A Must-Read: The David Lowery vs. The Haters Flame War
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:50AM
If you haven't been following along, here's the backstory:
1. Emily White of National Public Radio posted a piece about explaining that while she has 11,000 songs, she has only purchased 15 CDs in her life.
2. David Lowery (Cracker, Camper Van Beethoven), already an outspoken critic of the way the music business is evolving, offered a rebuttal.
3. The whole back-and-forth went viral, from the New York Times to the Huffington Post. People lined up on both sides of the argument. It got nasty. (Lefsetz also sent out an email featuring comments on on the controversy. Both sides were pretty adamant in their positions.)
So where are we now? Digital Music News offers this conclusion:
Because David Lowery didn't just touch a nerve this week, he may have single-handedly crushed years of post-physical, ridiculous digital utopianism. In one crystallizing, cross-generational and unbelievably viral rant.
And after a decade of drunken digitalia, this is the hangover that finally throbs, is finally faced with Monday morning, finally stares in the mirror and admits there's a problem. And condenses everything into a detailed 'moment of clarity'...
What follows are 14 points detailing where we stand today. The dialogue continues...
Reader Comments (8)
Incredible stuff by Lowrey. His argument is air-tight, and incontestable... and ultimately depressing.
One of the best article I've read in a long time! Let's just say it opened my eyes on my own behavior...
Unlike some of his previous passionate points about the music business, this post I liked by Lowrey. In slightly more macroscopic sense, that's why I wrote this essay on culture: http://kawphy.ca/index/Essays_and_Fictions/Entries/2012/6/6_essay__Culture.html
awesome post AC! Loved reading all the links too.
Technology has allowed people to copy original works. You can't uninvent that. Secondly, if you're under 21, the ethical implications of compensating artists doesn't even enter your mind if you don't have the frickin' cash to buy it. That's basically all you need to know
@ James Laurier
I'm sorry, but they do have the frickin' cash to buy an iPhone (or whatever) with the very high monthly fees. They do have the cash for all the Apps. They do have the cash for everything else but to buy music.
Have you read the whole article? It's exactly the point he's trying to make!
It's as if you're implying that before Internet made it so easy to get free music, no kids under 21 where buying CD's? That's a load of crap!
The problem isn't an ethical one. David Lowery has missed the entire scope of the piracy issue.
We have three basic factors at play:
1) Adaptation Resistance
2) Reliance on Antiquated Systems
3) Cheepassery
Firstly, the industry as a whole is seemingly against adapting to the changing landscape of modern music distribution. We have labels that require that artists use CD's as their primary source of income when the shift has already placed the "Real Media" format into decline. When this ocurred with cassettes, artists were required only to rely on smaller cassette sales over the new CD sale. We have labels that are still attempting to push CD's when the digital media revolution has already taken place, set up new systems and eliminated the necessity of real media platforms.
As another element to this resistance, we have labels that insist on charging the same amounts that they used to charge for CD's for albums when iTunes has set the bar at 9.99 while CD's somehow still cost 15-20 dollars. This is simply ridiculous. It is no wonder why people choose a digital medium over real media. If labels refuse to lower the prices of these albums, they often will "lose money", not to piracy, but to people choosing iTunes (or other similar services) over real media. Of course there's been a decline in income, however to skim over the fact that most album sales have been reduced by almost 33% is just ignorant of the facts that are staring you right in your face. Legally, when I purchase an album for 9.99 over 15.99, there is a 33% loss. Sure, a sale is a sale and that sale fills the requirements of mechanicals, but when those labels go to give advances, if they're not making the same amount off of albums because they're now 33% cheaper, they will be less forthcoming with those advances.
This is shown in the reduction of royalties based on new media. Where an artist may earn 15% royalty on a CD, they may only earn 7% on an internet sale. If there is less return, then there should be less investment. Piracy isn't the only cause of reduced returns for artists... It's the system that's broken. Which brings me to my second point.
The whole industry is relying on broken systems. The royalty system just does not work in tandem with new media. If anything, it works against it. Chopping royalties to artists by up to 50% in many cases causes a lot more problems than piracy. If an artist who had once relied on mechanicals as their source of income has had to come to terms with their fan-base going digital, then they could see a reduced return of up to 50% if their entire audience switched to digital formats and still purchased their music legally. Sure supporting the artist is great, but what if the system is working against that artist?
This is driving artists away from antiquated systems and pushing them to self distribute. No more middle man to take a cut means those losses from digital media royalties are recouped. This is a double edged sword however. If artists are self-distributing, this means labels are losing artists, which means they are losing income, and snowballs... Artist recruitment becomes tighter, less income goes to the artist, etc.
Finally... Cheapassness. People are cheap. But people are fair. I will point to Louis CK who, by self-distributing non-DRM videos for 5 dollars and treating his fans, not as criminals, but as people, received over $1 Million in sales. He didn't have to pay a label. Didn't have to rely on "Artist Welfare" (that's what royalties are).
Radiohead & Nine Inch Nails have had varying levels of success through "Pay What You Want" platforms. You give fans a cheap alternative, and you will receive more sales than if you attempt to hit the fly with your bazooka.
Mr. Lowery is evidence of antiquated systems screwing over the artist when new technology makes them obsolete. Mr. Lowery is like one of the Sheet Music publishers of the early 20th century. Fighting against the emerging recorded audio industry, the Sheet Music Publishers sought to stay relevant in the face of the growing technology. The iPod of the day was flat, black and about 12" in diameter. Not quite as portable, but just as jarring to the existing music industry. People wanted something more convenient and cheaper than paying for sheet music.
Radio was (and still is) free for everyone and allowed people to listen to music without having to pay publishers for the sheet music to play it, or to pay to see a performance. Sure, not everyone could afford a radio, but not everyone can afford an iPod. David's arguments, while valid, are signs of a dying system. It is not the technology that is killing the music industry, it is the industry itself.
Piracy is just the 21st century radio. Either adapt, or die.
The whole back-and-forth went viral, from the New York Times to the Huffington Post.
sustainable-energy-info.com/