When I was in middle school, I had an entrepreneurial friend who sold burnt CDs. Singer, as we called him, was the first person I knew to own a CD burner and immediately see its earning potential. His method consisted of shadily trolling the hallways between classes asking passersby, “Would you like to buy some She-Ds.” Yes, he had a bit of a speech impediment at that age. However, without a formal education in economics, he understood that he could create a viable market by selling cheap copies of popular albums. So, when I was 12, the choice was between buying music for $15 a pop at Sam Goody or paying Singer $5 for a copy of the new Smash Mouth. Let’s just say I have a fine collection of CDRs with sharpie smudged titles.
A couple of years later, Singer’s business was wiped out. At the end of the 90s, everyone’s computer had a CD burner and we all got wise to Napster. Even Singer’s desperation deals, offering a smattering of CDs for unbeatable bargains, could not revive his bootleg operation. MP3s became the most easily accessible commodity around and friends started substituting Sony Walkmen for iPods. In the early 2000s, my choice was between buying a CD player and CDs for around $60 and $15 respectively (CDs seem to always be $15), or buying an MP3 player for around $300 and never having to worry about buying music again. Although, I have gone through a few iPods (the unforeseeable expense of having items lost and stolen), I sided with the long-term cost-effective option.
Now, ten years later, things are slightly though not fundamentally different. Instead of Napster, I rely on a series of websites and music downloading services to fill my headphones. HypeMachine informs me about new music, Grooveshark allows me to stream a wide range of searchable artists and albums, and a host of other sites fill in the cracks. I am not using peer-to-peer sharing, but I am still not having to pay for new music.
Is this ethical? No. I acknowledge that in some way I am cheating the artist and benefiting/ being entertained by work that cost them to create and produce (though I’d like to believe that my favorite musicians don’t consider it “work”). However, I am thoroughly committed to listening and informing my peers about music. Also, I am an avid concert goer. So, in these ways I feel that I support musicians and their creations (or at least this is what I tell myself so I can sleep at night).
Why do I tell you all of this? To show you how I developed the position that I do not pay (often) for music. I doubt I am unique. I think there are millions of people who have a nearly identical music consumerism history (minus the CD bootlegger friend named Singer). These imagined masses have tasted the music industry’s forbidden fruits (leaks, bootlegs, torrents, etc.) and no longer believe in the $15 CD, the $10 iTunes download or the X priced all access music subscription. I posit that there are too many easily available free music listening services to ignore technology’s current state and revert to an outdated business model. And, by outdated model, I mean any product or service which depends on individuals directly paying for albums and songs.
The catalyst for the above story/argument/rant is an article from USAToday.com (who pays for journalism anymore?) titled MOG offers music subscription for $5 a month. The gist of the piece is that David Hyman, former CEO of music ID service Gracenote, recently launched a new music subscription service called MOG. This would be fairly unremarkable except that the service “charges $5 for monthly on-demand listening, compared with $12.99 for Rhapsody and $14.99 for Microsoft’s Zune Pass.” With this fee, the site provides streamable songs and albums, ”will find music based on your tastes”, and allows you to “discover new music based on playlists from MOG members or by viewing celebrity playlists from the likes of Paul McCartney, Tom Waits and Seal.”
To his credit, Hyman realistically states, “Maybe $5 is the right price, but it’s still going to be a challenge to get people to pay it.” However, my argument is that $5 is the right price if it’s 1999 and Singer is trying to sell you the new Green Day CD. Anything short of free is too much when internet users can easily find no cost alternatives. The sites I mentioned above, HypeMachine and Grooveshark, can satisfy 99% of your music needs. For those songs which you can’t find, a simple Google search will probably do the trick.
Unfortunately, this piece is an argumentative response rather a meaningful solution to the problem of current music consumerism. I wish I knew how to make digital music profitable. If I did, I think the music industry would award me with their version of the Nobel Peace Prize. Alas, I fear that advertising money is the only reliable source of revenue to expect from digital music. My friend and fellow anti-establishment cohort Lawrence “Graham” Jones sent me this very interesting article which elaborates on the issue of advertising in the internet age.
Ultimately, an economically viable music service seems as likely as a time machine. Both require innovation to transport us to a distant and untenable past. And, while we can dream of such inventions, both seem highly unlikely.
You can find this piece and many more of my music and/or philosophy musings at Playtonic Dialogues.
