Arr, Jim lad.

[tahariel]

Since I left the Hell-Job on Friday I have:

tidied the entire flat so it is now all clean and lovely

cleaned out all the photos I don't actually want to keep (elbows and people I don't know)

spent all the iTunes vouchers work gave me as a leaving present

finagled a single ticket for the National Theatre's production of Frankenstein starring

Comments

[tahariel]

But the whole "music should be free" thing is an embodiment of modern culture's entitlement complex regarding art. Why should it be free? Why should somebody who spends a lot of time and effort making something not be recompensed for that time and effort in such a way that they can a) afford to live and b) afford to make more of the music you like?

Without the superstructure of the recording industry - flawed as it may be - music would not be of the quality it is today, nor could most artists achieve the kind of publicity, quality, platform that they can achieve with this kind of support. But it's a retail market and if things don't sell the company won't pay them for more of it and so they effectively are put out of work and can't make more music, because the company won't pay for more of something that doesn't sell, because to make more music and try new artists they have to make a profit to pay for it.

Why should it be different for music as opposed to other types of art?

(I know I'm pretty full-on about this stuff, it's just something I'm really passionate about. Sorry if I come on a little strong :/