Well we have a difference in perspective. I wouldn't describe my position as a presumption that a recent development will never change - I see it as the end of a temporary fluke and a return to what is historically normal. For a brief period, it was possible to get rich selling musical recordings, but the market fixed that problem.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Continuing the copyright discussion...
- Thread starter TRichardsbass
- Start date
Well we have a difference in perspective. I wouldn't describe my position as a presumption that a recent development will never change - I see it as the end of a temporary fluke and a return to what is historically normal. For a brief period, it was possible to get rich selling musical recordings, but the market fixed that problem.
I don't accept that as being the voice of the market. The demand is still there. If retailers couldn't close their doors at night, they'd also have a problem selling stuff during the day, but that's not exactly a free market situation. It's more like a free for all.
Any product would suffer under those circumstances, but the product itself is still desirable, or people wouldn't be stealing it in such vast numbers.
Nope. Maybe it is different in the states, but numbers are way down here in Canada. Revenue *is* up, but only because ticket prices and concession prices are way up.
On a side note, Ive seen the pictures of that womans burns, to her upper most inner thighs....she deserved every penny. The wax cups were not rated for that temperature, and besides, coffee doesnt need to be 200+ degrees. Now back to topic.
- Jun 3, 2009
- 3,330
- 398
- Disclosures
- Bassgearu, Music Industry Consulting and Sales. Tech 21, NBE Corp, Sonosphere.
However, you shouldn't be driving your car with a coffee cup between your legs, ever.
Back to topic.
- Jun 3, 2009
- 3,330
- 398
- Disclosures
- Bassgearu, Music Industry Consulting and Sales. Tech 21, NBE Corp, Sonosphere.
So, then, just so I understand, if I can find any of your paintings, I can reproduce it as many times as I want, put it on any media, make it the key of the worlds biggest TV commercial, make it the background of the worlds largest selling movie, make tons of money and I won't ever hear from you?
I'm just checking, because I know that when you start talking about real money these perspectives change.
I just sold a song to an agency for a year long commercial run. The song was co-written with a guy who said exactly what you did, almost verbatum. He heard the song on the radio commercial on Monday. Guess who called immediately?
I of course always will pay him his portion. I am waiting for the final payment so all the expenses and deductions can be taken and he get his fair net. I was not surprised when my Mr. Idealist called wanting to know how much, when, and where his share was, even though he told me, and I have it on the original recording, he doesn't really care about getting anything, he was just honored to be able to record something with me.
Sure....
Maybe I should make clear that:
- I am in favour of copyright policies.
- I think those who have their work sampled should be able to authorize and profit from it.
- I like the idea of making a (good) living by selling record(ing)s, only. I don't think it's an "outdated" concept. (And I guess some artists do make a living from record selling).
On another level -- and maybe I should forget and get over it -- I feel there's something wrong when people are are frequently discouraged and vilified to rant against, say, Justin Bieber, Gene Simmons, Nickelback, Pete Wentz and "modern music" in general, but it's still viable to diss an entire country in this forums. (By the way, the use of expressions such as "great place to party", "high levels of poverty" and "alarming crime rate" makes me wonder if people are getting their opinions exclusively from 3D animated film "Rio"
)
- I am in favour of copyright policies.
- I think those who have their work sampled should be able to authorize and profit from it.
- I like the idea of making a (good) living by selling record(ing)s, only. I don't think it's an "outdated" concept. (And I guess some artists do make a living from record selling).
On another level -- and maybe I should forget and get over it -- I feel there's something wrong when people are are frequently discouraged and vilified to rant against, say, Justin Bieber, Gene Simmons, Nickelback, Pete Wentz and "modern music" in general, but it's still viable to diss an entire country in this forums. (By the way, the use of expressions such as "great place to party", "high levels of poverty" and "alarming crime rate" makes me wonder if people are getting their opinions exclusively from 3D animated film "Rio"
)
You know it's funny you should mention that because it has happened to me many times.
But, I've grown as a human being. I'm not at all obsessed with mass consumerism nor a desire to be rich. I have a desire to create and be able to make a living from my creations. Note that I say "make a living" meaning I am able to provide for myself and my family. I have no desire to be wealthy. I prefer to live a humble life and to live simply.
I have often given away my work to those who cannot afford it. I donate artwork and money and my time as a musician even when I have very little to give, but those I give it to have even less.
No one can create the original but the originator. All else is but a copy with no REAL value. One idea...being passed on and on like a ripple from a stone thrown into a pond. I'm paid for my original creation and yet copies can carry on and allows others to benefit, from the sharing of that one idea. Isn't that enough? Do I really need more than what I already received? Do I need excess?
If someone takes what is not theirs and profits from it, they are actually the poorer for it, not richer. I would welcome anything in return for the use of my creations, but I do not expect it, and I would probably donate it to others who need it more than I.
With regards to music, I prefer to write and perform as that is the creation...that is the product. A recording is nothing but a copy with only perceived value. Acting on a stage is the creation. A film capturing that creation is but a copy. It is wonderful to be shared, but we place far too much importance on reproductions. We as a society live our lives with such fierce loyalty to superficiality. And it is reflected in a very unflattering way.
I cannot control what others do. I can only control my own life.
There was a time when we lived without anything being mass produced. Everything was hand made...original in it's thought and production. Something of real, tangible value. Mass production is a sign of the times we live in. We make more, demand more, expect more and discard more. And yet it still is not enough. It's never enough. Well...I've had enough.
Look around you. There are thieves everywhere. If you have millions of dollars and you hoard it, while others around you starve, are you not a thief? Where does one draw the line?
This, of course, is where the parallel between analog visual art and music breaks down. In a literal sense for digital recordings, and in more or less of a practical sense for analog recordings, the copy is indistinguishable from the original. And there's no established practice of selling a recording once (presumably, for enough money to cover it's production cost, which could be very expensive if you're not limited to low budget methods).
Music that is created and recorded to a high professional standard is more like a movie; it is almost always a fundamentally collaborative process, and it requires temporary usage of scarce resources that cannot be afforded without a carefully managed budget and a return on the investment.
Recordings of music are not documents of performances. There is no way to capture exactly what happens in a 3d room without making the captured sound a different thing. Choices have to be made, at a minimum. And in many cases the recorded work is fundamentally different from what the same musician would do at a live show.
I understand that some people prefer simple and inexpensive recordings and that it's easier to have a light attitude about something produced that way in one's spare time.
But it's not right to presume to extend that value system to other people - or the belief of something like "modern music sucks, and production is part of the problem, so if we minimize production and only enable simple things, it will be better". That's one way of looking at it, and it would be easy to find examples to back that viewpoint up or to make it seem silly, uninformed, and arbitrary.
I just think that is fundamentally wrong. There are areas of the art of recording (and arranging and editing and mixing) that are not writing nor performing, and whole styles of music where the tape is the music. I don't think it's right to throw out dub reggae or musique concrete or studio orchestral pop like "Smile" because of the indie rock values of guys that own 4 track tape decks and are kind of mad at the world.
You should recognize that it's essentially an egocentric thing to believe that personal, unregulated, unschooled (which ironically often means very derivative) self expression is what really matters in music and that everything else can be dispensed with to it's benefit. Not that many great musicians look at it that way. Lots of crappy musicians look at it that way.
It's OK for them to disdain things they personally won't miss and it's OK for me not to place high value on the opinion of people that aren't in a position to know what they are missing.
It's always dubious when someone is sentimental for something they didn't personally experience. Mass production goes back a long way. If you spent a few days in ancient times, you might think differently of the times we live in.
I am also not a big fan of excessive consumerism and materialism. But the problem is not mass production. The problem is excessive consumerism and materialism. I can opt for hand crafted goods today, if they are important to me for a certain product.
Also there are multiple sides to these issues. Cheap, consistent production of goods enables many people to have access to things that can make their lives less burdensome or unsafe and it undermines monopolies. As for consumerism, while there are further drawbacks to it beyond what you named, the up side of it is that it does keep a lot of people employed and independent, and at least a part of what is being bought is probably seen by various people as a positive thing for them to have. I'm sure you feel that way about some of your purchases.
No doubt that philosophical approaches to life will differ and those approaches will affect one's opinion on copyright and the inherent value of the product being copyrighted.
And just to be clear, I do not pirate music or software, etc. I realize that there are a slew of people involved in the production whose livelihoods depend on the sales of such products. I hear samples of recorded music and if I find it inspiring I buy the legitimate works so as to contribute to the well being of all involved.
My point was to those that have no regard for those whose employment and livelihoods depend on sales of reproductions and think nothing of stealing from them, either the end product itself or the ideas from where they originated without due credit, acknowledgement or reimbursement.
I cannot control nor prevent people from stealing, whose actions deprive people of an honest living. And because of that I find pursuing it a waste of the precious little time I have here.
From my perspective of the creator, I couldn't care less what people do with my ideas once I've created them and made what I feel I need to live. I certainly don't wish to deprive anyone else of their desires to become rich beyond their wildest dreams either. To each his own. Someone simply believes my ideals would be compromised if I found another becoming rich off of me. More power to them. Nobody thinks twice when they go to work every day, slaving away at their 8 hour a day job while the owner who hired them is getting richer off their work. Ah, it's the American way.
It is so common to think anyone with high ideals is being less than truthful. That is because it is commonplace to look for the lowest in people.
And just to be clear, I do not pirate music or software, etc. I realize that there are a slew of people involved in the production whose livelihoods depend on the sales of such products. I hear samples of recorded music and if I find it inspiring I buy the legitimate works so as to contribute to the well being of all involved.
My point was to those that have no regard for those whose employment and livelihoods depend on sales of reproductions and think nothing of stealing from them, either the end product itself or the ideas from where they originated without due credit, acknowledgement or reimbursement.
I cannot control nor prevent people from stealing, whose actions deprive people of an honest living. And because of that I find pursuing it a waste of the precious little time I have here.
From my perspective of the creator, I couldn't care less what people do with my ideas once I've created them and made what I feel I need to live. I certainly don't wish to deprive anyone else of their desires to become rich beyond their wildest dreams either. To each his own. Someone simply believes my ideals would be compromised if I found another becoming rich off of me. More power to them. Nobody thinks twice when they go to work every day, slaving away at their 8 hour a day job while the owner who hired them is getting richer off their work. Ah, it's the American way.
It is so common to think anyone with high ideals is being less than truthful. That is because it is commonplace to look for the lowest in people.
I understand, but an alternate point of view is that everything matters. Minds are changed one at a time, sometimes by small pieces of information that build up. If it was just about me personally, I'd give up today. But I believe I have a responsibility to try to push society in the directions of fairness and a more diverse range of ideas. If nobody does that, I don't see how it gets better. It's about the community. I've benefited enormously from music and other arts- and while I've paid quite a bit of money along the way for those benefits, I believe I have a responsibility to try and preserve what I value about them.
You can't just let things go to the dogs because you can't personally solve them today. People can do a lot when they get together.
You've made that point of contrast several times, which makes me feel the need to emphasize that there are many points in between those two extremes, and other motivations for getting paid beyond monetary.
I have no delusions of getting rich off of music. I'd settle for breaking even on my equipment purchases (which are mainly for recording gear at this point) and other expenses. If I could make a modest middle class living off it it, that would be fantastic, but it seems like a pipe dream at this point.
As for payment, it's not just about how it relates to you. It's also about respect, fairness, and the power of a potentially dissenting voice in society.
Most people like music but they find the idea of individual creativity threatening. This relates to why negative stereotypes exist for musicians and artists. This creative power that we have makes other people feel jealous and suspicious. They prefer to believe that we were just born with it, which would make it unfair that we have it and they don't, which would mean that it's ok for them to enjoy our music but then weasel out of paying for it, and deny us respect for our ideas and as legitimate members of the community.
It's all good so long as we're making them dance, but once we voice an opinion that they may not agree with, or are visibly not pandering to them, all of a sudden we're elitists, flakes, stoners, or junkies, and not worth listening to.
At least if we are being duly compensated according to real world consumption of our products, we can afford to refute some of those stereotypes by living in a decent neighborhood, maybe owning some other business, employing some people, and having the freedom to do some less commercial products, or the money to, say, give to a political campaign that we agree with.
Keeping us broke and desperate while we are alive, and then forcibly communizing our work after our deaths (via copyright expiration) undermines our power while maximizing the ability of everyone else to get what they want from us. It's no wonder such policies are popular; most people want what we make and don't respect us enough to not steal it. This is why we can't rely on popular opinion to be right on these issues.
People in non intellectual property occupations, of course, don't have their work made into community property after a fixed amount of time. If you build houses and make a couple of million dollars, you can pass that along to your heirs, or you can sell your assets at full value, without the spectre of its' imminent devaluation eating away at your leverage as it is if you are in your 70s trying to earn from the still popular work you did in your youth.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm often a guest speaker at colleges, workshops, and organizations and one of my biggest causes is for us to do away with this silly notion of "starving artists". But it is upon the artist to do away with that notion, more so than the general public. The idea of the starving artist is allowed to be perpetuated by the artists themselves. And it isn't so much a matter of allowing others to take our creations and do what they will with them, as much as it is undervaluing ourselves as artists to begin with. I could live in a gorgeous home, drive expensive vehicles, etc. I just choose not to. I see too many people going without even basic necessities for me to feel good about myself in doing so. I am not a starving artist by any means. I am grateful. And that gratitude is shown more in what I can do for others instead of what others can do for me. My neighbors often joke with me saying things like, "Ah the life of a rock star, huh?" To which I reply, "Oh yeah, livin' the dream baby!" And I really am living the dream. It may not appear to be so, but I truly am. While others may see my lifestyle and think I am a "starving artist", I am anything but.
But lifestyle choices aside, I am a proponent and a voice for artists of all kinds that we are following worthy pursuits, and we deserve compensation like any other worker out there. But as I mentioned in a previous post, there are many thieves among us. Some even have the appearance of being quite successful and wealthy.
And perhaps I didn't clarify my point well enough. I am opposed to people stealing and I do make a point to change people's minds. But it stems from my own set of basic ethics and values that extends to life itself, not just the arts or copyright infringement.
When I say I choose to not waste my time pursuing theft of my work, I am saying that my time here on earth is short and it is better spent on that which I can control instead of that which I cannot. Poorer is the thief for he loses more than he gains. The problem lies in the ability to measure the gain/loss and any attempt at recovery is time lost creating new work. I say, let him have it because while I may not be richer without it, I am most certainly not any poorer. Best for me to move onto better things and let him wallow in his spoils. I serve a higher purpose while the thief serves no one but himself.
I don't think so. The # of paid admissions stats on these reports show that attendance is up in pretty much the same proportions as it is in the US; it's a bit lower than 2002 which was a great year for movies (in hard times people see a lot of movies), but considerably higher than in the 90s.
Invalid Link Removed
1997: 99,051,000
2002: 125,707,000
Invalid Link Removed
2005: 101,026,816
2007: 104,464,904
Invalid Link Removed
2009: 114,369,815
Hmm. I accept that artists have a responsibility to portray themselves in a way that is not about triggering reaction through a cliche like the starving artist. But it's not all on us.
There is a relationship between illegal downloads and the severely limited choices, obscurity, and up to and including poverty that some musicians do live in each day. There are other causes as well, of course. But if you treat the underlying basic issue of respect, those other causes are also going to be affected.
I tend to agree, but wouldn't giving up on the prospect of earning money from your work be part of that undervaluing problem ?
Conversely, few artists have a lot of practical choice in the matter. Ornette Coleman, now at a mature age and recognized as a major historical innovator, can command $60K for a gig (and actually get it). I can't do that. If I made a public issue of trying, it would not only not happen, but I would be playing into the anti elitism sentiment that is already a gauntlet for any artist who sees themselves as doing innovative or idea based work.
Understood. Likewise. It's a part of my value system that a human being's time is something that should be presumed to have intrinsic value in a way that is missing from most jobs, so it's not just about my personal interests. (Not that I can't see that a lot of employees are close to useless.)
I can relate, particularly in light of a theft I was the victim of this summer. However, I think that way of looking at it makes more sense in a one on one personal level when there's one thief and one victim, and that it's somewhat different when you have large numbers of people with widely held cheesy rationalizations about how they are somehow doing you a favor, and how it's really about their arbitrary grudges about large record labels, etc.
Those rationalizations make no sense, some record labels ripped off musicians (while others didn't) and so that justifies consumers ripping off musicians ? That logic makes the illegal downloaders just as bad as the offending record labels.
My point is not to obsess or to believe in illusions of being able to change things personally, but rather that we all share a responsibility to present a unified front to try to change these perspectives. We're the only people in a position to know what it feels like to be denied payment and respect, and neither the industry nor the audience is showing much interest in fighting that battle for us. They'd rather get the benefit of our work for free, when it comes down to it.
If it didn't cost them anything, they'd like to help us, I'm sure. After all, they all like musicians on some level, and they get mad at the big bad record labels for how they treat musicians, right ? But once there's a self interest - ie they get to keep what they aren't paying us - we're sold out, but fast. All of a sudden, we're rich cokeheads that don't need the money, we'd just put it into private jets and trained monkeys anyway.
You mean there's something wrong with that?
I get where you are coming from. But, I've spent a great deal of my life trying to change the world and have come to the realization that one can't change the world at large. One can change things, one person at a time (i.e.- the Butterfly Effect), and with that one can grow support of greater ideals that can, in fact, change the world.
But it is so easy to get burnt out trying to take on a burden that can never be accomplished. As Gandhi once said, "Be the change you wish to see."
It is therefore imperative that the artist alone must change. Why should the public care about some rock star who is only going to do coke with his pet monkey on his lear jet? Ah...but when the public, one by one is met by each and every one of us as individual artists, we have an opportunity to be that change. We become real people that matter to them.
When you make the problem about money, it's a no win situation. Because even money has no real value on it's own. It's only on what we use it for that it has importance. So when you make it an issue of the actual work of an artist being valuable, not as a commodity, but as a necessity, then people see what we do in a whole new light.
The idea isn't to put a currency stamp of approval on what we do, but to get people to understand that what we do is equally vital to our lives as the mechanic or plumber. People tend to think of art and music as non-essentials. Maybe...if we were just animals and our only purpose was to merely survive. But we are meant to live and to live fully requires something that stirs the soul, not just the food pot.
The more we make it an issue of money, the less our cause is furthered. You make a good point in that when the public sees music stars onstage, from a distance where they are untouchable and where American Idolatry is king, what is valuable about a piece of plastic with some recordings on it? These "stars" don't need my money, they already have it all. It's up to us musicians in the little corner pocket bars that can make the difference one person at a time. It's ALL on us artists to bring about change and show that we, and our music is just as vital to the public's lives. Once we can do that, the money will come.
It is like that with my artwork. People make a connection with me, not just my painting. I painted it. I created it. Their connection and value of me and my work goes through the roof. But...when they see a reproduction created by a machine, sitting in a frame gallery and I'm not there, a major piece of the value is lost. And along with it goes the perception of my worth as an artist. Well, if a machine can crank it out how valuable is it? It is the public's perception of the artist himself that determines the value of the product. And let's face it, the public has almost no real connection with artists these days, so what's the big deal if someone bootlegs copyrighted material of some rich star? The perception is no human is involved, so it loses it's value. There is no connection and thus no value.
The music industry has just gotten too big for it's own good. It's up to us artists to bring it back on a personal level.
You mean there's something wrong with that?
I get where you are coming from. But, I've spent a great deal of my life trying to change the world and have come to the realization that one can't change the world at large. One can change things, one person at a time (i.e.- the Butterfly Effect), and with that one can grow support of greater ideals that can, in fact, change the world.
But it is so easy to get burnt out trying to take on a burden that can never be accomplished. As Gandhi once said, "Be the change you wish to see."
It is therefore imperative that the artist alone must change. Why should the public care about some rock star who is only going to do coke with his pet monkey on his lear jet? Ah...but when the public, one by one is met by each and every one of us as individual artists, we have an opportunity to be that change. We become real people that matter to them.
When you make the problem about money, it's a no win situation. Because even money has no real value on it's own. It's only on what we use it for that it has importance. So when you make it an issue of the actual work of an artist being valuable, not as a commodity, but as a necessity, then people see what we do in a whole new light.
The idea isn't to put a currency stamp of approval on what we do, but to get people to understand that what we do is equally vital to our lives as the mechanic or plumber. People tend to think of art and music as non-essentials. Maybe...if we were just animals and our only purpose was to merely survive. But we are meant to live and to live fully requires something that stirs the soul, not just the food pot.
The more we make it an issue of money, the less our cause is furthered. You make a good point in that when the public sees music stars onstage, from a distance where they are untouchable and where American Idolatry is king, what is valuable about a piece of plastic with some recordings on it? These "stars" don't need my money, they already have it all. It's up to us musicians in the little corner pocket bars that can make the difference one person at a time. It's ALL on us artists to bring about change and show that we, and our music is just as vital to the public's lives. Once we can do that, the money will come.
It is like that with my artwork. People make a connection with me, not just my painting. I painted it. I created it. Their connection and value of me and my work goes through the roof. But...when they see a reproduction created by a machine, sitting in a frame gallery and I'm not there, a major piece of the value is lost. And along with it goes the perception of my worth as an artist. Well, if a machine can crank it out how valuable is it? It is the public's perception of the artist himself that determines the value of the product. And let's face it, the public has almost no real connection with artists these days, so what's the big deal if someone bootlegs copyrighted material of some rich star? The perception is no human is involved, so it loses it's value. There is no connection and thus no value.
The music industry has just gotten too big for it's own good. It's up to us artists to bring it back on a personal level.
I could quibble with a few of your angles, the main thing being that I don't think it works to look at it as the sole responsibility of the artist to engineer these changes. Communication requires two sides, and if you're appealing to ethics, that only works if the other side has the ethics. I've been disillusioned about that.
A tip jar in the real world is not usually a terribly lucrative strategy, but it can provide a small steady stream. I don't think it works online where no one can see you. That's kind of like submitting your resume to a website; it just makes it way easier to systematically ignore you.
I do think that with the right kind of sustained appeal to ethics, you can change the minds of a fraction of the populace on a voluntary basis. For the rest - and I do think it's the lion's share - some sort of technological or law enforcement based change will be required. I don't think those strategies should only be available to other kinds of businesses; to me that becomes a class based argument against musicians, like we should be limited to the tip jar approach while other creators of IP, and even the people that deliver our IP to the end consumer, are literally pulling in billions of dollars, because their business model is less vulnerable at this time.
I have no qualms about making a money based argument. People can relate to it. Everybody needs to get paid for their work. If you do a good job of framing the argument as being about getting ripped off and then looked down on by the people that ripped you off for having no money (!), even as they enjoy the fruit of your labor, to me that is a visceral argument.
Still, you make some good points and I don't want to emphasize differences as if there was no common ground.
The only problem as it relates to money issues regarding copyright infringement and artists not getting their just due, is that it really isn't about the money itself.
There are two big things at play here...
1. Perceived Equity 2. Personal Connection
A lot of this whole downloading bootlegs/copying, etc. has to do with points you brought up earlier. People will (fair or not) have kind of a Robin Hood thought process about it. Why should I spend my hard earned money to make a rich star even richer? He isn't going to miss money from just me.
How many people pirate Microsoft software for no other reason than...Does Bill Gates need any more money? Never mind the fact that even the janitors and groundskeepers employed there need to get paid. They don't see it that way. So that "Rock star doing coke with the pet monkey on his Lear jet" doesn't need my money attitude is prevalent.
There will always be a sense of robbing from the rich musicians/big label record companies so the poor can enjoy it too, as being equitable somehow.
Which leads to the second point of personal connection. We live in such a fast paced/internet world that we have lost a lot of our personal connection with our fellow human beings.
We had a whole slew of robberies in our neighborhood over the summer. Neighbors all around me were getting their locked homes, garages and vehicles broken into and having things stolen. We don't lock our house or vehicles and my garage door is always wide open. Nothing was stolen from us. A bunch of teenagers were to blame for the thefts over the course of a whole summer. One of the kids who were caught was a kid who I coached on his football team the year prior and I also happened to give him art lessons. He knew me and didn't want to take anything from me and convinced his friends to not do so as well.
We had a connection. People typically don't steal from those whom they have some kind of connection with. It comes as no surprise that after a concert, legitimate sales of CD's rise for the artist. People make some kind of connection during a concert.
Still it isn't a close connection. There still is some distance between the artist and consumer. The more connected one is to the artist, the less apt they would be to steal copyrighted material. When people come out to a gig and meet the musicians, they are pretty eager to buy a CD from that artist. They would be less likely to rob someone they have a connection with.
But these days, thanks to TV and the internet, everyone's a star. We are so disconnected from each other that when one illegally downloads music or burns CD's they don't even think there is a human involved in any way. It's all just electronic. TOTAL disconnection between consumer and artist.
Which is why I said earlier that my band prefers to write our own music and play it out live rather than record. Up close and personal. The act of creating the music live makes a personal connection. We have people wanting to buy our CD's...whenever we have some to sell. But I don't even want to bother with that yet. At some point we will. And if some bootleg them, there's not much we can do about it other than accept that some people did not make a connection with us on that level.
I do believe if we (the music industry) wish to gain some control over this issue, we need to get smaller and more intimate. Play smaller clubs, interact with our fans on a more personal level. Get them to see us as real human beings...neighbors, friends, family. Not some far off distant rich dude they don't even know, or care to.
There is hope. But making it about money never really solved anything.
Frankly I don't understand why there is such a value placed on musical recordings.
They can be produced for like $5 each. Virtually nobody cares about the quality - downloaded MP3 sounds like crap, to be honest. Most people listen on their cell phones or crappy ear buds.
And the vast majority of popular master recordings sound like junk to begin with. The White Stripes made a short career out of it. Some of the best pop songwriting in the last 10 years is, IMO, by MGMT who deliberately use the worst sounding keyboards in the universe.
And one of the CDs I actually bought is Edgar Meyer performing the Bach Cello Concertos on upright bass. The entire production was this old dude playing his bass next to 1 or 2 mics, master, and print the CD. The quality is so amazing that you can hear the elderly gentleman wheezing and breathing while he plays.
The masses don't care about quality of performance, quality of recording, or quality of playback, and when faced with paying $1 per song, 88%-95% of all downloads are still illegal.
Radiohead had the right idea - give the whole album away for free and take donations. The CD is merely promotional material to get people to come to your show and buy your T-shirt. In the economy of the future, the recordings are merely a means to an end, not the profit center. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
They can be produced for like $5 each. Virtually nobody cares about the quality - downloaded MP3 sounds like crap, to be honest. Most people listen on their cell phones or crappy ear buds.
And the vast majority of popular master recordings sound like junk to begin with. The White Stripes made a short career out of it. Some of the best pop songwriting in the last 10 years is, IMO, by MGMT who deliberately use the worst sounding keyboards in the universe.
And one of the CDs I actually bought is Edgar Meyer performing the Bach Cello Concertos on upright bass. The entire production was this old dude playing his bass next to 1 or 2 mics, master, and print the CD. The quality is so amazing that you can hear the elderly gentleman wheezing and breathing while he plays.
The masses don't care about quality of performance, quality of recording, or quality of playback, and when faced with paying $1 per song, 88%-95% of all downloads are still illegal.
Radiohead had the right idea - give the whole album away for free and take donations. The CD is merely promotional material to get people to come to your show and buy your T-shirt. In the economy of the future, the recordings are merely a means to an end, not the profit center. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
Well, as long as the Feds have no practical way to enforce the laws and private industry can't engineer it, we're stuck with the honor system. And you know what they say about honor among thieves.
That's why it needs to have a law enforcement + technological solution.
Once you're at the point of trying to explain why people should voluntarily do something, you've already lost. And we have no legitimate reason to be in that position... after all, we are talking about illegal activity here.
I will never accept this situation as something endemic to the nature of intellectual property (doesn't seem to work that way for software), nor as a class limitation for artists. Even if you believe it will never change for practical reasons, there is still no reason to accept it, because it is wrong.
I don't particularly care what people say about how they perceive value. I did not ask them that question; I put my product on the market at a set price, and that's it. I did not extend them the choice of deciding to pay what they want and I have no intention of doing so. If they aren't interested in buying what I am selling on the terms I chose, they are more than welcome to take their (non-) business elsewhere.
That grade school marxism strategy about perceived worth and who deserves to be paid is the sort of thing a surly 13 year old would come up with after being caught shoplifting. People know it's BS, they just use it because they know nothing can be done about it. There is no winning that argument, because it's obviously dumb and subjective and people are using it anyway. They're not fooling anyone. They are doing it because they can, plain and simple.
What merchant has the time to debate petty thieves about ethics ? What do they know about the topic ? Is there something in their attitude to suggest that they are open to being schooled on it by others ?! Their actions show where they see the value, not their words. If they are stealing the music, evidently it is worth having to them.
Expressing it in real monetary terms is important to it being taken seriously re law enforcement and technological solutions. Music is in the same boat as other IP related industries and we may be able to piggyback on a larger solution - which would quite possibly be the result of lengthy and expensive lobbying, or political effort to get the Feds to find a way to charge and prosecute enough people to make some waves.
Once we're at the point of having a fair marketplace for music, then we can have a meaningful discussion about perceived value in one piece vs. another. So long as it's all able to be stolen, it's all equally worthless, to that segment.
I'm not going to knock myself out and humiliate myself on a personal level in begging for a tiny fraction of what we are due, like I should be grateful to be exploited.
There's two or three billion people who want them and have an ongoing appetite for them. That's a massive demand which requires a diverse, ever changing flow of supply to meet. However people get their recordings, there is money being made - but right now it's largely going to internet services, computers, phones, and websites that sell services or ads. Make no mistake, there is a massive cash flow associated with music; it's just getting diverted around musicians, to a great extent.
Not the kind I like - and you must be assuming that the recording gear was already purchased.
When you have pro quality gear, it costs real money - which must be amortized against the unit cost to recoup.
Lots of people do care about quality. Even among the MP3/earbud users, you hear frequent complaints about the quality - in fact that's one of their justifications for illegal downloading. They may not be very specific about the issue - it's more likely to be "all this new music sounds like shyte anyway, so why should I pay ?"
The vast majority of any human effort is junk. However, we tend to focus interest on the exceptions to that.
Radiohead was already famous from the old music economy, they could afford to try something like that once - which they did, and opted against it for their subsequent releases.
When a hugely famous band with a worldwide audience tries that and finds it doesn't work for them, what does that suggest for musicians with far less resources ?
