To be completely honest, I couldn't tell you how it will turn out. But I do blame the whole sad, sorry situation on a few who saw an opportunity to jump in and take advantage. A few years ago the only threat on the Internet were blogs which offered downloads to their readers. But they did do 'as a service' for fans. So few knew about them and those who wanted were able to download things and it was pretty much like making cassette collections for friends. And it pre-dated at a time when one's worst fear on the Internet was an unsolicited email from a Nigerian prince.
But as soon as corporate interests started placing click ads, everything began to change. And it did so in a very bad way. I specifically remember that long wait of anticipation by investors to see if ads would work on a group that had no interest in them or in any way to monetize or commercialise the Internet. Of course it didn't until the later arrival of a few vultures who were determined to mine the Internet for all it was worth. Now that seems so long ago. But I think the advent of streaming has made things all the more problematic, being sold as a way of meeting halfway - providing music without giving it away. Clearly that isn't the case.
But in reality it was merely a way of drawing traffic to one's site in order to make money. None of which ever really finds it's way to the artist. And since I am an artist, albeit with a small 'a', I will not stream music because anyway you look at it it's still putting more money into hands who are using other people's talent and not compensating them for it. Owners of streaming sites are just as wealthy as the traditional labels bosses these days and still the artist is not part of the factor, just his music.
That's all anyone cares about on either side of the argument. It's a capitalist wet dream: selling free things and making a killing off it. Modern p*** with no one else involved. Wank all the way to the bank. It's like finding pictures of the artist's wife or family members performing sex acts and anyone being allowed to exhibit them on the Internet and charge admission. The artist is left helpless with little more than a constant, fearful anger and a feeling of helplessness and words of legal intervention are simply ignored with a smirk.
I'm just not buying the 'friendly to artists' approach of most sites. Until the day comes when artists are paid without fail it remains a service more akin to shooting fish in a barrel than anything approaching a fair shake. Until the return of that terrible 'R' word, nothing is ever going to change because Internet entrepreneurs have much deeper pockets than any artist, or even most labels. It's to the point I am almost understanding why labels resisted downloads initially because knowing their own greed they feared the opening of Pandora's Box and all that money up for grabs that they fully intended all for themselves.
But as to Bandcamp, it seems to work because it's an artist choice. Nowhere near ideal but nowhere near as painful as most all the rest. I hear a lot of talk saying iTunes is over lately. Citing it's lack of innovation and other unnecessary change for the sake of change reasons. But like it or not, they are the only site in the history of literally thousands of failures that remain strong. That aren't perfect by a long shot as long as they continue to hold the proviso of paying artist's throught their labels but it was the only way to get labels to sign on. And the reason they remain at the top of the heap is because they keep the music they are expected to protect, just that - safe from being stolen outright. Something no other third party has ever been able to do.
I know, I know.
Stop for god's sake! More than enough from me. You just brought up some points that got me thinking about how we ever got into this mess in the first place.
Login
FAQ
Search
