TubeNet

Recently the band Radiohead released a new album where listeners could download it digitally from their website and then determine how much they wanted to pay for it. Full price, half, a penny, nothing. I thought that was a very interesting concept, and if you want to read about it, here it is.

Could something like this work for a classical album? I guess what I'm wondering is, are we aloud to "give away" (or at least give people the option of having it for nothing) music that we performed, but didn't write ourselves?

Current rates for recording pieces not in the public domain:

http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseeRateCurrent.jsp

Public domain does mean all pieces by Bach, Mozart, etc are public domain. The originals are pubic domain, but an arrangement or new edition is most likely under copyright and a fee must be paid in order to record and/or distribute.

If you write your own music, then you will have no issues recording and the distributing for whatever price you choose.

I don't know if what Radiohead did with their new album can translate well into a classical record release. Bands like Radiohead, (i.e., well-established bands that don't necessarily need the money that is made from selling records,) can get away with giving out their music for free, as the hype from these records gives them more money by way of increased tour ticket sales, other merchandise sales, etc., etc...
Now, classical music albums don't really act in the same way. When was the last time that the Chicago Symphony released an album to help promote their upcoming tour? Now, this isn't to say that classical albums couldn't be released in this way, but it wouldn't be the same. All in all, though, I can see how, some day down the road, it will be customary for all music releases to be free to some extent. The advent of file sharing and other forms of music downloading is swiftly making this a reality. Anyone notice how many Sam Goody stores are closing? Even the Virgin Megastore in Chicago closed, although for somewhat different reasons. Then again, that's just my two cents on the matter...

To put it quite simply, the major record labels are to musicians what Exxon-Mobile is to environmentalists. Hated, despised, eaten up with greed, avarice, and a healthy dose of hubris. And up until recently, about the only game in town.

tubafatness wrote: Bands like Radiohead, (i.e., well-established bands that don't necessarily need the money that is made from selling records,) can get away with giving out their music for free, as the hype from these records gives them more money by way of increased tour ticket sales, other merchandise sales, etc., etc...

It's always been my understanding that the artists on major record labels actually see very little of the money from each album sold. Most of that is lost along the distribution train and/or eaten up by the labels themselves.

So a major band in Radiohead's position stands to lose a lot less money themselves than this proposition would immediately suggest to the public at large, and they do still have their major avenue of revenue, i.e. concert tours, etc.

So only the record labels get (very marginally) hurt by this practice, and I don't see us throwing a telethon for them in the forseeable future.

As usual, I could be wrong, and if so, please correct me.
-Josh