MPfrees

Interesting post about Fabric 35 over at Ewan Pearson’s blog which yielded a little debate about the merits and demerits of mp3 blogs, after Ewan ended the post with the following disclaimer.

“This information is for those of you who’ve decided that people who have chosen to make music for a living - rather than making cakes or shoes or selling weapons or teaching joga - are still entitled to some kind of financial reward for what they do and so who haven’t already downloaded it from some Russian bloodsucker or collector nerd with a blog masquerading as a ‘fan who’s just helping to promote the music they love, man.’ Your reward is a lovely tin box with my name on it and the ability to sleep at night. I, and much more importantly all the producers and labels included who struggle to survive in what are frankly difficult times, salute you!”

Meanwhile some of you may have noticed I deleted a post from last week, this is after the artist mentioned in it commented on it and asked that I take down his MP3. It seems more than a coincidence that this happens the exact day of this discussion.

Anyway, the comment, which was intended for public viewing before I deleted the post, was “hey thanks for diggin my tracks, but i live from music and half of the money i get from selling mp3s. so its not nice to give them away for free so i loose my money there is a free prelistening function on my website and that should be enough. dont make me loose money and put the mp3 down i have to pay my rent and have to eat. u dont work for free too”

Which puts an interesting perspective on the whole thing, if every artist being blogged about did this there wouldn’t be any mp3 blogs I suppose. I guess the issue then is whether dance music would be better off without them. I’m genuinely not sure.

As I asked over at Enthusiasm, is being mentioned in glowing terms on a blog where 200 or 300 people might read about your single or label worth the loss of sales you incur by a percentage of those people getting an mp3 track for free? Isn’t it possible you make that money back three times over by the increased exposure that gives you?

I also feel that a decent percentage of those downloading tracks from here or other mp3 blogs would never buy the records in question anyway. Not because they’re tight fisted or never buy music either! I get a lot of emails from people who are casual techno fans and read a blog because it’s a good filter for what’s an intimidatingly large body of music to approach. I don’t think this audience is to be sniffed at either. They’re the ones who’ll buy a CD, who’ll pay 15 or 20 euro to see a DJ or live act.

Of course there must be some DJs who never pay for any records, and download everything illegally, but I doubt these guys are relying on blogs rather than P2P to do this.

Then there’s the issue of promos. It is pretty easy to criticise people for not paying for music on the face of it. But then how many of the people within the dance industry who would make such criticisms are spending as much money on music as the average fan? How many are sent so many promos that they don’t have to buy anything like as many records as the average fan? That not even downloading every single MP3 on every single blog would yield the same amount of free music?

Might it not be a little rich to complain about people leeching records for free when the entire industry seems to be built on the hype generated by these promo records that are given away? Can the dance industry really whip up this hype and then complain when there’s a feverish demand for leaks of these unreleased tracks online? Isn’t the net effect the exact same: less money going back into the industry?

Similarly have the A-list DJs earned the right to not pay for music by dint of their talent or popularity? Perhaps more than you or I, but it is an inequality in a field which shouldn’t necessarily be two tiered. I mean, at some point in this cycle of giving free music to some but not to others, you’re saying “he shouldn’t have to pay for this record, but you, you should”. Not only that but you’re also using the fact you gave it to the first ones as a way of selling it to the next, and that rankles when put under the microscope. And I say that as someone who has benefitted massively and saved a lot of money by being sent records to play on the radio show.

Also, are there any techno fans these days who never download illegally? Because, as far as I can see, based on the activities of practically every single techno fan I know, and based on the habits of every single person I know that puts money into techno, the entire rebirth of the industry in the last few years owes a huge amount to the internet as we know it. And perhaps the backbone of that internet usage as regards dance music is downloading, both legal and illegal, from P2Ps to MP3 blogs.

Then there’s the fact that there are actually a multitude of possible reasons for falling record sales, not all to do with downloading. First of all the modern record shop is massively more well stocked than the local shops that are fading out, and the level of choice dictates that big labels are shifting less than their equivalents ten or fifteen years ago. The scene in general is more competitive, with more labels and music more easily available than ever. Does anyone even know how many dance 12s or mp3s are shifting a week, in total? Is there any kind of industry study?

Then there’s the simple fact that dance music may not actually be very popular at the moment. There are no major album selling acts anymore and dance isn’t really in the public consciousness much as far as I can tell.

I mean, I seriously believe that most illegal downloaders also buy lots of music. I know so many people in this boat that I honestly think if all illegal downloaders stopped listening to techno tomorrow, then the genre really would be in dire straits.

I’d certainly like to hear how people feel about this.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. To what end « Little White Earbuds on 28 Aug 2007 at 2:08 am

    […] deal of money spent making the product available. The internal debate intensified as Ewan Pearson, Ronan and JBH spoke their mind on the issue, providing convincing arguments for and against the practice. […]

Comments

  1. EUgene wrote:

    Like a lot of people, I get most of my music from my favourite online djs, notably yourself, and buy the odd album. But I don’t like the posting of commercial mp3s. It does feel like its devaluing the music. I know where to go if I want to hear a sample. Thanks for the shows!

  2. Stef wrote:

    Listening to someone like Ewan Pearson who earns hundreds of euro and hour for playing records plead poverty makes me laugh, these chaps wouldn’t last ten minutes back in the real world with the rest of us.

  3. Anko Painting wrote:

    For years when I was younger, I was strictly against even taping the radio. I thought of it as stealing, and that was the last thing I wanted to do.

    As I’ve got older my opinions have changed. I simply can’t afford to buy every record I like. And if I wouldn’t have bought a record anyway, then how does it hurt the artist if I can listen to it? Copyright infringment IS NOT stealing.

    I understand an artist has to make a living - I know this all to well having made a career of art for several years. But IF (and that’s a big if) artists are loosing money due to piracy, then maybe it’s time they found a different way to make money from their art. Like live shows. Maybe the idea of selling cds to make millions of dollars while sitting back in the comfort of their home is an outdated one. It’s an ideal model for record execs, but the whole idea of copyright is artificially created. Maybe a CD sale should be considered a donation for making good music, rather than a right.

    Maybe information wants to be free, and artists should change or perish.

  4. Ronan wrote:

    to be fair I don’t think Ewan was talking about his own personal poverty. good post from anko

  5. Liam wrote:

    Hey, I have downloaded quite a few mp3s from the various blogs around on the web over the past year or so.

    I have no problems with this (I’m also a producer and run a label, so I’m not exactly a disinterested party), as it puts me in touch with a lot more music than I would be able to hear via the traditional channels (radio/TV/magazines). I’ve also no problems with my own music being made available for promotional purposes, as gets my music heard out there in the rest of the world that isn’t within the confines of my studio. Particularly if the blogs in question do more than just post up links to the tracks, ie. if they review the track/artists in question, or give a rundown of what the track sounds like, etc.
    In fact, one of the blogs I downloaded some tracks from put me in touch with an artist who’s produced some amazing tracks, and we’ve put out one of his tracks as the first release on the label. So it’s hardly a bad thing.

    That being said, it’s probably better to upload lo(wer)fi versions of the mp3s (128k) rather than the full 320kbps versions, and include a link to where the tracks can be purchased online. That way the reader gets the taster, and if they do like it, they can easily go and buy the track (plus the b-sides and extra remixes and the rest).

  6. Alex wrote:

    I’ve bought a few releases on vinyl that you’ve posted on this blog, Things I might not have noticed otherwise.

    Sometimes I think a link to a myspace or label page stream is just as good as a full DL, but when we have this situation of de facto free music if you want it - there’s not much difference between them. For the forseeable future, digital music is an honour system. Hopefully fans will use ‘try before you buy’ responsibly.

  7. jd wrote:

    I think if you can find a link to the myspace page for the artist you should post that and say which track to listen to. Or put up a 128K version of the track rather than 320 .. makes it unplayable in a DJ situation but perfect for evaluation purposes. I’m an artist and I’m all for MP3 blogging… I do think that 320K for evaluation purposes is not necessary though… but otherwise no problems with it…

  8. Liam wrote:

    And hey, meant to say, if I’ve heard a track I really like, I have bought their release, and checked out their other releases too, which is kind of the whole purpose for me of mp3 blogposting.

  9. UnaRocks wrote:

    I think in general, people who download music from blogs buy more music, buy more concert tickets, pay more entrance fees at clubs. I can understand when people scream “stop stealing my music, man”, but it works both ways in that people will get to hear your music and then probably buy it at a later date.

    To paraphrase 50 Cent: if they steal the tracks, they’ll buy the t-shirt.

  10. Bern wrote:

    I think most of this should result in artists getting income through other streams, namely higher ticket prices for live acts. Think about it: The more people have access to your music (at either very low or no cost) , the faster your audience grows, the more demand for your live performances, the higher you can price them. This is of course assuming that wider listening will create more demand for live shows but I do think this is the case…Fighting piracy by taking down an mp3 from a blog isn’t going to really do much when people can just fire up slsk, mu-torrent or another p2p service and get it with 10 minutes of searching…I think there’s not much point of fighting the distribution as much as embracing it to drive other profit streams (live appearances, clothing etc.)

  11. Ronan wrote:

    I agree with that.

    I also strongly disagree with the notion that a physical musical package being sold to fans is somehow year zero for the way music is distributed and disseminated.

  12. cass wrote:

    I enjoy hearing full samples of Mp3’s here and am sick and tired of only hearing 1 minute promo’s on sites.I’ve bought some records cos of promo’s only to be very disappointed after hearing the full version.Maybe it’s just me but i need to hear the track from start to finish before i buy it.

  13. Jacob wrote:

    I think one thing that should be mentioned, and is utterly vile, is that serrato, traktor etc. mean a fair few people download music illegally and then get paid for playing it out. Admittedly these are usually shitty blog house type djs playing for a pub full of students, but still…

  14. trees wrote:

    I admit my bias (ahem), but I would like to second or third the notion that a lot of times blogs have exposed me to artists I wouldn’t have heard otherwise. The next time I’m in a record shop after downloading such-and-such track, I’m more likely to give records by those artists a spin, and more likely to buy them. Digging through crates, listening to mixes, and occasional trainspotting is great, and learning that way is rewarding and fun, but without some knowledge of what artists– especially newer artists–sound like, going through the average record shop would be an overwhelming and needlessly painful activity. That and sample-surfing on the internet sometimes leads to spotty results, as mentioned above.

    The point that you bring up about music critics and promos is also well-taken. I get some promos, but not nearly as many or as quality-driven as I’d like. Why should some critics get at all the tracks and good shit out there while the rest of us spend money on the same stuff and eat peanut butter for months on end?

  15. Matt wrote:

    I’m in a weird position, because I’ve been downloading mp3s illegally for a long time now, and like many people I have quite a collection. Yeah, I buy records every once-in-a-while but my (non-burned) CD collection pales in comparison to my mp3 collection. If I didn’t have the option to download I don’t know where I would be, I don’t have the money to buy many records, the amount I could afford would just be ridiculously small compared to what I want to hear.

    And now I even find myself DJ-ing (mp3j-ing?) for people at parties. So I’m playing only illegally downloaded music for a lot of people, basically creating a party out of nothing. Now, I haven’t played an actual gig, you know, no money coming my way. But you can see where this is going; it is way easier to DJ illegally than legally, in every imaginable way. What’s to stop this from happening? Club owners keeping tabs on the DJ’s they hire? Do they actually care?

    I don’t feel guilty about the position I’m in, I firmly believe downloading music isn’t a crime. I think information of all types should be free. The internet thrives on that rule, and I don’t see how it’s ever going to change. It seems like it will only become easier and easier to share massive amounts of data, movies, music, etc. I think artists of all types will have to become more creative in how the present their ideas, they will have to be able to deliver an experience that cannot be distilled down to 1’s and 0’s and sent through email. I would never steal the physical product of an artist, and if I wanted the physical product, I would buy it.

    It’s a sensitive situation because I respect very many people who disagree with me, and I consider myself an artist, so I’m constantly coming to terms with the post-internet world, too. It will be awhile before everyone comes to accept all the changes that the internet will force upon us, but people holding on to an obsolete business model will be the ones who feel the change most painfully.

    Just to avoid some flak I might get for this: I do try to support artists in every way that is within my means. My attitude towards file-sharing reflects my attitude towards money in general, that is, music is much more important to me than money. So I go through any means possible to hear music, and if its live, I’m certainly gladly willing to pay.

  16. ms.a wrote:

    Great post, fascinating!

    I agree that mp3 bloggers should post tracks at 128k rather than 320k and at the very least an mp3 blogger should post a link to a myspace or where to buy the track, EP, or album. I actually prefer having a flash player to hear the song rather than just a link to download it and then listen to it on your comp.

    Most of the mp3 blogs I’ve seen include a disclaimer about mp3s only being available for a short time or being taken down upon request, or uploaded at a lower bitrate, etc. But of course, once it’s been downloaded, that person is able to redistribute it any way they want. However, it seems like shooting yourself in the foot for an artist to request a link to be removed, when it’s on an established blog in a post with a glowing review, alongside other reviews that include links to the tracks. There should be some kind of third way, like allowing the blogger to embed the track in a flash player (i.e. “stream”) rather than download, or supply a clip to be downloaded rather than the full track. It’s much easier to put a download link or a link to a filesharing site in your blog than it is to put a flash player or a good clip - why is that? If people want to blog about an artist, shouldn’t that be encouraged? And wouldn’t it make more sense to provide bloggers with tools to do that so that artists could have more control over how that is done? I mean, the artist is pretty much assured that, if they get blogged about at all, it’s going to be positive. No one blogs about a song they hate and then posts a link to it. (At least not that I’ve ever seen.)

  17. Tay wrote:

    Thanks for this thoughtful and balanced post. I’m one of the “collector nerds with a blog” who’s been downloading so long I’ve forgotten what it feels like to think it’s wrong. (Incidentally, I’m also a person who spends as much money as I can on CDs, records, concert tickets, etc.)

    I just don’t get all this moral indignation about downloading. Public libraries are still free, museums don’t charge you for each painting you look at, and although music is quite obviously different, the idea that it’s possible or desirable to make people pay for every song they want to hear is ridiculous and an invention of the music industry. Why is it free access to literature and art is a hallmark of civilization, but music must be paid for on a per-unit basis? The current system doesn’t serve artists or fans; it reduces music to a mere product. I don’t care if it makes me corny for thinking music can and should be more.

  18. todd wrote:

    well for starters i’d probably buy more(any) mp3’s if they didn’t cost a buck a shot. to me they should be 10 cents a track or max 25 cents (i’d steal if they were). really, screw em’ i seriously don’t give a fuck. i have no problem sleeping on my tempur-pedic mattress after all the money i saved on tunes.

  19. todd wrote:

    btw your modifyer mix was enjoyed, unlike that cunt who couldn’t ‘get into it’ . do ya need some bloody horse tranquilizers mate ?

  20. todd wrote:

    actually now that i think about it, ewan’s fabric album has been my most dwnld shit in the last 2 weeks, to think, i actually feel bad closing slsk when people are half-way through the dwnld, who needs money ?? check the dumpster.

  21. Danjus wrote:

    I think everybody should be paid for their work, everybody. If we go back in time, 30 years ago, to record a track you should be Elvis or rich, and electronic music was what? Now, with $200 PC and $100 guitar you could have a hit maker machine;)
    It’s all about idea, quality and recognition. Yeah, I know, $200 PC is not a quality, but if you have good idea or good track, you’ll get you $50.000 studio quickly.

    So, if you’re new (or should I call it ‘undiscovered’) artist, you should be very pleased when you see your tracks on somebody’s HD, but if you’re a upcoming hit maker, than you’re probably already greedy - so go and chase all those kids who loves your music…ad share it…

    Remember, if you have money and you don’t want to pay a cent to band or artist, than you are bad person.

    But ‘big brother’ is working and watching, don’t worry for temporary huge stealing. Sooner or later it’s gonna be hard to copy even mp3 file, so some of the artist will be pleased…. but what if they’re ‘big’ thanks to their popularity on p2p networks and torrents sites? Who’s gonna find out?

    And what is the difference for the artist if the DJ ’s playing stolen track in the bar, or if 100 people download it separately and playing in their iPods? If you don’t get paid, no difference.

  22. Andy wrote:

    I’ve just been reading the above with great interest & would like to weigh in a few points of my own;

    Firstly - whilst this has been touched on above - producers in general largely make most of their money from playing live or DJing. I’ve heard James Holden state before that the reason Border Community has limited releases is that his DJing pays his rent, etc. so he can afford to release tracks he really likes as opposed to releasing tracks in order to survive.

    As stated above, blogs, livesets & mixes for the likes of Resident Advisor can only help to raise the profile of the particular artist - thus leading to more gigs.

    Another point which I think hasn’t been touched on yet is the rapid pace technology has improved & will continue to do. Think back 5-7 years ago, producers, DJs, etc. were then a relatively popular breed, who carried out their work in typically traditional methods – getting signed, booking a studio, et al. This has now been completely bypassed with the aid of cheap, free & fast technology which enables everyman & their dog to produce tracks – I personally know a good amount of people churning out stuff nowadays where as before it was left to an elite few…

    This has contributed to creating the overall result of the previous output increasing ten-fold within a mere matter of years. This in turn has deemed it almost impossible for even the most dedicated of fans to keep track of what’s going on without having to illicitly download at some point.

    So in short, the more music being produced, the more throwaway & dispensable individual tracks become.

    Within the next year or so, the main way I can foresee this affecting the likes of Mr. Pearson & co. is the reduction of exclusiveness between the performer / DJ and the audience – where once promos / unsigned gems that DJ’s could keep up their sleeve as their ‘big’ record that no-one else was playing, is now that track that a fraction of the dancefloor know & recognise due to blogs & previously recorded sets. This, I predict will result in DJ’s digging backwards to find older / exclusive / rare tracks for playing out & quite possibly remixing / editing themselves.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*