For a long time I have been of the opinion that if I obtain a copy of a song from an artist on a major label without paying for it, it makes me part of the battle against corporate sellouts and the incredibly, abysmally low standards for modern music. However, if illegal downloading continues at its current pace, the record industry will have no choice but to respond with more manufactured songs. Quantity over quality is what has kept any modern band from reaching the level of success that The Beatles or Led Zeppelin enjoyed in the 60s and 70s.

It has become cliché among hipsters to declare that the corporations are to blame and, therefore, stealing music is justified in order to draw power away from the major labels. However, all that piracy brings about is a need by major labels to raise concert prices, while forcing artists back into the studio to churn out another song (which leads to bands like Nickelback who have written the same song fifteen times with slightly different lyrics). The manufacturing of singles is just as much the fault of consumers as it is the fault of money-grubbing labels.

Musicians are responsible as well. There is nothing forcing them to sign with major labels except the desire to make money. However, singles aren’t enough to sell entire albums now that people can steal music or buy one song at a time. Therefore, if artists are going to sign with a major label nowadays, they have to be prepared to churn out some hits so that they can establish a fan base large enough to sell out concerts. This is not easy to do while staying true to the music.

A new solution must be found that provides consumers with a compromise. If you have eclectic musical tastes and have a voracious appetite for new music (and you don’t have a Mac), then Rhapsody or other such subscription services are perfect for you. However, Rhapsody still costs $15 per month, which is $15 more than many college students are willing to pay (especially since almost everything they would download on Rhapsody is available illegally).

It comes down to respect for music as an industry as well as an art form. It is not reasonable to expect every musician to live their lives in poverty, nor is it necessary. I encourage audiophiles to buy songs from artists that need the financial support, whether they are independent or local bands, singer-songwriters, etc. However, I also believe that if you want to own a song from a major artist you should have to pay for it. It isn’t logical to expect labels to encourage artists to step out of line and do their own thing when sales are in a slump.

It is hard for me to see people who download music illegally as criminals because I know what it is like to have a thirst for new music. However, it is also ridiculous for those downloaders to call the corporations greedy. What could be greedier than taking a piece of art off of the shelf and refusing to pay for it? Perhaps if iTunes decides to initiate a subscription service they will find that many consumers are willing to pay $15 for unlimited songs legally rather than stealing music. The freedom of unlimited downloads combined with the smooth transferability and functionality of iPods would be extremely attractive.

What is the best way to ensure quality music for future generation? E-mail [email protected]