Artists Should Not Sell Out Their Music

Even so, when the artist put their time and hard work into making songs that will catch the subscribers attention just for it be free. For instance, Jacob Carter of “The Changing Landscape of the Music Business” quotes “In November of 2014, award-winning musician Taylor Swift pulled her entire music catalog from Spotify, a popular streaming app, claiming that their business model suggests that music does not hold much worth.” This shows that Taylor Swift does not believe with the fact that her music is just out there for free and she not receiving money just for it be out there for the public. Thus, Darrius Johnson of “Selling Out Not Worth the Risk” quotes “In many situations, a record label owns the rights to an artist’s music, and if they license a song to a company or other party the artist has no control over how the song can be used.” To clarify, this information artists would not have their own opinion of doing any commercial because their music doesn’t belong to them but the record labels. This proves, that some artist has their opinion about their music they make and they just want to be free for the world to have because they took their time to create

Many artists and record companies do not think that it is a good thing to have their music available for free because they feel that they will lose a lot of money. The thing that they need to realize is that technology is only going to get better and they need to use it

Now : Songs are created by synthesizers. Nobody can realistically take credit for their own songs because most songs are re-mixes or a collage of dubs from other people's  music.

Michael R. Cohen, 25B WEST 'S LEGAL FORMS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY § 23:22 (2014) (“Since it would be virtually impossible for publishers or songwriters to monitor and control the large numbers of users of their songs, the enforcement and control of such performance rights usually falls to one of three performing rights organizations ....”).

When wanting to listen to a song today, one no longer has to buy or download a physical copy. In today’s world, streaming has become one of the top ways of retrieving music content. This major change has led to a profound shift for the music industry and its artists. It has developed a continuous conflict that affects the way music is distributed and how artists make a living. Listeners stream music electronically through their computers, phones, cars, and more. Most of these streaming platforms allow for the content to be free, which directs to the question of whether music should be free or not. Streaming is a topic that has presented itself to be a valid issue on whether it ultimately hurts or helps artists and their careers. Streaming has both pros and cons, but in order to aim to figure a possible solution there needs to an examination of the history of the issue, a proper analysis of both sides, and evaluating its importance.

The music business is changing rapidly, and artists have to find new ways to adapt to the changes. Among the many changes is the selling of artists' music. The way artists sell their music has drastically changed from CDs, and cassettes to streaming, and online purchases. This new change has brought with it many adverse side-effects; including, the huge loss in revenue for artists brought in by these new changes. Artists have had to adapt to this by touring more often and using their music in advertising. Artists should be able to use their music in advertising because it helps the artists and the companies in numerous ways.

Music has become a center piece of life; however it comes with a vigorous price unknown to most of the public. The music industry is littered with corruption. My proposed research problem focuses on the manipulation and control the music industry has upon its artists through an unescapable 360 deal, which in and of itself is not only reducing an artist to almost indentured servitude, but also cripples record labels themselves. The 360 deal is a common mandatory contract record labels utilize to financially support an artist. This includes advances and funds for promotion, touring, and marketing, all which the artist has to pay back to the label. I believe this problem is significant and warrants further research because the record labels are unconstitutionally taking away artists rights in favor of their own greed, in turn, leaving the artist without ownership of their own songs, money, and rights to royalties.

The music industry is an oligopoly. Since the late 1800’s people like Thomas Edison have been buying up patents in communication technology, forming monopolies, leading to a non-competitive entertainment industry. With only a handful of corporations controlling all aspects of acquisition, distribution and marketing of music, harsh business principles create an exploitative industry that takes the best of what artists have to offer and leaves many of them unable to support themselves. Beginning in the 1950’s with payola and white cover music and ultimately evolving into iTunes and Spotify, the music industry has grown into a billion dollar industry with far-reaching influence and control. Contracts rarely serve the artists’ best interest and many are left out to dry when their usefulness has expired.

The internet is the one media that brings up the most controversy in bands spreading their music. Whether they promote it or not their music is downloaded for free on the internet. Most bands do not like that their music is downloaded for free, but they can’t do much to stop it. In a way downloading music for free could bring the musicians even more money. If a person likes one of the songs they downloaded off of the internet they may be inclined to buy the entire album or at least the single. After the person buys the latest album they may even buy earlier albums from the same artist if they like the music enough. The internet has

Introduction: Setting the trend for the future, the distribution and consumption of recorded music transformed dramatically with the launching of Apple’s iTunes in 2001. The proliferation of online music subscription services and other music sharing services exerted a great pressure on the conventional music distribution business model. Combined with this transformation, piracy of digital music had a profound impact on the whole industry. These worsening conditions in the market place for recorded music forced both established and upcoming new artists to experiment with new ways of selling their music.

There are several ways in which art is commercialized; especially within the music industry. Classic bands such as the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan were criticized for allowing companies to use their material to sell products and services. However, this is a common avenue for a musician or an artist to profit from their works. Many companies are willing to pay a hefty premium to have their products associated with music that has broad emotional appeal to many potential consumers. However, many people feel that when an artist licenses their material it is a loss of integrity and that something is lost by the commercialization of their songs.

The music industry much like every other industry has found ways to connect their product to the people through technology. Now music is readily available to the public through many avenues ITunes, YouTube, and so much more. As music has become more available to the public the industry now faces the threat of illegal downloading and sharing of music files. Many people will purchase an album through a download site and then either post it for free download to others or distribute it to their friends; while those who do this don’t usually face consequence does that make it right?

Music is an important part of life. Its role as a form of art and entertainment is a significant one but more important is that it serves to reflect and reinforce societal norms and values. It is not only used to entertain but also serves as a form of social commentary (Baran, 2009). For instance, the emergence of Rhythm and Blues (R&B) in America after the Second World War was a means of advancing the black race and it helped blur the line between white and black as more young white people became aware of the distinctions that existed in the society. The Hip-hop and rap of the 1980s and 1990s had almost the same effect, awakening in Black Americans a sense of

The evolution of the music industry follows the familiar pattern of digitization. Innovation began with the introduction of the vinyl record, transitioned from the cassette tape to the compact disc and landed us in an era of digital downloads. The emergence of music streaming services like Spotify has progressed the industry even further, giving consumers the ability to access music on demand using download-free online platforms. Spotify faces criticism from artists as a result of the overlap of creativity and commerce. They argue that business activities corrupt creativity, transforming it into a tool for profitability rather than an outlet for expression. Artists insist that Spotify deters album sales, favors established artists and fails to support them financially. However, Spotify was created for consumers. It delivers an accessible alternative to purchasing and downloading music. The interplay between creativity and commerce is changing the nature of the music industry. Spotify has adapted to this change, providing a platform that supports both artists and consumers. Through analysis of the market, artist’s revenue, record labels and consumers, I will argue that artists should accept the evolution of the industry and support Spotify.

There are types of music that can be downloaded on the computer. Napster, which can be downloaded at Napster.com, is a program that music can be found. The music is kept in a library and just a double click on the mouse lets one hear any song downloaded. These songs can be found with either the title or the artist of the song. I feel that Napster has a good thing going with the free music. However, I feel that it shouldn’t be completely be free. The artists of the music are loosing out on a lot of money. A solution to this problem could be that songs could not be downloaded to the Napster program until the record had made a certain amount of money. Although, right now Napster is in court trying to compromise on a decision that will make everyone who uses Napster, everyone who created Napster and the artist of music happy.