An Alternate View (Score 1)

Hey guys, paraphrased from frequent posts: "I am only interested in artists that are into the mp3 thing" We work with many artists to capture very high recordings of their performances and then share resulting revenues with them. Much is given away as free samples, but the simple fact is that these artists need to make money in some form. There career is to write and perform their music. What are some thoughts on the best way to spread their music, but still pay the bills and be able to put aside some money for their family/kids/future.. Are people willing to pay some money if a large percentage of the proceeds goes to the Artist? If so how much would you pay for a high-quality (24-32 Tracks, 24-bit done with great mic-pre's) recording. As everything is recorded direct to hard-drive, we can release it in any format desired, CD-R, CD-ROM, mp3, shn, even individual waves of each instrument for mixing at home! However, there has to be some money flowing back to pay for the recordings. What a paid Napster-like solution does is provide one flow of money, if they come up with an Artist Fair deal. Another alternative would be "Sierra Nevada Pale Ale brings you Leftover Salmon" embedded into the file. So that it's up for free trade, but at time of download/first playback needs to be exposed to some ad, at least 1 time. Definitely not my first choice, either. There is a sh*tload of very cool stuff that can happen, but the view of "Music should be free" will lead to a world of SuperStars, Commercial bands and then a lot of struggling, very talented artists who have to take dayjobs and sink into depression. So I feel the best scenario for all would be a band allows trading of their music, but that they have some say in what is free and what is "premium" that they get paid for. By the way, we are thinking $6 for a full 2 1/2 hour show in CD quality (or better!). Any other thoughts? MusicBadger