MP3 & the TapeOp mindset

[@?,*???&?]

So this issue had to come up. For the first time tonight, I came face to face with an absolutely chronic MP3 downloader. She told me she was addicted to it. She has hundreds of songs on her computer. She goes to a small, private East Coast college on the Atlantic seaboard. Says all of her friends are the same way. Chronic Downloaders'.

Realizing the amazing impact this kind of stupid behaviour has on the industry we are all trying to participate in poses a very serious question.

Moreso, I seriously suspect with the DIY, low-budget aspects of the TapeOp mentality, many of my peers here on this messageboard are also 'Chronic Downloaders'. Anybody want to confess and repent?

What do you guys think the answer is to this problem?

[rhythm ranch]

Realizing the amazing impact this kind of stupid behaviour has on the industry we are all trying to participate in poses a very serious question.

I'm not sure what serious question you're posing, but I think the "amazing impact" is that it makes us rethink the old major-record-label paradigm. Under that paradigm, the majority of the money earned from the sale of recordings - even after the band has paid for all the expenses involved - goes to the label and the label still owns the copyright to the material. Imagine getting a loan to build your dream home, buying the materials, constructing the house, spending years paying off the loan and then in the end, the bank still owns the house. WTF?

When bands do earn, most of their money comes from touring and merchandise sales. Which in turn feeds record sales and the coffers of their label. If labels have to reconstruct their business strategies, we might have chance to benefit from a more equitable arrangement.

Record labels are complaining about reduced sales and blaming it on people downloading music via MP3s. Hello! We're in a recession! Businesses around the country have been closing their doors forever. Maybe record sales are down because nobody wants to spend $15.00 for a CD. (BTW, Do you remember that when CDs first came out the labels justified the inflated prices with the argument that there were only two manufacturing plants in the world that could produce them? How many plants do suppose are currently able to produce CDs? Has the price come down?)

Most of the bands I know see the Internet, and distribution of their tunes via MP3s, as a great way to get exposure that they never could have received 10 or 15 years ago. The bands are getting themselves and their music out to an audience that wouldn't buy a CD anyway, because the audience never would have heard the band if it weren't for MP3s. At least the exposure affords them a chance to sell a CD.

What do you guys think the answer is to this problem?

I don't see it as a problem as much as an opprtunity to come up with new ideas regarding the value and intent of recorded music; and strategies for determining who should profit from it and how much.

Let's brainstorm!
Mark

[bobbydj]

As I understand it all, I'm with Mark. But here's something. I'm that 'mentality' in the first post. Except I only have dial-up and can't get broad band cos of where I live now. So downloading sound file sof any kind is very difficult. But I wish I could because there's so fucking much American music I want to hear that I never will. After all, even though John Peel will play a lot of US indie (The Flaming Stars are 1 e.g. of loads that I want to follow up but am having difficulty doing so).

Here's the other thing. I only buy vinyl - unless the thing I want is really good and cd only, then I'll relent. If you want to know why I'm such a throw back it's because I don't feel like I'm getting as ripped off buying vinyl. the profit isn't as great for one thing. So even though the price is the same as cd, I always imagine that the manufacturing costs are higher. Thus the profit margin must be lower. There's also a more psychological aspect to my vinyl preference. It's the usual bullshit some of us come out with on here:

The artwork is better, bigger - you can see the details, read the lyrics without a microscope, and you're holding this relatively big thing. So, when you've ladelled out the moolah for a new record it literally feels like you have something of more substance right there in your mits.

As for the sound debate, I dunno. Vinyl, cd - whatever. I don't think I could tell in a blindfold test sometimes.

So mp3s for me would be like a radio. I'd down load suff and when I heard the stuff I loved I'd buy it. The rest I'd delete. This is how I am with home-taping tracks that I've taped of other people. And I used to be a fiend for this. But the stuff I loved I'd go out and buy.

[brakeshop]

Are we talking about illegal downloading from ripped cds, or bands offering their songs as mp3's?

[djslayerissick]

the following only applies to national/huge bands, not locals:

i download a lot. and i buy a lot - i buy tshirts, posters, concert tickets. but i dont buy that many cd's. often others will buy them for me as gifts at those special times of the year - but thats about it.

there are countless bands that i would have NEVER heard, never cared about, and wouldnt be a fan of had it not been for downloading. i wouldnt have their tshirts. i wouldnt go to there shows. and i wouldnt be praising them up and down and spreading the word to anybody who would care. and when those bands come in town, i always try to make it to the shows. b/c thats where i believe music truly lives - on the stage. the recording is simply just that - a reproduction of the music.

i REFUSE to buy cd's that do not have well done packaging - b/c in the world where downloading exists, if the packaging is crap, i just wasted my money. there had better be an actual *booklet* - and that booklet better have all the lyrics printed out.

i also download songs for dj'ing purposes (club play, remixing, parties, etc.) the top 40 club hits change on a weekly basis. i am a free source of advertisement for those albums. the link between the club and album sales is very tight nit.
--------------------------------

i like the idea of self-destructing free downloads - mp3's or whatever-it-would-be that delete themselves after 30 days or 2 weeks or some standard set of time. a 30 second clip only serves to annoy me. and it normally takes 4 listens before i make a true determination if i like something or not. i hated most of my favorite bands on the first listen - my brain has to adjust to take in the groove and vibe of the music.

[JES]

I have a huge-ass box of tapes in my basement. Mostly tapes of other people's LPs from when I was an underemployed teenager. I was a "chronic taper" back then, and it turned me on to all sorts of stuff. I don't regret it and I don't apologize.

I have yet to see convincing evidence that mp3s are damaging music sales. Show me some numbers. Or make a logically sound argument. According to the otherwise crappy May Mix Magazine report, CD sales have actually gone up since Napster went online. Just not high enough for greedy conglomerates who want higher profit margins.

As for the indies, I don't know what's plaguing them, but I'd really like to know how much indierock is available for free mp3 download. In other words, even if we grant the ridiculous argument that people would buy all the stuff they download for free, are they downloading that much free indie stuff? I haven't looked -- I tend to prefer to listen to albums, rather than songs, so I'm most likely to download a band's free mp3s to check them out (which I do pretty much every day -- at least one band a day on average) and then buy the CD if i like it. But that's a luxury, I suppose. I've got a real job.

Best,
--JES

[DUC]

Whenever I buy vinyl, I find the MP3s on KaZaA, so I don't have to go through the trouble of ripping my vinyl, which is way too time consuming. Also, vinyl sounds better... even cassettes sound better. In my car, I'd prefer tape, 'cos it sounds punchier. CDs and MP3s bore me, but I'd listen to them on me computer which has crappy speakers.

The thing about MP3s is that even if you buy them legit, you don't really own them. You can't trade them or sell them.

If you buy CDs, then whatever. More power to you. Concert/show tickets are always going up. T-shirts are $25. Fucking pinbacks are $1. The industry is trying to recoup. They should just sell vinyl and tapes. We never had this problem before. Technology is blah.

I bought an iPod and sold it after a week. It's like geeking out on music. I'd rather sit down with a nice libation and focus on my spinning vinyl. It's funny how MP3s will altar the way people listen to music.

Rule, if I like, I buy vinyl/cassette. I go to show. I tell others to buy. How hard it that?

You got to remember. People are downloading stuff for their musicology, music education. That's why fucking Avril Lavigne didn't know how David Bowie was. There's just too much music to learn. In the 80's I grew up listening to only a coupla' decades of rock. Mainly 60's and 70's. Now kids have 4 decades of music to learn. That's twice as much as we had to buy, growing up. How's one supposed to have a credible catalog?

[djslayerissick]

"People are downloading stuff for their musicology, music education.... Now kids have 4 decades of music to learn. "

damn... thats a good point. especially from a sociological standpoint.. (look at me wit one a dem der fancy werds...)

AND - its practically a requirement that people know multiple styles inside and out. before young people/kids could be metalheads, or punks, or clubbers, or ravers, or pop-fans. you used to have to be absolutely loyal to your genre or risk ridicule (that is if, unlike me, you care what others think about you). now its more accepable to listen to "a little bit of everything".

[swingdoc]

Maybe I just am missing something, but I have a very hard time believing that money is lost because of downloading. Just because a certain product is free, doesnt automatically mean lost revenue. TV and radio are an essentially free download. Those industries do just fine....
Downloads allow for public exposure, not saturation. Exposure is the key to revenue. The net has generated an enormous billboard for the music industry that otherwise would not exist to even a remote degree. Big or small, the production of music becomes available because of the net. There is such a vast "spin-off" market that each time a person downloads a song, they most assuredly purchase something else related to that exposure.
Over a few years, 50 downloaded CD's by little Billy equals little Billy buying 20 metric tons of music related stuff, not to mention little Billy's friends.
Think of todays music industry if there was no such free availability...
Do you really think that everyone who would've downloaded a song would have alternatively bought a $15 CD? For each person not exposed to that music...thats where the real money is lost.
The smart marketers would (and do) stop the whining, and embrace the current order of things. Its opportunity, plain and simple.
Also, dont get too bummed about this thing, cause technology will change. Todays MP3 is tomorrows' Model T. Innovation is alive and well.
I am way more concerned (on behalf of music) if and when free access and availabilty become seriously compromised.
Download away...
listen to the music...
Buy a T-shirt...

[A.L.]

I'm not too concerned. Yes: kids with the means to do so are burning versus buying at rapidly increasing numbers. But it's all the same MTV, Clear Channel etc., etc., crap. Both the star system and the Major Labels (and many Major Indies) need a massive kick in the ass. Will MP3s be doing the honors? I hope so. Probably not.

I confess to living in a fantasy world where success is secondary to making music for making music's sake. Indy record stores that actually stock truly independent and alternative music (in addition to major label stuff of course) seem to be actually doing quite well considering the recession. I seriously doubt 'the album' is going anywhere, there'll always be diehards pressing and buying CDs, LPs, etc. Like I said, I'm not too concerned. If everything gets turned on its ass well it's about time, but it seems unlikely.

Duc, Cassettes!?!? Noooooooooooooo!! I love them but they sound terrible! Ha ha, bless you. Mix tape memories...

[stillafool]

The RIAA can suck my dick.

[inverseroom]

I wonder what the difference is, percentage-wise, in the amount of revenue "lost" from illegal downloads of, say, the new Avril Lavigne, vs. the amount "lost" from illegal downloads of the new, I dunno, Low album. Of course this is impossible to calculate. But I suspect that music that the record company regards as "product," presents as "product," and profits from as "product," is treated with greater disrespect (illegal downloading) than music that is clearly an idiosyncratic, artistic effort by people who really care. The psychological difference is very great--corporate stars represent not themselves, but their corporate creators; artists represent their art. If you're downloading Low (hell, if you've even HEARD of low), you think, "Do I really want to punish Low for recording a good album?" If you're downloading Britney, you are not thinking about her as a person. You're thinking about the machine that created her, and that is trying to jam her down your throat 24/7, and so why not take a little more? GOOD MUSIC CREATES GOOD BEHAVIOR. If we sense that music is actually valuable, we happily pay for it. Good bands use MP3 as a marketing tool--hell, I do, and probably all of you do too. "Visit my web site, download some free stuff, and if you like it, buy a disc." It's a good technology with many fine uses. But as for stealing music, I don't do it, ever. There is already more good music than I will ever listen to, and my CD budget, which is rather low, is more than enough to fill my time (which I increasingly spend playing my own music anyway). Ultimately I will learn more from another listen to a great album than 45 minutes of casually sampling stuff online.

OK, I think I've said enough.

[dynomike]

Maybe I just am missing something, but I have a very hard time believing that money is lost because of downloading. Just because a certain product is free, doesnt automatically mean lost revenue. TV and radio are an essentially free download. Those industries do just fine....

Radio and TV are supported by ADVERTISING! Do you want advertising in your mp3s,vinyls,tapes, etc.?

I'm really alarmed how many of you people have no problem downloading illegally. Mp3 is great for exposure for small bands, even some big bands are giving away their current singles, etc in mp3 format. But stealing albums via file sharing, etc. really does hurt the industry, especially new bands. If their album doesn't sell as well as the other 5 bands that they got signed with, they just aren't going to get a second chance. They're gonna get dumped and have to take up jobs at 7-11.

Jeff, you are talking about the illegal downloads problem, correct?

The RIAA can suck my dick.

And stillafool... I'm glad you gave the issue some serious thought.

I don't really have enough time to continue, and I mean, the issue has come up before on this forum and the discussion doesn't seem to change anyone's mind anyhow.

mike

[@?,*???&?]

So many great things to respond to here.

First, Avril Lavigne is going to make tons from sales at 'Brick & Mortar' retail outlets, but a new alternative underground band won't. Downloading the songs in MP3 format of the new band robs them of all-important working capital for future releases.

Second, we can't blame downloading for destroying the music industry. Payola at radio and making songs 'paid advertisements' via independent record promoters has done that. Suspicious elements here, someone said in an earlier post, "Radio is doing fine". Well it wasn't before congress allowed them to charge for airplay. Now this revenue stream has become what the radio industry call 'NTR' or 'Non-traditional revenue' or money the station wouldn't have otherwise. It pleases Wall Street investors greatly because they see growth in their industry. Major labels can afford to pay the $300,000 to $500,000 for a single, independent record labels can't. Major label product gets aired, independent music doesn't. How do major labels recoup the cost if potential sales are being lost via downloading? Obviously, the major labels have helped create a pretty ugly, multi-headed hydra. Lol. The homogenous playlist this results in forces listeners bored with crap like 'Vertical Horizon' to seek new music on the internet- hence, it turns to downloading. Let me know if I am wrong connecting those dots.

Third, I do think a new band that gives away a 'single' at a show stands a chance to leave a better impression than a band that doesn't. Ideally, an MP3 can act as a tremendous promotional device. Hopefully creating rabid fans in the future. U2 always releases Maxi-singles with album b-sides. Great idea. Does anyone who is 'chronic' at the time of clicking to download a song think about what the song actually sounds like or are they just trying to gather every song, known or unknown from that artist?

Fourth, my attempt to connect this all to the 'TapeOp' mentality has to do with finances. The girl I met goes to a college that costs $30,000+ a year. She tells me she can't afford to buy new music. I remember buying an album a week when I was in college. I also worked in college radio and heard alot of new music that way. I had alot of friends who really didn't care that much about music. That ratio seems to have changed now. I think even the most casual listener could become 'chronic'. Perhaps MP3 has created more fans of music, or perhaps they are just addicted to clicking for a download.

Fifth, with 4000 students at the University, rest assured every student has a computer capable of downloading. Every dorm room is equipped with DSL. The 'herd' mentality of downloading may be playing into the 'chronic' aspect of it. I presented her with a few affordable options like pressplay.com, Rhapsody.com and half.com. I don't know what the result will be.

[JES]

I'm really alarmed how many of you people have no problem downloading illegally. Mp3 is great for exposure for small bands, even some big bands are giving away their current singles, etc in mp3 format. But stealing albums via file sharing, etc. really does hurt the industry, especially new bands. If their album doesn't sell as well as the other 5 bands that they got signed with, they just aren't going to get a second chance. They're gonna get dumped and have to take up jobs at 7-11.


mike

Um, can you please give me some actual examples of who you're talking about? Real life examples. Anecdotes are fine, statistics are fine, just don't tell me you reasoned this out yourself, because it doesn't necessarily make sense. I want examples of SMALL bands and INDEPENDENT labels that have ACTUALLY BEEN HURT by mp3 downloading. I want to know how it works economically, and I want real life, not hypotheticals. That's not too much to ask for those of you who are saying that downloading is "killing the small guy."

Bonus points if you can tell me whether or not new indie releases are widely available on Kazaa, etc. As I said before, I don't use those services, so I honestly don't know, but I'm totally not convinced by the "just reason it out" mentality. If you're making a factual claim, offer me some facts.

Thanks.

--JES