What's the deal with downloading?
Independent artists vs. American Idol
by M. Padley | 07.27.2004
It's been all over the news and all media for several months now. Heineken and Pepsi have made commercials speaking out against it. It's blocking out real issues that honestly deserve more attention than this debate receives. No, it’s not the Britteny Spears marriage, it's “free” digital music downloading.
Since it's inception nearly 6 years ago, it has been a perpetual thorn in the side of music executives, record labels, and highly successful artists. Just because some kid wanted to share files online with his friends, everyone is in an uproar about lost album sales, and percentages of total revenue lost, some extremists even alluding to the demise of the industry itself. This latter point is, of course, a melodramatic scare tactic. Just as it was when they announced the over 200 hundred music fans being prosecuting for sharing mp3 files over the Internet. The truth is more people signed on to download music using peer-to-peer (p2p) programs like Kazaa because of the publicity created on national news. If you take a look at the sheer mass of people downloading, just at any given time (always in the hundreds of millions), it is totally illogical to attempt to prosecute everyone. Not only that, if you don't save the downloaded files to a "shared folder," or share the files in general, many RIAA investigators cannot track how many files you have. In addition, the various downloading services are stepping up their anti-spyware technology, making it harder to monitor downloading.
The more people who know about a band, the better chance their chances are of selling tickets. Middle-of-road, or newly recognized musicians, are wary because they know their "roots," and that’s part of reason for their success—the fans that shared their music with each other and made sure it was heard. Word-of-mouth is still the best form of advertising, and certainly the best way to learn about new artists. The problems exists when people download an artist’s whole album, never buy albums, don’t go to shows, or support them in anyway. This hurts the industry, but not in the 8% sales drop way that is shoved in everyone's face. Struggling musicians don't get that support and many peter off, fade away, and go back to delivering pizzas. These artists are not concerned with buying a new house in Beverly Hills or a decked-out H2, they are concerned that they may have to stop making music altogether because of lack of funds. They are the one's who are truly getting hurt by downloading, but you’ll very rarely see someone in any position of power in the industry speak out for them.
Not only has downloading affected the industry but also the industry itself has shifted its priorities. Music is often no longer an art, but a processed, manufactured product. If you hear the same beat in four out five songs on the radio, several of the Billboard's Hot 100 are covers or samples, and American Idol has better ratings than the Presidential Address, you have to think that something is definitively screwed up. What’s the reason for this rampant download revolution? We posed this question to students and answers fit into the following categories:
"CD's are just too expensive. And most of the time, there's only one or two songs on the whole albums that are worth listening to. Why spend 14 to 18 bucks for three or four good songs?"
"Music is crap lately. Record companies and distributors sign untalented kids, ‘make’ their own pop stars, and constantly shove the same 4/4 time rhythm down the public's throat, whether it be in commercials and endorsements, million dollar music videos, and other programming designed to glorify this marginally talented, yet most of the time, aesthetically pleasing 'artist'."
"I guess I feel like I am broke and the little money I have is better spent on concerts rather than CDs, and when I downloaded music I knew about all the little unheard of bands. I wouldn't have known them had I had to pay for it."
"I like being able to get something for nothing. When I don't have to pay for CD's, I can spend my money on other things."
"A lot of the mp3's I have are live recordings, not available on any CD. There's certain bands I won't download, because I know they will not disappoint me with a bad albums. Also, there are some unsigned artists where you can only get their stuff through downloads."
"I only download about 20 songs at a time. I use them to make a CD, then delete them."
“I like being able to listen to songs before I buy the album, or before the album is released.”
How do record executives respond to these kinds of statements? They take nearly ten minutes of time out of the Grammys to make a ruse out of music education in order to disguise their real point, file sharing. Again, proof that the industry doesn’t understand whom they are fighting. It’s unlikely they’ll appeal to the sympathy of downloaders with some "family in need" bandwagon line. It’s hard to take such criticism from a record executive who's worth millions. Also, the music industry isn’t helping its cause by supporting shows, such as MTV's Cribs and VH1's The Fabulous Life of…, which feature the most downloaded artists showcasing their riches (or others doing it for them). VH1's series actually breaks down how much they make, always in the multimillion-dollar range. In addition to concert and album sales, these same musicians own outrageous estates, fleets of luxury automobiles, and obscene amounts of jewelry. If that's not enough, they are also involved in several other lucrative endeavors, such as clothing lines, huge endorsement deals, and (most horrifying) reality TV shows. Meanwhile, the many of us can't pay for a decent car, apartment, or college without driving ourselves into a lifetime of debt. If the industry really cared about music, rather than the celebrity, how about promoting an independent label and/or artists who feel the affects of digital music downloading.
In the end they have to realize that scare tactics and lawsuits are not the way to go. If major record labels and the RIAA really wanted to stop music downloading they would make it legal. The film industry feared being ripped off with the release of VHS tapes and more specifically, video recorders. But instead of suing everyone who may have copied a tape, video rental stores were opened and VHS sales actually increased. If and when record companies come to their sense they’ll realize that the Internet is a means of promoting artists and new music they’ve left exhausted.
One of the greatest factors causing rampant downloading is the cost of CD’s. The average cost of a single CD today costs between $12.99 and $17.99. Who wants to pay $18 for an album if you only like one or two songs on it? We all have the one-hit wonder album gathering dust in the back of our record collections. If CD's were $9.99 it would not feel like such a waste of money if it weren’t the greatest album. Another thing to consider is allowing consumers to listen to albums before they buy them. In many indie music stores those interested are allowed to hear any CD before purchasing. This tactic combats the problem of downloading full albums in order to find out if they’re good or not. If a user has already downloaded an album then they are certainly less likely to actually go buy it, even if they like it. Another step would be to significantly lower the surcharge on that is tacked on to tickets through Ticketmaster. If the concert costs $20, but you end up paying $35-40 because of "convenience fees" and surcharges, something is obviously unbalanced. If tickets didn’t become so overpriced by “convenience fees” more concerts would be sold out and labels wouldn’t depend as much on album sales.
Independent artists feel real pain:
Very few artists, with the exception of the very successful, want to speak out against illegal downloading, only proving to the public how devoted they are to the anti-downloading cause. The vast majority of independent artists, who tour tirelessly and don't have a $100,000 tour bus to travel in just want to make their music available in any means possible.
Independent artists, who stand to lose the most, have stated their views on the issue. A few years ago at a Napster panel Jello Biafra said, "I'm not against mp3’s, I mean, the majors seem to be terrified of it because they don't understand it, and it didn't fit into their plans…I’ve also been told by Napster enthusiasts that some don't mind paying if they know they're supporting someone who needs the money."
In a recent spoken word presentation by Henry Rollins, he stressed the importance of buying independently owned artists. At his show, his double CD albums sold for only $10. Proof as to how truly inexpensive it is to create a CD. Rollins said, “If you look at a huge label, like Sony or Columbia, who own the CD pressing-machines, the companies that make the cases, distribute, package, market and produce all the CD's, it costs about $0.25 to $0.28 per CD.” He went on to say, "The reason that they charge the better part of $20.00 is simply greed."
Things to ponder:
On the Billboard Hot 100 this week (Ending Feb. 7, 2004) six songs are covers of older songs, or use samples from other songs. (Of the top 50, they wanted money to access the full 100, to me, that's just dumb)
Correction: Feb. 9th, further research found that actually nine of those songs are covers/samples.
On the Ipod website (www.ipod.com) it costs $0.99 cents per track to download mp3s for a player that costs $249. By that logic, it costs about $20.14 a song to compile your first album. In fact it doesn't pay for itself, given they fact that mp3’s cost only $0.99, until you've downloaded 25,000 tracks (Keep in mind 4G only holds about 650-700 tracks)!
Some artists make very little on album sales, concerts, etc. Respected artists, such as R.E.M., Prince, and U2 have been saying for years that they don't have a union or any sort of representation on the bargaining table. Their work is bought and sold from underneath them.
Labels are coercing artists in order that they speak out against downloading.
Recent Developments:
Flea markets have come under fire now, for having bootleg copies of albums. The RIAA have already filed suit against Columbus Farmers Market in New Jersey, claiming to have found over 15,000 bootleg CD copies.
In order to keep fans buying instead of downloading, several artists are releasing "enhanced CD's," videogame tie-ins, and live CD's and DVD's.
In a televised interview with the Grateful Dead, band members praised and thanked concert goers who recorded performances, audio and visual, and making them available online.
Pepsi is doing a 100 million free song promotion with iTunes. Coke is doing a similar deal with Musicmatch.
