File Sharing is good for American music

Great Debates
1

I’m not encouraging illegal file sharing since that would be going against this board’s policy.

On the other hand, I think that it is good for American music. Rock music has become corporatized, and if the bloated corporations and executives that control music get screwed, more and more bands will focus on playing good music and putting on live shows instead of playing music with the aspiration of becoming a big-time rock star and getting rich.

Rock belongs in the hands of the peasants, not the aristocracy. I think file-sharing is forcing it back into the hands of the “peasants.” In other words, music is about music. You download the music you want. You don’t, as it used to be, have to go buy a CD, be up to 20 dollars lighter, and then run the risk of only having two or three tracks on the CD that you even like!!

I’ve had arguments with people about this before, and one thing that is brought up is the fact that file-sharing hurts studio musicians and “sidemen” more than it hurts the music companies. This may be, but if you want to get rich (or even get financially successful) don’t become a professional musician, dammit!! Be a musician because you love making music, and are prepared to accept the poverty of the lifestyle, not because you expect a high-paying and successful career.

I think it’s hilarious that these companies are trying as hard as they can to prosecute and screw over people that have been downloading music, and yet filesharing is at an all-time high and almost nobody, is deterred by the thread of lawsuits. I love the fact that music is just being shared now…I’ve always basically been a punk rocker at heart when it comes to music (even though I listen to a wide variety) and I have to say, I love the concept of file-sharing.

Note: make sure you have official permission before you download a song, though, or else it would be illegal.

2

Or they’ll just not be musicians and go do something else to make money. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be rich.

3

The musis industry is basically an industry that exists to make a whole bunch of money for a whole bunch of people that are not the people making the music. People in bands make money off of playing live shows and direct merchandise sales (at shows) - the amount of money that even major label bands make off of actual album sales is peanuts. I write this as a guy in a band on a real label that’s about to leave to go on tour in a few days!

File-sharing is great, because the end result is that more people will go out and see more bands live (that they discovered or heard via file-sharing), which is the real way that they “pay” their heroes. And it doesn’t stop people from buying records! I’ve heard MANY kids tell me “I downloaded this record - it’s great!” as they’re handing me money for a real copy of it. And even if they don’t - who cares? The kid that downloads our record for free and then comes out and pays money at the door ($15) to see us, then buys a t-shirt ($15) and some buttons ($2) has already given us far more money than the guy who just buys the record at the store.

It’s a great way to cut out the middle man (the industry) who really doesn’t deserve to be making money off of any of this anyway, much less ALL the money.

4

I agree that legal download sites are a very good thing. There are far too many artists that I hear who only have a couple of good songs. I’d much rather pay .99 for a song or two. I don’t buy many CDs anymore. If I order online, I have to pay shipping unless I spend a certain amount. I truly deplore going to most stores that sell CDs such as Best Buy or Virgin Music.

I think satellite radio is the best help to music fans. I can hear such a wide vairety of artists and genres. Also, the name of the artist and song is displayed.

5

Concerning the arguement that downloading will impoverish the music industry heres a story that says that people who download spend more on music.

This next link is from the UK, not America but I suspect you’ll see the same thing here :

Wherever I look I see the same pattern : The music industry whining about how downloading music will doom music, while study after study shows the opposite. Frankly, the evidence is that musicians won’t starve to death from downloading; and music distributers themselves might survive if they are willing to change with the times.

To answer the OP : Yes, downloading is good for American ( and other ) music, since it hurts the corporate deadwood more than anyone else. Getting them out of the way will hopefully allow for cheaper music with a broader range than what is available otherwise. Besides, as mentioned it’s very annoying to have to buy a whole CD to get one song.

6

Why don’t you explain that to my son? He’s a music major in college and he released his first CD a year ago. He wrote the music, produced it, paid the studio out of his own pocket, paid the photographer for the cover art, paid the other musicians, paid for the gas to drive to the music stores to get them to put a couple of copies on their shelves, booked himself into some venues (where he had to pay and hope he got that back on ticket sales) so he could sell copies there.

He didn’t expect to get rich off the sales, but he figured he’d sell enough to get his investment back. Of course, after he sold the first few dozen, no one else would buy his CD because someone decided to upload the entire CD, and now everyone can get it for free.

So go ahead and download his stuff. Of course, if you like it, you’ll have to track him down and see him perform live some time, because he doesn’t plan on doing another CD anytime soon.

7

How does he feel about satellite radio? There are station which might play every track of the CD rather than just the “hits.” I think that has been a great asset to music. XM satellite radio even has a station dedicated to unsigned artists.

8

As a slight hijack, what do people think about the ethics of file sharing out of print works?

This is a more difficult one for me.

Music goes out of print. Sometimes you can’t even buy it on Ebay.

Should people who download music which is long out of print be treated the same as those who download CDs of current hits?

9

Well that is certainly a valid argument. “If you want to make money don’t be a musician because we deserve the right to download your music without paying you.”

I listen to a lot of musicians that do not make a lot of money. These people work their asses off to make a living. They record then tour non-stop to make enough to live like any midldle income family. They want to be able to make music and live. They aren’t in it to get rich. Yet you expect them to do the whole ‘starving artist’ thing so YOU and other people like you can steal the product of their hard work.

I’ve met a couple of my favorite players. They do what they do out of love, not for money. They practice 3 to 4 hours or more a day. All they want to do is sell their music to people who like it. They expect to be paid. I am willing to bet that you (if you have a job) expect to be paid for your work, or do you do it for free?

I am not even sure what the hell you are talking about with the peasant/aristocracy bit. It’s not like only rich people could afford a cd before file sharing. What a load. You do realize, don’t you, that you can buy individual songs for most artists for a nominal fee now? Right? You do know that, don’t you? Or are you just trying to justify your theft?

Slee

10

Speaking as a successful and happy professional musician, please let me be the first to tell you to f*ck off, *sshole.

If I weren’t heading out on the road in about 6 hours, I’d happily take you to the pit.

Not about filesharing, but about your comments above. I (and anyone in a similar situation) have just as much right to expect just and fair compensation for our efforts in our career of choice. Admittedly, some careers have a higher success/failure ratio than others, but I’ll put my work ethic, business acumen and general ability in the marketplace up against any cubicle drone in the world.

P*ss off, you ignoramus.

11

File sharing may hurt a few blockbuster acts, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that it helps the workaday musician - those bands that sell 5,000-50,000 albums. They get more exposure, people listen to their music and then want to go see them in concert. And bands who make CDs that sell in that range do not make serious money from the CD sales anyway. From their standpoint, a CD is just a marketing tool to support their live act.

In fact, the major record labels have it rigged so that bands make almost nothing from a CD that doesn’t go at least gold and maybe platinum.

What’s happening right now is good for music, but bad for record companies in the long run. Record companies are losing their reason for existing. In the old days, it took millions of dollars to make a decent album. You needed an expensive recording studio, artists for the cover, mixing facilities, album pressing facilities, advertising, and a distribution network. The record company is the classic ‘middleman’. They add very little value to the music, but they act as the intermediary between the artist and the audience. In exchange they’d take a *very large cut of the proceeds.

But they’re almost unnecessary today. Many artists have their own home studios, and you can put together a credible home studio for less than $5,000. With web sites for marketing and file sharing networks for distribution, record companies fall right out of the loop. THAT is why they are running scared, and it’s also why so many of their efforts are aimed at closing off alternative distribution channels for music completely, and not just illegal file sharing. Look what they did to internet radio, which threatened their monopoly on music distribution.

So how do artists make money in this new world? Lots of ways. Real fans still buy the CDs, even if they can download them. Wilco’s “Yankee Hotel Foxtrot” is a perfect example. After their record company refused to distribute their CD, they put it on their website for free download. They encouraged people to share the Mp3s. And the music was so good that word of mouth caused huge buzz, which forced the studios to re-evaluate the CD. Eventually it was released, and even though it had been available for free on the internet it became by far their best selling CD (I’d say that was because it was available for free).

So artists will still sell their music. They don’t have to sell nearly as much to make the same profit, since the record company isn’t taking its huge slice of the pie. And the wider audience gives them more opportunity to market themselves by playing live, selling T-shirts and other material, etc. Wilco went from playing 500 seat venues to playing 2,000 seat venues after YHF became a hit on the internet. That’s worth a lot of money to the band.

File sharing opens the door to a truly diverse, democratic, vibrant music industry, instead of the packaged top-down, cultivated pap we get from the major record labels. It’s a great thing for the artists and the public.

But the RIAA and the major labels still control so much, and have such clout in Washington that they can act as a major roadblock to a new model of music distribution. That will change when a couple of big acts get fed up and try something new, or when new acts that come out of the internet avoid the commercial music machine and draw audience away and show that there’s a viable model outside of the old system.

12

I’m with you on this.

Can you give me an objective definition of good music? Rap albums seem to sell a lot and that’s not very good music in my opinion. Lot’s of people seem to disagree with me though. Bloated corporations also front money for concerts and venues like the Coca-Cola, er, I mean Smirnoff Starplex in Dallas. If there’s a profit to be made you’ll see corporations getting involved.

This isn’t 1955 and the white establishment no longer fears that negro lovin’ music called rock’n roll. You could probably make that case for rap though. Face it, rock is part of the establishment now.

I don’t buy a lot of CDs. Over the past 12 years I’ve collected a little over 100 and very few of them only have one or two tracks I enjoy.

Most people who love music will play regardless of income. Still, they shouldn’t be relegated to poverty just because you think they shouldn’t make a decent income. I have no objections to the obscene amounts of money some artist make. Why should I?

I’ve never been a punk rocker, to mature I guess, but I also like the concept of file sharing. I think it will fundamentally change the way we purchase and listen to music. It might even have just as great an affect on how we listen to music as records did.

Cute.

Marc

13

kunilou, I’m sorry about your son’s experience. But I think it’s a bit premature to put the blame on downloads. Most musicians either wait to produce and album until they have a moderately-loyal local live following who start asking them “wheres your album?”, or else they expect to take a hit on their first album (and produce it dirt cheap) in order to use it as a promotion tool.

In fact, I think this is a good example of the failures of a flawed business plan being blamed on file-sharing. The record industry is a failing industry. Now that they no longer control access to recording studios and distribution channels, the record industry has no way to keep making money except to convince congress (with the largest lobbying group in America) to legislate the dinosaur into continued existance.

The record industry does not contribute to the artisitic vitality of our country. If anything, they hurt it. I see no reason why we should not allow them to wither away. Then maybe we can start having some rational discussion between musicians and their fans about the role of filesharing.

14

Argent Towers, I’m not really sure where you get your ideas about what the musician/fan relationship is supposed to be like, but you are way off.

sleestak and picker already took you to task, but let me be the third.

I don’t think you ought to be telling people why they should be making music. Perhaps you’d like to think that all ‘true’ musicians would be willing to live in poverty in order to have the privledge of pouring out their souls into their music and so inspire listeners to new heights of empathy. And, maybe for some that’s exactly how it is. But there are plenty of others who would like to live above the poverty line.

The idea that only starving, tortured artists make music worth listening to is the biggest lie in the book, and is an insult to all of the musicians who try to make financially reliable careers out of what they love.

15

That isn’t what I said.

What I mean is that I hope someday soon the incentive for making music, to young people considering a career in music, is NOT to be a big-time rock/rap star and become a millionaire and have nice cars and expensive prostitutes. The incentive is just to make music for the sake of making music.

16

I don’t know. That seemed pretty clear to me.

But be that as it may, the incentive for any career is, well, money. I can do music as a hobby. The reason to turn it into something more than what I do in my free time is to make my living at it. Making music just for the sake of making music does not a professional musician make. I need to be able to have the freedom to focus on music primarilly, and that requires money.

17

Surely you can make a living at music without massive CD sales. It’s been argued (right in this thread) that file sharing is better for independent artists, and that bands that become popular through their online songs and their shows will benefit from the attention, like Wilco?

18

Sure, and I’m not necessarially arguing against file sharing. I just have a hard time with the line of reasoning that file sharing is ok because, well, musicians shouldn’t be concerned with making money anyway; it should be all about the music after all.

19

How about this. I hope someday soon we don’t see greedy fire fighters, police officers, teachers and nurses walking picket lines so they can pay their mortgages and student loans. The incentive is just to fight fires, arrest bad guys, teach kids and take care of sick people for the sake of it.

If you think greedy rock/rap stars and their record companies make too much money, you have every right not to buy their products. On the other hand, if you want to listen to their products, you should pay for it.

20

picker:

[Moderator Hat ON]

picker, this is NOT appropriate for this forum. Do not do this again.

[Moderator Hat OFF]