| | Joe,
I agree that there are still venues available for performance. But that makes the music industry very different in the future than it is today. Now we are able to share in the works of an artist no matter where we live, and no matter where the artist is. We don't have to limit our enjoyment to when a concert or live gig is happening. Neither time nor space keep us from enjoying them, or keep the artist from trading the product of their efforts with their fans through recordings. Should we only enjoy the work of a writer when they are in town and doing a reading? Should writers only be allowed to make money by readings?
Famous artists can make money with concert tours, and use the new releases of their CDs as a promotion for the next tour - even if they make no money on the CD due to piracy. Those who aren't famous will not be able to find support for a concert and are reduced to sidewalk busking or the neighborhood bar. The mechanism of the labels includes A&R - discovering and promoting and packaging talent. If you don't think that is of value, just try to find the music you like by spending time searching YouTube of other free venues for new talent - you'll have to have lots of patience to dig through there unless your listening preferences are eclectic and talent tolerant to an extreme.
The assertion that "true musicians" will still play, write and record because it is "in their blood" is partly true, but sad. It isn't entirely true, because different people have different psychologies. And no matter how great the talent, and how powerful the love of music, there can come a time where being robbed and disrespected damages the ability to participate and an individual may only plays for themselves. As for recording... if you don't get paid for recording, and if it costs a great deal to record, then there will not be many who will continue.
The sad part is that their property rights are being trampled upon. Why should a society organize itself so as to hold them hostage by their love of music? If an artist wants to establish a contract where anyone can have a copy of their work, to play whenever they want, and for a reasonable price (say 99 cents on iTunes - about one third of the cost of a latte), then why should people be so malicious as to make it available for free on pirate sites, and why should people be so shortsighted and mean spirited as to download it from there instead of iTunes?
As the technology becomes more and more consumer-friendly for digital distribution and presentation of digital versions of intellectual works, of artistic works, if we don't enforce the property rights we will destroy much of what sustains that work.
(For some of these arguments I've pulled from my brothers blog - he's a world class musician with several Grammy nominations, and over a quarter of a century's exerience. Here, here, here, here, here, and here for more blogs of his on this issue.)
|
|
