Having pangs of guilt for having mentioned a certain large media/electronics retailer in a previous post, I feel the obligation to redeem myself by featuring the work of activists who undoubtedly embody the independent aesthetic.
I came across a slew of activists' websites when a friend sent me this link — an organization called Downhill Battle — accusing Apple's iTunes of "just letting record companies force the same exploitive and unfair business model onto a new medium."
That site points out significant flaws — even calculated misrepresentations — in iTunes: First, iTunes is much more expensive than purchasing a used CD at an independent record store or through eBay. Second, iTunes's song compression strips music of nuance and texture; in contrast, sound quality for all intents and purposes remains static when burning CDs. Third, and perhaps most disquieting (though least surprising), iTunes is unfair to artists since Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, record labels receive the remainder and pay major label artists only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contracts (read: market power).
The point? "If you want to support the musicians you love, the best way to begin is by downloading the song for free on a filesharing network. Then send them what you want to give, no middleman. 14 cents. 99 cents. 10 dollars. [....] Instead of pursuing dead-ends like iTunes, we can develop p2p and direct contribution systems into a full-fledged music economy that sustains many more musicians than the current one. If downloading and contributing is made just as easy as iTunes, it could work and it would work. After all, iTunes is already voluntary."
So there my venture began. Downhill Battle, which "drops mid-September 2003" and will feature articles, music reviews, forums, activism, and "solid free music propaganda," already connects to a handful of other links of interest.
In the next parts of this series, I will explore some of the various sites that are devoted to independent music. Stay tuned....
For more bloggery on independent music, visit No Matter What You Heard. There, you can check out the new column of links pertaining to independent music activism in the right sidebar.
Article comments
1 - TDavid
More artists should offer their music direct. One big problem seems to be the contracts that they sign (or have already signed) basically stripping away what little rights they have to the music they create.
If one believes what Courtney Love wrote about realistic artist contracts, then rape is a standard RIAA practice. $45k a year for a 1 million dollar advance? Yikes.
2 - Phillip Winn
I posted on that site here before.
Bottom line: For all of the whining both from people within the system (Prince, Love, etc) and from without (who can't seems to get rich on their own), the system more or less works, and there are plenty of alternatives for people unwilling or unable to play the big-label game.
And the argument against Apple's iTunes is just silly attention-grabbing nonsense. I guess it worked! Advocating illegal behavior is more fun, and makes people feel better, but I'll pass, thanks.
3 - Sabo
I don't even no where to begin with the "system works" comment: radio collusion, artists' meager return on album sales (and, no, I'm not talking about Metallica, those whining sissies), artistic control, etc. [Ask Wilco (re-signing with Reprise notwithstanding), Girls Against Boys, Nirvana (screw Courtney Love, I'm talking about the fact that Cobain attested to the manipulation of DGC in the production of Nevermind). Need more?
Further, that Prince is currently "within the system" is questionable at best.
4 - Eric Olsen
Very interesting Steve - I heard from Downhill too but I didn't really comprehend their agenda. Thanks for doing this!
5 - Phillip Winn
Yes, the system works. I didn't say it was perfect- things rarely are. But it works. The majority of music that you hear wherever you go comes from the system. Artists complain as artists will always complain, but it works. $1 per album sucks, but still artists would rather take $1 each out of X albums sold than eight times as much out of one-tenth the sales.
Nobody has yet ever been able to adequately explain this: If the system sucks so badly, why do artists keep signing? I'm not just talking about ignorant new artists, I'm talking about the well-established artists with enough name recognition to theoretically make it on their own.
Over on the hip-hop side of the house, every third artists is starting his own label. That's smart business. Some, like Prince, have more or less done the same thing. And yet still they use the same distributors, and most artists even still with the same labels year after year, signing contract extension after contract extension.
Even the examples you list whine and whine but then resign, like Wilco. Artistic control? Yes, sometimes the labels are so commercially-oriented and blind that they screw up a unique voice. And for every time that happens, I estimate that there are ten or more times that they mercifully keep some ridiculous idea from ever polluting our ears and minds.
Indie labels are doing quite well, while the RIAA slides into the toilet financially. Despite a few high-profile bankruptcies by people who have generally made poor choices, most artists are much better off than they would have been had they remained unsigned, lengthy screeds about how the artist gets screwed notwithstanding.
Should the artists get a better deal? Sure. The contracts are all written to favor the labels. And yet does that mean that they're bad for the artists? I don't think so (with some exceptions, obviously). Without those contracts, good or bad, we would never hear many of those artists. They'd be washing dishes and hanging drywall, and their labros would be benefitting only those who eat at their restaurants or live in the houses they build. The system ensure that we all have a chance to hear them, and puts some money in their pocket.
If an artist doesn't like the contract, he or she can sign with an indie label. Many are quite reasonable, doing a much better job than even Downhillbattle's suggestion of having each artists pay for its own website bandwidth.
And Apple doesn't have anything to do with this at all, so that's just silly.
6 - prorecord
This is my first comment, so allow me to introduce myself. My name is Chris, and I run a recording facility in southwest Michigan, USA.
Now, let me try to explain the 'iTunes opportunity' as I see it.
iTunes is not the best outlet for artists signed to labels, for reasons already exposed in this blog (Royalties to Apple, then to labels really tighten profits). The real opportunity hear is actually FOR independant artists.
Until now, in order to be found by a large number of consumers, artists needed the financial backing of a label, and they got it at the cost of rediculous royalty rates. They needed label backing because consumers' buying habits have been dictated by radio, television, and film exposer, all of which are dictated grossly by the major labels. The trends changed with Peer-to-Peer piracy, though... consumers got a taste of searching for their own music, being able to listen to what they wanted to hear, not just what the labels pushed down their throat.
This was a huge problem for the record labels until someone figured out how to make searchable, previewable, downloadable music a legitamate business. That someone was Apple. It's still a problem for major labels (though nat as much of a problem), since they are giving apple near $0.40 per dollar. But to the independant artist, Apple leaves you with $0.60 per song, MUCH MORE than the $0.40 per ALBUM that labels give their artists.
And the best part of it all: Independant music is as easy to find as all music. The playing feild has been effectively leveled. The new market for music is a lot better for indie artists,
Peer to peer networks cannot be relied on for fair compensation to artists. You cannot trust the consumers with your copyright, and tell them to do what they think is fair. That is not how business works, that is how NOT-FOR-PROFIT ministries work. If we are all in support of the best interests of music makers and lovers worldwide, there needs to be organized and fair commerce. iTunes lets you keep your copyright, and make money based on how many people actually liked your song enough to buy it after previewing it. No more unfair marketing budgets cramming top 40 down our throats, and no relience on people's good nature to compensate the artists we love.
I hope I have been fair, I appreciate any comments.