Our entitlement mentality
October 23rd 2007 by Flick in Opinions
Imagine spending twelve months working on your new album. You shape the song structures a certain way to convey the emotion of each song, everything is precise. Your independent label pays for you to record the album at a professional studio, costing them $30,000, with a contract saying that you will repay the recording and reproduction costs if the album doesn’t sell fifteen thousands copies.
Everything is planned. Six months from now the album will be released. Marketing plans are formed, photo shoots are scheduled, and your website is being redesigned. You lay awake at night thinking about the expenses that are adding up, but you trust that enough people will buy the album and see you perform on tour.
Two months before the scheduled release, your marketing agency begins to send out promotional copies to trusted music blogs and media sources. You’re excited to read the response as bloggers give you exposure. A demand for the CD is created, and a few mp3s are given away for people to preview… but that was to be expected.
Then something goes wrong. Someone that received the promotional copy decided to place the album on a Torrent site. Now anyone can download your album for free and you won’t see a single penny.
Though you want people to hear your music, you also want to fulfill the part of your contract that requires you to sell fifteen thousand copies.
Questions flood your mind: When the album is officially released, will people buy it? Or will they download it for free? If you can’t sell enough copies you’ll be required by contract to pay the record label back.
This is the situation that most artists are facing today. As consumers, we seem to feel entitled to have full access to music, and we wince at the thought of paying for it.
Yes, artists are given more exposure when albums hit BitTorrent sites. If the album is loved, album sales reflect this and some of the loss is recouped. Recording and marketing music isn’t free, and music consumers shouldn’t expect it to be.
When you consider the costs that fall onto the shoulders of artists and record labels, it’s understandable why BitTorrent sites are caught in litigation. Today, Oink.cd joined the list of BitTorrent sites that have been shut down.
For this reason Puddlegum encourages you to support the artists by purchasing their music and buying tickets when they bus by your city. We don’t agree with exorbitant prices that are placed on CDs, nor do we support the RIAA. But the list of options to purchase music DRM-free at an affordable price is growing.
Note: This fictional story is not about the business model used in the example. We are not proposing this model as being ideal. There are better models and approaches that embrace the album leak. But the majority of artists take a risk with this established model.
Here are a few DRM-free digital music stores that we support:
7digital
Amazon
eMusic
Insound
iTunes
Tags: BitTorrent, Oink, RIAA
Did you enjoy Our entitlement mentality? Subscribe to RSS Feed.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
There’re some fundamental flaws here and they refer to another mentality that seems to be so prevalent - that of the “It’s All Somebody Else’s Fault” mentality.
If an artist signs a deal whereby he’s required to REPAY THE LABEL if his/her album doesn’t make it out of recoupment, then they either have no lawyer of a really bad one. Also, not expecting one’s album to leak to a Torrent site is purely ridiculous - the idea that in today’s music industry one could keep a release “leak proof” is the worst kind of hubris.
Instead of getting $30,000 into debt and relying on an out-moded and dangerous business model to make you solvent, look at the reality. BEFORE you commit to this kind of project and expense, look at the music industry as it stands now, not how it stood 5 years ago. PROJECT what your fans will do with your music, and how you can work to monetize that behaviour.
ITunes and 7 Digital are great – but they’re still treating a digital music file as if it were actually “something” – counting digital sales as if they were physical CD singles is pure folly. There must be a new approach to the control and distribution of digital music, entirely separate from it’s physical counterpart.
It is virtually impossible to recoup an indie release using a Label 1.0 model. Instead of beating the dead horse, it’s time for Indie Labels & Artists to face the fact that the game has changed.
Jer
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
This is a great article. Thank you for showing that when people download music for free it affects the artist too, not just the record companies. I love that the way music is being distributed is changing but we still need to pay for the music so that the musicians can afford to keep on creating. I love you guys’ site!
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I agree with Nick; these days a band would be foolish to sign such a contract in the first place (little solace to those bands who are in current contracts of this nature)
Bands signing a contract these days shouldn’t even bother unless the label has enough faith in the artist that they will front any losses if they fail to promote the music in a profitable way. Thats what the label is supposed to be good at; making money out of music. These days they are flapping around like Britney’s belly not knowing what to do in this digital age.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Frankly, when the likes of Radiohead, NIN or Madonna see the writing on the wall and realize it’s time to change their business model, crying about the expenses of marketing music makes me laugh… While I was reading the article I was thinking something on the lines of “f u, loser” but I think I should rephrase it to “f u, clueless loser”, just to be more accurate.
Good luck with your plan to make a living out of selling records. Have you heard of wax cylinders? I heard they are all the rage now!
October 24th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Ouch! Some stinging rebukes there, Flick!
With respect to the commenters above, I’m wondering where what Flick calls ‘entitlement mentality’ will stop. Today we want free music, will we want free gigs tomorrow?
Yes, it’s crap that a label enforces these contracts on bands, especially when they should have faith in their act. But the problem is, with so many bands vying for attention on the web, it’s difficult to rise above the clamour. Maybe you need the resources of a record company to get you noticed in the first place.
And to the commenter who naively thinks unknown indie bands can follow in the footsteps of more established acts - those acts have what we call “an existing fanbase”. I’d like to see Madonna pull her career off without the help of a major record label. And Trent Raznor? While I respect the moves he’s made, surely he’s more famous now for his anti-record company stance than his music?
October 24th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Lilly Allen. And I’m not gonna talk about Artic Monkeys, they’re over hyped. Anyway, indie bands don’t follow Madonna footsteps, Madonna follows them. It was not Radiohead who invented the giving the music away, it was not NIN who invented self-publishing, indie bands did. The problem might be that some indie band wants to be The Rolling Stones. Let me tell you a secret: you are not. You don’t have the skills nor you have the genius to be like them and if you did, you probably would not have the luck needed either.
Anyway, the new business model is not revolving around distribution. Distribution is free now and should not be charged. It is not gonna be about creation, because piracy makes creation totally unchargable. That leaves you two scenarios to make money with your music: tangible items and gigs. So either you get your recording money back by selling tshirts or by having people go to gigs. If your numbers don’t add up, don’t go crying uncle. It’s not you, nor me, who set the market rules we just get to play by them and try to make the most of it.
As some friend of mine would put it: “less q q, more pew pew”
On a more technical side of things, about the only logical use I can see for DRM is precisely to send previews of your work to your “trusted” (tee hee hee) reviewers. That way you’d lessen the chance of leaks. They’ll still happen anyway, but hey, you put some stone on their path.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Why would you have an ego so big that you would sign into a contract that you have to pay the non creative (record label) a large amount of money if your creative production does not sell according to some random number one of you made up.
A lot of bands and labels are selling crappy music and that has more to do with low cd sales than anything else.
if your music is good and your distribution model is good…your music WILL sell. That old believe ” if i build it they will come” is not realistic anymore.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
@JotaJota - I can’t say that I agree that CDs or legitimate music files have gone the way of the wax cylinder - It’s simply that their usefulness to the overall business model is diminishing, as is selling “units” on iTunes - a whole new way of making you (the artist) valuable. I totally agree with your stance on focusing on other revenue generators to make a career in music a viable one.
and connected to that @Gerard, I don’t think it’s naive to think that an indie artist can experiment with alternative business models and be successful on his/her own terms. Too much is made of the fact that NIN etc. are “established” and are “living large off the back of their Major Label years”. Google “Jane Siberry” - she’s been using the “Radiohead” model for over a year, and she’s making (on average) more $$/track than at iTunes. Or look at what Jonathan Coulton’s been doing without a label or huge budget.
For an artist, having a “fan-base” is your first priority and not beyond the reach of any artist with talent. And depending on your goals as an artist, you can achieve the simple dream of artistic sustainability with a little fore-thought and - most importantly - ignoring everything you ever knew about the Music Industry.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
sorry - second to last sentence of first paragraph should read “a whole new way of making you (the artist) valuable is required here”.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
every band i have ever talked to has told me that they don’t hold there breath on cd sales to feed them….. they have told me that all of the money besides like 5cents a cd goes to the label….. thats why they always ask you to buy the cd from their merch table at gigs, they make their money off publicity and shows. so until you stop going to their shows they will be around….. record company’s might not but who gives a fuck about them all they do is front money…. take out a loan.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I would have to 100% say that I think todays artist deserve full well to earn our money. They way radio head produced and marketed the newest release is probably going to get them more money in the long run that a normal release. Why? They are a band that is still making music. 90% of todays main steam music is either stolen hooks (Rap), rehashed love stories (R&B) and or lame tails about losing a girl (todays so called rock and top 40 metal). Its really about the artist ability to draw a long lasting audience. I can name countless indie labels that suffer the same download woes but the bands are doing just fine because the fans still really care about the band. 6 months after a typical artist releases an album these days they are not even the same band.
Flash in the pan crap needs to be downloaded until the dinosaur record labels die.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
what kind of insane artist or band would pay $30k to record an album in this day and age?!? of course it’s hard to recoup that kind of money.
the reality is that same album could be made for $3k if you did it right. even less if you don’t need session players and own a lot of equipment already.
for vocals and live drums, it’s tough to beat a pro studio setup but everything else (guitars, bass, keys, percs, etc.) can sound just as great, if not better, recorded at home.
track, mix and master at home and you won’t be stuck with an unreasonable sum to recoup. your album’s sonic range may differ slightly from the pro studio guys’, but you won’t be declaring bankruptcy when it doesn’t sell.
this is the torrent age, folks. plan accordingly.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Here’s a band that will be quickly forgotten. GHO5. They’re..umm..too good for record companies. So, how do they get promoted? who knows. They know they won’t. It’s progressive rock, these guys can really play their intruments. No computer ‘adjustments’ at all. Everything is … huh!!!….REAL. myspace dot com gavinharrison05ric. Not one ounce of programming. This is the kind of CD that just dies a quick death. Too bad, I love good musicianship. Radiohead can’t hold a candle to the virtuosity of these guys. You might like their songs better, but, I love beautiful drumming etc. oh well.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I go to a lot of concerts and club shows. I buy from local artists and indie groups that I like. That doesn’t mean I am responsible for paying off your debt. That doesn’t mean I should have to pay for an entire album of songs only to find that all but one or two suck. That doesn’t mean that just because you have a record contract that you are ENTITLED to a ticket to easy street. You have to work to build a fan base. You have to earn the respect of the music buying public. You have to provide them something worth paying for.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I am sorry, I have not read every post so this may have been stated but doesn’t the record company take most of the risk here. I know the artist gets liable for some of it but that would be a stupid agreement on both sides. One you don’t have the money to cover the loses if it doesn’t sell and the record company should know you can’t squeeze water from a rock.
Not to mention the artist gets around 3% of the sales from CDs, unless they are already popular and they are on their second, third or forth album.
I think there should be a MAJOR shift in the business model. A company should be hired to create LOTS of marketing and promotion for a low cost. You have the web pages, youtube, Internet radio(kinda of…more on that later), Itunes direct dealings, etc…
I would love to MTV and record labels just crash and burn. You don’t need them anymore and it is up to the artists to start to figure this out.
The prices that are charged for a concert is OUTRAGOUS. I have to many other bills to spend money on that kind of thing. The entire recording industry is based on disposable income and who has that… KIDS! Thats who they target and thats all they want. This is very generalized and I understand there are going to be exceptions to this. But this is all entertainment. I am trying to save for a house which is worse then ever as well… living in Wisconsin.
I also want to comment on Internet radio. I know there has been a law passed that is shutting down Internet radio sites but I still see many of them on Shoutcast. I believe the law revolved around copy writes and playing that music to make money. It was either that or a regulatory fee because normal FM / AM radio was losing listener and the government stepped in to slow the progress of Internet radio. I am not sure which, if anyone can shed light on this issue please do.
As I approach my 30’s, this is what I would like to see. A minimum of 40% of CD sales goes directly to the artist. That way I can support them without spending a fortune. I also understand there is a large cost associated with a concert with all the crew, time, and locations. And as resources start costing more so are ticket prices. But if the artist is getting more from CD sales they won’t need so much from ticket prices. You can also download the album from a pay for site, in DRM-free music. I know not everyone has good intension’s but I would be more likely to find people willing to pay a CD if they knew the money was going to an artist rather than a corporation. And they only way to support an artist was to pay $200 - $300 for a concert ticket. I run Linux and I need an open format to play music. I know this is a reach but for the sake of argument, lets say Apple goes under. All the music everyone has bought will go bad. Itunes has to authenticate against an Apple server in order to play the damn song. That’s reliance on a company that I DON’T WANT.
Do I think stealing is wrong… YES. Have I download some songs, YES. Is that stealing, YES. Is it stealing if I go and buy the album, NO!
Now with youtube, I hear the song and see the video, so I already have my sampling of music as well.
I have left out a few points of interest like emusic and other indie sites but I’m tired.
I know I might get flamed for somethings in here but O’ well. Opinions are like a$$holes, everybodys got one.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
It’s funny… My band’s cd was on OiNK and it really didn’t bother me. It was a 10 track, full-length release on a tiny indie label. We completed the recording for 2500, mastering for another 500, artwork for 500 to a pretty famous artist and another 1500 for duplication. So, for roughly $5,000 we completed a professional, high-quality, mastered recording and printed the first run of 1000 copies. Honestly, I think we could have done it even cheaper.
The fact is that the major labels are completely stuck in an old business model that no longer works.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
First of all, agreeing to owe $30K is a stupid move. Typical industry trap.
Second, you have to be an idiot to not expect your CD to get downloaded for free before it comes out.
Third, crying about it on a blog is pathetic. Get a real job like the people who don’t feel like spending money on your “art”.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Many artists are getting screwed over as a direct result of being tied into contracts and distribution methods that no longer work. I’m not saying that every artist must complete their recording for five grand or less, but what I am saying is that high quality recording is cheaper than it was before, especially with all of the technology that’s accessible at home. The new business model will not be developed in house at a Capitol records meeting.
Personally, if I download an album I try to buy the vinyl when I go to that band’s live show, or at least buy a t-shirt.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
i heard horse and buggy whip manufacturers got pissed off when automobiles became all the rage. want to play it safe? sell tangible goods that are relevant to the market that exists today, and in the future. anything else is a worse gamble. dont gamble if you dont mind losing. good luck.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
It is a frustrating situation where a band or artist enters into an exploitative agreement like the one mentioned in the article, and they are held liable by their publisher for any gap between the creation costs and a preset sales target. Mind you, in today’s age where self-publishing and self-promotion have never been easier, anyone who enters into that kind of agreement has rocks in their head.
Do I download music? Yes. Do I buy albums after downloading the tracks as MP3s? Sometimes. The problem is this - when it comes to CD sales, someone is always left holding the bag. If an album is released, and it doesn’t inspire the people who download the tracks to either buy the album, or to go to a concert, then the artist/label is out of pocket. If an album is released, and people have no choice but to buy the CD before they can sample the tracks, so they go out and fork over their cash for something that they wish they had never bought, then the fans are the ones out of pocket and the artist/label doesn’t care as they have already made their money.
Look at the late 90’s, when CDs were being churned out like crazy, downloading of tracks was a skill known only to the Pocket-Protector Brigade. The amount of pure crap which was sold to poor consumers was incredible - if I could have sold back those bad CDs for even half what I paid for them I would have saved myself $3,000 or so!
Maybe that’s it - sell CDs, but offer your listeners a money back guarantee. If we don’t like what has been made, we should get our cash back. At least then it wouldn’t feel like we are chucking $30 at a multi-national corporation (or smaller version thereof) for something which is better suited to being a coaster than being listened to.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Intellectual property is not a commodity. Although technology allowed us to enjoy a brief period of monetization of such properties, it has now freed intellectual property once again. If you don’t want people to steal your music, either don’t charge for it or don’t record it. However, if you would like to be an entertainer, the model remains unchanged. Create art and then innovate ways to monetize it. The party’s over and the talentless will be given their due. The talented will still have viable business models regardless of distribution. Music has always been free, the suits just held it captive for a short period of time.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Argument flaw: In this scenario the “artist” has become a manufacturer. He/she is laying out capital to build a “widget” (in this case a CD) to be sold to customers. All the other stuff…websites, labels, signings etc. is marketing for this product. What we are forgetting is that the “artist” is an entertainer! Their job is to provide ENTERTAINMENT! The CD is considered to be part of the marketing side of the show. Live show = Entertainment/Memories/Unique Experience to be paid for. The CD is only a symbol of that memory or experience to be enjoyed later.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
In response to the dripping venereally diseased CUNT ‘jotajota’:
What’s the matter–are you so stupid and talentless, so clueless and rude that you resent ANYONE who’s actually doing work in this field?
What a pile of steaming horse dung you are. It is impossible to imagine that you have a ‘friend’ in the world; no wonder, with your sociopathic posting here, that you placed the word in quotations. LOL!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I like how you just pull numbers straight out of your motherfucking ass. For example, “Someone that received the promotional copy decided to place the album on a Torrent site. Now anyone can download your album for free and you won’t see a single penny.” That’s just bullshit and if you’re too mired in the glory days of ripping off the consumer, then you’re obviously on your way out.
This whole pissing-and-moaning letter seems like a big fat contrivance by a record label who happen to be scared shitless by the latest developments of a new business model championed by Radiohead and many others.
In conclusion, fuck you. Go back to the 80s. I’m sure your music sucks too.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
The only cries of entitlement are coming from the big music cartel. The pirates don’t feel entitled, they feel something else: the presence of opportunity. This is fairly natural stuff; you can embrace change or be left behind. The market has changed, and there’s going to be a perceived problem until RIAA &co. shape up.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Musicians / artists or whatever they want to be called are going to have to get creative. I used to buy CDs. When I ripped them onto the pc to play anywhere at anytime, I found it restricted - they wanted me to repurchase the music! That’s sick! It was worse with downloading (legally) the file, I had to keep logging in just to hear it.
Sooo, long story short, I don’t buy music anymore. Not interested in even downloading.
What should happen? Artists will have to be sponsored by a company (paid by them), distribute the music free and basically earn their dough from T-shirts, licensing, concerts and other artistic ventures. They should be creative, isn’t that what an artist is supposed to be?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
The actual percentage loss of profits is small though, even though a lot of freeloaders may end up listening that wouldn’t otherwise. Statistically, a large percentage of the people that listen to the music are more likely to buy the album or the next album.
At bottom, music works by a gift culture, people, when they buy the album are essentially tipping the artist, and getting a badge back (in the form of a CD).
October 24th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
This is 100% because everyone that downloads would have definitely bought the album!
And labels are a scam. Artists are the idiots here. Why on earth would you sell the rights to your own work that your poured your heart into? Wtf are you thinking?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
For too long the recording industry has forced unfair conditions on artists and put most of the risk on the artist while keeping the majority of the profits for themselves. Now that the paradigm is changing we’re seeing a few artist who choose to enter into the outdated antiquated model get burned and we are definitely seeing the recording industry make a big stink about it but there are many independent labels who do not associate with the RIAA who have seen tremendous success because they work as enables for the artists and not as leeches. We are also seeing many artists big and small who are making more money independently than they ever would under a recording contract. As I read over this article I could help but feel that it was a publicity piece funded by the RIAA.
I made a decision a few years ago to support the artist, not the label and since then I only purchase albums or merch directly from the artists at their performances and avoid big box retailers, middle men, or the industry because it is at the shows that the artist receives the most profit from the sale of their work.
I would rather drop $20 or $40 into an artist’s paypal account as a show of support and not worry about having to purchase their music. I’ve done so with my DNS hosting service for the past 5 years and it’s the business model of many large corporate not for profits. If it works for them why can’t it work for an artist? The truth is it does for many artists who are not signed with a major label.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
[…]
October 24th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Music is too expensive. Charge $3-5/album and you’ll have plenty of people buying CD’s instead of grabbing the torrent. The greater sales volume would more than make up for the lower profit. Everyone would need to lower prices for this to even work, but you get the idea.
I also don’t believe piracy has any effect on sales. The people that pirate your album and enjoy it, they’ll more than likely end up buying it (you may even acquire new listeners here, as you mentioned). Anyone else that’s downloading, were never a potential customer to begin with. Some people just want free music.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
This article is nonsense. If a band is stupid enough to get caught up in the record label scam, that’s their problem. Do you see anyone complaining that they can’t sell the 15,000 8-track tapes they made? Welcome to the future, buddy. Distribute online exclusively or shut up. And seriously, don’t cry about it like it’s someone else’s fault.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Maybe if the artist’s album had more than 1 song that was worth listening to their sales wouldn’t be so bad. No one is going to go buy your album with 12 crap songs (chances are, you didn’t even write the song anyway) to listen to one song they’ll bored with in 6 months anyways.
The real problem here is the Music Industry insists on signing poor quality “artists” whose music is neither inspired nor inspirational. If you can show me one artist who has released thier first album in the last 10 years that has more than a dozen songs worth listen too I’ll eat my laptop.
Stop giving us crap and we’ll start paying.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
If an online store would pop up that actually met my needs, that would be awesome.
Sadly, OiNK is/was the only place, legal or illegal, to meet my needs.
Is it so hard for labels to sell lossless albums? I’m not going to spend money on a lossy piece of crap. My dream: a place where I can buy complete album, FLAC, cover art, etc, for $5-10. And lossy previews.
The only place with this model so far is Magnatune, and none of the music I tend to listen to is there…so, OiNK was where I went.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
As a thought experiment, I do like this article. I would have liked to have heard some new ideas perhaps on current-generation (yes, because it can be done now) methods of distribution. Still, I would like to correct a misconception in your scenario.
In this hypothetical situation, you have someone who received a promotional copy, presumably one of those media sources or music blogs. In actual cases of leaks, it is almost always a person at the label who is the leak. This is important to realize, to highlight the fact that the system isn’t broken by the customers, it’s broken by the industry itself.
In the end, the real question you posed in the situation has already been answered by practice: people do buy albums, even when obtaining a free copy from an illegal distribution is easy. Not just in some small recoupment, there hasn’t been any documented case where an album has sold less, many indications that they sell more. Just because it isn’t intuitive doesn’t make it true.
The erroneous assumption that every download is a lost sale is wrong in two ways: 1) not every download would ever have been a sale, either because they wouldn’t try out something they didn’t already like or because they never buy music. 2) People that download music do actually buy music too. Combine 2 with 1 and you have people buying music that they wouldn’t have ever purchased if they hadn’t downloaded.
As for the BitTorrent sites, for everyone that is shut down, 5 (or more) jump up to replace it. Why is this? This entitlement mentality is your answer. My answer is that people are responding to a vacuum in current-gen distribution in the only way they can. It is hard work to create a new business model, and it has been made apparent again and again that the current Music industry isn’t interested in taking to the task. I look forward very much to the companies that do, because they will crush the major labels of today.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
[…] get it? I hear stories about artists that get it, but I’ve yet to actually meet one. Take Flick here, who says: “As consumers, we seem to feel entitled to have full access to music, and we wince […]
October 24th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Isn’t the point here that a musicians creations are being rendered worthless? (At least to the artist!) I don’t want to sell t-shirts, I write and play songs. If I’m unable to perform to large masses of people in great venues, does it mean that my music isn’t good? Of course, that could be the case, but suppose that the music is worthwhile. Should it be free just because you like it and desire to own a copy of it? Wouldn’t it be lovely if a method were available to allow a musical piece of art to be enjoyed for a short period without obligation, and then if you wished to own it, a fair price could be paid. Believe me when I say that I also don’t want to pay for something prior to knowing what I’m getting…
October 24th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Wow, a lot of people get really defensive when you imply that their downloading might actually hurt somebody. A well-written article, with some very disheartening replies.
First of all, I steal music. I won’t label it as anything else. While I wish that more bands were okay with allowing me to have their music for free, I know that most of the music I am downloading is by people who would much rather that I purchased it legally. The only decent excuse I’ve really heard that lessens the theft angle of downloading music is that, depending on the amount of music you’re downloading, you’re probably getting a lot more music than you would ever have purchased and in that way you’re probably just hearing an album that you wouldn’t have purchased anyway (and might actually go out and but once you have).
Other than that, the amount of cognitive dissonance from people who download music is incredible. They seem dead-set on not ascribing any negative qualities to their actions, a phenomenon I also see in people who smoke too much pot. They always have the same terrible excuses (see the guy above me for the classic “there’s only one good song on the album anyway” one) and they all strike me as being nothing more than people trying to justify something that deep down is as simple as them wanting to get away with low-risk theft and not feel bad about it.
I really appreciate you writing this article, and I’m sorry that so many people have such an immediately defensive reaction to your words. Though the record companies do need to change the way they do business, their many problems do not overshadow the fact that stealing an album you would otherwise pay for almost always deprives the people who made that music some amount of money.
And to the people consistently calling a band “stupid” for signing a contract that leaves them in debt to a label, keep in mind that (to paraphrase Steve Albini) when the big label is waving a contract in your face, that, to most bands/artists, is going to seem like their big break, and there is always somebody else in line ready to put their name on that paiece of paper. Completely understandable, in my mind.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
What I would like to see is these people who write these blog “articles” about how everyone else is stealing their goods start picking up a conversation between them and the rest of the world. I mean try to talk with us, find some common grounds and please, please listen to what we are saying.
It’s like this blog for instance. The author has written this condemning piece and just shuts up like it’s the last word we’ll ever hear. That’s just stupid.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
The problem with the music industry is that they approached new technology combatively instead of embracing it. Because of the RIAA’s attitude of hostility to MP3 and MP3 players, the consumers are backlashing and getting pissed off. The RIAA did this to themselves. For every poor, good artist out there, the RIAA and labels pimp out 500 shitty ones. This is VCR vs. TV networks redux. And the RIAA is going to lose. Period.
If the industry had just embraced MP3s and MP3 players and made agreements with the producers of MP3 players to get a small royalty for each MP3 player produced in exchange for exclusive access to a free MP3 page with ads or something of the like, the RIAA wouldn’t be as pissy as they are now bemoaning the poor starving artist while they fund multi-million dollar operations to try to shut down the propogation of MP3s. The industry gambled on being able to shut down the spread of MP3s and lost.
They shit their bed, now they have to deal with it.
Not consumers, not other companies, themselves. If a couple innocent artists get dragged down as well, so be it. But to continually turn to the arguement of the poor artist is beating a dead horse. There are so many ways the industry could have better gone about this change, but that would decrease their greedy ass profit margins. I’d be willing to bet, if a CD or MP3 album cost $5 instead of $10-30, there would be a whole lot more sales going on. But no, the labels don’t want a $4 cut from a sale, they “neeeeeed” $9-29 to cover their “costs.” That my friends is crap.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Bummer for the artist. I am at the age now, that I no longer buy new music. I only listen to new music if I have downloaded it for free. Unfortunately for the artists, the system has changed and they will need to find different ways to make their money.
I have never felt guilty for downloading for free because it is not stealing. If I steal a CD from a store, then I have taken something from the store. If I have downloaded a song, then the artist still has the product. You can not put the genie back in the bottle.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I wish I could work for a day, and copy and paste it for the rest of my life and make money. You want money? go to work, play your friggin music in a club. The idea that you think that people should support someone who works for a couple of weeks and they should get paid for the rest of their lives is stupid. work like the rest of us. it doesnt pay? then get a second job like me. what you provide is not a necessity.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I guess that I feel that if a band has all the right stuff, they’ll connect to an audience and make money.
I pretty much stopped buying CD’s and DVD’s and now play cover tunes on my piano for pleasure, it’s a lot more interactive.
The $30,000 dollar cost is a huge overhead since the band would probably have to make $120,000 to pay it back comfortably so, either way, if a band spends $30,000 on a CD, it has to be successful or everyone’s going to be eating beans.
If I had a small budget, I’d simply make live recordings and sell them for $7.50 and save up money for a more elaborate project later.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
“If the album is loved, album sales reflect this and some of the loss is recouped”
This is the fundimental flaw of your argument and is why your argument loses all merit from the start. Its entire foundation is based on this fundimentally flawed concept.
First there is no loss. When I steal a CD from walmart there is an actual loss. I stole something. What was one in one physical location is no longer there and is in another IE my hands.
When I “copy” a song the original remains where it is. This is why there is no theft. This is why we had to create new laws. By copying something I am not stealing I am COPYING this is called copyright infringement when its illegal. Both wrong not the same thing and I am tired of my language being “distorted” so please stop doing it.
Second I walk into a walmart with NO intention of buying a CD. I open the cd right there in the isle and Pop it into my laptop and copy it. Put it back in the case back on the shelf.
Have I stolen anything? Off course not. Anyone who says I have has mental issues regarding reality and our language.
What I have done is vandalized product (tearing open the plastic wrap etc..) Violated store policy (not binding in law) and Copyright Infringement.
I find it interesting that the Penalty for copying the CD is orders of magnitude greater than just stealing the CD.
Second since I had no intention of ever purchasing the CD you can not even claim a “supposed” loss of future sale since you never had a future sale to me to begin with.
NOW I am not trying to justify downloading etc.. JUST trying to clarify the language and reality.
SO nothing is stolen and there is no loss. Its pure copyright violation. NOTHING MORE.
NOW onto the Moral issue of copyright violation. This gets complicated so beware with ne as I give some preamble so my opinions will have context and make sense.
This one gets complicated. I do not believe in the concept of law defining people’s behavior. (except the constitution) I believe LAW bends to me not the other way around (me being the general concensus of the people limited by the constitution) Thats what a republic is. That is what we have (or at least are supposed to have in the USA here)
Artists have EVERY right to protect there intellectual property but I feel this should end the moment of death unless there is family then 50 years more only.
BUT this to me is only for PRIVATE works. The moment you want to make it commercial I believe you have NO rights. The rights of the people can and should ALWAYS outweigh commercial interests.
Now it is understood that some kind of balance is needed in order to promote artists to commercialize more of there work for the betterment of society.
So while you have NO RIGHTS to commercialize your work you have been granted a PRIVILEDGE which we call copyright and patent laws by the people of the united states of america.
Its important that you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE.
A right is something that is yours on inception. IT can not be taken away from you (not legally at least) its YOURS its intrinsic its “god given” if you will or prefer.
Your right to speech arms assembly travel happiness etc.. Note these “rights” are not granted by the constitution. (thats called a priviledge) It is “explicity” prohibited for the government to INFRINGE on them. It does not limit your rights it simply says THESE rights are the ones we thought of and they are hands off.
A priviledge is GRANTED and can be REVOKED. Your ability to walk across my lawn or drive my car is a PRIVILEDGE and I can stip you anytime I want.
Your protection of yor intellectual property is your right your SELLING of your intellectual property in a monopolistic maner is a PRIVILEDGE.
This in NO way makes file sharing “right” but it also does not make it “wrong”
SO I want to use an analogous comparison. The best is “radio”
How is copying a song off the radio any different than copying it off the internet? Thats really what it comes down too. You already CHOOSE willingly to GIVE AWAY your music for FREE on the radio.
Morally to me the internet is nothing more than an all encompassing radio.
To me the radio is not an end but a means. Its a way to explore and experience music. You do not actually expect me to buy something withoyut first being able to decide if I WANT to buy something.
My purchases of CD’s used to be quite low. The first 10 years of my “Music Buying” life was very low volume. I like massive ranges of music (pretty much anything except rap unless its japanese rap
but I am very PICKY. I have had artists where I like exactly ONE song them make with a passion and utterly hate every other song they make.
Call me weird but I love that “Barbie Doll” song by Aqua. it tweaks my weird fiber and I like it. SO I wanted to see if there was anything else by Aqua I liked. I downloaded the entire discography. BOY am I glad I did not buy any (more on that later) of there CD’s every single song I listend to SUCKED. Not sucked as in it was bad music but sucked as in they did absolutely NOTHING for me. I would not listen to that music for free.
Now you say well we lost a sale. NO you did not because you had NOTHING I wanted. My rights to my LIFE (and my money is quite literally my life since I have to TRADE chunks of my life to get it) I did purchase the CD that had that song on it though (thanks ebay)
Ok so lets get to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is not the artists but the labels.
You see we have a problem in this situation where its NOT artists rights we are dealing with. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AT ALL. you signed them all over to the LABEL you contracted with
See where I am going with this.
The LAST thing a label wants is for an artist to sell me a track.
That sentence is SO critical I need to repeat it.
THE LAST THING A LABEL WANTS IS FOR AN ARTIST TO SELL ME A TRACK.
The LABEL wants to sell me that track and the difference is critical. Further this to the draconian laws we have effectively handing over unlimited monopoly power to copyright law and you start to see where things are headed today.
Time for another analogy. You live in a world with auto makers. The Top automakers are X and Y. X start to slack off and burn there customers.
What do they do? well they goto Y and buy his cars.
X now has a choice, do you know what they are? They can either FIX the problems and EARN there customers back or Go Out of Business. Seems simple right? Makes sense right this is how a FREE Market with consumer interests having VALUE works.
Well what happens when X makes an option C. Instead of fixing the problems or going under they use there massive buying power and outright PURCHASE company Y.
Hmmm this creates a problem now doesn’t it. How do yo fix this?
Well consumer will start to buy Company Z cars or “independants” small manufacturers etc..
Again company X is presented with a choice A or B same as above. BUT once again they create and choose option C
They buy up all the raw material manufacturers (studio’s) Independants and car rentals (Radio Stations) Other Auto Makers (Record Labels) Advertising Avenues and showrooms (Distribution and Marketing channels.)
They make it impossible (effectively) for independants to really gain any ground IE impossible to be a VIABLE alternative to cars from X.
Does any of this sound familiar yet? Lets continue.
SO what happens now? The consumers are getting FEWER AND FEWER choices available to them. Its not really practical for consumers to make there own cars since the channels available to the independants are also the ones THEY need to make there own cars and the labels control this.
Well “proper” consumers will rebel. Now we have to take a leap of faith here since you can not “copy” cars but lets have a reality excemption here to allow this analogy to continue to its end result.
Consumers have access to replicators. They scan the car they want and hit the “copy” button.
Lets combine this with being able to INPUT parameters into the machine directly and have it create from that a car.
The analogy of this technology on the MEDIA side is as follows.
Internet - CD Burning - CD Mastering IE digital Studios. MP3 ie compressed good enough easily propogates file formats.
ALL these things are like cheap little replicators that I can point at or program into making or duping any car of my choice.
You see the RIAA does not fear consumers it fears ARTISTS. How can a company survive SUING its customers. It can not. THIS is when yoiu should realize we are not there customers. THE ARTISTS ARE.
You see the internet empowers individuals I can talk to ANYONE for nearly nothing. You can get dial up for $5 a month or FREE you can get DSL for under $20 a month in most locals.
CD Burning allows me to make one or 1000 CD’s for VERY little money. A Fraction of the money it costs to make a Glass Master to STAMP a CD.
Modern Computers and Software both getting more powerful and CHEAPER almost daily it seems allows me to literally build a STUDIO in my bedroom for a FRACTION of what studio time would cost me.
MP3 was the REAL killer. MP3 combined with Internet CD burning and Digital studios was the nail in the coffin so to speak. It was the final piece to this puzzle ot empowerment.
(owe and when I say MP3 I mean ANY digital compressed format that is OPEN)
It suddenly becomes POSSIBLE for a band to Start a website, Record Tracks, Edit them professionally, Distribute them over the internet with mp3 and cheap hosting or file sharing and to burn and sell there own CD’s if need be.
See where I am going with this yet (and where the labels are going with this as well)
All this technology can potentially EMPOWER artists and ELIMINATE the need for labels at least eliminate there total importance they have today.
THIS AND ONLY THIS is why they fight against file sharing (nothing more than RADIO on the net) and MP3 and open formats etc.. etc.. etc..
They are fighting to RETAIN the servitude of the artists that they leech there massive funding from.
Remember my all important statement earlier ?
The LAST thing a label wants is for an artist to sell me a track.
If I send an artists 50 cents and then download there CD I just paid them more than 2-10 times what they would get from the labels IF anything at all.
BUT you have to realize it is NOT the artists music. THEY DO NOT OWN IT. The LABEL does.
The labels have accrued enough power to not only compel you to sign a deal with them but if you refuse there terms they can “lock you out” of the system all together or make it VERY hard for you.
File sharing being another form of radio but “on demand” did the same thing RADIO did. Most people are not aware of this. IT INCREASED RECORD SALES!
Thats right File Sharing is GOOD for CD sales. but as usual there is a catch even beyond the many I mention above.
Its not enough to sell us music they want to sell us SPECIFIC music. Although CD sales did in fact go up and by a HUGE amount it was sales of CD they were not trying to peddle to us. IT was CD “WE AS CONSUMERS WANTED”.
This is also “not good” for labels. (but its excellent for smaller artists who get no real label attention)
Its awesome for EMPOWERING artists. Music that is all but ignore by labels SHOVED to the bottom of the scale BURIED on purpose to prevent it from competing with there latest pet project is suddenly able to EXCEL and do WELL. Because it now has EXPOSURE. People KNOW about it.
Again GOOD for artists BAD for labels.
NO part of file sharing is bad for artists. They do not get anything from CD sales anyway so whether a label sells it a radio stations plays it for free (to me) or I download it the result is the same to the artists they get nothing or near nothing.
BUT ITS SIDE EFFECTS are huge for the artists. NOW its possible for niche or “undesired” artists to get exposure and attention. Its possible for good but not cherry picked by the labels to now get some exposure.
Any money they DO make it more than they would have gotten otherwise in most cases.
SO again GOOD for artists NOT so good for labels.
THIS is why labels fight so hard. THIS is why they can “sue” music “users” because we are not there customers THE ARTISTS ARE. and Retaining the salvery on the artists is the objective.
Because no matter how many of US they piss off if they can retain there strangelhold on the artists they can effectively force us to continue to buy there CD’s since there are no alternatives.
UNTIL the replicator comes along. Did not think I forgot that did you? IE napster internet MP3.
Consumers do not like being FORCED into the will of another. SO they starting creating there own Radio Networks or File Sharing and get there music THERE WAY on THERE TERMS.
Artists still win but LABELS LOSE (remember File Sharing CAN NOT HURT ARTISTS if they also use or want to use RADIO) Its Radio My way. (as it should be)
NOW sharing formats like FLAC I am a little less kean on since its 100% quality retention.
BUT in the end no matter what format its in even if you burn a CD using a printable disc and print the label and cover etc.. its still not the same thing as BUYING the CD.
Ownership is important to me hence why I will never buy a copy protected medium since it violates MY RIGHTS to the property I purchase (I do not recognize License and Terms in this regard but thats gets complicated and will take time to explain and this post is already quite big) I will not willingly give up my property rights.
SO now we have a real problem You would think they would once again have a choice A or B but they ONCE AGAIN create there own option C.
They purchase law making such as the Illegal DMCA etc.. They sue people. If you copy a SINGLE SONG on the internet you will get a FAR FAR larger fine than if you just STOLE the copy from walmart. That alone should be enough to say this is fubared ie really messed up and somethings “wrong” here.
These are desperation moves. They are trying to retain there position of importance and power and “control” over artists.
They have absolutely nothing to do with Piracy and mythical non existant theft. Otherwise we should all be fined for recording the songs we hear into our minds from the radio.
Sharing music on the net is no difference than me calling you up and saying HEY listen to 91.4 some good stuff is on. IE sharing is the “airwaves” of the internet sharing process. Nothing more.
These laws were designed to be used against the people who really are pirates. Other businesses profiting from there work. Pirates making massive copies and selling as originals. The fines were intended to be SO incredible as to persuade these people to not even TRY to break these rules.
THEY WERE NEVER intended to be applied to profitless regular individuals.
They use propoganda to alter our very language (calling copyright infringement theft which “sounds worse” to people.) and taking our attention AWAY from the core of the problem. IE them.
Would we TOLERATE IT if FORD or CHEVY or GM tried to do this?
WHY oh WHY they do we tolerate it when Media Labels do this?
Enough is Enough.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Here, here!
October 25th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Way to cry just a little bit more. I happen to work in the recording industry (studio owner/engineer) and this is the biggest bunch of shit I’ve ever heard.
First off, the bands themselves are stupid for signing any contract that requires a guarantee on 30k. I’ve recorded a *lot* of bands over the years, a great many (I daresay the majority) were utter shit. But they believed they could make it because all they have around them is “yes men” and people telling them they’re good. So they blame piracy when their album doesn’t sell for shit, not realizing that it *is* shit. I hate to tell you, but most pirates aren’t using it to “discover indie bands”…
Second, the entire industry model is bloated beyond belief. While out looking for new/up and coming acts I ran across a band that was great. Great songs, great stage presence, everything. They hooked up with a local label who booked them into a studio halfway across the country who charged them 5 grand for a 3 song demo. That’s just recording. Not including the producer. Not including the mixer. Not including the mastering. 5 grand. 3 songs. They damn near lost it when I told them how much it would’ve cost them with us, and hey, guess what? Our price includes everything, from the first recording session to a completed, mastered, mixed cd.
Third, the RIAA and labels are essentially a mob at this point, guilty of (at the very least) price fixing and market manipulation. You don’t like their offer? Get bent. Don’t like their model? Good luck doing it on your own when 95% of radio stations throughout this country are bought and paid for by the major labels.
Fourth, every band I’ve ever talked to, from the smallest “we don’t have a name yet” band to major label touring acts have never railed against piracy. They truly *get it*. They don’t like the fact that the labels are charging $16 for their disc either. They don’t want to see a single lawsuit against a file sharer. The big exception of course being Lars “I’m not rich enough” Ulrich and Metallica. But they’re douchebags anyways…
So quit trying to blame all of the industries ills on piracy. They have nobody to blame but themselves, but they’ll never admit they might possibly be wrong. Either way, they’re just making it easier for those of us operating on the fringes of the industry.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:20 am
I forgot a few things (took over 2 hours to type all of that)
I mentioned in my first 10 years I was low volume. Well in the 2 years following my
discovery of file sharing I bought at least 20 times more CD’s than I had purchased in the
previous 10 years (I really did not buy many CD’s)
You see the “rules” are draconian. You can not listen to them first and you can not return
them if you do not like them or it just sucks.
I can not accept this. SO I do not buy them until I KNOW I want it. The only way to do this
is file sharing. Plain and simple.
I can return a half eaten candy bar if I do not like it but can not return a CD that I do
not like or outright sucks?
Sorry those terms are not acceptable to me. Its my money so it smy rules. People need to
start repeating this montra.
SOME stores will allow you to listen to as much and as many as you want there in the shop
but this is ultra inconvenient. You have to pick what you want wait for them to unwrap and
load and then repeat when your done that. IT WAS a good measure those and when I did buy
CD’s from a store I patronized THOSE stores specifically. (FYE was one)
Also you have price. The price has remained static or GONE UP even though costs have gone
down to a fraction of what they were. Why is NOT A PENNY of this massive extra profit given
to the artists? (take a guess)
So why did I buy so many more CD’s ? well the same reason mostly as everyone else. I NOW HAD
ACCESS to a massive on demand “radio” station called file sharing and was able to discover
the music I WANTED and LIKED.
Many times purely by accident. I found “Bond” this way. I found someone with a big trunk and
just slurpped all he had. Some of the songs were from this never before heard of group
called “Bond” WOW I was blown away. I actually got up out of my seat right at that moment
and drove to something like 4 stores till I found one that had there album (Bond Born)
WOW I now have every album they have made (2 of born I scratched one up pretty badly
I have gone to 3 of there concerts bought there DVD and even got an autograph
I even got a Vinyl Record from the UK of one of there songs. Very Cool.
Possession is important to me. You can not “hold” an mp3 even if you burn it to cd or copy
to an ipod as its just a copy.
The people who are happy enough with mp3’s are also happy enough with FM radio recordings IE
there not customers either way as far as CD purchasing goes. BUT having access to so many
MP3’s MIGHT make them into paying customers. BUT not for the labels. For the artists.
(remember they will buy what they LIKE not what is spoon fed to them by the labels)
I have an intrinsic right to record for personal use anything I see or hear. This includes
recording on the radio (or internet) Recording the TV (broadcast or cable) and what I see
Live such as performances concerts plays etc..
Movies are not live or “broadcast” so they do not qualify. I have no problem with that being
illegal but it should be illegal for what it is. An extremely minor misdemeanor. If you
upload this to the net that should be a bit larger an offence but NEVER a felony. Selling
for a profit a larger offense still but again NEVER a felony (nothing should ever be a
felony if it does not involve a standardised Weapon or violence)
I think it should be illegal to INFRINGE on this right. I think “no camera’s allowed”
policies should be illegal.
NOW here is where it gets STICKY. I DO NOT always have the right to DISTRIBUTE these
recordings. Portions to share with friends and family or the world (clips etc..) sure but
the whole thing NO.
THIS is where file sharing gets sticky. I think downloading IS and SHOULD be 100% legal no
different than RADIO.
ITS THE UPLOADING that I have issues with. Uploading IS distributing and while I consider
this to be a VERY VERY VERY minor offence lower than misdemeanor (no profit NO real harm can
ever be shown nor is likely) BUT it is still wrong and a violation of the owners copyright
(not the artists since the artist does not own it anymore I am only pointing this out
because I do not like that artists have to sell there sould to labels)
Thats why I do not share. Not because I do not think its right or wrong but becaus currently
the law says I can not and while I disagree with this law and think it should be changed IT
IS NOT a bad law. It is just behind the times
The law should be altered to make file sharing legal. Restrictions are fine with me say
nothing higher than 96kbps as long as a CD is available 192kbps is no CD is available.
IE like radio. IE let it be WIDE open and simply have an optional “fee” people pay per year
like radio stations to to have open license to share and distribute all this content anyway
they choose. If you choose not to pay this fee (REASONABLE FEE no more than say $30-$40 a
year with a $20 a year option being ideal. (that alone would more than equal any radio
revenue and radio will not be going away anytime soon) If you opt not to pay and get caught
sharing then you should be fined but even then it should be on the level of a parking ticket
or some such and say mandatory probation where you have to pay the fee for the next 5 years.
Something like that seems quite fair to me.
But you have to understand ITS FAIR for the artists. NOT fair for the labels. They do not
want to just keep control of the artists they have now but to RETAIN the power they have to
AQUIRE control of future artists.
As backwards as some people think the Labels are they are VERY far future thinking. The
problem is they want to RETAIN what they have now. They have no interest in “changing”
things for the future.
They want to outright BAN file sharing or make it so small and insignificant that Drum Roll
here. ITs not even useful to independants!! Ding Ding Ding give the man a prize.
They want to prevent competition. They do not want anyone moving in on there monopoly. IE
moving in on there artists.
Just think about that. Think about the BIGGER PICTURE. The Law Suits and piracy are SMALL
FRIES in the larger image and DISGUISE the larger image from the average joe.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:49 am
First off the recording industry is a bunch of idiots. No doubt. They shouldn’t sign bands that can’t sell 15,000 copies if thats what they’re going to require. Sign bands that can, or take the fucking gamble and risk losing the money if it flops.
It really is not the bands job to sell records, thats the record labels job. The band is the talent, they provide a SERVICE. The record label is supposed to provide the PRODUCT. But the people who simply throw up their arms and proclaim the business model to be broken and say artists should just “adapt” without explaining what “adapting” would entail are equally stupid!
Some have suggested bands focus more on ticket sales as well as merchandise and basically give their albums away. They claim you could record an equally sounding album for $3,000 dollars in a home studio. But as an independent artist let me tell something. I know first hand that you can’t! The equipment alone costs more than that!
Sure you can record a decent sounding album. But it will be NOWHERE NEAR the sonic quality of say Green Days American Idiot which is 3 years old and outdated by industry standards. Despite what you think of them as a band they have the best producers in the industry, the label gives them virtually however much money they want/need to record their albums and you can tell when you listen to it.
A professional studio album sounds amazing. Most of them are recorded in surround sound these days at extremely high bit rates. Using Microphones that cost more than $3,000 dollars each! The old SM57 is a caveman in todays top studios. And because they have access to this top of the line equipment (not to mention engineers with 30-40yrs of experience in audio mastering) Every shimmering detail is there, nothing is lost, nothing is overpowering, nothing is muffled.
In comparison, todays best home studios are about on par with the quality of an early 90s major record release. Musical taste and preference aside listen to Nirvana and then listen to the latest Foo Fighters album. As much as I love Smells like Teen Spirit, the quality sounds like garbage in comparison to The Pretender.
You may think you’re willing to sacrifice quality for cost but once you hear the end result of a $3,000 dollar album on your high end stereo system you will change your mind.
Then there is the other side of that coin. As an artist the thing I hate the MOST (in fact really the only thing I hate) is recording an album. Its tiring. Frustrating. Doing it on your own is a major pain in the ass because you lack unbiased ears, you lack the experience necessary to know HOW to fix something that sounds wrong. It’s incredibly time consuming. And completely unnatural from an artistic standpoint. Instead of plugging in and playing your heart out with you fellow band mates your drummer goes in and sits alone in a dead silent room with a pair of headphones on listening to either a metronome, a click track, or a scratch track and is expected to give the absolute best performance of his life because it is THE performance that will be immortalized on a CD forever.
Its an annoying experience that most artists see as a necessary evil. BUT if as a band I’m not going to sell CDs, and I pay my rent by selling tickets to my shows and T-shirts at my shows than WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I BOTHER RECORDING AN ALBUM? Why subject me and my fellow band mates to that at all? Why do all that work for nothing?
Why not just do shows? If you wanna hear my song you have to come to my show. How do you like that? Now I know what you’re thinking its the CD that promotes you. Well fuck if my song is basically going to be an audio version of a FLYER for my shows than I’m definitely not going to spend $3,000 bucks on it. I’ll just plug in one mic and stick it up in the corner of my garage then let it fly with me and the whole band.
The quality will be on par with a late 80s punk EP but hey its just a teaser anyways right. And your not paying for it so why should I? My only real goal is to entice you just enough to have you come to my shows. The CD is after all valueless right? Just another form of advertisement. Which means it has to be just good enough so that you get the basic idea of how great it would sound in person.
It’ll be the end of iPods and car stereos as we know it.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:55 am
cry me a fxxking river. ART IS RESISTANCE, not a mortgage payment, or a contractual obligation. if you’ve got something to say, say it. put it on myspace. put it on mp3.com or whatever other site supports indie musicians. flood the message boards with spam promoting yourself. but don’t go out expecting to be some big rockstar because then you probably don’t care about your art in the first place. in which case, fxxk you and the horse you rode in on.
October 25th, 2007 at 4:06 am
Recently, some celebs are found to have their own profile there. Some of them have been verified. Maira is among them. Charlie sheen was reported on msn to find some hot dates on the club meetrich dotcom.
October 25th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Art is a resistance? That is the most retarded thing I’ve read since I heard Paris Hilton was writing a book. You’re telling me James Blunt is resistance? How about The Fray are they a resistance? To what exactly? Being awake? Cause thats the only thing I resist while I listen to that stuff.
The ONLY music that was about resistance was Punk and you see how well its faired for itself? Yeah.
Maybe someday lifeless robots can write, perform and record music (good music at that) and you can have it for free because they require nothing in return. But as long as Time, Money and Creativity is being put into music expect to pay for it.
And what kind of logic allows you to say (with a straight face) that someone who wants to be compensated for their work must not care about their art in the first place? Uhhh hello, you’re the one calling it worthless. I work 40 hours a week like everybody else and most of my crappy paycheck goes into my band because that is my passion that is my dream. If music is a resistance at all it is a resistance to being a cog in a machine. It is a resistance to minimum wage and being a worthless speck of dust in the universe.
As for being a rockstar you’re damn right. Nobody wants to die nameless. Nobody wants to write music that no one ever hears. Every artist wants attention and exposure. Thats why they’re artists. It’s called entertainment and its what distracts people like you from the fact that your life is just like everybody else’s.
I on the other hand am working my ass off trying to make a name for myself. I on the other hand am trying to make the most of this life my parents gave me and sacrificed their own dreams for. I on the other hand have no interest in your generic family plan way of life. With marriage and babies and all that nonsense.
I have chosen to create, captivate and connect with people from all backgrounds through my music in the hopes of making a dent in this world so that after I’m gone people know my fucking name. In the meantime though I have to eat, I have to have a place to sleep and until the day comes when my band actually makes money instead of just costing money.
As for the issue itself its not at all complicated if you live in REALITY! Services received require payment. If that means you have to go to a show to hear a song than great.
October 25th, 2007 at 4:43 am
josh b:
you’re a selfish little twit.
so you’re saying that, since you do something you love and do it because you love it, that i should pay you for that? so do you love making music, or making money? do you enjoy whoring yourself out?
but at least you have your job to fall back on, if the music thing doesn’t work out.
which it probably won’t. no one likes a whiner.
but best of luck though, really.
ps: got a link to your band site so i can check it out?
October 25th, 2007 at 5:53 am
This is largely nonsense. Look, I listen exclusively to indie (i.e., non-RIAA) music, my current favorites being Joanna Newsom, Devendra Banhart, etc., and I download the albums and buy the CDs. But your entire blog entry is merely parroting fallacious arguments long ago called into question and thoroughly dealt with as well. I encourage you to go read Lessig’s _Free Culture_, a law professor’s analysis of the “omg pirates” mania, and then come back and bemoan the “piracy” taking place in more enlightened tones.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:36 am
http://www.last.fm/user/plonk420
i own the CDs for all but Armin Van Buuren, Handsome Boy Modeling School (just recently discovered, but is on my wishlist and probably soon to be purchased), Amon Tobin (same situation), Poets of the Fall, and Basshunter (ditto) of my current Top 20. actually i take back Armin Van Buuren. i own what ended up being a $30 CD set from him, too (which is just a small fraction of the music he’s “shared” with the rest of the world which i can’t even FIND for the most part… the same goes for the rest of my top play list as well.
i’d bet you a) you haven’t heard of them, nor b) would you hear a majority of them on the radio. where else can i find music, other than from “illegal sources”?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:23 am
With products like ProTools out there, you can make a suitible recording for next to nothing and with even the lamest social media (read MySpace) you can get it distributed for even less. Admit it, you went the traditional route because you were eager to sell out for fame and fortune. Well, the wheel of karma came around and smacked you right on the ass, Mr. Greedy. What ever happened to ars gratia artis? If you really gave a damn about the music and not just being able to afford to party and get laid, you would never have gone the traditional route in the first place. I mean, it’s just pop music! It’s not gonna change anyone’s lives. What’s next? Should we expect to be charged everytime we enter an architiect’s building? Or view a painting?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am
P.S. Your comment box sucks. I advise ditching the open source CMS and hiring someone who actually knows php
October 25th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Yes, we all are more than actively aware of this situation among the group of artists/advocates that still care about the future and ethical considerations of torrent and file-sharing alternatives.
However I support the artists’ settlement and I do care very much about the artists’ well being, the fact is the problem doesn’t lie entirely in the listeners, but in the labels themselves. Obviously, there is a large change overcoming the industry, and to adapt to the artists’ record output is to adjust to the listener trends, which have historically have tended to be heavily manipulated by the hands of the label.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I wrote a similar thing about this issue about two weeks ago:
http://www.motokoaoyama.com/2007/10/07/you-are-not-entitled-to-free-music/
October 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
It comes down to one question for me. If it’s not free to make, how can it be reasonable to demand that it be free to distribute?
October 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
One cost-raising factor you don’t mention (because this is about the industry making money, not wasting it) is how many artists are presently relying on other people to write and compose their songs. ghost writing adds $.91 to the cost of producing every CD… a process that begins at costing $2. A nearly 50% increase in cost all so they can take credit for someone else’s creativity… Oh poor them.
Thanks… but fuck the music industry.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
>> I wrote a similar thing about this issue about two weeks ago:
If by ’similar’ you mean ‘even lamer’, then yes, yes you did.
While I disagree with puddlegum’s position, at least it was well written, showed reasonable insight, and fostered intellectual discussion.
Yours is just a scattered rant, meandering from disassociated points to pious judgements. Not only does nobody care to discuss your position, I doubt anyone even made it to the end of your article.
Cheers.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:42 am
[…] http://puddlegum.net/our-entitlement-mentality/ Tags: album, entitlement, steal Share This […]
October 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am
[…] artists and record labels, it’s understandable why bit BitTorrent sites are caught in litigation.read more | digg […]
October 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
For $30k you could have purchased a small studio setup, including rental space, learned something in the process about music production AND have something besides debt to a recording company. The major recording companies are just gambling with your life’s work and guess what they don’t care about your art. If they make their money, that’s great; if they don’t, they’ll move on to the next chump.
BTW: I pay for all of my music. Why? Despite the corruption in the music industry, some of my money DOES end up in the hands of the artists. I’d prefer that all of it went to the artists.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:50 am
[…] you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!Puddlegum.net-As consumers, we seem to feel entitled to have full access to music, and we wince at the thought of […]
October 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
this article is nothing but subtle whining. of course i think its cool if people pay, but “artists” that whine about it just do so because they are lazy and/or stupid. heres an idea: dont sign with a greedy label! you only do so because you yourself are greedy and want to make millions. i work with actual artists that do the actual *work* themselves. relying on a label goes hand-in-hand with people sharing your album, it also goes along with the chance of “making it big”. you make the choice to go with a label or not. you want the label to do the work for you, and expect people to pay the label for you. bullshit.
October 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
[…] Posted by Crowquill
October 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am
[…] read more | digg story […]
November 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
blah blah blah
Heard it all before! Do not blame music fans for the out dated marketing and distrobution of music. I see you listed itunes as a form you support. HAHA low bit rate crap! Plus you call 99 cents a song affordable? hmm figure out how much it would cost to fill your 160 gig ipod. technology demands change, its a fact. deal with it! I buy concert tickets and at those concerts i buy shirts, stickers, hats, etc. I support the bands i like, but NOT by paying $18 for a single cd that may or may not like every track on.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Geez…
Look, folks - whatever you think about the above scenario, here’s some facts:
$30k isn’t a huge budget for a record, it’s fairly modest. Studio time & professional talent cost money, and making a record usually takes more than a day or two.
No one - NO ONE - in the business can tell you what’s going to sell & what isn’t. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. For every successful record by marginal talent, there are dozens of them made by talented people that just don’t sell. Fact is, the record biz was founded by guys who knew good music, but were willing to just put stuff out there & see what took. The big successes balanced the investment in the others.
It was sometime later that they figured out that they could engage a massive hype machine & sell people shit music using the wisdom of P.T. Barnum.
Making music takes lots of time & money. Yes, you do it for love - but some people would like to make back some of their investment, or even - gasp! - make a living doing what they love, and that’s fair enough. Do you like your job? Would you go if they stopped paying you?
Gigs, unless you have a following & travel a lot, don’t pay that much - ESPECIALLY when you’re playing original music. Ask any bar band who struggles to get to the stage of getting a few hundred a night. The ones who make real money either have developed a large following (after great personal investment) OR play cover tunes, because all the music lovers out there would rather get drunk to songs that they already know.
Yeah, it’s a good idea to get into recording your own stuff to some degree. However, there is also a BIG difference between a bedroom recordist & a professional audio engineer, who has also studied their craft & worked many, many long hours to learn what all those knobs & mics & boxes are supposed to do, and what to do when they don’t. Don’t think that having ProTools at home is a substitute for what a professional can do - going out & buying an expensive scalpel does not make you a doctor.
Think music should be free? It is. Every one of you is free to grab an an instrument & make as much as you want. Really, please do - then maybe you’ll realize there’s actual value in it.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
chriskleine you ignorant slut…
Sorry I couldn’t resist. Any way nice way to distort my argument. I’m not saying you should pay me simply because I love what I am doing. Do you even have the ability to think logically? I’m simply stating if you want my services or my product you should pay for it just like any other service/product.
Music is no different, on the contrary music is far more important to most people. Tell someone to go a week without coffee or TV and they can do it. Most would happily try in an attempt to break bad habits and better themselves personally. But tell them to go a week without listening to ANY music and they could not (dare I say WILL NOT) do it.
Music has become a staple of American culture. It is everywhere. This is not about me, I use myself as an anecdotal example because I know first hand from experience and can speak intelligently on the matter. This is about every single person who does the work creating music. Just as an author gets paid for every book sold, so should musicians.
I can’t even believe people are honestly debating this. Since when does time NOT equal money? Do you work for free? Do you NOT demand a paycheck? The entire concept of hourly wage was devised because of the fundamental idea that everyones time is valuable.
Now this is not nor should it be construed as an argument in support of the outdated dinosaur that is the recording industry, I think a larger pool of smaller labels could do the job better. And I think CDs should be dropped for digital distribution in the same vain as iTunes but without the DRM crap.
It is however an argument on behalf of working musicians who deserve to be compensated for that work (providing someone wants their product/service) the idea that music should be 100% free is fine for larger bands who can survive on ticket and merchandise sales. Which I don’t believe can be sustained considering the average stage show costs thousands of dollars to put on.
Smaller bands who play free shows to get exposure in the hopes people will buy enough merch and CDs they can afford the gas to their next show, cannot function in such a system.
And sure I’ll be happy to provide a link to my band. Since a Russian site linked to my comments on this blog as a big news story it can only help. Our 2nd CD which I personally recorded in a studio I personally BUILT with my own two hands (and a couple of nail guns) using my hard earned money is almost out.
I also designed the site myself.
http://www.LosersOfTheYear.Net