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
In regards to the effect of online music piracy specifically, there are two opposite extremes. For established artists on one side, the explosion of online piracy has had a large impact on the profits they once saw. For new or underground artists, however, it has never been easier to get their music to the masses and ultimately become famous overnight. While I do not agree with online infringement, the results have already changed the industry dramatically. At this point, the entertainment industry should focus more on redesigning the industry (like you example of focusing more on obtaining profits from concerts and events) than on waiting for the government to try and solve this problem. I talk more about this in my blog if you want to check it out!
ReplyDeleteThe music industry is being forced to change due the online file sharing. The good thing is that home recording technology is becoming cheaper and cheaper ever day. This means that artists do not need to get huge advances from record labels that the labels then have to recoup through royalties. What we are seeing is a move from a few major labels (Capitol, EMI, BMG, Warner Bros.) dominating the industry to many smaller independent labels and independent publishers. The fact that musicians can post blogs and set up their own websites to self-promote cuts out the major label entirely. Prior to the Internet, being on a major's catalog was just about the only way to get national distribution. Today it is a different case.
ReplyDeleteI think that Internet opens a huge door to artists and represents an invaluable opportunity for promotion and for economically sustaining themselves. Some artists may not rely on labels or radio to make themselves known. Hence, the Internet offers a communication channel with fans, allowing them to send promotional material, to update news about the band and to promote tour dates and locations, among others. Unfortunately, piracy has found a great opportunity in the Internet too and has seriously affected musicians and artists. Bottom line is that artists and music labels have to find new ways to sell and promote music. In this regard, some artists have already taken the first step. If you want to check them out, feel free to visit my blog (http://the-positioned-blog.blogspot.com/) and leave any comments you want.
ReplyDeleteOnline piracy has become a major issue around the world. But it is highly unlikely that it can be stopped. Even though the government shut down many websites, many more are created and people just find other means of sharing files and downloading illegal music, like you’ve mentioned with the substitution effect. So instead of relying on legislation to keep up with technology in limiting online piracy, the music industry needs to focus its efforts on other means to obtaining profits, like from tours and concerts as you’ve mentioned. Check out my blog for more information on online music piracy.
ReplyDeleteI actually think that music piracy can actually work to the benefit of the artist. It has yet to be seen that the illegal downloading of music off of the internet has let to the demise of any particular artist. Yes, record sales across the industry are down in certain areas, but it can be argued that having easier access to an artist's music has made the "casual" listener a more active one. Musicians are touring more and people are coming to music venues to listen to them. I go into more detail on the subject in my bloghttp://marketingforthecommonfolk.blogspot.com.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are several positive aspects to music piracy. These particularly benefit independent artists that have not signed on with one of the major labels. Basically labels like Sony, EMI, etc. control air time and exposure of their artists and "indies" are incapable of having that exposure. With online piracy they gain that exposure. The way the music industry is changing due to online piracy is simply a shift of making a profit. Changing from music sales to revenue from live performances.
ReplyDeleteYour insightful blog leaves me with several things to consider.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first began working in the lighting and sound industry, I was told an old roadie folk tale. Supposedly, the Beatles invented what we now call the "monitor." Monitors are speakers placed on stage facing the band so they can hear themselves. The story goes that they were getting tired of not being able to hear themselves over their fans, but one day the singer told a roadie to turn one of the speakers around, and the problem was solved!
Just as the Beatles solved the problem (supposedly) of not being able to hear themselves, it could be that online distribution will solve the problem of artists not being able to be heard.
The old fashioned way of recording in a studio has high costs, and the cost of physically producing a CD is also quite high, compared to the cost (practically nothing) of putting a file up for download.
In other words, in the old days, artists were only able to be heard if a record exec thought they were good enough to make the high costs of production worth it.
With lower cost methods of production, more artists can be produced. Additionally, music can be sold at a lower cost but with conceivably higher profits, as the contribution margin shrinks to almost nothing.
I agree that it is amazing how artists can collaborate so remotely in this era. For musicians who compose on the program 'Fruityloops,' it is quick and easy to send files back and forth to develop fusion styles. Amidst all of this piracy, it is important to note that stolen music has just as much a word-of-mouth effect as legally bought tunes. If your music is widely downloaded, the initial deficit can be instantly made into a profit if your new=found notoriety can earn you a lineup of shows.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very solid point and example as to the positive effect of file sharing over the internet for these artists. One of my favorite albums of all time was a collaboration by two people over the internet (one in L.A. and the other in N.Y.). There is no better way to "flood" the market with your product and create interest in your music or band.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best examples of this is Radiohead who may not have the best sales figures when it comes to album sales but have created a massive following of loyal listeners that sell out all their concerts across the world. Whatever Radiohead has lost in sales due to "piracy" is a blessing for them. Why? This bands music spread like wildfire and it's very hard to get tickets for one of their shows due to demand.
It is up to artists to come up with methods as these to find a way to sell their "product" to us and make us really want it. Like you said with the Kanye example. The guy is selling his music online at a cheap price and doing a lot more tours in order to make more money.
What's this? Artists are having to work more and tour more in order to make their living? This is a great thing! If I were to say, download a song without paying for it online, something of course which I would never do... And, I love the music... You can bet I will buy tickets to every show you do in Miami and get a t-shirt and a hoodie.
I consider a free song or 10 a good trade off for sales in concert tickets and merchandise.
Salo