Lily Allen has a point? Or is she pointless (file sharing or stealing)
Good afternoon hope all is hopping wherever you are. I’m sure you may have read some of the controversy about Joe Strummer’s God Daughter Lily Allen in recent days. Lily has rarely been far from the headlines these last three years but this week it’s actually been interesting rather than just fun and provocative. The short version is Allen has been leading the outspoken dissent about file sharing and how it literally steals from artists. The popular bloggers position on Allen and the controversy is that she is showing nothing but greed and selfishness in her comments and therefore is not a proper artist. For a typical post read this piece and although it contains the following brilliant quote:
“They may have stolen The Clash’s sound, clothes and hair but, compared to Joe Strummer, Billie Joe Armstrong is as rebellious as Paddington Bear”
That said the rest of the post explains why today’s stars are pampered and victims. I’ll agree that on the high end of the spectrum there is a lack of fire and political nous, but 25 years ago it was Spandau Ballet and Culture Club. The more things change the more they stay they same. Indie/alternative/post punk had it’s heyday from 1978-1983 and though it would be nice to think the intervening years had a Clash, a Jam or The Redskins leading the way of rebellion – it’s simply not true. That’s not to say rebel music is dead – it’s just been marginalised by the establishment, be that TV, radio or the music press.
However, back to the point of Lily Allen. It might be a bit unpopular of me, but I see her point. This decade long (remember Napster wars?) debate about online access to music and file-sharing is still very unresolved. Those 
on the other side of the fence say ‘more people hear more music than ever before’ – I agree but they don’t then purchase it! They also say ‘small bands can compete on a level playing field’ again I agree but they sell fewer albums than ever before. Records shops are all but extinct, album sales are becoming almost laughable and a full appreciation of an artist’s catalogue is no longer the norm. I used to work in a record shop – everyone I worked with simply loved music. As did most of the customers. There are so many people now in their 20′s and 30′s who are fans of dozens of bands – and ‘own’ thousands of songs. The problem being is so many don’t pay for them. Is a 5,000 song collection that you just ‘took’ a sign of being a fan or being innovative? I understand the ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ argument.
I may hold musicians in too much reverence? I think an album is a work of art, I’m prepared to pay for that piece of art, even though I don’t have to. I can name 100 songs at random right now and find 90% of them online to listen to for free. If I wanted to download them I could do so without paying for at least 50%. I don’t because I think it’s taking money out of the band’s pocket. I know that the wrong percentage goes to the artist (just look at The Clash) but that is a battle that’s been going on for half a century. The rise of indie labels (remember Tony Wilson’s ‘contacts’ on Factory) has improved that. You can buy more albums direct from small labels and the band direct – so that’s an improvement. Bands tour more now than 15 years ago to increase awareness, generate concert revenue and sell CDs/merchandise.
I find myself straddling the fence to a degree, and I do think Billy Bragg was right when he said Capitalism is Killing Music. Though that had more to do with the fact he thought 8 quid was too much for an album in 1986 (and he was right). The digital age is bringing about the end of the album but it’s also via file sharing becoming the death of artist’s income. I don’t buy the argument that it’s just like a mix tape. It’s not….when I made friends mix tapes in the 80′s and 90′s they generally went out and bought the vinyl or CD. Today I think that happens on a much smaller scale, one of the reasons being with a digital copy you already have the music in as good quality as you would get via a downline purchase. The audio is good (though MP3 suffers when compared with CD – so many ignore that fact) and it’s 100% portable right away. That’s before you even tackle the illegal downloading from people who aren’t your friends. When I made a brilliant mix tape in 1985 it wasn’t online and accessible to 50% of the world’s population.
Of course this impacts the artist – and of course it’s an issue. Anyway for more on Allen and the featured artists coalition with the official statement read this. I guess it’s open to interpretation based on ‘what you do’ but the point is there are millions of people who never buy music and yet enjoy it daily. Then there is this from the lead singer of Muse.
Bearing in mind Carbon Silicon started as free download concept does this make it ironic that I feel the way I do? Or is it ironic that CSi then released a ‘traditional’ album – with another forthcoming shortly. Bottom line – the money I’ve spent on Clash records (and related) since I was a kid has brought me more joy than most other things I can think of. The only thing I’d change would be more of the proceeds going directly to the band.
OK…I’ll shut up now.
OUCH! You had to go and post that comment about Billie Joe? Guess he won’t be making the C.I.A. any time soon.
Interesting piece, but I can’t say that I agree with Ms. Allen completely. I’m naive when it comes to these things, but I guess I believe if the artist wants to put it out there for free, then so be it. How do you control the fact that musicians who don’t want it out there for free have to contend with it anyway? I don’t know. But I support artists (obviously) like CSi and applaud their efforts and the unwavering commitment to VFM on Mick’s behalf. (Value for Money going back to the Clash days).
And I am of the breed who loves to linger in record stores (work in one myself and love to chitchat with other Clash fans; can’t do that when you’re downloading home alone…)I love to pore over liner notes, over and over again. And I believe in the album as an artform and do believe it is going by the wayside at the convenience of the ipod. I see what it is doing to the record business. Our store has downsized music product substantially over the past year due to lack of sales. And yet there are people out there who will refuse to cave in and go the way of the download, so in the end somebody (or many somebodies) will suffer.
As for Billie Joe and Joe Strummer — what is the purpose of comparing them? I find it insulting as both a fan of Joe AND of Billie Joe! Is Joe constantly being compared to Dylan? Would that be fair? Billie Joe Armstrong is a musician who was obviously influenced heavily by punk rockers like Joe Strummer, but that doesn’t automatically mean he has to carry Joe’s burden (who could, for that matter?). Billie Joe has his own burden to carry, and I agree his songs are definitely more self-centered than Joe’s…but itsn’t that a sign of his generation (“my generation is zero”), rather than of his work ethic? I am tired of Green Day being made the example. I find it ridiculous that a person cannot find “any” meaning in their lyrics. But I won’t go on and on. To each his own. I personally find Green Day’s music satisfying and exciting and their July NY show was inspiring, thrilling and energizing. I would never have the heart to compare ANY band to the Clash and I won’t. Green Day can stand on their own as a live band…I’ve seen hundreds and very few leave you with the heart-pounding euphoria that I got from Green Day. OK I’ll go away now…
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Merrick. Tim Merrick said: London Calling: Lily Allen has a point? Or is she pointless (file sharing or stealing) http://bit.ly/1dFi7 [...]
I don’t know enough about Green Day to have an opinion….I just thought the quote was really funny.
Ah, Matt Bellamy. Although I understand his argument, I can’t say I agree with it. But I disagreed with Lily even more.
I accept the mixtape argument because I can see how it’s file sharing. Files were shared, and usually without payment. That’s infringement. Before it was on cassette, now it’s digital. It’s been done for years, and I don’t think it’ll ever stop. Everyone has done it, and I think that’s where Lily missed the boat – to come out so against it and then realize her own transgressions.
Hey ~ the mixtape though was so much more harmless. My tapes I made for friends didn’t hit the public domain. If I bought an album the week it came out and taped it – there was no (logical) way that 15,000 could have copies of my library in the first 48 hours.
I think Lily is a kid with a taste for dramatic headlines – but I don’t think it makes her wrong on this one…
T
Tim, I have to agree. I made many compilation tapes for myself, but they were made from the already purchased albums, which could be considered the ‘source material’. Cassette was more convenient for me as no one has invented the portable turntable sound system… The analogy with today’s digital reproduction would be for me to clone/produce/bootleg 15,000 vinyl albums and give them away for free, thereby depriving the artist of sales.
The point Lily makes is that new artists will struggle when they haven’t got a huge back catalogue to sell (again) Today’s digital technology allows an exact copy to be made and distributed worldwide. As far as I know none of my mix tapes ever made it out of my immediate physical neighbourhood ! Also, there seems to be a culture of ‘copyright theft’, which is what it is, isn’t really theft.
COPYRIGHT THEFT IS THEFT !!
I’m a photographer and to some extent suffer from the same problem due to digital technology. My images can be reproduced perfectly ad infinitum….or printed badly on a your own cheap inkjet printer if that’s your thing. If someone prints one of my images without permission, rather than buying a proper photographic print online – very good value too – then it deprives the originator/creator/copyright holder, ie ME, of income.
Personally, I find the MP3 compression horrendous – just like heavy jpeg compression on images. Listen side by side to the CD through my hi-fi and even my young girls can tell the difference. View some of my images on my large screen at high resolution and compare them to heavily compressed illegal downloads from the www. No comparison.
The ‘yoof’ seem to have settled for low quality/high quantity/free or illegal nowadays. It’s not apparent now, but I think if you look back in twenty years time and you will see that the ‘talent’ will not have been nurtured and encouraged, rarely producing more than one, perhaps two albums. There will be no large back catalogues to sell – again……
As much as I love Mick ‘n’ Tony and the Carbon/Silicon ethos of MP Free, I have to say that they are both in a very privileged position – through their own previous brilliant creative endeavours I should add – that they can afford to hold this position. I bought their CDs anyway !
Personally, I think Lily is correct and only time will tell.
So nice to hear you agree about MP3 sound quality…it’s pretty poor isn’t it….!
Tim,
It’s official MP3 compression – it’s awful. The big problem is the prevalent listening devices which are used nowadays. The ubiquitous iPod has pretty poor headphones if truth be known. My middle daughter, now eight, demands my Sennheiser HD570s. They’re not particularly expensive, but sound so much better….I used to own some very pricey AKG studio headphones which were stolen many years ago.
All our musical heroes have gone to such trouble to create that perfect sound. Damn it, Bill Price must shed tears into his beer every night knowing most people will never hear properly what he’s tried to achieve in his engineering and production. Listen to ‘The Producers – Mick Jones*’ and realise what goes into proper music production.
For me MP3 is like listening to the gig, whilst standing on the street outside the venue. I want to be standing behind the mixing desk inside the venue….I’m not a hi-fi anorak, I hope, but folks PLEASE listen to your music on something decent.
* Tim, please e-mail me a snail-mail address and I’ll post it to you. It’s an hour long MPEG-4 Audio file which is round about 55Mb. Originally it was broadcast on BBC Radio 2 on 26th May 2008. Bloggers here will love it. I couldn’t find it on YouTube…
I have to agree that copyright theft is theft. My issue with Lily was her campaign to punish fans when she herself was guilty of it. That’s my issue with any argument that softens it up in one arena (mixtapes) but criminalizes it in another (digital). Just because it was lesser dissemination doesn’t change the fact that a file was still shared illegally. The law is being broken, and by that logic, we’ve all committed theft. And I would have a problem lobbying a campaign against people who break a law that I’ve done so myself. For that, Lily’s intent was good – but execution left more to be desired. It’s like me lobbying to aggressively punish speeding drivers – even though I’ve done it and will likely do it again. However, I am totally against serial widespread file sharing, and THAT is definitely a problem that needs to be tackled. Limited file sharing is not the problem. Massive file sharing is.
C