Lily Allen & the Wicked Pirates (pt ii – the Author's Riposte…)

Stone me, it's taken two days to read this and associated articles. I feel it's the business model that is at fault from top down (bottom up?), but I feel it would be helpful to distinguish downloads from non-download sales. I still need to be convinced that physical sales of CDs will be replaced by download sales. An mp3 is all very nice to listen to when I'm out and about but when I get home in the evening I like to listen to a big fat music file and wallow in the depth that mp3 technology can't give me. And I like to own the physical merch, I love to have a collection (which I may file and re-file and re-re-file in my own OCD way according to my mental mood, as does the character Rob Gordon in Nick Hornby's High Fidelity), I get a little thrill each time I look at the shelves of physical music. I don't get the same frisson from looking at my iTunes directory. I can't be alone in feeling this way about the physical aspects of ones own music collection, surely? Perhaps the current levels of physical sales won't be maintained and we may, conceivably, see a drop in numbers, but I feel sure that we'll still see a 'record' outlet in just about every High Street - though we should be prepared to see 'record counters within non-record stores' as was so common in the past. The continued existence of HMV as a shop-front must look unpromising over the next 2-5 years. But the download issue is, for me, at the root of a failing business model - one that has failed to keep pace with the technological leaps. Record labels need to re-orientate themselves so that they become welcoming doormen ('Hello, how can we help you today? Guitar/Indie music? Have you tried these guys? Listen to a sample and if you like it you can click through to their website and see, read and even - in some format or other - engage with the band, buy tickets for their next gig at discounted prices and just cosy up to their music') instead of the unfriendly bouncers ('If your name's not on the list you're not coming in. Have you paid?') that many perceive the industry giants to be. Downloads have the potential to put control in to the hands of the artists. The trouble with that is that the artists sign away all control over their work when they sign a contract with the 'bouncers'. And that, for me, is where the problem behind all of these discussions about downloading. We're skirting around the elephant in the room and not talking about why the business model is becoming unworkable.

I am a fan and an enthusiastic downloader first, a musician second. My interests lie outside the mainstream, and I am very involved in the Creative Commons scene. It is here that I find interesting music and I create my own as well. I have been completely digital since 1998 and my current collection is about 7,000 items, which about 0.3% is in print. Of those, I see those all the time as second-hand items. There is no need to buy those new. On occasion I do buy downloads, but these have exclusively been digitised 12" dance singles. My own music three facets -- through composed chamber rock music like Henry Cow, realisations of visual scores such as Cardew's Treatise, or music based on the soundworld of dance music but explores other aspects of its trance inducing qualities. It will never make money because it's too heady. The vast majority of my musical diet is certainly not in the mainstream. The issue of making money is just not inherent in my sort of music. It is made by people who provide for themselves in other ways, whether it is by a 9-5 or other interests. Many have sponsors. Genesis P-Orridge, for example, makes his main living as a landlord. Some tour incessently, like my favourite DJ's. I think of my favourite musicians as being equivalent to sonic chefs -- and chefs do not buy their ingredients from Tesco's or Asda. I do not know personally a single music fan (out of eleven years of communication) that would be a fan of Lily Allen, or any music that would be at the top of any charts -- although I do listen, like, and pay attention to it on a musical level. I do not watch the videos -- in fact seeing the performer in a cookie cutter setting often ruins it for me. In addition I find that whole ilk corrupt with misinformation. If one checks the most popular groups at last.fm as I type this (a good a gauge as any), Lily Allen (and indeed most of the current top 40 in the UK, Muse a notable exception) is nowhere to be found. No one has ever recommended a "hit record" in my Facebook account -- it's all been obscurities, forgotten songs of yesteryear, or people encouraging me to listen to their own homemade music. When I was dealing with the popular methods (Napster, Soulseek, etc.) I did not come across many serious collectors like me (i.e. those who insist on keeping the music organised and in listenable quality) who even bothered with any music to break Billboard's top 100 in any year, except for the superstars of classic rock who have big live-tape collectors amongst their fans. The reason that I personally do not buy any "hit music" is that it wears out its welcome very quickly for me. After a month of hearing the same song, I'm not inclined to ever hear it again. Every few years there is one or two songs that have staying power with me, songs that I know I will want to hear 20 years on, and those I do buy. My view is that musical genres have fragmented so much that music fans will go to great lengths to find things outside defined genres -- the groundbreaking music, that which happens in secret. Since we all have access to it, simple access at that, the flaw may not be in the business model, but in the homogeneity of the pushed product. Tune into Sky Music in the UK -- music that is not hip-hop, grime, or classic rock is very definitely in the minority. I will not pay for any forum out of sheer suspicion that it will not carry anything I want as a long-term keepsake, and I'm certain that there are millions more like me. There is a very rich history of music that was created partially in opposition of the status quo, and I have always been interested in any music that has that quality. If I were to utilise iLike, last.fm, or name your favourite subscription service, the music that I want to hear is just simply not going to be there, either because it's long out of print or as Mike Oldfield once put it "if you won't play their game they won't play yours." Since I want to hear music that won't play their game above all other sounds I as a fan am left with no other choice other than to seek my musical sounds through downloading. As far as business models, the business model that has always been suspect to me is one of attempting to create an product that is so "with the status quo" that everyone young and old will automatically love it and buy it, and it will sell in droves. This is very outdated, and the last albums I remember being like truly like that were in the mid-80's -- Graceland, Bruce Springsteen's live box, and such. We're a quarter of a century past that. The last album that came close that had the same buzz as the blockbusters of the 80's that I can remember is Radiohead's OK Computer, and I grew sick of that within a month, never having listened to it since. It's not possible for those to exist any longer. The information highway is too vast, with too many crannies to explore. When I saw Lily Allen's complaint, my reaction was, "ah, here's someone that would like to be a superstar like Madonna, and wants a scapegoat to blame for her not being able to be Madonna." In other words, her dream is dashed because that model -- how Madonna got into that position -- is no longer in existence. When I see others complaints regarding the expense of making music, I see people who are angry that they will not see a quick return on their personal investments. The issue here as I see it is purely one of selling a souvenir. A record (in the basic sense, not meaning simply vinyl). Music is best experienced live and as music, so the answer is instead of record companies coming to the fore, it is show promotion. MP3's are tasters. The only way I can see the music business recovering from their dilemma and being able to utilise this is to stop going for the lowest common denominator and bombarding the general public with music that fits within a certain stylistic box. But Madonna will never sing Weill or Brecht. There are genomes that try to find music based on one's taste (Pandora, e.g.) but because the viewpoints on genre are so limited, they are woefully inadequate in introducing me to new music. That is the only thing that comes the old way -- good old fashioned word-of-mouth. Last.fm is the only site I've found to come close to being able to research for me, and it will take several more years before it is able to really do that for me. I'm not sure that everyone has that sort of patience. I can't help but wonder if this is the same argument as "home taping is killing music", but there can't be royalty levies on computer equipment as there could be on blank tape. Before mp3s, the industry were after people who were satisfied to tape their favourite radio shows and consume their music that way without having to buy the record. I will happily buy any CD that my ears deem worthy of hearing the music in its most pristine form (perhaps this is the reason that the Beatles are doing so well right now), but those are few and far between. The last proper CD I bought was by Hot Chip. It went to the second hand shop within a year because it did not have staying power with me. When the quality returns to that of the record industry's so-called "glory days" perhaps there will be a resurgence in people wanting to own an artifact rather than a download.

Genre? What's that for then? Culture? That's something we're sold by academics, isn't it? We play with whatever is appropriate. Whether that involves many people or just one. I'm not sure how far back everyone here remembers, but when we started recording we were using four-track portastudios and mixing down to cassette. It was over a decade before we had the ability to make CDs. Then this new-fangled thing called the internet came along and with it compressed file formats. The sort of music software that is now cheaply available allows all sorts of luxuries that we didn't have or need. We are so spoilt these days. Ever look into the history of Can? They made their first six years or recordings on a two-track reel-to-reel. A bewildering variety of material from beyond the confines of pop music and a legacy that has now been plundered by everyone from the original punks to trip-hoppers and shoegazers. It would seem that like The Velvet Underground only a few people bought the records but most of them went to work on those blueprints. Can's Holger Czukay: "restriction is the mother of invention". It took a long time to track down their material back then in secondhand record shops. The only album that was generally available was a mediocre offering from the late 70s that had remained in print because it spawned a barely significant hit single. Their material only became generally available again when the band bought up their back catalogue and reissued it themselves. Now every six months an article will appear in The Grauniad or The Wire about why Can were so fantastic. Back then you'd normally hear the reply, "who?" That's culture. Noisy bands, quiet bands. The fashionability of the band rather than the DJ briefly in the 90s. Better or worse economic and technological climates. Gigs rather than clubs. It's all ephemeral. Either you do it or you don't. When it's easy we get lazy. But it all takes time and energy. Hope we're all here in another ten years time to see where the fruits of these interesting times have taken us.

Ben - you've quite rightly called me on some very sloppy language, and I don't disagree with any of your points. I'm sure we could all write a book each about our feelings on this issue (and don't worry - I've no intention of doing so!). I get the impression we're talking across purposes, though, and it could be as simple as different taste in musical genres. I really enjoy making and listening to the kind of music that can't be made without amps, drum kits, rehearsal rooms and electronic toys, and I enjoy watching it performed live in sweaty venues. Stop me if I'm wrong, but you and Zali both enjoy making (and perhaps listening?) to music that is generally acoustic, made by one or two people at a time. I agree completely that the climate has vastly improved for that style of music, whereas I hope you will concede that it's getting vastly more difficult for the louder, sweatier kind. If it's no longer viable for that kind of music to be made I think that would be a massive loss, culturally - though I don't think it's the case. I do very much fear a future where all the music that's available consists of reams and reams of mediocre singer-songwriters and indulgent bedroom composers. At the same time, what I'm talking about isn't big business - it's people who do pay their own way, fund their own albums and tours and do their own thing. There are lots of people who enjoy listening to their music, and actively seek it out. What I find objectionable is when those people refuse to pay a few pounds to get their own copies of that music because they feel a self-righteous entitlement to the fruits of someone else's labours. I have no interest at all in groupies, limos or designer drugs; I just resent people telling bands that they should give up on the belief that the music they make has value. Particularly when the amount of illegal downloading indicates that at a large number of people think that it does. As far as I can see, the fatal mistake that the music industry has made is aggressively chasing pirates before establishing an accessible, reasonably-priced forum for buying and selling recorded music. The future I hope to see involves record labels large and small allowing and encouraging their product to be bought, sold and licensed for reasonable prices over the internet. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

@Ben Walker. Yes, yes and yes again. Music doesn't need to reach a global popular fanbase. Forget the idea of fanbase at all. Recording, gigging, producing music is something that we do because we have to. That's not a career, that's something much bigger. And if you never make any money from it: so what? You'll probably have to get a job and spend your time dealing with real people and real life rather than acting like a rock star. And as for bohemian poverty: I don't think anyone in the catchment zone for this sort of media really understands what poverty means anyway. Still, I regard the whole problem with a certain smug indifference: whether the industry changes it's business model, whether people continue to use buzzphrases like "business model", whether the industry collapses along with most labels and venues, there will still be a lot of us out here working hard, rather than dreaming of groupies, limos and designer drugs.

Paul, Ben, Mark, Steve, Rich, Chris et al.... Just want to thank all commenters on both of Ben's posts for taking the time & trouble to do so - and quite so intelligently too. As the humble, totally non-techie blog Ed., I've been bowled over by the engagement we have so far had - both on this issue and on the BET #digitalbritain debate over the last week or so. I have also personally learned a lot! We really want Media140 to be a completely open forum for this kind of discussion - so please don't stop reading and commenting! If you'd like to do your own guest post, please don't hesitate to contact me - ideally via Twitter - @deejackson. Thanks!

Some very balanced reporting between the two articles. I used to avidly use all of mp3 for the short time when I could. It was a brilliant system and a reasonable price per track. Itunes on the other hand is something I have hated since it was born. For the obvious reasons of; bloated client software, immobility, cost, DRM, DRM, DRM.. Suppose it is hard to tweak prices for legal download services to the point where you feel you are getting value - without a physical product - and still being able to pay; the artist, hosting service, and record company. So yes. As you suggest. If there was an $X (or £X) a month subscription based service which was as like the illegal download experience, for choice of music and quality. Then I'd splurge a fixed rate fee into my spreadsheet of expenses...

Great post(s), Ben. I've been reading, writing, ranting, unconferencing and musing about this for a year or two now, and I've found that the discussion/argument/debate is always muddied by language, and the rock'n'roll myth. Mark Wilden commented that it's now difficult, time-consuming and expensive to "get noticed..." It's true, but get noticed by whom? Radio? A&R? NME? Why bother? Getting noticed doesn't have to be the goal any more. You can connect directly with an audience in whatever way you want – play great live shows, be a social media tart, or just play local open mics. You can start a business without being on Dragon's Den, right? Speaking of language, how about this one (from Mark again*): "artists more concerned with creative integrity can’t rise above the crowd anymore". First, if you're more concerned with creative integrity than with making a living you'll create with great integrity and be poor. That's a fine choice, but nothing to complain about. Second, you don't need to "rise above the crowd" any more. That's the point of this new scary-shary connected internet stuff. As Hugh MacLeod puts it, "Don’t try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds altogether." I think your take on possible future models for the record industry is valid, Ben, but for musicians, artists and filmmakers it's irrelevant. The record industry loans money, sells copies of stuff and makes more money. Or at least it did. The film industry does the same. The only thing linking any of that to musicians and filmmakers is the money. Up-front investment. I understand that Mark (and Steve Monas) still want expensive and shiny albums and films to be produced, and that costs a lot of money. But that sort of production is big business, it's manufacturing, and it requires the economic and marketing strategies of big business. It used to be profitable for businesses to invest in small-to-medium bands because the markup on records was high and when a band succeeded there was a huge payback. That's not true any more. Small bands aren't a good investment for big companies. It makes much more financial sense to produce crap acts and market the hell out of them. So we're finished with that now. As independent artists we have plenty of ways of connecting with an audience, and as creative people we can come up with creative ways to make a living. This is all good. Of course it's painful when the layers of spin are whipped away. It was nice to believe for a while that our personal artistic expression would touch millions if only Mr X would notice us. It was nice to believe that as long as we were creative and stubbornly poor for long enough someone would sort everything out and we'd never have to earn a living like normal people. We all bought into the rock'n'roll myth, and understandably so. It's a great myth. I'll miss it. But now we're here, let's earn a living being creative. That's what we want, right? * I'm not trying to pick on Mark. He's a very nice chap, and I've been a fan since the Los Diablos days. ;)