Why downloading music is good for the music industry

[Fight_n_back]

Portishead...


I would hae never listened to anything called "Portishead" and they are not played on the radio station I listen to most (Live 105! We play all the alternative, edgey music released by the five largest record labels!) BUT I saw them on SNL and liked it.

Now, some legal logic. Lets say that I taped that SNL, fast forwarded it to the Portishead part and gave it to a friend to watch. Would the FBI crash down my door? No because it isn't illegal. Would it cost Portishead money as artists? No, because they were on friggin' network TV and got payed virtually nothing to be on the show. So why would they do it? To get their music heard.

So, I go to my file sharing site, search for Portishead and now they are one of my favorite bands of still living people. Without free downloading I wouldn't have taken the extra effort to look around for these guys just to be ripped off as I was when I bought a CD by..

LOVE

I read a cool book that talked about the groundbreaking band Love. I simply HAD to hear this early psychodelic groundbreaking, multi racial LA band. I bought the CD and now wish I had spent the thirteen bucks on gum or a big foam finger at a Giants game.


So my contention is that the music industry is full of shit for a number of reasons regarding music downloads. It is advertising. If they made it very easy to hear demos of the music whenever you wanted then they would be able to make it a huge positive instead of crying that they would only be bazillionaires instead of gagillionaires.

The reason they don't is that they would have to pay people to organize databases and they would NEVER put anyone from another label on and certaily would not prominently display anyone who wasn't banging Tony Mattola.

Besides, Britany Spears should be giving her music away as a form of community service for destroying the sanctity of Holy Matrimony.

[madrchsod]

1. spears should give up music

and take up porn. have you seen her new video? no wonder her sales are crap. the last two albums i bought i downloaded tracks and decided to but the album..

[Interrobang]

2. A lot of bands know this already...

They make their music available for download. All the MP3s I have are legally downloaded from various band sites. I have some Combustible Edison, some Jello Biafra, some No WTO Combo, and others. :)

[Pobeka]

3. There is a lot of truth to your basic argument.

I applaud the many bands who are shedding themselves of the corporate music monster.

Hopefully, the music industry will figure out it's better to sell a bunch of reasonably priced CD's rather than very few overpriced CD's -- this is the leverage that the progressive bands and the internet has for music fans.

I still don't condone downloading copyrighted music, regardless.

[BigDaddyLove]

4. The record industry is selling a product........

why should they be happy about people getting it for free?

[Beearewhyain]

5. You are absolutely correct

When I used to download music (don't do it anymore) I stumbled onto a couple of bands that i would have never heard of, much less bought. Namely Badly Drawn Boy,bought all their albums now...thanks to file sharing.

RIAA are fools.

[wuushew]

6. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 1837

how is it in the public's best interest to pay $15-20 per cd?

[rtassi]

7. With all due respect YANG

If you made a living in music creation, performance, or production as I did for 25 years, you might feel very differently about downloading. It goes way beyond taking just from the artist and the "gagillionaires" at the labels you berate. The music industry is multi layered, employing thousands of regular people doing jobs that aren't in any way part of the industry the consumer is aware of.

There is for example, the song writing arm of the industry, people who literally slave away in cubicles writing as many as 40 songs per quarter in an effort to bring home a $300.00 a week pay check. Writers who maybe one time in there careers penned a "hit" that translated into significant money-to say nothing of the publishing arm and related staffs, ASCAP, or BMI, studio's, audio and video engineers, producers, studio musicians, road musicians, roadies, bus drivers,truck drivers, managers, cartage company's, pressing plants, mastering labs, pro audio manufacturers, and of course retail. People just like you, who work very hard and are paid an average wage while contributing significantly to the product you receive, and the economy of the communities where they live.

You hurt real people when you steel music! The Music industry is far from perfect-and far from just in many instances. On the inside it can be cold and hard, and mediocre artists only serve to confuse our perceptions even further. Illegal downloading does not help in any way, in keeping the cost of delivering music to America down, or creating an easier environment for new artists to be heard or launched who aren't mediocre. If the music sucks, it's our fault. The record companies wouldn't produce it, if someone wasn't buying it. Incidentally, downloading copyrighted music illegally just because you can, as a result of available technology, is not sanctified.

There is a local DJ in Nashville who goes by the name of "Mac Truck". He signs off from his afternoon red neck editorial rant by saying; "That's my opinion it otta be yours"

[Fight_n_back]

9. Which is why

TV salaries have risen ten fold after there was a VCR in every home.

It is a service industry. Serve.

There was great music before there was even the ability to record. There will eb great music as long as there are musicians. They will earn a living.

I didn't say people should steal music. I said that being able to hear a lot of music is good for the music industry.

You are arguing against a point I didn't make.

[lazarus]

10. Two responses

First, they've decided that any downloading is illegal.

What about Dennis DeYoung's Desert Moon album? Out of print for years and year. I purchased it on vinyl, cassette, and CD. All three media are now gone.

And it's out of print.

Why can't I download it? Heck, it's selling for big bucks on EBay, none of which goes to Dennis or the RIAA or the label.

Or James Young's 1986 album he cut with Jan Hammer, City Slicker. I tried to buy it on EBay a couple of years ago, because it's out of print, got outbid at $60.

So I downloaded it. Is that illegal? How was I supposed to buy it legally?

There's obviously a demand for it, but the geniuses at the RIAA would rather spend their time and money suing grandmothers than figuring out how to serve their customer base.

Second, how freaking stupid are they, anyway? The Metallica case against Napster, for example: Do you realise how valuable a list of email addresses of people who have all expressed a strong interest in your music is? Instead of using that list for marketing, they decided to use it for a lawsuit.

Stupid PR. Send all of the people on the list a coupon for $3 off the purchase of Metallica's new album. Now you're using it for direct marketing. And specific lists for direct marketing with that kind of focus are like a mint. You don't throw it away.

On edit, I thought of a third thing:

The last 5 albums I bought I only bought after I'd downloaded them and listened to them. I got sick and tired of paying 15 bucks for 3 good songs and a bunch of crap filler.

Make a better product, and people will buy it.

Also, I don't believe for a minute that downloading is killing them as badly as they think. There are a lot of reasons for the drop in CD sales. Crap product (notice how many top selling CDs the last few years are reissues and compilations, such as the Beatles' "One"). Crap marketing.

And competition from DVDs which cost just as much as CDs. Yeah, I can buy a DVD for the same price. That makes sense. Notice that DVD sales are booming? There are only so many luxury dollars to go around.

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. lol

the main problem with the music industry is the fact that there are "songwriters" in the first place

if an artist isn't writing his or her own material, than it isn't art

I am tired of protecting the apparatus that allows "shit for music" to continue

downloading forces the industry to streamline...bands that write their own material will flourish

and it will make the true art better...it is time we get rid of the shit that qualifies as art nowadays

[Whitacre D_WI]

15. Gimme a break.

So, Marian Anderson wasn't an "artist," because she sang Lieder by Schumann?

The Four Tops and the Supremes weren't "artists," because they sang songs written by Brian Holland, Eddie Holland, and Lamont Dozier?

The old blues singers weren't "artists," because their "songwriting" consisted mainly of adapting old folk songs and spirituals?

John Coltrane, the Beatles, Miles Davis... many whom are regarded by most people as consummate artists played many cover songs....

Bob Dylan's first album only had two original compositions (one of which was a "talking blues," so that hardly counts) -- I guess he's not an "artist."

Seriously, this old canard is a joke. Writing music is one type of art. Writing lyrics is another. Performing is yet another type of art.

It is true that there are some musical artists who do all three. All the power to them. But if you are honestly suggesting that Debbie Gibson (who writes her own material) is one percent the artist that Marian Anderson was, you are on the pipe.

[OhioStateProgressive]

17. wrong

I cannot even waste my time listening to songs that are sung by people other than who wrote them

I'm sorry you find that bothersome, but art is truly special and should not be watered down by loose interpretations of what it exists of

Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and Pink Floyd redefined what is acceptable as music to be "art"...that is the bar, they wrote their own material, it must be matched

[Whitacre D_WI]

18. wrong

What you are saying is directly analagous to saying that actors aren't artists, unless they wrote the dialogue they're speaking.

Take it another step: is a representational painter less of an artist than a non-representational painter? After all, if I just paint a picture of my mom, I am not "creating" anything, by your definition.

There is art in interpretation. It is only ONE PART of the broader arts we know as music, as painting, as drama; but it is artistic expression nonetheless.

What you are saying with your blanket dismissal of all non-auteur-performed music; is that generations of opera, folk, and other singers are worthless.

I ask again: Is Debbie Gibson a more accomplished artist than Marian Anderson? If you say no, you are being logically inconsistent... and if you say yes, your aesthetic judgment flies in the face of all that is good and pure and right in this world. ;)



(as a preemptive, I will allow that Gibson is more broadly accomplished than Anderson -- writing AND performing, after all -- but the aggregate sum of Gibson's artistic contributions is less than the first few Anderson-sung bars of "Gretchen am Spinnrade" ALONE)

[OhioStateProgressive]

20. odd, since i am a painter of canvas

yes, Gibson is more of an artist...no it is not as good of music as Marian Anderson

there is Fine Art

and there is "art"

[Whitacre D_WI]

22. Curious as to what you mean by this:

there is Fine Art

and there is "art"

Near's I can tell, there are numerous Fine Arts -- music, painting/drawing, etching, dance, sculpture, poetry/prose/drama writing -- the list goes on.

In the example I gave, of "Gretchen am Spinnrade," we have the meeting of three brilliant artists each adding a different piece to the actual work itself: Schubert (music), Goethe (lyric), and Anderson (voice). This is a collaborative work just as assuredly as anything done by a gifted pop combo -- in ARTISTIC interpretation (sure, plenty American Idol-types are merely lounge-singer hacks), there is a DIALOGUE between the interpreter and the composer. One can hear Anderson's give-and-take with both the melody and the text.

On the other hand, there's vintage Debbie Gibson -- mediocre singing; saccharine, Billy-Joel-would-have-been-embarassed arrangements; and lyrics straight out of a pre-teen's diary.

Good old Deborah is not more of an artist than Marian, she's simply an artist in more WAYS. A bad artist in more ways.

I'd much rather have good songs sung by good singers than tripe sung by wannabes.



The example I've given is classical music, but the same can be said for much of the Anglo/Afro-American pop music of the last half century (something I listen to far more often, and am far more well-versed in than classical).

Elvis Presley. The Motown groups. Didn't write crap, but DAMN! could they get into the guts of a song.

Remember, for every Dylan, Lennon, Lee, Prince, Reed, et. al. there are DOZENS of artists who write good songs but play like shit...

...there are HUNDREDS of artists who can play, but write shit songs...

...and there are THOUSANDS of artists who play like shit AND write shit songs.

These artists do not compare to great singers/players who happen not to write their own material.

[OhioStateProgressive]

23. what I believe

"art" with a little "a" is a philosophy, as a way of living life

there are many things that are "artistic" in nature

music is a kind of "art", but I set a very high bar for what "musical art" transcends into Fine Art

you see, "the" Art (big A) is the whole, the final product...when I paint a canvas, I paint all of it...not do my part and have another artist do their bit...and so with such for music that I consider to be Fine Art

I understand it is very elitest, but I also shun music that is not deep lyrically.

[Whitacre D_WI]

31. Still not taking your meaning...

Just to clarify, you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mozart did not create "Fine Art" -- that is to say, he wrote the score, but other musicians are needed to perform the pieces; therefore they are not "Fine Art?"

Balderdash, good sir!

I should submit, then, that you would find NO music that is not performed solo to be Fine Art -- as any band would be a collaboration.

And just what do you mean my "deep lyrically?" I ask because when some people say "deep" they mean "conveying of a greater, subtextual message;" whereas when other people say "deep," they mean "pretentious crap."

For instance, Jim Morrison. Whereas I find some value in the Dionysian shaman schtick (and actually enjoy listening to the Doors quite a bit, especially while drunk), Jim Morrison is probably the worst lyricist ever to pen a hit song. And yes, that includes Bernie Taupin. Come on -- "There's a killer on the road/His brain is squirming like a toad" :wtf:

For my money, lyrics don't get much deeper than "all the squares go home!" (from Sly and the Family Stone's "Dance to the Music"). I'm being completely serious here -- take a bit of a PoMo look at it, listen to the song in the context of the late-1960s, and you'll find layers of meaning in that line that you wouldn't expect.

If it seems I am calling you a boor, please take no offense -- I simply am quite passionate about all arts, most especially music.

Art is everywhere, even where you least expect it. Look around OSU itself -- Cow Town is (okay, WAS) a hotbed of great music. Head on down to Used Kids and talk to Ron House (the manager with the pumpkin-sized head). He was in Great Plains and Thomas Jefferson Slave Apartments, two extraordinary bands (and yes, he wrote his own songs ;)). Buy a couple of records from him, and also pick up something by the late Jim Shepard (Vertical Slit or V-3) -- he was a phenomenal poet, and a truly genius guitarist.




Off topic -- your name is OhioStateProgressive, and you have a Kucinich avatar. Do you know Doug Wagner? He's my stepbrother.

[OhioStateProgressive]

33. it's all good

I am certain I am sounding more elitist than I intend to

about teh depth...I guess I am pretentious, but I consider Neil Young, Roger Waters, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen, those types of lyricists, dealing with themes larger than oneself

as for music as fine art...i consider all classical music as fine art...the problem is that it is inherently wrong to draw any comparison between classical music and rock...i feel there are very few 'modern' bands or singer/songwriters who transcend 'pop' music into the realms of fine art

and i don't know Doug Wagner:)

[thebigidea]

29. eek, what a strange stance

covers of poor material improve them if done right.

i'll take any cover by The Residents over a million insipid originals.

[stopbush]

34. How about songs that are written by people who don't themselves

sing? Do you listen to those?

[rtassi]

19. I couldn't have imagined

a less informed opinion that you just posted.

[OhioStateProgressive]

21. 100% opposite(nt)

[mvd]

8. It can help

Because it gives them exposure. Plain and simple. Hopefully, though, instead of free the way it is now, record companies are forced to make concessions to artists and allow them to make free stuff available. Even though I still buy some CDs, I'm happy when the RIAA loses money. It's the only way to make them think less selfishly and authoritatively.

[Exultant Democracy]

11. The music industry needs to get ahead of the issue instead of

fighting it. If they had a fast and reliable for pay system people would use it. The record companies make a big stink about how people won't buy something when it is already free, but that is pure BS.

Almost every office has a coffee machine, but people will stop at the starbucks 50 feet from their office door and buy their coffee instead of just getting a free cup at work.

[stopbush]

28. How right you are. The systemic problems in the music biz are

legion.

First off, many of the execs are dinosaurs, and like NFL head coaches, they seem to travel from label to label, failing up in the process. The guy who has just been named to head up Warner Music turned down a $50-million offer from Universal and took a $90-million, 5-years deal from Warner. At the same time, a friend of mine who is a VP at Warner was just told that he couldn't order $15 worth of personalized stationary because Warner is "watching expenses." And the pay disparity at the labels is unreal. The top exec gets $17 million a year, the guy under him gets $500,000, the guy under him gets $140...and that guy's assistant makes $30,000. When the music label looks to save money, guess who loses their job first? If you guessed the assistant, you're right.

When I worked at the major labels, the top jobs were held by a bunch of computer-unsavvy people who preferred the brick-and-mortar approach to selling music. New technologies and ideas rarely got heard. No one ever talked about how many units were actually sold. All we heard about were how many were *shipped.* Of course, the guy in charge of shipping the CDs to the store wasn't the guy responsible for handling the returns. So Mr Front-end often called his guy at Tower (or wherever) and got him to take extra product in so he'd look good. When the returns came back, those CDs just went into a black hole. We used to refer to it as "shipping gold and returning platinum."

When you think about it, selling music through downloads is nothing more than traditional direct marketing - ie: you're eliminating the middle man and going directly to the music consumer. Isn't it strange that BMG, Warner and Sony all owned their own direct marketing wings - the record "clubs" - that had been direct marketing music to consumers for 45 years, yet they never sought out the advice of those people on how to market music directly via downloads? In fact, the record labels always looked at the clubs as necessary bottom feeders who helped their bottom line...and little else. But if you look at the legit download services *now*, they're all floating the same "membership model" of service that worked for years for the record clubs. Maybe they are coming around...or maybe they're busy re-inventing the wheel...again.

Interesting times.

[Whitacre D_WI]

12. Portishead is okay...

...but the first three Love albums knock everything Portishead ever did to next Tuesday.

Love rules, brothers & sisters.

[Dutch]

27. Love rules!

To be fair I can see how they might not be to everyones tastes, but any serious music fan should at least give Forever Changes a listen. Arthurt Lee was a true genius, IMHO.

[Fight_n_back]

35. I gave Forever Changes a listen

I understand why it is important, I just don't like it. For one thing, I don't like folk and it was a little too folky. Of that period I consider "Roger the Engineer" to be the ignored gem.

BTW, I think (but won't bet) that "Forever Changes" was the only album that was actually done by Love. The others were hashes of studio guys and Art Lee because of band personnel problems.

My only point about them was that I wouldn't have bought it if I had downloaded a couple of songs first. I would have probably opted for Nick Drake instead. Since I buy CDs in binges I ended up not getting Nick Drake but am stuck with Love.

And yes, I know Nick Drake is even more folk than Love. I guess what I wanted from Love was much more psychodelia.

Anyway, Im glad this prompted a good discussion.

And Im sorry this isn't art since all of these words have been used before by others.

Not art:
Twist and Shout Beatles
Im a Man Yardbirds
Boys in the Hood Dynamite Hack
Any Shakespeare Meryl Streep, Richard Burton, John Geilgud
Dazed and Confused Led Zeppelin (since it was first played by the Page version of the Yardbirds, unless of course, his part is art but the rest of the band were soulless hacks for covering the parts of Kieth Relf, Jim McCarty and Chris Dreya)

All in all, I guess Im a fan of "Not art".

[Whitacre D_WI]

36. Actually, half of "Forever Changes" was done by Arthur alone,

with a few session musicians; due to problems with the band. When Lee played the tapes for them, they cried. The first two Love albums had been band efforts.

After FC, Arthur fired the band (partially because he was a prick, partially because they just couldn't get their act together) and brought together a group of studio musicians and called them "Love."

And as far as "folkiness" -- I'm not really a genre slave, but I don't really get it. Seems to me that the first two Love albums were a lot more in the "folk-rock" vein as typified by such bands as the Byrds; while FC was way beyond such specification. Yes, the rhythm guitar is usually acoustic, but:

The soaring mariachi horns on "Alone Again, Or"
The blistering solos on "A House is not a Motel" and "Live and Let Live"
The hippy-dippy-trippiness of "Andmoreagain" and "The Good Humor Man, He Sees Everything Like This"
The jive-Dylan of "Bummer in the Summer"
The wave-your-freak-flag manifesto "The Red Telephone"
The magnificent orchestral arrangements on "You Set the Scene"

Damn, I'm gonna listen to that album today....

[KG]

14. it's the music industrys greed

insane prices are also driving people to download.

[radwriter0555]

16. So if you can download music for free, how are the artists paid for

their work?

[wuushew]

24. Live concerts

the state has no mandate to artifically maintain the viability of an industry. If the music business has no ability to succeed on pure economics then it should not be propped up. Destroying big record labels would not mean the end of music.

And if anyone retorts that it will cost jobs I will answer by saying that is the same logic that prevents reform on agriculture subsidees and demands that Detroit get better gas mileage.

[radwriter0555]

26. You won't pay for music, but you will pay several hundred dollars to go to

a concert?

I don't think so. Artists usually spend around 1 year promoting their album around the world, with one set of shows in one location.

Concerts and performances help sell the music, not the other way around.

Artists do tours to promote their work, their albums. Why do a video if you're not going to buy their album?

Videos don't make money. They promote bodies of work.

Albums are a piece of art. Why shouldn't you compensate an artist for the time and effort they spent on their craft, designed to entertain and inspire you?

Do you go to work everyday for free? Or do you think musicians should just do this work in their spare time and let you listen to it for free because they're kind, and generous and cool?

[thebigidea]

30. wrong. concerts sell the t-shirts.

[Whitacre D_WI]

32. Unless you write a platinum record...

...you're not going to get shit from royalties. Plain and simple. Record companies sign artists for an advance against future royalties. The vast majority of songwriter/artists do not make their living from publishing, they make it from touring.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Good for the environment too..less plastic involved

[Enraged_Ape]

37. I can't tell you how many CDs I've bought due to Internet radio

For years I might have bought a CD once every three months. Now I probably purchase three a month. I choose the kind of music I want to listen to, and the groups I've become excited about are NEVER played on broadcast radio. Many of the CDs I buy are from local used-CD stores, since I sure as hell won't find them on the shelf at Hastings.

The music industry is pleading poverty on an ever more strident basis, blaming their plight on music downloaders. They do not want to face the fact that their MUSIC SUCKS, PERIOD. Every male singer sounds like J Timberlake and every female like Mariah Carey. Every song sounds the goddamn same. The nation has, frankly, grown tired of all this, and thus we are subjected to ever more desperate attempts for attention from the "artists" who produce this cold crap.