Praises file-sharing for making it easier to discover lots of “obscure,” classic music that makes today’s music “richer as an artform,” and calls artists who complain about illegal downloading “petty.”
We’ve already discussed how this month marks the 10th anniversary of the birth of Napster, and Seattle-based Fleet Foxes made some choice remarks recently to the BBC that add fuel to its importance.
For record labels continue to make the same tired, and frequently dispelled by the way, arguemnt that a single illegal download equals a single lost sale and frame their anti-P2P discussion accordingly. Not often discussed is the positive impact that file-sharing has on some of the actual artists and musicians who make up the industry.
Fleet Foxes’ singer Robin Peckfold praises file-sharing for having made it easier for musicians like him to discover music that he otherwise would never have heard of or been exposed to.
“As much music as musicians can hear, that will only make music richer as an artform,” says Pecknold.
“I think we’re seeing that now with tons of new bands that are amazing, and are doing way better music now than was being made pre-Napster.”
He makes the interesting point that emerging artists have grown up in an era where almost any album can be found using P2P. Unlike previosu eras where musical influences were limted to an almost physical exposure, be it by record, CD, or concert, today one can find and listen to almost any album ever created from virtually anywhere at anytime thanks to file-sharing.
“That was how I discovered almost everything when I was a teenager – my dad brought home a modem,” he said.
“That was how I was exposed to almost all of the music that I love to this day, and still that’s the easiest way to find really obscure stuff.
“I’ve discovered so much music through that medium. That will be true of any artist my age, absolutely.”
Pecknold even makes a point to call those artists who criticize file-sharing “petty.”
“I’ve downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records – why would I care if somebody downloads ours? That’s such a petty thing to care about,” he adds.
“I mean, how much money does one person need? I think it’s disgusting when people complain about that, personally.”
With artists like Prince leading the charge against illegal file-sharing it’s interesting to note that most are pre-Napster bands, artists that didn’t benefit from the musical exposure that file-sharing provides, and so are perhaps unfit in many ways to criticize it.
It should also be pointed out that NIN frontman Trent Reznor is a file-sharer, and said as much while mourning the loss of BitTorrent tracker site OiNK along with everybody else back in 2007.
He said:
I’ll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world’s greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn’t the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don’t feel cool when I go there. I’m tired of seeing John Mayer’s face pop up. I feel like I’m being hustled when I visit there, and I don’t think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get around the issue of pre-release leaks. And that’s what’s such a difficult puzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leaked record out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People on those boards, they’re grateful for the person that uploaded it — they’re the hero. They’re not stealing it because they’re going to make money off of it; they’re stealing it because they love the band. I’m not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want.
I think the last part’s an excellent point. Fans are only downloading music because they love the music. It may be unethical if they don’t contribute to the band financially, but doesn’t that sort pf taint what a should really be about?
Pecknold calls himself an artist, and rightly crticizes anti-file-sharing musicians who demand that everybody pay a fee if they wish to enjoy their work.
I can think of nothing more “petty” than that, nor a more simpler way to demean the artform as a whole.
Related Posts
- U2’s Band Manager Praises France’s “Three-Strikes” Law
- Artists speak out in favor of music downloads on Access Hollywood
- INTERVIEW: Band kicks in music industry door
- File-sharing Battle Leaves Artists Caught In The Middle
- Band Sues Record Label for Digital Music Distribution Ripoff
Loading ...
One thing a number of people forget is that artist tend to be the biggest music fans. They are constantly looking for things to build off of and ideas that they would never have otherwise thought of. The more music an artist gets exposed to, the bigger the palet of pre-existing art that artist has to work with. That’s another reason why music can be far richer than before.
Good tune too, classic sound! They’re trying to do a Pet Sounds thing? I also noticed one clear shot of a black and white Border Collie at 2:38.
I’ve thought that for a long time, that artists, DJs and others who gather around recorded music have to be tapping into file sharing.
As a music fan you would be crazy not to!
Big surprise–another “band” trying to enforce the idea that stealing what can be a very time- and energy-draining product is okay, just because “it’s easy.”
I have never heard of the “Fleet Foxes.” You haven’t, either. There’s a reason for that: they suck. The reason for THAT is because they’re most likely not even a band by any normal standards; they’re more likely a group of morons, with instruments, with no substantial income-producing jobs. They’re looking for give-aways where they can get them, and since “legalizing pirating” is the fad of the decade, they figured they would jump on the bandwagon with the other leeches and try to perpetuate the idea that stealing is okay.
Do you know why the title of this article is “Band Praises P2P For … blah blah blah”? It’s because, again, they are just a bunch of idiots with guitars who have no talent, even in music. It takes talent to get to the level of the artists who’s music is being stolen. You don’t see them fighting to see their music get taken away for free. The people who composed, produced, engineered, mixed, and mastered those hit tracks put a lot of their hard-earned time and effort into delivering, and they deserve to be rewarded for their skills. If they don’t, they won’t bother putting out good music, and all we’ll be left with are “Bands [...]“
Tell that to Billboard, which chose their last album for its 2008 Album of the Year Award
Bonus points to SoulXTC for the pure pwnage.
Didn’t take a genius to dissect the failed argument, but you did it so well his brain probably burst trying to come up with a retort
Haha, the entire generation of “tallented” artist “not idiots with guitars” who’s “music is being STOLEN” will be all dead soon, along with this silly and eliptic discussion about file-sharing.
I think file-sharing might be one of the best thigs ever happened to listeners and to the music industry too, just because if a musician wants money, they have to be really, but really good live and tour the world, and seing bands live is the second best thing after hearing their music loud at the intimacy of home….
And well, Metallica and Prince are very much dead in the creative department…
“Big surprise–another “band” trying to enforce the idea that stealing what can be a very time- and energy-draining product is okay, just because “it’s easy.””
What product? If it’s the music you’re referring to, then you’re dead-deluded, let alone equating P2P to stealing.
“I have never heard of the “Fleet Foxes.” You haven’t, either.”
That’s quite the false presumption there.
“There’s a reason for that: they suck. The reason for THAT is because they’re most likely not even a band by any normal standards; they’re more likely a group of morons, with instruments, with no substantial income-producing jobs.”
So you’re trying to speculate a presumption based on assumptions and put them down; however you just typed that you have no idea who they are; therefore your speculation is founded by nothing.
“They’re looking for give-aways where they can get them, and since “legalizing pirating” is the fad of the decade, they figured they would jump on the bandwagon with the other leeches and try to perpetuate the idea that stealing is okay.”
Pirating = plagiarism is never allowed in the practical field. You are perpetuating the idea that file-sharing is pirating, which it is necessarily not.
“Do you know why the title of this article is “Band Praises P2P For … blah blah blah”? It’s because, again, they are just a bunch of idiots with guitars who have no talent, even in music.”
You never mentioned anything about having no talent. As a consequence, you have also withdrawn your claim of them having “no substantial income-producing jobs”.
“It takes talent to get to the level of the artists who’s music is being stolen. You don’t see them fighting to see their music get taken away for free. The people who composed, produced, engineered, mixed, and mastered those hit tracks put a lot of their hard-earned time and effort into delivering, and they deserve to be rewarded for their skills.”
The first statement is obviously fallacious. The second statement is meaningless as one is not supposedly to be forced to take things that are free e.g. free mobile phone.
What do you mean by ‘engineer’?
Also, earning and deserving are not the same thing.
“If they don’t, they won’t bother putting out good music, and all we’ll be left with are “Bands [...]“”
That means they have given up, which does not happen when passion is in effect.
@Big Surprise: Not surprising by all means.
What are you on about Big Surprise???? Fleet Foxes have been one of the biggest artists over the past year, it just goes to show that people like you are only interested in the monetary side of music and can’t even be bothered to check out the music and whats making waves creatively out there.
anyone actually bothered about music should appreciate the fact that their music can be heard by a far wider audience, its only the greedy business types that lose out and to be fair i’m sure most of us couldnt care less about them
It’s the record labels that use the argument that they’re “losing money” because of file sharing – trying to brow-beat consumers into a sense guilt for listening to the music that turns them on at any particular moment..
Of course they’re losing money. They are the middle-men who are removed (along with their 95% cut) from the file-sharing equation. Another word for that is “Justice”.
And the musicians & songwriters that agree with them have a lot to lose themselves (contracts with said labels, zillions from distribution deals, etc.), while 99.9% of artists crave the larger audience that file-sharing offers.
You think if we had a referendum on it tomorrow that the music industry fatcats would stand a tiny chance?
Not on your Nelly!
Word soulxtc–Top frigin prize in Billboards Critics Choice section.
I don’t understand how no one is truly flamin the crap out of “Big Surprise” about his (or her) idiotic comment.
He’s right though P2P is just “easy.” what you (Big Surprise) should really be doing is travel all over the world and buying every CD in every store you come across without having a chance to listen to it first (also everything on iTunes and Amazon MP3), then take it home and listen to it. If any (or most) of those CDs you bought turn out to be total garbage just return them to the store you bought them from. That should work. Eventually, you as a musician (I’m assuming you are a musician) will find the music that will inspire your own great work–Maybe next year you will win Billboards Album of the Year. Good Luck.
Flame completed.
But of course, “Big Surprise” can still be incinerated further.
Big Surprise is TRULY an idiot. Of course you haven’t heard of the Fleet Foxes with your head sooooo far up your ass. Your opinion in this matter is obviously irrelevant since your knowledge base is likely limited to the shite music (and propaganda) spoon fed to you by the industry. Why don’t you pick up an instrument and try to make a living with it before you even THINK of spouting off about talent, douche!
The putting down of another band and the mentioning of ‘talent’ are strong indicators that Big Surprise is associated to a band or similar matter. By the ‘blind-assertion’ style of typing with the tendency to emphasize using insults, Big Surprise is likely male.
I have my cousin ranger whom i’m trying to get discover because his every good with music and rapping he wrote his own song with the lyrics i promess you will be discippointed.he is good
Fleet Foxes are actually doing OK and that’s cool. The thing is, they could be doign a lot better…
One by one, this generations artists are failing to break really big and get true renown, like artistic acts in the 90’s did. Why is that? The bands are good.
Could it be that nobody is buting records so nobody is really investing in the bands?
If Arcade Fire had been a band in the early 90’s when people were still buying records, they would have been HUGE becuase they are AWESOME. But whereas Janes Addiction sold millions, Modest Mouse, and AWEOME band, has sold a couple hundred thousand.
Another career fizzle because of file sharing. But fleet foxes have a good idea to market to that segment that takes instead of buys – get them to like you by validating their beliefs and maybe they’ll help spread the word.
Honestly, the foxes are cool, but the whole indie thing is over now. Dead in the water because it couldn’t generate enough income for people to invest.
You are hypocritical, couldn’t stray any further from acknowledging the dynamics of reality, and a disorganized commenter. Your first and last paragraphs are only masking your main statement i.e. making money is the priority of musicians.
The only priority, that is, which it is not.
Right you are D.AN and furthermore Mal Greenborg, Jane’s didn’t sell millions of copies while they were still a band (pre-reunion). They remained fairly underground until after they broke up and another generation of kids discovered them. Like the Pixies another under-appreciated band during their first go-round. You’re quite wrong about “the whole indie thing” being over as major labels are not as willing to sign bands that don’t fit the mainstream model as they used to be. As far as Modest Mouse being a “victim” of file sharing, gimme a break. Yeah they’re a great band, one of my favorites, but they won’t sell as much as Greenday or U2 because most people like non-challenging music. It’s not all about the $$ to the artists who truly care about art.
BTW, in the 90’s there was exponentially less accessibility to new music because that access was controlled by the majors. Because of the current availability of such an unbelievably vast array of music you have to expect that the dollars are going to be more spread out and that being just one of SO many great bands out there is not necessarily going to be the ticket to obscene wealth.
There were always indie labels and thousands of bands, don’t fool yourself. The difference was that there was a chance bands that were a ltitle differnt might be able to make a good living long term, and not stop and get a ‘real job’ when they wanted to own a house or have a kid.
To ask for citation, or to point out your mental retardation? That is the question.
Ritual went platinum in two years. Doolittle was platinum by mid decade.
The reason majors aren’t signing bands that have a lot of hype and a lot of people are listening to is becuase they can’t afford to, they can’t take risks on anyhting challenging, even if they think they might be able to push it though they have to make the safe bets because they don’t have any money. If they don’t have the capital, no one does.
I’ve heard (by heard, I mean read an article once a long time ago and forget the source) that the whole recording industry is profitable only if a minimum of 80% of the artists fail. In essense, they depend on that one hit album, then the artist flopping on the second and having the artist wind up in mountains of debt. When I read that, I thought, “So really, is there any motivation for the industry to cultivate a vibrant musical culture then?”
That’s absolutely true, they, like the publishing and movie arms of the media conglomerates, rely on ‘hits’. It does seem like a stupid model on the face of it and it’s not really good for music – but the problem was not so much that the nature of the beast is bad, because that’s kind of the populist nature of our cultire IMO, people glom onto the thing everyone else likes and its a way for people to get along with one another and build a culture.
The problem starting around 1980 or so was consolidation – like anything where there is no competition, nothing really good comes out of it. No good ‘DNA’. So the answer was smaller labels, but at the end of the eighties they all got gobbled up, and the industry kept consolidating. A lot of the indies now aren;t really, they are seperate companies but funded by the majors.
The internet and cheap distribution could have leveled the playing field and restored competition, which IMO would make for better music as people tried new things again, but if you take most of the money out of the equation, which file sharing does, the little label ‘David’ is not going to get big enough to beat the big label ‘Goliath’ or even really compete. And actually what happend is the little guys have to sell out to the big guys just to keep their little piece of the pie.
Reading comprehension, mal greenborg, do you have any?
Oh, I see, sorry Drew.
Well, the paper debt which is I guess what you are referring to is important to the labels in the sense that they can put it in accounts receivables, but the debt ceases when labels drop a band.. they’re not allowed to spread that debt out over years and years so I don’t see how a scenario like that is possible.
They (labels) definately are able to balance the cash they spend against the amount they are owed, but they do make more money when artists are truly successful. One of The Problems, in my mind, is that you sign a deal, pay the label back the recording costs, and they still own the masters! Ridiculous. In any other indistry it’d be illegal for sure. The artist should own the masters when they are payed for, and the unions were pretty close to being able to fight for that with acts like the Eagles and Nirvana fighting for it, ready to go before Congress, but then the bottom dropped out.
Reading comprehension, malgre, do you have any?
Your first paragraph is in past tense, but your second paragraph is in present tense. Neither are relevant to replying to me. Do I really have to ask?
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86428/band-praises-p2p-for-helping-artists-discover-music/#comment-194328
Yes, mal greenborg, it’s for you.
Mal Greenborg, you should be aware that a vast majority of artists make their money touring, not from record sales, the profits of which are almost entirely owned by the label. The argument that file sharing is robbing smaller “indie” bands of potentially massive record sales profits makes no sense. Secondarily, I don’t think that the business model of the indie label is to morph into a major. Most of these labels were created to fill a vacuum in the music industry that kept non-mainstream music on the fringes. The competition is indeed lopsided and big industry intends to keep it that way. Their whiny complaint that file sharing is hurting everyone, including the artists, is BS and only the gullible and uninformed buy it.
Actually, once the label has recouped recording costs, about a dollar per album goes to the band. For most smaller artists, money they save from touring might get them by in the short time they are at home not touring, but most people don’t start seeing real returns until their ‘in the black’ with the label and getting a lot of airplay – from which they get mechanicals. I don;t know where all this business about artists making most of their money from touring comes from – I’ve only ever heard it in file sharing circles.
Maybe if you look at gross before expenses – sure, there’s a lot of money at the end of the night but after you pay everybody, pay the hotel, the food, keep the bus going, lights and sound if you can afford it, insurance, the agents cut, the booking, etc., etc., what your left with is net, and for a band that can’t ask for much money, that’s not much – and just as often, you have to go to your label for money. It’s called ‘tour support’. Someone’s got to pay the bills and it’s not often somebody’s mother.
And it’s true most little labels that are truly independent (which are few and far between) will cater to niche markets the nig guys aren’t interested in – and a few have amde a career out of that. Very awesome for them. But there’s also the way a lot of little labels make ‘the big payoff’ – if one of their acts gets signed to a major – the major has to buy the bands contract and the indie label stands to gain even more than the band does.
Just for the record (sic) the breakdown of the cost of a CD goes like this – this is a simplification but it goes basically like this: The retailer usually pays from five or seven for it. Anything over that is retailer profit. About one of those five to seven dollars goes to the songwriters. One is the artists share. Two or three goes to media costs. There’s paying the distributor. A lot of the rest is what you call ‘profit’ most of which is invested in artists that cost more then they bring in. Like Fleet Foxes, I’d be suprised greatly if they were anywhere near recouping.
Anyway, downloads can cost a little less because there is no media involved. But the distribution costs are pretty high.
Just more speculation and demonstration of your idiocy.
Well Mal Greenborg, I feel that things have gone very off topic from your statements in defense of the industry war on file sharers. So, you’ve only heard the argument that musicians make more money touring than they do selling albums in file sharing circles? I’ve only heard it in ARTIST circles (and the two are not mutually exclusive, obviously), though I don’t roll with P-Diddy, U2, Britney, etc…Most artists aren’t mega-stars and never will be. For many it’s not because their art isn’t great, but because it is not homogenized to the extent that it is acceptable to the palate of the mass that does not care to be artistically challenged. These are artists who want their music heard and probably would like to make a living at it, but still need to get heard first. You’ve got an article here about one of the Billboard top artists of 2009 AND Trent Reznor defending file sharing as a way of exposing more people to art that isn’t force fed to us by Big Industry. You’re kidding yourself if you think a massive infusion of money to the Majors is going to foster in them a sense of artistic altruism or even integrity.
You clearly see file sharing as a root of the problem that was there LONG before the internet. Do you work as an intern for Sony or something?
Well, the business is the business and I’ve tried to break it down for you. I’ve read the opinion article here and I’ve also read articles where Trent said the opposite.
How exactly do you see file sharing helping a band ‘get heard’? Because it doesn’t. Do you go to pirate bay and type in ‘music I like’ or ‘good movies’ and the good shit comes up? Nope. You type in something you’ve already heard about somewhere else. You’ve most likely already listened to a stream somewhere else, or seen them. But you want to have it. Now you go to Isohunt or whatever and you get your free copy for your Mp3 player. End of story. The promotional value of file sharing per se is zero.
Just more speculation and demonstration of your persistent idiocy.
Mal Greenborg, your “breakdown” of the Industry is irrelevant to this argument.
The promo value of file sharing is nil you say? Nil?
Sharing music one has enjoyed with other individuals who may not have been exposed to said music, individuals who then may go on to later legitimately purchase material by that artist who lacks the exposure of mainstream media has no value? For some artists that is the broadest source of exposure they could hope for. Exposure which couldn’t be bought for thousands of dollars.
It used be called dubbing when people copied cassette tapes and shared them. Are you too young to remember the mix tape? Granted the scale was much smaller, but it was a practice which many hip hop pioneers not only embraced, but were discovered as a result of.
Furthermore, who wants to purchase an entire album after hearing just a song or two from a particular artist anymore? Teenagers maybe, though I bet most of them are also more savvy than that.
We’re not talking about using someone’s art as a mere commodity (like toilet paper, Mal Greenborg) to make a profit which the artist is summarily fucked out of. That’s what the Industry is for.
Yeah, you just remove money from the equation altogether. What right do you have to tell an artist that his work should be free? What do you do for a living? I think you should do that for free. That’s telling someone they should be a slave – that you want their work for free. Personally, I think slavery is wrong.
Handing someone a tape or a cd is way different than ’sharing’. Nobody finds out about anyhting from sharing – it’s the end point. It’s where you go after you already know about something and want a free copy. Sending someone a link to a myspace page is kind of like giving someone a tape – if they like it., they can go download the whole record without paying for it. And you know full well that once you have the record, you’re not going to buy the thing. Just admit it.
Mix tapes had an immediate effect on art. It’s been ten years and all file sharing has done is to pull the rug out from under people and wreck the music business. And more imprtantly, it’s wrecking the interent. It uses up all the bandwidth that we all pay for, and just think about it, how long can you steal in the public square before there’s cops and cameras everywhere? Thanks!
Good thing you wrote “Thanks!” as the last word of you post. Now I don’t need to read your idiotic rant-wall.
your*
“How exactly do you see file sharing helping a band ‘get heard’? Because it doesn’t.”
The fact that my music has an audience completely debunks that perception. I wouldn’t have people appreciating my music if it weren’t for p2p let alone nearly a quarter of a million.
Thank you Drew Wilson! I wasn’t going to pull out that card, but I’ll also let it be known then that p2p has gotten my music heard and played on air in various countries around the world where I had no distribution otherwise. Also, Mal Greenborg, as far as your retarded comment, “all file sharing has done is pull the rug out from under people and wreck the music industry,” what people I ask? Britney, U2? Cry me a fucking river! The music industry has always treated music as a product to profit off of for it’s own gain, not to help artists become discovered or support themselves. You sir are deluded.
Furthermore, Mal Greenborg, I actually buy most of my music on itunes or my local independent record shop and occasionally share the (now) old-fashioned way by burning CD’s. I am not supporting file sharing as a file sharer is what I’m saying, Mal Greenborg, but as an artist.
You could just as easily distributed your music via http or ftp. P2P does not promote music, it is a distributution medium.
As for the rest, shoot yourself in the foot if you want. Have fun with that.
Dallasburns: “I actually buy most of my music on itunes or my local independent record shop and occasionally share the (now) old-fashioned way by burning CD’s.”
malgre: “You could just as easily distributed your music via http or ftp.”
I’m looking at the word “distributed”, malgre, let alone “http or ftp”.
“As for the rest, shoot yourself in the foot if you want. Have fun with that.”
You writing statements such as this is why you’re an imbecile.
I said exactly. How does the distribution medium of p2p benefit your music? Seeding a torrent doesn’t promote your music, it just provides access. It certainly is cheaper distribution – as cheap as bandwidth is, it’s cheaper. But the existence of your music on filesharing networks does nothing to promote it – you do that by pointing to it, telling people about it, playing out, ads, web presence, etc. all the normal things, promotion mediums. P2P does not promote anyone’s music – it is a distribution medium.
“How does the distribution medium of p2p benefit your music?”
You need to figure that out on your own.
“as cheap as bandwidth is”
Now that’s an ignorant statement.
“But the existence of your music on filesharing networks does nothing to promote it”
DrewWilson has said otherwise. Repeating this claim is pointless unless you have actually proved it.
“… all the normal things …”
What do you mean by normal?
“P2P does not promote anyone’s music – it is a distribution medium.”
This statement is another reason why no one is bothering to elaborate for you. Your arrogance is not justified if you do not understand how P2P can be used to promote music.