Despite Bono’s views having valid points (hey, I’d like to be paid too), it smacks slightly of arrogance - “Music has become tap water, a utility, where for me it’s a sacred thing, so I’m a little offended.” Maybe to Bono his music is a sacred thing but that doesn’t mean that his music is sacred for everyone. Remember, no one ever asked you to become a musician. Writing and playing for people is a privilege, and if they want to reward you for it, great, but that shouldn’t be why you do it.

It saddens me that musicians are still looking to resort to legal avenues - basically attacking their audience - in order to defend outdated methods of music distribution and consumption. Digital musical tracks are worthless. Simple laws of supply and demand and scarcity are at work here, and crying about how you spent years crafting your song doesn’t necessarily make it any more valuable. Why should the public care, especially if you are a new musician and an unknown quantity? They have their own problems.

You create the music, the consumer decides what value it has in their life and how much they want to pay for it. If it’s too expensive - and obviously for some people 99 cents is too expensive - then they won’t buy it.

However, if you encourage people to share your music - if you get on board with the ways that people want to consume and listen to music - then eventually they are going to want to make an economic connection with you. This could be through merchandise, buying physical albums, live shows, personal appearances, whatever.

There are many independent artists out there tapping into this idea already and making a pretty decent living out of it. Not Bono-sized rich, by any means, but a proper living wage.

We are about to enter an age where the quantity and variety of music out there is greater than it ever has been, and this is amazing ESPECIALLY for independent musicians. The wealth is going to be shared out more reasonably and more evenly than it is at the moment (hundreds of struggling artists with nothing and a few millionaire rock stars) which is going to make it a less appealing career for those in it for the money and fame and more appealing for those who want to create new and exciting music.

It also means that the choice and access to music is greater than it ever has been. What this means is that if you bitch and moan whilst suing your audience, then they’re going to go elsewhere.

Things are changing and you can either change with it or get stuck in the past, like Bono and Lars Ulrich. And if you’re in music to get rich, then there’s the door. See you later.

I’d recommend checking out http://www.newmusicstrategies.com to see how amazing an opportunity this is for new music this revolution is.

Nader, you are so right about the difficulties some have in perceiving this issue the way a creator does. For those of us who have earned a living (in my case meager) off of producing creative works, we obviously have a different perspective than someone who just likes listening to music. And can I just say that your breakdown of U2’s periods is incredible. I would just add that I didn’t really care for their Berlin period too much (although I fall in with popular culture in loving “One” on Achtung Baby) and I think I differ somewhat on your take of the current period as best. As someone whose songwriting has been, at best, pedestrian, I can only criticize so much, but I find some of their stuff now is a bit derivative. For raw energy I like their Boy/War period, but I think they hit their peak with Rattle and Hum, at least that’s my personal fave.

Kathleen, you and Nader speak to the struggling but optimistic songwriter, and those with an understanding of what copyright means to them (very high relative to other creative fields) often join our one voi(c)e campaign, which you can now do for no charge. As a music lawyer, you have seen that no legal system is without its flaws. That’s why I focus on creators’ rights and leave litigation to others!

Clark, thank you so much for your kind post. I can tell you that the Canards posts, both in blog form and in our combined paper, have been read and downloaded online thousands of times, and many people have told me how they have forwarded them to friends and colleagues. They prove very popular as handouts at the creators’ shows we attend, and they’ve also circulated through dozens of congressional offices. It’s all a little surprising, really, since the series stemmed from a list of frustrations I was working through in my head one morning while getting ready for work, but in reality it was just a way of grouping together arguments I make over and over that don’t seem to register! Thanks for your support, and I hope you do become a filthy rich rock star someday.

Anyway, Patrick, as always, well said. If more people could grasp the concept of creativity then artists & audience would both benefit. As you explained so well, both here & in your “part 3″ post, music by any given artist will not necessarily satisfy all audiences, therefore each artist is unique in what they are “worth” in the marketplace. If this were not true, why would shows such as “American Idol” & “America’s Got Talent” even exist? Would even the most tone-deaf listener be just as happy listening to William Hung as David Cook? Or would they be ok with a steady diet of Alissa Hoover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MoEsz42fnw) instead of Carrie Underwood? I think not! (Just for the record, I listen to none of these artists. I spend my music money on artists that might be considered “underground” or “niche” or “non-mainstream.” They REALLY need the income, & generally I like the music more.)

And when someone tells me there is no cost in reproducing music, I like to point out that when you buy my CD or one of my tracks form iTunes etc, I am NOT being paid for RE-producing the composition, I am be paid for PRODUCING the music. And let’s see you do that without cost. Sure, you could get away with a crappy software studio on a $300 PC, but it still cost you $300. And without the years of lessons & practicing, good instruments, and all the high-end gear bands like U2 use, it will sound like it was produced on a crappy $300 rig, and then -well, you’re back to William Hung. Who do YOU want to hear? Bono? Or William Hung?

I wish I could get every music buyer out there to read your posts, Patrick. Especially your 5 part series. Of course, getting them to read it is one thing; grasping & internalizing is another. Anyway, thanks for standing up for guys like me. I will undoubtedly never be a “filthy rich rock star” but it would sure be nice to pay my bills & do so though entertaining my fans with new music on an ongoing basis.

Best wishes,
Clark

That’s really the issue when it comes to discussing copyright infringement, or world hunger, or extreme poverty. Nobody quite knows “what it’s like on the other side” of the contextual plane, and very often, bridges go unbuilt as a result.

As far as your question about U2’s songs and where they have “peaked,” I believe you have to look at this band in “periods.” Their “early period,” which consisted of Boy, October and War was clearly a pop-punk band finding its musical and intellectual way…those songs cannot even compare with the sonic brilliance or maturity of the band’s new millennium material, NOR SHOULD IT. So early period highlights would be (for me) Into the Heart, Electric Co, Fire, Is That All, Seconds, Drowning Man, Two Hearts Beat as One, Surrender.

Their “middle period” was an area of more orchestrated discovery: now, U2 were given the opportunity to explore their music, using America as the stage set. This was also perhaps the most prolific period for the band, as their collaboration with Eno & Lanois led to much more experimentation, much of which didn’t make the commercial releases. The albums in this period include Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree & Rattle & Hum, along with many b-sides and import releases. Top songs that evidence this period are: The Unforgettable Fire, Wire, Bad, MLK, The Three Sunrises, Love Comes Tumbling, Running to Stand Still, One Tree Hill, Heartland and All I Want is you.

Their “Berlin period” was a period that essentially encapsulated the 90’s. By now, U2 were international superstars and could do virtually anything musically…and they did. The albums in this period include Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop. At this time, they continue their fruitful collaboration with Eno & Lanois, but now bring back original producer Steve Lillywhite and studio engineer Flood for some “Euro” roots. I call this the “Berlin period” because Achtung was recorded there, and the industrial pulse of European progress is felt throughout all three of these records. Best songs include: Zoo Station, The Fly, Ultraviolet, Lemon, Stay, Daddy’s Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car, Do You Feel Loved, Mofo, If You Wear That Velvet Dress.

U2 is, in my opinion, just completing their fourth period, which I call the “new period.” In this time, since about 2000, U2 is a fully realized artistic offering, basically an amalgam of themselves. They may be at their very best right now: unafraid to explore, eager to innovate and ready to realize their full expression. The three albums in the “new period” are All That You Can’t Leave Behind, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and No Line on the Horizon. Top moments in this period are Elevation, Walk On, When I Look at the World, Miracle Drug, A Man and A Woman, Crumbs From Your Table, Original of the Species, Magnificent, I’ll Go Crazy If I Don’t Go Crazy Tonight.

Thanks for the great post, and the chance to blog away with you!