The Cure's Robert Smith Continues To Claim Free Doesn't Work
from the um.-but-it-does? dept
We recently pointed out the statements made by The Cure's Robert Smith, insisting that business models involving giving away music for free, such as the one used by Radiohead, couldn't work. This seemed rather odd, given that not only did it work fantastically well for Radiohead, we've been seeing it work for a lot of different bands for many years. So, to claim that it simply can't work was blatantly false and easily proven as wrong. Given that... you might think Robert Smith would recognize the fallacy of his logic, admit he was wrong and maybe learn a little. Or not...An anonymous reader points us to Smith's blog post in response to the criticism of his statements where he digs in to repeat the original, easily proven as false, claim and calls those who disagree with him "cretins." Or, rather, "CRETINS" since he uses the CAPS LOCK button to full effect (though, appears to have a faulty space bar at times). Oddly, to get around the fact that the model did, in fact, work for Radiohead, he pretends he didn't say that it couldn't work for Radiohead (though, that's exactly what he did say), but claims he actually meant that it couldn't work for everyone else. Then he brushes off Radiohead's success by noting:
ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS... INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSSLEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'Masnick's law, anyone? Even that statement is somewhat self-contradictory. If the band is "famous" with a "huge and devoted fan base" then... um... why do they need to "build the brand"?
And, then, of course, he falls into that old fallacy that we see way too often:
IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?It really does amaze me how people's brains seem to stop as soon as "free" enters the picture. But, once again, for you first timers, just because you give one thing away for free, it does not mean you give everything away for free, and thus you earn your living selling those other things. But, of course, apparently anyone who uses logic and understands actual business models doesn't count:
AND QUITE HONESTLYFair enough. But when plenty of actual artists are understanding this and making plenty of money in doing so, it seems rather silly to ignore the points they're making, doesn't it. Or... wait, is Radiohead not an artist? And, then, there's the final sign off:
AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT
IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST
I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!
I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUTTHERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?Well, I don't get paid anything specifically to write this blog. But I do get paid, in part thanks to giving away all this content for free. Just as Smith could get paid by embracing a business model where he gives his music away for free...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, free, music, radiohead, robert smith, the cure
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
$0.00
[ link to this | view in thread ]
considering who he's insulting...
Wait, nevermind. He's an "artist". He's turned off his logical thinking process in favor of the creative side.
He may never understand why he's in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The point I think he wants to make...
Now, I'm not saying any of this. I believe that it can work, but with a totally different way of how people approach music, which is occurring. But I can see his fear that "chaos" would ensue....and it will, but that's a good thing. But many people don't want to change, so that's why they resist things as much as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
especially when the current sytem has worked pretty well for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's not my problem, it's yours. If you manage to find a satisfactory answer to it, great for you. If not, too bad. Society does not owe you to make a living off your music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The point I think he wants to make...
But aspects of those successful business models -- including giving music away for free -- should at least be considered and debated by an artist before being considered too damaging to their own personal model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The point I think he wants to make...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps another way to look at it
The open source folks seem to understand, by using the phrases "free as in beer" or "free as in speech". These convey a more specific definition of "free" or sometimes of "freedom". I think that there are many in our culture that confuse "price" with "value". These terms are NEVER interchangable. You can get manure for a certain price, and that price is a function of the value of the manure, the demand for this particular manure, economic conditions, and the parties that are exchanging the manure. Joe gives me some manure for my garden for "free". That means that I don't need to exchange small shiny rocks for this manure! That does not mean that the manure has no value! I get pretty roses, and my neighbor gets my undying devotion and first dibs on the dowry being accumulated for my two year old (many years hence). Let's take this manure to the radio. (Durn! That idea's already taken...) Radio provides a band exposure to a receptive (pre-selected) audience. It provides a community of fans, and buzz about new releases. All valuable commodities. It's not a "Loss Leader", it's an exchange of value. The only difference is that the currency does not resemble small shiny rocks. The currency is mind-share, attention (increasingly valuable today!), and devotion. Question: How much has Metallica's stupidity cost them? They could probably try to quantify it in numbers of shiny rocks.
These facts are all dropped into a cultural bag and shaken handily. In day of old, when knights were bold.... Artists would give away their "ART FOR FREE" (geez..is it that hard to find the CAPS LOCK?) and derived the value of living in a warm castle. Three hots and a cot so to speak. Does that have no value? The problem, all told, are small-minded folks who arn't able to estimate the REAL value of freedom. That's OK I guess. TRex and Flock of Seagulls have outlived their usefulness as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Be careful Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The point I think he wants to make...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where does this idea that someone is entitled to make a living doing whatever they want come from? It's as if these 'artists' honestly believe that if all music were distributed freely, there would be no new music.
"AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART"
Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selling_out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The story isn't about...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In defense of Robert Smith...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The story isn't about...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No free ride
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No free ride
Meanwhile, the world moves on, and that artist has a choice. Adapt or die. That's the only choice being given.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What???
That is your response? Accusing me of crying? Could you maybe address some of the points that were made? I never said you could not say what you want; this is a free country. What I said was it is not your business how someone else decides to live their life and make their living. Grow up folks; turn off the Michael Moore/Loose Change DVDs, put away your Rage Against the Machine MP3s, you are late for your 9-11 Truth meeting comrade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Behold that Which is English
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No free ride by some old guy - Mar 9th, 2009 @ 1:13p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ranting and raving (what it appears Smith is doing) is not a likely means to make money and, as was said above, potentially alienating to those who might have been interested in trading money for his art, its derivatives, or associated products and services.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Most Useless Argument
"Cure music sux anyway"
"Is he even good enough to be called an 'artist'"
"When was their latest hit"
"Their music isn't worth anything anyway"
...branch of witticisms. If that's the best repartee you can muster, keep it to yourself and keep trying. Music is, as always, a matter of taste. If you make music, some will like it, some will hate it, and most will be indifferent.
Arguing whether an artist's music is "good" or not is futile on a board with *that* as the discussion's purpose. On a board where the purpose is to discuss business models, your opinions of the quality of the music are entirely irrelevant, and to air them as if it matters makes one appear petty or stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No free ride by some old guy - Mar 9th, 2009 @ 1:13p
It seems to me that the artists and execs have a simple choice.
1. Point at the iceberg in front of them, scream "That iceberg isn't fair", and then sink to the botom of the ocean, or
2. Throw a lasso around the iceberg, haul it back to the nation of Musicland, and claim the land as their own, thereby making money off of it.
I don't know enough about the industry to detail how they can/should accomplish this, nor should I have to. These people are atop their industry ostensibly because they have a modicum of intelligence. If they focused on innovating and lassoing the iceberg, they would.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No free ride
And in the case of Robert Smith, this can be taken quite literally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No free ride
First of all, not a communist. I'm curious how is it "communist" to suggest that the free market should decide the business model, not a gov't backed monopoly system?
except the freedom and choice of the artist to choose which business model he wants.
Everyone has the freedom to choose their business model, but they don't get to choose which business model works. The market does that. We've never said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you suggest we have. All we're saying is that Smith is wrong. First he's wrong about free not working -- it does, clearly. Second, he's wrong about insisting that people always will pay for his music.
The other thing I notice in comments from open source folks is their general disdain for what they call the "rich";
I have no such disdain. But I think what you're referring to are perhaps comments from others who have disdain not for the rich -- but for the rich who whine about how the market no longer supports the old business model they used to use.
However if an artist chooses the opposite model; that too is not only his right, but none of anyone else's business.
Actually, it is very much the market's business. And we are quite free to tell him that he's making a mistake.
Or did we do away with free speech in your fantasy world as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No free ride
Michael,
You seem unsatisfied with the responses to your comment thus far, in that they didn't argue your points. So here goes:
Sure, Smith is free to choose the business model he wants, but here are three reasons Techdirt derides him:
1) His machinations seem out of touch, alienate his fans, and his potential market. That's not good for business. Techdirt has referred repeatedly to bands that lost market value lost in 'good will' with such rants, like Metallica.
2) No matter what the freedom-wielding artist chooses as his business model, if that choice is wrong, or against economic principles, he will probably fail. Sure, he is free to choose to charge, and ignore "free", but if he were better at math, he would see that free is just a number. If he were better at econ, he would see that free IS the marginal cost of production and thus the price in a competitive market. If he were better at business, he would see that there are plentiful, profitable models that can earn him a living off his old, prior work...if he is just willing to adapt now, and do a little "creative" thinking. Is he an "artist" but not creative enough to adapt? BTW, Techdirt is as much advising him on his best strategy as we are chiding him on his silly remarks. He has the right to fail to adapt, but we're telling him what the best move is for him. We're not a bunch of kids who want free music here, we're business experts offering insightful advice on running a business in the current century.
3) Free as he is to choose his business model, if he chooses one which locks down his music with DRM, and charges a high rate for his songs, he will largely fail. He will fail, because of the unstoppable reality that the music WILL be unlocked, it WILL be copied, and it WILL be available to anyone at the price of free. The question is: does Smith want to be the one to offer that valuable music at the market rate ($0), or does he want to let someone else do it? If he offers it, he can tie it into some scarce goods for which he can charge through promotions, placement, and buzz. If he doesn't offer it, he is out of the loop. And BTW, the limewire kids and pirates will happily take advantage of the economic fact that I stressed above, MC=0. By recognizing that fact, they can out "compete" any model Smith proposes that doesn't also recognize it.
Smith CAN compete with free. He can even do it using 80's music. But he can't do it by using 1980s thinking.
Mr. Wells, you also cite "general disdain for the rich", whom you call "productive" in the comments. That's hardly a debate I want to get into here, and probably one in which we agree more than not. However, the comments I read on that issue seem more to suggest, "In times when change is needed, if you have an older, very successful man at the latter stages of his productive career, who has made his wealth within a certain system -- just what incentive does that man have to change the system?" I don't see the un-warranted disdain. Just the recognition that these wealthy gents should not be expected to be the engines of change, but rather the barriers to it. And that stands whether the proposed change is for the net social better, or not. Jeez. Go to any contest and ask the winners if they think the rules should be changed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lonely man on the side of copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The story isn't about...
Using the term "rich old guy" or naming the last U.S. Pres probably wasn't the best idea to get his point across, but that doesn't mean you're awarded a "get out of using my reading comprehension skills free" card.
But just in case you're still a little fuzzy on it I'll spell it out for you: the many (but not all) established players in the industry don't want the rules of the game to change because it will mean they'll actually have to put an effort into making a living again. This is why Rob Smith is so up in arms about the idea of using music as a free promotional product for other business models, because it means that he'll actually have to WORK again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free is only a threat to the establishment
The upshot of all of this is that in the 2 years between me listening to a podcast featuring a band of whom I had never heard and this band releasing their first studio album I spent approx £100, which is a pittance. But on the otherhand I am now very likely to be a fan for life, on the elitist grounds that "I saw them play in a pub, before they were famous." And I'm not alone - in the card inset of the album, there is a list of several hundred people who donated - not bought, donated - to the production of the album. That kind of grassroots involvement is inspirational.
My point, finally(!), is that giving away what you produce for nothing is only acceptable to those who won't lose by it. For people like Mr the Cure - who have become so dependent on being paid simply for being who and what they are - free is of course a threat, as implies that those giving away their product have nothing to lose thereby because their business model allows for a product with no direct revenue, and is therefor better situated to take advantages of the space around the incumbent's business. Which in the climate the recording industry would try to convince us is "natural" is the space into which the current crop of artists must expand.
This has turned into a rant. I'll close with an advert (not paid for, but if you want to know the band I'm talking about (the podcast, sadly, ended)): it was Amplifico - "The Comedy Stops Here" was the genesis of this post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Full o' Beans!
Also, he’s stuck on himself…”Masnick’s Law”—seriously, dude, you’re a blogger. Get over yourself.
Shit he doesn’t even apply his own law correctly! Masnick defines Masnick’s Law as someone who asserts that success of a band on a small scale could not work on a large scale and at the same time asserts that success on a large scale couldn’t work on a small scale. The point in the blog he’s trying to apply to it is in reference to a big band that can afford to take some expensive promotional liberties because they’re well-funded. That’s something different entirely.
The notion that bands and production companies could profit as much or more than in the traditional business model of selling the right to own a copy of music is at best hopeful. What else would they make their money on? If you’d own a copy of a track, it’s not like they’ll make any ad revenue. The only thing left in which to make up the difference is t-shirts, concert sales and other band paraphernalia. Personally, I don’t see myself buying a new shirt or some other band-related good that produces as much profit for the artist & management company for every album I “adopt”.
This would be nice, but I don’t think it would work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lonely man on the side of copyright
Second, no artist ever starts off doing tours because of record sales. They start off as with most professions: start small and work their way up. Typically musicians start off touring, doing small live gigs. When they have enough experience and exposure, they create a demo tape and dog-n-pony it around.
To think that recorded music sales is the end-all and be-all of musicians is to COMPLETELY misunderstand what the majority of the music industry is about. The overwhelming majority of musicians make very little from what deals they have with recording labels. They make their money from live gigs and other revenue streams that are increased specifically because of the promotion done by the record labels.
If that promotion was instead done by the internet and the FREE distribution of their recorded music (instead of the pittance the labels provide them), that would be an investment well spent, would you not agree?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think some artists are too close to their art to properly value it. This is why they have business managers. Taking a chance and being innovative is rare, so we really should not be surprise that most artists who made their name in the music business in the last 50 years are not going readily accept the changes necessary to survive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DUMB ASS! Nice going
Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $0.00
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Far better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Most Useless Argument
No, simply because usually the opinion about someones music is a reflection of our opinion about him as a person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who the fuck is The Cure ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No free ride
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No free ride
Um...the "big secret Techdirt business model" is advertised right on the site, and at the Insight Community page. Maybe try researching a little before posting ignorant comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Perhaps another way to look at it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The story isn't about...
We're talking about the same Robert Smith that plays four hour long sets, with half hour long encores, right? He does it continuously while touring. The man has been touring non-stop since the band was born.
I don't mind that people can disagree with his stance. I think he's a bit off, too, since he basically forced iTunes to give some songs away for free over a mix-up a while back. But to say they haven't had any hits lately, or never been good, or even that he doesn't "WORK" is a bit off the deep end. They have been releasing new albums like clockwork, and are STILL breaking the top 10 charts both here in the USA and in Europe. His talents can stand on his own, even if his ideas over other things may be suspect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lonely man on the side of copyright
Your favorite artists have made a decision about how you should get their music. If they decide to distribute it via a label, as a CD, etc. then as a fan you owe it to them to respect that. If you can't, then there are thousands of hungry artists out there that will appreciate a PayPal donation for their art, and thousands of others who are happy to give theirs to you for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I see where he's coming from...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No free ride
As Dan pointed out, our model is quite clear. You can read about it at http://www.floor64.com or http://www.insightcommunity.com. There's no secret. We've revealed it! Hell, I wish we could reveal it MORE because sometimes I feel too many people have no clue how to give us money. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I see where he's coming from...
Now that is a novel argument. The guy is complaining about music being free and wanting to charge... and HE'S the one not wanting to be crassly commercial?
I don't buy it.
Some of these Music 2.0 solutions, like the tiered buying options, are really just crass commercialism.
Really? Look at how fans have reacted to those offerings from other artists. It's the opposite of crass commercialism. It makes fans feels much closer to the band in a way that makes everyone comfortable.
Crass commercialism is putting a huge tollbooth between you and the music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gosh, where was his producer when he wrote that crap?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The story isn't about...
Once a recording artist has royalty streams stabilized (The Cure has long sold enough records to receive regular royalties from their record companies), that recording artist of course wants that stream to stay flowing. Can you honestly blame him?
As a royalty-receiving recording artist, I have to say I agree with Mr. Smith to a point. I enjoy getting my BMI checks quarterly and my (minimal) royalty accounting on sales every six months. Art is great for the sake of it, but commerce is important as well.
After all, don't you enjoy being paid for your work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who should I trust here? Robert Smith with his EXPERIENCE and personal knowledge of the music industry...or would you prefer to trust Mr.Masnick? The spectator, the blogger, the guy who sits safely on the sidelines and speculates about what artists should do. PLEASE, do not read into this shit. It's sickening that people are actually reading this stuff and accepting it as some kind of 'authority'.
Speculation and guess work. That's all folks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We are social beings and are influenced by what is played on the radio. Unfortunately most radio is controlled by a company called Radio One. In the past their where many more owners of radio stations all over the country. This created a lot more opportunity for independent play of music that might otherwise never had been played on the airwaves. As a result of many of these various factors their was a lot more creative music put out during this time.
This is the dark ages of music in a lot of ways. Most of the artists now quite honestly aren't very good and are producing cookie cutter crap that won't be listened to in a years time much less decades from now. If you listen to a good album from The Cure, (I agree that their latest work isn't very good) you'll be amazed at how well written and well recorded they are. Check out, Starring at the Sea (Singles collection) and my personal favorite album, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me.
I'll stop typing for now. There's more I could say on the subject but don't feel like typing anymore!
bcgood
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How the hell does that mean a free system works?
Can you flat out say, a new upstart musician, can give away his music for free, and still have the money required to hire equipment and studio time and play and record music? You obviously aren't familiar with the way it works. People don't want free music, because then they think of it, as free music. They'd much rather steal it so they think they have something of value.
The fuck is wrong with you. Trent Reznor and Thom Yorke are fine to give away shit for free. They get enough money from apple marketing and global warming alarmist bullshit. Oh and they're pumped out music.
Robert merely stated, that a free music model, won't work, for anyone who hasn't got the money to do so already. It's as plain and simple as that. All this politically correct bullshit about the words he didn't mention. Please, he was talking about Radiohead, they're a big band. It has nothing to do with Roberts personal music or business models.
I think you'll find that Mr Smith himself is quite opposed to the tyrannical system of governing powers we have in place. He's not some corporate machine thing.
Also, the idiot comments like "how can he expect to be paid for making music what a douche"
Honestly, you go paint a picture, spend time on it, pour energy into it. Then let some guy steal it. I'm sure you'd be fine with it, wouldn't you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robert smith free music
Its all about the choice but the market trend is set by the leeders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the cure are the fucking best!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free goose choops
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Radiohead?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]