Not all free albums cost the same.

Yesterday I rambled on about how I wasn’t going to download any more music for free. That still stands, this is not a retraction. What I want to talk about today is giving away music for free. I do this while listening to a free demo from the band Alkahest. I had never heard of them until Metal Sucks posted an article and provided a link to the download page from the band’s website. I’m listening to it now and it’s pretty good.

Is this the way bands should operate? I’m not so sure, yet. I’ll all for giving music away that you are proud of and want people to hear. I respect bands that are not into it for fame or fortune and just love creating music and performing. But is this the big paradigm shift in music that it is toted to be?

About two years ago on The Hour, George Stroumboulopoulos asked Josh Homme from Queens of the Stone Age what he thought about giving away entire albums on a pay-what-you-want scheme like Radiohead had just done (In Rainbows had been released six months prior to the interview). John’s answer was simple “I think it’s great if you are Radiohead.” George asked what he meant by that. “Well, try that as a new band, you know?”

I think Josh is exactly on point. Radiohead has been, and will probably continue to be one of the biggest bands on the planet. Of course everyone would be interested in what they were doing, because they were already fucking Radiohead. With websites like Pitchfork (among many others) reviewing every album and reporting every little bit of news they could get their hands on, there were already millions of fans just waiting to see what the band would do next.

Radiohead has their own studio. Not just a couple of rooms in a building, but the have their own studio all to themselves known as “the house that Creep built” (Thanks Alan Cross). When their song “Creep” (from The Bends) was released the second time in 1993, it was a massive hit. They were signed to EMI and made fuckloads of money. Having your own studio allows one to record at your own pace, without label executives breathing down your neck, counting every minute as more money spent. To be honest, Radiohead can choose to never release another song again, and they’d be fine (financially). So of course releasing an album with little or no financial investment from a label, at a pay-what-you-want price, recorded in a studio you have full control over is not going to be a huge risk. [yes, they also offered CD versions and the discbox if you decided to pay a certain corresponding amount, but that's another matter] If you’re a new band, and don’t have the built-in audience that a band like Radiohead has, what are you supposed to do? Why would buy their CD at a show for $15 when online it is available for however much (or little) you want it to be? This goes back to a label promoting a band they feel can thrive and wondering if their hard work (and of course effort from the band is the most important part) is going to pay off. I’m not an industry analyst or anything of the sort, so maybe I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.

Trent Reznor did it with NIN’s The Slip, Girl Talk did it with Feed the Animals, Danger Mouse did it with The Grey Album etc etc etc. I’m sure well see more bands and artists doing it. But my main question is this; is this what the future of music is really going to look like? It’s been about two and a half years since In Rainbows, and many other bands are still doing it the conventional way. Labels still exist. iTunes has had more than TEN BILLION songs downloaded from its store. Clearly people are still buying music. Sure, CD sales may not be where they were 10, or even 5 years ago.

What else you got?

Your (copy)rights.

I have decided that I will no longer download music or movies for free, unless explicitly endorsed by the artists involved. If a band gives me some music for free, I will take. Otherwise, I will pay for it.

I have thought about this for a long time, and it has some to a point to where I can no longer justify illegally downloading. I have heard arguments ranging from “I don’t have money to spend on music/DVDs” to “The corporations are evil so they deserve to have their shit stolen” to “Bands make more money from touring and merch sales than they do from CD sales.”

Don’t get me wrong. I used to believe all of these things. Especially the first, as being a student, and never having a “real” job. I have downloaded a lot of music and movies. But no more.

Let’s first focus on the first argument in favour of downloading: I don’t have enough money to buy music, so I just download. The biggest issue I have with this ideology is it implies having access to music is a right. No matter what financial obstacles you may have, you should be able to have new music. This is bullshit. Access to music or art is not an inalienable right. Food, shelter, religious freedoms, free speech, equal access to education and social services are rights. Having the latest Baroness or Jay Z record is not. You can’t walk into a store and start taking jeans with the excuse that you don’t have enough money to buy them outright. The same applies to music. Even what you are taking are physically intangible digital files, the same rules must apply. The creator of whatever music you like invested similar creative energy into the final product as someone who designs clothing. They two things, music and jeans, are not similar, but the are both the end product of someone’s creative vision. Do they not hold similar rights as how each of their creations are distributed to the public?

Second point: corporations are evil. No shit. Corporations have caused some of the most abhorrent work conditions and participated in the most maligned business practices that we have ever seen. I make no issue with this fact. Juggernauts such as Time Warner and Universal Music Group have so much financial wherewithal that it’s quite staggering. They probably could buy their own planets. But that is their goal. They exist to make money. If that means selling music, so be it. They have a global reach which means I can pick up their latest releases from anywhere in the world via their vast distribution channels. Maybe you have an issue with globalization or the commodification of music in general. As long as artists are paid fairly and retain reasonable control over their art, I am fine with the existence of big labels. Artists and musicians create art and music not only to express themselves, but also to make a living. It is a music business. Sure, the way things were done in the past in the industry just don’t work anymore so I wholeheartedly agree that their methods are in need of an update. But musicians are not the corporations. Should these individuals suffer poor CDs sales, and incur the corresponding repercussions (not being able to repay recording fees, or being kicked off entirely), because you don’t like the parent group of a particular label? I don’t think that it is fair.

Yes, bands can establish their own labels. But the majority of those who have their own labels have already enjoyed financial and/or critical success, and/or are still a part of a larger label. The Dillinger Escape plan formed their own label called Party Smasher Inc. after signing to Season of Mist. Even though DEP have their label, their music is still licensed by Season of Mist. Music released on Season of Mist is distributed by Caroline Distribution which was founded by Virgin Records. Kanye West founded his G.O.O.D. Music label after he had signed his first deal with Roc A Fella Records (founded by Jay Z, Damon Dash, and another dude you’ve never heard of) which is distributed by Def Jam Recordings which then part Island Def Jam Music Group and Mercury Music Group which are both part of Universal. These connections are needed to reach the fans. Yes, bands have and will continue to release their own music independently. But if they want to reach a sizable audience so that they can feed and cloth themselves and their families, maybe the need these bigger partners. Can musicians and artists afford to pay for recording, pay for mixing and mastering, pay for artwork, pay for CD pressing, pay for shipping to stores, pay for advertising/webspace, pay for music gear (drums, basses, guitars, keyboards, strings, microphones, patchcords, amplifiers etc etc etc) all out of their own pockets? Not if they want to make a proper living.

Point three: bands make more money touring than they do from music sales. I don’t question that this statement is probably, most likely, absolutely true. But think, who gets these bands touring in the first place? The labels and other tour sponsors. Who is going to pay for a van/bus, gas, food, insurance? That merch money will get used pretty fucking fast if they don’t have financial support. The (good) music labels provide this financial stability for bands so that they can focus on writing and playing music, and not worrying if they can afford to make it to the next gig.  Merch is also expensive to produce. If you want to make t-shirts for your band to tell at your shows, you initially start in the hole. Like every investment, it takes some time to break even. If you don’t support the musicians by purchasing their music, the labels have no incentive to sign, support and promote new music because it won’t be worth it. I know this is a rather capitalist stance I am taking here but it doesn’t make it any less true. Many smaller labels like Relapse, Arts & Crafts, DFA, Ed Banger, and Ipecac (among many many many others), were founded by people who love music, and want to share the music they love. Some have no aspirations of huge financial success. Some are alright with breaking even. But these people who invest their time and their energy into their labours of love deserve to be compensated for their hard work. That’s why music sales are important. They own the rights, in conjunction with their artists, to the music they release, and we shouldn’t be allowed to take it without proper permission or payment.

I still do have issues with copyright. I fucking hate digital rights management (DRM). If I buy something from iTunes, I should be able to play it on any non-Apple sanctioned device that I see fit. If I buy something from the Microsoft Marketplace, I should be able to listen to those same files on my iPod. I think if I pay for music, I should be able to do what I like with the product which I have purchased. I should be able to sample, mash-up, cut up, and recontextualize it however I see fit. If I buy a magazine, I can cut it up and make a collage without anyone getting their panties in a twist. If I go into a book store and set Slaughterhouse Five on fire without paying for it as a part of some sort of creative expression, that’s not right. If I bought it, I can do whatever I want with it. Anything except copying and distributing it without permission, since those receiving copies did not pay for access to said art. Again, access to art is not a right. Creating art is. That’s a big difference. I think licensing fees have gotten out of hand. For Tom Green’s movie Freddie Got Fingered, the Doors wanted almost $400,000 to use a clip of one of their songs in the movie. That’s insane. As an artist, you have the right to decide where your music goes and what it is a part of, but that’s just being greedy. Permission is of course needed to use or reference another’s work. In that terrible song “I Love College” by Asher Roth, he originally wanted to use a sample from “Say It Ain’t So” by Weezer. He approached Rivers from Weezer and asked for permission, and Rivers declined since the Weezer song is about River’s Dad’s alcoholism, and Roth’s song is about drunken college debauchery. Yes, the song was put online with the Weezer sample, but the official album version contains different backing music. I have no problems with this situation. That’s what we need: communication between creative individuals so that more art can be created. What we don’t need more of is a bunch of lawyers and labels threatening to sue everyone over the use of samples.

Fuck, I hate the Doors. More later.