THE WAY IT IS NOW
The debate rages on. Is
downloading music free really stealing, or not? Indie Musicians in all
genres have to give their music away for nothing these days. Only those
who perform live are able to receive any kind of monetary benefit from
their work. Indies can sell murch (merchandise) : tickets, albums, T-shirts, caps,
buttons, refrigerator magnets, mugs, and on and on, but their murch
doesn't come to them free. They have to pay for it. They need to buy
the items in bulk and then pay to have the band's branding images
applied. There's no guarantee that they will sell, either. If the
products don't sell, they end up in a box in a garage. Nevertheless,
music lovers seem to appreciate these physical items over the music they
download. To quote one Indie Musician's mutterings, while downing his
sixth beer, "It's like a $5 cap gives them more pleasure than the
feeling they get when they listen to my song. They must like it; they
download it all over the place but they won't pay $1 for it."
Many people are debating the morality of this situation. The
actual legal fact is that if the music has a copyright, which usually
forbids duplicating and/or use without permission then it is, in fact,
illegal.
However, those who download free music feel that it's
okay. They believe that if they can stream it, it must be legal; after
all, everybody is doing it. Finally, confusing legalities set in when
you start comparing radio music, provided for listening-only, to filling
your personal music collection that you keep in your personal player.
Yet, the bottom line,
as far as streaming companies are concerned, is that they do pay the
musician so they are legal. However, it's the amount they pay and when
they pay, that are suspect. A musician needs thousands, maybe millions,
of downloads to reach the number of dollars that the streaming companies
require before they pay out. For many Indie Musicians it takes years to
reach the specified levels of downloads and so the company retains their
money for the duration. They could stockpile all those indie's
earnings, put them in an interest bearing account, and be earning money
for all those years. That's pure speculation, of course, but in any
case, the question becomes not one of legality, but one of fair play.
The Little Known Facts.
Historically musicians have had an
unsavory position, in all of our human societies, as far back as history
goes. Dr. Jacqueline Boles' book, Life Upon the Wicked Stage, A sociologist's look at
people in show business, makes it clear that musicians and entertainers
in general, have never been accepted as part of mainstream society. In
a comment about the raw beginnings of music she quotes: Cave paintings
which portray huntsmen blowing antler "horns" suggest that some early
hunters also made music…(Harwood 1984). At this beginning point in the
evolution of the status of music-makers, there may have been some
inherent human instinct that made a connection between music and magic,
since hunting was so crucial to the magical mystery of survival.
About 5,000 BCE (Before Common Era) studies of the beginnings
of civilization indicate that shamans were probably the first
individuals to provide music for healing and ceremonies of various
types. In these agricultural societies, which gave birth to established
villages, towns, and eventually cities, the organization of humans
living together began to develop. Concepts of individual status grew as
a fundamental part of human society. There were landowners, merchants,
priests (shaman), soldiers, craftsmen, and workers (slaves). Here is a
quote about the position of musicians in tribal life.
Many of the reports about performers in tribal societies document
their reputation for deviant behavior, in his ethnography of the
Trobriand Islanders, Malinowski (1925) reported that a well known singer
was said to be engaging in sexual relations with his sister, a violation
of the incest taboo, punishable by death. However, the villagers
excused his behavior saying, in effect, "You know how musicians
are".
Human societies everywhere had well developed
notions about musicians; none o which were very respectful. Dr. Boles
writes that in Germany during the Middle Ages a hierarchy among
musicians was well established. Trumpet players held the top position
because they were usually in the service of a nobleman and provided
grand entrances and other fanfares. Musicians who traveled to various
courts, or who served a particular royal court, enjoyed more prestige
than the wandering street musicians. Unattached indie musicians were
considered to be outside society altogether. In India, those who played
wind instruments were thought to be the dregs of society, "...only
a Sudra, a low caste, and outcastes may play wind instruments as the act
of blowing on the instrument makes a high caste individual impure, and
therefore, defiled." It's apparent, from these two variations
alone, that the status of musicians was not left up to chance. Social
leaders gave considerable thought the matter.
In the 19th
Century, things began to change. The public developed interest in going
to fairs, circuses, plays, and tossing coins to street performers. As
the Century progressed, more and more entertainers came from middle
class families; were not abandoned as children, were not alcoholics,
handicapped or born to impoverished families, as was common in earlier
times. By mid-century, Stars emerged in the entertainment business. We
still support the star-system. Celebrities are paid well, supported,
and loved with blind devotion. However, we are not concerned with
celebrities here. They are the people who, in the past, would have had
a connection to royalty and that association significantly enhanced
their station in the social order, which it still does. Moreover, this
change did not seem to apply to indie musicians as much as it did other
subdivisions of the entertainment world. It seems no one expected
anything from musicians except that they ‘ keep their place’ and make
music.
THE BAD-BOY/GIRL MYSTIQUE
Because of the
historical attitude toward musicians generally, it's no wonder that
the bad-boy/girl mystique has come to be a standard image for musicians.
It is also easy to see why musicians have deliberately donned
bad-boy/girl personas. Some have defiantly rationalized, "If
that's what they think of me, I'll show 'em!" We
admire the bad-boy or the bad-girl; they are worshiped because they are
not conventional people. They are exotic, unpredictable, surprising,
and deviant. It's true that people involved in the arts are often
headstrong, individualistic and non-conformist but these qualities are
not abnormal, deviant or despicable. These qualities are often admired
in other professions.
Ultimately, the bad-boy/girl guise is a
marketing trick. It is so popular and immediately accepted that when
it's done in tune with the current culture,
it can bring fame and
fortune. A good example is Madonna performing on stage in her underwear.
The marketing-mask is all we see. For those indie musicians who do not
want to cultivate that mystique, who are inherently shy, who just want
to do what they love, or who want recognition for their music and not an
assumed identity, then it's a long hard climb. Being a working
musician is not an easy life. Any form of entertainment is challenging
to individuals as well as their families. In addition, most Indie
Musicians have to earn their money in some other occupation so they have
to work twice as hard as everyone else.
In the end Indie Musicians have to live with the social rank that was
assigned to them at the beginning of our civilization. Consequently,
they sense society's attitude. Fans and consumers alike say,
"We'll just toss you a tenth of a half-of-a-percent of a
penny; you're just a musician and you know how musicians are;
worthless".
WHAT CAN WE DO?
In view of the results
of the studies in Life Upon the Wicked Stage it seems that human beings
are still at Mid-19th Century and not giving any real consideration to
what they are doing but simply following an eons-long prejudice that has
no reality in modern life. Possibly, it's about not giving it any
thought at all. Musicians are not shamans, magic, or mysterious.
Sometimes they spend their last dime to put an album together.
It's not likely that this is news to anyone who downloads music,
but still, those independent musicians who are not connected to the
royal court of a music-industry-corporation are tossed less than pennies
and not acknowledged for being the creative, devoted people they are.
Isn't it time to stop acting from an ancient unconscious
belief pattern? Do modern people really believe that musicians are all
deviants? Do we still believe they are worthless and that they
don't deserve consideration? It would seem so. Do you think about
the musician who created the music as you download free music? The work
it took to get it there is costly and time consuming. In the end, the
critical technological stage of getting an album ready for the Internet,
or for any other avenue of distribution, can take a year or more. There
is much to consider and Indie Musicians pay for it all; recording,
mastering, graphics, printing, and distribution. Often the next step is
finding it being downloaded from Spotify. It's heartening to know
that people like it and will download it but the sense of being cheated,
disregarded, never goes away.
Record labels, managers, agents,
PR people, and even entertainment laws, are guilty of discounting the
musician behind the song. And with the recent EMI merger:
Here is a
Charles Darwin Quote to think about: "It is not the strongest of the
species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the
one that is most adaptable to change."
Let's adapt to
the Internet. We probably can't change the corporations right now
but we can change ourselves. It's good that the music industry has
changed. It has always been about the money provided for music industry
companies. Now is a good time to change that. We have Occupy
Wallstreet, MoveOn, and all kinds of petitions to expose inequities,
deceptions, greed, and corruption. Many people with high ideals are
proposing changes for the better. Why don't we, as individuals,
offer to pay musicians for their work, just as we pay any other working
person? Buy music from sites that give the musician the lion's
share of the cost.
OCCUPY THE MUSIC INDUSTRY BY SUPPORTING
INDEPENDENT MUSICIANS.
Now today, Paul Williams, CEO of ASCAP, is actually confronting this
inequity. Please support his efforts to make significant changes. The
official title is SONGWRITER EQUITY ACT OF
2015. Let musicians know that finally, after 80 years of
discrimination, we appreciate them. We now believe they should be paid
like any other respectable working individual.