Lambgoat's resident reviewer Nick decided to tackle something a little more challenging, an actual article. This time Nick discusses file sharing and illegal downloading with several record labels in the scene. Are they happy, sad, confused, or suicidal?
When asked of the changing audio mediums in today's music market, George Vallee of Century Media starts laughing, saying, "It was funny. I saw a kid just instantly walk out of a store, rip out the package, grab the CD, and toss the jewel case in the trash with the liners and the booklet. I was like, 'Oh my god. Well, I guess that's all that matters. Just give me the music. Let me throw it in the computer. The rest is trash.'"
Although Vallee's anecdote certainly deals with extremes, it is the perfect representation of the unpredictable evolution of listeners' wants, demands, and mindsets within the independent music community. Ten years ago, no one could have predicted the way crude file sharing systems like Napster, Audiogalaxy, and Kazaa would revolutionize music distribution on the Internet. Just five years ago, before broadband Internet access was ubiquitous and the final regulatory axe was given to these file sharing programs, the concept of full albums being readily (and illegally) available online via a network of blogs, forums, and upload sites such as Mediafire and Megaupload was still inconceivable. It's been a wild ride, and everyone in the independent music community has witnessed a whirlwind of changes driven by technological advances and a younger generation raised on an on-demand lifestyle. And it's no secret that labels are struggling to keep up.
The effects of illegal downloading are complex and far-reaching, touching everything from the obvious implications in label sales and distribution, to secondary side effects like changing listener mentalities and the potential rise of "independent" culture as a whole. And within the metal and hardcore community, the reactions from those labels responsible for driving independent music, whether it be "giants" like Metal Blade and Century Media, mid-sized outfits like Deathwish Inc. and Black Market Activities, or basement-run DIY operations like Teenage Disco Bloodbath and Gilead Media, are far from unanimous. Illegal downloading, though certainly a well-trodden topic, is by no means dead, and the overwhelmingly enthusiastic response from some of metal and hardcore's most influential labels just might make listeners think twice about the ramifications of pirating music on the Internet.
Album Sales: A Downward Spiral?
With downloading causing the overall decline of CD sales from majors and the financial failure of large music retailers, the assumption is that the independents are also witnessing similar trends, albeit on a smaller scale. Upholding that statement is Nicole Hollis-Vitale of Boston's Deathwish, Inc., saying, "Well, hardcore isn't really one to sell tons of copies, but we've definitely seen a slight decline, though it has more or less leveled off. Online sales are great, and we try to push digital stuff as much as possible, but of course, nothing beats free."
Century Media's Vallee echoes a similar stance, commenting, "We really excelled and had our most profitable years in 2002-2003. As downloading stuff became more prominent, we saw our sales decrease more and more each year. Now we're at the point where we realize, 'how are we going to combat this?'"
Some, however, aren't as quick to point the finger in the direction of online freeloading. Michelle Ferraro of Black Market Activities argues a different angle, saying, "Any slow growth in sales in the music industry today can be attributed to the economic slowdown that the
Other labels even suggest that the influx of online music has helped their overall business. Both Metal Blade and
One specific occurrence leading to decreased sales is the pesky and almost impossible to regulate event of album leaks. For larger labels, this occurrence is like an unavoidable ritual in the album release process. Slagel estimates that the average Metal Blade CD leaks onto the Internet two weeks before the release date, although some have been known to sneak out even earlier than that. Vallee adds to the hopelessness of the situation, saying, "One way or another it's going to get out there sooner or later. That's just the way it is. So it's just a matter of holding it until the last possible minute and hoping that it doesn't get out until the week of release."
Although some labels have turned toward new copyright protection technologies such as watermarking, album leaks have still persisted. "I have used watermarked promotional discs in the past, but I think their effectiveness in preventing downloading presents a conundrum. Watermarking is expensive and often times few watermarked discs are produced, maybe 50 to 100," comments Ferraro. "It is hard to say whether the absence of a leaked record is due to the deterrence created by a watermarked disc or to simple statistics: the fewer discs that are serviced, the smaller the probability that a record will be leaked."
The promotions department at Deathwish has a different way of dealing with the unfortunate situation. Hollis-Vitale offers some insight, answering, "We believe that advanced press is less important than saving an album from leaking. We do not send promos to press any more than four weeks in advance of a street date. This makes it hard to have advanced, even timely reviews -- but it's better than having the whole record available for download two months before it comes out."
But the smaller players in the music community – the Gilead Medias, Seventh Rules, and Teenage Disco Bloodbaths of hardcore and metal – don't appear too worried about the prospect of album leaks. When asked if his label witnesses album leaks, Flaster enthusiastically replies, ""Never checked! All our promotion is sent out months before a release date so I am sure it can happen, but it isn't anything I would lose sleep over." Jonah Livingston, the brains of DIY operation Teenage Disco Bloodbath Records, provides an even blunter response, joking, "I haven't done anything to 'combat' leaks because, honestly, no one cares enough about my bands to be in any sort of a rush for leakage." From the responses on album leaks alone, it appears that the increased online availability of music, even in illegal formats, actually holds some advantages for the smaller labels.
But weighing the pros and cons of the distribution of illegal music online is not such an easy task. Most labels struggle with defining the line between helpful and harmful. John Strachan of Prosthetic Records acknowledges both sides of the argument, saying, "It hurts the music industry, but at the same time, it's turned a lot of people on to music they would have never heard before. I just wish kids would use it as an outlet to find new bands, not to say how many records they have on their iPod."
Both Slagel and Ferraro emphasize the necessity of viewing music business, as, well, a business. "I do feel that the Internet and the communities help music greatly," Slagel comments. "However, there is a lot of money, time, and jobs that are out there to create this music. If these things do not exist then the music will not exist." Ferraro offers some more insight on behalf of bands in the community, saying, "For bands with a record contract, even on the smallest of labels, illegal downloading can be detrimental to the success of the band. Record labels need to make money to sustain themselves and to invest in new talent. While 99% of bands will tell you they make music because they like to, it is no secret they also want/need to make money to continue to function as a band."
Other labels respond directly to listeners in the community. Hollis-Vitale openly confronts those who run sources of illegal online music, adamantly stating, "These blogs that post things for download, while putting the name out there, are being incredibly detrimental. If they were posting a stream of a few songs, or even a download of one song – that would be different. Instead, they are giving away something that does not belong to them. The vast majority of people will not download a record, love it, then immediately go out and buy it." She continues, saying, "By downloading music for free, I can safely say it directly affects both the label and the band in a negative way, and I really wish that more bloggers and fans of music would realize this."
But the idea that illegal music distribution is indeed 100% detrimental isn't actually shared by all. Flaster takes an entirely different, more positive angle, saying, "It would be amazing if these communities wanted to license some music from me. I would be willing to work on the cheap."
Adam Lee Barlett, owner and operator of Wisconsin's Gilead Media, provides a more surprising take, arguing, "Many artists don't realize they would be nothing without file sharing and illegal downloading. And you know, I've been working for a music distributor for almost five years now, and a record shop four years before that. I've never seen more people download than those who are actually involved in the music industry -- working for labels, stores, whatever. Can't have your cake and eat it too, folks."
Information Overload
Labels aren't the only ones being affected by the massive quantities of illegal music available online. This overflow is reshaping how listeners demand and process new music, and it represents yet another challenge for labels in keeping up with constant evolution of music in the digital age.
"I know growing up in the age of walkmen, then discmen, you brought one or two tapes or CDs out with you for the day," says Livingston, getting a little nostalgic. "I had a few favorite tapes and just jammed on them over and over, learning them inside out. Now I have thousands of songs on my computer and iPod. Obviously I'm exposed to all sorts of music I'd never hear if I had to pay Tower Records (RIP) prices, but at the same time, I couldn't tell you my favorite song off of many of the digital albums I listen to. Not because I don't appreciate them, just because I'm listening to so much that single albums and songs don't have a chance to sink in as much as they used to."
Hollis-Vitale adds, "In this day in age everything is instant and fleeting. Your new favorite CD could be overshadowed by another new favorite CD within a week. I am exposed to new music all of the time, mostly through the Internet, and I just click and click and find new favorite bands on MySpace."
Others, like Ferraro, describe a backlash-like effect from the large quantities and ease of availability of new music in today's community. "As a consumer, I suffer from intense information overload when it comes to the availability of new music. I don't think I'm alone in saying the abundance of new music available evokes hermit-like tendencies in me. When I become overwhelmed with the amount of new bands, I stop seeking out new music and retreat to old favorites or new records from bands that I already like."
Barlett offers a similar view, saying, "It has also watered down my love for a lot of music. The scope of what I truly enjoy has been slimmed because new music is everywhere. Instead of enjoying most of what I hear, life has turned into wading through the shit to find a small nugget of something I really enjoy."
Some labels view this availability as an opportunity. Slagel recognizes the challenges that the digital music age has created, commenting, "I think it does make artists have to make good music. Since many people can get it for free, it needs to be good for someone to actually buy it… If you really love the music you hear, you will support it."
Downloader Rationalizations
Listeners are constantly dreaming up new angles in which to justify their acts of illegally downloading music. Perhaps one of the most popular arguments is that "Bands don't make any money from CD sales -- they make it from touring and merch sales." Such a blanket statement is bound to hit the nerves of those involved, but the responses offer incredible insight into the challenges of operating a modern underground music label.
One would assume that all labels will have a similar reaction, but as with many of the other downloading related topics, the stances are varied. Slagel and Ferraro provide the perfect example, initially disagreeing, but ultimately arriving at a similar conclusion. Slagel argues, "That is completely incorrect. Bands still make a lot of money on CD sales. Many bands, especially those just starting out, make almost all of it from that. Big, gigantic bands who have already been successful for a long time make less on CD sales. But indie bands, again especially new ones, need this source of revenue to exist." Ferraro provides her angle, saying, "That is absolutely true, however, it represents a very shortsighted view of how the music industry really works. Labels make money from CD sales. This money is used to fund new releases, artist development and touring. To anyone who has used that statement to rationalize an illegal download: Keep illegally downloading music, but when your favorite bands don't put out anymore records, or can't afford to tour, you have no right to post whiney comments on Blabbermouth."
Vallee suggests other implications of listeners using that justification for downloading, taking All That Remains as an example. "They might not be making any money off of a hundred thousand record sales, but if those sales weren't there, they wouldn't be on the major tours they're on to make the money on the merch and have better guarantees. So obviously, when everybody's booking tours, they look at the Soundscan numbers. So if those sales aren't there to back it up, you're not going to get the bigger tours." Now the only question is this: will recognizing this inherent connection between CD sales and the ability of bands to profit from touring actually deter listeners from justifying illegal downloads from their favorite bands?
There's another popular downloading rationalization that argues in favor of "trying before buy," i.e. illegally obtaining the music before making a purchase. The responses to this justification are even more heated, with strong support from both sides.
Ferraro vehemently opposes the practice, saying, "I agree, sometimes you like to try things out before you buy them, but when you go to a show the band doesn't let you wear around their t-shirt for the night so that you can decide whether you want to buy it or not. Likewise, when I go to Target to buy cat litter, the store doesn't let me take it home and let my cat shit in it before I decide whether I want to buy it." She continues with a more direct angle, saying, "Bands make so much music available from their records before the release date that it's impossible to not know what to expect from a record when you purchase it… Labels aren't trying to trick fans. We don't purposely post the tracks from a record that sound like Slayer, when the rest of the record sounds like Taking Back Sunday, and then laugh all the way to the bank when you spend $14 on a CD that you hate. We're not evil!"
Livingston is skeptical of the "purchasing" end of the rationalization, commenting, "I think the idea that people download an album, end up loving it, then immediately rush out to buy a physical copy is largely a fairly tail. I know it happens rarely, but every once and a while I'll check to see how many people have certain TDB releases on file sharing services and it decimates the number of physical records I've sold."
Others view this practice as a regulatory measure, and suggest that such actions may help music in the long run. Slagel touches on this, saying, "I think it is a great thing that people can hear the music before buying it. That keeps the quality of the music up and the listeners benefit from that."
Barlett is even more enthusiastic: "I 100% approve of this practice. It is like a bullshit measure. In the past a band could put one or two really great songs out there with a record full of filler… essentially ripping off the listener by delivering them a record of garbage. Who enjoys being let down by a record that sounds nothing like the one or two tracks you heard and loved? The try before you buy mentality has given the listener the power to weed through the records that are trying to just rip them off and support the artists that are truly putting the effort into creating something beautiful and meaningful."
Flaster takes an even more unique route, suggesting that this practice is, in fact, nothing new at all. "Some of my favorite albums growing up were listened to on copied tapes made by friends. I also owned a dual-cassette tape deck for this same purpose. The CD burner eventually replaced the dual cassette deck, and now we have computers that can store it all. Has anything besides the technology really changed? If I was never given a copied tape of The Number of the Beast I probably wouldn't even be having this conversation right now! Decades later I swear I have bought that album twice on LP and once on CD."
The Dreaded Legalities
Everyone has heard the tales of the Recording Industry Association of
"There really is not a lot we can do at our level. We just try and use the technology as best we can and look to put out the best music we can," responds Slagel. "I would not sue individual downloaders -- that really makes no sense. Why would you sue your fans? I do not think the indies will follow suit on that and certainly there would be a backlash. We do have to protect our rights, but going after individual people is not something we condone."
In fact, opposition to suing individuals as a method of regulating illegal downloads might be the only stance that metal and hardcore labels share on this complicated issue.
"Earlier this year, I watched a lawsuit destroy Middian, an amazing band and awesome people," begins Flaster. "They did nothing except try to be a band and release awesome music. Look up the case if you aren't familiar, but there definitely is no room in the indie community for lawsuits and random legality. Is there even enough money floating around to pay the legal fees?"
Ferraro echoes the views of Slagel and Flaster, but also recognizes the opportunity for the betterment of labels. "I am a big proponent of small government. I don't think that there should be any federal regulation of any part of the Internet and that includes sites where people engage in file sharing. We are trying to have a capitalist society. Illegal downloads should force labels to market creatively to keep consumers interested, otherwise labels revert back to Tin Pan Alley-era complacency."
The Rise of Independents
Despite a rather concrete correlation between illegal downloading and decreased sales, independent hardcore and metal labels have not been hit as hard as the majors have been, thus opening the door for the independents to crack the charts far more frequently than in the past.
"There's no doubt about it. Sales are down [for everyone]," comments Vallee. Compare the number one album on Billboard in 2002 versus 2008. It's drastically different. And those diminishing sales allow a lot of our bands to break into the top 200."
Slagel also provides similar insights. "With the downfall of the majors, they cannot afford to have smaller niche genres on their roster. That has helped indies who do have a strong niche. So that is one reason why you see the bands more on the charts."
But if downloading and Internet promotion has leveled the playing field for the majors and independents, are the days of hardcore and metal existing as a thriving underground scene dwindling? Without the umbrella of mainstream culture and with the increased accessibility of independent music, is it possible that the passion and intimacy will wane?
"Not really," says Ferraro. "For every one independent band that achieves mainstream success, there are 20 other equally talented bands in the same genre that are still selling 7-inches at "mom and pop" record stores, playing 200 capacity bars, and being ignored by the mainstream press."
Flaster, however, offers a word of caution. "Last year when we released the first Indian LP in The Sycophant series, the band played a record release show, and the show got a write up in the
The Path from Here
We are, without a doubt, in the midst of a tumultuous, yet very interesting period of change in the world of hardcore and metal. Illegal downloading has caused a ripple effect, touching everything from CD sales and audio mediums, to bands' financial strategies, to changes within independent culture itself. The extents of these effects are far from proven, as the incongruity of opinions from some of the scene's most influential labels can attest. But despite these varying views and recommendations for actions against illegal downloading, the call for support from fans is undeniably unanimous.
With the likelihood of being sued by an independent label for digital piracy being just about nonexistent, one might argue that labels are waving the white flag, and in the process offering the green light for downloading. But every label understands the need for the community aspect in the hardcore and metal scene. After all, this closeness is what has driven most to the world of underground music in the first place. But in this chaotic period for hardcore and metal labels, fans need to recognize that community support has been the foundation for the scene in the past, and that illegal downloading has the potential to erode away this essential structure. Everyone – bands, labels, and fans alike – is equally important in our independent community, and if this tripod of support is permitted to wither, so too will underground music.
"We're all human. Everybody's going to [download]," adds Vallee. "Everybody's going to check things out, but at the end of the day, just buy something. As long as people are giving back something and helping the scene stay alive, fuck yeah. That's really the main point."
No comments:
Post a Comment