As a prerequisite to reading this article, go out and
immediately listen to Emeli Sande’s album; “Our
Version of Events”. What you are about to read can only be understood
having heard it, as the only words I can think to do it justice are your
standard music review adjectives (“stunning, gorgeous”, so on and so forth…),
and these adjectives, however apt, don’t really give you an insight into the
mood I am in whilst writing this article.
Basically, I’m outraged. Not because the album offended me
in any way, but because I simply don’t have access to it. You see, when I find
an artist I like, I fall in love with them. I form a proper attachment to them-
an attachment that Spotify Free just doesn’t seem to comprehend. It’s a love
that is forbidden by their “five listens per song” limit. And it cuts me deep.
When I was first introduced to the Arctic Monkeys, I played
them on loop for about three months straight. Rihanna, One Night Only, Black
Kids and Jamie T all suffered similar fates. Two Door Cinema Club have only
just been relieved of their duties, and currently in charge of my iPod are
Friendly Fires. It's just how I go about listening to music. A phase of a band
here, fifteen consecutives listens of an album there. I blame this peculiar way
of enjoying music for my very stunted knowledge of what’s popular at any given
moment. I’m anti-hipster, essentially. I hear of an artist when they start to
gain popularity, and I’m still singing along long after they’ve fallen out of
the charts.
(c) Emeli Sande |
My music habits aren’t obsessive; I don’t particularly care
much about the celebrity behind the music. The only music poster I have still
is one I pinched of Azealia Banks giving me the finger (less than delightful to
wake up to, but I really have grown to love it). I very rarely venture out to
live music gigs that don’t involve my own friends rocking out on stage. I just
want to listen to what I like. Again and again and again. And again.
Consecutively. As though I’m trying to commit it to memory.
For those of you who aren’t Spotify Savvy, it’s a free music
service- essentially an on-demand radio. I love it. It allows you to siphon off
what doesn’t appeal to you, and leaves you with what does. I’ve recently discovered
Ben Howard and Passion Pit through their “similar artists” function, for which
I’m very grateful. It’s also cracking for having a good nosy at what your
friends are listening to, though I’m not sure I want all my friends to know
that I actively listen to Alanis Morisette (I’m slowly turning into my mother,
I may as well embrace the soundtrack).
Spotify- spoiling the customers? |
One massive bugbear I have with it, however, is that it just
so happens to limit the amount of times you can listen to any given song to
five times. Which, for my habits, is very frustrating. When Our Verison of Events cut off at the
beginning of the week, I was furious. This frustration, I recognise, is
completely unjustified. I’m very aware that this reeks of a First World
Problem. You’re only allowed a certain amount of free stuff? Poor you. Must be
taxing. Fancy that big bad company not spoiling you completely, those bastards.
Which got me thinking. Why do people resent paying for music
so much? Any entertainment, in fact? No one seems to buy music anymore, or go to the cinema, or buy DVDs. Everything is
downloaded, and I’m willing to bet a massive deal of that is illegal.
Personally, I’m so terrified of The Internet Police knocking on my door and
suing me for copyright infringement because I’ve downloaded the Mulan
soundtrack, that I never, and I mean NEVER, illegally download things. If I really
want to listen to something, I’ll use Spotify, or grooveshark.com, or youtube. Or,
as an ultimate last resort, I’ll download it on iTunes. But paying for my
entertainment really is considered a last resort, and I have to have some sort
of guarantee in my head that is going to be worth the £5.99.
Why is there a sense of entitlement with entertainment? Artists
do not OWE us their music/films. The amount of money it costs to make a
blockbuster, or for a band to produce and distribute albums, is highly
disproportional to how the general population values its worth. What results is
this stand-off between consumers and the producers of entertainment; we don’t
want to have to give money away for something so easily accessible; they don’t
want to give everything for free.
It’s a boundary that’s becoming harder and harder to define.
The lack of a willingness to pay for music has surprisingly benefitted many in
the music industry. Lily Allen and the Arctic Monkeys famously rose to power
through the online music host MySpace, and have both made a lot of money
packing out stadiums as a result. Software such as Spotify allows music to be
recommended solely through social media, creating up to date and vital
information on what is popular, and allowing artists to gain much more
attention than was necessarily previously possible.
Perhaps this begrudging does benefit both sides of the
battle. Customers are being pickier about what they’re willing to pay for, and
therefore we’re sorting the wheat from the chaff ourselves, rather than
allowing some media buffs to do it for us. Increasing the difficulty of competition
can only increase the quality of the winners, right? Or does it damage smaller
artist’s chances of any acknowledgement? Personally, I think not. Ed Sheeran’s
success speaks volumes, for instance.
Either way, the industry has won this time. Our Version Of Events must mean a lot to
me, because instead of sitting in my Spotify account, it now lives in my iTunes
account- the true sign that an album is worth it. A song know’s it has made it
when people transfer from Spotify to iTunes. You’ve won this one, Emeli. Better
luck next time, bank account.
No comments:
Post a Comment