File sharing doesn't hurt musicians

[FilterFunk]

Who is expressing more a sentiment of unrealistic and selfish entitlement?

A) An artist who as spent years mastering their instrument and the craft of song writing, and expects to be able to sell recordings to supplement his meager profit from touring and selling merch.

B) A person who feels all music should be free in order to justify their selfish and greedy tendency to steal music.

Seriously.

+1. The people who want free music also want quality music. Don't they know that quality music comes from quality musicians using quality gear? Who's going to compensate them for their time, talent, effort and money? Or would you just rather listen to a lousy acoustic guitar player in the park for free?

 

[David Jayne]

Let me ask you how you think this band will ever make a living without selling their albums ? They are a 7-piece, touring locally. Merch and gigs only ?

How about other genres ? Do you see the next Michael Manring living off T-shirts ?

I get your point of view, but 'Scientist' would never sell enough hard copies to make a living no matter what. They're great but will never have broad appeal. So yes, gigs and merch only. I admire them for having the guts to even try.
Manring appeals to bass players and Jazz types, and I guess there's enough of them around to sustain him.

 

[JimK]

The radio in my car was free

Oh, you paid for it...they just don't itemize it like they did in the '60s & prior.

 

[two fingers]

Yes, we as musicians have to work hard as there is little money in the industry. But it has also weeded out a lot of the weak and the lazy - the image-driven bandwagon jumpers, the lame ducks who just wanted to "make it big" and be rock stars.

So these are predominantly the types of musician that file sharing has *really* hurt.

...oh, and interesting article, ta

SO, now anyone who puts more emphasis on "making it" rather than "making quality art" is no longer welcome among us? Man, class warfare has crept into just about everything, hasn't it?

Most of the entire rock music genre of the late 70s through the 80s was driven by people who really wanted to make it. So they wore, sang, played, and ate whatever increased their chances of getting a deal. I don't blame them at all. Some good music came from it. A lot of good times came from it. And a lot of money was made for the original bands AND cover bands back then. (Don't even get me started on how the grunge movement literally KILLED live music on the local level. Nobody wants to celebrate and have a good time listening to a cover band imitating bitching about some guy from Seattle's problems.) The current country music market is no different from the glam rock scene of the 80s in my view. Country artists and musicians are sporting skinny jeans and converse Chucks and playing pretty much rock music in order to make it. I love some of the music, and don't fault them at all for doing whatever it takes to provide for their families.... or even...... dare I say it...... just get rich.

So I, for one, have no problem with "bandwagon lame duck" musicians who will change the way they act, dress, or even perform in order to make a good living doing what they love. More power to them and best of luck. Congrats to the ones who pulled it off.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....
I have no problem with YouTube or other services where you can listen/watch but not take with you. But once you get music that you can take with you on CDs or through digital files, I think you should pay for it.

 

[ridethespiral]

I still buy CD's, but generally only after I've listened to the album once online.

Take for example this newer band, "With Our Arms to the Sun". They released their LP as a free digital download on their website and advertised it on Facebook as a free download. I loved the album so much I spent the $12 to get the high quality wav files directly from them.

 

[guy n. cognito]

I agree 100%. I'm surprised so many people still actually pay to listen to music these days, whether they've ever heard it before or not.

While this is a cute way to validate your personal decisions to steal music, the reality is that there are plenty of ways to hear music before buying it without stealing.

 

[bass12]

File sharing doesn't hurt musicians?

 

[rogersjoe]

File sharing doesn't hurt musicians? REALLY? File sharing doesn't hurt software companies either than does it?
As a musician, on a record label. I can tell you...YES, it hurts us VERY VERY much. It requires record labels to dip into other profits in order to pay back the money used to sell your band. Making good quality albums isn't getting any cheaper. So they need to recoop their costs somehow. Pandora, Radio and stuff like that don't bother me at all. That helps promote the music. But illegal downloading doesn't promote. And don't say "how else would I hear of a band?" Clearly you heard of the band BEFORE you downloaded their music. How else would you have known to search for them in your filesharing site?

 

[avvie]

The "music should be free" people are at least kind enough to identify themselves as the future of our welfare system.
Freakin looters.

 

[FerK]

...but 'Scientist' would never sell enough hard copies to make a living no matter what.

Selling FEW copies brings them more money than no copies at all.

Manring appeals to bass players and Jazz types, and I guess there's enough of them around to sustain him.

To sustain him ? But then again...SOMEBODY has to pay, right ? There's no way a jazz musician can make a living off merch. Nobody wears a Herbie Hanckock shirt ! So the whole "music should be free" means that musicians MUST plan to live off gigs ? Permanently tour for the rest of their lives to make a living ? What a crappy prospect.

 

[David Jayne]

Permanently tour for the rest of their lives to make a living ? What a crappy prospect.

Musicians have traditionally made their money through live performance. This is the way it's been for hundreds and hundreds of years. There was a very brief period of time in this where technology made it possible to make lots of money through recorded copies. Technology created it and technology took it away. We're simply going back to the way things used to be and the way they will be for the foreseeable future.
We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

 

[tbz]

It's funny how hard some folks work to justify theft.

Those few articles are nice, but as others have pointed out they basically say "yeah don't expect to support yourself making music". That is at odds with the sentiment in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, which said "you can become rich and famous making music"

File sharing caused that. You can pretend it did not, but it did. As others have pointed out, the industry cannot fund major works, like Aja, with its lack of funds, which is why most major label music is boring. It's also why this decade lacks a significant band like Zeppelin, Metallica, the Beatles, etc.

 

[tbz]

While this is a cute way to validate your personal decisions to steal music, the reality is that there are plenty of ways to hear music before buying it without stealing.

Yeah the juvenile attitude gets kind of tiring sometimes, doesn't it.

"Why should I expect to pay for something, just because someone spent their time creating it, learning it and then teaching it to their band. Spent time and money recording it, used a company to promote it and then worked to make it available to me. Psh, that s*** should be FREE SON!!!! My theft somehow doesn't reduce the money going into that industry, or if it does it doesn't matter because....they're all rich or something....."

Grow up guys. Theft is theft. If you love music, then accept that stealing it actively hurts the industry and artists. You can pretend it does not, but it does, period.

 

[FerK]

Technology created it and technology took it away. We're simply going back to the way things used to be and the way they will be for the foreseeable future.

You could be right, but I guess we'll never know. I hope independent musicians still get to live off their talent, while having a quality life.

And don't say "how else would I hear of a band?" Clearly you heard of the band BEFORE you downloaded their music.

I agree with you, but you're a bit off there. There are millions of way to promote your music as well: YouTube, Facebook, music reviews sites (I "discover" most of my "new" music through progarchives.com), friends comments, etc. Whenever I feel like listening to something new, I check out other people's Bandcamp collections with whom I share an album.

 

[I am Soma]

i do not know one friend who steals music. we all pay for it and are happy to support fellow artists. i'm still pretty young (30) but its crazy to see how in the last 10 years everyone thinks they should get something for nothing.

 

[AaronVonRock]

What it boils down to is that music is NOT a tradeable commodity or a necessary service, it's a work of art and the value is not dictated by supply/demand, but what the individual is willing to pay based on perceived value. Music can be delivered in many different ways, but as you read up there with Cracker...we're not talking about a whole ton of money when you consider costs incurred, taxes, and splitting it between all the band members. To cite specifically, the guys from Scale the Summit (according to their frontman, Chris Letchford) make most of their money on merch sales...and according to them this is what most of the smart bands do when they want to turn a decent profit. They are on a major label (Prosthetic Records) and are in the upper artist tier. You gotta cover all the bases you can because pennies make dollars, but the ability to let people hear your music for free will make exposure much easier which may lead to concert and merch sales. It's your art, market it how you want, but I've always resented that "You're stealing from the artists!" attitude that major labels try to push out...you're not greasing their exec and marketing tool's pockets, they are who are robbing the artists blind, not people downloading their music for free. Just my $0.02

This guy gets it. Well put.

 

[rogersjoe]

I agree YouTube and all that stuff is good. If a band or label chooses to share they music for free or gives permission for others to do it. Then by all means.....have at it. My band has soundcloud with or whole preproduction up for free. But stealing and filesharing sites are different. I discover lots of bands from legitimate sites. But I've never downloading one song that wasn't given away by the band or payed for.

 

[AaronVonRock]

Musicians have traditionally made their money through live performance. This is the way it's been for hundreds and hundreds of years. There was a very brief period of time in this where technology made it possible to make lots of money through recorded copies. Technology created it and technology took it away. We're simply going back to the way things used to be and the way they will be for the foreseeable future.
We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

I think you're probably correct. Not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe it's good for some and bad for others. Moving forward, it looks like selling band merchandise will be more profitable than selling prerecorded music.

 

[I am Soma]

Because hamburgers are food, food is a natural requirement for people to live and is a limited resource. Not to mention the amount of processing that is REQUIRED by most governments to adhere to standards for meat preparation, delivery, and cooking. You're discussing a limited resource with much much more overhead and regulation.



This is a service, arguably in our society one that people find necessary for job standards and such. There are recurring costs such as equipment, building rent, utilities for the building, and again....health and sanitation standards to adhere to.


Again, another service with a sense of urgency or necessity. People NEED plumbing to work in order to have proper sanitation in their homes/businesses. It is not a frivolity.



The radio in my car was free



What it boils down to is that music is NOT a tradeable commodity or a necessary service, it's a work of art and the value is not dictated by supply/demand, but what the individual is willing to pay based on perceived value. Music can be delivered in many different ways, but as you read up there with Cracker...we're not talking about a whole ton of money when you consider costs incurred, taxes, and splitting it between all the band members. To cite specifically, the guys from Scale the Summit (according to their frontman, Chris Letchford) make most of their money on merch sales...and according to them this is what most of the smart bands do when they want to turn a decent profit. They are on a major label (Prosthetic Records) and are in the upper artist tier. You gotta cover all the bases you can because pennies make dollars, but the ability to let people hear your music for free will make exposure much easier which may lead to concert and merch sales. It's your art, market it how you want, but I've always resented that "You're stealing from the artists!" attitude that major labels try to push out...you're not greasing their exec and marketing tool's pockets, they are who are robbing the artists blind, not people downloading their music for free. Just my $0.02

i think it really depends what kind of music you are into. i personally listen to a lot of music that is put on indie labels or by the artist themselves so when if i steal a $12 album it is actually hurting the artist quite a bit.

 

[rogersjoe]

Record labels aren't the only one saying "don't steal from the artist." I have read countless interviews with bands who talk about what stealing their music does to them. As I already said. If you steal music and don't pay for albums, then record labels have to dip into OTHER profits to recoop their costs. That includes touring, merch and even just take away bands pay from album sales all together. Record labels are not willing to take big fianacial risks with bands nowadays because there is a chance they won't make their money back. Some labels don't even offer advances causing a lot of bands to not even be able to take their record deal offer because they wouldn't even have money to live while writing and recording an album. I agree the internet has done a lot to help promote bands, but that promotion sometimes goes on deaf ears, cuz once someone discovers a band, they go get the album for free.
It's not always about putting money in pockets. Sometimes it's just about paying the bills.