I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how the internet messes with basic economics, especially in music. (Duh!)

I give away most of my music for free (or at least in exchange for an email address). This seems to bug other musicians. If you give away art for free, they say, it’s like saying “this music isn’t worth anything” and if you devalue your art, it hurts other artists who are trying to make money.

I think they’re wrong. I don’t think musicians get to assign value to their art anymore. That’s in the hands of the listener now. Actually, that’s probably always been the case.

Have you ever picked up a CD and thought “wow, this costs $18, it’s gotta be good!”

I don’t think people have ever bought music based on price. Lousy music is lousy music, whether it’s expensive, cheap or free. Music is weird that way, because we build so much of our identities around it, but we’re not willing to pay top dollar for it as we would a bottle of expensive scotch or sweet rims.

The real value in music is still emotional, right? It’s about how it makes you feel, what it says to you, what it says about you, etc. Whatever, the point here is that the listener decides if the music has value, and that value may not translate to dollars.

I’m pretty sure that’s the way it’s always been. What’s different today is no one has to wait for the radio to play it or pay $16 for a round piece of plastic.

Then there’s a whole side argument about whether giving away music is “unprofessional.” I don’t know the answer, but I suspect this question speaks volumes about the one who asks it.

I certainly don’t make a lot of money from my music. However, I make more now than I did in 1995, when all I had were CDs, and only radio and limited touring to promote them. More importantly, more people have heard my songs than ever would have back then. Would I turn back the clock? Hell no I wouldn’t.

Previously: ‘Download MP3′ links fixed

Next: Song Lab: “Green” rewrite with bass and drums