Credits:    Jill  Pavich,  NBCT                                                                                                      jill.pavich@palmbeachschools.org        AICE:  General  Paper  (8004)                                                              Boca  Raton  Community  High  School,  PBCSD        

Should  people  have  to  pay  to  hear  music?  

From the first flutes made of bird bone, to the spine-tingling riffs of the electric

guitar, music has always had a presence in our lives. For both the listener and the artist,

music serves as the supreme form of personal expression. But for the artist, it also serves

as a source of income, a career. With this in mind, should people pay to enjoy music?

Though modern technology is making it easier to access this form of entertainment for

free, people should still pay to hear music because it rewards the hardworking artist in a

way that is fair, and because it positively impacts the economy at large.

While some people do choose to sing or perform for fun, others choose music as a profession and should be paid accordingly. We would not ask skilled

workers like doctors to perform surgery for free, nor would we force teachers to instruct

without pay, so why would it make sense to ask a musician to do this? Today’s musicians,

however, are losing a paycheck because instead of being purchased, their songs can be

accessed for free through Smartphone applications like Pandora or Spotify, and whole

albums can be uploaded for free through online sources like Limewire. This modern shift in

media is detracting from the salary of otherwise hard-working individuals. It hardly seems

fair to take money from a professional who earned it, but if we don’t pay to hear music,

this is the inevitable effect it has.

Prime examples of artists who are suffering from the negative effects of free music include solo artists like Adele as well as musical groups like Arcade Fire. While

both have received accolades for “best album” in the past, the musicians from both

categories have barely been able to produce an album in fewer than three years time due

to the expense. In previous eras, when the audience paid for music, artists were

plugging out an average of an album a year. In the three peak years of his 1960s career,

for instance, Jimi Hendrix produced three studio albums. If he were making music in 2010

though, he would have only made one album before dying in 2013, all because of the

problem free music is causing for modern artists.

Point-­‐Counterpoint  

Student  LOGIC;    also,  

APPEALS  to  

‘fairness’  MORALS  

CONCRETE  EXAMPLE  

Credits:    Jill  Pavich,  NBCT                                                                                                      jill.pavich@palmbeachschools.org        AICE:  General  Paper  (8004)                                                              Boca  Raton  Community  High  School,  PBCSD        

Those who criticize paying for music argue that musicians have other sources

of income besides album sales, such as concert tickets and merchandise. This perspective is largely misguided, however, mainly because these profits are merely a

by-product of the album itself. If a band does not make an album, it does not go on a

concert tour to promote that album, so tickets are not sold, and t-shirt or poster sales are

not nearly as popular. The album, therefore, lies at the core of all profits for the artist. If

we don’t pay for this music in digital form, the chances of us hearing it live are even less

likely.

Free music doesn’t just hurt musicians and their devoted fans, though; when

people don’t pay for music, they don’t contribute to their own economy’s growth, which

can harm the entire society. If a musician is not making a high enough salary to afford

paying managers, producers, recording engineers, band mates, and touring staff—all

important figures attached to an album—then those people lose their jobs. As jobs in this

field disappear, the entire music industry naturally begins to collapse with it. If we diminish

the industry by making music free, we ultimately threaten the entire economy because

album sales are what stimulate business, and this happens to be a multi-billion-dollar

business. Therefore, if we put no money behind music, we may be inadvertently electing

to cut jobs and decrease business productivity in our own society.

While we can’t deny that music in general will always continue to exist, the

business of music will surely cease to exist if free music prevails. People should pay to hear music because it supports the artists responsible for our entertainment, and it

supports our overall economy. As a capitalist society, America has always prided itself on

giving citizens the opportunity to fail or to succeed based on individual work ethic. If we

take this opportunity away from musicians by not requiring listeners to pay for these

services, we are stripping these artists of the very values we uphold as a nation. The arts

might seem like a God-given right that should freely be available to all citizens, but

creating fine art is a tough job, indeed. Somebody has to get paid to do it.

Point-­‐Counterpoint  

Seamless  Transition  

Student  LOGIC;    also,  

APPEALS  to  MORAL  VALUES