Originally Posted by
jkelman
You're absolutely right, for the most part. But it's not a diminishing fan base, at least not at this point, since RTR sold out, and the ItCotCK box sold its initial 7K run and they made the mistake of annoying the fan base that bought into its exclusivity by issuing another run - something they did not do with the LTIA box or, AFAIK, the RTR box.
I agree with you, but only to some extent. I support artists who refuse to embrace streaming by not subscribing to streaming services myself. Fripp chooses not to support a business model that puts him exactly back in the place in which he fought for 10 years in order to extricate himself - one where he has no control over how the music gets out there, and one which compensates everyone except the people who make the music. I can't say as I've not spoken to him, but I suspect, at least, that this is part of the reason why he refuses to participate in streaming. As for how other Crimson members past and present feel? I've no idea, but at the end of the day, Fripp owns the rights to the Crimson catalog and, while my understanding is he shares profits with those members, he is the decision-maker. He may or may not have the support of the others.
I do agree that there needs to be a way to get a younger demographic in through exposure, but does it have to be at the expense of selling out? Frankly, I used to think YouTube was a pretty great way of getting the word out (others still think it is), until they killed the 10-minute max on clip lengths. Now, with people posting entire DVDs and entire albums, it's just one more way that artists are being robbed of their ability to make a living from their work. Yes, some folks do check these things out and, if they like 'em, buy 'em, but that's a relatively small percentage, by all accounts.
You would not believe the number of people I meet these days who extol the virtues of Spotify, for example; when I tell them that it may be great for them but not for the artists, their response is (and rightfully so, I suppose): "I didn't know that," but when I suggest that if they really love these artists as much as they say, why not cancel their subscription in support of the artists, they reply "but I have access to over 200,000 albums!!!" Truthfully, I cannot fault them; it's not their job to ensure that means of music distribution adequately recompense those who make it possible; their responsibility is to pay their $10 or $20/month, which they do, and reap the benefits. For me, I deal with too many musicians on a scale where services like Spotify seriously impact their ability to make a living, to the point where, someday, they may no longer be able to make recordings at all, unless the business model changes.
My feeling is the model has to change so that there is some more appropriate compensation for the artists. If that were to happen, it would be terrific, as streaming is, indeed, a great way to get heard. But until that happens, I vote with my wallet, and support the musicians who have given me decades of real pleasure by not supporting services that do not adequately compensate them, and purchasing their music, if possible, directly from them. And while you may be absolutely right about Fripp losing potential young fans, using your argument it's also something to consider that he ain't exactly a spring chicken anymore, so maybe as long as he is making sufficient money from the model he uses, then he doesn't really care what happens after he's gone....as far as the history books are concerned, both he and Crimson have already earned their rightful place. So if he prefers to cater to a smaller audience that is prepared to adequately compensate him for a lifetime's work, who are we to argue?
Yes, you're right. He may be shortsighted. But given how considered most of his actions have been throughout his career, I'd suggest he knows exactly what the consequences of his actions are, and is perfectly happy with them.
Let me ask you a question: where does the balance tip over, when it comes to providing enough access to an artist's music to garner new fans, to the point where it's meaningless because, unless those new fans generate income, well, it's very nice to be popular but it sure doesn't put food on the table, a roof over your head, your kids through college....and all the other things to which many regular folks aspire...
Musicians are artists, yes, but being a musician is also a career choice (at least for some), so let me ask you this: if tomorrow, your boss (assuming you have one) came to you and said "We're making some changes; we'd like you to continue doing the work you're doing, but rather than paying you $20 an hour, we're going to pay you $.0006/hour, so that you'll have to work 3,333 hours to make that $20 you used to make." No, not an exact analogy, but I think you get the point.
This is a progressive rock board where (for the most part) hardcore fans congregate to talk about the musicians they love, the musicians who, for many (like myself) have been given decades of pleasure thanks to the music they make. Surely I'm not the only who sees streaming - at least, with the current business model - and YouTube, with its current total lack of restriction on content, as problems that will jeopardize the very musicians we profess to love and their ability to continue making records. I am not so naive as to be unaware that streaming is here to stay, just as downloading is here to stay, nor do I underestimate the value of the exposure these things provide. But if they provide exposure but no compensation, where's the real value?
A jazz artist I know told me, about 7-8 years ago, that his income from recorded music sales has dropped over 75%. As a consequence, where he used to tour 4 months a year to make the income he need, he now has to tour 10. He has a family, kids in college, a mortgage, etc, so that's what he has to do. He's not a youngster anymore, and I can tell you from personal experience that while the travel may seem great (and I am very lucky to be able to do it, but where I get to stay in one place for a few days or a week, most musicians are lucky if they get to spend 24 hours somewhere) it doeswear on you physically, and the older you get, the harder it becomes. So as this guy approaches what should be retirement years, he finds himself having to tour far more than he ever had to when he was younger and, frankly, in a better position to do it.
I'm not trying to say "poor old musicians," either; they make certain choices and have to live with the consequences, just like any of us do. But that said, when the landscape changes so significantly, is it really right that streaming services like Spotify seem to be reaping great rewards while passing but a small percentage on to the musicians?
So while it's here to stay, no doubt, and there's value in the exposure it provides, also no doubt, if an artist decides to say "fuck it, I am not playing that game" and has an alternative that works just fine for him/her, then my feeling is it should be supported rather than criticized, since if we were put in the same situation, I am quite certain we would not be happy about it, and would seriously consider whether or not it's worth our while to participate.
Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I end up in these discussions more and more these days, and what is a sad but true fact is this: the folks who need the exposure the most from these new methods of music delivery are the ones who benefit the least, when it comes to the other side of the equation: actually making a living as a consequence.
Bookmarks