Art For Art's Sake, Money For God's Sake
posted by John Surname @ 2:04 PM
I grabbed this from Ericstewart.co.uk:
Although it’s good to see that legal download sites such as iTunes are being used more and more, and counting the sales towards chart positions, it’s sad to see that illegal downloading of music still goes on all the time. Eric feels really strongly about this and has a message for anyone out there (this is not specifically aimed at regular readers) who download music without payment against that artist’s wishes or interests:
“I am the position at the moment of deciding on whether or not to release a new album, after 2/3 years or writing and recording it.
I am faced with the dilemma of possible illegal downloading.
That facility means that I, the artist, who creates new songs and music for you, the public, may not receive a penny for all the hard graft I have put into the project.
Some of you out there will feel that all music should be available and shared freely.
Do you expect your supermarket to give you their products freely, or your pub to pull you a pint for nothing? Of course you don’t!
Do you realise that you could be cutting off the lifeblood for music eventually?
You are robbing your favourite artists of their living!
Do you not see that if this illegal (and it is still illegal) use of an artist’s copyright will kill new music stone dead!
Can you imagine what would have happened if we had had illegal downloading when The Beatles, The Stones, 10cc and other successful UK bands started? None of us would have got past our first album without income to support their eventual development and success!
I am asking you to consider the wide ranging detrimental effect of illegal downloading and try to support your writers, musicians and artists, like me, to make a living by promising yourself not to download illegally and try to stamp out the companies who encourage it.
I’m not talking about the ‘paid for’ tracks like iTunes, just the guys who feel robbing artists is OK!"
Personally, I maintain downloading IS ok, as long as the music isn't available to you, and you've exhausted all oppurtunities of trying to find it (A. Raincoat's Digalongamacs for instance, or my Godley & Creme albums, all of which I have bought since), or when I own already the record, and want an MP3 copy for my iPod. But downloading music you can get yourself is pretty lame, and I can understand why so many musicians are getting pissed off.
But record companies....? These guys screw artists far more than downloaders ever will. I searched far and wide for some artists thought into the matter, and disturbingly, found the most intelligent opinion from Weird Al.
"Tim Sloane of Ijamsville, MD asks: Al, which of these purchasing methods should I use in order to make sure the most profit gets to you: Buying one of your albums on CD, or buying one of your albums on iTunes?
'I am extremely grateful for your support, no matter which format you choose to legally obtain my music in, so you should do whatever makes the most sense for you personally. But since you ASKED… I actually do get significantly more money from CD sales, as opposed to downloads. This is the one thing about my renegotiated record contract that never made much sense to me. It costs the label NOTHING for somebody to download an album (no manufacturing costs, shipping, or really any overhead of any kind) and yet the artist (me) winds up making less from it. Go figure.' "
There you have it, and this coming from a guy who is probably the most downloaded artist I can think of. Typing his name into Limewire, I have gotten thousands and thousands of songs. Way more than TMBG (another hugely downloaded band, who have their own MP3 site www.theymightbegiants.com, check it out!)
But here are some ways in which record companies screw artists:
Although it’s good to see that legal download sites such as iTunes are being used more and more, and counting the sales towards chart positions, it’s sad to see that illegal downloading of music still goes on all the time. Eric feels really strongly about this and has a message for anyone out there (this is not specifically aimed at regular readers) who download music without payment against that artist’s wishes or interests:
“I am the position at the moment of deciding on whether or not to release a new album, after 2/3 years or writing and recording it.
I am faced with the dilemma of possible illegal downloading.
That facility means that I, the artist, who creates new songs and music for you, the public, may not receive a penny for all the hard graft I have put into the project.
Some of you out there will feel that all music should be available and shared freely.
Do you expect your supermarket to give you their products freely, or your pub to pull you a pint for nothing? Of course you don’t!
Do you realise that you could be cutting off the lifeblood for music eventually?
You are robbing your favourite artists of their living!
Do you not see that if this illegal (and it is still illegal) use of an artist’s copyright will kill new music stone dead!
Can you imagine what would have happened if we had had illegal downloading when The Beatles, The Stones, 10cc and other successful UK bands started? None of us would have got past our first album without income to support their eventual development and success!
I am asking you to consider the wide ranging detrimental effect of illegal downloading and try to support your writers, musicians and artists, like me, to make a living by promising yourself not to download illegally and try to stamp out the companies who encourage it.
I’m not talking about the ‘paid for’ tracks like iTunes, just the guys who feel robbing artists is OK!"
Personally, I maintain downloading IS ok, as long as the music isn't available to you, and you've exhausted all oppurtunities of trying to find it (A. Raincoat's Digalongamacs for instance, or my Godley & Creme albums, all of which I have bought since), or when I own already the record, and want an MP3 copy for my iPod. But downloading music you can get yourself is pretty lame, and I can understand why so many musicians are getting pissed off.
But record companies....? These guys screw artists far more than downloaders ever will. I searched far and wide for some artists thought into the matter, and disturbingly, found the most intelligent opinion from Weird Al.
"Tim Sloane of Ijamsville, MD asks: Al, which of these purchasing methods should I use in order to make sure the most profit gets to you: Buying one of your albums on CD, or buying one of your albums on iTunes?
'I am extremely grateful for your support, no matter which format you choose to legally obtain my music in, so you should do whatever makes the most sense for you personally. But since you ASKED… I actually do get significantly more money from CD sales, as opposed to downloads. This is the one thing about my renegotiated record contract that never made much sense to me. It costs the label NOTHING for somebody to download an album (no manufacturing costs, shipping, or really any overhead of any kind) and yet the artist (me) winds up making less from it. Go figure.' "
There you have it, and this coming from a guy who is probably the most downloaded artist I can think of. Typing his name into Limewire, I have gotten thousands and thousands of songs. Way more than TMBG (another hugely downloaded band, who have their own MP3 site www.theymightbegiants.com, check it out!)
But here are some ways in which record companies screw artists:
- Pay bands half royalties on overseas sales, most bands don't check.
- Charge the cost of recording an album, producer, extra musicians etc to the band, and not pay them anything until those costs are recovered. If the album is a flop, the band will OWE the record company money!
- The record company owns your work, unless you happen to be very famous, like Madonna, or have worked for years to get it back, like Sparks, who are still fighting for the majority of their collection.
- Charge $30 for somthing that costs $1 to make, and pay the artist very few royalties...why? because they still pay artists the SAME ROYALTY AMOUNT AS THEY DID DURING THE DAYS OF VINYL. Meaning, today an artist gets payed the same royalty rate for a $25 CD as he would of in 1975 for a $10 record. They simply pocket the rest.
- Pay musicians a lump sum, and then reap the profits for the music's life.
And why don't we hear about any of this?"
"If any of this bothers you as much as it does us, then you might be wondering why you've never heard about any of this or why no anti-trust action was ever taken against major labels and distributors. The answer to this is quite simple. Most of the reporting on the inner workings of the record business comes from the music press and the music press is almost totally reliant on the advertising dollars and good will of the business that they're writing about. So, in the interest of not wanting to "rock the boat" or anger the folks who essentially bankroll their publishing ventures, this story would, and will continue to remain, unreported. And with the coming "popularity" of DVD, the music industry looks like it is ready to try the same tricks all over again. " - Negativland.com
Now go and read this book, if only because it's better than The DaVinci Code. Which is a piece of shit.
But now that you know the truth, it doesn't mean you can download willy-nilly. Do buy the bands music, but remember the best way to support them is to see them live. Thank you and GOODNIGHT!
