Following this week’s MusicTank event, Keith Jopling, one of the members of the panel, has written is summary of the goings on and a few afterthoughts on his blog.

Now, despite a few semi-decent worked through points, Jopling spoils any sort of sensible argument by declaring that, with legalised file-sharing, for artists, “the incentive to create anything of real quality just isn’t there.”

This, of course, is rubbish. If he was a journalist I’d think he was looking to get a reaction. Unfortunately, as someone who has worked with the likes of SonyBMG and EMI, I believe he is deadly serious and, even more worryingly, he gets paid to convince others he’s right.

Here is my response, posted on his blog.

Keith, how are things in the clouds? Seriously, you really do live in some sort of bubble that is detached from the real world – artists only motivated by money? Jeez, perhaps every single open mic night should not bother, perhaps karaoke bars should close since nobody enjoys singing, perhaps all those DIY artists making music in their bedrooms should give up because they won’t make a fortune, perhaps that guy scrabbling away in some dingy flat trying to put together a 7” that 3 people will ever hear should just not bother – after all, if there’s no money in it, why bother at all?

One thing is for certain, the answer isn’t easy. Another thing I am sure of but willing to be proven wrong is that online digital media can never successfully replace the turnover generated by physical media. If you have P2P sites (I’m not talking The Pirate Bay here) that give you a whole host of brilliant, rare, unreleased, live and alternative albums unavailable from anywhere else in a whole range of formats for free, isn’t that a good thing? If people can get their hands on brilliant music and share it with others, isn’t that what the music industry was built on?

This is the case as I see it: consumer paid for online digital music is unworkable because there’s always a free, better quality option out there for anyone who bothers to look. Therefore the labels need to focus on what will generate money. Perhaps ISPs is the answer, perhaps taxation is the answer – the government and local authorities pay for an element of our musical entertainment as it is, why not a little more paid for via tax? It may work, it may not, but I’m sure the general public wouldn’t mind a tiny addition to their bill in exchange for such a free service. It is an option that the record industry might have to face.

One thing I can’t get my head around is why aren’t people in the industry talking to the real innovators? I’m talking about, and you’ll probably not agree with me, people like Alan Ellis who, instead of being asked ‘how did you get 180,000 people together to talk about and share music?’ is being taken through the courts on unwinnable charges – wasting taxpayers’ money while they’re at it. Ellis invented something bigger and better than Napster and even had Trent Raznor – who until last year was signed to Universal – singing his praises, declaring OiNK “the world’s greatest record store.”

The key points to this quote are the quantity and quality of titles on offer, the recommendation services of fellow consumers and – of course – the price.

The other great quote he pulled out: “I’m not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want.”

And that is the whole point: give the people what they want rather than punishing them. The only important people (really) in music are the artist and the consumer. The artist provides something beautiful and wants the consumer to listen to it. All we need to make those two happy is a distribution network that gets a-to-b. The only issue is that in the archaic industry a middleman has emerged – the record label – and they still want their plush office and nice dividend.

I think what we’re seeing is that few people actually care about record labels, they’ll buy the vinyl if they love physical records and like something enough but that small minority has always existed and always will, therefore, in all likelihood, so will smaller independent labels. What has been removed is the need for mainstream distribution and now that people don’t need it, they’re more than happy not to pay for the privilege of it.

As for artists who are only in it for the money, there are plenty of ways to make money from writing and performing music. In fact, I don’t think any artist in the world (one who writes their own material anyway) makes the majority of their money from record sales, all that this argument is about is big record companies wanting to keep their slice of the pie big and juicy and just because their existence is obsolete now, they’re trying to cash in as much as possible by kicking and screaming on their way down.

Of course you probably wouldn’t say that, I mean, they pay your wages after all.