What should musicians pay for?
The big news perking through the indie music world is that Bandcamp will start charging musicians to provide free downloads. When you read a bit deeper, the company needs to cover the costs associated with providing a fully featured free toolset that was developed and adopted by a massive userbase. In other words, “oh shit, we’re successful — now what?!”
In all of the running commentary about Bandcamp’s “not-so-free” downloads, one line stood out:
“Artists never wanna pay for anything, but they expect fans to buy their music.”
While it’s a bit of a throwaway line, it does get me to thinking. It’s a bit of a vicious circle when you think about it. Lots of artists are making great music using a variety of free tools. They expect fans to purchase their stuff when all the while, the artist is likely using a whole bunch of free tools and widgets to place stuff up for sale. The more I think about it, this does seem like a bit of a double standard.
As musicians it makes sense to pay for some stuff. The quality of your return is usually measured by the amount of your investment. I can’t toss $100 into the stock market and expect to become a millionaire overnight, so why should I expect a couple of free widgets will incite a buying spree for my music? Here’s another line from the same comment thread:
“can’t some loaded philanthropist just donate it the money it needs to keep running…”
It makes me wonder how seriously this person is. A Nimbit account (for example) costs anywhere between $13 and $25 per month. So for less than $5/week you’ve got a thoroughly pro set of tools that gives your music a much higher level of professionalism. It’s a far more realistic approach than expecting a “loaded philanthropist” to bail you out.
There are all kinds of phenomenal paid products out there that cost some money. The difference between what you get for free and what you’ll get from the same company for a small amount of money is usually huge. And that small investment, unlike the stock market, has much better odds of paying you a decent dividend down the road.
Investing in your own future is never a bad idea. But expecting fans to support you simply ‘cuz you provide them with music is a very short-sighted approach to career longevity. Offer an experience that’s as great (or greater!) than your music, and you’re on to something. But never assume that someone else should pay more for your music than you do.
good points, except for one part that i think is critical: artists who appear to “expect” fans to pay for their music when they are using free tools to promote are not engaging in a double standard by any means, for 2 key reasons:
1. it still costs money to set aside the time to become an artist, write the songs, buy the gear, play shows, record music, have it mixed, mastered, etc…. and design the graphics, create the merch, etc….. so by the time artists have brought something to the table, it’s already cost them a LOT of money.
2. the tools aren’t free. advertisers pay for them. every time someone engages with my band on reverbnation, advertisers are paying for the chance to get in front of those eyeballs. that’s why i love reverbnation- they actually share some of that revenue with me for giving them people to sell to advertisers!!!
if bandcamp can’t figure out how to allow musicians to give away free downloads, then they need to hire a consultant to help them tweak their business model. every free download COULD be paired up with a relevant ad. that’s all myspace ever was- free music, shared for free, paid for by advertisers- a meat market! with very little concern for compensating the rights holders of the content, who had to sign away their rights to collect on those revenues in order to even put their music up in the first place.
sincerely,
ernest chapman