pouët.net

The demoscene isn't that free too! Weeks and weeks of creating a demo, an more or less expensive travel to the venue, admissions and then - if one is not amongst the first 3 - no price (and there are parties with GOOD prices; expensive computer stuff, money...)

Sleeping under the table sucks big time btw... I'm too old for that.

But back to the topic: Noone has to give Paniq one cent - and still everyone can use his music... so why the turmoil?

You know what sucks? GEMA, so called "artists" who want thousands of Euros for crappy canvas because of their big egos...

[quote]Since when is the cost a factor in how good art is?[quote]

Since the time people started demanding money for stuff! Unless one paints to walls with his shit or builds sculpures of snow (or again... his own shit) the material an artist needs (brushes, canvas, instruments, paint, wood, stone... whatever...) is quite expensive.

And even if these cost factors are no big deal - a human being still has to eat something and needs a roof over one's head. Life is (more or less) expensive, and if someone wants to be a fulltime artist, instead of being a part-time artist like most demosceners, he needs to raise the money from somewhere...

I don't know if Paniq IS a full-time artist or not, but I know this: His music is damn good in my opinion - that's why I support him - it's as easy as that...

what emu said!

im all for having a 'if you dont wanna support paniq, donate here'-*waldorf and statler*-page.

@skrebbel: thanks :)

@emu: of course, the link can't be clicked. this video is not available. we don't know why.

@okkie: cost relates to quality, they make a statement in combination.

low quality, no price = i suck and i know it.
low quality, high price = i suck, but you believe that good things are expensive, so maybe the high price diverts your attention.
high quality, high price = i'm good and i believe that good things must be expensive.

high quality, no price = i'm a fucking lunatic, and i will bring down society as we know it.

@eebliss: thanks :)

@gargaj: sounds cool. :)

@maali: me too.

Well, if you check older posts in my blog you can basically see how I tried to work out a model that isn't focused on music as a product. In this case it's more music as a service or performance, or commissioned free art.

Even if you donate, the license makes clear that your donation will enable countless others to enjoy the work for free, which makes you an altruist and art patron.

I'm not trying to sell you something here, please keep your money for yourself. I'm just showing how this model is more fair and just than the current popular one that's slowly rotting because it actually doesn't work now that everybody can copy everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ42IMu7HIQ

...here's the link again - I hope this time it will work...

paniq, of course the real solution is to become a sculptor :-)

skrebbel: nice try, but we'll all be copying sculptures soon...

True! A friend of mine ist the singer of a more or less popular Heavy Metal Band and owner of a small Music-Label.
Since the rise of the Internet and the fact that people are (illegaly) downloading music from the web, he has to do some regular job to live.
But he said back in the good old days where people actually bought CDs he could have made a living from his music... sad but true...

This fact is not a problem for the big superstars but for the little musicians who can barely afford a decent production of their music... not to talk of music videos which I produce... for the very few bands that can or want to afford it.

True! A friend of mine ist the singer of a more or less popular Heavy Metal Band and owner of a small Music-Label.
Since the rise of the Internet and the fact that people are (illegaly) downloading music from the web, he has to do some regular job to live.
But he said back in the good old days where people actually bought CDs he could have made a living from his music... sad but true...

This fact is not a problem for the big superstars but for the little musicians who can barely afford a decent production of their music... not to talk of music videos which I produce... for the very few bands that can or want to afford it.

Well I guess the real question here is: is copying theft?
legally that is not a question for copyrighted content of course, but ethically it is.
where does the idea come from to pay for art (i will call it content from now on) on a per-media-basis? it comes from the simple fact that producing a physical medium with content on it costs money. so it cant be distributed for free without anyone paying up for it.
the idea to cover more than just the actual production cost of the medium is a logical step since its way easier than to pay for the medium to the record companies who produce it and also pay a share directly to the musician who actually delivered the content which the buyer is interested in. it also seemed quite fair at that time.

with the invention of mass medias it was possible to reach vast amounts of consumers, the shining stars of the showbiz and a whole new business idea was born, the pop culture. for the media companies and stars this wasnt about making a living or compensate production costs anymore but getting very, very rich.
of course the peopel paid any price for a physical medium (if they could effort it), since there wasnt any alternative around.
in that time people also got used to the fact that successful artists (and the people involved in creating them) were getting a ton of money/babes/luxury/unameit. it worked, it made a lot of fun and many people rich, so the question if this is a fair compensation for their work didnt really occure.
the discussion first started when the (video) cassette appeared on the scene (no, not THE scene you idiots ;), since it was now possible to copy the content without paying the companies. but since every copy was a lossy one there still wasnt a real alternative to the master copies that were sold in the stores. in fact the price of the media went up to compensate for the 'losses' the companies made which werent really losses at all but just a decrease of the profit increase since many (poor, greedy, whatever) people started copying the music! But in the end the business model was still good to go.
Ironically it was the industry itself which decided that it would be a good idea to digitize the media since it can be handled and copied easier this way without any losses. Of course if they wouldnt have done it the people would have started ripping the analog media sooner or later anyway, but producing and selling expensively a/d'ed copies made it a lot easier for sure.

so here we are now.

we can produce lossless copies (or lossy ones, if we want to) of almost any media. the industry has absolutely no costs if we do so, but still they demand we pay for it on a per-copy-basis and see every copied album or movie out there as a theft of their property. since the technical barriers are becoming smaller and smaller they try to make the legal barriers higher and higher to stick to an old business model that wasnt ever ment to last an enternity.
i do not only think that the old model is obsolete, i also think that it is very unfair since it doesnt pay those artists much who create great and innovative content but those who are the most mass-compatible ones (means: the most profitable). we all know that marketing and showtime are the way to sell the greatest piles of shit to millions of people nowadays.

as much as i feel sorry for all the small labels with great musicians that are dying now, it is basically their fault for they do not see this happening or dont believe it is and still try to make it the old fashioned way.
what we need is a new way of financing the people who deliver us with great content. and even if there are some artists will disagree with me here: i also think it is good that the new models make it incredibly hard for the artists to actually get rich.
why? because money kills creativity. money attracts greedy persons who would do anything to get rich and do not care about the quality, meaning or impact of their creations to others.
if we find a way to enable artists to do what they want to do and what they feel like by providing them with an income that makes their lives enjoyable and liveworthy, then i think our mission here is done and creativity is saved.
not everybody has a job he loves, many have to work hard and dumb to make a living and hate it.
so i think an artist with a medium/standard income still has a lot of benefits in his live, including the fame and respect he gets.

and thats also why i love paniq for at least trying this. it is incredibly tranparent, everybody can see that he wont get rich with it and hence doesnt do it for the money.
and it looks like he actually might succeed.
paniq may not be the first or only one who tries this, but to me it looks like this could really work.

paniq, you are writing history here.

now look what an incredibly long, boring and mistake-filled post i made. i promise i wont do it again anytime soon ;=)

so long
wysiwtf aka arvenius aka joscha

Well I guess the real question here is: is copying theft?
legally that is not a question for copyrighted content of course, but ethically it is.
where does the idea come from to pay for art (i will call it content from now on) on a per-media-basis? it comes from the simple fact that producing a physical medium with content on it costs money. so it cant be distributed for free without anyone paying up for it.
the idea to cover more than just the actual production cost of the medium is a logical step since its way easier than to pay for the medium to the record companies who produce it and also pay a share directly to the musician who actually delivered the content which the buyer is interested in. it also seemed quite fair at that time.

with the invention of mass medias it was possible to reach vast amounts of consumers, the shining stars of the showbiz and a whole new business idea was born, the pop culture. for the media companies and stars this wasnt about making a living or compensate production costs anymore but getting very, very rich.
of course the peopel paid any price for a physical medium (if they could effort it), since there wasnt any alternative around.
in that time people also got used to the fact that successful artists (and the people involved in creating them) were getting a ton of money/babes/luxury/unameit. it worked, it made a lot of fun and many people rich, so the question if this is a fair compensation for their work didnt really occure.
the discussion first started when the (video) cassette appeared on the scene (no, not THE scene you idiots ;), since it was now possible to copy the content without paying the companies. but since every copy was a lossy one there still wasnt a real alternative to the master copies that were sold in the stores. in fact the price of the media went up to compensate for the 'losses' the companies made which werent really losses at all but just a decrease of the profit increase since many (poor, greedy, whatever) people started copying the music! But in the end the business model was still good to go.
Ironically it was the industry itself which decided that it would be a good idea to digitize the media since it can be handled and copied easier this way without any losses. Of course if they wouldnt have done it the people would have started ripping the analog media sooner or later anyway, but producing and selling expensively a/d'ed copies made it a lot easier for sure.

so here we are now.

we can produce lossless copies (or lossy ones, if we want to) of almost any media. the industry has absolutely no costs if we do so, but still they demand we pay for it on a per-copy-basis and see every copied album or movie out there as a theft of their property. since the technical barriers are becoming smaller and smaller they try to make the legal barriers higher and higher to stick to an old business model that wasnt ever ment to last an enternity.
i do not only think that the old model is obsolete, i also think that it is very unfair since it doesnt pay those artists much who create great and innovative content but those who are the most mass-compatible ones (means: the most profitable). we all know that marketing and showtime are the way to sell the greatest piles of shit to millions of people nowadays.

as much as i feel sorry for all the small labels with great musicians that are dying now, it is basically their fault for they do not see this happening or dont believe it is and still try to make it the old fashioned way.
what we need is a new way of financing the people who deliver us with great content. and even if there are some artists will disagree with me here: i also think it is good that the new models make it incredibly hard for the artists to actually get rich.
why? because money kills creativity. money attracts greedy persons who would do anything to get rich and do not care about the quality, meaning or impact of their creations to others.
if we find a way to enable artists to do what they want to do and what they feel like by providing them with an income that makes their lives enjoyable and liveworthy, then i think our mission here is done and creativity is saved.
not everybody has a job he loves, many have to work hard and dumb to make a living and hate it.
so i think an artist with a medium/standard income still has a lot of benefits in his live, including the fame and respect he gets.

and thats also why i love paniq for at least trying this. it is incredibly tranparent, everybody can see that he wont get rich with it and hence doesnt do it for the money.
and it looks like he actually might succeed.
paniq may not be the first or only one who tries this, but to me it looks like this could really work.

paniq, you are writing history here.

now look what an incredibly long, boring and mistake-filled post i made. i promise i wont do it again anytime soon ;=)

so long
wysiwtf aka arvenius aka joscha

arg i hate the back button, sry :(

what an incredibly long, boring and mistake-filled post

writing history is one thing. doing a magnum opus is another. if this album isn't going to be shiny and perfect, it will have been nothing but a scam. my reputation depends on it, and if i fail, i will never be able to do something like this again.

SO IT BETTER BE GOOD.

@jazz
see, i know we'd agree ;)
if youre at the haujobb bbq tomorrow give marden a friendly hug from me.

paniq: but can you excel in the timeframe you've given yourself? i always found creativity to be hard to capture in a given timeline cos you either get it or you dont. especially if you dare to use words like magnum opus i wouldnt dare to limit those to constraints like money, time and cocaine.

agreed, it's the story of your life!

going to the haujobb bbq today,
money for nothing but the chicks and beers are free.

@wysiwtf i will do that :) cheers!

@Maali: when I started the project, I was surprised to find that the only thing I doubted was being able to raise the money. I was pretty sure that I could do at least one track a week.

But if you know me, I've had steady and constant output for the past ten years. There is usually not much happening in the usual workweek, but when I get a free week, it takes me only three days to get my muse back. A lot of tracks never get finished because I'm running out of time and interest, but when I want to, I can deliver. The soundtrack to "Masagin" has been written in one weekend, for example. The entire project was "on demand". And I don't know any better driver for a creative production than demand. "Draw me a sheep."

Just couldn't resist :)

sing a song about tractors.

Kleina rota traaaaktooooa!
Ist uebaall bekaaaannt!

tractooooor! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jag7oTemldY