Michael Braun's Blog

Before reading on, let’s get clear my own beliefs on the subjects of Charles M. Blow, New York Times columnist; and on the music industry. 1. I think that Mr. Blow is a complete idiot. 2. I think the music industry’s decline has a lot more to do with greed and stupidity than it does with music piracy. With that out of the way, take a look at this column by the aforementioned Blow. In it, Mr. Blow attempts (and I use attempts in the most feeblest of terms; Mr. Blow couldn’t win a middle school debate contest on any subject) to argue that the music industry is finished. He offers little evidence for why this might be and offers no solutions. In this way, he echoes the arguments made by his colleagues (again, in the loosest sense of the word, as he can hardly be called the equal of more notable Times’ columnists) across publications for the last 10 years. He also makes some rollicking assumptions that I will now refute.

1. “The music industry’s deathwatch kicked off about a decade ago, but it seems the vigil could soon be over.” This may be true for some of the big record labels, but just as we’ve seen problems when banks get too large, it’s the same for large record labels. The services they provide may no longer be needed. More than ever it’s possible for artists to do high quality recording anywhere, using relatively inexpensive equipment; pitch the music to fans using the internet; and sell the albums directly to fans. Bands are making a lot of money this way, especially as they avoid all the expenses of working with a big label. Yes, some of the perks may be gone for artists (as they would have to write the checks for their own limos, fancy hotels, et cetera), but I believe artists should stay hungry.

2. “According to data from the Recording Industry Association of America, since music sales peaked in 1999, the value of those sales, after adjusting for inflation, has dropped by more than half.” But where is the information about their profit models? We know record labels are hurting, but where is all that money going? Music has never been cheaper to distribute, thus profits are larger for each $.99 track sold. Second, are you really going to trust numbers from the RIAA? If you trust them, then you might as well call for the crucifixion of anyone who has listened to music with a friend.

3. “First, piracy punched a big hole in it. Now music streaming — music available on demand over the Internet, free and legal — is poised to seal the deal.” Based on what evidence? We’ve seen some recent data that shows people download music for free and then go on to spend money supporting that band by buying their music, going to their concerts, and purchasing their merchandise. What if “piracy” is merely a great marketing tool? Record labels have thought this for a while; some have leaked tracks on purpose to generate buzz.

4. “According to a March study by the NPD Group, a market research group for the entertainment industry, 13- to 17-year-olds ‘acquired 19 percent less music in 2008 than they did in 2007.’ CD sales among these teenagers were down 26 percent and digital purchases were down 13 percent.” Ever hear of a fucking recession, you goddamn moron? Sorry, that was harsh. Should this really be surprising? Teens have less pocket cash and are probably purchasing less of most everything.

5. “And a survey of British music fans, conducted by the Leading Question/Music Ally and released last month, found that the percentage of 14- to 18-year-olds who regularly share files dropped by nearly a third from December 2007 to January 2009. On the other hand, two-thirds of those teens now listen to streaming music ‘regularly’ and nearly a third listen to it every day.” Yah, it’s called YouTube, Pandora, or MySpace – sites embraced by the music industry. All three sites (and dozens more like them) are great ways to listen to music when you are at a computer or have an internet connection. They are also ways that the music industry promotes music.

6. “Even if they choose to buy the music, the industry has handicapped its ability to capitalize on that purchase by allowing all songs to be bought individually, apart from their albums. This once seemed like a blessing. Now it looks more like a curse.” It’s a curse to their ridiculous business model. There was once a time when artists were signed to singles contracts. The record label signed them up to make successful singles. Madonna had a deal like this when she first started out. After so many successful singles, the record label decided they could put out a successful album. Lo and behold, that worked out pretty well for them. So why is the record label wasting money on artists who will have their music purchased piecemeal anyway? If the album doesn’t work for some artists, then pay them by the single. For bands that put out strong albums without a hit single, labels can continue with the album format. If this is done with digital distribution, then it doesn’t even cost the label more for manufacturing.

7. “In previous forms, you had to take the bad with the good. You may have only wanted two or three songs, but you had to buy the whole 8-track, cassette or CD to get them. So in a sense, these bad songs help finance the good ones. The resulting revenue provided a cushion for the artists and record companies to take chances and make mistakes. Single song downloads helped to kill that.” Have you ever heard of a fucking 45 single? That’s how record companies used to release a lot of music. So maybe in your limited scope of history, which doesn’t seem to extend beyond your own consciousness, there never was a time when singles were popular. But hey dummy, I’m 25 and I know about singles; do some homework for once before writing your column.

8. “A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs.” Is that so shocking? Digital distribution means that more can be available at almost no additional cost. I can sell my music digitally, but should I be surprised when no one buys it? You act like availability is the only thing needed for purchase.

9. “(Note: I wrote this column while listening to ‘The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill,’ the last truly great CD I ever bought. Every track is a gem. When did I buy it? 1999.)” This speaks volumes about the kind of music fan Mr. Blow is. Hey stupid, why don’t you try streaming some music yourself? Go to Pandora and create a radio station based on Lauryn Hill. For the record, I only buy albums, never buy track-by-track, and I’ve bought dozens of great albums (including Ms. Hill’s 1999 release) since 1999.

If you’ve made it to the bottom and not read Mr. Blow column, don’t bother. I’ve copied, pasted, and refuted 90% of the text. It should be pretty clear that Mr. Blow is great at repeating what others have said, not so good at coming up with his own arguments. He also seems particularly susceptible to record company propaganda. A commenter recommended this book (Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Rise and Fall of the Record Industry in the Digital Age by Steve Knopper). I’ll second that recommendation. Mr. Blow – you need some education on a subject; when you lack that, you end up a mouthpiece for corporate interests. Maybe the next great album you buy will be “The Miseducation of Charles M. Blow.”