Yesterday I got shot in the stomach. Maybe just kicked REALLY hard, but the pain cares not for it's triggers, just that it is. One of my most beloved and trusted BitTorrent sites was raided and subsequently shut down for, among other things, leaking pre-released albums over the internet.
I feel comfortable talking about the site, now that it's closed, but before all this mess it was a clandestine affair, for the most part. As a good friend once explained to me when describing the site, "The number one rule of Fight Club, is you don't talk about Fight Club." Invitation only, strict user-guidelines and reasonably high quality standards made this little slice of heaven on the internet a daily pit-stop for me.
I won't get into the extent of my downloading, but let's just say I use--not abuse--the many resources that this technological age affords me. More important than the amount of pirated GBs on my two (or three) hard drives is the moral and ethical conundrum at hand. In an era of lacking musicianship and more-to-be-desired songwriting, is it really so bad to grab an album that you didn't pay for? Is it stealing? These thoughts came to mind after visiting one of my favorite message-boards for public banter and tomfoolery. One user insisted that downloading was the equivalent of walking into a music store and taking CDs without paying for them. Contrary to my usual fence-sitting generalizations, this is an issue that I must take a stand on: downloading is NOT wrong.
Music, interpreted to be art, is intended to be shared and enjoyed and hated and discussed by any and all when created in it's rawest, purest and most inspired moments. It is in these moments that we are able to truly and effectively communicate ourselves to others; that kind of dialogue--the emtional, spiritual and metaphysical conversations we should be having--is removed from any kind of financial necessity.
OK, I know I'm reaching on this one, but hear me out...
If the real point of the music is to spread a message and serve as catalyst to new ideas and ways of thinking, then shouldn't the importance be shifted to receiving that transmission, rather than how it comes to us? It needs to (and ultimately will) find it's way into the hands of those who will take it in properly. Who cares if they paid for it? In addition, if a product is created with the primary intention of making money then it will be pushed upon, and eventually sought after by, those who are susceptible to that kind of ploy in the first place.
It should be clarified that I don't believe artists/those who enjoy art are not consumers and vice-versa. I also don't want to sound like those guys who are all like, "I see through the Matrix and fall for none of it's tricks" or something like that. I'm just saying that if you create from a real place, you'll seek things of a similar nature, usually. If you don't, then most likely you won't.
As an artist, this issue is incredibly perplexing, as I want to create something that's highly intelligent and thoughtful, yet not feel forced to do anything other than that to support myself. I don't want a record label telling me what to make so that I can maximize my sales, but I don't want to feel like I can't pay my rent. Where's the line? I guess in the end I'd rather have 1,000 people, who wouldn't have bought my album otherwise, download it and enjoy it and actually take away something meaningful (don't hold me to that--if I hit rock bottom I'm calling up Puff Daddy to do a Proactiv remix).

Please excuse this post as a stream of consciousness. The tangled web of art and commerce is much too big a problem for me to even fathom. I just wanted an excuse to put up a picture of P Diddy. I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, so please share your thoughts if you are so inclined. As always, "keep your situation smooth".
Currently listening: "Microphone Mathematics" by Quasimoto, The Unseen, 2001

Peace
Currently listening: "Microphone Mathematics" by Quasimoto, The Unseen, 2001

Peace








