A link, for your consideration. It's rather long, so I've quoted an area of particular focus below.
Trichordist: Letter to Emily White
"The existential questions that your generation gets to answer are these:
Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself?
Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself?
Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?"
Probably not.
Well, I guess the sad truth is we pay for those things because we don't know how to not pay for them. Music can be made intangible, digital, and thus easily distributed. The music player we keep in our pockets...not quite so intangible. Aside from that, I find some level of value in the notion that we should, by default, be encouraged to spread wealth to independents and smaller companies since we are essentially forced to give it to already-rich behemoths.
Perhaps that sounds strange, but when we pirate music (where payment is perceived as optional) in reaction to money we're practically (and often literally) under contract to extinguish I imagine a sort of imbalance would be created. Robbing from the poor to give to the rich, in a way. For most of us the idea of deleting piracy entirely from our lives probably sounds a bit extreme, but for the sake of good health for the industry I hope we all at least consider the financial conditions of individual artists.
Not all music we listen to goes AAA Super Platinum in sales. Throw some bones their way.
That's more like it.
Thoughts and comments always welcome!


