As a musician and educated artist who has experienced the "executive offices" (big clue here, folks) of the biggest record company on the planet I believe there is an issue being fundamentally ignored here. The words "music" or "artist" have little to do with the RIAA jumping down the throats of MP3 providers. The truth is that a recording artist is nothing more than a commodity for an -industry-. That's right, it's not called the "Community for Distributing Music,"it's called the "record industry." This is beacause major labels only see aesthetic issues thorugh the filter of capital. They are not concerned with any of the other, more important, goals of music (community, social change, fun, etc.) For example, the main building for Sony records (in New York) is NOT filled with musicians having an interesting conversation or a good jam session, but it IS filled with people in cubicles, behind desks and on telephones. There are big charts on the walls documenting the "commercial" (not critical) success of Sony's "artists." If I sound embittered... good, I am. It upsets me to see talented people dehumanized and the work they do regulated by large corporations. As an artist, musician, and producer who works damn hard to get a message out to a wide audience without the double-edged aid of large companies, I'd like those who don't work in the art field to know that it is possible to make a decent living doing what you love without completely commodifying and homogenizing your work. This may seem like idealist crap to those of you who make a living working for large corporations, but consider this... open source code! Something created by an individual (or group) that is distributed freely for others to improve upon. This is what music is to me. It should be freely (or cheaply) distributed so that it may influence others to create new and interesting work of their own... the issue of capital is small and can easily be solved if one is resourceful. The main point (if there is one in this mess) is that when art is regulated by capital it becomes impotent. Art is supposed to enrich the lives of humans everywhere and it cannot do that if it must be bought (not everyone could afford it!) Keep art free. BTW- Look at Star Trek, you never see the crew of Federation Starships paying to listen to music. The advanced earth culture of the future realizes that art should be free!
Slashdot Mirror
As a musician and educated artist who has experienced the "executive offices" (big clue here, folks) of the biggest record company on the planet I believe there is an issue being fundamentally ignored here. The words "music" or "artist" have little to do with the RIAA jumping down the throats of MP3 providers. The truth is that a recording artist is nothing more than a commodity for an -industry-. That's right, it's not called the "Community for Distributing Music,"it's called the "record industry." This is beacause major labels only see aesthetic issues thorugh the filter of capital. They are not concerned with any of the other, more important, goals of music (community, social change, fun, etc.) For example, the main building for Sony records (in New York) is NOT filled with musicians having an interesting conversation or a good jam session, but it IS filled with people in cubicles, behind desks and on telephones. There are big charts on the walls documenting the "commercial" (not critical) success of Sony's "artists." If I sound embittered... good, I am. It upsets me to see talented people dehumanized and the work they do regulated by large corporations. As an artist, musician, and producer who works damn hard to get a message out to a wide audience without the double-edged aid of large companies, I'd like those who don't work in the art field to know that it is possible to make a decent living doing what you love without completely commodifying and homogenizing your work. This may seem like idealist crap to those of you who make a living working for large corporations, but consider this... open source code! Something created by an individual (or group) that is distributed freely for others to improve upon. This is what music is to me. It should be freely (or cheaply) distributed so that it may influence others to create new and interesting work of their own... the issue of capital is small and can easily be solved if one is resourceful. The main point (if there is one in this mess) is that when art is regulated by capital it becomes impotent. Art is supposed to enrich the lives of humans everywhere and it cannot do that if it must be bought (not everyone could afford it!) Keep art free. BTW- Look at Star Trek, you never see the crew of Federation Starships paying to listen to music. The advanced earth culture of the future realizes that art should be free!