Music Industry Quixotism (Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)

Music Industry Quixotism
(Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong)

The story of the moment in music business land is a post by NPR intern Emily White, and a reply post by independent musician David Lowery. Below are excerpts and my commentary.

Emily White in “I Never Owned Any Music To Begin With”:

“I never went through the transition from physical to digital. I’m almost 21 and since I first began to love music I’ve been spoiled by the Internet. I am an avid music-listener, concert-goer, and college radio DJ. My world is music-centric. I’ve only bought 15 CDs in my lifetime. Yet, my entire iTunes library exceeds 11,000 songs. [...] I’ve never supported physical music as a consumer. As monumental a role as musicians and albums have played in my life, I’ve never invested money in them aside from concert tickets and t-shirts. [...] I didn’t illegally download (most) of my songs. [...] Some are from my family. I’ve swapped hundreds of mix CDs with friends. My senior prom date took my iPod home once and returned it to me with 15 gigs of Big Star, The Velvet Underground and Yo La Tengo (I owe him one).”

This of course should come to no one’s surprise. This is simply the reality of how consumer behavior has shifted. Emily doesn’t leave it at that. She gives us a suggestion, from the point of view of a customer that also realizes artists need the support they’re not getting right now due to the changed listening behavior.

“As I’ve grown up, I’ve come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing means to the musicians I love. I can’t support them with concert tickets and t-shirts alone. But I honestly don’t think my peers and I will ever pay for albums. I do think we will pay for convenience. What I want is one massive Spotify-like catalog of music that will sync to my phone and various home entertainment devices. With this new universal database, everyone would have convenient access to everything that has ever been recorded and performance royalties would be distributed based on play counts (hopefully with more money going back to the artist than the present model). All I require is the ability to listen to what I want, when I want and how I want it. Is that too much to ask?”

No Emily, that is not too much to ask at all. Matter of fact, all signs point this way when we look at the technology available, the customer’s wishes, and the best way to capitalize on the new ways of listening to music. Only when you’re being forward thinking and rational though. And this coming from me, a record label founder who at the present still makes most of our money from digital download sales. So I’m certainly not saying this because it’s convenient to me.

David Lowery in “Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered”:

I’ll start by saying that David’s post is eloquent and very respectful and polite towards Emily.* It’s also just wrong. In a nutshell:

I must disagree with the underlying premise of what you have written. Fairly compensating musicians is not a problem that is up to governments and large corporations to solve. It is not up to them to make it “convenient” so you don’t behave unethically. (Besides–is it really that inconvenient to download a song from iTunes into your iPhone? Is it that hard to type in your password? I think millions would disagree.)

Lets not pretend this is as convenient as firing up Rdio and streaming anything you like. Lets also not pretend there is a solid solution for personal music catalog organization and synching. Or that there is a truly convenient way to share music with others, which is a key desire and behavior fundamental to the fan experience.

“The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time.”

Ah yes, the “tradition” argument. I’d like to remind David for hundreds of years the accepted norm was that the earth was flat, and that women should probably not vote. Lets not get into a debate on the severely broken copyright system, and just accept that it’s severely broken. We change traditions once we gain new insights.

“By allowing the artist to treat his/her work as actual property, the artist can decide how to monetize his or her work. This system has worked very well for fans and artists.”

If it works so well for both parties, then why are we having this conversation?

“Now we are being asked to undo this not because we think this is a bad or unfair way to compensate artists but simply because it is technologically possible for corporations or individuals to exploit artists work without their permission on a massive scale and globally. We are being asked to continue to let these companies violate the law without being punished or prosecuted. We are being asked to change our morality and principals to match what I think are immoral and unethical business models. [...] What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the equivalent of looting.”

Ah yes, the “moral”/”corporate conspiracy” combo argument. Last time I checked no one was forcing artists and labels to sign up with streaming services. Lets not pretend the size of the music industry as a whole has ever been more than a mini calculation error on the balance sheets of the companies that own the grand majority of them. If Universal was left off of the Vivendi annual report, a decent amount of people would not notice.

“The internet is full of stories from artists detailing just how little they receive from Spotify. [...] The reason they can get away with paying so little to artists is because the alternative is The ‘Net where people have already purchased all the gear they need to loot those songs for free. Now while something like Spotify may be a solution for how to compensate artists fairly in the future, it is not a fair system now. As long as the consumer makes the unethical choice to support the looters, Spotify will not have to compensate artists fairly.”

I won’t pretend that I haven’t complained about the paltry payments before myself, but why are we leaving out the fact that Spotify is co-owned by all the major labels? Major labels who have negotiated that they get more for every spin than any independent artist or label gets for that same exact spin. David goes on to calculate a back of the envelope number based on Emily’s 11,000 song library, and extrapolates that over time, concluding that she should pay around $18 dollars a month to turn her consumption into an “ethical one”. This is where he could’ve segued into the solution proposed by Emily, the Spotify-like library in the sky that synchs to everything everywhere, but he doesn’t.

“Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians! Emily, I know you are not exactly saying what I’ve illustrated above. You’ve unfortunately stumbled into the middle of a giant philosophical fight between artists and powerful commercial interests.”

David gives Emily some suggestions on how she can better herself, which includes calling out “those that profit by exploiting artists without compensation,” which includes phoning Geico and Google for advertising on illegal mp3 sites. It also includes donating some of the money she “owes” to artists to charities for artists. It also includes legally buying music the old school way (download or physical), which I think Emily has already pointed out is just not going to happen.

Music Industry Quixotism

We are tilting at windmills here people. I used the expensive word “quixotism” in the title of this article, and that is the actual problem here. David represents the impracticality in pursuit of ideals, manifested by lofty and romantic ideas. David, and many of the stake holders that have tweeted in his support, play the part of Don Quixote in this farcical short novel that is the transition phase of the music industry.

Utopia as seen through the eyes of Don Quixote, is merely an illusion. We should look at the Utopia seen through the customer’s eyes, and build a system around it. This is not about morals. This is about smarts. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s not about rebelling. It’s about a giant shift in consumer behavior and how we as an industry deal with that.

Let us not be Don Quixote. Let us be Alonso Quijano^.

Related Reading:

Five New Music Business Wins (Or It’s Only Going To Get Better) (read)
Help Your Customer (Or Fighting Them Means Losing Them) (read)
One World (Or The Inelegant Sadness Of A Lost Transaction) (read)
Fans Would Love To Pay For Music (Or The Tale Of The Reluctant Pirate) (read)
The Benefit Of Streaming (Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb) (read)
The New Way Of Consuming Music (Or A Dollar Less To Rihanna Means A Dollar More To Tegan And Sara) (read)

*Aside from a bit of a low blow by mentioning two artist suicides and effectively linking them to illegal downloading in a causal way.
^ Don Quixote real indentity, which he regained on his death bed when he regained his sanity.

93 Comments | Music Business | | 06.19.12.

Pingback: PIONEER 12 SUBS (DICKINSON)
Pingback: A Personal Aspiration Towards Ethical Listening « Lubricity
http://www.facebook.com/beauscottjennings Beau Jennings

..

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Beau, very mysterious. Thank you

Bill

How about this: no more recorded music? I feel an artist (or group of artists) will come along soon and make this a viable business model. Why waste weeks or months in a studio recording an album for someone to just take because they

can? Promotion? Nah, that can be had other ways. If you’re a “musician” you “play” music (“loose definitions”). It seems like a time will come soon when true artists won’t want to waste the precious time that they could be spending with their families, writing, or connecting with fans in a more visceral/meaningful way on the (now) frivolous and antiquated recording process. Artists who put on an excellent show/performance and have solid songs are at this point pretty much fulfilling their end of the deal. Without a doubt someone in the audience will be recording in some capacity. Why spend the time on anything that bypasses the “true experience” of “preforming” your music for an audience?

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

I don’t see that happening simply because most artists love recording and doing it even just for themselves. And it will always be good promotion. There are rappers that have built entire careers out of only putting out free mixtapes of their music, and make all the money other ways.

Bill

Artists “love” recording, huh? Names please (LOL).

Seriously.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Well most of the ones I work with love recording for one. I love recording (as a producer). Redman calls himself a “studio bunny”. DJ Premier calls himself a “studio rat”. I mean I can keep going, and you can find just as big a list of artists that don’t really enjoy recording. I’m not sure what that will prove. Fact of the matter is there are entire careers built on free albums mixed in with not free albums. And if you’re an artist that doesn’t love to record, no one is going to force you to record. One less artist in the market place to clog it up. I wish fewer artists would record.
Bill

Yeah, keep going.

http://twitter.com/MrMaG254 MaG™

you either grow with trends or you’re devoured by them. there is nothing, it seems to me, that is going to offset the changes in how people consume music. you learn and you find ways to adapt. don’t try and fix the system. fix how you operate in it. you’re absolutely right…listen to the consumer.

Bill

Consumers are those who PAY for something. LEECHES are those who steal it.
Bill

Consumers are those who PAY for something. LEECHES are those who steal it.

http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

Copyright is an 18th century privilege that for a couple of centuries only affected a few. Today it affects everyone. Youngsters are born with their liberty, and right to copy. They aren’t born with the power to prohibit others from copying them. This is the reason why Queen Anne’s privilege has to be abolished..

See http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=276

Bill

Crosbie, without copyright, you would not exist. I know that might be a little over your head, but think about just for a moment.

http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

An alternate universe in which the Statute of Anne had not been enacted would undoubtedly have produced quite a different population.

That we exist in this universe rather than that one is neither justification that copyright should have been granted in 1709, nor that we should persist in increasingly futile attempts to preserve it.

You are being creative in your desperation to defend copyright – I’ll give you that.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Lets agree that the copyright system is broken, but not obsolete. Creators should be protected, but the current system actually handicaps the process around selling art.

http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

Aside from being an inherently unethical privilege, copyright is an anachronism in that it cannot possibly outclass the cultural liberty of billions, whereas it once could be used by wealthy publishers to suppress the printing of illicit copies by a few pirate printers. Today, we are all pirates.

“Creators should be protected”? Human beings should have their rights secured by the government they create to do so. We are all human beings. We are all creators. We all learn from each other. To learn is to copy – the word ‘learn’ comes from leornian – to follow in another’s footsteps – to copy another’s path.

Monopolies do tend to handicap free markets. How can a bunch of folk pay a DJ for a recording of the evening’s session – without infringing the 18th century monopolies applying to each constituent work? And, no, licensing is neither viable nor equitable.

Whether copyright supporters like it or not, we are moving from paying copyright holding publishing corporations for art produced centuries previously, to paying the producing artists directly – and only for the artist’s work specifically commissioned – not all the other art they have copied, sampled, transformed, or remixed (those artists have in turn already been paid for their work). Such artists, having been paid (qv Amanda Palmer), can then enjoy the free distribution and promotion of their fans.

Those intermediaries whose business relies upon copyright can find other jobs. Artists can connect to their fans instead of publishing corporations. The thousands of innocent file-sharers who’ve been bankrupted or imprisoned for their cultural liberty (as a ‘lesson’ to others) have had their lives ruined – quite different to corporations merely posting a loss for the quarter.
Bill

Crosbie,

Utter drivel.

I don’t know where
you get this stuff, but you are not d’Artagnan or Robin Hood
either. And the real world, the one outside your basement window, currently
operates on the basis of copyright and will operate on the basis of copyright well
into the distant future.

The ARTISTS are the copyright holders son!
You are cheating real human beings who have mothers and fathers and sisters and
brothers and children who depend on them. You can no longer villainize the
victim like someone blaming a rape victim for wearing a pretty dress. YOU are
out of date. Your “poor innocent file-sharers” crap is so out of date it’s not
funny. That same stupid argument has not worked for the last ten years.

You claim to be a “creator”. What exactly have
you created that is so special?
http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

Bill, your questions are answered via the link I gave in the first comment of mine you replied to. See http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=276
Bill

OK I bit. More drivel. Take your meds.
Bill

OK I bit. More drivel. Take your meds.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill, lets shy away from accusatory or incredulous tones that question each other’s worth with regard to the topic (What exactly have you created …) and focus on meat of the subject. You have too much to contribute.

Also, artists are often not the copyright owners in the major label model. If it were all up to artists nothing would get done in terms of government lobbying. It’s most the corporations that own the copyrights that fight for them.
Bill

Wesley, I’m sorry, but have been
fighting this battle so long that propaganda like that of Crosbie is just too
hard to accept as a reputable response. I don’t want to hijack your web site
either, but someone has to stand up for artists against the self entitled rants
of IP criminals.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

I do think we need your voice for sure. You’re an experienced and smart man who comes from a different angle. Just trying to keep the language used in check so that we can prevent people dismissing you based on tone without seeing the value of the actual meat of your comments.
http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

I have spoken at one of the largest law firms in the world: http://ipkitten.blogspot.fr/2011/06/do-we-come-to-bury-copyright-or-to.html
Bill

Also, Copyright is the right of
the creator, not their distributor, and is assigned the moment the product
exists. I think you mean Publishing rights are held by their distributors.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Actually I did mean copyright, when artists sign copyrights over or license them to a label for a period. But you’re right, publishing too.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill, lets shy away from accusatory or incredulous tones that question each other’s worth with regard to the topic (What exactly have you created …) and focus on meat of the subject. You have too much to contribute.

Also, artists are often not the copyright owners in the major label model. If it were all up to artists nothing would get done in terms of government lobbying. It’s most the corporations that own the copyrights that fight for them.
Bill

I don’t agree in the least that copyright is broken!

There have been times, the Wild West for instance, when rule
of law did not exist. Then rule of law was enforced and civilization spread.
The Internet is the Wild West and rule of law needs to be enforced. NOTHING LESS will suffice. If it is not clear
to you that this needs to happen, then you are profiting from the lawlessness.
It’s pretty simple.

There is much more than the future of music at stake here
too, like autonomy of the State. In the US it is illegal to counterfeit money,
but if the US cannot write laws to protect its citizens from Chinese
counterfeiters (literally the case with piracy) then the country is obligated
to protect its citizens.

And PLEASE stop drinking the Google cool aid! Google, Apple,
Microsoft and ALL the other tech giants deny artists their rightful copyrights
while battling with each other over the most minute operating system functions,
because they KNOW that the future is built upon copyright ownership. The
duplicity is mind blowing.

Bottom line. The Internet is broken, NOT the copyright
system. People who justify stealing music, games, movies and software are
BROKEN, not the copyright system that is supposed to be protecting those
properties. We need to fix the internet and the people who use it just like the
Wild West needed to be fixed for civilization to survive there.
icup59

I get the tilting at windmills reference now. Very clever.

Bill

Crosbie, Your self-description says, “Crosbie
has been researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business
models for digital artists and their audiences for more than a decade.In that decade just exactly what revenue mechanism have you developed that has caused an artist to make as much or more money as they did under the old system? Who is the artist? How much did they make? How can I talk to them?

I’m not talking about your opinions. I want to know what you actually did to help a human being. Money talks and BS walks.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill,

“caused an artist to make as much or more money as they did under the old system?”

This is not going to happen. The focus should not be on trying to recreate the revenue streams that only existed in music for 40 years our of all of the CENTURIES humans have been making music. This era was a tiny fluke. The focus should be on enticing people to pay SOMETHING for music, rather than them pirating for free.

http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

Well, there will still be the outliers, e.g. Amanda Palmer.

‘Enticement’ isn’t the word I’d use. It’s about a producer offering their product to those who’d like it produced, and about those who’d like it produced offering their money in exchange – and both artist and fans coming to an equitable agreement.

http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

Bill, as you observed “you are not d’Artagnan or Robin Hood” we should probably leave it at that.

However, if you’re interested, see http://digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=233

Bill

Crosbie, I applaud you for your attempt at the Contingency Market. However, nothing could make my point better than the fact that you have been trying to come up with an alternative model for digital content for ten years and still not a single legitimate transaction has taken place in your “system”.

And Wesley, PLEASE. No more portraying musicians as clothiers! The “Touring and Merch” model does not work and NEVER WORKED! Touring is a loss leader meant to spur record/CD sales. If you don’t know that, you really should not be advising musicians. I have forty years of experience in rock and roll touring and nearly no one makes enough money touring to make a decent living without CD sales. That is why the rolls of professional musicians has fallen by 30% over the last ten years.

I demand that the US Government, the entity entrusted with enforcing the rule of law within the boundaries of the United States, do its duty and uphold the laws already on the books to defend the rights of it’s MOST IMPORTANT constituent body, the content creators who through their innovations, create the music, games, movies and software that DEFINE the American ideal and that have led the western world for the last 100 years.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill,

1. Much respect for your 40 years in rock n roll. That’s incredible and I hope to get there myself. I’m only 8 years in. I do think that sometimes experience limits our ability to innovate or even recognize improvements when they don’t gell with what we got comfortable with and thrived through. That’s why it’s rarely the incumbents or the big companies that innovate, but usually the smaller and nimbler outfits newer to a market and with the ability to see the future without being burdened by knowledge of the past.
2. I am not just talking about touring and merch. I am talking about a much bigger picture, one that monetizes the entire experience. I believe you will see more of this happening in the next 6 months, including some great innovations coming from certain artists that have been famous since the 1960′s. I wish I could tell you more, but just keep your eyes peeled.

3. That being said, there are entire subgenres like dance and the jam band world, and massive stars within them including Dave Matthews, Fish, and Guetta, that will show you that merch and tour income can far outstrip recorded music sales. That’s because they work it better and smarter than most, and have an audience that is receptive to that. Just because some artists can’t do it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

4. The US Government will not succeed, and probably not even attempt to,
enforce the rules you wish it does. Even if they tried they would find, as
they have for a decade now, that it’s unenforceable. I’d like to compare
holding onto this wish as insisting the world is flat. I understand we
differ in opinion here, so lets not try to convince each other of our own
point of view, because it just won’t happen. I respect your input, and
since we’re not going to change each other’s opinion on this particular
topic I’d like to invite you to let this one rest and contribute on
different topics instead.

Thanks for your continued sharing of knowledge!
Bill

Wesley, OK this will be my last post here. Whew for you!

However, attempting to turn my years of experience into a liability is lame. By that logic, little miss Emily White should have all the answers in her pretty pink noggin. Not. It takes experience to see the big picture and you don’t seem to see the big picture yet. Bottom line, I welcome a new business model. I always have. What I don’t welcome and will not EVER accept is the overt corruption that multi-national corporations have inflicted on an entire generation of young people, turning them into rudderless zombies, out for their “free” fix of stolen music, games, movies and software.

As far as my own ability to innovate, I have Grammy nominations, have designed SE&I software solutions for NASA, have built the first therapeutic video games for autistic children and the first Apple iDevice apps to help children with Sensory Processing Disorder cope with noise. All this in the last ten years. I’m an OK innovator, thank you.

During all those years touring and recording major artists, I have also been involved with smaller venue artists as well, on a management basis and am painfully familiar with the realities of making a living from music. I will say again, Merch does NOT make it!

And while you are very excited about your “new” business plan, yada-yada, I have been fed this line of BS since around 1998. It never works out and your plan won’t work either. Sorry. Just ask Crosbie. He has been at it ten years with nothing to show for it but a badly designed web site that has not been updated in three years.

I have engineered live recordings for the Dave Mathews band and if you think Dave makes more money from Merch than record sales, you are trippin’ my friend. I don’t know where you get this stuff.

And unfortunately, I wish I was wrong about the internet and the US Government. I really do. Just remember that I told you it was going to happen when it does and you had a chance to help prevent it.

Best regards,

Bill Mueller
Vision Audio Inc.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill!
http://culturalliberty.org/blog Crosbie Fitch

Bear in mind this is what I’ve been able to do over the years in my spare time with no funding, bar savings. And I’ve run out of both.

Bill

A “customer” is someone who PAYS for services or goods. A LEECH is a blood sucking parasite that does not. Clearly Wesley does not know the difference.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

As the founder several business with customers, I do have some experience with them Bill.

Emily, to use her as the example, has bought concert tickets and merch
which makes her a customer of the band and their team as well. Limiting
ourselves to looking at customers based on the sale of audio files will
not serve our best interest, nor the artist’s, or the fans. It’s
destructive.

Bill

Don’t buy that Wesley. Emily is a ” music writer”, a position she employs to get free concert tickets and free merch from unknowing bands anxious for her to “bless” them. She is running a racket and you are playing into her hands.

And pandering to the stack of losers pontificating on this
thread about copyright and Queen Anne’s privilege won’t ingratiate you to them
anyway. They don’t care any more about you than anyone else they can steal
from. And if I hear one more person tell me musicians should live on tee shirt sales I’m going to throw up. More lies.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill,

Emily is a 21 year old music fan and intern, sharing with us the dominant behavior in music consumption for her generation. Not the only behavior, but the dominant one. Instead of scolding her, we should embrace her and learn.

I propose pragmatism over idealism that will never ever convert to reality. I propose we think with the customers, instead of against. It didn’t go so well for us the first time we did this, and it will not go well for us this time around.

Things will never be the same again, and you can’t put the genie back into the bottle. Let’s stop being angry and emotional, and lets start being smart and pragmatic. I’d rather all of us get into our smaller rescue boats, than railing on board of the titanic about how we want a refund as the ships goes down.

Wesley

Bill

Wesley, I feel for the artists on your
“label”. One of the duties of a distributor is to defend the rights
of their artists against theft, copyright infringement and unauthorized use.
Clearly, you are not willing to do that for even the few people who have
entrusted their work to you. This thread would give me a queasy feeling if I
were on your roster.

Also, I reread your post, trying to find some substance and I’m sorry,
it’s just not there.

The copyright system is fine thank you. It is the foundation
of modern prosperity for the entire world, even those countries like China and
Russia who are plundering it. Without it, the industrial revolution would not
have occurred and that computer you are typing on would not exist. You would
not exist without the copyright system because the human race would not have been able
to sustain and grow to its current size and you would never had been born.

Tradition. Is that like “Liberal”, just a word with which to
slander someone? Right and wrong do exist. And just because you can steal
turnips from your neighbors garden at midnight, does not mean it’s “right” to
do so. Soon there will be thousands of drones flying over the US, watching our
every move. Just because it can be done technologically, do you think it’s
right to do so? I don’t. And just because people are technologically capable of
stealing music, games, movies and software, you think it’s OK. If you DON’T
think it’s OK, then strap on a pair of balls and say so!

There are a few kinds of people who argue against the
influence of the mega multi-national corporations on the battle over
intellectual property, those who are stealing, those who just don’t understand
what is happening and those who benefit from it. Since I don’t believe you are
stealing your music, games, movies and software, and I don’t see how in the
world you or your artists can benefit from the theft of their property, I must
believe that you just don’t get it. If you want to actually tell me how your
artists are better off being robbed, I would love to hear it. But don’t give me
any of this, “we can make it work” crap.

Spotify is a red herring. If I hold you up on the street
with a gun, and then give you the option to pay me in installments, the
installment plan is still WRONG. Spotify does not pay artists fairly because it
does not have to. The alternative is a total fail. Any answer other than the
upholding of the laws of the land on the internet, is not an answer until the
laws of the land have been upheld.

Tilting windmills. Oh yes, the “You’re being raped, and you’re
going to continue to be raped, so why not just lay back and enjoy it, at least until we
murder you”, argument . Sometimes, it
takes a little backbone to stand up to the bully, and pretending to be “nice”
like you are trying to do is meaningless. The bully does not care whether you
are nice or not nice when he beats you up. He just wants your lunch money. Just
read some of the posts on this thread! They don’t care about fairness, they
just want their fix. People like you, who are willing to hand over your lunch
money, just make it worse for those willing to stand up to
the bullies. The
least thing you could do is just get out of the way, instead of trying to
devalue David Lowery’s beautiful, beautiful letter.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Thank you for putting the time in to write that lengthy comment Bill. We certainly have opposite views on the “how”, but it’s great to see we are very much on the same page on the “what”: creating the best possible situation for artists to get their music to the highest amount of people experiencing the highest amount of derived value, while the artist makes the highest amount of money based on the full scope of this transaction.
I hope to see more of you in the comments if you have the time to check back in. Opposing views are always welcome and something to learn from.
PS I’d like to note that I am not in favor of piracy, but I am in favor of an all you can eat streaming service for a low fee. I am also supportive of artist’s giving away music for free in certain cases. And finally there is a difference between copyrights for music, and copyrights on intellectual property that doesn’t fall under the arts banner. I think both needs fixing, but they present very different challenges.

http://twitter.com/MCcrazydrum Drew Cooke

Great article! I’ve been pondering recently that all this shift is partly lingering self-inflicted big-record-co damage from 80s/90s. The big record company’s were turning their own products into junk focusing more on appearance than sound, thus inflicting their customers with buyer’s remorse instead of the consumer satisfaction most other products foster. The teen market especially creates this effect because teens can easily be swayed for a short time but certainly are not going to be fooled forever. Many memories of buying a CD and feeling like all I got was a picture of a hair band. I soon resorted to secondhand and burned CDs because purchasing a CD in the 90s was a crapshoot. MP3s didn’t sink the biz; the biz sunk the biz.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

I have considered that before, but I think it’s not that big of a factor. Kids these days don’t even remember that anymore, so that old sentiment I think is less and less relevant.

Bill

Here I agree with you Wesley! The Evil Empire record company was a Red Herring in the first place, created by large mult-national corporations who needed free content to drive the need for their hardware and services.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill, we might be becoming friends. That’s three things we agree on.

http://twitter.com/DaveAtNORTH Dave Allen

Well I think everyone knows my thoughts about this topic (the overall issues, not just this thread.) I’ve been saying for years that musicians are in the T-shirt business not the CD selling business, just as it ever was. And as I note at the beginning of this post from 2009: The future does not fit in the containers of the past. http://www.north.com/internet/dear-musicians-please-be-brilliant-or-get-out-of-the-way/

http://twitter.com/DaveAtNORTH Dave Allen

BTW, re Spotify et al, my Gang of Four royalties are a pittance on thousands of plays..just sayin’
icup59

Respectfully, musicians are in the experience-providing business. Not the cd selling business or the t-shirt selling business. The mp3/cd/t-shirt/concerts/batmitzvahs are single channels for doing that. The mp3/cd is not a very good way to do that now, though it used to be. Pro Tip: The richest artists have way more distribution channels than just cds and t-shirts. Think J-Lo Perfume.
PhiL

Dave, your article really makes sense to me. As a music fan who’s respectful of the artists while fully embracing the numerous ways to listing to music we have today, this is pointing exactly the confuse feeling I have: the answer is (also) into the hands of the artist.
I was about to say to say that Wesley is talking about music as a product (nothing new in that, I agree) and then that “product” means “customer/consumer” and “then “the whole leads to “let’s adapt the “product” to the customer/consumer’s needs. Then the artist was barely mentioned and I assumed it was suppose to adapt to this model in the end. But then the artist is back in the picture and he has the means – if not the necessity – to take an active part instead of beeing passive and blaming the system.

brianbegood

Thanks for this, Wesley. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I’d also like to quote David Byrne circa 2007:

“(I have Talking Heads stuff on the shelf that I
can’t get Warner to release.) The “industry” had a nice 50-year ride,
but it’s time to move on. Luckily, music remains more or less unaffected
— there is a lot of great music out there. A new model will emerge that
includes rather than sues its own customers, that realizes that music
is not a product in the sense of being a thing — it’s closer to fashion,
in that for music fans it tells them and their friends who they are,
what they feel passionately about and to some extent what makes life fun
and interesting. It’s about a sense of community — a song ties a whole
invisible disparate community together. It’s not about selling the
(often) shattered plastic case CDs used to come in.”

The music industry began transition quite some time ago. You either adapt, or get out of the way (David Lowery).

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Thanks for the comment Brian. David Byrne was always a front runner with this kind of stuff. Ahead of his time.

Pingback: Music Industry Quixotism (Or Why Emily White Is Right, And David Lowery Is wrong) « Corey Stewart
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=626799246 Brian C Brehmer

I would love to have a soapbox on which to dissect this piece on david’s piece on emily;s piece….how about it? then someone can pick apart me and so on and so on?

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

I recommend WordPress.com haha

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=626799246 Brian C Brehmer

I would love to have a soapbox on which to dissect this piece on david’s piece on emily;s piece….how about it? then someone can pick apart me and so on and so on?
Pingback: Artist Compensation and the Lowery/White Conundrum – Culture Greyhound
Mark

I’m a 29 year old musician. I think people should pay for the music they listen to. It is said that the industry should adapt or evolve to the market, why can’t consumers adapt to paying for music. We HAVE to pay for other merchandise. We don’t go into our local Amoeba or Barnes & Nobles and steal a CD. Why not? It’s the exact same thing as illegally downloading or burning and disseminating CD’s.We should own up to reality that producing money costs money.I think we should stop being a kleptomaniacs, and start supporting our artists AND all the other people involved in the industry (recording engineers, A & R, producers, photographers, best boy grips, cinematographers, and so on) .

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Dear Mark,

I think that the question “why can’t consumers adapt to paying for music” is not as useful of a question as “how can we best monetize an artist’s output in the prevalent consumption climate”.

It’s like asking “Why can’t I be on SNL when Katy Perry can?” It’s just the way it is, and it will not change. It’s a complete waste of energy to even consider the question since you will never get an answer, let alone one that will be satisfactory. Instead of approaching customers in a negative way, we should focus on being undeniably good and being smart about how we monetize the music an artist makes.

Also, an artist is not owed anything by the world. Anything. No one is.
Wesley

Keith

Wesley, can you live well in a society where other people can gang up on you and steal your property?

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Keith,

That’s a lovely hypebole, but once again I’d like to suggest we look at a solution rather than complain about something that will not change.

Less ideology, more pragmatism. Less talk, more doing. More undeniable music, fewer complaints from artists that are good, but not quite good enough.

Did Apple start complaining when people started buying fewer iPods in favor of phones? Nope, they built an amazing hybrid mp3 player and phone and it sold like hot cakes.

Fans don’t owe artists anything. Artist’s should cater to fans in the way that they market, and to their muse in the way that they create.

Really like what you’re doing with lonelygrange.com btw.

Wesley

Keith

Thanks Wesley. I’m glad that it resonates with you!

My inquiry was not intended as hyperbole but as a serious question. Your honest answer and the ensuing discussion would reveal that you and I have some fundamental disagreements on the importance of principles and living by them vs. doing what is expedient, convenient, and “pragmatic”.

All work is produced by physical and mental effort. Manual labor requires minimal mental effort where as the production of artistic works requires some manual but mostly mental efforts. It is this exact type of mental effort that copyright law is designed to protect.

People shouldn’t just walk in and steal manual labor from folks…that is slavery. They also shouldn’t steal physical goods, such as iPads and iPhones….that is theft. They have no problem co-opting the mental and creative work efforts of artists….”it’s the new paradigm, right…its all we know.” The only reason that people do so is BECAUSE THEY CAN and they can do it with impunity. If they could (with impunity) pirate or rip iPads as easily as songs, believe me, they would. That is human nature. That is why it’s important that this discussion be absolutely about the principles and ethics that our society is based upon and not about a “new paradigm” and such.

I’m all for new avenues of revenue for getting artists properly compensated for their work efforts. If that’s what you’re getting at, I’m with you there, but let’s not throw out the values that western civilization is based upon (individual rights, property rights etc) in the process.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Thanks for taking the time to write this Keith. We can definitely agree to disagree and I respect your pov even if I don’t agree.

One last point I’d like to make is that people paying for music is something that only recently started happening, in the big picture, and it had it’s nice little run based on false scarcity as designed by major corporations profiting from music. For centuries before that artists created because they had to, and they made money here and there, and were excited by whatever they might get. Grateful even. Then in the last few decades some millionaires were made, and entitlement entered the arena.
Music is not a product as much as it is a service. We can choose to feel entitled and rail against the human nature that you point out, or we can be smart about it and spend our energy on creating value that people do want to pay for instead.
Copyrights are a very recent little construct, lobbied for my corporate interests to bring into existence, and it was never artists who wanted it in the first place.
Bill

Wesley, Clearly you do not understand the fundamental principle of Intellectual Property.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill, I assume you’re a busy guy (props for vision-audio.com), but if at all possible I think there would be more value in an explanation of what someone may be getting wrong, vs merely pointing it out. Thanks in advance!
Wesley
Bill

Wesley,

Thanks for the kind words. I have been a recording engineer
for thirty five years, am Grammy nominated, have recorded over 100 major
artists, have designed software for the NASA Constellation program and am a
student of brain-injured children. My partial credit list is here. https://www.facebook.com/bill.mueller.965/info

But most importantly, my youngest son is a brilliant songwriter
and musician and I am fighting for HIS LIFE.

https://www.facebook.com/thewildhuntmusic/app_2405167945

I have seen a
beautiful industry full of creativity and promise eaten away and left a pile of
scattered bones, by a generation of entitled, self absorbed, brainwashed
children who do not care who they hurt, as long as they can get their fix of
free music, games, movies and software.

Oh and the copyright thing. Music is a service until it is
captured. Then it is a copyrighted product. Pretty simple really.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Listening to The Wild Hunt now. Enjoying it!
Bill

Word.

Mark

Thanks Wesley, good points.
In regards to “adapting to pay for music”, there are other instances in society where consumers have had to adapt for the better meant of society.
For example, here in California, litigation was passed to prohibit smoking of cigarettes in public places. Smoking is prohibited in lines and outside a certain distance from an entry way. And, of course, the surgeon general has a warning on the side of the label. Big Tobacco and cigarette smokers had to adapt for the betterment of society; I would consider that approaching customers in a negative way. BUT the outcome is good for society.Can we not put pressure on consumers when they are harming others?

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Actually Mark, a few points here:

There is a lot of proof that the warning labels in no way deter people from smoking. And making people go outside to smoke is great for me, as a non-smoker, but it also doesn’t deter smokers from smoking.

Death row also doesn’t stop people from killing other people. States with death penalty often times even have more murders. It’s ironic.

The music industry has sued people left and right for piracy, from individuals to companies. It’s only served to make it all worse. Countries that have embraced streaming full on have seen a massive decrease in piracy. It’s all no rocket science. The problem is that people are trying to will things to go “their way” and this misguided idealism is doing harm to everyone involved.

Mark

Thanks. I have a several questions: What countries? Are artists in those countries fairing well financially? What about the recording studios and producers that help to produce the records? Regarding smoking, it isn’t just to deter smokers but also to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke. Without laws prohibiting smoking in certain areas, it endangers others. There are also taxes on cigarettes that help fund the ways in which smoking damages lives. If those laws were not passed, I would still be sitting in restaurants breathing cigarette smoke.Texting while driving is another example. I’m sure many teens WISH they could drive and text at the same time. However, now they will get a ticket because that act affects other members of society. Likewise, illegal downloading affects other members of society. In the case of texting while driving we don’t just adapt to the the teens wants and needs. We say, “that is wrong and you shouldn’t do it”.Another example is drug use in sports. It sure sells more tickets to have baseball players huge and breaking home run records. It is however unethical and society has cracked down on that.The complexity of death row and prisons is on another level that stretches into economic inequity, gun rights, racism. You’re right that sending people to death row doesn’t stop murders. Murder, however, should still be considered illegal and unmoral.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Hi Mark,

Sweden is an excellent example. You can google around for articles like this one: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/09/28/spotify-goes-up-piracy-goes-down-by-25-in-sweden/
The question shouldn’t be if artists are fairing well, but if artists are fairing better than when most of Spotify’s users were choosing to download illegally instead of paying the Spotify fee. And yes, paying something instead of nothing is better. This is the only comparison that counts, since it’s something we can control, whereas pretending that we can make people pay for downloads or CD’s is counter productive and based on moral issues rather than practical ones. Artists lose when we dig our heels in based on moral issues, since we will never achieve anything that way as proven by history.

No data on producers or studios, and way too many other angles influence their situation, including technological advances that have it so people can record without them now.

Re: Smoking. You are right to say it’s there to protect non-smokers too when it comes to banning certain places, but not when it comes to printing warnings on the packaging. That’s a pure, failing, deterrent. Neither smoking laws, nor txting/driving laws, can be compared to this music
situation. Even if you stretch it. Public safety and people killing each
other and themselves is not the same as trying to influence purchasing
behavior that will never ever happen again in that same way. Even most
smokers will agree that it’s nicer to not smoke in bars with others there,
it’s accepted even if some might be grumpy about it.

We are not talking about piracy and being ok with that. We’re talking about:

1. The old way of music consumption will NEVER come back again, so stop
trying to make that happen.
2. We don’t like piracy.
3. We need a better alternative to piracy, which plays to the customer’s
needs for the product and consumption behavior.

It blows my mind that people keep trying to bring this back to a matter of
right/wrong and how “boohoo we should force the customer with laws to
return us to the golden days”. GIVE IT UP. It will NOT happen. Focus on
future solutions, not past pains.

And the argument that people will stop making music if they are not being
paid for it properly has clearly been disproven by the gian explosion of
new bands and new music, most of them giving it away for free, in the last
few decade.

Focus on solutions, not on problems and trying to be right.
Mark

Thanks for the link and insights.
http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Thanks for contributing to the discussion Mark!

Bill

”Musicians, you are being raped, you will be raped, so lay back and enjoy it.” That is cowardice Wesley. And an artist IS owed something by society. An artist is owed the right to be treated fairly. You are denying them that right.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Another thing we have in common! We both believe that first quote is not one we can stand behind.

And fair treatment would certainly be nice for everyone. The definition of fairness will differ between people, so rather than fighting people over what is fair, I would like to focus on building something around a system that works for the customer as well, since they have a very easy opt-out of legally obtaining music if they choose they prefer illegal ways. We can’t force them into the box we like best, but we can build them an awesome box that works for us as well.

Bill

”Musicians, you are being raped, you will be raped, so lay back and enjoy it.” That is cowardice Wesley. And an artist IS owed something by society. An artist is owed the right to be treated fairly. You are denying them that right.

payaeger

The library-in-the-sky idea is on the money, but the central point of Lowery’s article is rather neatly skirted here: Taking without compensation is stealing, and the ultimate responsibility lies with the taker. The fact that Emily has “mitigated” this by paying for tickets and merch doesn’t change anything about that.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Actually Payaeger, I do not skirt it at all. I state that looking at this from a moral point of view is useless and impractical.

Samuel

Your arguments seam to be very logical and well written but I miss one important point. What are your suggestions how to deal with the giant shift in consumer behavior?
A spotify-like library? That’s it? Or did I miss something?
If that’s all, you don’t have to wonder why the business is scared of the future..

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Samuel, I think the solution will be different for different kinds of artists. There will be a huge streaming library, with improved payments that are not skewed, and

Some artists will have the audience to make gorgeous limited edition physical items for, and some won’t. Some artists will be able to tour and sell shirts and all access subscriptions, and some won’t. Some artists will press up vinyl, and some won’t. Some artists will partner with brands, and some won’t. We’re all still figuring it out.

Bill

Wesley, your solution ignores the key element, the upholding of the laws of the land over the internet. This kind of thinking is going to eventually force governments into draconian measures that will limit the access and objectivity of the internet and we will all suffer for it.

While Google brain washed their minions into believing SOPA was about the freedom of speech, they were silent on the Patriot Act and other legislation that really WILL limit our freedoms of speech. This is a game and well meaning guys like you are walking right into the trap.

If it were possible to change public opinion to the degree that people stopped the scummy, petty, unethical acts of copyright crime, world governments would have no basis upon which to crack down on the information highway. But as it stands, you are giving them all the reason they need. It is already happening. 1984 has come and gone and the future will be worse, much worse.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Bill, I’m not ignoring this element. I just differ in opinion on what it means. It’s not enforceable, and that’s been proven long ago. It will not change. Unenforceable rules only make everything worse for government, citizens and artists. I choose to focus on better products and customer relations over trying to enforce laws that are unenforceable.

And again, please do note that I am NOT in favor of piracy. I’m in favor of legal streaming services like Rdio, Spotify, etc. So the legal and right/wrong question is completely irrelevant to me. We differ in opinion on this, and we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Pingback: A Freemium Model Is The Best Piracy Protection (Or Focus On Community Over Content)
Pingback: Storm in a tea cup | Bemuso
Joe

One big elephant in the room that needs to be discussed is that the internet exploits vast sums of money from music, art, photos videos etc but it’s going to the middlemen webmasters who get rich off of advertising. With little of it is going to the creators. Kim Dotcom skimmed $175 million. A solution is that the same technology that websites like Google and Facebook use to sell your personal information over and over again could be used to figure out a payment to artists whose content generates internet traffic and so advertising revenue. Not sure the tech companies want you to know this.

http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

Few things:

1. There is no united thing called the internet.

2. Yes there are criminal pirates like Kim Dotcom that have made millions on advertising pirated wear, but piracy is not anything any of us in these comments are a fan of.

3. Applying a technique as described below sounds like a decent idea within say a Spotify model, but remember that radio stations don’t give a share of the advertising to the artists played either. Unlikely to happen.

W

http://profile.yahoo.com/XSBCMBABBUMVIJ2CGU6DBCSHIM josephgreen999

One big elephant in the room that needs to be discussed is that the internet exploits vast sums of money from music, art, photos,
videos etc but it’s going to the middlemen webmasters who get rich off of advertising. With little of it is going to the creators.
Kim Dotcom skimmed $175 million.

A solution is that the same technology that websites like Google and Facebook use to sell your personal information over and over again
could be used to figure out a payment to artists whose content generates internet traffic and so advertising revenue.
Not sure the tech companies want you to know this.
Pingback: A Business Model Failure Is Not A Moral Issue | Price Gadget Reviews
Pingback: Music piracy, Rhapsody, and my first (non-Internet) radio appearance « Andrew Gospe

Wesley Verhoeve

A Blog On The New Music Business, Technology and Media

Recent Posts