Accountability within the music industry

[nerol1st]

Hmmm... Maybe I need to get the f*** out of here and start making some money.

I have a friend who lives there, seems like a bitch to try to be noticed there.

[sabriel9v]

Paypal sales are great, as long as they lead to a download. Otherwise, why do I have to wait almost a month to get a CD?

Dear Debbie Downer, technically you don't have to wait a month for EVERY Paypal transaction with an artist. That's very subjective.

This is not true at all unless your using a service to deliver your goods, even then soundclick (for example) lets you sell 320 bit mp.3s, snocap on the other hand is much more lossy. A 128 bit mp.3 is not a 320 bit mp.3. A .wav for the most part is a .wav, your correct (44.1 @ 16 bit).

Once again, bands cannot change the initial specs of a file. For instance, I can't make a .wav 45.2 @ 32 bit...it doesn't happen. I don't find this argument legitimate.

btw If I saw back to back emo-metalcore bands, I'd probably think 75% of it sucked too

[BlueStrat]

1. Stores are dead. I mean DEAD, the nearest store I can buy a CD (uncensored) is 1/2 hour away. Other than that wal mart, and who wants to buy music from wal mart. 2. The quality of downloaded stuff is {censored}, however this is how I prefer to buy my music. I avoid itunes however though, I hate DRM with a passion. 3. Most bands that I bother to go to there myspace don't even bother linking to a place where I can get there stuff ,or demo. If they do it's usually paypal--> wait 3 weeks for there CD. 4. I don't like ordering CDs. This is 2008, my bandwidth could download an entire 700 mb CD in less than 3 mins so there really is no justification (IMO) unless it's a server issue (I can't really see this argument as space is pretty cheap) that people can't sell there entire CD online and not have it be in some sort of lossy format.

 

 

Not to get all 'grammar nazi', but the words "there" and "their" are not intechangeable. Neither are "your" and "you're".

 

Maybe I'm being picky, but it makes your posts harder to read. Just sayin'.

 

[schmatass]

Who do you think is most responsible for NOT making fans feel irresponsible? The labels, bands, management, the fans themselves...input please

 

 

Simple. It's the BANDS responsibility. ALWAYS!!! The fans are going to take whatever you give them and why not? If you don't value and honor what you do enough to merit a price tag with "the service" you provide, then why should anyway else? You're the salesman. You're pushing the product. And ultimately, up it's to you and the band to create a demand for it from day one. Free should never be an option. Besides, free music and merch implies your desperate. And when your desperate, your powerless! It's Harvey Milquetoast syndrome. The other side of the equation is, the kind of music you make and whether or not there's even a healthy marketplace for it - or as Bluestrat would say, "supply and demand".

[nerol1st]

Not to get all 'grammar nazi', but the words "there" and "their" are not intechangeable. Neither are "your" and "you're". Maybe I'm being picky, but it makes your posts harder to read. Just sayin'.

All good I know my spelling blows.

Spellers Untie!

[BlueStrat]

All good I know my spelling blows. Spellers Untie!

 

 

Actually, your spelling is fine. It's a grammatical error. (sorry, can't help my self-I was an English major! :poke:)

 

But I agree with the substance of your posts, for the most part! Though I usually get a CD from Amazon or CDBaby in less than a week.

[sabriel9v]

Simple. It's the BANDS responsibility. ALWAYS!!! The fans are going to take whatever you give them and why not? If you don't value and honor what you do enough to merit a price tag with "the service" you provide, then why should anyway else? You're the salesman. You're pushing the product. And ultimately, up it's to you and the band to create a demand for it from day one. Free should never be an option. Besides, free music and merch implies your desperate. And when your desperate, your powerless! It's Harvey Milquetoast syndrome. The other side of the equation is, the kind of music you make and whether or not there's even a healthy marketplace for it - or as Bluestrat would say, "supply and demand".

You make a great point. I actually posted this thread because in the last couple issues of my local paper, there have been some suspect articles about the music industry. It appears as if the writers are saying it's okay to cop out and jump on the "free music" band wagon. What do you think of this?

[slight-return]

It appears as if the writers are saying it's okay to cop out and jump on the "free music" band wagon. What do you think of this?

 

 

might be good to invite em to stop by. That way they can be clear about their position (can go a long way to solidifiying "it appears"), how they see it as 'cop out' or something else, even 'okay' in what sense (legally responsible, socially responsible, professionally responsible - whatever)

[Dreabfly]

You make a great point. I actually posted this thread because in the last couple issues of my local paper, there have been some suspect articles about the music industry. It appears as if the writers are saying it's okay to cop out and jump on the "free music" band wagon. What do you think of this?

 

 

I have to admit, I find it hard lately to come up with a reason to fight about it myself. It feels like it's just been done. It's over. Kind of like the industrialization of China - you can't go backwards.

 

Unless musicians decide to really unionize and strike (read: not produce records because they're "artists who must make their art"), I just don't see much changing. And we've always sucked at that. Our union is useless. We allowed new media to talk us into a ridiculous idea. And we backstab each other whenever possible to gain "exposure" over solidarity. With that kind of arrangement, how do we backtrack out of free?

 

I've thought about trying to organize a real musicians work stoppage online to inspire musicians to change their collective future:idk:. I think it's a good idea and with mass solidarity could even work. But I have trouble believing anyone would join. ????

 

:lem:

[modulusman]

It's the bands fault. What do you gain by playing for free,or giving away CDs. I don't understand it. Stupid business model IMO.

[Deeprig9]

I don't agree with the premise on which many posters in this thread have based their responses; that downloading free music from shareware means these same individuals won't pay to see a band they like.

 

Contrarily, I see many free-downloaders paying to see the $15, $20, $28 shows. That doesn't excuse their illegal habits, but it does provide some allegorical evidence in my experience that free-downloaders don't carry that expectation of something-for-nothing everywhere they go.

[Deeprig9]

By the way, I correctly used a semi-colon; probably the first time that's ever been done here. Now I've done it twice!

[Poker99]

Do bands that have only some free downloads really think its hurting them?

I think what is hurting us is being completely ignored because not enough people know we even exist. And its harder and harder to get noticed because there is so many bands...

Lets get real now... Only popular artists lose a lot of money from illegal and free downloads, not independants.

Supply and demand. People don't care anymore.

[BlueStrat]

 

We allowed new media to talk us into a ridiculous idea.

 

 

This is only partially true. It really started long ago when bands started offering to assume more responsibility and take less money to help the venue become successful, with the theory that being magnanimous would give them an edge over the competition and at the same time score points with the venues, who after seeing how good the band is, would voluntarily give them the money they deserve. Sounds logical, doesn't it?

 

Of course, anyone who made it past business 101 could immediately see the flaws in this as a business model. Because what ensued over the years was a bidding war, as every band started doing the same thing. That's how we got to bands not only playing for free, but expecting to, and pay to play, and ticket schemes, and the bands providing posters, flyers, press interviews and bulletins, and guaranteeing the crowd. Musicians are by and large terrible business people. So are music biz writers. It doesn't surprise me that the writers see this as a good idea. That's why they're writers and not CEOs.

 

What surprises me a little bit is how many club owners have latched on to this. Many, many clubs have folded just in my town over the past 20 years. I see it as a main contributor to their failure, because where successful clubs used to be businesses with a steady clientèle that provided great atmosphere, weekly events, great service and good drinks, and provided music to entertain their regular (and hopefully new) customers, they are now showcases for way too many bands who aren't ready to play out but they'll play for free, and besides, the other three bands will bring their 20 friends, etc etc. What happens is that the clubs get shifts of 10-25 people who are there to see 'their' band and leave. Or, with cover bars, they get the same thing-weekend warrior types (that's me) who will play for peanuts (not me!) because they all have good day gigs and don't need the money, and only do it for fun and a few beers.

 

Some clubs have been successful with the new model, obviously, but it's deceptive because you don't see the ones that fold over the years.

 

Where I live, more than 21 clubs have gone under i n the past 25 years. There are lots of reasons for this, but I do notice one thing: The clubs that do the best business are the ones with a steady clientèle, have the most going on event-wise, have clean facilities, barrooms and parking lots, and pay their bands well and have quality entertainment because of it. At one venue I frequently play, open since 1988, the owner told me that only a moron club owner would depend on live music for income. That usually means hustling on his part to make his business successful regardless of who is playing there, or if anyone is playing or not. He only has live music once every 3 or 4 weeks, but his place is always packed. This is something that too many of today's club owner just doesn't seem to get.

 

So, yeah, media doesn't help, but the situation we're in started quite awhile back by shortsighted musicians who didn't and still don't know squat about business.

[schmatass]

You make a great point. I actually posted this thread because in the last couple issues of my local paper, there have been some suspect articles about the music industry. It appears as if the writers are saying it's okay to cop out and jump on the "free music" band wagon. What do you think of this?

 

With regards to the articles and writers intentions, I can't comment without having read them of course. Nonetheless, the idea of "free music" in general is ridiculous. Where's the value in that for a struggling new band/artist?

 

This topic really exposes a bigger problem in the music biz today. And, the fact that we're all talking about it validates that point. It proves beyond any doubt that the current business model and the consumer have still not a found a meeting place that's fair for both sides.

 

Take for example, a band like Radiohead; doing what they did on their last release made sense for them. Obviously, their an established band with a worldwide fan base. They had a choice: use the outdated business model (label-distribution-cd) and lose big or leak the new material directly on their website, creating an honor system for fans to pay whatever they wish or simply take it for free. That approach worked for them. But, it worked because of their stature. I heard an interview last year with Thom Yorke, who even went so far as to say they made more money off their latest release - despite all the free downloads - then all others combined. But he also cautioned new bands NOT to take the same approach.

 

So, what are bands/artists to do with the current quandary we're in? Continue down the path of being last in the economic pie and complain about it? I don't know about anyone else here, but I've NEVER felt "entitled" to take someone else's music and not pay them for it. Art has value; not only monetarily speaking, but culturally as well. This is why I shake my head in disgust at some musicians who fail to gain any perspective on this. These same people are so quick to give their creations away, yet complain about being broke and then wonder why the consumer feels entitled to it for free? The answer: Because you taught them that it had no value.

[sabriel9v]

 

I just don't see much changing. And we've always sucked at that. Our union is useless. We allowed new media to talk us into a ridiculous idea. And we backstab each other whenever possible to gain "exposure" over solidarity. With that kind of arrangement, how do we backtrack out of free?

 

 

+10 I feel the same way sometimes. In the end, you have the choose the business plan that is most conducive to your personal agenda. Nevertheless, your plan should still be informed and well thought out.

[schmatass]

To create a demand, you have to be willing to hold back the product. And you have to be able to survive while doing it. With so many musicians having the view that they "must share their art, they must be on stage, they must be heard" it hurts those who do similiar music at a similiar level but want to be paid. We simply don't play unless our price is met. The agent or our cd creates the demand. The client responds or not. Either way, I'm good. But what I won't do is go out and do the gig for little or no money just to be heard, for exposure, for the promise of something in the future. As long as you want to be on stage more than people want to see you be on stage, you can't expect to make any money.

 

Great point.

 

And that last point you make, says everything. Musicians give all their power away by throwing caution to the wind and letting their emotions guide their business decisions. In the end, they lose.

[Dreabfly]

This is only partially true. It really started long ago when bands started offering to assume more responsibility and take less money to help the venue become successful, with the theory that being magnanimous would give them an edge over the competition and at the same time score points with the venues, who after seeing how good the band is, would voluntarily give them the money they deserve. Sounds logical, doesn't it?

 

 

You're totally right. And I agree with your whole post.

 

I was speaking more specifically about the "give all your music away for free and try to make money selling shirts and pens" model. This was stupid from the beginning. If not for being blinded by major label hatred, people may have actually seen through it a little better. It was, however, a fantastic sell job by the new media companies. They made a fortune off of us and continue to.

[sabriel9v]

 

Musicians are by and large terrible business people. So are music biz writers. It doesn't surprise me that the writers see this as a good idea. That's why they're writers and not CEOs.

 

 

Excellent point.

[Instrospection]

I just read an article in our local paper about a series of free shows that occurred in my town. My band performed in this series...let's say it was a less than glamorous experience. Nevertheless, I started thinking about the concept of the free show and download. What it all boils down to me is one thing. Accountability. We hold "fans" accountable for very little. They don't buy our cds, so we make them free. They don't buy merch. We make that free. Hardly anyone goes out to the shows...eventually those become free. There is a trend of not holding fans responsible for their own odd purchasing habits. Does my favorite local sandwich vendor jack down his price when I don't feel like forking over the $5.15 for a pastrami and rye? No. But that doesn't take away the problem of "accountability" within the industry. Who do you think is most responsible for NOT making fans feel irresponsible? The labels, bands, management, the fans themselves...input please

 

Pay per byte. Spammers flooding our emails with junk mail would stop if it cost them for each message sent; if the price of a per byte basis would stop people from stealing because it cost them too much money for bandwidth, eventually more of them would go out to a store to buy cds and movies (freebies on radio never killed the industry). Sure some good guys would get hit, like the average user, but the way I see it is that there's no price for what we use online. Info. Music. Games. Movies. The way I can describe it best is to say that even email should function on a per byte thing. You have to otherwise buy a stamp and then take your time (or your car which = gas) to mail it.

 

Some people may say, "well, that's not fair for me to pay for someone's theft". Aren't we all stealing in a way? If the government paves our roads and sidewalks so that we can get to the mailbox, that doesn't mean that we get the stamp for free. It also doesn't mean that if we pay for the stamp that we get the roads for free, either.

 

Cable TV works on the function that you pay for a basic cable rate. You're not entitled to anything, it's what the networks provide you. There's a reason that there's pay per view, AND higher, more expensive tiers of cable packages. And those networks are funded by advertising, NOT your cable provider. Public TV works a different way--Prairie Public TV up here doesn't have ads in which they can pay their content providers with, BUT they also hold fund drives every year, in which they ask for "viewers like you" to pay for watching. Without those fund drive funds in lieu of advertising, they'd just go under.

 

The internet industry is the NEW entertainment industry, and it needs to be overhauled to get content providers paid. Namely through the "pay per byte" rate. It used to be on a phone line for one's phone, that the more they used the phone, the more that they paid. I don't see why the internet is any different, but eventually, something will have to give. Because bands and labels and movies and porn companies and games programmers and information providers will not be making hardly any money.

 

There was an article about an internet D-day, where they said that due to excessive bandwidth hogs, the internet may cease by 2010, because they won't have the infrastructure to overhaul it. Either way, if kids continue to load up on their ten millionth download or their thousandth movie and all of the HD stuff, we won't really have a choice, anyways. The writing's on the wall---people will have to pay for the content they use. It's simple--if they don't like it, they can drive out to the library, drive to the store to pick up the new cd, or drive to the store to pick up the DVD. The whole ironic thing is that the internet companies see their own demise--and it's little Johnny loading up on tons of stuff that he didn't pay for, loading up on THEIR bandwidth, and threatening to obsolete their own network if some restraints aren't put in place without massive, multi-billion infrastructure and retooling of the horsepower and memory and "brain" that they'll need to transfer and deal with all that information.

 

In the end, the ISP's and internet industry needs to have a pact with the music and entertainment industry---if people view or sample those copyright holders or musicians or producers or whoever's work, then a small percentage of what they pay per byte to view that, would go back to the creator....essentially, because if the internet is the new radio or tv, TV and radio ALWAYS had to pay royalties to license or play those artists' or creators' work.

 

On the flipside, the record industry needs to yield some form of profits to the internet industry. And in fairness, why should the internet otherwise police theft? They're not out any money, and they're not entitled to any profits to lose in the first place! Because really, the internet is the new form of media distribution--kids don't watch TV, don't listen to radio, but use the internet heavily. Here's where the real sticky part comes in, from what the internet industry would want. When you stock your cds in stores, the average in alot of places is 25 percent that the store takes for markup, it's the same way with distro. So i'm unsure as to whether handing over 25 percent to the internet industry would be a good idea or not....BUT if the record industry's prosperity was the internet's prosperity, they'd be a Sheriff in these here Wild West times we're having on the internet.

 

With distro narrowing down the number of bands' releases that they carry and the record labels taking a hit, along with the movie industry, I think that it's fair for the movie industry to adopt a similar model. In a way, this reminds me of the Napster thing.....the record industry tried to sue ISP's for theft violations, and they lost. BOTH parties need to work with each other to ensure that the other is prosperous--because without the continued support of the entertainment industry, only the old stuff will be desired with no new development of the new bands, and people will tire of that in 10, 20, 30 years....if not sooner. Parents' bands will soon be the only bands that kids have heard of, and let's face it, rock music has always renewed itself with the promise of a new generation of kids looking for new generations of music in which to offend parents, haha. With that sort of emphasis on only the big and old and proven and well known, it will all otherwise implode on itself and kids will be driven FROM the internet, simply because they've seen everything before.

[Deeprig9]

This is only partially true. It really started long ago when bands started offering to assume more responsibility and take less money to help the venue become successful, with the theory that being magnanimous would give them an edge over the competition and at the same time score points with the venues, who after seeing how good the band is, would voluntarily give them the money they deserve. Sounds logical, doesn't it? Of course, anyone who made it past business 101 could immediately see the flaws in this as a business model. Because what ensued over the years was a bidding war, as every band started doing the same thing. That's how we got to bands not only playing for free, but expecting to, and pay to play, and ticket schemes, and the bands providing posters, flyers, press interviews and bulletins, and guaranteeing the crowd. Musicians are by and large terrible business people. So are music biz writers. It doesn't surprise me that the writers see this as a good idea. That's why they're writers and not CEOs. What surprises me a little bit is how many club owners have latched on to this. Many, many clubs have folded just in my town over the past 20 years. I see it as a main contributor to their failure, because where successful clubs used to be businesses with a steady clientèle that provided great atmosphere, weekly events, great service and good drinks, and provided music to entertain their regular (and hopefully new) customers, they are now showcases for way too many bands who aren't ready to play out but they'll play for free, and besides, the other three bands will bring their 20 friends, etc etc. What happens is that the clubs get shifts of 10-25 people who are there to see 'their' band and leave. Or, with cover bars, they get the same thing-weekend warrior types (that's me) who will play for peanuts (not me!) because they all have good day gigs and don't need the money, and only do it for fun and a few beers. Some clubs have been successful with the new model, obviously, but it's deceptive because you don't see the ones that fold over the years. Where I live, more than 21 clubs have gone under i n the past 25 years. There are lots of reasons for this, but I do notice one thing: The clubs that do the best business are the ones with a steady clientèle, have the most going on event-wise, have clean facilities, barrooms and parking lots, and pay their bands well and have quality entertainment because of it. At one venue I frequently play, open since 1988, the owner told me that only a moron club owner would depend on live music for income. That usually means hustling on his part to make his business successful regardless of who is playing there, or if anyone is playing or not. He only has live music once every 3 or 4 weeks, but his place is always packed. This is something that too many of today's club owner just doesn't seem to get. So, yeah, media doesn't help, but the situation we're in started quite awhile back by shortsighted musicians who didn't and still don't know squat about business.

I notice the same thing your friend talks about. The "club" type venues around here are hurting, haven't seen a packed house around here in years for the "club" style venues.

On a good note, the three venues that seem to be doing very well, that I've noticed, and I like very much, are bar/restaurants first, and music club afterhours. My three examles are:

Farm 255- organic hippy type restaurant, pricey, bar, white table clothes, but after 9, they have bands play on the outdoor stage and they always have people. No cover charge, pays the band a guarantee plus bar sales.

Mercury Lounge- Trendy bar hotspot that only features music a couple times a week. The draw is the wine, atmosphere, cheese, etc, and the music is their secondary draw. And everytime they have music or a DJ, it's packed. Again, no cover charge, pays the band (usually jazz or DJ) fee.

Go! Bar- I can't tell you much about this place without violating my cool-contract with Athens. They do charge a cover... and don't really pay bands... but... they have a.... let's say "built-in crowd" that can make a show really fun... even if your 45 minute set is done in 20 minutes because you played it too fast.

[slight-return]

Spammers flooding our emails with junk mail would stop if it cost them for each message sent

 

 

 

Sadly, they probably won't - spammers use a lot of zombies.

[sabriel9v]

I notice the same thing your friend talks about. The "club" type venues around here are hurting, haven't seen a packed house around here in years for the "club" style venues. On a good note, the three venues that seem to be doing very well, that I've noticed, and I like very much, are bar/restaurants first, and music club afterhours. My three examles are: Farm 255- organic hippy type restaurant, pricey, bar, white table clothes, but after 9, they have bands play on the outdoor stage and they always have people. No cover charge, pays the band a guarantee plus bar sales. Mercury Lounge- Trendy bar hotspot that only features music a couple times a week. The draw is the wine, atmosphere, cheese, etc, and the music is their secondary draw. And everytime they have music or a DJ, it's packed. Again, no cover charge, pays the band (usually jazz or DJ) fee. Go! Bar- I can't tell you much about this place without violating my cool-contract with Athens. They do charge a cover... and don't really pay bands... but... they have a.... let's say "built-in crowd" that can make a show really fun... even if your 45 minute set is done in 20 minutes because you played it too fast.

Great examples Deep. All of three of those places have done fairly well considering they offer more than live music. I think the key to clubs is to market the club as a kind of entertainment venue/multiplex. Entertainment as in anything that one can derive satisfaction from after hours...which can include many things But mainly live music, maybe a bar that has it's own identity via a diverse selection of affordable drinks, food that can be served to customers, etc. The overall atmosphere and customer service within a venue is what will keep consumers paying money until the end of the night.

[Instrospection]

This is only partially true. It really started long ago when bands started offering to assume more responsibility and take less money to help the venue become successful, with the theory that being magnanimous would give them an edge over the competition and at the same time score points with the venues, who after seeing how good the band is, would voluntarily give them the money they deserve. Sounds logical, doesn't it? Of course, anyone who made it past business 101 could immediately see the flaws in this as a business model. Because what ensued over the years was a bidding war, as every band started doing the same thing. That's how we got to bands not only playing for free, but expecting to, and pay to play, and ticket schemes, and the bands providing posters, flyers, press interviews and bulletins, and guaranteeing the crowd. Musicians are by and large terrible business people.

 

 

+1. I posted in another thread how putting crappy bands on the stage just so they could play to friends and family (who would often play for NOTHING, just to play out), as well as Battle of the Bands, RUINED live music, almost permanently. In those cases, bands would play for free. Then if you wanted to play and hold out for more, the club owner wouldn't pay more than free or 50 bucks. And they didn't pay for postering, either. If it's for someone's vanity project to impress their friends and family or whoever, that's great....but the rest of the general people that may be hanging out there to see legendary talent will not be usually as impressed.

 

 

What surprises me a little bit is how many club owners have latched on to this. Many, many clubs have folded just in my town over the past 20 years. I see it as a main contributor to their failure, because where successful clubs used to be businesses with a steady clientèle that provided great atmosphere, weekly events, great service and good drinks, and provided music to entertain their regular (and hopefully new) customers, they are now showcases for way too many bands who aren't ready to play out but they'll play for free, and besides, the other three bands will bring their 20 friends, etc etc. What happens is that the clubs get shifts of 10-25 people who are there to see 'their' band and leave. Or, with cover bars, they get the same thing-weekend warrior types (that's me) who will play for peanuts (not me!) because they all have good day gigs and don't need the money, and only do it for fun and a few beers.

 

 

Yup, a nightclub owner here couldn't wait to put bands on the stage for their first show, because that's the one where he reaps the dividends of their friends and family coming in and selling lots of beer. He didn't care for their bands, he'd just put 'em on to sell beer those nights. Slow nights. These were always Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays.....and usually not opening for better bands.

 

 

Where I live, more than 21 clubs have gone under i n the past 25 years. There are lots of reasons for this, but I do notice one thing: The clubs that do the best business are the ones with a steady clientèle, have the most going on event-wise, have clean facilities, barrooms and parking lots, and pay their bands well and have quality entertainment because of it. At one venue I frequently play, open since 1988, the owner told me that only a moron club owner would depend on live music for income. That usually means hustling on his part to make his business successful regardless of who is playing there, or if anyone is playing or not. He only has live music once every 3 or 4 weeks, but his place is always packed. This is something that too many of today's club owner just doesn't seem to get.

 

 

That's the whole thing--alot of bars are taking on Wednesday and Thursday night booking, when even Fridays and Saturdays aren't really drawing that much. Then they either take the bands' booking fees for the club, knowing that they're not gonna draw, or they open up the stage for bands on their dime, pay a door person, pay a bartender/ barwaitress.

[nice keetee]

I just read an article in our local paper about a series of free shows that occurred in my town. My band performed in this series...let's say it was a less than glamorous experience. Nevertheless, I started thinking about the concept of the free show and download. What it all boils down to me is one thing. Accountability. We hold "fans" accountable for very little. They don't buy our cds, so we make them free. They don't buy merch. We make that free. Hardly anyone goes out to the shows...eventually those become free. There is a trend of not holding fans responsible for their own odd purchasing habits. Does my favorite local sandwich vendor jack down his price when I don't feel like forking over the $5.15 for a pastrami and rye? No. But that doesn't take away the problem of "accountability" within the industry. Who do you think is most responsible for NOT making fans feel irresponsible? The labels, bands, management, the fans themselves...input please

If live music is important to the public, there should be payment to the band. What if most bands went on strike? I guess we'd find out if canned music alone could entertain the masses. FWIW.