Have you heard about the David Lowery vs. Emily the NPR intern steel cage match taking place on the internet this week? It's definitely the grandest, most intense fight between an aging indie icon who also teaches college-level economics and a young, most likely unpaid (though you never know where our pledge week dollars go) intern at
America's public radio juggernaut, NPR.
OK, so it's probably the
only internet debate in that particular genre, but it's still pretty interesting. It's got emotion, it's got theft, it's got economics. At its heart, the argument is about how do we fairly compensate musicians for their work in the internet age.
The whole thing started over the weekend when Emily posted
"I Never Owned Any Music To Begin With" on the
NPR All Songs Considered blog. The post is a young person's view on the transformation of the music industry from providing a physical product to one which provides a digital product. It's an honest view by someone who has grown up with the internet being her main source of music. In the post, Emily admits:
I've only bought 15 CDs in my lifetime. Yet, my entire iTunes library exceeds 11,000 songs.
While she says she has (mostly) not built this impressive catalog by illegal means - meaning file sharing sites - it is clear that much of the music has come from other free sources: friends, prom dates, her college radio station.
The post set David Lowery - he of
Camper Van Beethoven and
Cracker fame - off. As a long-standing advocate for artists' rights in the internet age, Lowery posted
"Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered" on his blog
The Trichordist; Artists for an Ethical Internet. I'm going to completely over-simplify Lowery's argument and probably mangle his entire point (gimme a break - it's a long post and David Lowery is a very smart guy). But he sees people like Emily as what's wrong with the music industry in the internet age. A wild west system now exists where artists no longer are fairly compensated for their work. Lowery says illegal downloads/file sharing - or ripping of music from other free sources - is the culprit. Not only do artists receive nothing for their work when this happens, it also affects the whole economics of the industry to a point where musicians can't make a decent living.
Now, counter arguments to Lowery are starting to pour in. Most notably,
Bob Lefsetz who starts his post with:
If only he’d make music as riveting as his writing, with as many people caring about what he has to sing. Then again, Lowery is preaching to the converted, wannabe artists who are pissed the gravy train broke down before they could get their fair share.
Meeeoooooow! Guess we know where Bob comes down. He agrees that artists ought to be compensated for their work. In the internet age, though, it doesn't mean artists should be paid the same way they were before. He also takes Lowery to task for targeting a powerless music fan instead of the corporate interests who are the true criminals.
I don't claim to know word one about the economics of the music industry. I'm not an expert on how a product - an album, a CD, a streamed rock opera - is funded. I don't know how or who really makes money on the product. When it comes to live music, I can probably point out the promoter at a show. I can't tell you how much money he's making versus the band versus the venue owner.
But music is a very important part of my life. Like any good art, I see music as our physical attempts to open up a portal to the spiritual world, to touch and dance with God. Yes, I even include
80s hair metal; it takes all sorts of higher powers to make up our universe. From the time I was very young, I have spent a lot of money in my pursuit of music; probably what some would view as an excessive pursuit which continues to this day.
From vinyl albums to CDs to digital downloads to streaming music services, from equipment to play that music on to concert tickets to band t-shirts (I'm a whore when it comes to concert t-shirts), from travel costs to a show or fest to food and drink at a venue, I don't even want to think how much money I've spent. I can say that outside the necesseties in life for my family and me, music is the number one place where my money goes.
I don't say that to put myself on some sort of higher moral ground than others. I'm not setting up a "hey man, I have supported the musicians!" viewpoint. I say it to illustrate that when it comes to economics, I'm a mass(ive) consumer of music.
I don't illegally download music. I wouldn't do it because it's stealing. And, I really don't even know how to do it. A few years back, a salesman at Circuit City told me all about Pirate Bay. He wrote the website address on his card and assured me it was a great place to get music. Given who he was working for, I now have a better idea of why they went out of business. I wasn't really connecting the dots at the time so I checked out the site. I honestly couldn't figure out what I was supposed to do to get the music. Then I soon figured out the site had to do with illegal music downloading. I shut it off.
Again, I don't bring this up to show that I'm better than someone whose primary source of music is illegal downloads. I'm not. Going back to the days of cassette tapes, I've shared music with friends. And they've shared it with me. That includes albums I may have otherwise bought. I was ripping off the artist (and the record company, and the retailer, etc.). Still, my overwhelming source of music is through paid means.
When I first read Emily's blog post, two things struck me. First, in her description of the change from the physical to the digital realm, never once was the word "vinyl" mentioned. This luddite is a little sad to think there are whole generations that may never know the joy of the album (more about that another time). Second, I did get my hair up some about Emily's claim to have only bought 15 CDs in her lifetime, yet she owns 11,000 songs in her iTunes library. I can only surmise based on what she wrote that most of this music was obtained for free (though not necessarily from illegal downloads) and not through a paid music service.
Then I read David Lowery's post and I thought: "right on! Stick to those kids who are sticking it to you!" Lowery makes a number of good points. When music is obtained from free sources, the artists are not compensated. And when an industry has that kind of hole blown in its revenue stream, it throws the economics out of whack. In this case, it's the artists who end up getting screwed. Lowery also takes on Spotify (which, if you read this blog, you know I like) for what he claims is a payment system that stiffs the artist. But he turns that back on illegal downloading and sharing of music, claiming that Spotify is competing against "free" so to make it work, it won't pay a fair share to artists.
Then comes Lefsetz. He - and others today in posts such as
this - paints Lowery as whiny and too wedded to a system that is gone and will never return. It's a tough love message, and one sprinkled with accusations that Lowery isn't talented enough to make the money he wants to make. Lefsetz even quotes Gregg Allman to shame Lowery:
And if you think being rich is everything, you never read Gregg Allman’s book, wherein he states:
"Money doesn’t impress me worth a fuck,
and it doesn’t make me feel good. I’ve had it both ways – I’ve been rich
and I’ve been broke."
Gregg’s all about playing music.
I love Gregg Allman and the
Allman Brothers Band. In fact, thanks to the addition of Warren Haynes, Derek Trucks, and first Allen Woody and then Oteil Burbridge, the Allman Brothers Band is as solid a live outfit as there is today. But I don't think I'd be using Gregg as a reliable source to back me up in this fight; Gregg's done pretty well for himself. Besides, Gregg's had enough fights in his life; let's leave him out of this one.
Lefsetz's main point that Lowery should be protesting the power interests instead of a powerless music fan is a very valid point. But he loses me when he claims that you have to earn the power to make change by becoming a rich musician, like Lady Gaga. Using that free-market-or-nothing approach, I think those in power would have even a tighter grip on what sort of music or art is available. That's not the promise of the internet or art.
Still we need people with money to support the arts. In fact, government should do much more to support the arts and you can't get a more powerful institution than that. I'd like to think we can live in a world where "the man" gets it in the end every time. It's about the art, man, and not the money. That's not reality. Michelangelo was paid to paint the
Sistine Chapel. And the Catholic Church collects money from people who want to see it. That doesn't take away from the experience of seeing the piece; seeing it is still an awe inspiring, breathtaking, holy shit kind of moments in life. Money still is needed to feed the artist, to support the piece's creation, to distribute or show the piece, to maintain the piece.
I don't know who's right in this whole debate. I do tend to lean towards David Lowery's points because I think there has to be room for fairness in economics and business. But I think Emily brings up a reality that can't be ignored. And there is a place for Lefstez's tough love.
How do we music fans do the right thing? Do we go all Mookie and throw a garbage can through the window of Sony Entertainment? Do we never, ever purchase or stream music unless David Lowery OKs it? Or should we harangue the musicians who are standing up for their artistic rights by belittling their music and accusing all performers as dopers? Or can we buy into the Free Culture movement which says creative works belong to all?
I don't have an answer because this is about a major change; one that impacts people's livelihoods and passions. That's never easy.
I guess there's only one thing to do: listen to some Camper Van Beethoven. On Spotify.
