I do agree that we should abide by the wishes of whomever has created the product. Although, in a case such as Metalica or Dr. Dre, I question their steadfast clinch to such a capitalistic imposition upon what is supposed to be the field of art (which would normally imply that such a form is created for the sake of an aesthetic rather than what personal gain may come of it - other than the eminant psychological satisfaction). I am in a group which has made it's last three albums available in full CD quality on the internet for FREE. We also sell our CDs for the cost of the materials ($2). In between the three of us we have one computer programmer; one graphics designer; and one webmaster/internet publications specialist, which equals a massive PR machine. Without the aid of the industry this Progressive Rock Trio (dying form of rock), has managed to get the attention of magazines the world over, and find thousands of devoted fans, without ever having to sell one album, or play one show. We have explicit instructions on our site, giving permission to give, perform, or re-record our songs, hoping that this will further embrace the idea that art shoukld be created for art's sake. We also include a segment stating that the afore mentioned songs are not to be sold or traded for personal gain - after all, the albums being produced anonymously and without any financial gain to it's creators, it would undermine the great efforts we have taken to make these albums available for everyone without question or necessary deliberation. I have been told "Bands who are not successful, or accomplished musically can afford to give away their music, because they would otherwise not have a chance". This is an interesting argument which might apply to some of the mp3.com groups out there, but most of us who listen realize that the caliber of musician is really not indicitive of whethor or not they are known, or are a part of the mainstream music scene. Often times, those who are part of the mainstream not only work less to make their albums, but also do less of the creative work, and yet they are still payed an exhorbitant amount of money, (ie. the difference between a pop group and an orchestral musician. Both do what they are told to do, but one requires far more technical capabilities, as where the other pays much more, if seen to it's fruition). Problem #1: Record companies do not sign bands to write great music... They sign bands to entertain a specific demographic, which includes a long touring schedule, and a short recording schedule, because no fans are entertained while you are locked away in a studio. Problem #2: Musicians Themselves Do not care about art for arts sake (some care about personal catharsis, but normally record execs do not buy into that, although metal is coming back?) Problem #3: Litigations brought about by the fascist groups are making it more difficult for those who want art to be free!!! Problem #4: The current times are less sympathetic to the minimalistic (artisitic) lifestyle, as the glamour of rock stardom has once again mesmerized most young musicians. (At least where I live). Problem #5: Terms of ownership and appropriate compensation (as directed by a market driven economy) have blurred the defining lines of art, craftsmanship, and expression. I know I am alone in this view, but the atrist/craftsman as a species has almost died out completely due to ill compensation (It takes yngwie malmstein to finish an album than some punk bans), ie. It took Michelangelo much longer to sculpt the DAVID than it would take for me to take a urinal out of my bathroom and hand it to you, saying "here it is art". One is truly art, as where the other simply mocks a craftsmanship and aesthetic ideal. I will close with a slur that will discredit all that I have said (which thus far has been rather slurred nonetheless). With all of the great music that man has created over the past 400 years, and the dedication that was once put upon singular works, I find it extremely (EXTREMELY!!!) disturbing that a group such as Metallica who has not the slightest comprehension of devotion towards the creation of art, and yet takes it upon themselves to sacrifice the newest addition to our means of global awakening(In light of Big Brother) - our modern day Gutenburg Press. As far as I am conscerned, they are nobodies, and regardless of the amount of money that they have, should not be permitted to enfringe upon the rights of a majority lower class, whom in most cases care far more about the field in which these nobodies have planted themselves...
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree that we should abide by the wishes of whomever has created the product. Although, in a case such as Metalica or Dr. Dre, I question their steadfast clinch to such a capitalistic imposition upon what is supposed to be the field of art (which would normally imply that such a form is created for the sake of an aesthetic rather than what personal gain may come of it - other than the eminant psychological satisfaction). I am in a group which has made it's last three albums available in full CD quality on the internet for FREE. We also sell our CDs for the cost of the materials ($2). In between the three of us we have one computer programmer; one graphics designer; and one webmaster/internet publications specialist, which equals a massive PR machine. Without the aid of the industry this Progressive Rock Trio (dying form of rock), has managed to get the attention of magazines the world over, and find thousands of devoted fans, without ever having to sell one album, or play one show. We have explicit instructions on our site, giving permission to give, perform, or re-record our songs, hoping that this will further embrace the idea that art shoukld be created for art's sake. We also include a segment stating that the afore mentioned songs are not to be sold or traded for personal gain - after all, the albums being produced anonymously and without any financial gain to it's creators, it would undermine the great efforts we have taken to make these albums available for everyone without question or necessary deliberation. I have been told "Bands who are not successful, or accomplished musically can afford to give away their music, because they would otherwise not have a chance". This is an interesting argument which might apply to some of the mp3.com groups out there, but most of us who listen realize that the caliber of musician is really not indicitive of whethor or not they are known, or are a part of the mainstream music scene. Often times, those who are part of the mainstream not only work less to make their albums, but also do less of the creative work, and yet they are still payed an exhorbitant amount of money, (ie. the difference between a pop group and an orchestral musician. Both do what they are told to do, but one requires far more technical capabilities, as where the other pays much more, if seen to it's fruition). Problem #1: Record companies do not sign bands to write great music... They sign bands to entertain a specific demographic, which includes a long touring schedule, and a short recording schedule, because no fans are entertained while you are locked away in a studio. Problem #2: Musicians Themselves Do not care about art for arts sake (some care about personal catharsis, but normally record execs do not buy into that, although metal is coming back?) Problem #3: Litigations brought about by the fascist groups are making it more difficult for those who want art to be free!!! Problem #4: The current times are less sympathetic to the minimalistic (artisitic) lifestyle, as the glamour of rock stardom has once again mesmerized most young musicians. (At least where I live). Problem #5: Terms of ownership and appropriate compensation (as directed by a market driven economy) have blurred the defining lines of art, craftsmanship, and expression. I know I am alone in this view, but the atrist/craftsman as a species has almost died out completely due to ill compensation (It takes yngwie malmstein to finish an album than some punk bans), ie. It took Michelangelo much longer to sculpt the DAVID than it would take for me to take a urinal out of my bathroom and hand it to you, saying "here it is art". One is truly art, as where the other simply mocks a craftsmanship and aesthetic ideal. I will close with a slur that will discredit all that I have said (which thus far has been rather slurred nonetheless). With all of the great music that man has created over the past 400 years, and the dedication that was once put upon singular works, I find it extremely (EXTREMELY!!!) disturbing that a group such as Metallica who has not the slightest comprehension of devotion towards the creation of art, and yet takes it upon themselves to sacrifice the newest addition to our means of global awakening(In light of Big Brother) - our modern day Gutenburg Press. As far as I am conscerned, they are nobodies, and regardless of the amount of money that they have, should not be permitted to enfringe upon the rights of a majority lower class, whom in most cases care far more about the field in which these nobodies have planted themselves...