[atlantaprog] Re: More about music & the internet (Wilco)

Brian, very well said.  That's some great food for thought.
 
I think the reason that someone might think disallowing sampling without a 
license is racist is because the people who would profit the most from 
unlicensed sampling are rappers.  However, I do say "profit the most from", not 
"use the most".  Tons of white boys doing electronica use unlicensed samples; 
they just usually don't make much money or fame from it.  So I agree with you 
that speculating about racist intent in requiring licenses for sampling is a 
bit unwarranted.
 
People want stuff for free.  I'm sure my own experiences will resonate with 
other people that back when I was a kid and had no job and was always broke as 
****, when my friends bought CD's I liked, I asked them to dub me a tape, and 
that was that.  I looked for records and CD's by classic rock artists I liked 
at the public library.  I recorded songs off the radio.  I did everything I 
could to possess music I liked, except paying for it.  People wanting stuff for 
free is not a phenomenon new to the internet.
 
Looking back at how we all used to get dubbed tapes of our favorite albums 
instead of paying, it is clear that even without file sharing, if people want 
to get your music for free, THEY WILL.  Is it unfair?  Is it unjust?  Is it 
frustrating?  Is it harmful?  I say "absofrickin'lutely", though I respect that 
opinions differ.  Regardless, the problem is not that file sharing makes 
stealing music possible (for it has always been easy to steal music), but 
rather the problem is that cultural paradigms (as much as I hate that term) 
have shifted.  People now are less romantic about music, so they don't want to 
support an artist, or feel the emotional thrill of having a prettily packaged 
new album, or they don't feel cool by owning the album.  Whatever it is, the 
reason music is getting stolen- or more importantly NOT GETTING BOUGHT- is 
because people don't WANT to buy it.
 
What needs to be done is to take lots of samples of people who get most of 
their music from file sharing, but occasionally purchase an album.  Study them 
hard and figure out what triggers a purchase instead of a theft.  Then, target 
the marketing and value-adds of one's own albums to meet the motivational 
requirements for people to purchase.  People are disillusioned and angry with 
the music industry.  That's a big part of it.  Probably the best way to sell 
(and not have stolen) albums is to earn the trust and respect of one's fans.

-----Original Message-----
From: atlantaprog-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:atlantaprog-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of BK Broyla
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:48 AM
To: atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: More about music & the internet (Wilco)


Something to keep in mind:  Leaving aside the impact on labels, if one artist 
is helped by filesharing and another is hurt, which are you more likely to hear 
about?  The first guy is selling more records, playing bigger/more shows, 
getting awards and press, while the latter is living an even more marginal 
existence than before, a foot on the banana peel toward working at Starbucks 
again.  I think FS can be good or bad for artists, depending on their music 
style and the fan behavior patterns within that scene (it's probably good for 
jam-bands, bad for one-hit-wonder top 40 types).  I also think it speaks 
volumes that Wilco jumped right back on the major-label bandwagon when they had 
the chance.  Must be some reason.
 
My hat's off to Wilco or Umphrey's McGee, or anyone savvy enough to leverage 
conditions to their advantage and keep the fans happy.  Yes, they 'get it' from 
the standpoint of figuring out how to make things work for them and their fans, 
and that's great.  The only problem I have is when someone says that because 
something works for them and they like it, that EVERYONE must do the same.  
Metallica's noise-making about this got tiresome a long time ago, and I think 
they're shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR, regardless of the merits 
of their argument-- but what gives Tweedy the right to dictate how much money 
someone else should make?  
 
I appreciate the idea that the listener is a participant in the live concert 
and in the larger fan/artist relationship, but how does that relate to 
filesharing?  If people are buying cds and downloading live shows and 
promotional giveaways with the band's approval, great; if they're just grabbing 
the two tracks they like off a greatest hits cd in lieu of buying the album, 
that stinks.  The listener is NOT a participant/collaborator in the studio, 
certainly.  These are two distinct behaviors with different outcomes and 
effects on each artist.
 
How does disallowing sampling without a license equate to racism, exactly?  
Counterproductive and not totally reasonable, but racist?
 
Brian
 


Allen Welty-Green <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Wilco seems to "get it" -

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/view.html?pg=5




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Other related posts: