I’ll second that, Jeff.

I’m very worried about preserving my art as I have no heirs. I want my pdf’s, my mp3′s, everything to be on as many computers as possible before I die.

As that article guestimates, 10 years or so until we can purchase all music (posted in one form or another) and carry it around in a cheap gadget. Shouldn’t the goal be to keep your music out of that loop as a composer of art music? It would seem that the music not available would become more intriguing down the line.

Having them go through the payment process impedes the ‘perusal’ process, IMO. Every recording I have by live performers that is high quality is also needed to play a role as a immediately listenable experience.

I’ve tried most of these pay for DL services. I had BitPass for a while. Immediately, my downloads fell off the map for those MP3′s. And some of them may have been performers looking for new repertoire.

The thing is, it’s all new country here and we’re all trying new things. All I know is that the number of performances I get are going up. Because of that I’m sticking with what I’m doing. If it hurts somebody else, too bad. Let them compete with me, like I have to compete with the academics. Like I said before, I need every advantage I can get my hands on.

The other thing that people have told me is that my writing pieces for performers for $0 – free commissions – is also helping destroy the new music marketplace. But I’m not getting enough opportunities to turn down commissions or debate with the performers that I should get paid. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told that. And I always laugh… It’s not selfish, it’s competition. They’ve told me that giving away my PDF’s is hurting the new music marketplace too! FWIW, I heard Rzewski say at a pre-concert interview (with Kyle) last year that people should give away their scores online. Although he insisted adamantly that people should sell their recordings. He’s a good capitalist it seems. I’m not.

These same people who have criticized me to my face about that and the downloads, are the same people who do not recommend me to their university groups, do not recommend me to orchestra music directors they know – because I’m not in the academic up and coming network.

My outsider status forces me to do this. And I’ll repeat what I’ve said a zillion times… I’d rather have 10,000 listens a month and $0 then 800 listens a month and $20. And I’d rather have 30 performances a year and $0 then 3 and $600.00. It’s just economics for me and my understanding of how quickly web visitors click.

I have no issue with posting free DLs of sample music, which you intend on having performed (even if it is a whole work). The majority of your repertoire of music, that should be sold. If you consider a work to be of a high quality, then why not package it, stream it, and sell it via DLs. Or just sell it online.

If someone wants the convenience of listening to your works on their iPod…, they should pay the 99 cents due or otherwise pay you a visit at your website everytime for free streaming. I don’t see how that would affect the amount of times your works are performed.

I just want to get heard. I’d prefer making some money. I’m already discounted, why not give it away for free? :)

FWIW, I’ve been told many many times by big names and small names that I’m hurting the new music scene by giving my music away. I’m creating a deflationary cycle which will inevitably cause irreparable harm to new music. My response is always the same. WHAT ELSE CAN I DO BUT GIVE IT AWAY? The new music world refuses to accept non-affiliated composers in any significant way.

I would have nothing if I didn’t. I would have 0 performances a year instead of my regular 20-50 a year. What else can I do?