KVR Audio

nineofkings · Post by **nineofkings** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:30 am

So, I tried the free music thing for a while. The theory was that, if I released music for free for a couple years, people would download it with a "why not?" mentality, and even if they didn't listen to it closely at first, they'd at least have it on their computers, phones, wax disks, whatever. Then, when I did more work in the future, they would be more inclined to check it out - they would know my name from having previous music downloaded.

Unfortunately, that didn't work. I suppose if it's free, it is seen as valueless. So, in roughly a month, I'm making all my music cost money. Then, even if still nobody wants it, at least I can justify it to myself as being for economic reasons

.

Anybody have any experiences with giving away music? Were your findings similar or different?

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:59 am

nineofkings wrote:Then, even if still nobody wants it, at least I can justify it to myself as being for economic reasons

Making music for economic reasons is the worst thing you can do... If you need some money, and going to the Wall Street isn't an option, at least create some paintings, sculptures, tomb stones or figures. People pay a lot for things they can see (look at auctions for the prices of old paintings). But not for things they can hear, alas...

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:15 am

There are people who pay $200 for a painting of a no-name artist in an art gallery, and when they're back at home they download their favorite music from big-name artists for free with Youtube Downloader...

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:36 am

I don't think giving it away is per se going to result in generating enough interest for much of anything. It might be true of some things. You're going to have to have someone behind you spending money for sales to be any kind of expectation. You'll need to be a persona, and be seen a lot and written about a lot.

I think sometimes people charging a really low price might mean a sale or two versus charging a dollar a track. I'm of the view that devaluing like that - a Snickers® bar costs 1.19 or 1.29 here - is a bad idea in general, but if two sales results in the ability to buy one Snickers® somebody is missing in their day, maybe I'm persuaded somewhat.

The other day someone paid me 107 dollars for 9 tracks download, which is more like it.

{Mine is more a donation model to be candid.}

I found that sharing mp3s here several years ago resulted in people distributing them without permission kind of more widely than I would expect. I think they did not make one cent either. One Russian man, as a "disciple" presented to me something he had ripped at 128kbps, a compilation of my tracks he was proud of and sharing over there but he did not offer to buy anything.

So stay in school and learn a trade.

nineofkings · Post by **nineofkings** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:05 am

Tricky-Loops wrote:
nineofkings wrote:Then, even if still nobody wants it, at least I can justify it to myself as being for economic reasons
Making music for economic reasons is the worst thing you can do... If you need some money, and going to the Wall Street isn't an option, at least create some paintings, sculptures, tomb stones or figures. People pay a lot for things they can see (look at auctions for the prices of old paintings). But not for things they can hear, alas...

Oh no no I meant that I can tell myself that they didn't buy it because they found it too expensive. I never make music to make money.

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:42 am

I honestly just recently switched from withholding free downloads to now making well over 90% of my music free to download as it wasn't going to bring any revenue and I'd rather people have my music and remember it than listen to it and leave without a second thought.

I also was going to expand where else I uploaded my music too, which I did for a bit, but admittedly I have slacked off in that. I focused on posting it to Bandcamp where now all my music is hosted for free or pay-what-you-want, which I think is the best way of handling distribution of music as this way those who want it can get and those who want to support you can choose to and choose how much they want to.

quayquay17 · Post by **quayquay17** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:28 am

Giving music away is not a way to make money.

It is a personal choice. Will you be able to keep making music if you aren't making money?

If you're giving music away as part of a greater scheme of popularity and income, forget it. Take the number of people that currently download your stuff and I would guess that half, or a quarter of them will actually pay. If you're getting <100 downloads per release then is asking for money worth it?

On the other hand, if you feel like you invest enough time, effort, and passion for your music to be commercial, then go for it! I just have a biased view

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:46 am

Well, people have paid for the thing, making it free now will be pissing on those people. I have no care about being remembered, my music is not forgettable or rubbish and it's there in not bad shape for free anyway. You'll be paying for top quality audio, with definite things you don't get streaming it any kind of way. It's worth $$$$ and I do not want to signal in any form that it is not or obviate the future of its putative value. It cost enormous sums to realize. I'll give you half my burrito on the street or something, but I don't need y'all to love me like that. The people that support me in life have the key to the humidor for life.

One dollar minimum, Jesus F. Christ.

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:37 am

jancivil wrote:Well, people have paid for the thing, making it free now will be pissing on those people.

I think he's talking about switching from it being free to now charging people. So basically the early adopters had the advantage and the late adopters will have settle with paying for it now.

In my case, switching from my music being restrictive with it's downloads, I made all music that had not been published in an album available for free download. The tracks that were published with an album (which, fyi, I only have 1 album out anyways) continue to remain at the same price.
Any songs I release intended for an album will follow the same principle; they won't be released for free, it will cost some meager amount - I don't really expect to make a profit off my music, but typically my album-specific songs have a lot more attention and focus so I'd rather charge a (quotes)"premium"(/quote) for it. But that's just my ignorant take on unsuccessfully marketing my music to an invisible audience.

Zombie Queen · Post by **Zombie Queen** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:36 am

nineofkings wrote:I suppose if it's free, it is seen as valueless.

I'm afraid it's just that recorded music has no value at all these days. Bandcamp pay what you want option, with a minimum value set is what emotionally works for me. It has no economical sense anyhow, but knowing that someone cared enough to shell out a dollar makes you feel better, and after a couple of years, you can get a free six pack.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:38 am

If I'd work for 20 hours on a big painting, people would call it a "masterpiece" and shell out some money to buy it.

Nobody would even get the idea to give it away for free!

But if I work the double amount of time - 40 hours at least - on a song, it's worth not a single buck...

Why is there so much value for things you can see and so less for things you can listen to?

Imagine at every corner of your city there were artists giving away their paintings for free...

Zombie Queen · Post by **Zombie Queen** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:58 am

In case of a painting you are buying the one and only original, with music it's always a copy.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:20 pm

Zombie Queen wrote:In case of a painting you are buying the one and only original, with music it's always a copy.

So if we stop copying our songs, the value of music will increase?

nineofkings · Post by **nineofkings** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:38 pm

Wu-Tang Clan did something like that, actually. They made an album and pressed one and only one copy of it.

nineofkings · Post by **nineofkings** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:42 pm

Zombie Queen wrote:
nineofkings wrote:I suppose if it's free, it is seen as valueless.
I'm afraid it's just that recorded music has no value at all these days. Bandcamp pay what you want option, with a minimum value set is what emotionally works for me. It has no economical sense anyhow, but knowing that someone cared enough to shell out a dollar makes you feel better, and after a couple of years, you can get a free six pack.

My overall goal isn't to make money. But I feel like a lot of the beauty in music is that, as individual as it is, it's also able to connect to other people. So if people see it as valueless, and artificially creating a sense of value by using money works, then it's something probably worth doing.

Making formerly free music paid