Trent Reznor Proposes Internet Tax
Once upon a time, Trent seemed to offer the ultimate sanction of piracy when he told Australia to steal his shit. We fast-forward four months to find Trent's calling for a tax on all ISPs. And you're thinking, "I know stuff happens quickly on the internet but damn." Well, let's unwrap this for a second and follow Trent's logical trajectory.
Back in Australia, Reznor objected to UMG's wallet-gouging pricing, the bulk of which he'd never see. So he honorably condoned any and all Aussies' virtual five-finger discounts. Then came his plan to release Saul Williams's The Inevitable Rise And Liberation Of Niggy Tardust via web only with two options: for free, or at a great bitrate for what he's later called the "insultingly low" suggested price of $5. In the end, the numbers (over 80% took it for free) shocked and saddened him, and he blogged his disappointment into the very same same series of tubes that left him despondent.
CNET recently interviewed Trent to try and clear up his position on things. There he lays bare the root of why he's so disappointed in you:
I had thought--and this is just based on how I experience music--given the opportunity (his voice trails off). Why do I end up stealing music? Usually because I can't get it easily somewhere else or the version I can get is an inferior one with DRM, perhaps, or I have to drive across town to get it to then put it on my computer or it's already out on the Internet and I can't pay for it yet.So what does all this mean in regards to people's attitudinal shift with respect to music? He goes on:If I think of it a month later walking through Amoeba (record store), hmm...do I want to just buy a piece of plastic and give most of the money to the record labels, who have to be thieves because my experience with them has always been that? And you have a lot of reasons why you didn't do it. So I thought if you take all those away and here's the record in as great a quality as you could ever want, it's available now and it's offered for an insulting low price, which I consider $5 to be, I thought that it would appeal to more people than it did. That's where my sense of disappointment is in general, that the idea was wrong in my head and for once I've given people too much credit.
It kind of gets into the bigger picture that you've had to face as a musician over the last few years, which in my mind was a bitter pill to swallow, but it's pretty far down the hatch with me now: the way things are, I think music should be looked at as free. It basically is. The toothpaste is out of the tube and a whole generation of people is accustomed to music being that way. There's a perception that you don't pay for music when you hear it on the radio or MySpace.Which brings us to Trent's solution for the financial situation these shifts in audience expectations has created:
In my mind, I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say to the consumer, "All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up your a-- if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill."Unfortunately, CNET doesn't follow up on that point. But since we know Trent's out there somewhere keeping tabs on web culture to better inform his forward-thinking rants and disheartened confessions, feel free to give Reznor some feedback. Obviously the price-point variable is an issue, and one that isn't effectively addressed by Trent's hypothetical; tell folks that the industry and starving artists' problems are solved for $5 a month, and most will say "Sounds good! Here's $5. Now give me all of history's recorded music, thanks. (Movies, too, while we're sliding down this slippery little slope.)" Of course it wouldn't be that tidy, nor that cheap. But still it's a discussion worth having; fill in the logistical deets as you see fit. The floor is yours.
Posted at 7:03 PM
Tags: Nine Inch Nails | Saul Williams
is it $5 a month or each time you connect? where can I read more about this "IP tax?" Who do we pay the $5 to and how does it end up in the hands of musicians instead of record companies (and how much)? There are far too many questions left un-answered for me to create an opinion on the subject...
Score = -1
If artists really want the money so badly, they should probably stop sucking, and maybe stop signing with the big labels. When you sell-out, you are screwed.
I download most of my music for free...because it is available to me. The internet shouldn't be taxed, but I agree that artists should get paid. I don't think they should get all that much money if they sit down and sing while they let others do all of hard stuff.
DIY music is the most respectable type. I will pay to watch a good show by a band that does everything on their own, and if they offer music for a reasonable price, I will gladly pay.
Twenty bucks for an album is idiotic. Even a buck a song is too much. Why should being in a band be a job? If you say you want to entertain people, play me a song and stop complaining. You have enough money, I'm sure.
If you complain about people downloading it for free, don't offer it for free. Why should people pay when you are saying "Here, I give you permission." That's a stupid move, and people don't respect you Mr. Interscope.
I hope Trent will change his mind now that he isn't under contract.
Score = -2
Ahhh. Slow news day. This is like a week old.
Score = 0
I've heard of this tax proposal before. The first time I remember hearing about it was back in 2004, it was dealt with in a book called "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. He gets a little more in depth with the idea, where he imagines that all digital files would carry a "watermark", companies would develop software and services to track these watermarks, and distribute tax money accordingly. Extra money could be collected from advertising sponsored websites that act like radio stations (Pandora, etc).
It's an interesting thing about the numbers for Saul's album. You have his old album, which 33,000 people have paid for in 3 years; and with his new album, 28,000 people have paid for it since it's recent release. Things seem kind of the same. I don't know how much money he takes home from sales of his old album, but it's probably pretty low. I assume he takes a significant chunk of that $5 home with the new album. So, I wonder how his profits sit at the end of the day. He's selling approximately the same number of albums, but now there are at least 120,000 more people who he's been exposed to. It's kind of like the free album release is replacing the publicity he would have gotten from radio and MTV 10 or 15 years ago (both of which were giving the music away to the public for free).
Score = 0
That ISP tax idea isn't new and certainly doesn't come from Trent Reznor but it is, however, a really good idea that would solve a lot of problems in this new reality of the music business...
Score = 0
So how many of the people who downloaded it for free would have bought Saul Williams' record if there was no free option? Get back to me on that one before you start talking about new taxes.
Score = 0
How would an internets tax be any different than giving money to a label or the RIAA? How would that be better?
Yeah, i download Saul's album and thought about going back to pay $5 bucks for it. But I don't listen to it anymore...didn't care for it all that much. I'd like to see stats on how many of the 80% that downloaded it feel the same.
I paid for Radioheads last album, and feel like I got my money's worth...$2 - I don't listen to it much either.
Maybe Dillon (above) really hit it on the head...don't suck so much.
Score = 0
Wow, Dillon. You're really...young. Or joking.
At least, for your sake, I hope so.
Score = 1
Sounds kinda like itunes or rhapsody.. I love trent.. but he's missing the mark here.
Score = 0
Seems like Trent's doing a lot of complaining when the artist who created the album, Saul, isn't extremely bothered that more didn't pay.
Score = 0
I think the saul williams album release was really silly in that it involved the expectation that people would pay $5 up front for legally free mp3's that they hadn't heard. Those days are long gone now. People want to at least listen to it first and then make up their mind. Hell, most people bittorrent stuff and then maybe buy the album to support the artist. Or go to a show, buy a t-shirt, etc.
Score = 0
"Why should being in a band be a job? If you say you want to entertain people, play me a song and stop complaining. You have enough money, I'm sure."
Well, where did they get this money if you're not paying any money for their music? And wouldn't the fact that they've got to travel all over to play you this song require that it be a job?
Score = 2
Personally, I downloaded Saul's album for free to hear what it was like (I'd never heard any of his stuff before) and deleted it shortly thereafter. Didn't really care much for it. So who's letting down who here Trent?
Score = 0
people like dillon are the reason why things are the way they are. fucking spoiled brats who dont value art. go hide behind that little "don't suck so much" excuse when you know you wouldnt pay for the fuckin beatles if they were a new group on an indie label.
i just cant fucking wait till the day nobody can make music anymore cause they'll be too busy flipping greasy ass burgers for you to stuff your face in at 3.95 a pop and you wont even think twice... but yet 1 measly little dollar was WAY too much for a song.
Score = 0
Making music is def. a losing proposition at this point for new and independent artist-- I figure most artist will only be able to do music on a part time basis because they will need to work a regular job to pay for all the costs that go into being a musician.. As far as quality of music, and paying for it-- it seems people that tend to pay most for music are fans of top 40, Rap, and Country Music-- it seems like "real" music fans that favor indie/alternative bands don't like to pay-- as much, pretty sad-- when josh groban christmas album and hannah montana are the top selling records-- so what does that say about people only really paying for "quality music"???
Score = 0
I think that some sort of subscription fee will be the way of the future; pay $15 or $20 a month and have full access to the majority of recorded music... I think most people could get behind that.
If that becomes the trend, then there is less emphasis on the "album", which frees it up as an art form. Britney can put out one or two songs, license them to Chevy and get her cut of the subscription fee and everyone is happy.
Meanwhile, bands that can really make records will do so and we can buy them on some physical format and we are happy.
In short, subscription for the masses, physical product for the obsessive (us).
Score = 0
I was one of the ones that downloaded The Inevitable Rise And Liberation Of Niggy Tardust without paying - purely out of curiosity. I am not a Saul Williams fan, OR much of a Nine Inch Nails fan. It just sounded interesting, I thought I might as well check it out, and if I liked it I had full intentions of paying for it. But I didn't. And if it wasn't available for download, I never would have even listened to it, let alone paid money for it.
Score = 0
I was one of the ones that downloaded The Inevitable Rise And Liberation Of Niggy Tardust without paying - purely out of curiosity. I am not a Saul Williams fan, OR much of a Nine Inch Nails fan. It just sounded interesting, I thought I might as well check it out, and if I liked it I had full intentions of paying for it. But I didn't. And if it wasn't available for download, I never would have even listened to it, let alone paid money for it.
Score = 0
paying for music is like paying for sex...I could, but why bother when its free. If its good, then I will invest in it.
Score = 0
The problem with Trent's download experiment was that it was with Saul Williams. Although Williams is a great artist, not many people are fans. The 20% who paid for it are the only people who would have bought it anyway. Trent, don't lose hope. I'd certainly pay up for the next NIN album, given the choice of free or not.
Score = 0
eric that's quite possibly the worst analogy of all time, and you are now forbidden from using the internet.
Score = 1
In the full interview, one of the proposals he suggests is an immediate download followed by a physical copy (yes I know this is what radiohead did with the box set!) and as someone who still likes a phyical release in my hand, I think that's a good way to go.
Score = 0
i was one of the few that paid my $5 to download the album - where's my pat on the head instead of this bitching?
i agree with stefi - nearly everyone i know bittorrents albums and if they're good, will support the artist by going to shows or buying the album itself. for too many years we've had to pay £14/$28 ish for cds and get burned by lazy artists, so basically, screw you guys.
Score = 0
I don't see why everyone is so cheap. I am living on a graduate student stipend and I still pay the monthly subscription fee for Rhapsody. For the price of a CD a month I can sample nearly all recorded music, and then, if I'm feeling inspired by a particular record I can fork over the extra $10-20 for a couple discs each month.
The sense of entitlement we feel towards music is saddening. Sure going to concerts 'supports the artist', but you're paying for just that: the concert. Not the ability to listen to 'Comfy in Nautica' indefinitely on your iPod.
Score = 0
Maybe people downloaded it to see what it sounded like before buying, then they didn't buy it because Niggy Stardust is garbage.
Personally, if I download the album of an independent artist, I buy the thing if I like it. I think the quality of the album is a factor here.
Score = 0
If that Saul Williams album didn't suck so much ass maybe more people would've dished out the cash.
However, I think music is in the worst state it's ever been in. As Trent said, a whole generation sees music as free and rightfully theirs. Even if a site offered albums for 50p/$1, people would still think "why would I go to the effort of filling in a paypal form when I can RapidShare it right now for nothing? Artists need to think of new ways to generate profit, cause it's not going to come from album sales. And record companies (major labels anyway) are just out of the picture completely for music in the future. They're entirely irrelevant and unnecessary in an age when artists can do everything for themselves.
It's only a matter of time before someone thinks up an innovative, ingenius idea which will reinvent the music industry. Maybe it'll spell the end for file-sharing, maybe it'll further boost it's popularity. I don't know. Do you?
Score = 0
Dillon, I'm taking away all of your music. Now go to your room and think about what you've done.
Score = 1
Trent and Rick Rubin need to talk more. It's like they're sharing the same time-warp-to-5-years-ago brain.
Score = 0
"people like dillon are the reason why things are the way they are. fucking spoiled brats who dont value art. go hide behind that little "don't suck so much" excuse when you know you wouldnt pay for the fuckin beatles if they were a new group on an indie label."
I do value art, and that's why I believe there shouldn't be a price put on it. I do pay for music when it is an artist I really do believe deserves it.
You are right about the Beatles though, but that's only because I don't like them a whole lot. Should I be kept from experiencing them if I don't pay for an album though?
Score = 0
Musicians are no different than the guys who used to work assembly lines in Detroit. The business changed, so now they have to change the way they do business. Musicians are just lucky bandleaders and labels aren't outsourcing guitar parts to Chinese kids, drum parts to India and so on.
For most of American history, musicians couldn't make money selling recordings of their music. It's only been the past 60 maybe 70 years. Before that, and maybe now, they had to tour and work their ass off. The tradeoff is, yeah, you're less likely to make a fortune as a musician but more musicians are likely to be able to build an audience and make a living wage doing what they love.
So there.
Score = 0
I don't know about you guys, but if my math serves me correctly, they brought in around $140,000 which would not be diverted to a record label. After paying for the costs of delivering the product, they would have have earned a healthy amount of cash. I'm fairly certain that Saul did not make anything close to $5.00 per disc on his earlier works (seeing as how proven commercial artists such as Metallica earn around $4-$5/per) even though there were more copies sold. All in all, not bad for an album promoted through NIN's site. Hell, even if they only cleared $50,000 that is a lot of money that goes straight into their pockets.
Score = 0
Dillion has presented the most hypocrtical argument I have ever seen in my life! What a tool. Go away dillion, no one wants you here. You're worse than that DwD guy.
Score = 0
The problem with this is calling it a tax -- otherwise this is exactly the path subscription services like Rhapsody and Napster envisioned the business evolving to. The subgscription services wanted to cut deals with ISPs so that all-you-can eat *legal* digital music was just part of your internet connection.
Unfortunately, the subscription model has been hampered by a few things:
1. DRM not working as designed -- if it actually worked without glitches, there would be much less complaint. Microsoft didn't work closely enough with providers IMO.
2. Catalog not growing fast enough on those services to include holdouts -- possibly due to the labels still takin too much of the pie.
It looks like in the fast-fast digital world we're in.. that model isn't getting the time to work out the kinks.
Score = 0
I was happy to pay the $5.
It drives me crazy that the only people in the music business that seem to be making any money are such fine acts as Fergie and Daughtry. YUCK.
Score = 0
How am I being hypocritical? I don't make music.
I just thought I'd make a valid point that record labels screw artists, but apparently everyone here is signed by UMG and must side with artists that are seen on MTV everyday yet apparently can't afford bread and milk.
I apologize, and I will obey my mother and go to my room.
P.S. - Dillion rhymes with million and therefore it would be a stupid name.
Score = 0
Dillon
Saul Williams isn't exactly a household name.
If there were more artists like Saul being played on MTV the world would suck a little less. But that's not the case.
Score = 0
I think that one of the contributing factors to this whole thing is the attention span of people in relation to the music they're trying-before-buying. This holds particularly true with albums like Niggy Tardust, Year Zero, The Fragile, et al.
A good example: NME panned the hell out of Year Zero, then five months later, the reviewer posted on his blog about the vinyl copy NME got sent, and mentioned that the album really grew on him with time, and he was unfair to write it off so quickly. But when people go to read the review, they don't read "After a couple of weeks, I realized it was amazing," they read "Listened to it twice, deleted it!" (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)
This has absolutely nothing to do with a monetary solution, but I wanted to say it somewhere besides in my head.
Score = 1
I agree with your observation Matt - I've noticed how keeping tabs on music blogs/magazines is continually pushing me forward to what was released two hours ago. I think many people get so caught up in trying to find new music (myself included) that they don't spend ample time allowing last week's release some time to ferment.
We have to remind ourselves when reading album reviews that this can also be true in the case of the critics, whose job it is to stay 'on the brink'. It's not surprising that some works go underappreciated.
I'm personally not a fan of 'Strawberry Jam', but 'Peacebone' came on today and I found myself rocking to it. Perhaps I'll give it another go.
Score = 0
As a NIN fan of 18 years I find it disheartening that Trent is so disappointed by the results and appears to be blaming fans for “not doing the right thing”. When I first read about their “business model” on the nin.com blog I thought ‘How great! They’re really not focused on the bottom line of album sales, instead it’s really about the music and getting people to listen’. The night before the release Trent posted on his blog “Get it for free - no strings attached - right here…” I think we all assume most recording artist make the bulk of their cash touring. The fact that Trent and Saul were offering the album for FREE, side-by-side with the option of paying $5 for a better bit rate, lead me to believe this experiment was more about selling out future concert tickets without the cheesy, overboard marketing gimmicks used by the record label industry. In those terms I thought ‘they’re brilliant’. It wasn’t until Trent posted HIS interpretation of the results that I realized he may be a brilliant musician but he needs to better understand his target demographic and the value of marketing if he expected more people to pay for the download. I think their business model gave a mixed message if selling a large volume of albums in two months time was the real objective. Nobody was “stealing” music from Trent and Saul, they gave it away for free.
Saul (if you’re reading this): you put out another great album and I look forward to seeing you perform in concert.
Trent: Even though I think you need to lighten-up on this you’ll still always make my thighs go up in flames. (Releases girl squeal.)
Score = 0
ALRIGHT! I just want to admit it that I did download Saul Williams' 'Niggy Tardust...' album, listened to it for a while, then deleted it.
I, at this time, do not have a credit card nor paypal because I am underage, and my parents are small-minded racists and probably would not like me to download a 'n-ggers' album.
Therefore I could not purchase the album, though I would like to very much.
However, I did delete it after listening to it, mostly because I had never heard of Saul Williams' before Trent Reznor had mentioned him as an opening band, and found the album not in my taste range.
Thinking on this, I suggest a kind of 'Zune' 3-play/3-day protection on future releases: play it three times and the file with automatically cease function, or after three days without play it with, again, cease function.
If you like the song/album, you may go back and purchase the song.
In fact, maybe there could be an option to purchase songs individually rather then purchasing and downloading an entire album.
Score = 0
The problem, as I see it. Is that the world is addicted to music. People crave new music, old music, weird music and shit music. It's undeniable and inevitable. Rhythm and syncopation are in our blood and that pounding is not a thing easily ignored.
Like any addiction, the musical bloodthirst must be fed. For those that can afford it, or for those with a more modest appetite, it is quite simple to fork over the cash for the appropriate fix and move on. For those with a more "healthy" addiction to music, without the means to say, pay what it would cost to download 5 new albums a day, the only available option is stealing it.
If a meth addict can't steal enough of his/her kids paper route money cause he's found a new hiding spot, he/she will sell the xbox or jerk some dude off in the alley for a couple bucks and, grab some meth and head off to fairy land, or wherever you go when your fucked on meth. Maybe, said addict will simply forgo the trading of service/goods for money route and try instead to swipe some meth out of the basement lab down the street. Either way, addiction drives people to ugly and otherwise unjustifiable actions in the name of their temporary euphoria and I think a parallel can be drawn to music.
Thieving music is available at all levels for all kinds of music. Idiots without the technical panache to burn the latest Shakira CD can find that rare Ricky Martin live performance without a problem. And the more tech-savvy oinkers are able to browse the musical equivalent of "Alexander the Great's Library" and potentially make it their own while simply worrying about their ratio.
The bottom line, for me is, that music is a drug. A beautiful, splendid and absolutely necessary drug. But we all came out of the womb the equivalent of music-crack babies and we've continuously found the easiest way to sedate that craving. From demanding free Hendrix shows at the Isle of Wight to whining about record labels and their price gouging, its never really been about depriving the artist, any artist. Its always been about us, the listener, the druggie, and making us happy.
(This is an explanation, not a defense.)
Score = 1
MR. Trent shouldn't complain in the first place...If he wanted the people he's dissapointed in to have paid for his Niggy Tardust he just should have asked the unbelievable Low 5 dollars instead of putting it on the net for free. What might he have thought..."Ooooh sure at least 90% will pay more than 5 dollars for this magnum opus, because I love them and they love me, and I make art and they respect that and blalbbablbalablaaaaa"
Score = 0
i think musicians should go on strike like the writers.
...just saying.. you never know what you have till its gone.
Score = 0
The fact is, the music will never be "gone." If musicians decided to strike, the majority of the listening population wouldn't even notice. They'd keep spinning the same records they have been without an eye towards the future. A strike is lose-lose for musicians, they get no money AND people forget who you are.
Score = 0
fuck thou trent, fuck thou.
Score = 0
First off, for everyone on here that is just commenting on "want people to pay for music, stop sucking" please come up with something more intelligent than that. Music, just like film, is subject to opinion, so that arguement just doesn't hold, cause what you think sux, other people hold as gospel.
Secondly, I'm down for subscription base, but everyone seems to say it should be like cable tv, you pay and get whatever you want, but that isn't how cable TV works. If you want the basic package you get that, pay a little more and get the sports package, pay more than that and get a movie channel or two, pay more than that and get all the movie channels, and where does pay per view come into play then. So what half these people are saying in their comments are I want all the music I can stomach for $5 a month, but that's just not realistic, nor does it follow the model all these forward thinkers are on.
To add to that you don't get all you want, you get what they give you those months in programming, so is that really what you want, cause i gaurantee they are gonna be dishing even more horrible shit on you that way.
Hey Rick Rubin, still waiting for you to revolutionize the industry.
the comment on how musicians should just go on strike like the TV writer's cause like the metal ballad says "you don't know what you got till it's gone." is the most genius quote on here.
Enjoy
Score = 0
someone took the time to create it for you, pay for it you slob.
as far as diy and paying the artist by buying a t shirt at a show.. it costs $6-8 per unit to get (quality) shirts made, thats a lot of money to fork out for say a hundred shirts- a meager profit. not to mention it costs (on a low end) $8k-10k to put 4 guys on the road for one month.. food, gas, lodging, van rental, washing clothes etc.. that shit costs money. and don't forget having the van break down in rural south carolina or broke into over night in the bowery... your t shirt purchase while appreciated doesn't help all that much.
not all bands can do the black flag/minute men diy of yesteryear.. living on coke and snickers and sleeping on someones floor for 6 weeks. and seeing as most indie bands are not on the death cab level, the $50-200 you get at most shows won't cover it.
don't kid yourself by thinking these bands can tour and make up the loss of music sales, they can't. they don't.
don't be cheap, pay for your art.
Score = 1
I agree that research would have to be conducted where releases only offer a single payment option; it's not fair to offer an album for free or a fee and expect a large number to take the album without paying; how many of those downloaded the Saul Williams album and decided they didn't enjoy it to a degree for which they would consider paying $5? The figures are skewed when factors such as satisfaction come into play. In my estimation, the entire point of offering the release for free was to : a) attract attention and b) offer the consumer the benefit of the doubt and allow them to "try before they buy". It seems that, perhaps, many simply did the former and found the music not to a degree conducive to the latter.
Peace
Score = 0
i've given up on trent. fuck him.
Score = 0
you need to get your story right
www.nin.com
Score = 0
And now, a few days later, there is a new blog on nin.com. Trent doesn't want an ISP tax any more than you do, and since he called his interviewer out on misrepresenting his quote and leavingout the context in which it was said, the interviewer has since posted an MP3 of that portion of the conversation. 2 seconds after uttering the infamous "ISP tax" quote, he then started talking about how that idea was an unfair, unworkable fix.
Score = 0
Funny. The CNET guy took what Trent said in the interviews and totally took it out of context. Trent was just throwing out ideas and he basically shoots down the idea as soon as he says it but the hacks at CNET decided to make it 'TRENT REZNOR DEMANDS ISP TAX!' i guess cuz its all controversial and stuff. To the geniuses who skimmed Niggy and deleted...you aren't music fans in any real sense. Some of the best music you will ever hear is stuff that grows on you, and Niggy is a grower. I didn't like it at all on the first listen but by about the 3rd listen I was blown a way and I still listen to it practically every day. Not an easy album to categorize and there's a few clunkers IMO, but awesome none the less.
Score = 0
Kind of off the topic, but when Trent says $5 is a low price to pay for an album, he takes it for granted that the music is worthwhile. I downloaded a couple tracks from Tardust and for me, 5 cents would have been too much to pay. He probably would have had more success if he had been selling music in a genre closer to his own, rather than assuming his fan base would suddenly start appreciating hip hop.
Score = 0
It's not like the file sharing thing is confined to major label artists. A lot of small indie labels who support their artists with manufacturing, promotion and tour support are taking a beating and going under. I personally know several who have given up recently because their personal debts have mounted to the point where they can't recover, and several others who are running scared. Some of these labels have bands who are fairly popular, but whose sales somehow haven't kept up with their ever-growing fanbase and public profile. So on the outside, these bands look successful, when they are in fact, broke. And not because their label has ripped them off, but because their label is broke, too, and praying that something will happen to save them all from disaster.
A lot of people just assume that if a band gets some press and is able to tour they must be doing well. Uncle rico is right - most bands don't break even on tours, unless they are pretty big. And how can they get big without touring?
So how do bands get the money to tour in the first place? If they have a label to help them, they get it from the label. But what happens when people don't buy the albums and the label goes broke?
Eventually, there will be fewer bands making fewer albums and going on fewer tours - how can they afford to when they have to work day jobs and pay the rent and save up the money to make albums that no one will buy? And one day people will start complaining about the scarcity of good new music to listen to, and start to talk about 'the good old days', when there was so much more music to hear.
God forbid we end up forcing indie bands to have to pimp their music to advertising companies to sell cars and running shoes to stay working in music. It's OK for some, but not everyone wants to go that route-- the same route being proposed by the new EMI execs, with each band having a corporate sponsor. There is already too much of that sort of thing in music. We should be trying to take it the other way, not drive our favourite indie artists into some sort of hellish moral dilemma.
Wake up, people. There are independent bands and small labels holding on by their fingernails, dropping off the face of the music planet one by one. If you don't show them your love now, tomorrow may be too late.
"You don't know what you've got till it's gone", indeed.
Score = 0