Free for some, costly for others

Everytime I hear people discuss the benefits of the internet for musicians, it deals with the idea that recordings should be distributed freely, because they can, and because they will be, whether the artist wants them to or not.  This is followed by the implied optimism that the artist should then adapt to the new model and focus on things like concerts and other merchandise, to make up for money that is lost on recordings.  Besides, recordings are so “cheap” to make today anyway, with all the technology available to people.

There are many problems with this.  For one, recordings aren’t cheap.  Not for people who compose elaborate orchestrations with various acoustic instruments.  Perhaps the possibility to do it with little knowledge is there, but the time invested is sometimes longer than some people hold down jobs.  That time is valuable.

Sometimes concerts and merchandise are not the answer, either.  Sometimes it wouldn’t make sense.  Sometimes, the recordings are the true evidence and craft of the work – the medium where much time was spent to get the work to sound a very specific way, an intended way, for maximum enjoyment.

For those that rely on the recorded medium as their way to share their music, and support future work, what do they do when people acquire the recordings for free, bypassing the work and cost of releasing the music, leaving the artist with nothing?

They no longer produce their work.