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
6 comments:
So, while I think you make a compelling argument. I usually download things off of bit torrent that I can't find other wise. Ratatat Remixes Vol. 1. Syreeta's One to One. Etc. Etc. So, I defy the argument. If I can't find it in legit music stores, or websites... what's a nigga to do?
I'm in the same boat and probably should have specified that a majority of the music I get is stuff that's either unavailable in stores or too old to track down and find. I'm not DLing the newest 50 Cent or Ciara, and if something good comes out from an artist I really enjoy, I'll go support. Kinda brings everything full circle: bad music = I'm not buying. I think the crux of the problem is the music being made and not the methods that people use to get their hands on it.
Mr. James, I unequivocally, unambiguously and explicitly have to disagree with your stance. As much as I would like to idealize the fact that art is to be shared, pondered upon, intellectualized, investigated, etc…I have to take myself out of the fairy tale world that you are currently in, in which I used to be. Music is art, indeed, as is; dancing, writing, filming, teaching, policing, firefighting, engineering and the like…
That being said, there is art form in every aspect of one’s chosen career. Ray Allen’s jump shot for example, Steve Harvey’s ironing techniques, Monica Lewinski’s line of purses, and Jessica Alba’s…well, everything! All jokes aside though, I feel that artists in the music industry are entitled to a decent income as anyone else is entitled to earnings in their careers, whether or not they are making too much money is non-debatable as this is the law of economic theory (supply and demand).
If you want your message to be heard, do it the 2 Short way and pop open the trunk of your car! The Torah, Bible, and Qu’ran all have guidance and messages contained within them for the betterment of humanity, although you could and will be arrested if you attempt to take a Bible out of a hotel room for your own personal use!
If the artist wants to share their music for free i.e. Prince, then they do so on their own website and market their product as such “Free Downloads of My Album”. Otherwise, assume that artists are in it for a career to support their own, or as Latrell Spreewell so eloquently stated, “I’ve got my family to feed”.
Here's the kicker! The Musicians make ZERO dollars and ZERO cents off of album sales. Unless they wrote their own songs (Which is so rare it borders on ludicrous). The money that the artist makes is always from concerts and merchandise.
So, I can go to bed knowing that my DFA remixes that I DLed did not take a single red penny from their pockets. And I can wear my DFA shirt with pride knowing that I gave them 25 bucks for it.
Omar(ion),
So kinda like, don't get in the game (music industry) if you can't play by the rules? I can dig it. I'm also not advocating the snatching of bread from the mouths of artists' babies, but I see your point.
I know I'm in a fantasy world--I always have been--but I just can't seem to acquiesce when it comes to this issue. Why don't people try to change the game instead of buying into it? Why can't we do what Radiohead has done?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/
story/16654550/radioheads_in_
rainbows_trackbytrack_preview
I'm glad you brought up Prince, because he has long since stopped depending on album sales to provide substantial revenues, yet, that nigga is PAID! And I'm not talking about "Purple Rain" royalties--he continues to generate cash year in and year out through live shows and other promotional ventures. Granted, we don't all have a back-catalogue that includes "Kiss" and "1999", but he knows that most of today's listeners aren't really checking for what he has to say. So, he uses his noggin and finds ways to get his message to the public and dollars in his pockets.
I'm not saying that going this route is easy or even good for everyone, but we've GOT to look for alternatives. For me, being able to D/L music before buying (yes I do buy music, ha) is imperative, especially if it's a new artist or at least someone that's new to me. It allows me to be as curious as I want to be, and truly seek some dope, other-worldly stuff, without feeling like I have to break the bank.
Here's a question for you to ponder (and anyone else reading): what about the near-thousand or so dollars that I have spent on buying used vinyl from record stores 'round the country? None of that money is going to the original artists from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Is it fair that they don't see a penny for their efforts? True, they got paid back in the day, but a "keep-the-families-fed" argument would seem to suggest some sort of residual system to keep them paid for their artistry.
I know this debate cannot be remedied, especially on my less-than-low-budget blog, but as always, I appreciate the discussion.
Micah "Still trying to get my cake and spend it, too" James,
Peace
What if major artists use filesharing sites? Hell Trent Reznor used a site that was well known for its deep and wide music collection of everything from the mainstream to never-to-cd vinyl rips, and he's rich as hell:
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/trent-reznor-on.html
I agree completely with Tanner on this one. If you dig a band, and want to support them in making more music, then go to concerts and buy merch. Courtney Love, in a surprisingly sober and thorough essay, explains why you should:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
Post a Comment