The “Value” of Music
Lately I’ve been thinking and talking to others about the value of music. It’s a topic that comes up a lot in the discussion of free music downloads. Many in the business of selling music argue that the act of allowing music to be freely downloaded (e.g. Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails) reduces the value of music. By establishing a set price for music, music sellers are saying, “This is how much the music is worth.” By their argument, allowing people to download music for free is saying, “This is worth nothing”.
I’ve always thought “value” is like “beauty” … surely it is determined by the beholder or consumer. If I find a piece of music that enhances my mood in a manner that I find desirable, it has great value to me. If that same piece of music is offensive to you, and you would rather stick sharp objects in your ear than hear it again, it has no value to you. Value is subjective, as opposed to objective.
It’s much easier (in my opinion) to find music that appeals to you these days. The vast “interweb” is awash with little corners of music that tickle your fancy. No longer do you have to rely on a marketing push from a handful of sources to learn about what’s out there. You can go and find the music that is of value to you. Me thinks that it’s the handful of sources that are freaking out about all this because what was once a large pot of gold being shared by a few is now being shared by many, many smaller sources. People are spending their money in places where they get the greatest value to them.
The fact is, the world is changing when it comes to making and selling music. Many parts of the old music distribution chain will not be necessary in the future. Some are already feeling the effects in a big, big way. I truly feel for the people (yes, they are people folks) running these parts of the chain. Many (but not all) are hugely passionate about music and have found a way to make a living doing what they love. I see nothing wrong with that at all. But, as the landscape changes they can dig in their heals and cry “foul” … or rekindle that passion, get excited about the possibilities and adapt for the future.
As an artist, that is what I have tried to do … adapt. As a listener, I’m excited about all that musical goodness just waiting for me to find it!
A quote that really struck me … Michael Arrington of TechCrunch stated,
“Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist.“
I guess music has no value to Michael.
For the record: I am happy for people to freely download and share Hungry Lucy‘s music, videos and podcasts. Doing so allows for word-of-mouth discovery as well as letting people know we respect them. In return, I think people will respect us and ultimately support our music by buying it (if it has value to them). I have seen this to be true time and time again. That said, I trust that people respect the decision of other artists who do not grant such permission. I think they will come around eventually … until that time … please don’t steal.
Peace.
- War-N
I also think that the value of music is personal. People listen to different music for different reasons.
If I acquire a song without paying for it (the web, a mix from a friend) and I like it, then I will go and purchase it. I want to support the artist who created it. If I don’t like it then I don’t listen to it and it doesn’t make a difference whether I have it or not.
With artists such as Hungry Lucy I feel even more strongly that I should buy the music because I know how much work you guys put into it and that you really love what you’re doing and I want to support you for that. I have burned Hungry Lucy cds for friends because who wants to buy a cd when you can’t even hear the contents of it? It gets the word out which helps you in the long run.
Thanks for making me think about such an interesting topic.
Carolyn
I wholly agree with the last paragraph in particular. Personally, I did not download Hungry Lucy to begin with because it was impossible to find a few years ago for free, but I wanted to support you guys directly by buying it off your website. When I find a band and consider them definitely one of my favorites, be it top 5 or 20, I’ll buy the CD if there is enough worth listening to…and since Hungry Lucy is my favorite band I really would want to support the band as much as possible, unless of course there was an out of print track or something I couldn’t find.
Speaking of which, I found some interesting covers/tracks on LimeWire that I’ve never seen any discography of you guys doing, but it’s very surely Christa Belle. There was Love Vigilantes, Watcher, and Jealousy. There was another one titled “Lolita Love” but I couldn’t be positive if it was you. These are the only tracks I found for free besides the one I have on my CDs, but they only show up sporatically in LimeWire or not at all sometimes.
Anyway, my point is that I agree with you. Free music spreads the love and if someone likes it enough they will buy the CD if they really want to support the artist. I just don’t see the point in buying a whole CD for one song from some genre I don’t really like. I think a lot of record labels are very greedy and just consider “artists” objects that they can profit from. It’s sad that these people don’t care about their music, but I guess it’s expected.
This is a topic near and dear to me. Let me state my controversial view and then defend it: Music is not, nor should it be, free. Period.
Okay, now that I have raised some ire, let me explain. I am the co-owner of a recording studio in Madison, Wisconsin called Audio for the Arts. We work mainly with acoustic music: classical, jazz, choral, world music, folk, etc. The musicians pay my colleagues and me for our time, equipment and expertise. They pay for any side musicians whom they want to play or sing on the recording. They pay for a visual artist to make a nice layout for the CD booklet, the back tray card, the disc face, etc. They pay for mechanical licensing if they cover another artist’s songs. They pay a CD duplication company to make copies of the disc and they pay to distribute it.
So why–and not one single “free download” proponent has ever been able to answer this question–should the artist then be asked to give away his/her/their creative and intellectual property and thereby lose money?
Sure, in a perfect world, music would be free. So would paintings. And poetry. And dance performances and every art form which serves to elevate us as human beings by helping us see things in a new way through someone else’s art.
But while the musical artist, the CD design artist, the duplication company people and us recording and production engineers all absolutely adore being part of the creative process, we have the same reality as everyone else: Mortgages and rent to pay, groceries to buy, car payments to make and, in many cases, children to raise.
We are adding something of value to the world and we need to be compensated. No other view makes sense.
Respectfully,
Buzz Kemper
Hey War-N, Chris (“Skip”) here, formerly from BC.
As a struggling artist, and one that not too many people have given a shit about, musically-speaking, I’m a little bitter when it comes to trying to make a living with music, but at the same time, on my solo music website, I have basically 60 free mp3s up, spanning my entire career thus far. So far, I haven’t sold a CD of solo music, despite tracking how many songs have been downloaded.
Value is truly subjective.
I value so much music… soooooooooo much. I love music more than anything. And I buy what I can afford. And if I don’t buy it, I make sure to burn it for friends so they can discover the great sounds that I have. Maybe they’ll buy it. Or maybe they won’t… but maybe they’ll tell a friend.
Take for instance… paintings. We all love them. We might buy a poster of a Dali painting. Or we might own a Salvador Dali book filled with paintings. Or we might visit the museum. Just the mere act of sharing something with someone else, letting them stare in awe at a great piece of art, is sometimes reward enough, in the same way that burning someone a mix or an album so they can enjoy it, too.
Anything to get ears listening to the underground, instead of the top 40 radio station, I’m all about.
I don’t know what my point was with all of this…
All I know is I’ve been at this for a long fucking time, and I’ll continue to record and release music even if no one cares, because I love writing it.
My music blog:
http://www.underratedmusic.net
Hope all is well with Hungry Lucy. Keep up the awesome work, and stay cool, dude.
-Chris (“Skip”)
formerly of Beauty’s Confusion
Vivinane: The ‘Lolita Love” track is not Hungry Lucy … not sure who it is though. “Love Vigilantes” & “Jealousy” are cover tunes, and “Watcher” was one of our very early tracks.
Buzz: I totally hear you. To be clear, I would never suggest anyone should give away their music for free. This is all how I feel about my music.
Chris/Skip: I know how you feel. You love it, so you’ll do it no matter what … I’m right with you there!
Thanks for the comments guys … keep em coming.
I definitely agree with your take on the value of music. It is subjective to the listener. The trick is applying a price to it so the artist can make a living at it so the artist can keep doing it.
Free downloads … a very good marketing tool. There used to be a wide range of music on the broadcast airwaves. I see internet broadcasting and free downloads as a replacement for once diverse airborne broadcasting.
As a listener, I understand that at some point, somehow, some money needs to leave the listener and arrive at the artist. I avoid burning copies of complete CDs for other people, especially for the indy bands. I cheerfully send them copies of downloaded mp3s or lend them the CDs to introduce them to someone they have not heard. And when I buy music, I try to make it via the most direct path to the artist.
I guess the real trick is getting the listener community out there to realize all this.
I have an idea of how Buzz feels. I’m a software developer, and have had to listen to the “software should be free” rap of the Open Source devotees. I use and support Open Source, but that’s the author’s choice; if all software HAD to be free, I’d be out of a job.
In other words, I feel it’s the artist’s choice.
That said, consumers have been the victim of price fixing for decades. $15.99 for a CD is not cheap. I’m old enough that I’ve bought (licensed) the SAME music on cassette tape, vinyl, and CD. Now we’re being asked to relicense the music for each digital device we own (iPods, Zunes, PCs, etc.). And even though digital encoding and the Internet has drastically reduced manufacturing, packaging, and distribution costs, we’re asked to pay nearly the same price for a license (99 cents per track or so).
As a consumer, I’m looking for convenience, immediacy, quality, security, selection, bargains, and less restrictive licensing. I can buy a CD and loan it to a friend to introduce him or her to the music; why can’t I (legally) do the same with a purchased MP3 file? I can play the CD at home or in the car; I want to do the same with my digital music.
I certainly want to support the artists. There is a happy medium, and the free market will find it eventually. Those who ignore technological and cultural changes will be left behind. I’m glad you’re not one of them, War-N.
I agree with u, with the new landscape of musical distribution evolving … it’s a whole new ballgame. The net has brought about the excitement of discovery with a plethora of choice and taste, whereas pre-NET, we were targeted and fed only what BIG music wanted to maximize imvestments on.
Value to each, is unique and personal.
I agree with you 100%. I’ve been such a big fan of music that there were days I spent nearly ever extra red cent I had on anything I wanted to try. It was like a gamble in some cases where I never knew exactly what the artist was about ie a suggestion from someone with similar taste. My only argument is that now that I’m getting older by no choice of my own and I have to be more mature about money. The internet has helped me do that and be more more effective in what I purchase.
In the case of Hungry Lucy, it was a live show that turned me on to your music (no video included, so i never saw the video) The sound was unreal and I purchased a CD that night. Sometimes I strive to buy artist direct because I don’t like that the artists who work hard on touring and the music I love don’t always get the best deal.
The fact is that art seems to have fallen to the wayside for many many years while commerce, marketing, and image had taken over… music is the first place I’ve been seeing real artists starting to become “know” or discovered more easily with the fall of the old system. I hope I’ll be around to see the really big changes happen and hope those who really are passionate about music find new ways to help out and that will credit the artist more than the suits because art was and always should be about the art and the artist. Although business can never be separated, there is health in moderation of it’s control. I’m excited to see the changes coming.
Hi War-N,
First of all, I’d have to say that if I hadn’t heard all of Hungry Lucy’s tracks for free and your podcast for free and seen all of the creative visuals that Christa comes up with FOR FREE I doubt that I would’ve assigned so much value to your music. Enough so that I purchased all three of your CDs. Because I want to put money in your pockets to continue. If I had just heard a few tracks on a music page such as MySpace or Virb (and you had restricted access to the FREE part of those tracks, as many artists – some of which are my friends – have), then I don’t think that I would’ve grown so fond of what you guys do.
I do understand where Buzz is coming from as well. From my personal experience, I spent 20 years on paid music lessons, including a university degree in music – plus keyboard and recording gear, the expense of playing shows, paying for recording time, mixing time, mastering time, etc. Everyone who puts a lot into a creative endeavor should be paid for it. It is a heck of a lot of work. It’s also a huge risk personally and financially. Some of my classmates who graduated with our “Music Business” degree had much trouble finding secure employment. Some of them did – with Yamaha, Atlantic Records, NAMM – and had trouble keeping their jobs due to layoffs or mergers. It is a business and I believe that many people are afraid for their futures. I understand where they (and Buzz) are coming from in that respect.
However, I’d have to agree with Chris simultaneously. I do what I do because I love it. I do what I do because I love sharing it with other people that I think will enjoy it. I pay professionals to help me share my music with others with the best production value that I can personally afford. I wish that I could get paid for it, but the truth is, I still work full-time in another profession. Do I think that my music education, time, money and energy invested is a waste because I don’t sell and don’t make money at shows? The answer has been for 20 years and probably will be well into the future – No.
So I guess I agree with everyone in different respects. Thanks for letting me share my views here. And keep up the good work!
~Kate
Music, to me, is priceless. I don’t think you can really put a price on the tracks that have really inspired me. In the olden days of CDs, I kept on losing one of my favorite CDs, and I must have bought it literally four times. I crave certain songs like pregnant women crave food. Sometimes, I can’t be satisfied until I’ve heard what I have been craving. Can you really put a dollar amount on that? I can’t go through my music and say, “I like this song $50 much. This song, which I downloaded for free, I value $5.38.”
I remember finding you guys back in the days of MP3.com, and I found your tracks likewise inspiring. I was excited to buy your first album. (Though, truthfully, I was disappointed that “Grave” wasn’t on it; that was one of my favorites.)
Besides the obvious of enjoying listening to our favorite music, there are other considerations. Being a drummer/percussionist & photographer, I have a few thoughts to share. By studying different music from other cultures , it has allowed me to see that culture & its people in a different light. Listen to the rhythm and music and it reflects how the poeple walk, talk, move & feel. Music is its own syntac in that you can reach emotions & thoughts that you cannot do verbally or otherwise.
Ever watch a movie without the music soundtrack ? This is an art form in itself. Bad soundtracks/engineers can give away too much and ruin a scene but a good soundtrack can transform a mediocre movie into a great one. Watch “The Insider” with the Lisa Gerrard soundtrack, the music literally pulls you right into the deep emotional abyss that the central character (Dr. Jeffrey Wigand) is going through. I also love Tim Burton/Danny Elfman movies for the same reason. The movies are great in their own right but the soundtracks make them real classics.
What about painters ? Van Gogh, Renoir & Monet (and many others) have classic works of art that are worth millions. Art is one of the best investments a person can make and the rich folks are well aware of this. But I rarely get to see these works.
This is where music is a much better medium. If Layla could only be owned by 1 person or only be heard in a museum, how sad this would be. I believe its wonderful that Clapton has made millions from his art and I have never had a problem paying for it. He created a masterpiece and he should be rewarded for it.
I have never been into downloading music from ripoff sites (Napster, etc..) although I am also heavily involved with Jam Band scene where a lot of music if freely traded with the bands blessings (this became popular with the Grateful Dead) but at the same time, I have also purchased their studio CDs and happily pay for a download of a show. I recently attended a STS9 (Sound Tribe Sector 9) show and it was one of the best shows I have seen them perform (I’ve seen about 25 STS9 shows) and to be able to buy & download that show just a few days after hearing it live was a real treat. It is in heavy rotation on my ipod right now.
Music is art and it is wonderful that it can be shared but the artist needs to be rewarded for their years of practice, playing clubs & imagination to create their works of art. The only people I know that think its cool to download/rip off music are non-artists and Fox Newz watcher types.
OK, thats my .02 – Love & Music, Carlton
http://www.carltonwardphoto.com
poor people don’t deserve music then? Last time I check Empire Records didn’t take food stamps.
As far as the quote about “Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist.“ I can agree with that when it comes to artists that are just in it for the fame and glory and want to be the next “American Idol”. The kind of music that comes from that is just a product as is the face they’ve chosen to promote that product. 99% of it could be sung by anyone, and it would not matter as it all sounds the same. But I see how much people love that stuff and it does the same as all types of music does to us emotionally.
But yeah, I don’t think as much value is put into that kind of pop-trash, especially when kids see their favorite artists flaunting their bling on MTV and appearing in commercials for Doritios, Pepsi, etc…
Hungry Lucy and other Indie bands just don’t fit into that model and are appreciated more by their fans I think. I’m not saying you don’t deserve to make it big, it just does not sound like that was your intention. You make music because you love music. I’m more selective about the music I listen to because I love music.
You could also equate downloading music to shareware, some people will never pay for shareware regardless how much it improves their life.
On a related note:
http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/in-music-customer-is-always-wrong.html
Can always do what Issa (Jane Siberry) does, self determined pricing for songs … people can pay whatever they want … and pay heaps if they really connect with the tune as an appreciation or take it as a gift from the artist …
I think free downloads is good marketing strategy, honestly people who download the songs won’t buy the CD anyway, BUT those who would buy music would still buy the CD/ mp3 … i.e in the end the artist won’t lose the money they won’t make anyway
However … if the music are freely available to public then that will increase the chance to get people (those downloaders) to go to your gigs, then the artists probably will get more chance to make more $$ or even sell an extra copy of CD or two to those who have already downloaded the tunes too (coz they are probably drunk after the gig !!!)
Really unless u r superstar, most artists don’t make much moolah from selling CDs these days anymore, gigs gigs gigs are the way to go.
as an advertising producer, i work with actors, singers, and musicians, sometimes paying them union rates, and sometimes negotiating payment individually. clients often balk at paying someone what looks like hundreds or even thousands of dollars an hour, plus residual payments for future use of the recordings. the essence of my response is that everyone needs to eat, everyone needs a fair wage for their gift, for what they contribute to the world.
i feel the same about music. especially because of the immense marketing apparatus of the music industry, i feel nothing when i rip cds by famous musicians who have millions of cds in circulation. i prefer to pay for cds on independent labels. and when i see an artist in person, i almost invariably buy one or more cds.
i “give away” a lot of music, though, and this feels like a different consideration. because i have a very large, broad library of recordings, i give away a lot of copies of recordings. some of these hit, and people fall in love with an artist. most go nowhere, but those artists got a hearing they wouldn’t have.
as a visual artist whose work has been widely copied on the web without attribution or payment, i feel i know firsthand what it’s like to have one’s work “stolen.” true, i achieved a small measure of internet “fame” but gained nothing thereby. i have to work a job i don’t like much to pay for the privilege of producing work that people enjoy and trade for free, a situation most musicians are intimately familiar with.
ultimately, i think my basic principle–everyone needs to eat, everyone deserves a fair wage for what they contribute to the world–is a starting place.
Without the internet my music taste would be so much more limited. Without online communities and the chance to listen to non-mainstream tracks for free, I’d never have discovered metal and all the independent or minor label musicians I love. This includes yourselves (great selection of music videos, some tracks free to download on your page), Hannah Fury (several good full songs available to download for free, spanning her discography), Emilie Autumn (one album posted entirely for free several years ago, now uses MySpace and VampireFreaks), Morgan Grace (MySpace and CDBaby samples), Maplebee (same), Caroline Lavelle (free music player on her website), Sleepthief (same, plus music videos on YouTube), scarling. (MySpace), Sieben (same) and so on. Can’t get to many gigs so the only way I can support them financially is to buy all their CDs, which I’ll do happily for the enjoyment of the music. I’ve been put off bands by their labels releasing several versions of the same record, where fans wind up paying through the nose for a bonus track, a picture gallery and extra packaging. Some labels like nothing better than exploiting the fans’ desire to support a band they love.
So being a pirate has made me a loyal customer of a range of great bands and musicians who make music for the joy of it, not because they’re the latest polished product churned out by the X-Factor or whatever. Without the internet my eyes wouldn’t have been opened to them.
Great post. I am often lambasted when I write or talk about the inherent value of music (to me, the value is priceless as well). I had a person tell me “All music is just data.”
My fear is for the next generations. Yes, there will always be music-heads who go deep with music. But as kids grow up and music is relegated to another internet distraction, I fear music will lose its cache and JUST become another entertainment option, like a videogame or IM/text messages or whatever. As long as there are real artists making music that attempts to connect, it will always have a fanbase. But I think in 50 years, that fanbase will be like the fanbase of vinyl records today. For everyone else, music will be like wallpaper. Having music available for free only speeds up that process.
I hope I’m wrong!
Without free file sharing, I doubt I would have ever stumbled across Hungry Lucy. No one wants to pay for something they don’t like, so the ability the internet gives you to discover what’s around and what you like is invaluable. However, I do believe that artists should get compensation for their energy. After downloading a bunch of HL songs, I went back and purchased the CDs. We should constantly strive to support the music community by buying their albums, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that music is about music, not money.
I found Hungry Lucy on mp3.com years ago. If it weren’t for that model I would have never found many of my favorite bands I listen to now. I have purchased Hungry Lucy CDs only after downloading them. What I would like to see is a direct to artist pay what you feel it’s worth alternative. I would gladly still Pay $20 for all the songs on Apparitions alone. I think artists should get paid. Paid to play, perform, and record music. I like listening to music before buying. I don’t like knowing that the majority of what I pay doesn’t make it to the pockets of the artist. For some of the larger bands that can afford to tour nationwide like NIN and RH and Prince, free is the way to go. There was an article in Wired this month about Free. Very interesting read. What it fails to consider is the smaller guys.
Add a donate to the band Link on the home page.
I don’t think music’s value has a dollar price. I especially don’t feel that the actual artists make what they are worth because the record companies take so much of the money. I prefer to buy CDs directly from the artists and I go to concerts to help support the artist (especially smaller venues).
I have downloaded songs for free and then bought the album later. I don’t keep free stuff on my computer, unless I absolutely cannot find the music in any form other than what I found for a download. That does sometimes happen with the more obscure stuff I listen to. I have paid very large price to own music that is imported from Europe and Japan as well as 99 cents a song from various download sites.
For me music is priceless, but when we are faced with an economic downturn and the cost of imported music increasing, then it is just a matter of whether my budget can handle the cost or not.
I have mixed feelings on this whole thing. On the one hand, I love free music, and have found a lot of interesting bands via downloading. I agree with you that this is the way music is going, especially since some big names in more than one genre (Tom Petty is also big on free downloading) are offering up free downloads on their own. I also enjoy the feeling of being able to say, “Hey, check out this band,” and giving a burned cd to a friend, which I’ve just done with To Kill a King. I won’t do that if the artist isn’t cool with it.
Which brings me to the other side of things. I can really feel for people like Tom Shear, who points out on his website that people in the industrial/synth pop (and related) scenes don’t make money hand over foot:
“When you consider the small numbers most artists in this scene sell, it becomes clear that literally every purchase counts. If you’re a mainstream band selling 100,000 copies of an album, you might not notice if 100 people bootleg your album, but if you are only selling 1,000 copies, as many artists in this scene do, that’s a full ten percent of your sales you’re losing!”
I did initially find Assemblage 23 through downloading, and I have since bought all of his cds, but I also think I’m a bit of a dinosaur in my young age (still don’t have a cell phone, for example.)
I agree that the value of music is subjective, but I’d hate to miss out on hearing great performers from smaller scenes because they can’t afford to put bread on the table by making music. And I know you guys have day jobs and do Hungry Lucy anyway, but I expect there are other very talented people who either aren’t willing or can’t afford to do that.
Wow! I just read all of these comments in one sitting. Quite a mixed bag. The only comment I didn’t understand was by DJbarista. I think the people who can’t afford music due to large families and the like, and life in general, are the ones who need to be uplifted most of all. Music is a great healer. That’s one reason I write the songs I write. My goal with music is to help people know that they are not alone. I feel that if someone “needs” to hear Hungry Lucy and can’t afford to get a CD, they can go listen to us directly at our site with no money used.
This is SUCH a vast topic it’s impossible to point out every point I’d like to make. My bottom line is that Hungry Lucy makes music FOR the people, and because we love it. Those same people support us immensely just by listening to the music we’ve made. We are where we are due to “word of mouth” and loyal fans who have exposed us to friends and such. Those people have turned around and bought the cd’s…just look at the above comments!
And, once again, this is how we feel about OUR music and how WE like to operate. We know there is a circumstance to each and every band that makes music. No one way is the right way. This is what works for US. With or without the changes in technology, we will always share our love, and music, with the fans.
Thanks to everyone who voiced their opinion. This is the largest amount of comments ever! You are all lovely. Thanks for not being afraid to make your voice heard!
Take care,
cb
If you haven’t listened to this weeks MacBreak Weekly Podcast, episode 82 with Special Guest: Patrick Wilson of Weezer, you should. And then you should be a guest on MacBreak Weekly to talk about the music biz from the independent side. He seems to feel the CD is just a promotional tool too as they seem to make the majority of their money from concerts and merchandise. I think you two would make great guests discussing on how you do things from home studio recording, promotion, Podcasting etc.. And the fact that touring seems to NOT be your means to making money but the sale of CDs is.
I did listen to Macbreak Weekly #82 and was very interested to hear Patrick’s thoughts on the matter. He answered a few questions with “We let the label worry about that”, which told me that he does have a slightly different mindset than I.
I’d love to be on Macbreak… I’m not “famous” enough for that though.