No, music is not expensive, and here’s why

Periodically, someone comes along on the internet and complains that downloading their favourite music is simply too expensive. Do not fall for this view. Quite simply, it’s bollocks.

Music costs money to make. I have my own costs to pay. I have a subscription with Roland Cloud, for example, that needs paying. My costs aren’t huge compared to many, but they still exist.

I would love to be able to use real musicians and instruments on some of what I do, but the cost is a sizeable one. It’s almost certainly not something I’d be able to recoup based on my sales. Singers cost money. Mastering costs money.

Yet there are those out there who seem to think they have the divine right to compile folders full of other people’s music – that they have no rights to, by the way – and just give them away for nothing. They clearly don’t realise they’re helping destroy the music they claim to love. Artists won’t go on forever if they’re losing money.

If I’d been around making house music in the 1990s, you would have had to pay between six and eight pounds for my music on vinyl. If you wanted a copy, you’d have had to go out and buy one. Promo copies and test pressings did exist, but they could be pretty hard to get hold of.

So don’t complain to me that 99p is expensive for a song. It simply isn’t. If you want a full release now with a few remixes, it will probably cost you no more than a fiver. Those double 12″ back then would have cost £10 if you were lucky…