Quote:
Originally Posted by jihadjoe75  Work is slow right now and I feel like ranting...
I'm a college student who makes $8 an hour for my campuses IT support dept and quite frankly, I cannot afford to pay $10-$20 for a CD. Yep, I'm a pirate and I have been for a very long time. Although I do buy music on occasion. This last month, I've bought two CD's. One being Frontier Ruckus's new album and Cursive's new album, both absolutely worth my $14.
If music is free and I'm short on cash, I'm absolutely going to download it. Even if all of a sudden the main stream music industry started putting out genuinely quality work, I would still not buy it -nor would 98% of the other people my age. Hell, I can personally say that I do not know a single person my age that does not steal music.
Morally, there is little difference from stealing a CD in a store that stealing it online. It's just that when your sitting in your bedroom clicking through TPB or Demonoid it simply does not feel like stealing, especially since you know that your chances of getting caught are very, very low.
It's been said a million times, but the days are changing and the recording industry is not. It's unfortunate considering the amount of people that feed their families through this industry, but maybe in the end of all this people will start focusing on their art, rather than money. If piracy continues, maybe more really great art could come out of it. Art obviously doesn't necessarily feed a family though, but was it ever supposed to?
Now, dear recording industry, if you can give me an unlimited library with lossless songs... hell, I'd probably pay twenty-sum bucks a month for that. Unfortunately, I'm assuming the other %90 of the population that can't recognize the difference between a lossless file and one of those bullshit 128kbps songs you can pay a dollar for on itunes. So yea, in regards to making money with music, we musicians are mostly just effed. I'd start promoting your concerts more and make a few nice t-shirts, cause that's usually what people my age spend money on when they support a band.
In the mean time, I will personally be giving my music away for free, because it is, quite frankly, not worth $10 for an album. I just like it when people listen and enjoy my songs. 
Thanks for listening to my rant. It's been a long day.
With love,
Joe Hertler |
Nothing personal Joe, but I'm so sick of this after-the-fact rationale (see bolded text). There is a truth in there but an essential component is missing:
Sponsorship. That's why we had great art in the classical and romantic periods - sponsorship. The rich and royalty (robber barons) felt it was their responsibility to raise the level of society by sponsoring the arts and therefore searched for genius to sponsor (That's taking care of life's expenses, leaving them free to create without financial worry). If Beethoven had to work at Ye Olde Luthier Centre for minimum wage, I doubt there'd be a 1st symphony, let alone a 5th. In the 20th century, people had to be their own sponsors — somehow juggling making a living with making music. Charles Ives started an insurance company so that he could make enough money to compose. And when Reagan dismantled funding for the arts, the grants that enabled established and student composers to go to the McDowell community and create, went away. And so did the music. In popular music, if you didn't have a producer who believed in your talent absorbing recording expenses, or a record label development deal (the modern equivalent of sponsorship), you had to be your own sponsor and come up with the money to make demos, which gave way to buying home recording equipment — a trend started by Tom Scholz, who, as an MIT grad and a well-paid mechanical engineer at Polaroid, was able to buy and modify equipment that most others couldn't touch (Scully 12-track/Dan Flickinger console). Also, notice that it took him three years to record his demos. Nor, was he a very prolific composer.
The simple truth is, you can't sing unless the stomach is full. Juilliard understands this, which is why all students there, regardless of how rich the family they come from, are entitled to financial aid. If you have to worry about paying the rent, feeding yourself, a family and etc, you'll have precious little time or energy left over at the end of a day to focus on your art.
Also, as a musician, I have to pay for lessons, buy instruments, synthesizers, amplifiers, PA systems, recording equipment including computers, software, etc, etc (which isn't cheap); pay to learn how to use the recording equipment at schools or workshops (easily drop a few thousand there); buy educational books and industry magazines (find time to read them, not to mention 500-page instruction manuals); pay people to promote my music if I find the time to make any; pay for my internet provider and spend countless hours marketing myself (assuming I know how, and without spamming people); and then there's my most valuable commodity that I have to donate for free - my time, which is irreplaceable. And, I have to do all this before the industry says I'm too old and don't have a salable image (Let's not even talk about those costs). Now, do you really expect me to do all this and come up with great art just for your enjoyment - available for free — by someone who is using my productivity to make a fortune selling advertising — putting me and my kind out of work so he can have nice things? Sorry. I'm not a charitable organization. I want to eat and drive a nice car too. And certainly, I'm not donating my life to the "Help Gottfrid Svartholm, Fredrik Neij, And Peter Sunde Buy A Maserati Fund."
More than that, it's quite difficult to devote all of your free time gambling your youth and earning power on a pursuit that is equivalent to trying to win the lottery. Now, take the possibility of making money out of that equation, and what do you get? The answer is not great art. As long as making music is a commercial endeavor, then return on investment will be a primary focus. And with music being devalued in the marketplace as it has been, it doesn't make sense for those wanting a career that will sustain them to make sacrifices for something that is being given away for free.
One side rant. How are new artists going to emerge when already embedded artists like Radiohead are offering free downloads with payment optional? It's like saying to all hopeful artists: "Screw you, we've got ours." After all, what unknown can compete with an artist that was established by the big music distribution machine, who now wants to sell internet advertising with music as a free enticement. I guess the universe does love irony.
You want great art? Bring back sponsorship. You want music for free - well, you get what you pay for.
That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.
-B-