Short Replies
Wow, OK, so that last post generated a lot of, shall we say, heat. Responses ranged from the interesting and thoughtful to virulent character assassination. Haha, oh well, can't win em all. While standing behind what I said before, I felt moved to rush off a couple of responses before heading out for the day.
Firstly I think it's important to restate that my views below are about the situation as it stands now. As I stated, the business paradigm of music is shifting. It seems to me more than likely that paying for recorded music will become a thing of the past reasonably soon. Models such as the one Madonna is employing (recording essentially as a promotional tool for tours) are interesting. But the point is this hasn't happened yet. Radiohead tried to jump the gun on that one, but it's different for a band with a huge fanbase, their own studio and 10 years of major label marketing behind them. I'm trying to discuss the economics of the situation right now for people like me.
Interesting points were raised (hat-tip to Wez and Simon) about the distinction between physical and digital product. My 2 cents right here is to say that digital product, while having no production cost as far as a CD or a vinyl is concerned, still has the cost of recording. If I give all my recordings away free, I get left with a massive unpaid studio bill, and a situation where everyone except the artist gets paid, which seems a little unjust to me. Also interesting points about trying-before-you-buy (myspace and last.fm, anyone?), and about the "right" price for CDs and albums. The reduction in price since the advent of the internet has been telling and welcome, and continued discussion on this is always good (and natural in a free market). Wez put it well though, by saying that the internet kinda short-circuits the maths by introducing a "divided by zero" idea. I guess for me personally, as old-fashioned as this may be, for the time being I still regard a collection of music as something with intrinsic economic value.
My only retraction on my first post would be my use of the word "expect", as in "expect to get paid". That comes across wrong. I'm acutely aware that I do this by choice, no one owes me a living, and I'm competing in a free market. Obviously we're also talking about art here, and on that level of course I'd write songs and play out as much as I could regardless. But writing and playing are not, alas, all that I do. Promotion, logistics and administration take up a large part of my time, in trying to let as many people hear what I do as possible. I'm not "all about the money" (seriously, I'd be in the wrong job) but neither do I have a trust fund or major label to catch me when I fall. It seems to me that a lot of bands skirt this issue, choose not to talk about it, or present an unrealistic front (usually when backed by a lot of major label cash). Personally, I can't afford to be like that, and I try to be as honest as I can about the realities of my life with the people who are interested in it. In short, I'm not rich or middle class enough to say I don't care about money. I've got to eat, I've got bills to pay. I don't make much money out of what I do, nor do I think I ever will, but it'd be nice to get by.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic to the people who enjoy my music, you guys enable me to do what I do. If it still sounds petulant to some people for me to say that I "expect" some reward when other people enjoy the fruits of my art, time and money, I can only respond that it sounds petulant to me when people say they expect it for free. All of this is about trying to find an equilibrium where we can maximize everyone's enjoyment of music. Here's hoping for some progress down that path.
Firstly I think it's important to restate that my views below are about the situation as it stands now. As I stated, the business paradigm of music is shifting. It seems to me more than likely that paying for recorded music will become a thing of the past reasonably soon. Models such as the one Madonna is employing (recording essentially as a promotional tool for tours) are interesting. But the point is this hasn't happened yet. Radiohead tried to jump the gun on that one, but it's different for a band with a huge fanbase, their own studio and 10 years of major label marketing behind them. I'm trying to discuss the economics of the situation right now for people like me.
Interesting points were raised (hat-tip to Wez and Simon) about the distinction between physical and digital product. My 2 cents right here is to say that digital product, while having no production cost as far as a CD or a vinyl is concerned, still has the cost of recording. If I give all my recordings away free, I get left with a massive unpaid studio bill, and a situation where everyone except the artist gets paid, which seems a little unjust to me. Also interesting points about trying-before-you-buy (myspace and last.fm, anyone?), and about the "right" price for CDs and albums. The reduction in price since the advent of the internet has been telling and welcome, and continued discussion on this is always good (and natural in a free market). Wez put it well though, by saying that the internet kinda short-circuits the maths by introducing a "divided by zero" idea. I guess for me personally, as old-fashioned as this may be, for the time being I still regard a collection of music as something with intrinsic economic value.
My only retraction on my first post would be my use of the word "expect", as in "expect to get paid". That comes across wrong. I'm acutely aware that I do this by choice, no one owes me a living, and I'm competing in a free market. Obviously we're also talking about art here, and on that level of course I'd write songs and play out as much as I could regardless. But writing and playing are not, alas, all that I do. Promotion, logistics and administration take up a large part of my time, in trying to let as many people hear what I do as possible. I'm not "all about the money" (seriously, I'd be in the wrong job) but neither do I have a trust fund or major label to catch me when I fall. It seems to me that a lot of bands skirt this issue, choose not to talk about it, or present an unrealistic front (usually when backed by a lot of major label cash). Personally, I can't afford to be like that, and I try to be as honest as I can about the realities of my life with the people who are interested in it. In short, I'm not rich or middle class enough to say I don't care about money. I've got to eat, I've got bills to pay. I don't make much money out of what I do, nor do I think I ever will, but it'd be nice to get by.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic to the people who enjoy my music, you guys enable me to do what I do. If it still sounds petulant to some people for me to say that I "expect" some reward when other people enjoy the fruits of my art, time and money, I can only respond that it sounds petulant to me when people say they expect it for free. All of this is about trying to find an equilibrium where we can maximize everyone's enjoyment of music. Here's hoping for some progress down that path.
posted by frank at 7:37 AM
53 Comments:
Well said.
No-one should "expect" music for free. It's a creative art just like painting a picture. You wouldn't expect to get a picasso for free!
Frank your right, you do a job albeit one that you love which is great for you and no-one should expect that they go to work and not get paid.
Danny.
p.s. work to live not live to work.
Correctamondo. If people want to carry on hearing your music, you have to receive enough to support yourself while you do it, so that it's a financially viable way to spend your time.
Just a few half-baked thoughts.
It is only right that you should "'expect' some reward when other people enjoy the fruits of [your] art, time and money".
The key here is the matter of enjoyment. If someone listens to music (whether a copy of it or whether physically sitting in the living room of its owner) and does not enjoy it then clearly they are tremendously unlikely ever to pay for it.
On the other hand, those who audition the music and find it enjoyable ought to pay for it and, if Stephen Fry's comments at http://www.stephenfry.com/2009/07/27/series-2-episode-4-itunes-live-festival/ are to be believed, they probably will.
The existence of services such as Spotify goes some way to defeating the argument that unauthorised downloading is an appropriate way to audition music.
I agree. I love being a teacher & would probably do it on some form on a voluntary basis if I didn't do it as my job, but I can't always give those skills away for free; I have to make a living. If people want to listen to great music, of course they should 'expect' to pay.
I think you should write a song about this very topic. It's obviously one close to your heart (and quite rightly so). It'd also be interesting to see how many people downlaod it for free off of the internets!
What Norris said.
Dave and I were talking about this at length yesterday. My personal thoughts are that you write and make the music, and you deserve to be paid for your hard work. It would be a bit like my boss saying he wasn't going to pay me for a shift.
Also, a good analogy for this is a book. Essentially, you go by the blurb when you buy a book, and the radio and MySpace etc are your blurb. People wouldn't expect to be given a book for free before they buy it, and they shouldn't expect to take music for free.
I do think free music is a good way for unsigned bands to promote themselves. However as you are established, and music is not only your art, but your job, then your music should only be free if you wish it to be(which would be stupid, as you have to eat).
I completely understand and agree, with your previous blog, however, it was always going to fan some flames of those who feel justified in their actions as a electronic thief. I can't see why downloading an album illegally for free, is any different that someone hacking into your personal bank account and taking the £7.99 from it, that would be classed as a major offence, yet stealing something of the same value is consistently done, and as many of the people who commented on the previous post seemed to suggest, its 'justifiable'. How?! As for the guy that suggest that the 'kids' do it because they can only afford 3 or 4 albums a year, well then they should only buy 3 or 4 albums a year, you don't see a guy buying 4 loafs of bread and then stealing some more do you? If you like the band than much then surely you can ensure they are in your 3 or 4 purchases of that year. I look forward to giving you my hard earned money, you deserve it Frank, as I get great enjoyment from it, and you know what for 100 hours of listening pleasure I think £7.99 is a bargain!
As far as I am concerned everyone who likes an artist should be paying for their music. I get paid for what I do and so should people whose music I enjoy.
Plus I like having a CD collection, much the same way I like having lots of books.
@Longwayround:
You said:
"If someone listens to music [...] and does not enjoy it then clearly they are tremendously unlikely ever to pay for it."
Though I gather you're on the pro-paying front in general, it is a pity that we have already started to just accept this fact.
"If we don't like it (enough), we don't pay for it" is the argument I hear the most in discussions on this matter. And, in my opinion, it's an incomplete and even incorrect statement.
Sure, it's perfectly possible to like something, but not enough to pay for it. Sure, it's a very good thing to "Buy a record if I really like it enough". Only, when you don't like a particular baker’s bread or a particular brand of beer enough to pay for it, then you just won’t have it either.
You can't walk into a bar and say "I'll have two Guinesses, for which I'm going to pay because I like them a lot, and then two Carlsbergs, which I'll take for free because I only like them so-and-so".
Ok, the big difference is that you can copy a song, so you seem to get it for free without the "vendor" actually physically “losing” it. And that simple fact – just the possibility - seems to be some sort of justification to millions of people.
I'm not holier that Jesus either. I'll gladly admit I have about a 100 unpaid-for songs on my pc, and I, too, think that to some degree, this is justifiable, as was recording songs from the radio on cassette tape when I was a kid. People happily announcing to me that they just copied a friend's external hard drive with more than 10.000 songs on it, that's just way beyond that degree.
Yes, there will need to be a transformation of business models, and no, we probably can’t avoid that copying will go on forever, but I don’t think that we should just accept the way of thinking those music (or for that matter, video or software) copiers make use of. They shouldn’t ever get the impression that they are, after all, if you look at it their way, completely right.
Re. try-before-you-buy: last.fm and myspace are great and the way to go of course, as long as it's fair. Giving two good songs from a 10-ish album where the rest is £12.99 crap isn't fair - it's misleading. I'd buy only the two listed songs, and as a digital download. How can I trust a label/artist on such a limited basis? After all, I work very hard to earn money to buy music, so I don't want to waste it, etc. So it's basically a human relationship: you offer me something, I'm interested, show some trust and I'll trust you. Or we'll end up in a Mexican standoff.
(one might ask why the seller should trust the buyer first and not the other way - well, I've been left too many times with empty boxes in exchange of my working hours so I'm a bit disillusioned).
re: the French Resistance, it was a just silly metaphoric situation. The concept is: illegal download is, well, illegal, and unfair, as is killing - but sometimes might be justified if done after thinking, pondering and considering. And if one says "only a very few people think ponder and consider before downloading, so it's bad anyway", well it's like condemning the Resistance just because they had to kill the Nazis. You may think all my talk it's an unuseful wank, but as Frank said, we need readjustment, and it must be tried by all necessary means - except killing musicians of course.
BTW, in countries like mine (Italy) where a (definitely not low) "PRS compensation tax" is paid on every CD-R, iPod, USB stick, hard disk bought, and (supposedly) redistributed to artists and labels, can download still be illegal? Or is the PRS stealing from me when I'm using the CD-R to legally record my family photos rather than stolen music? Maybe we already have reached the above standoff point?
All in the very humble opinion of a very small part of the music industry: a single consumer. :)
I agree of course with what most sane and honest people are posting here. Not paying for music is theft. Fullstop. As for the people who argue for a "try before you buy" clause, today more than any other time in my music buying past, are you able to do such a thing. Myspace, iTunes etc allow you to hear songs before you part with hardearned cash. When I started buying records, yes records, apart from standing in Our Price with headphones on, you bought your LP and if you didn't like it tough. Taking it back and arguing with the shop assistant that it was pants did not work.
People who steal music and other media just try to come up with reasons to excuse their behaviour.
Just thought I should say, Frank, at Leeds festival 2007 you asked people to cheer if they liked your album (I cheered) and then cheer again if they paid for it (I didn't cheer).
But I didn't download it!!
My best friend played it in the car when we were on "road trips" and I hadn't got round to buying my own copy yet- and I have now.
So yes, I just hope that you don't take my lack of second cheer the wrong way.
See you in Manchester in October.
I can afford to buy, and I wouldn't steal. In fact, when a band I like gave away for free three EPs recently, I made the gesture of 'donating' through Paypal, just as I paid for that Radiohead album and the Crimea one (and I didn't get the free Charlatans one because I don't really like them...).
I'm a law scholar, and I do not think that intellectual property laws, however misapplied by corporations and big-city lawyers, are inherently flawed so much that I can make a moral choice to disobey them. The only such laws I can think of are genocide/racist laws, so really there's a massive big step there. When 'kids' propose some half-baked ideological and badly argued 'corporate evil law' stance - I do wonder how much ethics, philosophy, political theory they actually know! In fact, I'd rather someone said, 'I'm a thief' than 'I am justified in thieving'. However, I took that approach with a start-up band (now dissolved, they never were very good but also, and diabolically, they never 'lived by' their music, it was really a fast track to some cash and many -slutty- girls) and got wide-eyed, disbelieving stares when I asked them and their management, knowing that they could not be making a lot of money either way and had to repay the label for their advance, how to report illegal download links - not torrent, but simple forum ones that a person with my limited degree of internet skill could freely access. And the answer I got was dismissive and frankly (!) made me wonder whether they cared at all. Certainly even after my repeated reports those links were left active for quite some time. Perhaps at their level they thought any exposure was good (I did notice they, band and management, were rather limited in the intellectual department! Hence their dissolving...). So, the intellectual/ethical dishonesty doesn't just come from the 'user'/thief, but it seems to me to also creep into the actions and viewpoint of some 'insiders'.
Carla
Well said Frank.
To go with the whole "excpect to get paid" misunderstanding and talk of the realities of life, I'd like to point out that basic survival is a reality for all of us. We all have to find ways to get by. Some of us are lucky enough to have the choice between scraping by doing something we love, or living comfortably doing something we can tolerate, with our passions crammed into our precious spare time. So far I've found very few people who've managed to achieve both.
Thank you for provoking such an interesting thread of discussion. :)
Awesome. Nicely put.
I want, more than anything, for people (especially artists) to get paid for what they produce. I just believe that this payment is not always directly for the work itself and that fighting this fact is like trying to stop a tank with a bow and arrow.
Value for artistic commodities used to be based too much on the controlling interests of a select few who had the ability to reach a commercially viable audience.
This has changed. I'm sorry that Frank still feels that we're not quite there yet. I know of a number examples of independent musicians who have used the viral power of the internet to sustain their careers without ever needing a label.
Radiohead and Madonna and Trent Reznor are poor examples for exactly the reason Frank states - they have huge, pre-existing fanbases.
Artists like Jonathan Coulton, Brad Sucks and MC Frontalot have started without this and leveraged the power and potential of the internet - working with it instead of against it - to carve out niches and build fanbases entirely on their own.
From MC Frontalot:
"I'm not worried about listeners sharing music amongst themselves. I'd probably be using creative commons licenses to make that official, but a couple of lawyers have advised against. The thing that I will never be cool with is getting my stuff swiped by corporate interests, including people who sell music online, and so the official stance is that I must protect my copyrights as fiercely as possible, which, alas, means avoiding CC for now.
But like I said, I'm not worried about sharing. The more people hear my stuff, the more likely the fan base is to grow, and then there are more people supporting me as best they can afford, which is what lets me do the music full time."
I commend you for being so outspoken Frank, this isn't an issue that should have to divide the artists and fans. I wouldn't argue with anything you've said.
I remember being a kid and being outraged at the whole "NapsterGate" scenario spearheaded by metallica. At the time I was filesharing like a bitch, and found it a fantastic way to gain music. I was 15, and had zero dollar to spend on music, this way I got to own the songs I saw on P-Rock and MTV2 without having to save up for weeks to buy an album.
I can't remember the exact age that my opinion changed, but it probably came around the time that I gained decent employment and had cash to spend on CD's. To be honest, even when I was filesharing, it always seemed like the second best option, I wanted that CD to physically hold in my hand, look at the cover, read the lyrics, feel like I was actually a part of the artists life, and not just sneaking a peek at it.
Even when MP3 players were becoming the rage, I was still carrying my sony discman round in my bag, every morning selecting 6 or 7 CD's to carry round with me all day.
My opinion is now fully aligned with that of Frank's, I can't understand why people who claim to LOVE an artist don't want to feel like they've given something back to them.To be a part of that artists life i some small way.
Whenever I come up against someone who is totally pro free downloading, I always direct them to the Lyrics of the great Reuben song "Return Of The Jedi". They were the first band to totally spell out my sentiments.
After I see Frank in Newcastle, I'll most certainly try and catch him to tell him how much I've enjoyed his music, (I only recently got into him, through a friend playing me his shizzle, my preferred method of hearing new music), one of the reasons I feel able to do this is because I have purchased the albums and like I mentioned, feel like I'm now part of his journey through music.
The problem here to my mind goes way beyond downloading music; that's a symptom, how the disease is cured is much harder, and will take an imaginative energy I don't see much of in our public sphere.
On an almost philosophical basis, there's the whole debate of the internet as provider of content at zero-cost, something that newspapers are struggling with at the moment. Then, related, you have a contemporary societal reluctance to wait for anything - "I want it now... therefore I SHOULD have it now..." Further you have the situation that because downloading is done from the security of the living room, it has the safety of anonymity. Then you have the muddying of waters where companies are seeking to extend copyright to ludicrous lengths, thereby losing sympathy and the moral highground. These are wider issues, albeit important ones, there's a practical side to it too.
Most of the children I teach download their music without paying, although some are now venturing into the realms of Spotify and such. They aren't bothered about sound quality especially, or my old-fashioned desire to own a physical product, it's about practicality. As a 15year old, how do you pay for something online? My children are allowed a certain amount of downloads from itunes each month, a lot of my pupils don't have that, and so logically, to them, go to Limewire etc. Equally, in an immediate society, where tracks are trailed relentlessly in radio for months before release, they want that song NOW, not in 6 weeks time when it's released. Once those youngsters do have the card facilities to pay, will they change their behaviour? It seems to me doubtful that they will, the expectation of free is out there.
To my mind this is a battle that won't be won through the sledgehammer of courts and legal action, now through streamed (and advertising infected) things like Spotify, it requires the slow changing of attitudes allied to practical applications for people to be able to access music whilst they don't possess credit/debit cards or parents who're amenable to the internet.
Finally, an interesting side order - I have downloaded "illegally", but albums which are no longer available; I would rather pay the artist, but am unable to. That's a problem for other artists (as well as those I've downloaded), because once someone has found out how easy it is to do, many will simply follow suit for new material too. Perhaps the extension of the "long-tail" would go some way to removing initial temptation to start stealing music.
This is certainly a more rounded and level headed approach to the subject compared to the last post. I appreciate it's a passionate subject but to label everyone that has ever downloaded a song as a generalised criminal is ridiculous.
The vast majority of people in my experience download music for either financial or the previously mentioned 'try before you buy' reasons, myself being the latter. I'm not in a position to pop down to HMV and spend £13 on a CD I'm not necessarily going to like, to the point where I was in said store just a few days ago with 4/5 CDs in hand and actually left empty handed, sale lost.
It's literally only in the last couple of years that services like Last.fm and Spotify have come to fill this gap and I fully believe that free, licensed streaming of music with a 'pay to keep and take it with you' approach is the future of the business. But it's only if more independent artists like Frank and other touring bands throw their support behind these products that they can stem downloading properly.
I should add to my comment that if I stream or download some music that I haven't paid for and I DO end up liking it, I will then go and buy it :-)
Hi, I was among those that registered some distaste at the 'expect to get paid' stuff, and whilst i agreed with the majority of what you i didnt like that bit.
Just like to say reading this ammendment to yesterdays post that I completely agree with what you mean now. I never believed you were particularly interested in the money over the satisfaction of playing music and I am now convinced and all in all rather cheerful after reading this post,
Wow, a mention on Frank's blog....twice! *swoon* :o). Cheers mate, glad I had something to add to the discussion.
To reiterate a previous point, I think you are already going the right way about damage limitation on this. It should be pretty clear to anyone who reads this blog, the forums or even listens closely enough to your music (however obtained), that you are a decent guy. If that doesn't translate into a living for you, my faith in humanity will be irreversibly shaken.
Just for a bit of levity... perhaps you might consider covering this sublime track by Mr Weird Al Yankovich...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQTO4xrbFZw
I think part of the problem stems from the fact that artist's similar to yourself don't speak up on such issues and if they do they don't really get the proper forum to reach the masses.
The public only hears from the top-brass of major labels and internationally renowned artists like Metalica, Britney Spears etc. So, they're of course going to find it hard to sympathise with millionaires/billionaires complaining about money issues.
I agree that with services like Spotify entering the market it's at least a step in the right direction in order to counter the download culture.
What I find interesting is that nobody has really touched on the idea of obtaining music free from other mediums. For instance, copying off a friend. For years this has been taking place and in my view is the same. Regardless of the fact the friend may have given you the album it is still copyright infringement. Still obtaining the album for nothing. Yet it is generally deemed acceptable.
Since I can't usually find any of the artists I like in CD stores by where I live, I usually just use iTunes. I figure it is better than stealing and at least you the person who made the music still gets something.....or do you?
Is iTunes actually beneficial to the artist?
After all that I think a cup of tea is needed - shall I put the kettle on?
hellooooo :)
with your 2 previous said points, id like to ask this question which im not wholey certain you would have an answer for.
how many albums have you sold in regards to love ire and song?
also how much money do you get from a record being sold for i.e. ten pounds? i guess its all variable to formats and stores, but i think it would really clarify to people the lack of money artists make that dont have sony wipping their arss.
For comparable artists who have completely opposite ways to approach the matter, I think Saul Williams would be a good example. He doesn't have a huge fanbase, but does have a dedicated one, much like Frank.
His latest album "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!" was first released exclusively as a digital download, available for free (as a lower quality mp3) and as a higher quality (or even lossless) version (with cover art as a PDF) for $5. (Guess which I chose.) The album was only later released as a CD and double LP with extra tracks.
In the end the experiment wasn't that great of a success, only 18 percent of the downloaders chose to pay for it. I don't know the current figures, but in January 2008 it had been downloaded by approximately 154 000 people, 28 000 of whom had paid for it.
Williams' previous record sold 34 000 copies, so I think it shows there is a way to sell digital copies of music, even if it is also available for free. In the long run, I don't know if this kind of business model is enough to make a living, though.
I'm old enough (46)that I grew up where getting hold of music free was well nigh impossible. The only way was to borrow an LP from a mate then play it and try to record it through a microphone onto a cassette. Recording quality was awful so over the years I got into the habit of listening to friends' music then if I liked it I bought it myself. The other way was through hearing tracks on the radio and buying the album, though that was more hit and miss but hey, you win some and all that. The habit has stuck with me since then and I just don't download music for free unless it's legitimately so. I got into Frank after hearing "reasons not to be an idiot" on the radio and being blown away. I bought the album, loved that and then bought up his back catalogue which is ace. And I'm going to see him in Manchester too. I completely agree that people should be paid for their work, I wouldn't do my job for free in a million years, an artist shouldn't be any different just because it isn't the conventional way of making a living.
Stephen Fry's podcast has been mentioned here already, but definitely worth reiterating - none so eloquent as Stephen. Although I don't use Limewire or torrents, I do have several recorded CDs from friends on my iPod. I share most of my CDs with friends if I think they'll like them, and they with me, but we have the unspoken rule that if we like what hear, we go out an buy the album. So I have maybe 20 or so albums on my iPod that I haven't paid for, but don't really listen to them that often, if at all.
I think this is kinda Fopp's business model. They were slightly ahead of their time - they need something like Spotify to counter their "Suck it and see"policy (if you don't like it, take it back and exchange/money back, no questions asked). It may have been their 'Suck It And See' policy that led to their downfall, but I think now the people that buy 'hardcopies' aren't the people to burn and take back.
Anyway, looking forward to seeing you in Exeter, Frank!
Also, as an aside, love love LOVE the 12" EP/double A-side (which?) you did with Jonah Matranga.
If ever there was an example of why you should buy hardcopies, this dear people, is it. Beautiful songs, beautiful, beautiful album cover and most importantly bright yellow clear vinyl!
I'd like to give a public thank you to everyone on this thread and the last who grasp the basic fact that this argument - or conflict, if you will - is dominated by shades of grey.
Too many people on the last thread were either gung-ho, download-by-the-gigabyte copyright pirates (thieves, if you prefer) or self-righteous moralisers (even those whose hearts were essentially in the right place), both sides incapable of seeing that drifting too far in either direction is a bad thing.
A couple of grey areas worthy of note:
1) Something that "obliquewordorder" brought up several posts up; the illegal downloading of albums that are basically unobtainable by legal means. I freely admit to having illegally downloaded, years and years ago, two incredibly-hard-to-get-unless-you're-super-rich albums by the late great Phil Ochs. The rest of Ochs' albums I'd purchased legally and still have as hard copy now, but these two remain "stolen" (speech marks used with heavy irony) mp3s. They're pretty good, but without file-sharing, I'd never have known that. Should we let a great man's music rot unheard because we can't afford to pay extortionate prices for it???
2) Try Before You Buy. This seems to get a lot of people's backs up, with people who remember the "good old days" reminiscing how if you saved up your money for weeks on end and wound up with a shoddy album, it was tough luck. I remember; it happened to me many times. So many that I'm a lot more careful with my money now that I have the option of sampling albums before purchasing. To the folks who claim that you're not allowed to do this with other art forms, such as books...are you familiar with the word LIBRARY?
Now, I'm the proud owner of hundreds upon hundreds of CDs collected over a good couple of decades, and I still pay for the vast majority of my music. I don't think it's unfair or unrealistic for someone like Frank to want to live off their art. It's a dream of mine and a hell of a lot of other people in this world to do the same. And it's right that you're defensive of it, Frank. What I'm asking mate, is...don't forget that not everything in the world's clear-cut, eh?
I quick confession.
I think this should be discussed more. So this was an awesome post.
The way the music industry works is definitely going to have to change. The sooner the better.
I'm not going to say i'v never downloaded music illegally. That'd be a major understatement. I have used it to discover many many bands.
I do feel guilty about it in certain cases.
However if musicians or record labels do offer me an alternative i'll happily take it.
Vinyl is one way to do this.
T-shirt + posters + CD bundles are also great
I will allways buy a Tshirt when i go to gigs. If i can get a T shirt and a CD or Vinyl for a few pounds extra i'll buy it ever time.
I just recently got a record player/turnable and have just ordered all your vinyl's from www.vinylcollective.com
I don't value CD as collectible. They never seem to last 2 long.
Vinyl is a great alternative and they look cool as fuck in my room.
Although music pirates won't disappear altogether.
I think in a few years time illegal downloading will become less and less of a problem as more and more alternatives will become available/popular. Hopefully.
Please forgive my thieving ways x
Also i think with the "Try b4 you buy" arguement i think the reason so many people download and give this excuse is because they want to be able to TRY the music on the move. By having it on their Ipods. (i no i listen to music mostly when i'm walking/traveling
Myspace and co don't allow you to do this.
I think in the near future iTunes need to offer a "rental" service where you can pay a fraction of the sum and have access to number of tracks from a record for maybe a week or 2.
And then at the end of the alloted time your itunes/ipod touch could easily offer you the option of purchasing the whole record in full or link you through to the artists merch site.
vinylcollective.com is awesome for any one who is looking at getting into collecting records.
i got all franks a few weeks ago and I also just order a Ferret records mix pack. 10 LP's for $40!! ETID rule.
Shipping costs to the UK aren't to bad either.
Heeellppp. i can't join the forum??!!
Frank, you rock and I get what you are saying about this stuff, it's your job, of course you should get paid.
I really just wanted to come on here to say that I have not been sooo excited for a long long time as I am now about buying your new album.
i know this is the wrong place to put this,sorry.
the last time i was this ecited about buying an album was when i was 17 and REM released "Monster".
I hope Reading and Leeds are fantastic for you.
xx
Right, just my 2 cents i suppose.
Having read this, and the previous post by yourself frank.
I'm happy to admit i first heard your music at Leeds/Reading festival. I very much enjoyed it, in fact my friends are listening to you there again as we speak (i wish i could afford it be there!). I downloaded your album after the last festival, for free, and ignored it for a year.
However, 2 weeks ago, i saw it on my computer, and started listening to it again, and remembered why i liked it so much, so went out and bought 2 of your albums last night.
I wouldnt have bought it if i hadnt downloaded it first.
I know thats no excuse, and an old one at that, but true none the less.
All the best, hope to see you in nottingham!
Rowan
rowancoates@fmail.co.uk
I think Frank’s been treated pretty unfairly on the last two comment threads.
It’s no good getting overwrought when someone points out that illegal downloads are illegal. What’s illegal is a matter of law, not a matter of opinion. Frank is right to conduct this debate on the basis of verifiable fact.
However, I agree that some crimes are worse than others and I can see why people think that illegal downloads aren’t that big a deal.
Personally I disagree. I hate the theft of intellectual property. I think that it is insulting, that the fact that it’s easy doesn’t make it right, and that a musician is just as entitled to be paid for their labour as anyone else. Saying “I’ll make up for it by going to his gigs” ignores the fact that he also has to labour to produce a CD.
I believe that all of us, including the mega-rich, should be protected from theft – because I believe in individual rights and because once the state decides that one group of people don’t deserve protection it might not be long before it decides that the rest of us don’t.
I even think that Frank should be allowed to offer his new album at a price of £50. Yes, it would be insulting to his fans, but I think he should be allowed to do so by law.
Of course you may well not agree with all that. Fine. But could you at least have the courtesy to listen to an artist when he patiently explains why illegal downloads really do harm him? When his plea is not that he wants to be mega-rich but THAT HE IS WORRIED THAT HE WON’T BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO HIS THING AT ALL?
Sometimes people can’t make a career in music because they’re not good enough. Sometimes they don’t work hard enough. And sometimes they’re just unlucky. Our sympathy should be limited for those musicians - even to a certain extent the third category. Hey, we all have bad luck in life. But I think someone would be entitled to feel pretty aggrieved if they couldn’t make it work because people kept nicking their stuff.
Frank works incredibly hard and is very generous with his time and in playing free shows. It’s NOT a fantasy to say that studio time, musicians, producers, engineers and Frank’s own time don’t come for free. It’s a statement of fact.
Maybe you’d like to see the music business dominated by major labels and gentleman amateurs. (I think that would suck.) Or perhaps you’d like the government to fund musicians. (Do you really want protest singers to be employees of the state?)
Those of you who have said that Frank is lucky are right. He is lucky to have a talent, he is lucky to live in one of the most privileged parts of the world, and he is lucky that enough people have the good taste needed to sustain him in a career.
I think he knows all this. I also think when he tells us that illegal downloads pose an existential threat to his music career and to that of other great acts we should be inclined to believe him.
No-one is entitled to a music career. But surely their hard graft shouldn’t be rendered pointless by freeloaders.
I think Frank's right - I'd much rather pay the £10 of whatever it costs to buy his new album than spend that £10 on - well - not much. One round of drinks for a small amount of people, perhaps. I'd pay a lot more than that, mainly because I'm the sort of person who really really likes something when I like it at all.
Just because you are lucky enough to enjoy what you does not mean you shouldn't be paid! (Not that I'm not jealous.) Anyway, really only came here to find out the date of the new album, and got distracted into leaving a rather worthless comment. Sorry. Thought Frank was brilliant at Reading though - fantastic.
I think I posted my lengthier reply in the wrong article. I imagine it is lost amongst the other 100 old replies.
I just wanted to add one thing: Spotify
I'm not sure whether Frank is on it or not, but it's a great way to hear most of the music you want while also ensuring that the artists get reimbursed for their efforts.
And yes, Frank was amazing at Reading. Highlight of my weekend actually!
Legality is only really defined by the principles of majority consent. Clearly, filesharing is not something that can ever be effectivley 'policed' in the terms we understand it, and it becomes, therefore, a task of the victims of the crime to affect a change in opinion of the perpetrators who have settled their moral conscience in whichever way they see fit.
Politically and philosphically, I think this is an important debate to be having, especially amongst a demographic typically liberal in other aspects of law and order.
Not that it matters in any way - but my personal opinion is that, as in all things, education is the answer. Who, when faced with such an erudite and articulate argument as posted by Frank, can really say they will continue to download music for free?
Friday, Reading Festival, Alternative Tent - there was a debate going on regarding this issue. A girl stood up in front of the whole crowd and gave a little speech which included little gems such as, "I think music should be free because I am a student and I am poor. I have to work really hard in order to buy CD's and I don't think this is right." She was applauded.
To me this is an shameful example of the idiocy that is unfortunately rampant.
I work for the music industry indirectly. We do online media (websites etc) for artists across record labels (Major and Indie) and if the music industry suffered a financial downturn...so would we. So would a lot of other people who don't directly work within the industry.
It just seems so obvious to me. It's how the world works. It's how the economy works. How can people not understand this? Why on earth should musicians/managers/producers/technicians etc work for free?
Maso (and others),
You are right, shameful, but inevitable. The IP industry has built itself around this view of the economy where its "Fair price for fair work", however, what we are discovering is that actually the model is more like, "I pay because that is the only way to obtain", which is a bit different. Problem is, hard to know what camp somebody belongs to when something is difficult to obtain for free. When it is, (legit or otherwise), you start to see many people are in the second category. Access to funds does make a difference too, at the very least it pushes the 'undecideds' in a specific direction.
Anyone who can see absolutely no ethical dilema with downloading against owner's consent is an idiot and not worth listening to. There is fair size remainder who know the ethics and do it anyway. The industry just does not know how to deal with those people.
DRM was a disaster because people have reasonable expectations of what they can do with their files, such as uploading to an ipod, another PC etc. Assuming you consider those things reasonable, it is impossible to tell piracy from fair use.
You can appeal to ethics, might work from time to time, but I suspect rarely.
So somehow, the industry has to innovate, find a new model. Some have already suggested them. They are not perfect, and in honesty, we might have peaked on the whole 'musicians can be billionaires' thing, but there is still a lot of people's disposable income put into the music industry. Much of it still there for the taking.
Musician might well be the world's second oldest profession (so those real old school guys must have had a lot of fun!), I don't think is going to die out, just might change a bit.
I find it amusing that years ago people raged against Metallica for expressing their view point on how the free sharing of music digitally was going to hurt the industry. People called them greedy , they obviously saw the writing on the wall.
A musician is an artist, as is a painter and actress. If someone can make 20 million for being in a movie. Than why shouldn't the person writing and performing their craft make a living off it as well.
Building a career off of hard work should allow a person to profit off of it as well. If you enjoy it support it.
While all this seems to me pretty fair, there are a few artists who have had a relatively high amount of success from self-promotion via file sharing. The whole nerd-core thing, to an outsider, seems exclusively fuelled by the process you deride here, and one or two, MC Lars, Optimus Rhyme, MC Chris, seem to be making some kind of a modest living from freely hosting thier full albums then (I assume) making good on gigs, merch etc.
Admittedly thier fanbase is mired in the practice already, but the point is it still seems to be a viable model for thier non-Madonna level careers.
P.S. You're set at Reading was utterly fantastic, and will be buying the new album forthwith.
Purple Dave
I think there's a much more subtle point the whole 'expectation' thing, as it relates to how people treat music. I, and I imagine most of the commentators here, are from a generation that downloads music for free, but still remembers a time before we could do that. And in that there's a degree of recognization that what we're doing is wrong. We'll use all sorts of moral justifications but ultimately we know it's not right. The new generation are growing up with free digital downloads and hence are intrinsically learning that there's no value in music recordings. There is a danger in that.
I buy albums when I can afford them, I don't if I'm broke, and if it comes down to choosing between seeing an artist I like live and listening to the album for free (either illegally, or via Spotify, or borrowing it off a mate), or buying the album and missing the gig, I go for the former as it seems to be most beneficial to both me and the artist.
Oh, another point on the streaming vs. download argument...
I tend to do the majority of my "quality time" listening during my commute. I decide whether I really like an album and want to buy it on CD during such auditions. Streaming, unless you can persuade my telco to provide free mobile 3G bandwidth (and make it work underground, too) doesn't hack it.
I quite like Nine Black Alps recent model, too -- they offered their new (self financed, self released) album as MP3s to the fans who bought tickets for their autumn tour, with the physical release of the album following 2 months later. There were even some fans who couldn't attend the autumn tour, but still bought a ticket to get the album early. So, maybe that works? (P.S. The gig tickets were around the £11 mark -- I can't imagine they'd've been all that much cheaper without the MP3s thrown in "free"...)
I found your points interesting. I'm a huge fan, and you really made my Reading Festival. Long Live the Queen really had me welling up. But I paid a hell of a lot of money for that festival ticket. For the second year, my only choice was to overpay a tout to get a ticket, because Festival Republic refuse to put in any effective anti-touting measures, instead supporting the legal touting website, Viagogo, which took a fifty pound personal profit for every ticket sold. Why this makes them morally superior to the dodgy looking blokes outside the festival no one told me. Anyway, the point is that is not really money I can afford. It cost me over 300 quid over the weekend. With friends, girls and a football team to support, that is a huge amount for a student. Even though I get a lot of music illegally, I don't feel like the exploiter at all here. I feel like the music industry is screwing me. So it's hard for me to justify spending money on music I could be getting free. I really do feel like a bit of dick reading what you wrote, and I certainly don't want to come here and start gloating about getting your music for free. But the fact is if I had payed for your album, and all the rest of my music, I wouldn't have been able to see you live. If you hate me for this, I guess that's justified. I mean you've worked hard on something and i've taken it for nothing. It's certainly not fair on you, but is it fair on me to get ripped off? I try and buy a few singles when I can. I tried to buy your new one, but only have 38p in my debit account. So I really am sorry, but if it's no Frank or Free Frank, i'm going to have to go with Free Frank.
Frank, I in all honesty believe that you are one of the most interesting and and understated artists of the last decade if not more. However, I feel that the biggest factor here is that it IS the adolescents that are downloading the music and can you blame them all of the time? I for one feel sorry for these guys, they're growing up with such mass media hysteria and forceful advertisement campaigns that so many of them don't actually know how to distinguish between music and synthed auto tune shite. If I was in their position I'd be averse to buying it too... let alone an entire album that deteriorates after the 3 or 4 singles that they geared toward release. I know the "machine" is not going to stop any time soon but until it churns out real music that merits some kind of exchange system like money for listen, I don't think it will change and I'm with you entirely that it doesn't help the worthy, grassroots artist who is actually in it for the right reasons and that is the shame.
I for one have paid the deniros for your work and have the new one on pre order.... if the damn postal strikes cease in time, I even paid the £18 that a perticularaly large internet based media distribution company is asking for the 'A Song to Ruin' CD and DVD combo. It's just a shame that I keep losing so many CD's, the replacement bill is getting out of hand.
Keep talking free and providing us with interesting stuff.
I'll be completely honest with you mate and say that I had never heard of you until about a month ago.
I happened to see an advert for your live gigs in (I think) NME and noticed you were on Epitaph.
Given that most things on Epitaph are good, and absolutely loving Bad Religion, I downloaded 'Sleep is for the Week' for free, just to see what it was like.
I've since bought 'Love Ire and Song' and actually downloaded 'Poetry of the Deed' on launch day from itunes. I'm also going to see you at QMU in Glasgow in a month's time, as is my wife and my B-I-L (who was blown away by 'Father's Day').
That is my defence for using Isohunt / Mininova etc - I love music, and I find that torrent sites help me discover new bands. If I hate it, fine, I'll just delete. If I like it, I'll buy.
Hi,
I don't see anything wrong in demanding something in lieu to your creation. It is something like the reward you are getting for your hard work.
flash
Not really wanting to dredge up a topic that's already pretty stale, but I came across this post from another struggling artist and wondered if it was relevant.
http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/200582690/why-i-am-not-afraid-to-take-your-money-by-amanda
I don't know who you are, never heard of you, but people have been listening to music without paying for it for as long as recorded music has been a product to buy. Someone would buy a record and tape it for all their friends, you would do the same with records you bought yourself, everyone would tape stuff off John Peel.
All the internet did was make it more visible so that people who see it as a loss of income can fret about it. But if all the free downloads went away, people wouldn't just rush out to buy records again instead anymore than we would have done if there were no tapes to record onto.
What you need is some way to make money from those free downloads. Advertising would be the obvious one, and the way that most of the download sites make their money. Donations would work for the better known bands, but there would be no reason it couldn't work on a smaller scale for anyone else.
You need to pay for some studio time to record a new album, put a note on your Myspace page asking for £5 (or whatever) to go towards it. Everyone who pays gets a copy of it when it is finished.
Post a Comment
<< Home