recordings, and music in any other accessible medium are works of art, much like a painting or a novel. I don't think this value is based on the popularity of the piece, so much as on the work and inspiration that went into its creation.  Probably that biggest discrepancy with this line of thinking would be to compare the inherent value of music to a painting; and unfortunately most of the time paintings are given value based on the artist and the popularity of the work. However, inherent value means a worth that is not assigned by a market or buyers, but merit and importance based on pretexts by which the piece was created.
            A big problem that arises today with widespread technology and the availability of music online is the illegal distribution and downloading of music without paying. This of course is illegal because you are taking something without paying for it, but even more so, it makes you wonder, at which point does an artist's ownership of a piece of music reach its limit? I think that as soon as someone composes a piece of music, it belongs to that person exclusively. However, in today's world, music can be a profession, and musical compositions are market goods. Unfortunately, not every songwriter is able to make money and gain acclaim from recording a song and keeping the rights but getting paid a fraction of a radio station's or company's profit from the song. Therefore many artists choose to sell the 'rights' to their piece to a recording label or company to get immediate money for the song. At this point, various controversies arise. I would argue that if you have technically sold the song, the rights for distribution no longer belong to you. Still, this does NOT mean that an artist does not deserve recognition. I think that an artist still should own the copyright to the song, even if the rights have been sold. All this controversy is precisely why I would advocate for keeping the rights to a song if possible.
           Even if all this controversy was settled, I do not think that the downloading of music would stop. It has been made too easy with today's technology, and music has become a vital part of life for many people. I don't think it's okay per se to download music illegally, and I believe that certainly people have NO RIGHT to do so. Nevertheless, for some reason, even though stealing is stealing, downloading music doesn't feel as bad as stealing from a supermarket or clothing boutique. I myself download music pretty regularly, and yet my morals don't kick in like they would if I were to, for example, rob a store. So this raises the question, why? Are songwriters under appreciated? Is music undervalued? I don't think so. I think the answer lies in a very simple revelation. Music used to be a cultural treat for the upper class. But nowadays music has become one of the few cultural phenomenons that is accessible to people with any amount of wealth, across the social ladder. I think this is a wonderful thing, but leads to people constantly finding new ways to get their hands on free music.







 http://www.flickr.com/photos/89142790@N00/48940647
Found on flickrcc.net

Do You Steal Music?

Do You Steal Music?

In my humble opinion, there is nothing morally wrong with downloading songs illegally over the Internet. 

When an artist creates a musical composition, it automatically has value. When I say ‘value’ I’m not referring to the cost of the song on iTunes, or royalties an artist may receive. It may have special meaning to the musician, seeing as it is a personal expression of the self. Its value may stem from the meaning it has to a certain individual who relates to the song, or to someone who’s mood is lifted when they hear it on the radio. However, music, upon creation, also has value in and of itself. Music, as an art form, has so much importance and relevance in our lives as human beings, it seems impossible for a piece of music to not have value. A piece of music automatically has value, because it’s a piece of this beautiful sanctified thing.          

Since music’s importance and meaning is undeniable, no one should be denied their right to access music.

Everyone should listen to music. When you’re feeling down, music can cheer you right back up. When you’re angry, music can soothe you. When you’re bored, music can keep you entertained. Intelligent lyrics can even expand your vocabulary. So the more music you like the better. The more music you like the more culturally aware you become. Putting a price tag on music just discourages people from listening. Thus, charging a fee for music limits people in a lot of ways. I have over 2,000 songs on my iPod. If I had to spend my money, I’d have 0 songs, and life would be a little bleaker. Many people don’t even have the ability to spend money on music. People should not be denied the right to hear music because they have a less than stable financial situation.

Studies have shown that the illegal sharing of music files online has not really hurt the income of well known musicians. It even increases sales. This may seem alarming but it all makes sense. People download one or two songs to check out their favorite band’s new album. If they like what they hear, they purchase the hard copy. Musicians still make a lot of money off of their songs. Musicians make plenty of money from concerts and merchandise anyway.

Of course this is different for the starving artists out there. Local bands and small scale musicians don’t make much money off of shows or merch, so stealing their music is basically like stealing out of their pocket. They need the financial support of their fans as well as the emotional.

There are a few drawbacks to illegally downloading music. Often time the audio files are of lower sound quality than the iTunes version. And when you use youtube to mp3 converters, there’s often a 5-10 second pause before the song begins. Of course there also the risk of getting a virus, or being fined. But the pros outweigh the cons.
Everyone deserves access to free mp3 files for all their favorite songs. Music is a beautiful thing and should be shared with the world.

Music Note Imagery

                                                                Direct Link To Image

The Value of Music? Priceless.

Music is an art form that has been created and enjoyed by people all over the world since the beginning of time.  There is an expectation that it will bring the audience a degree of pleasure and will evoke feelings from the listener.  These feelings can range from happiness to desperation and everything in between.  In my opinion, music possesses inherent value because it delivers a product and elicits a response. Therefore, a value can be placed on the artists creation.  It does not matter if the music is good or bad, rock or jazz or a simple jingle.  If a commodity is produced, and it is appreciated by others, it has inherent value.

Music’s role in society is essential to our culture.  Whether its playing, creating, or listening to the music, it provides tremendous value.  The uniqueness of music created by an artist yields stimulation for the listener and is nurturing for the soul.

One of the most controversial issues in the music industry today has to do with the illegal downloading of music off the internet and the implications it has for the artists.  Popular artists who have an extremely large fan base such as Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift are at a lesser risk of losing money from illegal downloads then artists with a smaller fan base, whose songs may not be as well known.  These lesser known artists may not yet be on i tunes and because of this, their music is only available as a download, thereby making them a smaller profit than the previously stated megastars. 

This issue of illegal downloading is not new.  In fact, one of the biggest cases involved a company called Napster.  Back in 1999, its popularity blossomed when people were first exposed to the ability to download files from the internet for free.  Unfortunately,  most of the site’s members did not understand the ethical and legal implications of file sharing.  There was not a happy ending for the pioneers of this company and many of their users as it was eventually shut down and subject to serious legal difficulties.

Although people typically think of music as something that we listen to for enjoyment, it actually serves multiple purposes, which simply adds to its value.  It can be used for studying, as a profession, can inspire creativity, and also provide motivation.  These are things that cannot be measured, but are clearly valuable to those who experience it. For example, musical motivation has played a huge role on the human race from the drummer boys in the revolutionary wars up until today’s modern “pump up songs.” However, as these types of music have changed, so have the cost of production that goes along with them. It obviously cost more to create a song using fancy machinery and recording equipment than it does to make a simple beat on a homemade drum, but they both in their own way provide an equal amount of motivation and fervor.  

Although music has evolved and changed since the beginning of time, one thing remains the same.  The expectations that music will move you and the desire to be moved.  The demand for music from the people and the desire of the artists to produce it.  The consistency of these things strongly shows the inherent value of music and I suspect this will not change any time soon.





Sources:
Girl Running : http://blog.fitnessvideostore.com/workout-music-why-it-helps/
Revolutionary Drummer:http://colt76foutz.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/drummer-boy.jpg
Napster Logo: http://rooftopagency.com/2011/10/best-buy-sells-napster/napster-logo/
Napster Information: Napster's Wikipedia page

Think before you dowload your music...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40761412@N00/8538647622

Inherent value to me, is not  necessarily about  monetary value, but is more about the value of the impact and impression a song leaves on a person/persons. Whether music has inherent value or not is very opinion oriented. A specific song for one person might mean the world to them or has gotten them through a hard time, but for another person that song might get on their nerves or they may have never heard of that song before. Music can change your mood in a moment. It is a very valuable thing, to be able to have such power to convey and inspire any emotion you can think of.
Music is very valuable because it can help people through a hard time. For example, When my grandfather died last year, it was a very hard time for me because I had never had a death very close to me before. At his wake they played an old Irish prayer song and to this day that song gets me through the days when I miss my grandfather and always helps me to remember him.  Music is a universal language. Some people say the same thing about math, but I think music is a much more fun way to communicate with people from other cultures. Not all music should have a set inherent value. I think there is a monetary value in music, but also an emotional and sometimes sentimental value as well.
Some people chose to purchase music illegally online. Although this may be their way of supporting the artist, I believe it is cheating the artist and their production workers out of possible profit. In today's world it is so simple to copy or take music illegally with all the technological advancements in place. Because of my value of music in the above paragraphs, I do not think there is any wiggle room when it comes to the obtaining of free music, although, there is one exception. I think it is OK to LEGALLY purchase a CD them loan it to a friend for them to download on their computer. I think this is okay because the CD has already been purchased and paid for. Although different music has different inherent value, all music produced my any artist that is getting paid to make music, deserves credit and the fair amount of income for their works.
There are numerous ways in which people can obtain free music without cheating the artist. Their are countless online sources like You Tube, Pandora and other radio websites or apps. These outlets are just as available, if not more available than if you were to purchase the music from an illegal program. I think an artist should be able to collect the deserved amount of money for their work during their career and even after. If an artist is no longer making music, but had a hit song many years ago, as long as that song is played on things like radio, TV, and other media outlets i believe that the original artist should get credit for the song. I think it everyone can agree that it would be unreasonable for someone who likes and wants an item of clothing to walk into either a small boutique or a large department store and simply take it off the shelves without paying for it. This is pretty much what people do when they purchase music illegally online. 
The economic system in America is based on the idea of supply and demand. When the supply of music music is limitlessness and available to just about anyone, the demand for the product can increase and increase without contributing economically whatsoever to the artist.