Music is the virus

[phe0nixblade]

http://musicisthevirus.com/

This idea is simply beautiful and made me cry a couple tears of joy at how great it is. Definitely signing up.

[Mau5]

Eh, seems like nowadays since artists aren't making the money they used to from writing music, they can't really write JUST for the money, and they're starting to put more effort into writing it simply because of the enjoyment of writing.

That being said, they still deserve credit for how awesome they are.

I like the idea of this. Haha

[Zageron]

Wow... This is really cool... o__o

[shonen7]

Looks sick, I went to sign up but then lazy mode was initiated so I'll do that later.

[phe0nixblade]

I don't have my CC with me so I can't sign up 'till tomorrow.

[Crashfan3]

Looks like a good idea. I'm not sure if it will work 100%, the sharing function has me a bit confused, and you can bet that there's going to be a flurry of lawsuits, mostly the type of illegitimate lawsuits from media execs that are more like public bitchfits, but that can slow down a startup service like this. But regardless, I'm willing to give it my support if some of my favorite artists appear on there.

Also, is this $1.00/mo. for the whole service, or $1.00/mo. per artist? I like a crapton of music, and that could quickly add up to $100++ a month... x_x

[justin_ator]

I like it. But is it $1 per month per artist you support? how does it keep you from paying $1 to download all of an artist's songs, then cancelling after the month is up?

Idea is very cool though!

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by Crashfan3

Also, is this $1.00/mo. for the whole service, or $1.00/mo. per artist? I like a crapton of music, and that could quickly add up to $100++ a month... x_x

$1/month/artist I would assume. How much would you otherwise spend on iTunes at a dollar per song per artist per instance?

Originally Posted by justin_ator

I like it. But is it $1 per month per artist you support? how does it keep you from paying $1 to download all of an artist's songs, then cancelling after the month is up?

Part of it is that you get new music as the artist releases it, which is worth it for $1/month if you ask me.

[Choofers]

I might signup as an artist. Under my Ro alias, not AsphyxZero.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

While I do like the concept of this, I don't feel this is going to change the minds of enough people to make a big difference. Most people still have the ideas that all music artists are extremely wealthy and don't need anymore of our money.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Mau5

Eh, seems like nowadays since artists aren't making the money they used to from writing music, they can't really write JUST for the money, and they're starting to put more effort into writing it simply because of the enjoyment of writing.

Aren't making the money they used to...? The vast majority of artists didn't and still don't get paid shit. Famous musicians are still going to be famous and probably make lots of money.

Anyways

1$/artist/month, hmmm

I dunno, 100$/month seems...par for the course in terms of cost. The closest comparison that I can think of in terms of media and business would be cable. That is, it's a monthly fee to subscribe to everything you watch; (although yes, overall its drastically different from cable.) Cable with all the good channels runs about 100$/month, doesn't it?

Of course, that said, thats not a small amount of money.

And then there's the idea of, well, if I ended up spending something even close to the same amount of money I would when buying CDs or using itunes, that means a huge, and I mean HUGE shift towards giving the artist who signs up with this service, all the money that people actually spend. And I suppose it's too early to tell, but if this were to catch on, and everyone were using this, then I suspect being a musician would be a very, very good salary.

The more I think about it, the more I think I like the idea of this. Because it IS like a salary. Sure, if you have diehard fans, you'll always have diehard fans who will pay you even if you've released nothing in years, but a lot of people will basically be paying you for when you work, and when you won't, they'll stop subscribing.

Would the website prevent Label companies from being used? Like, a label signs up and puts up the music that of the people they represent, which would probably be people who don't make a lot of music, or who aren't popular, or basically any musician who uses a label company right now? Like a youtube channel.

But this still isn't much of a solution to the problem of free art in a capitalist society (if you think there's a problem with it at all.) I know it's nice and I know it's simple, but so is paying per song you download. And in both cases, paying per download or paying per month, you're really just asking people to pay you from the kindness of their hearts/morals. (Not that that is bad or even impossible..most people don't steal things even though it's possible to everyday.) But importantly, neither model really 'fits' the fact that music can be shared freely, (or for the price of an internet connection).

As a consumer, I will buy cd's occasionally, but I've done pay downloads for very, very few
songs. Largely because I can't stand itunes. I think I would use this service though. I tried making an account, but something screwy happened while signing up.

[Mau5]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Aren't making the money they used to...? The vast majority of artists didn't and still don't get paid shit. Famous musicians are still going to be famous and probably make lots of money.

Well you always hear those modern artists like Skrillex and Lifehouse talking about how although they're popular, they make enough to get by but not much more.

Whereas take us back 30 years when you've got like Boston and Molly Hatchet, those guys were on top... hahaha.

Go back even further to like musical composers from the 19th century and before then and those people were considered like royalty. Seems like artists are losing their overall worth more and more over time

[Cavernio]

-Schubert was penniless but Liszt was so famous (and presumably rich) women tried to steal his bathwater.
-Don't tell me lady Gaga isn't stinking rich.
-And if artists are losing their worth over time, it's only because so many people are artists, and good ones at that.

[Mau5]

Well yeah obviously there are going to be artists nowadays that ARE rich but it seems nothing like what it has been in the past. Haha

[Calcium Deposit]

Intriguing idea.
Rhapsody seems cheaper by comparison, however. (If I understand properly how Airborne's billing plan works, that is)

[Crashfan3]

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

$1/month/artist I would assume. How much would you otherwise spend on iTunes at a dollar per song per artist per instance?

I prefer to buy in CD format instead of iTunes. As much as I like to support good musicians, it takes me at least 4 months to buy $100 worth of CDs. So effectively this is 400% more expensive...
Also, how does this "Airborne" service make their money? Do they take a percentage from the artists? Monthly service usage fees for the listeners? Ad revenue?

[who_cares973]

4 months to buy $100 dollars worth of CDs? really? i use to go through $100 worth of CDs a month lmao

this is an awesome idea though i like it

[midnghtraver]

I sent in my Artists Application a couple of minutes ago.

We'll see what happens.

[V-Ormix]

got goose bumps watching the video /claps

[Crashfan3]

Originally Posted by who_cares973

4 months to buy $100 dollars worth of CDs? really? i use to go through $100 worth of CDs a month lmao

this is an awesome idea though i like it

I just don't have that kind of money D:
And honestly, with 9-12 songs on a CD, I need at least two weeks to truly appreciate each one.