[besson3c]

Here's the problem:

File sharing is great. It provides a way for consumers to explore music, listen to a lot of it, access it conveniently, etc. iTunes is the same in a sense, although of course it only provides 30 second previews and costs to purchase music.

The problem starts with the idea that the convenience of illegal file sharing wins out over getting in your car and going to the nearest CD shop (I'm not saying this is necessary the fault of the consumer either). Many think that artists should make their money performing/touring, and don't buy CDs.

The problem is compounded when you look at the fact that it is hard to hear live music. I've played gigs for the "door", and there isn't a lot of money to be had this way. The population of people who want to go out, buy tickets, show up, buy drinks, and take in live music is limited. When you buy tickets, you are also paying for the venue and all the associated costs for the event. Not everything is willing to pay this price or take time out of their lives when they can just pop in a CD or fire up iTunes.

Finally, if you ask people whether they would be happy if the only choices in recorded music were monopolized by one of the three major labels and limited to people like Britney Spears, and whomever else these labels choose to push at that given moment, many would indicate that they wouldn't be content. Many people find these conglomerations corrupt and are uninterested in giving them their business.

The catch is, in order for this infrastructure to be consumer friendly, live music needs to have a home and thrive or else artists won't make money if people are not paying for recorded music. Independent artists need to be supported by attending their live performances and buying their music (believe me, without the cash flow of a big company like Sony, this sort of financial support is not only useful, it's required to sustain the artist).


What's the solution?

Well, iTunes is a great start. Providing the consumers with a satisfying buying experience (online seems like the way things are going) is great. File sharing could work BUT ONLY if listeners do their part and SUPPORT LIVE MUSIC. If you aren't paying for the artists' music and you aren't paying to hear their performances, how will they make money?

Artists like myself HATE to hear that they shouldn't be paid just because they happen to love what they do. Your plumber may absolutely love plumbing, but you pay him, right? Unfortunately, I suppose people don't see music and art as vital as plumbing.. maybe it isn't to most.

Other than this, I have no solution, but I'm scared. It is hard enough for artists to get by. I'm comforted by the success of iTunes and independent labels, but I don't know what the crystal ball of music in our culture looks like.

Your thoughts? Opinions? Solutions?

(sorry if this sounded like a lecture, it wasn't my intention).

[funkboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The problem is compounded when you look at the fact that it is hard to hear live music. I've played gigs for the "door", and there isn't a lot of money to be had this way. The population of people who want to go out, buy tickets, show up, buy drinks, and take in live music is limited. When you buy tickets, you are also paying for the venue and all the associated costs for the event. Not everything is willing to pay this price or take time out of their lives when they can just pop in a CD or fire up iTunes.

This right here... if it will continue to be easy to pirate music (which I do not necessarily think it will, it's already much harder for the average everyday user I think...), then selling live music to a wider audience is the next avenue of sales.

One big problem: many people I know like the recorded, produced versions of songs better than hearing them live. When a live version is "different" from the recorded version in any very noticeable way, these people are unhappy, because they want the same breaks, the same beat, the same sound of the cymbal at 2:15 into the song.

The market for live music will always be limited, and not just because it's harder to go out... it has to do with live music itself.

But could we get to broadcasting live music more easily? Or selling live recordings easier? Could even Apple make this a possibility, by making some sort of easy recording studio for live setups and have it combine with the iTMS easily? Remember how Pearl Jam was selling every live show they did for an entire tour? Maybe more than just one tour, they issued a huge number of albums. If these albums were easy to pick up on the iTunes store, live music fans like myself would certainly be interested. Hearing alternate interpretations (along with all the fun interaction with the audience the performer does intact) would certainly intrigue me... but it would have to be made very easy to both make available and purchase.

I don't think I'm scared, because the average person is listening to more and more music in the average day. More listening will undoubtedly lead to more purchasing... right? (the million dollar question, that)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

In the words of Little Steven…"music should be seen, and not heard."



Seriously though, while there are some exceptions I find live songs often translate poorly to recordings, for any number of reasons. Primarily, a live show is about exactly that – the "live," the spectacle, the performer and the audience – and it's very difficult to transfer all that purely via audio. You truly need to be there to get the full sound experience.

greg

[Dr Reducto]

The music industry is in for a change....that's for damn sure.

Maybe record labels won't even bother selling albums anymore, and instead concentrate on building large music "brands" to sell other products (basically, take the MTV business model to infinity). Im sure this would be in line with the conglomeration of large record companies.

And really, although it seems bad, it seems like the artist is benefitting from the whole filesharing thing. Before you had the choice of being raped by a record company, or relative obscurity. Now, you can actually build quite a fanbase up through cheap/free means of music promotion, using readily available and cheap computer-based recording. This can support a tour, or DIY record sales, or merch sales, etc. And you aren't at the mercy of what A&R at the big five thinks is the "Hot New Sound/Image" and then be a tool for the company until they are done with you and you are still in debt to the company.

[Salty]

I buy CDs, and I buy on iTunes. I listen to nearly 100% indie music. I always buy both the artist's CD and their merch so long as they have good stuff. The fact is the music I listen to makes my life more rich, I don't see why I shouldn't give back to the people who do that! I also e-mail artists if I find their stuff and really like it.
If you're only listening to garbage like 50 Cent or somebody like that, sure they don't make your life better, but someone like Waking Ashland, or Matthew West, those are acts I love to know I support.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by funkboy

This right here... if it will continue to be easy to pirate music (which I do not necessarily think it will, it's already much harder for the average everyday user I think...), then selling live music to a wider audience is the next avenue of sales.

One big problem: many people I know like the recorded, produced versions of songs better than hearing them live. When a live version is "different" from the recorded version in any very noticeable way, these people are unhappy, because they want the same breaks, the same beat, the same sound of the cymbal at 2:15 into the song.

The market for live music will always be limited, and not just because it's harder to go out... it has to do with live music itself.

But could we get to broadcasting live music more easily? Or selling live recordings easier? Could even Apple make this a possibility, by making some sort of easy recording studio for live setups and have it combine with the iTMS easily? Remember how Pearl Jam was selling every live show they did for an entire tour? Maybe more than just one tour, they issued a huge number of albums. If these albums were easy to pick up on the iTunes store, live music fans like myself would certainly be interested. Hearing alternate interpretations (along with all the fun interaction with the audience the performer does intact) would certainly intrigue me... but it would have to be made very easy to both make available and purchase.

I don't think I'm scared, because the average person is listening to more and more music in the average day. More listening will undoubtedly lead to more purchasing... right? (the million dollar question, that)

Very interesting post!

I know somebody who is working on a streaming music device that will do this cheaply (current solutions are very expensive) for live performances. This sort of thing would be interesting if it catches on.

The problem with live recordings though is that they often don't stack up in recording quality with studio recordings, where the recording takes place in a very controlled environment and the best take is chosen. People seem to expect polished, pristine quality recordings.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

The music industry is in for a change....that's for damn sure.

Maybe record labels won't even bother selling albums anymore, and instead concentrate on building large music "brands" to sell other products (basically, take the MTV business model to infinity). Im sure this would be in line with the conglomeration of large record companies.

And really, although it seems bad, it seems like the artist is benefitting from the whole filesharing thing. Before you had the choice of being raped by a record company, or relative obscurity. Now, you can actually build quite a fanbase up through cheap/free means of music promotion, using readily available and cheap computer-based recording. This can support a tour, or DIY record sales, or merch sales, etc. And you aren't at the mercy of what A&R at the big five thinks is the "Hot New Sound/Image" and then be a tool for the company until they are done with you and you are still in debt to the company.

How does the potential for greater market penetration that file sharing offers and the means to cut a CD cheaply translate into making money and having a successful career? Not following your thinking here...

[Kevin]

Some people don't make it in music simply because they don't have something the people want.

Some musicians then blame some "boogy man" as to why they aren't making money.

Take Metallica for example. They blamed file sharing for their record sales drop.

When it has more to do with them just plain out sucking.

[Doofy]

What your actual problem is is nothing to do with piracy. It's to do with the amount of music available and the number of "artistes" out there.

In the old days, it was hard for folks to make recordings so they relied on the record companies and pro recording studios. The record companies were happy to go with this and provide a variety of quality material.

Nowadays, due to the advance of cheap recording technology and distribution methods, it's easy for any artiste to make their own recordings independently and easier for independent labels to operate. In effect the market has reached saturation point simply through the number of artistes out there - people who would previously have been told to go sling their hook because they're talentless can now pop themselves on iTMS.

As a result of this, the major labels are going to default to coming out with sure-fire hit artistes - the manufactured stuff which they know will work. And they're less likely to take a chance on someone who's slightly different.

It's like blogs. Before blogs, you used to be able to find reasonable valid content quite easily. Nowadays, search for almost anything and half the first page of links will be to someone's blog. Too much noise, not enough signal. So the people providing the "signal" have to find new ways to operate - through branding and the like. Record companies no longer taking chances on marginal artistes is exactly that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Some people don't make it in music simply because they don't have something the people want.

Some musicians then blame some "boogy man" as to why they aren't making money.

Take Metallica for example. They blamed file sharing for their record sales drop.

When it has more to do with them just plain out sucking.

Word.

[Super Mario]

Musicians. I hate many of them. They suck....often they sing about love and all that but are really druggies going to orgies.

Support chefs by downloading recipe podcasts. Good for your health!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Some people don't make it in music simply because they don't have something the people want.

Some musicians then blame some "boogy man" as to why they aren't making money.

Take Metallica for example. They blamed file sharing for their record sales drop.

When it has more to do with them just plain out sucking.

Good point

cheers

W-Y

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The problem is compounded when you look at the fact that it is hard to hear live music. I've played gigs for the "door", and there isn't a lot of money to be had this way. The population of people who want to go out, buy tickets, show up, buy drinks, and take in live music is limited. When you buy tickets, you are also paying for the venue and all the associated costs for the event. Not everything is willing to pay this price or take time out of their lives when they can just pop in a CD or fire up iTunes.

Yeah, I like concerts and all, but I have two small kids. Odds don't favor me choosing to spend an evening (or into the morning) at a concert. Much rather just fire it up on the stereo.

Finally, if you ask people whether they would be happy if the only choices in recorded music were monopolized by one of the three major labels and limited to people like Britney Spears, and whomever else these labels choose to push at that given moment, many would indicate that they wouldn't be content. Many people find these conglomerations corrupt and are uninterested in giving them their business.

A huge portion of the CD buying population is under 18 and tasteless. They like Britney and NSync and Milli Vanilli and MCHammer and New Kids on the Block.

The catch is, in order for this infrastructure to be consumer friendly, live music needs to have a home and thrive or else artists won't make money if people are not paying for recorded music. Independent artists need to be supported by attending their live performances and buying their music (believe me, without the cash flow of a big company like Sony, this sort of financial support is not only useful, it's required to sustain the artist).

Quit charging so damned much for the concerts. Whether it's the venue or the promoter or the parking attendant or whoever or ticketmaster - at some point, you've got to stop ripping people off and be content to make a reasonable living. Last time I looked, Ticketmaster tacked $6.50 onto each ticket for themselves. Throw in $10 to park, and you're at $16.50 and the venue and the artist haven't been paid. If I want a beer, it's $7.50. I have to pay too many people in order to enjoy live music.

Artists like myself HATE to hear that they shouldn't be paid just because they happen to love what they do. Your plumber may absolutely love plumbing, but you pay him, right? Unfortunately, I suppose people don't see music and art as vital as plumbing.. maybe it isn't to most.

And you'll hear me complain that I shouldn't have to pay the plumber $65 an hour while he hunts for the problem, takes a few calls from other clients, has a cigarette, and eventually fixes my problem.

Other than this, I have no solution, but I'm scared. It is hard enough for artists to get by. I'm comforted by the success of iTunes and independent labels, but I don't know what the crystal ball of music in our culture looks like.

Your thoughts? Opinions? Solutions?

Get the greedy bastards out of the process. It's not just the music industry - it's everything. The world has gone out of control in its desire for profit. Look at Exxon - sure, we had a hurricane, but they had the most profitable quarter in the history of the US - they used the hurricane to rip us all off.

If you want to save music, find a way to get back to making good music and caring for your listeners. Get rid of the people that want to use music to make as much money as possible. They're the ones that are causing the problem.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

If you want to save music, find a way to get back to making good music and caring for your listeners. Get rid of the people that want to use music to make as much money as possible. They're the ones that are causing the problem.

No, I just told you what the problem is - it's stupid little talentless a-holes sitting in their bedrooms thinking that their copy of GarageBand has miraculously endowed them with talent enough to release their junk into the lake of crap known as the Internet.

Plus, hardly anyone learns their art any more. They think that four hours with whatever DAW they have will create a masterpiece to wow the world. I've seen it many, many times. Geddy Lee of the rock band Rush has been known to sing a phrase up to 500 times in order to get it just right - that's love of the music, right there. Most people don't have that dedication. Quick bish bosh "knocked it up in the shed" mentality prevails.

The signal to noise ratio is screwed, the market is saturated. And there's no way back.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Geddy Lee of the rock band Rush has been known to sing a phrase up to 500 times in order to get it just right - that's love of the music, right there.

Apparently, he needed 501.

(Just kidding, I love Rush! I just can't stand listening to their older records, because I don't like fingernails on chalkboard either. )

Anyway, there are really three questions buried in this thread. They are all related to the fact that music used to be this special, mystical thing that took a lot of effort to do correctly. Music wasn't just listened to, it was experienced. Now, while that feeling stll exists among musicians, to most people music is just a bunch of bits that can get flung around the Internet like stock quotes. It is essentially commodotized.

1) Is this new world of commoditized music, will a musician make a living just playing music?

2) What makes one sack of bits more valuable than another?

3) If copyright were to vanish tomorrow, and musicians could not be guanteed of a profit by pressing CD's, would there still be people who bother to make music, and will it be any good?

Sorry to post these and run, but I'm somewhat busy at the moment....

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by besson3c

How does the potential for greater market penetration that file sharing offers and the means to cut a CD cheaply translate into making money and having a successful career? Not following your thinking here...

It doesn't guarantee them anything, but if they work hard and get themselves out there, it's an alternative to the "Big Record Company Superstar" career track, as there can be only so many of those.

It really boils down to which you'd rather have:
-Only big label artists who get paid a lot (well, they don't really get paid....they get lent money)
-Big label artists who get paid a lot, but also, there is an oppurtunity to make a living playing music on your own through touring, merch sales, etc, partly made possible by cheap recording and cheap/free exposure on the internet.

Id rather have the latter. You can't really expect people to just sit back and buy your album and make a living, unless, you are in the top echelon of bands/artists. This is where hard work comes in.

[Super Mario]

Quoting Grudger

"People in the entertainment business from artists to execs indirectly fund drug cartels because of their drug use. Drug cartels are connected to kidnapping, terrorism, extortion, despots, fundamentalists, human trafficking, smuggling and murder. Take the drugs out of the business then I might spend money on it otherwise I couldn't give a **** about their pretentious philosophies of life and libertinism masquerading as positive liberalism. ****ing idiots go on about Dubya all the time because it's so cool and fashionable and sells records (or something) when they should look at themselves as even more responsible for enriching criminals.

If people wanna pirate their work it's less money to drug cartels."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, I just told you what the problem is - it's stupid little talentless a-holes sitting in their bedrooms thinking that their copy of GarageBand has miraculously endowed them with talent enough to release their junk into the lake of crap known as the Internet.

Plus, hardly anyone learns their art any more. They think that four hours with whatever DAW they have will create a masterpiece to wow the world. I've seen it many, many times. Geddy Lee of the rock band Rush has been known to sing a phrase up to 500 times in order to get it just right - that's love of the music, right there. Most people don't have that dedication. Quick bish bosh "knocked it up in the shed" mentality prevails.

The signal to noise ratio is screwed, the market is saturated. And there's no way back.

I don't think I agree...

I agree with you up to a point. Yes, there is more "stuff" out there. However, it exists at different thresholds.

There is music now that does not include live musicians playing instruments usually reserved for live musicians. There are recordings now that don't have as high a production quality as where the bar has been set.

However, it takes something for an actual BAND to play together and stay together and develop a sound as a cohesive unit, and yes, some talent is required for this sort of musical sensitivity and awareness can take place. I think people can pick up on a band that actually plays together, rather than just a bunch of random musicians assembled together. It takes tens of thousands of dollars to record a CD that matches the quality that people have grown to expect.

If the music you enjoy hearing has surpassed these thresholds, I don't think it is an impossible task to sift through the options that are available. Can the average person tell whether they are listening to synthetic instruments? Can the average person tell whether there were shortcuts taken in the recording they are listening to? Do they care? Well, if this is important enough to a listener, this is just a part of their musical education. I don't think that modern technology can be blamed here.

There is a flipside to what you've said too. It takes a lot of capital to gain world recognition. If a band can work towards this without working through one of these companies and all strings attached, isn't this a good thing for the listener too?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Apparently, he needed 501.

(Just kidding, I love Rush! I just can't stand listening to their older records, because I don't like fingernails on chalkboard either. )

Anyway, there are really three questions buried in this thread. They are all related to the fact that music used to be this special, mystical thing that took a lot of effort to do correctly. Music wasn't just listened to, it was experienced. Now, while that feeling stll exists among musicians, to most people music is just a bunch of bits that can get flung around the Internet like stock quotes. It is essentially commodotized.

1) Is this new world of commoditized music, will a musician make a living just playing music?

2) What makes one sack of bits more valuable than another?

3) If copyright were to vanish tomorrow, and musicians could not be guanteed of a profit by pressing CD's, would there still be people who bother to make music, and will it be any good?

Sorry to post these and run, but I'm somewhat busy at the moment....

That's not exactly what I was asking originally, but interesting questions nonetheless...

I'd argue that music has been commoditized for years, so I'm not certain what your argument is there.

[cpt kangarooski]

besson3c--

Artists like myself HATE to hear that they shouldn't be paid just because they happen to love what they do. Your plumber may absolutely love plumbing, but you pay him, right? Unfortunately, I suppose people don't see music and art as vital as plumbing.. maybe it isn't to most.

If my plumber was willing to work for free because he loved plumbing, I would be crazy not take full advantage of that to the fullest extent possible. And if I needed him to do work that he wasn't interested in, I'd have to find a way to get him to do it anyway -- probably by paying him to do it. But I'd still let him work for free whenever he was willing. I'm not a charity.

Other than this, I have no solution, but I'm scared. It is hard enough for artists to get by. I'm comforted by the success of iTunes and independent labels, but I don't know what the crystal ball of music in our culture looks like.

I can't make a prediction, but my suggestion is to allow individuals to do whatever they want, so long as it's not commercial in nature. Musicians could still sell CDs to anyone who wanted to buy them (and some people would), license rights to others (e.g. for covers, for use in audiovisual works, etc.), and make money in ways that don't rely on copyrights (e.g. performing live, whether in a bar or concert hall, or as hired musicians for other venues such as weddings or dances). While this might result in the fortunes of musicians lessening, and in fewer people being professional musicians, I think that the public would still benefit more than they do now, making the idea a worthy one.

funkboy--

One big problem: many people I know like the recorded, produced versions of songs better than hearing them live.

Myself, I don't care about the differences in the music, but I hate audiences. They're noisy, and I'm not paying money to listen to people make noise that keeps me from hearing the music. Of course, this is less of a problem is some places (the orchestra) than in others (pop music).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

besson3c--


If my plumber was willing to work for free because he loved plumbing, I would be crazy not take full advantage of that to the fullest extent possible. And if I needed him to do work that he wasn't interested in, I'd have to find a way to get him to do it anyway -- probably by paying him to do it. But I'd still let him work for free whenever he was willing. I'm not a charity.

The problem is, for many musicians, it's either take a $10 gig, or stay home without a gig... Musicians take on gigs for a number of reasons. If the other musicians on the gig are better or as good as me, I usually take the gig and grow musically. If the musical experience is worth my while, I'll take the gig.

Unfortunately, the criteria for many musicians is "do I need the money?" and the answer is often yes - even if it is only $10, or some other paltry sum. The musicians often have no choice in the matter... they either take the gig, or they stay home and do something else. There often isn't room for negotiation.

Several other parties can also be very exploitive of situations like this. For instance, this College town has a great music program. Musicians can be paid less than livable wages and play gigs for peanuts, simply because they are a dime a dozen. There are many variables which account for musicians giving away their work for free. I know $10 is not literally free, but it might as well be free.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c

That's not exactly what I was asking originally, but interesting questions nonetheless...

I'd argue that music has been commoditized for years, so I'm not certain what your argument is there.

"Commoditized" (or however you spell it ) is probably the wrong word to use, because you're right, Music as an industry has been that way for a while. What I mean is that as recently as the 1990's, an album (whether on CD or vinyl) was still a distinct and unique product with a high barrier to entry, and a difficult product to make a perfect copy of. But technology has progressed to the point where not only can anyone have an album made and distributed online at the fraction of the cost of what it took before, but the end product (from a technical perspective) is even less than a recorded song, it's a sack of bits, just like my Civilization III CD, but the bits on my copy of Rush's "Moving Pictures" CD are just in a slightly different order. Think about it -- does it make any sense that bits on a CD in a certain order are valued differently than bits on a CD in a different order?

As recently as 100 years ago (give or take a decade), there wasn't even such a thing as recorded music. If you wanted to hear music, you had to either play it or go somewhere to hear it live. Now, we get music for free on cereal boxes. With all this music around, are musicians less relevant? And even if musicians are less relevant, will that keep them from making music?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork.

"Commoditized" (or however you spell it ) is probably the wrong word to use, because you're right, Music as an industry has been that way for a while. What I mean is that as recently as the 1990's, an album (whether on CD or vinyl) was still a distinct and unique product with a high barrier to entry, and a difficult product to make a perfect copy of. But technology has progressed to the point where not only can anyone have an album made and distributed online at the fraction of the cost of what it took before, but the end product (from a technical perspective) is even less than a recorded song, it's a sack of bits, just like my Civilization III CD, but the bits on my copy of Rush's "Moving Pictures" CD are just in a slightly different order. Think about it -- does it make any sense that bits on a CD in a certain order are valued differently than bits on a CD in a different order?

As recently as 100 years ago (give or take a decade), there wasn't even such a thing as recorded music. If you wanted to hear music, you had to either play it or go somewhere to hear it live. Now, we get music for free on cereal boxes. With all this music around, are musicians less relevant? And even if musicians are less relevant, will that keep them from making music?

My theory is that it will make it very difficult in innovate within music, sort of like how Microsoft has made it difficult to innovate on Desktop PCs.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My theory is that it will make it very difficult in innovate within music, sort of like how Microsoft has made it difficult to innovate on Desktop PCs.

It does mean that the innovators are more likely to need another source of income, because their innovative music will probably not be profitable enough to make a living from. But hasn't it always been this way?

It also means that the innovator (who is a wedding band member, a music teacher or an orchestra member as his or her main job, perhaps) can have a wider potential audience, though, for his new sound.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork.

It does mean that the innovators are more likely to need another source of income, because their innovative music will probably not be profitable enough to make a living from. But hasn't it always been this way?

It also means that the innovator (who is a wedding band member, a music teacher or an orchestra member as his or her main job, perhaps) can have a wider potential audience, though, for his new sound.

Yes, I agree... this can be thought of as positive.

Of course, the vast majority of listeners aren't looking for innovation in their music. Short of innovative music, I would hope that music with *substance* will be allowed to survive, even if the odds are working against it. However, I guess listener education will help set the demand for music with substance.

This isn't to say that music without "substance", however you define this term, is worthless... I just hope that there are options available, just like I don't hope for a world with nothing but McDonalds restaurants to choose from.

[Binarymix]

I'm going to a Korn concert on the 4th. I'm doing my part.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

No you're not! You're listening to Korn!!

...okay, I'm spent.



greg

[cpt kangarooski]

besson3c--

Musicians can be paid less than livable wages and play gigs for peanuts, simply because they are a dime a dozen.

Yes, that's supply and demand. I've got to say, I'm not bothered by any of this.

Dork--

Think about it -- does it make any sense that bits on a CD in a certain order are valued differently than bits on a CD in a different order?

Yes. You're a bunch of atoms arranged in a particular way. A different arrangement wouldn't be able to do all the valuable things you can do.