Here is an essay that i saved from Prince's NPGMC website 'knowledge room' years ago.. best mk
God Bless Prince
-------------------------
4 THE LOVE OF MUSIC
2 Very Different Approaches
Real music lovers do not simply consume music. Real music lovers develop a special
relationship with the works of the artists they like. At some point of their xploration
of the music of a new artist, usually something "clicks" and triggers a whole process of
discovery which involves wanting 2 hear everything the artist has ever put out
(including b-sides, non-album contributions, etc.), wanting 2 hear it in the best
possible conditions, wanting 2 hear live renditions of the music and wanting 2 share
this discovery with other people. They also feel that things like album packaging r an
integral part of the musical experience, that the artwork, in so far as the artist has
been involved in it, is an integral part of the artistic statement of a specific release
and they want 2 own an original copy of it so that they can xamine it from all angles, in
search of clues, or bits of in4mation which might enhance their understanding and
appreciation of the music.
On the other hand, some people just consume music. They want a copy of a song bcuz
everyone else is in2 the song. They don't really care about top-notch sound quality, as
long as it is more or less "CD quality." They don't really care about the rest of the
contents of the album bcuz all they really like is the hit single that every radio station
and music TV station is playing non-stop. They just want 2 b able 2 listen 2 the track
over and over again until they wear it out, they effectively consume it ; and then turn 2
something else. They r not really interested in music as an art 4m, but rather as a 4m of
disposable entertainment ;always looking 4 the latest hit which is going 2 displace the
previous chart topper in their social environment, so that they r sure they stay "hip" 2
the latest trend.
Those r 2 very different approaches 2 music. The trouble with the current system is that
it is primarily designed 2 meet the needs of music consumers and not of music lovers.
There is some overlap, of course, and sometimes real musicians enjoy a fair amount of
commercial success which indicates that they r benefiting from the system designed 4
music consumers, that their music is not only appealing 2 music lovers, but also 2 music
consumers. This is fine with them as long as they don't have 2 compromise their artistic
integrity. Un4tunately, once u become part of the music consuming system, u have 2 obey
very different rules and many artists r, understandably, not comfortable with this,
which creates all kinds of tensions after they have xperienced a certain amount of
commercial success.
A Fundamental Hypocrisy
The fundamental hypocrisy of the music industry (and of some artists) in the current
debate over the MP3 4mat, Napster and other 4ms of online xchange of music is that they
r talking about copyright, intellectual property and other such noble concepts when the
only thing that they r actually trying 2 protect is the commercial value of their musical
"product."
It's indicative, 4 xample, that, in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times,
Time Warner President Richard Parsons would make comments such as these:
An increasing number of young people don't buy albums, so we are not only losing that
immediate revenue. They are also growing up with a notion that music is free and ought to
be free.
This statement deals with the relationship between music and the public from a purely
commercial point of view. Nowhere in his statement is there any indication that what
might happen with young people xchanging music is that they might develop a real
appreciation of music in general and of certain artists in particular and turn out to
b perfectly honest citizens who realize that artists should b compensated 4 their work
and who will help make sure that they r. Nowhere is it mentioned that the fundamental
reason y those "young people" r xchanging music online is that they r xcited about the
music, that they r actually developing a sense of appreciation of what good music is.
Bcuz, of course, record companies don't really want the public 2 like good music. They
want it 2 buy whatever "product" they come up with, whether it's musically good or bad.
Record companies don't really want young people 2 develop a sense of what good music is.
Bcuz real music lovers don't consume music. They don't buy the latest chart topper just
bcuz it's at the top of the charts. They don't really participate in that "system." They
don't really generate significant revenue.
A Growing Frustration
What record companies don't really understand is that Napster is just one illustration of
the growing frustration over how much the record companies control what music people get 2
hear ; over how the air waves, record labels and record stores, which r now all part of this
"system" that recording companies have pretty much succeeded in establishing, r becoming
increasingly dominated by musical "products" 2 the detriment of real music.
When the only way 2 acquire some funky song from the 1970s is 2 purchase some crappy,
overpriced compilation put 2gether by the record company, with an ugly cover and a
poor selection of 4gettable songs interspersed with a few gems, and when u don't even
know whether the artist who recorded this funky song is actually getting any money
from the sales of this compilation (which he is probably not even aware of), then it's
no wonder that the real music lover will b interested in alternative ways of acquiring
the song which might not involve purchasing the compilation from the record company.
If the record company which owns the rights 2 that song would actually re-release the
original album featuring the song, with the original cover design, at a reasonable
price and with a clear indication that the artist in question is actually benefiting
from this re-release, then it would be another story. But the record company won't do it,
bcuz it's not commercially viable.
So the real music lover looks 4 an MP3 of the song online, downloads it and burns it on2
a CD. He knows that he doesn't have a perfect copy of the song (MP3 is, after all, a sound
4mat which does involve a certain amount of loss in sound quality), and it is clear,
in his mind, that if the original album is ever released under the above-mentioned
conditions, he will purchase it, bcuz he wants 2 discover other, lesser known tracks by
the artist that r not available online, bcuz he wants the best possible quality, bcuz
he wants 2 xperience the original release in all its aspects (cover artwork, song
selection, etc.) and bcuz he wants 2 compensate the artist 4 his work. But y should
the music lover have 2 wait 5 years, 10 years or even longer until the record company
condescends 2 re-releasing the original work of the artist? Y should the record company
have such control over how he, the music lover, wants 2 xperience the music?
A Cultural Dark Ages?
But the record company doesn't really care about all this. All it cares about is that
"kids" on the Internet r downloading MP3s of the one hit song on the latest crappy
release they put out with a huge promotional campaign, hoping 2 sell 2 million copies
of the album when there is actually only one decent song on it. They don't care about
copyright infringement. They only care about lost sales.
When asked about Napster and the legal issue of whether it is infringing copyrights or not,
the same Time Warner xecutive states:
I think this is a very profound moment historically. This isn't just about a bunch of
kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural
expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property
system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists
will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort
of cultural Dark Ages.
It is rather ironic that he would talk about "preserving our intellectual property system."
Isn't he the president of a company which has continually ripped off artists of their
rights 2 their own music by retaining ownership of the master recordings and doing
whatever they please with them without the consent of the artist or without compensating
him? Is this the "intellectual property system" he is trying 2 preserve? Does he really
believe that the current system, where artists get such a small share of the benefits from
the sales of their music, is such a great "incentive 2 create"? Does he really think that
what motivates an artist 2 create is the fact that record company xecutives r making
millions off his back when he barely manages 2 scrape by even after selling hundreds of
thousands of copies of his album?
It's a bit 2 easy 2 talk about an era of "cultural Dark Ages." The use of doom and gloom
scenarios in the rhetoric of conservative, narrow-minded people is a well-known trick.
What it really indicates is a lack of understanding of what's really at stake here. What
motivates artists 2 create is artistic achievement, the feeling of having created something
beautiful, and the ability 2 share this beauty with others. The notion of copyright was not
invented by artists 2 protect themselves from honest individuals sharing their enthusiasm
about their work. It was invented by artists 2 protect themselves from dishonest and
hypocritical individuals and companies xploiting their work without their consent.
4 all we know, we might already b in a "cultural Dark Ages" where "music" has become
synonymous with heaps of mindless musical "products" and real, authentic, inspired music
has already been relegated 2 the fringes of society. And online music distribution might
actually become a way 2 get out of this.
The Evolution Will B Digitized
The standards r still constantly evolving. New systems, new devices r constantly being
developed as an alternative 2 the old ways of doing things and no one really knows the way
things r going 2 evolve. But, from the point of view of the real music lover, what's
currently going on can only b viewed as an xciting new development in the history of music.
And, 4tunately 4 the music lover, there does not seem 2 b anything the old record
companies can do about preventing this evolution from happening.
Yes, young people need 2 b educated about the fact that artists should b compensated
4 their work. But they don't need 2 b educated about how 2 hypocritically xploit
artists by forcing them 2 participate in a system designed 2 sell product instead of
sharing good music. Rather, they need 2 b educated about how the record companies have x
ploited artists and abused their rights 4 so long and about the fact that online
distribution is turning in2 a new medium which might enable artists 2 put an end 2 this
xploitation. And, by the look of things, this will happen without the help or
understanding of record company xecutives.
As indicated in various online articles following the recent Napster controversy,
all that record companies seem 2 b able 2 do is 2 scramble 2 "respond" 2 what they
perceive as the "threat" of online music distribution. They r simply unable 2 grasp
the full meaning of the situation -- and understandbly so, bcuz the full meaning of the
situation includes the fact that their system, the one that they have so painstakingly
put in place over the past few decades, simply doesn't make any sense from an artistic
point of view, that it is so obviously a system of xploitation, consumerism and disregard
4 real art that it is only a matter of time b4 the awareness of people (both artists and
music lovers) regarding the sheer idiocy, unfairness and corruption of that system reaches
a critical mass and triggers a massive overhaul of music distribution operations. And,
as we know, in the online world, things can move 4ward very fast indeed.
With the advent of the Internet, the transfer of music can instantly b nationalized, and
indeed, globalized, if so desired. Much sooner than some people think, we can envision a
new system where all mediums that use music pay musicians directly, where artists themselves
r paid upfront 4 their work, once approval is met. A system with no need 4 publishers,
intermediates or middlemen. A system where publishing costs can b kept 2 a minimum and
the bulk of the revenue generated from the music goes directly 2 the musician -- which
is obviously where it should have always gone.
A New System
This new system will also b the death knell of the monopolistic, crippling, numbing
national "network" of radio and TV stations, music stores and concert venues which is
currently more or less entirely controlled by the industry. Right now, playlists come
from one of 2 coasts. A "matrix-type" consciousness ensues and local talent squanders.
In the new system, all radio stations, music stores and concert halls will b localized,
so that the persons living in the community can make a decent living by sharing their
artistic talent with their fellow community members and by owning the medium thru which
this talent is shared. If local artists r successful in their own towns, they won't feel
such a need 2 b on MTV. And if they feel the need 2 share their work with a wider
audience, the Internet makes everything local-universal. No artist should ever again feel
that he has no choice but 2 b "pimped" to his last penny by some middleman if he wants 2
b successful in sharing his art with others. The artist's right 2 sell his masters 2
anyone would actually b outlawed, so that no one is ever again tempted 2 relinquish
the ownership of such a vital part of him/herself.
2 b mad at Napster is 2 b mad at a tornado. CDs r priced way 2 high (and 28 US states have
just announced that they r suing the industry 4 price fixing). New talents r struggling
2 b known, and artists r leaving the industry: 9 times out of 10, broke. What is 2 b
xpected? The evolution is inevitable. The copying of music is never going 2 b stopped.
Humans like 2 share. In most cases, musicians want their music traded and shared.
The problem is that the majority of artists r literally penniless. The next phase of
this evolution will give the bulk of the power back 2 the artists at one end and 2 real
music lovers at the other end. Most people only feel morally comfortable "pirating"
music bcuz they believe that their money goes 2 some filthy rich, artistically blind
xecutive anyway, and not 2 the musicians. People will learn 2 understand and agree
-- if they don't already -- 2 the need 2 rightfully compensate artists 4 their work.
The days of splitting profits with anyone r past. The xisting system is basically dead or
dying. This new technology can teach us things about the world we live in so that we may
correct it. As spiritually evolved human beings, it is r God-given responsibility 2 do so.
Then we can truly say we r a New Power Generation.
But there isn't much time. Scorpions r ready 2 strike midair. 1st they will appear in
stars...
[Edited 5/25/16 9:55am]
[Edited 5/25/16 9:57am]
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
