Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derwood
Everything Martian said I already knew.
But there are several problems here:
- without money, how do artists make their albums? who pays for studio time and hosting fees for their now download-only content?
- when everyone is taking the music without paying for it, how do artists afford to tour? yes, they can make a lot of money by the end of the tour, but the start up costs are very high.
Listen, i hate the recording industry as it stands now, but i can't in good conscience take the music from the bands i love and not pay them for it. if i could send them a personal check instead of using the current system i would, but for now, i'm happier with them making $1 off my $15 CD purchase than them making nothing. In other words, i'm not going to screw over the artist in order to stick it to the RIAA
|
One does not affect change by supporting the established system.
I'm not by any means saying that it's easy for the little guy out there, but to be fair it never has been. The reality is that most musicians will never make any real money off their music, if any money at all. Small time musicians tend to be all too familiar with the 'pay to play' concept, turning their music more into an expensive hobby than anything else.
There are hosting solutions for the small musician. Myspace pops immediately to mind and is geared specifically towards musicians and bands, allowing them to post show dates and upload music for streaming. This is a great way for a small band to gain some exposure and bring up attendance at their shows, thereby making some cash to finance more traveling and eventually, touring.
Which is the second point. The formula is not "create a band > sign a contract > tour." Assuming such is an unreasonably simplistic view. A smaller band will invariably start out playing dates in individual clubs in their home town (which of course means that any serious band needs to migrate to a town large enough to support them.) Once they've built up a name for themselves, they may consider releasing an album; the majority of the small groups do so either independently or through a small local label. Through the album their music can get out to more people and their name can spread, allowing them to play more and larger venues, thus increasing their revenue. The albums are not a money maker here, but rather a means of gaining exposure. The smart musician will realize this and embrace digital medium as it provides a method that's more cost effective and has the potential to effect a wider audience.
The established groups, by the way, do make about $1 per album, minus whatever the label skims off for recoupable costs. If you really want them to get your $0.50, cut them a cheque. The reason that artists are starting to jump ship from the labels and go indie is because labels are no longer necessary and thus the artist has no reason to see all the money from their work wind up in other peoples' pockets.
I'm not necessarily advocating piracy here; you must, of course, do what you think is best. However, to take a holier than thou view on the platform of 'it's for the good of the artists' is not only elitist, it's painfully uninformed.