Unabated P2P, and the destruction of the CD

[killswitch1968]

I made a post (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=121957#post121957) about CD sales and P2P, and the general concensus is that P2P seems to hurt CD sales (why else does the RIAA hate it so much?) This post will not try to prove this claim, but merely use it as an assumption to determine the long term result of unencumbered P2P sharing, no lawsuits, no RIAA.

Currently people buy CDs because:
1. Ignorance of P2P
2. Convenience of buying a CD rather then hunting for songs
3. Audiophiles who want the exact copy
4. The extras on a CD, including the jacket, lyrics, and media.
5. Desire to support the artist
6. The warm and fuzzy feeling of owning an authentic copy
7. Status symbol, much as with people who buy expensive brand name clothes.

We can imagine that as P2P gets more and more popular, so does its technology. We have already seen this with swarming downloads, decentralized sharing, improved audio quality, etc. It will become easier to get songs from an album. Additionally, and what is already becoming apparent, the mp3 files themselves will contain both the lyrics and CD jacket jpgs within them. This enables users to print out the jackets, and even today we are able to print DIRECTLY on a CD (no stickers) for around $200 USD.
With all these factors, 'people groups' #1, #2, #3, and #4 will be effectively eliminated. Group 5 might stop buying CDs but offer donations and buy merchandise to their bands.

That leaves group 6 and 7 still buying CDs, is this enough to support the billion dollar music industry? They seem to represent a tiny fraction of the initial 'people pie', so I do not believe so.
So let's assume CD sales begin to decline, the meat and potatos of the music industry. As P2P continues major labels go bankrupt, and musicians are free of contractual obligations.

Does the death of the music industry bring on the destruction of music? In Asia today, music piracy is rampant. Who was the last big asian star you heard of? But does this mean asians don't make music? NO. It only means that 'artists' driven by profit motive cannot exist, and the 'true artists' aren't getting any coverage.
Now imagine this on a global setting, with no labels pulling the strings of radio stations or governments. There is simply no money to be made in making music. The only musicians around will play for one reason, they love making music. Of course some people will still need expensive studios. Where does this money come from? Like many open source/freeware programs, users can offer donations, which would more then compensate the cost. The only music available in this society will be made by true artists who love their art, the true formula of making quality music.

tl;dr On a long enough timeline P2P will topple labels. Music will no longer be a profitable business, if a business at all. The only musicians around will be making music because they love music, the only motive that makes good music in the first place. No megastars. No music videos. No MTV. In essence: MUSIC UTOPIA.
God Bless P2P

[Lamourlady]

killswitch, u must know by now that this is one of my more fav topics...seems to be yours as well...lol.


So let's assume CD sales begin to decline, the meat and potatos of the music industry.

i wouldn't say that cd sales were the "meat & potatoes" of the music industry. i believe in the thousands of articles i've read over the last few years, the money to be made is really from merchandising and live concerts. only a handful of very successful artists actually financially "power" the industry from actual cd sales, kind of covering any losses by less popular & financially unstable artists on the labels.



As P2P continues major labels go bankrupt, and musicians are free of contractual obligations.

i would like to see some proof that p2p is what is causing any major labels to go bankrupt. let's take into consideration the economic times, recent war, and lack of jobs, major disease, ecological disasters...all affecting our world in drastic measures. everyone is hurt by these things and the music industry is not immune.


Does the death of the music industry bring on the destruction of music?

i hardly think so.


On a long enough timeline P2P will topple labels. Music will no longer be a profitable business, if a business at all.

i disagree. it will be the artist who will ultimately decide if the lables will remain a major player in the music business...but let's not even think that music will not be in the profit-making business.....it will always make a profit......even though the p2p community is a large one.......there r still many more people in the world who do buy cds.....as u point out in your post...many more.


The only musicians around will be making music because they love music, the only motive that makes good music in the first place. No megastars. No music videos. No MTV. In essence: MUSIC UTOPIA.

nice dream, but unrealistic, by any standards. everyone needs/wants to make money, even those who do it because they love it. and u can't blame them. and the visual side of the music today......well, let's just say i don't think it is going anywhere either....hey.....we want our MTV. lol. ;)



God Bless P2P

yes......i will concur on this one point.

good posts u got there, nevertheless, killswitch.....u mos def get people thinking. and this is a good thing!

LL ;)

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Lamourlady

i wouldn't say that cd sales were the "meat & potatoes" of the music industry. i believe in the thousands of articles i've read over the last few years, the money to be made is really from merchandising and live concerts.

Got a reference? But anyways, a moot point. This post makes a big assumption that P2P will kill the music industry. Whether or not this is true, it's just an assumption.



i would like to see some proof that p2p is what is causing any major labels to go bankrupt.

This was just an assumption, let's just assume, for arguments sake, the cynics are right. P2P decreases CD sales. Is this really a bad thing for artists in the long run?

Thanks for the kind words LamourLady. ZP seems more like a place to gangbang the RIAA whilst giving high fives to your fellow supporters in a virtual lockroom. I'd like to stimulate some real discussions and pose interesting questions. Thanks for reading.



nice dream, but unrealistic, by any standards. everyone needs/wants to make money, even those who do it because they love it. and u can't blame them.

I guess this is my largest disagreement. Everyone wants to make money, but they don't need to whore their art to do it. And I certainly CAN blame people who are commodifying their music. I personally find this heinous debacle all too common in the current system. I think you find the best artists are the one's who just want to make music. Money is a plus not a carrot.

But anyways, that's not the point of this post. The big question is:
If we assume that P2P will kill the music industry, will this new musically environment based on free sharing be better/worse than the previous system?
I obviously say yes. Keep in mind when you post you'll have to consider artists will still need to pay for production costs, which can get expensive, especially if you need orchestras/professional musicians. Also keep in mind artists need start-up money for tours, which has previously been supplied by labels.

[beardedwonder]

If the music industry were to 'dissappear' which, IMHO wont happen, i think that music would suffer. As you said what with production costs mixing etc. etc. some artists would not be able to produce the music they wanted. This could cause a couple of things:

Music becoming very crappy.
Only wealthy people able to produce mixed etc. music.
Higher concert ticket prices
More merchandising
More sponsoring
MTV becoming even worse (<is this possible?)

Looking kind of bleak to me.

[notbob]

Originally posted by beardedwonder
Music becoming very crappy.
Only wealthy people able to produce mixed etc. music.
Higher concert ticket prices
More merchandising
More sponsoring
MTV becoming even worse (<is this possible?)

Looking kind of bleak to me.

were you trying to be ironic?

these things all started happening LONG before file sharing

look around you for god's sake

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
Got a reference?

well, one from a forum of great peeps. i usually save these articles, but when i upgraded to XP, i lost all of my "favorites".
but, as i have been doing, u could as well, do a search on the topic, if u really need references.

Behind The Grammys, Turmoil
(well worth the read)

By NEIL STRAUSS, NYT

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 24,

link (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9388&highlight=Record+Industry)


So, if you're Sony, and you're paying for the lifestyles of longtime stars like Michael Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, Bob Dylan and scores more in this extremely cost-ineffective industry, you may be grossing $4.6 billion a year, but only about 5 percent of your artists are considered successful. And not only is it more expensive to market these artists, but you need their profits to pay for the failures of all those other bands.



Originally posted by killswitch1968
This was just an assumption, let's just assume, for arguments sake, the cynics are right. P2P decreases CD sales. Is this really a bad thing for artists in the long run?

here is an excellent article on the views of the artist and how they see the whole picture.

link (http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm)


Record companies see it as mutiny. Musicians call it an overdue rebellion. Either way, the artists' rights movement has set the stage for combat that could revolutionize the music industry.


The drumbeat of war has been building in recent years as artists wrestle for self-empowerment and vow to amend a system that let soul greats Otis Blackwell, Jackie Wilson and Mary Wells die destitute. Before she died, Peggy Lee was part of a class-action settlement that won unpaid
royalties. Courtney Love filed suit to break her Geffen contract. Prince fled the corporate structure and pitched camp on the
Internet, where he sells directly to fans. Tom Petty's upcoming album, The Last D.J., slams industry greed.


Like all other corporations, the music industry has gotten greedier," Henley says. "It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight."


Originally posted by killswitch1968
Thanks for the kind words LamourLady. ZP seems more like a place to gangbang the RIAA whilst giving high fives to your fellow supporters in a virtual lockroom. I'd like to stimulate some real discussions and pose interesting questions. Thanks for reading.

not a problem, like i said, it's a topic i enjoy debating and discussing. as for "gang-banging the RIAA"....hmmmmm...nah!



Originally posted by killswitch1968
I guess this is my largest disagreement. Everyone wants to make money, but they don't need to whore their art to do it. And I certainly CAN blame people who are commodifying their music. I personally find this heinous debacle all too common in the current system. I think you find the best artists are the one's who just want to make music. Money is a plus not a carrot.

interesting perspective. i honestly believe, no matter what a person's reasons for doing anything are, if they deserve to be paid, they deserve to be paid, even if u feel they are "whoring" their art.


Originally posted by killswitch1968
But anyways, that's not the point of this post. The big question is:

If we assume that P2P will kill the music industry, will this new musically environment based on free sharing be better/worse than the previous system?
I obviously say yes. Keep in mind when you post you'll have to consider artists will still need to pay for production costs, which can get expensive, especially if you need orchestras/professional musicians. Also keep in mind artists need start-up money for tours, which has previously been supplied by labels. [/B]

u r right. the costs will have to come from some where. and that will be the up & coming questions, i'm sure.
guess we'll be seeing some "weening" from the industry, in more ways than one. ;)

[beardedwonder]

Originally posted by notbob
were you trying to be ironic?

these things all started happening LONG before file sharing

look around you for god's sake

Well if it's already like that, imagine what it'll be like if the record industry collapses.

[tons of fun]

Great thread!!!

:fire

[notbob]

Originally posted by beardedwonder
Well if it's already like that, imagine what it'll be like if the record industry collapses.

years ago there were hundreds of record labels, all independent, serving independently owned radio stations. there was diversity and it was good.

today there are 5 major labels (which have engulfed the old labels, and one company (clear channel) in charge of a huge percentage of radio and concert outlets.

this hexopoly is connected integrally to the RIAA

as it stands now, the RIAA backed industry is a non diverse cesspool of sameness. what p2p stands for is a new rise of independent labels and independent acts--if the RIAA loses its foothold on the music industry, the smaller guys have a shot at competition, and possibly at a musical landscape worth listening to again

[TipYourBartender]

Just a thought: I thinkpeople dont pay enough attention to concerts. A band that has attained a large following through concerts can make a damn good living off ticket sales, and eventually their record sales will begin to reflect the popularity that they have cultivated through touring the nation / world.

[beardedwonder]

That could be true, although i was basing my opinion on the fact that music would be free, i.e artists don't make money from cd sales.

[Ne007]

"It only means that 'artists' driven by profit motive cannot exist, and the 'true artists' aren't getting any coverage. "

WTF do you get THAT assumption? I basically disagree with every assuption that you have made in your post.

There are MANY MANY MANY ways of making money off of music WITHOUT CD's. they have already been mentioned.

So...with that said.....death to the RIAA.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by killswitch1968

Music will no longer be a profitable business, if a business at all. The only musicians around will be making music because they love music, the only motive that makes good music in the first place. No megastars. No music videos. No MTV. In essence: MUSIC UTOPIA.
God Bless P2P

Not true. Music is not a profitable business right now. The only people who are really profiting from music are the major labels, promoters, publishers, and a few musicians lucky enough to get signed on to a major deal, then have their album go platimum (which is essentially what it takes to pay of the record company for fronting the costs.) You can profit by being in a wedding band, studio musician, public school music teacher, instructor, or be a promoter or record exec, to syphen the profits from succesful artists.
Most people in original rock bands (some famous ones), are still touring in vans, eating white castle, scrounging up money for beer,and sleeping in cheap motels (if not in their vans, and this probably includes bands like At the Gates).
If anything, p2p will probably make original music more profitable for the average talented artist, because he/she can record, promote, and distribute their material on their own with minimal costs involved rather than be in debt to a record cooperation thereby keeping all the profits. That make sense?

[Power Penguin]

What you have just said is that CD sales are and will continue to be affected by downloads from the internet. Well I never.

You've stated the obvious in the most unsuccint way possible.

[broadwayrock]

I read in the newspaper the other day that record companies are making more money from Ringtone royalties than they are making from Single sales.

Maybe thats where they need to concentrate.

[killswitch1968]

Wow I haven't checked this thread in awhile. Glad to see I stirred the pot haha. Some of you made excellent posts, other missed the point :) Let's get started!



Originally posted by Ne007
"It only means that 'artists' driven by profit motive cannot exist, and the 'true artists' aren't getting any coverage. "
WTF do you get THAT assumption? I basically disagree with every assuption that you have made in your post.

That wasn't an assumption that was a very strong belief. In the current system, many of the most overplayed, fashion trendy bands are backed by hordes of money. This does not happen by mistake. Record companies CHOOSE vapid, entertaining music to promote because it sells easy to the naive. All other 'true' artists as I refered to them, the one's playing non-mainstream music, cannot get coverage on the radiowaves currently dominated by the aforementioned bands. It is promotional monopoly essentially, and it favors corporate music, not art.
The assumptions I made in this post were just that, assumptions. No one s really sure what effect p2P has on file sharing. But lets just say, for the hell of it, for arguments sake, to play the devil's advocate, WHATEVER, that P2P kills the music industry. What happens to music?

nonbob, you seem to understand my post. But how do you think artists will fund their costs?

Winphuk: Totally agreed. 99% of musicians aren't making money. Nevertheless, the music INDUSTRY is a profitable business. Often this comes from the exploitation of the artist. There are a select few making hordes of money from this. That is my biggest gripe.
However I disagree that p2p will increase profits. How will bands be compensated in a system where they are not paid for their music?
Obviously I have my own answer to this question (seeing as I not only believe that p2p will kill the industry, but that this is a wholly beneficial side effect) but I'd like to hear other theories first.
Oh and At the Gates rules (although they aren't in a van anymore, they broke up years ago, RIP :( )

WillRae: Sort of. But this was an assumption, and it was more of an ANALYSIS of the EFFECT of said assumption. It's a bit deeper. BTW, I'm sure I would only garner flames had I said: P2P will kill the music industry. n/t

Beardedwonder: I disagree with everything you said. The current music environment fosters throngs of plastic and prefabricated bands sent to plague the na•ve and hopeless generations of popular, fashion trendy, impressionable cohorts. I fucking hate it. But I'll stay open minded if you can support your claims.

To all: This is not meant to be a discussion whether or not p2p is killing CD sales, what music companies should be doing, etc. It's a simple question, REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN BELIEFS/STATISTICS, just ASSUME, that p2p is killing CD sales, and on a long enough time line all labels will be bankrupt, and all music can be attained digitally for free. Using this COMPLETLY UNFOUNDED assumption (solely for argument), what is the effect on music as a whole. If p2p hurt CD sales and destroys the music industry, would this create a healthier atmosphere for artists?

[killswitch1968]

Oh I forgot your comments l'amour lady


Originally posted by Lamourlady

interesting perspective. i honestly believe, no matter what a person's reasons for doing anything are, if they deserve to be paid, they deserve to be paid, even if u feel they are "whoring" their art.

u r right. the costs will have to come from some where. and that will be the up & coming questions, i'm sure.
guess we'll be seeing some "weening" from the industry, in more ways than one. ;)


1. I do too. But that of course begs the questions "who decides who deserves to be paid?" I believe the listeners do. I'll post a bit later how this kind of thing might work.

2. Yes. i suspect people will be able to record their music more independentally and cheaply, perhaps even on their own computers. I do expect production to decrease but I don't see this as a problem. 'poor production' is not necessarily 'bad production'. A paradoxical oxymoron no doubt, but believe me when i say some artists even prefer lower production for the gritty sound.

[Winphuk]

How will bands be compensated in a system where they are not paid for their music?

What do you mean they won't get compensated? What about concerts, t-shits, memorabilia, CD sales which fans will still buy, royalties if their songs are played on the radio or used in commercials. They will make more money than ever. People will just be buying directly from the artists.
The Artists will just have to be self-starters. They won't have record companies as sugar daddies anymore.

[Winphuk]

If I may ad something, bands will actually profit in accordance with the quality of their music rather than promotion form the fat industry guys. There may even be other small companies popping up, like affordable promotion and distribution, so the only way that bands can profit from their music is if they are actually good.Imagine that.

[FileHoover]

Artists will benefit tremendously by no record companies.

If they refuse to record music (or only record teasers that make people want to come hear more at a live show), and only play live, there could be a resurgence in REAL musicians playing for entertainment.

If only crappy, handhelp recorder with audience noise recordings are available, people will pay to hear live music just like they go to a stadium to see real sports.

For once every decent musician will be able to make a living instead of the few mega stars at the top taking it all.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Winphuk
What do you mean they won't get compensated? What about concerts, t-shits, memorabilia, CD sales, which fans will still buy, royalties if their songs are played on the radio or used in commercials. They will make more money than ever. People will just be buying directly from the artists.
The Artists will just have to be self-starters. They won't have record companies as sugar daddies anymore.

More or less what I think. Except I don't think radio stations should have to pay royalties, webcasters or otherwise.
One thing about concerts though; they require HUGE start up money to even get going. The initial investment is substantial, even if the concert does pay off.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
More or less what I think. Except I don't think radio stations should have to pay royalties, webcasters or otherwise.
One thing about concerts though; they require HUGE start up money to even get going. The initial investment is substantial, even if the concert does pay off.

Just like every other business they start off small. First in local dives, then when they pack those in they can afford larger clubs, to 1000 seat arenas, to 20,000 seat arenas, to stadiums, and so on.

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by Winphuk
Just like every other business they start off small. First in local dives, then when they pack those in they can afford larger clubs, to 1000 seat arenas, to 20,000 seat arenas, to stadiums, and so on.

yeah, like they should in the first place.
some of these pop-stars just get it all, too fast, without all the blood, sweat and tears that come from starting at the bottom and working their way up.

[x_anaconda_x]

Interesting thread, or at least interesting enough to register :)

Anyhow, just my 2 cents....or more

Where to start..the beginning I gather:

"There no money made making music"

That may or may not be true. Is there money being a painter?
Depends on what you are painting and who you are selling
to. Want loads of sales, make easy uninspired uncreative
works and sell em off at starving artist sales for relatively
cheap. Are you into the creative side and want high
return from your works? Do what you do and seek out
your audience. I've know people that have sold their
paintings for 1,000 us dollars, but they aren't going to
get rich off em. Then again, they love what they do and
they make a living. We are talking artistic creativity here,
not pure business :)

"The only musicians around will play for one reason, they love making music. Of course some people will still need expensive studios."

Exactly to point 1, they love what they do. Of course no needs
expensive studios, and hell, if labels weren't funding the
expensive studios, you might find the cost of studio time
drop a bit!


"Where does this money come from? Like many open source/freeware programs, users can offer donations, which would more then compensate the cost. The only music available in this society will be made by true artists who love their art, the true formula of making quality music."

Ah, now your are talking, art vs business. Ok. How did the
great artists (classical types that I do not particularly
follow i.e. bach) make their living? It wasn't from a music
industry.


"Music will no longer be a profitable business, if a business at all."

I would agree it wouldn't be a profitable business, it would be
a profitable craft/art/skill though. Those that are best in their
fields seem to profit from it, provided society finds it worthwhile.


"Money is a plus not a carrot."

And it generally follows those that have a passion, not always,
but music has a way that touches people enough that we
find value in it.

"Keep in mind when you post you'll have to consider artists will still need to pay for production costs, which can get expensive, especially if you need orchestras/professional musicians."

Again, how much in cost is driven by the "business" of music.
The entire industry feeds on itself and demands it's own
existence, as with any monopoly or oligopoly. There may
be a million independent labels in the world today, but
what it heard by the masses (the distribution) is driven by
a select few companies. In some manner that is beside
the point, it comes back to "need". Professional implies
a business in and of itself, not an artisan.


"Also keep in mind artists need start-up money for tours, which has previously been supplied by labels. "

I disagree, the only thing one needs for a tour is a vehicle,
a band and comittments from venues that you have a time
slot on the stage. Good music helps, but then we get to the
distribution circle, who hears good music if it can't be heard?
Yet punk bands have been at this for years, heck, look at
Dischord records as a model. Don't tour until you earn enough
to do so locally.


"If the music industry were to 'dissappear' which, IMHO wont happen, i think that music would suffer.....edited...
Music becoming very crappy.
Only wealthy people able to produce mixed etc. music.
Higher concert ticket prices
More merchandising
More sponsoring
MTV becoming even worse (<is this possible?"

Music quality has little to do with money, some but not much.
Is recorded music about listening to perfection at home, or
is it promotional for the live performance? That's like saying
only rich people can create the best photos, paintings, etc
because they have the best. I do not agree.

If concert ticket prices went up, so be it. They'll only go as
high as people are willing to pay. Would be nice to cut
out ticketmaster, who currently extorts up to 30% of the
ticket costs in the us (through their own monopololistic
contracts with the idiotic venues). Imagine the 30 percent
of the ticket fee going to the band!

Merchandising and sponsoring are indeed what it's about.
I do believe most of who we currently call classical artists
were privately sponsored (commissioned actually). So what.

And who cares about MTV. You want silly videos, you have digressed from the art we call music. MTV was just another
attempt at opening a distribution channel. It's the radio on
TV. *yawn*


Someone suggested artists shouldn't make money from
music sales..lol..i have to disagree. I remember going to
shows, paying 5 bucks for a nice t shirt, 4 dollars for some
vinyl and 5 bucks to see the band! God forbid they didn't have
some monstrous lighting and just played music with some
lighting that fit the mood. I am certain they financed their
tour quite well too!

In fact was at a concert a few months ago and remember
having no less that 10 cds handed to me on the way out
the door. Back in the 80's no one could afford that without
a major label.

If the labels died, music wouldn't. But p2p won't be stopping
people from seeing the bands they enjoy, buying whatever
their favorites are halking etc...

Sorry for the loooong reply, but it's a fun topic to discuss :)

[mr-g]

Lamourlady said "some of these pop-stars just get it all, too fast, without all the blood, sweat and tears that come from starting at the bottom and working their way up."

Speaking of Blood Sweat and Tears I agree with that regarding many people, but I'd like to quote someting the great musician Al Kooper said on his websiite a couple years ago. Please don't fllame me, these are his words, not mine.As a huge fan of classic rock and old blues I've often had second thoughts downloading Taj Majal, Etta James, The Doobies, etc. (Before all your times lol). But you know, these folks don't really live a huge ritzy lifestyle, they are just plain folks just like us. And while the riaa has screwed them, they won't be around for the wonderful change that I see the younger generation instigating. Everyone here has the right idea, unfortunately it's just gonna take some time to change. I hope it's gonna come soon, and the same goes for all the new artists struggling to make it. We sometimes lose ourselves in the constant downloading to get more than in the real idealism behind it. Anyway, here is the letter:

This is a column I wrote for EQ Magazine back in 2001.


I wanna start off by saying I chose the music business back in 1958 to express myself and to make a living. I've shared apartments with rodents (the furry and fleshy kind) in New York City, and I've rented houses in Los Angeles that Ringo moved into when I vacated. It's been a bumpy, crazy ride. I've been cheated out of extremely large sums of money by some of the best and I've learned from them what not to do next time. Very costly lessons they were.

Because this is my life and this is my job. I'm no better or worse than any one of you; I'm probably just older (57) and perhaps a bit warier and a little wiser. I've no Mercedes, or surround sound. I don't go out to parties or restaurants every other night, and when I do venture out, I must admit I'm often dressed in a rather humorous manner. I'm way beyond the point of being a rock star or a name on anyone's lips.

I live comparatively comfortably on the small percentage of royalties I was able to pry out of calculated, evil paws over the years. Those stipends are rightfully mine and represent a lifetime of dedication and nose to the grindstone. In 2001, I'm celebrating my 43rd anniversary of being married to The Music. Okay, let us begin....

Musicians in the limelight have a shelf life of from one to infinity years. The majority fall out of public favor after four or five heady, high-profile years. We can call up a few as examples: The Association, Huey Lewis & The News, Grand Funk Railroad, or The Dave Clark Five. The concept is that you should make and save as much as you can while your window of opportunity is open. In a perfect world, you could have written or recorded one or more songs that are enjoyed way past their original window of success. (this rarely happens). "Time Of The Season," "Daydream," "Henry The Eighth," all have survived their initial runs and continue to earn healthy money for their creators. As you get older, you find that your songs are like your children. They come to look after you, when nobody else will. It's comforting in a way.

Well, discomfort runs rampant in the 21st century. They're putting your children into bondage and preventing them from taking care of you. And their name is Napster.

I've remained stoic and quiet on this subject for quite awhile, but now I must vent and rant or be crushed under a glass-encrusted tire of disrespect. I guess the thing that rankles me the most about Napster and their children is that you have no say in whether they exploit your work or not. No contracts need to be signed. Somebody uploads your song and that's it. No one with a modem and a computer has to buy it ever again. Now if one were in their twenties and in an ambitious, nascent band, they would welcome Napster and their ilk - if only for the free distribution and publicity. I believe Brother Dylan said it best: "When ya ain't got nuthin', ya got nuthin' to lose...."

But as one gets older, promoters won't guarantee you enough money to even take a band out with you on the road. Record companies aren't looking to sign 50-plus-year-olds - they'd rather come up with clever new ways to design elaborate box sets of your catalogue and charge your royalty accounts for their handiwork without permission.

Now my subsidizing income comes from my songwriting royalties. At this point in my career, it doesn't behoove me to have free copies of my music floating around, especially of an audio quality I wouldn't sanction, if consulted. I don't have a new CD coming out or a new tour in the offing that needs promoting. I'm just a meat-and-potatoes musician who still needs to realize an income. If a company comes to me and says they want to license my song for a fee and royalties, then they're contributing to that income. I'm open to something like that plus it's my decision to make. But if some hung-over frat guy is downloading a song I wrote so he can have the proper cool, unique soundtrack to get some nookie later that night, then my rights are being as violated as those of his soon-to-be-arriving date.

At this juncture of my life, I don't fill stadiums and arenas and sell millions of CDs (actually I never did that!). I just wanna live comfortably in my senior years based on the lifetime of work I've put in up to now. Hell...I want my Rock n' Roll Social Security! And Napster and networks like Napster, are literally snatching it out of my pocket in the name of "sharing the music." They are taking in profits on their website through advertising, and now, subsidizing. Whatever happened to "sharing the income"? This two-faced monster wants it both ways.

Now I don't think for a moment that 67,000 people are downloading my songs for free. But if it's allowed to happen a few times, it will geometrically increase until I have a real problem taking care of myself in a few years. That's just not fair. Now I'm not looking for pity or singling myself out. I've spent my life doing what I always dreamed of doing and I was damned lucky. Many of my friends are in a far worse position than I am. They live from one royalty check to the next. It's not pretty and, at their age, their choices are few, if any. Should people in their position be penalized so that other people can have fun on their computers? I think not.

I can't believe that after all these years the law doesn't routinely protect me from something as blatant as this. Suppose you invented a hammer, that was so unique, that it replaced the generic hammer instantly. Suppose you patented and copyrighted that hammer in order to protect your invention. Suppose that an internet company lay in wait and hijacked your shipping trucks and offered your hammers, free to anyone who logged on to their site - worse yet, in order to offer your hammer free, they cut it's quality by ten-fold! How long do you think the law would allow THAT to continue? Well it's the same with Napster except that today music is easier to hijack than hammers.

Once again, I can see the value in this revolution for younger, on-the-make bands. But have I created and played for 43 years to have my income cut off on a cyber-whim? Will my "children" be prevented by kid-napsters from helping me survive in my old age? I shudder to think. Take responsibility for your actions and think before you upload or download. Think of yourself as an honest person and the downloads on Napster as shareware; albeit, crummy-sounding shareware. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Al Kooper

[EQ Editor's Note: As we went to press, an announcement was made regarding an agreement between Napster and BMG. When asked his opinion of this announcement, Al Kooper replied, "The BMG involvement is like sticking a tampon in an already-flooded Holland Tunnel."]

[Lamourlady]

i mean no disrespect to the guy, but the sad fact is, any of the songs downloaded, may not have "equaled" a purchase of the same tunes.
p2p, at times is a very fickle thing........it's just a notion....because it's so easy to get that tune...u download it...listen to it......and may never listen to it again.
is it right?
that is for each to decide for themselves, when they open their p2p client and begin downloading.
i can understand his situation, from what i've read, but if not for p2p, i doubt his music would have been heard by as many people as it had been, from the downloading alone.
sad, but true.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by mr-g
Speaking of Blood Sweat and Tears I agree with that ....
Boo-Friggity-Hoo!
Typical friggin RIAA lackey!
When you can't or become too lazy to create decent music that sells and have to rely on your "has-been accomplishments" to give you your paycheck, then that leaves me with two words. DAY JOB

Try it sometime!

[Winphuk]

That was mean. I'm sorry. I do feel for the guy, but no matter what your intentions may be, by helping people shut down p2p, and having the government regulate the Internet, you are halting the progress of technology, thus halting the progress of mankind.

*edit* Furthurmore, there are others who are of Mr. Cooper's age such as The Stones, Elton John, Billy Joel, Aerosmith who are still going strong today because they wrote music that stood the test of time, and continue to write quality stuff today. You can syphen their music from here toKingdom Come, and they will never go broke.*

[Rickio]

Great Al Cooper article mr-g !
I am a big fan of his and understand his point of view. But it's like a lot of things. Things change all around you, faster and faster till your standing in a place you have never seen and it's the same place you started at, but different now. Damn! Like ZP here. I got all tense when it changed but it did and will and is and I finally used it as a example of how life can be and went with the flow.

I do think the media companies are crooks and need to spend more on their artists.

Middlemen are often necessary but essentially they are leeches who begin to think they are more important and they leverage the hell out of artists and consumers.

One of the biggest money making bands of all time, The Grateful Dead, gave away so much. Free concerts and a sections for fans to tape their concerts and still they made money like no one before them.

It's all in heart and artistry and always will be.

Also with a PC or Mac and knowledge and software, you can record and mix as good as any studio.

Its gonna keep changing and just hang on.
I just hope the good in all of us prevails always... :-)

Peace

[notbob]

Originally posted by Winphuk
.

*edit* Furthurmore, there are others who are of Mr. Cooper's age such as The Stones, Elton John, Billy Joel, Aerosmith who are still going strong today because they wrote music that stood the test of time, and continue to write quality stuff today. You can syphen their music from here toKingdom Come, and they will never go broke.*

for the most part, they survived by making lowest common denominator crap, and have benefitted from the studio system

plus for the most part they were good looking guys--al kooper was never good looking, but he was (is?) one of the best damn keyboardists that ever lived

p.s. billy joel did go broke--bad management

[TipYourBartender]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
Using this COMPLETLY UNFOUNDED assumption (solely for argument), what is the effect on music as a whole. If p2p hurt CD sales and destroys the music industry, would this create a healthier atmosphere for artists?

It would result in a healthier atmosphere for those artists who already exist, yes. But what about new and upcoming acts? If there's no record company to give them a head-start, how would a new act get on the same plane as acts which already have a following?

The fact is, people are going to download artists they already know; it will take a lot more for people to take a chance on a new artist.. And if no one's gonna download your shit, how much are you going to do??

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by TipYourBartender
It would result in a healthier atmosphere for those artists who already exist, yes. But what about new and upcoming acts? If there's no record company to give them a head-start, how would a new act get on the same plane as acts which already have a following?

The fact is, people are going to download artists they already know; it will take a lot more for people to take a chance on a new artist.. And if no one's gonna download your shit, how much are you going to do??

Self Promotion, Web Radio, College Radio. If you spread your name around enough, people will recognize it.
Play gigs and spread around flyers, telling people where to download your album. Get a buzz going.
It will be possile for bands to get known without labels. That's the whole point.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by notbob
plus for the most part they were good looking guys


Billy Joel good looking? Did I mention Joe Cocker? How about Tom Petty? Paul Simon, Bob Dylan. Before Roy Orbison died, he was pumping out tunes that were selling.He's not good looking either. One things for sure. Their all Al Kooper's age.

[notbob]

Originally posted by Winphuk
Billy Joel good looking? Did I mention Joe Cocker? How about Tom Petty? Paul Simon, Bob Dylan. Before Roy Orbison died, he was pumping out tunes that were selling.He's not good looking either. One things for sure. Their all Al Kooper's age.

joe cocker--wrote almost none of the songs he played, plays no instrument (i consider him a label creation along the lines of rod stewart or justin timberlake or davy jones)

roy orbison--even elvis was jealous of his voice, died broke

paul simon and bob dylan--great songwriters--they make money whether they are pretty or not

tom petty--went broke (screwed by mca) hates the system as much as we do

none by the way are as horrendously ugly as al kooper

kids cry when they see him (maybe even his own)

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by notbob
none by the way are as horrendously ugly as al kooper

kids cry when they see him (maybe even his own)


Hmm, think you may be right.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by TipYourBartender
The fact is, people are going to download artists they already know; it will take a lot more for people to take a chance on a new artist.. And if no one's gonna download your shit, how much are you going to do??

No no no no NO. Sorry, I disagree completly on this. I find out new artists by webzines, friends, word-of-mouth. When I hear said artist I go and download their stuff and check it out. The only impediment is the downloading: can I get the files at a reasonable rate. Often times, no.
The sad truth is, if I can't download it my search ends there. I welcome a world where this no longer happens, where peopel can freely distribute over networks that are getting more and more optimized.
Besides, what happens when someone has already downloaded the entire works of all the 'arists they know'?

[notbob]

tipo is right

why would anyone waste their time downloading unknowns? if they do, how does that help them? the unknowns won't make any money off the download. if it was a paid download, the unknowns still wouldn't get paid because who is going to pay for some schmo they never heard before?

people download stuff they are familiar with

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by notbob
tipo is right

why would anyone waste their time downloading unknowns? if they do, how does that help them? the unknowns won't make any money off the download. if it was a paid download, the unknowns still wouldn't get paid because who is going to pay for some schmo they never heard before?

people download stuff they are familiar with

It's the bands resposibililty to promote themselves and create a buzz by spreading their name around every which way they can.
Do you know that Motley Crue sold out the palladium before they were even signed?If one of these "unknown" bands gets many downloads through self promotion, people will wait for them to do a live show. If these bands are self money makers through shows and merchandising, at least an Indie Label would be happy to pick them up, or they may decide to do it on their own.

[TipYourBartender]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
No no no no NO. Sorry, I disagree completly on this. I find out new artists by webzines, friends, word-of-mouth. When I hear said artist I go and download their stuff and check it out. The only impediment is the downloading: can I get the files at a reasonable rate. Often times, no.
The sad truth is, if I can't download it my search ends there. I welcome a world where this no longer happens, where peopel can freely distribute over networks that are getting more and more optimized.
Besides, what happens when someone has already downloaded the entire works of all the 'arists they know'?

That may be the case for YOU (and for me as well), but I believe we are both exceptions to the rule. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe most people go out and search for new artists.


Originally posted by Winphuk
It's the bands resposibililty to promote themselves and create a buzz by spreading their name around every which way they can. Do you know that Motley Crue sold out the palladium before they were even signed?If one of these "unknown" bands gets many downloads through self promotion, people will wait for them to do a live show. If these bands are self money makers through shows and merchandising, at least an Indie Label would be happy to pick them up, or they may decide to do it on their own.

Yes, but what if there were no indie labels, as we are supposing here? And for every Motley Crue, how many good bands won't make it, for whatever reason?


I think we are all supposing that a label-less society would allow the cream to somehow rise to the top. In reality, that may be very far from the case. We may have LESS originality, not more; LESS artists that surivie on merit alone, not more. I think instead of abolishing it altogether, the record industry needs to be reformed and transformed, so that the large amounts of money these companies have to spend could be spent the right way so that the cream CAN rise to the top.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by TipYourBartender
That may be the case for YOU (and for me as well), but I believe we are both exceptions to the rule. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe most people go out and search for new artists.



Yes, but what if there were no indie labels, as we are supposing here? And for every Motley Crue, how many good bands won't make it, for whatever reason?


I think we are all supposing that a label-less society would allow the cream to somehow rise to the top. In reality, that may be very far from the case. We may have LESS originality, not more; LESS artists that surivie on merit alone, not more. I think instead of abolishing it altogether, the record industry needs to be reformed and transformed, so that the large amounts of money these companies have to spend could be spent the right way so that the cream CAN rise to the top.

People need to redefine what "making it" means. There are people who "make it" , by getting signed to a major label,then end up never having the record promoted, never have tours sponsored, they just end up being in the Label's pocket and they don't even have the rights to play the songs without permission.
Music is a business like everything else. You can either sign on to a major label which is like getting a big loan and hoping that you will sell enough to get out of debt, or you can start small with little cost and build it brick by brick. When I was speaking of Indie labels, that can include your OWN label. When Zappa got fed up dealing with Warner he invented Barking Pumpkin records which he pressed and distributed on his own dollar.
THis is America (or Canada), where everybody has the opportunity and the right to build their own business and prosper. The record industry wants us to believe that we have to play by their rules, but nothing can be furthur from the truth.

*edit* in retort to the first paragragh, if the record industry as we know it is abolished, people may be FORCED into looking for new bands, or the most talented and best promoted bands will be the most prevelant, but the ideal situation would be that instead of the industry being run by a few elite empires it will be split into many small entities and will be accessible to real talented artists rather that cooperate created puppets.
Believe me, when something is good, and enough people hear it, word gets around. If anybody is old enough to remember the 80s, bands like Iron Maiden, Judas Preist, and Metallica were filling arenas with virtually little or no video or airplay.
And furthurmore, Motley Crue didn't "make it" because they were lucky. They worked relentlessly hard to get started and they earned it. Same goes with anyone who works hard enough.

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by Winphuk
It's the bands resposibililty to promote themselves and create a buzz by spreading their name around every which way they can.
Do you know that Motley Crue sold out the palladium before they were even signed?If one of these "unknown" bands gets many downloads through self promotion, people will wait for them to do a live show. If these bands are self money makers through shows and merchandising, at least an Indie Label would be happy to pick them up, or they may decide to do it on their own.

funny u said that, i just watched "Driven" which is a bio show and it was on Motley Crue...and indeed they had a following before they were even signed. It took a lot of hard work and even enduring being spit upon, but they made it.

[Rickio]

I've actually discovered for myself quite a few bands or musical artists because of the internet. Perhaps I would have discovered them anyway but thats a moot point.

I would go see them or even buy their music as I like them that much.

It comes down to music. If you like it, you will support your favorite bands when they come around. If you can't or won't that's something else. Like you have no money or you are not really a real music fan. One thing I always notice, is everyone says they love music. But in fact only a few are real music fans and follow it deeply even religiously.

There are always good bands and music. It just gets hard to find sometimes and the commercial aspect has never had anything to do with whether or not good music exists. There has always been a underground percolating new sounds or keeping classic sounds alive.

The problem is not music but music business. Which at this point in time sucks and is way, way out of touch.

The music business works extra hard to create and control music and it shows. It's stupid and they have played that game a long time. Remember the Monkees and Patridge Family. Well today that's brittaney spears and back street boys.
Not exactly the same but to the effect they are easy to control as they are not real artists but showmen. big differance between a musical artist and a stage puppet. lol

one point I think hasn't been mentioned. one can't get blood from a turnup. which is the supposed money being lost is a joke as kids and many people like me would not be buy all this music anyway. so how can potential profits be lost from people who cannot buy in the first place.

If I buy something it sure wouldn't be 50 albums a month lol, maybe 1 or 2 and those will be what I really like and want.


peace