Well said my fellow scouse babe xx
 

You obviously don't read 'The Mail on Sunday' they are giving away cds! Radiohead and Hugh Cornwell also both gave their last albums away free, musicians make more than enough in T shirt sales from an Arena type concert to keep the venue who charge a perecentage happy, the band who also get FREE advertising and the record company who get casual fans buying back catalogue albums of a band they have just seen , hey, there's even a few bob left over to pay the people who make these tacky T shirts in Calcutta with names of Cities on the back they have probably never even heard of, let alone been to, I agree independent and up and coming musicians have to make a living but so do music fans, it's hard enough struggling to pay for essenials with this credit crunch! Album sales are down due to economic reasons as well as people downloading (PS, I don't file share but a lot of my money has kept musicians in business over the years through buying music and attending concerts), most musicians I have spoken to say touring and not albums is where the money is now, do a concert, attract the hard core fans and a few casuals and if people are impressed they will buy your albums, my fave band has existed for nearly 40 years so they either love what they do or want to top the pension scheme up! They could have always worked in a factory or office.

 

You're damn right, I DO NOT read The Mail On Sunday. Radiohead et al are established acts with massive marketing budgets and they gave their music away in the knowledge they would get their returns in sales of their back catalogue and tour etc. It was strategic , fully in their control and it wasn't done illegally.

Yes times are increasingly tougher on the money front for most people with the credit crunch hanging over us. Hmmm try living on a dollar a day when your food and fuel prices have doubled. There are people in Swaziland who won't be able to afford the bus to work soon because prices have rocketed so much, that's no excuse in my opinion. Sorry to get all "right on" with you but if I hear one more person complain about the "credit crunch" I think I will scream. We live in paradise yet the majority will never know it.

Even if a person has continued to support music through the years, it doesn't give them the right now to go and help themselves without paying.

Music business models are changing, but in the meantime, if you can't afford it you shouldn't take it without permission.

I suspect your favourite band would have ceased to be your favourite band had they donned a suit and tie and gone to work in an office. They survived on the sale of their music.

Thanks for your comment x
 

You already know my views on this subject and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Taking an artist's music is absolutely wrong and no different to stealing a physical product.


Regarding a performers choice to give music away, here's something that I personally found interesting and quite uplifting. Jane Siberry sells some of her music via Sheba. They have a wonderful, if somewhat "hippie" approach. What you pay is left entirely up to you. They offer three categories: "Gift from artist" (i.e. free), "market price" or "self determined". So everyone's gonna select the "gift from artist" option, right? Their statistics show that only 20% of the tracks are given away free. As far as the purchased songs are concerned, a massive 79% are bought at market price, 6% at below market, and an extremely encouraging 16% above the determined price (yeah I know that doesn't total 100% - rounding errors I suspect).


The other point that needs to made here is something you already touched on. There is a MASSIVE chasm between established acts and those that have yet to "make it". I'm sure that the household names do indeed make their money from touring. You've only got to look at the ticket prices to get a hint of the money involved. But what I'm sure a lot of people don't realise is that at the grass-roots level artists usually get paid absolutely NOTHING to play a gig. In fact it will typically cost THEM money after you factor in travelling expenses, maybe equipment hire etc. Some of the better promoters give their acts a percentage of their ticket sales if they attract a large enough crowd (and we're typically talking 10+ people). So for these artists, the only chance they have of making any money at all from the evening is to sell their CDs.


And don't think the promoters are raking in the money either. Again, for the established acts, yes they make healthy profits "pimping" the artists. But at grass-roots the story is entirely different. The promoter faces fixed costs to put on an evening - hire of the venue, wages for the sound engineer, etc. The only way they can recoup this outlay is via entrance fees. I'm involved with 2 promoters, The Original Songwriters and London Unplugged (shameless plug for these great events LOL). I know first-hand how difficult it is to motivate enough people to turn out and support live music. Artists that have literally thousands of myspace fans can end up with only 1 or 2 people bothering to turn up for their gig. I feel this is the real change that is occuring within the music scene. People have such easy access to downloadable music that they have become apathetic about seeing it live. Yes they'll pay a King's ransom to go along to a large stadium and squint to see a distant blur that could be their chosen idol, bashing out something approximating music though sometimes difficult to tell given the poor acoustics. But they won't fork out a few quid to go to a small, intimate venue often with fantastic sound equipment, to see half a dozen talented acts and all because they aren't being played every few minutes on a major radio station.


For the record, I'm by no means rich yet I manage to get along to 3 or 4 gigs every week. Check my myspace calendar if you don't believe me. "Credit Crunch" has become the latest in a long list of PC phrases to be tossed knowledgeably into conversations along with "carbon footprint", "global warming" etc. etc. ad nauseum. The only impact I've noticed is the staggering increase in fuel prices - not actually part of the crunch at all. And if you are finding your finances being squeezed then the answer is quite simple, if somewaht old-fashioned. If you can't afford it, then manage without it. Wait a month or two and then buy the CD, don't rip it off just because you want it NOW.


Sorry, got quite off subject there.
Feel free to delete this Caroline - I won't be upset :)
 

Delete this? NO WAY!

All opinions are valued in the mix, especially the ones that agree with me ; )

I loved your point about

"People have such easy access to downloadable music that they have become apathetic about seeing it live. Yes they'll pay a King's ransom to go along to a large stadium and squint to see a distant blur that could be their chosen idol, bashing out something approximating music though sometimes difficult to tell given the poor acoustics. But they won't fork out a few quid to go to a small, intimate venue often with fantastic sound equipment, to see half a dozen talented acts and all because they aren't being played every few minutes on a major radio station."


I would advise any music lover not to be led simply by the songs you hear played in loop on the radio. Discover your own artists through getting out to local music venues, support live music. There is no better feeling than discovering an artist, buying their cd personally, hey even get it signed and seeing them play close up and personal. Do you want your entire music choices decided by a handful of people in a boardroom, their final decision boiling down to what is the most "commercial"? Was there money involved? Of course, labels pay HUGE amounts of cash to "pluggers" to go in to the stations to recommend their favourite music of the moment. Who wants to be constantly spoon fed? Not me. Don't get me wrong there is some amazing music being played on the radio but that is the small tip of a very large iceberg of what is out there.

Thanks for your comments.

x
 

I will start off by saying, I DO NOT donwload music off the net for free.


My point I want to make on this subject is this.......The music industry has changed so much over the past 20 years. Major Labels used to have 1 or 2 artists that generated enough income for the label to support and develop all the others. But then came the way of the indie label and digital recording. Then almost anyone who owned a computer and some software could produce a decent and sellable recording...at little or no cost to them. (Most independant bands record their own music for next to nothing.) And then they want to see the big paycheck from downloads and sales. When in reality even at the height of CD sales..most signed artists only made about $1.00 from each CD sold. And not many artists sell a half a million copies.


The biggest problem with the music industry today is the lack of creativity and willingness to put together a "complete" project. This goes more for record labels but indie acts follow the trend too. 1 good song and then toss a bunch more on the record so their is a CD to sell. Artists need to take more time developing their craft and putting together quality projects and the rest will take care of itself.

 

I must have more money than sense, because I am happy to give away my own songs for free to anyone who actually wants to listen to them. That is my absolute choice, as the writer, copyright owner, recorder, performer, indie label owner and NOBODY can tell me not to do that - it is my business, my decision and not open to debate.


However, I totally agree with all of your sentiments about taking music WITHOUT PERMISSION. Although I choose to give my music away, I spend a lot of time and money on supporting new (mainly young) acts by promoting & compereing gigs, paying to see them and buying their CDs (I have dozens of CDs still in their wrappers from up to 2 years ago, that I have just not had time to listen to).


I also positively promote Live Music - KEEP MUSIC LIVE is my motto and it is all of our responsibilities to ensure that this happens by voting with our wallets - credit crunch or otherwise. Too many venues are closing down and we need to make this stop, otherwise the debate about selling or giving away CDs becomes irrelevant if there is nowhere left for artists to perform! I don't mean Festivals, I mean the pub round the corner, the open mic night, the folk club, the jam night - all the places which new performers need to start from.


I've been in the business for several decades, pro & semi pro and know what I'm talking about. So PLEASE.....

KEEP MUSIC LIVE

Luv & Hugs
Tone
XXX

PS. Delete this if you wish. Its just my personal opinion.


PPS. Love your music and wanna BUY A CD from you, when I get to see you live..........
 

Hi Tony,

thanks for your comments.

Unless offensive I won't be deleting anyone's comments as they are all valid. Everyone has an opinion after all, and if we all thought the same way the world would be very boring.

I was a tad hard on musicians who give their music away for free. No one should go and crawl under a rock. I take that back. What concerns me are the new business models that are emerging as a direct result of illegal file sharing. I doubt that bands (mainstream or otherwise) would have started giving their music away for free had it not been for the massive amount of illegal downloading (freeloading) that happened in the first place. The authorities and music societies had their heads in the sand and failed to protect the market.

My concern is that giving away of music on a large scale, i.e. a new release album on the cover of a national newspaper, will begin to water down the value of music. I'm not talking about giving away an EP at a gig to promote an up and coming artist or band, or the odd freebie download from a website here and there. Musicians should think long and hard at the long term consequences of the trend of giving away there music on a massive scale. That is if they care for the welfare of artists in the future.
 

thanks... we need loads of independent artists to show that they care.

Most people don't realise that what they are doing is 'illegal' though....so,
if there were to be another legal alternative... they might go to the legal
sites instead :)

there is a debate.. Torrentfreak posted my blog...so, anybody hear who wants
to see music thrive... whether it's free or not... please go comment :))

http://torrentfreak. com/indiana-gregg-pirate-bay-internet-police-are-coming-080704/comment-440978

xx
indiana
 

hi caroline

thanks for opening this debate. it needs discussing in my view.


as someone with no grey matter and of no use to anyone i'm hesitant to give my view on this :-)

but i'm one of the MANY artists who allow file sharing and give my music away happily, so i will give my view anyhow before crawling on home to beneath my rock.


i think there's an enormous arrogance and a dinosaur mentality about this subject from artists.


do you really think you'll cut an endearing figure to potential fans by prosecuting them or booting them off the net altogether? these are people curious about your music, or people who love your music sharing it with others. they're doing you a favour because they're spreading the word.


is your only business response to the challenges of the internet to crack down on music fans? isn't that a bit outdated? surely there is something more inventive.


do you really think filesharing can be policed out of existence? and if it can't, what are you going to do? wish for the days before tape recorders when bootlegging music was technologically impossible for the average fan?

or come up with a response that will actually serve your career and show some innovation.


look at open source software. thats a business model that embraces freedom on the internet rather than restriction and its hugely successful and hugely profitable.


they release the product for free, but sell something else (like training on how to use it). the open source free software acts as the gateway to the commercial stuff that brings in the money.


can't you come up with something similar regarding your music. if you thought about that rather than focussed on the evil filesharers and how all would be wonderful if we could only turn the internet into a police state and prosecute the lot, then i'm sure you could come up with a more creative response to this development.


the key question is this: do you want people to come to your concerts when you come into town?

as a merseyside artist, how many people are currently coming to see you when you roll into a strange town. i don't mean how many people go to the gig, i mean those who come simply to see YOU.


if you can't get at least 50 people in every town you go to who are only there because you're there, then you need to keep spreading your music not limit it. you need people to share it around so that more and more people have heard of caroline england.


you certainly don't want to punish those doing the evangelising on your behalf.


if you had a PR organisation doing that for you they'd charge a fortune. filesharers are doing it for you for free.
and you want to kick em off the internet??

for those artists big enough to be shifting tons of records i can half understand the mentality of batten down the hatches and call in the cybercops (although even then why not live off the merchandise and the ticket sales).


but for those who are not yet walking into strange towns and finding a dedicated fanbase already waiting for them i don't understand this "you're costing me money" attitude at all.


no they're not costing you money. they don't even know who you are yet in sufficient numbers. and once they do you can make a living from ticket sales and merchandise so chill.


but unless people know who you are in sufficient numbers you're knackered. fans come first. financial rewards come later. not the other way around.


your job is to build a fan base. those who share your music help you to do that. so be thankful of the free publicity. don't alienate your own evangelists by attacking them.


the thing that makes me scratch my head most of all about this kind of attitude to filesharing is the way so many artists will rant and rave about supposed record sales being lost and insisting preciously that our music is not for free and blah blah blah.


and then will traipse round the country gigging for free.


isn't this a bit topsy turvy?

the recording is done now. it's over. it was yesterday's labour. people can download it even while you sleep. and this is the part that you demand payment for.
"pay me while i sleep!" you say!

but then you'll travel up to stalybridge, say, and then stay all night at a gig to perform for 40 mins or so, and walk away unpaid and without a peep.
and how many hours and how much energy has that cost you in comparison?

surely the gig is worth more financially than the downloaded copy of a recording you might have done several months ago or even a few years ago?

so why are you okay not getting paid for the live gig, yet stamp your feet at not getting paid for the recording.


so you gig for free for the exposure? fine, but you'll get a lot more exposure a lot more easily by allowing people to download your stuff to their ipods so you're on their playlist everyday on the train to work or college.


you don't have to do a tap of work to get that exposure - yet thats the bit you want paying for.


there's a real contradiction here. either insist on paid gigs wherever you go, or accept that if you play unpaid for exposure that the same principle applies much more so to downloaded music.


the key point though is that to be successful you need fans. you get fans by spreading your music as far and wide as possible. if you're not doing that you're missing a trick which is a shame cos your music is ace. thank goodness you have filesharers willing to do it for you so that new people will discover your stuff and be won over.


for anyone reading this who has never heard of me (most of you i'd guess) all of my recorded music is avaialable for free download at http://www. parrysongs. co. uk/music. html

once you've downloaded it, share it as much as possible please. you'll be doing me a big favour. the more people who hear my music, the happier i am.
so spread the word for me with my blessing and thanks

al
 

Hi Alan,

thanks for adding your thoughts to this. I've edited what I said about grey matter and rocks, it was too harsh!


In response, I do give MP3s away for free, google Caroline England free MP3 and you'll fine plenty of sites where you can get songs of mine for nowt. My biggest question would be, is it right for file sharing platforms to make massive amounts of money from advertising without passing any of that on to the artist?



If I was Radiohead, had their tour deal, was on every radio playlist, making shed loads of money from other revenue streams then great. I'm not at that level yet. I'm not preventing people from listening to the tracks, come on to MySpace or go on Last FM and I'm there too, listen all you like. If you want it in your iPod or on a cd, pay for it.



Music these days is inexpensive, you can sign up for a small monthly fee and get unlimited tracks. Wow, that's a bloody good deal. I get a few pence of their monthly subscription fee which to me is an honest way of doing things. The high end of the scale would be go to iTunes at 79p. If people are curious about my music then they should pay less than the cost of a loaf of bread to have it. If I am alienating people with my views, being happy that the authorities (not me personally) finally getting their act together and prosecuting then so be it. I believe most people are honest, the file sharers perhaps most a bit misguided. There are plenty of people out there that are happy to pay for my music and spread the word for me.



Illegal file sharing has decreased recently and iTunes and other legal music sites are doing better than ever. What does that say?



My views might change as my career unfolds and I'm not a philistine, I can see that the market is changing rapidly. But I would rather have 30 000 fans that were honest and happy to give me a tiny amount of their cash and support than 100 000 who nicked it and weren't prepared to pay mere pennies.



As far as traipsing far and wide to do gigs some of which are for free, which leaves me usually out of pocket, I do it because I love it. It's important to get out there and let people see you play in different areas. It's no good saturating the town where you come from so that people get sick of you. I also get to watch other people perform, which in turn helps me develop as an artist. I'm not happy that some venues don't pay any money but that's a whole other debate.

I see you have a rather clever system on your site. You do not ask people to pay for your music, but they can if they want to. So in effect, you are at least hoping they will give you something for your effort are you not?
 

I wasn't criticising you for gigging around. It's wise to get out of your own town I agree. My point is that it involves much more work than having your recorded music shared online. The fact that sharing happens even without your knowledge is a good demonstration that it involves no work.


But a gig up to Stalybridge - well that involves a lot of work. And the gig after that involves a lot of work too. And so on.


Yet artists are quite happy to do this for a host of reasons, often exposure. It just seems inconsistent to me to have a problem with recorded music being shared when it costs you no time or labour, but volunteer to gig for free when it often involves travelling and always involves work. And as you say often costs you money overall.


With regard to my site, you're right that people can choose to pay me if they want or choose to download it for free if they want.


And yes I'm hoping they do pay me obviously. I've no principled objection to being paid. I love being paid. The more the better.


But the key is that its just an option for them to pay me. If they want to just download it then thats fine too. The payment would be a pleasant acknowledgement from them to me. But its not needed. I want people to have my music. It's why I do it.


I'd rather someone have me on their ipod for free than not be on their ipod at all - especially if I can have a way to keep in touch with them in the future to tell them what I'm up to with my music.


If people have me on their ipod playlist then my music becomes part of the soundtrack of their life.


If a PR company said to you "I will make your music part of the soundtrack of someone's life and I'll charge you x amount for every person who I do that with", that'd be a helluva deal.


But that's what filesharers do, and that's what any "dishonest" downloader does on your behalf when they get your stuff and stick you on their ipods.


Our aim is surely to be on as many ipod playlists as possible.
If given the choice of making £100 from being on 20 people's playlists or making nothing from being on 2000 people's playlists, what would you choose? For me its the playlists every time!

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. You have a choice in this scenario.
You either get paid £10,000 for your album to be downloaded as a limited edition to just one person (and nobody else can have access to it only him) - or you get paid nothing at all (in fact you get charged £100) to have your album on every ipod in the world - what's your choice?

I'm hoping you'd pay the £100. It would show that perhaps you too recognise that money is not as important as your footprint. And you want your footprints everywhere surely.


Would you really rather have 30,000 who all paid a bit for your music, than 100,000 where they didn't.


That's nuts. Just do the maths.


30,000 people paying £10 to come and see you play throughout the year is £300,000.
Then a third of them buy some form of merch for £10 too so thats another £100,000 making a total of £400,000

But 100,000 coming to see you is £1 million pound. And the merch alone that they buy exceeds the entire ticket sales from your "honest" fans.


You've just robbed yourself of close to a million squid by making that decision.


You're going to have to get 30 quid per person on recorded music sales from your smaller honest fans to even begin to bridge that gap.


If your own strategy is to rob yourself of a million quid with one old fashioned decision, then fans robbing you of a few pence here and there through filesharing is the least of your worries.


Would you really prefer it that way?

Why?

If you start from a premise of wanting to earn what you're worth from music, how can you possibly prefer to have 30,000 fans to 100,000 fans when you think it through?

After all, Google searches are free. But Google make money.


Musicians like us need to think about that and start being a bit more inventive about how to get paid for what we do. The old ways are not just dead, they're irrelevant, and now amount of calling for help from the cybercops will change that.


Al 8-)
 

Hey Caroline,

Fantastic point made about illegally downloading music.
We expect to pay for everything else (well the decent folk do at least) so why should it be any different when it comes to music ?

Musicians and artists have invested their precious time and energy in creating their works of musical art for someone to think that it is acceptable to "steal" it by illegally downloading from the internet.
It is simply not acceptable and I am only glad to see that people are begining to take a stand in an attempt to stop it !
 

Great post...totally with ya there lass

DM
 

Illegal file sharing is almost as old as the internet itself.

People tried to stop it, but it just spreads like wildfire.

It's the same with gas. We have alternative sources, but the big gas companies have a hold in everything, from the countries leaders to the media.

And it's the same with illegal file sharing. A few people profit while many pay the price.

I hate to say it, but I believe in testing before buying and if I download something (not strictly by the law) I will go and buy the thing on the market. It's not fair, but hey.... when was anything fair?
And if the invorenment isnt treated like it should be, I don't see why the performers should, cause frankly, I could live without music but I couldn't live without air or the ozone lair.

 

heyhoo miss caroline

sorry i couldn't make it to catch you in embra... hope you had fun.


I'm leaning toward Al on this one. The Grateful Dead realised this many moons ago when folk were starting to make bootlegs tapes of their live performances. Instead of clamping down on it they embraced and encouraged it, a subject studied by minds greater than mine, and it is argued by many that this attitude helped rather than hindered them.


Wether this is true or not I feel that we musicians have no choice but to embrace file sharing because we certainly can't stop it. I don't know the best way for us to use file sharing to our advantage, to be honest it's not something i have looked into too much... yet, but i do wonder wether the aggressive attempts at stopping it by the big organisations (RIAA, IFPI etc.) truly have the interests of musicians at their core.


I'm sorry I have to say this.... I'm sure Indiana is a lovely lassie but she is not doing us any favours with this. A wee bit of googling should show you why i feel that.


cheerie

stephen