Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The file-sharing masses rise up! Readers respond to John and Ben Snyder's "Embrace File-sharing, or Die."
Feb 4, 2003 | [Read the story.]
There are three rock stations where I live. One is the "songs by REO Speedwagon and Kansas that you've heard 10,000 times" channel. And the other two play a mixture of nü-metal by talentless mooks like Mudvayne, or else "modern rock" that's secretly recorded by the same group of studio musicians and released under various aliases such as Creed and Lifehouse. Things would be bleak if it weren't for file-sharing.
I can now read about a band in a magazine or newspaper and sample something that I would never purchase, sound unheard, for $16.99. Recently I have bought CDs by 7 Nations, Dropkick Murphys, and Flogging Molly. They aren't on the radio or MTV. Without file-sharing I wouldn't have been able to listen to them and make the decision to buy the CDs.
I have downloaded a lot of music since I got cable Internet, but I bought more CDs the last 12 months than the prior three years combined.
-- Earl Van Dorn
In John Snyder's excellent article on the future of music distribution and the role of NARAS, he suggested a symposium, a "gathering of eagles":
There is an organization called the Future of Music, which held a three-day summit meeting/forum in January in Washington, D.C., on this subject, as well as other subjects of pertinence to NARAS, as well as all musicians. Panelists were drawn from many organizations and included authors, scholars in intellectual property rights, professors, lawyers for the arts, several record companies, the EFF, and even a few artists -- Patti Smith and Vernon Reid. It also featured keynote addresses by several House members and Senator Russ Feingold.
Transcripts from the three-day event are available at the group's Web site.
As a working musician/composer, I felt it was important to attend this summit and took the time and money to do it. NARAS was a sponsor of the event ... was Mr. Snyder in attendance?
-- John Pazdan
The Snyders make many important points and have an essentially correct view of the current file-sharing phenomenon and the self-defeating, paranoid positions of the recording industry, but there are points with which I would like to disagree, and areas where the Snyders completely contradict themselves that I would like to address.
Mr. Snyder says that in the future CDs will go the way of the 8-track and no one will own "the thing," preferring to simply store the music on a hard drive. If that is going to happen, then file-sharing will probably kill the business since no one will pay for anything.
But I don't think that's going to happen any more than the "brick and mortar stores are going away" arguments made by misguided "futurists" during the mid-'90s happened. Those prognosticators also predicted the end of the printed page with people reading "e-books" instead. Didn't happen, not gonna happen. Paper and on-line reading will coexist.
And I don't believe "the thing" -- whether it be CDs or LPs, which have actually increased in sales probably 10 percent while CD sales are down (ask me sometime to explain) -- is going to go away either. People like to collect "things" and have for probably tens of thousands of years. That doesn't suddenly stop because of a new invention! The problem is "the thing" being marketed right now is not attractive to consumers. It's too expensive, very poorly and cheaply packaged, and larded down with way too much filler. That's why people are downloading the songs they want and discarding the rest. But as Eminem's experience shows, produce a solid record with good packaging and "the thing" will sell.
Which brings me to the water analogy. You can open the tap and get "water," or you can buy it. They're both "water" so why are people willing to spend for "water"? Because it's better water, or at least the perception is it's better water, and in my experience, it is better water. Tastes better, feels better on the tongue, and has fewer chemicals and pollutants, so I'll pay extra for that water. Just as consumers will pay extra if the product is worthwhile. I read nothing in the Snyders' piece about sound quality. The fact is MP3 sound sucks. My generation used to listen to Elvis on an eight-transistor tiny tiny portable; when our tastes matured we became the "audio component generation." Go back and look at the advertising in Rolling Stone during the 1970s. Our sonic tastes matured.
Sit a kid down in front of a good stereo and play him a well-produced CD or LP or SACD and then his crappy-sounding MP3 version, and as I've proven again and again, the kid will respond.. And if he likes the music, he'll be willing to pay to own the better-sounding thing -- especially if the packaging is cool.
The record biz is beginning to respond to the lure of quality, and I guarantee you and them there is a market for quality, as the water bottlers have found ... Now some will package filtered tap water and give it an exotic name (Dasani, etc.) and that will ultimately fail, but do it correctly and it will succeed -- which is one reason LP sales are up. Kids are buying LPs -- not in huge numbers, but in increasing numbers and that is amazing. Ask them why. They like the packaging, they like the format, and they like the sound ... that's one reason my generation used to sit around listening to music instead of just hearing it while doing other things ... We liked the sound, and the music demanded to be heard ... plus many of us were stoned and had trouble moving around, but that's another story...
-- Michael Fremer, senior contributing editor, Stereophile
