Chuck D Gives Props To Napster

schtum writes: "As reported on NME: Public Enemy's Chuck D has become the first high-profile artist to come out in support of under-fire website and MP3 software provider Napster You can read Mr. D's original statement here."

Comments

Re:Take the power back

[Chris Johnson]

Recording studios are like guitars: people will buy them and use them for the sheer joy of making music.

My recording studio cost money, and for commercial work I'll charge $75 an hour for it, which isn't even that high of a figure.

For people who are on my side in this mp3, open source, freedom to express thing, I'll literally let them use my studio FREE. If you are going to be releasing all your stuff as mp3s free (NO holdouts) and will allow purchase of your CD to be strictly voluntary (as mine are- nothing is withheld from the free downloads or will ever be), then I will be delighted to work with you for free. You merely have to call me, email me, set up a time and get yourself to Brattleboro, Vermont. (I obviously can't gallivant all around the country recording people for free!) As to other costs, hell, I can probably throw in the tape if that's a problem. (New Maxell XR-S Black only please).

As to how downloading an mp3 supports an artist? DOWNLOAD MINE and find out!! Please? Do I have to _beg_ people to listen to the artform I've been doing for almost 20 years? Do I have to tantalise people with the studio of which the 'anima' album is a good demonstration of the sounds I can get? It's not like this is crud- nearly broke top 20 in Instrumental Rock with _no_ promotion, up against much more established artists such as Carmine Appice, Dweezil Zappa, Richie Sambora and Brian May (all of whom I beat in the charts, in various combinations) and Wolf Hoffman (who I haven't beat- yet). It's not like it can be less expensive because I've been a slashdot-reading, GPL-using, linux-booting creativitysharing geek for years, and the CDs I have up there are all the minimum of 5.99 that mp3.com will allow (think about THAT for a minute. That's presumably the price at which they are still making some money- how much lower than the mainstream is that?) and there's nothing that I won't freely GIVE to someone who doesn't have the money or just wants to be given stuff.

And all I'm really asking in return is for people to DO THAT- download the mp3s, what, do I have to PAY people to listen to music that's not off the major labels? If this is not supporting the artist then WHY are 90% of the songs on the mp3.com artist boards "Please download my song, I want to be in the charts, I want to be heard"? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be an artist supporting the mp3 revolution and feel like anybody is listening, is accepting what you're giving?? It's like that scene in Cryptonomicon- "Accept one of our free army tanks! They get 2000 mpg and go 500 miles an hour playing quadrophonic stereo with air conditioning!" and everybody wants the station wagons :P

I _beg_ people, follow those links, download my mp3s paying me nothing. If people desperately want to pay me they will eventually get their chance but for now I ask _nothing_ more. If you don't like people who rant on slashdot, go there and download somebody _else's_ music out of spite- as long as it's not "Rolling Stones Interview" or something! Do you know how irritating it is to have some rock dinosaur major label appendage open an account at mp3.com alongside you, put out some _soundcheck_ or radio station promo and then instead of using the medium (like Chuck D.!) and putting the whole album up, putting up the ONE TRACK (like Robby Krieger) and withholding the rest, or putting up INTERVIEWS (Robby, the Stones, the Eagles) so then you end up having some rock dinosaur's PRESS CONFERENCE beating you to death in the charts and staking out the top places for weeks on end? A _press_ conference? That's like listing IE service packs right alongside Freshmeat packages, complete with hit ratings. I don't know how better to express how insulting and damaging this is. "Gee, Martha, looks like many more people like and enjoy the latest NT service pack than this new linux program- looks like we should be running that!" feh.

And then I come here and read the question "And how does downloading an mp3 support an artist"? Yeesh, stand aside for venting- I apologize for freaking right out at you, because you meant no harm and surely were trying to encourage people to support artists _more_ than that. But, man! If you had any idea how badly I wanted people to just plain hear what I'm doing with this wizzy new studio I've built, how I want to be supported and respected for how seriously I'm taking the new paradigm- rather than ignored- "Oh, he has all his songs available for download, he must suck if he's not on a major label or at least trying to sell his albums by forcing people to buy them in order to get every song!" "Oh, he has all his programs open source, they must suck if they're not proprietary or at least crippleware that will shut itself off if you don't pay for it!" Can't you even see the parallels? Wouldn't you want Linux to 'be higher on the charts'? Is it so hard to understand that music operates on a similar economy of respect and status, and is equally hard to bullshit about, and is equally threatened by a totally hostile and corrupt culture that's got most people unaware there is even a better, more open, more community-oriented way?

*sigh!*

So maybe my only answer is the sheer desperation and intensity of this rant. _Please_ go to mp3.com (or some other indy-artist site if you prefer another one) and download some artist who is _not_ signed to a major label and polluting the music charts with _interviews_ and crap like that. If you do nothing else, at least take what's being given. There's damned good stuff out there. I happen to think my stuff is good stuff, but I've heard _lots_ of other acts who had terrific music up there- and I can be pretty certain that they would _all_ love to be heard, if nothing else. Half of them beg constantly in the artist bulletin boards _just_ to be downloaded, and that includes damn good artists whose music I really liked.

Please go and listen to us rather than questioning whether mp3 will help us... and listening only to major label shite! Thank you. -chris

Like Breaking Out of Bondage

[waldoj]

To so many artists (TMBG), their relationship with their label is like that of an indentured servant and their master. Though the servant is grateful for what they receive, the indignities of day-to-day living could never make up for it.

To artists that have such awful contracts, each time that a song of theirs is transferred via Napster must feel like a small victory, a mini-uprising. Naturally, the artist can't cheer this on, nor can they even really acknowledge it. It's a rare gem like Chuck D that is willing to cheer on the revolution.

-Waldo

(somewhat OT) Free AC/DC, Blink, Limp Bizkit MP3s

[Evro]

My favorite radio station, NYC's 92.3 K-Rock, has AC/DC doing You Shook Me All Night Long acoustic (performed live in the studio with some guitar that had just been laying around, from what I gather), as well as a song from Blink 182 and one from Limp Bizkit. You can download these songs for free from their site. They aren't the highest quality, but at least it's something. I wonder what kind of legal hoops they had to jump through to get this up on their site?

Anyway, this is a sign, I guess, that some people at least have a clue. I mean, AC/DC's been around for what, 25 years? If they can come around and see the benefits of distributing a promo song for free, even if it's low quality, there may yet be hope for the industry. Of course, for every AC/DC there's a Ricky Martin and an N-sync whose contracts would never let them do anything like that. And there are far more Ricky Martin-esque filler type bands that need the quick buck than proven ass-kickers like AC/DC, so maybe the industry as a whole is doomed--but we can still have hope for the quality bands of today.

__________________________________________________ ___

He did, and the label stopped them cold!

[isaac]

PE was one of the first major acts to put free, full, downloadable tracks online (not in MP3 format, unfortunately, but as self-playing executables. I'll forgive them for this lack of cross-platform savvy, given that this was in 1998, early in the MP3-era). The tracks lasted all of a few days before their label ordered them removed, under legal threat; thereafter, Chuck D posted a message on the website exhorting fans who had managed to download the tracks to spread them far and wide. He's a long-time fan of downloadable music and a longer-time critic of the RIAA!

-Isaac

Chuck D at Berkeley

[doozy]

Chuck D spoke today at a conference I went to called "Music to Whose Ears" put on by the law journal. He was the keynote speaker, and raised a few good points in the measly 20 minutes they gave him:

1. Unlike when CDs came out, the "new" media is in the hands of the consumers, not the record companies. That means that the companies don't have the consumers by the nose: no more paying $18 for a CD that costs The Internet allows music to be globally produced and globally heard. Instead of having 5% of the music out there being heard, the other 95% has a better chance, due to the fact that it costs very little to produce and promote music on the Internet. MP3.com is free. In the Record Company's world, to promote a CD costs millions, including thousands for magazine ads, radio play, and the like. So, with the Internet, there are fewer barriers, which enables more music to be produced and heard.
2. Chuck D says Napster is a Good Thing. For the past decade or so, the record company's have been forcing consumers to pay large amounts of money, often without giving them a chance to hear it first. Not all CDs are in the little listening kiosks. With this new media, you can actually listen to the music and decide whether to consciously support the artist with your money or not.
3. The record companies cannot be allowed to win. The jacking of the consumer cannot be allowed to go on. Instead, the Internet will force them to come up with new paradigms of selling, and force the courts to come up with new paradigms of copyright protection. Maybe record companies will become what they should have been all along, collectively owned by the artists with profit sharing, instead of management getting the big bucks at the expense of artists.

Chuck D had a lot more to say (and said a lot more) but I think this is the gist of it. It was an incredible little talk, but I wish they'd given him more than 20 minutes. All in all, Chuck D showed the knowledge and insight that made PE so far ahead of its time.

The way the music business works

[K8Fan]

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.

Chuck D's strong and original opinions

[ContinuousPark]

Wired Magazine has this interview with him. This is from March 1999. Also, kind of offtopic, but did you know his position on the MS trial "When someone comes along and dominates an industry, of course you get a whole bunch of losers screaming, hoping somehow they can beat 'em down. Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser. Bill Gates is Michael Jordan" and on software pirates: "To the pirates, I say the more the merrier. Success comes from the fans first - if someone is going to pirate something of mine, I just have to make sure to do nine or ten new things. I mean, you can't download me" You might want to check Public Enemy's website too.