Commentary: Responding to Robert Smith

Robert Smith drew some attention recently in what was billed as a potential Cure/Radiohead Smackdown when he commented on the pay-what-you-want approach to digital music, which has been employed by Radiohead, Girl Talk, Saul Williams and others. As reported by Pitchfork, Smith told Music Radar:

You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do, otherwise you don't consider what you do to have any value at all and that's nonsense. If I put a value on my music and no one's prepared to pay that, then more fool me, but the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan, it can't work.

After drawing some criticism, Smith "clarified" himself via his blog - in all caps mind you:

MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL

NOR EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT RADIOHEADS 'IN RAINBOWS'

BUT IT IS I FEEL STILL COMPELLING

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'

ALL WELL AND GOOD (WELL... NOT REALLY! 'LOSS LEADER'?'BUILD THE BRAND'? AAGH! BUT THIS IS THE LINGUA FRANCA... )

HOWEVER

IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM

THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?

Smith continues: "AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE[.] OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART[.] I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HEROR (sic) ITS ART AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEPCREATING (sic)[.] AND QUITE HONESTLY AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST[.]"

Smith blog and the issue who raises about valuing one's own art got me thinking about several songs. In all honesty, I do believe artists should be making money. Art should be a sustainable career. A "free" model does open the possibility that you will in fact lose money on your art. I asked Andrew Spencer Goldman of Fulton Lights about this in our interview. Goldman's label, Catbird Records, employed a pay-what-you-want strategy for the digital release of his album, The Way We Ride.

"I've been both hurt and helped by the mp3," Goldman said...

and making TWWR available on the pay-what-you-want model was me just trying to make the best of the situation, particularly in this case when I didn't have wide distribution and/or PR or anything like that. Ideally I don't think bands should have to do that; albums cost money to make, and the idea that every band can go out there and get paid from live shows is just ridiculous.

It isn't that I believe all music should simply be free and I think Goldman's point is more compelling than Smith's simply because Goldman is a working musician, whereas Smith is in a position financially to do whatever he wants.

My main issue right now with the music industry is that too often we are getting into philosophical debates, ie "is it right that people are downloading/streaming music for free?" We need to get into practical debates - the digital landscape is what it is and we need to find ways to successfully navigate it.

HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING? Smith asks. Are we assuming there was an age where artists could in fact earn a living? Every artist I know does not simply survive off their work. The musicians I know do sell their work and tour relentlessly, however still need to pick up session gigs and tour as backing musicians to continue creating their art. When I worked in video editing, my colleagues were all documentary filmmakers who took high paying corporate assignments to later fund their own projects. Artists should be able to earn a living based on art, but few are able to - and that fact was true long before Napster came along.

AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART Smith says. First and foremost, an artist cannot value their work solely on what it can be sold for. To be a satisfied artist, you need to derive a certain satisfaction from it that is not financial. Just because you are willing to make your work available for cheap or free does meet mean you do not value it.

Furthermore, even before Radiohead said "pay-what-you-want" others have dictated the value of certain art. A product's price is essentially determined by what people are willing to pay for it. Your cd may cost $16.99, but if no one wants to pay that much your album will flop. Tickets to your show may cost $80, but if not enough people are willing to pay that the tour is canceled or scaled down. You may think your painting worth in the millions, but that is really up to the patrons of the auction house.

The point is the problems of the working artist have all been the same, it is simply the technology that has changed. Smith actually acknowledges this by stating, "MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL." Let's embrace the technology and see where we can take it.