BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Eminem : How Much Is He Hurt By P2P?

  
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:16 / 11.03.03
Eric Garland is the CEO of a company called Big Champagne which collects data and monitors peer-to-peer file sharing networks to study trends in downloading habits. In an interview from last week, Garland posits that Eminem has been hurt by file sharing more than some other artist in spite of his massive record sales. This goes against a popular argument in favor of file sharing, the notion that since so much of what is shared on P2P networks is the same music that is selling the most, it might not be as damaging to overall record sales as the RIAA and others have come to believe.

Here's an excerpt from the interview:

There remains a heated debate on whether such file-sharing takes away from legitimate record sales. Using Eminem as an example, can you look at your data and determine if the downloading of his material has had a detrimental effect on his sales?

Well, in Eminem you've chosen a peculiar, and singular, example. Here's why: Generally speaking, the biggest myth about music online is that people are stealing CDs on the Internet. The truth is, to me, more distressing. Statistically speaking, people almost never download albums. They download singles. Think about that: We're trying to sell a product for $17 that you can't give away for free! We, as listeners, respond to the songs that radio and MTV teach us to want. It's Pavlovian in that way. We do what we're taught.

Now, Eminem is a superstar--and he's an exception the general rule. He is a celebrity and an artist, and his fans feel a genuine connection to him, as evidenced by the fact that they download all of his songs, not just the singles. Nearly a third of all online music fans have a song from Eminem, and many of them have five, 10, or even more.

So, when you ask "is downloading responsible for the decline in CD sales?"...the answer is yes, no, and it depends on the record. Certainly you can cite shrinking playlists, the rise in spending on DVDs and video games. But if you ask about Eminem, well, I think he's clearly been affected. Maybe even his legacy is adversely affected, because The Eminem Show should have been Thriller. Sure, it's the biggest record we've got right now in terms of overall sales, but it should be bigger. If there were an online revenue event, Eminem would be a completely different story. Downloading of everything he records is in another league.

Can you give us a ballpark of that league, numbers-wise?

Conservatively speaking, I'd say that Eminem has been downloaded by 20 million different users--and that's just in the U.S. alone.

How can you come to that conclusion? For instance, have you found mass cherry-picking of Eminem's songs off the 8 Mile soundtrack over the other cuts?

In the case of the 8 Mile soundtrack, there's just absolutely no question that downloading is making some record sales unnecessary...irrelevant even. We've seen millions of downloads of "Lose Yourself" and the song "8 Mile." The 50 Cent stuff is hugely popular, too, of course, but for the other tracks on that record, you're talking about, in some cases, only one one-hundredth of the interest people have in the Eminem tracks. Granted, "Lose Yourself" also benefited from a lot of radio airplay, which undoubtedly increased the demand for downloading, but that doesn't explain the popularity of "8 Mile," which is one of most popular non-serviced [to radio] tracks I've ever seen.

Like it or not, [downloading] has become a, maybe the, point of consumption--and sooner but not later, you have to create a marketplace here rather than winning back the marketplace lost.

Now, of course Eminem (and other mega-selling artists) could've sold more copies, but when does the "it should've been Thriller!" argument go from being a comment on the inherant unfairness of file sharing and more about the unchecked ambition and greed of corporate record labels?

How much sympathy do you have for the big guy? Is there a point, after an artist/label makes a fortune off a record when it becomes distasteful to complain about all the extra money they could be making?
 
 
No star here laces
16:37 / 11.03.03
At the end of the day, I have to say, it doesn't matter.

The cat is out the bag, people are not going to suddenly start paying for stuff they get for free now, and it is impossible to regulate the net sufficiently to stamp out file sharing. I mean we can't even stamp out child porn for fucks sakes. And even if you could get rid of file sharing, CD piracy is an even bigger problem. How many people do you know who have virtually their entire collection on CDRs? In China 80% of CDs sold are pirated. CD recorders retail for £60 in the UK now - and CD piracy has a better chance of killing music than home taping because the quality is so much better.

So the question is not how much artists are hurt by file sharing, but what artists can do to earn revenues in other ways.

I would suggest that the way forward has to be for them to look far more to performances for revenues, rahter than recordings. Performances could be live, for broadcast or for streaming, but either way the artists get paid. For pop artists there are the new opportunities in programming and merchandising that things like Pop Idol exploit.

So there is no reason why the music industry cannot continue to provide all the things we love from music. But they cannot assume that recorded music will continue to operate in the way it has historically.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:49 / 11.03.03
That's a pretty commonly held belief, and I agree for the most part. I think that selling records is still a worthwhile thing, especially for independent releases which aren't commonly traded online and are for very small and specific niche markets. There's still a lot of convenience in buying records rather than downloading them for a lot of people. There's still something to be said for record album-as-object, I think that nice packaging can sometimes be part of the draw of buying records.

I think it's hard for a lot of musicians to deal with the idea of the recorded music being an advertisement for selling self-branded products and the concert as being akin to a service being provided. I totally understand - you'd want to believe that you should be making money from the music, which is the art that you're pouring yourself into, and not be a glorified t-shirt salesperson, you know?
 
 
No star here laces
17:11 / 11.03.03
In what sense is being a live performer a denigration of your status compared to being a recorder of little shiny discs?

The art you're pouring yourself into can be performed can it not?

Musicians that moan about this are, to be frank, not only whiny little bitches but lazy to boot. Get on your bus and tour, asshole, that's what I say. The incredible wealth and frankly ridiculous lifestyles generated by the recording industry will not be missed by anyone other than the very few (largely overrated) artists who got to enjoy them.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:19 / 11.03.03
Well, not all music and all musicians are the same, that's very important to consider. There's a lot of artists who aren't interested in live performance, for whom performance just isn't a big part of what they do. And there's other cases in which artists can't tour much because the expense of touring and putting on a show with the number of musicians necessary is too high, and they may not be getting any money to get a tour off the ground. In many cases, touring can be just as unprofitable as recording and releasing records. It's pretty easy for a typical rock band or a DJ act to "get in the bus and tour", but it's not so easy for everyone.
 
 
No star here laces
20:40 / 11.03.03
MMm, but similarly many artists make and record music with no intention of ever profiting financially from it. And that's fine. Lots of great music is made this way. One might suggest that in this putative (and likely) future, all artists with no interest in performance will fall into this category.

And in any case I think you're being too absolutist. There will still be money to be made from recordings - airplay, licensing etc. It's just that you won't be able to buy your own jet with it.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:32 / 12.03.03
In the case of the 8 Mile soundtrack, there's just absolutely no question that downloading is making some record sales unnecessary...irrelevant even. We've seen millions of downloads of "Lose Yourself" and the song "8 Mile." The 50 Cent stuff is hugely popular, too, of course, but for the other tracks on that record, you're talking about, in some cases, only one one-hundredth of the interest people have in the Eminem tracks. Granted, "Lose Yourself" also benefited from a lot of radio airplay, which undoubtedly increased the demand for downloading, but that doesn't explain the popularity of "8 Mile," which is one of most popular non-serviced [to radio] tracks I've ever seen.

I have to say, sticking to this specific example, if the people behind the 8 Mile soundtrack wanted to avoid this situation they could very easily have done so by making it a much better album, and a much more accurate soundtrack to the film (I cannot begin to express my loathing for the concept of 'music from and inspired by' albums). Keep the three Eminem cuts that shop up in some form in the film. Include all the battle raps and freestyles from the film, widely acknowledged to be electrifying stuff by everyone from serious hip-hop heads to film critics who don't normally listen to this music; also include the classic songs from the era in which the film is set that feature in the film itself - 'Shook Ones Pt 2', 'Juicy', etc - which were in fact put on a second soundtrack CD almost as padded as the first. Cut out all the spurious 'mates-with-Dr-Dre-now' crap. Bingo: instant must-have album.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
11:41 / 12.03.03
Or, more simply, they could have actually released those songs as singles and priced them reasonably. The American record industry is paying the price for killing the singles market, and this is a good example. If "Lose Yourself" b/w "8 Mile" was released as a cd single in the $1-3 range, I am certain that it would have sold more copies than that soundtrack album did.

By the way Flyboy, they did release a second 8 Mile soundtrack that does feature all of the old 90s songs from the film, but you're right, they should've done it honestly the first time instead of making it a marketing tool to promote Dr Dre and Eminem's label and friends.
 
 
Babooshka
15:43 / 12.03.03
Woo! this is a really interesting thread.

Just some thoughts:

...when does the "it should've been Thriller!" argument go from being a comment on the inherant unfairness of file sharing and more about the unchecked ambition and greed of corporate record labels? – Flux = mc2

Aside from greed, I think it also says a lot about the antiquated notions and ideas that still hold sway in the upper echelons of the music industry. Most of today's bigwigs got their start in the late 70's/early 80's, so it makes sense that Thriller would still be their touchstone despite the fact that the market has changed rather dramatically in the past 20 years. They just haven't caught up.

So the question is not how much artists are hurt by file sharing, but what artists can do to earn revenues in other ways...I would suggest that the way forward has to be for them to look far more to performances for revenues, rahter than recordings. Performances could be live, for broadcast or for streaming, but either way the artists get paid. – Byron Bitchlaces

The thing is, touring and performing live has ALWAYS been a musician's main revenue. Records/CDs have consistently made more money for the record company than the musicians. Live music is what pays the bills and keeps the music flowing. Allied to that is merchandising, which is often the biggest moneymaker of all.

Well, not all music and all musicians are the same, that's very important to consider. There's a lot of artists who aren't interested in live performance, for whom performance just isn't a big part of what they do. And there's other cases in which artists can't tour much because the expense of touring and putting on a show with the number of musicians necessary is too high, and they may not be getting any money to get a tour off the ground. - Flux = mc2

There's always videos, eh? I really think that in those cases an interfacing with film and/or video is a workable step forward. Just because MTV, VH1 et al have shifted to more television programming and less music doesn't mean that aligning one's music to a visual media still can't work in getting one's tunes out there. Why can't a band create a short film or a series of videos and promote them via a tour of arthouses or midnight matinees? Instead of sending the band, send the film or tape. And someone to collect the revenue!
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:20 / 12.03.03
Most of today's bigwigs got their start in the late 70's/early 80's, so it makes sense that Thriller would still be their touchstone despite the fact that the market has changed rather dramatically in the past 20 years. They just haven't caught up.

Damn straight. Thriller benefited from not being part of niche market/format driven record industry. Record execs can talk all they want about cross-format superstars, but none of that comes close to the all-ages multiracial cross-genre appeal of that record. Eminem can sell loads of records and has an enormous fanbase, but I sincerely doubt that he would be able to command an audience as vast and diverse as Michael Jackson circa Thriller, P2P or not. Eminem's just too alienating to too many people.

Why can't a band create a short film or a series of videos and promote them via a tour of arthouses or midnight matinees? Instead of sending the band, send the film or tape. And someone to collect the revenue!

You know, that's brilliant. Some people really ought to try that! I'm thinking about the success of that Wilco documentary I Am Trying To Break Your Heart - that movie did very well in 'art house' threatres across the US last year, and is now about to make a killing on Pay-Per-View channels and DVD. Jem Cohen's Fugazi documentary and the Radiohead film Meeting People Is Easy have been similarly toured around and screened at colleges and small movie threatres too, so there must be a market for this at least for established artists.

I guess the real place for innovation is to make it less a documentary or a traditional narrative but more about music and performance, but that's not without precedence obviously! The possibilities with this idea are so vast - I'd love to see some really talented people try this out. It could be as simple as an hour long computer-art version of a light show for someone like Autechre, an elaborate staged performance for an enormous choral group like The Polyphonic Spree, or an old style musical written by someone like Stephin Merritt.

The record industry clearly needs to think more like Babooshka!
 
 
No star here laces
09:18 / 13.03.03
Although one could of course claim that that's exactly what they were doing with 8 mile...
 
 
Seth
10:20 / 13.03.03
DVD is still an untapped music medium. I don't know much about the tech, but I'd imagine that experiments like Zaireeka would work well here, depending on the flexibility of the audio channels and the surround sound mix. Super Furry Animals released their last album on DVD with a fair amount of success. If a few artists pushed the format I'm sure a market could be created.
 
  
Add Your Reply