Jeffrey Veen

I stopped buying CDs, for the most part anyway, about a year and a half ago and I've never looked back. My feelings are very similar to your own -- I do buy some music via iTunes, but for the most part Usenet gets me what I need and then I do my best to get out and see shows, buy shirts and other fun stuff as well as promote the bands I like to others.

I've had the chance to talk to lots of musicians about this and they all seem to prefer to have people buy from them at shows -- and come to the shows in the first place -- as that is where most of their money is. Unless your mega huge, there is really no reason for a band to be against file sharing it seems.

My older brother was in an old sub pop band, The Fluid, and it's interesting to see his take on all this (he's living proof that a major label can do more harm than good) -- My younger brother asked him if he wanted him to buy him the CD of one of the bands we saw at SXSW and he replied, "Nah, just burn it for me. They won't see any of that money and I'll just catch them when they come back."

I'm all for a way to help fans better connect with artists online. Unfortunately I can hardly use many band's sites, let alone do anything useful like buy merchandise. I'd love some kind of fan to artist direct connection for getting MP3s. There is all sorts of stuff I can't find on Usenet that I'd be more than willing to pony up some duckets for if it was available via an artists Web site or some reasonable hosted service.

I can see a niche here for a small Web services company who is interested in making a decent living (not taking advantage of artists) facilitating the connection between fans and artists. If anyone wants to work on this let me know! I've got some ideas.

For now I go to lots and lots of shows. Something I couldn't afford to do when I was shelling out $15+ for a CD.

Buy the way -- you've got some good stuff in your "heavy ipod rotation" -- I've been lucky enough to see Franz Ferdinand, Ted Leo and Modest Mouse all in the last few weeks. All great, great shows. You should make a point to check them out if you've not already.

Hey, I remember the Fluid! I bet Jeff would like the Fluid.

While buying at shows maximizes the band's take, keep in mind also that if they're on smaller labels (as most of the bands in question in this discussion are) buying direct from the label's site often gives them a bigger percentage than other outlets do. That goes double if the band is Superchunk.

I used to see the Fluid all the time back in Denver! Great stuff. One of my all-time fav shows was Sonic Youth, Mudhoney & The Fluid!

Back to the point: I think w e're at the beginning-of-the-end of labels. I put down some rambling thooughts on this, if you're interested:

http://www.halfass.com/log/archives/jayz_industry_death_of_music.php

labels used to be the only way to get your material "out there", on a national and/or global scale.
also, getting quality gear was beyond the reach of most musicians, and they'd need to get into the labels' expensive studios to actually produce something of good enough quality.

now, the internet can take care of the first part (distribution) - even better than traditional label distribution, as you can cater to an infinite number of niche markets worldwide. at the same time, even with a few hundred dollars/pounds/euro any amateur musician can put together a PC based home recording setup that can yield results just as good as any studio - of course, this also depends on your actual physical setup, i.e. recording booth, quality of wiring, etc...but in theory anyway there's no reason why on a technical level the end result should be inferior to studio produced material.
in essence then, i'd wholeheartedly agree that labels are essentially redundant (but keep in mind that your average joe sixpack may still listen to radio, and not surf the web for any downloadable songs...so the labels are still catering to these "pre-internet" markets).

in comparison, the same cannot be said - yet - of the movie industry. internet delivery is still not up to scratch - although it can be used to generate interest, bandwidth, speed, hosting costs etc are still far from ideal. also, as good as miniDV technology is, it's still a far cry technically from high-definition, celluloid, etc employed by the movie industry...so, although it is possible for amateur movie directors to realise their creative vision, the quality of their output cannot - in most cases - match the technical spec (whereas, all other things being equal, a CD recorder/produced/mastered at home is technically no different from a CD from any label).

John (that's my brother and The Fluid's singer) would be super stoked I'm sure to see that people not only remember The Fluid, but were into them. I really hope he gets back into playing music -- they were too good to end the way they did.

JJG makes a great point about small labels. I only wish more small lables had a way to purchase MP3s directly from them. eMusic for example was pretty cool, but I wore it out pretty quick. Maybe this will become more and more an option as time goes by.

Small labels do have a way to sell MP3s directly, at Audio Lunchbox:

http://www.audiolunchbox.com/

I have no idea how much the bands/labels split, but almost every indie label is on there, and you get unencrypted, perfectly playable and shareable MP3 or ogg files, your choice, for 9 or 10 bucks per CD.

I get most of my music from usenet as well, but buy a lot from itunes and audiolunchbox. I also see at least one show a month and have been seeing one show a week for the past month or so.

Thanks Matt for the tip. Audiolunchbox had a few titles I've been looking for right there on the homepage!

You guys are dreamers living in an alternate universe. You think everyone out there listens to indie rock, attends rock shows, and buys some merch -- please. That's not the real world.

| You guys are dreamers living in an alternate universe.

Heh. That's exactly what I was told over and over again back in 1996 when I started writing about CSS.

The only reason "indie rock" isn't just "rock" is because of production and distribution -- and an iBook + DSL goes a long way towards bluring that distinction.

Matt, it appears that audiolunchbox will give you 65% royalty on your music:

http://www.audiolunchbox.com/artistsignup.php

Don't know how that works with signed bands on indie labels, though. I'll ask.

All current forms of digital distribution for music break my heart from a visual design perspective. I really do miss the imagery, linernotes and the tactile packaging. I don't know how many hours I lost as a kid looking at the Eagles Hotel California cover art while listening to the album over and over and over.

That being said, digital distribution has exposed me to music I would have never discovered and wouldn't trade it for the world. But one must be willing to put in the effort and have an open ear.

my mode of operation is similar to Jeff's and I truly believe in supporting live music. The music industry works to clearly seperate the musicians from the fans. Might we be moving to a different perspective of less seperation, where fans become evangelists/agents/distributors/consumers etc.? I am all for that. Ultimately it results in all musicians getting an adequate slice of the pie rather than a few musician getting giant slices.

griff, I agree about missing the 12" album sleeves, especially when someone went nuts with the gatefolds and such, but I would vastly prefer a well-designed web site to the 5.5" CD format. In my opinion, very few people have ever really made a compelling CD cover (and I've designed about 30). It seems like designers are still thinking of the 12" form factor then shrinking it down. That said, I don't think I've seen that completely engaging band web site either.

I know a some people in moderately successful bands who are ambivalent about file sharing and the way it fits in with existing models for financial success. Someone like Barenaked Ladies or the Butthole Surfers can see tremendous sales from a single radio hit that they probably wouldn't have seen otherwise. I think these are the bands that have the biggest adjustment to make, and for some of them it's hard.

I believe, though, that these are just growing pains and that eventually the indie and farm-league labels will embrace things like audiolunchbox or direct distribution (like Einstuerzende Neubauten [ http://neubauten.org ] have). It's an evolutionary step, and some of the old-style musicians who relied heavily on managers and labels to take care of business might not make the cut.

As I live close to Nashville, I have several friends that are indeed musicians. One band [Caedmon's Call, which you might know of, Jeff, seeing you went to Calvin] actively encourages live bootlegs. I find that a great way to get into a band.

Another of my friends offers rough cuts of songs he writes as an indie on his Web site as MP3's and simply asks that you buy the albums when they come out. He's doing okay doing that.

But I'll never give up a physical format--I've had too many hard drives go bad. First thing I do when I get a new CD is to rip to MP3, and the second thing is to copy the CD. The original goes back in its case and isn't touched unless I need to make a copy of it again [or carry it to a show to get it signed]. Works for me.

Do you need someone else to make music for you? If so, you need to make sure that person gets some sort of compensation for their work.

It's no good telling yourself the record companies screw artists over. Of course they do;they've been doing that since about the dawn of sound recording technology. The fact is that you're only trying to make yourself feel better by reminding yourself that there are other people in this world whose ethics are just as sketchy as yours are.

Look, I don't want to kill your music buzz, but at the end of the day, the responsibility is your own.

What should you do? Well, find out the artist's address and send them some money . . .

Labels are definitely required. Sure, some people on the edges will discover a band through bootlegging, or a friend's recommendation, or whatever, but the masses (read: the people without blogs) still discover music the old fashioned way: Via the marketing and PR power of the big labels.

The internet may be good for for pure distribution, but it doesn't replace big marketing budgets, big PR pushes, and big soundtrack placement opportunities that the big labels -- and only the big labels -- can provide.

So, which band has the internet "made" ? Where's the really big did-it-themselves-on-the-net story?

All music labels produce is crapy pop.

|So, which band has the internet "made" ? Where's the really big did-it-themselves-on-the-net story?
Danger Mouse - The Gray Album

Chris -- I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But I don't think I like it. ;)

Jason -- While I think you are right for the most part, I think there are thousands of artists/bands out there for whom labels do nothing at all. Labels are required now, for bands they deem worthy -- but lets hope that's not true forever.

There are the great bands (like the Fluid) that the major labels wreck completely. Maybe I'll get my bro to write up the story of what happened to his band. Hollywood records were instrumental in ruining them and I'm sure if they could go back they'd have stayed with Sub Pop.

We're talking a band that was projected at some point to be huge. A band that people like Colbain and Corrigan sited as a huge influence. Bands like The Fluid are closer to the rule than the exception and they get torn apart because of major labels.

That isn't to say your point isn't true, but I feel that the music industry as a whole would be better off without them. If the internet can be leveraged to help people get access to great music minus the labels as we know them today -- I'm all for that!

Do you have any recommendations for good Usenet newsgroups? I found a news server that offered binaries last night but I wasn't impressed with the few offerings in the groups alt.binaries.sound.mp3.xxx

"All music labels produce is crapy pop."

All indie labels (or bands with no labels) procude is crappy indie pop. See, it's all objective.

"I think there are thousands of artists/bands out there for whom labels do nothing at all."

Perhaps because not enough people like them? Let's not divert blame from the bands themselves -- not everyone has the appeal necessary to deserve wider attention.

I know of many bands that refuse to work through a label, but most bands around these days are looking for major label recoginition. I don't think we are seeing the end of labels, major or indie. The labels are needed to produce as much music as we are currently seeing released. If the label didn't front the bill for the next album, who would. Many bands/band members go broke after recording an album. It costs far too much to produce a record to cut out the funding.

It just can't happen.

I am open to your opinions.

griff said:

|All current forms of digital distribution for music break my heart from a visual design perspective.

visual design? you don't think kids of today will be nostalgic for the "visual design" of the iPod?

the original article was brilliant, btw. i am a musician and music-consumer and i've been of this mindset for years.

think about this: the record industry *hires* people to sabotage music files and "share" them in order to taint the network.

i) there are educated people out there whose sole job it is wake up in the morning, commute to work, and destroy music.

ii) artists make music, labels destroy it.

it blows my mind.

"If the label didn't front the bill for the next album, who would. Many bands/band members go broke after recording an album."

I know dozens of folks that record at home, or in their own studio spaces, with just a PC and some software. For them, the cost of recording is almost nothing (a couple grand in hardware and software). A couple of them are on labels too, and they prefer to cut all their tracks on their computer, then take it to engineers for the final mix.

This is part of the old label system that is likely to die. There's no point in paying $400 an hour for some recording studio when you've got Pro Tools, a PC, and a quiet space to play. The days of paying $100k to record an album are going away fast.

A good offshoot of cheaper recording setups is that bands don't tend to focus so much on "albums" but churn out songs as they are inspired. So every month, you get to hear a new song.

Lots and lots of small labels with excelent artists, have their material available for download, at a good price, at www.emusic.com. (I'm not affiliated with them, just a happy customer from Argentina.)

I agree with Chris Wiley:
| It's no good telling yourself the record companies screw artists over.

The fact that labels don't fairly compensate artists shouldn't (IMO) affect whether I choose to buy a CD. The artist signed the contract and presumably still agrees to be bound by it. I know the contracts suck (remember http://www.negativland.com/albini.html ), but I'm not in a position to (legally) do anything about it.

If I think GM underpays its engineers, can I steal a new Camaro?

I buy 2 CDs per month... from the artist if possible, but from a reseller if it's more convenient. I don't do it because I love the labels. I do it because I don't feel right about enjoying music that I've downloaded in violation of copyright law.

Downloading is great for previewing. But I invariably buy CDs of the stuff I like. Otherwise it would feel like stealing.

I do something very similar, Jeff, although I use BitTorrent instead of Usenet...

You might be interested in Paste Magazine - http://www.pastemagazine.com - it tends to focus on the stuff that's not getting much airplay, and has an excellent CD sampler with each issue. Between that and Radio Paradise - http://www.radioparadise.com - I'm always hearing amazing new music.

Very interesting discussion here. Thanks for having it.

Although there is a bit of shameful self-promotion in this post, please know that my real purpose is to point out yet another way to hear great music on the web - Whole Wheat Radio (http://www.wholewheatradio.org). We play non-RIAA music which means the artists you hear are generally independent and not associated with big labels. We are totally grassroots and non-commercial and are strong in the singer-songwriter, folk, jazz and blues genres without much rock or rap. As I frequently say on-air, "Tune in at various times throughout the week and I can almost guarantee that you'll hear someone that changes your musical horizon."

The artists we air want you to hear their music via the web - and most welcome the personal connection that a quick email of support can make. Following the links available takes you into a whole new realm of indie music. It has certainly reinvigorated my musical life, this world of indie internet singer-songwriter music.

"If the label didn't front the bill for the next album, who would. Many bands/band members go broke after recording an album."

As Matt says: people can do it themselves. Also, I argue that with the economy of supply and demand, if labels stop paying "expense account" rates, access to such facilities would become cheaper. Music production is a true craft and many people will seek out experts in the field -- just as they do now in web design. Anyone can do it; few do it well.

The Internet has had a hit, which is what I pointed out in my above-linked post on Halfass (http://www.halfass.com/log/archives/jayz_industry_death_of_music.php). Most people don't realize how major of an achievment it is to distribute A MILLION of ANYTHING, much less an album.

The proposition of removing the labels from the equation is not only compelling, but very real.

Maybe the "label" of the future is just somebody with good taste and a website that points you to BitTorrent files of stuff you'd want to check out. Maybe BitTorrent could distribute some sort of DRM file format even, that the ARTIST could control in terms of pricing and licensing. With the right file format, compensation, licensing, copyright (embedded CC licenses?) -- all of that could be AUTOMATICALLY handled by the network and the tools. It's not really that far-fetched.

I exchanged emails a while back with the artist behind Imaginary Johnny. I'd heard a track on KEXP, downloaded the album, and mentioned it on my site. He was googling and found my site in the results -- and after his comments I bought the album on iTunes. He had some good things to say about iTunes:

"I think the movement towards 99c downloads is a positive thing. First, the alternative is probably that people would just get the track for free. Second, and very important for folks like me, is what you said -- it brings indie music to the table. It's all there alphabetically and you can pick what you like. Very democratic really. Third, the money isn't bad. Half is what you get at a very artist-friendly indie label. Plus, you keep all the copy-rights, etc. Record stores take half, then the labels take half of that at the local store. And finally, it's not costing the label shipping or the cost of a physical CD.

"So, I guess I really like it for its simplicity and artist-friendliness. I think it's very important the payoff for artists doesn't start slipping below 50%."

This is what really spurred me to buy as much music as possible from iTunes - they're treating independent artists fairly and with respect: exactly what I do if I see them in concert.

Hey, I run a label and we don't put out crappy pop or destroy bands. We do things that bands can't do themselves since ideally they should be spending time writing material, practicing and playing live on the road. Bands should have to spend time being businessmen or fucking around with bureaucratic nonsense or accounting issues. I know when I am on the road, I simply don't have time. We provide a service, and the reward is mutual. If we give a band 2000 cd's (for free) to sell on the road plus pay for the recording of the record (even ProTools requires money, don't kid yourself) and give them booking and logistical support, that's a damn good deal that a load of mp3's won't give them. Labels are completely necessary if the band is serious about what they do and wanting to work hard. If you don't mind playing every toilet from here to Sioux City for 6 people in every town, then more power to you. Unfortunately, for people who desire (and deserve) something bigger and better, a cooperative effort requiring more than your pea brain is necessary.

i have nothing to add to this fine debate, just would like to point out that this info is inaccurate:

"Wilco, for example, is happy to see their songs on the network, and ask that if you download them, you also send a few dollars to Doctors Without Borders."

Wilco is not asking for anything, they simply gave their blessing to the fans idea and the name of the charity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/technology/05music.html?ex=1396497600&en=71b2898a5d0c0b03&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

File sharing is not the thing killing the big labels, it's their Sodom and Gomorrah -
level of decadence finally crashing in under its own weight. It's absurd to
spend millions crafting a mouseketeer into a "recording artist", and spending
millions more on marketing in order to trick consumers into buying it. Do you
realize how much money has to be made to recoup those kinds of costs? So the
labels are losing money? No shit, Sherlock. People tend to villify the labels
based on their poor treatment of artists or other shady tactics, but I say
if you're looking for a reason to hate the big labels, hate them because mostly, all
they produce is complete shit.

I still don't see the big labels going away any time soon, though. Cable TV allowed the
more discriminating viewer to actually seek out quality programming, rather
than just accepting the heavily-bankrolled crap being shoved down their
throat on network television. Yet we've still got those big three networks, still
churning out the same crap programming, and there's still a huge audience for it.

These newer modes of music sharing have opened up the path for those hungry enough
to seek out the quality alternatives. For everyone else, there'll always be Friends
on NBC and Nickelback.

Oh, and regarding this statement:

"You guys are dreamers living in an alternate universe. You think everyone out there listens to indie rock..."

I highly doubt this statement will hold up so well a year from now.

"I still don't see the big labels going away any time soon, though. Cable TV allowed the
more discriminating viewer to actually seek out quality programming, rather
than just accepting the heavily-bankrolled crap being shoved down their
throat on network television. Yet we've still got those big three networks, still
churning out the same crap programming, and there's still a huge audience for it."

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I will tell you that TV was pretty good when there were only 4 channels, I would say that there just as much good programming now as there was then, only now you have to sift through 200 channels of junk to get to the same amount of good programming.

Major labels do more than just put out Brittny Spears clones, they've put out, and still do put out, a lot of great shit. Too bad folks like y'all are too closed minded to try. You can live in a closed knitting circle for the rest of your life, but believe me, it's pretty fucking limiting.

Labels *are* important, because they get the word out -- as someone said above, that's something the bands shouldn't, or might not want, to do. I used to DJ college radio (WPRB Princeton), and one thng that's immediately obvious in that context is that everyone works really hard to promote good music, from the musicians themselves to the labels, the journalists, and the DJs that spread the word. Part of the reason you can have conversations with friends about music is, in a sense, because the record labels help lay the groundwork for that conversation. I see a big place for labels, now and forever, even in a world of free downloads, and I think we owe a lot of label owners gratitude for the real work they do, which isn't superflous or useless -- it's the work of devoted music lovers who are often facilitating and not exploiting. (Speaking mainly, of course, of independent labels here).

So, as a result, personally speaking, I think it's really imperative that people buy CDs and records. When I used to DJ, I would copy a good two or three dozen CDs a week to my iPod, listen to them, and then order the ones I liked direct from the label. CDs and LPs can often be had, postage paid, for around $10. The rest I would delete from my computer. Now that I don't DJ I replicate that system with file sharing networks: download, try, buy, delete. Buying the CDs, at shows or from the label, is still a pretty integral part of my music life. I love records, and spending $60 a month doesn't seem too huge to own great music. I think it's really cool that Wilco wants you to donate to Doctors Without Borders, in other words, but it's still important that you buy records when the band isn't big like Wilco.

I don't buy cds either, and its mostly because I can't find the music I like here, in the Philippines. Without the internet, I wouldn't have heard of any of the bands I currently like.

I'm a musician in a somewhat successful local band ( we make money unlike most bands) and I have to agree with everything you're saying. Musicians make a heck of a lot more money if you buy directly from them. For example, when our band sells our cd at a show for $10, more than half of that is profit. but when it sells through Tower Records or another large distributor we see alot less money.

Another great resource for new music is the excellent radio station KEXP (http://www.kexp.org) out of Seattle with excellent djs, streaming audio, tons of archives, and losts of bands in-studio. I've discovered more new bands through the morning show than I can count.

you are all correct when you state that all you need to record and album is a microphone, a computer, and the software. Heck, I'm a mac guy and Apple's got some new recording software called GarageBand that's kick butt and is bundled with some other software for only $50. A basic mic and calbe is another $50. If you already have a computer, odds are you can plug the mic into it and whammo! You've got your own home recording studio.

Many people have commented on the economics of the major labels, the record producer Steve Albini wrote a very interesting article on the topic, everyone sho is passionite about music should read it http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Oh please. Can we please NOT read that albini rant AGAIN? Major labels are evil, so what. Tobacco companies are evil but plenty of people still smoke. Budweiser is evil but that doesn't keep you all from puttin' away a few at your gig. Burger King is evil. Exxon is evil. They are all evil. WHO CARES?

Besides, it takes more than just a $50.00 mike and some stolen software to make a record. Sure, it depends on what you want, but if this great revolution you speak of were so good, then why are recording studios still in existence? Maybe you are too cheap to put down some cheddar to make a decent record or maybe your music blows and isn't worth it or maybe you are too insecure to go, I don't know. But MP3's and iBook's haven't revolutionized shit except just that, TOTAL SHIT.

I'm Richard, and I help run a website called Zerophase. We're a few college students who are trying to spread the word about the best independent artists around the world. You all might want to check out what we're trying to do at http://zerophase.net and of course, if you have any suggestions on things we can do to improve, those are ALWAYS welcomed.

Feel free to join/post on our board as well at http://zerophase.net/board Right now we're talking to quite a few independent labels about getting their artists and music added to the site and partnering withus as we go forward, and plans are in place to allow people to purchase albums directly from ZP artists with no overhead from us.

Come check us out. Hopefully, you'll find some music you'll enjoy!

I'm with griff, in the mourning of the visual aspect. I love creative packaging and liner notes, and promotional pictures. Then again, I'm a graphic designer, so I digress.

I love MP3s and through the 'net, I've been exposed to music I enjoy that I never would have heard of otherwise.

But after listening to a few MP3s, if I like the artist enough, I end up buying the CD anyway. There's just something with a physical object that justifies my money being spent.

You are whitewashing STEALING! You should go to jail.

Hey Jeff,

Thanks so much for writing this. I have 3 additional points.

1) Will someone please create a Usenet tutorial for us idiot users? I keep hearing that this is the greatest thing for the music fan since Hi-Fi and yet I find the interface so complicated, I throw up my hands each time. I use Limewire and Acquisition because it's easy. Usenet is not.

2) Collaborative Filtering. I use Launch.com to do my exploring as a music fan because they will give me something a degree or two of seperation from what I already like. I have a pretty clear sense of what kinds of music I like. I just haven't drilled down very deep. Thus, I think we owe it to each other and music sharers to include some kind of metadata about what we're recommending. You mention The Decemberists. They sound like whom? The Replacements? Wilco? Eminem? Without that info, I'm basically choosing to follow up on how much I like their name.

3) Metadata is crucial because of the odd uniformity of music fans who recommend the loudest. Maybe this is my own prejudice but I find them almost entirely interested in guitar-based "indie" rock. Where is the music recommender who's nuts over Klemzer? Gangsta Rap? 60's soul?

So let's help each other out with a little swift This-Like-That. You say you're nuts over The Strokes, I'm not going to recommend Jill Scott, not matter how cool I think she is. I might throw in a thumbs up for early Fastbacks though.

"even ProTools requires money, don't kid yourself"

Asparagus, as well as having a bit of an anger-management problem, appears never to have heard of Pro Tools Free.

I'm a musician who's been doing home recording for nearly twenty-five years now, starting with reel-to-reels, cassette decks, Portastudios, and now I own an 8-track digital recorder (they cost as little as $700 now, IIRC). I've recorded thousands of hours of material, and though much of it was crap (especially in the first decade), some of it holds up to critical attention. I've never spent one dollar (or one hour) on professional studio time, and with recent technology I can produce recordings -- I do all my own engineering -- that are indistinguishable from major and minor label productions.

Hard as it may be to believe, some of us are in it for the music. No, I wouldn't turn down reasonable money, but I've seen too many people here in Seattle who got caught up in the grunge feeding frenzy just for the money, and got sucked in, chewed up, and spit out again, while first-class bands were overlooked because the labels couldn't figure out what to do with them. (Not familiar with The Fluid, but I can speak from personal experience for Vexed and Imij -- Geffen told the latter that the label didn't know how to sell a rock band that was black -- and I'm sure there are many more.)

Labels can perform the kind of filtering function needed to separate out the floaters from the real stuff, but the larger the label the higher the overhead and the greater the focus on megasuccessful product to the exclusion of all else. Until the advent of a public Internet, the labels had a stranglehold on distribution so even the independents had to work with them -- remember who bought Sub Pop.

ps: Copyright violation is not theft. And copying mp3s with their creators' permission is not copyright violation.

This is a very interesting discussion; thanks for starting it, Jeff.

I too am getting exposed to way more music than ever before in my life and am just loving it.

However, I take a slightly different approach. I just cannot justify to myself getting an electronic copy of an entire CD without giving any compensation to the artists or those who provided the service of getting the music to me. Guess I'm just a goody-two-shoes that way.

What I do is:
1) subscribe to Launch.com.
It costs me something like $3 a month and I listen all day at work. If it ran on Mac I'd listen at home too. I've been using their service for a bit over 4 years now and have thousands of songs, albums and artists rated. I am constantly getting exposed to new and interesting music. When I'm going music shopping, I look at what I've rated highly and don't yet own. I've found some great albums this way.

2) act on recommendations.
When people tell me their favorite music and I have a sense we have some overlap in taste (or if I'm just feeling adventurous), I'll go into launch and rate it 70%. It'll come up at some point and then I rate it up or down depending on how I like it. Also I enjoy mix CDs from a few key friends who steer me right. I have no moral problem with mix CDs - they make me buy albums.

3) attend live shows and buy direct when I can.

4) when I can't buy direct, buy local.
I shop in independent record stores and support the employment of people who probably are in bands by night.

5) when I like the song, but don't necessarily want the whole album, I'll buy it from iTunes rather than just lifting a copy from somewhere.

6) when I can't afford to buy new or I'm not 100% sure I really want the album, I buy used.
Again, supporting local businesses and also buying things I wouldn't shell out almost $20 for. This often results in growing to like a band more and thus being more willing to shell out for new in the future.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see a band...

You've summed it up, Jeff. The RIAA doesn't care about artists - they care about holding onto an outmoded system for the chain of distribution. I think artists are going to realise soon they don't need the record companies.

I've been a musician and worked for the record companies in IT.
Please go show your support by going to live shows and buying the albums. Buy from the band's waebsite..etc.
But don't try believe that file sharing is anything but stealing; unless of the course the band owns the publishing rights and puts it out there for mass consumption for free.
What level of coping is acceptable? Whether or it's on a large scale, or a smale scale, it's still taking someone's work without compensation.
For example, is it OK to pass the song onto 2 friends and they don't pass it on? or is it OK to pass it on to 5 friends.. they pass it on to 5 firends so there are now 25 copies of the song for which the the band has received no payment?

I have a question for people who say that it's stealing to download music without the permission of the copyright owner:

How do you feel about buying used CDs? If I buy a used CD on eBay the copyright owner doesn't get any money. So is buying a used CD morally/legally the same as downloading a CD?

ken its not stealing, its copyright infringement.
Whats more its not even that in Canada its just legal.

The problem is that i dont what CDs but i do want to support my bands (as i do by going to gigs and buying their merchandise) and listen to music. The *IAA seem hell bent on stopping us/me doing that, DMCA systems just dont work and i refuse to use them, I want all my files in ogg or mp3 so i can listen to music where i choose on what i choose.

The current download services (if they even exist in your area) are poor at best with a music range that i can only laugh at (esp. compared to what free music sites/programs has) and the bands still dont always get a fair cut (although alot better than CDs).

The labels dont offer or provide what they are suppose to bands (ie, promotion/advice/recording time), they mostly rip them off with expensive 'deals' (many of my friends ahve thrown £100s-£1000s to bad labels) the internet does for free what music labels can't it helps spread the word of good music about so good bands get heard and people want to listen to them, all thats left is working out a way to pay them so they can carry on doing what they do best

The *IAA only picks bands it thinks can make them lots of money and i dont think labels should support them anymore