26 March 2009

bad business: music

Technology changes things, and in particular the digital formats have up-ended music distribution. It's cost-free to make a perfect copy of an mp3. And mp3s are faithful dups of actual performances – better quality, often, than the live performances you have access too.

All of my music is legal, in the sense that I purchased the rights to the songs I have digital versions of. This just sort of happened one day when I got a new computer, and I've been in a financial position (and a picky enough music person) to persist. But why am I doing this? It's stupid. But legal, I guess?

The way I see it, the music industry is obsolete. Because audio is so easily reproduced and – face it – easy to record, the music industry no longer serves anyone but itself. But there's people whose job depends on it. What do we say to them? I think "Tough luck."

I'd like to dissolve record companies, turn to completely digital distribution, and only pay for live performances. Let's pay for actual entertainment again! People can burn their own CD if they want one and – calm yourself – they'll surely be a niche for those with a vinyl thing. Realize that writing music shouldn't pay the bills unless it's mind-blowing (which doesn't even require the author to record anything anymore!); performing should, because that's the experience that can't be perfectly reproduced for free.

Too harsh? I imagine a few of you have opinions on this and I'd like to hear them.
Posted by at

2 comments:

Aaron 'The Batman' Schwartz said...

I think you have mostly good ideas, except for the fact that the kind of recording equipment used to make some of our favorite albums (even in this digital age) is still astronomically expensive. Is it easier to get noticed digitally? Sure. Is it easy to make an album on your own? Not necessarily.

Mastering an album alone costs mad-wicked bank.

Do I think the music industry is nothing short of a bunch of audio pimps? Yes. Do they serve a purpose, however dubious? Probably. They are little more than audio-loan-sharks, but they may still be required in order for smaller bands to do things such as record, promote, and distribute their music. Can all of this be done digitally? To an extent, but the infrastructure is there and resists being torn down. Like you said, it exists to exist.

I wish I could buy a house digitally without anyone fronting me any money, but unfortunately, I have to go through the banking system. Just like a band that needs promotion, professional recording equipment, and an initial cash fronting, I will have to deal with the given infrastructure, however obsolete, corrupt, or downright absurd that infrastructure might be.

It is necessary to say thank you (sometimes) to the record companies for promotions; it's how we hear of some of the best (and admittedly worst) bands out there.

Overall, though, I'm with you. The industry has outlived its usefulness, and I think we saw that during the glory days of Napster, and now Itunes. I think it's probably best to view the industry and the digital world as two options, not opposites in a dichotomy in which one must be eliminated. I'm just glad to have many different ways of discovering bands that deserve a listen or two.

Thursday, 26 March, 2009
Adrienne said...

7 years ago, in Freshman Composition, I wrote what I believe was a very persuasive persuasive paper about this (taking the side you've taken). I got an A, but my teacher pretty much laughed me out of the classroom. Three years later, as a junior, I wrote a paper about the death of terrestrial radio. Same irritating outcome.


Also, I can't vouch for this, but Jared tells me that the compression of digital music files is less than those from a physical CD. Does that bother you, too? Maybe he's just a purist, cause I can't tell the difference.

Tuesday, 07 April, 2009

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)