Slashdot Mirror

I love them because I am _smack_ in the middle of the topic: I'm a musician, working hard and putting out a lot of innovative, professional, well-produced music, all on mp3 and in fact on mp3.com.

I hate them because no matter how strident I get, no matter how I rant and make people sick of hearing from me like a guitar toting RMS ( ;) ) there is always another person sounding off the same old lines: "mp3 is illegal because", "mp3 hurts artists", and now there's some "it won't last because eventually they'll just make mp3 illegal" and people are giving up on it, saying "we'll just use mp4 or something!"

No no nooooo! It may not be all that great a format, but the reason we have digital music so ubitiquously is that CD audio (also not that great a format) proliferated and was not constantly being 'upgraded'! Data formats are not _fashion_. There's an archival value to them and the last thing you want is to be churning them like fscking Excel binaryformats. Yes, CD Audio is lame, yes mp3 is lamer and lossy, but it's all relative- many Philips cassettes are lamer still, and those were an accepted format! mp3 needs to look forward to a life as long as CD audio. It's right at the quality point where it's a good general purpose format- and we've not even begun to see its potential. I have a fancy JPEG plugin I use on images- cost me a fair bit but it optimises Huffman coding and does other tricky hacks and the quality of its output rivals the average JPEG encoder at _half_ the file size. It's that good- and the same thing can be done with mp3, I'm sure of it. 128K will end up sounding a lot like 256K in a couple years... if the format is not killed through neglect.

I'm going to ask something from my fellow slashdotters (yah, you knew this was coming, hear me out): please go grab all the songs of mine that you can, at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ , and put them on Napster. OK? Please, as many of you as possible, do this. I do get a few nano-cents from each download but they do not charge _you_, and of course I get nothing from napster exchanges. But I have the capacity as the copyright holder and owner of my songs _and_ the mechanical recordings of them, to _permit_ such exchanges- and I think this is important, because all this noise is how mp3s and napster are all illegal and piracy and theft and a lot of bullshit like that, and I would really like to be able to prove beyond a doubt that the format and even Napster serve _some_ valid purpose, and again I OWN my music and I AM ALLOWED to permit people to trade it on napster! Dammit, it makes me angry to see corporate whores 'protecting my interests as an artist' by stomping on MY listeners or potential listeners and also cutting off MY access to media! It just really makes me angry, OK? They are NOT helping me by doing this, don't be confused about that. I am outright saying I _want_ my music distributed freely over the net and Napster, that I _want_ it to be like instant radio which is entirely promotional in nature and has no relation to micropayments and 'security' and crap like that, that I see tremendous utility in this and that I also have personal feelings of wanting to be ALLOWED to give my music to a person I haven't even met who happens to not have money for it right at the moment (I can sympathise- I myself am living on ramen and spaghettios this week), and... I don't have a RIGHT to take that position?

It's my damn music, not theirs. They have no right to restrict what I may do with it! _I_ am the creator here and owe them nothing.

I don't appreciate this 'to protect the artists' slant, especially when people unwittingly buy into it... the fact is, I am dead serious about trying to build a music/sound engineering career based on these new modes of distribution. I have done my homework, huge amounts of it, and frankly the existing industry is the most horribly harmful thing you could imagine- pretend it's like all software companies are divisions of Microsoft, and they control all commercial software of all types so you can't program unless you cut a deal with them on their terms. They own basically everything and have controlling interest in everything else and are very prone to stuff like looking at your work and then cutting you dead and paying somebody to knock off your program and saying 'see you in court'. It's like a music version of that, and keeps getting worse, until if you don't know the score you wouldn't believe it. I just can't go along with this at all- and it is these people who are trying to kill the new distribution model that _I_ could use to not need them!

Links:
Steve Albini: Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked
Bobby S. Fred: How The Game Works (Scam Indies)

This is serious.

So... when I say go grab all the songs at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ and put them on napster, when I point at the CDs I have up there (which are produced via some neat press-to-order tech mp3.com's invented) and beg people to buy them in support of what I am trying to do here... that is coming from someone who feels, very deeply, that all that could be TAKEN AWAY. Maybe sooner than you think! And maybe you won't give a rat's ass about some bozo musician in Vermont no longer having access to a format (mp3) and a dotcom (mp3.com) that will print up his CDs on an as-needed basis for only nonexclusive rights to the music... but I have to take it more seriously. If this was happening to programmers, slashdot would be up in arms- why does it seem debatable if it happens to musicians? It's the equivalent of programmers having to go to say Microsoft to be 'authorised' to practice their craft professionally. "Oh, you must not be a _real_ programmer, otherwise Microsoft would want to hire you, so therefore it's OK to get rid of gzip- only criminals use it and I heard there are viruses that are transported in gzipped form! Better get rid of tar too while we're at it. Then we can license RPM so that only authorised people are allowed to use it..."

furrfu, another huge rant. I'm sorry :) I swear, I meant to only write a bit. Please, while I still have an mp3.com that will press up CDs for me and give me half, BUY one- please, while I still have an mp3 format that I'm allowed to distribute my own music over the net with, USE it and listen to my stuff and (I hope!) enjoy it and share it with your friends? If that doesn't seem like enough you are _free_ to go buy another CD of mine to make up for the napsterring, I wouldn't dream of stopping you. But I simply cannot go along with coercion, so the end result might be that I am just plain silenced, the format I use stifled or co-opted, the site I distribute from killed through lawsuits (some of which are arguably valid- but they have every right to redistribute _my_ music and in fact they pay me small amounts to do so).

Please? Help me out. www.mp3.com/ChrisJ

I love them because I am _smack_ in the middle of the topic: I'm a musician, working hard and putting out a lot of innovative, professional, well-produced music, all on mp3 and in fact on mp3.com.

I hate them because no matter how strident I get, no matter how I rant and make people sick of hearing from me like a guitar toting RMS ( ;) ) there is always another person sounding off the same old lines: "mp3 is illegal because", "mp3 hurts artists", and now there's some "it won't last because eventually they'll just make mp3 illegal" and people are giving up on it, saying "we'll just use mp4 or something!"

No no nooooo! It may not be all that great a format, but the reason we have digital music so ubitiquously is that CD audio (also not that great a format) proliferated and was not constantly being 'upgraded'! Data formats are not _fashion_. There's an archival value to them and the last thing you want is to be churning them like fscking Excel binaryformats. Yes, CD Audio is lame, yes mp3 is lamer and lossy, but it's all relative- many Philips cassettes are lamer still, and those were an accepted format! mp3 needs to look forward to a life as long as CD audio. It's right at the quality point where it's a good general purpose format- and we've not even begun to see its potential. I have a fancy JPEG plugin I use on images- cost me a fair bit but it optimises Huffman coding and does other tricky hacks and the quality of its output rivals the average JPEG encoder at _half_ the file size. It's that good- and the same thing can be done with mp3, I'm sure of it. 128K will end up sounding a lot like 256K in a couple years... if the format is not killed through neglect.

I'm going to ask something from my fellow slashdotters (yah, you knew this was coming, hear me out): please go grab all the songs of mine that you can, at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ , and put them on Napster. OK? Please, as many of you as possible, do this. I do get a few nano-cents from each download but they do not charge _you_, and of course I get nothing from napster exchanges. But I have the capacity as the copyright holder and owner of my songs _and_ the mechanical recordings of them, to _permit_ such exchanges- and I think this is important, because all this noise is how mp3s and napster are all illegal and piracy and theft and a lot of bullshit like that, and I would really like to be able to prove beyond a doubt that the format and even Napster serve _some_ valid purpose, and again I OWN my music and I AM ALLOWED to permit people to trade it on napster! Dammit, it makes me angry to see corporate whores 'protecting my interests as an artist' by stomping on MY listeners or potential listeners and also cutting off MY access to media! It just really makes me angry, OK? They are NOT helping me by doing this, don't be confused about that. I am outright saying I _want_ my music distributed freely over the net and Napster, that I _want_ it to be like instant radio which is entirely promotional in nature and has no relation to micropayments and 'security' and crap like that, that I see tremendous utility in this and that I also have personal feelings of wanting to be ALLOWED to give my music to a person I haven't even met who happens to not have money for it right at the moment (I can sympathise- I myself am living on ramen and spaghettios this week), and... I don't have a RIGHT to take that position?

It's my damn music, not theirs. They have no right to restrict what I may do with it! _I_ am the creator here and owe them nothing.

I don't appreciate this 'to protect the artists' slant, especially when people unwittingly buy into it... the fact is, I am dead serious about trying to build a music/sound engineering career based on these new modes of distribution. I have done my homework, huge amounts of it, and frankly the existing industry is the most horribly harmful thing you could imagine- pretend it's like all software companies are divisions of Microsoft, and they control all commercial software of all types so you can't program unless you cut a deal with them on their terms. They own basically everything and have controlling interest in everything else and are very prone to stuff like looking at your work and then cutting you dead and paying somebody to knock off your program and saying 'see you in court'. It's like a music version of that, and keeps getting worse, until if you don't know the score you wouldn't believe it. I just can't go along with this at all- and it is these people who are trying to kill the new distribution model that _I_ could use to not need them!

Links:
Steve Albini: Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked
Bobby S. Fred: How The Game Works (Scam Indies)

This is serious.

So... when I say go grab all the songs at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ and put them on napster, when I point at the CDs I have up there (which are produced via some neat press-to-order tech mp3.com's invented) and beg people to buy them in support of what I am trying to do here... that is coming from someone who feels, very deeply, that all that could be TAKEN AWAY. Maybe sooner than you think! And maybe you won't give a rat's ass about some bozo musician in Vermont no longer having access to a format (mp3) and a dotcom (mp3.com) that will print up his CDs on an as-needed basis for only nonexclusive rights to the music... but I have to take it more seriously. If this was happening to programmers, slashdot would be up in arms- why does it seem debatable if it happens to musicians? It's the equivalent of programmers having to go to say Microsoft to be 'authorised' to practice their craft professionally. "Oh, you must not be a _real_ programmer, otherwise Microsoft would want to hire you, so therefore it's OK to get rid of gzip- only criminals use it and I heard there are viruses that are transported in gzipped form! Better get rid of tar too while we're at it. Then we can license RPM so that only authorised people are allowed to use it..."

furrfu, another huge rant. I'm sorry :) I swear, I meant to only write a bit. Please, while I still have an mp3.com that will press up CDs for me and give me half, BUY one- please, while I still have an mp3 format that I'm allowed to distribute my own music over the net with, USE it and listen to my stuff and (I hope!) enjoy it and share it with your friends? If that doesn't seem like enough you are _free_ to go buy another CD of mine to make up for the napsterring, I wouldn't dream of stopping you. But I simply cannot go along with coercion, so the end result might be that I am just plain silenced, the format I use stifled or co-opted, the site I distribute from killed through lawsuits (some of which are arguably valid- but they have every right to redistribute _my_ music and in fact they pay me small amounts to do so).

Please? Help me out. www.mp3.com/ChrisJ

Steve Albini wrote an article some of your may be familiar with, but others may not. The famed producer details exactly how a new band can sign a contract, record an album, have a hit and tour...and wind up oweing money to the record company and spend a year making a third of what they would have if they had spent the same amount of time working at a convenience store.

It's a lovely answer to those who argue that Napster and free distribution are a worse deal than they have currently. Read this and you'll see it's not possible to have a worse deal than you'll get from a major record label.

More than that, there are labels that manage to put out multiple albums every year, pay the artists higher royalties, and still make a buck. Touch & Go's royalty rate is around 50%; I believe that of DeSoto and Dischord sits at around 40%. The entire feast-famine business model of the major labels is essentially flawed; a band on an independent label--or making professional-quality music themselves, a la the Poster Children--and touring frequently (but without putting out a video or sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into studio time) can make a living where most bands playing the majors' game can't. It's that simple. Steve Albini broke down the numbers in an essay for The Baffler, and for all his personality issues, I'm inclined to trust his numbers.
--

GnR are a different case- they were superstar level in an era when sales volume was huge by comparison, but the industry was already ripping off most acts. My guess, since I've heard things to suggest that GnR _are_ in fact pretty wealthy, is that they had a manager or some business team who knew what to do when negotiating a superstar act with the industry. They were only a superstar act _because_ the industry picked them to be, and the industry only picks a few acts each decade to do that with (Michael Jackson, Springsteen around 'Born in the USA + the live set, Madonna etc), but they had what it took to be marketed that heavily- and that almost certainly means a GnR business team who on the one hand got the band a cut of the money, and on the other hand were ready to _guarantee_ product.

What you're seeing, Jamie, is the special cases- not the 'winners' in the sense of some lottery or luck, but the acts that combined musicianship on a commercial level with a business team that seriously kicked butt and could (a) negotiate contracts well for the band and (b) even more importantly, deliver product for the record company on a superstar level- handling the artist, augmenting promotion, managing all this so intently that they were like a superstar _company_ or business team, wildly outperforming the business teams of the other bands.

I love how Steve Albini is suddenly getting massive link-exposure on Slashdot. You're linking to a different copy than I linked to- I used the copy on this page, which has a more detailed costs breakdown on the band's expenditures, which you might find morbidly interesting. It's here: "Some of your friends are probably already this fucked". READ THESE ARTICLES, PEOPLE! It gets... _tiresome_ listening to otherwise really sharp and clued Slashdotters saying 'Gee, we should help support the artists though, so the music industry can't be all bad' because they don't know the reality and are only guessing. Would people believe the practices of Microsoft without proof? "They can't be _all_ _that_ bad!". Would people believe how dumb Netscape was without proof? (*g* disclaimer, yes, I'm using Communicator, but I understand JWZ has some feelings on the matter ;) )

GnR are a different case- they were superstar level in an era when sales volume was huge by comparison, but the industry was already ripping off most acts. My guess, since I've heard things to suggest that GnR _are_ in fact pretty wealthy, is that they had a manager or some business team who knew what to do when negotiating a superstar act with the industry. They were only a superstar act _because_ the industry picked them to be, and the industry only picks a few acts each decade to do that with (Michael Jackson, Springsteen around 'Born in the USA + the live set, Madonna etc), but they had what it took to be marketed that heavily- and that almost certainly means a GnR business team who on the one hand got the band a cut of the money, and on the other hand were ready to _guarantee_ product.

What you're seeing, Jamie, is the special cases- not the 'winners' in the sense of some lottery or luck, but the acts that combined musicianship on a commercial level with a business team that seriously kicked butt and could (a) negotiate contracts well for the band and (b) even more importantly, deliver product for the record company on a superstar level- handling the artist, augmenting promotion, managing all this so intently that they were like a superstar _company_ or business team, wildly outperforming the business teams of the other bands.

I love how Steve Albini is suddenly getting massive link-exposure on Slashdot. You're linking to a different copy than I linked to- I used the copy on this page, which has a more detailed costs breakdown on the band's expenditures, which you might find morbidly interesting. It's here: "Some of your friends are probably already this fucked". READ THESE ARTICLES, PEOPLE! It gets... _tiresome_ listening to otherwise really sharp and clued Slashdotters saying 'Gee, we should help support the artists though, so the music industry can't be all bad' because they don't know the reality and are only guessing. Would people believe the practices of Microsoft without proof? "They can't be _all_ _that_ bad!". Would people believe how dumb Netscape was without proof? (*g* disclaimer, yes, I'm using Communicator, but I understand JWZ has some feelings on the matter ;) )

Your figure for the artist's dollar is gross. Subtract a fixed ten percent for record breakage (yes, I know they are CDs and don't break, but the charge is still taken out of the artist's cut). Then take the remaining amount and write it off against the advance, from which the artist PAYS FOR ALL THE STUDIO RECORDING, all the MANAGEMENT, all the TECHS and in fact any TOUR involved as well, meaning that the advance gets spent doing all the things you think the label pays for.

Guess what? The artist did not recoup the advance. The artist did not earn money- the artist _owes_ money for his trouble. This happens most of the time- do some homework, find out what the reality of the situation is.

This sort of comment reminds me of a common logical fallacy- imagine Johnny and Jimmy arguing about the shape of the world. Johnny says, "The earth is round!" Jimmy says "The earth is flat!" Their mom comes around and tries to calm the argument: "You should compromise. The truth is usually somewhere between the extreme points of an argument. So, the earth is a cube."

Sorry, Etam: though you may think it is unreasonable and hard to believe, the earth is round, and artists DO NOT get a dollar per CD. As I explained, pro music is about the most expensive hobby you could have- and after all the contractual requirements of signed bands are fulfilled (thou shalt make a video, thou shalt do a tour, thou shalt record at a good studio, paying for ALL OF THIS out of the advance which your royalties go toward repaying) the artist, far from getting 'a share of the pie', works very hard for absolutely nothing to subsidise the corporation that signed them.

Still don't believe me? Read this. Steve Albini is the producer/engineer who did The Pixie's 'Surfer Rosa', PJ Harvey's 'Rid Of Me' and many other great albums. Scroll to the bottom and read the figures on what happens to three million dollars worth of CD sales, and exactly why the artists come away with four thousand and thirty-one dollars each after a quarter of their contract is through, and are fourteen thousand dollars in debt to the record company, after selling A QUARTER MILLION COPIES.

DO the math.

There is this page which maps out the labels: Who Owns Who

'Some of your friends are probably already this fucked'

Check _that_ out- a balance sheet for a typical major act _success_ on the order of 3 _million_ dollars of sales selling a quarter million copies.
Gross profit, $710,000.
Artist Royalties, $351,000.
Actual artist _income_ after all items on balance sheet and recouping of advance- $4,031.25!

That's right- after paying for the studio, mastering, video budget, processing+transfers etc, after the tour (earning 50,000 gross on expenses of 50,875 not counting manager or agent's cut), the band that got a 'quarter million dollar' advance to pay for all the tech toys and tours and professionals, the band that made THREE MILLION dollars of business for the record company, have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month.

You're crazy if you think almost anything wouldn't be an improvement. I don't know, maybe I can't satisfy you that mp3s can help artists. How exactly is mp3 exposure going to cost the artists _more_ than pay to play in LA and all that crap? At what point does mp3, free-as-spam-but-less-annoying distribution start to make artists capable of doing better than the industry- say, earning them _half_ as much as they'd make working at 7-11? You have no idea how fucked musicians actually are (to use Steve Albini's apt term for the condition...). Are you a musician? I am, and I'm building a studio- I've already talked with one slashdotter about recording him free for the purpose of making mp3s, and I've been talking to another artist I recorded who's currently living in Lithuania, about putting some of his back catalogue out there. Exposure is life- but there's something more important that that, and it's control and cashflow.

When artists don't have control over their own businesses, they're hosed- and that's what happens with the normal industry, it's 'Let us take care of it!' and the results are a damned wasteland. mp3 does not directly make artists money- but guess what? It is a key part of a strategy for the artist to take control of their own destiny and start running things themselves. Some might be tour-minded, and build on their talent and a popularity in mp3 to travel the world on a shoestring, paying their way by booking small gigs, saving up for their own PA and equipment and RUNNING THE BUSINESS effectively. They might make a bit more than working at a 7-11! But they'd be living their dream and not paying to play. Some (I like this option) will do extensive studio work, to become able to create amazing high-fidelity sonic experiences in music- and would give away the mp3s forever, but if you want to help them, BUY A CD. Not even an mp3.com cd (interestingly, mp3.com does not go for exclusive rights like a record label does), but a homegrown CD. First few, burned off a CD-Rom burner, and then it's time to save up and have a crate of CDs burned professionally- there are loads of people who can do this and throw in 1, 2, 3 or 4 color process inserts, even shrinkwrap, having the whole thing done to a 'mainstream' quality level. Of course if you're in it for the long term you set yourself up with the physical plant, printing your own art or pressing your own CDs in industrial duplicators... and so it goes.

Yeah, it's hard work, but you can earn money through hard work, and you can't really earn money with the industry, so why not? And mp3 is one very important thing- it is promotional material that YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR! You don't have to PAY people to distribute mp3s of your work. They will anyway, particularly if it's any good! What you do from that point will illustrate who you really are, and whether you deserve to earn anything...

Go read this: Major Labels: some of your friends are probably already this fucked. Think about it. One part of Tim Yohannon's intro article is particularly telling, I think:
1.It doesn't really matter what you say or what you sing, but how you conduct your business and what your motivation for doing it is.
2.It is only by being completely separated from governmental and corporate sponsorship, collusion, or connections that one can really claim to be "alternative" or "independent".
3.Unless there is an ongoing class consciousness to one's communication and expression, then it is inevitable that you will be assimilated into mainstream values, no matter how culturally "hip" you attempt to be."

This neatly sums up what I want to do with my abilities as a musician and sound engineer. It's not _about_ what style I use or what gear I can offer in my studio- it's about why I'm doing it and where I'm going with it.

For a long time, I didn't know what I wanted to do with that side of my life. I knew that the dream of being a musician for money was a fantasy, but I didn't have what you might call the radical consciousness to come up with any alternative. I sort of wanted to work with the tech side of things, but to what end? To be signed to a corrupt machine and help con other people and probably spend all my own money doing it? To languish obscurely playing with mixers? Who's listening? What would I be doing it for?

I think I have a better handle on these questions now. I'm siding with the punks, the indies, freaks like Zappa (the greatest independent music businessman ever, long live Zappa!). I am dedicating myself to giving people access to tools and information they need to do this kind of work and produce this kind of art themselves, rather than thinking they need to buy into the industry game to get it done. Sometimes I'll make money. Sometimes I'll spend it. Right now I'm in debt and am sorting out the hopped-up ADAT I'll be basing the studio around. (tweaker alert- Alesis LX-20 is a _beautiful_ machine to soup up, all the audio circuitry is on a daughtercard you can remove and tinker with! And there's loads of clearance for substitute parts, and you could shield the whole audio daughtercard. Sweeeeet).

So, highly-scored AC, you may say MP3 is just another word for warez to you- I say you don't sound like a musician yourself, and are not qualified to pass judgement on this. I am, and I've done more homework than you- and I would say conclusively that MP3 is the new radio, and furthermore it is a breakthrough in public access to production of media that's equal to open source and Internet collaboration on software. There are many similarities.

You don't directly make money on mp3. You don't directly make money on commercial music publishing either, you can play rock star for a few months if you're lucky and end up in debt for thousands of dollars. The difference is that with mp3 YOU GET TO CONTROL your business- if your music doesn't have a business, don't expect to make money, but if you do, even something as random as selling band mousepads or nerf guns imprinted with the band logo or pet rocks, you get to totally control your mp3 output, use your own mixes, sell your own merchandise and hire your own people and run all this yourself, taking whatever profit there is for yourself.

Do you really think major label acts get to choose their own mixes (hint: Nirvana was not allowed to use their own mix for "In Utero", you think you'd get more clout than Nirvana circa 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'?), manage their own expenditures (bands are legally required to produce things like videos under contract, but it is the band that pays for ALL aspects of this, not the label) and so on?

It's not so different from open source. It's really not. Power is being able to control YOUR OWN situation. Using mp3 as a promotional tool is an important part of being able to control the other aspects of your own music business- you give it away but you're not signing yourself over to any contractual requirements, are not waiving your rights to your own material or signing it over to the corporation outright. This is incredibly powerful.

Or would you rather go and personally try to buy space for your single on Top 40 radio?

'Some of your friends are probably already this fucked'

Check _that_ out- a balance sheet for a typical major act _success_ on the order of 3 _million_ dollars of sales selling a quarter million copies.
Gross profit, $710,000.
Artist Royalties, $351,000.
Actual artist _income_ after all items on balance sheet and recouping of advance- $4,031.25!

That's right- after paying for the studio, mastering, video budget, processing+transfers etc, after the tour (earning 50,000 gross on expenses of 50,875 not counting manager or agent's cut), the band that got a 'quarter million dollar' advance to pay for all the tech toys and tours and professionals, the band that made THREE MILLION dollars of business for the record company, have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month.

You're crazy if you think almost anything wouldn't be an improvement. I don't know, maybe I can't satisfy you that mp3s can help artists. How exactly is mp3 exposure going to cost the artists _more_ than pay to play in LA and all that crap? At what point does mp3, free-as-spam-but-less-annoying distribution start to make artists capable of doing better than the industry- say, earning them _half_ as much as they'd make working at 7-11? You have no idea how fucked musicians actually are (to use Steve Albini's apt term for the condition...). Are you a musician? I am, and I'm building a studio- I've already talked with one slashdotter about recording him free for the purpose of making mp3s, and I've been talking to another artist I recorded who's currently living in Lithuania, about putting some of his back catalogue out there. Exposure is life- but there's something more important that that, and it's control and cashflow.

When artists don't have control over their own businesses, they're hosed- and that's what happens with the normal industry, it's 'Let us take care of it!' and the results are a damned wasteland. mp3 does not directly make artists money- but guess what? It is a key part of a strategy for the artist to take control of their own destiny and start running things themselves. Some might be tour-minded, and build on their talent and a popularity in mp3 to travel the world on a shoestring, paying their way by booking small gigs, saving up for their own PA and equipment and RUNNING THE BUSINESS effectively. They might make a bit more than working at a 7-11! But they'd be living their dream and not paying to play. Some (I like this option) will do extensive studio work, to become able to create amazing high-fidelity sonic experiences in music- and would give away the mp3s forever, but if you want to help them, BUY A CD. Not even an mp3.com cd (interestingly, mp3.com does not go for exclusive rights like a record label does), but a homegrown CD. First few, burned off a CD-Rom burner, and then it's time to save up and have a crate of CDs burned professionally- there are loads of people who can do this and throw in 1, 2, 3 or 4 color process inserts, even shrinkwrap, having the whole thing done to a 'mainstream' quality level. Of course if you're in it for the long term you set yourself up with the physical plant, printing your own art or pressing your own CDs in industrial duplicators... and so it goes.

Yeah, it's hard work, but you can earn money through hard work, and you can't really earn money with the industry, so why not? And mp3 is one very important thing- it is promotional material that YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR! You don't have to PAY people to distribute mp3s of your work. They will anyway, particularly if it's any good! What you do from that point will illustrate who you really are, and whether you deserve to earn anything...

Go read this: Major Labels: some of your friends are probably already this fucked. Think about it. One part of Tim Yohannon's intro article is particularly telling, I think:
1.It doesn't really matter what you say or what you sing, but how you conduct your business and what your motivation for doing it is.
2.It is only by being completely separated from governmental and corporate sponsorship, collusion, or connections that one can really claim to be "alternative" or "independent".
3.Unless there is an ongoing class consciousness to one's communication and expression, then it is inevitable that you will be assimilated into mainstream values, no matter how culturally "hip" you attempt to be."

This neatly sums up what I want to do with my abilities as a musician and sound engineer. It's not _about_ what style I use or what gear I can offer in my studio- it's about why I'm doing it and where I'm going with it.

For a long time, I didn't know what I wanted to do with that side of my life. I knew that the dream of being a musician for money was a fantasy, but I didn't have what you might call the radical consciousness to come up with any alternative. I sort of wanted to work with the tech side of things, but to what end? To be signed to a corrupt machine and help con other people and probably spend all my own money doing it? To languish obscurely playing with mixers? Who's listening? What would I be doing it for?

I think I have a better handle on these questions now. I'm siding with the punks, the indies, freaks like Zappa (the greatest independent music businessman ever, long live Zappa!). I am dedicating myself to giving people access to tools and information they need to do this kind of work and produce this kind of art themselves, rather than thinking they need to buy into the industry game to get it done. Sometimes I'll make money. Sometimes I'll spend it. Right now I'm in debt and am sorting out the hopped-up ADAT I'll be basing the studio around. (tweaker alert- Alesis LX-20 is a _beautiful_ machine to soup up, all the audio circuitry is on a daughtercard you can remove and tinker with! And there's loads of clearance for substitute parts, and you could shield the whole audio daughtercard. Sweeeeet).

So, highly-scored AC, you may say MP3 is just another word for warez to you- I say you don't sound like a musician yourself, and are not qualified to pass judgement on this. I am, and I've done more homework than you- and I would say conclusively that MP3 is the new radio, and furthermore it is a breakthrough in public access to production of media that's equal to open source and Internet collaboration on software. There are many similarities.

You don't directly make money on mp3. You don't directly make money on commercial music publishing either, you can play rock star for a few months if you're lucky and end up in debt for thousands of dollars. The difference is that with mp3 YOU GET TO CONTROL your business- if your music doesn't have a business, don't expect to make money, but if you do, even something as random as selling band mousepads or nerf guns imprinted with the band logo or pet rocks, you get to totally control your mp3 output, use your own mixes, sell your own merchandise and hire your own people and run all this yourself, taking whatever profit there is for yourself.

Do you really think major label acts get to choose their own mixes (hint: Nirvana was not allowed to use their own mix for "In Utero", you think you'd get more clout than Nirvana circa 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'?), manage their own expenditures (bands are legally required to produce things like videos under contract, but it is the band that pays for ALL aspects of this, not the label) and so on?

It's not so different from open source. It's really not. Power is being able to control YOUR OWN situation. Using mp3 as a promotional tool is an important part of being able to control the other aspects of your own music business- you give it away but you're not signing yourself over to any contractual requirements, are not waiving your rights to your own material or signing it over to the corporation outright. This is incredibly powerful.

Or would you rather go and personally try to buy space for your single on Top 40 radio?