Do online music sources negatively or positively affect a "recording artist"?

     The idea of music piracy has, as of lately, been on the hot seat as more and more free software downloads (i.e. Limewire, Napster, Bearshare, etc.) have begun to be closed down by the United States government. One of the larger problems with the issue is whether or not the industry is as profitable as it was before the age of the "free download". One should attempt to decide, if possible, whether the artists and all parties involved are being negatively or positively affected by this music piracy as this substitution effect continues to occur. I crown the term "substitution effect" based on the fact that as a music downloading network is shut down, another arises almost simultaneously (e.g. Limewire/Frostwire, respectively).

     While many view the affect of music piracy as negative on a "recording artist" based on sales numbers alone, it is important to point out several criteria that may sway the pendulum of these beliefs. For a new artist, or one who is fairly new to specific markets, any form of P2P networking is a way to get the artist's name out there. For more famous artists, it could be a way to get yourself out there even more and establish some sort of brand familiarity with consumers in the marketplace.              
                                              

     I believe there are several negative aspects that affect not only the "recording artist", but also all parties involved in the supply chain of the music industry. It has been said that "recording artists" no longer "record" like they once did in the time of the Beatles. The Beatles were said to have given up concerts because they couldn't hear themselves over screaming fans and solely recorded in the studio (i.e. the "recording artist"). Now, with the internet boom, artists are able to work from home and have instruments played for them on a computer to construct their beats. On specific albums, an artist who has another featured artist on a song may never even meet to do the song together (or even the video for that matter). The main artist will send the first verse and chorus to the featured artist via email, who will then make their verse and send it back for final completion of the track. This has eliminated costs to the artists to rent out a studio, but also eliminated the idea of the "recording artist" all together.

     So, if we claim the artist as the manufacturer (the one who makes the music), we can say that they have been dramatically impacted over time. Also, there is not as much need for the wholesaler or the retailer in the supply chain as people are purchasing CD's less and less. Even if a CD was purchased in support of an artist, it would be more than likely bought on itunes. We have seen a job reduction and margin reduction from this wave of music piracy over time and more may be headed this way. Many artists have resorted to the opposite approach of the Beatles for sake of necessity. Instead, they go on tour and give more concerts in order to cover lost profit from music piracy. Kanye West attempted to gain any profit possible by selling his latest album on Amazon, priced at $3.99. This is when the artists themselves use a distribution channel to attempt to outdo competitors.

     Let's hope that this trend won't lead to a decline in music because artists feel as though they "just can't make it any more".


-Cfree