Reexamining the Recording Industry

Part I
Distinguishing the Music Industry from the Recording Industry.

Let's take a close look at the music business without the Recording Industry. This is the world of live performance, and of self-produced recordings. This is an industry that you will not find in record stores or on the radio. This is the world of wedding bands. This is the world of crap punk rock played for naught but a few free drinks at your local tavern. Ten years ago, this was the world of shoddy demo tapes. Today, it is the world of shoddy CDRs. This world is a wasteland.

The musicians in this world are lucky to make two hundred American dollars a month from their musical efforts. They have other jobs by day, and so must sacrifice a considerable portion of their social life if they intend to put in the practice time that is necessary to play music of any quality, let alone write original music of any merit.

The music fan in this world is lucky to hear one decent performance each week. This fan is lucky to find three enjoyable CDR recordings in a year. The avid enthusiast in this world will spend more than one hundred American dollars in a month to gain admittance to "inexpensive" live performances of music of dubious quality by musicians with no contractual obligations to the Recording Industry.

Trust me, this is a world you don't want to live in. If you don't believe me, try going out to three shows by unsigned artists each week. Contact a record company, and ask them if they've got any unsolicited demo tapes you can take off their hands (the receptionist probably has a big box of them near her desk). Listen to those instead of records marketed by the Recording Industry. Instead of the radio, you may download and play unsigned music from mp3.com. See how long you last.

This ugly world is where the Recording Industry does half of its job, and it does it on your behalf. It watches and listens to an enormous amount of dreck, and sorts out the tolerable from the unbearable. This takes a lot of time. The other half of the job the Recording Industry does is done on behalf of the musician and composer. What the Recording Industry knows, and the public often forgets, is that music is not bought; it is sold. The Recording Industry goes to considerable effort to sell music. For starters, it calls up every radio station and record store in the nation, gets to know the staff, and makes a personal pitch, to everyone who might be interested, on behalf of each and every one of the artists on its roster. This, too, takes a lot of time. Time that has to be paid for. When you purchase a CD from the Recording Industry, you must realize that you are paying for much more than the cost of the physical object. The price of renting a studio full of equipment, hiring the services of someone who knows how to use the gear, commissioning some original artwork, and manufacturing the final product, is, at the end of the day, an inconsequential fraction of the expense that the Recording Industry incurs as it attempts to get music that you like into your hands, and a living wage into the hands of the artist.

The next time you or someone you know might consider stealing music from the Recording Industry, remember this: in a world without the Recording Industry, you could spend sixty American dollars to buy a ticket to a concert by a popular group like Radiohead^*, and listen to two hours of music performed live. With the help of the Recording Industry, however, you can spend less than sixty American dollars to own every recording by Radiohead that has ever been released, and listen to all of them whenever you want to. Which is the better value?

In the next part of this series, we will examine the misunderstood history of technology in the Music Industry, and in the final installment, we will scrutinize a few examples often cited in the debate, including the cases of Ani DiFranco, The Grateful Dead, and Courtney Love.

* Radiohead is just an example here. This is not a debate about Radiohead. Please, for the love of all you hold dear, spare us your opinion of Radiohead.

	excellent article (none / 0) (#2)
	by motherfuckin spork on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:32:30 PM PST

	however, I must say that the music industry that has not been embraced by the recording industry is not all, by default, crap. There is definitely a line that a band must cross that causes them to become attractive to a label. There are many excellent bands across different genres - what many of these bands lacks is that extra edge that can make them commercially successful. And lot of these bands are happy that they are not. It might seem a bit snobbish, but some of these bands feel that they are more true to their music by not being signed. Also, one can make a more than decent living with music, particularly if they can teach and give lessons, or are arrangers. I know of at least two luthiers that also play professionally on the local scene. But anyway, enought of my ramblings - you make some excellent points about the industry and their purpose. I look forward to your further installments to this series. I am not who you think I am.

	You're a bit off-topic. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 09:33:01 PM PST

	Look, any long-haired pot-smoker can make a living fixing up the crummy guitars of teen-agers who want to be rock stars, and assume the title of a "Luthier." We're not discussing the money to be made exploiting the day-dreams of would-be rock stars. Lessons, equipment sales, cd production in batches of 1000-- all that crap is valid business, and the people who do it are competent tradesmen. But they do not earn their living composing or performing good music, or getting decent recordings of that music into the hands of the average person. As to bands that take pride in not making a living with their music-- well, if they can't make more than a penny or two, then they might as well pretend that that's what they intended all along, right? This notion of being "truer to their music" if the music fails to support itself just doesn't stand up to examination. If a band is any good, then there is at least one Record Company out there that can find them, and find enough fans to make the music a commercial success. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	You're full of crap. (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 04:25:21 AM PST

	You're full of crap to say that just because a band isn't signed with a commercial record label, that they are not good. To wit: "Adequacy.org is crap because it hasn't signed a deal with any of the major commercial news outlets."

	no, the two luthiers I spoe of (none / 0) (#13)
	by motherfuckin spork on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 06:40:25 AM PST

	are slightly more than well regarded. One of them has a three year waiting list, and has been sought by the likes of Ravi Shankar, amongst many others. There is a big difference between a true luthier and a guitar technician, and I do not use the terms loosely. And, again, commercial success is not what a lot of bands are looking for. To use that as the core basis of passing judgement on a band's music is lacking vision. I am not who you think I am.

	Remember (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:12:56 PM PST

	It was the recording industry that force feeds you bands like Brittney Spears, N'Sync, and the other no talent groups. Why do I call them no talent, well lets take a look. Brittney can not write her own music, she lacks the skill. She sings through a synth., because she sounds like sh*t. She has a nice set of Silcon in her chest, so that qualifies her as one of the greatest things givenm to us by the R.I. In addition, you most likely watch VH-1 and MTV, if you don't think that they choose your music for you, you are greatly mistaken. They choose who will make it and who will die. I myself can not play a note to save my life, but I respect those that can and do. Those that sacrifice for the love of THEIR music. Not something spit out on a convayer belt.

	What have we ignored? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:38:12 PM PST

	Whether or not Britney writes her own music, or sings through a synthesizer is beside the point. People enjoy her work. Her work may be the product of the labours of a small army of producers, composers, and other technicians, but that doesn't invalidate its claim to quality. The efforts of Britney's production team are still a valid form of expression. The idea that there is something unacceptable about heavily produced music is based in hypocrisy, and is evidence of an artificial (and somewhat suburban) elitism. The indie rock junkie, the heavy metal moron and the punk band psycho all claim that their music has more honesty, but few of these bands have shied away from the use of vocal effects to enhance the voice of an unimpressive singer, or studio techniques to overcome the failings of a band who can't play their instruments even half as well as a mediocre jazz band. In the end, the proof lies in the product. So-called "real" rock music almost always sounds inferior. In my entire youth of alternative concert attendance, I heard as many as three bands that could play acceptably well on stage. Only one of these had attracted any noticable acclaim. The other two were almost completely ignored by an "alternative" music mainstream view that judged their sound to be insufficiently raw or punk or indie. I think the root of the problem was that they actually knew how to play their instruments.

	I understand your point (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 01:28:56 AM PST

	But you missed mine. The original article states that thr R.I. was the greatest thing to happen to music. I dis-agree. They control the major mediums - Video and Radio. They decide who is to make it. Plain and simple. It is convayer belt music no matter how you cut it. That is not to say that all Mass Produced music is bad. far from it. But to say it is the "Greatest" thing to happen is far from the truth too

	Introductory economics (5.00 / 1) (#17)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 02:35:06 PM PST

	You don't seem to understand that television and radio are extremely limited resources. There simply isn't enough time to play every two bit garage band's demo or backyard music video. Someone has to judge what is worthy of airtime and what is not. That someone is the recording industry. The alternative is that radio stations will become unlistenable. I think you really need to address a few inconsistencies in the way you address music. For one thing, you seem more interested in the image of the band than the music they play. You carp and whine about the lack of exposure for your favourite musicians, but should they ever achieve commercial success, I am certain you will be among the first to castigate them for "selling out". In the meantime, you make blatantly false claims about the choices made by the recording industry. You seem to think that there is a agenda beyond simple entertainment. If you would only remove the blinkers from your eyes and actually examine what the recording industry is doing, you would realise that a tremendously wide variety of music is released by the major labels. Bruce Springsteen perhaps the most talented and original rock musician the US has ever produced, yet he continues to receive support from the industry, belying all your allegations.

	regardless... (none / 0) (#16)
	by peeps on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 01:55:12 PM PST

	..of the genre in in question (I assumed this dialog was referring chiefly to mainstream formulas) for the art to have enduring quality beyond the point of sale, it simply must be "honest" in it's execution despite the tools/personelle used to create it. Nobody can assess the genuine nature of the music in the present, this assesment requires time to prove it's enduring qualities. Quality rock music will always be available, you just need to keep your ear to the ground. It has long been easy to find a band that is relying too much on the many tools at thier disposal in the studio today, but only the wealthy few can afford to drag all of this stuff on stage.

	A common misunderstanding. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:52:34 PM PST

	You are experiencing what I term the Bourgeois Reaction to Bubblegum Pop. You are dissatisfied with the music on a surface level, yet you lack a deeper understanding of its medium (commercial radio) and therefore can not appreciate its artistic genius. Please bear with me; the relevant æesthetic will be explained at some length in Part II. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	It's all about, as it were, the Benjamins (4.00 / 5) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 02:13:57 AM PST

	The biggest achievement of the recording industry has been to alienate the general public from the production of music, promoting the concept of music as product to be generated by untouchable "stars" rather than actual everyday human beings. This industry replaces self-made music with objects: CD's, records, tapes, and associated paraphernalia, such as box sets, collectible limited editions, etc. The effects if this alienating process are threefold. First, there is the disempowerment of the working class individual, who is demoted from producer of his own music to passive consumer of recorded product. Second, the fetishization of the recorded product as collectible item, reinforcing the role of commerce in society. Third, the incidental distancing of the consumer of music from the actual process of creation leads to a diminished understanding of musical theory and practice and a consequent inability to appreciate higher forms of art music. The effect of this distancing is thus a stagnation of culture. All of which are of course good things. If American Capitalism is to remain the globally dominating force that it presently is, it is important that consumerism be valued over creativity, objects valued over experiences, and ephemeral, throwaway commodities valued over enduring works of art. As the globalization of media proceeds, the self-reinforcing cycle of disempowerment/consumerism/cultural breakdown should cement the dominance of American Capitalism over the nations of the world. I'll see you all at the big global hegemony party: I hear Bink 182 is going to play.

	hell yea (none / 0) (#54)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 06:22:27 PM PST

	god damn right!

	To try and compare a live concert to a recording.. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:13:07 PM PST

	Is like comparing apples to oranges. There are those that prefer sitting at home and listening to music. And there are those that mush prefer the experience of seeing their favourite artist perform live. I am a part of both groups. If I embrace the music of a certain group, then I also enjoy the opportunity to see what kind of value that they can add to their product by performing it live. To try and compare the value that people get from a studio recording to the value that people get from a live performance is simply not possible. Simple economics my dear friend.

	I'm afraid I don't understand. (none / 0) (#45)
	by RobotSlave on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 04:07:22 PM PST

	Why isn't it possible to compare the two? Are they not both ways to listen to a particular performer or piece of music? Do they not each have an associated price? If you object to comparing "studio" recordings to live performance, then should we stick to a comparison between live performance and recordings of live performance? If so, where to you plan to draw the line between a "studio" recording and a "live" recording? Does comparing live music to recorded music interfere with your world-view in some way? Why don't you want anyone to compare the two? And what, pray tell, violates "simple economics" when the two are compared? I think the economic comparison that I have made between the two is a very interesting one. If you don't like it, then you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "you're not allowed to compare those things." © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Nicely Put (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 01:30:20 AM PST

	:)

	No, it's all about the division of labor. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 04:09:48 PM PST

	It's been a while since I read Marx, so I may be misunderstanding some of your screed, but what little I can make out seems to be very strange, indeed. I sounds as though you want to abolish not only the Recording Industry, but recording itself, and performance for an audience, to boot. Do you seriously want to only listen to the music that you play yourself, on you own instruments? Or maybe you're not that extreme. Maybe you only want to abolish recording, not performance. If that's the case, do you want to do away with the printing press, as well? Shall we force everyone to write their own novels, in order to reverse your percieved "stagnation of culture?" Shall we outlaw the manufacture of more than one print of a film, or just go back to live theater? Shall we do away with reproductions of art, and learn to paint for ourselves? Shall we burn the negatives after we've made a single print of a photograph? If we take the time necessary to become proficient in all of the arts, where will we find time to grow our own food, or build our own homes? This "alienation" you decry is entirely your own. The Recording Industry allows the average person to be much more intimate with music than would otherwise be the case, and to experience a variety of music vastly greater than that which might be availble in the form of local live performance. The "fetishization of the commodity" that you cite (without crediting Marx, I might add) is a fault of your "working class individual" rather than something manufactured by the Owner Of The Means Of Production. The Recording industry might cater to this sort of abnormal behavior once in a while, and even profit from it on occasion, but to pretend that the Owners Of The Means Of Production can create a particular psychological condition in the mind of the Working Class Individual is ridiculous. Furthermore, to assume the the Working Class Individual (or "other," as your professor might say) is susceptible to this sort of manipulation, whereas you yourself are somehow immune to it, or at least possessed of sufficient intellectual superiority to percieve it where "they" can not, is repugnantly arrogant. I've heard a hell of a lot of buzz about this World Hegemony Party that you speak of, but I won't believe it's actually on until I get an invite with a firm date on it. Frankly, I think Blink 182 will be in nursing homes long before that happens. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	To the recording industry haters: (none / 0) (#11)
	by marko on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 02:48:57 AM PST

	No-one is beholden to the recording industry, unless they signed a contract. The musicians traded their rights for fame and fortune. You, dear oppressed, had nothing to do with this transaction. You have nothing to do but enjoy the crumbs from the table of this financial consummation. I wish people would stop bitching about the music industry. What do you want? Nothing but the music YOU like? For free? Is that your right? Stick it up your arse, go on the dole, and buy CD's. That's the cheapest way you are going to do it legally. But don't be surprised if people don't like you for being a thief of other people's hard earned dollars. Like you deserve the fruit of other peoples' labour. Now you are talking like the industry you hate. You're one of a kind, but you're not alone.

	Definitely uneducated about the industry... (none / 0) (#14)
	by coeus on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 07:39:44 AM PST

	You sound like a software-industry illiterate republican politician defending Microsoft (or osm on a good day). "MS is the innocent! They only innovate! They're the innocent party in all of this mahem!" Your process analysis of how music makes it from musician to consumer is a bit flawed. You missed the part about "payola" and the hundreds of attorneys that represent artists while on corporate payroll... However, not to worry. Before you write part II in your series, you have a chance to read a book by someone who really understands the industry, and then redeem yourself. Please read this and then let us know about how much work the recording industry actually puts into each and every album, and how delicately the industry treats its signed artists. The author recounts the stories of Columbia and Warner Bros. during the era of Pink Floyd, Boston, and Fleetwood Mac to name only a few. This book is a bit dated, but many of the tricks of the past are still in use today. And, not to be completely off topic. You are correct - just because we disapprove of the industry's practices, doesn't give anyone the right to steal. I won't attempt to justify that act. However, shining a altruistic on the recording industry is a bit much...

	I'm afraid you're the ignorant one here. (none / 0) (#44)
	by RobotSlave on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 02:27:19 PM PST

	Look, I've read most of the diatribes out there that rail against the media conglomerates, including Hit Men. I'm well aware of the stories that failed artists, both major and minor, tell about the "abuses" of the Recording Industry. But to say that all of these stories constitute a valid rationale for tearing down the entire Industry is specious. There's a lot more to the Recording Industry than you're going to find in the books about it that the Publishing Industry produces with an eye toward separating disaffected suburban American teenagers (or those of a similar mindset) from their hard-inherited money. The reality is and always has been that the vast majority of Record Companies don't look anything like the straw Goliath that you find so abhorrent. I don't know where you live, but I'm sure there are at least two small record companies in your town. Do yourself a favor. Call one up and offer to do some volunteer intern work. They can always use help with mailings and whatnot. Once you've got some first-hand experience with the Recording Industry, come on back, and we'll compare the real world to the selective alarmist vision painted by your favorite Record Company "exposé." Your ignorance is forgivable, because it seems fairly innocent. After all, how many copies do you think you could sell of a book titled, "The Recording Industry is mostly OK? How about Artists Who Have Been Pretty Well Served by the Recording Industry? This article is probably the first serious defense of the Recording Industry that you've encountered, and I don't blame you for falling back on what you've been told rather than carefully considering the argument being presented, and starting to question the anti-Recording Industry chant that you've heard repeated so many times that it ought to have started sounding like propaganda by now. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	but wait, there's more... (none / 0) (#15)
	by peeps on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 01:30:46 PM PST

	I find it ironic considering the subject matter here that none of your references to the Recording Industry pointed to what many who would share your tastes would refer to as "the majors". The majors are the companies that have made a science of supply for the lowest common denominator music fan's demand. The labels you've placed as examples (in my humble opinion) represent some of the most goundbreaking, inovative bands of our generation. At least a couple of the labels you've got in here (subpop, lookout, etc...) started in the mid-to-late 80's as "indie" labels whose primary goal was to make music fans who thirst for innovation aware of bands who quench that thirst. They've done pretty well to survive all this time, and we all know and appreciate that there have been hefty bills to pay. You've left out a very important example , but that's ok. Whether you perceive music as an important element of culture or commerce, it's scope and influence will always be much larger than most individuals perceptions. As a money making machine, the music industry is going to have to adjust to the changes in technology, just as it always has. Mp3 trading will only further challenge the majors in thier quest for profit, while it is beneficial to many of our more creative and exciting "fringe" bands. I'd like to challenge you to find more than 20% of the *complete discography* of any of the bands' in the ranks of the labels you've referred to on any file sharing source, you'll have difficulty. I have approximately 2500 music files on my computer. For the bands that are most appealing and worthy of owning I know I am better off making a trip to the local independant retailer. Many files that I seek out are simply not available via retail (out of print, live, etc.), which is quite beneficial to the hopeless fanatics like myself. What I like about the challenges placed on aspiring musicians (like myself) by the idea that it is more difficult than ever to be a "wealthy rock star" is that the goal of said musician now simply must be to do what we love for love's sake, not for the love of money.

	Indeed, there is. (none / 0) (#46)
	by RobotSlave on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 04:51:45 PM PST

	So you find the omission of five particular Record Companies "ironic," do you? I see you didn't put much thought into why they might have been omitted. Perhaps because they are not purely Record Companies, a problem shared by the Knitting Factory, which is perhaps better known as a live music venue in NYC? Hmm? Perhaps becuase they are so greatly outnumbered by their smaller counterparts? Perhaps because nobody stops to think about anything other than the big five in this debate? No, all you could do was note the existence of "irony." Sure, you get a couple of points for noticing the omission, but instead of thinking about it, you spin off onto a tangent on mp3, in which you directly contradict yourself, and then you impose a dire sentence on your fellow musicians. You say that mp3 trading is more beneficial to "fringe" artists, and then immediately bemoan the fact that you can not find thier "complete catalogs" on your illegal "file-trading" networks. Well? Which is it? Are they benefitting through exposure? If so, then don't "non-fringe" artists benefit even more, through greater exposure? Or are you saying that "fringe" artists are at an advantage precisely because their material is unavailable on these black networks, thereby forcing would-be thieves to purchase legitimate recordings? As an admitted thief, you are in a unique position to shed light on this issue, and I would be fascinated to hear your views, if you can present them without contradictions. Your regressive notion that composers and musicians should slave away at their art simply for "love" is barbaric. Why shouldn't musicians earn a living through music? Would you suggest that the semi-autistic goblins who enjoy writing software or tinkering with hardware ought to do it for love, in their spare time, rather than enjoy the benefits of a market for their peculiar interests? Why should musicians, who are widely appreciated, be subject to your degenerate form of communism (it lacks "to each according to his needs"), when even such unsavory characters as poets and philosophers have a small but comfortable place in this economy? As an aspiring musician, you may feel a certain virtue in claiming no motivation other than a love of music, but in imposing this standard on every other musician, you are doing a great disservice to society. Musicians and composers ought to be able to earn a living through music, and people ought to have access to music for a reasonable price. The Recording Industry is the best means that we, as a society, have of achieving those twin goals. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	what?! (none / 0) (#47)
	by nathan on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 05:25:23 PM PST

	the goal of [a] musician now simply must be to do what we love for love's sake, not for the love of money. I seem to remember you writing elsewhere that you already make a living with some sort of ordinary job or business. In other words, you are a musical amateur. So far, great. BUT! I am a professional musician. It's how I put bread on my table and a roof over my head. I chose to become a professional musician out of love, but I can't eat love. If you steal my music, you are stealing from me. Me, personally. People will steal if it's easy enough, but that excuses no one for actual habitual theft. Professional musicians find it a lot harder to make good music when they're poor, harassed by creditors, and persecuted by the ignorant. Believe me, I'm not at all wealthy. I live very marginally (for instance, I've had to put off buying new strings for two months.) Musicians already have more than enough love. Give me some cold hard cash. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I disagree (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 07:10:29 PM PST

	The record industry is a stagnant obese fossil who feeds off artists. They do not do a good job of introducing new music or new artists for that matter. They promote crappy "commercialized" pop music that everyone loves to hate (briteny,nsync,most pop rap,etc) There time has came and passed, mp3s and the internet are the way of the future you like it or not. P.S Dont give me shit about mp3s = piracy, music is suppost to be free, and mp3s do a excellent job of introducing new artists and helping people buy new music they actually like.

	Uh-huh (5.00 / 1) (#21)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 05:52:18 AM PST

	"Music is suppost [sic] to be free"? Gee, you know, funny you should say that, Skippy. I can't think of a professional musician or composer, from Monteverdi to Beethoven to Irving Berlin to Lennon/McCartney to any of today's best acts, who would agree with you. In your world, it follows that I should give away my consulting services for free. Or even create some software and give that away.What part of "intellectual property" don't you understand?

	I think perhaps he was confused (none / 0) (#23)
	by motherfuckin spork on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 06:30:24 AM PST

	It is true that music is meant to be heard, but that does not, by default, make it free. I like the intellectual property bit - as a songwriter, that can be often overlooked. I am not who you think I am.

	You are right (5.00 / 1) (#24)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:14:08 AM PST

	Perhaps that was what Mr. AR meant. I can't think of many instances of when music is heard and is free, unless it's someone playing guitar in your living room or on a street corner. And even then in the latter case, the person hopes you'll put a buck or two in the instrument case. Intellectual property is a thorny issue and has been for years. My consulting contract with my firm isn't too much different from a record deal, in that whatever IP I generate is the property of the firm who pays my salary. But that's where the comparison ends - you can't really compare my (relatively small) consulting firm to Warner Bros. Records as regards size, scope or influence. What kind of songs do you write? They probably enhance life on this planet more than my methodologies do...

	I write a pretty wide range of songs (none / 0) (#28)
	by motherfuckin spork on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 07:57:07 PM PST

	I look back and realized that I've been writing songs, or at least bits and pieces of songs, since some time in high school. I played a lot of jazz through college, which really honed my writing (which has gone back to crap lately, as I've not had too much time to work on anything with a kid and #2 on the way). However, I've written a 4-part suite for clarinet, oboe, and baritone sax, which would fall under (for lack of a better term) neo-classical. The first movement is actually a rag, the second and third are ballads, and the fourth is a twisted rehashing of the 1st. I discovered that it is incredibly difficult to play. I've written a good number of jazz tunes, most of them being a little more fusion oriented. Two of them in particular sounded like Jay Beckstein from Spyro Gyra together with the Brecker Brothers getting really pissed off. Both were pretty dark, but driven songs. Another one I wrote started out as a swing, 12-bar blues piece, and ended up dirty 70's funk (the progression of how that happened was really funny at the time). I have material for a plethora of unfinished rock songs, as well as bits and pieces of mostly completed works, some being instrumental, others being rock, and a few more that fall under that weird modern chamber music classification. Yet, despite all this, I though I'd go and become a chemist like a moron. And this was probably by far more information than you intended to receive. But let me conclude by saying that the entire music/IP/copyright/artists rights/consumers rights issue (set of issues) is really terribly complex, and the majority of the arguments I've seen around the internet still fail to grasp the entire picture. I love music. I love playing songs. I love listening to songs. I want other people to share that, be it songs I've written, played, or discovered from someone else. It is unfortunate that society and economy have made a mess of something that many, including myself, find rather spiritual in nature. I am not who you think I am.

	Wow. (none / 0) (#30)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 06:26:16 AM PST

	You've really written a lot of stuff - that's pretty incredible. Since my creative powers are limited to subtle refinements of obvious business platitudes and the occasional horrendous dance improv in my living room, I'm always impressed with others who come up with interesting works that enhance life on this planet. When you say chemist, do you mean a research chemist or the jolly Brit people get their prescription drugs from? Either way, it doesn't seem like a bad way to make a living. If you were a professional musician you'd spend as much time dealing with all this publishing and IP crap as composing and playing. Maybe Nathan is right and amateur musician status is the ideal.

	amateurism... (none / 0) (#33)
	by nathan on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 08:04:20 AM PST

	If every chemist cared that much about the arts, imagine how great things would be. Likewise of course for lawyers, doctors, scientists, and all other professionals. It honestly brings a tear to my eye. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	IP and music (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by nathan on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:36:08 AM PST

	While I agree that musical IP ought to be a protected form of IP, the protection is tough to enforce. I think it would do all of us musicians good to encourage arts education among the common people so as to rejuvenate the musical amateur; the more people love music, the more will buy sheet music, take lessons, and attend live concerts. This would help us to hang on to our IP rights. The contrast with superproduced, inaccessible professional pop barely even needs to be made explicit here. The only way the average person can participate in that is to steal it. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Eerie... (none / 0) (#31)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 06:30:59 AM PST

	You and my husband should get together for a mutual admiration fest. Arts education and appreciation are really the holy grails of his professional life. If he can seed a couple of generations of symphony goers and classical music listeners among his students, I think he'll die happy. And most of that inaccessible professional pop isn't even worth stealing. Unfortunately.

	I disagree (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 07:12:00 PM PST

	The record industry is a stagnant obese fossil who feeds off artists. They do not do a good job of introducing new music or new artists for that matter. They promote crappy "commercialized" pop music that everyone loves to hate (briteny,nsync,most pop rap,etc) There time has came and passed, mp3s and the internet are the way of the future you like it or not. P.S Dont give me shit about mp3s=piracy, music is suppost to be free, and mp3s do a excellent job of introducing new artists and helping people buy new music they actually like.