The TC article title clearly says that artists should not be compensated for recordings. No context, that's the title and therefore the overall message that Arrington wants us to take away. What most of the article says is that the artists shouldn't expect to be able to retroactively be compensated when they had previously agreed not to be in this particular situation.
The problem here is that, all context considered, Arrington is going one step further than just saying that the artists don't deserve compensation here. He is very clearly raising the point that artists shouldn't expect to be compensated at all for recordings ever.
Of course this is quite disapointing to me as much of the music I listen to cannot be created live by its artists but instead takes days or months to prepare. With the advancement of computers, more and more often, musical composers will be able to use just a computer to create music that traditionally could only be created by live musicians - and lots that can only be created through computers. Guess I'd better kiss that goodbye.
>Of course this is quite disapointing to me as much of the music I listen to cannot be created live by its artists but instead takes days or months to prepare.
Almost any type of music where vocals are not the focus can today be created through computers. More than people realize already is today. I am thinking of instrumental music such as classical, of course electronica of all types, even a bit of jazz and other styles.
Another example: while not famous in the traditional sense, many session musicians have "fan followings" in their own right.
I am very fond of the music of master session bassist Abraham Laboriel. He's played on thousands of albums, and while he has played in bands, he's just too busy as a very in-demand session player to be playing live constantly. He rarely does anything even remotely like a "tour". If I want to hear Abraham play, the easiest way is through a recording.
Even more extremely, recordings can bring together musicians in a way that would be implausible to do live. If you enjoy the music of musicians A, B, C, and D, all of whom have their own career as a musician, it might be very rare to hear them all play together live, just due to their schedules. But get them together for a week, either in a studio or on a stage, and you can make an awesome recording that captures something rarely heard in person.
The model of "recordings are marketing tools for live performances" is not necessarily bad or wrong, but I don't think it applies in every instance.
Thanks for the examples. Those are all good points. Maybe if the market trends keep going and there's less of a market for session players, Abraham Laboriel will be more likely to tour...
Perhaps. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
I for one would happily pay 20 USD or more for a really well-produced album full of good music. Sadly, that's a pretty rare find. While I suspect that some musicians will continue producing quality albums regardless, and hopefully listeners will support them, it seems that more than anyone else the recording industry as a whole is destroying itself by producing lousy albums.
I'm an avid house fan, and a lot of that genre doesn't work well in a concert setting. However the people producing it are often DJ's, and make their money from gigs.
Yes those are a good example of (something like) concerts being the best business model for a group of artists now. I just find it funny how we all have witnessed the success of so many different business models, and then for someone to say that only one is possible.
And that type of layered electronic music could mostly be reproduced "live" if the artist was up to it, by playing live on keyboards and making loops then mixing them up with prerecorded samples. Of course, most DJs would rather just push play when they have live shows because it most take a lot of practice to master live looping. I saw Justice live recently and they were very good at pushing play.
