I’ve observed with interest discussion in the music forum over at Drowned in Sound about, yep, downloading. This particular debate places emphasis on how this fine art affects small music labels. When it comes to downloading music files, I’m not completely sure where I stand. I sometimes feel as if I really am part of the minority who uses the act in the “try before you buy” sense. As a few posters remarked, there seems to be a mindset ingraining itself in people, particularly the young, that music should be free.
Me? Well, the Internet has allowed me to broaden my musical palette whilst limiting my consumption to mainly just the music of my choice. The process usually follows that I download an album or track from an artist, and if I like it enough I will buy it (I’ve always been a moralistic gent). And if I don’t, well, it simply isn’t worth having and I delete it. Looking back, if I was just relying on the radio and television, as once I was, I would not have found most of my favourite bands and musicians. Who loses in that? The Internet is a great promotional tool, so should artists expect there to be a "catch"?
I’ve been doing some reading in relation to this topic. Rojek (as cited in Bennett, Oct. 2005, Popular Music and Leisure Leisure Studies) draws continuities between file sharing and other traditions of resistance to dominant institutions of power in society. I can see that – and, like most acts of subversion, downloading has been coopted by the power holders (in this case iTunes and the like). But, come on, I will never pay for an mp3! Never! It’s all very well that music is floating between the virtual and the physical, and, yeah, it all opens up questions about copyright ownership etcetera – but no-one owns an mp3.
When you talk about your music collection, do you refer to your giga-bytes of digital squirt? No, thought not. Just like money can’t buy you love, mp3s can’t buy you kudos.
No comments:
Post a Comment