Has free, easily obtained music made music valueless?

[roadsweeper]

I would certainly agree with this comment. How many of you out there enjoy the feeling of spending hours in a music shop browsing for a purchase, finally getting it home and opening your new vinyl/CD and sitting down and listening to your new purchase with open ears and mind? If we spend £15 on an album, are we more likely to give that music a chance to impress, influence and give enjoyment?How many times have you bought a record, listened to it and not enjoyed it but then over a few plays started to like it then eventually love it? For me, my favourite albums of all time have been like this. I did not like Tom Waits' 'Real Gone' at first, nor 'Blue' by Joni Mitchell, nor 'Amused to Death' by Roger Waters but all of these albums are now some of my favourites. If I had obtained these for free would I have given them the same chance? Probably not.

Could this be the end of albums that are vastly multi-layered and complex and the beginning of records that aim to create intant enjoyment? Because 99% of records that I have instantly enjoyed have quickly become tiresome and now see very little playtime.

Other opinions out there?

[jimcroisdale]

I have been looking into recording bands for free, to get my portfolio up to scratch. I have been strongly advised against this. The reason being - if you do not put a value on your work, no-one else will either.

Perhaps this is the same with music? If you pay for it, you give it psychological value and are more likely to persevere and get your money's worth.

If it's free, just toss it on the pile.....

[ALL*MYTEE]

What happens in any market with product "dumping"--or sold below cost to gain market share, occupy shelf space or for use as advertising--is that what would otherwise be legitimate and desired products become harder to find. As time is money, this means essentially that these more valuable products become prohibitively expensive for consumers to find (even though they're cheap or free)--because they have to wade through so much junk to find one gem. (And so many people just stop looking--problem #1).

It is not uncommon for even large bands to make little or nothing from recorded music sales--so in a sense, recorded music has lost most of its inherent value, though it still retains some financial value as advertising for shows, selling t-shirts, jingles, etc. Most money is made from touring, ringtones and affiliated sources rather than the music itself. This sets up a backward economy where essentially people are buying the product tie-ins and getting the movie for free. Which leads to proportionately more shclocky, toy and happy-meal friendly (ie bad) movies than would occur in a market where movies were valued and priced according to consumer demand and toys and affiliated products were sold separately (which would reward quality).

By the way, this second market, with floating prices for music (and movies) is on the way. iTunes will start charging $.69, $.99 and $1.29 for songs in April. That won't do much, but it gives a glimpse of the future. FWIW, a market with songs selling at $1, $5 and $10 (and anywhere else people wanted to price them) would have lots more songs by lots more bands speaking to lots more people. Right now, mostly the 18-36 year old demographic is served and everyone else can go hang.. because only that demographic makes money (So people over 36 just go without much music--problem #2).

[dangoudie]

Of course music has not lost it's value. It still changes lives everyday and you could argue that it's value is proven by those who are willing to break the law to obtain it from illegal sources.

It's not that the consumer doesn't value music it's just that human-nature is naturally programmed towards procurement (i.e. lowering cost, maximizing utility) rather than blind consumption. We like to think we're getting a good deal and paying for something when we don't have to is not a good deal.

I'm a huge fan on iTunes (although it has it's flaws) because the prices are reasonable, you can preview tracks and get something instantly. CD prices are probably the only thing I can think of that stayed the same (regardless of inflation) towards the end of last century. I couldn't listen to as much music as I wanted when I was growing up because £15/album allowed for about 1 per month! Therefore it's no surprise that when punters can get their music for free they do so with gay-abandon!

As the iTunes pricing structures evolve, audio quality starts to return to former glories, broadband connections get faster and hard-drives get cheaper I believe that all will be well again.

The beauty of music is that it is valueless, or more accurately, priceless.
People would undoubtedly pay way in excess of £0.79 for their favourite song. It's just a question of figuring out the way to extract that value in the form of ca$h.

[crufty]

It is hard opinion that the market decides value, not the supplier / creator / artist.

Has free music made music valueless? I would say no. There has always been free music. if it's not the teenager with the entire capitol records collection on his storage drive, it was the teenager with just his favorite songs on cassette.

What has happened is that music went from the only form of entertainment to one part in many. When it did so, it entered a new market, one that it initially dominated, then shared, and now is on the decline. Competing forms of entertainment is what drives down the value of music: one could argue that it is not people (children, adults, what have you) downloading crummy 128kbs mp3s, but the large media conglomerates with multiple interests driving down music prices.

[Dean Roddey]

It is hard opinion that the market decides value, not the supplier / creator / artist.

That only works when they can't steal it. Capitalist markets are able to set the correct value on things because everything has a price and people balance the price of this against that and they buy one or the other. If this costs more relative to the benefit to a given person than that does, then they'll buy that.

But that only works when neither of them can be stolen. Once that happens, then one retains its value purely because it can't be stolen while the other loses its value because it can be stolen. At that point, no market can set a valid price, because people will steal what they can so that they can spend more on what they cannot, giving what they cannot steal an illusionary higher value than it would otherwise have.

In a world where Ferraris could be freely stolen, Ferraris would have no real value. People would steal the Ferararis so they could have more money to spend on clothes and TVs and such, despit the fact that a Ferraris clearly has a much higher value in a functioning market.

Anyway, what really sets the value of something on the market is the minimum amount of money the people who would make it are willing to accept before they go do something else and just stop making it. The consumer may think he sets the price, but he doesn't. Competition between suppliers sets the price, because if they can't make enough to bother being in the business, there won't be any supply. Yes demand by the consumer can affect price, because of economies of scale if many people want to buy something. But, in the end, things cost a certain amount to produce, and no one will accept less profit than they can get putting their money into something else. And that will ultimately set a cutoff point at which people will just move on and not make it anymore.

[crufty]

In a world where Ferraris could be freely stolen, Ferraris would have no real value. People would steal the Ferararis so they could have more money to spend on clothes and TVs and such, despit the fact that a Ferraris clearly has a much higher value in a functioning market.

We do live in a world where Ferrari's can be freely stolen. What you really mean to say, however, is a world where Ferrari's can be easily duplicated.

The easier something is to duplicate, either directly or indirectly, the lower a good's prices have to be otherwise the market will decide not to purchase. Note that direct casual illicit duplication of copyrighted material is a false threat to media suppliers / artists etc, even on a massive scale. It is the effect of listening to music, whatever emotional / cultural desires music fills, that effect is indirectly being duplicated.

In otherwords, in the 80s, Jimmy driving his camero had his Van Halen / Iron Maiden cassettes. Today, Jimmy drives his moms prius and goes onto xbox live when its time to vent.

The consumer may think he sets the price, but he doesn't.

Well, big picture. The consumer sets the price directly. A market will pay a certain amount. Whether or not a supplier is around to satisfy demand is inconsequential. The demand curve may be high but supply will be zero as long as price is below X. Market is setting the price: nothing over something. If the supplier set the price then they would still be in business. I do agree it is competition which provides the best price to the consumer and this is exactly what I'm talking about--music has serious competition these days. Focusing on piracy is ignoring the forest for the trees.

Given the competition in the entertainment arena, markets really do set the price. Witness the decline of the circus / sideshow, for example. Vaudville. etc etc etc.

Brutal when you think about it.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by crufty

The easier something is to duplicate, either directly or indirectly, the lower a good's prices have to be otherwise the market will decide not to purchase.

It already was low. Music and movies are among the best deals of all time. You get to own something that might have costs millions to hundreds of millions to make, for a small price, and you can use it as many times as you want. The cost of music and movies was never any factor in the situation. It's a rationalization pure and simple.

And Ferraris cannot be freely stolen. There are consequences and those consequences prevent almost everyone from stealing them. It's the lack of consequences to the theft of music that makes it such a problem.

Note that direct casual illicit duplication of copyrighted material is a false threat to media suppliers / artists etc, even on a massive scale. It is the effect of listening to music, whatever emotional / cultural desires music fills, that effect is indirectly being duplicated.

That's a meaningless semantic difference, IMO.

In otherwords, in the 80s, Jimmy driving his camero had his Van Halen / Iron Maiden cassettes. Today, Jimmy drives his moms prius and goes onto xbox live when its time to vent.

I don't believe that's true. There are as many tracks downloaded today as purchased, more or less. That's a huge amount of effort and time put into aquisition of music. It's clearly just as important ot kids as it ever has been, and to pretend that there weren't just as many distractions to them in the past is just looking backwards though some foggy glasses. Those distractions were always there, but music has always been a big deal to kids, and to many adults as well obviously. The only difference is that they are stealing it now instead of paying for it.

Well, big picture. The consumer sets the price directly. A market will pay a certain amount. Whether or not a supplier is around to satisfy demand is inconsequential.

Inconsequential in that there's nothing to buy or even to steal, even if they want it. I'm not sure that's a very meaningful type of power.

Given the competition in the entertainment arena, markets really do set the price. Witness the decline of the circus / sideshow, for example. Vaudville. etc etc etc.

Brutal when you think about it.

That worn out argument just never goes away. That's jsut completely unrelated. To be the same, there would have to be hundreds of millions of people sneaking in to see vaudville acts without paying, such that the vaudeville people know that lots of people still enjoy their product but aren't paying for it.. Obivously that's not what happened in those cases.

There is no past analogue to what is happening now. There wasn't the kind of intellectual property industry as we have it today, nor the ability to steal it on a wide scale without consequences.

[crufty]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

That worn out argument just never goes away. That's just completely unrelated. To be the same, there would have to be hundreds of millions of people sneaking in to see vaudville acts without paying, such that the vaudeville people know that lots of people still enjoy their product but aren't paying for it.

More like millions of people watching the local brat do vaudeville on youtube...

Concentrating on 'theft' is part of the problem. It's not like piracy goes away and all of a sudden cd sales go up. The fact, as allluded by ALLMYTEE is that it is very hard to buy music today.

I think the group Boiled in Lead's album 'Orb' is fantastic. Where can you buy the cd? Used market. Does that help anybody? not really. Is it piracy or theft? no.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by crufty

More like millions of people watching the local brat do vaudeville on youtube...

I don't get the point. I showed how your analogy wasn't correct. People stopped watching Vaudeville because they started doing other things. People didn't stop listening to music. They still download it in huge numbers. They just stopped paying for it. What does your comment have to do with that?

Concentrating on 'theft' is part of the problem. It's not like piracy goes away and all of a sudden cd sales go up. The fact, as allluded by ALLMYTEE is that it is very hard to buy music today.

Huh? It's trivially easy to buy music, from Amazon or iTunes or any number of other places. You can go to sites like All Songs Considered and find all kinds of obscure stuff that you can buy through them.

If downloading wasn't possible tomorrow, I know the sales would go up. It's not like suddenly in 1997 people suddenly quit liking music. They just started taking it without paying for it. If they couldn't steal it, they'd buy it again just like the other things they want that they can't steal.

I think the group Boiled in Lead's album 'Orb' is fantastic. Where can you buy the cd? Used market. Does that help anybody? not really. Is it piracy or theft? no.

That has nothing to do with the current situation. I doubt a whole lot of people are downloading it either. Though those that are shouldn't be. The stuff that's getting stolen the most is the stuff that would be selling the most otherwise. The kids out there downloading aren't pulling down obscure blues artists because they can't buy them, they are mostly downloading what's popular and therefore what should be selling the best. It's a worst case scenario in that the better a product you make, the more you will suffer.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by crufty

. The fact, as allluded by ALLMYTEE is that it is very hard to buy music today.

?? A 10 year old kid can use Itunes...It can't get easier than that. Have you ever used it ?

[crufty]

Re-Vaudeville, we agree, I think. Our points are the same there.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

People didn't stop listening to music.

How do you know?

They still download it in huge numbers.

It does not mean people are listening. And it does not mean the people downloading would pay. They would simply do without, unless there is change.

Huh? It's trivially easy to buy music, from Amazon or iTunes or any number of other places.

Is it? Maybe for top 40 stuff. But trust me, as soon as one's taste dives away from top 40 it gets very hard very fast to the point it is EASIER to download illegally lossless audio then actually buy it. What does that tell people? Or do you really think that everyone just loves the top 40? I don't think people's taste are that uniform.

That has nothing to do with the current situation.

It has everything to do with the current situation. It's a great example because everyone I have played the cd for is like WOW! What a great cd. Where can I buy it? Well, you can't except thru the used market. No biggie right? Well, how does the industry get their cut?

The industry is not going to be able to re-extract value on a used commodity like music. And so people then can go download it I suppose. But what is that training folks to do?

People have a certain amount of disposable income for personal entertainment. That income is not allocated to music. It is allocated to other forms of entertainment. Games have grown 10% annually, compounded, for the best 5-10 years. Music is on the decline. Game makers are elevated to 'rockstar' status. Rockstars are...well...

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by crufty

Is it? Maybe for top 40 stuff. But trust me, as soon as one's taste dives away from top 40 it gets very hard very fast to the point it is EASIER to download illegally lossless audio then actually buy it. What does that tell people? Or do you really think that everyone just loves the top 40? I don't think people's taste are that uniform.

What the hell are you talking about ?? I think you have NEVER even looked into any of these services !

I listen to some of the most obscure experimental music ever (you know, the kind that most people would refuse to classify as music, just as random nightmarish noise), and i can find plenty in some places like emusic.com, and even iTunes. In fact, i'm suprised to find so much bizarre and obscure music available on iTunes !

[crufty]

Originally Posted by spaceman

?? A 10 year old kid can use Itunes...It can't get easier than that. Have you ever used it ?

sure but for me, DRM lossy formats are not what I want. I know lots of people that itunes isn't practical for a lot of reasons. It's a great platform but there needs to be more...

[crufty]

Originally Posted by spaceman

What the hell are you talking about ?? I think you have NEVER even looked into any of these services !

A) Lossless
B) DRM free

I could do with DRM lossless actually, I'm not a big anti DRM freak. But mp3/aac won't do.

btw, artists I have a hard time finding:
Shpongle
Solar Quest
Space Girl

and I have a list that goes on for a while actually. I have been trying for the past 5 years, even emailing the artists in question. It's tough.

For some reason my cc doesn't work with beatport. Trust me, if there is a place selling wav / flac I've been there. I've got about $150 of various psy trance in my crate, but still no go...:(

One thing I do think is a great idea, is if you are a label, you should be selling flac encoded files from your website. It's so cheap and easy to do I'm not sure why its not done more. i buy a great deal of used cds because I can't find any other lossless alternative. I would much rather purchase a cd because I know thats the only way to tell the artist to make more!

[dangoudie]

Originally Posted by crufty

sure but for me, DRM lossy formats are not what I want. I know lots of people that itunes isn't practical for a lot of reasons. It's a great platform but there needs to be more...

DRM got dropped recently and the bit rate doubled to 256kbps. It's still not the quality of a CD but it's a step in the right direction. iTunes is a fantastic re-invention/application of exactly how CD's were used/bought/shared etc.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by crufty

btw, artists I have a hard time finding:
Shpongle
Solar Quest
Space Girl

and I have a list that goes on for a while actually. I have been trying for the past 5 years, even emailing the artists in question. It's tough.

I guess you haven't looked at all...
Theeeere you go :

Shpongle : Shpongle songs from eMusic.com
Solar Quest : Solar Quest songs from eMusic.com

Oh, and they are also available on iTunes ..

Tell me again that itunes and emusic.com are only for top 40 music...

[crufty]

ahhh....not so not so.

Originally Posted by spaceman

I guess you haven't looked at all...

Originally Posted by crufty

A) Lossless

Originally Posted by spaceman

Solar-Quest-MP3-Download

[Dean Roddey]

It does not mean people are listening. And it does not mean the people downloading would pay. They would simply do without, unless there is change.

I think that's just not based on reality. No, they wouldn't pay for the 10,000 sounds they've downloaded. But that's not the point. The point is to get them to pay for the 100 songs that they probably would have bought before it became possible to just steal them. If you are trying to argue that music means nothing to kids anymore and they wouldn't be buy any if they couldn't get it for free, then the burden of proof lies on you, not on me, because that would be a change in a very consistent trend that has been going on since the 50s.

[crufty]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I think that's just not based on reality. No, they wouldn't pay for the 10,000 sounds they've downloaded.

Good...that is my point.

What is your take on the 100 tracks they would buy?

How much value is in those tracks from the CUSTOMER's perspective? What is the most you think you can extract from them?

Hint: less then $30.

[Dean Roddey]

If they couldn't steal it, I have no doubt they'd pay what the current going rate is. If they can't have 10K songs for free, then the value in the music returns to the current going rate. Do you really think that kids these days can't afford 10 CDs at $12 to $15 a pop? They can afford a lot more than that, and they would buy it just like they used to if it wasn't stealable. I mean do you really think the entire world has changed since 1997? It hasn't. All that changed is that the means to steal the music without consequences appeared. And they were buying a lot more than that up until then.

[roadsweeper]

The argument that music can be difficult to obtain really is quite weak in my opinion. I have a huge CD which I have collected over many years and most if not all of the CDs can be found quite easily on certain website stores (there is quite a lot of obscure stuff in there too). I wanted to buy a new release from Robin Williamson (I doubt anyone will know him) and it couldn't be bought in the UK, so I ordered it from Spain, no big deal. In a world where anything can be shipped anywhere, pretty much anything is obtainable. And if something doesn't exist for new anymore, surely the whole fun of going into a record shop is to peruse the random vinyl and stumble across something rare and magical anyway.

When I was a teenager, I had absolutely no problem spending £15 on an album considering the enjoyment I got out of it. I find it hard to believe that kids have changed that much. If it became impossible to obtain music for free, then CD/legal download sales would undoubtedly go up, it may takea couple of months for people to realise they had to either pay or go without but sales would surely go up.

[crufty]

Part of the deal is used cd sales don't put money in the artist's pocket.

There will always be used music sales so that is a fact of life. However, when there is no new available, then its more problematic.

I don't think music has the same hold over current, and upcoming, generations the way it did over older ones. Sure it plays a role but perhaps its less of one. I can't shake that feeling that unless there is more connection between an audience and an artist sales will continue to decline.

[roadsweeper]

Crufty, I understand your point about music not having the same impact/hold over the newer generations. However, this is down to social and global situations that do not exist in the same way today in my opinion. After World War II the youth began for the first time to have a voice, to stand up and be accounted for. This was reflected through the birth of rock 'n roll, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly etc. The music was just a small part of a huge 'revolution' in youth culture, this being reflected through all sorts of art, beat generation literature and fashion. The 60's were a time when men were being sent to the moon, the war in vietnam was raging, the discovery of LSD, Martin Luther King etc. and this was all directly linked in to the young generation. Every movement had a musical partner: Dylan with his 'protest songs', Hendrix being the birth of a guitar hero, Pink Floyd playing psychadelic 'acid' music, Motown helping integrate black music in the popular scene etc. Between the 50's and 70's, youth culture exploded along with political and social views and music played a big part in all of this.

However, today this simply can't happen in my opinion, it has all been done before, the younger generation has it's own voice and pretty much anything goes.

Does this mean that music today is less meaningful and inferior? Maybe so but at least there is something for everyone whether it be folk, country, techno, rap, banghra/funk/country fusion, whatever you want it is there.

So, I agree that music probably doesn't have the same impact on the younger generation of today and most certainly plays much less of a socio-political role. But whether this affects emotions that it portrays and encourages is a different matter, I personally don't think so. Music will always be a large part of most peoples lives however, as I've said from the start I think that free music will alter perceptions of music to something that is just there, all around us rather than an expressive art form that should always contain value.

[rack gear]

well said dean. labels can't compete with FREE. neither can anyone else.

the whole argument that music should be free assumes all things should be free if I don't want to pay for it...

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

If they couldn't steal it, I have no doubt they'd pay what the current going rate is.

If they can't have 10K songs for free, then the value in the music returns to the current going rate. Do you really think that kids these days can't afford 10 CDs at $12 to $15 a pop? They can afford a lot more than that, and they would buy it just like they used to if it wasn't stealable.

I mean do you really think the entire world has changed since 1997? It hasn't. All that changed is that the means to steal the music without consequences appeared.

And they were buying a lot more than that up until then.

yes they were... N*SYNC anyone!

[crufty]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

Music will always be a large part of most peoples lives however, as I've said from the start I think that free music will alter perceptions of music to something that is just there, all around us rather than an expressive art form that should always contain value.

Agree...what should be and what is sadly.

I am a huge believer in attitude and mindset...positive attitude + skill + experience = positive results. Can't compete with free is a negative approach that will result in negative results. The question isn't, how do we compete? Instead, how can we leverage?

Here is a great case: I heard a neat tune in a coffee shop today. It consisted of a snare drum, simple rhodes, a female vocalist and a baritone choir. I asked people in the shop--hey you know who this is? Nobody did. I heard it, liked it, but that is the first and last time I'll hear it. I'll never know the group. I'll never know the album. I'll never buy the music. But, what if i I could just take my LOSSLESS FLAC player hold it up, press 'Listen', then 'Buy now'? How sweet would that be? Candy is so cheap it is almost free. And anyone can make their own candy. Many do.

You don't really see dedicated candy stores like you used to. These days, there are sections of candy for the connoisseur (the music lover), but most candy is sold near the checkout line (itunes); except for bulk candy, which is purchased at costco / sams club (the dj) etc. The difference between music and candy is that candy is everywhere there is commerce. Starbucks. 7-11. Movie theaters. Clothing stores (little sticks of gum / chocolate mints). Turn music into a buy anywhere impulse purchase for $1-$5, and you got yourself a nice platform for moving units. I would advocate watermarking music so that portable players could buy 'heard' music online everywhere (where's 4G man ) but there are probably other solutions too.

[spaceman]

Originally Posted by crufty

But, what if i I could just take my LOSSLESS FLAC player hold it up, press 'Listen', then 'Buy now'? How sweet would that be? .

Your dream has been a reality for almost a year now...

http://www.shazam.com/music/web/pages/iphone.html

It's freaking amazing how efficient it is ! And it works exactly like the scenario you described...

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

There is no past analogue to what is happening now. There wasn't the kind of intellectual property industry as we have it today, nor the ability to steal it on a wide scale without consequences.

Nor was there the ability to replicate with such ease which further muddies the morality.

Reminds me of a joke I heard from a comedian.

When the DVD asks "would I steal a car"?
I say no.
But if you could burn me a copy of that car......

[Dean Roddey]

When the DVD asks "would I steal a car"? I say no. But if you could burn me a copy of that car......

Only someone, IMO, who doesn't understand economics would consider that less of a moral problem. The car is desirable because someone put a lot of time and money into creating it as a product. If it is replicated, the fact that no actually manufactured car was stolen is irrelevant. The value of the work is destroyed, and the people who make the car go out of business.

Now, what happens when a new car design is needed? Who is going to be stupid enough to spend that money? No one. You'll end up with the same products or really bad ones because no one will spend the money to take the art forward, and therefore no one can get a job doing it, so only amateurs will do it, who don't have the money and expertise to really improve the art.

So there's no lessening of the harm or the lack of morality even if you could just copy the car.

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

So there's no lessening of the harm or the lack of morality even if you could just copy the car.

Dean, I'm with you on this.

I did however find the joke kind of funny......