I agree with Neil Young. The Internet is the new Radio. When reading the assigned chapter for this week, we got a breakdown of how much money artists actually get in CD (album) sales. I have always believed the artists make the bulk of their money from touring and doing live shows, although the book never mentioned how much they get from touring, it certainly looks like album sales is not the bread and butter.
Piracy is not a solution, but it is not going away either. It can be argued that consumers are pirating because society is wanting record labels and distributors to embrace the internet and technology. I personally believe, if artists come out and make statements such as Neil Young has made, it will only sell more tickets to the live shows. Pirating gives consumers an ability to sample new tracks at their leisure. In a culture that is getting evermore time conscious, we do not always have the luxury to sit around and listen to a radio, devoting our full attention to it, in the hopes that new song will play within the next 45 minutes so we can concentrate on it. Luckily, we have legal forms of music sampling that will play a song of choice on demand for free. I have personally been using Spotify since the day it launched. I was living in Sweden at the time and quickly realized how Spotify has almost eliminated the need to pirate any music. The artists do not make much money from Spotify, but they do gain exposure, popularity, and feedback. We do not live in an ideal world, there must always exist some give-and-take. From looking at the numbers, I would say the real criminals are those non-talent suits who are profiteering off the real talent.
This is a capitalistic country and our laws have been tailored accordingly. Music is product, made to be bought and sold, wither or not its art. What record companies do, is just like what every company does: make money. A artist signs a contract with a record company and wither they read it or not, it will mostly likely put the company in charge of the artist. Now that artist is not an artist but a product, used to be bought and sold, and the record company has a contract to prove it. But its not all to bad. That same record company will pour a fortune in order to push that product image into as much light as possible. Once fame is acquired who is to blame; the artist or all the money the record company used? According to that contract, its the company. That artist had nothing to be with being popular, and it was just the money used to push the image...and its perfectly legal
Why then do artist all over the states go to record companies to push their image? If it makes an artist into a product then why would they do it? Is it because hey don't have enough money to push their music into the mainstream? Picasso, one of the most famous artist in the world, died a poor unknown painter. I'm sure if he had a record company to push his product his life would have been better. I would argue that people don't really know art, and that record companies attract consumers because they know what we like. America has a mainstream media, one that will reach the eyes and ears of just about anyone. I'd hope who ever is in charge of showing the mainstream media what art is, with out having to make me plow through hundreds of records, is getting paid well. Needless to say, I would love for music to free, and all musicians to be broke. (that way its just art and no product) I just wish people will get over owning music. As I read on other posts, we all agree: everything can be streamed online for free....as long as we watch their ads. Ho-ray!
I agree with Neil Young. The Internet is the new Radio. When reading the assigned chapter for this week, we got a breakdown of how much money artists actually get in CD (album) sales. I have always believed the artists make the bulk of their money from touring and doing live shows, although the book never mentioned how much they get from touring, it certainly looks like album sales is not the bread and butter.
ReplyDeletePiracy is not a solution, but it is not going away either. It can be argued that consumers are pirating because society is wanting record labels and distributors to embrace the internet and technology. I personally believe, if artists come out and make statements such as Neil Young has made, it will only sell more tickets to the live shows. Pirating gives consumers an ability to sample new tracks at their leisure. In a culture that is getting evermore time conscious, we do not always have the luxury to sit around and listen to a radio, devoting our full attention to it, in the hopes that new song will play within the next 45 minutes so we can concentrate on it. Luckily, we have legal forms of music sampling that will play a song of choice on demand for free. I have personally been using Spotify since the day it launched. I was living in Sweden at the time and quickly realized how Spotify has almost eliminated the need to pirate any music. The artists do not make much money from Spotify, but they do gain exposure, popularity, and feedback. We do not live in an ideal world, there must always exist some give-and-take. From looking at the numbers, I would say the real criminals are those non-talent suits who are profiteering off the real talent.
This is a capitalistic country and our laws have been tailored accordingly. Music is product, made to be bought and sold, wither or not its art. What record companies do, is just like what every company does: make money. A artist signs a contract with a record company and wither they read it or not, it will mostly likely put the company in charge of the artist. Now that artist is not an artist but a product, used to be bought and sold, and the record company has a contract to prove it. But its not all to bad. That same record company will pour a fortune in order to push that product image into as much light as possible. Once fame is acquired who is to blame; the artist or all the money the record company used? According to that contract, its the company. That artist had nothing to be with being popular, and it was just the money used to push the image...and its perfectly legal
ReplyDeleteWhy then do artist all over the states go to record companies to push their image? If it makes an artist into a product then why would they do it? Is it because hey don't have enough money to push their music into the mainstream? Picasso, one of the most famous artist in the world, died a poor unknown painter. I'm sure if he had a record company to push his product his life would have been better. I would argue that people don't really know art, and that record companies attract consumers because they know what we like. America has a mainstream media, one that will reach the eyes and ears of just about anyone. I'd hope who ever is in charge of showing the mainstream media what art is, with out having to make me plow through hundreds of records, is getting paid well.
Needless to say, I would love for music to free, and all musicians to be broke. (that way its just art and no product) I just wish people will get over owning music. As I read on other posts, we all agree: everything can be streamed online for free....as long as we watch their ads. Ho-ray!