the ethics of file-sharing in experimental music

[horaflora]

Regarding CDs in particular, at the time that they were the prevalent form of media, I thought of them primarily as a good way to listen to music portably, which has now been infinitely overrided by mp3 players... so I no longer buy CDs, though buy (waay too many) records still.

I suggest, generally, that since setting up a download service to distribute digital files is basically free, labels who are suffering in the CD market should certainly look into that option, and I suspect that artists would still approach you about putting out releases and that you'd still hold sway with reputable review sites/publications (which, so far as I can tell, is a large chunk of getting a known 'label' on one's release in the first place - more likely to garner attention).

personally, I'm looking forward to the day when my releases are shared on slsx as I look at that as a good sign that when next I tour, hopefully, some more people will come out to the shows - touring is great fun, and making a long tour financially feasible is far more important to me than making money off CD/Record sales... most of the money at shows comes from donations, I find, even records are hard to sell these days.

Ethically, I rationalize downloading (illegally) artists album(s), when I see them at a show, and donate more than the suggested donation, buy them beer, or if their interested, give them some of my records for free.

this track title off Matt Weston's "The Last Of The Six-Cylinders" helps inform my decisions/direction in these matters too, fwiw:

"The Reward Has Got To Be That This Is What You Do"

thanks

[faster]

"The Reward Has Got To Be That This Is What You Do"

Man, that sounds like a Dixon quote. Good title.

[Charon]

...and I suspect that artists would still approach you about putting out releases and that you'd still hold sway with reputable review sites/publications...

This, I think, is a very interesting question. To what extent do others here (including especially label owners and proprietors of reputable review sites/publications) think this would hold true?
I lean towards agreeing with you on the first part, but I'm unsure about the second.

"The Reward Has Got To Be That This Is What You Do"

well if you haven't got that, you haven't got anything.....

[simon reynell]

...and I suspect that artists would still approach you about putting out releases and that you'd still hold sway with reputable review sites/publications...

This, I think, is a very interesting question. To what extent do others here (including especially label owners and proprietors of reputable review sites/publications) think this would hold true?
I lean towards agreeing with you on the first part, but I'm unsure about the second.

Yes, I agree with Charon on this. Without some kind of simultaneous physical release I think that download releases would get pretty much ignored by most listeners & critics. I think this has happened to date in 95% of cases, and I don't really see why it would change.

One more question, I suppose addressed primarily to those who use unauthorised downloads / filesharing and don't feel that there's a problem with it:
if specialist non-profit labels shifted to, say, a system where they released music as both pay-for downloads + a small run of CDRs, would you buy the downloads, or would you continue to get the music for free?
And would musicians be happy with such a system, or are CDs much more attractive as a format than CDRs (assuming that the packaging is the same for both)?

[fslmy]

I have a preference for limited CDr's and don't really like the idea of mass produced CD's. People still talk about Wright of Derby which only had 100 copies and is now free to download. If you're not making money by printing 1000 CD's why do it?

[johnson]

One more question, I suppose addressed primarily to those who use unauthorised downloads / filesharing and don't feel that there's a problem with it:
if specialist non-profit labels shifted to, say, a system where they released music as both pay-for downloads + a small run of CDRs, would you buy the downloads, or would you continue to get the music for free?

It depends on the price and my budget. I pay for a lot of downloads that I could get for free, but not always. I support financially when I can.
I like Bandcamp, especially the name-your-own price feature. With that, I can be sure that I always give something, even if it's just $2. I also always help promote what I download from Bandcamp, in a small way, by sharing the link on Facebook.

And would musicians be happy with such a system, or are CDs much more attractive as a format than CDRs (assuming that the packaging is the same for both)?

I'm perfectly amenable to it - just had an album that I played on and am very proud of released as CDr/DL yesterday, actually.
I don't believe that there's much advantage to a CD over a high grade CDr. There's the issue of compatibility with older CD players, but that's less and less an issue all the time. I think that the preference for glass-mastered discs is mostly just a prestige thing.

[faster]

I have a preference for limited CDr's and don't really like the idea of mass produced CD's.

I used to agree, but I have had too many CDRs fail over the years. I'm sure some are due to media quality, but many are TYs. Some are also due to sloppy handling, but I'm sloppy and that's unlikely to change.

On edit: I've never dl'd from bandcamp, and it's definitely true that listeners pay a lot less attention to DL releases. Even a net label as consistently curated and tastefully presented as Homophoni never gets the props it deserves.

[horaflora]

Well, what if said label was already established, like Another Timbre? I wonder if the already established 'cred' would carry with it the props that a label that's only ever been DL would have difficulty attaining...
I wonder if there's any instances of this already to extrapolate from...

[Damon_Smith]

Format hasn't and won't change the music I want to hear. I think established labels have a better chance of getting listeners and critics to care about downloads, I am still releasing cds plus dl for pay = and my releases end up on SLSK - which is still better than nobody caring!
The cd is still easier to send around for promos and a good thing to sell at concerts.

[vamos]

seriously, fuck this

share your music at least do pay what you want for digital

are you that selfish

other musicians need to reference your work for the good of the music

if every post in the Now Playing thread was allowed an accompanying link : yes [but no...]

I have no money I'm spending too much time working on my own shit [driving my car]

I NEED TO HEAR THIS FUCKING MUSIC FOR FREE, I DON'T HAVE MONEY

WHY THE FUCK IS MILTON BABBITT'S MUSIC NOT ON SPOTIFY

[vamos]

2: The musician is the ultimate chooser of price. That's what it comes down to.

Bandcamp? Chooser?

Pay what you want is my favorite option. Music is beautiful. It is not idealistic to allow free music spread. It is simply the only remaining option. Pay what you want, charge full for physical copy.

Making music is extremely fun. Why get paid for fun? The true fascism is alive and well in the artists asking for money. We all know it's bullshit.

[vamos]

The true WORK of an artist [to get paid for] is self promotion. Anyway, sorry for the aggressive and irritating tone. I'm drunk.


I think self promotion includes desperately trying to figure out ANOTHER album cover. (Did Schoenberg have to figure out his album covers for every opus?) The majority of physical representations are kind of self promotion based. They are business. A label exists to send hype to critics and basically to print physical copies. I admit, I value a physical copy in a kind of primitive way. I don't value it MORE than the ideas contained within the music itself. The music is what has given me meaning. The physical copy and images associated are pretty mundane in comparison.

But the question remains:

How does a musician live their life making great music? They wouldn't have time for a 'job.' So somebody is going to need to be ripped off. It's more complicated than I thought. It seems as though there is a 'sucker' in every instance of music business. The hours spent on that 'physical copy' and hopelessly building blogs and putting music in sigs is worth at least rent's pay.

[e-Miel]

Im happy when I see somthing I made being shared op slsk of megaupload or whatever. I see it as a big compliment.

And I don't really know where the future brings us. I know people that listen to aboveground music and the only thing to put "on" is youtube. And I understand that, if your not into music thats released as 20 0r a 100 pieces then youtube is awsome, a friend of mine thinks youtube is great because he can find almost everything for his taste and he doesn't even have to download it.

[e-Miel]

Im happy when I see somthing I made being shared op slsk of megaupload or whatever. I see it as a big compliment.

And I don't really know where the future brings us. I know people that listen to aboveground music and the only thing to put "on" is youtube. And I understand that, if your not into music thats released as 20 0r a 100 pieces then youtube is awsome, a friend of mine thinks youtube is great because he can find almost everything for his taste and he doesn't even have to download it.

perhaps filestreaming is the future??

[subvert47]

In 10 years time what percentage of us will still have a CD player?

I certainly will. I only started buying CDs about 10 years ago. Before that it was just vinyl. And I'm still buying vinyl. And even cassettes occasionally.

As for digital downloads: I don't buy much. An ongoing subscription to emusic (which I might close soon) and the occasional thing off Amazon. If I'm going to pay for something I mostly want product not code. Most of my downloading is of long deleted stuff from the mp3 blogs (i.e. for free).

As for Another Timbre CDs: I have all of them. Does that encourage you at all?

[jon abbey]

welcome!

[bedouin]

Out of all the labels I have come across in this area of music the last few years, it is Creative Sources that seem to be producing the most. I counted 30 releases for the last two years (on their site). So I wonder if their pay the production cost yourself and we then publish model is the reason behind it. Which is also true for some major contemporary classical labels too (Neos for instance), unless you happen to be Lachenmann or Cage.

[faster]

I haven't listened to much of their catalog, but I still find it hard to resist calling them Creative Sausages. And if I'm going to "pay to play" I'm going to self-release.

[EllusFanKanDay]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up already but I think too many artists/bands that are just starting out limit their potential audience and put people off by expecting listeners to pay for what seem to be very amateur recordings with little in the way of interesting or original ideas. I rarely have enough money to buy new albums so when I do I'm not going to take a chance on something I'm not sure I'll like, I want to feel that I'm getting good value for money.

[rainey]

I wonder what the incentive is against offering releases in both download and CD(R) format. It doesn't have to cost more (unless you insist on distribution in the online "stores" like iTunes and Spotify [no one talking about this as a major game-changer / life-ruiner?] — more on that below), and it seems to satisfy a number of concerns between content-creators and consumers.

As a personal example, I've offered the new BSC release as either a download or a CDR. There is only one place to get either of them (Bandcamp). Even though the download is lossless and the CDR costs more, roughly 44% of people have chosen the CDR option. The fact that this release is also a book kind of skews things in favor of downloads, I think.

Bandcamp-distributed releases also have full-length streaming at 128kbps. This can present something of a risk in experimental music, partially because 128kbps is not always particularly flattering to timbre-reliant music, but also because the first few minutes of a lot of this music does not always appeal to the vagaries of internet attention demands. As a consumer of music, I still appreciate the full-length preview, having bought so many releases based on a tiny preview only to find those releases to be heavily disappointing. It also allows those people without a lot of spare change to engage with the music without having to "steal" it. Still, if full-length streaming freaks people out, you can always use the "hide track" feature.

With regards to fidelity, a lossless download is going to sound marginally better than a CD, signal chains being equal (i.e., your file playback device is connected to the same system and has a comparable DA converter to your CD player). Apple Lossless and FLAC provide BIT-PERECT, IDENTICAL playback to WAV and AIFF, and any difference perceived is purely psychological (and you can always convert them back to WAV or AIFF to get a file IDENTICAL to the original). These lossless files can also have higher bit depths and sample rates than CDs (which are 100% married to 44.1k / 16 bit). CDs also introduce a medium-based jitter into the process, which can often amount to significant distortion (and not the nice kind).

With regards to costs and what the artist/label deserves... ugh, it's just too hard to wade through it all. But, consider that the cost of reproducing CDs represents only a portion of the cost a release, often an insignificant portion. Yet, this relatively tiny cost ($1-$2 per CD, for glass-mastered reproduction) has paid back in spades due to the psychological impact of the object's "worth". $10 for a CD? Great deal! $6 for a download? Why isn't it free? So, an investment of $1000 for CD reproduction has a half-decent chance of being recouped (or HAD a half-decent chance very recently), while the $50 paid to Tunecore for digital distribution in every significant online outlet is extremely difficult to earn back in digital sales.

There is obviously much more to consider in terms of diagnosis and prognosis (and many people have touched on these subjects). The thread started with a quote that I think has significant resonance:

commodities are on the one hand endlessly craved and hoarded, and on the other endlessly despised and undervalued.

In many ways, musical commodities that are craved and hoarded also express the contempt felt towards commodities and money. People go kinda nuts for shit that unabashedly presents its worthlessness.

[Edited for stuffiness and second thoughts]