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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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?