For a long time I have been a Courtney Love anti-fan. I have even been known to go so far as joking (in extremely poor taste) that if she were my wife I would have killed myself, too.
But today, things are different. In an article on salon.com, I had the pleasure of reading a speech she gave about music piracy. To my surprise, the speech was intelligent, well thought-out, and articulate. She made some very strong points (who the real pirates are, music as a service and not a product, sponsorship, art vs. money, etc), and it is obvious that she has taken some time to research the issue and form an informed and valid opinion.
She is the first artist I’ve heard who acknowledges the fact that the record companies are the ones ripping off the artists, not listeners who download mp3 files. When I download an mp3 and I like it, there is a good chance I’ll end up buying the cd. In the last year I have listened to a great many mp3 songs for free, and in that time I have also bought probably upwards of 50 cd’s, primarily from artists whose songs I had previously downloaded. It’s obvious to me, and I would think that more artists would agree, that just as with radio, anything that gets more people listening to your music is a good thing.
Recommended reading for everybody who cares about either the future of digital music or gasp Courtney Love. I may even buy one of her albums.
Courtney Love has always surprised me. I enjoy her music, and in interviews, she comes across as an intelligent, well-read woman with a biting sense of humor. She is also politically active. I saw part of the speech she gave at the Million Mom March, and I’ve seen her speak on issues like suicide and drug abuse.
PS . . . if you buy an album of hers, buy * Live Through This * (a minor masterpiece) or * My Body The Hand Grenade * which is b-sides and unreleased cuts. The song “20 Years in the Dakota” is worth the purchase of the latter, in my opinion.
I think Courtney Love is a phenomenal musician and a pretty decent actress. She’s bright, talented, aticulate, and sexy as hell. I also think she’s a sociopath.
Assuming that nothing is worked out to pay artists for their music download, the future is clear (and bleak).
As Napster takes over, CD sales go down. You may still be buying them now, but you will eventually stop. After all, everyone complains that they don’t want to shell out CD prices and only like one or two songs on the disk. So when people will be feely able to download only the songs they like, why should they pay what they consider too much to get the rest that they don’t like? Once things like the Reo player are commonly available, there would never be a need to buy a CD anyway and you could just get a CD burner if you really want to play CDs.
The record companies would figure out ways to profit. For instance, each would set up a website on a fast server, filled with their artists (or MP3s they’ve picked up for nothing). They’d let you download for free, and not pay the artists (if Napster doesn’t have to, why should they?). They’d make money by selling ads (and maybe subscriptions). This would go to them, not to the artists.
Fewer new artists would be able to break through. The record companies aren’t going to front the money it takes to make someone a hit. Let the musicians do it themselves: book the studio time, pay for their CDs, create the MP3s. If the songs become popular, put them on a compilation CD that you know will sell. (Remember, part of the money the record companies make from their best selling artists goes to developing new artists and supporting artists that are good, but will never have a gold record.)
People would be forced to write and record their own MP3s and hope to get people interested in their CDs. But the sheer volume of MP3s will make it next to impossible for anyone to be noticed (unless the record company puts it on their website, of course). The only way you hear about a new group is ultimately due to the efforts of the record companies to promote it. Individuals don’t have that sort of marketing clout, and without it, they get lost in the shuffle.
Most MP3s will be utter crap (Sturgeon’s Law). One of the important functions of the record companies is to act as a gatekeeper; if you think the CDs they put out are bad, you should hear the acts that they turn down. There are 38,000 CDs created each year, about 7000 by the big record companies. How many of those 38,000 can you name? And it will be worse when anyone with a recorder can make an MP3 and put it on the net.
Musicians won’t be able to count on CD sales as the major part of their income (those groups you’re downloading do). Concert income won’t make up for it. According to the figures I’ve seen, people spend 100 times the money on CDs than the do on concerts. In order to make that up, ticket prices would have to go through the roof – and with all the free music around, the number of groups that can make a living giving concerts, already very small, will shrink to nearly zero.
Musicians could make money due to radio airplay (for which they are paid – unlike Napster). Unfortunately, the record companies are currently the only ones able to get a new artist on the air – they send out CDs to all the stations and hype groups and songs. Further, record companies get no direct compensation from the radio stations; they hope to make their income from the CDs sales that result. If the record companies aren’t selling as many CDs, they have little incentive to keep pushing for radio airplay. Let people come to their website. Also, groups that don’t get much radio airplay – because they don’t fit into the very restrictive formats around these days – are out of luck.
Now, the record companies are bastards and will screw the artists every chance they get. But the only protection a musician has is the ability to keep control of his music. If this is lost through Napster and MP3s, the big record companies will get richer, while the musicians get screwed. And if musicians can’t make a living with their music (forget about becoming rich), there will be fewer people creating music simply because they can’t afford to quit their day jobs. Musicians will go back to being dependant on handouts and patrons in order to survive.
Napster has the ability to help new musicans by paying them a royalty for the music being downloaded. By this simple expedient, they can support the musicians and even screw it to the record companies. But that would cut into Napster’s profits. When a record company makes $1 million, some of that goes to the musicians, either directly through royalties or indirectly in promotion and sponsorship. When Napster makes $1 million, it all goes to Napster and to hell with the musicians. Talk about greedy. . . .
Ok, first of all, how do you justify your statements? “as napter takes over, cd sales go down”??? How then, did the record industry post record sales (an 8% increase in cd sales in the first quarter of this year) fully two years after the advent of the mp3 format?
Then you go on to say that it’s good for a record company to force me to buy 8 tracks of crap when I want only two songs. How is that good?
Let’s not even get into the fact that commercially produced CD’s cost significantly under one dollar to make (current estimates I’ve read hover between .50 and .75 each), yet are sold for nearly $20…a 4000% markup is not too shabby, is it?
Do you by any chance happen to work for a record company, or have friends who do?
By the way, the Rio (check your spelling) player has been available for a long time. And I’ve had a cd burner for nearly two years. Has it stopped me from buying CD’s? Nope. Only the arrogant behavior of the RIAA and its constituent companies are causing me to buy fewer CD’s.
You didn’t happen to read the article I linked, did you? I didn’t think so.
Besides, Artists aren’t being paid NOW by their record companies. How is it any worse if somebody ELSE isn’t paying them?
Sorry if I seem short. Your arguments are making my head hurt. You sound like a PR man for Time/Warner (NO OFFENSE, SAXFACE!! ).
Read the article. I think Courtney Love’s opinion on how artists are treated by their labels is a little more valid and carries a bit more weight in my eyes than yours does.
RealityChuck, I think you underestimate music by a mite. Music’s been around a hell of a lot longer than recording technologies, or economies of scale, or even money for that matter. It’s not going anywhere.
I don’t know how many musicians you know, but you make some dubious conclusions about them:
Every musician I’ve ever met has had to do this already. Granted, I’ve never met Justin Timberlake.
It already is.
If you can’t name them, they’re crap? I don’t get that. I’m sure I could name 10 albums you’ve never heard of that I think are nothing short of genius. People have different tastes.
How is that any different from the current system?
First off, most people that make music really enjoy it. They may also have dreams of fame and riches, but when these don’t materialize (and they rarely do) they keep making music. Second, there are a lot of ways to make a living in music without being a rock star. I know a guy who does a lounge act on weekends, a woman who gives guitar lessons, a guy who writes and performs in musicals at a local theater, and a guy who writes soundtracks for computer games. Some just get by and some do very well, but they all seem to be pretty happy and they all keep making music.
).