If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available where you live, is there any excuse for downloading them instead of buying them?

Eventually, the credit system may turn into a sort of public utility and everyone will have an account and a monthly bill--your electronic credit life would be hooked up to a meter just like your electricity.

this is one of the main indicators and fears of the end times. We will have bar codes in our necks and then the rapture.

There was an interview with Trent Reznor that digg.com did recently where he goes over the new business models NIN and similar bands have been trying. It was quite illuminating - on one hand, he pointed out that Saul Williams made more money selling his album direct downloads online (as it cut out the middlemen) than he might have in an oldschool model, even though I think he sold less units than he might have otherwise.

But on the otherhand, Reznor admitted that NIN (and I guess Radiohead, dont recall wether he mentioned them) mainly worked with this model as they have a massive established and computer-savvy fanbase. I think he conceded to an extent that new bands would struggle this way. I guess because marketing and distrubtion have gone out the window?

My bf has his works up on Bandcamp, where you can choose to give away or set a price for your music. He's made a little pin money, but only on one "name your price" ep he's offering. Another where he said "set price for high quality or free for low quality" everyone just downloaded the low qual, so he gave up on the idea.

my friends' have had a coupla tapes and cdrs out on labels like n0tnotfun and digitalis and they usually just give me a copy of their stuff and I'm able to find rars of their tapes on teh blogs or on slsk for ipod listeningz, I'm pretty sure they like that that stuff's out there.

but having said that they do all have jobs and aren't poor.

now ok i can respect somebody (somebodies?) like grizzly bear for putting their new album up on amazon for $3.99. that's a smart move, even if it's just for the first week or something. boost the sales, maybe get on the charts (how are the charts dealing with massive discounting? i wouldn't want to be billboard right now). based on the songs i got for free off the MUSIC BLOGZ, i'm afraid i'm not actually into grizzly bear enough to pay $3.99. but i definitely wouldn't have paid more, so it's not like they're losing anything.

Grizzly Bear just got a really good write-up in SPIN, so if there is a market that buys downloads but ignores the blog culture, they have a window of good sales potential.

The charts at one point were penalizing acts for selling cd singles really cheap, back in the cd single days. I remember buying an Outkast radio edit cd single for 10 cents or something dumb. who knows what happens to charts these days. I hope nobody cut and pastes that information.

"Furthermore, the 'not super rich' parameter is a red herring - what's right or wrong with being super rich? I will enjoy purchasing the new remaster of 'Goats Head Soup' tomorrow - I can't tell you how many times and in how many forms I've paid for Rolling Stones, David Bowie, etc"

i've been thinking about this lately, as i'm in the process of releasing a pop album in indonesia, and the financial rewards for having a smash hit record are noticeably smaller than they are in the states. and i was thinking that one of the driving forces behind america and england's excellent music scenes is the notion that if you have a hit record you can make gazillions of dollars and live like a king/queen. it's not the only consideration obviously, but i think i hightens the mystique of being a rock star and attracts talented people to the field in higher numbers than if all you had to look forward to by being famous was a life on the road and a lower-middle class lifestyle (which of course is what 99.999% of all artists have to look forward to as a best case scenario)

ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music.

ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music.

You might actually see an increase in quality, as the field would probably be crowded with less mediocrity and garbage.

http://hemasunder.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/censorship.jpg

yeah you guys this shit is real, the government came into this thread and denied people their right to free speech, we have to take this v. v. seriously

ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music.

oh you mean like giving bankers ridiculously huge salaries made our banking system so great?

Or our healthcare system so awesome or our sports so fantastic. . .

Still, the quality of our MPs are set to nosedive soon.

sports are pretty rad IMO

Sure, but it's hard to argue that the quality has been improved by outlandish salaries.

well, i would argue that i think the current system is better than the old system when the owners basically paid and treated the players like shit and held them to unfair contracts.

I think illegal downloading is at least "seriously injuring" music unless and until some new business models are found.

i have way too much to say about this topic to even start typing about it in any orderly fashion (i would like to draw a flow chart), and am totally pro-downloading in a couple of different ways, but the thing above seems kinda selective, like a lot of the arguments do - i think the idea that it's injuring music, rather than possibly financially impairing a specific strata of musicians, is wrong. is there any way to gauge the effect of sales dropping against the whole marshall mcluhan wiring of the world opportunity for people to hear music now, to hear groups who never would have left their neighbourhood or shores before? the internet has kindled a love of music and an idea of its breadth in people. new models probably are needed but it's still like the radio being invented or something monumental.

I don't think downloading is injuring music.

I do think downloading is injuring musicians.

The biggest change I can see coming out of this is the majority of future musicians whose music will be consumed by the mainstream will come from people who are not 100% dedicated to being in the entertainment industry; you will see more "hobbyists" (for lack of a better term) with day jobs who take the time and energy to do the things they want to do but still need to follow other professions in order to make a living. Hell, I see it already with pretty much every single person I know who is actively pursuing a career as a professional musician except for the people playing with major symphonies, and even there they are also deeply into music education. The whole concept of "making it" is going to be radically different because the payoff that lets you focus exclusively on being a musician is going to be even rarer than it is now.

It's a bit like the number of foreigners in the Premiership, it's only compressing the middle, not the top surely? I mean, if you're Coldplay/Duffy/Kings of Leon you're probably still doing pretty fucking well for yourselves I'd imagine?

"well, i would argue that i think the current system is better than the old system when the owners basically paid and treated the players like shit and held them to unfair contracts."

Totally agree.

But I still don't think it's improved the quality of the games (any of them.)

i mean, to be honest i can't even say wrt to sports because i think that even the relatively lower paid era when i was a kid was still pretty glossy compared to the "old days", like it's not like the showtime lakers were slaving away in obscurity and poverty...

i just wanted to say that because people get so bent out of shape about sports contracts and stuff and it's like, well, this much money is generated, and i'd always rather it go to the players than the owners. not like it's gonna go to the salvation army or something if lebron takes a paycut

I'd rather games be marginally affordable frankly to most people, frankly.

Not blaming the fact that the aren't on the players though.

no doubt, i mourned having to finally give up my season tix to the vikings but it had just grown from like $580 a year to like nearly $900 i think

Also frankly.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6518&edition=1&ttl=20090529172832

i buy stuff by people I care about. this amounts to about seven different artists. I don't really download anything new now either.

if you ask anyone who runs an independent label if downloading is hurting their sales, in my experience, they will say yes. they sell fewer items now than they used to. it's not because, across the board, their roster has gotten worse or less worthy. they physically move fewer items. the degrees of bitterness about this are kind of across the spectrum. Our label (Silber Records) spends a fair amount of time hitting rapidshare and stuff and getting items removed. But he's said the worst thing are the russian mp3 sites which charge for music and never pay the labels (though it's doubtful anyone is actually buying that stuff from there, it is annoying to see it).

"ergo, if you start begrudging our biggest stars their ludicrous salaries, you might see a corresponding decline in the quality of western pop music."

"oh you mean like giving bankers ridiculously huge salaries made our banking system so great?"

no, the bankers in the case are the managers/label owners/a&r jerks who make loads but dont really contribute much... and their loss has always tempered my moral indignation at the concept of free downloads (well that and the free lunch) but the truth is the economy hurting record sales just means the scumback manager types are moving into live shows and starting to take a bigger cut of THAT. and wheras before pretty much all the cash from the live shows went to the musician and his team, now, like, live nation or whatever wants a cut...

but yes, i do think the vast rewards available really does attract a certain amount of actual artistic talent. probably a fair number of musicians/groups/producers etc that you love were suckered into the life by the dream of being a rich rock star, doncha think?

The biggest change I can see coming out of this is the majority of future musicians whose music will be consumed by the mainstream will come from people who are not 100% dedicated to being in the entertainment industry; you will see more "hobbyists" (for lack of a better term) with day jobs who take the time and energy to do the things they want to do but still need to follow other professions in order to make a living.

It'll be like writers, except people will actually know who you are!

It's not as though bands that have "made it" are relying solely on the poor saps who still shell out for CDs. A good portion of their income also comes from touring. People still want to see live music.

"probably a fair number of musicians/groups/producers etc that you love were suckered into the life by the dream of being a rich rock star, doncha think?"

Maybe, but really who cares? I don't see any evidence that they quality of music declines when ridiculous amounts of money aren't involved.

I can't keep up with all the good music coming out right now. I seriously doubt "piracy" is harming music. It's probably not making moderately talented people hyper-wealthy but that's not a bad thing. If you're making music for money, you're in the wrong business. Art should be made for the love of it, not for the financial gain. If you want money, tour and be very good at what you do. If you're talented and release quality products, you'll make your money. Saying file sharing is killing music is just stupid though. I download a handful of albums and single tracks everyday but I still spend 300 bucks a month at the record shop. Mostly on used product. If the artist isn't making money on the used promos i'm buying, why aren't they complaining about that or shutting down the used shops for selling promos?

Also, this is pretty rich coming from a forum overrun by critics and people who receive loads of promos. I'd bet a majority of leaks are coming from this same demographic. How many people who receive promos sell them back to record shops when the label clearly says not to?

Now on the other hand if downloads were hurting the amount of pussy that musicians get well woo boy I'll bet a lot of people would start finding new professions quick.

I know someone who did (buy from russian sites) and did it thinking it was the righteous non-theivy thing to do. Then he started using yahoo music, which as far as I can tell, didn't do much better in terms of compensation.

w/r/t Finnish rappers, I think switching to rapping in English would grow their potential audience far more than unendorsed downloads could hurt them, if financial viability is truly the name of the game (but is rapping in English seen as fronting?) Also, it's mind-boggling to think that Finnish rap could exist in the first place without an active trading culture (like for stateside rap/metal/etc...) Is the way the Finnish rap scene came into being fundamentally different from other places?

the whole "people only join bands to get laid thing" is so dumb...

Also, this is pretty rich coming from a forum overrun by critics and people who receive loads of promos. I'd bet a majority of leaks are coming from this same demographic. How many people who receive promos sell them back to record shops when the label clearly says not to?

ilm threads are full of journos saying they sold promos at second hand shops/ebay

xp it was a joke, M@tt.

It's just as wrong to sell a promo as it is to download an album without paying.

What's the best thing to do with a promo you don't want, then?

^^^^ shd be a list thread

The best thing to do is to sell it and also stop bitching about people downloading.

send it to a kid in bangladesh who has to try to survive on 2 promos a year.

use it as building material for your promo fort

Art should be made for the love of it, not for the financial gain.

Interestingly this is also true of whatever it is you do to pay the bills.

If you want money, tour and be very good at what you do. If you're talented and release quality products, you'll make your money.

This came up in one of the other recent downloading threads - the idea that touring is always profitable. The thing is, that's not true. Part of what made touring profitable in the past is that musicians would have new audiences that would buy recordings. For a lot of bands, merch sales made touring profitable as opposed to, at best, a break even proposition. So, now that they're selling fewer CDs/records, do you think the venues are going to give bands higher guarantees or percentages? Don't think so.

One could argue that the music fan is going to use the money they would have spent on buying music (that they instead download for free) to see more shows, and that live audiences would grow. But, from everything I've heard, that's not the case.

^^^^^^^^

since I make my living in the industry & have no complaints, I try not to mouth off too much about this question, but "art should be made for the love of it, not financial gain" line must always be called out as the nonsense it is: tell that to Mozart or the Beatles for Christ's sake. then go back in time and kill all the romantic poets so we don't have to suffer this "only art that's made for love of art and without thought of profit is any good" nonsense for even a second longer.