To share or not to share, that is the question... Downloading Free Reggae

[Javier]

Greetings, I just wanted to pose this question, what do you think about the free sharing of (Reggae) music?
Of course, this question may go to all kinds of music, but in the case of reggae there's a bunch of music not available anymore, only through vynils rips and the like, and in my case, i live in Chile (South America) and here there is no reggae distribution, zero, only Bob Marley reissues and that's it, so for me, free downloading it's the only way to be in touch not only with long-deleted albums but also the new stuff i like. I barely make for a living, and to order cd's from an internet store it's impossible for me, i'd have to save like three months to order one cd that will cost me three times what it costs in Europe or North America, and through free downloading, I can get like 5 albums a day.
I agree with those who say that we should support artists buying their music but what about those that don't have the opportunity to do so? I still feel supporting musicians by listening their albums, and if there were any distribution in my country I will definitely buy originals... I make this question in the wake of free-reggae-sharing blogs...

Check:
www.youandmeonajamboree.blogspot.com
just to start...

Keep it cool! Opinions?

[collu]

I have seen people with hundreds of gigs of reggae online,even a terabyte.I wonder if they have even listened to it all.

BTW ernie b is cheap enough online mail order.

[jamie]

ive seen this question on this forum many many times

its already been argued.. shouldnt this question should be deleted?

[leggo rocker]

Rather than delete it, why not post a link to the original discussion.

Surely it's a more positive thing to do than deleting this guy.


here...

http://www.roots-archives.com/forum/rea ... 399,page=1

...is one such post that touches this subject.

[Lion]

Jamie you can download it the legal way.
Buy the tracks from musicwebsite.

Lion

[wareika]

Just a bit ironic:

Please explain me why an artist has to earn money from his recording session?

The question is shocking. I agree. Nevertheless, this situation, with artists earning money from recording is not a standard in the history of music. It's a situation that appeared after WWII with the mass consumption. A typical European / North American mass consumption economic model. And as Europeans (most of us are Europeans) we believe the wole world follow the same model. And if somewhere an artist does not earn money from his record sales, it's simply because the country he live in is wrong. The truth is that this "mass consumption economic model" is specific to Europe and North America (at least at large scale) and most of us can't think the model is wrong (or at least not a general model). Most of Third World don't earn a $ from recorded music. Only few Third World star earn money from LP and CDs. Does this situation killed the music in these countries? Jamaica tend to prove the answer is NO.

If we look at the recorded music industry, we see clearly that this was not the aim for recorded music. Actually, artists earned money from the stage show. When the recorded music appeared they were produced to promote the artists and they didn't earn money from the sales. It is only from the 70's to 2000 that artists get paid for record... Moreover this system only work in Europe and North America. 30 it's nothing compared to the musical history, even to the modern musical history.

The point is that the industry make us believe that the only way to develop music is to buy CDs and LPs. Big joke in fact. They only try to save the system that created the big majors which control 90% of the music incomes.

Moreover they prepare the transition from this "mass consumption model" to another one. For instance, Universal bought L'Olympia in paris which is THE mythic concert place in France. The idea is to promote the Universal artist (with shows @ L'Olympia) in order to atract people to other show. Once an artist chant at L'Olympia he have a kind of high quality label...

For reggae music, it's the same joke. From start to finish, the reggae artists were paid peanuts for the tunes they record. But they still work with producers that pay close to nothing for several reasons. Having a lot of records on the market allow them to earn big money thanks to the notority. For instance artists were paid for live show, for sound system sessions and (nowadays for dubplates). Sound sytems paid a lot the artist that appeared during the night. They paid so much money that Stone Love replaced live artists by dubplate in the early 90's cause it was far cheaper. Of course a deal with an European reggae major (Island, Virgin, Greensleeves, VP...) was a must as they entered the "mass consumption system".

Last but not least, if you expect to give money for the artist when you buy reissue you are wrong. I know a label owner and I discussed this point several time. The label is "honnest" for sure and not far, in term of paiment given to the artists, from Blood & Fire which established the "correct reggae reissue business". When you know how much an artist get paid for some tunes on a comp, you just can't believe it. Peanuts! Of course it's always more than nothing. The producer still received the most important part of the money... And I'm not speacking about Trojan which pay nothing.

BTW in the reggae industry the only persons who earn money from recording are the musicians. Actually having a good riddim is the core of a good tune. So, the producer pay sometime a lot the musicians, espacially compared to the vocalists. For instance Sly & Robbie were paid around £30 for a tune back in the late 70's. £30 a tune, is a lot of money in jamaica (and even in UK) back in the days, esp if you multiply it by 5 or 10 tunes a day. There is a specific chapter on this subject (reggae music industry / artist earnings) on the Sebastian Clarkes' book from circa 80/81.

wareika

PS sorry for the bad English

[leggo rocker]

I like that reply by Wareika.

It takes a look behind the capatilist smoke screen bullsh*t that the big fat record execs hide behind.

Even this later 'pay for records' model he talks about has only ever rewarded a TINY percentage of recording artists - with those few getting a stupidly distorted percentage of the already meagre) cut the record execs allow for the artists (as opposed the themselves, their shareholders, the producers, the agents, the publicists and other hanging on monkeys with no real artistic input into the musical process).

And this commercial model is exactly why 99.999% of all music available on commercial labels is absolute dross (trash, crap, choose your own word). Because money and mass appeal have overtaken artistic expression.

And he's right about Sly and Robbie's £30 being a useful amount in the 70s. I went to work in a job in 1976 at the age of 16 and earned £18 UK pound per WEEK (and that was before the tax man rob me of another 35%).

It isn't just music, it's the whole world.

Big pay for the fat cat - small pay (or no pay) for the originator and the people doing the hard work.

Maybe it is time for Revolution Time...

[Jah Chicken]

Ites Brethrens,
It's a difficult question to answer. I have obtained some very nice sound samples this way and, in some cases, have gone on to obtain the original LP, 12", 7", or whatever.
I say, for out-of-print material.. Definitely it is ok to share! For low-quality MP3 rips.. Share them too! For readily available, recently-released, full-quality, material buy a copy from the store.
For instance.. If you know that your grocery store has been paying the farmer an unfair amount for their produce.. do you walk out of the store with a bag full of apples without paying? I know that this doesn't apply in all situations (maybe not any at all) of music trading, but it is a comparison that I battle with in my head from time to time.
Thanks to Wareika for sharing your recording industry knowledge.

Roots,
Jah Chicken

[leggo rocker]

"If you know that your grocery store has been paying the farmer an unfair amount for their produce.. do you walk out of the store with a bag full of apples without paying?"

I like that comparison Jah Chicken, it adds clarity to this arguement - thanks for that.

[Slims]

I would have to say i have not heard much independant music from "third world"(wich is a western term) mainly because how could i?Nobody has made lps of it and shipped them around the world.
For us today yes the internet can overcome those obstacles for free but in the past,no way.We get to D/L the out of print most obscure reggae,wich is great but the only reason we have that oppurtunity is because lps were made of it by someone hoping to make money at one time.If that person/s thought at the time they couldnt make money it never would have been made.That isnt true for all music ,but most of it.
So i finilize by saying buying is a good thing,just stay out of Mcdonalds.