A thought on music policy:
Remember when you went to buy a record, or a CD for that matter, it was exciting. The artwork, the lyrics, the photos of the band, queuing up to buy with like minded people and desperate to get home to have a listen. It felt good. And in return for the fancy graphics and some banging tunes, I was more than happy to part with 10 of my hard earned pounds
It's sad to think that music today is so worthless. MP3 files just don't have the magic of their tactile counterparts. There's no sense of event or excitement. So hearing this week that Lily Allen's got the hump coz she's not making any money, well, life is tough.
I'm one for the easy life, so I've come up with a solution that could potentially make everybody happy. Please note though, that the glory day of talentless troubadours making sickening amounts of cash are long gone. Wet Wet Wet, Simply Red and Jamirouqai, whilst literally laughing all the way to the bank, made their wedge in a pre-internet age. What I'm talking about is being fair. I think that the majority of people would be happy to pay a fair price for music. And we only need a majority for this to work.
The problem that the music labels are spending their time worrying about is ownership. It's OK for me to listen to their music on Spotify. Fine, listen for free. But if I then want the pleasure of clogging up my hard drive with the file, then I have to pay. This, for me at least, is an irrelevance. The question they should be asking is, what is it worth?
What is it worth? Option 1: charge 7.99 for an album, sell about 18 copies to die hard fans, which will then spread quicker than lurpak with a hot knife. Option 2: charge 1.99 for an album, sell millions of copies, keep the musicians in skinny jeans, fund the music execs class A habits, and get the music fans back onside.
It's really that simple.