Slashdot Mirror
More Opinions About Napster From Offbeat Artists
Masem writes "At the recent CMJ Music Marathon, there was a large discussion about the effects of Napster on not-so-mainstream recording artists by the artists themselves. Some for, some against, but an interesting opinion was given by John Flansburgh of
TMBG, in that Napster comes between the direct connection of the band and the music listener in cases where the band already had a strong net presence."
that the title 'artist' should from now on be called 'moneyist' instead, because it sure isn't about art anymore...
Lots of people are blindly bashing Cracker for that comment, but think about it a minute. Napster is a corporation that's out to make profit. Acting like music should be freely passed around is their marketing angle. So while everyone rah-rahs about freedom and intellectual property and all that, money goes into Napster's pockets. This isn't some goody-goody freedom thing, it's captialism. The faux "we don't like big bad music corporations" attitude sucks in all the net hippies. So is it hippie capitalism? Sure is.
The more I hear about Napster, the more I agree with what Lars said during his Slashdot interview. There is nothing inherently wrong with people sharing music and it should be encouraged, but Napster is a for-profit distribution model, and Napster does not ask artists if they want to be a part of its distribution model. You can hear that echoed in TMBG's quote that Napster has broken the link between them and their fans. No one asked TMBG if they wanted to be part of this distribution model, and they've already got their own Internet-based service setup. Thus, I think they have a right to be miffed.
Most artists are in favor of people sharing music, and in fact, most artists encourage it. However, there's a fine line between 'sharing songs' and distribution, and Napster is walking that fine line (personally, I think they're a distribution service). They are performing a free service, but they are also making every attempt to make money off that service (contrast it with Gnutella to see a scheme that is more of a true sharing service). If an artist says, "Hey, I don't want my songs distributed through you because you're making money off of it, not me," Napster should respect that.
Of course, that really has no bearing on where the RIAA is fighting from, but I can see where artists, especially established artists with money and careers invested in their distribution chains, would be upset with Napster.
Neither, DetachablePenis was by King Missile.
The few times I've used gnutella (I've never used napster), I've been looking for artists that I've heard of but not heard much of, if any of their music. While this isn't exactly "discovering" artists through online mp3 sharing, it did allow me to hear songs that I probably wouldn't have otherwise, and I know own several CDs that I would not otherwise have purchased. (And yes, there's at least one case where I didn't buy a CD due to gnutella. I don't remember the artist, but I liked one song by the artist and went to look for more. I didn't like the others enough to buy a CD. In the absence of gnutella, I might have bought the CD and found out that it only had one song that I liked.)
As for actually dicovering someone via napster, I do know people that use napster to find people sharing artists they like. Then they browse the rest of that person's collection and look for bands they've never heard of. "This person had bands X and Y. I like band X, but I don't know anything about band Y. Maybe I'll like them, too."
--Phil (I like having my entire CD collection available as mp3s.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
Because of Napster I have made perhaps $800 or so in CD purchases that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise, and most of that would have gone to upgrading my computer or sound system had I not discovered Napster.
Napster increases sales of many types of music, and I think I am a prime example of that.
Only those who dream can grasp reality.
- Artists are:
- providing entertainment - if it sucks they don't get money
- puppets of their record company
- cry babies - don't like the way the system is changing, find another job
This is just my opinion. Things change all the time. Our bodies, our governments, and our attitudes are constantly evolving. People resist change but if you do not change you WILL become extinct.illenium.net - ultimate sk8 shop online
A lot of this discussion of Napster focuses on searching, but very little on it's best feature: it's instant messaging. Everyone I know who uses Napster regularly goes through several stages. First, they search for songs they know and like. Once they have their current collection duplicated, they search for stuff they remember, but never owned. Eventually thay have all the stuff they can think of. Then, they start looking for stuff that will appeal to their tastes. That's when they start noticing who they've downloaded stuff from, who has tastes similar to their own and message them. Eventually they develop friendships with people they trust with reliable taste.
Of course just having a song on Napster won't do anything for someone. But having a song in the collection of an active fan of a particular genre of music, someone happy to talk to people who share their tastes, is wonderfully effective.
I have a fairly small MP3 collection on Napster (560 files), but my wife has 8600 songs. She is constantly chatting with people all over the world, discovering artists that she could have otherwise never heard, and introducing people to new music constantly. I'll look over at her computer and she'll have four chat windows open, conversing with various folks. She's bought albums and CDs of artists she's discovered via Napster, and people are constantly telling her that they're on a web site ordering something that she's introduced them to, or heard on her Shoutcast stream.
Maybe it might make the job of marketing easier, but in this respect Napster is not broken. MP3.com works fine, and Napster works fine. Leave both to do the job each does well. The last thing Napster needs in a bunch of self-serving verbige accompanying each listing. There are file sharing programs that allow links and comments (see Audiogalaxy) but the "viral marketing" of enthusiastic fans chatting about their favorite music is (IMO) more effective in the long run.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
"Every single artist that you do like is supported by another you might not like,"
<joke>
I like Britney. Who's supporting her?
</joke>
--
--
E_NOSIG
You missed John's point. They fully support the idea of free music, they're just annoyed it's not coming from them. They have a _huge_ online presence, dial-a-song, etc. The problem is, Napster lets people get the music without getting into the TMBG community.
So the question isn't whether or not you bought the CDs, but are you a regular on tmbg.org?
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
Napster is making a valiant effort to be perceived as a medium for new music, but they do not seem to be doing nearly as well as MP3.com is doing. MP3.com offers free music from independent artists, and has a built in system for promotions and rewards, rather than the Napster approach, which is simply to mention a new band on their home page now and then.
Got Rhinos?