When the recording industry first started making noise about illegal downloading, I felt myself rebelling on the inside. Granted I couldn’t think up any convincing reasons about why I should be able to have free access to whatever music I liked, but from somewhere came feelings of distrust. After all, I didn’t feel a whole lot of sympathy for the guys who sapped my high school minimum-wage job money by charging me $17.99 per CD.
And of course the ongoing piracy fight is far from over. Last month, the Recording Industry Association of America filed 395 lawsuits against students who have downloaded media, including 37 students at UCLA. But despite the recording industry’s persistence, I still have that same gut feeling I did when Napster was drawing a lot of heat, but now I have a better idea why.
The recording of music, at least before downloading, could provide musicians and producers with wealth far beyond what the traveling musician of the past could hope for. Wealth, on that scale, introduces a new motivation into the business of producing music. What was once only able to sustain became able to produce riches, and, if we think about the motivations of those involved with creating music, it seems fair to say that this might remove focus from quality and place it on marketability.
And while I’m not sure how to define art or music, I can say that most of what I hear on the radio doesn’t challenge listeners, teach new ways to feel emotion, ask the deep questions, raise social conscience, or do any of the things that I know good art can do.
For all the alarmist talk, I’m not too worried about illegal downloading. We’re told that it’s bad for artists, bad for the industry and bad for our ability to hear music. But I feel that thinking about each of these in turn should at least make it sound reasonable that this isn’t the case or that it just doesn’t matter.
As far as artists go, breaking into mainstream, terrestrial radio is incredibly difficult to do. The artist’s style must match some industry representative’s taste, who will then go to excessive lengths to brand that artist in a particular way that seems plausible to would-be consumers. And with the amount of repetition on the airwaves, there just isn’t a whole lot of room left for up-and-coming artists to introduce themselves. For these sorts of artists, getting their music into cyberspace will result in higher concert attendance and merchandise sales.
And even if the catastrophic perspective of the industry is correct ““ that recording for the most part will cease, since it won’t be compensated ““ there are still other options. Since most modern bands make a large portion of their money from live shows anyway, they will survive, while attendance to concert venues will rise. And if the stranglehold on terrestrial radio is released, more musicians will have an opportunity to perform, as you only need one recording to entertain millions of people for hours on the radio, but you need a new band for each several-hundred-person venue. Also, the rise of do-it-yourself recording shows that musicians who care can overcome obstacles to make their own relatively low-budget records.
When it comes to the industry’s forecast for itself, I think it’s telling the truth. Currently, the RIAA claims a $4.2 billion loss every year due to file sharing. But honestly, I have a tough time sympathizing with the industry. Recording is a relatively recent development in the history of music and has provided business-minded individuals a great chance to turn sound into money.
But that chance seems to be winding down. Internet distribution and do-it-yourself production from independent musicians may just be the next step in the evolution of how people access their music. The recording industry as it stands today by no means needs to be a permanent feature of the music world.
Most obviously, listeners stand to benefit the most from downloading and Internet access to music. Since the Internet can sidestep clogged traditional information channels, like terrestrial radio, listeners can easily discover music that matches their personal tastes. This certainly sounds more compelling to me than being forced to accept prefabricated industry artists by MTV or whatever. But most importantly, when some of the economic impetus for music making disappears, the only motivation that remains is passion.
And I, for one, would rather listen to music made by someone in love with the creation of sound than someone passionate about stardom and wealth.
If you are a musician who aspires for stardom and wealth, don’t e-mail LaRue at alarue@media.ucla.edu.