NOTE: In this post, Digital Streaming/Downloading applies to legal content people pay for. This isn't an argument about bands vs. online piracy, although if I get really bored/desperate I might voice my full opinion on that another month.
The year is 2014.
...Well, at the time of typing this up, it is.
For all I know, some lone survivor in the apocalyptic wasteland of New Korea has just picked up a cracked iPad with this blog post inexplicably on the screen.
If that is the case, hello survivor! Sorry 'bout the whole end of the world thing. Hang in there, K?
...where was I?
Oh yeah, music (or to the survivor, noise that isn't explosions or children screaming)!
So it's 2014 and the idea of having music streamed/downloaded to an electronic device of your choice is more commonplace than the knowledge of how to make music without said device to do all the legwork for you. Despite expensive licensing fees for iconic bands such as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, they still appear in the iTunes library for you to access for less than £1 a song.
There are various articles online that discuss whether this is fair to the band, especially with subscription sites like Spotify that don't demand money to listen to each song and pay peanuts to the musicians. For this reason, there are many bands who disagree with these services using their music and, as a result, are absent from the online database.
These absent bands include Slade, Def Leppard, Scorpions and The Black Keys, although not all necessarily due to financial disagreements. Granted most people couldn't give half a fuck about Slade not being easily available (even though 1981's "Till Deaf Do Us Part" is one for all Hard Rock fans to check out, especially if they like Whitesnake and Motley Crue) but I know for a fact that all of these bands are capable of producing great material and would like the chance to listen to it via the most convenient medium.
I could always listen to scattered discographies on Grooveshark (a great and totally free music service that's perfect for locating more obscure tunes along with hits, if you're interested!) but I'm still intrigued to know what these bands have against services that the majority of existing musicians seem to have little to no problem with. It may have taken bands like AC/DC and Metallica a while to cooperate but in the end, they realised that it benefits a lot of people (presumably including themselves).
Nigel Godrich and Thom Yorke of Radiohead have gone on record as stating Spotify is bad for new musicians and is better for old bands who want people to hear their music again. Whilst Yorke may have a point about there being a better way to provide musicians with the money they deserve for their efforts, he seems to be missing the fact that musicians don't do what they do for themselves, unless they're Pop stars.
Yes, I'm speaking as a consumer but surely Spotify is primarily for consumers. It's allowing listeners to hear a wider selection of albums than they'd hear via radio or other methods. From that, they develop a taste for a band and decide to buy their albums or go to their concerts. I can't tell you how many albums I've bought as a result of listening to them first on Spotify or how many songs I've discovered through spending evenings digging through the plentiful selection of 70's and 80's Rock, an experience that's the closest to rooting through CDs at a second hand record shop most kids today will ever get to enjoy.
The Black Keys seem to have a similar stance, claiming that they haven't released all their albums on Spotify because they believe it's unfair to the artist but are open to it when a better deal comes along...in other words, they want more money. As for the older bands I mentioned, I have no idea why their albums aren't readily available, especially with Scorpions and Bob Seger who have a selective catalogue of live albums and a few studio ones available.
Maybe it's a region thing, as I know there are Americans who can't access albums in the UK/Europe versions of iTunes and Spotify, even though organisations who insist region blocks are necessary consist of nothing less than Fucking Cunts. However, the main point of this post is to decide whether or not one side is in the "right". Are the bands doing the right thing by saying their material shouldn't be available in digital format or are they being complete tools and inviting themselves open to piracy?
In my opinion, it's the latter all the way.
There are lots of things that piss me off but big bands getting high and mighty with their own material, making it harder for people to pay for their product and pretending that they're doing it for the greater good by depriving fans of their art? I see no flawless excuse for it. It's either greed, stupidity or misguided disdain.
I seem to recall Pink Floyd arguing that their music was designed to be listened to as a whole album, not as individual tracks to purchase whenever necessary. This would be a good argument if you never heard Pink Floyd songs as individual tracks on the radio. Clearly you CAN listen to songs on their own, so why stop people from buying the songs that they want?
Def Leppard have some of their recent live/re-recorded albums on Spotify and several studio ones available in America, despite being a British band. I doubt this applies to them but I know some bands get pissy about fans wanting their old material and not paying attention to the newer albums. Whilst this is an understandable irritation from an artist's perspective, they owe their own history more respect than they're giving it. Without their iconic albums and hit songs, it's doubtful that they'd ever be in a position to say "Hey, I've got a new solo Indie record out, go check it out BUT DON'T ASK ME ABOUT THE ALBUMS I RECORDED THAT MAKE YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Also, some of these big-headed Rock-divas need to get some fucking perspective. Do you think it's ever occurred to them that maybe, just maybe, their newer material isn't as good as their older classics? Songs become hits for a reason and if Robert Plant's new single doesn't reach the same level of acclaim that Stairway To Heaven, Whole Lotta Love or Immigrant Song received when they were released, surely that tells you something. Just because he's got a million dollar name doesn't mean he's entitled to have swarms of flies buzzing around every turd he craps out.
Then there's the Anti-Glee argument that Dave Grohl gave us a while back during one of his finer moments. Long story short, after Slash and Kings Of Leon said no to the dickbag in charge of Glee when asked for permission to use their songs, Dickback then went off on one and basically called them jerks for not allowing kids to hear their music. Dave Grohl then stepped in and said something along the lines of "not every band aspires to be in fucking Glee", followed by the Internet cheering in unison at this magnificent middle finger to someone who well and truly had it coming.
Well, the same argument could apply here. It's not compulsory for bands to give their music away and they should be well within their own right to say "You know what? No. I don't want my music on the same place as those other bands", so long as they're happy with the fact that people will pirate their music if they can't buy it. With most pirates, it's not a simple matter of laziness or being a cheap twat. People are happy to pay 99p for a song IF it's available. If the artist has made it difficult to access their song, people will turn to the next easiest method which is probably ripping it from Youtube or using some other site.
Now, if the artist is happy with that, then there's no problem. If they're happy to let their fans access their music for free in shitty quality because of their own beliefs against a service that seeks to provide art to those willing to pay a small fee, that's their prerogative. It's not one that I agree with but I'm not gonna protest it. I would argue that with Glee, it was a matter of taking a Rock song and turning it into a bland, soulless showtune sung by mediocre actors and drug abusers, whereas this is still their original song. I would argue that but it doesn't change the outcome.
What I will argue is a band claiming this when really they're against the service for a different reason are a band who need to sort their shit out. When a band claims they're doing it for "the smaller bands" when really they mean their own little solo project? When a band doesn't want people to buy songs individually because they want people to buy the more expensive album instead? That's when they need to pull their head out their arse and perhaps even release an album that has more than one or two worthwhile songs on it.
Another reason that I haven't mentioned is due to the record companies. A lot of bands have had to swap record labels and, as a result, haven't got a portion of their career on these sites due to the record industry that owns certain albums being wankers. I know it's easy to blame greed when it comes to record labels...so I'm gonna blame greed. Damn, that WAS easy!
Sometimes, it simply takes time to sort this issue out. Bands like The Eagles, Styx and Slayer have started off without notable albums on Spotify but over time, their back catalogue has been gradually added, presumably after the company earned enough money to meet the record label's demands. The last reason a band might disagree is because the band might have beef with someone who owns one of the organisations (see Black Keys again).
Again, can't blame them for not wanting to pay an arsehole but they seem to be forgetting that the service isn't meant for the arsehole. If Spotify's entire purpose was to let people make members of the band fellate the CEO by playing their music, that reluctance to cooperate would make more sense. It'd also see me single-handedly funding the company just by leaving Wheatus on repeat but that's not the point nor the purpose of Spotify. For the billionth time, and say it with me here folks, IT'S FOR THE CUSTOMERS!
The whole point of releasing albums is for people to listen to and enjoy or reflect upon. So you have to help fund a piece of shit, big deal! Everyone works for a knob at some point in their life. You can bitch about it and refuse to chip in to buy him a new private jet but at the end of the day, who are you hurting more? Some tosser who's already got enough money to hire footballers to fight to the death or the people who care about you enough to want to hear your work?
To recap, I can understand why a band or artist disagrees with iTunes, Amazon or Spotify (among other companies whom I've not bothered mentioning because nobody gives a shit about them; looking at you, Google Play) and appreciate some of their motivations towards keeping their music off those sites for now.
I don't fully agree with it and I'm sure there are other reasons I've missed that make a lot more sense than ones I've written about, but obviously I can't comment on them until I know what they are. If you have any opinions or better knowledge on this subject matter, feel free to educate me in the comment section.
In a perfect world, we'd be able to listen to any band we wanted to without ads, lag, region lock or DRM issues. I would've thought a paid subscription service like Spotify would help break down those barriers and allow people to enjoy the widest collection of music available in peace but between the CEOs or record companies demanding more cash for someone else's work and the tired artist angry at the percentage of profit they get relative to the number of times someone plays their new single, someone needs to back down for the people actually spending the money.
