That's okay, I dug reading it anyway.

There's a lot of interesting sub-discussions here, but to pick one:

my feeling is that bands have an opportunity to make money, if that's their goal, performing live. that's something that nobody can copy. and actually come to think of it, aren't you allowed to play cover songs live without paying royalties, if you want to? but really, i think the live performance, and the experience therein, is what cannot be copied. and from what i've heard, that's where bands make real money anways.

Actually, clubs pay dues to BMI and ASCAP in part to cover this cost. Oh yeah, they've thought of everything. But as to your point, it's true a great many bands tour to make their pocket change. As I always say, we could learn a lot from Zappa. He set up an independent distribution to avoid having to give most of his profits away, which is why most bands have to tour all the time. But no bands are making money of MP3s, even if they charge for them. That's not where the real money is.

disappointing responses. What you guys still seem to overlook is the fact that you are taking something for free that was meant to be paid for. let's go through them one by one:

bottom line is if you make it you're going to be rich. The Strokes are rich. The White Stripes are rich. 50 Cent is rich. They are just as rich, if not richer than the bands that made it and came along before downloading.

Wrong. Unless you work as the accountant for these bands, you have no idea how much money they take in personally. But that's irrelevant anyway. Stealing from a rich person is still stealing, no?

the only bands that are getting fucked over are the bands that sign stupid contracts and don't end up being successful and have to pay back the record companies. but is that the downloadings fault? no.

So if a band signs a bad contract, that gives you permission to steal their music? I don't think so.

I think in most cases, the musicians are getting ripped off like Nabisco gets ripped off when I sample a cracker at the grocery store. Giving away a sample of product so that consumer can make an informed purchase.

Continuing your grocery store example, let's say I 'sample' whole boxes (albums) of crackers (songs). These boxes have been produced and sold by the cracker (record) company, but I continue to 'sample' without paying, thereby robbing them of any money they would make from a legitimate sale. In addition, I am also robbing the (record) store itself, because they get a cut of each sale. See where I'm going with this? We all know that people don't just sample songs, but copy whole albums.

If it's all about the money, then you're not making art, your making product.

Please. I don't know what you do for a living, but believe it or not, professional artists/musicians/songwriters actually NEED TO MAKE MONEY to keep doing their art. Unless you assume that once they've 'made it', the pennies keep falling from heaven.

First of all, I'm not downloading an exact duplicate, it's a compressed, degrated version of the album. The original does, and always qill sound better.

Ok, so once the technology exists that allows you (and millions of other thieves) to make exact quality copies, will you then stop downloading? Of course not.

If the music industry is suffering, then a) good, and b) I think it's more due to the shitty records and homogenization of commercial radio via deregulation.

Why is it good that the industry suffer? American pop music is one of the country's biggest exports. And why would regulation be good for radio? Why should the government dictate the content of every radio station?

if i buy a van gogh painting, and then take a pen and trace it onto tracing paper, and then give out copies to whoever wants them, is that really all that different than taking a cd and making an mp3 of it and sharing it?is it illegal to give away badly-perpared pen sketches of a painting? i don't think so.

See the above argument. Your thinking convieniently leaves out the fact that Van Gogh paintings are one of a kind, and can't be duplicated at the exact same quality that a CD of music can. Continuing your example, let's say you had a machine that could exactly duplicate a Van Gogh painting, down to the brush strokes and size. You then make 10 million copies of this duplicate and give them out to 'friends'. Guess what happens? The value of the original VG painting drops to nil, and the artist (or whoever would make money from the creative work) can no longer make $$ from it.

i don't understand how it can be illegal for me to give anything away.

Because when you give it to millions of people who are supposed to pay for it, the artist gets screwed. Why is that so hard to understand? Haven't you guys heard of royalties?

i think maybe i like the fact that downloading could represent a loss of incentive to major labels or to "artists" to be in the "business".

??????? Stop smoking the weed, friend. It has damaged your mind!

you're julie from the mod squad! ha!

i dunno, music is all fucked up when it's about money. the posterboy for this would of course be metallica, who went from "we will NEVER make a video!" to "downloading steals from us (multi-millionaires)"... ugh.

none of this music business crap computes for me. i don't actually wanna tour nearly as much as i'd like to have my music out there and available for people to listen to. i like listening to my music recorded better than i like performing it live. i don't want to make any money off of it, necessarily, either. there's actually two completely different viewpoints that i see the business end of the music business from.

1) Benevolent Artist Viewpoint :
It starts with the realization, "fuck money, this is about being creative!". play live shows because you enjoy being a performer. share your music with people without demanding compensation, because you like your music and enjoying giving it to other people who like it as well. who cares if not everybody likes your music, it is your craft and it's probably not going to be for everyone (very unlikely that it will, anyways)

2) Capitalist Venture :
It starts with the realization, "fuck creativity, i'm out for $". unless you consider scheming to make money to be an art. it's not about artistic integrity, or moral values, or this or that. it's about MONEY. what sells? what will people buy? it becomes *paramount* that people will buy your records (and pay for them) and pay to see you live, $20 or $25 or more, and buy your shirts, and buy your DVD, etc.

examples being:

fugazi = camp #1
dr dre = camp #2

normal people usually fall somewhere inbetween, i think.

i tend to fall squarely in camp #1. i have a 1-song demo that i recorded at inner ear this summer (at the cost of several hundred dollars for tracking, mixing, and mastering). right on the insert, it says that giving away copies to people who like it is strongly encouraged, so long as there's no money transaction involved. i don't want to make money off it. i want to get it to people who will like to listen to it.

camp #2 is something i've often thought about doing for retirement purposes. my old drummer and i talked about doing this. assembling a project *specifically* with the intention of being MTV #1 radio chart topper flavor of the moment, etc. one year of touring on the order of what green day did at the height of their career, and then a sound investment. and i would never have to go to work again. this has its appeal. i would expect to NEVER achieve this unless i specifically set out to do it, and i truly believe that if that was my goal, i could stand a good chance of pulling it off. the hard part would be sleeping at night knowing what a capitalist fuck i am. and also arguing with people that they shouldn't download my shit because they're cutting into my retirement, when i believe deep down that music is an art form and art is for sharing with people not for monetary profit but just for the sake of connecting emotionally or intellectually with like-minded folks, or opening people up to new ways of thinking about stuff. just like my favorite bands all did for me.

musicians will start getting paid less when the rekkid label's profit margins start shrinking. if a label's (even touch and go or matador) sales drop, they are forced to make cut-backs or limit expenditures (fewer promos and lesser investment in their future (which is arguably a bad thing...think kill hannah) which in turn effects what is out there that any of us are either listening to or involved with.
as a live venue soundguy this effects my paycheck because they have no way of observing how many people like their stuff (don't tell me that attendance = interest, i've seen shows packed nuts to butts with friends, family and friends of friends soley for the social scene; and i've seen may shows where their internet "fans" are let in for free, which lessens the door and makes the band less desirable). for the local recording community it effects their paycheck because if a band sells their stuff to a local independent record store under consignment and everyone just downloads their shit for free it makes for no sales and that in turn lets them know that people aren't into their sound which nulls the local independent radio station's communication with the rekkid stores (i worked at a small record store on the university of minnesota's minneapolis campus and 770 was always in our shit about what kids were buyin') and makes them less likely to record something full length. and lastly, the bands suffer the most. yeah a lot of kids are downloading the latest 50 cent and shit, but it's not just them. i can get the latest sunn off the internet for free, sure, but but a product is a product is a product. and if i can get the album for free, how will i be helping the band to put out more and keep doing shit? let alone your local guitar shop, your local bartenders, your local night club, your local this and that and in turns and everything else that follows. "support your local scene" used to mean >go to the shows of bands you like and buy their 7"s<.
to kids that burn copies of the latest rye coalition (which i think would have made it no farther than maxwell's if cd burning and the redistribution of was as rampant as it is now): thanks for making it less worthwhile for those of us you supposedly respect and appreciate. we do this for you.

if i wasn't still at work and very tired, i'd try and argue with what you've said just cause it's the thing to do. but what you say really makes sense. also, it seems like you actually know what you're talking about, rather than just pulling shit out your ass like i am. but one thing i'm not able to process right now is the difference between today's downloading and cassette copying that was going on in the 80's. when i think of bands like op ivy or the descendents or raygun or the dead kennedys, all the stuff that my cooler friends were listening to in the 80's, i can't even picture most of the album covers... because in my limited experience, there were basically two or three guys that were ahead of the curve, going to wax trax or wherever it was they shopped, and buying songs about fucking or ultramegaok, and then making copies for all the other kids who were always looking for something new but never going record shopping. this is seriously exactly what i experienced in high school. and all of the bands i mentioned still managed to get famous and sell records and tour and stuff. in fact, i can kinda guarantee that there were many bands that had a higher attendance at their shows as a result of this illegal sharing than they would have without it. soundgarden being a great example, there were a couple people who bought the tapes, and a whole bunch of people who got copies of entire tapes or just specific songs, who then were like "oh shit, this is awesome! woah, they're playing in town? cool, how can i get a ticket" when that *never* would have happened if it was up to all the kids to be the hip record-shopper that honestly most people aren't. i think an awful lot of people have pretty much always gotten turned on to music by their adventurous friends who took chances on stuff they didn't hear on the radio etc. i'm not disputing anything you said, because like i said, it seems very sound. but at the same time, how are things different today with mp3 than they were then with cassette? is it the fact that the scale is changed, more people getting free stuff with less people buying product, or is it some major difference in the structure of the business, or what? and also, what are you doing up so late on a schoolnight!

toomanyhelicopters wrote:how are things different today with mp3 than they were then with cassette?

The difference is: when you make a cassette copy, you make a single copy for friend, then another single copy for another friend, etc. Each single copy created requires playing the full LP/cassette/CD until the copy is done. These friends can make single copies for each of their friends, but of course the quality degrades as the "generations" of copies increase.

You can rip an entire CDs worth of MP3s in less than ten minutes, and distribute the entire CD to 5,000,000 of your friends instantly (or in the time it takes them to download the thing from your ftp site or whatever). Each of these friends can then distribute these songs - with exactly the same quality as the one you gave them - to several million of their own friends. In this scenario, well over a trillion people have this entire CD, and only one of them has paid for it.

iodizedsalt wrote:when the rekkid label's profit margins start shrinking. if a label's (even touch and go or matador) sales drop, they are forced to make cut-backs or limit expenditures

These cut-backs can include "not putting out this band's records anymore," which can happen with independent labels all too easily. If 500 people are downloading a record rather than buying it, this may mean the band is no longer selling enough for the label to justify putting their shit out.

I keep thinking that the biggest point in favor of downloading music is that it's not going to stop. The technology's only going to get better & make it easier & make the audio quality higher, so it's here to stay. I think we can live with it - but it's troubling when people don't understand the genuine economic impact on musicians, both successful and not so successful. As long as people who care about the musicians they like understand that their actions - downloading to save money - have repercussions on these musicians (and take action in response to this understanding, e.g. buy some music, either in a store or through a download site that charges), we indie rockers will likely be safe.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:just like my favorite bands all did for me.

I expect you would not have heard any of these bands (including Fugazi & Dr. Dre) if they hadn't put out records and sold them.

Spoot, thank you for being the voice of reason.

[quote]I expect you would not have heard any of these bands (including Fugazi & Dr. Dre) if they hadn't put out records and sold them.[/quote]

that's half true. the selling has nothing to do with it, today anyways. if a band recorded an album and posted it on a website and someone sent me a link, i'd be able to hear it. in fact, with the web and the mp3 format (and yes, also with illegal file sharing) i'm tremendously more likely to hear a big variety of music today than i was 20 years ago.

and so you know, i agree with you completely that with regard to artists we like, it's imperative that we actually purchase their cd, assuming they're making their livelihood off selling cds. one of my favorite albums at the moment is Chris Brokaw's 'Wandering as Water', which i bought from him when he played here a couple months ago. and i fully understand that he's making his living off playing shows and selling discs, though in his case i think it might be more off playing shows (in terms of income), which is, i think normal, right? i really like the disc, and have enormous respect for him as a person, artist, musician, the whole gambut. and as a result i've played the disc for several people, and when they liked it and asked me to burn them a copy, i told them it's available for order through his website. because i think it means a lot to him to sell each disc. at the same time, i have no hesitation about downloading the latest outkast song and not paying a dime. cause those guys, if they aren't already, are gonna be multimillionaires within a very short period of time. so i don't feel the same way about taking a dollar or whatever out of their pocket.

is it the mid-level guy that gets fucked by sharing? the nobody is happy that someone listened to their music, and the big dog is making a bank as it is. it's the indie types who get screwed on money? is that accurate?

toomanyhelicopters wrote:camp #2 is something i've often thought about doing for retirement purposes. my old drummer and i talked about doing this. assembling a project *specifically* with the intention of being MTV #1 radio chart topper flavor of the moment, etc. one year of touring on the order of what green day did at the height of their career, and then a sound investment. and i would never have to go to work again. this has its appeal. i would expect to NEVER achieve this unless i specifically set out to do it, and i truly believe that if that was my goal, i could stand a good chance of pulling it off. the hard part would be sleeping at night knowing what a capitalist fuck i am. and also arguing with people that they shouldn't download my shit because they're cutting into my retirement, when i believe deep down that music is an art form and art is for sharing with people not for monetary profit but just for the sake of connecting emotionally or intellectually with like-minded folks, or opening people up to new ways of thinking about stuff. just like my favorite bands all did for me.

Be careful with this: most bands you're looking at don't make nearly as much money as you might think. Many of the labels you would be aiming for tend to keep their up-and-coming artists on a short economic leash so the bands end up owing the label tons of money while only making the salary of a 7-11 clerk. I'd go with camp#1.

is it the mid-level guy that gets fucked by sharing? the nobody is happy that someone listened to their music, and the big dog is making a bank as it is. it's the indie types who get screwed on money? is that accurate?

i don't know what you call 'mid-level'

but basically you're right

if you have nothing to lose, and you made a tape at home, and a hundred people download it from your website, i guess that must make you feel pretty good

and if you're outkast, you don't give a shit, b/c you are getting rich and who cares

if you're me, your band has been around a while, and you like to imagine you have established a certain level of quality. you'd like to maintain that level of quality. your records cost a certain amount of money to make. you have to sell records to make back the money the label has spent on your record. it doesn't matter if a few extra people come to see you play b/c of downloading. you need to sell a few copies to continue to make records that maintain your standards.

if a band recorded an album and posted it on a website and someone sent me a link, i'd be able to hear it.

assuming they could afford to get it made in the first place, since no one is buying it

it's impossible to tell exactly how much this whole downloading thing hurts/helps people. but i'm certainly not convinced that it's benign. as spoot said, however, it's also not a phenomenon that will disappear, regardless of how vigorously the record companies try to eradicate it.

i think the unfortunate upshot of this whole thing may be that albums as we know them will disappear. and it's difficult for me to get too excited about a bunch of stray mp3s in place of a specific collection of songs.