Steve Albini on Piracy

[nowaysj]

What's alls y'alls answer to the electronic music producer who doesn't make danceable or performable music in this age of free recorded music?

[Today]

ask him or herself -- "can i sell this? do i want it to be my job? will anyone buy it just to have it?"
likely answer: "nope, nope, and nope"

possible results: find a different job, support needs, make undanceable tunes in spare time, quality suffers, supply falls, demand for quality bedroom music rises, price rises back from zero into positive? quit old job, begin new career as musician in new industrial landscape, invest everything, get pirated again, starve



alternatively -- ask burial

[capo ultra]

making money from music is a luxury not a right, no one forces anyone to make a career out of music.

If you are making music for a living and struggling to get by then your already better off than 99% of people out there

[Today]

supply and demand take awhile, but they affect and are affected by price. By your logic, earning money from any craft that yields a desirable output is a luxury.
I disagree.
The zero-price of digital music files has led you to regard only music in that light. When the attitude you've presented is adopted by the majority of people, the quality of output will fall drastically. No one will invest their full efforts into doing it, since it is not valued by society.

What are you going to tell authors when books become free too? That they weren't forced to become authors, so they'd better get a new job? Then all we'll have to read is shitty fan fiction, erotica, and news/tabloids


Until demand for something decent finally rebounds, and people start offering money for that tradeoff once again.
Why would you take one craft and one industry and position it in a way that it needs to be either a *right* or a *luxury* to earn a living from it?

Getting paid for anything is neither a right nor a luixury, it's a fair tradeoff within an economy. Manipulating electronics has given way to a zero-price on this type of goods FIRST. more are following. But you fail to project what the consequences may be. Do you honestly think someone's going to continue writing and producing records of stuff you're going to enjoy hearing, completely free of charge? or by government grant, or what?

[collige]

Do you honestly think someone's going to continue writing and producing records of stuff you're going to enjoy hearing, completely free of charge?

Well, yeah. There's an astronomical amount of free music out there. People are gonna keep pouring their time into music regardless of how much money they make off it. How do you think they made it into a career to begin with?

[Today]

Do you honestly think someone's going to continue writing and producing records of stuff you're going to enjoy hearing, completely free of charge?

Well, yeah. There's an astronomical amount of free music out there. People are gonna keep pouring their time into music regardless of how much money they make off it. How do you think they made it into a career to begin with?

an astronomical amount of astronomically shit music.
we should want to award members of our society with incentives to make a career out of it, in order to produce the highest quality output possible. Just like any other craft. Same reason i buy a $200 reverb instead of using freeware.
I know there are still people out there writing good shit, thinking idealistically "oh, who cares, man? it's free! i'm just happy my music is shared with the world."
but you have to extrapolate the effects of a zero price on a long standing, formerly lucrative market. It's gonna get worse, and the artists on our ipods are going to get younger. And i honestly don't wish to relate with a 14 year old songwriter who sounds like shit. I don't want to be supplied with tracks that were bounced out of garage band. I want good records. I want hifi analog production, the sound of valves and tape, tubes and electric guitars. Shit that costs money. My daddy isn't a fat cat at Sony Music Group or some shit. I don't wish for us all to go back to the industry's overblown, overpaid hayday (almost as bad as pro athletes... almost). But i do want the industry to continue supporting itself and its surrounding industries.

People used to bust their asses on a demo BECAUSE they were going for a shot at a deal. People made it their life because it had potential for a career in show business. Whether or not they made it, there was an incentive to give it their all and produce some commercially viable, good sounding shit. entertainment at zero price is going to fall to a near-zero cost structure, and we have the kind of shit you see on youTube feature videos replacing tv shows. It's fucking bait.

and it's slow, ever so slow, but don't be fooled. That is what price, supply and demand do to markets.

[collige]

So your entire argument is based off the fact that you don't like new music. Keep in mind that there are professional albums bounced out of Garageband.

[nowaysj]

no one forces anyone to make a career out of music.

This isn't really an answer, because there isn't much of answer for that kind of musician/artist, they're just pretty hosed.

[Today]

what? whose?

my argument doesn't deserve to be reduced to one small, albeit true comment i made
The industry blew up and was unbalanced, costs were high and revenue was high. music was spectacular. Costs are still high for that level of quality. Price has been criminally manipulated. there will be consequences that I'm estimating are going to be negative for everyone. I'm not bitter because i lost my meal ticket. I'm not an industry cat, or a writer with a deal on unit sales or anything.

I just don't like the landscape, the outlook, or the rationale for all the criminal actions that our generation has normalized.

Everyone's gonna twist this argument to support what they want to do for their own self interest. You're no better. All the rationale is utter bullshit. It rubs me the wrong way that people really feel entitled to experience a tremendously difficult craft for free. The same happened post-Woodstock '69. Every time they tried to throw a concert a bunch of hippies demanded it be free. That's fucking stupid. The only difference here is, it's 10000x easier to sneak in, and you take home the records. Those concerts hire a lot of people and the players work their asses off with expensive gear.

You honestly don't think the bottom will fall out of the craft if there's no revenue? Now don't start bringing up the importance of alternate revenue streams, because the argument in question here is that it's a "luxury" to earn a living doing this. I don't care if it's coming from selling CD's directly to listeners, but yes, the people who work hard DO deserve revenue, and i DO want people to fucking work HARD at music.

[collige]

no one forces anyone to make a career out of music.

This isn't really an answer, because there isn't much of answer for that kind of musician/artist, they're just pretty hosed.

TBH they probably weren't doing that great before either (I realize this doesn't help anything, but ambient as never exactly been in high demand). I do think that any electronic music can be performable if you try hard enough though (Merzbow gets enough bookings).

You honestly don't think the bottom will fall out of the craft if there's no revenue?

No, I don't. the amount of quality free music that's available these days is testament to that. Are you claiming that people only put effort into their demos because of the possibility of getting signed rather than for the love of the music? Because if not, then that entire point is moot. It's also completely impossible to quantify "the bottom falling out of the craft". A "14 year old songwriter who sounds like shit" might be someone else's musical hero.

Everyone's gonna twist this argument to support what they want to do for their own self interest. You're no better.

So what's your self-interest then?

[Today]

i studied economics.

the whole thing just rustles my fuckin jummies. And that's it.

I have no stake. It just insults my sense of integrity, and my negative outlook is truly my best shot at an honest outlook.
I see the opposing views, and i understand them, I appreciate them, but I don't agree with them.
so..... never mind, i guess.

[capo ultra]

What are you going to tell authors when books become free too? Then all we'll have to read is shitty fan fiction, erotica, and news/tabloids

ridiculous notion

Do you honestly think someone's going to continue writing and producing records of stuff you're going to enjoy hearing, completely free of charge?

yes, they already do

[Dub_freak]

Books already are free

[alphacat]

Neil Gaiman quote:

“ We’re in a transitional world right now, if you’re in any kind of artistic field because the nature of distribution is changing, the models by which the creators got their work out into the world & keep a roof over their heads are changing. I’ve talked to people on the top of the food chain in Publishing, & book selling & music and no one knows what the landscape will look like in two years…..the gate keepeers are leaving their gates. The old rules are crumbling and nobody knows what the new rules are. So make up your own rules. “

[nowaysj]

Whatever works?

[alphacat]

A very interesting discussion:

...I don’t think it follows from paying for music being a responsible thing to do that every individual end consumer of that music should necessarily be the one to do the paying. It’s certainly one way to do things, and I’d never argue that it is wrong, but other ways exist too.

Take for instance visual art. I don’t pay for any visual art, ever. Occasionally, after the art has been made and paid for by other people I’ll buy an exhibition ticket for a big show, but I never contribute directly to its creation. And yet, I don’t have any moral problem with expecting (demanding, even) that visual art continue to be made, and visual artists continue to be paid, whether by government funding, private funding, or Saatchi-like commissions.

Visual art is never paid for by me. I never buy art, never commission it, and never own it. I just keep going to galleries for free, and soaking up the amazing cultural achievements created by interactions between those who care enough and can afford to pay for these things to be created, and the artists who create them. In spite of this, I don’t feel like I “treat [visual artists] like garbage” just because I benefit from their work without paying them directly.

I think the commodification of recorded music was an aberrant detour that one branch of the arts made away from the others due to a peculiarity of reproduction technology, and in future music will have to gradually come back into line with everything from poetry to architecture, where it’s simply unheard of to expect to make a living by charging per reader, building user or listener.

[Today]

tbh i might sound like a dick but I think the majority of people in our society care more about music and video than visual arts. we do a hell of a lot more listening to tunes and watching tv programs than we do looking at paintings. Schools, governments, and private societies support the arts through grants. The fine arts don't have a profitable industry the way things like graphics, computer and otherwise, printmaking, advertising and photography do.

Most of us couldn't even afford a work of fine art if we wanted to own it. It's not for the layperson to buy. It's high margin, old fashioned upperclass fare.
That's why for the common person, what's offered at a museum to check out for free or very cheap, is sufficient. We see what they have, maybe go to various exhibits if we truly like the stuff.
But i don't want to open up iTunes and just be given the music afforded by government grants.
Music is something we all care more about, we want OUR playlists and OUR favorite artist and to ensure they can continue their careers, we have to vote with our dollars to support them. So it's far more necessary in our age, that we do make more direct payments for this type of art than for other types of art. Unless we want the supply side to resemble that of fine arts. I require more selection. The idea that the collapse of revenue streams and older business models will erode the variety and control we have over selection, i think is a valid concern.

[edit] tl;dr i don't mind if some arts society chooses the paintings I get to see, but I'd lose my mind if they decided the records we got to hear.

[magma]

Art is art... in of itself it has no value other than the artistic merit attributed to it by the observer.

Of course, if there are boundaries to appreciating the art that involve spending money then it can be attributed a price. There's only one Mona Lisa in the world and it has to be kept in a secure/safe/pleasant building - all that costs money. Performances cost money to put on so gig/club tickets are perfectly logical. But prices only exist in markets. If your music is unmarketable, you don't deserve to get paid for your music - that doesn't mean it isn't any good by any stretch, it just means there's no market for it.

If you want to make a living from something, you have to compromise unless you're incredibly lucky. I enjoy working with computers, but I don't get paid to do whatever I like with them - when I chose to become a professional, I took the bargain that if I did what the market wanted me to do, I could get paid for it. If I just did what I wanted to do then I wouldn't.

I don't really see music as any different. I make music because it makes me happy. If I needed to make money from it, I'd have a totally different approach (probably becoming a Wedding/Private Party DJ).

An awful lot of "great" artists (musical or otherwise) were dirt poor in their lifetime. The life of the Bohemian has never been an easy one... Picasso would've almost certainly had a much happier life if he'd become a painter/decorater, but he was content to die poor for his art. That's a real artist. I really don't care for artists who complain about money.

[node]

I'm not surprised kids download whatever they can now...have you seen those preventitive adverts for piracy? They're so pathetic I think they actively encourage it!

[Today]

i just think that analogy is poor and it wouldn't satisfy the bulk of consumers. There are more pop music consumers than there are fine arts consumers, and the pop consumer is more selective. It's a choice that's part of our identities. A disruption in the industry due to technological breakthroughs in reproduction does not suffice as a cause to equate the two finance models.

for pop music to be financed by a "society for the popular arts," i just doubt it would catch on or work

My belief is that regardless of who complains about money and who does it for free, pop music production costs time and money --- if zero is the only acceptable price for it in our culture, it will diminish in quality. Supply keeps growing, it seems there are as many producers as there are consumers these days, but the stuff that gets made either lacks mass appeal or makes no money so it doesn't turn into a career. Computer music aside, production costs for guitar music are too high for great writers to make a good rock, blues or jazz record. instead we have youtube vids recorded on webcam microphones or crappy USB condensers, an acoustic guitar and mediocre singing that gets sensationalized on reddit for 3 days then disappears again. And that hippie chick on the street goes back to being a barista.

The pop recording industry was never perfect, but a zero price isn't going to make everything better. It needs restructuring, but there are parts of it that made a lot of great shit possible, sensational recording careers, our heroes, that is going to stop happening.