It's the mid 1980s and I'm excited about a new music medium called compact disc. Clean sounding digital recordings that do not wear out. The future has arrived. I buy a magazine about the new medium and I learn they will be pricey compared to tapes and vinyl, selling for about $15 to $18 per disc. This pricing is only temporary because it is a new technology, the manufacturing requires clean room conditions and there would not be enough capacity to satisfy demand. In a while, prices would drop to compete with tape and vinyl. Nearly twenty years have passed and I'm still waiting, along with the rest of the world. A couple weeks ago, I heard one recording company was going to drop its typical retail price to #12. What does a tape cost me these days, $5? $12 does not sound competitive to me. This week I hear that the drop to $12 is not going to happen after all. Still, millions of people continue to pay $15 and up for music on CD. Not so many years ago, after more than a decade of price gouging by the industry, digital file sharing on the internet makes digital recordings available to people for free. The trend grows and the industry cries foul. Foul indeed! How many free recordings does the consumer have coming after buying hundreds at the industry's inflated pricing? I say, all they want. When an entire industry lies to the public about its intentions, it deserves to no longer exist. I will celebrate when the last recording company closes its doors. Power to the people! All is fair in theft and business. Over the years I have heard and read many stories of performing artists cheated out of their share of revenues by the industry. Now they are turning to self-production and selling their recordings direct to the consumer. Of course, it is just as easy to take their music for free as well. Now the entire industry becomes a matter of ethics. So let's talk about that. Why don't we do as public radio and TV? I imagine a $10 donation for albums produced by artists and small, independent producers would provide a fair compensation for all involved for an album. Those who download single songs should be willing to pay $1 each song as some of the new services require. The singles down loaders are still saving the cost of music they don't want, even though they may be making a mistake in hastily deciding what they want. In days of old, when I bought vinyl singles, the B sides often grew on me to the point I liked them better than the hit. I paid for two sides; I might as well hear two sides. So I think that the music available by file sharing should be labeled so the down loader knows whether it was produced independently of the major industry companies. If so, there should be some way to compensate the producer fairly; a web address or mail address. In this way fans can encourage their favorite artists. If I have waited a few years to hear the next thing from a favorite artist, I might pay double to compensate her for those who don't pay anything. Artist incomes might drop to the level of other professions, but only the ones who had no market would be forced out of the business, as it should be. Independent producers can now market according to demand without the huge mark-up front costs of the industry and make some profit from a slow moving album or single. The new popularity of singles also allows the artist to profit without taking the time and effort to compile an album and we have come full circle. Free down loading also presents new marketing opportunities for entrepreneurs. The mass marketing Columbia House mail order giant used to feature the selection of the month for the designated format for each member. Then they added discounts to move the slow movers. They gave thumbnail reviews for their selections of the month. I have subscribed to a few audio magazines over the years. Reviews often influenced my buying decisions. A good review could induce me to buy an album by an artist I did not usually care for. It could discourage me from buying an album from one I normally did, and I felt the reviews helped me avoid disappointment and got me to hear things I liked and might have missed. Reviews are irrelevant to anyone who only acquires free music, but how many of us might subscribe to a really good review magazine that also marketed music from independent producers through mail order? The magazine can be print or electronic. Reviewers, people who can listen objectively and write about what they hear, would get free music to review and possibly compensation for writing the review. There are many of us who like the lyric sheets and commentaries that come with industry CDs. Many of us would gladly pay for that, even if we take some free music. The free music then becomes the equivalent of the old record shops that would play you a single in the store, in hopes you would buy. Albums put an end to that. Now we can sample a few singles and decide whether to buy an album or the singles themselves. I say, let new mail order companies and producers add value to the music itself in the packaging and the artists will receive fair compensation. The RIAA will go the way of the dinosaur and we will all be better for it. Boo Hoo. |
