45rpm @ jukeboxgraduate.com

Record labels regularly coordinate strategic free downloads of for-profit music as a marketing tool. The file-sharing dilemma is complicated, but one thing is certain: while it certainly depletes the label’s financial resources, it hurts the artists’ earnings as well—big time.

The label vs. artist narrative is, itself, bogus. The best labels provide tactical support, capital, and necessary resources to artists, many of whom would be frustrated, ripped off, or simply ignored if left to build comparable support systems from scratch. There are exceptions, of course, but most are either veteran “name” artists or entrepreneurs.

For years now, there has been an open infatuation with the idea that music should be “free.” This is simplistic thinking. Because not only is “free” not free, but the loss of revenue incurred by “free” triggers a frantic search for additional compensation elsewhere.

I believe that it’s a good idea for artists to know their business. Any good label’s mission should include sharing information as to how money is made, spent, and lost with its artists.

We grew up in an age of excited, roiling change in the music and film worlds, but the vicissitudes of the technologies and industries involved made the logistics of merely keeping up—much less being an expert—a time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes impossible chore. I won’t bore you with the details, but let me tell you—it was a drag.

Actually, I will bore you with the details. The music you wanted to hear wasn’t played on the radio and you couldn’t find the records you wanted to buy. You couldn’t even find the magazines that told you what records you should want to buy. It was almost impossible to see filmed footage of the artists you wanted to see.