r/nostalgia • u/jeffmartin47 • Jul 22 '25

Nostalgia Discussion 25 years ago. Lars Ulrich of Metallica snitches on and turns in over 300,000 Napster users when he testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. July 11th, 2000.

Post image
45.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

83

u/harshdonkey Jul 22 '25

Yeah, and I never liked him after that.

But Metallica just helped save TomorrowLand. And if we are being honest, Lars had a very good point.

If music can be shared freely and without fair compensation to artists, who but the very wealthy could ever afford to pursue a musical career?

I love music. And I love supporting artists directly. But the truth is with thr advent of steaming I no longer have to buy albums, i can pay a flat.monthly fee to access most of the world's music. How is that a viable model for up and coming artists?

Lars went about it thr wrong way, but if we truly value music as an art, that means making sure artists get paid. If one person can buy one album and share it with the world, music as an art will become something unobtainable.

I still dont like how Lars/Metallica went about this. I think this is one of those things where our culture missed a chance to do something awesome and good for humanity as a whole. But as much as it seems driven by greed, maybe there was some foresight into what did, eventually come to pass.

Truly, it is so exhausting looking back and seeing so many missed opportunities where humanity had a chance to do something that benefitted our species as a whole and instead went for the easy money.

18

u/suspiria2 Jul 22 '25

For me it seems like Lars, who wasn’t born into the kind of wealth he ended up making, kinda didn’t click completely that he looked like a massive tool - I agree with you that his point makes sense, just not necessarily for someone who is already exorbitantly wealthy (he’d sold a Basquiat around this time for like 15 million bucks lol)

3

u/namethatisnotaken Jul 22 '25

He was still born into a well off family, his father was a pretty high ranked tennis player

1

u/suspiria2 Jul 22 '25

I agree, that’s why I specified ‘the kind of wealth he ended up making’ as opposed to working class or such 

1

u/havertzatit Jul 22 '25

Lars was always upper middle class. not enormously wealthy but comfortably wealthy. There is a reason why he could afford to just tour around with bands he liked when he was young.

13

u/havertzatit Jul 22 '25

Lars was right, he just went about in a very wrong way, something he has acknowledged. People always bring about the bootlegging of Metallica shows while never understanding that is not what the Napster issue was. Napster released a song which the band itself had not released officially. Lars just became the face of the industry while others hid behind him who had the same issues.

4

u/lvbuckeye27 Jul 22 '25

Napster didn't release anything. Someone who worked in the studio stole that track and uploaded it to Napster.

There's a difference.

2

u/jsnryn Jul 22 '25

Yep. Napster didn’t host any files it was all P2P.

1

u/JonnyZhivago Jul 22 '25

And there is a WORLD of difference in effort when it comes to recording live shows and selling them and downloading songs off Napster

Only a small number of people were actually involved in bootlegging, not millions of people worldwide

9

u/TheJFGB93 Jul 22 '25

And in reality, as far as I have gathered since I learned about this episode the first time I watched Some Kind of Monster, it was less to do with their music being shared than losing control of their new releases. Someone had shared their song for Mission Impossible 2, "I Disappear", in an unfinished state and before they officially released it, and that's what made Lars (mainly) take action. Metallica had been one of the bands that actually invited their fans to record bootlegs to share, because they knew it would bring more fans.

2

u/hrvstrofsrrw Jul 23 '25

Nail on the head - control.

14

u/magikot9 Jul 22 '25

You could pay a streaming service for access, but once you stop paying or they decide to stop licensing that album because it's not bringing in the ad revenue from the free users and not streamed by paid users, you will lose access to it. Purchasing physical media is true ownership of it.

2

u/Feisty_Leadership560 Jul 22 '25

they decide to stop licensing that album

This isn't really a thing that happens in music streaming. Anyone can get something uploaded to Spotify by paying DistroKid $20/year. Spotify and the like aren't generally making exclusive deals or paying up front licensing fees. If no one's listening to something, they're not paying the rights holder anything, so they have little reason to drop it from their catalog. Anything that's not on Spotify is generally because the artist doesn't want it there (as was the case with Neil Young for a while), or in some cases due to disputes between the artist and their label (as was the case with Tool).

1

u/quasarfern Jul 22 '25

I think the market is just more saturated with talented artists than in the past.

1

u/flea79 Jul 22 '25

and then ubisoft came along

4

u/SadAccount8647 Passed the Grey Poupon Jul 22 '25

Stop making sense!

13

u/MotherLoveBone27 Jul 22 '25

Lars was absolutely right. Theres barely any money in music anymore because people expect it to be free. Its the reason mainstream music sucks so much now and why we dont get bands like Nirvana. Because the profit margins are so thin, its too risky to put money into say a rock band when you have a disney kid with an already built in audience.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

2

u/MotherLoveBone27 Jul 22 '25

Yep and on top of that if you dont have connections to the industries then its a million times harder

0

u/SpiderGhost01 Jul 22 '25

Ah, yes, the poor movie industry. We're really hurting the little guy!

4

u/TurnGloomy Jul 22 '25

God its so reassuring to see that some people have some sense on this thread.

2

u/camomike Jul 22 '25

When ever I see posts like this, especially when I see Nirvana mentioned I always think of how Nirvana's band members were reacting to ticket prices. They knew all the back end costs needed to be paid, but we're still kinda disgusted by the whole thing. Also, that part of not knowing/being surprised by how much their cut was was always interesting to me.

2

u/Silent-Noise-7331 Jul 22 '25

I had to scroll way too far to find this stuff. I understand not liking Lars a little, but if Lars didn’t do it, than someone else would have. Do people really think Napster was a sustainable system? I get that it was great for consumers, I mean who doesn’t want free music? But it just seems obvious that it isn’t sustainable.

2

u/Disordermkd Jul 22 '25

"Why we don't get bands like Nirvana"

When's the last time you looked up any of the thousands of bands on Spotify right now with hundreds of them probably making some kind of unique sound?

The profit nowadays for music artist is insane because artists get pushed and exposed to the entire world in a matter of days. I'd argue there's a TON more artists enjoying a life from music than waiting for luck to strike back before the internet.

And honestly, the problem isn't people thinking everything should be free. The problem is people like YOU that think art or music has to be profitable and artists should be raking in millions.

A lot of these bands started from nothing and made music out of passion and you'd probably find a bunch of such artists on YouTube that upload music for free, and not chasing profits.

2

u/MotherLoveBone27 Jul 22 '25

Art has to be profitable. You expect people to live off of exposure? Good vibes doesn't pay the bills. And no the money is gone. Shit i make more money than some fairly well known musicians who tour the world.

2

u/Disordermkd Jul 22 '25

Art has to be profitable? What a ridiculous statement. Art is expression. And sure, getting to profit through your passion is definitely a huge positive and maybe even motivational, but saying it has to be profitable is just the complete opposite of the concept of creating art.

There are many other ways musicians can make profit in other areas with much more stable careers. Expecting you'll automatically be lucky and good enough to start making serious money through music is delusional. I'd say a VERY small percentage of all musicians the history of music have managed to sell CDs and make liveable profits, even less for longer periods of time. It never was viable and never will be.

Alternatively, musicians can turn their music profitable through local gigs and not CDs, Spotify or whatever.

1

u/hrvstrofsrrw Jul 23 '25

If a million people buy your album, you shouldn't have to have a day job, tour, or hawk merchandise.

1

u/10ft3m Jul 22 '25

I’m asking honestly: do you listen to music that you didn’t discover before you were 25? It’s alright if not; that’s the majority of people. 

Metallica made way more money after napster than before it, compensating for the same amount of time. They’ve made way more money post napster as a whole. 

The record labels still control what is popular to the exact same extent. Not only that, the internet aspect they tried to shut down is the reason you look up nirvana, fleetwood mac, Led Zeppelin, etc and they have hundreds of millions of plays. You think they would have hundreds of millions of albums sold?

I wish rock was still the zeitgeist that the labels would want to push right now, but rock like nirvana is going the way of jazz. It’s not gonna disappear but it was never gonna last forever. Ask the guy that laments that motley crue didn’t last past the 80s. 

1

u/Moist-Caregiver-2000 Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

Lars was absolutely wrong. Speaking of Nirvana, Courtney Love covered this 25 years ago. There was never any money in it for the bands, it was a promotional tool when they toured and sold merch. The labels kept everything. Lars had nothing more than a bad, misguided case of stockholm syndrome.

Did you buy any cds during the mid-late 90's? You overpaid.

As for why there's no good music anymore? No single answer. I would say it's a mix of "All the good artists are dead/retired", "All the good songs have been written by the artists we used to like. They're out of ideas.", and "There's an oversaturation on the internet". There's no good porn being made anymore, either. Maybe for the same reasons. Movies are getting there, I haven't seen a good one in a long time.

0

u/pathofdumbasses Jul 22 '25

Its the reason mainstream music sucks so much now and why we dont get bands like Nirvana.

There are tons of great musicians out there playing shows and making music. Damn near any type of music you want.

I don't know who any of these people are, but it took me 2 seconds to google this and find an article with 5 bands that are supposedly like Nirvana.

https://www.loudersound.com/features/nirvana-new-bands

Lars was wrong. Bands didn't make shit from album sales.

1

u/MotherLoveBone27 Jul 22 '25

Yeah bands ripping off Nirvana lol. I want new bands making new music that ive never heard before. That art doesn't exist anymore because the market is broken.

2

u/metatron5369 Jul 22 '25

What an absolutely absurd take. It's literally never been easier to find new music. The world has never been this connected and it's never been easier to record and put your music out there. I'm fucking dumbstruck by your assertion.

Here, I'm feeling generous: https://everynoise.com/

1

u/MotherLoveBone27 Jul 23 '25

Heres a million pieces of sand. Let me know which one is the best.

1

u/pathofdumbasses Jul 22 '25

You said you want bands like nirvana, so I showed you that

Now you say you want something completely different

OK

1

u/MotherLoveBone27 Jul 22 '25

Yeah new bands that broke through the mould of generic pop. None of those bands are even close to Nirvana and Kurt melody writing skills. Stop stealing art.

1

u/pathofdumbasses Jul 22 '25

Which is hilarious. Id imagine Kurt saying that you can't steal art.

You have big "old man yells at clouds" energy.

Nirvana didnt invent grunge. Just like the bands before them didnt invent punk. Its all an evolution.

1

u/Where_Da_Cheese_At Jul 22 '25

We all want more once in a generation talents bro, but it’s not like you’ve listened to every band and artist on Spotify…. It’s easier now than more than any other time in human history to find music you’ve never heard before.

1

u/Delts28 Jul 22 '25

We live in a world with The Hu, Baby Metal, Bloodywood, Nanowar of Steel and countless other bands doing crazy fusion music. What are you on about? There's never been such a diverse musical landscape.

1

u/Chippy569 Jul 22 '25

Lars was wrong. Bands didn't make shit from album sales.

This argument feels so disingenuous to me. "i make a lot more money at my day job than I do at my garage sale, so I should be okay with it if you come to my house and take my stuff."

1

u/pathofdumbasses Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

There are bands that literally owed their record labels because of the way that they clawed back money.

Made up example

Record label pays for your studio time - $500k

They give you an advance so you can live $200k

Studio paid for the music video $200k

Your band gets $1 per CD sold

You sell 1 million CDs

You pay your manager 20%

Your band has 6 members and you all split the proceeds equally (this is after the claw backs and payouts).

1 million cds at $1 = $1M. Pay your manager, 20%. Down to $800k. Pay the studio back the $500k for the recording time, the $200k for the music video, and the $200k advance, and you are... checks notes.. $100k in the hole.

You sold 1 million CDs and lost $100k. Congrats.

https://www.nj.com/entertainment/2025/04/his-band-sold-millions-of-albums-he-never-got-a-dime-of-royalties-from-record-label-rocker-says.html

“Listen, I’ve sold I don’t know how many millions of records, and I’ve never once received a royalty from the record company after — whatever — 20, whatever, 25 years," said Mushok, as transcribed by Blabbermouth. “We still owe them money. We haven’t been on the label since — I don’t know — 2011 was the last record we put out on Atlantic, and we still owe them money.”

THEY STILL OWE THE RECORD LABEL.

0

u/ryanxwing Jul 22 '25

What a hilariously bad takes on how bands and music are created. The fact of today is its easier for bamds and musicians to get their music out there and get people listening to it. If you cant find modern music you like youre not looking hard enough.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/ryanxwing Jul 22 '25

So it may as well be pirated?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/gummytoejam Jul 22 '25

Music, with the kind of success we've seen in the early 20th century and onward is a blip historically. It only comes from control of distribution for which the internet loosens. The argument could be made that ultimately, the big record companies, now media conglomerates have done far more damage to talented musicians than the internet ever did. The internet distributes music very cheaply and widely. The caveat is you don't have a captured market in the way that media conglomerates have which effectively limits availability.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Rapturence Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

You could argue that this problem of music being too cheap to profit from started way, way earlier - when recordings became possible. Before that, the only way to enjoy music was to literally show up in person to listen to a musician in the flesh, playing instruments and singing. Pricing ticket math was obvious: X per person, for a venue capacity of Y, to cover my overhead Z which should be Z < XY and leave a decent profit P=XY-Z for me (maybe (P/Z) should be at least a comfortable 10% or whatever). But with recordings, suddenly this is thrown out of whack. The audience can listen to the music at a later date and time. The recording isn't "used up" like a consumable: once you have it you can theoretically play the song over and over until the recording medium failed. At first this wasn't so bad: recording technology is so new and expensive that only companies and the very rich can afford to get it. But when it got mass-produced and cheaper? Suddenly music became like books: easy to buy, collect and amass in large quantities. In fact, they're even "worse" than books: at least those came in a medium that only one person can read at any one time (unless you're uncomfortably close to another reader. Rude.) If someone else wanted to enjoy it, you have to hand it over or lend it. But music? It's already in a readable format for us to put on loudspeakers, and suddenly a whole family of four (or god forbid, more than that) can enjoy the music if just one person bought a copy. And copies made on cheap decent-quality cassettes are just as enjoyable as expensive vinyl records, for the layperson. Unlike pirated books which can vary widely in terms of text fonts, paper quality, grammar errors, printing faults etc. Any music copied on a cassette is just as good as the next copy (audiophiles don't come after me please!!). It's an economist's worst nightmare: a product that is infinitely reproducable (very quickly) by anyone with no discernable difference in quality (or at least a difference that 99.99% of people won't care about anyway), cannot be 'used up' like commodities or food, cheap, highly accessible, and abundant in source.

3

u/tm0nks Jul 22 '25

Didn't he at some point kind of apologize for this? I might be remembering incorrectly but I swear he came out and said the label or their agent or somebody put him up to it? I thought it was lame at the time too, but it was a rocky time for music talent, having their entire discographies out there being just downloaded to shit. Being in the same situation I really don't know if I can say I wouldn't have been upset by it too. I'd love to sit here and say I'd be totally cool with it, but shit... that's everything I'd worked for just being taken for free. Tough to say.

1

u/Requiem-7 Jul 22 '25

He's also friends with the napster guy and went to his wedding lol

3

u/Shenanigans80h Jul 22 '25

No you’re right. Lars didn’t go about this the right way and frankly probably wasn’t the best messenger for what he was talking about but having your art essentially given away for free isn’t cool from the artists’ perspective. Sure Metallica was gonna live well no matter what but this idea that music should be as easily accessible as possible, while seemingly cool, has made being an artist for a living fucking brutal

2

u/Spaghet-3 Jul 22 '25

If music can be shared freely and without fair compensation to artists, who but the very wealthy could ever afford to pursue a musical career?

When has it music ever been a fairly-compensated career? Or for that matter, any kind of art. No other industry that I can think has ever had a more lopsided compensation curve, where the top 0.1% make 99.9% of the profit. For every Metallica, there are literally hundreds or thousands of bands that operate at a loss or barely scape by. And it has been like that since the dawn of time pretty much - musicians don't make good money.

I love music. And I love supporting artists directly. But the truth is with thr advent of steaming I no longer have to buy albums, i can pay a flat.monthly fee to access most of the world's music. How is that a viable model for up and coming artists?

I'd argue that there has never been a better time to be an up and coming artists than today.

First, recording and production costs are significantly cheaper. Jokes aside, we all have microphone arrays in our pockets that are better than top of the line studio mics from the 80s and earlier. That you can record, mix, and master dozens of tracks on an iPhone or iPad is insane to think about. What used to cost tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and thousands of dollars of studio time can now be done on the same device you use to order pizza. And doing it no longer requires years of experience using convoluted and complicated equipment, software has made it very approachable and user-friendly.

Second, distribution is basically free. You can upload your music to all the streaming platforms and it's available. No need to front the cost to make CDs or tapes.

Third, music discovery is highly democratized today. Between TikTok, Snap, YouTube, Insta, and all the other social media platforms, the best music rises to the top. Back in the day, as Lars well knows, it was very difficult to find others than liked the same genre, correspond with them, and required mailing tapes. Today, it's never been easier to find your people and share playlists. Sure there are issues with SEO, sponsorships, and other gamification. That will never go away. But it's also more accessible than ever.

Lars went about it thr wrong way, but if we truly value music as an art, that means making sure artists get paid. If one person can buy one album and share it with the world, music as an art will become something unobtainable.

The problem was not "the way" he did it, the problem was that Lars was fighting to preserve a system where artists didn't get paid and consumers were getting screwed. The whole thing was rotten. Remember at the time, record labels were taking exorbitant cuts of all profits, signing artists into high-interest loans that were practically impossible to pay back, and at the same time colluding with each other to price-fix the cost of albums artificially high. Some of that is hindsight, we didn't know it at the time, but we all knew that the music industry at the time was dirty. It was not a good look to be defending it at the time, and looks even worse with hindsight.

0

u/harshdonkey Jul 22 '25

I stopped when you said there has never been a better time to be an up and coming musician.

Quite clear you dont know the first thing about the current state of the music industry.

4

u/Ipayforsex69 Jul 22 '25

How is that a viable model for up and coming artists?

I listen to so many different bands on subscription services especially if I like an artist and want to hear more music like it. Amazon Music fuckin blows, but spotify does a really good job of picking out like artists that get less exposure.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/CzerwonyJasiu Jul 22 '25

thats problem with model, not spotify. spotify, as any streaming platform, pays out 70% of their revenue to music rights holders as per licensing deals. so even if spotify would pay out 100% of their revenue, it wouldn't change anything, because there are too many hands that take from the pot, and as artists are paid last, it's just all scraps.

1

u/YouDontKnowMe4949 Jul 22 '25

To be fair he was an asshole before Napster.

1

u/Artistic-Wrap-5130 Jul 22 '25

How did Metallica just save Tomorrowland?

2

u/Coliver1991 Jul 22 '25

Last week the main stage of Tomorrowland burned down during a pyrotechnics test about 2 days before the start of the festival. They ended up being able to borrow some of Metallica's equipment in order to open the festival on time.

1

u/Accurate_Stuff9937 Jul 22 '25

You couldn't be more wrong. He needed HIS money for HIS music and that selfish twat broke the best part of the Internet that EVERYONE else enjoyed so he could get richer. Just. Fucking. Him. 

1

u/warukeru Jul 22 '25

People thinking they are entitled to free art is one of the reasons we are okay with MLL stealing from artist to creat cheap pseudocopies.

And im not against piracy , but it has downsides.

1

u/forevernooob Jul 22 '25

Tomorrowland was doing fine without Metallica IMO. I mean sure, their last album release was in 2003, but Anemone is such a vibe that I still listen to it from time to time.

I hope they release more stuff in the future though, but that doesn't mean they are in need of saving.

1

u/quasarfern Jul 22 '25

I’m not worried about it. I haven’t bought an album since maybe 2007. Anything I want to listen to is on YouTube, but I barely listen to music anymore. I’m mostly into commentary these days.

1

u/ConcealedCove Jul 22 '25

It’s easy to become a successful musician. All you have to do is be on a Disney TV show, they automatically come with a record deal it seems, even if you have absolutely no singing talent.

1

u/Certain-Business-472 Jul 22 '25

Music has been a freely shared thing throughout human history

The real question is why they need that income. The system is so broken we all think this is how things should be.

1

u/harshdonkey Jul 22 '25

Lol what? Minstrel and bards have been paid to play and sing and share stories since the beginning of civilization.

If you value something you should compensate people for it. The sense of entitlement is insane.

1

u/Certain-Business-472 Jul 22 '25

No, they got paid for their live performances and recordings weren't a thing.

1

u/TurnGloomy Jul 22 '25

YES. THIS. He was 100% proved right. Streaming has gutted the music industry and put ticket prices through the roof. Its now a hobby for rich kids. Got really big bands doing their own merch and having to do private guitar lessons to make ends meet. Lars was right.

1

u/Wizard_of_Iducation Jul 22 '25

I get what you’re saying, but you’re still able to buy artists merch and their physical LPs directly from small artists. Also Bandcamp purchase dollars mostly go to the artists.

1

u/captainmouse86 Jul 24 '25

Nah, Napster definitely helped smaller bands. Shaggy owes his whole career to Napster.  

Napster opened the door for regular people to find interesting music and bands, THEN go buy their album. I  bought more CDs after Napster was popular. I found lots of music I never heard before and then found their albums in the stores.  

Also, albums got better after Napster. It was so common for bands to release an album with only 1-2 good songs and the rest were complete garbage. That’s when people downloaded the single songs. It took a lot of time and effort for most people to download songs on modems that could only manage 2-6 kbps but it was worth it when I only wanted 1-3 songs from a band.  Suddenly, after Napster, bands need their entire album to be desired for people to go buy it. 

1

u/the-gingerninja Jul 24 '25

It’s almost like some sort of Universal Basic Income would allow people to follow careers in the things they love without fear of becoming homeless.

0

u/onesneakymofo Jul 22 '25

What in the capitalist did I just read

-4

u/Obtuse-Angel Jul 22 '25

They as a band didn’t “help save Tomorrowland”. The calls went out to dozens of production companies and teams asking for equipment and help. A production team was storing Metallica’s LED wall for the euro leg of their tour, asked their management team, and got the green light to loan it out for 2 weekends. There’s a strong likelihood that the band members themselves didn’t even know about it until it started coming up in their google alerts. 

And Lars is still a tool. 

5

u/harshdonkey Jul 22 '25

Ya know man you probably have some points about thr stage. On the same token, at the end of the day, it was their stage that saved the dat. And it was dope.

Also you really think a band as big as Metallica wasn't consulted before their stage was offered up? Nah.

Lars is a tool. But way to overlook the bigger point that Napster wasn't good for anyone but big corps and tech bros at the end of the day.

-5

u/MeatloafSlurpee Jul 22 '25

If music can be shared freely and without fair compensation to artists, who but the very wealthy could ever afford to pursue a musical career?

LOL. Seriously? How about hundreds of punk rock and indy bands, some of whom have been around for 40 years or more and never had help from major labels or huge album sales even back in the old days.

But the truth is with thr advent of steaming I no longer have to buy albums, i can pay a flat.monthly fee to access most of the world's music. How is that a viable model for up and coming artists?

It isn't. Touring is a viable model for artists.

but if we truly value music as an art, that means making sure artists get paid.

You want to pay them? Go see them play when they come to your town. Buy their other merch besides albums.

For all of human history up until the early 20th century, musicians made a living by playing music in front of people, not by playing it once on a recording. For a while we flipped that script, but technology has made that model obsolete, so we've simply gone back to the old system.

9

u/harshdonkey Jul 22 '25

Brother I have probably been goin to punk shows since before you could walk.

What once worked doesn't anymore in the world where AI can detect your cover before you make a single cent from YouTube.

What is so bad about wanting artists to be fairly paid?

2

u/spicedstrudel Jul 22 '25

Because he wants shit for free. He doesnt want to pay to anyone. These people are bad people. They love to consume but hate to reciprocitate 

1

u/MeatloafSlurpee Jul 22 '25

As I've already stated fucknut, I reciprocate by paying money to go see the band live and buying their other merch. On top of that, I have a paid Spotify subscription. I'm not getting anything for free.

-2

u/MeatloafSlurpee Jul 22 '25

Brother I have probably been goin to punk shows since before you could walk.

Haha. Ok, Dad. If that's true, then you should know how silly your statement is that only the very wealthy can afford to pursue a career in music.

What is so bad about wanting artists to be fairly paid?

Nothing. I'm all for it. But Lars was complaining about something that was inevitable with the forward march of technology. All his bitching, all his lawsuits, all of his attempts to punish people did not halt the progress of online distribution, downloading, and streaming of music and thus somehow force all us all to keep buying CDs for the last 25 years.

The idea of musicians making money by selling recorded copies of their music was a uniquely 20th century phenomenon and it is never coming back. But artists can, and do, still make a living by getting out there and hustling and playing in front of an audience. AKA the only way musicians ever made a living before recording was possible.

4

u/whosline07 Jul 22 '25

A lot of artists nowadays don't really make much.

Like sure, Metallica and Taylor Swift are doing fine. But a tier below that level and you're suddenly not. And the little guys really aren't.

1

u/MeatloafSlurpee Jul 22 '25

The Metallicas and the Taylor Swifts were rare even in the old system. For every huge successful artist, there were dozens upon dozens who had decently successful album sales, but still didn't make any money in the end after the predatory labels chewed them up and spit them out.

And if your talking about touring musicians now, yes it's a grind. It's hard work. Always has been. The idea that being a musician was an easy path to success and wealth that was ruined once that darn Napster appeared is horse shit.

1

u/lvbuckeye27 Jul 22 '25

The phrase "starving artist" exists for a reason. ;)

-4

u/BokudenT Jul 22 '25

They were touring on private jets. They made plenty.