It doesn't necessarily cost money to tour... You start small and play in a few local bars as many small bands do, people who work for radio stations and larger venues will hear you, and if you're any good book you to play. It definitely costs money to tour, Gas, auto insurance, food, hotels, guitar strings, etc. If you're not making your living off your music, you have to take time off your job which means it might not be there when you get back. Playing in local bars and clubs is absolutely crucial when you're starting out. I can't agree with you more.
Take a band like Primus. They played 3-4 times a week when I started seeing them. They played constantly and promoted the crap out of themselves by playing with whoever would have them. Despite their amazing work ethic, they also benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Metallica was huge (and Les was friends with Kirk Hammet) and Faith No More was about to blow up big time. Couple that with the rising popularity of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Fishbone and Jane's Addiction.... bang! Primus was primed to explode as well. Combine work ethic with luck and it's a formula for success!
I'm with you that music should require the artist to work. I disagree with you in that I think your take on it is a little simplistic. Honestly, I have no problem with, say, Metallica making money still off of music they recorded almost 20 years ago (despite my distaste for the Black Album). The 5 years it took for them to make Load was ridiculous though especially since it was an awful album. But again, they did tour almost constantly throughout the 1990's and were the top grossing touring act of that decade. They worked their asses off. Hell, The Grateful Dead, a band I can't stand, toured CONSTANTLY for almost 30 years, but again they benefited as much from luck and environment as they did their hard work.
But making an album and playing some local shows is not enough. Especially now when people are less likely to go out and see bands live. The "album" is more important than ever and resources like YouTube, MySpace and iTunes are insanely important for a musician to get heard so the word can spread and allow them the luxury to tour to places very far away from their city of origin.
Right now, Kultur Shock is recording a new album. They're self-financing and going about it without any label backing whatsoever. To show you how important the album is to them, they are spending a big chunk of change just to get some hours in with Jack Endino to get the guitars to sound "just so". They could just record the guitar tracks in their personal "studio", but Val, the guitarist and an accomplished audio engineer in his own right, doesn't have the same level of experience recording guitars, so they pay a premium to have an expert do it.
Composing and recording an album is an art unto itself. The Wall, Dark Side of the Moon, Caca Volante, California, Delerium Cordia, etc. It's not JUST advertising.
I'm going on a tangent now, so I'll try to get back on point. My point is this: Basically, I agree with you that more musicians should have a better work ethic. However, I do not agree that music should or even could be perceived as "a job" just like any other. Creating original artistic content comes in fits and spurts, not on a 9-5 schedule. Music, design, video can be created in that time frame, but only in the most commercial sense. I worked as a designer for a long time and even though I'm proud of a lot of the work I did, I would never deign to call the brochures for banks or websites for Starbucks art. I merely used my talents to meet the needs of a client for a specified amount of cash.
Art is a reflection of a person or group and their relationship to society. To create something of cultural significance in that framework cannot be forced, either by consumers or by the artists. Once they create something of enough relevance to reach
A sandwich is something that is yours. Your shoes are something that are yours. Your spare time is something that is yours.
The MP3 file is yours in the sense that you are allowed to play it on equipment that you own... on stuff that is yours.
The music itself is not yours. You can share the music on playback devices you own and even on others' playback devices, but you cannot transfer binary file itself to any device other than your own.
This is not a moral issue. Murder is a moral issue. Rape is a moral issue. File sharing is a LEGAL issue and if you can't see that distinction, well, no wonder the music industry is so litigious. They're engaged in a holy war against zealots and their only weapons are subpoenas.
You're almost there with this argument. The middle men do make a disproportionate amount of money off of the music created by the artist.
And yes, musicians should create more and more often. Perform more. However, claiming that albums should be relegated to the level of "promotional freebies" is off the mark. Not only does it have an impact on the musicians, but also on recording engineers and producers who play an important role in the creation of music. You're essentially asking professional audio technicians to give up their line of work.
And why do musicians "have to work like everyone else"? If a musicians creates something that resonates with a large section of the populace, why should that just be given away? Especially if said musician/band doesn't have the financial wherewithal to tour to every single podunk town on the world map? Why should the people who choose to live where it's not feasible for a band to play live be allowed to consume the music of said band for free? The band has to spend time and money to produce and distribute these "promotional freebies" and they're going to try to get the highest possible quality recording with the funds they have at hand. They try to create as high quality musical experience as possible within the studio for those people that will NEVER have an opportunity to see them live.
Basically, you're saying that music that cost money to produce, whether recorded or live, should be available to anyone whether or not there is a chance of the band recouping their investment. You're saying that people are ENTITLED to the recordings, which is just wrong on a very fundamental level.
The system is busted. We're all suffering from the old industry having to adapt to new technologies and new thinking about how music is consumed and distributed. I still can't get over this perception that people are entitled to free music that artists have spent time and money on. Sure, the big names feel very little pinch from file sharing as their fortunes are subsidized by the industry of fame, but friends like mine in Kultur Shock are paying top dollar out of their own pocket to record a high quality album that you can listen to in the comfort of your own abode. Given American concert going habits, they do not play in the US much and spend most of their time in Europe when they do play because people and governments there value the role of music in society and actually reward artists financially and make it worth their time to record and play over there.
I know and work with a lot of working musicians and bands (I'm a video editor and director) and most of them simply don't bother playing in the US anymore because Americans are largely only willing to go out and see bands with name recognition that has been propped up by record labels, even on the indie level. An indie label is still a label and forks out cash to create name and genre recognition.
The big problem is that Americans feel entitled to music for low to no cost and will enjoy it in the comfort of their home rather than go out and actually see a live performance. Concert attendance has been on a steady decline since the 1990's, even at the club level. For most aspiring musicians and non-pop veterans, it's just not worth their time and money to actually tour the US other than the summer festival circuits, so they rely on people buying their recorded music to have any level of relevance in this culture... and the/. crowd just doesn't view recorded music as worthy of their cash. In saying that recorded music is not worth their cash, they are saying that the music is not worth being produced in the first place.
Artists like Adrian Belew, Trey Gunn, Tony Levin (Yes, I'm a King Crimson fan) are all wondering how they're going to be making a living in the future. Most likely it will be doing studio work, performing as touring musicians, writing jingles for television and scoring movies over writing original material because p
I hear ya. If I weren't a video editor or a graphic designer, the 15" would be the way to go for me. Big enough screen for most uses and very very easily portable.
At home a 17" hooked into a 30 Cinema Display is a thing of beauty. When you're out on a shoot, capturing and roughing out footage, a 15" screen just doesn't cut it. That 2 inches may seem like it's not very much, but it does make a huge difference when you have an interface with 4-5 panels that need to be open simultaneously.
VHS is dying... and for good reason. It was a crap format from the get go. Stupid Sony and their insistence not to license their technology to anyone who would use it for "blue" purposes.
VHS won the format war even though it was the inferior technology.
People need to start thinking now about converting their VHS to some digital format and actually do it. Who cares if 50 years down the line, someone finally decides they need to make a copy of a VHS tape. Everyone will have had plenty warning that the format was going the way of the dodo and they should have done something about it.
Think of it this way. Everyone is embarrassed by aspects of their past and would love to hide them at all costs. A company with a public image is no different.
This is a postmodern society we live in. If Disney to were to release on DVD something that was explicitly racist, most people wouldn't bother to go over the history of the piece and find out that it was the result of a time where this was considered acceptable social behavior. They're just trying to protect their image.
Can't say I blame them really. It might negatively affect their bottom line. Then again it might not,but they're a huge corporation and they're just trying to protect their shareholders.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just that they don't owe anyone a release of this piece of the past. They are not obligated to do so.
I suspect however this would be lost on you. You seem to live in a libertarian fantasy world where everything has dollar value and there is no value beyond a dollar. So, how do we assign a dollar value to creativity?
This is an incorrect assumption. I'm so far from being a libertarian it's ridiculous. Far closer to a socialist actually.
What I'm saying is this... you want to determine the intent and direction of where a musician/artist's work will lead. You contend that after a set amount of time, their work is no longer their own and becomes a part of the cultural heritage.
My question is this, what if a band wants to make money off of their music? What if a band approaches their career as if it were a business and wants to control what they create and exploit it for financial gain? What if, they don't even consider it art, but product? Product they enjoy creating and performing, but product nonetheless.
In a so-called capitalist society, is this not permitted?
Now, if an artist wants to create art, make some money off it for a while and release it into the wild, all the while creating new material, could that not also be permitted?
How about if an artist wants to create something for the sake of it and then sell it off for a one time profit?
How about if an artist wants to make something and just give it to the world free of charge?
How about if an artist creates something and then hoards it to him/herself? Never to be experienced by another soul.
How about if an artist creates something and publicly destroys it? The work in question only experienced for a brief moment, never to be seen or heard again.
I would contend that each and everyone of these scenarios is acceptable.
What you are espousing is that art is not property. That art is a gift to the world. That's fine. You are allowed to create these gifts to give to the world. No one is going to stop you. You do it for the enjoyment. Keep on doing it. I play and record music as well and give it away for free because I enjoy doing it, but have no desire to make a career of it. That is MY choice.
However, who are you to tell another "artist" who might not even view him or herself an artist how their original works are to be experienced and whether or not they can make a buck off it? Art is a property whether you like it or not. In my opinion, the creator of the work should determine how it's experienced and whether or not to charge for it. You, as a fan and/or consumer of art, have the option to either buy the product in question or not. You are not entitled to it because it falls under the very ambiguous category of art. You can choose to sponsor only artists who share your same mindset regarding art, either financially or by the simple act of going to see them perform. A valid choice.
Now, go ask Gene Simmons whether or not he views the collected works of KISS as art. He will flat out say no. He and Paul run a business and have for over 30 years. They claim their business is music and entertainment that branches off into licensing and merchandising. Everything they do or make is "product". You may not agree with this, but your notions that all music must fall under the category of art is a little naive and actually a little oppresssive. If they want to limit access to it and only charge for it, as a business, that is how they should be allowed to conduct themselves. You are not entitled to single note of the music they have created. If you want it, you pay for it. That's how business works.
Hell, ACDC refuses to sell their new album online as individual songs because of some misguided notion that they are artists. I love 'em, but come on! This is ACDC, not Miles Davis. I think they're going to fall on their faces because of it because that is not how people want to access music these days in general. It's their choice to release the album this way though. If it works for 'em. Great. If not... well, they either need to adapt or realize that they are following a very old mode
Private industry and property rights regulating themselves are outdated notions. Why? Because they flagrantly ignore the need of an individual to possess power and pursue greed. Laissez-faire economic thought is great on paper, but it flat out ignores that people are greedy and self-serving.
Business attracts type-a personalities. People who would screw over their grandmother at the opportunity to make another dollar, feel important and wield influence. Consumers tend to be sheep. As long as they're safe, warm, fed and comfortable, they are happy to allow others to make "important" decisions for them.
Straight up competition in business creates an environment where "someone has to win". The winner then sets the terms of how business is conducted, standards of quality and can set up roadblocks to entry into the market.
I'm not defending the state of our government, but I do think that most Libertarian ideals are naive at best. Believing in the "inherent goodness of all people" is naive. Despite our advancements in technology, people are still essentially creatures that crave safety and comfort and are not interested in "big ideas" until it disrupts their comfort, convenience or deeply held theological beliefs.
The moment you have a legislative branch, you create a cycle where they have to justify their existence by creating more legislation which requires enforcement, constant re-evaluation and interpretation. Thus, you have a government which is destined to grow in order to justify it's continued existence. Small government is an oxymoron because people are involved. People who need to gain power and influence and feel important. They will never "leave well enough alone" as it goes against human nature.
Until politics can be viewed as public service as opposed to a career with great financial growth opportunity, you will always have big government.
Bandying about ideas of property rights and currency backed by something stable as a way of protecting freedom is utopian, thus ineffective. Honestly, I think property needs to be de-emphasized. Consumerism is ultimately the cause of most of our current day problems.
We need to start thinking about the world as interconnected. Not as nation state versus nation state trying to protect their respective "interests" which are always either monetary or spiritual.
My question to this though is if the Feds didn't build the interstate system, when was the unregulated free market going to get around to it?
In 1776 the population of the Colonies was approx. 2.5 million. The founding fathers were a smart bunch of guys and they wrote a really impressive document. The smartest aspect being the amendment process and granting powers to the states.
It seems we like to ascribe omnipotence to them however. As smart as they were, they could not envision a country of 50 states with 300 million people, covering a very large part of an entire continent.
We love to bandy about the term democracy, but democracy, in it's traditional sense, can only work in smaller environments where the populace can get together and come to a consensus as to what needs to be done and how. Therefore, we have a republic that utilizes principles of democracy to elect the representative leaders.
It also seems like we like to make democracy and capitalism synonymous. They aren't. American style capitalism grew out of the desire to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Again, as the population grew and the size of the country grew, the idea of a true unregulated, free market became unwieldy and borderline impossible. American style capitalism fails as all utopian ideas fail. Human greed and the desire for importance and power corrupt the idea at it's very core.
This country sees everything in such black and white terms. There are two parties. One "liberal", one "conservative", but they both cowtow to the middle where the line blurs. You're either pro-war or anti-war. You're either pro-life or pro-abortion. If you're not a supporter of capitalism, you're a socialist... which everyone here associates with communism. Another fallacy.
This county, this world has gotten so huge and at the same time, so small and interconnected. With such a huge diversity of belief and culture, we need to start thinking differently about our political, social and economic systems. The black and white thought process no longer works.
Democracy as we like to think of it doesn't work. Capitalism as we know it doesn't work. Socialism as we think of it doesn't work. Federalism as we know it doesn't work.
We try to hard to maintain the integrity of these very old concepts which never took into account an interconnected world, a population of 6 billion and a march of technology that simply couldn't be imagined in 1776.
To get back on point, the free market has grown into a beast that is more concerned with short terms profit and shareholder value than it is the public welfare. The romans had the good sense to create aqueduct and roads to aid the growth of their society (albeit for largely military purposes) and I guarantee you that the decisions to build the roads and aqueducts did not come about because every citizen voted on it or that entrepreneurs had anything to do with it.
Now, when the Roman empire grew too large, we all know the outcome.
Unregulated, laissez-faire commerce, in this day and age can't work as originally intended. Shareholder welfare trumps the public's welfare. Investing in safer, forward thinking technology takes a backseat to protecting investments in older business infrastructure in order to prevent large expenditures that would eat into shareholder profits. This is why Detroit is failing. Short term profit trumps long term growth and stability.
The internet has become a dominant tool of communication, entertainment and commerce and it has connected us to the rest of the world in a way that no other technology ever has. The business world is far more concerned with carving out a little section of the internet and it's infrastructure that they can possess and exploit for shareholder profit and have no interest whatsoever in how it can benefit the general populace into the future. Only the feds can really do something about it.
The problem nowadays though is... the feds are owned by special interest.
Lars Ulrich was made the laughing stock of the world in his battle with Napster. Even he now realizes how stupid it was. Not trying to forgive him because he's a spastic little howler monkey who doesn't know when to shut up. The band looks back on that period with a large amount of embarrassment and they seem to have learned their lesson and adapted to the new model of distributing music... and actually re-learned how to make some decent music.
That doesn't change the fact that Master is a classic album. So good in fact that I wore through two cassette copies of it before I got a CD player. I've actually had my CD copy of it for over 20 years now.
It's funny for me to think that, until Death Magnetic came out, I hadn't bought a Metallica album since 1991 (and regretted it) which was well before the mass proliferation of the personal computer. Their ill fated attempts at suing everyone under the sun got me riled up for sure, but luckily they were creating crap back then and I had no desire to purchase anything they produced.
All this aside, I still can't get riled up enough to not buy quality music even if the band themselves can be idiots.
And you're never truly going to get what you want by going to other sources. If Amazon's sales increase dramatically... guess what? The RIAA is going to slap them with the same if not harsher restrictions. They will not let a retailer grow out of control.
If iTunes should fail for some reason and a power vacuum is created, you can be certain that the RIAA will be in there in a heartbeat locking down their control.
Honestly, a world where iTunes or any other retailer is the only source for purchasing content online is bad for the consumer. This boycott will have little effect though. If you want to force a change in the nature of the industry, the boycott should be aimed where it would hurt most and where they still have the greatest amount of control... the sales of physical CD's followed with a boycott of all digital downloads.
They need to have their revenue stream strangled from all angles. And during this time, people need to not copy and share files or everything that the RIAA claims about consumers is amplified and they tighten the restrictions even more.
You make a lot of very good points and I learned a lot from this. Thanks. You are probably the only poster who has taken the time to write up a post of this depth. A good, vehement rant can provoke something educational.
However, you are still overlooking something. Apple doesn't want DRM. They never have, but the labels force it on them in order for them to do business.
The labels didn't like the fact that the public WANTED to pay Â99 for songs. That the public WANTED to buy songs individually.
When ITMS started, the labels never thought it would succeed, so they said go ahead and sell our stuff, but just make sure there is some sort of copy protection in it.
Then ITMS exploded and the labels realized that they had goofed and could have been making a ton more money off of it, so they threatened to pull their content from the store. They realized though that doing so would also cost them a huge chunk of change, so in order to keep the ITMS monster in check they sponsored Amazon MP3.
So Apple now has to deal with the fact that if they don't play ball and follow their restrictions, they give the ball to Amazon. Amazon will look like a hero because the labels ALLOW them to sell music without DRM.
This is business politics at it's finest. The labels fear ITMS because it shakes the very foundations of their very old and dying business model, so they go to great lengths to keep the beast in check.
Apple has stated on numerous occasions that they would love to see DRM removed from their content. This boycott is aimed in the wrong direction. In fact, it will be a pointless effort because only the crowd here knows about or even really cares about DRM.
Educate the masses, not the few and you may actually accomplish something. Calling on the geeks who normally don't buy there to boycott ITMS is not terribly productive.
You don't deserve to profit forever and a day for one piece of work.
If it has value and people are willing to pay for it, sure. Why not? Did you ever think that maybe the one day of work you got paid for was only worth the value you got paid for that day?
The old "original intent" argument. As it was written so many years ago is OBVIOUSLY how it should be today. I agree that copyright needs to be rethought altogether, but original intent is a slippery slope.
Taking the "music has been around forever" argument is specious. Music and the reasons we listen to and create it have changed radically over the years and particularly during the 20th century. Before it could be recorded, it was a social event and there really was no way or reason even to protect it.
Nowadays, music IS a commodity. Technology and our brand of capitalism have seen to that. Other than the "I deserve free music because it's old" argument, I can't see one reason for an artist to not receive royalties until at least death from their works. If people are willing to pay for it and the market can bear it... so be it. That's the free market.
I could go on and on and on about the problems with American style capitalism, but that's a different argument.
Master of Puppets, Led Zeppelin IV, Van Halen I, Ace of Spades, Rocket to Russia, Ten, Badmotorfinger and scores of others are worth $9.99 to me and millions of others.
The industry needs a shakeup. Badly. I know far too many musicians who made bad deals when working with Atlantic and Island and other labels, but that's only because they were naive going into the deal and had $ and huge crowds in their eyes. Primus on the other hand set up a smart business and owed nothing to no one and are entitled to the revenue from their product. More bands should look to them for how to run a band as a business. That's the reality of trying to make a living making music these days.
We also need music education more than ever because learning the language of music has benefits far beyond the ability to compose and perform. Once the ability to read and write music becomes a cultural priority, many of the issues you are concerned about will go away because music won't be seen as a commodity as much.
So, how do you change a nation obsessed with wealth and property to view something as intangible as musical education is as important as language studies, math and science? You don't do it by giving away someone else's hard work and talent because the entire notion and execution of copyright is outdated.
To live in the world you want to live in, music needs to be a cultural priority. Right now it's not. What are you going to do about it.
And you're still missing the point that Apple has stated numerous times that they would love to sell all their music without DRM if the labels would allow them to.
All this hoop jumping is NOT the desire of Apple, thus the reason that the hoop jumping exists in the first place. If they weren't making so much money for the labels, Apple would probably wouldn't even be allowed to permit this loophole to exist at all.
They are trying to get the DRM removed, but the labels keep using Rhapsody and Amazon MP3 as bargaining chips.
Again, it's the labels that are insisting iTunes have a DRM scheme. Not Apple.
Feel free to continue shopping at Amazon, but realize that the reason it exists is to keep Apple bent to their will.
One last question. What about apple purchased video? Can you burn that to CD/DVD? Not without doing some insanely complicated maneuvers, but according to the license you agreed to by downloading the file, you shouldn't be doing it anyway.
Buyer beware. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Simple as that. The moment you click "accept" your so called consumer rights were flushed down the toilet as you accepted the terms of the license issued by Apple.
Apple only cares about the initial sale. It's the motion picture and RIAA that care about what happens after that and why they force DRM down Apple's throat. They'd be more than happy to ditch it as, without it, they would actually make more money on the sales.
Aim your venom and vitriol at the correct target and you might see more promising results.
Spot on on the transcoding process! Notice I said an upconvert in terms of sampling quality, not audio quality.
"I'm not particularly in the mood to jump through hoops simply for the pleasure of giving Apple my money" Neither am I actually, but I am also not particularly interested in struggling through most of the other sites out there in the hopes that I might find what I want.
I shop almost exclusively at iTunes now. Not because of loyalty to Apple, but because of the shopping experience. Easy to find what I'm looking for (if they have ) at a price I am comfortable with.
That said, if iTunes doesn't have what I am looking for, I go elsewhere to get it.
Just because iTunes has become my music shop of choice doesn't mean I or the other millions of users are fanboi's. It just means that the consumer experience meets or exceeds our expectations. If they fail to meet my expectations, you can be guaranteed I will move on to greener pastures, but for now, even with the limitations of the FairPlay scheme, I can find even some of the most obscure bands that I enjoy at iTunes and have the knowhow to back the files up for posterity.
Shop where you want. That's your prerogative, but don't make the claim that I or others are clamoring to give Apple our money. We want goods for dollars tendered and an experience that matches our expectations... as do you. iTunes may not be it, but don't make the claim that your consumer preferences are in any way superior when you're just looking for convenience like the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot.... where naivete meets rampant paranoia and cynicism.
It doesn't necessarily cost money to tour... You start small and play in a few local bars as many small bands do, people who work for radio stations and larger venues will hear you, and if you're any good book you to play.
It definitely costs money to tour, Gas, auto insurance, food, hotels, guitar strings, etc. If you're not making your living off your music, you have to take time off your job which means it might not be there when you get back. Playing in local bars and clubs is absolutely crucial when you're starting out. I can't agree with you more.
Take a band like Primus. They played 3-4 times a week when I started seeing them. They played constantly and promoted the crap out of themselves by playing with whoever would have them. Despite their amazing work ethic, they also benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Metallica was huge (and Les was friends with Kirk Hammet) and Faith No More was about to blow up big time. Couple that with the rising popularity of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Fishbone and Jane's Addiction.... bang! Primus was primed to explode as well. Combine work ethic with luck and it's a formula for success!
I'm with you that music should require the artist to work. I disagree with you in that I think your take on it is a little simplistic. Honestly, I have no problem with, say, Metallica making money still off of music they recorded almost 20 years ago (despite my distaste for the Black Album). The 5 years it took for them to make Load was ridiculous though especially since it was an awful album. But again, they did tour almost constantly throughout the 1990's and were the top grossing touring act of that decade. They worked their asses off. Hell, The Grateful Dead, a band I can't stand, toured CONSTANTLY for almost 30 years, but again they benefited as much from luck and environment as they did their hard work.
But making an album and playing some local shows is not enough. Especially now when people are less likely to go out and see bands live. The "album" is more important than ever and resources like YouTube, MySpace and iTunes are insanely important for a musician to get heard so the word can spread and allow them the luxury to tour to places very far away from their city of origin.
Right now, Kultur Shock is recording a new album. They're self-financing and going about it without any label backing whatsoever. To show you how important the album is to them, they are spending a big chunk of change just to get some hours in with Jack Endino to get the guitars to sound "just so". They could just record the guitar tracks in their personal "studio", but Val, the guitarist and an accomplished audio engineer in his own right, doesn't have the same level of experience recording guitars, so they pay a premium to have an expert do it.
Composing and recording an album is an art unto itself. The Wall, Dark Side of the Moon, Caca Volante, California, Delerium Cordia, etc. It's not JUST advertising.
I'm going on a tangent now, so I'll try to get back on point. My point is this:
Basically, I agree with you that more musicians should have a better work ethic. However, I do not agree that music should or even could be perceived as "a job" just like any other. Creating original artistic content comes in fits and spurts, not on a 9-5 schedule. Music, design, video can be created in that time frame, but only in the most commercial sense. I worked as a designer for a long time and even though I'm proud of a lot of the work I did, I would never deign to call the brochures for banks or websites for Starbucks art. I merely used my talents to meet the needs of a client for a specified amount of cash.
Art is a reflection of a person or group and their relationship to society. To create something of cultural significance in that framework cannot be forced, either by consumers or by the artists. Once they create something of enough relevance to reach
I know I'm feeding a troll, but here goes.
A sandwich is something that is yours. Your shoes are something that are yours. Your spare time is something that is yours.
The MP3 file is yours in the sense that you are allowed to play it on equipment that you own... on stuff that is yours.
The music itself is not yours. You can share the music on playback devices you own and even on others' playback devices, but you cannot transfer binary file itself to any device other than your own.
This is not a moral issue. Murder is a moral issue. Rape is a moral issue. File sharing is a LEGAL issue and if you can't see that distinction, well, no wonder the music industry is so litigious. They're engaged in a holy war against zealots and their only weapons are subpoenas.
You're almost there with this argument. The middle men do make a disproportionate amount of money off of the music created by the artist.
And yes, musicians should create more and more often. Perform more. However, claiming that albums should be relegated to the level of "promotional freebies" is off the mark. Not only does it have an impact on the musicians, but also on recording engineers and producers who play an important role in the creation of music. You're essentially asking professional audio technicians to give up their line of work.
And why do musicians "have to work like everyone else"? If a musicians creates something that resonates with a large section of the populace, why should that just be given away? Especially if said musician/band doesn't have the financial wherewithal to tour to every single podunk town on the world map? Why should the people who choose to live where it's not feasible for a band to play live be allowed to consume the music of said band for free? The band has to spend time and money to produce and distribute these "promotional freebies" and they're going to try to get the highest possible quality recording with the funds they have at hand. They try to create as high quality musical experience as possible within the studio for those people that will NEVER have an opportunity to see them live.
Basically, you're saying that music that cost money to produce, whether recorded or live, should be available to anyone whether or not there is a chance of the band recouping their investment. You're saying that people are ENTITLED to the recordings, which is just wrong on a very fundamental level.
The system is busted. We're all suffering from the old industry having to adapt to new technologies and new thinking about how music is consumed and distributed. I still can't get over this perception that people are entitled to free music that artists have spent time and money on. Sure, the big names feel very little pinch from file sharing as their fortunes are subsidized by the industry of fame, but friends like mine in Kultur Shock are paying top dollar out of their own pocket to record a high quality album that you can listen to in the comfort of your own abode. Given American concert going habits, they do not play in the US much and spend most of their time in Europe when they do play because people and governments there value the role of music in society and actually reward artists financially and make it worth their time to record and play over there.
I know and work with a lot of working musicians and bands (I'm a video editor and director) and most of them simply don't bother playing in the US anymore because Americans are largely only willing to go out and see bands with name recognition that has been propped up by record labels, even on the indie level. An indie label is still a label and forks out cash to create name and genre recognition.
The big problem is that Americans feel entitled to music for low to no cost and will enjoy it in the comfort of their home rather than go out and actually see a live performance. Concert attendance has been on a steady decline since the 1990's, even at the club level. For most aspiring musicians and non-pop veterans, it's just not worth their time and money to actually tour the US other than the summer festival circuits, so they rely on people buying their recorded music to have any level of relevance in this culture... and the /. crowd just doesn't view recorded music as worthy of their cash. In saying that recorded music is not worth their cash, they are saying that the music is not worth being produced in the first place.
Artists like Adrian Belew, Trey Gunn, Tony Levin (Yes, I'm a King Crimson fan) are all wondering how they're going to be making a living in the future. Most likely it will be doing studio work, performing as touring musicians, writing jingles for television and scoring movies over writing original material because p
I have three words for you.... Final Cut Pro.
There is no more powerful and intuitive non-linear digital video editor at this price point.
Premiere? Gimme a break.
Avid? At a similar price point to FC Studio and a MacPro + monitor? Nope. To get the same power you need to buy a much more expensive Avid system.
Vegas? Bwahahahahaha! Another joke.
I don't use Macs to be part of a culture. I use them because they offer the tools I want with the power I need at a price point I can live with.
I hear ya. If I weren't a video editor or a graphic designer, the 15" would be the way to go for me. Big enough screen for most uses and very very easily portable.
At home a 17" hooked into a 30 Cinema Display is a thing of beauty. When you're out on a shoot, capturing and roughing out footage, a 15" screen just doesn't cut it. That 2 inches may seem like it's not very much, but it does make a huge difference when you have an interface with 4-5 panels that need to be open simultaneously.
Ever tried doing video editing on a 15" monitor? Trust me, it's no fun.
VHS is dying... and for good reason. It was a crap format from the get go. Stupid Sony and their insistence not to license their technology to anyone who would use it for "blue" purposes.
VHS won the format war even though it was the inferior technology.
People need to start thinking now about converting their VHS to some digital format and actually do it. Who cares if 50 years down the line, someone finally decides they need to make a copy of a VHS tape. Everyone will have had plenty warning that the format was going the way of the dodo and they should have done something about it.
Think of it this way. Everyone is embarrassed by aspects of their past and would love to hide them at all costs. A company with a public image is no different.
This is a postmodern society we live in. If Disney to were to release on DVD something that was explicitly racist, most people wouldn't bother to go over the history of the piece and find out that it was the result of a time where this was considered acceptable social behavior. They're just trying to protect their image.
Can't say I blame them really. It might negatively affect their bottom line. Then again it might not,but they're a huge corporation and they're just trying to protect their shareholders.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just that they don't owe anyone a release of this piece of the past. They are not obligated to do so.
I suspect however this would be lost on you. You seem to live in a libertarian fantasy world where everything has dollar value and there is no value beyond a dollar. So, how do we assign a dollar value to creativity?
This is an incorrect assumption. I'm so far from being a libertarian it's ridiculous. Far closer to a socialist actually.
What I'm saying is this... you want to determine the intent and direction of where a musician/artist's work will lead. You contend that after a set amount of time, their work is no longer their own and becomes a part of the cultural heritage.
My question is this, what if a band wants to make money off of their music? What if a band approaches their career as if it were a business and wants to control what they create and exploit it for financial gain? What if, they don't even consider it art, but product? Product they enjoy creating and performing, but product nonetheless.
In a so-called capitalist society, is this not permitted?
Now, if an artist wants to create art, make some money off it for a while and release it into the wild, all the while creating new material, could that not also be permitted?
How about if an artist wants to create something for the sake of it and then sell it off for a one time profit?
How about if an artist wants to make something and just give it to the world free of charge?
How about if an artist creates something and then hoards it to him/herself? Never to be experienced by another soul.
How about if an artist creates something and publicly destroys it? The work in question only experienced for a brief moment, never to be seen or heard again.
I would contend that each and everyone of these scenarios is acceptable.
What you are espousing is that art is not property. That art is a gift to the world. That's fine. You are allowed to create these gifts to give to the world. No one is going to stop you. You do it for the enjoyment. Keep on doing it. I play and record music as well and give it away for free because I enjoy doing it, but have no desire to make a career of it. That is MY choice.
However, who are you to tell another "artist" who might not even view him or herself an artist how their original works are to be experienced and whether or not they can make a buck off it? Art is a property whether you like it or not. In my opinion, the creator of the work should determine how it's experienced and whether or not to charge for it. You, as a fan and/or consumer of art, have the option to either buy the product in question or not. You are not entitled to it because it falls under the very ambiguous category of art. You can choose to sponsor only artists who share your same mindset regarding art, either financially or by the simple act of going to see them perform. A valid choice.
Now, go ask Gene Simmons whether or not he views the collected works of KISS as art. He will flat out say no. He and Paul run a business and have for over 30 years. They claim their business is music and entertainment that branches off into licensing and merchandising. Everything they do or make is "product". You may not agree with this, but your notions that all music must fall under the category of art is a little naive and actually a little oppresssive. If they want to limit access to it and only charge for it, as a business, that is how they should be allowed to conduct themselves. You are not entitled to single note of the music they have created. If you want it, you pay for it. That's how business works.
Hell, ACDC refuses to sell their new album online as individual songs because of some misguided notion that they are artists. I love 'em, but come on! This is ACDC, not Miles Davis. I think they're going to fall on their faces because of it because that is not how people want to access music these days in general. It's their choice to release the album this way though. If it works for 'em. Great. If not... well, they either need to adapt or realize that they are following a very old mode
This is utopian thought. Pure and simple.
Private industry and property rights regulating themselves are outdated notions. Why? Because they flagrantly ignore the need of an individual to possess power and pursue greed. Laissez-faire economic thought is great on paper, but it flat out ignores that people are greedy and self-serving.
Business attracts type-a personalities. People who would screw over their grandmother at the opportunity to make another dollar, feel important and wield influence. Consumers tend to be sheep. As long as they're safe, warm, fed and comfortable, they are happy to allow others to make "important" decisions for them.
Straight up competition in business creates an environment where "someone has to win". The winner then sets the terms of how business is conducted, standards of quality and can set up roadblocks to entry into the market.
I'm not defending the state of our government, but I do think that most Libertarian ideals are naive at best. Believing in the "inherent goodness of all people" is naive. Despite our advancements in technology, people are still essentially creatures that crave safety and comfort and are not interested in "big ideas" until it disrupts their comfort, convenience or deeply held theological beliefs.
The moment you have a legislative branch, you create a cycle where they have to justify their existence by creating more legislation which requires enforcement, constant re-evaluation and interpretation. Thus, you have a government which is destined to grow in order to justify it's continued existence. Small government is an oxymoron because people are involved. People who need to gain power and influence and feel important. They will never "leave well enough alone" as it goes against human nature.
Until politics can be viewed as public service as opposed to a career with great financial growth opportunity, you will always have big government.
Bandying about ideas of property rights and currency backed by something stable as a way of protecting freedom is utopian, thus ineffective. Honestly, I think property needs to be de-emphasized. Consumerism is ultimately the cause of most of our current day problems.
We need to start thinking about the world as interconnected. Not as nation state versus nation state trying to protect their respective "interests" which are always either monetary or spiritual.
get us out of Iraq and in a few months we've saved enough to pay for this $44b project.
My question to this though is if the Feds didn't build the interstate system, when was the unregulated free market going to get around to it?
In 1776 the population of the Colonies was approx. 2.5 million. The founding fathers were a smart bunch of guys and they wrote a really impressive document. The smartest aspect being the amendment process and granting powers to the states.
It seems we like to ascribe omnipotence to them however. As smart as they were, they could not envision a country of 50 states with 300 million people, covering a very large part of an entire continent.
We love to bandy about the term democracy, but democracy, in it's traditional sense, can only work in smaller environments where the populace can get together and come to a consensus as to what needs to be done and how. Therefore, we have a republic that utilizes principles of democracy to elect the representative leaders.
It also seems like we like to make democracy and capitalism synonymous. They aren't. American style capitalism grew out of the desire to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Again, as the population grew and the size of the country grew, the idea of a true unregulated, free market became unwieldy and borderline impossible. American style capitalism fails as all utopian ideas fail. Human greed and the desire for importance and power corrupt the idea at it's very core.
This country sees everything in such black and white terms. There are two parties. One "liberal", one "conservative", but they both cowtow to the middle where the line blurs. You're either pro-war or anti-war. You're either pro-life or pro-abortion. If you're not a supporter of capitalism, you're a socialist... which everyone here associates with communism. Another fallacy.
This county, this world has gotten so huge and at the same time, so small and interconnected. With such a huge diversity of belief and culture, we need to start thinking differently about our political, social and economic systems. The black and white thought process no longer works.
Democracy as we like to think of it doesn't work. Capitalism as we know it doesn't work. Socialism as we think of it doesn't work. Federalism as we know it doesn't work.
We try to hard to maintain the integrity of these very old concepts which never took into account an interconnected world, a population of 6 billion and a march of technology that simply couldn't be imagined in 1776.
To get back on point, the free market has grown into a beast that is more concerned with short terms profit and shareholder value than it is the public welfare. The romans had the good sense to create aqueduct and roads to aid the growth of their society (albeit for largely military purposes) and I guarantee you that the decisions to build the roads and aqueducts did not come about because every citizen voted on it or that entrepreneurs had anything to do with it.
Now, when the Roman empire grew too large, we all know the outcome.
Unregulated, laissez-faire commerce, in this day and age can't work as originally intended. Shareholder welfare trumps the public's welfare. Investing in safer, forward thinking technology takes a backseat to protecting investments in older business infrastructure in order to prevent large expenditures that would eat into shareholder profits. This is why Detroit is failing. Short term profit trumps long term growth and stability.
The internet has become a dominant tool of communication, entertainment and commerce and it has connected us to the rest of the world in a way that no other technology ever has. The business world is far more concerned with carving out a little section of the internet and it's infrastructure that they can possess and exploit for shareholder profit and have no interest whatsoever in how it can benefit the general populace into the future. Only the feds can really do something about it.
The problem nowadays though is... the feds are owned by special interest.
I don't know what the answer
Heh. If someone makes a good point, who am I to try and refute it just for the sake of trying to refute it?
Lars Ulrich was made the laughing stock of the world in his battle with Napster. Even he now realizes how stupid it was. Not trying to forgive him because he's a spastic little howler monkey who doesn't know when to shut up. The band looks back on that period with a large amount of embarrassment and they seem to have learned their lesson and adapted to the new model of distributing music... and actually re-learned how to make some decent music.
That doesn't change the fact that Master is a classic album. So good in fact that I wore through two cassette copies of it before I got a CD player. I've actually had my CD copy of it for over 20 years now.
It's funny for me to think that, until Death Magnetic came out, I hadn't bought a Metallica album since 1991 (and regretted it) which was well before the mass proliferation of the personal computer. Their ill fated attempts at suing everyone under the sun got me riled up for sure, but luckily they were creating crap back then and I had no desire to purchase anything they produced.
All this aside, I still can't get riled up enough to not buy quality music even if the band themselves can be idiots.
And you're never truly going to get what you want by going to other sources. If Amazon's sales increase dramatically... guess what? The RIAA is going to slap them with the same if not harsher restrictions. They will not let a retailer grow out of control.
If iTunes should fail for some reason and a power vacuum is created, you can be certain that the RIAA will be in there in a heartbeat locking down their control.
Honestly, a world where iTunes or any other retailer is the only source for purchasing content online is bad for the consumer. This boycott will have little effect though. If you want to force a change in the nature of the industry, the boycott should be aimed where it would hurt most and where they still have the greatest amount of control... the sales of physical CD's followed with a boycott of all digital downloads.
They need to have their revenue stream strangled from all angles. And during this time, people need to not copy and share files or everything that the RIAA claims about consumers is amplified and they tighten the restrictions even more.
You make a lot of very good points and I learned a lot from this. Thanks. You are probably the only poster who has taken the time to write up a post of this depth. A good, vehement rant can provoke something educational.
However, you are still overlooking something. Apple doesn't want DRM. They never have, but the labels force it on them in order for them to do business.
The labels didn't like the fact that the public WANTED to pay Â99 for songs. That the public WANTED to buy songs individually.
When ITMS started, the labels never thought it would succeed, so they said go ahead and sell our stuff, but just make sure there is some sort of copy protection in it.
Then ITMS exploded and the labels realized that they had goofed and could have been making a ton more money off of it, so they threatened to pull their content from the store. They realized though that doing so would also cost them a huge chunk of change, so in order to keep the ITMS monster in check they sponsored Amazon MP3.
So Apple now has to deal with the fact that if they don't play ball and follow their restrictions, they give the ball to Amazon. Amazon will look like a hero because the labels ALLOW them to sell music without DRM.
This is business politics at it's finest. The labels fear ITMS because it shakes the very foundations of their very old and dying business model, so they go to great lengths to keep the beast in check.
Apple has stated on numerous occasions that they would love to see DRM removed from their content. This boycott is aimed in the wrong direction. In fact, it will be a pointless effort because only the crowd here knows about or even really cares about DRM.
Educate the masses, not the few and you may actually accomplish something. Calling on the geeks who normally don't buy there to boycott ITMS is not terribly productive.
You make a good point, but the geeks want to feel important too.
You don't deserve to profit forever and a day for one piece of work.
If it has value and people are willing to pay for it, sure. Why not? Did you ever think that maybe the one day of work you got paid for was only worth the value you got paid for that day?
The old "original intent" argument. As it was written so many years ago is OBVIOUSLY how it should be today. I agree that copyright needs to be rethought altogether, but original intent is a slippery slope.
Taking the "music has been around forever" argument is specious. Music and the reasons we listen to and create it have changed radically over the years and particularly during the 20th century. Before it could be recorded, it was a social event and there really was no way or reason even to protect it.
Nowadays, music IS a commodity. Technology and our brand of capitalism have seen to that. Other than the "I deserve free music because it's old" argument, I can't see one reason for an artist to not receive royalties until at least death from their works. If people are willing to pay for it and the market can bear it... so be it. That's the free market.
I could go on and on and on about the problems with American style capitalism, but that's a different argument.
Master of Puppets, Led Zeppelin IV, Van Halen I, Ace of Spades, Rocket to Russia, Ten, Badmotorfinger and scores of others are worth $9.99 to me and millions of others.
The industry needs a shakeup. Badly. I know far too many musicians who made bad deals when working with Atlantic and Island and other labels, but that's only because they were naive going into the deal and had $ and huge crowds in their eyes. Primus on the other hand set up a smart business and owed nothing to no one and are entitled to the revenue from their product. More bands should look to them for how to run a band as a business. That's the reality of trying to make a living making music these days.
We also need music education more than ever because learning the language of music has benefits far beyond the ability to compose and perform. Once the ability to read and write music becomes a cultural priority, many of the issues you are concerned about will go away because music won't be seen as a commodity as much.
So, how do you change a nation obsessed with wealth and property to view something as intangible as musical education is as important as language studies, math and science? You don't do it by giving away someone else's hard work and talent because the entire notion and execution of copyright is outdated.
To live in the world you want to live in, music needs to be a cultural priority. Right now it's not. What are you going to do about it.
None of this stuff is even 50 years old yet, some of it less than 20 and most of the artists are still alive.
Hate to break it to you, but this music is a commodity to be traded via legal tender and subject to copyright... even after the death of the authors.
If they wrote into their wills that their families should receive royalties on their sales, so be it.
And you're still missing the point that Apple has stated numerous times that they would love to sell all their music without DRM if the labels would allow them to.
All this hoop jumping is NOT the desire of Apple, thus the reason that the hoop jumping exists in the first place. If they weren't making so much money for the labels, Apple would probably wouldn't even be allowed to permit this loophole to exist at all.
They are trying to get the DRM removed, but the labels keep using Rhapsody and Amazon MP3 as bargaining chips.
Again, it's the labels that are insisting iTunes have a DRM scheme. Not Apple.
Feel free to continue shopping at Amazon, but realize that the reason it exists is to keep Apple bent to their will.
One last question. What about apple purchased video? Can you burn that to CD/DVD?
Not without doing some insanely complicated maneuvers, but according to the license you agreed to by downloading the file, you shouldn't be doing it anyway.
Buyer beware. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Simple as that. The moment you click "accept" your so called consumer rights were flushed down the toilet as you accepted the terms of the license issued by Apple.
Apple only cares about the initial sale. It's the motion picture and RIAA that care about what happens after that and why they force DRM down Apple's throat. They'd be more than happy to ditch it as, without it, they would actually make more money on the sales.
Aim your venom and vitriol at the correct target and you might see more promising results.
Ha. It really is very difficult to understand since it is patently untrue. Via iTunes and it's ties to Quicktime I can convert things willy nilly.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=41359&package_id=33458&release_id=377702
I can even convert it to OGG!
Spot on on the transcoding process! Notice I said an upconvert in terms of sampling quality, not audio quality.
"I'm not particularly in the mood to jump through hoops simply for the pleasure of giving Apple my money" Neither am I actually, but I am also not particularly interested in struggling through most of the other sites out there in the hopes that I might find what I want.
I shop almost exclusively at iTunes now. Not because of loyalty to Apple, but because of the shopping experience. Easy to find what I'm looking for (if they have ) at a price I am comfortable with.
That said, if iTunes doesn't have what I am looking for, I go elsewhere to get it.
Just because iTunes has become my music shop of choice doesn't mean I or the other millions of users are fanboi's. It just means that the consumer experience meets or exceeds our expectations. If they fail to meet my expectations, you can be guaranteed I will move on to greener pastures, but for now, even with the limitations of the FairPlay scheme, I can find even some of the most obscure bands that I enjoy at iTunes and have the knowhow to back the files up for posterity.
Shop where you want. That's your prerogative, but don't make the claim that I or others are clamoring to give Apple our money. We want goods for dollars tendered and an experience that matches our expectations... as do you. iTunes may not be it, but don't make the claim that your consumer preferences are in any way superior when you're just looking for convenience like the rest of us.