Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

Another LONG rant about people not paying for music


Recommended Posts

Depressing. Good thing I can't come up with a tune to save my life. I wouldn't be turning the gun on myself after the maggots picked me clean of all but my ammo. It seems logical that all this would lead to a localising of music success ,if it could be called that, since it's harder to steal from someone you see with your own eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been saying just about the same thing as he's saying since 2005. I've seen friends loose income and their jobs, I've personaly lost income and my job etc. due to downloading. I tell the students about this when I lecture at the Royal university of Music here in Sweden.

I love this line:

"Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the copyright battle is not limited to the music business. It's a general issue in the online community. Free Internet is one thing that relates to freedom in general. Freedom certainly does not mean behavior has no relation to respect. Unequal international copyright laws certainly support infringement, but not all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the copyright battle is not limited to the music business. It's a general issue in the online community. Free Internet is one thing that relates to freedom in general. Freedom certainly does not mean behavior has no relation to respect. Unequal international copyright laws certainly support infringement, but not all.

That's the thing. The author points out that the internet isn't free. It costs money to connect to and use the internet. People are all too happy to pay those fees, which invariably go to huge corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the copyright battle is not limited to the music business. It's a general issue in the online community. Free Internet is one thing that relates to freedom in general. Freedom certainly does not mean behavior has no relation to respect. Unequal international copyright laws certainly support infringement, but not all.

That's the thing. The author points out that the internet isn't free. It costs money to connect to and use the internet. People are all too happy to pay those fees, which invariably go to huge corporations.

That has been my take on this debate all along. Many of these companies are way more dirty and publicly shy than the music companies ever were. And they don't re-invest in new (music) talent at all, they just pocket the money for their stock holders or owners.

Here in Sweden the phone line and broadband owners have done nothing to stop the access to companies like Piratebay, dc++ and similar sources for illegal downloading. They have claimed that they have no responsibility to what is distributed through their wires. Well of course, as the people downloading are prepared to pay for higher broadband speeds etc. It's more money right down in their pockets.

BUT, now the mobile phone users, and broadband users, are using free phone services more and more, like Skype etc. Then suddenly a few months ago these same operators were ready to close the access to these services as it takes away income from them when less people are using their phones for ordinary calls.

So as soon as their customers behaviors change to affect their income they want to put a ban on certain sites and services. But when it affects the income for other companies, and increases their own income then "they are on the users side". Now do I hear the word "Cynical behavior"!

I think they have been forced to ban certain sites in the UK now, such as piratebay (I’m not 100% sure on this). And I hope we'll see it coming more in Europe and the US. The internet is good for many things, but it's not all good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the original letter/article on FB. REALLY long, but it just about nails the whole problem...

I'm sure I'm a bit of a dinosaur, but I have a music library, y'know? CD's (formerly LP's) with artwork and liner notes, to give me dates, personnel, performance & instrument details...

My iPod (a gift from my girlfriend) is just an amazing mixed disc of mostly things I physically own already. I go to iTunes for individual songs that I have no further questions about...

Given my awareness of the musicians plight, if someone I like asks me to burn a copy of something, I'll sometimes offer to buy a copy for him/her.

I've offerred to provide cover art for brilliant, struggling musicians for credit in the notes only.

I'm not rich - especially not these days. These days, I'm holding off on new music purchases and keeping a list.

And given that we're looking at a generational shift in values, enabled by web and gadget-driven conveniences, I wonder how anyone can make the points laid out in the original piece (up there) to these new audiences. Can this letter/article be condensed into OMG, IMHO and LMFAO terms for the non-readers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting counterpoint: http://lefsetz.com/w...-lowery-screed/

That was quite a bullshit article. Yes, it's easy to say:

"...make good music and sell it yourself

" Sure, but who will buy. To sell something, anything, you need to market it. Marketing is done by promotion companies, record labels, managements etc. They will help you if they think they can make money on your music, so there we are back to square one.

I used to be a part owner of a small label. Before downloading hit hard we could sell perhaps 4 000 -5 000 units. Enough for the artist to survive on. Now that is not possible anymore. Small labels really struggle these days.

How many of you guys log in to myspace to listen to unreleased stuff these days? RIght, not one of you. It's just a hazzle. You still need someone to find the talent, help the artist refine it's product and then to release and market it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting counterpoint: http://lefsetz.com/w...-lowery-screed/

Interesting which article opens itself to comments and feedback at the end, and which one doesn't. Very telling.

Can this letter/article be condensed into OMG, IMHO and LMFAO terms for the non-readers?

Present it as a list of short, snarky paragraphs called something like "6 Awesome Reasons to Pay for Music, You Thievin' Piece of Shit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also the notion that every artist wants to get rich in the music business. We're talking about the inability to clear even a teacher's salary making music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three points form the foundation of my opinion:

1) Technology changes, and when it does, it drives people out of work. The ability to make money in perpetuity from a single recording of one's work is actually an aberration when you look at music history. For about 60 to 70 years, it was possible to get one excellent performance on tape and live off the proceeds for life.

Before that, you had to keep writing or keep performing to make a living. Technology made it possible, and then technology took it away. That's life. Find a new business model, or make music for the fun of it, like most people have done throughout most of history. Who knows, maybe the patronage system will return?

2) To a certain extent, this is a self-inflicted wound by the music industry. i) By packaging only 1 or 2 decent songs with the rest of the album being filler, but charging a price as if the whole album was good, the industry was screwing over fans for decades, and karma is a bitch. ii) By charging $20 for a CD that cost $.25 to make, and not allowing the market to set the price of what it was worth, the industry was screwing over fans for decades, and karma is a bitch. iii) By using the radio to popularize music, the industry conditioned fans to a visceral feeling that music should be free.

Sure, that's the industry, not the artist. But for current famous artists to complain about the seismic shift is ridiculous. They have the name recognition to market directly to their fans and let the market set the price on what their music is worth. New artists don't have that advantage. Sure, that means artists need to develop marketing skills, and time spent developing other skills reduces the time available for developing musical skills and new music. Well, that's life. Nothing is owed to you by life or the American music-listening public for you having once earned a recording contract or two.

3) the whole idea of music copyrights is dysfunctional to begin with. There are 12 notes. Everything is based on that. Why should a current artist get to mine centuries of music example and knowledge for free, while making their own derivative works off-limits? And what is the bright line of fair use? If I play your song in my bar list, then I owe you money. But what if I whistle your melody as I walk down the street? What if I have a perfect memory and replay your song in my mind? Shouldn't the bright line be whether I make money off your efforts or not? But then how do we handle classical music artists, who make ***ALL*** of their money off of excellent performance of works they did not write? Why can't I do the same thing with rock guitar, then? And what if I listen to your same influences you do, and come up with a similar lick or sound or melody phrase...you got it on tape first, and now I owe you money even though I never once heard your song? What kind of sense does that make? And why should Hendrix's relatives still be making money off of Jimi's musical genius? Is that fair at all? Why was Michael Jackson able to purchase the rights to the f'n "Happy Birthday" song? You do know that's why restaurants have to develop their own Happy Birthday clapping chant, right? You can't get a restaurant staff to sing Happy Birthday to you on your birthday because that restaurant risks getting sued.

Conclusion: Throw it all out. Start over. Earn money through performance of your songs. Anything else should be considered gravy, and the price set by the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. You all have a point. But the point they were trying to make is why is it okay to pay so much to the internet providers but not to the musicians?

Like the article said:

"...your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!"

Why is it okay to think that musicians and people in the entertainment biz should be happy with less income, but no one thinks twice about criticising the greedy cable providers, phone companies and hard ware manufacturers etc? F.u.c.k. them I say. They have lousy support and usually sell pretty bad products at high prices. We, the users, have to beta test products released on the market way before they are really ready to be launched, still full of bugs etc. Why is that okay? Just saying...

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By packaging only 1 or 2 decent songs with the rest of the album being filler, but charging a price as if the whole album was good, the industry was screwing over fans for decades, and karma is a bitch.

Never bought that rationale. Who's to say that the whole album isn't good? Radio has conditioned people to believe it isn't because they only play one or two songs over and over again based on some bean-counter's market analysis spreadsheet.

Earn money through performance of your songs. Anything else should be considered gravy, and the price set by the market.

Ever tried it yourself? It's a grind, believe me. And it shouldn't be a substitute for getting paid for something you invested money into to create. It wouldn't be so egregious if people were ignoring the work versus obtaining it for free and enjoying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another minor point:

The music industry is in turmoil right now. I do think that people are willing to pay for what they consider valuable. The problem for musicians is that the radio and recording industry created an artificial restriction of supply to get demand high enough to charge $20 for a CD, but now the supply of good artists that can make professional-quality recordings has increased exponentially. That means that listeners can get all sorts of great music for free, which undermines the value of those trying to make a living recording music.

It sucks, but guilt trips probably won't help.

It may take a generation or two, but I do think it will be possible to make a comfortable living as a musician again someday. That may be through endorsements, a patronage system, live performance, commissions, giving lessons, and better marketing.

Consider this the music dark ages, but I'm sure that it will all shake out before too long. It may mean that an artist has to do things they don't want to do, like marketing. But again: that's life. Most people have to do things they don't want to do in order to make enough money to support themselves at the level they want. Musicians aren't exempt from the laws of supply and demand. I look forward to a fuller understanding of market systems to take hold among musicians, because right now, the whining is drowning out what would otherwise be excellent music.

I say this as someone who has paid 2 different "amateurs" for private recordings via this website. True, I paid a pittance for Brooks' CD, bargain-basement clearance. But I'd pay more for a second CD if he has one available, and I have spent my own time praising his stuff on three different occasions.

My question for artists who complain about music downloads: why do you consider the time your fans spend marketing your music for you to be valueless? Why don't you appreciate and pay them for the marketing service they are currently giving you for free? Kinda hypocritical to complain about the cheapness of fans when you yourself are benefiting from your own freeloading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question for artists who complain about music downloads: why do you consider the time your fans spend marketing your music for you to be valueless? Why don't you appreciate and pay them for the marketing service they are currently giving you for free? Kinda hypocritical to complain about the cheapness of fans when you yourself are benefiting from your own freeloading.

:o

That's a strange way of looking at it. If they've downloaded my music for free, then I'd assume that they would probably give my music away for free as well. I'm not sure how that benefits the musician at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the supply of good artists that can make professional-quality recordings has increased exponentially.

Not buying that either. This would be the flip side of your "full price for two songs" argument. For every one or two good artists putting out pro-quality stuff, there are 10 or more hacks churning out crap because they can.

That means that listeners can get all sorts of great music for free, which undermines the value of those trying to make a living recording music.

Unfortunately, making that great music isn't free.

My question for artists who complain about music downloads: why do you consider the time your fans spend marketing your music for you to be valueless? Why don't you appreciate and pay them for the marketing service they are currently giving you for free?

Probably because they're not seeing a tangible return on that investment? What good is word of mouth if it merely sends other people to file-sharing and torrent sites? And I'm sure more often than not that those who trumpet their willingness to go see a band live whose music they've helped themselves to somehow come up with a litany of excuses why they can't venture out and see that band's show and buy that band's merch when that band comes to their town. Sell them your music and your income isn't compromised when their kid's soccer game occurs on the same night as your gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By packaging only 1 or 2 decent songs with the rest of the album being filler, but charging a price as if the whole album was good, the industry was screwing over fans for decades, and karma is a bitch.

Never bought that rationale. Who's to say that the whole album isn't good? Radio has conditioned people to believe it isn't because they only play one or two songs over and over again based on some bean-counter's market analysis spreadsheet.

Earn money through performance of your songs. Anything else should be considered gravy, and the price set by the market.

Ever tried it yourself? It's a grind, believe me. And it shouldn't be a substitute for getting paid for something you invested money into to create. It wouldn't be so egregious if people were ignoring the work versus obtaining it for free and enjoying it.

I've done more than my share of grinding and sacrifice to earn the amount of money I need for the lifestyle I want. Why should professional musicians be any different?

One reason I'm not a famous rock star right now is because I compared the costs of having to go to LA and grind through the bar scene versus the possibilities of getting famous and decided it wasn't worth it to me.

The only reason I'm not a professional symphonic musician is I decided that the lifestyle and pressures and cutthroat nature of the business wasn't worth it to me.

I'm not a music teacher because I decided (after 4 years of majoring in music, unfortunately), that what I really enjoyed about music was performance, not just being "in" music. So I make music for the enjoyment of me, my friends, and my family. I have chosen to support my family in other ways.

I will not become a General in the military because the level of political ability it requires is beyond me. I didn't develop those abilities because I felt it required the sacrifice of some of my principles, and it wasn't worth it to me.

These are choices I made. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If someone stumbles on a way to make money without much effort, other people will follow and the new competition will make it impossible to make money so easily.

For the most part, making lots of money requires hard work and extreme sacrifice. Making moderate amounts of money requires hard work and moderate sacrifice. Making a little bit of money requires hard work and little risk/sacrifice. That's the way of the world. Musicians are not as special as they seem to think they are...for every famous singer, there are a hundred or a thousand that can sing just as well but never had the chance...Same for guitarists. Probably the same for songwriters.

Several generations of musicians received the benefit of an artificial restriction of supply by the gatekeeping of the music industry. Technology has destroyed the effectiveness of that gatekeeper. Fair or not, injustice or not, this is the current circumstance.

I understand that it sucks, and do have some measure of sympathy that the new situation sucks. But not enough to willingly go back to the old system.

By the way, I am close to completing my first novel. I recognize that the day of $40k advances for successful novelists is gone. I realize that I will have to market my butt off and choose the correct pricing to sell more than to my family members, but in my opinion, that is balanced by the fact that I am not being kept out/down by the publishing industry and can get my work to potential readers w/o gatekeepers. But part of the environment will include people disseminating digital copies in a manner that undermines my earning potential.

That's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lefsetz reply is total bullshit from someone whose income does not depend on royalty and or publishing payments.

Things change thats a given, but change which means the rich get richer and the people at the bottom get poorer and their jobs become more difficult is not a change for the better.

At least the "Music Business" of old re-invested some of the profits made into A&R and encouraging new artists etc.

We all know it was less than perfect but the new model proposed by the freeloaders is far worse and will create a situation which discourages new artist and pushes the "Pop Idol, X-Factor" type crap down all our throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...