4 ms·

What's the argument for file sharing ruining music? I would think more the opposite, that it improved distribution and discovery for lesser-known artists, and s

What's the argument for file sharing ruining music? I would think more the opposite, that it improved distribution and discovery for lesser-known artists, and so helped diversify music.

jl6 2y ago
There’s a theory that for a period of time in the 00s, all the “smart” people were getting their music for free online, while only “dumb” people were buying CDs, and so popular music charts began to reflect the tastes only of the “dumb” people. I don’t believe it because (a) crap music has always existed, and (b) Napster nerds were numerous but still weren’t a critical mass capable of moving the market like this.
- brabel 2y ago
  I downloaded stuff from Napster (and its successors) but still bought CDs that I liked it in the store. Having a CD of vinyl collection used to be a matter of pride even if you had everything also on mp3s.
bitwize 2y ago
Every musician I know says this. Back in the day, you could actually make money selling records, which led to a flourishing of music. New hopefuls would work their butts off, playing gigs and selling small-print-run CDs to make ends meet while they waited and hoped for a major label to give them their big break. And they really had a shot at a big break, too. Then file sharing happened, and if you were any good your stuff was being pirated as soon as it was released, if not before. Major labels won't touch pirated stuff, it's radioactive. The only way to make it is to take a bath on record sales and hope that enough people buy concert tickets and swag to meet your expenses. So yeah, the likes of Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Drake -- they all get rich, but everybody else is struggling. The idea that piracy helps listeners discover new music may well be true. But it doesn't help put food on musicians' tables -- just the opposite. See also: open source and the corrosive effect it's had on programmers' livelihoods.
- giantrobot 2y ago
  This is so wrong it's fully in Poe's Law territory. Musicians at no point have made a majority of their money from album sales. To make any money off an album most bands need to sell tens of thousands of records. Most records never sell anywhere close to that number. Record labels are basically loan companies. They sign a band on a contract for X number of albums. The royalties of those albums is then divided up among the label, the song writer(s), often the engineers and producers, and then the actual performers on the recording. A majority of the royalties are kept by the labels with the rest divided up among everyone else. For signing this contract the artist is often given an advance. The label will also front money for studio time, recordings, and promotional work. Most of that fronted money the artist owes to the label so they start in arrears. When an album is purchased the label keeps the artist's royalties until their advance and other "recoupables" are paid back. It's only then an artist actually makes money off their album sales. The only ones that even begin to see money from album sales are ones that manage many tens of thousands of sales. Most artists never sell enough albums to pay back their advance. Amortized over time an advance for a record for most artists is pretty paltry. In order to make a living with music they need to tour or luck out with a licensing deal. The money for artists has always been in touring. They get a cut of ticket sales and keep their profit made off selling merch. But like with everything else it's the megastar acts that make most of the money. Many artists make barely above minimum wage on tour. Music piracy has not really changed the calculus at all. Most musicians barely get by playing music. The megastar acts have always been exceedingly rare.
  - bitwize 2y ago
    But before Napster, artists could sell more records and had a better chance of getting out of the hole with the record company. After Napster, not so much. And again, record companies won't touch your work if it's already out there on the internet. I used to work with people who tried to make it in the Boston music scene. They say it was great in the 90s because the scene was thriving. Then file sharing happened, killed the scene, and made it more difficult for musicians to make a living.
    - 2y ago

What's the argument for file sharing ruining music? I would think more the opposite, that it improved distribution and discovery for lesser-known artists, and so helped diversify music.

jl6 2y ago

There’s a theory that for a period of time in the 00s, all the “smart” people were getting their music for free online, while only “dumb” people were buying CDs, and so popular music charts began to reflect the tastes only of the “dumb” people. I don’t believe it because (a) crap music has always existed, and (b) Napster nerds were numerous but still weren’t a critical mass capable of moving the market like this.

brabel 2y ago
I downloaded stuff from Napster (and its successors) but still bought CDs that I liked it in the store. Having a CD of vinyl collection used to be a matter of pride even if you had everything also on mp3s.

bitwize 2y ago

Every musician I know says this. Back in the day, you could actually make money selling records, which led to a flourishing of music. New hopefuls would work their butts off, playing gigs and selling small-print-run CDs to make ends meet while they waited and hoped for a major label to give them their big break. And they really had a shot at a big break, too. Then file sharing happened, and if you were any good your stuff was being pirated as soon as it was released, if not before. Major labels won't touch pirated stuff, it's radioactive. The only way to make it is to take a bath on record sales and hope that enough people buy concert tickets and swag to meet your expenses. So yeah, the likes of Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Drake -- they all get rich, but everybody else is struggling. The idea that piracy helps listeners discover new music may well be true. But it doesn't help put food on musicians' tables -- just the opposite. See also: open source and the corrosive effect it's had on programmers' livelihoods.

giantrobot 2y ago
This is so wrong it's fully in Poe's Law territory. Musicians at no point have made a majority of their money from album sales. To make any money off an album most bands need to sell tens of thousands of records. Most records never sell anywhere close to that number. Record labels are basically loan companies. They sign a band on a contract for X number of albums. The royalties of those albums is then divided up among the label, the song writer(s), often the engineers and producers, and then the actual performers on the recording. A majority of the royalties are kept by the labels with the rest divided up among everyone else. For signing this contract the artist is often given an advance. The label will also front money for studio time, recordings, and promotional work. Most of that fronted money the artist owes to the label so they start in arrears. When an album is purchased the label keeps the artist's royalties until their advance and other "recoupables" are paid back. It's only then an artist actually makes money off their album sales. The only ones that even begin to see money from album sales are ones that manage many tens of thousands of sales. Most artists never sell enough albums to pay back their advance. Amortized over time an advance for a record for most artists is pretty paltry. In order to make a living with music they need to tour or luck out with a licensing deal. The money for artists has always been in touring. They get a cut of ticket sales and keep their profit made off selling merch. But like with everything else it's the megastar acts that make most of the money. Many artists make barely above minimum wage on tour. Music piracy has not really changed the calculus at all. Most musicians barely get by playing music. The megastar acts have always been exceedingly rare.
- bitwize 2y ago
  But before Napster, artists could sell more records and had a better chance of getting out of the hole with the record company. After Napster, not so much. And again, record companies won't touch your work if it's already out there on the internet. I used to work with people who tried to make it in the Boston music scene. They say it was great in the 90s because the scene was thriving. Then file sharing happened, killed the scene, and made it more difficult for musicians to make a living.
  - 2y ago