Scott Henderson Sounds off on Internet/Music Business

[degenaro]

The problem with this whole argument is these guys just assume that people would buy their stuff if it weren't available online for free. WRONG. THats really it. If someone has 100 bux in their pocket, spends all of it on food, rent, whatever, then downloads an album for free. They would not have bought that album at all, therefore nothing is lost. Stealing is another topic for discussion of course.

Personally I felt cheated that after tape, CDs were supposed to cost half what tapes did, yet they cost twice as much.

I don't think any one thinks that for every 1000 illegal downloads they would've sold a 1000 copies. But obviously there is a percentage that would've shelled out the money. So lets say 5 to 10 percent would pay, which IMO is a reasonable guesstimate then by last count I lost about 2 grand, and am guessing that number would be higher for some one like Henderson. That's a month rent for me...

As for your example of the guy having a 100 bucks, a few ways to look at this...for example, don't have the money...can't have it. Still decide to take...sounds like stealing from here.
I go back to the 70s/80s where folks taped albums....if the blogs hosting links to illegal downloads of mp3s at a lower bit rate I'd have no issue with it. But again having some one rip CDs in high res and give them away, when folks can't sell at those bit rates blow.

 

[degenaro]

Or maybe people will have a different view on music as a product. Maybe it is moving more towards where art is... If you want to see what the Mona Lisa looks like, you simply google it, and start staring.
If you want to see her in real life, then you pay an entrance fee.

Actually... that sounds a lot like what music has become as a product...

I think you hit the nail on the head with the Mona Lisa comparison.

Thanks.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.

I am extremely curious as to know what the industry will look like in 20 years time... I personally think it will move towards art (as in paintings and sculptures).

I am not an expert on classical music... Can someone quickly enlighten me as to how Mozart (or any composer or performer from around that period) made money? From what I understand, it was purely contract work for a Royal Family, and live performances...
Would they receive payment if their music was played by another orchestra?

If so... maybe music is simply moving back towards that way of thinking... Just thinking out loud now...

If memory serves...initially it was like being a court jester, being hired by the church, or royals and their decendants, then we had the patrons of art that basically fed those guys for them hanging around and writing.
Then we started to have publishing houses which were the fore runners of the record companies, where instead a piece of music being on vinyl it existed on paper, etc...

That begs the question if there were "pirates" sitting in the dungeons of Vienna, ferociously copying out scores to hand out to their mates for free...

That is funny, I'm guessing they shared them by loaning them out.

 

[kasperjensen]

Or maybe people will have a different view on music as a product. Maybe it is moving more towards where art is... If you want to see what the Mona Lisa looks like, you simply google it, and start staring.
If you want to see her in real life, then you pay an entrance fee.

Actually... that sounds a lot like what music has become as a product...

I think you hit the nail on the head with the Mona Lisa comparison.

Thanks.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.

I am extremely curious as to know what the industry will look like in 20 years time... I personally think it will move towards art (as in paintings and sculptures).

I am not an expert on classical music... Can someone quickly enlighten me as to how Mozart (or any composer or performer from around that period) made money? From what I understand, it was purely contract work for a Royal Family, and live performances...
Would they receive payment if their music was played by another orchestra?

If so... maybe music is simply moving back towards that way of thinking... Just thinking out loud now...

If memory serves...initially it was like being a court jester, being hired by the church, or royals and their decendants, then we had the patrons of art that basically fed those guys for them hanging around and writing.
Then we started to have publishing houses which were the fore runners of the record companies, where instead a piece of music being on vinyl it existed on paper, etc...

That begs the question if there were "pirates" sitting in the dungeons of Vienna, ferociously copying out scores to hand out to their mates for free...

That is funny, I'm guessing they shared them by loaning them out.

Would you then make your girlfriend a mix-score book?

Anyway... talking about people feeling ripped off about the prices when CD's came about... I did research on it for my final project at college. Its a while ago now, so forgive if the numbers aren't exactly accurate... BUT

In today's prices, a LP record in 1965 cost app. US$25...

 

[Meathead]

Or maybe people will have a different view on music as a product. Maybe it is moving more towards where art is... If you want to see what the Mona Lisa looks like, you simply google it, and start staring.
If you want to see her in real life, then you pay an entrance fee.

Actually... that sounds a lot like what music has become as a product...

I think you hit the nail on the head with the Mona Lisa comparison.

Isn't that what subscription services are like? Want to listen to it streamed you get that for your monthly subscription, want to own it? Pay for it.

Would be tough getting people to pay to hear streamed music when there are thousands of free internet radio stations and a gazillion free music downloads on hundreds of different torrents/sites/DL software.
How do we stop all the free sharing?
It's like saying you can pay to see this beautiful girl in a bikini...or...you can see her totally nude for free.

 

[kasperjensen]

Just you wait till the day we can receive live 3D hologram video podcasts of artists, in 7.1 surround... in our living room for $1.99.
Think of the amount of money artists could make... get 1 million people to receive you in their living room at $1.99 a pop...

 

[degenaro]

Or maybe people will have a different view on music as a product. Maybe it is moving more towards where art is... If you want to see what the Mona Lisa looks like, you simply google it, and start staring.
If you want to see her in real life, then you pay an entrance fee.

Actually... that sounds a lot like what music has become as a product...

I think you hit the nail on the head with the Mona Lisa comparison.

Isn't that what subscription services are like? Want to listen to it streamed you get that for your monthly subscription, want to own it? Pay for it.

Would be tough getting people to pay to hear streamed music when there are thousands of free internet radio stations and a gazillion free music downloads on hundreds of different torrents/sites/DL software.
How do we stop all the free sharing?
It's like saying you can pay to see this beautiful girl in a bikini...or...you can see her totally nude for free.

You clearly won't change the habbits of folks that have no prior experience, in other words kids that DL stuff and only are "used" to that...it is what it is. But us middle aged mofos ought to know better.
And for what it's worth I pay 15 bucks a month for rhapsody....

 

[kasperjensen]

Or maybe people will have a different view on music as a product. Maybe it is moving more towards where art is... If you want to see what the Mona Lisa looks like, you simply google it, and start staring.
If you want to see her in real life, then you pay an entrance fee.

Actually... that sounds a lot like what music has become as a product...

I think you hit the nail on the head with the Mona Lisa comparison.

Isn't that what subscription services are like? Want to listen to it streamed you get that for your monthly subscription, want to own it? Pay for it.

Would be tough getting people to pay to hear streamed music when there are thousands of free internet radio stations and a gazillion free music downloads on hundreds of different torrents/sites/DL software.
How do we stop all the free sharing?
It's like saying you can pay to see this beautiful girl in a bikini...or...you can see her totally nude for free.

You clearly won't change the habbits of folks that have no prior experience, in other words kids that DL stuff and only are "used" to that...it is what it is. But us middle aged mofos ought to know better.
And for what it's worth I pay 15 bucks a month for rhapsody....

No disrespect to you or anyone else "middleaged"... But you aren't the problem. Its kids that are the problem... And their kids when they get around to getting them.

 

[brain21]

Personally I felt cheated that after tape, CDs were supposed to cost half what tapes did, yet they cost twice as much.

Every blank CD, DAT and DVD sold has a "hidden tax" in it that goes to the RIAA, and in theory is supposed to ultimately go to artists. THis is in response to the RIAA declaring that all CDs will be used for pirating music.

Anyone here on a major label or registered with a performing arts society, etc. gotten a penny of any of that?

Didn't think so. More thievery.

 

[brain21]

My situation is not comparable because it's just a hobby for me.

Cool. So I can steal from you if its just a hobby? If you ride harleys on the weekend as a hobby can I steal yours?

Your "situation" isn't any different, just your outlook.

Regardless of whether you thinks it is stealing or not, regardless of whether its a hobby or not, regardless of what you expect, it's either stealing, or it isn't. IOW, if its stealing from Scott Henderson, then its stealing from you. If its not stealing from him then it's not stealing from you. Regardless. The only exception would be if you deliberately gave your stuff away for free.

 

[brain21]

I am not an expert on classical music... Can someone quickly enlighten me as to how Mozart (or any composer or performer from around that period) made money? From what I understand, it was purely contract work for a Royal Family, and live performances...
Would they receive payment if their music was played by another orchestra?

If so... maybe music is simply moving back towards that way of thinking... Just thinking out loud now...

ost of them had multiple income streams, because none were steady. Mozart and pretty much all the composers had private students. That was the steadiest stream of income.

Many of the works were usually contracted out, so to speak. For example, in Mozarts early years while he was still in Sazburg, Bishop Colloredo was his "benefactor" and paid Mozart money to compose pieces. Some pieces were for church, some were for festivals, and some were for royalty, but royalty didn't generally pay composers for works. They had a court composer for that, and that person was essentially salaried by the court and on-call to write things for royalty, special occasions, etc. Every now and then they would say request some piece of music from someone like Mozart to be used in a special ceremony, or to greet some foreign dignitaries. This was usually the job of the court composer, but every now and then some occasion might call for say Mozart's unique approach vs the court composer's, but this was the exception rather than the rule.

So many works were paid for by commission by the church, or by some private party. Having a constant benefactor was extremely valued. Bishop Colleredo really liked Mozart's work, and hired him on, but he and Mozart clashed constantly (much to the dismay of Mozart's father).

Composers would also write for their own pleasure, or the publics. Mozart essentially pioneered opera for the people (as opposed to the wealthy elite). In cases like that (Opera), it was much like Broadway. You start out with a story and write the libretto (essentially the script in lyric form) from it. Then you add the music. Then someone - often a theater owner, or acting troupe manager/owner - would help with the cost, if not completely cover the cost of the production. Then you rehearse and put it on and hope people come so you can make money.

Bach was one of the busiest composers of all time. They say James Brown was the hardest working man in show business, but he was a lazy slob compared to Bach. Bach had students, and he wrote music for the main church (name escapes me) in Leipzig Germany for every weekend mass. This means he had to compose a new mass in several parts, EVERY WEEK. He also wrote music for the town. He would be paid to write music to play for incoming dignitaries, ceremonies (say the opening of a new public building or something like that), I think he *might* have done some freelance, but I can't remember. He was quite a wealthy man from all of this, and IIRC he needed to be cause I think he had a LOT of kids (esp. for the time).

 

[brain21]

That begs the question if there were "pirates" sitting in the dungeons of Vienna, ferociously copying out scores to hand out to their mates for free...

Actually, there were, sort of. The most famous is probably Count Walsegg. He commissioned Mozart to write the Requiem Mass in D Minor in 1791. His intent was to pass the work off as his own, instead of as Mozart's. Apparently the Count had done this before with other composers' works.

As far as the copying of sheet music, well it doesn't lend itself to labor-free copying does it? You can pay for the real sheet music, or pay to have someone copy it for you, but then you will have to pay for that person's time and effort too!

However, the IMAGE of what you are suggesting.. some Mel Brooks-ian dude scribbling music quickly onto parchment in a basement, only at night with a small lamp so he doesn't get caught, and then peddling that stuff on the street is hilarious.

I *think* that some composers were able to make money off of sheet music sales back then, but I'm not certain about that, and I think it was likely minimal.

To equate it to today they made their money:
- By teaching
- By Church/Royal/Private Commission (akin to writing for hire - jingles, film scores, etc.)
- By putting on operas (like broadway)
- By touring and playing their music across Europe for "command performances"

It may sound weird, but in modern times (since the 1960s) the person who earned his living in a manner closest to the composers (at least as far as I can remember) was Bary Manilow! I'm sure he probably had piano students at one point in his life. He wrote TONS of jingles (Plop plop, fizz fizz, oh what a relief it is! - Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there - I am stuck on Band-Aid brand cause band-aid's stuck on me!), he also did conducting and arranging for TV, and he started out by composing scores for off-broadway musicals and plays! He obviously toured as well, putting on concerts of his own material.

 

[Bob Savage]

Cool. So I can steal from you if its just a hobby? If you ride harleys on the weekend as a hobby can I steal yours?

Your "situation" isn't any different, just your outlook.

Regardless of whether you thinks it is stealing or not, regardless of whether its a hobby or not, regardless of what you expect, it's either stealing, or it isn't. IOW, if its stealing from Scott Henderson, then its stealing from you. If its not stealing from him then it's not stealing from you. Regardless. The only exception would be if you deliberately gave your stuff away for free.

If it makes you feel good about it to call it stealing, then yes, it's O.K. The thing is, if I give it to you, it's a little silly calling it stealing. It's a hobby, I'm giving it away. Nobody has to steal from me, it's free.

The outlook may or may not be different, but the situation certainly is.

 

[cloudnine]

Also, the poster was correct who said that downloading music is not stealing, it's copyright infringement. And yes, it does matter and it's not just "call it what you want, it's still stealing" - because it's not theft.

 

[Shonuff]

In Scott's case he is in a fringe end of the industry to begin with, so anyone who is downloading his music is most likely a fan of the genre and maybe less likely, but still probable a guitar player. So you have folks who are not downloading just tons of stuff and happen to come across his name on some pirate site, what you have are fans of Scott and his music downloading his music for free and in the process making it more and more difficult for Scott to continue putting out music they love. In a sense part of his own fan base is making what they dig obsolete.

It is also important to separate Scott from the more recent home grown fusion cats that put out his or her own discs with no track record. Where Scott has been on several labels for fusion, toured and recorded with the legends of the genre, paid his dues in a big way and built whatever audience he has predominantly pre internet and piracy. I can understand his anger from that perspective and in his case I believe it is justified, though I am not sure there is a remedy.

Not to take anything away from the homegrown do-it-yourselfer but essentially the same technology that allows pirating allows these same folks to make discs and have a "Career" in the first place. The homegrown dude probably wouldn't be on a label or be able to put a disc out 20 or 30 years ago. Now that everyone can afford a great home studio and put out a good quality disc for the fraction of the price it would of once cost, I think you have to begrudgingly accept the downloading as part of the technological revolution if you are one of these guys, the same revolution that is allowing you to record and release your music. You can't unfortunately have it both ways. The solutions for staying viable as a recording artist in the fringes probably exists, the cats that figure out where those solutions lie are the ones whom I think will continue to be able to make music and at least not lose $.

No one is really crying about the big studios and all the engineers that are out of work because of the technology that allows everyone to record at home, unless they themselves owned a studio or were an engineer. I pay for all my music as I stated earlier, I hate mp3's even in high resolution and want to support artists I dig, but at the same time I accept the fact that I am in the minority and there really is no going back as far as I can tell.

 

[Stratboy151]

[/quote]

Actually, some artists do exactly that. Prince did it. Didn't Trent Reznor? I think Radiohead or some such band did it as well. I can't remember the names of the acts off of the top of my head.

quote]
Famous last words.... [/quote]


prince, trent reznor and radiohead are on a WAY different level of selling music than scott henderson. scott plays small jazz clubs, prince plays the suberbowl. you cant compare apples to oranges just because they are both musicians.

 

[degenaro]

Personally I felt cheated that after tape, CDs were supposed to cost half what tapes did, yet they cost twice as much.

Every blank CD, DAT and DVD sold has a "hidden tax" in it that goes to the RIAA, and in theory is supposed to ultimately go to artists. THis is in response to the RIAA declaring that all CDs will be used for pirating music.

Anyone here on a major label or registered with a performing arts society, etc. gotten a penny of any of that?

Didn't think so. More thievery.

As I said earlier this was walked through conress by Gore so labels would do Tipper's PMRC warning sticker song and dance.

 

[degenaro]

Also, the poster was correct who said that downloading music is not stealing, it's copyright infringement. And yes, it does matter and it's not just "call it what you want, it's still stealing" - because it's not theft.

Actually the copy right violation is uploading and sharing...

 

[moltenmetalburn]

The problem with this whole argument is these guys just assume that people would buy their stuff if it weren't available online for free. WRONG. THats really it. If someone has 100 bux in their pocket, spends all of it on food, rent, whatever, then downloads an album for free. They would not have bought that album at all, therefore nothing is lost.

I agree with this.

I have over 1000 metal albums. When i find things that are truly inspiring I buy the record and or go see the band live. If i had to pay 15 dollars for every CD I have the sad truth is I would only own the top 50 or so that I consider legendary. That would result in me not even hearing most of the bands I have wound up financially supporting over the years. Their loss entirely.

For me the sincerest form of flattery and support for a band these days is buying merch. you become a walking advertisement for the band and most of the merch money goes in pocket. most of the artists on larger labels I work for make less than 1 dollar per albums sold, some as little as 8 cents! In no way do I feel bad for downloading their album, I could care less about the corporate machine being a little less rich. the band can go home with ten dollars for each t shirt. buying all of your albums is just feeding the record industry machine. Id rather financially support the actual bands I like , and do.

what about buying a record that sucks, no refund available from the band or label, they could care less if you actually like it once you've purchased it. I consider low bit rate downloading the taste test, if i like it I get the full entree for sure. Im damn sure not gonna buy it to find out! at minimum wage that can equal a third of a days work.

I for one put my own music on torrent boards for anyone to have. Its great exposure!

Music Is an Art form. IMO all music has exactly the same value; emotional response. Making it in the music business has nothing to do with art. It is entirely business which is typically cutthroat. If you play music to make money you are missing the point IMO, but to each their own. How many of you can actually say you chose to play in order to make a living at it?

Just imagine if their were no way to record music. the "product" would no longer exist and the sole purpose would once again be the entertainment of people through emotional response.

 

[stephen sawall]

I am pretty sure calling it something else does not make it not stealing .... regardless of what terms apply.

 

[degenaro]

I agree with this.

I have over 1000 metal albums. When i find things that are truly inspiring I buy the record and or go see the band live. If i had to pay 15 dollars for every CD I have the sad truth is I would only own the top 50 or so that I consider legendary. That would result in me not even hearing most of the bands I have wound up financially supporting over the years. Their loss entirely.

You can't afford to pay for the majority of music you seemingly like, yet claim to support them...financially?

For me the sincerest form of flattery and support for a band these days is buying merch. you become a walking advertisement for the band and most of the merch money goes in pocket. most of the artists on larger labels I work for make less than 1 dollar per albums sold, some as little as 8 cents! In no way do I feel bad for downloading their album, I could care less about the corporate machine being a little less rich. the band can go home with ten dollars for each t shirt. buying all of your albums is just feeding the record industry machine. Id rather financially support the actual bands I like , and do.

How many of the bands you like are on larger labels? And yes for that buck they make on every cd some one else is laying the money out that for folks like Henderson comes out of their own pocket. That whole logic makes zero sense to me... in order to justify not having bought a cd for 15 bucks you bought a shirt for 20?

what about buying a record that sucks, no refund available from the band or label, they could care less if you actually like it once you've purchased it.

What a lame argument, like the majority of artists don't have a way to give you a sampling of what you can expect.

I consider low bit rate downloading the taste test, if i like it I get the full entree for sure. Im damn sure not gonna buy it to find out! at minimum wage that can equal a third of a days work.

So you steal it...great, lets just go with this then. Actually why not steal everything we can't afford...
But yes I'd be all for 128 DLs as a taste test and me selling it at 196 or above as oppossed to the DLs being 256 and above and me selling at 128 and 196...

I for one put my own music on torrent boards for anyone to have. Its great exposure!

likely, but what exactly are you exposed to? Folks taking stuff for free and do what? Are they coming to see you? Buy merchandise?

Music Is an Art form. IMO all music has exactly the same value; emotional response. Making it in the music business has nothing to do with art. It is entirely business which is typically cutthroat. If you play music to make money you are missing the point IMO, but to each their own. How many of you can actually say you chose to play in order to make a living at it?

Yeah sure, and we all love each other. Yes, ideally music would be an art form, but afaic most of it falls under craft. Especially nowadays...
Actually, ideally... music would be a form of communication, a language if you will. Except most folks most willing to do it for free have the equivalent of a junior high vocabulary and ideas...

Just imagine if their were no way to record music. the "product" would no longer exist and the sole purpose would once again be the entertainment of people through emotional response.

the concept of intelligent property exists whether you write it on paper, or press to disc, mp3 whatever.
The idea of "what if" is ludicrous.