Kids These Days: Spotify, Radiohead, and the Devaluation of Music

Why is it that you've addressed Spotify and Radiohead? Why address any one entity for the shift in music consumption? I don't think any of this began with ideology. The first Napster (Kazaa, Limewire, etc.) users, many of them barely pubescent in the early proliferation of these services, didn't start downloading music to stick it to greedy record executives or to make a stand on behalf of unfairly compensated musicians; they downloaded music because that was the optimal decision for them to make given the relatively higher costs associated with buying music. Ideology may be what keeps people buying music in the age of torrents, but it is hardly the primary reason that so many turn to free downloads or streaming services.

Free music consumption is a rational approach given the technological environment that we live in, and that is why it is undertaken. Even despite any hazardous consequences (struggling new artists, loss in revenue for established artists, reduction in funding on the part of the record companies), you cannot ask or rationally expect consumers, as a group, to pay for what they are offered free of charge. Many music consumers are not in the financial position to do so, and even those who are may be unwilling to given the strong financial disincentive. More than that, there are disincentives to buying music that are wholly unconnected to the cost of music, like the classic free rider problem (ex: if I pay for this music, how am I to know that I'm contributing to the health of the music industry unless I know that others are paying with me? I don't... and therefore it is irrational of me to pay. It's just like shopping at large conglomerates at the expense of small business and competition. Is it harmful? Yes. Can I feasibly do otherwise given what others are doing? No).

This entire sphere is nothing but reactions to incentives. The architects of file sharing responded to their technological landscape. Consumers responded to market incentives. The creators of Spotify responded to the consumers' response to market incentives. Radiohead, as any one of their In Rainbows-strategy interviews will tell you, responded to their former strained relationship with EMI, the threat of their album being leaked (as they had been previously), and current technological innovations (by which they could communicate directly with their fans, experiment on both the artistic and financial sides of their work, and release a product on a time scale with which they were comfortable).

It doesn't mean anything to tell people to pay for music, even if you get some people to do it. There needs to be a dialogue between industry and consumer. This dialogue should include information available to the public, such as the breakdown of what percentage of which profits go to whom, so that the artist will not be taken advantage of and the consumer will sure of it (because if the consumer knows the artist is being screwed, then ideology is a factor). And for any of that to occur, there unfortunately must be a system of regulation in music downloading. This is a system I do not want or support, but without which illegal downloading may never cease and any argument against it is moot.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a final note, I would just like to reiterate that what I've written is conditional on the supposition that "free music" is the undoing of "quality music." I remain unconvinced on that front, and that is why I do not advocate piracy-regulation. I refer to your words here:

"Sure we save a couple dollars, but the culture of one-hit-wonders, reality star divas, and the general cycle of crap that gets churned out by the pop culture machine has only worsened, thanks to musical Reaganomics. They say the customer is always right, but when the customer stops valuing the product, why bother investing in its production?"

And I counter your words with the information reported here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extremely-disappointing-facts-about-popular-mus

With which I mean to say: perhaps the music industry promotes tawdry pop acts because tawdry pop acts are immensely profitable, and that immense profitability has *nothing* to do with what I pay for music.

-pitchthewoo

The article writes that the artists are only getting $0.0013 per play.

Ok, I bought an album 1 year ago for $9.99, where the label takes the largest chunk. They got $10 from me, no more. I've played that album multiple times a day for over a year.

Let's be conservative and say that's 365 plays of the album (considering I may have missed some days and played it more than three times on others).

If I had gone to Spotify in that same instance - 365 plays X 11 songs on the album is 4015 plays. That's $5.22. If the plays diminish by half each year for 4 years that's $9.78.

I'm not saying that $0.0013 is a fair amount - perhaps a little more would be better.

Point is - In either case - 4 years down the road, I paid $10 for the record.

When you buy a record, most of your money is going to the label. Very little to manufacturing & very little to the actual artists.

Music is digital now, like it or not. We need a way for the artist to get paid, not the label.

How many albums are sold for only one song where the person paid $14 for the CD, but only play the one "hit"? The label is still making that money.

Why not pay the artist EVRY TIME the song is played in perpetuity? Not the label. The artist.

That's a very base argument, I know - as there're marketing & touring costs, etc, etc, that the label pays... initially -- the artists ultimately has to pay this back - 'recoup' is the worst word any signed artist learns for the first time.