The problem isn't just about music, it's about centralized
media. Television, film and music are now owned by a tiny
handful of corporations that are mainly interested in offering
mass-marketed, highly profitable product. They don't care if
it is meaningless bubblegum or offensive blatant hate-music,
as long as it jumps off the shelves. Sell less than 100k units
and you are dropped. The problem and the salvation are the
same: seek out and support the independant artists that are
not part of the accountant-driven corporate crap merchants.
These megaliths don't have a clue, and are, like some
lumbering dinosaur, thrashing blindly, sinking under their
own stupid weight. People are watching Sopranos and Sex and
the City (and check out the Chris Issak Show on Showtime Mon
nights) because they are choking on the tired commercial
drivel shoveled at them. They are listening to Ani and
Ben Harper, etc, etc,. The revolution will not be
televised, so don't expect the corporate media to be doing
anything real or meaningful unless it just happens by
accident because it sells.
Brenda-
Napster is seen by many (and certainly defended by it's
owners) as a marketing tool that is helping the industry
sell more music, and helping the consumer sample before
buying.
Others, however, feel that it is an illegal distribution
system infringing on the intellectual property of artists
and composers.
Probably it is both. I feel strongly that, regardless of
the rationale for it's existence, it is wrong to use someone's
creation without their permission.
If Napster were simply a money machine for the music
industry, I think you could convince Don Henley and
others to back off-I mean his band was charging $100
per seat on their last "rake in the bucks" tour.
There is nothing in the copyright statutes that allows
someone to read a book or see a movie for free before
deciding to buy it. A consumer with a modem can readily
sample most any new release now before buying on CDNow
or Amazon.
I think the record industry is consumed by it's own greed.
They don't oppose Napster because it rips off the
artists-they've been happily doing that since they started
(witness the recent work-for-hire fiasco)-
they are worried about their BMW's and summer homes.
It looks like a subscription service will soon be in
place. The industry's own idea is to charge you 3 bucks
to download one song-that is pure greed when you consider
that a $14 10-song CD costs you $1.40 per song, and online
distribution has virtually no physical reproduction cost to
the company. They should be charging 50 or 75 cents per
song-it would at least make them seem a little more credible.
RR
Brenda wrote:
I couldn't disagree more. Napster isn't about singles. It's about
sampling. It's one great big listening station. It's about not waiting
for the radio to play things that you might like. Instead you check it
out when you want
to, as often as you want to and then go for more if you like it. There
have been two recent notable cases where bands allowed their singles to
be shared on Napster prior to release and they subsequently charted at
number one on the
album chart - Radiohead and Dave Matthews. Both of these bands have
album careers. Radiohead fans absolutely cared about getting the hidden
booklet under the tray of the jewel box - despite having downloaded all
of the songs (and
alternate live versions) using Napster.
There have always been artists with "singles" careers who couldn't
garner album loyalty. One look at the Billboard singles chart from the
60's to now will demonstrate the point. The top 10, week by week, will
contain plenty of
names that no one heard of after that song. I'm willing to bet that the
numbers today don't look all that unusual by comparison.
Despite the radio dominance of Backstreet, N'Sync, etc. young music
lovers do show their loyalty through album buying and going to shows -
take Tool, Phish, the Roots or Ben Harper. They all sell albums, pack
venues and get
insubstantial commercial airplay. If you've never been to a Ben Harper
show, I suggest checking it out ... you'll see wannabe hippie teenagers
who own every CD, trade set lists and don't need to hear a single to buy
the album.
And to relate this to Joni...do you know how many young people (from all
over the world) are pulling down Joni tunes? I've chatted with some who
hotlisted me after downloading Beth Orton or Tribe Called Quest and went
for the Joni
stuff just cuz...those kids go out and buy records. They're real music
fans. The bystanders who are swapping Baja Men or J Lo (or whatever she
calls herself these days) were never interested in albums. And more
than likely, they
never will be.
I think the industry wants to kill Napster because the cat gets out of
the bag and they can't control it. If you love music and you don't want
to spend for music that makes you want to get a refund, then Napster is
your friend.
Music buyers get to hear everything and decide for themselves before
they drop $16. So if a record is crap, then Napster will show it to be
so. If it's good and the fans dig it, then they will go buy it. And
the industry wide
sales numbers for last year and the first quarter this year back that
up.
Brenda
