Your responses to our question last week about whether or not your music should be downloaded for FREE were as varied as the types of music you play. But one thing is certain: Most indie artists believe that FREE music downloads-- in some controlled way--can actually help their careers. Where do you stand on this issue? Author Bob Baker continues his discussion of topics that affect artists in the Digital Age here.

Welcome to the second week of the new "Plugged-In" column. In last week's debut column, I examined the wide array of philosophies regarding music in the Digital Age. From people who feel any art form in a digital format should be free (at least for them, when no one else is looking) to musicians who guard their sounds and want to charge fans for any exposure to their songs.

"These issues are critical for all musicians today," writes a Getsigned.com reader who goes by the name of Griz. "The sad thing is, many of us don't  realize it. They're also critical for fans, and even fewer of them realize how important these issues are. Somehow the paradigm in the industry has to shift, but how is anyone's guess. I'm trying to keep my ear to the ground and get ahead of the wave, but I'll be happy if I just get washed up on shore."

How true. A lot of musicians are excited by the Internet but maintain a wait-and-see attitude. Like all new shifts in history, the dust will settle. But where, like Griz says, is anyone's guess. He does, however, offer some thoughts on what the future may hold. For instance, Griz points out the dizzying amount of music legally available on the 'Net from independent artists.

"Of course, much of it is not of professional quality," Griz remarks, "but I've heard some great stuff online, too. If someone in the industry can figure out a.) how to match people with the music they like, and b.) how to make sure artists get paid for it, we'll really have something. Some smart person will come along and figure out how to do that and bust the whole thing wide open."

When it comes to major label subscription services, Griz says, "I think that's probably part of the solution, but in my opinion, the majors have no real motivation to make a digital subscription service either economical or friendly. I predict they'll screw it up by making mostly stuff nobody wants easily available, and making it prohibitively expensive. Since their goal is to squeeze more art out of the artist for less money and more money out of the consumer for less art, they will apply that model to their subscription services."

Regarding the many legal battles to slow the spread of free-for-all music downloads, reader Mark Pulley says, "I'm glad Metallica got the ball rolling with the legalities. Maybe when it's my time in the spotlight, I won't have to worry about losing money. I think something needs to be done to keep people from getting all digital music for free. That's why artists create it: to make money. If they don't profit, they can't tour, they can't make another album and so on. I like the idea of having a couple of songs to preview, but having whole music libraries for free is definitely bad for the artists."

Sean Breach was a little miffed after reading the following section from last week's column:

"Give away everything you ever create. Talent is a gift you should share with everyone without requiring compensation -- ever."

Breach opines, "While I agree that it's important to give away free CDs and that free downloads of music are an important promotional tool for new artists seeking exposure, that comment represents a dangerous trend in thinking that -- no matter how you put it -- is not beneficial to artists. Why perpetuate the idea that art should be free in the first place? This philosophy seems short-sighted."

(To clarify, the two sentences from my column that Breach refers to were part of a list of various attitudes that musicians and fans hold. I didn't endorse any one idea as the way to go, but only included them to show different viewpoints. Even though my words may have been misinterpreted, he does have some valid points on the topic of free downloads:

"Ever since Napster hit the news, people have been making comments like this. I think it really devalues art and artists of all kinds. Artists have to support themselves just like anyone else who creates a product. The idea that the public is entitled to have free access to this product is ridiculous. Art costs money to make. And artists who don't have to keep day jobs to support themselves create better art."

Breach continues: "Why should art automatically be available to everyone? Is health care? Is software? People are blurring the line between promotion and just 'giving stuff away.' Giving stuff away based on the hope that it will somehow, somewhere down the line generate some kind of alternate/peripheral income is a huge part of why the new economy has tanked recently. We do need a hard product or substantial service to sell to make this work, just like any other business.

"I understand there are other ways to make money, such as playing live,  corporate sponsorship, etc. But those are not necessarily available to all artists in all genres. For instance, people pay lots of money to hear dance  music, but many artists creating this music make substantially less than the DJs who play it. Without that hard product, or the relative long shot possibility of the music being slapped onto a car commercial for a ton of money, how are these artists going to survive? Unless you're in a band that can tour North America playing colleges, you're basically making music as charity work."

Breach is nothing if not passionate about fair compensation for musicians. People who encourage the free distribution of copyrighted material, Breach says, "especially those associated with the music industry, create the public expectation that artists should be perfectly happy not to be compensated for what they do. That kind of talk trains people to perceive artists who expect to be compensated as selfish and materialistic.

"Is music really worthless? Does it really belong to the public? Should artists be ashamed to charge the public for providing them with something that can and does enrich their lives significantly? In our society most people live comparatively luxurious lives. The whining I've been hearing lately about ticket prices, CD prices, etc. seems incredibly childish in a land where $100 sneakers, cell phones, DVDs, etc. are de rigueur."

What do you think about FREE music in the Digital Age? Should you give away most of your music online to promote yourself? Can fans be counted on to buck up for music from newer, lesser-known acts?

Something to think about in this Digital Age.

Have a great week!

-Bob

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  Website Back	Bob Baker
	Bob Baker is an author, indie musician and former music magazine editor dedicated to showing musicians of all kinds how to get exposure, connect with fans, sell more CDs, and increase their incomes.   Bob Baker is the author of "Guerrilla Music Marketing Handbook," "Killer Press Kits" and "MySpace Music Marketing" and more. He also publishes TheBuzzFactor.com, a web site and e-zine that deliver marketing tips, self-promotion ideas and other empowering messages to music people of all kinds. Get your FREE subscription to Bob's e-zine by visiting http://TheBuzzFactor.com today.
	List all articles by Bob Baker

Trackback(0)

Comments (0)

Write comment