Robert Smith on Free Music: 'It Is An Idiot Conceit'

Robert Smith on Free Music: "It Is An Idiot Conceit"

The Cure frontman Robert Smith has taken to the Internet to slam the idea of musicians making songs available for free—and he is very sure of how he feels.

The notion in question—that artists should make their material available for free and subsist on licensing, merchandise, and performances—isn't so outlandish in a world where nobody pays for music anyway. But Smith contends that this proposal undermines artistic merit:

WHAT I AM ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS THIS:

WHATEVER 'BRIGHT NEW WORLD' I AM EXPECTED TO ENJOY

ONE IN WHICH SONGWRITERS/MUSICIANS ARE OBLIGED TO MAKE THEIR MUSIC AVAILABLE FOR FREE

IS ONE THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR

AND THAT WELL ESTABLISHED AND SUCCESSFUL (IE WELL OFF!) ARTISTS

WHO DO THIS BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD TO DO IT

ARE HELPING TO CREATE AND SUSTAIN A CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT OF EXPECTATION:

THE EXPECTATION THAT ALL MUSIC SHOULD BE 'FREE'

IT IS A DISMAL POSITION

Okay, so he has a point, but the caps just make it feel like he's yelling. Then again, maybe it's our fault for actually being surprised that Robert Smith is upset about something.

[ The Cure via Aversion ]

5 Responses

April 9, 2009 at 9:34 a.m.

Pietro

Actually, Robert *always* uses all caps for all his posts, so either he's always yelling, or he just likes his posts to stand out among the rest :-)

April 9, 2009 at 5:15 p.m.

fjdks

yeah if you look at the other things he types on his website everything is caps... thats just how he is... he isnt yelling... do your research next time :P

April 9, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.

Daba

Even if he always uses CAPS it still looks like he's yelling all the time. See Kanye West's blog for further evidence.

April 17, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.

june21

How about if we move past the style of the message and get to the substance?

I do agree that while an artist may decide that it makes sense to give away a few tunes now and then, the business model that says all tunes can be downloaded for free via broadband shouldn't be our default model. Sure, the artist can earn $$ from performances or from licensing the work for advertising purposes. But unless the artist is already fairly well established, can they really earn enough from performances to provide a decent standard of living from their profession? If the already established artists give their creations away freely, doesn't it make it that much harder for the up and coming folks to get their work out while earning enough to support themselves? And I really don't think that I want to have my listening choices determined by mass media advertising considerations. I also think it's up to the seller (artist and/or the company one hires for representation) to set the price. If it's more than I want to pay, I can choose to not buy it at that price. I'll just get something else I like that I perceive as being worth my money.

I do love being able to preview music online that I'm not familiar with before I plonk my money down to buy it. I do ultimately buy the stuff I like, usually on a CD. (Yeah, old school, I know -- I really think it sounds better than mp3s. I'm not a total dinosaur, though -- I use an Ipod too!)

April 20, 2009 at 1:51 p.m.