Over the months of this blog I've received some requests to boost bitrate and/or switch file format from *.m4a. So you know, plans are in the works for both. I need to upgrade a 5+-year-old system and look forward, among other things, to a hard drive the size of a galaxy. Patience, please. It's not easy for me either.On another tip, maybe I shouldn't have to say this but I will: It's not my intention to get in the way of any artist and his or her living (although I admit I'm less interested in protecting estates of artists who have died, e.g., Frankie Lymon, Billie Holiday, Kurt Cobain, but that's beside the point). As with home taping, this sharing is essentially word-of-mouth promotion, the most effective kind of promotion, the kind of promotion you can't buy. It's not stealing. Stealing is more like when you trick an artist into signing away his or her publishing rights. Or charge everything -- EVERYTHING -- back to the artist.
Perhaps as economic unit, I understand the argument a little better with albums, which is why I'm not much troubled by or often in a hurry to correct low bitrate, file format, or inadvertent missing tracks. (I mean, come on, you are getting it free.) But that said, I don't agree with the argument. All the people I've ever known who share digitized music now or made and traded tapes back in the day are without exception the same people who spend the most money on music. In fact, in some cases their loved ones consider the amount of money they spend a serious problem.
The fact is, most artists make most of their money from live performances and merchandising and not sales of recorded material. And, personally, I believe that given the choice between making a quarter (or dime, or dollar, or whatever they get from a unit sale now) and being heard, most would choose the latter. (I'm not sure that's true of some artists, such as Metallica, who I've never been able to hear the same way since they went all pissy. Not that they were ever such a priority.)
So, please, go to the shows of the artists you like. Clap loudly. Buy a t-shirt. If they have a website where you can download and provide money to them directly, visit it frequently. And help your friends hear the music and see the wisdom of your ways, so the artist's audience continues to grow.
I'd also like to say something about the blogroll (in the right column). At one time I meant to highlight the many, many great music blogs out there as well as make music available myself, but uploading and downloading are basically a zero-sum deal and so my travels for online music have not been as extensive as before I started doing this. Plus my storage device is closing on full. But I keep the blogroll up to date, use it regularly to make my rounds, check to see they have not stopped posting, and switch in new and interesting ones as I find them. A few are directories and the rest are divided about evenly between song and album offerings. I have made much happy use of all of them and encourage you to do the same. They're good.
Thanks for the update. Looking forward to your upgrade. After all, it's all about sharing appreciation for great music, and great music is easier to appreciate when it sounds good.
ReplyDeleteLove your blog, and thank you very much for adding my Gravy Bread - Mega Super Mammoth MP3 blog list to your blogroll. Keep up the good work. -Evan G
ReplyDeleteI hear what you are saying about the way artists make their money and I do agree that most music fans spend money regardless. Being a musician in the field, I am torn in this particular argument because I have been ripped off by downloaders but I also download albums as well. I guess the best way to look at it is this. When you get your paycheck every week or so, you are getting it for the work that you do. You don't get part of it for part of your job, you get it for the whole part of your job. The whole part of a musician's job is performing and recording. Why shouldn't a musician get paid for both?
ReplyDeleteWhen you go to a doctor, you don't pay for part of your exam, you pay for it all. And without question. The same should be said for musicians. We live in a society that feels they are owed music for free. They scoff at musicians who don;t agree with that but how would those same people feel if their paycheck wasn;t there at the end of the week because all of their customers or employers felt that the service that they provided should be free.
I see your point in the fact that artists make minimal money from the albums, but the songwriters make a majority of their income from royalties. Example: every time the Beach Boys perform they are making money. However, Brian Wilson does not perform with them. Therefore, his income comes from roayalties.
Like I said, I am torn because I have downloaded as well. Howver, I tend to use the download as a "sampler" to see if I like the artist. If I like it, I end up buying the cd as personally, I hate the way the compression of an mp3 makes it sound.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say stop what you are doing or anything like that. I just wanted to make you think a little bit about what you said. Thanks.
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your point of view. It's a difficult, tricky issue, and you make a lot of good points, particularly on the songwriting royalties. My own motivation comes from a sincere desire to share music I love with others, even strangers, which dates all the way back to when I was a teen and shlepped albums over to friends' houses to play for them. I wish there were more and better radio stations that provided opportunity for people to hear music and make better purchase choices for themselves. Most of my posts are of albums or music 20 years or older because I don't want to interfere with the 3-5 years it can take a new album to find its audience (let alone the first six months after release). I encourage everyone who visits this blog to find ways to put money into the hands of the artists they like. It's the only way they're going to keep working.
ReplyDelete