|
Boo_Hoo_RIAA
| Boo Hoo RIAA
Boo Hoo RIAA
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.
About the author:
A freelance writer published on various websites and newspapers.
edhowes@hotmail.com justanotherview.com
|
|
| |
| |
