Music Piracy: the bands fight back

[Famous Mortimer]

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120619lowery

Numerous twitters and articles linking to this, saying "David Lowery just murdered the internet" or something similar.

Just for fun, I'll knock a few of these out:

(1) No, artists can't simply tour and sell t-shirts.
It doesn't work.  In fact, shockingly few indie artists can pull this off, except for those developed at some point by the major labels (ie, Amanda Palmer) or a serious group of professionals.  Most of the others that are managing to squeak out a living on the road are doing it with great difficulty and are working non-stop.

Working non stop, like every other human being on the planet, you mean? At least musicians are doing something they allege to enjoy.

(2) The recording is now effectively worth $0; its surrounding ecosystem has collapsed.
Some people buys CDs.  Less purchase vinyl.  iTunes downloads are still increasing.  But averaged across all formats and personal valuations, the recording has effectively become worthless.  And that has had drastic repercussions for the music industry, and the lives of otherwise creative and productive artists. 

An absolutely bizarre argument. Because the average money obtained from selling recordings has gone down, it's now worth zero? Maybe it just means that shitty MOR indie bands like Cracker can't spend 6 figures on recording an album which is only going to sell in the thousands any more.

(5) DIY is rarely effective, and almost always gets drowned by the flood of competing content.
It doesn't matter if you're singing directly into the ear of your prospective fan.  Because they're listening to Spotify on Dre headphones while texting and playing Angry Birds.   Some can cut through, but most cannot without serious teams, serious top-level marketing and serious media muscle.  Justin Bieber ultimately needed the machine, no matter how beautifully his YouTube story gets spun.

So, Justin Bieber's story is one worth modelling a business on? You may need a marketing machine if you want to be a hugely wealthy musician, but what if you just want to earn a normal wage?

(6) Sadly, most artists are worse off in the digital era than they were in the physical era. 
Actually, we have David Lowery himself to thank for this realization.  Because the implosion of the recording has impacted nearly every other aspect of music monetization (though certainly not music creativity itself.)  And its replacement is generally a fraction of what a 'lucky' artist could expect in an earlier era.

No argument here, other than I think some musicians earned far too much from far too ordinary music.

I got bored of the rest of it, which is more trying to close the stable door a decade after the horse bolted, but you might like to read it. @Helicule (possibly from here) who I'm following on Twitter posted this interesting response:

http://derekwebb.tumblr.com/post/13503899950/giving-it-away-how-free-music-makes-more-than-sense

[NoSleep]

Because they're listening to Spotify on Dre headphones while texting and playing Angry Birds.

Well, fuck, those idiots.

Excellent way to sum up your target audience. Perhaps others aren't aiming so low; making music for people that listen to it.

[NoSleep]

(14)  This ISN'T the best time to be in the music industry.

Not if you want the old models to magically work again. Unfortunately for you, it's time for some original thinking.

[The Masked Unit]

How long before the music industry just accepts that things have changed forever and that making as much money as they used to just isn't viable any more?

It's like teleporting's been invented and the car manufacturers and airlines think that they're still entitled to maintain the same profit levels they've enjoyed for decades, despite the game changing to the extent that it's like comparing rubgy to snooker. I've got sympathy for anyone who's trade disappears to make way for technology but sometimes it's utterly inevitable. Get over it!

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

He's right though- the tradeable value of an. mp3 file is zero

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Artists are not entitled to make a living-in fact 99percent dont. Its the one percent lucky enough to that complain. Music is an urge and an instinct to make. It doesnt matter whether one is remunerated for it or not.

[Crabwalk]

Here's the article by David Lowery that gives 'the artists' perspective[nb]And I have seen it endorsed by several musicians; Aimee Mann and Mark Eitzel to name but two[/nb]:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

and the blog post that kicked all this off:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/06/16/154863819/i-never-owned-any-music-to-begin-with

[CaledonianGonzo]

Not read it yet myself, but a few musicians I follow on Twitter were also in agreement with Lowery.

[The Masked Unit]

Artists are not entitled to make a living-in fact 99percent dont. Its the one percent lucky enough to that complain. Music is an urge and an instinct to make. It doesnt matter whether one is remunerated for it or not.

I agree - even to be paid a liveable wage doing it should be seen as a massive privilege as far as I'm concerned. 99.9% of us making music would give our right arse cheek just to reach and be liked by 100 people.

[Crabwalk]

Have you read the Lowery article, Masked Unit?

[thepuffpastryhangman]

So, if you like something (for example, eing able to rob music) about the changing market, it's fab and part of an inevitable organic process. But if you dislike something, say, Free Schools, the market's an evil nasty puppet beast only working for the few. Seen.

[Famous Mortimer]

The original Lowery article is interesting. He talks about Linkous and Chesnutt killing themselves because their record sales had fallen, then goes:

I present these two stories to you not because I'm pointing fingers or want to shame you.

An absolute 100% lie.

He then calls Megaupload "corporate" America, while ignoring the multi-million / multi-decade existence of record labels which have profited solely from the sweat of their musicians. Also, he repeatedly fellates iTunes, which is profiting hugely from the sales of records they had nothing to do with creating.

It's also the most horribly condescending, there-there-little-girl-let-me-explain-it-to-you article I've read in a long time.

[lazyhour]

Yeah, my first reaction was shock that Emily White had so callously murdered Chesnutt and Linkous. Very very cheap of David Lowery to bring them into it, even though they were his friends.

TheMaskedUnit, I like your teleporter simile.

For me the point is that the internet takes the physical product out of the equation - it takes out manufacture, shipping, shop overheads and also the value to the consumer of owning a solid object (and one that retains some value). I think there's an instinctive understanding from (most?) consumers that mp3s are 'worth' just a fraction of CDs or records. Until they're priced accordingly, a lot of people are going to be unwilling to put their hands in their pockets for mp3s. As it stands, I can usually buy the CD of an album (often new, not used) on Amazon Marketplace for LESS than the cost of the mp3s. How can that be right?

Micropayments seem a sensible answer - say, a cost of 8p per (non-DRM) mp3, coupled with an extremely easy way to pay - oneclick via PayPal, Google Payments, Amazon, iTunes, whatever.  This, coupled with a sense that the money is going direct to the artists, seems like it would change people's concept of free ('illegal') music vs paying for it.  If an album download is a quid AND super-easy to pay for, I'd feel a right cunt for grabbing it for free.

[The Masked Unit]

I agree, and made a similar point when this came up last time (about a month ago I think!), although my idea was to have a Spotify style service where the money actually went to the artist, e.g. you pay a subscription and it's divided up per audio minute. Spotify would probably tell you this is impossible, but I refuse to believe it. I'd also have a link to the artist page where you could buy fancy-pants physical copies and other merch. Maybe I'll start the facking thing myself.

[lazyhour]

Do it! You could be the musical Louise Mensch!

[QtheRaider]

Yes do it but lets have somthing better than an mp3. Why must i make somthing that sounds like it was recorded off an old wax cylender via two cans joind together by a piece of string when i have the technology to record somthing in 24 bit digital

[NoSleep]

Be careful there; you'll summon the "double-blind test" demons to the thread; who have obviously not heard what happens when a DJ tries to slip an mp3 into their set through a decent sound system (boos, for one thing).

[phantom_power]

I think some people are being a bit disingeuous here. The artists above don't seem to be saying that a new way of buying and selling music is wrong, but that not paying for music isn't the victimless crime that some make it out to be. I am conflicted about the whole thing myself but this whole "get with the now, grandad" stuff seems a bit wrong.

I think it is unfair to call Lowery out about mentioned Linkous and Chestnutt as well. If you see two of your friends die in poverty, with their deaths probably linked to that impoverishment, then damn right you will mention it when the debate arises.

[QtheRaider]

Be careful there; you'll summon the "double-blind test" demons to the thread; who have obviously not heard what happens when a DJ tries to slip an mp3 into their set through a decent sound system (boos, for one thing).

do thay have a decent sound system? or more to the point a crowd?

[NoSleep]

I think some people are being a bit disingeuous here. The artists above don't seem to be saying that a new way of buying and selling music is wrong, but that not paying for music isn't the victimless crime that some make it out to be. I am conflicted about the whole thing myself but this whole "get with the now, grandad" stuff seems a bit wrong.

I think it's more akin to not expecting water to pour upwards. Aside from the fact that there always were a few artists that did exceptionally well compared to others, there are many, many more people making and releasing music than ever before. Of course there is less to go around. The thing to do is establish some kind of gimmick to make you stand out from the crowd (like being "much better" than everyone else).

[Famous Mortimer]

I think the thing that bummed me out about this was that this seems to be the strongest defence the music industry can put up, relating to piracy. A band like Cracker maybe had their record sales go down because people got sick of hearing their awful fucking music - unless the evil pirating cartels got to all the reviewers as well.

I had a quick scan down the comments and they all seem to be in favour of the article too, and the link to make a new comment had disappeared. There's absolutely no sense from that article that the world has changed (like The Masked Unit showed above), it's just like people woke up one morning and all decided to rip musicians off.

I hope what will stop is people getting into music to make huge fortunes. The days of indie records selling in the hundreds of thousands have gone and will never, ever come back. People like David Lowery will shout at clouds and try and make his students feel bad for downloading music.

The article also goes further than most in defending record companies and iTunes, which just makes it look stupid. There's articles like the one written by the lead singer of Too Much Joy where he details trying to get what he's due from a record company, that show how full of shit Lowery's position is.

Bands aren't going to be able to tour in the way they used to either, but four guys and a van, provided they're a decent band, will be able to make a living.

I think our own Robot De Niro's stance on this made a lot more sense. While Cassette Boy's records were getting better, their sales were going down, and there was no record label or bad person intermediary between their music and us. Now, given they illegally got all their samples, it's a bit of a grey area, but it's obvious downloads affected their sales and that bummed me out.

phantom_power, I think it's ludicrous and offensive that Lowery should blame piracy on the death of his friends. I'd suggest drugs, mental illness and car-accident paralysis played a larger part. There's also a weird implication to stuff like that...are you saying if I, who never heard a Chesnutt song I thought was anything other than mediocre, had bought his albums anyway he might still be alive? Also, Lowery went and got himself another job when he stopped making a living from music, and didn't kill himself in no-record-sales poverty; so his argument makes even less sense.

What it boils down to is an old man who made way more than he deserved from the record industry writing an appallingly condescending "letter" to a young woman, criticising some people who make a lot of money from people wanting to hear music while producing nothing, while praising to the skies other people who make a lot of money from people wanting to hear music but producing nothing.

For anyone who wants to create music, there's many more opportunities to do so than ever before, but you're less likely to have some multi-national corporation give you a pile of money in order to exploit you.

[Johnny Yesno]

Yeah, my first reaction was shock that Emily White had so callously murdered Chesnutt and Linkous. Very very cheap of David Lowery to bring them into it, even though they were his friends.

My thoughts too. He didn't even acknowledge that most of White's mp3 collection was ripped from her college radio station's collection of promo material. She was working there essentially advertising music industry products and having access to that material was a perk of the job.

It's funny to hear all this from someone claiming to be from the first wave of indie music, a scene full of serious 'not doing it for the money' artists of which I'm sure Camper Van Beethoven were no exception. It may be true that downloading is affecting sales of those records but I suspect it's not for the reason he'd like to think it is. The problem with illegal downloads (like the older formats) is that it's impossible to know how much they actually get played once they're downloaded. With so much music out there and a greater sense of the right to try-before-you-buy in the minds of music purchasers, do Camper Van Beethoven really stand up to scrutiny? I probably move in the wrong circles but I can't say I've ever met anyone who described themselves as a fan of their work.

I also wonder how many artists I killed when I was younger. I don't think I'd bought many new records by the time I was White's age either. I used to brutally scour second hand record shops looking for copies of albums that I could actually afford, often sticking the knife in by buying records with 'PROMOTIONAL COPY. NOT FOR RESALE' printed on them while beaming with sick pleasure.

http://derekwebb.tumblr.com/post/13503899950/giving-it-away-how-free-music-makes-more-than-sense

Good article, that.

[thugler]

Be careful there; you'll summon the "double-blind test" demons to the thread; who have obviously not heard what happens when a DJ tries to slip an mp3 into their set through a decent sound system (boos, for one thing).

Double blind tests indeed! Imagine the idea of proving something with tests! Obviously the best way is a vague anecdote about people booing an mp3.

[NoSleep]

Nothing vague about it. The difference is absolutely clear to anyone in the audience and the boos are for the cheating DJ.

[Dead kate moss]

I've DJed and slipped in the occasional mp3 and it's amazing what sounds fine enough through your own system sounds really shit in a club. That's all, another 'ancdote' for you.

[Cagey Joe]

The difference is absolutely clear to anyone in the audience and the boos are for the cheating DJ.

Why do you think it's cheating?

[NoSleep]

WAVs sound fine, though. That's the point. It's the mp3s that sound shit and everyone can hear it.

EDIT: You edited out the digital files bit of your post, cheat.

[Cagey Joe]

WAVs sound fine, though. That's the point. It's the mp3s that sound shit and everyone can hear it.

EDIT: You edited out the digital files bit of your post, cheat.

I edited it out because I was jumping to a conclusion about your opinion of digital mixing. A good decision, it seems, as that wasn't your focus.

And yet, I don't see how using lower-quality files is cheating. That suggests trying to gain an advantage or deceiving people. If you mean that the DJ has low standards then I agree but that is not suggested by the word 'cheat'. Care to explain or offer a synonym?

[NoSleep]

It's cheating the audience, because you're delivering less than the full product and it's audible to the crowd; hence the boos (they feel cheated).

[Cagey Joe]

I suppose the equivalent would be showing a 720 YT video at the cinema, which seems ridiculous. Having never experienced a DJ playing an mp3, I can't understand the purpose. Is it easier to get hold of mp3s than WAVs? Cheaper? Shittier set-up will do the job? I suppose so.