A devastating response to the "free music" generation.

[Kwesi]

This si soooooo true. There's no way anyone is ever going to record the next Aja in their bedroom or garage.

The only minor point I'd disagree with is the mention of engineers' "ears" (I know you were being metaphorical). It isn't the ears which makes an engineer or producer great - if it was, we mere mortals wouldn't be able to hear the difference these guys make to a record. What makes them great is their skills, as you correctly say, and their knowledge.

While I agree that, it has usually taken cash and serious dedication to do something BIG, the times are a-changin'! Guys have made absolutely INCREDIBLE pieces of music, by themselves, out of a single room with a bunch of gear and a computer. People from all over the world who have never met in person have collaborated across the internet to create masterpieces! I've met them myself! The way I see it, the abilities of "little guys" in creating "big things" will only increase.

 

[BassyBill]

While I agree that, it has usually taken cash and serious dedication to do something BIG, the times are a-changin'! Guys have made absolutely INCREDIBLE pieces of music, by themselves, out of a single room with a bunch of gear and a computer. People from all over the world who have never met in person have collaborated across the internet to create masterpieces! I've met them myself! The way I see it, the abilities of "little guys" in creating "big things" will only increase.

I agree to some extent and have heard some great stuff made that way - and I do mean great. But my comment about "Aja" and the like stands. Wonderful as the new technology is - and you know I'm a big fan and user of this stuff - it isn't (yet) going to replace the process of putting the very best of the best people (musically, technically) all together, as a full time decent paying job, in a purpose built, ideal and very expensive environment for a year or so to see what comes out.

 

[lowfreq33]

The only people who are pushing the idea of making a "masterpiece" in your bedroom are the people who have never been out of their bedroom.

 

[Kwesi]

I don't mean to say that bedroom musicians are the future. These people that come to mind when I made my post weren't people who were against the "traditional" model they just had a vision and an alternative means to accomplish it. I'm not talking about folks who just point and click all over some DAW or another either (though supposed there's good music to be had by that crew too, if you look, I just haven't heard it yet). These are truly talented individuals.

My point was not, to say that great music necessarily should be made in a bedroom or a garage or a basement, only that it can, that it has, and that it will continue to improve.

 

[BKuettel]

I let people download my band's music for free.



I don't expect money for the songs we make. Hell, I don't even charge for stickers we just got. There's a difference between selling a product and selling an idea. If our band eventually got into making merchandise, then Yes we would sell it. However selling the idea of our bands image in the form of our music is preposterous to me. Why would we make people pay for something we want them to enjoy and listen to? If its free I feel like people will enjoy it more because of the fact its free. The "idea" that we have as represented by our music should be shared so that it can grow. Making money off of that prohibits the growth of these ideas, bands, and their fan bases.

 

[onosson]

It isn't the ears which makes an engineer or producer great - if it was, we mere mortals wouldn't be able to hear the difference these guys make to a record. What makes them great is their skills, as you correctly say, and their knowledge.

And, if I may elaborate, the time to acquire those things. Time spent in a studio - while being paid to be there, otherwise you have to go get another paying job ... and there goes your time.

 

[onosson]

I'm curious how many of those posting so strongly in favor of the status quo as being so supportive of the performing musician are members in good standing of their American Federation of Musicians Local? Come on. Take out your union card and raise it proudly in the air. Don't have one but you play for money and claim to be concerned about the plight of the working musician? Give me a single reason I should listen to your opinion.

I'm not "in favour of the status quo", but I don't understand what AFM membership has to do with any of this ... care to elaborate?

 

[NateS]

This is one of my biggest concerns as well. I want the best artists, bands, and studio pros to keep making music. But why should they work so hard if they're not going to be fairly compensated? I paid for "Songs In the Key Of Life" when I was a mostly broke teenager who was lucky to scrape together $4-$5 for an album. And I was proud to earn the money to buy 1 or 2 LPs at a time.

This is soooooo true. There's no way anyone is ever going to record the next Aja in their bedroom or garage.

The only minor point I'd disagree with is the mention of engineers' "ears" (I know you were being metaphorical). It isn't the ears which makes an engineer or producer great - if it was, we mere mortals wouldn't be able to hear the difference these guys make to a record. What makes them great is their skills, as you correctly say, and their knowledge.

Me too. I'm pretty sure that this generation of 20-something music thieves will be forgotten in 20 years because they will have made no meaningful contributions to the art of music. They'll just leave behind a giant pile of half-assed disposible crap that no one will care about because no one really cared about it when it was being made. They'll be worshiped for their awesome video games and artisan pickles though.

I agree to some extent and have heard some great stuff made that way - and I do mean great. But my comment about "Aja" and the like stands. Wonderful as the new technology is - and you know I'm a big fan and user of this stuff - it isn't (yet) going to replace the process of putting the very best of the best people (musically, technically) all together, as a full time decent paying job, in a purpose built, ideal and very expensive environment for a year or so to see what comes out.

elitist much? Good to know that if i don't pay the best money and go to the best recording studio and get the best people to play with me i'll never make good music.

 

[bolophonic]

elitist much? Good to know that if i don't pay the best money and go to the best recording studio and get the best people to play with me i'll never make good music.

I think you missed the point entirely by trying to make this about you.

 

[bolophonic]

So, where do library rips fall in this mess? The music has been paid for, and technically the public owns the library so each member of the public has in some small way purchased a portion of that CD.

I'm curious how many of those posting so strongly in favor of the status quo as being so supportive of the performing musician are members in good standing of their American Federation of Musicians Local? Come on. Take out your union card and raise it proudly in the air. Don't have one but you play for money and claim to be concerned about the plight of the working musician? Give me a single reason I should listen to your opinion.

iJazz - I thought so.

If you signed up solely to communicate with union members, you are probably going to be lonely here. Particularly if this is how you intend to spread awareness of union membership.

 

[NateS]

I think you missed the point entirely by trying to make this about you.

not about me. about musicians in general. i think people miss the point that beneath it all, everyone here is a musician right? aren't all of our opinions valid? I make music. You make music. bassybill makes music. i didn't include the post in those quotes, but the person who said that CC license was a joke, why? can't i decide what i want to do with my music? it would be my choice to say that my music is art and should be heard, not paid for. For other people to say that my music should be paid for, and it's wrong for people to download it, and that because it's easy to download nobody will be remembered 20 years from now, is wrong.

i went to an Explosions In The Sky show last night. In a different city. Riding in a friend's car. And it was a life changing experience, I walked out of the Jefferson Theater in Charlottesville VA a different person than i was walking in. I walked around and met the band after the show, and hugged one of the guitarists. For whatever it's worth, i might have just touched him in a small way, and gave him another reason to continue making the music he makes. He definitely gave me a new reason to continue trying to make the music that I want to make. But for the next week and a half i'll have a 6-pack of Ramen noodles to eat and whatever food i cant basically steal from the restaurant I work at. So the fact that I didn't spend 9 dollars buying one of their albums feels like a moot point to me.

 

[ubermiguel]

For as long as there have been bands touring in support of an album, the TOUR was the loss leader, and the album sales were key. About the only way for a tour to make any profit is off the T-shirts.

They won't buy MORE merch than they already have been. IOW, even though merch = profit, the loss of music sales is just loss. There won't be any extra merch profit that wasn't already there.

The "higher quality" files would just get "shared" as soon as they were released. There is no difference with that versus the current failing model.

It was cool, but every review of it is either a hardcore fan who would buy her old socks, or someone complaining that it wasn't worth $12. Most artists don't have a legion of old-sock-buyers.

Again, how is this different from how it's always been? Build a buzz, friends tell friends, merch gets sold. Only now, artists should expect that nobody will pay for a recording.

Revolution? What, overthrowing the tyranny of having to pay for music? The best and most dedicated will stick around because the only alternative is to get a "real job". Not musician.

I can tell you've never illegally downloaded music with your comment about higher quality files. Finding good sounding downloads is difficult. Many times I've downloaded an album, loved the music, hated the sound, so went and bought the CD.

Daniel Lanois has offered high quality audio versions in his website to download. The people that buy those are less likely to share them.

You're right about Bjork's app, it kind of sucked. But it's an interesting idea. If you listened to Edison's recording of Mary Had a Little Lamb, you might say it sucked too, but those wax cylinders turned into phonographs and you know the rest of the story. Mobile apps might be another revenue stream.

Social media is extremely important in direct marketing to your existing fans. They've even self-identified for you. It's a huge marketing change. With this database you can tailor your product offers and nurture long-term relationships. This will lead to more sales per fan if you do it right. Like any business repeat clients are gold. It's no different than the fan clubs of old but computers make it easier and instant.

The Internet in general is a revolution. For music sales specifically it would be more accurate to say it's a substitute good. The marginal customers are lost because they substitute buying music with illegal downloads. This idea has got me thinking about who buys music (physical or legal downloads) still: older people who can't work a computer; older people out of habit; real fans who want to support the artists; people who like the ease of using iTunes compared to the extra steps in illegal downloads...that's all I can think of now. These sales are still happening.

Who's not buying music?: cheapskates; marginal fans; new listeners who aren't sure if they actually like a band yet...feel free to add more. These sales are lost, unless you move the margin. Like with better pricing on iTunes perhaps? They already have 3 price points for songs (69, 99, 129 cents). Why not more? 29-69 for back catalogue, 79-99 for current catalogue, 109 to 199 for singles. If you can identify the exact price someone is willing to pay your sales will increase. A 29 cent sale is better than nothing. If most people will pay 199 for the latest Bieber single than charging 129 is actually losing potential revenue.

 

[boombloom]

Did the OP have permission to save and post this article? Should the author be enjoying some sort of royalty for the repost and the many subsequent readings?

 

[FilterFunk]

elitist much? Good to know that if i don't pay the best money and go to the best recording studio and get the best people to play with me i'll never make good music.

Not "elitist" at all. "Aja" and "Songs in the Key of Life" are light years better than "good." Sure, bedroom musicians/producers can make good or even great music (I'm happen to be a "bedroom" guy), but I have yet to hear the bedroom recording that can match the sound quality or writing/composition quality of a classic album. And no, I don't want to scour the internet and hope to get lucky and find a needle in the haystack, especially since the haystack is HUGE, and loaded with the good, bad, and ugly. To me, a clean recording isn't automatically a great recording. And to those who offer their music for free - great! It's great because it's your choice. It's also great that others want to be fairly compensated for their efforts. Not everyone is trying to become rich and famous.

 

[Kwesi]

To add a little more to my posts. While Aja and Songs in the Key of Life are considered classic albums, I think, the biggest difference between those albums and other amazing but less renown albums is a matter of scale. The money, time, people, and other resources that went into those are just beyond what a single guy or gal in a house could accomplish but when it comes down to it, it's about songwriting skills. There are albums that I'd consider as good or better on a much smaller scale because the people behind them were just that capable. With more people you have more input and are more able to create outside the confines of a single mind. But there are quite a few people who don't need that to make amazing works.

Frost*'s Milliontown pretty much came from one guy though they're an entire band and it is EASILY one of the most incredible albums I've ever heard. When I think of musical works of art, that's the first thing that comes to mind. The progression of every song throughout the entire album is just something I haven't heard anywhere else.

 

[Jhengsman]

The Internet in general is a revolution. For music sales specifically it would be more accurate to say it's a substitute good. The marginal customers are lost because they substitute buying music with illegal downloads. This idea has got me thinking about who buys music (physical or legal downloads) still: older people who can't work a computer; older people out of habit; real fans who want to support the artists; people who like the ease of using iTunes compared to the extra steps in illegal downloads...that's all I can think of now. These sales are still happening.

Who's not buying music?: cheapskates; marginal fans; new listeners who aren't sure if they actually like a band yet...feel free to add more. These sales are lost, unless you move the margin. Like with better pricing on iTunes perhaps? They already have 3 price points for songs (69, 99, 129 cents). Why not more? 29-69 for back catalogue, 79-99 for current catalogue, 109 to 199 for singles. If you can identify the exact price someone is willing to pay your sales will increase. A 29 cent sale is better than nothing. If most people will pay 199 for the latest Bieber single than charging 129 is actually losing potential revenue.

The catagory you missed was those who buy because they believe it is the right thing to do. However should I change my mind there is very little you can do to police my actions

 

[PlungerModerno]

whoa, this is a sore topic

I'm no saint... I see this in two spheres:
>Music that's new... relied on for future music, eg. a current bands last album helping to fund the next.
>Music that's old... recorded music from long disbanded bands & studios... eg. Classical music recorded in the 30's, recordings of deceased musicians of yore generally.

The former category seems directly affected by filesharing,
The latter less so, if at all.
Their is a middle ground, or at least those that fit neither group well.
I see the ethical considerations as dependant solely upon the effects (direct or indirect). In other words how bad it is to not pay for the music depends on how severely this effects the artists & means of producing the art.... just my current view.

There are some problems with this view though... there are those who depend upon revenue from fairly old recordings eg. a person living in part on royalties from a few decades ago, from a recording with a now deceased musician.

I can still recall the interview with Trent Reznor after he released a 'pay what you think it's worth' album. Needless to say not too many payed.

IMO, tool have the right idea. Use art to push sales of art. Innovative album art and such (like posters etc.) give the fans far more than the music.... plus you get CD quality audio.... better than low-fi mp3's. Crank the volume on a decent system and let those jaws drop.
I like recorded genius, but when I hear live music done well... I feel the decline of live music is infinitely more tragic. I don't think live music will ever disappear, and neither will recorded music. There are trends that affect quality, and turnover, but on the whole as long as a significant proportion of the population want excellent music, there is the possibility they will support it enough to make it happen.

 

[JehuJava]

Could it be that she got most of her cd's from bands sending them in to her to play?

 

[Blassebassist]

elitist much? Good to know that if i don't pay the best money and go to the best recording studio and get the best people to play with me i'll never make good music.

Who's not buying music?: cheapskates; marginal fans; new listeners who aren't sure if they actually like a band yet...feel free to add more. These sales are lost, unless you move the margin.

These are the ideas I just don't get. Aja and Songs in the Key of Life weren't elitist projects. They weren't just critical favorites, they were global chart toppers. In fact, I think it's easier to argue that your local punk band or your bedroom music is actually the elitist project because they are designed for small and natually sympathetic audiences. The reality is that the vast majority of these kinds of projects are made by people that can't really sing or play or write and require a lot of effort by audiences to "get" what the musicians are up to. They really only work if a listener wants to (or knows how to) hear past a bad note or a crappy tone or whatever. On the other hand, major labels and their artists tended to take their responsibilities to the audience seriously and did the work themselves before they offered their music to the world. That used to be the social contract between the artist and the audience. You pay people to do things that you can't. And you pay people a lot to do things you couldn't even dream of doing. But you pay people nothing for something you could do yourself with Garageband, three chords, and a $30 mic. So now that contract's breaking down and the artists can't afford to make high level music and the audience doesn't want to (or can't) put in the effort to make the music feel as special to them so the audience gets smaller the music gets worse and the audience gets smaller.

 

[NateS]

So now that contract's breaking down and the artists can't afford to make high level music and the audience doesn't want to (or can't) put in the effort to make the music feel as special to them so the audience gets smaller the music gets worse and the audience gets smaller.

is the audience getting smaller? Or do people still listen to a LOT of music? and is the music getting worse? Or are you just getting old and you don't like what we make now?

Don't worry, i'm off your lawn.