I've decided to start doing weekly updates on my progress. I'm going to keep writing longer blog posts on specific things that I come across and research, but this seems like a good way of updating on the little things.
- Interesting discover - I found this seasonal food chart - It makes me realise how pretty much everything I eat is out of season. Something to aspire to...
- This week I have been mostly reading - Hungry City by Carolyn Steel - a book about how food and cities have developed, and the integral relationship between the two, including a lot of fascinating history. I'm only halfway through, but highly recommended so far.
- Behaviour change - Following reading the start of Not On The Label by Felicity Lawrence, and watching the first half of Food, Inc, I'm properly committing to no longer eating chicken that isn't free range (and preferably organic). I pretty much do this anyway, but I want to make this a concrete decision.
- Topical question of the week - Is it rude to ask the origins of meat in a restaurant? If I'm going to commit to only buying, for example, free range chicken at home (see above), surely I should apply the same standards to food I eat out. In which case, is it ok to enquire when I'm at a restaurant?
- Supermarketless life update - So far so good. It's definitely involving more planning and creativity already though - I never used to think much in advance about what I was eating, opting to let the supermarket provide me with whatever I happened to fancy. Now I find I have to think more in advance about what I'm going to eat that week and make sure I have anything I can't get after work at the weekend.
- Disclaimer to the above - there has been a slight concession to the supermarket boycott. I'm going away this weekend with 30 friends, and it's self catering. We're already tight on car space, and are staying quite a way from the nearest town (which isn't massive) - an online supermarket shop is the only way we could get enough food in given the time and money constraints. Not ideal, but I feel it's a valid exception and will definitely not be a regular occurrence!
- Positive purchase - I bought an album this week, as a digital download straight from the independent record label. And best of all, it actually cost less than it would have done from on Amazon mp3 (which is where I would have previously got it from).
- Wasn't on the agenda - My car may have died. I'm currently awaiting a second opinion, but it's definitely bringing the question of car sharing further up the agenda. I put a plea out on facebook and the freeconomy website for people interested in car shares, and have a bunch of possible people to follow it up with.
Showing posts with label music. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music. Show all posts
Monday, 23 January 2012
Monday, 9 January 2012
Rethinking things...
Yesterday I posted on my blog the previous entry about Spotify and music. I had about half an hour of thinking I was making some progress, before my friend Dave very kindly (and gently) pointed out that my earnestness regarding supporting musicians might not match up with my previous point about the wonders of libraries and second hand bookshops.
The moment that he pointed this out, my heart dropped and my stomach tightened. So far it had all been going fairly swimmingly. Mostly because I haven’t yet made any changes or stated much of an opinion. In fact, this is the first time I’d written about something I was planning on doing.
And yet alongside the sinking feeling was a feeling of excitement. For this was exactly why I’d started a blog and encouraged people to read it. Because I don’t want to make unbalanced decisions and miss things. I have opinionated friends who aren’t afraid to question things, and that’s one of my greatest resources.
As a result, I’ve spent much of today thinking about this point, and felt much more inspired about the whole project. This is what it’s about – the wrestling with decisions – the thinking I’m right when actually I’m wrong.
So here are a few follow up thoughts. Buying music and books has some overlap, but also many differences. To me, there are three main aspects of both decisions:
o Environmental impact
o Where the music/book is bought from
o Contribution to the artist/author
In many ways it came down to something I said at the start of the project – each time you make a decision, your values come into play. For books, I’d probably place a higher value on the environmental impact than the contribution to the artist because that’s my particular passion in this instance – I simply don’t see the need for millions of identical books to sit on dusty bookshelves across the country.
For music, as I only listen to music digitally (i.e. downloads versus Spotify), the next highest value is the artist revenue. I’d like as much to go to the artist as possible, and avoid sourcing it from somewhere where an online merchant takes a huge chunk of the price. If I’m buying a physical CD (possibly as a present), then I’m going to try to use an independent record store
Book wise, I believe an author receives approximately 80p from the sale of a paperback book (note – this isn’t a scientifically researched figure – just one I read in an article today). For books, I’d aim to buy new books from an independent bookshop (if such a thing exists in Bristol). I do definitely think there’s a place for new books - an author I might want to support, a book I really want to read, a book not available second hand – but I also see the environmental value in second hand books and libraries. So the question is, how can I do this best?
Libraries appear to be in the clear in this respect, thanks to the Public Lending Rate – this gives an author just over 6 pence per lending. This might seem a lot less than the 80p they receive from a book sale, but you have to consider how many times that book might be lent during its lifetime, and how many more people might read it that wouldn’t have shelled out for the book.
Which brings me onto second hand books. I’d definitely aim to source them from a second hand bookshop or charity shop, but avoid other second hand routes like Amazon Marketplace. Another thing that has become more common is an author setting up an online “tip jar” (via something like paypal) for readers who want to contribute. I like this idea, and I’ll try to look up authors of second hand books I buy in order to see if they have this – if so, I’d gladly pass on a quid to make up for not having bought it new. I would also very much welcome this becoming more widespread or easy to do, as I would like to be able to support authors whilst still doing what I think is an environmentally positive thing.
Added to that, if I buy a book second hand and like it, I may buy a copy for someone or buy another book by the same author, which in turn will benefit the author.
So it’s not a perfect answer by any means, but I don’t see that there’s currently a way to completely marry my environmental views and still create revenue for the authors.
Thoughts?
Oh and I thought I’d finish with a quote by Neil Gaiman on second hand books
– “In the big scheme of things I'd rather have the books in motion. I'd rather the books were owned and loved than sitting on a shelf in a bookshop”.
The moment that he pointed this out, my heart dropped and my stomach tightened. So far it had all been going fairly swimmingly. Mostly because I haven’t yet made any changes or stated much of an opinion. In fact, this is the first time I’d written about something I was planning on doing.
And yet alongside the sinking feeling was a feeling of excitement. For this was exactly why I’d started a blog and encouraged people to read it. Because I don’t want to make unbalanced decisions and miss things. I have opinionated friends who aren’t afraid to question things, and that’s one of my greatest resources.
As a result, I’ve spent much of today thinking about this point, and felt much more inspired about the whole project. This is what it’s about – the wrestling with decisions – the thinking I’m right when actually I’m wrong.
So here are a few follow up thoughts. Buying music and books has some overlap, but also many differences. To me, there are three main aspects of both decisions:
o Environmental impact
o Where the music/book is bought from
o Contribution to the artist/author
In many ways it came down to something I said at the start of the project – each time you make a decision, your values come into play. For books, I’d probably place a higher value on the environmental impact than the contribution to the artist because that’s my particular passion in this instance – I simply don’t see the need for millions of identical books to sit on dusty bookshelves across the country.
For music, as I only listen to music digitally (i.e. downloads versus Spotify), the next highest value is the artist revenue. I’d like as much to go to the artist as possible, and avoid sourcing it from somewhere where an online merchant takes a huge chunk of the price. If I’m buying a physical CD (possibly as a present), then I’m going to try to use an independent record store
Book wise, I believe an author receives approximately 80p from the sale of a paperback book (note – this isn’t a scientifically researched figure – just one I read in an article today). For books, I’d aim to buy new books from an independent bookshop (if such a thing exists in Bristol). I do definitely think there’s a place for new books - an author I might want to support, a book I really want to read, a book not available second hand – but I also see the environmental value in second hand books and libraries. So the question is, how can I do this best?
Libraries appear to be in the clear in this respect, thanks to the Public Lending Rate – this gives an author just over 6 pence per lending. This might seem a lot less than the 80p they receive from a book sale, but you have to consider how many times that book might be lent during its lifetime, and how many more people might read it that wouldn’t have shelled out for the book.
Which brings me onto second hand books. I’d definitely aim to source them from a second hand bookshop or charity shop, but avoid other second hand routes like Amazon Marketplace. Another thing that has become more common is an author setting up an online “tip jar” (via something like paypal) for readers who want to contribute. I like this idea, and I’ll try to look up authors of second hand books I buy in order to see if they have this – if so, I’d gladly pass on a quid to make up for not having bought it new. I would also very much welcome this becoming more widespread or easy to do, as I would like to be able to support authors whilst still doing what I think is an environmentally positive thing.
Added to that, if I buy a book second hand and like it, I may buy a copy for someone or buy another book by the same author, which in turn will benefit the author.
So it’s not a perfect answer by any means, but I don’t see that there’s currently a way to completely marry my environmental views and still create revenue for the authors.
Thoughts?
Oh and I thought I’d finish with a quote by Neil Gaiman on second hand books
– “In the big scheme of things I'd rather have the books in motion. I'd rather the books were owned and loved than sitting on a shelf in a bookshop”.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
The source of all music...
A few days ago I posted a question on my facebook page about whether Spotify was a good thing for musicians or not. This was following (a) my frustration with the spotify adverts leading me to contemplate paying for a £5 a month subscription and (b) finding this link about how much artists earn from different sources.
A whole realm of responses came back, with vastly differing opinions, and it's spilled over into a number of face to face discussions since. And I'm still confused.
The quandary is this. I like music, but I find it difficult to discover new music. Recommendations sometimes come from friends, but I am yet to find a radio station that suits my taste and doesn't annoy me with their DJs or adverts. So I need some other source of listening to new music.
A friend summarised the options as (a) illegally downloading the music (b) using a streaming tool such as Spotify or (c) buying a lot of music I've not really heard in the hope I might like it.
Sadly option (c) isn't financially viable at the moment. Which leaves (a) and (b). Initial research suggests that artists get very little money from Spotify streams. Assuming the average figure from the Information is Beautiful link above, an artist gets £0.00019 from a track play. If I listen to one album (containing 12 tracks) a day, in a 30 day month, 6.8p will be paid to artists. Which seems like a pitifully small amount of money from a subscription that I'm paying £5 for. Even if I listened to 10 albums a day (unlikely...), that's still less than £1 a month that reaches the artist.
One of the main criticisms I hear about the illegal downloading of music is that it rips off artists and damages the music industry. Looking at these figures, I'm not sure that Spotify is any better for the artist in terms of revenue.
I guess the advantage of tools like Spotify is that it's a good way for artists to get their music heard and increase their exposure, and that's why artists have their music on there. Out of the bands I've discovered over the last year, I wouldn't have listened to a lot of them without a tool like Spotify. Whilst most bands have a myspace or samples on their website, it's undeniable that it's a lot easier when all the music is in one place.
And once I've discovered a new band, I'm far more likely to go and see them live (presuming they tour near where I live), which is a very good way to financially support a band, so I guess that's an indirect revenue that they receive. And for me, seeing a live performance is how music supposed to be heard.
The summary of my findings is that I'm not convinced by either side of the argument. I've decided for the time being that I'm not going to pay for a Spotify subscription. I'll grit my teeth and put up with the adverts. Instead, I'll put that £5 towards buying a legal download of some music, where a reasonable amount of that money will actually reach the artist*. In fact, I might use the fact that Spotify stops you listening to a song more than 5 times as a guide to which music I should be buying...
*That being said, the Information is Beautiful graph also shows that there is a massive difference between revenue received by the artist depending on where you buy the music from. So where possible, I'll source it directly from the artist to ensure they get the largest cut of my money possible.
A whole realm of responses came back, with vastly differing opinions, and it's spilled over into a number of face to face discussions since. And I'm still confused.
The quandary is this. I like music, but I find it difficult to discover new music. Recommendations sometimes come from friends, but I am yet to find a radio station that suits my taste and doesn't annoy me with their DJs or adverts. So I need some other source of listening to new music.
A friend summarised the options as (a) illegally downloading the music (b) using a streaming tool such as Spotify or (c) buying a lot of music I've not really heard in the hope I might like it.
Sadly option (c) isn't financially viable at the moment. Which leaves (a) and (b). Initial research suggests that artists get very little money from Spotify streams. Assuming the average figure from the Information is Beautiful link above, an artist gets £0.00019 from a track play. If I listen to one album (containing 12 tracks) a day, in a 30 day month, 6.8p will be paid to artists. Which seems like a pitifully small amount of money from a subscription that I'm paying £5 for. Even if I listened to 10 albums a day (unlikely...), that's still less than £1 a month that reaches the artist.
One of the main criticisms I hear about the illegal downloading of music is that it rips off artists and damages the music industry. Looking at these figures, I'm not sure that Spotify is any better for the artist in terms of revenue.
I guess the advantage of tools like Spotify is that it's a good way for artists to get their music heard and increase their exposure, and that's why artists have their music on there. Out of the bands I've discovered over the last year, I wouldn't have listened to a lot of them without a tool like Spotify. Whilst most bands have a myspace or samples on their website, it's undeniable that it's a lot easier when all the music is in one place.
And once I've discovered a new band, I'm far more likely to go and see them live (presuming they tour near where I live), which is a very good way to financially support a band, so I guess that's an indirect revenue that they receive. And for me, seeing a live performance is how music supposed to be heard.
The summary of my findings is that I'm not convinced by either side of the argument. I've decided for the time being that I'm not going to pay for a Spotify subscription. I'll grit my teeth and put up with the adverts. Instead, I'll put that £5 towards buying a legal download of some music, where a reasonable amount of that money will actually reach the artist*. In fact, I might use the fact that Spotify stops you listening to a song more than 5 times as a guide to which music I should be buying...
*That being said, the Information is Beautiful graph also shows that there is a massive difference between revenue received by the artist depending on where you buy the music from. So where possible, I'll source it directly from the artist to ensure they get the largest cut of my money possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)