• Theres Better and more Awesome way to Support Artists

    Firstly, major record labels are greedy and manipulative corporations who in most cases stifle creativity, but thats besides the point. Most artists, even pop stars, make most of their money off touring, so it's actually better to support artists in this way, both because you can easily get tons of music free online and because seeing a musician live is exponentially better experience than just listening to them. Also think of all the great dead musicians! I don't mind buying an indie band's album here and there to support them, but I don't like the idea of families and record labels getting my money and not the artist.

  • Yes, music should be free

    Music should be free, but only after a certain amount of time. It should not be available for download until the album has been out for at least six months to a year. We listen to songs on the radio and MTV. There is also YouTube, and the music channel. They are all free. I know artists depend on money from an album, but look at how much money they make from a concert? Don't be greedy!

  • Most Modern Music Artists Are Very Greedy And Very Rich, Good Music Should Be Free

    Again most modern music artists are rich and swimming in boatloads money. Most are corrupt and in it just for the money and fame. Concerts generate lots of money and should be more often in smaller towns of fans. Most kids think downloading music is "free" so they download it and get their parents in trouble and lose access to the internet.

  • It's only fair.

    A man or woman working in an office or on an assembly line only gets paid once for their efforts, so why should a musician or actor or a publishing company get paid for decades for work they did years ago? It is time copyright laws are made more fair for the average person.

  • It's not being greedy.

    Musicians make money from royalties, advances, playing live, selling merchandise, and licensing fees for their music. If music is free, the only downfall would be them living slightly less luxuriously. We would be saving tons of money ourselves. Just think about it. Four hundred songs bought from iTunes is over $400 spent. I understand that they've put a lot of effort into their work, so there should be an option to instead pay for the song/album as a donation. And for those who say "making music free means music is worthless" think of it this way. Are hugs from your mother or kisses from a partner free? Yes. Are they worthless? Far from it.

  • Being Poor Means No Music?

    Music should be free. Being poor should not prevent folks from enjoying art, especially in the digital age. Music distributors are corrupt in general and in my experience very much flawed, greedy. It's time for music to be free. Do it for love, not for money and the world will be a better place.

  • The struggle is real

    If it suck it should be free.. If it has bad quallitys its should be free. If its mad by someone else it should be free. If another person made it it should be free.. Im saying its should be free because people do it anyways. Just make it free

  • More people will listen

    More people will listen to music if it is free. Artist already make enough money so they don't need to sell it on devices. Artist would be more popular as well. If people can listen to it for free on the radio or YouTube then why can't they any other time?

  • Yes, Music should be free.

    Music should be free because some people can not afford to buy and listen to it. If it is free on YouTube or the radio the why not make it free all the time. Artist are making enough money as it is so they can make it free and it wont effect them. I think that music should be free.

  • Music is Sold For a Reason

    I can see where people would think that it being free would be good, but is it honestly? Artists have to pour money out of their pockets to make music, and if they're not getting paid anything then they have to pay to do what they love. Sure things like sports have to be paid for and people may love doing those, but think of all of the hours and other money they have to spend to be good enough to produce music. They need money to feed their family, and if they don't have that then they're kind of screwed.

  • For the love of music

    Artists do make money from live shows and merchandise, but they are bi-products of the music itself. If music is free then people would not be making music for the love of music. Musicians are not the greedy ones it is you, the consumer that is greedily stealing what another person has poured there heart and soul into.

  • Current Music Needs Support.

    I know bands can make money through tours and music videos, but making music free is not fair to them. What about struggling musicians that are trying to get started without a label to produce their music? Expecting them to make their music without financial support is something they cannot consider.

  • No it should not

    Although it would be nice to have music for free it is not fair for the artists who are putting all their time and effort into creating it for us to not get compensated for their work. I mean if music were free then how will the musicians put food on their table?

  • It's harder than it looks.

    Musician invest time, blood, sweat and tears into their music. A chef or a doctor could do the same, yet they are paid for their services. Why is it a musician is expected to take it upon themselves to offer their work for free? Musicians have to pay to make their music, then pay to try to even get it heard! It's the opposite of greedy when one spends most of their free time AFTER working a day job to practice hours on end while an average person sits around watching TV or goes partying.

  • We will lose more potential artists.

    I am a musician myself and I agree that music should be produced for fun/the love of music. But getting no income from record sales would influence the starters in the music world. Besides, it's hard to generate cash flow with merchandise/show and radio-play a starting musician. That's why artists should still receive money for their albums.

  • No, music shouldn't be free.

    People seem to think that being an artist/band/musician isn't a real job. They make money from their music being sold just like food companies make money from their products being sold. Artists are no different. These people spend time and effort to produce something. On top of that, It costs money to record an album and have someone master it. To those that say that artists shouldn't be greedy and only do music because they love doing it, would you agree to being paid nothing to do your job? Making music is a job and artists should be paid because of their work just as you are paid because of your work.

  • People don't seem to understand how the music economy works

    Average people seem to think that money just falls out of the sky for musicians!!!!! No, they have to work for it just like everybody else!!! The more fans they have, the more they have to work!! Buying a musician's single or album is the best way to support them and make sure that they can continue to give us great art. Musicians can not always trust people to donate money to them!!! If you dont wanna buy music then don't but NEVER STEAL IT.

  • Music shouldn't be free

    The artists that go through the time and hard work writing and producing their own music deserve to be paid. Although people believe that they become greedy from the amount of money they make, that isn't the case. Normally they have a family to take care of and music if their job to make money. Taking that away from them is basically taking someones job that they put their whole life into making. Yes it can be very pricey to get music after awhile so it being free would be a easy answer, but if you take your pay check away because you should be doing your job for free. It's the same as taking the money away from the music business. Plus most of the money goes back to the record label, not the artist that is creating the music in the first place.

  • No way roflol

    Music isn't even expensive. I feel good knowing I own all my music. It doesn't matter if an artist is super rich. It's hilarious how people want to lessen others success. Just because an artist is rich doesn't mean they're always going to be. It's an incredibly unpredictable atmosphere. You could write a hit and then die out. Big deal 1 million people bought one ban or artists material for a dollar or ten dollars. I mean.... It's just like they're rich and I'm now giving them 99 cents or 1.29??!?! How idiotic.... If music was $1000 a song id understand, but you can get epic songs and albums that are masterpieces for pennies already... I am poor as hell but you know music is worth a lot more than 99 cents to me... So I freakin pay for it. Apparently "most artists make more off of selling t shirts".. Why not just be a t shirt sales person hahaha!!! That's hilarious.

  • Music Should NOT Be Free

    You'll go out and buy a coffee for like £2 when you can just make it at home, for free, but you wont spend that much on music, because you can download it for free. Coffee is something that only lasts a short amount of time. Whereas you can listen to music over and over, whenever and wherever you want. Yet, you'd still rather pay for a coffee and not music.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
slunky says2018-10-27T04:43:40.070
Anyone who thinks music should be free is a greedy consumer who is certainly no artist

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.