The Cure
MORE FREE MUSIC
I CANT BELIEVE HOW HARD IT IS FOR SOME PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND MY POSITION IN THIS DEBATE ABOUT 'FREE' RECORDED MUSIC...
OF COURSE I APPRECIATE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL VALUE AND ARTISTIC VALUE
BUT THAT DOESNT CHANGE MY ARGUMENT
AS IT ISNT THE POINT
(AND FOR FUCKS SAKE...
THIS DEBATE ISNT ABOUT ME/THE CURE!
IMAGINE IF YOU CAN SOMEONE JUST STARTING OUT...
I AM NOT DEFENDING 'OLD BUSINESS MODELS'
I HAVE ARGUED AGAINST 'BIG MUSIC BUSINESS' AND THEIR MODELS FOR AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN MAKING MUSIC...
BUT PRE BROADBAND WEB (AND IT IS SOMETIMES EASY TO FORGET THAT IT IS STILL PRE BROADBAND WEB IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD!), PLACING MYSELF/THE CURE WITH AN INDEPENDENT LABEL DISTRIBUTED THROUGH A MAJOR LABEL HAS BEEN, ALTHOUGH OF COURSE A COMPROMISE OF DEGREE, THE BEST POSITION FOR US TO BE IN - ONE I HAVE GENERALLY BEEN ABLE TO USE TO MY/OUR ADVANTAGE - AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF 'PRECEDENCE' - ONE THAT HAS VERY OFTEN BENEFITTED ARTISTS THAT HAVE FOLLOWED ON BEHIND US...
OF COURSE MY/OUR INDIE/MAJOR POSITION CAN ALWAYS EVOLVE AND CHANGE...
BUT ONCE AGAIN
THIS DOESNT CHANGE MY ARGUMENT EITHER
AS IT STILL ISNT THE POINT... )
WHAT I AM ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS THIS:
WHATEVER 'BRIGHT NEW WORLD' I AM EXPECTED TO ENJOY
ONE IN WHICH SONGWRITERS/MUSICIANS ARE OBLIGED TO MAKE THEIR MUSIC AVAILABLE FOR FREE
IS ONE THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR
AND THAT WELL ESTABLISHED AND SUCCESSFUL (IE WELL OFF!) ARTISTS
WHO DO THIS BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD TO DO IT
ARE HELPING TO CREATE AND SUSTAIN A CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT OF EXPECTATION:
THE EXPECTATION THAT ALL MUSIC SHOULD BE 'FREE'
IT IS A DISMAL POSITION
AND I WILL (ONCE AGAIN?) TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY...
ASSUMING THIS
(http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285)
"The results of the 2008 ASHE show that median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK grew by 4.6 per cent in the year to April 2008 to reach £479"
TO BE STILL REASONABLY ACCURATE IN THE UK...
THEN IMAGINE YOU ARE A HUGELY PROLIFIC AND HUGELY TALENTED SONG WRITER - WRITING 25 SONGS IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR (TWO A MONTH AND ONE ON CHRISTMAS DAY?), SONGS YOU FEEL ARE 'GOOD' ENOUGH FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO HEAR... (AND REALLY - WHERE IS THIS PERSON?!!)
IN ORDER TO EARN £25,000 P/A (ROUGHLY THE MEDIAN UK PAY - A PRETTY REASONABLE AMBITION I THINK?), YOU WOULD NEED TO...
AND HERE THE PERMUTATIONS ARE VIRTUALLY ENDLESS:
FROM PRICING A SONG AT £1,000 AND HOPING TO SELL ONE OF EACH...
TO PRICING A SONG AT 1 PENNY AND HOPING TO SELL 2,500,000?!!
...BOTH PRETTY UNREALISTIC?!!
SO MAYBE YOU START BY PRICING A SONG AT £1, AND SEE IF YOUR (POTENTIAL) AUDIENCE AGREES WITH YOUR VALUATION...
IF THEY DO, THEN YOU HAVE TO SET ABOUT GETTING 25,000 OF THEM IN PLACE
IF THEY DON'T, THEN...
WELL
AS I SAID
THE PERMUTATIONS ARE VIRTUALLY ENDLESS
AND THIS IS NEITHER THE TIME NOR PLACE FOR REAL NUMBER CRUNCHING SPECIFICS...
BUT PRICING A SONG AT NOTHING?
HOW DOES THAT WORK?
OH I GET IT...
SONGWRITING/MUSICIANSHIP CANT PAY FOR ITSELF
THATS THE 'OLD BUSINESS MODEL'!
NO NO NO...
SONGWRITING/MUSICIANSHIP HAS TO BE SUBSIDIZED BY OTHER MEANS...
LIKE MERCHANDISING
(SHAME I LOOK AWFUL)
OR LIVE REVENUE
(SHAME I CANT PERFORM)
OR PATRONAGE...
PATRONAGE?
SHIT!
I HAD BETTER SIGN A DEAL WITH A MORE POWERFUL 'SOMEONE'...
WHO CAN USE MY SONGS TO MAKE MONEY IN SOME OTHER WAY
LIKE ADVERTISING OTHER PEOPLES PRODUCTS?
BUT WHY MUST I BELIEVE EARNING (INEVITABLY PERCENTAGE/SMALLER) AMOUNTS BY ALLOWING MY SONGS TO BE USED TO ADVERTISE OTHER PEOPLES PRODUCTS AN ACCEPTABLE ('NEW/MODERN'?) ALTERNATIVE TO EARNING FROM THE DIRECT SALE OF MY SONGS BASED SOLELY ON THEIR ARTISTIC MERIT?
I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THIS - IT IS AN IDIOT CONCEIT!
OR AM I ONCE AGAIN TO BE TOLD I AM CLINGING TO AN 'OLD BUSINESS MODEL'?
(AND THAT ENOUGH COOL NEW ARTISTS HAVE ADVERTISED ENOUGH SHIT FOR IT TO BE OK NOW...
WHO IS REALLY FOOLING WHO HERE DO YOU THINK?!!)
SO...
DESPITE THE FACT THAT I KNOW MY SONGS ARE 'GOOD'
AND THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE HAPPY TO PAY FOR THEM IF ONLY IT WAS CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE
(LIKE IN 'THE BAD OLD DAYS' WHEN RECORDED MUSIC HAD ACTUAL VALUE?!!)
IT SEEMS I HAD BETTER FIND A 'REAL' JOB
OTHERWISE I WONT BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE...
SERIOUSLY
HOW CAN THERE BE ANY OTHER CONCLUSION TO THE MISERABLE ARGUMENT THAT RECORDED MUSIC SHOULD BE 'FREE' FOR ALL?
JUST BECAUSE ITS NEW
DOESNT MEAN ITS BETTER
ONWARDS...
RSX
Share
| Views: () newsphotogInSPIRATIONCUREdreamyvelvet Add [+]
Liar!!!
You don't look awful. And you can perform. What is a shame is that you feel the need to say such things. I agree with you on the rest of this statement, it's not a simple case of stealing is wrong, because it's not about illegal downloading, it's about artists being expected to give away their music for free. It's not fair. While I think downloading is a good thing, you should pay for what you download. I also think that you should be able to hear a song before you buy it lest you have to pay for something you find you don't like. But we have other methods of doing that than free downloads. x
I get ya but...
I understand your side but I'm not in total agreement. Right or wrong I would say the debate is over. I know you know so why waste energy on this? Even Paul McCartney can't sell records like he used to and he's a friggin' Beatle. I think part of the problem is that everyone has Garageband (or something like it) and to most people, with a musical inclination, writing 25 songs a year is pretty easy; and the bad ones require a lot more effort! I mean, how many songs did Carol King write per week in her Brill Building days??? Write 15 songs a week and that would mimic a real job. When I hear established artists complain about free music I feel it's more about not wanting to work and missing the passive income they once received. The benefit of all this is that the focus is back on live performance. Virtuosos like say kd lang or a Martin Sexton will always attract a live audience. IMHO rock was supposed to be simple music to have fun to not asset making ventures to spit out royalties in perpetuity. So go on stage, have fun and wiggle your ass like Elvis and I'll support you. :-)
FREE MUSIC / PAID MUSIC: FALSE DEBATE
JUST A COMMENT ON THIS TOPIC:
NEITHER MUSICIANS NOR LISTENERS CAN SATISFY THEIR NEEDS UNDER THIS SYSTEM.
IN THE NEXT YEARS YOU ALL WILL SEE THAT PEOPLE WILL BE TAKING NOT ONLY MUSIC, BUT ALSO FOOD, CLOTHES, HOUSES... CAPITALIST CRISIS IS CREATING ALL THIS PHENOMENA.
TO SUPPORT A POSITION WHETHER TO PAY OR TO MAKE MUSIC FOR FREE WON'T CHANGE THE DEPENDANCE AND EXPLOITING OF MUSICIANS BY MUSIC LABELS (yes, by Dischord Records too). NEITHER CAPITALISM WILL CHANGE THE SITUATION OF IMPOVERISHMENT IS LIVING WORKER CLASS ALL OVER THE WORLD. AND IT'S BEACUSE FOOD AND MUSIC ARE APPROPRIATED BY CAPITAL. NO MATTER THERE'S ENOUGH FOOD TO SATISFY HUNGER OF EVERY HUMAN BEING AND NO MATTER THERE ARE ENOUGH MEANS TO SPREAD MUSIC ALL OVER THIS WORLD, WE WILL STILL SEE THIS RIDICULOUS "LOGIC", BECAUSE THESE ARE THE LAWS OF CAPITAL.
INSTEAD OF THINK IF MUSICIANS OR LISTENERS ARE GUILTY OF ALL THIS, IT WOULD BE NICE TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO CHANGE THIS SENSELESS SYSTEM.
GREETINGS
P.
THE CURE @ DISCHORD RECORDS
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE CURE WITH FUGAZI & MINOR THREAT AT DISCHORD RECORDS........... SINCERELY
the free music debate
I have to say...there is nothing more exciting for me than the smell of the plastic and the opening a new cd. I always buy the cd even if I download a song. Simple downloads are so impersonal to me!
CD COSTS
And of course, this misguided excuse too. CDs cost a lot to make. Get over it. They don't cost $2, get priced at $16 and the label execs don't get to keep the rest. That excuse was made up by the Napster crowd in the early 90s as pathetic reason to steal. Doesn't anyone remember Fugazi? They refused to overprice their albums--and sold them for around 8.99 if I recall? That's an indie label cutting all corners for a release, and at early 90s pricing. Stop and think about how many people are involved making every CD you have. Someone even had to order the plastic. Someone made the plastic--it just goes on and on with costs. It's not like a country fair where you buy a quilt someone made themself and sold directly to you. Now, think about all those albums that fail to sell. The record companies have to recoup at least some of that money to stay a float. If they charge just a little more on everyone's CD, they can. Then they can keep taking chances and I can hear new bands like Bat For Lashes, Interpol or Robots In Disguise as they appear. Otherwise, they can only bet on what will sell and American Idol Country here we come. I really, really don't want to put up with more false indie bands like the Bare Naked Ladies ever again unless there is something like ADULT. for me to turn to. Illegal downloading is ruining the quality of indie music that is being released, not the quality of the music itself. There are too many crap bands out there that look right to sell and not enough bands that can make a great song without having to have the exact 18-25 yr old look. I'll stop there. I'm sure to come back and be frustrated again! :)
Myspace etc.
I think the part that bothers me the most about how incredibly long and drawn out this argument is (really people: stealing=wrong, case closed!), is that people are saying music should be for free but they can go online myspace or other sites or even the official band site and HEAR THE WHOLE SONG THERE. None of this 30 sec clip arguments--you people know that's not the norm. The entire last two YYYs albums were up on myspace for your listening pleasure. If you hated the songs you didn't have to buy the album. If you did like them then shell out the money and stop whining! What I'm reading is that even though all of you can go online and hear new music and find new bands (lastfm for example is BRILLIANT for finding music you will like), you still want it for free. You can hear but you want to HAVE IT, for free. In other words, you are beyond greedy, don't care about musicians or have respect for the very long hours they put in making songs you apparently love enough to want, refuse to acknowledge defeat when you lack a sound argument, and then cling to a "but the internet isn't going away" excuse as if it has any bearing on the actual problem. I'm all for free downloads--AS PROMOTIONAL downloads. I'm all for file sharing when something is out of print and there's no hint of a remaster in sight. Can someone please explain to me how if you can with a few clicks hear a song in full, why you have to then own it for free instead of paying for it if you want full access to carry the song anywhere you want with you? I want to stop the name calling, so anytime someone can explain this to me then I can stop calling people selfish I'd appreciate that.
Had to ring in on free music
I love music. Can't go a day without listening to music, preferably the kind that you all listen to because you are on this site. I don't buy songs off the internet, i buy the disks. Maybe I'm too old school. Many artists may write a lot of songs in a year, the point he was making was a simple math problem: UK median income and price scenarios for number of songs it would take a songwriter to write to reach that level. The point is, his work, any artist's work, shouldn't be for free no more or less then the work you and I do should be for free. Larger groups who are "more successful" (success being a relative term anyway) who provide their music for free, propagate an atmosphere of expectation that all music should be for free. Providing full versions on the net(undownloadable of course) so that a bands music can be heard is cool so we get a taste of a new album, but thats not the only way to find new music. I take the time to look for new music and if i could find The Cure where I grew up, then finding music today is a sinch. Anyway, gotta go back to my tour date search. Robert, keep making music. The Cure has and continues to be a major part of my life, never leave home without it.
Beating a Dead Horse on Free Music
CZJay's post doesn't hold water in any logical way at all. You don't want to plunk down fourteen bucks for a complete album with some tracks you don't like? So why do you think that you should be able to pick and choose the tracks you like and get them for free? Let's say you want six tracks. I you pay a buck a shot for each track, you're still not paying the fourteen bucks that you object to and you can go and have a happy life. And, as to lowering album prices, if the price is cut, who do you think will take the biggest hit? Certainly not the record company.
spread the message
I am reading this a year after the debate took place, but still relevant. I strongly agree with the essence of the post. I have sent this post--duly referenced--to quite a number of people who (I know) are frequently,UNTHINKINGLY, downloading music for free. They are people who would never (overtly) steal from another. Spot on, R, about the creation a culture of expectation. The majority I've sent this post to have acknowledged that it's wrong/unfair to continue to do so, and I can only hope they change their music acquisition practices. I sincerely hope that anyone who might see this missive will, as did I, try to inform those around you. merci in advance.