# "Should Music Be Free?"



## Vesteralen

Steve Guttenberg's article on the first page of September's STEREOPHILE raises some interesting questions. Though his comments are mostly relative to non-classical music, the questions raised go across the spectrum.

Particularly interesting were his quotes from Maria Schneider, jazz composer and big-band leader, who has signed with ArtistShare, a fan-funding site. As quoted in the article, she said: "For a pittance, you can listen to the entire worldwide collection of music. That's insanity."

Earlier in the article, Guttenberg pointed out that because of places like Spotify, Google Music, Rhapsody, MOG and Pandora, "the number of people actually paying for music will drop to the point where it's no longer feasible to make physical copies and sell them at affordable prices". He said that the royalties paid by the streaming companies to the labels are a tiny fraction of what they received from downloads, CDs or LPs.

In the pop music industry, this has resulted in many artists putting out new CDs only every three or four years.
They generate most of their income by concerts, licensing and merchandising.

Any thoughts on this relative to classical music?


----------



## Ingélou

I love it being free, but no, it doesn't seem fair. It seems reasonable to charge for listening to internet sources. Would it be possible to police it, though, or would it result in piracy problems? You can argue that classical music reaches a wider audience through the internet which might also benefit musicians in terms of publicity, concert-goers, and the fact that people do like to own and collect. I'll be interested to read the views of others.


----------



## Ukko

Personally, I would be happy enough downloading properly collated music, photos and documentation, and then making CD-Rs supplemented with the provided "production values". The significant proviso: pay for the download.

Far as I know, the current technology doesn't allow for high quality multichannel downloads (or streaming of such). That may be more important for classical music than it is for _those inferior genres_.


----------



## Centropolis

I certainly hope that they do not stop making physical copies of music. Although in classical music, most of the more preferable performances are already available on CDs and the newer recordings by young artists don't get mentioned a lot here I've noticed. So when it comes to classical music, I am not sure.

The discussion around music piracy has been that you're going to pay for the music to support the ARTIST, not the labels. I buy CDs for that reason to support my favorite artists. When it comes to classical music (and if I am wrong about this please don't flame the newbie), the composers that I buy are all dead. The performers may not be but how much money will a violin player get when I buy a CD?

What about buying used CDs? No music label, artist or performer is really directly benefiting financially because I bought a used CD. All it means is that I didn't illegally download the music, which is important obviously but who are you supporting other than the store owner?

When it comes to online streaming service, being a Canadian, I don't have access to those services. And even if we do, we proably won't get the same variety as someone would in the USA. All we have to look at is Netflix Canada compared to Netflix US.


----------



## Taggart

Part of this is down to something else - the fact that music has moved into the background - we don't listen to music we have music on as a background while we do something else. 

In some ways that explains the popularity of the i-pod and spotify et al - low bit rates on poor hardware, yet still providing an acceptable sound. At the other end of the spectrum we have things like sacd and the desire for high bit rates on good hardware - the desire for an excellent sound experience to allow you to explore fully the music. 

The trouble is that the majority of pop music isn't (really) worth "listening" to - it is aural wallpaper. The success or failure of a group usually has nothing to do with its supposed "talent". Contrast this with classical music where there are quite well defined standards of acceptable performance and to some extent of repertoire. Within classical music, there will always be a demand for a better "sound" whether it's surround sound or instrument palette. This ultimately means that good music will have its own (niche) market.

Classical music has always been seen as a social event whether church or opera house, chamber or concert hall. Recording is always a secondary event. This means that it has always been concert driven. A successful record for a 4 piece band would only produce peanuts for a 100 piece orchestra. The money for such a group is in big halls and expensive seats. The recordings are there as an advertisement to demonstrate their skills not as a money making venture in its own right.


----------



## Vesteralen

I keep finding that I want to address the ethics of this question, but that was not the intent of the original post.

My question was whether the article's conclusion is applicable to classical music and if so, to what extent? Is the recording industry on the classical side threatened by streaming and other forms of virtually non-reimbursed consumerism or not? Is it in the same danger as popular music or is the dynamic so different that it doesn't apply so much?

From what I've read here so far, it seems like the dynamic _is _different. I've read about classical labels being in trouble, and maybe some of them are. But, it still amazes me how each passing month brings dozens, if not hundreds of new releases, many of them repertoire duplications that, even to a classical music lover, sometimes seem a bit absurd.


----------



## Taggart

Bigger question - do we need a recording industry? 

People can self publish e-books and if they're any good, they can be taken up by the big publishing houses and pushed. Bands can self publish on you tube and get contracts from big companies and again get pushed. The sort of talent we're talking about is (mostly) popularity. I can remember way back when folk groups would tour with a selection of cassettes which could be produced fairly easily. Nowadays, it is possible to out out CDs if people want them or sell downloads directly. 

Theoretically, classical music groups could do the same. Our local mob are already pushing stuff out on you tube and have contacts with some fairly high powered groups like English Touring Opera which could allow them to put out CDs or downloads if they wanted to. Trouble is, much of their work is in concerts, touring Opera, playing in small groups for weddings, even playing for Ceilidhs so they don't need that sort of hassle. They can organise and run their own programmes without too much trouble.

You need some sort of industry to "push" classical music and that needs a saleable product and that's going to be the (sa)cd. The cd becomes a selling point for concerts and other activities and (essentially) funds the advertising budget.


----------



## Vesteralen

Taggart said:


> You need some sort of industry to "push" classical music and that needs a saleable product and that's going to be the (sa)cd. The cd becomes a selling point for concerts and other activities and (essentially) funds the advertising budget.


Could you elaborate on this when you have time? I'm not sure I fully understand.


----------



## brotagonist

There does not appear to be any political desire to stop music piracy. It would take a concerted international effort to do so. With the grave political, economic and environmental threats we currently face, it is doubtful that governments will allot costly resources to protecting the assets of an industry that appears to have adapted.

Companies such as Spotify, Pandora and others have managed to flourish in this new low-priced and ad-sponsored music world. I think this is an acceptable distribution model for throw-away popular music genres, as they have little longterm value. If the labels are receiving insufficient royalties from Spotify et al., why did they sign the deals? In the (throw-away) pop-rock world, I think it is reasonable to expect popular artists to make their money through giving concerts. Their audiences mostly buy mp3s of their favourite songs, and not always complete albums.

I think classical music stopped being a "social event" with the advent of the recording industry. Most listeners listen at home or on portable devices. It does not follow that all of our listening is of the background or "aural wallpaper" style. It appears to me that classical lovers mostly, but not exclusively, prefer hard copies, like CDs. I certainly do. Classical music is a niche market of music of great longevity and cannot be described by the models used for throw-away popular musics, such as rock, country, hip hop and the rest. I do not think that classical music could support itself through concerts alone.

However, It has been my impression that classical CDs in the past were outrageously overpriced. I recall typically paying $25 for a single-disc classical album from any of a number of local music and specialty classical music stores. Multiple-disc albums were slightly cheaper, coming in at around $20 per disc. It was the rule to pay anywhere from $60-$120 for boxed CD sets. This limited my purchasing and enjoyment of a wide variety of albums immensely (although I still managed to have a fair number). Pop-rock albums were typically priced at about $15-$20 per disc and were generally available for $10 for the first few months of release. I guess they thought that most people would just pick up the new album of their favourite artist without having heard it. Prices tended to be higher for older albums.

So, I think there is a different dynamic. They really are two different industries selling to two completely different audiences with different listening and purchasing habits. Although nearly 80% of my music listening at home is classical, I rarely attend classical concerts (it is a private or personal enjoyment), but I would attend a bluegrass jamboree (it is a social event).


----------



## neoshredder

Streaming should be free. Downloading shouldn't be free.


----------



## brotagonist

neoshredder said:


> Streaming should be free. Downloading shouldn't be free.


Considering that most people have web-accessible mobile devices, is it still valid to make a distinction between streaming and downloading?


----------



## Blancrocher

Here is a brief article on profits in the recording industry, including a link to a fascinating pie chart illustrating changes in purchasing habits over time. http://www.classicalmusicmagazine.o...venues-rise-for-first-time-for-over-a-decade/

I don't have an opinion about streaming sites as of yet: I really don't know the long-term implications of streaming sites (or the internet more generally) for making classical music. In any case, insofar as streaming sites are reducing outright piracy, changes in distribution seem to have been good on the whole in recent years. I'm curious to see the new products distributors come up with to keep our interest!

Some anecdotal information (for what it's worth!): I spend less on classical music since joining low-cost streaming sites. On the other hand, I was much less familiar with film and its history before joining subscription services, and now spend significantly more on that form of art/entertainment than I did. The billion-dollar question is whether streaming services will attract enough neophytes to make up for the losses in revenue from obsessive collectors (and exploited collectors--thanks for all the sneaky re-issues, record labels!).


----------



## Cosmos

Yeah as much as I would love to live in a world of free music (or how bout a world of free everything), the artists have to eat. For the amount of effort that goes into writing, preforming and producing [any kind of] music, I don't mind the cost.


----------



## Vesteralen

Blancrocher said:


> Here is a brief article on profits in the recording industry, including a link to a fascinating pie chart illustrating changes in purchasing habits over time. http://www.classicalmusicmagazine.o...venues-rise-for-first-time-for-over-a-decade/


That was really interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

It would seem that subscription services are becoming a major revenue source. The question would be, how much of that revenue is finding its way to the labels providing the product?


----------



## kv466

Unfortunately, it is what it is and it is all thanks to technology...

I loved the days of simply not being able to hear a song unless you happened to catch it on the radio or if you went out and bought the 45 or cassette tape. Likewise, I love popping on youtube and finding whatever it is I happened to think about at the moment. I think the most we can do is keep buying recorded music but whose pockets are we really lining? 

I, personally, love physical cds and so I keep buying them; just bought one last night.


----------



## Vesteralen

kv466 said:


> I, personally, love physical cds and so I keep buying them; just bought one last night.


Me, too


----------



## Sid James

Vesteralen said:


> ...
> Particularly interesting were his quotes from Maria Schneider, jazz composer and big-band leader, who has signed with ArtistShare, a fan-funding site. As quoted in the article, she said: "For a pittance, you can listen to the entire worldwide collection of music. That's insanity."...


That's a bit like being able to download all of Shakespeare's plays as e-books for not more than two dollars: http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Works-Shakespeare-ebook/dp/B005LSCQ4Y

Of course it doesn't matter to Will, he's been dead for hundreds of years. But just making the point that looks like art is kind of cheapened by mass production.

No other comments to add for the moment, but I'll try to get back here, its a thought provoking topic.


----------



## jtbell

neoshredder said:


> Streaming should be free. Downloading shouldn't be free.


I have a Firefox plugin that allows me to save streaming video from YouTube and other sites, thereby converting it to a download. How can a streaming site decide whether its content is actually being downloaded (and saved) instead of being merely streamed?


----------



## mtmailey

I do not like free stuff that much it may not be great.Also i would not want to stop others from making a living.But the high priced albums should be lower LIKE ONE CD FOR 14.99 that is to much ,now it where a 2 cd set then i would not mind paying that much.


----------



## Taggart

Vesteralen said:


> Taggart said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some sort of industry to "push" classical music and that needs a saleable product and that's going to be the (sa)cd. The cd becomes a selling point for concerts and other activities and (essentially) funds the advertising budget.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on this when you have time? I'm not sure I fully understand.
Click to expand...

Just back on after the software upgrade.

OK Think of any classical artiste - they work very hard to get where they are. They need to make a living. They want to do what they do well. Our local mob works because it has sponsorship and "friends" who put money up front to make it work. They get advertising from the guy (local) who makes their harpsichord and from the luthiers they use. They also teach - at various levels and play with other groups. That's a small group playing baroque using churches and other (cheap) venues.

When you get a bigger orchestra or a more specialised group playing in larger halls you need to attract people to cover your costs.That needs promotion. A concert is usually a localised event unless it's part of a major festival like Snape (the maltings near Aldeburgh) and when you look at their website it's got arts sponsorship and radio events. To get that to "work" you need some sort of sampler to draw people in and that's the CD which can be pushed on radio and in the press and also you tube. Even for a local event you need a reasonable body of people to draw on to fill a large hall. That's why you tend to get orchestras in large cities or in areas where there are large numbers of people to draw on. To get them to come and pay good money for tickets you need either a name or a known product and you build that through recordings and radio and press publicity. That's now the role of the recording companies - they provide the product to promote the artist.

The point I was making is that while a self published e-book can be a runaway success, to maintain that success you need publicity and that can best be handled by a specialised publisher who can also get tie-ins for TV and films and overseas rights. Same thing applies for music. Nobody minds if a pop cd sounds bad (it's meant to isn't it?  ) so you tube clones and piracy can damage the industry. Classical music needs to sound reasonable on you tube but not quite as good as on a CD because you are listening to music where the tonal palette is important. This is the unique selling point for classical CDs and allows the industry to continue.


----------



## Vesteralen

So, for example, those private labels like Wigmore Hall, LPO and so forth, tend to advertise the venue and the orchestra so that more people want to come in person? I kind of get that.

Even my local orchestra has been putting out more CDs in recent years on prestigious labels. A lot of them have been favorably reviewed by critics. No doubt when they do their European tours every summer, more people want to pay for tickets to come see them because of the reputation they have built up.

But, where does that leave labels like CPO, for example, whose product is more label driven (with the unique art design of their booklets), or repertoire driven (with their unusual music selection), than performer/orchestra driven? I wonder how streaming affects them? Who's willing to take the loss if the product doesn't pay for itself?

Or, are there still enough classical-philes out there who are willing to pay for that better sound quality on a CD? Maybe the worldwide market is larger than we think.


----------



## Vesteralen

Sid James said:


> That's a bit like being able to download all of Shakespeare's plays as e-books for not more than two dollars: http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Works-Shakespeare-ebook/dp/B005LSCQ4Y
> 
> Of course it doesn't matter to Will, he's been dead for hundreds of years. But just making the point that looks like art is kind of cheapened by mass production.
> 
> No other comments to add for the moment, but I'll try to get back here, its a thought provoking topic.


I have to go off-topic here for a minute, because I thought I woke up in Wonderland when I first saw on my Kindle that I could download the complete works of Jules Verne, H Rider Haggard, Poe, Hesiod, Sophocles and many more for $1.99 - $2.99 per author (some of them illustrated). I can remember spending hours combing through libraries many years ago looking for lesser known novels by some of my favorite authors.

I even downloaded the works of Anna Katharine Green (the author of "The Leavenworth Case").

But, it's all proving to be kind of an embarrassment of riches. I still love it, but, like Kevin Pearson's CD collection, it's magnitude is outstripping the time I have to "consume".


----------



## Ingélou

Reminds me of the Moliere quote. A culture vulture from one of his plays says, 'And as for *living* - the servants can do that for us!'


----------



## Taggart

Vesteralen said:


> Or, are there still enough classical-philes out there who are willing to pay for that better sound quality on a CD? Maybe the worldwide market is larger than we think.


Look at the front page of this site - it's got 16,600 users of whom about 1750 are active. That gives some idea of the interest and that's only English speakers who are comfortable using a computer.

We're exceptionally lucky in the (far) East of England - there's a lovely classical music shop in Norwich which also works to support local concerts, there's a Naxos outlet in Southwold and of course we've got Snape which also does classical music CDs. The fact that we can support 3 such shops shows that there is definitely a taste for that sort of music. And apart from Snape, Norwich itself has a thriving classical music scene and Kings Lynn manages to run a festival as well. That's in one small, rather isolated area of England.


----------



## brotagonist

Taggart said:


> Think of any classical artiste.... They need to make a living.... They also... play with other groups.


Why don't classical musicians perform in cafés, much like a jazz or blues club? This would only work for solo and chamber music, not orchestral music, but imagine spending an evening listening to art music, say some Schnittke string quartets or Beethoven piano trios or whatever, in a relaxed setting away from the stiff environment and uncomfortable seats of a concert hall. It would be a sensation! There's nothing like that here.



Taggart said:


> Classical music needs to sound reasonable on you tube but not quite as good as on a CD because you are listening to music where the tonal palette is important. This is the unique selling point for classical CDs and allows the industry to continue.


I agree with this: you tube and other sites should be for sampling music _only_ in lower quality in order to promote sales of CD quality recordings. But this comes back to the issue of the lack of adequate piracy legislation and it's policing.

I pay for music that genuinely has longterm appeal. That is why I want hard copies, on CD format... because I keep them. Sure, I trade in a negligible number of hasty purchases for better ones that I do intend to keep, but this just adds to the value of having a hard copy.


----------



## neoshredder

jtbell said:


> I have a Firefox plugin that allows me to save streaming video from YouTube and other sites, thereby converting it to a download. How can a streaming site decide whether its content is actually being downloaded (and saved) instead of being merely streamed?


Well those plugins should be illegal. Maybe streaming should be limited to radio station format rather than getting to choose albums or songs you want.


----------



## Taggart

Trouble is that there are programs to do that for radio station format or even tv station format. It seems to be a running battle between the "pirates" and the rest. Also basic real player will do that anyway.

In the case of TV and radio format, I know that some schools have been unable to record a broadcast, it comes out on the net, but with a time limit. The time limit runs out before the class you want to use the program with is ready. Do you break the protection to use it or give up on a useful resource? The whole thing becomes an ethical minefield. That's ultimately why I say you tube for sampling but CDs for use.


----------



## niv

Music is information, and information has some interesting properties as to how charge it. There is a lot of written literature about how to make money from information when making copies of information is essentially free but creating the information in the first place isn't free at all. 

Remember that in the end, the artist gains the same amount if 25 people pay the artist one dollar than if one person pays 25. That's why perhaps it can be beneficial to the artist to have many listeners that pay just a little instead of a few that pay a lot. Then, those people can then listen to a lot of more music and paying just a little to every one. 

That's why at least in theory a service like Spotify can be beneficial to artists. I say in theory because we need to actually see if what spotify charges to the users and what spotify pays to the artists is actually "fair" (for some meaning of fair).


----------



## LordBlackudder

the source of music has gone from the small record shop to a world of music with no way of purchasing it.

perhaps a piece of software that scans your collection and shows a list of verified places you can pay for that track. than you can choose to pay for it or donate more. the software will note the ones you have payed for.

you could use itunes and the ipod but i found you need a phd in computer science to work it.


----------



## Centropolis

What are about borrowing CDs from the library? We pay taxes which I assume a portion of it goes to running of the local libraries. But you can borrow as many as you want. There is a large selection of CDs and you don't have to pay any extra money to listen to it. It's like Spotify but "free". Maybe not as large of a selection from the library than online services.


----------



## neoshredder

Yeah I guess it is impossible to avoid people getting hands on cd's without paying money. I think Libraries should be for books only. CD's and DVD's should be for rental but cost money. Not free.


----------



## Guest

I must have over $30.000 in CD that I have purchased over the years I *will not* purchase any more. I do the occasional d/l free of course and burn to CD. I think the industry has to update itself. perhaps allow d/l for a couple of Dollars.


----------



## brotagonist

I use the local public library CD collection regularly. Unfortunately, they no longer invest in it to the degree that they did in decades past. No different than You Tube, it's a great way to discover composers/compositions. I buy many albums that I first borrow from the library.

Libraries must fully embrace knowledge and it's dissemination in the present day. It is not just words, but sounds, images and videos. They are all forms of information, presented in books, on CD, on DVD and via other formats, that the public requires access to.


----------



## Vesteralen

I've been saved many times from purchasing an opera with too many countertenors in it by getting it out of the library first.


----------



## Vaneyes

Related, CD breakdown, who get$ what.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23840744


----------



## starthrower

neoshredder said:


> Yeah I guess it is impossible to avoid people getting hands on cd's without paying money. I think Libraries should be for books only. CD's and DVD's should be for rental but cost money. Not free.


I fail to see any logic in your reasoning. So an author who spent a couple years of his/her life writing a book doesn't deserve to get paid, but a music/video artist/producer does?

I realize it's easy to copy library CDs/DVDs, but with these Kindle devices you can access thousands of library books for free and the author doesn't get paid.


----------



## Taggart

starthrower said:


> I fail to see any logic in your reasoning. So an author who spent a couple years of his/her life writing a book doesn't deserve to get paid, but a music/video artist/producer does?
> 
> I realize it's easy to copy library CDs/DVDs, but with these Kindle devices you can access thousands of library books for free and the author doesn't get paid.


Partly it's a life time thing. In the UK, an author gets a fee for library lending, but it's small, because a book has a long life. CDs and DVDs can fall apart - the cases at least - so there is more of a need to recover the costs fast. Also because they have a short life, the manufacturers want a quick return.


----------



## Ondine

I don't know how much is fair or unfair at buying a CD, but music should not be free; much less classical. In general, the idea of 'free' is unreal. I am of the kind of _'there is no free lunch'_. The issue is who has to pay for that _lunch_ and how much is or is not fair.


----------



## Blancrocher

Ondine said:


> I don't know how much is fair or unfair at buying a CD, but music should not be free; much less classical. In general, the idea of 'free' is unreal. I am of the kind of _'there is no free lunch'_. The issue is who has to pay for that _lunch_ and how much is or is not fair.


George Bernard Shaw (correctly, in my view) thought that classical music should be paid for by people who are uninterested in it.


----------



## Ondine

Blancrocher said:


> George Bernard Shaw (correctly, in my view) thought that classical music should be paid for by people who are uninterested in it.


Sounds curious. But I think that if we are music lovers of classical music it is fair, for us, to pay for it; because for some is a valuable entertainment or a mean to beautify life or a way to know ourselves through emotions. Or if a vice, I dare to say a very noble one.

I don't know if Bernard said that and if so, I don't know why. But having second thoughts it could be through a tax to support orchestras, conservatories, premiers and the whole performance of it. And I am not thinking in 'divas' but in young people who need to have a living playing classics. I am convinced to contribute for that, even when not being wealthy. Somehow it is like supporting science.


----------



## neoshredder

starthrower said:


> I fail to see any logic in your reasoning. So an author who spent a couple years of his/her life writing a book doesn't deserve to get paid, but a music/video artist/producer does?
> 
> I realize it's easy to copy library CDs/DVDs, but with these Kindle devices you can access thousands of library books for free and the author doesn't get paid.


Libraries should be an educational center. Not an entertainment center. But I guess it is too late for that.


----------



## starthrower

If you're a music or film student, then CDs and DVDs are educational tools as well. I suppose most of the population doesn't do much reading anymore, but there will always be that 10-15% who are avid readers, so I'm glad we still have libraries full of books. But if people continue to elect some of these retarded philistines into office, the budgets for things like libraries and the arts may disappear.


----------



## PetrB

Oh yes, by all means! 

Just let all the musicians and composers and conductors just do what they do so well, and provide them with: 
1.) a sign / certificate that they are state-certified musicians 
2.) a bowl

...then let them beg on the streets -- just like everyone else does for a living.


----------



## cwarchc

If nobody pays for music: it will cease to evolve


----------



## PetrB

starthrower said:


> If you're a music or film student, then CDs and DVDs are educational tools as well. I suppose most of the population doesn't do much reading anymore, but there will always be that 10-15% who are avid readers, so I'm glad we still have libraries full of books. But if people continue to elect some of these retarded philistines into office, the budgets for things like libraries and the arts may disappear.


Isn't the phrase "retarded Philistine" a titch redundant, especially when connected to the arts?


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Isn't the phrase "retarded Philistine" a titch redundant, especially when connected to the arts?


If we're getting technical, it's just the 'retarded' that's redundant, as the phrase is arguably tautologous.




cwarchc said:


> If nobody pays for music: it will cease to evolve



The creative urge will not die simply because others will not pay for its output. But it will evolve differently, and take longer to be distributed.


----------



## Taggart

PetrB said:


> Isn't the phrase "retarded Philistine" a titch redundant, especially when connected to the arts?


Not in the context of elected. It's an oxymoron like Military Intelligence when you conflate political election and culture.


----------



## PetrB

Blancrocher said:


> George Bernard Shaw (correctly, in my view) thought that classical music should be paid for by people who are uninterested in it.


This is, until the last quarter of the 20th Century, what classical labels did, i.e. part of the profits from their subsidiary labels --all in the various pop genres, -- went to subsidize the classical recordings, which cost more to produce, returned their production costs more slowly, and had a smaller audience base and profit margin.

Come the corporate rethink where "every department must show a profit each quarter," and that began to fall apart.

I still advocate (a bit repeatedly) that a "lighter entertainment" tax on pop music, which collectively is a huge and profitable industry, could similarly be used to subsidize the less popular, more costly, and less profitable music, i.e. classical, or "fine" vs. popular / commercial arts.


----------

