Music is an central part of a society's identity: it is the auditory art, a core tenement of culture. Music is the culmination of tones and rhythms we find pleasing to hear. It has found its way into every element of our life, from rides in elevators to professional sports, from advertisement jingles to national anthems, and is even an event in of itself in the form of concerts and performances. It's form has diversified; today there are hundreds and hundreds of genres of music, catering to all tastes and occasions. The way we listen to music has also changed; we now listen to music through everything from live concerts to streaming music over the airwaves straight to our mobile devices, listening to the sounds emanate from tiny speakers we place in our ears. All this prevalence of music has made it arguably the most popular and ubiquitous form of art. But as music has become more prevalent and accessible, debates have arisen over whether music should be free, that once an artist creates a piece of music, that unique combination of notes and rhythm should be free for all to listen and play and copy and sample and expand, or whether that creative endeavor, born solely of their mind, belongs to them, giving them sole ownership over the reproduction and distribution of their work.
I believe that music absolutely has an inherent value. When an artist envisions and creates an individual and unique work, with a new combination of tones and rhythms and notes (and lyrics when applicable), they have created something that benefits everyone who enjoys hearing their work. I think that the value music holds is in the please in the listener it can cause. Everyone likes music of some kind, and they find value in listening to their favorite artists and songs, giving that work worth. People are willing to pay to see musicians to perform or to acquire a digital or other kind of copy of their work so that they can listen over and over again to the songs they love; this is a direct proof that music has value, that people are willing to pay for access to it. No matter if the "rights" to music are sold, the piece of music will always have value as long as people are willing to expend energy and money to listen to it.
Though music most definitely has inherent value, the question of illegal downloading, whether people must pay for music, becomes more murky. According to the current laws, downloading music without the artists consent and without paying for it is illegal. I believe that these laws are too harsh; in many situations, downloading benefits the artist. When someone downloads an artist's music, they are increasing the exposure that work. By making their music free (or having people download their music for free), their work spreads and is put out there, increasing their fan base. This is very important because with a larger fan base, an artist has a larger pool to draw from when performing at concerts and tours. It turns out that concerts and tours are the way artists make the majority of their money; they make very little money of record and album sales. According to an article in The Atlantic, on an average iTunes download (of price $0.99), the artist only receives $0.09, while the record label receives $0.53 and the distributor $0.37. Because record sales do not factor as heavily into an artist's revenue scheme, the benefits of downloading (increased exposure) outweigh the negative consequences (a minimal loss in record sales) in many cases. The big losers concerning illegal downloading is the record labels who make the majority of their money off record sales. But it is important to keep in mind that though record labels help artists and work to promote their music, they are not the musician's themselves, the creative artists who built the piece of music that has inherent value upon which they are profiting.
I believe that while downloading may be better for the artists and in the long run may become the ingrained practice, it is still illegal and it is therefore morally wrong to download. There are definitely pros and cons to both sides of the argument (click here for a blog laying out some of the pros and cons to each side of the argument), which is part of what makes downloading so difficult to understand and form an opinion on. Like many things in life, downloading is not black and white but murky, all shades of grey where the legal and moral sides often blur with the convenient and enjoyable.
2 comments:
How do you think older artists would feel if they found out their music was being illegally downloaded?
I believe that the view of music as nothing more than "the culmination of tones and rhythms we find pleaing to hear.” is a very limited perception of it, like the opinion that videogames are nothing more than toys for children, instead of an art form. It is true that some music is intended to be nothing more than pleasing to the ear, but music can be much, much, more than this. Music can become a method of communication, one that illustrates one's innermost thoughts and feelings better than any other form of communication, save other forms of art. There is a song about this very debate by Rise Against called "entertainment." I recommend it.
Post a Comment