A Download off My Mind

Apple announced the next gambit of their universal conquest today- the iPhone 4. All of these increasing names and numbers are reminding me of Super Saiyans in Dragonball Z, but sadly that's not the focus for today. No; the new Apple release got me thinking further about some thoughts I've been having about downloading music from iTunes and downloading music in general.

Over the past several months I've been thinking a lot about how I relate to the music industry. This is running alongside a burgeoning desire to be a music journalist. One of the things that's occupied my mind recently has been the issue of whether I download music or buy the hard copy of the CD/EP/Single.

I have become incredibly averse to buying music from iTunes. Why? Well there are a few interesting reasons.Reading lots more musical press and following lots of the coverage of this year's Record Store Day on April 17th has gotten me to a stage where I'm really convinced that having the physical copy of an album is far superior to owning the downloaded tracks. Why? For one, lots of artists (I mean artists by the way, not acts and commerical popstars i.e. Bieber et al) put a lot of thought into the way their album covers are constructed. The way liner notes are put in, lyrics books are included, interesting little extras are added. An immediate example that springs to mind is how there are lots of variations of the inside cover art of Arctic Monkeys' second album Favourite Worst Nightmare. Discovering and appreciating little things like that are really exciting if you give music and musicians the level of respect and love they deserve. Also, there's an incredible feeling when you have an album you're really excited about held in your hand. It augments the already great music with something that makes it indelibly yours. I had that kind of excitement today. I ordered the Exquisite Corpse EP by this band from California called Warpaint (who I am utterly in love with right now, check them out: http://www.myspace.com/worldwartour) When it arrived I was abuzz! You don't get that with downloads.

Anyway, these are all old arguments, though still valid and I hope compelling if you haven't heard them before. As I've, said I'm really averse to downloading from iTunes, and yet I download countless (legally) free mp3s from other places all across the internet: Fluxblog, the NME website, Lauren Laverne's MPFrees on BBC 6 Music. Not whole albums, often mp3s given away by little know bands I haven't heard of. So why don't I mind downloading from there, but I do mind downloading from iTunes?

Maybe it's because on some level, iTunes has become "the man" in terms of online music purchasing. I'm not talking "you da man!" kind of thing. I mean "stick it to the man" kind of thing. Clearly Steve Jobs is the reincarnation of Mao and Bill Gates is quietly biding his time for an intense comeback (like Britney Spears. Or maybe not) But perhaps I just don't want to encourage Apple's monopoly. I don't know really. Maybe it's some (probably pretentious) desire to be non-conformist. I know that nearly everyone else I know is quick as a flash to get their music with a few clicks so maybe some stubborn part of me that wants to be weird and different all the time, sometimes just for the sake of it, is inspiring this desire to avoid iTunes at all costs. But yet I have an iPhone (and it really is awesome). So what's the deal?

Part of it definitely is a desire to support the lesser known avenues I mentioned earlier that give away free mp3s, like Fluxblog (incredible free mp3 blog for indie music. One a day, I've been downloading since September) I know that the people who run those things are definitely in it to share music and bands because they really like them, not because they will ultimately see a profit. When I download Lauren Laverne's MPFree EP at the end of the week I know that if I go and buy more of the music from the bands featured on it, oh so lovely Lauren (my indie crush...) nor the BBC will see a penny. Maybe that's it. iTunes ONE free mp3 a week and ANY band promotion they do is to profit them, not the artist. So it's not like there's anything intrinsically wrong with donwloading music, of course not. Nowadays a free mp3 can give a band lots of publicity, and lots of the bands I'm liking at the moment I have found out about through online mixtapes and downloads; which includes Warpaint who I've already mentioned. Downloading is totally neutral in terms of morality and its effect on the music industry. It's about where you're downloading it from, and the intentions that you and the people giving away the mp3 have.

I can't quite pinpoint it really. I dislike purchasing music from iTunes, but I think my desire to own physical copies of my music would have arisen independently. Please, try to buy more physical copies of albums. It makes that music that little bit more yours, and often not for a lot more money. Even if you don't buy it all from independent record stores (I try to but, the majority of the time I don't) I still think it's intrinsically better than downloading an album. I think. I reckon if you find a band who you just totally fall in love with and just want to be immersed in and just have as your own then you'll be compelled to buy CDs and you might understand more where I'm coming from.

If you've got any relevant feedback then please do speak up. This post didn't have a particular point or direction but I hope it's stimulated some thought.

One Singular Sensation?

I'm going to hope that you've all heard of Pink Floyd- mammoth stars of 70s prog rock, sonic innovators, musical genii. The creators of legendary, multi-million selling and frickin' awesome albums like "The Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall".

Now if you've been reading the papers or music news in the last day or two, you'll have seen that the Floyd are suing their old record label EMI. Why you ask? Well I'll tell you.

The music of several of history's biggest rock acts- The Beatles, ACDC, Oasis and, of course, Pink Floyd- has, for various reasons, not been incredibly available (legally) on the internet, iTunes, Spotify etc. Recently however, the Pink Floyd catalogue hit iTunes.
And beef has arisen.
Pink Floyd don't want their songs available individually- they only want whole albums to be sold. Today, it was announced that they'd won the court case and EMI owe them £40,000 in costs. I was immensely happy about this! Why?

This story highlights one of the things about the 21st century music industry which truly distresses me. That is that music is now viewed primarily by major labels and casual music listeners as a commodity. Not as art.

If you know anything about Pink Floyd, you'll know that they are "album artists". Whilst they've written incredible individual songs like Money, Another Brick in the Wall Pt. 2 etc. they've never been keen on singles. Their albums are DESIGNED, RECORDED AND PRODUCED as one cohesive whole. Not as a series of bytes to be packaged for preference. Their albums are journeys which they blazed for you to experience every step of.

You may think that EMI and iTunes have the right to sell individual tracks whenever they wish. It's their policy, why should Pink Floyd be exempt? The answer is: because this is art we're talking about. Not a commercial product.

Just because Pink Floyd are a commercially successful rock band, you should NEVER make the mistake that what they produce isn't art. It would make no sense to sell only sections of a painting. Or individual scenes from a film/TV show. This shouldn't be any different. And if the vision of the musician/artists is for the whole album to be a whole then that should be respected.

Music should never be primarily about turning a profit. It should be about purpose and expression. If you haven't found an album that you love as a whole, then PLEASE- go and find one! Few things in your musical life will compare to getting lost in an album, knowing its grooves, nooks, crannies, ideas, motifs and energies. "Artists" and labels who concern themselves with bashing out individual tracks that are going to bring the money rolling in have no respect for you, me, other listener or for music itself. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with "big tunes" or dancefloor fillers- but they need to have some heart. Some vision. Even if that vision is just to inspire dance or a singalong, it should be a pure vision. An original vision.

We live in a world of one hit wonders. "Artists" are picked, produced and packaged for consumption. They're aimed purely at brief yet profitable stay in the charts, riding on a couple of intentionally commercial singles. How many of you know songs by JLS/Ludacris/Chris Brown et al OTHER than their singles? Hmm?

With the ability to cherry pick tracks on iTunes, Spotify etc. the art form of the album is in very obvious danger. That's why you see bonus tracks only available with the whole album. It's why lots of indie/lesser known bands offering special extras with hard copies of their albums. For artists like that, it isn't about turning a profit. It's about integrity. About getting a whole idea/movement/display across. About giving something to the fans rather than getting something from the customers.

We've got to embrace that. If not, we're just cheating ourselves.

What do you think? Should more albums be available only as a whole? Do you reckon lots of artists/labels would start doing that purely for commerical gain? Please do feedback to me!