On Thom Yorke's Schoolbook Broadside

A stiff example of the incoherence that permeates the Freeloading debate came this past week, when Thom Yorke's statements widely circulated that the music industry was a "sinking ship" that young artists ought to avoid. Sounding like a provocateur, Yorke claimed that it was “only a matter of time — months rather than years — before the music business establishment completely folds.”

Ominous as the future appears for the recording industry, it remains a multi-billion dollar one in the US. Quarter to quarter album sales are plummeting and digital sales have flatlined this year. But could it really expire in "months?" Sort of like a newspaper columnist bemoaning the "death" of print despite total circulation remaining in the tens of millions.

Yorke's words rang hollow for many in the blogosphere and Paul Resnikoff at Digital Music News noted the particular hypocrisies of Yorke, an artist who made millions with the support of a major label and still chooses to do business will major label distributors, telling young artists to self-release their albums. For my own goals of pushing the Freeloading debate into more realistic and constructive territory, I was frustrated to see another artist who has clearly built a career on the back of label support providing consumers with an excuse to Freeload and ignore basic truths of the music business.

Before taking an artist's potshots against labels seriously, we all ought to ask why we're paying attention to the artist in the first place. It's probably because they've enjoyed the promotional advantages of label support in the past and present. To pretend otherwise on their part is disingenuous, if not destructive. The major labels everyone still hates, on account of the RIAA lawsuits and any number of other cherry-picked indignities, quickly become symbolic of all labels. As a commenter wrote in reaction to my latest article:

"I cannot see why record companies have to exist. Artists need to take control of their music and make it available for purchase on their web site. I would buy songs from an artists web site, but nowhere else. Not only will this motivate artists to create music that people like (as opposed to album filler), but a million selling artist can actually pocket a million. Artists win, consumers win. Record companies fade away."

Labels are not inherently devilish institutions out to exploit artists and force them to make bad music. Somehow this idea has become an accepted one. When broaching this discussion of what is in an artist's best interest, fans ought to first recognize that the artist is already acting in their best interest by entering a partnership with a label. Sometimes these partnerships sour, other times they're beneficial for all involved parties. Whether a beloved artists' label deserves to exist isn't a Freeloaders decision to make and it's just another example of the entitlement issues which form that ideology's bedrock. Forgetting Freelaoding's ideological assumptions for a moment, look around...everyone's on a label, with very few exceptions. This is because the role of a label to spotlight an artist and assist with promotion and distribution is as important as ever. A new artist can't do it all alone. In the twisted logic of Freeloading, the rather obvious value of label support is misunderstood as being a fundamentally sinful enterprise.

I'm not nearly as suspicious of major labels as in my formative years, but I still empathize with the sentiment. That's why I go out of my way to support independent labels. As the L Magazine pointed out amidst the Thom Yorke absurdity, independent labels who treat their artists well, pay higher royalty rates and come closer to epitomizing the rosy picture of the 1960s record industry (as described by Yorke in the video above) are somehow left out in the cold; innocent bystanders of the major label backlash. We ought to pivot the Freeloading discourse to a direction that actively supports such indies and their efforts to develop new artists. It's simply a matter of consumers and artists promoting such a constuctive attitude and independent labels doing what they can to meet paranoid Freeloaders halfway by publicizing their significant artist investments and higher royalty rates. By Indies leading the charge toward such a "Fair Trade" movement in music, a paradigm shift that's sustainable and realistic for the industry may be easier to achieve than many believe.

This shouldn't be about governments and labels beating up on Freeloaders, artists beating up on labels, or Freeloaders beating up on artists and labels. As Ed O'Brien notes below, let's forget about the past and retrain ourselves to look for pragmatic solutions to improve the environment for emerging artists looking for a foothold. If we aren't prepared to do that, this discussion is a just a sad distraction and a waste of everyone's time.

Below is another example of an artist being blithe to reality. Sigur Ros has been supported by Fat Cat, EMI, Geffen and XL. They are still on a label and an industry source informed me that the deal is non-binding. They can shed their label anytime they wish.