A few of the bigger stories out of the music industry lately have been major artists seperating from their labels. Madonna, NIN, Radiohead – they all garnered attention recently.
It’s interesting to me on many levels, but the one I tend to focus on is that somehow between there and here entertainment in general seems to have lost it’s value with people. That’s not to say they don’t want it, but rather they don’t want to pay for it.
I blame the internet. (well, I blame the internet for a lot of things – I truly believe for every monumental step forward thanks to it’s widespread use, there is probably an equal step backwards in another area…but I digress)
About a month ago Jeff posted a little bit in his blog about Trent Reznor dumping the label NIN was on. I dropped a comment or two there – you might want to go read it as that’s the direction I’m heading with this.
I really think the public in general has totally devalued music…and I think it sucks. Further proof came today as early results of Radiohead’s big “pay what you want” experiment came out.
Turns out 62% of the people who downloaded it said, “Fuck You, gimme, gimme, gimme!”
The other 38% who actually felt the music had value collectively decided it was worth $6 on average.
Or in other terms – for every 100 downloads the band received $228 in return. The public has spoken and a band that’s wildly popular and critically acclaimed (as much as or moreso than any recent artist) has had their music valued at $2.28 per album. Less than 23 cents per song.
Something that you can enjoy (and why would you download if you don’t enjoy it) for eternity…literally forever. Something that can bring you entertainment, inspire emotion, set the tone for future memories (come on, we all have those songs that remind us of something) – something like that is worth less than 23 cents to people.
That’s fucked up, right there.
(and for the record, I’m not a fan of the band)
I dunno. I suppose it was even a little irresponsible of the band to allow this to happen. Like it’s ok to make the music worthless.
This is where it goes back to the comments I made over on Jeff’s blog. That’s fine if you’re an artist of the caliber of a Radiohead or a Trent Reznor or a Madonna who has spent a decade (or two…or three depending) building a career, a fanbase and financial security.
What about all the struggling up-and-comers?
Let’s face it. Radiohead is will be fine with this arrangement. They stand to make a shitload even at $2.28 per download. But only because they used the very system they’re now denouncing (the music industry in general) to get there. Ditto with all the others that have gone ‘grassroots’ with their music careers.
All this does now is force those wanna-bees or less popular artists to devlaue their music as well. Moves like this do set a precedent…but it seems like the wrong one to me. It sets the precedent that it’s ok to pay nothing for another person’s work.
I dunno.
I don’t really have a nice point to tie this all up with. It’s more a collection of what runs through my head when I read about these artists trying this or about the industry in general – and it’s probably incomplete and certainly not a comprehensive collection of those thoughts.
On one hand the whole thing is exciting in that the game is changing – it will never be the same. I’m just not sure I’m convinced that it’s for the better yet.
#1 by Tekno on November 6th, 2007
Quote
While I agree that we’ve started to ‘devalue’ music and movies and other things that can be attained fairly easily thru oft illegal digital means, I think the first step in the devaluing came from the Record Companies, and that is really sucky for the up and comers.
Like you said, you have to be popular to be successful (although I feel that is starting to change), but when record labels started to focus on the Britany Spears and Backstreet Boy group, hardly talented kids who looked good and sold to the demographic there was no shortage of (teens asking mommy and daddy for money), they devalued music.
They still made you pay a buttload for a CD that really wasn’t as valuable as the cost. Sure, the cost to produce the album goes beyond the physical media into actual production, but when you’re selling Crap for $16.99 and then people realize “Hey, I should only be paying for the songs I like” (intro iTunes), then you get people only willing to pay $2.88 for an album from anyone, because we’ve all been so burned in the past.
I mean, sure, not everyone is likely to like every single song on every album. I LOVE me some Janet Jackson, but I still don’t like every song on her albums. But where I would pay the $16.99 for her and then turn around and pay $50 for a boxed set for her, I wouldn’t pay that price for someone who I think only has one actual ‘GOOD’ song on their overproduced album.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think the record labels started to devalue the music (and the artists) before the public ever did.
#2 by jeffyjones on November 7th, 2007
Quote
One thing to keep in mind is that Radiohead keeps nearly all of that money. I doubt they were making that much from their record company.
Pingback: Lord Gonchar - The Plan To Save The Music Biz
Pingback: Lord Gonchar - Starving Musicians