Darth Id said:
Now this is a very rich example for illustrative purposes. Microsoft (or whatever) commissioned those pieces precisely to reap an expected value, based I assume on a portfolio that you let them hear (for free!) that they took as strong evidence that you could produce work of high value for a particular purpose. Everybody who buys that game, in turn, pays a price that includes a component that goes to you, and based on the expectation that the game will have awesome music. A very wide range of market signals will be integrated by each of those purchasers. Even if they game were free, the developer name or score composer credit would serve as a good signal of value. In any event, it might be better than your usual or worse. It depends on you mental processes during production.
How can I possibly have a discussion with someone who refuses to look at the examples I've given, despite having a very strong opinion on the matter?
I don't know, yet here we are.
For your first point: that's a whole lot of nothing you just typed.
Part of my contractual stipulations was that I get to retain all distribution rights for my music and I am allowed to release it free on the internet. I'm obviously doing this because I think the music is worthless. ;)
For your seconds point: thanks for letting me know I'm wasting my time.
I'm just baffled by your reasoning. My friends show me music all the time. I hate a lot of it and like a lot of it. I click on links from "random people on the internet" and I hate a lot of it and like a lot of it.
At least you admit that ALL free music isn't worthless. Maybe you'll find some you like someday.
xhonzi said:
I wanted to follow up on my comments.
There's a lot of music out there. So much, that I couldn't spend 16 hours a day listening to everything once and do a very good job of keeping up with it. So I can either randomly choose (or let be chosen) music to listen to or I can go at it with some kind of strategy.
Like most people, my strategy is "I will listen to the music that I like and not listen to the music that I don't like." I exectute this strategy by listening to music that I already know I like and music that I think I will like, based on the culmination of other factors. I also execute this strategy by not listening to country stations or anyone that plays John Tesh.
So! Listening to music I already know I like is simple, but how do I identify music that I will probably like? Recommendations from friends/family/clever software algorithms that know my tastes and make suggestions is one good way. Listening to Radio Stations that play a mix of things I like with things I don't yet know about is also another good way. Buying (or receiving for free, if you like) CDs (little plastic things with bits on them) by groups I like, that might contain a few songs I already know I like beside several others I don't yet know about is good. Otherwise, I watch TV and see films and sometimes just walk around public places or whatnot and encounter new songs that way as well.
None of these methods are guaranteed to bring me more music that I actually like. But, it's statistically more likely to work than randomly listening to ANY music. I NEED SOME KIND OF FILTER. I never said (and I won't say now) that free music, by uncompensated musicians, can't be good and won't be a song that I will like, but I can say that it's proven to not be worth my time to go through uncommerical music because there are no decent filters out there that I can trust. Say what you will, but commercial music is "targeted" and therefore it's more worth MY time to look for new music there.
Of course I would check out a free song recommended to me by someone whose opinion I trust. Of course I would accept a free CD from a band that I enjoyed. (Not a good comparison- I'm so cheap I would accept most any CD handed to me for free, I just might not go through the trouble of actually listening to it).
I listened to your Youtube song, eiyosus. Not my kind of thing, but it sounded clean. As I'm sure you know well, there's no accounting for taste. But you're right, your production values were high enough, if I enjoyed that kind of music. I didn't mind listening to it- I just wouldn't go out of my way to hear it again or chose it over the music I do enjoy.
And a slight change of tact here at the end- I recently read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. I recommend it to anyone. Part of the main point of the book is: the people that are really good at things are really good at them almost invariably because they have spent a lot a lot a lot of time working on their skills. I would extend this theory to this conversation by restating what I said before. Someone who is paid to make music can focus their time and talents on making music. Someone who does it for free must either be independently wealthy, impervious to hunger, or be conscripted to devote a majority of their time to working for "the man" and therefore have much less of their time, energy, and talent to dedicate to their music- for which their music MORE THAN LIKELY suffers.
Nice well thought out response!
Thanks for taking the time to listen to one of the videos I posted (I'm not sure which one it was, but it couldn't have been one by me, because I didn't post a video. :D) My reason for posting them wasn't to try to get people to like them (I don't like some of what I posted), just to show some examples of the countless free projects out there.
And that's cool about not wanting to dig through countless free music to try and find the good stuff (MOST of it is crap). To get around this, most netlabels will focus on one genre.
And I just want to let you know, that I never hand out my stuff to people. It's there for them to take it if they want it. ;) How many of them listen to it, I have no idea.
I must respectfully disagree with the last point (what a surprise, eh?), because all signed musicians get signed on the strength of their work, which was made before they were signed, ya' know what I mean? Plus, some musicians/bands get better as they get more money, and some get worse.
Cheers.