Using P2P, TORRENTS, FTPs for sharing music. Is it 'wrong'? - what say you?

Perhaps you got the impression that I don't pay for music? Not the case. I'll dip out now; I've made my point which was simply to suggest that pay-or-don't-listen "simplicity" is missing a lot of nuance that matters to artists, which is why I loled. And now I'm done.

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 4:46 AM, luke viia said:

Perhaps you got the impression that I don't pay for music? Not the case. I'll dip out now; I've made my point which was simply to suggest that pay-or-don't-listen "simplicity" is missing a lot of nuance that matters to artists, which is why I loled. And now I'm done.

 

cheers mr. Have a good night. (hopefully none of this was interpreted as a personal attack).

Peace 7 is the trillest.

 

But at the same time, you think Prince could have given us the soaring majesty of Purple Rain if he was working a full time job? I doubt it.

I'm posting on a forum for free, and I'm not any good at it.

 

Discuss.

 

Actually though, the word capitalism gets such an inflated negative rap these days. Sure, it's easy to point at republicans or Wal-Mart and say "Capitalism equals corruption!", but at the same time, the most basic desire to do better than break even on your costs, as an artist or tradesman or anyone in business for themselves, is to profit and therefore capitalize. So I've never understood the need to vilify self-employed people or small business owners for their desire to do well for themselves. It only proves my original point that money is not some evil thing by default, money is what the person possessing it intends it to be. Artists intend, for the most part, for money to be a tool with which they can advance their passions and subsist with the least amount of dilution possible. This explains why so many of us are barely able to pay our bills, and still - against all worldly logic - continue to put ourselves in tenuous positions in order to continue that which inspires us. And if that last part sounds self-important, it's because it is. If people like me didn't forego a more assured path in life in order to create things I felt needed creating, none of you would be here now, having a discussion about it. The fact is, art matters to most everyone, because life is boring and mundane without it. Yet, utilities like electricians and plumbers are well paying positions, so why are those of us who provide the utility of artistic distraction from life itself the ones who get shit from people instead of a decent paycheck?

 

The only real answer is that people who do not create must generally believe that the act of creating is not based on the requirement of talent, but rather, willingness. It's a job, anyone can do it. And lord knows, the amount of people doing whatever they like in the name of art is a ridiculous validation of that. However, if you do something well, and you do it for free, then it follows that what you're doing is no longer worth paying for, whether other people charge for it or not. Therein lies the tightrope walk of the internet age: Do you give yourself away for free so that people will be more likely to see you? Do you ask for a return for providing a service that is, by most evidence in people's actions, an enjoyable one? At what point does free work regain a monetary value?

 

In the end, I do what I do because I love to do it, but in no way shape or form is it acceptable to me that people who enjoy consuming what I do go on consuming it without paying a modest asking price for the ride I've provided. It's quite backhanded, actually. They love my work, just not enough to pay me to do it.

  On 4/16/2014 at 5:01 AM, Candiru said:

Peace 7 is the trillest.

 

But at the same time, you think Prince could have given us the soaring majesty of Purple Rain if he was working a full time job? I doubt it.

why not ?

Captain Beefheart and The Magic Band made Trout Mask Replica by spending an entire year in a shack in the middle of nowhere, living off charity from their middle class parents. And that album, when you get past the weird, is just as dense and carefully crafted as any big pop classic

 

I'm not saying it's the ideal, but if a person really really wants something made they're going to get it made, regardless of their current financial situation.

The fact that music is made regardless of financial situation does not enable it to be used as a justification for not paying artists for making it.

 

You're only seeing half of it. Your ability to hear anything anyone makes is completely reliant on money entering the picture somewhere, whether it's paying to press CDs or paying for an internet connection to upload it for free download. Somewhere in there, the person making it had to shoulder the burden of cost to bring you the experience in the first place.

 

Sure, an artist will continue to create until the cows come home, but unless giving their work away for free was their aim in the first place, there will come a point when you're no longer able to hear it if they're being stolen from all the time.

you could always grab wi-fi from a neighbor

  On 4/16/2014 at 2:00 PM, eugene said:

you could always grab wi-fi from a neighbor

Don't be a dick.

Grab your neighbor's penis and yell into his ear, "I DOWNLOAD YOUR AAAALBUUUUUUM~~~!!!!" ("Album"=like "Aaaalvin" from Alvin and the Chipmunks tv series)

Artists already dont make much money from record sales. I prefer this changed market with free music because it encourages live performance. It encourages the artists to get out there, show their face and interact with fans while making a lot more money than from record sales

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:26 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

mellow u you've got some great points for sure but I don't think an artist choosing to make their music free runs much deeper then 'hey I've made this check it out' at least in most cases. and there's also the model of having a few free releases as well as a few premium ones. or maybe you're good at making money off merch and live shows and that's how you choose to make your cash.

 

I don't judge you for being irritated at the thought of someone downloading your music for free, but not everyone has the same view as you on that so I wouldn't take it so personally. i'm not saying it's right either don't get me wrong! put it like this - surely you can at least smile at the fact that someone new might be falling in love with your latest milky analog offering, not paying you isn't so much spiteful as it is ignorant. perhaps that is the problem anyway and I'm making myself redundant. it just seems a bit entitled to be expect people to recognise what you do is worth paying for.

 

i consider art and music to be a passion that requires work, not just work full stop. for me it's a different sort of work to lifting shit on a construction site building the next fuckyou mall in desert heat somewhere on the outskirts of la. imo that person deserves more money to compensate for their shitty work day. cash that says 'hey it's a hot fucking day and you gave up your time for something that ultimately has little effect on your life or hopes or dreams'

 

here's how i feel about my own music: i think music and art are in a separate sphere to all that and cannot be looked under the capitalist lense as simply. sitting around in a studio all day and playing with synths seems like a pretty sweet job to me and it never gets boring so I would feel wrong to expect people to pay a price that I set myself. that's not to suggest I think it should go unrewarded either. I like the model that allows the consumer to pay what they think is appropiate the most.

 

I should stress that I'm offering my own humble opinion as an alternate viewpoint rather than as a singular unquestionable truth. we are talking about music and art which are subjective concepts and it would be foolish to assert opinions as facts in this context.

 

Different people, different strokes. Consider the following then:

 

My day to day life is not some glamorous knob-twiddling adventure in the woods, simply because I make music for a living. Rather, I regularly log 70-80 hours in my studio per week, because of the ridiculous requirements imposed upon self-employed artists today. I have to not only be my own musician, but I have to record everything myself, design and create the packaging for it, design and create a web presence with which to carry it, maintain that web presence via all the mundane channels (from Facebook to YouTube), handle any and all customer service sides of things, handle booking my own gigs, convincing distros to carry my work, and also keep up with stock and find time for shipping and fulfillment.

 

So then, I submit that making music for a living is more like 30% creative fun and 70% arduous work that no one else can or will do. And if I don't do that other 70% of bullshit, the 30% of creative fun no longer becomes something that has any hope of sustaining me or even allowing me to continue doing it in the public ear (without giving it away for free of course). It removes the focus from being a passion that I am willing to work myself into the grave over, to being a hobby that I entertain occasionally like millions of other bored husbands and fathers. It also follows that I have to dedicate myself to this ethos so completely that most of the time, I don't have time for anything else. Any actual hobbies, like reading or playing video games or things like that. I have to make myself take time to do those things because I get so caught up in the endless process of making a living.

 

I understand your point about choosing to give what you do away for free, release it into the public consciousness, and see who picks up on it. Trust me, I do. It's an alternative that I have participated in numerous times before, and consider reverting to when things just get too damn thin. Sure, there's a level of entitlement involved in asking for money for anything you do, but after I've outlined everything above, I don't think you can really say I'm taking the piss by asking someone to pay $10 for a digital full-length, or $12 plus shipping for something cool and limited to put on their shelf, next to the warm feeling they'll get when they know buying it helped feed a 2 year old girl and keep this bearded weirdo's electricity on for one more month.

 

Anyway, I guess what I'm also trying to say is that while a lot of people giving media-based art away for free are doing so purely from the standpoint of "Hey check this out", I wish a lot of them would try to take it more seriously, and realize that what they're doing is essentially (whether they are aware of it or not) cheapening the value of works produced by people like me. Like I said before, when someone does something well, and gives it away for free, they negate the perceived value of creating that thing, even for their peers who might still be trying to make a living with it.

 

I know that seems pretty whiny, and I apologize, but I haven't ever believed that the internet is ushering in some grandiose digital revolution, "changing the way we experience the world around us forever!". I think all that talk is a load of bullshit, penned by the people making bank off of content created by people like me. Like Joyrex and Nebraska pointed out above - the guy who rationalizes his piracy down because his financial situation just isn't that great, yet still has room in the budget for a fast internet connection or a big HDD to keep all his files in. What I'd like people to be more aware of is that there are a lot of really corrupt people who are more than willing to sell all of us the "keys to the kingdom" - fast internet provided by your ISPs who conveniently turn a blind eye to illegal online activity, unfiltered piracy-friendly search results provided by any search engine you can name, home computers and portable listening devices with bigger and bigger hard drives provided by dozens of manufacturers, and now (the most recent of the bankers) companies that will take your money in return for a fully-streamable digital photograph of a record collection. Why download or buy music at all? The sad and frightening reality is that the so-called freedoms of the internet have allowed us to be deceived into thinking we're not paying for the things we want anymore, except, we are, we're just paying different people instead, and most people do not realize that. Ironically, none of the "keys to the kingdom" would be worth anything if there wasn't a kingdom of content waiting on the other side. Waiting here, in my house, ready for the taking.

 

The bigger picture is that there needs to be a change, fundamentally, but the unfortunate truth is that no one suffering under the current regime knows what the answer is. In the meantime, awareness of the way things really are is the best people like me can hope for. Organizations like the Content Creator's Coalition are helping that front in a big way, and as more and more high-profile and respected creators step into the public eye with their very real tales of how the system just isn't working, I feel more confident that a clear solution will be in our minds and reach in the next few years. It's either that, or a lot of us are just going to give up trying to fight it anymore. It all reminds me of what Genesis P-Orridge said: "There was never a way and there's never a day to convince people. You can play their game, you can say their name, but you won't convince people."

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

 

eugene - if you really think prince would have been able to create purple rain while working a full time job, you're deluding yourself.

Unless you think the ability to play multiple instruments, compose every song on the album, spend hours in the studio with the engineers, conduct art direction, and do whatever else necessary to get that album out can be done just as a part-time hobby.

http://princevault.com/index.php/Album:_Purple_Rain

  On 4/16/2014 at 12:11 PM, Cryptowen said:

Captain Beefheart and The Magic Band made Trout Mask Replica by spending an entire year in a shack in the middle of nowhere, living off charity from their middle class parents. And that album, when you get past the weird, is just as dense and carefully crafted as any big pop classic

 

I'm not saying it's the ideal, but if a person really really wants something made they're going to get it made, regardless of their current financial situation.

 

Lol. The band was living off charity (=not working) and made a great album. How exactly does that prove your point?

 

Don't tell me RDJ could have created Drukqs just spending 90 minutes a day after work, just because he is a really dedicated artist and a genius. Making music and making art in general TAKES TIME. You don't figure out what your almost finished track needs over one cup of tea, especially if you feel drained after 8 hours of nonsense and stress. Sure he might have finished it, but that would probably mean an album doesn't take 5 years but 50. That means we don't get around 10 albums by him but 1. I know what numbers I prefer.

 

That whole notion of an artist striving to be heard and spread through world history, even if they don't get money for it, just to build a fan devoted fanbase, is overly romantic IMO. Why the hell should I care if you listen to my music? I personally would be one of the dickhead artists à la RDJ. Give my music to friends, be happy if they like it. If I don't know you: pay up! Give me money so I don't have to work which I don't want to. Easy as that. This is not true for all artists, but neither is the contrary.

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:00 PM, chenGOD said:

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

 

eugene - if you really think prince would have been able to create purple rain while working a full time job, you're deluding yourself.

Unless you think the ability to play multiple instruments, compose every song on the album, spend hours in the studio with the engineers, conduct art direction, and do whatever else necessary to get that album out can be done just as a part-time hobby.

http://princevault.com/index.php/Album:_Purple_Rain

well maybe he'd create something even better but it'd just take longer..combined his talent +with working's man life for inspiration, whatever. you can't really tell with things like that, it's not a preplanned thing. some create beautiful stuff with pirated fruity loops, some create poop with a full fledged orchestra and tons of money and effort. Edited April 16, 2014 by eugene

  On 4/16/2014 at 7:25 PM, Mellow U said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 6:26 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

Like Joyrex and Nebraska pointed out above - the guy who rationalizes his piracy down because his financial situation just isn't that great, yet still has room in the budget for a fast internet connection or a big HDD to keep all his files in.

 

I've come up enough in this conversation that I'd like to point out that I don't consider for a second that I have the moral high ground. For what it's worth, I have a 5 yo off-brand laptop that is falling apart mechanically and I steal bandwidth from my uni.

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:08 PM, HokusPoker said:

How exactly does that prove your point?

i don't really have a point to prove, i just react to stuff

i'm kinda disappointed in myself for even participating after i went and said these sort of piracy debates are useless

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:17 PM, Cryptowen said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:08 PM, HokusPoker said:

How exactly does that prove your point?

i don't really have a point to prove, i just react to stuff

i'm kinda disappointed in myself for even participating after i went and said these sort of piracy debates are useless

 

 

After that example you said that people get art done no matter what their financial situation is. It seemed like you were using the example as a proof of that statement.

Kafka is an example that might be more useful here.

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:00 PM, chenGOD said:

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

What if you want to make stuff for free though?

I pirate, i also spend plenty of cash, i dont give a fuck.

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:25 PM, HokusPoker said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:17 PM, Cryptowen said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:08 PM, HokusPoker said:

How exactly does that prove your point?

 

i don't really have a point to prove, i just react to stuff

i'm kinda disappointed in myself for even participating after i went and said these sort of piracy debates are useless

After that example you said that people get art done no matter what their financial situation is. It seemed like you were using the example as a proof of that statement.

Kafka is an example that might be more useful here.

fwiw in kafka's letters and diaries one finds that the struggle not only to find time but also to get into the zone as it were was a central conflict in his life. note in this context that his oeuvre is fairly compact and fragmentary, including all three of his novels which were never finished.

 

he is a great example here but it's worth noting that part of his genius was his profound ability to convey the desolation he felt as a man forced into the meaningless drudgery of the modern professional world.

Don't see a problem with it at all really. I know a lot of producers and labels are struggling, but then again there are a lot more labels and producers nowadays, and only so much disposable income for people to use on entertainment. Personally I spend most of my spare money on music and I'm also in the process of getting a couple of labels going so should be on the other side of the fence when it comes to this subject, but I know for a fact that without file sharing I wouldnt have the taste in music I have today. Before I discovered Napster & Soulseek back in the day my musical taste was limited, just because having access to lots of music or being able to afford everything on CD was basically impossible.

I don't think there is anything wrong with downloading music. it's a way of discovering and experiencing music and as such is cool with me. in any case, it's something that is more or less free and easy which means there's no sense arguing against it.

 

i don't, however, see much substance in the case against paying artists for making art. a couple of ideas have been put forth on this topic that I'd like to comment on.

 

first of all, the notion that musicians do not "traditionally" earn a living from their work as musicians is fallacious. I think a mere cursory glance at the wikipedia pages for a random selection of notable composers, musicians, producers, etc will make this completely obvious. it would also be useful to include social organizations like guilds and unions in such a discussion, as well as the variety of spinoff jobs that might present themselves to an accomplished and knowledgable musician (transcription, sound design, whatever).

 

I also think that the reasoning against paying for a "copy" is specious. it's 2014. look around. I mean, literally look around you at all the things in your life that are copies, replicated, completely un-unique commodities that you pay for all the time. the hardrive full of music is a copy. did you refuse to pay for it as such? nah.

 

another thing i find a bit strange is this notion that music transcends the marketplace or is somehow so subjective that it is inherently exempted from it. again, it's 2014. global capitalism is in full maniacal swing right now. there is absolutely nothing that can't be bought and sold. of course, the "true" value of music goes beyond the dollar amount ascribed to it but so what? that's not an argument against paying for something. if it were, we would hardly have a marketplace of any kind.

 

furthermore, it's simply inconsistent to exempt music artists from the capitalist paradigm on such grounds. many perfectly financially viable and established commodities, institutions, professions, etc have an inherently subjective value; not to mention the fact that art, music, literature, etc are already part of the market. whether some one has a lush time doing art, or whether or not taste is involved in some aspect of its appraisal are by no means factors that determine the justification of art as work. whether you're a full on capitalist or a Marxist or whatever, this is the world we live in, the actual world in which the art is made, produced, etc. to relegate the artist to some transcendent sphere, or some nebulous realm of subjectivity is a pointless exercise imo. still gotta pay bills at the end of the day.

 

finally, to insist on this relativist notion that an artist will make art no matter what and that if they have to work 50hrs a week at an amazon factory it's no big deal bc they'll just make lush shit on the weekends or whatever ...lol. this is such a trite, half-baked idea.

 

the fact is, there are all kinds of different artists and some of them might be able to function at a high level of creative work even with a day job, while others may require different circumstances to embark on such endeavors. and of course, there are even specific works that quite obviously require way more time, energy and dedication than can be adequately achieved while simultaneously committing the time to a completely separate job. philip glass for instance was able to compose and perform ensemble music for several years while holding down various full time gigs like plumbing and cab-driving, but when he took up work on his first opera he and the work required massive financial assistance (which included grants and donations as well as various assistance from the French government) and the accompanying free time which were absolutely essential to complete the work. even then his first opera plunged him into over $90,000 of debt.

 

the idea that an artist actually *shouldn't* be paid, that there is some tradition of not paying that we must adhere to, that the computing technology provided to us by massive corporations leads us to inevitably consume music for free, or that their work must be exempted from the marketplace...well, these ideas have no merit in my book.

 

it seems obvious to me that downloading is in itself not wrong but as a feature of the current paradigm of financial support (or lack thereof) for artists it presents a number of serious challenges. it's cool that it provides such a vast array of avenues to explore, that it affords new artists and labels the chance to pursue independent careers, etc. but it sucks that our society marginalizes artists and that most of us who wish to pursue such a career find ourselves forced to be cogs in some endless machine of bullshit day jobs. I'm afraid there are no clear answers and solutions will arise from a combination of intuition, integrity, and truly deep and innovative thinking.

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:00 PM, chenGOD said:

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

 

eugene - if you really think prince would have been able to create purple rain while working a full time job, you're deluding yourself.

Unless you think the ability to play multiple instruments, compose every song on the album, spend hours in the studio with the engineers, conduct art direction, and do whatever else necessary to get that album out can be done just as a part-time hobby.

http://princevault.com/index.php/Album:_Purple_Rain

well maybe he'd create something even better but it'd just take longer..combined his talent +with working's man life for inspiration, whatever. you can't really tell with things like that, it's not a preplanned thing. some create beautiful stuff with pirated fruity loops, some create poop with a full fledged orchestra and tons of money and effort.

 

Yeah maybe it just takes longer - thus denying him the ability to devote more time to creating beautiful art, and denying his fans the opportunity to hear it.

Some create with pirated fruityloops - but it still takes time. Time is a commodity. Ask your profs when they are able to publish more - when they're teaching, or when they're on sabbatical. Then tell them they should be doing this for free, cause it's just a hobby. I mean how do you quantify what sociological thought brings? Is there a specific number of policies that have to be created before an idea from a sociologist is worth money?

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:28 PM, gmanyo said:

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 8:00 PM, chenGOD said:

I agree with Mellow U here: don't do anything you do well, for free.

 

i am in the process of looking for practicum/internships - and I refuse to do unpaid work. I've put enough time and effort into my studies that I feel I deserve to be paid for my work.

What if you want to make stuff for free though?

 

 

If you want to, go for it.

 

  On 4/16/2014 at 10:35 PM, Alcofribas said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with downloading music. it's a way of discovering and experiencing music and as such is cool with me. in any case, it's something that is more or less free and easy which means there's no sense arguing against it.

 

i don't, however, see much substance in the case against paying artists for making art. a couple of ideas have been put forth on this topic that I'd like to comment on.

 

first of all, the notion that musicians do not "traditionally" earn a living from their work as musicians is fallacious. I think a mere cursory glance at the wikipedia pages for a random selection of notable composers, musicians, producers, etc will make this completely obvious. it would also be useful to include social organizations like guilds and unions in such a discussion, as well as the variety of spinoff jobs that might present themselves to an accomplished and knowledgable musician (transcription, sound design, whatever).

 

I also think that the reasoning against paying for a "copy" is specious. it's 2014. look around. I mean, literally look around you at all the things in your life that are copies, replicated, completely un-unique commodities that you pay for all the time. the hardrive full of music is a copy. did you refuse to pay for it as such? nah.

 

another thing i find a bit strange is this notion that music transcends the marketplace or is somehow so subjective that it is inherently exempted from it. again, it's 2014. global capitalism is in full maniacal swing right now. there is absolutely nothing that can't be bought and sold. of course, the "true" value of music goes beyond the dollar amount ascribed to it but so what? that's not an argument against paying for something. if it were, we would hardly have a marketplace of any kind.

 

furthermore, it's simply inconsistent to exempt music artists from the capitalist paradigm on such grounds. many perfectly financially viable and established commodities, institutions, professions, etc have an inherently subjective value; not to mention the fact that art, music, literature, etc are already part of the market. whether some one has a lush time doing art, or whether or not taste is involved in some aspect of its appraisal are by no means factors that determine the justification of art as work. whether you're a full on capitalist or a Marxist or whatever, this is the world we live in, the actual world in which the art is made, produced, etc. to relegate the artist to some transcendent sphere, or some nebulous realm of subjectivity is a pointless exercise imo. still gotta pay bills at the end of the day.

 

finally, to insist on this relativist notion that an artist will make art no matter what and that if they have to work 50hrs a week at an amazon factory it's no big deal bc they'll just make lush shit on the weekends or whatever ...lol. this is such a trite, half-baked idea.

 

the fact is, there are all kinds of different artists and some of them might be able to function at a high level of creative work even with a day job, while others may require different circumstances to embark on such endeavors. and of course, there are even specific works that quite obviously require way more time, energy and dedication than can be adequately achieved while simultaneously committing the time to a completely separate job. philip glass for instance was able to compose and perform ensemble music for several years while holding down various full time gigs like plumbing and cab-driving, but when he took up work on his first opera he and the work required massive financial assistance (which included grants and donations as well as various assistance from the French government) and the accompanying free time which were absolutely essential to complete the work. even then his first opera plunged him into over $90,000 of debt.

 

the idea that an artist actually *shouldn't* be paid, that there is some tradition of not paying that we must adhere to, that the computing technology provided to us by massive corporations leads us to inevitably consume music for free, or that their work must be exempted from the marketplace...well, these ideas have no merit in my book.

 

it seems obvious to me that downloading is in itself not wrong but as a feature of the current paradigm of financial support (or lack thereof) for artists it presents a number of serious challenges. it's cool that it provides such a vast array of avenues to explore, that it affords new artists and labels the chance to pursue independent careers, etc. but it sucks that our society marginalizes artists and that most of us who wish to pursue such a career find ourselves forced to be cogs in some endless machine of bullshit day jobs. I'm afraid there are no clear answers and solutions will arise from a combination of intuition, integrity, and truly deep and innovative thinking.

 

^^^lush, innit.

  On 4/16/2014 at 10:35 PM, Alcofribas said:

finally, to insist on this relativist notion that an artist will make art no matter what and that if they have to work 50hrs a week at an amazon factory it's no big deal bc they'll just make lush shit on the weekends or whatever ...lol. this is such a trite, half-baked idea.

lol yeah, the 'the struggling artist' like it's some ideal to live up to. the struggle will always be there, making music is work (albeit nice work). but I'd rather have to struggle in my sequencer and on my speakers, know what I mean?