Originally Posted by Kiwi
I was recently reading the wikis on 1960's Pirate radio stations (specifically Radio Caroline in the UK and Radio Hauraki in New Zealand). A very interesting time in musical history - because the governments of the time controlled the airwaves and did not allow rock music. I was intrigued to see that the greatest opposition came from ... the music industry.
The technology has shifted - but I personally do not see a vast difference, and as far as i'm concerned piracy was necessary and unavoidable THEN as it is now.
If anything is killing music, it's computer games. Or a million other distractions that compete for kid's mind share.
People have to consume new music for free, somehow, otherwise they won't know what they like. There is only limited money, time and mind share for an elite few artists to become hugely popular & wealthy. Nothing really changes this, and it's unrealistic to expect it to be any different.
You appear to have difficulty understanding the difference between "free" and "free".
Just because you as a listener get music on, for example, the radio without paying for it ("for free") does not mean that the music is not being paid for ("free") - it actually is being paid for, just not by you. It's being paid for by companies who want to sell you something ("advertisers"). The reason that radio is not presently very responsive to listeners' tastes is that the listeners aren't paying - the advertisers are and the advertisers are (mis)guided by focus group companies that purport to "know" what the lowest common denominator of listeners will tolerate without switching stations. This is because the majority of stations are no longer owned locally and are not answerable to local advertisers. This is a direct result of the FCC's deregulation of radio ownership over the past 3 or 4 decades.
You also don't appear to understand the difference between pirate radio and music piracy.
Pirate radio was unlicensed broadcasters responding to a public demand for music that was not being filled by legal channels, but nonetheless had a positive promotional effect on the music industry and did not work against the interests of artists (they still had sales.)
Music piracy is the uncompensated distribution of music, without permission of the artists and contrary to their interests (music piracy destroys sales by giving copies of the product away to end users without compensation. It provides unfair competition rather than promotion.)
Two very different things sharing the same superficial label. The former promoted art. The latter destroys it.
So if one of the insanely gifted and lucky bastards such as Townsend try to suggest otherwise, then maybe they should have all died before they got too old and greedy.
You know, that's a pretty insulting comment. It also reveals that you really didn't pay a lot of attention to what he was saying.
Townsend specifically made the point that the ones being hurt aren't the older established artists who made their money before the onslaught of rapacious leeches, it's the young, poor musicians trying to start a career now when there's no money available to support and develop new acts.
As always, Townsend is speaking up for the kids.