Commenting on the State of the Music Industry

I just read a few clips of an interview with Gene Simmons of KISS fame in which he claims that the recording industry is dead because of online file sharing and illegal downloading. He also claims in the article that young up and coming bands will not get any big breaks nor will they get the chance to become another BEATLES or KISS. Gene is not entirely wrong with this assessment. However, he does not mention some of the pros of this lack of industry "infrastructure." One big pro in my eyes is the greater creative control afforded to the artists. With the lack of industry interference more and more groups will be able to take their music in the direction that they want. They will also be able to see more profits from there album sales than they would if they were still under the yoke of the "industry infrastructure." Gene also fails to see the benefits of the p2p file sharing technologies. This technology allows bands to gain fans in cities, states, and even nations which they have never travelled to. The concept behind p2p programs is the same as that behind demo/album tape exchange which was ever present in the 1980's metal scene; in fact this is how a metal band from the San Francisco Bay area got a record contract from a small label in NY. What band is this you ask, well it is Metallica. Metallica had never played the east coast but managed to get a record deal on the east coast because their demo exchanged hands so much that it made it the 3000 or so miles across the country to the hands of the Zazulas (the people who signed them to their first recording contract). I am not saying that this will be the course for the good undiscovered bands of the digital age. I am saying rather that they will be able to gain more fans out side of their locale with out leaving.

Gene also fails to realize the importance of the internet to younger musicians. Younger musicians have a resource that their elders never had. This resource is the obsession of young people with networking websites like facebook and myspace. These websites allow bands to essentially get free publicity and in essence a street team. These websites also act as a conduit for selling music and as an entry point into the world of the band, group, or person. One of my neighbors (Siaz) makes industrial music in the vain of Trent Reznor's NIN, he has a myspace page unto which he uploads his songs he also has links to his own personal website (theglassviolin.com). On myspace alone he has many fan pages, he has even been asked to do music for some websites. He has sold some songs as well, granted he is not selling anything on the level the Gene is but keep in mind that he is doing this as a side project and with no formally "industry infrastructure." This is just an example of the possibility of what the "modern" musician can do with out the "industry infrastructure." That's right Gene I not only called you old but I called you obsolete and behind the times. I would also like to point out that I have found and become a fan of a number of bands that I never would have heard of without myspace. These bands are very good, talented bands that seem to be gaining momentum and fans day by day. The power of the internet in the digital age is in the choices that are afforded to the consumer and the seller.

Gene brings up some very good points however I think he actually misses the mark on this. What is killing the music industry is not the illegal downloading or file sharing of college age kids the death blows are being struck by the exorbitant prices of the rubbish, dribble, crap, shit, and whatever other adjectives you can come up with for the music that is being put out right now especially in the rock genres. Why should a college student have to shell out their hard earned money for a substandard product? If there is only one song on the album worth listening to why should the consumer have to spend upwards of $20 just for that one song? Another part of the problem is the fact that once a new band is successful the record companies try to capitalize on that success by finding more bands that are in the same mold. This happened in the 1980's with the Glam Metal Hair Bands, in the 1990's with Grunge (early-mid) and Gangsta Rap (mid-late), and in the current decade with the pop-punk and dance-ish type stuff. There is nothing wrong with trying to make money on image alone and if that is the business model that the record industry wants to follow that is fine, but then don't start crying when people start turning elsewhere for their entertainment needs. If you, the record industry, are setting price that are nigh cost-prohibited then do not be so naïve to think that that consumer base will always be there especially if substandard artists like Britney Spears and Avril Lavigne are being forced down the collective throat of consumers. Another thing that Gene fails to discuss in the clips that I read is the fact that most money that bands make comes from touring not record sales. If this is the case then up and coming bands should be happy to have their music downloaded and shared because as I have mentioned earlier these actions can create a fan-base in a city in which the hypothetical band has never played nor been to. This is free publicity just like some of the networking websites.

Tusen takk.

This is the link to the clip of the interview upon which this entry focuses on.
http://eddietrunk.com/article.php?news_id=3301