The Americana and roots music authority

Making a case for free streaming music

First of all, once you have instruments (and you can make them with stuff you find if you absolutely have to/want to/need to), making music is free. Music is an intangible art. You don't put anything on a canvas or print anything. You can give it to people without leaving a paper trail. Had I the time, I would hunt down the quote from Pete Seeger where he talks about this being the reason it's such an inherently subversive and liberating art form/expression. Basically he said you can take away a painter's materials and a writer's pen, a photographer's camera, etc., but you can't take music away from people. Once you have a song, it's yours.

Maybe it was Woody Guthrie who talked about that. (Or maybe it's an idea they gave each other.)

At any rate, it's precisely this point that makes me almost kind of whole-heartedly sort of support the idea of giving music away for free. I'm talking about music the product, not music the form of expression - people should, by all means, expect to pay for live music (unless they're going to something like Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, which is a free-to-the-public festival, where the performers are paid by other means).

Once you record music, however, it's imprinted onto a disc or chip, or however that works, and it becomes some semblance of a tangible possession (even though it's not, really). This has given the recording industry a reason to exist for decades, of course. But music (and musicians making a living being musicians) pre-dated the recording industry by the entirety of human history. I have to believe once the recording industry shifts or fails or becomes whatever it will become, musicians will continue to do their thing, find there's a demand for it, and find ways to make their living doing it.

Despite my open-ended question a couple of weeks ago about whether or not The Album is dead, I have to reject the notion that the next generation will scoff at The Album altogether because my 12-year-old niece still wants whole albums. She hasn't grown up in a vinyl-loving, music-obsessed household, either. Her mother (my sister), granted, comes from the same music-obsessed family from whence I came, but she's the family member on whom the obsession took the least hold. She loves finding good songs, but she's perfectly happy to find them however they're available - whether free download, in the middle of a CD, or via some iTunes recommendation. So, the fact that my niece has any inkling what an album is leads me to believe either there's some innate human animal desire to own albums (maybe, unlikely) or that kids at school regularly discuss them. These are kids with iPods and total access to the world of free streams and downloads, but have a parallel desire - perhaps passed to them by their parents who, possibly, are more interested in the delivery method than my sister - to keep The Album alive.

Personally, I don't care how I find music; I just care whether the musician can actually play. When they come to my town, when I go to theirs, when we meet in the middle at some festival, can they configure an ordering of notes and words and rhythms that will make me want to not get up and walk away? Furthermore, can they change my mind even when they're not singing mind-changing lyrics? Let's face it, the only true delivery mechanism for music is the live performance.

Recordings are there because we can't keep the artist with us all the time to perform at our beck and call. Recordings are inherently imperfect and disappointing. So many of the greatest musicians will never make a great record. Those who do should be discussed and marveled over, critiqued and studied. But I'm of the mind that, the more people can hear the music, the better. So few artists have ever made their living off of selling records, anyway. There has to be another way for record companies to make their living supporting artists and helping to get the music out there. Maybe that means they shift from being recording-focused to tour-and-marketing focused. I don't know, I don't own a label.

I do, however, own an iPod and a computer...and a guitar. I do still make music for money and, while I don't anymore, I have at turns relied on my music for a good part of my income. So I feel like I can imagine well how it would feel to have my work given away for free. (I don't have to imagine too hard. Lord knows how many printed words I've given away for free over the years.) As I've said in this same space already, I'm an optimist. I don't think the way things are changing spells disaster. I think it's an opportunity. People want to stream music for free? Give them free streams on the artist or label website and then tell them you'll work with them to facilitate a live performance in their town. Tell them if they want the full record, they should help fund the printing of it. Just because you've been walking on a road for years doesn't mean you can't walk on the grass.

Tags: alt-country, americana, blog, downloads, free, music, singer-songwriters, streaming

Comment by Easy Ed on March 16, 2009 at 11:12am: This is my make-believe model for music digestion and revenue in the future:

-Every single recording...be it old, new, DIY, professionally produced...is posted as a file on that great big music cloud.
-The music is available to stream, to download, to burn, to be delivered in whatever physical form you want it, whatever.
-There is a small fee we each pay per month for the privilege of having access.
-The pool of money gets divided somehow (maybe like an AIG bonus) and distributed to composers and musicians in some fashion.

I know...too simplistic and who administers what and how, etc. But like I said, "make-believe".

Comment by Shaun Belcher on March 16, 2009 at 12:54pm: This is in fact another aspect of 'the market' called FREEMIUM...the idea as follows basically simple

FREEMIUM

The freemium business model was first articulated by venture capitalist Fred Wilson on March 23, 2006:3

* "Give your service away for free, possibly ad supported but maybe not, acquire a lot of customers very efficiently through word of mouth, referral networks, organic search marketing, etc, then offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base."

The term has since appeared in Wired Magazine and Business 2.0, and has been used by prominent bloggers such as Chris Anderson and Tom Evslin.

However where the lovely model above falls down is there a lot of musicians and the cake of royalties etc that kept the 'higher end' of the music business going is evaporating. not everybody can or wants to play a Bob Dylan numbe rof gigs but to survive that by my reasoning would be the only way of surviving...
Indeed lately it become apparent that the people on the 'circuit' are either mad as hell and never contemplate a home life or are heavily subsidised by larger concerns..pace Duffy doing Pepsi ads...

Instead of a middle ground we now have the chosen few subsidised by product placement and the millions of 'the rest' left to play for peanuts in a recession giving it all away.....personally the older model had its flaws but at least there was some kind of exchange between artist and buyer. You appreciated what you bought because you paid for it. I can download every album the Triffids ever made but it does not mean as much as the hard cash I parted with to buy their vinyl when it came out. That has all evaporated...are you telling me you feel excited at catching a feebie or paying for an itunes.....no way...their no exchange involved it immaterial.

I believe that low run vinyl and 'special extras' i.e. hand built sleeves, wooden cases like good old Fred Eaglesmith or even paintings are the 'extras' that will be increasing in future. Something to re-establish those broken links.

I give away all my music and eventually the limited, signed short run items are what will sell..not the music contained within as that already a given......simple. We are all Daniel Johnston now...

No Depression would make more income setting up a Craft store here..linked to Craft Mafia, recent developments in that scene..hey you could even sell handbuilt guitars..whatever involves a personal hand-crafted approach...that is selling all that digital cannot give you....
not just a lousy t-shirt though...come on in to the No Depression General Store :-)
Now that's Artist Development :-)

Comment by Hang Jones on March 16, 2009 at 3:19pm: As a songwriter, and one that is trying to make a living at it, I want people to purchase the music I record. That said, I support streaming music for free. Hell, I'll go as far as to say I am fine with free MP3 downloads as well. While everything I do is self-financed, and selling my music will allow me to fund future recordings, ease the cost of touring etc, trends on the web have changed the expectations of the end user, permanently. People want news, music, video, the world NOW and FREE. I don't see much sense in fighting it honestly, as we've seen how well the record companies have come out in that battle. The good news, well, great news is, MP3s ain't worth much. Sonically they sound terrible, and last time I checked you can't rip your buddies entire vinyl collection to your hard drive (true, there are those USB turn tables, but have you heard one? they sound like ass). Speaking of vinyl, it can not be coincidence that record sales have made a triumphant resurgence in the age of the iPod. There are people out there that recognize MP3s as the sad little medium that they are. These folks are willing to spend money to hear music, but that music must be presented in a format that is worth their hard-earned cash. Free can also be good, and, well, free marketing. The term "viral marketing" might make me want to gag (as any kitschy marketing term does) but wide-spread digital downloads can, and has, done wonders for the careers of indie artists.

So punch my chad with a "hell yes" for streaming music. The folks that dig what I do will find a way to put a few bucks in my pocket to keep me going. And those that download a tune only to hear it every few years when the "random" playlist of their entire MP3 library manages to hit my song where never mine from the getgo.

Comment by Grant Alden on March 17, 2009 at 7:40am: As the resident curmudgeon here...the whole notion that music should be free makes absolutely no sense to me. If we care about GOOD music, then the people who go about making that music have to be compensated. Unless we want only to listen to the ravings of the trust fund class, and I should prefer not to.

But, wait, they could play live and make money there? That's great...IF playing live is what you're good at. But not every musician is a songwriter, and not every songwriter is a dynamic performer. So not everybody can (nor should) play live.

Finally...the way we value things in our society -- rightly or wrongly -- is financial. If we believe art should be free, then it has no value. Maybe that paradigm is changing, but I think not.

There has to be a reason one pursues arts of all kinds, and it is necessary -- at some point along about the time one turns 30, say -- to make a living at it, or to set it aside and figure out how to make a living. I do not wish to live in a world filled with amateur music (nor amateur music critics, nor amateur political pundits).

Comment by Kim Ruehl on March 17, 2009 at 8:40am: Grant you just stated all the reasons I said I "almost kind of whole-heartedly sort of" free streaming, rather than "I firmly support this".

There are always the people who don't belong on a stage but can still make extraordinary music. There's also no shortage of people who don't belong in a recording studio and yet continue to insist on making records.

My main issue with all of this is that there seems to be some major consensus going on. There has to be a way to serve the audience that wants to download their crappy-sounding MP3s for free while still allowing the artist to make a living. Maybe the new model is more individual - some artists give their work away for free. Maybe if people know there will almost never be an opportunity to see an artist live, they may be willing to pay for that artist's music. Meanwhile, someone who plays over 100 gigs a year because that's what they're good at and what they like to do, might not hurt too much if they let people stream the whole thing free on their website.

Free streaming isn't the same as free downloads, either. There are some records I regularly listen to on free streams (sponsored by the artist or label) but I've yet to be able to bring myself to download anything onto my iPod for free (excepting, of course, what I'm given for the purpose of reviewing).

Comment by Kim Ruehl on March 17, 2009 at 8:53am: One of our Twitter followers posted this article, which is apropos.

Comment by Shaun Belcher on March 17, 2009 at 9:37am: I think I agree with Grant...the basic flaw is once people (especially the young) consider everything is free why pay for anything and not just a few musicians lose out the whole economy goes down ( a part of the recession we in is for just these reasons..short of a few more PC sales the internet reducing shops on high streets, gigs..you name it... a bad time is made worse..) In fact advertisers report a boom in targetting people sat at home because unemployed they can target with crass adverts.....hershey bars and jewellry...

Is this the brave new world?

Comment by Shaun Belcher on March 17, 2009 at 10:18am: Just spoke to a musician friend (Portland OR) and he said most of the 'small fry' managed to cover costs with CD sales if that gone what can replace it? Are venues suddenly going to provide more money? I doubt it..most intrepid acts seem to be prepared to finance their jaunts these days which means there no income stream at all...how long will that last?

Comment by Kim Ruehl on March 17, 2009 at 11:02am: I think the point is to stop approaching it the way it's always been approached. You can't just rely entirely on record sales anymore, and you haven't been able to for a while. It's just not realistic. There have to be other ways. Nobody's disinterested in music, people don't want to see the artists they love have to go out of business. Musicians don't have to stop making music because people are streaming music for free. That's like saying you can't cook a meal because you're out of onions. There are so many other options, many of which haven't even begun to be explored (or imagined) yet.

Comment by Kim Ruehl on March 17, 2009 at 11:16am: "The trouble is, we could be headed toward a future with not enough money to go around. What to do then? "

Sing for your supper :)

Comment