Re: Issa on NPR!

"David Rieken" <[email protected]> Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:43:28 -0800
Newsgroups gmane.music.jane-siberry
Message-ID <[email protected]>
The really cool thing is that Issa is doing this clearly with the intention
of getting her music out to as many people as possible.  She does not use
the word "free" but instead uses "gift" for a reason, I suspect and it is
clear that money is not her focus.  It is a lovely thing and the mention of
possibly adding a "good deed" choice in the payment options as mentioned in
the interview is a terrific Idea.  Again Steven, thank you for the link to
the interview.  It was great.

David

On Jan 9, 2008 7:40 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't doubt that the Radiohead experience was characterized as a "flop"
> in
> the media; I'm sure that's what many have been saying.B
>
>
> As for my saying that the "hard reality" is that people will often take
> music
> for free if given the opportunity, I want to make clear that I'm not
> saying I
> like this, and I'm not saying it's fair. But to me, it's kind of like
> global
> warming-- I don't like it, it doesn't sound like a great idea, but you
> have to
> accept it as a starting point to move forward with awareness and
> intelligence.B
>
>
>
>
> I like your analogy of the sandwich; when you put it that way, of course
> it
> sounds ridiculous. But this may not be the best analogy, because we're
> dealing
> with digital replication, and that pretty much changes everything. A
> business
> giving sandwiches away is literally parting with physical resources that
> cost
> it money. Once something is available as a digital file, it can be
> replicated
> endlessly and effortlessly. Yes, at a certain level there are bandwidth
> costs
> to deal with, but for any one person to replicate and distribute any one
> file,
> the cost is essentially zero.
>
>
>
>
> This is not to deny the cost of producing the music in the first place.
> This
> has always in fact been the bugaboo in the music industry. It costs a lot!
> And
> the industry has always been content to let the few huge acts pretty much
> subsidize everyone else when it comes to production costs. This model is
> in
> the process of changing but no one knows exactly what else to do, it
> seems.
>
>
>
>
> As for MySpace, I think you may be off a bit in that any major web site
> that
> streams music *is* in fact paying for it-- they pay for it indirectly, the
> same way radio stations pay, via annual licensing fees. Individual artists
> aren't necessarily compensated this way, but that has to do with the
> exploitative contracts most have had to sign along the way. (That said, I
> am
> no friend of Murdoch's at all; I dislike MySpace and dislike everything
> the
> man is associated with.)
>
>
>
>
> I disagree about short samples, by the way. I never feel comfortable
> hearing
> music this way, and will never make a buying decision based on snippets.
> After
> all, for all these years, have radio stations been playing truncated
> samples?
> No, they play the whole song. I really want to hear a whole song, and
> maybe
> more than once or twice.B
>
>
>
>
> The reality of digital distribution of music necessitates a lot of changes
> in
> the music industry, needless to say. Unfortunately, people don't like
> change,
> and will often fight against things that really can't be fought,
> ultimately. I
> would never be suggesting that artists shouldn't be paid for their work.
> But
> music is a tough tough business, and that was true well before the digital
> age. Very few people can support themselves this way, and one of the
> problems
> with the digital age is how many many many more people now have access to
> recording and distributing music. Neither the number of people who are
> willing
> to spend money on music nor the amount they are willing to spend has gone
> up
> at anything resembling the rate of the number of musicians plying their
> trade
> publicly over the last 10 to 15 years. One of the side effects of that
> reality
> is that many more musicians will not be getting paid very much. That's not
> a
> statement about how "free" or not music "should" be, it's just economic
> reality, as far as I can see.
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy