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


Allen Welty-Green <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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). 

Good point. But the system is already set up to favor the one-hit 
wonders. The FS approach is a way of leveling the playing field for 
more marginal genres.

It does have that side effect, but it seems the main driver behind it is to 
grab whatever you want for free, with many users having little or no concern 
for the wellbeing of the content producers-- artists and the label 
marketing/distribution/financing apparatus that brings it to the public.  
Revolutions may lead to progress but there are many casualties along the way.  
I think FS tends to help those with deep content though-- if someone has 2 hits 
on an album someone may or may not buy it, but if they steal 5 songs they may 
like the other three too, which they probably wouldn't have heard otherwise, 
and now their purchase decision gets based on the perceived quality of all 
five.  So the Umphrey's of the world, whose 5 songs are all good, benefit and 
the Mariah Carey's suffer.  Unfortunately what the UG's get from their label 
financially depends somewhat on how well the superstars are producing for the 
labels as well.



> 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.

Money, of course! But it also speaks volumes that once they did jump 
back on the Major bandwagon, they continued using the internet in the 
same way they were.


Yes but it also shows they think they can make more money with the label than 
without, so the FS advocates who like the idea of the labels suffering don't 
realize that that hurts the bands who need them.


I think the term "filesharing" is one of the more misunderstood terms 
in the music world today. Wilco's approach was to make their tracks 
available from their site to whomever wished to download them, while 
many teens simply burn copies of each other's CDs... but the proof is 
in the outcome. My 17-year old has burned copies of (ironically) every 
Metallica CD he can find, and he likes them so much that now he is in 
the process of buying them. If he hadn't had the chance to get to know 
them via the burned CDs, he never would have spent the money for the 
real thing - so what's the harm? I've asked him about these things and 
how his peers approach this sort of thing and he is adamant that 
without "filesharing", he would have never bought anything other than 
their "hits".


It depends on whether there are more people buying because of the free sample 
or just being content with the mp3s that they otherwise would have bought.


> How does disallowing sampling without a license equate to racism, 
> exactly?  Counterproductive and not totally reasonable, but racist?

I think the reference is because the court's ruling almost exclusively 
deals with hip-hop. There's a good write-up on it in January's Keyboard 
mag. It's a rather draconian ruling and it's apparently already under 
appeal. I would expect that it will be overturned.


That makes it racial, not racist.  I don't see any attempt here to keep the 
black man down, just to control an unwanted behavior that anyone could indulge 
in.  Racism requires a belief that one group is genetically superior to 
another, which has nothing to do with this.

Brian




 


                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Other related posts: