anyone who is a fan of the books should check out this interview that i dug out of the backlog of the internet whilst at work the other day. its from about the time of the release of the lost and safe record. the most interesting part of the interview is where conversation turns to finances and file sharing, where they discuss their ambivalence to file sharing and also some of the misconceptions that their fans might have - namely, that the goodwill that the band has generated via glowing online reviews has translated into financial success; that the books are living it large (as only folky sound collage artists can).

i read this note on the books website about six months ago (its still there):

We feel the need to dispel any notions that we are financially sitting pretty because of the acclaim our music has enjoyed. It’s true, we’ve released a couple of records and we’re grateful to all of the writers who have taken the time to write about them, but unfortunately our record sales do not reflect this. Our work, although deeply satisfying to us, has left us both on the brink of financial collapse since we began, so we are asking you: Please, do not steal our music thinking that we can afford it. We barely get by, and aren’t able to afford basic things like health insurance, let alone raising a family, etc… The sad fact is, we can make a much better living selling t-shirts than we can selling music, so please help us keep this going.

the internet taketh and it giveth away - whilst the rise of online music media like the blogosphere and pitchfork has given bands like the books and thousands others the opportunity to reach a larger global audience, file sharing has made it possible for that same global (and web-savvy) audience to download the feted albums for free, bypassing the traditional practice of handing over money to buy a cd in a store, with a couple of your dollars perhaps one day ending up back with the source. long live mp3, the cd is dead, blah blah blah.

what is interesting to me is to extrapolate a little and entertain the idea that its not just the cd that is on the way out - maybe its the very idea that music can be ‘bought and owned’ that is on the way out. it hasn’t always been this way - in the grand scheme of things, the ‘age of mechanical reproduction’ (to borrow a phrase) - where someone makes little discs with music on it and then you pay money to own it - is very recent. what follows is an authoritative and well-researched History of Music on Discs:

the development of sound recording and mass manufacturing technology (courtesy of the industrial revolution) gave people the opportunity to take music out of the concert halls and take it home with them, to listen to whenever they want, discuss with friends, when before they had to wear silly wigs and make-up to go to a big ass hall just to hear a dude cutting a wicked viola solo or whatever. music was freed from its public performance and could now be recorded and taken anywhere by anyone who could get a copy of it. this led to the democratisation of music that thankfully led to the general agreement that classical music is pants so why don’t we all listen to rock and roll, et al. mechanical reproduction of music allowed for a complete revolution of musical form, new forms of expression were created, new ways of listening, even. and whats more, it invented a new way for money to flow back from the appreciative audiences to the struggling artistes. instead of relying on wealthy patrons to fund your musical flight of fancy, it was the masses that bankrolled your art - again, the democratisation of music, music funded by the many as opposed to the few.

surely we’re at a point now where technology is rewriting the rules again. the financial value that could be assigned to a shiny disc that contained music is undermined by technology that allows us to click a button and hear any song from the vast combined library of ‘the internet’ for free. its that same rhetorical question that rears itself in any conversation you might have about file sharing with a friend, your brother-in-law, whatever - “why pay for something you can have for free?” physical cd sales will no longer be a ‘revenue stream’ for artists (or labels or retailers or anyone), and digital sales too will fall as access to free file sharing networks only becomes easier and more commonplace. maybe its the very notion of paying to hear recorded music that is dying. the idea of ‘owning music’ is a relatively recent invention (brought on by technology) that is now being ‘uninvented’ (again by technology). the entire recording industry will slowly dismantle itself, the major labels and multidutinous other corporate interests will re-invest their megabucks into more profitable ventures, whilst musicians are left looking to other alternatives to pay the bills and allow them to keep working. with some laws changed and the traditional business model being eroded by the progress of technology, it could be one day that music is written, recorded, uploaded and then just shared with no money changing hands. 22nd century musicians could find the notion of ’selling’ their recordings to be an outdated idea. woah THE FUUUUUTURE

theres obviously a big shift occurring and in the meantime everyone is shitting themselves, understandably. my message for struggling artists is this: in the vast history of earth (billions of years) or even the less vast history of music (thousands of years), the period of time in which we could count on little shiny discs to help us pay the bills is miniscule. it is almost over. people need to be more imaginative if they want to continue to be able to finance their artistic aspirations.

so basically what i’m saying is that i need to start selling t-shirts