Oh, another anti-streaming rant? I get it, same old whinge, screaming into the void - but maybe don't scroll by this time?!
OK, so, what the title of this piece says. Bands have to push back against the norm of music being worthless if it's not on a record. We've seen the change for many other types of "content creators" - I mean, did anyone in 2006 think that someone rambling shit on YouTube (or other huge platforms) would actually be paid for it? And people would willingly pay for it? No way. But, in 2024, music has lost all intrinsic monetary value of its own and even bigger bands don't really bother much with pushing a download, despite vinyl and cassette production steadily becoming so expensive that buying hard copy music is already enough of a bourgeois hobby. So, why not start a website for your band and sell your music in digital format alongside the rest of your merch? The immediate answer from 99% of people in bands is - "why should I go to the effort when Bandcamp does this and makes it so easy? And who's gonna PAY for MP3s?! I don't!" Well, here are just a few reasons:
1) You and only you are in control of what is on your website. There's no arbitrary censorship like there is with large platforms. You can sell your art in whatever form you please.
2) Bandcamp has changed ownership a few times in recent years and is no longer the independent entity that they once were. Nothing good ever comes from labels, distributors etc. being bought out by something bigger that has no clue of what the acquired thing does. Show me an example of where the bottom line has actually improved for the bread and butter (bands) of the label or shop.
3) Hosting and basic websites with complete, customisable webstores are so cheap now that the cost is comparable to the cut that Bandcamp takes. There's a tonne of options out there so I won't rattle them off here.
For listeners, think about the following (also applies to people IN bands):
1) If you don't buy physical media, you might be one of the few that buys MP3s on Bandcamp. But, I'd hazard a guess that you just stream it on Spotify, YouTube etc. If a band is on a label, only at most half of the tiny amount of streaming revenue goes to the band in most cases, especially now that Spotify is stopping paying out for tracks under 1000 listens. Also, what happens when something disappears off YouTube or Spotify? None of the music on these services is put up for free, either. You don't have this problem when you have a device (or multiple devices) with a music collection on it.
2) You probably pay for other intangible digital things already. What makes music different to e-books, for example? If you're listening to underground metal, grind, punk etc., it's probably a relatively big part of your life. Do the bands that you're heaps into not deserve to have a few bucks chucked at them for the enjoyment they bring to your life?
3) If you don't collect hard copy music, then you might support bands by buying a t-shirt, or longsleeve, or pair of shorts, or hat... etc. Do you really need all this stuff? What if an otherwise good band does dumb, shitty-looking merch? Do you still support them if their stuff is lame?
I should state that I don't think every single band out there deserves to have every listener that comes across their music paying them for it, because, well, it should be a given there are a LOT of awful bands that straight up suck out there. The point to be gleaned from all this is that you should support bands you like by actually buying their music, and not just say "it's how it is now" when it comes to the streaming vs. paying for individual releases argument. Ah, what a bad idea this post was, hah!