I've been reading about the music industry's problems with illegal downloading for a while now trying to figure out where it's all going to lead. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any particular allegiance to the labels -- their executives have been making money hand-over-fist for years while the artists have made most of their income on gigs. In the history of record companies and recording artists, there are few musicians -- even big name musicians -- who made any kind of substantial income from their royalties. By touring, musicians employ people, create a one-of-a-kind experience, and make a decent buck for themselves along the way. And, who wouldn't want at least a couple cross-country trips on the band bus? Seems like a win-win. Shaking their fists in the background are the labels who've been cut out of the loop by free downloads and file-sharing. Are they just being spoiled sports?
You could say that consumers getting free music is just trading one tyrant for another. Will there ever be a time when artists can make the majority of the money from their own work -- all aspects of their own work? Musicians -- who will serve as my example here -- have, in essence, conceded the possibility for making money in royalties because of the bad behavior of labels. Now that consumers can download their work for free, musicians are getting the short end of the stick again. They're the ones that wrote the songs, created the arrangements, hired the band, worked and re-worked their sound into something identifiable and attractive -- at least to their fans.
Often when I hear someone talk about putting an event together, someone will say, "And we can get the __________ for free." (Insert: band, actors, poets, dancers, etc.) Why is that? What will have to happen for the public -- yes, you consumers -- to value artistic output as worth at least the price of a download? (Which, honestly, isn't that much).
Some say that artists will create no matter what -- even if they can't make a living at it. But I've known a number of artists by this point who have become other things -- real estate agents, bankers, lawyers...and they were really talented people -- because they couldn't make enough money to rent even a crappy apartment. All swore to keep up their art on the side. Most are lucky if they jam a little in their garage now and then.
Are consumers who want the product for free any better than the greedy record executives? Is there anything to do about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey, there!:
Thank you for this thoughtful post. Yours is probably the best blog I've encountered so far on this semester-long pair-up project.
You bring up a provocative question: why does the artist always get the financial shaft? At the risk of oversimplifying (or self-pitying), I will offer a culprit more timeless and steadfast than current technology or business politics: art seems easy and disposable.
Good art is meant to be effortless. A hypnotic song, a lush painting, a mindblowing film, a labyrinthine book... Gifted artists of any kind make their work give off the air of spontaneity and instant magic. Therefore, this lack of understanding that audiences inherently have in terms of the hard work and labor put into these masterworks they are appreciating causes us to say, "Why should I pay? I'm-a get it for free."
Furthermore, art is widely seen as a diversion and diversion only. It's fun to have, but who REALLY needs it? We all loved "The Dark Knight," but no one's going to keel over and die if it were erased from our collective memory. This perception that art is a whole lot of fun but not essential to our lives is what causes me to go on Limewire and download that Barenaked Ladies song that I've been humming to myself all day... but if Barenaked Ladies showed up at my door and demanded a sawbuck as compensation for the time it took to write, record, produce, and distribute that song, I'd be like, "....Nah, I can live without you guys."
I think that once people start appreciating the thought and labor that goes into the art they're absorbing on a daily basis, and once people start considering art as more than just a fun thing to play with, then artists will finally get their due.
For now, though, it's suffering for our art, 23/6. (It's not so torturous all the time.)
I really enjoyed the last paragraph you wrote on your latest blog. I have noticed so much talent go to waste because artists can’t make enough money. I feel it is true that artist will keep producing art, even in a time where it is very hard to make a living doing so.
I feel centuries ago a good artist was harder to find, and this created more money and respect to artists. I feel in the 19th centenary the world has created much more artistic people. Musicians, painters, and performers have flocked to the big city’s to make their art heard, and this means tougher competition for artists. With so much art out there it is really easy to get it for free. I have even noticed a lot of people don’t pay for canvas anymore, because it is much cheaper to buy a ten-dollar poster of a painting. The sad thing is that a lot of good art is overlooked, and I think a lot of good artists today quit because its hard to make a buck.
Post a Comment