Opportunity Costs

I read this article and the resulting comment thread, and some related articles and their comment threads, then this happened.

I was disappointed to read this article by David Byrne about how the availability of music for free on Spotify makes it difficult for emerging artists to earn a living. Looks like we have another success apologist on our hands, better get the Purel and then wait for it to evaporate so we don't warp our tiny violins.

This comes on the heels of similar sentiments expressed by Thom Yorke.  I didn't really read either of them, I was too busy having a preconceived opinion on the matter. I'm pretty sure both of them said they hate the internet and that Spotify is the next symptom of a dying record industry that doesn't feel the need to pay artists.  While I agree that the record industry needs to be dismantled, I am ok with thousands of artists languishing in competition for my attention as a listener and not having to pay them for it.  It is supposed to be difficult to make money as a musician, that weeds out the less passionate and less committed. If you quit making music because of subpar living situations, then you don't care enough about music.  You forfeit your place in line to be successful, and there is no shortage of people who are hungry to take your place, regardless of how far back in the line your are.  Does knowing that make you feel worthless and defeated? It shouldn't. It should motivate you to make better music with the impulses inside of you.

Some say there are no atheists in foxholes.  I say there are no excuses in acceptance speeches. These articles are a disgrace to those who worked their way up from the bottom and are stronger for it.  If we start making it so anybody with a synth and a few ideas can make a decent living, the market would be flooded with mediocre music.  In reality, people who make undesirable experimental music should be punished with poverty until they get it right.

Have you seen the Internet? Everything is changing. The young people have spoken. Byrne and Yorke are like old unemployed travel agents complaining about Expedia.com.  Music is very similar to a week in Cabo.

And I mean, how many musicians use Spotify themselves?  Many of them, I'm sure. Why is that? Do you think just because it's there and it's convenient and they're poor? I doubt it, musicians are aware of the symbolism of their actions, they're like that, I've met a few.  Musicians are artists.  Let me tell you something about artists: everything an artist does is a universal statement about their deepest convictions.  When eleven of them share a 540 sq foot studio apartment and live on Cup O Noodles, they are making a real statement. I'm not sure what it is, mostly because the salt from the noodles has dried their throats almost completely shut.

The people who download the music for free would have otherwise not downloaded it at all. There is no shortage of other free things on the Internet!  Let's face it, they probably would have just found the next free thing and downloaded that instead. By charging people to hear your music, all you're doing is pushing away possible new fans.

Access is the way of the future, so musicians should just adjust to working with free media the same way other artists have.  I mean, look at Banksy!  There's someone who has used free media sources to build a name for himself.  Last time I checked, walls are free.

Spotify already pays 70% of it's total revenue in royalties.  What would you have them do, Mr. Byrne? Pay even more?  Is it their fault that their successful business model just happens to not allow for that?  And as if 70% isn't huge enough of a number, there are a bunch more high numbers about the amount of people accessing things on the internet.  I'll take a moment to let you imagine them.  .  See?

The new reality is that people want music, but they don't want to have to pay for it.  And services like Spotify give people music for free.  I'm sorry, I forget, what were we talking about?