Perry is serious about dance music

[JOEinPHX]

If I could flip a switch, all the bands i liked during the days when i bought albums would still be making good albums.

[Larry B.]

Not a restaurant, for sure. But I think it's a reasonable model for the arts. If I had the money, I'd purchase every album instead of downloading it. However, it is unreasonable to demand that I pay for every art content I "consume."

Why is it unreasonable? You can apply what I'm saying to virtually any commodity that is a luxury that has a price on it. Everything from books to jewelry to electronics to cars. Just because it's music or a movie or whatever the piece falls into The Arts, as long as it has a price tag, it's a commodity that someone expects to make money from it's sales.

What you're saying is that because something is beyond your spending limit, whether an arbitrary cost you deem the item is worth or because you simply can't afford it, you should still be able to "have" it. Would you basically "take" an Apple iPhone because you feel it's ridiculously overpriced instead of either buying a much cheaper phone or doing without? It's all the same principle, just the ease in which something can be taken without paying for it defines the limits of aquiring soemthing without paying what the artist, manufacturer or distributor deems the product's sell price is.

With John Swartzwelder, for instance, I've done something similar. I downloaded and read 4 of his books, which were great. Then, I purchased the following three, at about 10 bucks per book. To me, that's perfectly reasonable. I get a taste of what he does, I approve, I buy. Same with music: Artemis introduces me to Rufus Wainwright, I go to YouTube and check him out, I download his discography for free, I approve, and when he comes to Chile I'm the first guy to purchase tickets.

Dude. You're not Robin Hood. You don't get to redistribute profits to artists and their specific works you deem worthy of your money.

The thing is, you keep comparing music to commodities, which I don't. That's the point, I think.

My comparison is something like this: "Hi! I'm a chef. Please deposit cash here and receive food." "OK, but can I at least choose the dish I'm hav--" "No, you may not. You pay FIRST, then you receive food. You can decide you don't like, you not come back. But you pay."

No idea why the chef talks like that, but the point is that the arts are and should be commercialized differently. You can't apply the same business model used by restaurants, car dealers, lawyers, etc. It's a whole different area of business. And I insist, the current model (composed by retailers + digital vendors + self-publishing + piracy + live shows + marketing and merchandise) works pretty well. Who is losing, exactly?

[Pandemonium]

The thing is, you keep comparing music to commodities, which I don't. That's the point, I think.

Because music *is* a commodity as dictated by the artist. Sure, there's a small minority of bands that basically give away their music for free and that's their choice. But an artist who either on their own or through whatever record label is distributing their work sets a price on it - that's the definition of a commodity.

My comparison is something like this: "Hi! I'm a chef. Please deposit cash here and receive food." "OK, but can I at least choose the dish I'm hav--" "No, you may not. You pay FIRST, then you receive food. You can decide you don't like, you not come back. But you pay."

No idea why the chef talks like that, but the point is that the arts are and should be commercialized differently. You can't apply the same business model used by restaurants, car dealers, lawyers, etc. It's a whole different area of business. And I insist, the current model (composed by retailers + digital vendors + self-publishing + piracy + live shows + marketing and merchandise) works pretty well. Who is losing, exactly?

"The arts are and should be commercialized differently." Well, that's your opinion and if you're an artist, it's still your individual right to distribute your work any any way you see fit - for profit or free. But when you don't pay for someone's music that they have put a price on (in this example), you're taking away the artist's choice of how they make or don't make a profit on their work.

As to who's losing? Let's not even discuss what the artist themselves get or don't get out of the current system - just look at how many long established bands have given up making new music with any regularity or at all and instead focus on endless "oldies" tours on the backs of their decade's old hits..... because it's not worth the time or effort to make new music any more. Now I will say that the DIY system works for a fair number of mostly younger, more tech savvy artists but it's a *lot* more work and a lot less rewarding, both financially and artistically.

[Hokahey]

My comparison is something like this: "Hi! I'm a chef. Please deposit cash here and receive food." "OK, but can I at least choose the dish I'm hav--" "No, you may not. You pay FIRST, then you receive food. You can decide you don't like, you not come back. But you pay."

No idea why the chef talks like that, but the point is that the arts are and should be commercialized differently. You can't apply the same business model used by restaurants, car dealers, lawyers, etc. It's a whole different area of business. And I insist, the current model (composed by retailers + digital vendors + self-publishing + piracy + live shows + marketing and merchandise) works pretty well. Who is losing, exactly?

That chef comparison makes no sense. It would make sense if you asked the chef if you could eat the meal and then buy it if you liked it, which would be highly unlikely.

[Larry B.]

Fair points, Pande.

My comparison is something like this: "Hi! I'm a chef. Please deposit cash here and receive food." "OK, but can I at least choose the dish I'm hav--" "No, you may not. You pay FIRST, then you receive food. You can decide you don't like, you not come back. But you pay."

No idea why the chef talks like that, but the point is that the arts are and should be commercialized differently. You can't apply the same business model used by restaurants, car dealers, lawyers, etc. It's a whole different area of business. And I insist, the current model (composed by retailers + digital vendors + self-publishing + piracy + live shows + marketing and merchandise) works pretty well. Who is losing, exactly?

That chef comparison makes no sense. It would make sense if you asked the chef if you could eat the meal and then buy it if you liked it, which would be highly unlikely.

Well, it was basically a counter-comparison from the one Pandemonium did (which is pretty much the one you just did.) I was writing the other side of the transaction, where I have to pay for something pleasurable for me (i.e., one of the qualities art has, to provide or trigger pleasure) BEFORE even knowing if I'm gonna like it or not. Just as I wouldn't pay for a meal in an unknown restaurant before ordering it, I wouldn't buy a record just to see if I like it. I might pay in advance for a meal in a restaurant that I love and that I know will give me great food.

[JOEinPHX]

if you're doing food metaphors:

People go to friends houses and have dinner with them, and get exposed to foods they have never had before, and then go out and purchase it for themselves.

If you want to compare music sampling:

In the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, people would hear an entire record at a friend's house and then go out and buy it. In the 2000s, kids don't go to their friends houses, they just talk online. So their friends tell them to download an album, they do, and if they like it... well.. they MIGHT purchase future albums, or higher quality versions, or deluxe versions with bonus content offered at Target or Walmart.

[Artemis]

Saw this today...seems fitting to post here.

Rolling Stone Italy mocks electronic music in new commercial.

Directed by Federico Brugia with Filmmaster Productions, this “viral” ad calls out “all those who think they can make music and involve the masses without any musical research but with a mere use of others’ files” — at least, according to a Google translation of the original Italian RS post. It’s entirely possible (maybe even likely) that this is a trolling hits gimmick, but that doesn’t stop it from landing some blows. As ironic images of the DJ lifestyle (drugs, babes, dildos) cut across the screen, a voice-over scoffs, “DJs: criminals with a license to shoot shit into our eardrums; low-quality MP3 pushes; third-class whores that give it away to the first bidder.” Burn.

[CaseyContrarian]

if you're doing food metaphors:

People go to friends houses and have dinner with them, and get exposed to foods they have never had before, and then go out and purchase it for themselves.

If you want to compare music sampling:

In the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, people would hear an entire record at a friend's house and then go out and buy it. In the 2000s, kids don't go to their friends houses, they just talk online. So their friends tell them to download an album, they do, and if they like it... well.. they MIGHT purchase future albums, or higher quality versions, or deluxe versions with bonus content offered at Target or Walmart.

Listening for free, or sampling music before you buy, has always existed in some form. Nowadays it's even more simple, and that's great. What some of us are pushing back on is the fact that for 10 bucks a month, you can have access to all the world's music, across devices and storable for offline listening. But people still download and never pay, even if they like the recording. This isn't just a major label phenomenon. The idea that this revenue can be made up for through some other transaction (like attending a show and buying merch) is suspect, as those activities pre-date filesharing. And the data shows that, although we have increased access to recorded music, nobody has found a way to has increase the number of hours in a day, the number of days in a year or even the number of venues an artist has to compete to play at. I mean, it's always been tough--the old days weren't great shakes, and it's an amazingly powerful thing to be able to publish, globally, a piece of music with a click of a mouse or a tap of a screen. But I find those who say they haven't bought a record in 10 years and somehow try to justify this by pointing to other places they spend money on music to be more than a little disingenuous, if not ignorant of the actual economics of music-making.

Not everyone is a winner. Not all music deserves to be celebrated. Hell, a lot of it doesn't even deserve to be heard. But there's no doubt that by obliterating a revenue stream it makes it that much harder for the deserving to garner a return on their investment -- capital or otherwise -- and maintain incentive to keep making music over a longer term (aka, career).

So, with so many cheap, legal options and plenty of opportunities to not participate in major label economics, why would you still choose to not pay for music, especially after you decided you liked it?

[SR]

Yeah, having essentially no knowledge of the music industries mechanics, nor the rate at which it evolves in and out of normal business practices, I've always (almost always) paid for music. It has more to do with respect and ethics than a sense of entitlement I simply don't possess. Artists add to the quality of my life and I appreciate that as I do their dedication to their art at what usually amounts to a fairly very steep price.

Hoka/creep this thread reminded me of the archive section at xiola. This one deserves a permanent home.

[Matov]

Bottled water is a commodity.
I wouldn't in a gazillion years pay for that.
Then again, i do pay my sanitized tap water bill on a bimonthly basis.
But to answer the question of whether i would avoid paying for it if i had an easy, quick way of getting it for free? well yes i would.
And if revenue loss deters this or that artist from creating ART i say good. Let them show their true colors. Making money (or none at all) never stopped robert johnson, van gogh, artaud from performing their arts.
If revenue is what motivates them and they charge what would buy me two or three meals in my hometown for some songs with a cool package so that they can charge it more, i say fuck that, i'm going illegal.
Though i'm considering subscribing to spotify, mostly for the social media aspect and the really ample spectrum of music you can find there on a pretty decent quality.
Still, money wouldn't go exactly to the artists so that would put me in a legally ok, still morally not ok ground
I really don't see the problem in breaking the law to a certain extent, same goes for pot. Pot's illegal in my country. So fucking what i'm smoking anyway.

[CaseyContrarian]

I don't wanna pay the fucking plumber. Starving makes him a more dedicated plumber, right?

Fuck artists for finding unique ways to incentivize fans to pay. Greedy bastards.

[CaseyContrarian]

Robert Johnson got paid according to the economic system of his time. There was no recorded music industry to speak of. Or none at all, really, outside of a relatively small sheet music marketplace. No comparison.

Van Gogh was mentally ill, and also had the occasional patron. Maybe that's the way of the future?

[kv]

the music industry fucking blows...most new bands have their first album before they find a label anyway...then their second with label help tends to suck...so i don't really care about the industry...when i can still find the new bands playing their first albums in the clubs...i'll leave my money to band run sites for dl..or cash at shows

[Matov]

CC i find you to be quite a reasonable guy, even when i dont think we've engaged directly before.

Musicians are NOT plumbers. They are neither commodity manufacturers nor service providers. If one of the previous wants to dress him/herself as an artist fine. But that's not being an artist. That is either being a service provider or a commodity manufacturer. Both of those lines of employment, as opposed to art and artistry go by the laws of market, which are inextricable to the capitalist world. Artists don't have to rule themselves by that as they have existed way long before (and will most certainly outlive) capitalism.
If you want to be a businessman ad all of a sudden your business becomes less profitable, tough fucking luck. You're a business man. Find yourself another business.
You can't get to choose both. Well technically you can but not in my book.

Also i never said they shouldn't be paid, nor starve, nor become mentally ill. What maybe, just maybe they shouldn't be (until someone else finds a way to make it happen without witchhunting people on the internet) is bono. or mick jagger. or even eddie vedder for that matter (god knows i love eddie btw) *edit: or Perry Farrell*. Putting those kind of words in my mouth for argument-s sake is a bit malicious, mind you.

And also

Robert Johnson got paid according to the economic system of his time.

Maybe that's the way of the future?

I don't know about the way of the future but we sure as hell won't find any way of the present if the powers that be and status quoists keep trying to shove the way of the past down people's throats.

[CaseyContrarian]

the music industry fucking blows...most new bands have their first album before they find a label anyway...then their second with label help tends to suck...so i don't really care about the industry...when i can still find the new bands playing their first albums in the clubs...i'll leave my money to band run sites for dl..or cash at shows

No, that's great--buy direct where you can; go to shows, buy merch.

The trick is that the old industry, shitty as it was, did contribute up-front investment that could aid in artist development. There's an investment gap in music right now, and the modern patronage model isn't quite cutting it. But I have no problem with your approach, not that you require my approval one way or another.

[CaseyContrarian]

CC i find you to be quite a reasonable guy, even when i dont think we've engaged directly before.

Musicians are NOT plumbers. They are neither commodity manufacturers nor service providers. If one of the previous wants to dress him/herself as an artist fine. But that's not being an artist. That is either being a service provider or a commodity manufacturer. Both of those lines of employment, as opposed to art and artistry go by the laws of market, which are inextricable to the capitalist world. Artists don't have to rule themselves by that as they have existed way long before (and will most certainly outlive) capitalism.
If you want to be a businessman ad all of a sudden your business becomes less profitable, tough fucking luck. You're a business man. Find yourself another business.
You can't get to choose both. Well technically you can but not in my book.

Also i never said they shouldn't be paid, nor starve, nor become mentally ill. What maybe, just maybe they shouldn't be (until someone else finds a way to make it happen without witchhunting people on the internet) is bono. or mick jagger. or even eddie vedder for that matter (god knows i love eddie btw) *edit: or Perry Farrell*. Putting those kind of words in my mouth for argument-s sake is a bit malicious, mind you.

And also

Robert Johnson got paid according to the economic system of his time.

Maybe that's the way of the future?

I don't know about the way of the future but we sure as hell won't find any way of the present if the powers that be and status quoists keep trying to shove the way of the past down people's throats.

I get what you're saying, and you certainly have a point. At least now that you've dialed back the hyperbole (which I was merely attempting to match in my response).

It's not the status quo I'm after--it's a system in which the most deserving of our creators have an opportunity to pursue their craft as a vocation, like any other member of society who possesses a skill judged to be valuable by that society. I'm not a hyper-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm less concerned about HOW it happens, than I am bugged about what it says about our global society if we cannot find a meaningful way to support those who enrich our lives and make the drudgery of daily existence a little less so.

If there's value to recorded music, I think it's incumbent on each of us to consider how best to reward those who create that value. And the "substitution" argument isn't really that.

[MYXYLPLYX]

Anybody see this?

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... 09/25/lies

The 13 Most Insidious, Pervasive Lies of the Modern Music Industry…

[CaseyContrarian]

Anybody see this?

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... 09/25/lies

The 13 Most Insidious, Pervasive Lies of the Modern Music Industry…

Yup. DMN is total controversy-stoking linkbait, but there's a lot of truth here.

[Matov]

Oh i wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. I honest to god would avoid paying for sanitized water if i had a way
And i get what you're saying about supporting artists in which we find certain value. I'm all for that. It's just that the whole "downloading is killing music" gets a bit on my nerves as i find it manniqueistic (?) I'm sure there's a word for that in english that actually exists, i think i need Hype for that .

[CaseyContrarian]

Yeah, it gets on my nerves, too... I'm not a Luddite. I just think that there are consequences to all kinds of marketplace behavior. And one of the consequences of not paying for recorded music is a lack of sustained investment in the recording of music (and trust me, I know about the associated costs having fallen, but certainly not to zero). You end up with a lack of vocational potential for the fat middle of recording artists who may have, at one point in history, received up-front capital that they could live on for a stretch while making a record (as well as tour support.) Then there are session musicians, engineers, arrangers, and everyone else who played a part in the recorded music renaissance. Not that we need to hold back progress and the greater social good to preserve these jobs but I know I certainly would prefer a world where there were a variety of professional artists, and not one where it's just a weird hobby. There will always be music. I'm not convinced that there needs to be a music industry. I know the history of exploitation and greed. But I do feel for those who may miss out on what was available to previous generations of music professionals, which is decent jobs in music. And I'm not talking pop stars and A&R guys, necessarily, though they were a part of it.

I guess I'm jealous of The Beatles, Brian Wilson, Andy Partridge, Steely Dan, and all the other cats who got to make records without having to deal with the indignities of the road. There's my bias.

[SR]

Cc, are you in the industry? If so, in what capacity?

Never mind...just saw yr list thread

[CaseyContrarian]

Cc, are you in the industry? If so, in what capacity?

Never mind...just saw yr list thread

Yeah, I'm Executive Director of a 13 year-old musicians' nonprofit called Future of Music Coalition. We're basically an alternative to the trade industry presence in DC (RIAA, NMPA, National Association of Broadcasters, etc.) who called the shots for decades without really including the artist perspective. We are focused on musicians and songwriters, but are more tech friendly (and tech-savvy) than most advocacy orgs. Our core work is research and education.

It's a tricky time. The first half of our existence we were focused on artists' access to audiences; back then, there was massive consolidation in commercial radio, and the ISPs wanted to make the internet more like cable TV. Along with the artists and indie labels we've been blessed to work with, we fought to hold the line on further radio consolidation, pushed for (and achieved) an expansion of noncom radio (LPFM); advocated for an open and accessible internet, and a bunch of other stuff.

Now, the debate is shifting towards equitable compensation, transparency and artist leverage on emerging music platforms. That's where shit gets intense. We opposed SOPA because it was a horribly-crafted bill that would have had many unintended (or intended) consequences, but we support the growth of a legitimate digital music marketplaces that rewards fans and artists alike. Easy right?

More info:
http://www.futureofmusic.org

Our artist revenue streams research might also be of interest:
http://www.money.futureofmusic.org

I think about this stuff a lot and talk to the press about it frequently. I definitely don't have all the answers, but I probably know more than most about how this complicated and evolving landscape impacts actual musicians.

Thanks for asking, man...

[blackcoffee]

If you take what isn't yours it's stealing. Even if you bought it in the 80s or 90s you don't technically have the right to it in some digital format you found on a torrent site. The analogies and comparisons are really for naught. If you download music, games, or content that someone created, and put a price on, it's a form of theft.

Like Essence, I've justified downloading stuff I'd previously bought, and didn't lose any sleep over it. I don't have cable, and am pissed that I can't purchase a la carte episodes of Homeland. I've found them elsewhere. I'd be willing to pay for them. I pay for every episode of Walking Dead I watch because I'm able to via iTunes. I wish Showtime and HBO would do the same, but I also understand that the reason they don't is that one successful show supports the overall fiscal health of a company producing a number of shows and they want you to pay the premium.

I do have a premium Spotify account. Love it. Learned about it on this thread from none other than Perry. With Spotify I can download playlists to my phone and play them offline. I don't like Spotify radio as much because I've got a good one on Pandora that I haven't tried to replicate on Spotify.

[trevor ayer]

well what you pay for is a the only form of democracy you will ever experience .. guaranteed

but on the flip ..

life is free .. music is free .. food is free .. fuck the man .. eat the rich .. the system is fucked .. if every hollywood music label movie producer huge bizness with one or 2 fat pigs at the top goes under .. it's for the better

there aint no answers but you will never catch me giving my money to that hollywood corporate crap .. they just mind fuck you anyway .. ur their little guinea pig to see if you believe the shit they are peddling as ... life

how about how they are "stealing" your life buy convincing you to slave out to pay for some shitty content some douche pooped out for your to swallow .. the system is rigged .. i got no issue with bucking it .. its when u fuck your neighbor that maybe u should think twice .. huge difference

[SR]

Cc, are you in the industry? If so, in what capacity?

Never mind...just saw yr list thread

Yeah, I'm Executive Director of a 13 year-old musicians' nonprofit called Future of Music Coalition. We're basically an alternative to the trade industry presence in DC (RIAA, NMPA, National Association of Broadcasters, etc.) who called the shots for decades without really including the artist perspective. We are focused on musicians and songwriters, but are more tech friendly (and tech-savvy) than most advocacy orgs. Our core work is research and education.

It's a tricky time. The first half of our existence we were focused on artists' access to audiences; back then, there was massive consolidation in commercial radio, and the ISPs wanted to make the internet more like cable TV. Along with the artists and indie labels we've been blessed to work with, we fought to hold the line on further radio consolidation, pushed for (and achieved) an expansion of noncom radio (LPFM); advocated for an open and accessible internet, and a bunch of other stuff.

Now, the debate is shifting towards equitable compensation, transparency and artist leverage on emerging music platforms. That's where shit gets intense. We opposed SOPA because it was a horribly-crafted bill that would have had many unintended (or intended) consequences, but we support the growth of a legitimate digital music marketplaces that rewards fans and artists alike. Easy right?

More info:
http://www.futureofmusic.org

Our artist revenue streams research might also be of interest:
http://www.money.futureofmusic.org

I think about this stuff a lot and talk to the press about it frequently. I definitely don't have all the answers, but I probably know more than most about how this complicated and evolving landscape impacts actual musicians.

Thanks for asking, man...

interesting path. I hope some day the humanities find that they need help in a new direction that forges mutual benefits between the artist and the consumer after a collapse. Of course, the status quo will persist as the gap between the academy and the public grows larger and larger.