> Let me be more clear: what I mean to express is my personal
> opinion....
Me Bad makes some very articulate and persuasive arguments here.
As a musician in the early 80's, I had a screaming fight with a recording
engineer.
He argued that popularity was the main measurement of quality for music.
Got right up my fingernails seeing how certain artists, with chins dribbling
sticky white fluid, zoomed to popularity on the back of huge marketing
budgets, while far more musical and innovative acts remained trapped in
oblivion.
The existing system of artist marketing is seriously corrupt, and has cost
everybody (except for the record execs and the tiniest majority of artists).
People throughout the western world have been artistically disembowelled,
stripped of their innate creative abilities. The media's message regarding
art is "Don't create your own - it's too much effort, and you'll never be as
good as the multi-millionaires on our payroll - sit back, consume, pay -
don't support smaller artists - if we're not screening them, they mustn't be
any good"... and so on. How many parties these days have people playing live
music, for example? In my single party-going days, I was clearly in the
minority with my preference for live music.
Meanwhile, I feel a pitiful compassion as I stroll through the second hand
shops looking for cheap PC hardware, and see rows upon rows of fine musical
equipment, hocked off at 15% of its value to find money to pay the power
bill. Rows and rows of broken dreams, dreams manufactured by stories of the
wealthy and successful musical elite.
Personally, I would welcome the resurgence of the musical underground, and a
society where all individuals are creatively encouraged.
David
>From: "Mr.Bad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Let me be more clear: what I mean to express is my personal
> opinion. That opinion is as follows: a) Nobody owes artists a
> living. b) The best art is DIY and almost always goes without
> payment. c) I feel no personal or moral obligation to support a
> corrupt, criminal* organization like the entertainment business.
>
> Also, 1) I don't speak for Freenet, 2) The aim of Freenet is to
> prevent censorship of online publishing and NOT to distribute free
> music/images/movies, and 3) (my ultimate point) the aim of Freenet --
> a digital world that preserves essential civil rights -- is in my mind
> far more important than the profits of entertainment conglomerates.
>
> Lastly: (and more to the original point) I don't think it's the
> responsibility of Freenet to figure out a way to bail out
> artists. IN PARTICULAR, I resent once again the implication that
> Freenet is somehow "unfair" to musicians and it's somehow our job to
> develop an ancillary way to pay them.
>
> Freenet is not about sharing music. It's about publishing. We don't,
> and shouldn't, have mechanisms for tipping musicians built into
> Freenet, just as we don't have a word processor or Egyptian barley tax
> calculation program built into Freenet. It's not what we're for, it's
> not what we do.
>
> As for ways for artists to continue surviving while making art: the
> vast majority of artists already have a way to do this. It's called a
> DAY JOB. Personally, I think the de-professionalization of art and
> music will make for a lower barrier to entry, and therefore a broader
> base of musicians and artists, and therefore MORE MUSIC and ART.
>
> If people feel driven to give money to improve and increase the arts
> -- which, like, how could that be a bad thing? -- here are some
> alternate suggestions besides some over-complicated digital hoohaw:
>
> * There are innumerable arts organizations in existence that
> give grants to artists. Most are losing federal and state
> funding. Give them your money.
>
> * Donate to your local public school system's music
> program. Many public schools across America have cut back or
> eliminated their music, art and/or theater programs for lack
> of funds -- this is much more of a threat to America's
> artistic life and heritage than any copyright violation
> could ever be.
>
> * Go see local bands -- especially at cooperatively-owned
> alternative venues.
>
> * Go to raves -- especially ones thrown by rave collectives,
> which are usually the best anyways.
>
> * Buy zines.
>
> * Buy something tangible and non-digitizable, like a
> sculpture or a painting.
>
> * Start a band.
>
> * Make a mural.
>
> * Write a novel.
>
> The thing is, there's so many other threats to good art, music, and
> culture, that we should be spending our time worrying about those, and
> not just a few traded files.
>
> ~Mr. Bad
>
> * That's not an empty accusation -- the Big 5 record companies have
> settled with the Feds, accepting responsibility for collusion and
> price-fixing. That's a crime -- worth billions of dollars. Last I
> checked, there were numerous state lawsuits against the record
> companies, too.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/
> freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal//
> "Statements like this give the impression that this article was
> written by a madman in a drug induced rage" -- Ben Franklin
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
>
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
