If you didn't hear, recently (today) Pandora has limited its free radio service to 40 hours a month. You can opt to pay a specific amount for unlimited listening. Personally, I am kind of outraged especially since I think that 2/3s of the music I listen to was introduced to me by Pandora especially during those wee hours in the morning during finals when you need something more than your regular fix. The service, in my opinion, has done more help than harm.
Obviously there are pros and cons to this situation, but I'll let you find them out. The music industry is indeed suffering, but who's fault is it really? Does increasing music royalties seem like a good solution to the ailing industry or is it just giving music listeners more incentive to go out and download music? Discuss.
6 comments:
Well, Pandora never helped me much because the music it sent me was either terrible or a style I didn't really like.
I'm sure I could go into a rant about the RIAA etc. etc. But it really is an industry that's not right now trying to keep alive, but rather trying to keep up its lavish lifestyle. Most artists make their personal fortunes through touring unless they get really big. Otherwise, things like CDs go mostly to the industry rather than the artist.
Increase the price, and people are going to be less inclined to buy the product, that's a given. The internet has evolved the music industry fairly quickly, at least in the legal realms. From Napster, Purevolume, MySpace, itunes, Last.fm, pandora, and imeem, there's been a lot of ways for artists to get their music out there. But right now, its hard for them to get out onto the mainstream without signing on to a major label, and they hold all the strings.
The internet certainly allows artists to get their name out there. But I can't imagine them getting as much profit if their entire albums are free to download.
Did you, Mark, personally buy more music because of the artists you learned about in Pandora? Or did you just listen to Pandora only, and feel no need to purchase music in the end?
I think the internet should promote the purchasing of mp3s more. It's not very fair to the artists, I think.
I bought more music because of Pandora indeed. Personally, I'm a full album person. I like whole albums as opposed to one song from one band exclusively. That's kind of what's taking the industry down in fact; too much emphasis on selling one song (hence, "single") as opposed to a whole band and their album.
Maine, do you mean purchasing mp3s in terms of the medium (digital) as opposed to CDs, records, etc.? And what's not fair to artists? The internet is a general term; do you mean, the internet should be used in such a manner that albums sell or what?
@fat panda:
I meant, if people want to get music online (at least in the form of an mp3 or whatnot), they should purchase it. It's not fair that so much music is freely floating around on the internet without the musicians receiving any profit for it.
Maine,
Artists hardly receive a pittance on their albums. Most of the time, they don't see any real money until they sell 100,000 copies (which is really rare). Is it because of downloading? Recent studies have shown that the quality of music has fallen in the decade, and that in term is the reason why music really isn't selling. Except the music industry doesn't want to take note of this. In fact, when Napster first came out, music sells rose. I think downloading an album and going to the band's show is far more beneficial to them than buying an album you'll spin for a month and then put aside.
One thing I really like doing is buying bands' albums at their shows. I've never actually listened to Pandora, so the way I get my new music is by seeing bands I've never heard of at shows where my favorite bands are playing. This is how I heard of We Shot the Moon, Everybody Else, Sherwood, and The Morning Of. I would promote going to shows more as opposed to downloading music.
Post a Comment