You know, as an aside I really don't get most of the jpgs/gifs interjected as pictoral commentary by the regulars on this board. I'm not being a "hater" and I certainly don't hide behind a purse.
You're changing your argument. You said that free music must be worthless because it is given away for free. That the time, energy, and passion put into free music is somehow less than commercial music.
But more importantly I also never changed my argument. I said that price is a reliable signal of value--not perfect. The placement of a piece of music as a free-for-all mp3 on an unrestricted website is, all else being equal, simply an indicator (with a pretty high degree of confidence) to me of the value I am likely to derive from it. For someone else, who is into that kind of thing, it might be a badge of honor and a hallmark of worth. But for me it's got the trappings of that with which I need not be bothered.
Might I be wrong? Sure. It might be great...but the likelihood of that doesn't even justify the expenditure of time to verify one way or the other. Again, I started by saying that price colors the "perceived" value. Perceptions are often wrong, but that doesn't mean we should abandon them. [See, heuristics.]
If I played a show at the Mercury Lounge and you dug me, would the free CD's I give away be worthless to you? By your logic, an album is only as good as it costs. I guess I should be charging $100 for my CD's. People would think it was better because they paid so much for it! :D
Given the premises you stated, in this situation I would have a far greater number of signals than price alone to predict the likely value of the CD. If I had already seen you play and it was good, then I would have good reason to expect the CD to offer value, unless the production quality was so poor as to negate the potential value of the songs/performance (which, believe me, has happened many times). Again, the price is not determinative of the value, but only indicative. As you obviously point out, an item is the same regardless of its price.
I did the soundtrack to an upcoming Xbox Arcade game (not out for a long while). I was paid, and I will also receive royalties. Is this music somehow better than my usual stuff just because it's connected to a commercial release?
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.
And you didn't answer my other question: if one of these artists were signed, would they suddenly have more merit?
Again, price is indicative, not determinative.
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.