If you're not up to speed on the Lily Allen's "controversial" stand on file-sharing, check this out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/sep/24/behind-music-industry-war
If we're going to be honest with ourselves, we all know that file sharing is not good for musicians, at least the way it exists right now. At least from a short-term financial standpoint. And for those trying to break into the business, short-term is really all they have, as the majors have little tolerance for sitting around and watching to see if a band develops. Now, file-sharing may create a substantial buzz for a band, which is great publicity and all, but shouldn't said band be receiving some royalties for every time their song is downloaded?
I'm bringing up the old debate, though. The fact is, the music industry blew it and now they're backpedalling, trying to figure out a way to get out of this mess. Faulting the individual file-sharers isn't the answer. The technology exists, it's easy to use, people love music, so of course they are going to do it. Maybe it's illegal, but virtual illegality seems a lot less harmful than actually walking into a Virgin Megastore (when there were such things) and tucking a copy of Led Zeppelin IV under one's shirt and walking out the door. And is it really that different than making a mix tape for a friend and passing it on?
Well yes, because now you can make mix tapes for thousands and thousands of your "closest" internet buddies. Maybe the file-sharing sites themselves should be sending out checks to ASCAP, BMI, the RIAA, or directly to the bands that are downloaded the most. Send someone some money! But obviously they aren't making enough money beyond a trickle of ad revenue to make the checks amount to anything substantial.
I was actually reading up on Frank Zappa yesterday and read something very interesting. Apparently in the mid to late '80s, he had an idea of transferring music via phone or cable lines, directly to the music consumer, with built in software that would account for royalty collection. Zappa dismissed it as a bad idea, but who knew, he was 20 years ahead of his time.
That's where the music industry blew it. They sat on their pot of gold that they earned from ripping off consumers with overpriced cd's and they assumed that it would last forever. If they would have been forward thinking enough in the early to mid '90s, they would have developed the software that could have set the standard for the digital age of music. Instead they watched in horror as the Napsters, Kazaas, and Pirate Bays of the world took the lead. They whined and sued and panicked, but it didn't stop the natural progression of technology and the inevitable destruction of the old order, which continues to this very day.
All this clamouring over who's right and who's wrong seems a little silly to me. Yeah, it does kind of make it hard for new artists to make it when there is little income for them, yet it doesn't mean that it can't happen or that the solution is in somehow ending file-sharing, because that certainly isn't going to happen.
Really, the music industry is facing the same problem that the whole of America is facing: how do we get money flowing like it used to when we actually manufactured stuff? Technology and progress are wonderful things, but they create a lot of challenges and questions. There's no sense fighting it. The best thing to do is to embrace it and start thinking creatively.
I think beyond gimmicks, it's going to be about 1.) quality and 2.) creating an experience that people can't get on their own. I read a quote from Joel Madden of the group Good Charlotte that encapsulates the whole "experience" issue:
" my biggest frustration is that kids today won't get the same excitement I did running to sam goody or tower and buying the album I'd been waiting for, running home and opening it reading it the whole way thru while I listened. That's why we are here in the first place. The experience. Seems like its gone."
That particular "experience" may be gone, but that doesn't mean new, maybe even better experiences can't be formulated. Here's a novel idea: how about creating experiences that don't rip off the consumer like the Sam Goody's of the world were notorious for (almost $20 for a CD...come on guys!). Record labels and artists are going to have to create that experience through websites and through innovative approaches that connect them closer to their audience than bands in the past could ever dream of. It may not be the same as unpeeling the cellophane off of a vinyl record or cd jewel case, but I think there are unlimited directions one can go in with the internet when it comes to creating an "experience". Forget the old ways, guys and gals, it's time to embrace the 21st century and start creating new experiences. Just like they say in one of my favorite movies, the ever-so-cheesy, yet heartwarming, "Field of Dreams": People will come. I think it's going to take the right combination of giving away tons of music, creating a whole lot of interesting concert opportunities, maybe re-inventing the idea of the fan club, and creating website content that blows people away. Oh yeah, and it's gonna take a whole lot of serious legwork, too, but in the end, people will come. And if you give them something to be excited about, they'll even pay for it! Just watch.
Eventually the industry will find its footing. And I hope the ones who benefit in the long run are the hard-working, talented artists and the fans. Let the backward thinking big-time executives and major labels fall by the wayside!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As a writer and indie publisher, I see similar issues with books. A number of authors are doing well by podcasting their books for free, then selling them later, and they assure me that giving away lots of material is good for business.
Book prices are hard to keep down. If I sell to a bookstore, the distributor, wholesaler, & bookstore all get a cut. There's the cost of book production, and marketing expenses add up quickly, even when you do it on the cheap. You might be surprised at how little of that $20 CD actually gets to an executive--they get big bucks on volume, and that doesn't count the losses on new and declining acts. While I would agree that they haven't grown with the times, I think calling it greed is oversimplification.
I worry not just about the artists, but also the support people whose living depends on these recordings--the engineers, the studio musicians, songwriters, administrative personnel, etc. The new paradigm somehow needs to make room for these folks, too.
Nadine, you do bring up a good point about all the behind the scenes people who are affected by the struggling industry. I too, hope that however the music industry manages to move on, it will include these people.
Yes, there are definitely many factors involved in the price of CDs or books or what have you. I do stand by my stance on the greed of these labels. The manufacturing cost for a CD is extremely low. Even accounting for who gets what piece of the pie, most of what the major labels were getting was pure profit. And yes, to some extent everyone benefitted from this.
However, what bothers me most is that when Napster came on to the radar in the mid '90s, instead of trying to embrace the technology, they sued. They continued to take this stance up until fairly recently. It was a huge waste of time doing so. While they complained about the drop in CD sales and basically called consumers theives, the world was moving on. It's unfortunate for artists and all the engineers, admin people, and so on--absolutely. But I blame industry heads who could have and should have taken a different stance in the face of the changing marketplace. Maybe the greed isn't what really bothers me, but the stubbornness and finger pointing.
Personally, I think in the long run, the state of the industry will benefit indie labels and the "little guy" because the playing field has been levelled. In the meantime, it is sad to see record stores close and artist friendly distributors fold. Obviously the industry in in a state of flux, but I think there is a lot of space for creativity in how it is reinvented.
Post a Comment