Steve Albini on Piracy

[Today]

competition and capitalism drive innovation and high end production. These things are not evil. They take nothing away from good artistry. Some are meant to be pop recording artists, and some are meant to be free of charge performance artists, and all things in between. My only point is that letting the internet destroy the old pop record distribution model is no reason to bulldoze over any alternative models and circumvent the asking price for a product you wish to own. The development of a new model and the protections put in place for people's IP is not wrong. It's just necessary to continue the competitive, innovative, capitalist business of pop music. Which i support, and do not wish to tear down out of spite for not getting to be the next Prince or Jay Z

[magma]

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.

Agree with all of that, especially the pop music and production value bits. We're all massively better off thanks to certain bits of industrialisation of the music market - the amount of investment that went into creating Motown records, for example, was absolutely huge and that sort of thing should continue - one of my housemates is employed by the pop music industry, I certainly wouldn't like to see her out of work.

But people that make pop music make knowing compromises - they don't just make whatever they want, call it pop and assume it'll go to number one... most make music with a market in mind - Berry Gordy very nearly refused to let Marvin Gaye release What's Going On for fear of alienating his market, for example. It's rare you find an artist like Björk or Aphex Twin who've earned the opportunity to do essentially whatever they like - though they only got there by making their Come To Daddys, Play Deads and It's Oh So Quiets. Björk couldn't have released an experimental fully-vocal album like Medulla as a debut artist... she had to make a few albums of "crossover" material to secure her audience before she could really let loose whilst keeping the lights on.

Being a professional isn't the same thing as being an artist... an artist doesn't have to make money... a professional does, or they don't eat. A professional artist has to do both. It's difficult.

[alphacat]

...Being a professional isn't the same thing as being an artist... an artist doesn't have to make money... a professional does, or they don't eat. A professional artist has to do both. It's difficult.

And I think it's important to note that those are two different hats that one can wear, but that wearing one does not automatically imply the other. Some people can pull it off (Prince comes to mind) - being relatively artistically uncompromising and successfully marketing artistic output, but it's definitely not the norm. I think one should figure out which is most important to them and cultivate that... if you want to be an artist, be the best goddamned artist you can be, and if you want to be a professional entertainer then by gosh do it full-bore and be successful. Do not confuse one for the other though.

Which also goes back to the process of music itself and the fact that the middlemen (A&R, promoters, etc.) are a late and non-integral part of making music. Things would change if you took them away, but their absence would not stop music from being made. Again, make note: they represent the interests of business and not art. Business is all fine and well, but should never be taken to be mutually implicit with art. (Unless you're Warhol, but that's a different discussion. )

[magma]

(Prince comes to mind)

Prince is a GREAT example. He's one of the ultimate professional musicians... he built an incredibly well respected catalogue of work whilst always keeping an eye on how to make a "hot" one or two singles/videos to keep shifting those albums to the mainstream at the same time as the faithful. He walked that line better than anyone I can think of. He knows how to put on a live show too - I think we often forget how important touring/ticket sales are.. there are lots of ways to make money as a musician.

Plus he did an amazing sideline in ghostwriting for "real" pop acts making untold coin in the background... Manic Monday and Nothing Compares 2 U are utter pop classics and destroyed the charts, but there's probably no way he could've recorded them as "Prince" and not alienated his fans.

Clever, clever man. The world is HIS.

[alphacat]

Which reminds me... (off-topic, but a good laugh) and the bomb that Kevin drops about Prince's archives is pretty .

[scspkr99]

competition and capitalism drive innovation and high end production. These things are not evil. They take nothing away from good artistry. Some are meant to be pop recording artists, and some are meant to be free of charge performance artists, and all things in between. My only point is that letting the internet destroy the old pop record distribution model is no reason to bulldoze over any alternative models and circumvent the asking price for a product you wish to own. The development of a new model and the protections put in place for people's IP is not wrong. It's just necessary to continue the competitive, innovative, capitalist business of pop music. Which i support, and do not wish to tear down out of spite for not getting to be the next Prince or Jay Z

Think that's kinda naive.

If the music business is to remain competitive and innovative (to whatever extent it actually is) then it has to adjust to the internet. If it doesn't respond to the internet then it isn't innovative and competitive. If you're talking about the industry you can't separate the music from the mechanism to get it recorded and get it out. In fact it could be argued, that the industry should be way more concerned about remaining competitive and innovative in getting the music to market and sold than it needs to be with regard to the actual music. The industry is inherently more interested in how much it sells than what it sells.

As magma points out that art itself has no inherent value of itself but it's price can be fixed based on a number of factors. If it's to be commoditised then the industries priority is to it's place in the market and has to rise to whatever challenge the market throws at it.

That said the analogy of visual art v music is disingenuous. He's supporting the visual art industry he's no more denying the artist a living as someone who watches a new release on an official channel. He's not stealing the art and he's contributing to the industry whether directly by buying an exhibition ticket or indirectly by paying tax. In addition merely by going to show he's contributing to the buzz around an artist in the same way going to gigs / sets creates the atmosphere at the night.

[Today]

If the music business is to remain competitive and innovative (to whatever extent it actually is) then it has to adjust to the internet. If it doesn't respond to the internet then it isn't innovative and competitive. If you're talking about the industry you can't separate the music from the mechanism to get it recorded and get it out. In fact it could be argued, that the industry should be way more concerned about remaining competitive and innovative in getting the music to market and sold than it needs to be with regard to the actual music. The industry is inherently more interested in how much it sells than what it sells.

that's pretty much exactly my point.

[scspkr99]

that's pretty much exactly my point.

But then nothing is bulldozing through any alternative model. The model is either adequately equipped to deal with modern challenges or it isn't.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I want artists rewarded for their work but the people responsible for ensuring they get appropriately paid are letting them down.

[magma]

The thing is there isn't really a "model" or some sort of blanket system that everyone has to be a part of... there are several "models" for engaging with the music industry. You could do it like Burial... taking lowish production values to make high-quality art, never needing any sort of financial backing and only needing to talk to the "industry" when it becomes clear that with a bit of PR you could be world famous.... or you can try to make overblown epic music where you need to convince investors to pay for an orchestra or a Big Band before you can even have your first recording session. You could even do it like NOFX and become one of the most loved bands in the world without ever talking to a "major", but you'd better be prepared to do 5 office jobs whilst you're trying to run a band.

Like most areas of life, it's down to the individual how they choose to traverse society... the only thing you can guarantee is that everyone will do it their way. The industry is no different to the individual - companies will try their absolute best to stay relevant, whether that's by helping create popular expensive productions (Mark Ronson/Amy Winehouse for instance or even the Nero/Philharmonic hookup) or providing PR, publicity and investment to already-established acts as and when required. As long as people are willing to pay for music, people will be willing to invest in it and make profit from it... as long as good music gets produced along the way, I don't think it really matters too much.

It used to be that music only became famous if it had been commissioned by royalty so we've got a long way to go before we really start to damage the recording industry... the golden era that everyone harks back to, as per every subject, never really existed. In Mozart's day, composers used to make orchestras play with detuned instruments so the audience couldn't rip off the scores; in Stock, Aitken and Waterman's time "home taping was killing music" and for the last decade it's been Napster, Kazaa and Rapidshare. But when you look at the release lists each week, all you see is more and more music being created. We're not losing out here.

[Today]

My only real point is on fundamental economics and a long-term extrapolation of results -- regardless your sentiment toward new music and toward industry folks, major and indie alike, the place where supply and demand meet is called a market equilibrium price. Rise in supply drives it down, Rise in demand drives it up, and the spot where they meet is the "fair" price.

If demand were zero, the price would be zero, and if the supply were zero, the price would be, in theory, infinite (if you could supply something that no one else was able to obtain, you would set the price).

All i know is that making an artificial zero price because you don't think the current model is fair or right for you or to the artists or whatever, it disrupts the market and skews everyone's perception of where the market ought to be, and what is indeed a fair price. Markets need to work themselves out, but while lots of people are sitting here trying desperately to fix the industry, a huge percentage of consumers are opting for the artificial zero price.

If you refused to participate in a market because you felt the price were unfair, that'd be one thing -- and eventually the message would get to the supplier and prices would fall until the average consumer would buy. But when you're getting the music and movies anyway, it's disrupting anyone's current understanding of the market and what we can do about it

So maybe these ideas are outdated, just on the merit of the fact that internet has broken the enforcement of market prices. Clever web users have made it easy for anyone to get their media at $0.00. So maybe the whole point is that everything must adapt, including traditional economics. I don't know. I just can't say I believe in circumventing the asking price for goods that are truly in high demand. The drop in sales reflects a false drop in demand. Which according to what i began saying, i guess ought to lower the price. But it's a false drop in demand, so it's possible that the consequent loss in revenue will kill the sustainability of supply-side production. What we've done is (perhaps falsely) sent a message that we value music, games, and movies less than we do. So we're going to have to see what happens as a result.

Quality and price fall together? Supply coming from amateurs and indies exploding and sending the former market into an open body of public works? or nothing changes? so far i haven't seen indie movements championing the music scene.. our cultures prefer sensationalism and heroism. The only changes i've seen is a lot more sponsorships between unlikely partners... recording artist selling laptops and designer headphones, red bull, premium liquors, sneakers, etc. It's aways been there but that part of it has grown and changed a lot. Sometimes it's just like... what the fuck does this product have to do with Bruno Mars?? it gets annoying

[magma]

Quality and price fall together? Supply coming from amateurs and indies exploding and sending the former market into an open body of public works? or nothing changes? so far i haven't seen indie movements championing the music scene.. our cultures prefer sensationalism and heroism. The only changes i've seen is a lot more sponsorships between unlikely partners... recording artist selling laptops and designer headphones, red bull, premium liquors, sneakers, etc. It's aways been there but that part of it has grown and changed a lot. Sometimes it's just like... what the fuck does this product have to do with Bruno Mars?? it gets annoying

I think you're still making too many blanket judgements on the value of music. There is more monetary value to a Motown single than a Burial single because the Motown single wouldn't exist without money on offer. One of them *has* to make profit to get made in the first place (you have to pay to build a state-of-the-art studio, employ session musicians and songwriters, pay for the best singing talent)... the other can make profit if it's lucky.

That's why music with high production values isn't an option for most of us. You have to have enough behind you so that someone is willing to invest in you... just like starting a business. Most of us don't even have the first line on our CV.

The trade-off is the guarantee of success. If the industry invests in you, it will make sure you don't leave them out of pocket... they will no doubt put conditions in your contract that all production/PR costs will be paid for by your record sales, but they will also pimp the shit out of your wares until those debts are paid and/or you go astronomical. If the industry hasn't invested in you, then it's all on you... you pimp your tunes around, you book your gigs, you design your posters and you drive yourself around the country with all your shit in the boot... that's no different from the "Selling tapes out the trunk" model that most unsigned rappers were using in the 90s. Nothing really changes. Making it has always involved a lot of hard work... anyone that thinks differently has been hoodwinked by MTV Cribs.

[tyger]

if refusing to pay for music implies one doesn't value it, does the same apply to sex?

[nowaysj]

You pay for it one way or another.

[capo ultra]

You pay for it one way or another.

i don't, I get paid

[alphacat]

You pay for it one way or another.

i don't, I get paid

Even so, you will still pay. Unless, of course, you're fucking goats or sheep, in which case.... Never mind.

[Fbac]

Thanks alphacat for the kevin smith:prince thing. Was a good watch! made me laugh.

[alphacat]

Thanks alphacat for the kevin smith:prince thing. Was a good watch! made me laugh.

Glad you enjoyed it. I know I did, and I'm not a huge Kevin Smith fan.
_________________

So have any of you heard about the book "Year Zero?" It's a satire in sci-fi drag about this very issue...

Year Zero: A Pretty Great Book of Geek Humor About Music Piracy and Aliens

Charlie Jane Anders



Rob Reid started Rhapsody, a music service, back during the Napster era. So he obviously knows and cares a lot about electronic music, and the madness of the record industry. This comes through, often hilariously, in his new novel Year Zero, in which aliens discover they've been pirating so much of our music, they owe us all their wealth.

Year Zero is being compared to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which isn't really a fair comparison at all. It's more like a goofy science fiction spoof along the lines of A. Lee Martinez — and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The book becomes noticeably cleverer, and more entertaining, on those occasions where it wades into the lunacy of the music industry, its symbiotic relationship with Washington, and the complete brain-deadness of copyright law.

Spoilers ahead...

We ran the book trailer for Year Zero a while back, and it explains the plot pretty well. In a nutshell, the universe is full of advanced civilizations, which belong to something called the Refined League — and when they discovered Earth music in the late 1970s, they became obsessed with it, collecting every bit of Earth music they could find. They spent a few decades listening to every single bit of pop music recorded on Earth, in total ecstasy, until they realized that they owed us untold zillions of dollars in penalties for pirating our music under our insanely strict anti-piracy laws. Now it's up to an attorney named Nick to figure out a solution, before some aliens decide to destroy the Earth to get out of owing us all that money.

It's a neat set-up for a book, and Reid works it pretty well. Where Year Zero shines is in contrasting a ludicrously over-the-top set of aliens with the actual, real-life ludicrousness of the musical-political complex. Reid has clearly suffered through a lot of horrible meetings with music people, and dealt with more than his fair share of sharky industry lawyers, and when he turns his attention to skewering the people who try to demand a king's ransom for the mp3s on your ipod, he's at the top of his game.

And if you enjoy a jaunt through absurdity — both reality-based and entirely made up — then you'll get a kick out of the relentless silliness of Year Zero, in which our young feckless hero is bounced around from alien planet to alien planet, with a healthy amount of music industry shenanigans in between. If you miss a decent amount of silliness and zaniness in your science fiction, then this book will cheer you up tremendously.

There are some genuinely clever science fictional twists built in to the story, particularly about the ways in which the aliens go about copying and sharing human music, and some of the author's lectures about the music industry are quite bracing. Like this passage:

The industry has tens, even hundreds of thousands of bickering, autonomous players. A few major labels, hundreds of mid-level players, and countless ankle-biters. It would be impossible to get that many people and entities to agree on anything, even if they were all level-headed, smart, and decisive. And the captains of the music industry are none of the above. Level-headed? They still think they can wish (or sue) the Internet away despite a decade and a half of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Smart? They pay my firm millions a year to fight that doomed battle, when no number of lawsuits or Judiciary Committee perversions could really delay the arrival of The Future by one nanosecond.

And as for decisive, these people are clinically paralyzed by ignorance, arrogance, politics, bureaucracy and, above all else, fear — fear of doing the wrong thing. And it's not just fear of hurting themselves that has them hamstrung. No — what brings on the night sweats is their fear of doing something that might inadvertently benefit someone they hate. And this is a real risk, because the giant music execs seem to hate everyone their businesses touch. They hate each other, for one thing. And boy, do they hate the musicians (spoiled druggie narcissists!) They certainly hate the radio stations that basically advertise their music for free (too much power, the bastards!) And they loathe the online music industry (thieving geek bastards!) They hated the music retailers, back when they still existed (the bastards took too much margin!) They hate the Walmart folks, who account for most of what's left of physical CD sales (red state izan cheapskates!) They've always hated the concert industry (we should be getting that money!) And they all but despise the music-buying public (thieves! they're all a bunch of down-loading geek bastard thieving-ass thieves!)

The impossibility of getting the music industry to let go of its supposedly rightful fines and penalties — even if the alternative is the destruction of the entire planet — drives a lot of the comedy in the book. And most geeks, who have followed the wranglings over just how heavy-handed the regulation of the internet should be, will find a lot to chortle at in this book.

And on a deeper level, there are some interesting ideas in there about the commodification of music, and what it means when music can be turned into infinitely shareable pieces of data — including some pretty clever stuff towards the end. At the same time, the notion that aesthetic pleasure can actually overwhelm your senses, and that culture can change people as much as technology is explored in a compelling fashion at times.

A lot of the time, the book functions as a tour of zany alien races that Reid made up, some of which are clever and interesting in a Gulliver's Travels sort of way. And some of which are just zany — hey, there's an alien that looks just like a parrot! And another alien that looks just like a vacuum cleaner! This is mixed in with lots and lots of exposition. A decent amount of the exposition is really funny — but it's still nakedly exposition, and since the book is written in the first person apart from a prologue and the main character is a babe in the woods, it's delivered in the form of characters telling each other things. (There's a reason why Hitchhiker's isn't narrated by Arthur Dent in the first person.)

And at times, Reid takes aim at some pretty soft targets — like, say, reality TV. Isn't reality TV silly? Why, yes. It is.

But when Year Zero is firing on all thrusters, it's as a satire of the music industry and as a journey into the heart of absurdity — in which we discover no matter how advanced alien cultures get, they still act like goons when it comes to music and intellectual property law. It's also a zippy novel in which a young protagonist who seems doomed to mediocrity gets chosen to save the world and get the girl and all that, and he turns out to be pretty resourceful. All in all, it's a supremely fun read which will remind you how much you love science fiction comedy — and how much you hate the music industry.

[Today]

well, i am a spoiled druggie narcissist. this is true
sounds like a great read. would torrent.

LOL but anyway to wrap up my own thoughts, i've been unsteady in my arguments and stubborn in my opinions, I'll admit.
But all i really try to say here is that I don't think zero is a fair market price for digital media.
It's impossible to enforce the law and businesses won't get their retail price on every unit that gets consumed. Mostly because you don't have to move physical units anymore to obtain a copy of the product.
I just hope it all gets sorted out for the better.

[alphacat]

On the topic of the disposability of works of art:

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/07/book- ... d-befo.php