Thanks go out to The Daily Swarm, Ecstatic Peace for linking to the article.
Trying to edit the crux of the article down to an easily repeatable phrase.
"Support the music you love. Respect the artists who created it for you."
Something along those lines. Any ideas?
Also, here are a couple more responses. One positive, one negative.
---------------------------------------
"That was a good read. In the end, to me, it's all about balance. I have no problem admitting that I download music. I could care less if I'm short changing the Metallicas of the world, or the suits that continue to feed off of long dead talent. But I also know when to fork out the cash to show my support.
I helped support my friends band *ahem shameless plug* (http://www.myspace.com/1nodice ) by purchasing t-shirts, a CD and even buying $100 worth of tickets so I could round up 10 friends to show support. I've given money to street musicians, and I love buying direct from an artist knowing 100% of that cash goes to them.
When Trent Reznor decided to buck the major labels and go independent he got my support. I bought, Ghost I-IV just on principle. It was the first time I had spent money on a NIN release since the Downward Spiral. All his commercial label music imo had been consistently getting worse and I didn't like any of it. Ghosts on the other hand I found very enjoyable precisely because it was creative and bucked commercial trends.
File sharing and supporting your local musicians can peacefully co-exist I think. Anyone who holds an entitlement attitude that they should never have to pay is just as greedy and unethical as the suits of the RIAA."
I helped support my friends band *ahem shameless plug* (http://www.myspace.com/1nodice ) by purchasing t-shirts, a CD and even buying $100 worth of tickets so I could round up 10 friends to show support. I've given money to street musicians, and I love buying direct from an artist knowing 100% of that cash goes to them.
When Trent Reznor decided to buck the major labels and go independent he got my support. I bought, Ghost I-IV just on principle. It was the first time I had spent money on a NIN release since the Downward Spiral. All his commercial label music imo had been consistently getting worse and I didn't like any of it. Ghosts on the other hand I found very enjoyable precisely because it was creative and bucked commercial trends.
File sharing and supporting your local musicians can peacefully co-exist I think. Anyone who holds an entitlement attitude that they should never have to pay is just as greedy and unethical as the suits of the RIAA."
-------------------------------------------------
Hi Chris. I saw your article clanging around the Facebook echo chamber, lobbed up there from a record store clerk who is likely feeling the recession harder than most. I sympathize because he's my friend, but not because he's a cog in antique machine pedaling obsolete, wasted-carbon technologies at grossly, obscenely, egregiously bloated prices. If it's not obvious: I think your lament on digital music (and the way it's shared) is way off base.
I think digital "piracy" is an appropriate (even overdue) revolution against the tyranny of an antique industry where prices haven't reflected the value of the product for decades.
It's somehow easy to overlook the real message of the In_Rainbows model, which proved that *people value music differently*. Most paid way less than iTunes would suggest is the "right" price, and even the average was 20% less than iTunes (though there's varying reports of what the avg was; and the median is probably a more relevant number, anyway). A dollar for a song seems just as arbitrary to me as the $18 Virgin and Tower Records would charge back in the day, where so many people unrelated to the actual art get paid (instead of the artist!).
The dissemination of free digital music is not causing the people that make music to starve (note: the people that make music don't buy it, either. They can't afford it!). It's causing more people that want to experience music on a personal level to do so. Sharing music ("piracy" is a dirty word created by the RIAA) lets more essential art appear, because more people willing to discover and appreciate such art suddenly exist.
Would all these people rather not pay anything? Hell no. Some would, for sure, but that should be allowed and embraced because of the net benefits to the culture as a whole. Radiohead's first week on the Billboard charts was a satirical performance piece reflecting the irony of the modern music distro machine: they sold music to a tiny fraction of the people that wanted to hear and have it. If their album was a dollar, or two dollars, or five dollars, way more people would have got it. The price of music (and this totally relevant to the next generation of musicians who are "starving" in your coffee shop) is forcing the noble audiences to find other means of enjoying noble art.
In the big picture, and I do think it's a bummer that said picture might not involve mom and pop record stores or boutique labels, the most valuable thing an artist can have is an audience that bothers to care. The most valuable thing an audience can have is art it really values.
I think digital "piracy" is an appropriate (even overdue) revolution against the tyranny of an antique industry where prices haven't reflected the value of the product for decades.
It's somehow easy to overlook the real message of the In_Rainbows model, which proved that *people value music differently*. Most paid way less than iTunes would suggest is the "right" price, and even the average was 20% less than iTunes (though there's varying reports of what the avg was; and the median is probably a more relevant number, anyway). A dollar for a song seems just as arbitrary to me as the $18 Virgin and Tower Records would charge back in the day, where so many people unrelated to the actual art get paid (instead of the artist!).
The dissemination of free digital music is not causing the people that make music to starve (note: the people that make music don't buy it, either. They can't afford it!). It's causing more people that want to experience music on a personal level to do so. Sharing music ("piracy" is a dirty word created by the RIAA) lets more essential art appear, because more people willing to discover and appreciate such art suddenly exist.
Would all these people rather not pay anything? Hell no. Some would, for sure, but that should be allowed and embraced because of the net benefits to the culture as a whole. Radiohead's first week on the Billboard charts was a satirical performance piece reflecting the irony of the modern music distro machine: they sold music to a tiny fraction of the people that wanted to hear and have it. If their album was a dollar, or two dollars, or five dollars, way more people would have got it. The price of music (and this totally relevant to the next generation of musicians who are "starving" in your coffee shop) is forcing the noble audiences to find other means of enjoying noble art.
In the big picture, and I do think it's a bummer that said picture might not involve mom and pop record stores or boutique labels, the most valuable thing an artist can have is an audience that bothers to care. The most valuable thing an audience can have is art it really values.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment