Americans love free shit more than baseball, apple pie and fucking flag lapels. In and of itself it’s not a bad thing—after all, who doesn’t want to get something for nothing—but like most things in the US of A, we like to go big with our free. Jump right up on it’s back and ride that baby for all it’s worth. If we can get away with jacking something without penalty or consequence, you best believe we’ll be hitting that shit hard and often. It’s like we can’t help ourselves. It’s what we do best.
When it comes to music, the numbers are, not surprisingly, disturbing and pathetic. 56% of U.S. Internet users think that music isn’t worth paying for. Let me repeat that again: music isn’t worth paying for. That’s over 120 million slack-jawed ass wipes, most, if not all, without a creative bone in their body. Every single one of them, however, has an undeserved sense of entitlement. That is shameful. Welcome to America.
So-called digital evangelists and social media guru fucktards will argue that this is a natural progression. This is the marketplace that consumers have created for themselves and artists need to adapt or perish. There is no going back. Unfortunately, much like death, taxes and the complete mind-numbing vacuousness of the American entertainment complex, this too is fact.
However, the reality is that this is not so much a change in the fundamentals of the marketplace as it is a reflection of the total lack of respect our country has developed for art and culture, especially music. In an ideal world, instead of getting on their knees and being forced to capitulate, bands and musicians would develop one simple but very effective mantra: Fuck you, pay me.
See how easily it rolls of the tongue? The sense of relief and empowerment that courses through your veins? That’s the truth smacking you in the genitals.
To all you music “fans,” let us give you a quick reality check: If you think music should be free, if you’re unwilling to pay for the fruits of someone else’s labor, if you think you are entitled to something you had no part in creating, you are, in fact, a scumbag. On behalf of musicians everywhere: Fuck you, pay me.
Think buying a t-shirt at a show makes up for the last two albums you pinched off of Mediafire? Guess again. Fuck you, pay me.
Think stealing an album to “see if you like it” is somehow legit and justifiable? Fuck you, pay me. That’s what MySpace is for, asshole.
What makes you so privileged? Do you get your gas, groceries or weed for free? Didn’t think so. Fuck you, pay me.
This has nothing to do with catering to fat cat industry bigwigs or trying to keep a dying, bloated industry alive. It has everything to do with what’s fair.
The pay what you want model championed by the likes of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails is a sham. Not because it’s not viable or sustainable. Not because it doesn’t make fiscal sense in the face of current market and consumer trends. It’s a sham because it’s ethically reprehensible. Real music fans should not be tasked with the burden of financially carrying the dead weight of cultural deadbeats.
So let’s get this straight: if you think that music is not worth paying for, you are not a fan.
You are not a music lover.
You’re a leech and a cheapskate.
So fuck you, and pay me.
goddamn right, brother. a-fucking-men.
Sometimes you gotta get up on your soapbox and preach.
Are you a musician yourself man? Cause you stand by some simple moral values and beliefs that other music critics and hack music journalists won’t ascribe to. In the 21st century digital age of music, the artist is viewed as selfish and arrogant if they want to receive payment for the art that they have invested in financially, emotionally and spiritually.
You’re one of the first guys I’ve seen to stand up and just call bullshit. I tip my hat to you.
Hey Taylor, I am a musician (as is Noose), but it’s been quite while since I’ve played in a band (although I’ve recently started again). I run a small label myself, so I understand the need for bands to adapt to current trends, but I believe that a dangerous precedent has been established. Our culture has basically told bands that their musical output is secondary to whatever video/shirt/schwag they can merchandise. It’s completely fucked. I’m all for free music and file sharing, but it should be solely at each artist’s discretion. They should have the choice. Unfortunately, we’re at the point now where “fans” feel entitled to take what they want. It’s already too late. That doesn’t mean it’s not complete horse shit.
“You’re one of the first guys I’ve seen to stand up and just call bullshit.”
Really?
Wow! I mean the NET act is like 15 years old now
wanna see real “go big”piracy — china and south Asian countries like Thailand
Thank you for speaking out. There is no justification for theft. It is done out of a need to look cool and get free shit. It is shirking responsibility and then trying to make excuses. Pay for your shit, losers.
Yeah, musicians obviously don’t deserve to get paid for what I enjoy listening to, I obviously could’ve made it myself for no cost! Sheesh..
I’m contradicting my posting name now.. lol
Thanks for posting this.
I’m in a band and I ask money for my music. Some people will pay, others will find the most pathetic excuses to get it for free. Fuck them. And fuck all those bloggers retards that are telling us we should embrace free music, because Radiohead did it.
Mediaboy Ultra,
You’re absolutely correct. In the global scheme of things, Internet piracy in the United States is pretty tame. The point we were trying to make in the article was not so much about the act of piracy as the fact that over half of U.S. Internet users believe that music isn’t worth paying for. Not that it isn’t worth listening to, just that they shouldn’t have to pay for it. They feel entitled to have it for nothing. Culturally, that’s a pretty pathetic stance to take.
Goldman Sachs > music piracy on the wtfunfair scale
You’re goddamn right about that sparkles. x a bazilion.
FUCK YOU, PAY ME.
maybe the whole concept of the “fan” is some outdated consumerist bullshit
How much did you pay the photographers who’s work you copied and added to the article?
I wrote a response to this on tumblr: http://bermudabonnie.tumblr.com/post/1508221110/music-isnt-worth-paying-for-music-forum-drowned
The movement that began with the original Napster was never intended to harm musicians. It was started by music LOVERS in response to decades of abuse at the hands of the record companies. To think anything else is to miss the point. That movement has succeeded in taking down the major labels, and putting music back in the hands of the people, where it has always belonged. To the extent that artists have been able to adapt, they have been successful in the new environment. It’s no longer ok to sit in your limousine and ignore your fans. The present circumstances demand interaction with, and compassion for, the fans. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Musicians are entitled to make a living. It is not written anywhere that they are entitled to live in a mansion and party their lives away. That’s a choice that you earn.
To indicate that the people who have created this sea change in the way things are done are fucktards or anything of the other names you used, is bullshit. There is more music out there than there has ever been in my lifetime, and I’m old. If being a musician was such a bad deal, not as many people would be doing it, now would they? We love music, we love musicians. What we don’t like is being ripped off by greedy corporations and aloof artists who don’t give a shit about their audience. Musicians who are determined to defend the bad old days deserve to be shuffled to the dustbin of history along with their corporate masters.
I pay for music I like. I’ll buy an album again when I lose it cuz my laptop crashes and I didn’t back up the last few songs/albums in time. I make copies for my car and different locations in my house. I’ll bet that’s because I have the money. I’ll bet most of the “Americans” that rip off music are kids and teens. Huh. Yeah. How much DID you pay those photographers? If I find a picture I like, I pay for it, too.
I’d bet my Chrissy behind you didn’t get permission to use those photos. And you lost me at ‘fucktard’. Your indignation is hilarious.
I pay for my music, and I get your point, but seriously, did you pay for the use of the photographs above? Cause if not, you’re just as bad as the people you’re complaining about. This situation is a lot more complex than your rant suggests, and i’m afraid if you really want to make it a choice between paying for your music and not listening to it, 99.9% of people will say ‘Fine, I won’t listen’.
Damn. This is what I get for taking the weekend off of blogging. Definitely wasn’t expecting a barrage of angry missives when I logged in today.
First things first: Jeb, Liyhann, Petra and Ursa — You caught me red-handed and called me out on the use of photos. It’s inexcusable on my end. Don’t think I don’t get the irony. It’s shitty and I should know better. Thank you for taking the time to point it out.
Petra — the article was meant to be sensationalist and over the top. I’m just glad I provoked a reaction, even if it was bile and mocking condescension.
Ken (and to an extent, Lihyann and Ursa) — I appreciate your thoughts but I think you’re missing the point. Major labels? Greedy corporations? Limousines? Have you even read my site? Look at the artists that I cover and feature. With a few rare exceptions, it’s never corporate rock or big label acts. Actually, it’s mostly small local Atlanta acts that I would like to see grow and prosper. Interpreting my words as a call to return to some imaginary “glory days” where big labels and rock stars ruled music would be entirely inaccurate. It’s not what I’m saying at all.
I agree with you that early adopters of Napster may have been music lovers who wanted to put music back in the hands of the people. Fair enough. More power to them. But the unintended consequence (there are always unintended consequences) was that suddenly millions of people had the ability to freely download music. The vast majority of these people weren’t crusaders for a cause, they were people who wanted free shit. Because they could get it. Plain and simple.
And music today is incredible. So many great bands, so many different and inspiring sounds. And so many different ways to experience and share new music. It’s an amazing time to live in, no doubt. But I never made the argument that file-sharing was killing music. My entire piece was a purposely inflammatory reaction to an article I read, which I linked to. When you have over half of the U.S. internet population making the case that music is NOT WORTH PAYING FOR, that incenses me as a music lover, as someone who knows and understand how difficult it is for the average band to survive and thrive. It’s nothing close to a defense of the “bad old days.” It’s a finger pointed at a culture that is too lazy and bloated, too mindless and entitled to think that maybe the music that enriches their lives in so many ways, not the least of which is providing a soundtrack to their very existence, might be, you know, actually worth something.
I completely understand the historical and economical significance of what file-sharing has done. It has brought an entire industry to its knees, and deservedly so. It needed to be gutted. And maybe, hopefully, all of this upheaval is necessary for prices to move from inflated to a fair market value. I have my doubts. I just don’t see how you can make a compelling case that someone who argues that music is, in essence, worthless in the marketplace can be a true music fan.
You should probably charge people to read your blog too…
Thorny Bleeder — LOL
Latest Disgrace – did it seriously take writing this for you to realise that use of photos without permission or payment seriously undermines your argument? The very least one could expect is that something this strongly felt should be thought through properly, like, ONCE.
Look – I can see why you feel strongly (though nothing excuses the hate speech, the hypocritical theft of images or the tone of blithe entitlement that you adopt here). It’s tough to make a living in the arts and it has recently gotten much tougher. In fact, this is an ancient problem, one that has been managed differently across different cultures and historical moments – whole systems of patronage and innovation in manufacture have been founded upon this precise question. The system that immediately predated filesharing was and remains unjustifiable, however, and we will not be returning to it. Not a chance.
If you want to get paid, work out a way to manage direct access to your music for buyers, and give them something more than they can get for free. Look at the example of Kristin Hersh and the CASH project – there’s a musician who genuinely thrives away from the major label system and has figured out a way to make supporting her music feel worthwhile to fans.
Music is not in itself valuable, or at least it’s not something whose precise value is easily determined; but it’s reasonable for musicians to expect to support themselves through making music – SOMETIMES. This principle is embodied in the recent spate of bands reforming to tour; they’re not reforming because they want to make new music, or because they’re happy to work together again, they’re reforming because they feel somehow entitled (there’s that word again) to earn money from music they made a long time ago. And yet fans flock to these shows, whereas relatively few people support really new or innovative music. Why do you suppose that is?
As long as musicians choose to closet themselves away from the interests of fans, as long as they’d rather abdicate that relationship to labels and marketing morons, as long as people like you post rants that will do nothing but alienate music fans, the problem will keep proliferating. We are no longer int he days of ‘we just do what we want, and if anyone else likes it, that’s a bonus’. If you want to make a living in the arts, you have to think about it – at least enough not to contradict yourself with every other word.
Not arguing against what you’re saying but it boils down to simple economics. There is limited demand for music (consumers only have so much time) and an unlimited supply of music (cost of replication is low and there’s just so many artists out there). That brings the equilibrium price down to near nothing. As a musician looking to make a living, I would suggest you roll with the times and look for other ways to bring in revenue to cover your costs (merchandising, ITunes, concerts, gigs, direct digital distribution, avoiding the big labels, etc.). Treat the old big label system as a lost cause for which it is and don’t depend on it for revenue.
“However, the reality is that this is not so much a change in the fundamentals of the marketplace as it is a reflection of the total lack of respect our country has developed for art and culture, especially music.”
The way you say it here you equate “respect” with money. The two are of course separate issues. The Europeans immortalize their artists (Mozart, Van Gogh, etc.) with monuments, museums, and national holidays but they are just as likely to not pay as Americans. And again, its not so much disrespect for music and musicians as it is simple and inevitable economics. If you enjoy making music, I would suggest you spend your time doing just that rather than getting bent over these things. The ever evolving marketplace will find a new solution for artists.
I am not willing to pay an artist who releases an album which has only one song I want, and there is no way to buy the song without buying the whole album which has nothing but filler songs otherwise. I am not willing to pay for a song that I’m going to listen to five times in a week and then delete because I realize I’m sick of it already and it wasn’t as great as I thought it was.
I am, however, always willing to pay for single songs that I enjoy (and those are the ones that I keep). There are few, but I pay for what I enjoy. I have only about 100 songs in my library. If I paid for everything I downloaded, I’d be short at least one grand, and that would be $1000 wasted (I like listening to music in high quality then deciding whether I’ll be keeping it or not). I like listening to a song for long enough and deciding whether I want to support the artist or not before I go out and make the purchase.
Most of the music which I come across and put on my computer I wouldn’t have considered purchasing ever. Maybe if the prices weren’t so steep? Say ten or twenty cents per song would be fine. But I see some artists with the mentality that they need to milk every dollar out of the fruits of their labors. Consider this though:
I’m an elementary school teacher. I am paid to teach children. However, I go out of my way and do extra-curricular programs after school which I am not paid any extra for (and I could choose not to). I tutor children who need help (occasionally) for free, on weekends and in my own free time. My dad is a lawyer, and he does occasional work pro bono. My doctor has given me some free medical work out of generosity from time to time. See, not everything has to be (or should be) paid for. If an artist expects 100% of his work to be paid for by everyone, that sounds a little off to me. The children I help out wouldn’t have sought tutoring help if it weren’t for free (in most cases). The people who sought legal aid wouldn’t have had a lawyer if it weren’t free. And a lot of the people who download music simply wouldn’t have sought that music out (at all, ever) if it weren’t free.
I realize there are other sides to this. I don’t want to write a giant essay about the rights and the wrongs. I agree with a lot of what has been said above. However, your original article “Fuck you, pay me” seems to play itself off as if you’re an arrogant prick who hasn’t thought this whole thing through.
@Paul
Me being an arrogant prick=intentional. Result? You writing five paragraphs on why you think I’m wrong. Which I think is awesome, because I get to hear a different viewpoint. Maybe we get to debate a little. Bottom line, for some reason you were provoked into a reaction. My job is done.
As for your comments, you concede that you’re willing to pay for music that you like. I assume then that you believe (good music) is worth paying for. If so, this article does not apply to you. My hard drive is full of free (legally obtained, of course) mp3s and albums that bands have chosen (key word: chosen) to give away. It’s fine, really. And, yes, there is a whole world full of shit music not worth a nickel. If the article I referenced had said shit music isn’t worth paying for, I would have been all about it. But it didn’t, it said music in general. And that is sad and deplorable in my estimation.