Please read this... and repost anywhere you can

[blue2blue]

 

From David Lowery, found of Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker. No one can afford NOT to read this. http://wp.me/p2hvgt-uq

First, I only had a chance to scan the lede and first 'graph or two of Lowery's piece.

 

If musicians are going to turn around the culture of musicians not being paid for their efforts, they're going to have to do a lot more of this, putting a human face on the situation -- and hopefully displacing the ugly and distorted face of the music biz as most people see it.

 

One thing that can help is musicians building more direct relationships with fans. When music consumers think that their record-buying dollars mostly don't go to the musicians (which has largely been true under the old, and still extant model), they find it much easier to persuade themselves that illicit copying 'doesn't hurt anyone.'

 

I think a lot of us would like to think that many of the scofflaws are also buying a lot of music -- but in the case of the young woman that was the exemplar/focus of the piece, it's clear that she was pretty much just someone who probably only bought a record as a last resort.

 

Now, you know, a lot of us probably aren't going to shed too many tears if someone cops a Britney Spears or Madonna record, principles notwithstanding.

 

But this young woman was apparently a college station music director -- and I strongly suspect most of the artists she 'collected' were as broke as any college student -- and probably many are a lot more broke.

[Raymar]

The amount of music I've downloaded for free is greatly dwarfed by the music I've bought over the years. But the most amount of music I've "consumed" has been free from the radio and TV. Hands down the smallest amount of music I've consumed is live music. Also I don't charge myself for all the music I've written, the hours of self medicating mindless noodling, or the live performances of other people's music I've played for myself on the guitar everyday.

[blue2blue]

An addendum to my thoughts above on relative poverty being used as a justification for illicit copying...

 

With the extraordinary bargains music lovers have among legitimate/legal delivery models -- stuff like MOG, Rdio, Spotify, where you can get virtual CD quality 320 kbps streams to your desktop computer for as little as $5 a month (MOG) and on demand music to your phone and desktop for $10 -- with coverage of all but the most obscure fringe stuff (and a very small handful of dinosaur bands from the 70s), it seems pretty shameless to me to feel justified in illicit copying.

[A. Einstein]

People willingly do not wanna pay for something which is available for free. Why should they, in most countries ot is not ven against the law ro get what you want on the net for free. Educating people that stealing isn't right doesn't work. When it is stolen, then it is is a matter for the jurisdiction.

 

People lamenting about lost sales in a business they are not involded in, is stupid behaviour, ot does anyone car how many companies go bankrupt of which he owns not one share share?

 

There are about 12 million songs available as digital download in 2012. That's not even 10% of all songs ever recorded. The record company transfer daily more songs to the digital format for selling them via the net.

 

The statement of the music industry that they loose money because people get the music for free is simply wrong. The reasons why the music industry is lamenting about lost sales is also clear, they screwed it up right at the beginning, each company wanted to cook their own little soup, and it took until 2007 until the last CEO realized that the most effective way to sell in the digital age is to sell it thru the digital sales portalsNo body goes from record company shop to record company shop for getting all the songs they want to buy.

 

The music industry is doing better then ever. People who don't know how to manage success go away, new people come.

[rjt]

I'm not sure it will have much or any impact, but it was a thoughtfully written letter/blog. Unfortunately, he was preaching to the choir. Thanks for sharing it.

[A. Einstein]

OK, gosh, you're right. No one ever learns anything. I'm very sorry I posted this.

 

It is not about you, but you made the title of the thread:

 

Please read this... and repost anywhere you can.

 

Even when this article would be tattooed of the belly of those scalawags they wouldn't read it, and when they would read it they would not understand what it is about, but it is often that way when professors with no practical experience blah blah something they have no practical experience in, selling music is not a theory.

[JeffLearman]

I'm surprised that he says that contributors to Creative Commons are de facto thieves.

 

My knowledge about CC is lmited to their licenses and labeling, which make it easy for people without legal training to clearly mark, with full legal backing in scores of countries, what people can and can't do with material they post. IMHO that's a serious positive benefit for those who want to protect the intellectual property rights of material they've posted.

 

Perhaps that's just the tip of the iceberg, underneath which they're lobbying and sinking titanics. If anyone knows about this please pipe up; I'm interested.

[A. Einstein]

 

contributors to Creative Commons are de facto thieves

 

 

the creator of a work is free to do with it what he likes, he can also throw it out the window when nobody stand outside

 

also artist who give their music to Simfy, CD Baby, TuneCore... have the freedom to give their music away for free. What this artist do not know is, that for example Simfy pays royalties only to major companies, any other artist doesn't see a cent

[MrKnobs]

I guess you're drunk again.

 

 

 

Terry D.

[Lee Flier]

 

Yeah, people learn. Sometimes. This chick? probably not? Via this lesson? Probably less so.

 

 

Wow. How the hell could you even know that?

 

 

I appreciate his earnestness, but he's missing the forest for the trees here if he thinks the major issue is that people like her---and not just some teenaged girl, but someone who works WITH artists and music every day!---is that they just don't "understand" how badly what they do affects artists.

 

 

I don't see where he says that what he wrote would solve all the ills of the music biz. He simply zeroes in on a very specific problem with a specific group of people, and how their moral justifications for downloading music illegally are 1) wrong, and 2) affect the artists they claim to love.

 

 

Do you think that PART of the problem might be that so much of the stuff released last year was CRAP? And not just crap in terms of "Oh, my but doesn't Katy Perry suck as an artist" but CRAP as in "has little appeal to the public."

 

 

Little appeal to WHAT public? We all know there are certain artists that have "mass appeal" but the ones who've suffered the most, really, are those who managed to find a good "niche" audience. Not rich pop stars, but people who could make a decent living playing to a smaller but enthusiastic audience, many of whom do really, really good work. Exactly the kinds of artists, in fact, who most appeal to college students. Lowery himself was one of those people, but now you have college students who can't even go to see many of their favorite bands because they can't afford to tour.

 

So yes, there's a lot of crap out there. But there's a lot of music still that people want to hear, and yet they won't pay for it. This is what the article is meant to address.

[Lee Flier]

 

About the 11,000 songs and the calculations. Pointless, as people only HAVE 11,000 songs when they don't have to pay for them. They wouldn't have purchased maybe 90% of those unless they were DJs. The kids I know all have HUGE mp3 collections but only because they stole them. They don't even listen to many of them more than once, they're just hoarding. No way they'd have paid for them.

 

 

I agree, but I don't think the intent was to assume that someone would have paid for the 11,000 songs. I think it was to show that even if you did pay for all 11,000 songs, it really wouldn't amount to much money per month and would have a big impact on the artist's income (as he pointed out, many people think "it's OK to download stuff illegally because it's just the record label that's getting ripped off, the artist wouldn't get anything anyway."), especially if they're the songwriter.

 

Now do the math for all the songs you actually WOULD pay for, and it's an even smaller figure... compare that, as he does in the article, with all the OTHER {censored} kids are willing to pay a lot more for.

[nat whilk II]

So you own a liquor store. Your inventory is protected from theft not absolutely, but enough that it's pretty damn "inconvenient" to the average citizen to consider walking off with a bottle of scotch without paying. You've got heavy glass, alarms, locks, employees, a firearm under the counter, and even the police might help out (maybe.)

 

But someone comes along and invents a gizmo like the Star Trek transporter that lets you sight right into any liquor store, aim a beam on any bottle, and it's transported to wherever they are. Once they have their beamed-in bottle, the gizmo can duplicate it, too. The gizmos sell like crazy, soon there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of these things. Almost one for every person in the city.

 

How long will you stay in business? Will the tiny minority of well-meaning and ethical folks who actually pay you make a difference?

 

It's a tsunami of the most predictable and regrettable aspects of human nature -

 

I'd love to be convinced otherwise....but surely it's all going to have to evolve into some other model that involves a scarcity factor that has, for right now, been factored out.

 

nat whilk ii

[Rekel]

I guess you're drunk again.

 

[A. Einstein]

In the morning after the night potatoes can be transported thru the net, farmer Joe will step in front of his house and look at his empty field. Apart from that nothing will happen except people with a modem eat free potatoe.

[scarecrowbob]

"In the morning after the night potatoes can be transported thru the net, farmer Joe will step in front of his house and look at his empty field. Apart from that nothing will happen except people with a modem eat free potatoe."

 

I like how this is where the conversation goes.

 

It is should be more or less obvious that in the case of potatoes (and probably -not- music) people who could create and distribute infinite food at minimal cost but withheld it from hungry people for limited personal gain are, frankly, unethical.

 

Too bad music isn't really like food, or at least we'd have that part of our human experience solved.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Wow. How the hell could you even know that?

 

 

I'm only saying "probably", and again basing it on what her job is and the fact that she felt guilty enough already to write a blog about it, I really doubt that the article said anything she hasn't heard before. Yes, he said it all very well, but I seriously doubt any of it was new to her. And if hasn't sunk in already, I doubt this will change it.

 

 

 

I don't see where he says that what he wrote would solve all the ills of the music biz. He simply zeroes in on a very specific problem with a specific group of people, and how their moral justifications for downloading music illegally are 1) wrong, and 2) affect the artists they claim to love.

Yes. And I agree with him. I just don't see it having any meaningful effect.

 

 

Little appeal to WHAT public? We all know there are certain artists that have "mass appeal" but the ones who've suffered the most, really, are those who managed to find a good "niche" audience. Not rich pop stars, but people who could make a decent living playing to a smaller but enthusiastic audience, many of whom do really, really good work. Exactly the kinds of artists, in fact, who most appeal to college students. Lowery himself was one of those people, but now you have college students who can't even go to see many of their favorite bands because they can't afford to tour.

 

 

Two things wrong with this:

 

1) how does free downloading affect any artists ability to play for smaller but enthusiastic artists? If anything, it should INCREASE their reach and their fanbase.

 

2) the fact that Lowery is considered one of those people is part of the problem. Lowery was hip when I was in college. What the hell are college kids doing listening to artists that are twice their age? That's what I'm talking about when I say "little appeal". I love Camper van Beethoven, but if they are still the favorite band of college kids anywhere, the music industry is in a lot bigger trouble than just what is caused by downloads.

 

 

So yes, there's a lot of crap out there. But there's a lot of music still that people want to hear, and yet they won't pay for it. This is what the article is meant to address.

 

 

Then I guess they don't want to hear it badly enough. They don't want to buy the music; they don't want to pay to see the artists live. What makes you think that's the music they really want to hear?

[Anderton]

I think there's a bigger picture here. The problem isn't just "Emily." It's a society-wide plague of unmitigated greed, from the top down (the one place where trickly-down worked really well), and what would be surprising was if the music industry was somehow immune from it.

[Vito Corleone]

 

but surely it's all going to have to evolve into some other model that involves a scarcity factor that has, for right now, been factored out.

 

 

Yes. The 'scarcity factor' has always been a big part of it.

 

I read an article recently that talked about the beginning of Top 40 radio. Seems that prior to it's beginnings in the 1950s no radio stations played songs more than once a day for fear that the public wouldn't tolerate it. When two guys discovered that not only did people play the same songs in a restuarant jukebox all day long, but that the waitresses played those same songs again after they got off of their shift, they started a format where songs got repeated every few hours. It was a huge hit. Fast forward to today and you see where we HAVE reached that saturation point. Even during the heydey of Top 40 radio you had to wait a few hours to hear your favorite new song again and you didn't know when it was going to play. Only if you bought the record could you hear it all you wanted. Now, you can play any song, any time so why bother to download it even legally? There's no scarcity so there's no value. And that's even BEFORE you consider whether you should pay $1.29 or steal it.

[Lee Flier]

I'm only saying "probably", and again basing it on what her job is and the fact that she felt guilty enough already to write a blog about it, I really doubt that the article said anything she hasn't heard before. Yes, he said it all very well, but I seriously doubt any of it was new to her.

 

I believe it was - as she was one of those people who thought that artists don't make any money from record sales.

 

 

1) how does free downloading affect any artists ability to play for smaller but enthusiastic artists? If anything, it should INCREASE their reach and their fanbase.

 

It doesn't. It helps promote indie artists up to a point, but if at some point people won't pay for their music, bands can't afford to tour or sustain themselves for very long. Again, artists can gain some benefit from offering SOME music for free, and many, including Lowery, do. But if you think musicians don't rely on record sales and songwriting royalties for a vital part of their income, you're wrong. And that's where I think a lot of people's misunderstanding lies.

 

2) the fact that Lowery is considered one of those people is part of the problem. Lowery was hip when I was in college. What the hell are college kids doing listening to artists that are twice their age? That's what I'm talking about when I say "little appeal". I love Camper van Beethoven, but if they are still the favorite band of college kids anywhere, the music industry is in a lot bigger trouble than just what is caused by downloads.

 

First of all, what difference does it make how old the artist is if people like them? Yes, there are lots of college kids that still go see Cracker and listen to Camper and Cracker records. But I said that Lowery WAS one of those people - part of the "musical middle class" who made it on the strength of a smaller but enthusiastic following, much of which he maintains to this day. But he's certainly felt the squeeze despite the fact that his audience does not seem to have shrunk, and he holds out even less hope for talented artists trying to get established today. That's the issue here. It's not like there aren't any talented young artists that people like and want to see. But they can't sustain themselves, in many cases.

 

Then I guess they don't want to hear it badly enough. They don't want to buy the music; they don't want to pay to see the artists live. What makes you think that's the music they really want to hear?

 

You don't get it either. They would pay to see the artists live. But the artists have to be able to get to them first, and then they have to earn enough money (from a combination of ticket sales + merch + RECORD SALES at gigs) to keep going. There's a whole infrastructure for independent bands that is broken, and their fans don't know enough about it to think it makes any difference whether they buy the recordings.

[Vito Corleone]

First of all, what difference does it make how old the artist is if people like them?

 

I think it helps explain the dwindling and dedicated fan base. I think it helps explain the lack of "connection" factor that results in people being HUGE fans of an artist. College kids, in my day, were huge Camper fans because they related because Lowrey was one of them. He was singing their songs. Sure, I imagine some kids still like him, but enough for him to still be packing even small clubs?

 

Music needs to become young, and hip and relevant again. THAT'S what made it cool back in 'the day'. No wonder kids are finding other things they'd rather spend their money on.

 

 

 

It's not like there aren't any talented young artists that people like and want to see. But they can't sustain themselves, in many cases.

 

Then they have to find a new paradigm. Pleading with people to not steal digital copies of their recordings isn't going to cut it.

[Lee Flier]

 

I think it helps explain the dwindling and dedicated fan base. I think it helps explain the lack of "connection" factor that results in people being HUGE fans of an artist. College kids, in my day, were huge Camper fans because they related because Lowrey was one of them. He was singing their songs. Sure, I imagine some kids still like him, but enough for him to still be packing even small clubs?

 

 

Yep.

 

Lots of young people aren't quite so hung up anymore on whether an artist is their age. And many older artists also still have people their own age to play to, people who still understand that you gotta pay for music.

 

But again, this isn't terribly relevant to the point being made. Young artists, even many of those who are "hip," are in the same boat.

 

 

Then they have to find a new paradigm. Pleading with people to not steal digital copies of their recordings isn't going to cut it.

 

 

Okey dokey. Once again, I guess Lowery shouldn't bother trying to help anyone, then.

[Geoff Grace]

Ten years ago, sales were the battleground. But now, I think the battleground is subscription-based services and negotiating better royalty rates for the artists from those providers.

 

Considering the current migration to the cloud and bandwidth getting ever broader, sales of music will become ever more rare as consumers become able to pull

[MrKnobs]

It's much bigger than music. It's ALL intellectual property, anything not physical that people can get their hands on for free. Music, books, programs, movies, photographs, patents, news, information, all of it. Technology made this possible, maybe someday technology will make it impossible again. Or, maybe like Rudy's Star Trek-esque example, maybe they'll just create potatoes from information using free energy and everything will be just intellectual property.

 

In the meantime, while we wait out the tech wars to settle this, what can we do?

 

Well, let's think. Who has all the money and can afford to pay musicians if they want to? Corporations, huge global corporations. What do corporations want? Consumption, higher market share, even bigger profits, fewer laws and restrictions to their operations. They'd also like the world to settle down so they can operate more efficiently, and they'd like people to become even more sheeplike and ignorant to facilitate all the above.

 

How can music help with the corporate agenda?

 

Lots of ways, and already in progress. Advertising is the most obvious one. I can't remember the last concert tour I worked, even small ones, that didn't have corporate sponsorship. Get a few of those or just one big one and it hardly matters what the people are paying at the door. Beer, smokes, clothes, you name it, pays for the tour. Not to mention how much music is used in direct advertising.

 

Then there's network television, it's free. You just have to watch or ignore some nuisance ads in between part of your show. If you don't like that, you can pay a subscription channel like HBO and watch their nuisance ads which come less often and in between shows..

 

Top videos on CNN and YouTube work the same way. The best musicians / video makers even get paid on YouTube.

 

Another slightly more subtle thing corporations buy music for is keeping the sheeple thinking as they want us to. Heard any patriotic songs lately? Seen any patriotic movies, maybe some that the military helped make and pay for? Yes, you have. Constantly. Battleship, for example.

 

Now just think about the deals we don't know about.

 

So music and other art is not going to die, it's just going to be designed for a different purpose and controlled once again by business. This time it won't be Motown and Stax and Capitol, it'll be Exxon and WalMart and Philip Morris. It'll be just as slick, teenagers will love it as determined by focus groups, it will be FREE. It's already happening. I saw a top artist perform in a movie trailer at the theater to the backdrop of an Army recruitment drive. It was available for download on the web, and of course it was FREE.

 

One way or another, free is never free. The musicians, if they don't want to starve, won't be free to write the lyrics they wanted to.

 

Terry D.

[BlueGreene]

*insert gostly scary voice*

 

 

Yes. The 'scarcity factor' has always been a big part of it.

 

 

Everyone talks about how much {censored}ty music there is out there. But is that not presenting a scarcity to be settled into? Things are getting ripe for some good ol' fashioned innovation, in more ways than one.

[philbo]

i have mixed feelings about this thread.

 

on one hand is the ethics of stealing from corporate entities who prosper only due to their success at shortchanging musicians at every possible opportunity.

 

on another is the monstrous economic mess that is the 'stardom' system which to my mind is an abhorrent blasphemy to music.

 

on yet another hand there are the tens of thousands of great musicians, singers, composers who cannot make a living doing what they do best.

 

on the fourth hand is the economics: supply is essentially limitless, but demand is finite. this is a bad recipe for anyone who makes music and wants money in return. it means the economic model for selling music is obsolete, and no amount of anguish and hand-wringing will keep the dinosaur from going extinct.

 

illegal downloading, in the face of these 4 hands, is a tempest in a teacup. similar to the USA war on drugs, it is a way to avoid examining the real problems by making a show out of pouring money and effort into a black hole.