That was the question posed on Thursday by NPD analyst Russ Crupnick at Digital Music Forum East in Manhattan.
Exhibit A? Crupnick listed a litany of concessions and pro-consumer offers from this industry over the past ten years - all of which have produced few substantive revenue returns. These include:
Comments Closed
Jim Thursday, February 24, 2011
You gotta understand it's not the consumer, cause the consumer always wants free.
It's dumb record companies who removed DRM, etc.
The music biz is the only part of showbiz that sells unprotected content and streams content for free.
Just f****** stupid.
Bruno Fernandes Thursday, February 24, 2011
So that you can understand something, it was DRM that directed people to piracy. On the DRM times, people who bought legally, had a lot of problems with things like the compatibility of terminals with DRM. Doing piracy these problems didn't existed. Also, it was Bull****, cause all you had to do was to burn a CD-A and oops, where is the DRM now?? So, it only made things difficult for those who wanted to buy legal. Do you think DRM had any effect on piracy????
Dco10 Thursday, February 24, 2011
No, DRM was f****** stupid, and the labels failed and made everything worse by even trying it.
1. When you buy something like a CD you have the right to replicate it as long you don't distribute it. iTunes DRM was the only thing that trampled that right, unfair when CD's don't have that limitation.
2. The Sony Rootkit - its ok to make consumer's computers crash for inserting a legally bought CD?
Who is going to buy music when they're treated like that. NOT never ever the solution to get people to pay for recorded music ever.
Anonymous Thursday, February 24, 2011
Unless your product is a truly unique and innovative idea, or a necessity of life, it's the consumer that can often dictate how a company will do business. I think we all get that. But when it's at the expense of monetizing your product, making any sort of profit, and worse, toppling an industry, the foot has to be sternly put down and the consumer needs to know how 'exchange of consideration' works. You're not in business if that's absent: you're a charity.
We need to knock off the, "Hey, maybe they'll pay if we do this... Or that... Or maybe that..." Here's your answer: If they can't steal it, they'll HAVE to buy it.
Someone needs to get some balls and let the consumer know 'what time it is,' cause we're getting f***ed.
Baeleron Thursday, February 24, 2011
Yeah, here's a newsflash for you: I don't HAVE to buy anything. Especially not the over-produced under-talented fad-following hit-seeking commercial pap that your industry wants to force feed us.
Drew A Friday, February 25, 2011
You fail to realize that among the (insert many hyphenated words that make pop music look bad) crap, there is quite a bit of well produced, not-fad music that still gets ripped off. Support music that you truely enjoy... If you don't believe it's there, you should probably do a little searching. Don't generalize the industry!
Pinky Gonzales Friday, February 25, 2011
I've got an idea! Let's charge a MILLION DOLLARS an album. It's time we put our foot down, after all. Finally, we can start making some money around here.
You can't sell what people won't buy. And there's no shortage of supply. Unless you can convince all musicians everywhere to stop making music until these wretched "consumers" pony-up, your argument, no matter how valid, is irrelevant.
emdub123 Tuesday, March 01, 2011
It seems that most of the complaining about the current state of the music industry comes from those who aren't actually musicians, but are working in some ancillary role that depends on musicians for work/income.
If direct-to-fan is a working (not necessarily profitable) model, where does that leave Mr. Tastemaker or Ms. Music Entrepreneur? Musicians were a part of society for thousands of years without the businesspeople trying to "monetize" their work, maybe it's time for most of these folks to find alternate means of employment?
Most importantly, it seems that society as a whole is trying to eliminate the middleman and the middleman isn't going quietly.
Terry Thursday, March 10, 2011
I found this comment interesting. Lots of musicians do moan about the state of the industry, but these particular musicians would never have got anywhere anyway, even if people were buying more CDs, because basically they're not very good. And the reason they're not very good is because they want to play music and be in bands to "make it" and collect some fast cash for strutting around a stage selling their songs indiscriminently to fad-following fans.
If these people concentrated on their art, and worked at finding good people to collaborate with on the marketing side of things to get their music out there and communicate with music fans directly, they would probably enjoy it more and realise that moaning about it all the time is only going to push them further from any vague music goal they might have.
You see a many male rock n roll bands saying how "we're here to save the music industry from pre-fabricated pop crap!" Really? I've got news for you, why don't you try listening to some of the hundreds of radio stations out there that do play good music from interesting, talented people and stop believing that your half-arsed attempts at finding out about the industry (Radio 1, T4, X Factor) is all that there is.
If being a musician is that bad, people simply wouldn't bother, but is seems that more people, young and old, are playing music than ever before. As consumers we've got so much choice and so many ways to consume music - and I'm talking about services that generate revenue - that there are simply more musicians able to get a slice of the pie than there was before the internet. We're not so force-fed, we have a choice, so while you'll always get the odd artist that rakes in millions in a career, that will continue to decrease as the industry changes. People who moan about it are either those musicians wo are only in it for the money, or those people that work in music company offices who wish they didn't have to slave away unpaid for 6 months just to get in, or record execs who can no longer afford such extravagant lifestyles.
@jacran Thursday, February 24, 2011
Jaclyn Ranere
Sub services: time to educate consumers on yr value
5% of consumers are using sub. services, incl trials
Drew A Friday, February 25, 2011
What's the percentage of consumers that use free subscription services? Or those that don't ever sign up for the free subscription but still use the services such as Grooveshark and Pandora?
@juliomuniz Thursday, February 24, 2011
Julio Muniz
What if you start giving us better music.
SRN Tuesday, March 01, 2011
You're an idiot. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Clearly if you're downloading music it is because you place some value on downloading that music. You are simply a thief, so don't try to justify your actions with some assinine B*LLS**T like "Give us better music." Run along, silly boy.
Brian Rice Thursday, February 24, 2011
Consumers downloading for free is also a reflection of the broader issue of poor economies, massive debt and job losses.
The democratisation of music has made it appear almost hobbiest and has removed much of the mystery and showmanship that the record industry helped create.
All manner of information and produce is being seen as a given-free. The internet, by its very nature and practice, implies and practices this.
WILL Thursday, February 24, 2011
Brian, you're right in mentioning the word 'mystery' and the severe lacking of it today in music. I've mentioned this a few times before. Artists are just too accessible nowadays and that does factor in the overall demise of sales. When frontman Dave from this or that band Twitters every 10 minutes about how tasty his dorrito from TacoBell is then it's just spoiling the illusion of being 'a chosen one'.
U2, Duran Duran, Led Zeppelin, even Oasis to a point and the best at it Sting!! - people craved to know about their lives, where they lived, who they slept with, their wealth, their personalites, what made them tick.. Now being in a band is the norm cos apparently a record deal isn't the be all and end all as it was back in the day when only the chosen few ruled.
The internet is as big an enemy as it is a friend.
ofcourse Friday, February 25, 2011
strange. i buy music only because of the songs, not because of mystery or celebrity gossip.
wallow-T Thursday, February 24, 2011
Strike! Strike! Musicians and the industry should take a lesson from the 1940's musicians strike against the recording industry.
Brian Rice Thursday, February 24, 2011
The music industry has so little leverage left that a musicians strike would have little effect. Besides, those that do currently have a career as artists/musicians are too frightened to rock what remains of the boat.
nathan Thursday, February 24, 2011
please, the consumer always gets **** on. can you blame then for telling industry to **** off???
nmh Thursday, February 24, 2011
the bottom line is, downloading music illegally is EASIER than buying it, and of course, FREE. so, given the fact that piracy is easier, overall a more pleasant experience, and doesn't cost a dime, why the hell would anyone want to pay? the recording industry fucked itself by trying to protect its shareholders instead of focusing on providing the BEST experience for consumers. consumers realized this and said "FUCK YOU"
Seth Keller Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wow. Blame the consumer. That's a great way to get customers.
The bottom line is most music created isn't great...or it's only great to a select number of people. People don't need music. They don't need movies. They don't need to go to a specific restaurant or clothing store. They don't need to elect a certain politician.
The internet has changed the paradigm of needs and choices to the point where only the best survive--including governments.
If you're a musician and you don't like people taking your music for free, don't make any. If you're an executive and you don't like it, get into a different business...or change your business to make money off of other aspects of music--not just the recording. That doesn't mean just taking percentages of other income from the artists you sign. It means rolling up your sleeves and doing the work for those artists to warrant the percentages you want to take.
These days only the the most dedicated and talented survive. The herd will be thinning soon--both in the artist and executive camps.
nmh Thursday, February 24, 2011
YES
J Red Thursday, February 24, 2011
People who don't pay for what they take aren't customers. They are users. I am not trying to defend the industry. Lord knows they have F'ed things up for everybody... but come on. No one needs this stuff, but they want it for free. The catch... musicans NEED food. Let's try to find a middle ground. Fair price, good CUSTOMER service, and hopefully, some good tunes.
Visitor Friday, February 25, 2011
"wow blame the consumer" no. blaming the thief. different thing.if you aren't buying, you aren't a consumer.
Tone_Out Tuesday, March 01, 2011
(Exevcutives) "It means rolling up your sleeves and doing the work for those artists to warrant the percentages you want to take."
This is the only answer that is viable. No matter what you think about the consumer, the Internet or pirates, the industry has backward thinking executives at almost every level. The ones that unequivocally know what is needed are dismissed and sometimes fired for their insubordinate thinking. Translated = Forward thinking.
The industry put millions into law suites that surprisingly became a business itself, on paper anyway. If they had only taken those millions to explore opportunities outside of their haloed circles we may not be having this discussion. Now, none of them have the fortitude or the money to invest or partner with something new, if they had either, then possibly like the record executive and musician of old, they would experiment to find the answer. DRM was as much of an experiment as communism (Russian).
Another problem that piracy helped solve in a twisted way, Discovery. Your advocate/filter is now an email from a faceless individual with an instant link to the music, talk about immediate gratification. The death of the corner record store with the knowledgeable kid who was up on all things new and "cool" killed passive discovery all together.
Let's not even get into archaic licensing structures for start-ups or, the fact that the industry has YET to embrace the Internet with initiatives of its own. Because of the executive’s stupidity, greed and ego Steve Jobs was allowed to steal the store. That one deal has all but killed any new innovation from the outside because labels now make it to damn hard to deal with them. Look at all Apple products (I like them) sorry to say, but all the money the industry made in the days of yore, went towards iPod, iPad, iPhone development.
Come on people get real! The gatekeepers of our beloved industry (major) are inept thinkers. They do not have an entrepreneurial bone in their body. They guys who started these labels were the pioneers that this crew today sucks off of.
I could go on all day, but I do work. In short...Don't manufacture a product if you don't know how to sell it. There is a way, but like a sulking kid, we are too busy retreating when we need to be innovating and participating openly from the trenches, not some Ivory tower that is in disrepair.
@jherskowitz Thursday, February 24, 2011
Jason Herskowitz
No, that's ridiculous.
@Dco1o Thursday, February 24, 2011
Derek Cohen
well the labels and broadcasters have stepped on them for some 70 years.
& to answer: Yes
@Dco1o Thursday, February 24, 2011
Derek Cohen
Don't care what licenses may say, music belongs to fans, not labels. You can't deprive them of it.
Pinky Gonzales Friday, February 25, 2011
Step 1: Punch a guy in the face.
Step 2: Stop punching a guy in the face.
Step 3: Wonder why the guy doesn't like you when you have been so gracious as to stop punching him in the face.
The "great things you've done for consumers," Russ, were all forced upon you by the market, not offered up as some gracious gesture. Throughout the history of the music business, artists have been taken advantage-of and fans have been patronized. They finally gained the tools to listed to what they want, when and how they want, and that's called human nature. Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but these fans you're so fond-of ARE the music business, and chastising them won't bring them back.
Thankfully, humans are compelled to make art, always have been and always will. Monitizing it is a luxury reserved for very few. Past performance is not a guarantee of future success.
"We need to demand more from consumers." Good luck with that, Russ. I hope you have a long career in academia, because in the business world, you can't just stomp your feet and demand more customers, higher fees and larger margins.
ofcourse Friday, February 25, 2011
what, you hear a crappy song on the radio, turn in to a robot, march out to the store and buy it?
or a label executive visited your house and forced you at gunpoint to give him money for Milli Vanilli cd?
no one ever forced you to buy music. the "punch in the face" analogy is idiotic...
too many people play the victim card to justify their crimes.
it's a simple, free will, responsible choice: if you want to listen to it, buy it. if you don't, don't.
ofcourse Friday, February 25, 2011
of course it's the non-paying consumer of music who has destroyed a lot of musicians careers, and music releasing.
the "music belongs to people" is insanely selfish, and naive. music takes money to make. if you don't buy it, you ultimately will get less music being released. if you love music so much, you would buy it. if you want if for free, pick up a guitar and play the song yourself. listen to it on youtube, then go buy it if you like it, instead of d'loading it. it's only 99¢, and everything is available everywhere (amazon to itunes to cdbaby etc.) and don't say you'll spend money at the concert, cuz that act might not tour where you are.
and "record co. trying to force me to buy" arguments are stupid rationalizations. all those mid-level and below bands would love to have revenue coming in, and to be able to bring it to the next level. even RADIOHEAD has decided they can't afford to give music away for free due to the failure of fans to contribute when getting In Rainbows. i directly blame illegal d'loaders for justin bieber, cuz the labels can't make money on more 'artful' acts cuz you won't spend your pennies.
i still find it amazing that the same people who think nothing of spending a few bucks on a latte or beer get so righteous about buying a song that they'll have for years. and crazy that they are spending hundreds, or thousand of dollars a year on internet, computers and cellphone costs, but nothing on content.
if you want better music, out there, enable it to happen by buying it.
Pinky Gonzales Friday, February 25, 2011
"Radiohead can't afford..." BS. Yes they can. They choose not to. And that's their right.
They have some fans that pay, and some that do not.
They make money on licensing, peformance royalties, concert tickets, merchandise, sponsorships, endorsements, and will contintue to make music until they are tired of making music.
On the other side of the spectrum, there are artists making music with no hope of ever making a penny. Yet, they make it anyway.
And in the middle, there are artists that will make some money, but not a full-time living, and they understand that risk as well as anyone.
I am eternally surprised that so many intelligent people sincerely believe that music will just go away if the general public stops buying CDs and/or downloads. No it won't. End of story.
no Friday, February 25, 2011
music won't go away, of course. but you'll get a lot fewer professionals releasing music to the public.
and a lot fewer people becoming professionals (as in putting in the hours needed to become great at playing/songwriting).
and different music: appreciate that string section on that band's album? sorry, can't afford to make songs like that anymore.
and here's the thing: when so much music is out there, with such a small percentage willing to pay their pennies, what happens? you need to hit a big market to get enough money from that small percentage... and how do you reach that market? by advertising... and who can do that? big labels. so in fact by not buying music at all, you are creating the need for "blockbuster" manufactured artists with the machine behind them.
musicians will always make music. but they will not release it to the public at large if they aren't compensated somehow. reality: hours and hours needed to perfect the instrument; hours and hours to write a song; hours and hours to record it; hours and hours to release it; promote it; tour it... simply can't be done as a hobbyist.
why would a serious musician want to throw thousands of dollars and hours away just so people can steal the track?
would you argue that live music should always be free too? why not? would a famous violinist be able to perform ever if she only could practise on a saturday night, because of her day job? you're confusing I-play-an-instrument-a-few-hours-a-week muscians with full time musicians.
Pinky Gonzales Friday, February 25, 2011
I'm not arguing that "music should be free." I'm arguing that it will be created even if there is no profit incentive to do so. Just ask Fender guitars! Who in their right mind, after all, would spend thousands of dollars on gear with absolutely no guarantee of a return?
Answer: MUSICIANS! Because they do it for the music, not the money.
I completely agree that it would be better if more people would pay more money for a broader range of music, but I also think it would be great if we could breath underwater and live on any planet in the universe that we fancied. Russ is demanding that consumers change their fundamental nature. It will not happen. Wanting it to be so, and even making the case for a better world if everyone would just contribute, will not make it so. We buy what we value, and don't what we don't. And that's just the way it is.
As for concerts being free, many of them are. But unlike digital files, you've gotta be there to have the experience, so it's apples and oranges. It's not an ethical debate, it's just supply & demand.
We do not have the right to demand customers.
lifer Thursday, March 10, 2011
Hours and hours to record? Serious musicians striving to get it in one take are laughing at the idea that a "professional" needs that many takes. Sure the great Chistopher Parkening (google him) once famously took hundreds of takes to nail a technically challenging classical guitar piece but from Gladys Knight & Aretha Franklin to Frank Sinatra and every jazz/classical/studio musician one take after a rehearsal is all it should take.
Hours and hours of takes only happened when producers started recording with amateurs playing their own instruments instead of professional
Serious musicians have always sacrificed for their art while a few popular "recording artists" got rich making what many "serious musicians" describe as "mickey mouse music." What is a serious musicians to you? Do serious musicians write music targeted to prepubescent girls or do they aim for highly intelligent, well-read adults? Was James Brown "serious?" Is socially conscious music serious even when the person making the music only knows four chords and a capo? Does a serious musician know how to read and write music? Is Dr. Luke a serious musician? Is Eric Clapton serious when compared with Pat Metheny, Russell Malone or Jeff Beck? Does playing the same riff over and over make Eddie Van Halen more or less serious than Derek Bailey (google him too)? You decide.
Geez, get serious.
jbedbus Friday, February 25, 2011
Great, more "us against them" mentality. Just what we need to move forward on this, and every other issue in the world.
Musicians and musical artists are fans and music consumers, too. If they're not, they're probably not very good artists. Too many artists I know don't understand why crowds aren't clamoring for their $10 CD, yet same artist won't spend $10 on a CD from their own favorite artists.
Too many musicians I know will bark incessantly about morally bankrupt music consumers, then think nothing of downloading an illegal song file or tab/sheet music to learn a song. "It's not stealing, dude, I'm just doing it to learn the song."
We are them as much as we are not them. Perhaps if we each evaluated our own consumer tendencies, especially in the musical realm, we'd find some understanding and path for real solutions. Or, we can just keep blaming THEM.
Casual Observer Friday, February 25, 2011
Granting a streaming royalty rate of $0.00002 per play to a bunch of vencaps who buy $20M server farms is another stupid idea, isn't it?
To be fair, this is the problem with viewing everything through a capitalist commoditisation lense, the one where all industries expect perpetual growth for no reason. The music industry has had some great advantages given to it through technology in the last two decades including terrific sonic quality improvements, massive drops in the costs of producing and shipping albums, and what seems like more talent than ever. Obviously music now competes with more other entertainment media streams for discretionary spending, so there have been some challenges out of the technology as well. But dealing with the sea changes is what the execs are paid for, isn't it?
Money and fans will follow quality product. How many of the 75000 albums released last year are in the 'must have' category? As talented as Arcade Fire are, I don't hear a lot of candidates for the Great American Songbook in their catalogue..... Sounds to me like we're blaming consumers for not buying our latest crap product.
torrent Friday, February 25, 2011
no. blaming the 100 thousand+ downloaders on torrent sites who have d'loaded but not paid for my albums. clearly someone wants the music (cuz it's been happening for years on various illegal sites), also confirmed by the 500K youtube views, and 200K last fm plays (none 'gamed'), and the hundreds of thousands of pandora and rhapsody plays, etc etc.
people are buying it too (itunes, mostly)... but if even a small percentage of the illegal or streaming listeners would kick in a buck or two, that would produce more music. (And I'm including all those in South America and Eastern Europe or "broke students"... If you're too poor to spend money on a cheap item like music why do have a cel phone or an mp3 player at all?)
Filthy rich music executive Friday, February 25, 2011
I do not believe the data; they are bogus -- that is my answer!
RIAA uses meaningless stats, such as "spending by capita" to prove that there is a huge 40% drop (some say even 60% drop) in customer spending. But if the reference point is the late 90s, a time of criminally overpriced CDs, then of course there is "a drop."
It is true that price per unit sold dropped, but again, is this customers’ fault? Digital singles cannot cost as much as physical one – then they do not cost the producer much either.
Instead of “spending per capita” or “number of people buying music,” the RIAA should disclose the overall global revenue and profit figures. Then, and only then, we can see if the industry is in crisis or not. (My hint: it is not. Music consumption grows steadily and revenue as well.)
Lee Fox Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Filthy rich music executive said, "Instead of “spending per capita” or “number of people buying music,” the RIAA should disclose the overall global revenue and profit figures. Then, and only then, we can see if the industry is in crisis or not. (My hint: it is not. Music consumption grows steadily and revenue as well.)"
If the worldwide numbers were used your declaration would fall apart.
Been to China lately?
Karen Allen Friday, February 25, 2011
You don't need research for this. Ask any kid.
Do you buy music?
No.
Why?
I don't have to. I can get it for free.
Don't you want to support the artist?
I pay to go to the show.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is what we get for pissing around for the last 12 years trying to figure out how to make money on digital music. We finally arrive at some great solutions and our consumers have simply moved on.
buyer Friday, February 25, 2011
@Karen
With all due respect, but this is not as kid-simple as you say. Do they think they pay for all artists when they go to a concert by Lady GaGa?
Music sells very well (globally; the USA is not the only country in the world), and it sells well other goods and services, as a lure for more users and more paid advertising: case in point: YouTube.
It is pity that the industry is willing to put in prison a woman that copied a few tracks, but does nothing to crack down on those who use "free" music to make billions.
paddlebro Friday, February 25, 2011
I can't comprehend the logic of "demanding more from consumers." Show me a good product manager who agrees with that reasoning.
It is hard to compete with free but that's the reality today for any media business. Consumers have unprecedented choice and an enormous sense of entitlement. If you want to succeed in the marketplace you have to get real about that.
Also, the recording industry was a ridiculous bubble economy for over 20 years. Now it is leveling out and that is painful. The industry will be smaller in the future, more personalized, and consumer driven. Things will continue to shake out for awhile.
Eric Jensen - www.ericjensenmusic.com
Baeleron Friday, February 25, 2011
You could go get a job as a janitor at a water-bottling company, and try to discover their secret on how they compete with free.
showme Saturday, February 26, 2011
show me a good product manager who believes that the product should be free.
show me a clothing store where everything is free. and why do they have those electronic gates in stores? cuz they demand more from their customers than just allowing them to walk out with items for just paying for it.
maybe ten years ago the "free" pays off argument could be proposed... cuz we didn't know. now we have the facts. "free" has not led to more fans buying, just more stealing/uploading. touring does not make up for the shortfall in revenue because: a) everyone has to tour now b)can't sell CDs at merch table, cuz no one buys...
maybe 15 years ago you could argue that you couldn't get this or that band on iTunes, Amazon, etc. but now you can. and for very, very cheap.
so what it takes is education. more artists, parents, friends, etc need to inform people how illegal downloading kills music. see all the points put forth above and below.
and personal responsibility. don't download, or upload to torrent sites. if you like a song, buy it. if you like 100 songs but can't afford them all, choose only the best (like you have to do in real life with everything).
is honesty that hard? is respect for another's efforts that hard?
@juliomuniz Friday, February 25, 2011
Julio Muniz
LOL, give us good music!.
@Gelfo Friday, February 25, 2011
Gelfo
YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!
Adam Bates Friday, February 25, 2011
It never ceases to amaze me how basic economic principles are getting ignored in the music space. There is a virtually unlimited supply of amazingly great new music out there, and there's a very limited consumer attention span. This is the biggest factor driving music spend downward. Musicians that think they're in a position to demand more attention/budget from consumers, without giving more to them, are only going to exacerbate their downward revenue spiral.
Nate Friday, February 25, 2011
I see a lot of comments where people are spitting the dummy saying things along the lines of "Why should I have to pay for my music when it's so easy to get it free? all these bands and artists are over-rated anyway. The labels are too greedy" etc.
As that attitude becomes the norm and becomes accepted, it's going to be harder and harder for any band to get anywhere.
What's the point in investing time and money into improving your music when nobody's willing to pay for it? How are you going to make a living? You can't rely on your album sales to pay your rent any more, so there's no way in hell you're going to be able to afford your own band manager. You'd send your music to a record label, but they're going the way of the dinosaur and can't offer support to anyone who isn't already in a position that doesn't really need a record contract.
In short, record companies aren't the ones killing music. The fans are.
FREE_MY_A** Saturday, February 26, 2011
And this thread is why really good musicians decide to quit the industry - some sadly you'll never hear of as they gave up before being "discovered". I know many good musicians, really hard working musicains - some guitarists that would give some of the greats a run for their money, drummers that play so good you feel like you're having an out of body experience (no I don't do drugs) and some singers that will make you cry to hear them live. None are signed and they've invested thousdands in themselves creating music that people obviously want to listen to as their music is all over the torrent sites being shared by the hundreds of thousands - yet they are all in debt. All thinking that because the music is being shared by so many illegally that somehow the music fairy will convince the thieving - yes I said thieving - masses to just send some of those masses their way with 79p only in hand.
The problem is the public believes that every musician that has released anything, must be signed to a label and therefore it's ok to share the content, or perhpas they justify this free for all mentality with I'm doing the band/artist a favour by promoting their music. Last time I checked in most places if you walked into a shop and took a bar of chocolate without paying for it, you could get arrested & a criminal record. But no one thinks anything of stealing the hard work of another person because it's music so it doesn't count.
The music that you hear is like any other product you buy. Just because it's digital does not mean it did not have manufacturing costs. Instrument, Time, rehearsals, studio hours - which I've been informed are not cheap by any means, and there's a good chance you will never see them live because going on tour has costs, so the mentality or response of catch them at a show, may never happen. Oh and guess what, the musician like you, probably has rent, gas, bills maybe even a family to take care of and needs to eat and wear clothes. How would you feel if you went to work and at the end of a 50 hour week you Boss offers you a sentence as payment. e.g Wow I really love this music. Hope you don't mind if I send a complimentary copy to all my friends taht they can then send to their friends etc.
Whilst the artist appreciates that you appreciate his/her work, do you think s/he's not also thinking but dude, it's the end of the month I got bills? There was an article in the news a few weeks ago about how most Musicians earn less than £5k a year from their work - you do the maths and tell me how any of us as the ever prized consumers, would survive on that for a year.
Yes music will always exist - the responsibility of the buying public is to pay and support the musicians they like so that we don't end up with low quality, talentless, soulless pap that might as well have been delivered by a robot, as our only choice. And to stop the FREE mentality. Big record labels can afford to pour millions into manufactured crap as you call it, but would they do so if you - the same outraged consumers - were not making it worth their while? And if you really don't like listening to "Mainstream" why not check out the alternatives. There are many unsigned fresh music out there. Many online radio stations dedicated to only independent material.
Thanks to the Internet, the world and all it's choices are much closer than you think. Go explore, you never know you might find the next Beethoven.
scorcher14 Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Blaming the customer is a bad idea. Give them something new. Think about the packaging. In my lifetime, you've turned a beautiful 12" LP into a digital file with no graphics or liner notes. No wonder I'm not excited about buying it. And here you are delivering it to a high-powered multimedia device. Come on - there's an opportunity here if someone's willing to take it.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us