Accountability within the music industry

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

I think it just boils down to supply and demand. It's not really a matter of accountability. Accountability would be an issue if people were stealing or not living up to their commitments.

If you have supply and there isn't really enough demand to warrant charging money, then you have to think of ways to stimulate the demand. Publicity and advertising are options. It's tricky, but there are other ways too.

But I'm struggling with this concept myself. And so is the rest of the industry.

I feel that it's more than supply and demand though. It's a simple fact that if people can get something for free instead of paying a price for it, then why not? The demand is there, but it's the basic principle that consumers know they can get away with taking something from someone and not paying for it. That's the facts jax.

And why can they get it for free? Because you let them, right? Because you adjusted your price to where the supply and demand curves meet.

You can prevent this by charging for your shows and merchandise. But then the problem, like you mentioned, is that the product doesn't move when people have to pay. That is because the demand curve is such that as the price is pushed up, the quantity demanded drastically falls off the chart.

Is that really their accountability that is the problem?

You're best bet is to alter the demand so that they need what you have. And if you make yourself unique enough, there won't be any substitutes.

That'd be the part of the supply/demand curve (the part where it goes...in broken computer speak orthoganol to the axes) and our slopes become zero/undefined

there is no TRADE demand (as there is no exchange of value), the product consumption, however is free from commercial (the ability to pay) limitation (I suppose demand elasticity is infinite at that point)

Is there accountability on the consumer's part? - well, copyright law allows for redress of piracy, other laws (larceny, conversion, theft of services) allows for redress of theft.

On the producer's part, they may have accounted for WILLFUL losses as risky investment (loss-leader type situations) - will their numbers resolve? are thy reading th market correctly? Do they have an accurate idea of the NPV?

As with the sandwich eample -- if you do not feel like paying for the sandwich (ie no demand ) the proprietor may have to change prices, offerings, venue, or industries altogether (maybe open a dry cleaner)

So you feel accountability falls upon the artist in the end?

Probably more accurately on the biz ops. The artist, pursuing an artistic endeavor can judge on artistic success (inherent value of the artistic process or product - you could be a successful artist w/o being professional, w/o anyone ever hearing your work...if it's artistic value/satisfaction you are after)

But the remuneration part - thats biz ops [not necessarilly a different person, just a different hat]

well, it is an accounting -- if the operation GIVES something away, those expenses go in the debit column with no directly associated entry in the credit column (that's a risk we are allowed to take)

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.

I totally agree with you. And I outright blame musicians. I remember when this whole argument started. There were a whole lot of big musicians arguing for giving away everything for free. Ironically most of them had already made their money in music somehow through the big label system. They bought the internet media's bogus model claiming that you didn't have to sell your music -you could sell pens and mousepads and all sorts of other crap if you just - just give your music away for free!!!

Some of us rebelled and we were constantly nailed for it. It didn't help that this idiocy was being fueled by a rampant hatred of the Big 5 and the major label system.

But now - in retrospect - what's better - the system we had or the reality that no one will ever pay us for our work again because now it is just supposed to be free. Always. Even when you license it now, they offer you some insulting piddly amount of money because, well - haven't you heard? Music is free now.

And don't even get me started on DRM.

From what I can see - it seems that there is a "perfect storm" of sorts that has conspired to sink the music industry, and everyone is now trying to figure out how to survive in the wake of this maelstrom:

1. Digital Technology -

a. makes it possible for anyone to easily and anonymously copy (read - take without paying for it - i.e. steal) music from commercial sources.

b. lowers the barrier for new bands to record and flood the market with recordings (admitedly not necessarily higher quality recordings)

2. The record companies have publicaly taken it on the chin as being unethical thieves who ripped off the artists and the consumers, and who are attempting to BULLY the wider music appreciating public via the RIAA lawsuits. Thus convincing even further the younger music buying demographic that paying for music is just supporting "the man" and lowering the guilt for stealing and "sharing" copies illegally aquired. (In some ways they are justly accused - reselling at high prices on a format that cost them a LOT less (CDs), homogenizing the music so that nothing is really all that new or different, etc.)

3. The flood of new "artists" with no barriers to entering the wide spread distribution of their efforts (low cost recording tech, internet and MySpace distribution) floods the market with music (some not so bad) but in an effort to "get noticed" and aquire "market share" (really just "attention share") figure that the time honored marketing gimmick "FREE" should be used to try and get a large audience that will eventually be willing to PAY (for live perfomances or merch, or downloads/CDs).

All of this adds up to the FREE mindset on the consumer side who already have so much music on their 500gig - 1000gig HDs back home that they really don't NEED anything new for the rest of their lives.

4. The fact that to the younger demographic - music is really NOT about a shared experience anymore - where all your friends have to rush out and get the latest MEGA ARTIST release. Music is background - and they seem not to be as engaged in the whole thing. There are only so many hours in a day and so much attention they have to devote to it.

So - it seems to me that ALL of this combined is what has tanked the music business, and the the responsibility/accountability goes ALL around.

Chuck

Do you mean the business operations side of the artist or the label...or both?

I also want to pose you guys this question. What do you think of the concept of the free show vs. free download? Which is more detrimental...are either detrimental?

I stopped going to shows a while ago because it seems like the abundance of junk bands has gone up dramatically.

That and put yourself in "fans" shoes....

Show up at door.

Sit and wait for the first band to start because they are being dickwads, taking there sweet ass time setting up and then don't want to start when they are slotted because there isn't that many people there (because they suck).

Okay they get done, and now you have to wait another 1/2 hour for the next {censored}ty band to start.

After 4 or so cycles of this you finally get to the headliner, the only band worth listening to (or if you came for one of the middle bands) then you leave, pissed that you had to listen to 75% garbage and 25% good.

And you get charged $10 for this.

There are really only 2 types of shows (outside of the professional level) IMO:

{censored}ty new young guy bands featuring loud half stacks, drummers that can't count to four and singers that can't sing on key.

and

Nostalgic old guy bands featuring lame rock songs with boring lyrics with a 40 something year old front man who still thinks he can "make it". This refers to original bands only. --> This excludes bands making a living playing classic covers at events: respect.

The fact is for me personally, out of all the shows I hear coming in and out of all the bands that I check out demos of it's only about a 15% rate of anything even remotely good. So I would say quit bitching about consumers and look at your product. Maybe your band sucks.

I stopped going to shows a while ago because it seems like the abundance of junk bands has gone up dramatically. The fact is for me personally, out of all the shows I hear coming in and out of all the bands that I check out demos of it's only about a 15% rate of anything even remotely good. So I would say quit bitching about consumers and look at your product. Maybe your band sucks.

Hmm . . . but hasn't this always been true? There were a LOT of {censored}ty bands 10, 20, 30 years ago too. I'll grant that the number has probably increased given the flood of lower cost instruments and equipment out there. Everyone is "in a band". So the signal to noise ratio has probably gotten worse. But I don't think it can ALL be blamed on this. Just another factor in the "perfect storm" I described above. No?

Chuck

Well. In this area music used to be great. I (you probably wouldn't like this show) went to a small show with 3 bands, all of them I wanted to see. The cost was $7 and one of the bands was even a touring band.

Now all I find is multi band shows with 8+ bands, 6 of which are guaranteed to be horrible. Why is it that promoters think people want to go watch 4 hours of music/noise?

I will admit though, free shows are bunk. You know who plays free shows? Crap bands that can't get paying shows.

could be either (hell, there might not even be "a labl" involved) or both or even between the two (how an "artist" does biz with a label) - "biz ops" the hat, the role

If we are talking about business, as in getting paid for the trade, those are biz operations

[but I guess at that point we aren't talking "the artist" as "artist" but as biz person, working vocationally]

I'm only arguing for the live show aspect of the argument. My views of the current stealing of music are quite different. I pay for my music. My personal opinion of the current way music is delivered is that bands are failing horribly to deliver there product to me. This includes major label bands. I blame itunes and snocap for this.

The record store is dead, in fact I would go so far to say the CD is becoming dead. The mp.3 is not the answer though, loss less formats delivered for paid download is. I have ran into 1 band that did this.

I may just have to get over this though because the mp {censored}ing 3 seems to be the future of delivering music for those of us who don't want to wait for there music.

I stopped going to shows a while ago because it seems like the abundance of junk bands has gone up dramatically. That and put yourself in "fans" shoes.... Show up at door. Sit and wait for the first band to start because they are being dickwads, taking there sweet ass time setting up and then don't want to start when they are slotted because there isn't that many people there (because they suck). Okay they get done, and now you have to wait another 1/2 hour for the next {censored}ty band to start. After 4 or so cycles of this you finally get to the headliner, the only band worth listening to (or if you came for one of the middle bands) then you leave, pissed that you had to listen to 75% garbage and 25% good. And you get charged $10 for this. There are really only 2 types of shows (outside of the professional level) IMO: {censored}ty new young guy bands featuring loud half stacks, drummers that can't count to four and singers that can't sing on key. and Nostalgic old guy bands featuring lame rock songs with boring lyrics with a 40 something year old front man who still thinks he can "make it". This refers to original bands only. --> This excludes bands making a living playing classic covers at events: respect. The fact is for me personally, out of all the shows I hear coming in and out of all the bands that I check out demos of it's only about a 15% rate of anything even remotely good. So I would say quit bitching about consumers and look at your product. Maybe your band sucks.

I love this post. It totally describes the experience of an average "original band" gig. Your points are good, but not flawless. I've seen killer bands back to back, but the audience will slowly trickle away. Why? Because they only came to see their friends in the first place. It doesn't matter if the opening band or headlining band was better than their friends'. Nonetheless, I think one thing that's problematic for the original music scene is that the market is so niche oriented. But many venues don't book acts to cater to certain genres and music interests. So you end up having the equivalent of Glassjaw, the Sex Pistols, R.E.M, and Devendra Banhart on stage together. And what happens is most of the fans bolt because they got their nightly fuel of punk rock or whatever and don't bother to hear much else.

Back to the OP...what about the concept of a free show vs. free download?

How so?

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.

1. Bands don't have any control over the location and proximity of retail stores

2. Bands don't have direct control over the quality of the formats they use. A .wav is .wav. An mp3 is an mp3.

3. The purpose of a myspace is to hear an artist's music. Paypal links might be set up so as to protect the artist from rampant downloading and it's a quick way to sell someone a digital release.

4. You don't like ordering cds...isn't that more of a personal problem?

I think Chuck is pretty right on with the perfect storm theory.

But I disagree with the poster that said that if people are not coming to the shows or you are not getting paid, it is because you suck. Come out here to Nashville for a while, and you will see hundreds of amazing bands that play regularly for free to sometimes empty bars.

Yeah it's a problem I have personally that anyone would expect this is how I would want my music delivered. Anyone who prefers this method loses out on a consumer like myself.... Thats what I am getting at, I'm pretty sure there are other persons with my point of view.

By the way the band I am referring to (that had lossless copies of there disc for sale) can be seen here, I did buy there album:

http://www.backmask.com/

I've been to Nashville. This city seems to be the major exception to the rule, because venues seem to have better standards in that city. Also the culture (I think is awesome) is WAY different than anywhere else in the USA.

But for the rest of America I stand by that statement.

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