"While the RIAA argues unequivocally that the file-sharing services are hurting musicians, musicians have their own opinions. A new study shows that more musicians feel that file-sharing benefits them than feel that it hurts them. Most musicians feel that the RIAA suits against file-sharing music fans will not benefit either musicians or songwriters.

The new report, from the Pew Internet and American Life Project, suggests that musicians are divided about the impact of file-sharing on the music business. While many felt that file-sharing gained them additional exposure, others were concerned about losing control over their work. Most agreed, though, that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its lawsuits against file-sharers would not benefit musicians.

Between March 15 and April 15 of this year, 2,755 musicians and songwriters responded to a Web-based survey about the way they use the Internet and their views on a host of public policy questions related to copyright and music file-sharing on the Internet.

Highlights of the report:

The Internet appears to be benefiting more musicians than it hurts. 35% of the musicians interviewed agreed that file-sharing services are not bad for artists, compared to 23% that felt that they hurt artists.
7 times as many musicians feel that the Internet has helped them as feel it has hurt them. When asked what impact free downloading on the Internet has had on their careers as musicians, 37% say free downloading has not really made a difference, 35% say it has helped and 8% say it has both helped and hurt their career. Only 5% say free downloading has exclusively hurt their career and 15% of the respondents say they don't know.
Most musicians think file-sharing has had a small or no effect on the piracy of their music. Asked whether online music file-sharing has made it harder to protect their music from piracy, 16% say the Internet has had a big effect in allowing piracy of their music, 21% say it has had a small effect, and 41% say it has had no effect.
Most musicians think current laws adequately protecting musicians. 67% say artists should have complete control over material they copyright and they say copyright laws do a good job of protecting artists. Fully 61% of those in this sample believe that current copyright laws do a good job of protecting artists’ rights, but 59% also say that copyright laws do more to protect those who sell art than to protect the artists themselves.
While many musicians seem to see benefits from the Internet, and even file-sharing, they also have concerns about these technologies:

Most musicians and songwriters think file-sharing on the Internet poses some threat to creative industries that make music and movies. One-third say file-sharing poses a “major threat” to these industries while one-third say it poses a “minor threat.” Another third say file-sharing poses “no threat at all” and 7% say they don't know.
Most of the musicians and songwriters sampled do not believe current copyright laws “unfairly limit public access to art.” Some 46% disagree with this statement and 21% strongly disagree. However, 15% do agree that current laws unfairly limit public access to art, 8% strongly agree and 10% say they don't know.
Half of the musicians and songwriters surveyed say they would be bothered if someone put a digital copy of their music on the Internet without permission (compared to 37% who say they would not be bothered and 12% who say they don't know). Some 28% said they had experienced this situation firsthand.
While the views that Pew captured in their research are complex and sometimes conflicting, there seems to be general consensus among musicians that the Internet is a powerful tool for reaching new audiences. 83% have provided free samples of their work online and significant numbers say free downloading has helped them sell CDs and increase the crowds at concerts

As for their own careers, more of these artists say free music downloading online has helped them than hurt them. Fully 83% of those in the survey say they provide free samples or previews of their music online. And strong pluralities say free downloading has a payoff for them. For instance, 35% of them say free downloading has helped their careers and only 5% say it has hurt. Some 30% say free downloading has helped increase attendance at their concerts, 21% say it has helped them sell CDs or other merchandise; and 19% say it has helped them gain radio playing time for their music. Only fractions of them cite any negative impact of downloading on those aspects of their work.

Many musicians and songwriters do not think the RIAA campaign against free file sharing on the Internet will benefit them

The survey shows that many musicians do not think the recording industry efforts to halt the free sharing of music on the Internet will benefit those who create and perform music.

Some 60% of those in the sample say they do not think the Recording Industry Association of America’s suits against online music swappers will benefit musicians and songwriters. Those who earn the majority of their income from music are more inclined than “starving musicians” to back the RIAA, but even those very committed musicians do not believe the RIAA campaign will help them. Some 42% of those who earn most of their income from their music do not think the RIAA legal efforts will help them, while 35% think those legal challenges will ultimately benefit them."

From http://www.synthtopia.com/news/2004_01-04/MostMusiciansDontSeeBenef.html

Bingo!
That's what we hope will continue to happen -- more and more people becoming enlightened to the truth.

This is actually pretty old news. At least a month old.

True, but this data means nothing until it stands for something in the eyes of the people calling the shots.

The only thing that I can hope is that more artists break away from their labels when the contracts are finished and go off to become independent/internet-based. Hit-em-in-the-pocket. With few or no artists, the label will collapse.

"until it stands for something in the eyes of the people calling the shots."

Sadly, their eyes probably don't work much better than their ears.

Although the survey seems to point towards a shift in perception at the level of musicians, I unfortunately fear that the data may be flawed. The article states that this was a web survey. How was it done? I could imagine that a disproportionate amount of tech-savy musicians (and therefore those more apt to see benifits in P2P) were surveyed by this method. It is however possible that candidates were first called and then pointed to the web survey, which would add credibilty to the data. Does anyone know? Regardless of how much I find this data compelling, I would like to know that it stands on solid methodology.

Agreed, GZ.

Look at this...
Excert from Encyclopedia Metallica (http://www.encycmet.com/news/2005-01-08.shtml

"Prince is the concert tour king. He's in the No. 1 spot on Pollstar's Top 25 tours chart for 2004, grossing $87.4 million."

Does this guy even work under a label anymore? Goes to show ya..they don't need it. He and other acts..(Aero Smith, AD/CD..etc.) have no need to put out another CD for the rest of their carreers.

See the labels have created this idea that the CD is the artists blood. The main artery to a musicians success. Oh it's important..but they've put the sales of these things above everything else.

A CD should actually be considered a loss or at the most a break even product right from the get go. It should not be viewed as a money maker for musicians. The problem is, so many are reluctant to give up the idea of making money off them up because the labels have spent many years brainwashing artist into believing CD sales is where its at!

The use of a CD should only be viewed as what any advertisement is..a promotion to bring people to concerts...where the real money is. A CD should be a public portfolio.

I give my CD away all the time and post my music for free. Then I do up some freaky artwork to promote myself...and not brag..but I pack places everywhere I go showing up with only me and my acoustic guitar! Guess who takes home da money?

Jody Nicks

www.jodemusic.com

Good point, Jody. My daughter got a free ticket to a Prince concert in Philly last year. Prince gave away free cds to everyone!

Btw, Jody, Peer Guardian blocks your site. Why????

I agree with DiscoPunk. Without solid methodology, the study can be flawed and it can actually hurt our cause. We can lose credibility in this study. Then people will question the credibility of other previous studies. As a scientist for many years, I understand the importance of this.

BTW, do we come from everywhere or what? Strength in numbers and diversity.

RIAA musicians will never stand up reguardless of what they think. the vast majority of Americans think they pay too much in taxes yet we still pay it without batting an eye. The industry would rather have quiet obedience from their artists

I believe Warner Music distributed Prince's last album. He didn't do it without the RIAA.

"See the labels have created this idea that the CD is the artists blood."

Jody, I don't think that is right. The labels' idea was that the single was the key to success because you could sell an entire album on the strength of one song.

Then people like the Beatles and Pink Floyd came along and decided that an album was a thing of continuity and a song was merely a chapter in the book. People stopped buying singles and started buying albums, so the record companies decided to quit making singles.

Tours were to promote an album, not the other way around.

You still see music as art. The labels have never looked at it that way. They do not give out Grammys to the best album. They give it to the ones that sell the most product and those whose name the old codgers on NARAS can recognize.

In fact, singles worked so well for so long, that it took about 30 years from their inception before a deejay ever discovered there was another song on the other side.

"Prince gave away free cds to everyone!"

Technically speaking, you paid for the cd as part of your ticket price, which allowed Prince was able to report the cd's as sales to Soundscan.

"People stopped buying singles and started buying albums, so the record companies decided to quit making singles."

I'm surprised to see you spouting record company propaganda. The record companies quit making singles because they wanted to force consumers to buy the whole cd/album, not because of falling sales.

"Prince gave away free cds to everyone!"

Technically speaking, you paid for the cd as part of your ticket price, which allowed Prince was able to report the cd's as sales to Soundscan."

Good eye mroop!

...but George was NOT "spouting" propaganda, he was explaining their point of "view"

I've never in my life bought a single. Oh wait, maybe once, in about 1965. I don't know anyone who possesses a physical single created in the past 30 years unless they got it at McDonalds.

But realistically, you are correct. But labels couldn't stop making them unless sales dropped. So they raised the price to the point where sales dropped, providing them the evidence they needed to reduce releases.

For peer-to-peer, they tried a different approach, simultaneously raising prices as sales dropped, and reducing the number of releases just to make sure.

-------
One of the first Grammys went to Alvin and the Chipmunks.

AHHGG...Peerguarding is blockin my site??? Awww man..I wonder whats up with that? There nothing on there except for my music. My host is just my internet provider and the www... is registered by a compnay called "registered.com"

I'll look into that. Thanks for the heads up.

try this addy

http://users.eastlink.ca/~brannenfam/index.html

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was explaining "the labels' idea," since that's the phrase I started with.

"Tours were to promote an album, not the other way around."

Thanks for the correction of history George. I can see how that evolved.

"Then people like the Beatles and Pink Floyd came along and decided that an album was a thing of continuity and a song was merely a chapter in the book".

Was it them or their labels who concocted that idea tho? I can't help but think labels convinced artist of that idea and they have been playing them ass backwards ever since for their own gain. As long as tours promote a CD..labels have the upper hand. Switch it around tho..and artists have the upper hand.

All I am saying ...or all I meant to say was seeing as we have new forms of distribution and older ones aren't working anymore....maybe artist have to reverse their thinking and work things different.

zxilton - I think it was a punishment to the artists.

If you spend half of your time and recording budget on one "perfect hit" song and fill the rest of the album with whatever crap you can throw together, that works well for the labels. History is littered with one-hit wonders that sold lots of albums the first time out of the chute. But when they wore out, we didn't bother to replace them.

But when artists get two, three or four hits out of the same album, the label execs are not really going to complain. If they had one hit from three separate albums, it would be immensely more profitable. If you bought the album for the first hit, you've already got #2, 3 and 4.

Another problem with the conceptual album is that the majority of the audience simply doesn't get it. That seems to apply to music with too many notes, too.

George at this point I am just kinda wondering if I am communicating to you properly what I'm trying to say.

Here's a summery.

Regardless of how we got to the point of tours being the thing that protmotes CD sales..I am saying screw that idea.....scrap it. Thats the problem..they are trying to sell that CD...but the CD ain't sellin.

Artists need to switch it around and let it be that CD's promote the tours... where they collect the most for their hard work.

I can't help but think how ass backwards it is to think that they use tours to promote the CD. That's almost (I said almost) like giving you the movie so you'll come see the trailer.

So is this an ad for more Pew Polls? Some way of saying if you don't pay us we will put out other polls not reflecting your line?

The RIAA has painted it as a foregone conclusion that the majors and the artists are losing money over it. Apparently, artists (which the RIAA likes to say it is representing) haven't seen any surge in income. No huge increase in royalities means it isn't really helping the artist at all. We already knew the RIAA gets to keep the money from the extortion and that the artist sees not one dime of that money.

Nor do they see a dime of the money that we are charged as a surcharge when we buy blank recording media. Seems more and more that there are little niches where it is for the artist but somehow when it comes down to dollars it isn't.

While this article might be old, it does reflect one thing. No one but no one is 100% sure sales are being hurt. That the line the RIAA and the majors are putting out is for self benefit and the "for the artist" is nothing but a smoke screen.

sometimes the CD sells the show, sometimes the SHOW sells the cd.

...let the ARTIST and AUDIENCE decide.

Shmoo

(Just do NOT let the RIAA/Industry "decide" anymore)

'nuff said?

Very soon the music industry is going to change forever. My prediction: a company, or a prominent band, is going to find a way to make big money through free file sharing. It is possible, I'm just waiting for someone to actually put it in practice. If anyone is interested in some of my ideas on how to be successful in music while giving away your music free over the internet, go here: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/10750

Okay, I get it. And I see your point. I'm sure that Bruce Springsteen makes more from a few shows in the Meadowlands than he makes in royalties all year.

There's this "artist" thing that hovers around, though. The CD, or at least the music on it, theoretically, is the art, the perfected version of the song. If the artist takes himself seriously, it is meant to outlast the artist, much as a painting does.

Tours are physically grueling. If you sell enough albums you can stop doing it before you trade in your telecaster for a walker.

Because even Bruce will slide across the stage one day and tell Clarence Clemons, "I've fallen and I can't get up."

There is no such thing as "it"

(Just do NOT let the RIAA/Industry "decide" anymore)

That's perfect!

Thats the thing about a portfolio...you show your perfected and best works..so that people interested in your stuff will come seek you out.....seek "You" out...and buy your concert tickets, your t-shirts, your thongs,..lol!

Look at the Stones...them guys should be in walkers by now. It doesn't look like they are gonna die ...touring surely hasn't killed them..I think it keeps them alive. I am willing to bet if they stopped doing their thing and relied on CD sales....they would keel over and die. Them lips of Mic Jaggers need the exercise just to keep the blood flowin to them. Can you imagine if they ever dried up? They'd look like my socks out on the clothes line..LOL!!

The Stones are the best thing the RIAA has left in the "catalogue"

...but Mick and Keith and the boys don't know no better. They were so "great" back in the olden days that they have no incentive to be original/fabulous anymore...

If the Rolling Stones want ME to yet again go see another show/buy a CD... All they have to do is DROP the RIAA affiliation and start doing the indie thang.

...sigh,
if ONLY!



Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!
Boycott the RIAA!

But why does Bruce Springsteen sell out ten shows in New Jersey? Because people recognize and enjoy his music. How do most people get to know an artists music? From knowing the artist's music, either through releases (albums, now CD's, and even MP3's today) or via radio or TV. Of course, the promotional tool to sell those CD's was the radio as much as the concert.

So, to me anyways, it seems that both feed off each other. In other words, concerts were put on to promote the sale of a CD, and an artists catalogue of releases would promote his concert.

You are showing symptoms of being "addicted" to the drug of artifice that the RIAA wants you to be hooked on.

KICK the habit!

(Yes, this site is kind of a "intervention" group.)

Shmoo

And a true, ah, 'support' group -- even for those not needing to shake off something.

Here in the UK the singles business is booming, one single can now encompass three (and on occasion) four physical discs with differeing tracks and multimedia content (bonus tracks not available on the album of course) - final cost is more than a "real" CD but for less tracks - for the record Vivendi Universal are the undisputed king of this marketing technique and the Brits are probably the only race still stupid enough to fall for it!

Even so, and showing my age, when Wings' "Venus and Mars" album came out Parlophone (in the UK) released so many singles from the album that the music press were actually saying that if they released only a couple more they'd be able to offer the album as a boxed set of 45's!!!! A lot of water has pased under the bridge since then!

Deep down I'm an "FM" rather than an "AM" person myself and feel that the 99c download format actually hurts the long, concept pieces - I have no way of checking but do the US download services offer Rick Wakeman's entire "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" for $3.96???? (there are only four tracks) but many bands really are "one hit wonders" which is a bit of a bugger if you have to buy another 9 tracks of filler!!!!

"From knowing the artist's music, either through releases (albums, now CD's, and even MP3's today) or via radio or TV. "

I am not disagreeing with you though. In actuallity..you are are emphasing what I am saying...confirming it even

The CD or other method of getting the portfolio into the public hands is neccessary...yes..absolutely..undeniably...agreed. All I am saying is that artists need to stop focusing on the CD as being the big money maker and start seeing it as the big promo piece. Stop trying to make wads of cash off it. Give it away or at least sell it for a decent enough price that you break even and everyone will get a copy in their hands. Then you start accomplishing what Bruce Springteen is.

I am not saying get rid of the CD or that its not important. I am saying that too much emphasis has been placed on the "sale" of these things for huge profit (which usually ends up being a profit for the labels). I think it more important for a band to concentrate on getting their CD into people hands regardless if you have to give it to them, rather than trying to make money on it.

Let me come at this with an example.

In the same area.... there's me.....down the road from me there's a band. I release my CD..and they release their's at the same time. They are charging 19 dollars for their CD and I am charging 9 dollars...and even in alot of cases I'm giving it away. In two weeks I have put my CD in a shitload of hands..the band down the road are lucky if they've sold 10. Who's getting more exposure and who has potential of getting a crowd out?

Right now... I am putting everything I am saying into practice..and I gotta tell ya...its working.

-Jody Nicks

I say, if a "britney spears or ashley simpson type" or (for the older folks) a "david cassidy or paul anka" wants to release a "single"... let em. Maybe the kids will cut the back off of the cereal box to get the tune!

...however, It is ALL art (even sometimes the dirty aspect of the "marketing" of it all.)

...If only the damn RIAA/industry was not in the way of things we could find out...

Shmoo

We just need some help breaking the backs of the RIAA and Clear Channel.

It might seem insurmountable, but look at the advanced decay they are experiencing as the internet becomes the world's primary source of information and entertainment.

Honestly, since 1993 when I started browsing about the net, I have steadily decreased watching TV or listening to the radio even though the amount of channels have increased.

I feel it's a combination of the internet wide variety of information which I feel has progressed rapidly in quantity and quality and the radio and television industries spiralling downward trend of poor quality broadcasting....which seems to get more insipid every year. They are stagnating and their roots are rotting out.

Soon we'll be listening to DMusic on wireless internet radios from wherever we are. Maybe that's the future, maybe not. We'll find out soon enough.

Jodi -- Bruce Springsteen doesn't decide how much his records cost the consumer. He doesn't own them like you own yours.

That's why Bruce should shack off the labels and do it on his own.

Course then he might not be able to do his own songs in concert I suppose. well thats what he gets for selling to the devil.

I would guess, without checking my facts ( 'cause I'm not a major media outlet and I don't HAVE to be accurate) that when Bruce signed his first major recording contract, the 'internets' weren't nearly as all-encompassing as they are now. Just a guess.

Shmoo -- "There is no such thing as 'it'."

Please explain.

Sadly, I don't see this breaking the backs of either ClearChannel nor the majors and the RIAA. Since this was done at the request of the RIAA you can bet there is some other scheme in the works.

The corporation that is ClearChannel is very obviously open to other money making chances as they were quite happy with payolla. The majors will not give up that control that allows the indies to be shut out of the radio market either. Nor the ability to influance what is played as a chance to be the next pick of the top ten. Things will continue with another name, cheaper prices, and the same lock out of the indies. The difference in money saved for the old payolla will be pocketed by the majors as profit.

This is nothing but a slight of hand to make it look like something was done. Over and over it has been shown that influance and control are what the majors are about. Radio is to convient a tool not to use and its use is well established by the music machine. Other than amounts, nothing has really changed.

I might also say that I have given up on pay for tv. I have given up on the public tv. Sadly, there isn't much there to be seen that is worth watching. Between 1/4 and 1/3 of each hours programming isn't a show, unless you want to count commercials as shows. I don't.

With the steady pushing and pulling of Washington and the individual groups that it seems to be bound and determined to listen to, the only remaining safe subjects are sitcoms, reality shows, and soaps. None of which appeal to me. It just seems like mindless shows for a mindless audience and I find it both tedious and boring. Why on earth would I pay for such? Simply, I don't.

Sadly, many our days simply are Eagerly awaiting the Pay Packet, instead of Acting from the Heart with Love, so it seems...

The above Statements applies to some Actors in fron of the Globe...pardon camera that is.

I agree wet1, there's quiet some Rubbish out there, this certainly Implies to some of those mindless shows with Lipservice, so to speak...

There are a lot of great thoughts on here. The best point I am seeing though is that the music (CD) is the "portfolio" a musician uses to have people spend money seeing them live, buying shirts, etc. Selling CDs is rarely a good way for a musician to make money. The profits from CDs dont bring in a substantial amount of money to the artist unless you are selling a TON of them. Especially after the label takes their cut, which is almost all of it. If you want to support a band, see them live and by a concert shirt, but seriously buying the CD doesnt help them that much.
The CD sales are where the lables get their money. Thats why they are kicking and screaming about file sharing. I doubt the artists give a damn about file sharing, but if you take away CD sales, the labels are screwed.
An earlier post said that the purpose of touring is to promote the CD. I would disagree with that to an extent. Touring and merchandise sales is where artists make their money, most artists have to play shows to make money. It would be almost impossible to make a living if you recorded CDs but never did concerts.
Example of this: my band has our entire album we just finished as a free download on our site. Its true that in the short term we are losing money because we could have potentially sold CDs. But in the long term, having our music freely available means many times more people will hear it, which inevitably means more people at shows and more people buying shirts and stuff like that. So far the result has been exactly what I had predicted, we have a lot more fans than we would have if we sold the CD, because so many more people have heard it.

"It would be almost impossible to make a living if you recorded CDs but never did concerts."

Steely Dan did one tour in like 1972. The next one was in the 1990s, I believe. In between, they sold a ton of records.

Let us also not forget Alvin & the Chipmunks and the Archies. How many records did Ashlee Simpson sell before her first "live" performance on SNL? Jennifer Lopez had two or three albums out before she made her first live performance on the Today show.

With the proper marketing, you could sell a recording of your washing machine running.

Interesting to observe the number of 70's bands making "comeback tours", the fan base is all supplied with the recordings, and by now has probably updated the whole collection to CDs, so the market has all but dried up, no new music and no new tours doesn't do much to generate a new audience so bands with a record of a messy split due to "musical differences" are swallowing their pride, pretending to be nice to each other, and doing something to supplement their pensions! (and in some cases with quite embarrasing results!)

gdziemann, I agree with you it is possible, but these are some huge artists you are talking about. Of course someone like Steely Dan and Aslee Simpson, world famous artists, could go without touring if they really wanted. But those are big stars, and hardly represent most artists. There are tons of bands from the 80's that would be living out of their car right now if it werent for them being able to play live. Record sales can not give an artist a good living unless they are wildly popular, of the hundereds of thousands of bands in the world, probably only 100 could make a good living without ever touring.

And as for your Alvin and the Chipmunks example, that idea came from a TV show which was also wildly popular at the time. These examples apply to very small percentage of artists.