MR

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57572 ... c-be-free/

by Steve Guttenberg
March 3, 2013 8:06 AM PST


Music, or should I say most recorded music, is already free; you can get it whenever and wherever you want it and pay nothing.

I've bought thousands of CDs, SACDs, LPs, and a few hundred downloads. Of course, when I started buying music I didn't have too many "free" options, other than radio or taping friends' albums. Radio was a great way to discover new music, but once I heard something I really liked, I bought it. My $3.98 "Led Zeppelin II" LP was a great investment; I've played it hundreds of times, and it sounds better than ever over my high-end hi-fi.

Times change, though. Fans no longer feel a need to support their favorite bands by buying their music. Some go to concerts or buy merchandise, and that's great, but they see no need to buy music. Some have paid subscriptions to Spotify or Pandora, and sure, that's better than nothing. Those services pay fees to record labels and artists, but those fees are a tiny fraction of the income they get from iTunes, CD, or LP sales. It seems that for most folks, $1 for a song or $10 for an album is too much to pay. So most bands make fewer and fewer records, and don't create a large body of work that will survive long after the band breaks up.

We're getting close to the day when major bands stop putting out CDs, and I'd be willing to bet that once their CDs are out of print, the prices people are willing to pay for CDs will skyrocket. So if you think $10 or $12 CDs are expensive now, just wait a few years.

Free music is preposterous. That's like saying "I want to go eat dinner at a restaurant and just not pay". Or like saying "eh... I'm tired of a car payment... I'm just going to get the car for free instead". It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You want to be bombarded with shit music? Stop paying the great artists out there who are trying to use their skills to make a living. Nobody is going to be able to record in studios anymore because they're losing all of their investments.

I've fully admitted on here that I've downloaded music for free. The ONLY time I've done that is when a cd that I'm dying to hear leaks early. I do go and buy the album the minute it's made available though. The only exception I'll make is if a cd or download isn't made available in the US and I have to pay some bullshit $25.00 price from an online store to get an import. In those cases, I've already bought several legitimate albums from the artists, and don't feel so bad.

I know I'm going to step on some toes in here, but those of you who just download albums because it's free, or easy... You are totally destroying this industry!! You're not just "sticking it to the man", you're destroying the industry. If you want it to stick around, pay for your damn music and stop being a thief. Otherwise, the people you like to listen to will go out and find another line of work. It makes me sick, and it's a sore subject with me. Sorry for the rant... stepping off soap box now.

+1, what G.I.Jim said.

I can honestly say I've never "Stoled" music from the net, always paid for it. I always support my fav. artist by buying what music they put out, even

some that I find on this site that you guy's recommend. When VH put out ADKOT, I bought it on vinyl & CD. When Kiss put out "Monster", I wasn't

totally happy with it but bought it anyway on vinyl. In doing so, I hope it somehow, someway, helps them put out new music in the future.

I stick to song samples. If I want to hear more of the samples, people post the songs so frequently on YouTube that I don't need to download anything to check out the bands I want to listen to.

The problem is there are too many bands nowadays and most of them are mediocre at-best. So every year, I write down the new releases that seem the most interesting. At the end of the year, the bands with the best 5 to 10 albums get my support. And I try to go to at least one concert per year, since this is how bands make the bulk of their money nowadays.

There are a few groups where I'm loyal enough to purchase all their albums blindly, but even my favs have wavered in their quality in recent years.

Why is the thought of free music preposterous? Free music is how bands like Heart, The Eagles, and Journey became classic bands with timeless music. It’s because at one point, someone listened to their music FREE before they bought the albums. Even bands like Metallica – who vehemtly fought against programs like Napster, used to have their demos and music passed around on cassette tapes, free of charge, to spread the word and grow a fan base. I didn’t get into Metallica until I first borrowed a cassette tape from my cousin back when I was like 13 – otherwise – I wouldn’t have ever listened to Metallica. Practically all of the music I have ever purchased came through a means of listening to it free before I purchased it. So, I find it very hard to believe that downloading music has destroyed the music industry. The music industry has brought it on itself.

As far as the artists that most of us like to listen to (the melodic rock artists), they have struggled because they haven’t been privy to having an effective vehicle to get their music heard by the masses. The music industry doesn’t push this music, because it isn’t the “in” thing and doesn’t get played on radio. However, I think that is going to change. In the next five years or so, new vehicles will all become equipped with the means of listening to streaming, internet music. Some already have Pandora and Spotify, but eventually our vehicles will have access to the internet. When this happens, there really wont’ be a reason to listen to terrestrial radio. Artists are going to start getting chart credit for the number of clicks they get when their music is streamed – which in my opinion will be like songs played on the radio. What will be great about this is, the consumer will be able to choose what he or she listens to, they won’t have to be force-fed crappy music from radio. In turn, this can only be a positive thing for the artists and the consumers alike. The artists can hopefully start receiving some serious royalties by their music streams, and the consumer can once again try before he or she buys. Once this is fully established, there really won’t be a need to download a song illegally from the internet again – just stream it!

If this works the way I think it will, then eventually digital downloads and their crappy quality can go away – and maybe when one decides he or she DOES want to purchase a song or album, the artist can get the song or album to the consumer in a very high fidelity means – something much, much greater than what a digital download or a music stream could ever be, but something the consume, especially an audiophile would be proud of.

Yoda wrote:Why is the thought of free music preposterous? Free music is how bands like Heart, The Eagles, and Journey became classic bands with timeless music. It’s because at one point, someone listened to their music FREE before they bought the albums. Even bands like Metallica – who vehemtly fought against programs like Napster, used to have their demos and music passed around on cassette tapes, free of charge, to spread the word and grow a fan base. I didn’t get into Metallica until I first borrowed a cassette tape from my cousin back when I was like 13 – otherwise – I wouldn’t have ever listened to Metallica. Practically all of the music I have ever purchased came through a means of listening to it free before I purchased it. So, I find it very hard to believe that downloading music has destroyed the music industry. The music industry has brought it on itself.

As far as the artists that most of us like to listen to (the melodic rock artists), they have struggled because they haven’t been privy to having an effective vehicle to get their music heard by the masses. The music industry doesn’t push this music, because it isn’t the “in” thing and doesn’t get played on radio. However, I think that is going to change. In the next five years or so, new vehicles will all become equipped with the means of listening to streaming, internet music. Some already have Pandora and Spotify, but eventually our vehicles will have access to the internet. When this happens, there really wont’ be a reason to listen to terrestrial radio. Artists are going to start getting chart credit for the number of clicks they get when their music is streamed – which in my opinion will be like songs played on the radio. What will be great about this is, the consumer will be able to choose what he or she listens to, they won’t have to be force-fed crappy music from radio. In turn, this can only be a positive thing for the artists and the consumers alike. The artists can hopefully start receiving some serious royalties by their music streams, and the consumer can once again try before he or she buys. Once this is fully established, there really won’t be a need to download a song illegally from the internet again – just stream it!

If this works the way I think it will, then eventually digital downloads and their crappy quality can go away – and maybe when one decides he or she DOES want to purchase a song or album, the artist can get the song or album to the consumer in a very high fidelity means – something much, much greater than what a digital download or a music stream could ever be, but something the consume, especially an audiophile would be proud of.

This is why. People AREN'T buying the music after they hear it. They're just stealing it! Not everyone is doing it, but I believe the number of people who pay for their music has dwindled down to next to nothing. Hearing samples is a good way to get the songs pushed, but nowadays, when artists release a song... someone uploads it to torrent sites and everyone jumps it like a pack of wild piranhas!

I wouldn't say it's an obligation for me to buy their music, if it's a band/artist I like, I want to buy their albums. That's their creation and livelihood and they deserve that. I get paid for what I do for a living. No different for them. And I do go to concerts too, but not really much into the merch at concerts except for more music I may not have, I've bought plenty of cd's at concerts over the years. At the last 2 MRF's I went home with bundles of cd's both times because of the numerous bands there at one time. Will again this time too I'm sure. The only thing I wish I could do is replace all my cassettes from back in the day with cd's. Would cost a bunch to replace them all though!

G.I.Jim wrote:

Yoda wrote:Why is the thought of free music preposterous? Free music is how bands like Heart, The Eagles, and Journey became classic bands with timeless music. It’s because at one point, someone listened to their music FREE before they bought the albums. Even bands like Metallica – who vehemtly fought against programs like Napster, used to have their demos and music passed around on cassette tapes, free of charge, to spread the word and grow a fan base. I didn’t get into Metallica until I first borrowed a cassette tape from my cousin back when I was like 13 – otherwise – I wouldn’t have ever listened to Metallica. Practically all of the music I have ever purchased came through a means of listening to it free before I purchased it. So, I find it very hard to believe that downloading music has destroyed the music industry. The music industry has brought it on itself.

As far as the artists that most of us like to listen to (the melodic rock artists), they have struggled because they haven’t been privy to having an effective vehicle to get their music heard by the masses. The music industry doesn’t push this music, because it isn’t the “in” thing and doesn’t get played on radio. However, I think that is going to change. In the next five years or so, new vehicles will all become equipped with the means of listening to streaming, internet music. Some already have Pandora and Spotify, but eventually our vehicles will have access to the internet. When this happens, there really wont’ be a reason to listen to terrestrial radio. Artists are going to start getting chart credit for the number of clicks they get when their music is streamed – which in my opinion will be like songs played on the radio. What will be great about this is, the consumer will be able to choose what he or she listens to, they won’t have to be force-fed crappy music from radio. In turn, this can only be a positive thing for the artists and the consumers alike. The artists can hopefully start receiving some serious royalties by their music streams, and the consumer can once again try before he or she buys. Once this is fully established, there really won’t be a need to download a song illegally from the internet again – just stream it!

If this works the way I think it will, then eventually digital downloads and their crappy quality can go away – and maybe when one decides he or she DOES want to purchase a song or album, the artist can get the song or album to the consumer in a very high fidelity means – something much, much greater than what a digital download or a music stream could ever be, but something the consume, especially an audiophile would be proud of.

This is why. People AREN'T buying the music after they hear it. They're just stealing it! Not everyone is doing it, but I believe the number of people who pay for their music has dwindled down to next to nothing. Hearing samples is a good way to get the songs pushed, but nowadays, when artists release a song... someone uploads it to torrent sites and everyone jumps it like a pack of wild piranhas!

Yeah, however Jim, how do you know those same people aren't attending the concerts and supporting the artist in some other way too? Again, I'm not condoning illegally downloading the music, BUT, you feel you had a valid excuse at one time for downloading import music by saying it was too expense for you and that you had supported the artist in other ways. Maybe that is the same excuse that the other downloaders have as well?

I'm just saying that the music industry could have nipped this in the bud long before it ever became a huge problem if they were not such dinosaurs in terms of embracing new technology. With all the money they were willing to put toward law suits and this stupid "six strike" thing they got going on now, they could have more wisely invested that money into developing technologies that would be supportive for both the artist and the consumer. The problem is, the music industry is all about supporting the corporate fat cats, NOT the artist. Any artist who thinks differently is probably lucky enough to be the current flavor of the month, and then once they're considered yesterday's news, they'll realize this is true.

So, don't blame this all on the consumer, or in this case, the nonconsumer. It's not all their fault. People bought music before the internet, because something was offered to them that they felt was worth the money and that they couldn't get for free. The music industry has to offer something to music listeners that's so much better than what they would get by simply downloading the song. Right now, what is that exactly? If I only like three songs from an album, I just want to download those three songs. Well, on iTunes, the cost per track has went up over $1.20 per track on average. So, I buy three tracks, I've spent almost $5 on three songs. I could spend $5 more dollars and buy the album, but then I may not like those five other songs and feel I wasted $5 on those other filler songs.

However, what is starting to happen now - with streaming media - is that people will, once again, have an opportunity to listen to their favorite artists and be introduced to similar new artists, such as with programs like Pandora or Spotify, on the road, in their cars...where I bet MOST of the music listening actually happens. AND, on top of that, the artists get credit for each time their music is streamed. This is at least ONE very logical way that the music industry can support their artists while offering something, for either a low price if not free, to the consumer to try before they buy. It's all legal, no need to download, just pick your playlists, build your Pandora radio station and go from there. Most consumers, even your serial downloaders would be just fine with that. Even if no "physical" music is purchased this way, at least the artist is getting something for it. But, what the music industry needs to do is figure out something to give to the consumer, to entice them to want to purchase the music. For me, it would be top quality sound, even if it's vinyl or some hi def CD music, it needs to be something that you can't get by simply downloading the track.

It's a question of culture.

Older people (like me) grew up buying albums/CDs. Younger people (under 20) grew up NOT buying album/CDs.

Young people are the highest consumers of music, and they're not buying. It's not going to change.

Record companies can threaten lawsuits, internet providers can ramp down bandwidth and cut your connection for using torrent sites. But that's still not going to make them buy albums/CDs. It won't even make them buy downloads. They'll stream via Spotify and YouTube, or they'll decrease the attention they give to music.

Also, all this "killing the industry" stuff applies more to the majors who made billions off false numbers and never adjusted to the market. They're watching their high profits and bonuses dwindle. Personally, the fewer entities around forcing new Gaga's and Bieber's into the world, the better.

People will still make and buy music...just on a much smaller scale. It's all about perspective.

Pelata wrote:It's a question of culture.

Older people (like me) grew up buying albums/CDs. Younger people (under 20) grew up NOT buying album/CDs.

Young people are the highest consumers of music, and they're not buying. It's not going to change.

Record companies can threaten lawsuits, internet providers can ramp down bandwidth and cut your connection for using torrent sites. But that's still not going to make them buy albums/CDs. It won't even make them buy downloads. They'll stream via Spotify and YouTube, or they'll decrease the attention they give to music.

Also, all this "killing the industry" stuff applies more to the majors who made billions off false numbers and never adjusted to the market. They're watching their high profits and bonuses dwindle. Personally, the fewer entities around forcing new Gaga's and Bieber's into the world, the better.

People will still make and buy music...just on a much smaller scale. It's all about perspective.

I agree 100% with you Pelata! I also think you bring up several good points. I think the "big boys" of the music industry deserve to die off. They are the ones feeding the Bieber/Gaga crap to everybody for far too long. That does nothing for the artists of melodic rock music, who are purely talented and deserve to have their music shared with the masses. That is why I believe streaming media can be a very useful tool for artists of all genres - especially Pandora and Spotify. That is pretty much the present day version of trying to get your music played on the radio. By this time in five years, terrestrial radio will probably be all but dead, and most artists won't even consider radio a priority in getting their music out. I really feel this is a great time for a lot of these great bands that have been introduced to us thanks to Andrew McNiece and this website. Artists are finally starting to get recognized for the interest they have received from You Tube and the other streaming services. That is how they are going to make their money - that and touring. Selling the actual music is going to be an after thought - but I still say to offer the music in some hig def, high fidelity source that would make me want to own the physical song.

Melissa wrote:I wouldn't say it's an obligation for me to buy their music, if it's a band/artist I like, I want to buy their albums. That's their creation and livelihood and they deserve that. I get paid for what I do for a living. No different for them. And I do go to concerts too, but not really much into the merch at concerts except for more music I may not have, I've bought plenty of cd's at concerts over the years. At the last 2 MRF's I went home with bundles of cd's both times because of the numerous bands there at one time. Will again this time too I'm sure. The only thing I wish I could do is replace all my cassettes from back in the day with cd's. Would cost a bunch to replace them all though!

I'm sure you can find a lot of them for cheap on ebay, yard sales, flea markets, etc., at a reasonable cost. I would buy albums though, it's the way

music was meant to be listened to.

Streaming is where it's at now. 10 bucks a month gets people all the music they need. Less than the cost of a CD. As far as quality, the age of the audiophile is dead. Everybody carries a stereo in their pocket. Their most expensive piece of audio equipment is in their car.

Don wrote:Streaming is where it's at now. 10 bucks a month gets people all the music they need. Less than the cost of a CD. As far as quality, the age of the audiophile is dead. Everybody carries a stereo in their pocket. Their most expensive piece of audio equipment is in their car.

Not for me. My most expensive is in my home played with a needle and I wouldn't trade it for Jessica Gomes.

Well, yes I would, but only for her!

I buy music and can't justify stealing it. Downloaded my fair share as a kid in the Napster/Kazaa/Morpheus days, but it's unfathomable to me to steal music now

No Surprize wrote:

Melissa wrote:I wouldn't say it's an obligation for me to buy their music, if it's a band/artist I like, I want to buy their albums. That's their creation and livelihood and they deserve that. I get paid for what I do for a living. No different for them. And I do go to concerts too, but not really much into the merch at concerts except for more music I may not have, I've bought plenty of cd's at concerts over the years. At the last 2 MRF's I went home with bundles of cd's both times because of the numerous bands there at one time. Will again this time too I'm sure. The only thing I wish I could do is replace all my cassettes from back in the day with cd's. Would cost a bunch to replace them all though!

I'm sure you can find a lot of them for cheap on ebay, yard sales, flea markets, etc., at a reasonable cost. I would buy albums though, it's the way

music was meant to be listened to.

Oh yeah, I have found some on ebay and used to find some in a music store in a mall before it closed, they would carry used cd's which was great for finding replacements. It's sad how much all that is disappearing, was in Best Buy not long ago and their cd section is almost nonexistent now. Don't have a record player though, and only tape player is in my car, but I only use it for the adapter for playing the music on my iphone and ipod, lol. I'm afraid to put one of my old tapes in it, might break! But you're right, records have a magic about them.

Melissa wrote:

No Surprize wrote:

Melissa wrote:I wouldn't say it's an obligation for me to buy their music, if it's a band/artist I like, I want to buy their albums. That's their creation and livelihood and they deserve that. I get paid for what I do for a living. No different for them. And I do go to concerts too, but not really much into the merch at concerts except for more music I may not have, I've bought plenty of cd's at concerts over the years. At the last 2 MRF's I went home with bundles of cd's both times because of the numerous bands there at one time. Will again this time too I'm sure. The only thing I wish I could do is replace all my cassettes from back in the day with cd's. Would cost a bunch to replace them all though!

I'm sure you can find a lot of them for cheap on ebay, yard sales, flea markets, etc., at a reasonable cost. I would buy albums though, it's the way

music was meant to be listened to.

Oh yeah, I have found some on ebay and used to find some in a music store in a mall before it closed, they would carry used cd's which was great for finding replacements. It's sad how much all that is disappearing, was in Best Buy not long ago and their cd section is almost nonexistent now. Don't have a record player though, and only tape player is in my car, but I only use it for the adapter for playing the music on my iphone and ipod, lol. I'm afraid to put one of my old tapes in it, might break! But you're right, records have a magic about them.

Melissa, what kind of albatross are you driving? j/k Mel, you know I love ya.

LOL Rick, it's a 10 year old Toyota but don't worry, there IS a cd player in it too!

Melissa wrote:LOL Rick, it's a 10 year old Toyota but don't worry, there IS a cd player in it too!

A 10 year old Toyota is just getting broke in. Glad you have the CD player too.

Don wrote:Streaming is where it's at now. 10 bucks a month gets people all the music they need. Less than the cost of a CD. As far as quality, the age of the audiophile is dead. Everybody carries a stereo in their pocket. Their most expensive piece of audio equipment is in their car.

Yep, exactly what I'm getting to. What I think the music industry is doing right is that they are starting to count the number of streams a song gets, which will count toward the singles chart. And - knowing the in the next few years, people will have access to streaming music even on the road, that will eat into the temptation to downloading the music. I would rather pay $10 a month to stream any song I want to listen to, create playlists, etc... at a decent sound quality (as decent as you're going to get with music stream) rather than to pay for the downloads and then never listen to the song again.

I will add though, I love vinyl and I love being able to hear music at as high fidelity as possible, so I think there would still be a market for high def music to those who want it.

Rick wrote:

Melissa wrote:LOL Rick, it's a 10 year old Toyota but don't worry, there IS a cd player in it too!

A 10 year old Toyota is just getting broke in. Glad you have the CD player too.

True! Good to "see" you, lol