Lily Allen & Why File Sharing Is Bad for New Artists

By Cate Sevilla

Say what you will about Lily Allen’s mouth, but it looks as though Lily has actually said something quite intelligent.

The media loves to jump all over Allen’s Myspace blogging – which clearly has affected the frequency of both her blogging and tweeting – and Allen finally seems to be using that to her advantage, and promoting something she believes in.

Lily Allen is against file sharing and the piracy of music.

It’s easy to brush this off as another pop star just wanted as much money as they can, and that the musicians who aren’t cool with online piracy just don’t *get* the internet.

But Lily actually isn’t being greedy, obviously does quite understand internet culture, and has made a number of very fair and valid points against file sharing.

While Ed O’Brien of Radiohead thinks that  “every generation has a different method” of collecting music and that “file sharing is like a sampler, like taping your mate’s music” and that those crazy kids who download an entire album illegally online are going to go actually purchase the album if they like it – Lily Allen disagrees.

She points out while this may be all well and good for the likes of Radiohead and Pink Flloyd and other members of the Featured Artists Coalition, the new artists are the ones who are suffering from piracy.

How are new artists supposed to make any money if people are simply stealing their tracks and debut albums online?

“You don't start out in music with the Ferraris. Instead you get a huge debt from your record company, which you spend years working your arse off to repay. When you manage to get a contract, all those pretty videos and posters advertising your album have to be paid for and as the artist, you have to pay for them. “

And if you don’t think that this is a problem, Allen argues that if online piracy of music is allowed to continue, that we’ll only have “Simon Cowell Puppets” to listen to, as all the other true and original artists will never be able to flourish, grow, and earn a living from making music.

As much as I love the idea of free music, free films and having freedom online – I agree with Lily.

What are the new artists supposed to do? These days, everyone thinks they’re a bloody pop star or DJ. Gain a couple thousand friends on Myspace, and voila! You’re *famous*.

And how many of those “pop stars” do we have dominating the charts today? How good is the music on the radio at the moment? Take a look at the UK Top 40.

It’s crap, isn’t it? Whether or not you believe that Lily Allen is crap, can you really argue with her points?

For the most part – with the exceptions of the Jonas Brothers and any other crappy boy band that the girls go crazy for – the sales speak for themselves. You are given awards and recognition for the amount of albums you sell. And if people aren’t buying albums, and they’re simply downloading bullshit online – how can decipher between quality music and the crap?

Don’t you think that your favorite music stars should get paid for what they do?

Doesn’t Britain pride itself in its music and its emerging musical talent?

So why not make it easier and for legitimate artists to have a fighting chance?

Lily Allen points out that it’s “not like there aren't alternatives to illegal downloads” and that you can listen to music for free on Spotify and Myspace “without having to rip someone off.”

In order to keep the quality of music high, we surely should keep the availability of illegal music downloads online low.

Artists should get paid for their work. If more established artists want to give away their music for free, and have faith that they can still make money with their music through other avenues, such as a sold out arena tour, then that’s great.

But we need our new artists to have options, too. They deserve that much.

I’m tired of listening to shit on the radio.

POSTED IN: TECH
Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:00 (GMT+00)
2 Responses
1.

Not only is it hard for newly signed artists to make any money, spare a thought for all those great unsigned bands out there who are struggling to get deals because the record labels don't have any money or balls to take the risks they used to. Downloaders need to stop ripping musicians off, it's not the labels and big artists who are suffering it's those cool little known bands (with real talent) whose music will never see the light of day unless people start actually paying for music again. It really pisses me off because I know so many talented bands and artists who should be massive and can't bloody well get signed. Well done Lily and well done Cate for the article.

Mary Lou
Tue, 15-Sep-2009 17:41 GMT
2.

The article is focusing on established artists losing money and how it is assumed to affect unsigned artists, record companies barely ever take risks on new artists when they do have money, downloading music allows artists to create and promote their own material that would otherwise go unnoticed. The only person who is hurt financially by downloading are the record companies who were making ridiculous amounts of profit at the expense of their artists anyway.

I'd agree completely with supporting emerging talent, go to see gigs by unsigned artists, buy their merchandise and music from them directly rather than at a shop. Find music you like amongst the who knows how many artists online who give their music away or do use the same system Radiohead did (I wouldn't have a clue who Jonathan Coulton was if he didn't give away songs free) and when the artists who give away free music tour go see them.

Downloading can be a good thing but this article focuses on the negative rather than the positive.

When did record sales and awards equal quality music? I tend not look at the charts to be told what quality music is, like you I'm tired of listening to shit on the radio but as long as record companies make money churning out he same crap, ripping off artists to make easy money then the radio will be the same tired old shit. Why do you think the Jonas Brothers and the rest of their ilk exist in the first place? They make lots of money. Record companies have no incentive to seek out new & interesting artists unless their dominance is challenged, they're going to have to fail or change.

Also, doesn't 'sales equal quality' contradict the whole 'support you local band' sentiment, surely they're all crap until they get signed and sell a truckload of records and win awards? And what about the bands who are using the internet to promote their music, if they're not getting into the charts are they crap too?

Lily Allen's stance on this kinda confuses me considering she made her name via myspace, as she's had success using the internet to share her music & gain recognition you'd think she'd be more supportive of other artists who aren't making & sharing their music the traditional way.

Jaime
Thu, 17-Sep-2009 17:53 GMT

Add Comment

Note: Your email address will be verified but will never be published on the site.

If you are a registered user, please Sign In.




The opinions expressed by the author and commenters are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BitchBuzz or any employer or organisation. The aforementioned are not responsible for the accuracy of content published.

social feed

@BitchBuzz: The [Digital] Revolution Will Be Gendered - from @katelaity on BitchBuzz Tech http://t.co/5bkxZo0x
09 Feb @ 10:46 GMT

search



buzz we love

Bitchin' Lifestyle
Vikki Chowney
Bangs and a Bun
Vintage Patisserie
Pop Justice
The Other Woman
Pamflet
Gala Darling
Red Velvet
Shape What's to Come
Bird's Eye View
Gala Darling
Bake & Destroy
Kris Atomic
Mark Johns
Garfunkel & Oates
India Knight
Kate Nash
Erin Gibson
Sarah Lacy
Vegansaurus
The Boss of You
Meantime Brewery
Make and Do with Perri