Back in the day, myself and I'm sure a lot of my fellow orgers used to freguent all of Prince's sites: thedawn.com, love4oneanother.com, npgonlineltd.com, npgmusicclub.com, etc.

With these sites no longer online I'm sure a lot of us saved a lot of this information such as commentaries by Prince, etc. as well as being able to view a lot of it on the webarchive. However, I thought I would get the ball rolling by posting a commentary by Prince back in the day. Makes me nostalgic:

The Digital Haze

If u have ever found urself staring endlessly at the screen, without purpose, feeling strangely empty-headed — u r not alone. Millions of people worldwide r feeling xactly the same way u do, and u know it.

It used 2 b that the screen in front of which u felt that way was the TV screen. “Tele-vision” — such a promising medium, full of wonderful, educational, cultural, artistic potential… And what do we have now? We do have the 500 channels that the technocrats kept promising us. And we’ll soon get high-definition, theater-like TV as well, no doubt.

But all the technological advances in the world cannot hide the fact that the screen we r staring at is anempty screen — a screen blurting out a constant stream of pointless, meaningless images stuffed down r gaping throats. Television has slowly but surely turned us in2 hallucinated dummies. The average IQ of the TV-fed population might have increased by a few points, but anyone who has set foot in a classroom recently knows very well that this is not the kind of intelligence that ENLIGHTENS or uplifts anyone.

TV has definitely become the “supreme time waster” (George Gilder), the ad-impacted wall of universal banality, gratuitous violence, unbearable silliness, and beyond-embarrassing innuendo against which any remnants of lucidity will inevitably come crashing and fade away.

The Real Virtuality

In this brand new millennium, however, r lives r just as full of computer monitors as they r of TV screens. And, un4tunately, much in the same way TV has more or less wasted all its potential, it seems that the computer — this potentially amazing tool which was supposed 2 bring us “interactivity,” 2 xpand r horizons far beyond the limited, 2-dimensional world of TV — is quickly following the same path.

We r not talking about the infamous “world wide wait” here — the constant waiting 4 ur computer 2 do whatever u asked it 2 do. No, technological advances will soon take care of that. We won’t have 2 wait 4 much longer. We will soon all get “instant access.” That’s not the problem.

The problem is — instant access 2 what? If current trends r any indication, we won’t have access 2 much more than a slightly “enhanced” replica of the collective hallucination that TV has ended up creating. U might b able 2 participate in pseudo-“polls” and “surveys” (which no one xcept 4 the FIFA ever really takes in2 account), u might b able 2 fill out “feedback forms” and subscribe 2 “mailing lists”… However, whatever ignorance the traditional moguls don’t manage 2 impose on u themselves thru those “official” vehicles is soon perpetrated by the anarchy of confusing voices and endless inarticulate babble that disguises itself under fancy labels such as “web forums” or “newsgroups.”

Who is still able 2 use the word “news” without quotation marks 2 describe any of the mainstream services labelled as such? Does anyone really believe that what is called “news,” be it on TV, on the radio, in the morning papers or on the Net, is actually anything new?

A politician who campaigns against clear-cutting or rampant urbanization and actually gets elected — thatwould b news.

A new record that sells millions of copies without over-the-top promotion, thru the sheer quality of its music — that would b news.

A major movie without sex or violence that still manages 2 b both erotic and cathartic — that would b news.

A profit-making multinational that puts its workers ahead of its shareholders — that would b news.

A health report that covers a scientific achievement that actually brings relief to long-suffering patients, rather than the promise of potential relief 10 years down the road if all further tests are conclusive and not 2 many rats or monkeys die in the process — that would b news.

A half-hour news program that devotes 20 percent of its airing time — that would b a full 6 minutes — 2 addressing issues directly affecting 20 percent of the population — that’s how many still live in poverty in the US — that would b news.

But what u r watching on TV, hearing on the radio or accessing on the web isn’t news. It’s a collective ILLUSION that poses as the “real world” and has made us all 4get what the real real world looks like. It’s a “virtual reality” that has become more real than the actual reality, that occupies r minds much more than the actual reality ever manages 2 do. It’s a constant stream of immediately 4gettable and immediately 4gotten “content” based on a meaningless, mind-numbing “cult of the next” (designer Michael Graves). “Give us something other than what u gave us yesterday” is the one and only philosophy upon which the little bit of thinking that happens 2 go on in the minds of r “decision-makers” is solely based.

Music or Plastic?

It becomes even sadder when u look at what this whole system has done 2 music — or what now passes 4 music in these computerized days… The use of the computer continues 2 further blur the line between real talent and plastic. In order 2 produce something “new,” u just need 2 push the same buttons in a different order. Just like any other field subjected 2 the joint forces of technology and capitalism, music is becoming more and more of a “product” and less and less of an art.

Is there any denying this objective, palpable, observable decline? How many real music lovers actually listen 2 anything in the Top 40? Or, as Chuck D. puts it, does real art matter much “2 the masses that see hip hop as something similar 2 fast food fries”?

The computer, un4tunately, has become the tool of choice in this decline. Drum machines, digital synthesizers, music software, digital recording equipment — those were tools that, once again, were supposed 2 xpand r musical horizons, 2 take us in2 new realms of endless sonic possibilities…

Instead, they've turned out 2 b mostly the right tools in the wrong hands. Rather than being used 4 sonic xploration, they r being used as a cheaper SUBSTITUTE 4 the real thing, a faster, more “cost-effective” way of producing product.

Mind-Opening vs Mind-Numbing

Real drummers don’t play every note perfectly. They go with the flow, so 2 speak, they strive 2 squeeze as much tightness as possible out of their interaction with the other instruments in the band. They create a 4m of anticipation, of MUSICAL AWARENESS both in their fellow players and in the listener. They keep the listener aware of the xploratory nature of their playing. It’s the same with all instruments. And when u put them 2GETHER, when that funky guitar lick falls xactly where the drummer wanted it 2 fall, where he had created SPACE 4 it, between the pumping bass and the keyboard chord — and that’s not necessarily xactlyon the beat — then it all makes musical sense, it all GELS — and the resulting jelly is a xhilarating, mind-opening xperience 4 both the players and the audience.

How is a machine ever going 2 b able 2 recreate that? The best effect that a drum machine, playing uni4mly, xactly, directly on the beat can hope 2 have on the listener is some kind of numbing effect, some 4m of HYPNOSIS that doesn’t require awareness, but surrender.

This hypnotic value, in itself, can of course b used, on occasion, 2 convey some sort of “message” or 2 evoke some specific kind of mood. Also, skilled drummers with their own xisting mastery of the instrument might find ways 2 complement their drumming thru clever, innovative use of drum machines.

However, when computerized music machines r used — like they r in most cases these days — as a substitute 4 the real thing, then they can’t really hope 2 b much more than an ERSATZ, a desperately dull imitation. In the sadly very real world of “virtual” music, instead of being an instrument, instead of just being a vehicle 2 xpress the creativity of the musician, the computer is quickly becoming the musician itself. When all it takes 2 “play” a song is 2 just press a button once and then listen 2 the machine play and sing the entire song 4 u, can it really still b called art? When one single half-baked, half-original musical idea is stretched through endless, repetitive looping over 5 boring minutes, is it still really a song?

R scientists still know very little about how r brains operate, but we wouldn’t b surprised if science one day demonstrated that live instrument playing and musical machines affect 2 completely different areas of the mind. Intuitively, we would say that machines pretty much shut down what live instruments manage 2 open, that is, the part of r selves that can b TOUCHED, that can b MOVED — in other words, r HEARTS and SOULS.

Tainted Water

The drumming machine is a perfect xample of what the computer will never even come close 2 recreating — let alone actually CREATING. We have no doubt that further technical “improvements” will enable the people using those machines 2 achieve a seemingly more accurate imitation of the real thing, but it is and will remain an imitation.

And it makes perfect sense, really.

Most machines r created by engineers, not by artists. Engineers can spend all their lives trying 2 get their machines 2 reproduce what they think is human thought or creativity as closely as possible — without ever asking themselves WHY on earth they would even want 2 achieve a thing. It’s silly, no?

And most machines r used by merchants, not artists. Which brings us 2 another point. By the time u get 2 hear a certain piece of music on the air, it has already gone thru half a dozen MATRIXES:

• the artist
• the manager
• the record company
• the visual medium (what song would make a good video)
• the program director
• and the DJ (who says whether or not he likes the song)

As u can c, when a program director says, “I can play whatever I want,” he means 2 say, “I can play whatever I choose from what I am GIVEN.” And what he is given is something that has already gone thru a xtensive selection process that has little 2 do with music.

The worst matrix of all is the artists themselves, un4tunately, becuz most let all the other matrixes have a pernicious influence on them and their “artistic choices.”

The end result is that, by the time the water finally reaches us, it’s so dirty that we gag.

The problem with machines is that they r, here again, used 2 make the matrixes even more “efficient.” Where, in the past, an artist could still faintly hope 2 find, by chance, a human ear able 2 abstract itself from all that jive and let its instinct speak — now we have machines crunching numbers and spitting out “market surveys” and “profit estimates.” Everything is becoming more and more computer-assisted, automated, and the real victims r the artists, with their quickly disappearing freedom of thought, freedom of choice.

The Greatest?

Lest we 4get, the music lover himself is caught in his own web of matrixes. From the record stores at which he is able 2 shop, 2 the radio stations that r available 2 him, 2 the selection of music 2 which he is xposed thru the various media outlets 2 which he has access, 2 his own internal conflicts between what he FEELS that he likes and he THINKS that he should like, between the responsibility he has 2 compensate the artists 4 their work and his reluctance 2 give most of his money away 2 record companies which r basically xploiting the artists he likes — the music lover is faced, on his own smaller scale, with the same type of struggle that faces the artist.

And, here again, at this point in time, the computer is mostly being used 2 enhance xisting structures and make them more effective, more profitable. There is a battle going on right now, as we speak, between the obsolete structures that traditional companies and media outlets r trying 2 impose on the digital world, and the FREEDOM afforded by this same digital world 2 its individual members.

Let’s take the xample of music charts, and more specifically of those “lists” that keep popping up out of nowhere and pretend 2 classify, rate, prioritize music 4 us. “The 100 Best Albums Of All Time,” “The 100 Greatest Guitarists,” “The 100 Greatest Guitar Solos,” “The Best of The Year 2000”… We’ve seen them all, we know how meaningless they r, and yet it seems that they r becoming the automatic escape mechanism 4 uninspired journalists and “pundits” who have run out of ways 2 talk — or more specifically not talk — about music, and r desperate 2 fill their columns or the cover of their magazines b4 the next deadline.

Does any music lover actually recognize themselves in those lists? We have nothing against people xpressing their own personal preferences… But they should at the very least b presented as such. Instead, the compilers of those lists claim 2 have consulted “music xperts,” 2 have conducted scientific polls among artists and 2 have established the ultimate, definitive, undisputable truth… until next month’s list, of course.

Revolver better than Songs In The Key Of Life? “Taxman,” “Yellow Submarine” and “Doctor Robert” better than “Love’s In Need Of Love Today,” “I Wish” and “Pastime Paradise”? If u could ask Paul McCartney, what do u think he would answer?

It’s a real competition out there. Each web site needs 2 have its own “Best Of,” or so it seems. Soon enough, we will get computer-generated lists: “Based on comprehensive scientific analysis of the digitally sampled sound waves of 10,000 recordings, our supercomputer has established that the Beatles were indeed better than the Rolling Stones and that the 100 Best Albums Of All Time are…”

Here again, instead of being put 2 good use, the computer, the Internet r merely used 2 amplify, 2 worsen an xisting source of wasted talk. It would b easy 2 just ignore the proliferation of such lists, if they didn’t play such a part in perpetuating the status quo that empowers the producers and the customers 2 the detriment of the artists and the music lovers.

It would be easy 2 ignore such lists if they were not such a typical symptom of the widespread tendency 2 avoid discussing the REAL ISSUES.

The Real ?s

Indeed, as every1 can c, music is fast becoming a prime xample of the fundamental issues that r “digital world” is raising — issues such as:

Where is the soul in a computer-induced world?

If the world we create is driven by computers, where do we live?

Can true artistic talent still survive against this mass of pseudo-art?

Will those who use the computer survive against those who let it use them?

Can and will true art live on?

Is true art still feasible, still realistic in 2day’s mind-numbing, computer-aided digital haze?

U b the judge.

From Bad 2 Worse

Computers rn’t bad in themselves, of course. It’s just that they r 2 often used by the xisting system 2 make everything that’s already bad even worse. Computers calculating what would please us. Computers guessing what we want. Y do we ever need 2 b TOLD what we want? Y do we ever buy music based on what we r told rather than what we HEAR? No one seems 2 dare 2 take the time 2 xplore music at his/her own pace. Let the computer do the xploring 4 u and find something “new” 4 u. Fast food fries indeed.

Real music by real artists 4 real music lovers is being relegated 2 the margins. Those margins might b somewhat stronger thanks 2 some of those new technologies (such as digital distribution), but they r still margins — and there is little sign of a 4thcoming, wide-ranging revolution that would really reverse the balance.

The NPG proposes 2 reverse the trend. NPG Online Ltd. wants u 2 use ur computer 2 make a difference. R site eliminates the matrixes. Xplore the music. Choose ur way. Let others b used. Tell us what u want. Say goodbye 2 the hype. Open ur mind. FEEL the music.

Related Reading:

• “Graves on Target,” The Globe and Mail, January 13, 2001

• “2001... What Do Rhymers Want?,” Chuck D.'s Terrordome, January 9, 2001

• Telecosm, George Gilder, Free Press, 2001

Here's another:

A Warning 2 Music Lovers

The recently announced deal between Napster and BMG is sure 2 have generated a fair amount of confusion, not only among the 32 million Napster users themselves, but also among recording artists (whether they r supporters or detractors of Napster), record companies, and the entertainment industry in general.

First of all, the very specifics of the deal itself do not appear 2 b clear 2 anyone yet. There is talk of a subscription-based type of service similar to the service currently offered by Napster. There is mention of the fact that this service would give access to the entire "official" BMG catalogue. Napster and BMG argue that the new service would b added2 the xisting (free) service, which would not b affected. There was also mention of a $4.95 per month fee, but that was quickly retracted.

All that we know 4 certain is that BMG now has a majority stake in Napster-the-company. What this will translate in2 in the actual virtual world of the Napster community is still pretty much anyone's guess. Indeed, the few facts mentioned above raise many more questions than they provide answers.

A Free Trade Agreement?

One of the first issues is: If Napster indeed retains a free component, what's going 2 prevent Napster users from sharing files from the BMG catalogue 4 free within this component? Will there b some kind of "Napster Police" who monitor the activities of Napster users and punish them 4 any actions that might b deemed "unauthorized"? What kind of punishment system will Napster/BMG use? Will they have legal grounds 2 do so? Will this "Napster Police" let Napster users continue 2 share files from the catalogue of other record companies which r not part of the current deal, such as Warner Bros., EMI, Universal, etc.?

Will Napster users have 2 subscribe 2 the pay-4-service component in order 2 b able 2 access the free part? Will they have 2 provide personal in4mation? (The current registration system only requires a valid email address, which is very minimal.)

Will the pay-4-service component provide MP3 downloads hosted on Napster's or BMG's own servers, or will they still rely on the xisting system of users sharing files with each other? In other words, will they actually ask people 2pay in order 2 b allowed 2 give away a service (making their own files and Internet bandwidth available 2 others)? It is one thing 2 b against people offering services 2 each other 4 free (at their own cost). It is quite another thing to ask them 2 pay in order 2 b able 2 give away their services. It would certainly defy the logic of trade, in which people usually pay 2 receive services, not 2 offer them. And it would probably b rather hard 2 sell.

Finally, what would the subscription fee b? $4.95 per month 4 "all-u-can-download" access sounds very reasonable, but it certainly doesn't provide any clue as 2 how much of this money &emdash; if any &emdash; would go 2 the artists themselves. Anyway, it already sounds like BMG will never agree 2 such a low fee. A significantly higher fee, on the other hand, is likely 2 drive many current Napster users away, bcuz u have 2 add it 2 their xisting xpenses (computer equipment, Internet access, phone charges 4 European users).

This fee could b compared 2 what happened with recordable tapes a couple of decades ago. The only "fee" ever imposed on users of tape decks was a tax on blank tapes. In the case of computer users, however, the initial purchase of equipment (the computer, including, in many cases, a CD burner) is much more costly, and it is not the only xpense, since they still have 2 pay 4 their Internet connection and blank CD-Rs on a regular basis.

The main obstacle here is that, in spite of its blatant evolution towards a more and more "commercial" environment, the Internet and many of its users r still animated by this utopian spirit of free sharing of and free access 2 "in4mation," and the success of fee-based Internet services remains very limited (mostly in adult entertainment). And we have yet 2 see any sign that either Napster or BMG (or any other major record company 4 that matter) has solved the puzzle of how 2 make a fee-based system really work. The recent troubles of the "Secure Digital Music Initiative" (SDMI) and its failed attempts 2 develop a reliable music watermarking system r a clear indication that any solution in this area — if a solution does indeed exist — is still a long way off.

The Competition

The other issue facing Napster and BMG is of course that Napster is not the only file sharing system currently available 2 Internet users. Most people who have heard of or r using Napster have also heard of programs such as "Gnutella" or "Freenet." While they might not have bothered 2 xplore those other options -- bcuz Napster provides simply more than enough 2 them -- there is little doubt that any significant changes in the services provided by Napster r likely 2 trigger a massive exodus 2wards those other systems.

If that happens, there will, of course, b growing pains. The technologies on which Gnutella and Freenet r based r still far from being as "mature" and as easy 2 use as Napster. But the history of Napster itself demonstrates that, once something starts happening, it doesn't take long, in the on-line world, 4 the technology 2 mature 2 the point that it starts attracting a critical mass of users.

And the problem 4 BMG and the other record companies is, of course, that it is likely 2 b much more difficult either 2 sue Gnutella or Freenet and their users or 2 "buy" them. The more the archaic, obsolete world of "off-line" companies attempts 2 keep or take control of what's happening on-line, the faster the on-line world evolves in a way that makes it impossible 4 the off-line world 2 keep control of anything. Gnutella and Freenet r not based on the same technology as Napster. There r no central servers, no single company that can b sued. If record companies and their lawyers have worked hard 2 try and grasp the reality of what Napster actually is, they ain't seen nothing yet.

Sell-out?

All this raises the issue of how Napster's move was perceived by its users and the music community in general. Did Napster sell out? Since Hank Barry, the current CEO of Napster, took over the reins of the company in May 2000, he has made no secret of his willingness 2 reach agreements with the majors. So the deal with BMG doesn't really come as a surprise. Since May 2000, Napster xecutives were basically already "sold out" 2 the idea of helping the majors instead of "competing" with them. It was just a matter of figuring out a way 2 reach a deal.

On the other hand, Napster users themselves were probably not aware of this at all, and their adoption of the technology at an overwhelming rate has turned it in2 a symbol for something much more radical — something that's definitely, radically opposed 2 any kind of cooperation with the majors. It is there4 very likely that many Napster users r feeling "betrayed" by the company.

However, as soon as Napster changed from being a simple piece of free software written by a clever 19 year old to being an actual company, this was 2 b xpected. A company xists 2 make money, not 2 create some kind of idealistic on-line community of "music lovers" — as opposed 2 the attitude, mentality, hopes and dreams of most of its users. The recent deal with BMG was, in a way, inevitable.

The problem 4 the majors (and now 4 Napster itself) is that this attitude, this mentality, these hopes and dreams might not b so idealistic and so unrealistic as they may think. Initiatives such as Gnutella and Freenet demonstrate that, in the on-line world, new young people keep coming 2 the fore with more and more radical ideas, with a more and more openly revolutionary attitude. And we have yet 2 see r "mainstream" industries — thriving as they r in the current status quo of liberal capitalism that defines r modern society — show clear signs that they r and will always b able 2 keep that revolutionary attitude at bay.

Staying On Guard

In other words, the basic rule here seems 2 b that, no matter what the majors try 2 do 2 seize control of those emerging forces, new, more radical ones keep surfacing, and — thanx 2 the ingenuity of the people involved and the flexibility of the technology — it will become more and more difficult 4 the majors 2 rely on their traditional "weapons" (money, lawyers) 2 keep things under control.

Still, nothing's 4 sure, and the effective monopoly of the five majors might still find ways 2 stifle new attempts 2 circumvent them 4 some length of time. Real music lovers and enthusiasts will there4 need 2 remain on their guard. As we've said b4, the specter of a much darker, sinister society always looms…

Still 2 Visions

Essentially, the recent evolution of the Napster controversy still illustrates a clash between 2 fundamentally opposed visions.

On one hand, we have a policed, "4 profit" world where the only way 2 ensure compensation 4 artists and mostly 4 record company xecutives and stock brokers would b 2 impose rules, 2 establish mechanisms of systematic control that assume that, by nature, people r dishonest and will always try 2 cheat if they r not constantly monitored.

And on the other hand, we have a more "utopian" world (but mayb not far removed from r new reality) where what is assumed is that people, by nature, understand the necessity 2 compensate hard-working artists 4 their work and r very suspicious, conversely (and rightly so), of the real objectives of xecutives and of their claims 2 wanting 2 support artists (rather than exploit them).

The BMG/Napster agreement certainly hasn't resolved the conflict between those 2 visions, quite the contrary. It has clearly demonstrated what the real objectives of Napster xecutives were, and, if anything, it is a clear warning that it is 2day, more than ever, necessary 2 remain very suspicious (in the field of art and music in particular) of any genuine innovation that makes the jump from being the fruit of a labor of love and enthusiasm 2 becoming an organized structure, a "company" which, sooner or later, loses sight of the initial vision of its founders and puts profit and self-preservation ahead of any other goals.

Related Reading:

• Napster finally cuts a deal - October 31, 2000 (Salon)

Thank you!!!

One more:

WHAT SHOULD B SOULED?

Entropy:
"Inevitable and steady deterioration
of a system or society or universe,
tendency for all matter and energy
in the universe to evolve toward
a state of inert uniformity."
(American Heritage®)

Truth:
"The quality or a state of being true,
i.e. in accordance with fact or reality."
(Oxford Reference®)

As the millennium draws 2 a close, we have an opportunity 2 ask rselves some loaded questions.

One of these questions is going 2 take the shape of a 7-CD sampling set released by NPG Records -- theNewFunk Sampling CD Series. This set is, in many respects, an historic release. For a one-time fee of $700, producers, DJs and musicians will b able 2 purchase and then use over 700 samples of Prince classics such as "Kiss," "Raspberry Beret," "When Doves Cry," "Days Of Wild" and many more -- with no additional royalties ever!

A Political Statement

This CD sampler is a political statement as well as an artistic one. As Warner Bros. still owns the masters of all those Prince songs, the message is clear: "The creator of this material has the right 2 xploit it any way they c fit, without the profits going 2 a 3rd party." The real message is even broader: "The creator of ANY intellectual property has the right 2 xploit it any way they c fit, without the profits going 2 a 3rd party." This is a fundamentaltruth that underlies the creative impulse of any artist. There may b "agreements" at some point 2 share the profits generated by certain works, but such agreements do not challenge this fundamental truth.

Y is it, then, that the current CONsensus, unquestioned by the mainstream media and music business in general, is that it is perfectly normal that the lion's share of the profits generated by musical works should go 2 so-called "xecutives," whose sole purpose seems 2 generate even more profit so that they can leave, after a few years, with a nice "retirement package" of some odd 50 million dollars? Where does that leave the actual creators of the life-blood of this industry? What can possibly b the motivation behind this? If someone actually believes that they r in the music business 2 promote and support art, music and the artists, how can they morally live with the idea that they have made millions of dollars off the back of those very artists they r supposed 2 support -- and not give the biggest portion back 2 them?

Twisted Myth

Yes, this is the U.S.A., the land of free enterprise, and most people see nothing wrong with individuals becoming rich through hard work and dedication 2 their field of activity. In 1999, however, rn't we faced with a very twistedversion of this good old American myth? When xecutives jump from one business 2 the next every other year, each time adding another cushy, multimillion dollar retirement package 2 their little nest egg -- when speculators make a thousand times more money than the workers of the companies they r speculating about -- when the very nature of the business in question here, i.e. the music business, is dictated by profitability and "global competitiveness" rather than the very things (artistry, creativity, etc.) which generated the business in the first place -- r we really still talking about hard work and dedication? R we really still talking about free enterprise?

Is it a coincidence if this year's World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit in Seattle was an utter disaster? Is it a coincidence if the very individual who signed an agreement with 4 the release of Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic and has repeatedly shared with us his genuine enthusiasm about this particular work is currently under threat bcuz his "parent company" wants 2 take away from him his right 2 govern who heads his own company thruout time?

Oh yes, his CONtract probably states that his parent company can pick his successor... 's initial CONtract also stated that he didn't own his master recordings... Does it mean that it is right? Does it mean that relinquished ownership of his own masters by his own free will? The real question is: Y did his CONtract include such a clause in the first place?

Not-So-Funky Design

The CONtract included the clause bcuz there is a certain "SYSTEM" that is in place. A SYSTEM that is ultimately designed 2 bring obscene profits 2 a handful of individuals and leave the rest penniless. A SYSTEM designed 2 dull originality down and make it "marketable". A SYSTEM designed 2 intoxicate r children with mindless "entertainment" so that they 4get what real art and real music r and keep purchasing interchangeable, infinitely recyclable "products". A SYSTEM designed to desensitize people thru constant exposure 2 gore and pseudo-sex so that they believe they r still "transgressing" when there is nothing left 2 transgress. A SYSTEM designed 2 speed upentropy in the art itself, just like careless globalization is speeding it up in all aspects of r social, cultural, economic and political lives.

R we really so powerless against all this? Interestingly enough, the very achievement which brought us r current -- but oh so relative -- freedom of self-xpression is now turning against us. The 1st Amendment of the CONstitution, which once gave us the power 2 resist political oppression, is now being used 2 defend the right of multinational companies 2 intoxicate us with their profit-driven propaganda!

Power On

Shutting off r ears, r eyes or r TV sets is not enough, however. We, as artistically minded individuals, as spiritual beings, have the power 2 promote censorship. Not in the sense of, say, hypocritically censoring nakedness on the covers of magazines, but in the sense of censoring those people who, thru their inaction, evasiveness and overall ineptitude, r letting all this entropy happen, r encouraging it and r personally profiting from it -- when their moral and political responsibility is actually 2 help protect us from it.

The music industry doesn't own the music. It doesn't own the artists. And it doesn't own the listeners. Just as artists should only ever enter in2 temporary agreements with companies that preserve their fundamental rights, we, as listeners, should only ever "agree" 2 purchase under r own terms what the industry is trying 2 sell us, and never let it dictate r taste, r behavior, r thoughts, r feelings, and, ultimately, r soul.

Where did this commentary come from? He is right.

Ok, just one more:

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 rxcited 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 him, 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 xploited 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.

Related Reading:

• Courtney Love Does The Math - Unedited transcript of her Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference speech on May 16 (Salon)
• Why The Music Industry Ha... Celebrate - July 27, 2000 (Salon)

These came from www.npgonlineltd.com back in the day.

This one was from love4oneanother.com:

The grand creation game

This is not a comment-ary, but a common-terra - a solid ground on which must stand all creators of this brave new world, the internet.

We r at the dawning of a new age where what we think soon comes 2 b. The turnaround time from dream 2 reality is lessening on a daily basis, and the internet is the proving ground 2 c that we get it right.

There is tremendous freedom here not often xperienced in the outer world, but with that freedom comes tremendous responsibility.

The internet is a grand civilization-creation game. There r an unlimited amount of players (creators) and all r equal thruout the game. The freedom given 2 one person 2 display creations here is the same freedom given 2 another. Each can create anything and as much of it as he wishes, and share it with the rest of the civilization in any manner he chooses.

This civilization is called TRUST. As the grand creators of TRUST, we r all responsible 4 its health and well-being. As we create, we must ask rselves: "is this thing i am creating beneficial 2 others in this civilization?" If not, skip it. All locales in Trustworld r designed 2 b harmonious with the others. All creators must b as well - there shall b no 'borrowing' or 'repackaging' of another's works and calling it one's own - that is grounds 4 xpulsion from this game. Borrowing is easy, but borrowing destroys trust, and there4, the entire civilization. Trust dies when any creator/player takes away another's freedom 2 play, create and xpress itself the way it chooses. If that happened, we'd all lose.

As equals in this game, we all gain by building upon TRUST. In trust r found peace, harmony, happiness and progress. The technology in this civilization - live video footage, downloadable music, 'virtual' virtually anything - is growing by leaps and bounds every day. Each creation works best when firmly rooted in trust - there would b no need 4 security codes, watermarking or policing. Imagine the beauty we will find when creators r fully free 2 xpress their visions without having 2 deal with all that other stuff that's best left in a place of the past.

When we all live in TRUST, we all win.
We're ready, how about u?

You're awesome. I can't wait to dig into this after work!

DroneLayer said:

Thank you!!!

You are welcome!

Check it out! I emailed Sam Jennings and he says:

"Yes, I am planning on resurrecting the NPGMC in an online archive. Hopefully in June And it will be free for everyone."

How cool is that!? What a swell guy!

DroneLayer said:

Check it out! I emailed Sam Jennings and he says:

"Yes, I am planning on resurrecting the NPGMC in an online archive. Hopefully in June And it will be free for everyone."

How cool is that!? What a swell guy!

That would be wonderful.

Thank You TheQuest for these.

Thank you so much for sharing. I made a similar thread a couple of weeks ago and was hoping more people had saved these writings to share.


http://prince.org/msg/7/423806?&pg=1

DroneLayer said:

Check it out! I emailed Sam Jennings and he says:

"Yes, I am planning on resurrecting the NPGMC in an online archive. Hopefully in June And it will be free for everyone."

How cool is that!? What a swell guy!

Thanks for the news. Tell Sam that is an excellent idea.

THE BIGGER STORY

Shining examples of artists /record company woes:

-JOAN JETT - turned down by 23 record labels starts her own label Blackheart in 1980.

-ARTISTS LOST IN THE MERGERS- like Joan Osborne, Tracy Bonham, tons more.

-ARTISTS WHO GET DROPPED BECAUSE ITS "TOO LONG TERM 2 BREAK HER" LIKE JONATHA BROOKE
Jonatha Brooke is a poignant and beloved singer/songwriter who is loved by droves of fans who pack in at her sell out shows around the country. But due 2 record company trauma, her name is still not widely known.

Prior to 1998, Jonatha Brooke was a developing artist on MCA Records; a remarkably adored artist with fans who border on obsessed and a critic's darling who made many end-of-the-year Top 10 lists. One of the music industry's casualites, Jonatha's label decided "not 2 pick up the option" and she finds herself out on her own.

Intent on optimism, Jonatha has become decidedly "independent." She refuses 2 b stifled by the fact that she is not affiliated with a major label-a plague that ends the career of less confident artists. In fact, Jonatha made a plan--2 make her own records and release them on her own. This has been as much as a success as it can be using her own resources. Naturally, she again garnered thousands of rave articles. Now her dilemma is what 2 do next?

babynoz said:

Awesome! Do you happen to have the dates these were written?

1998, 1999

Here is an essay I saved from the NPGMC knowledge room back in the day..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREEDOM PT 2

Speculating about the past is, 4 obvious reasons, a rather sterile xercise, especially when it's used as an xcuse 2 indulge in unjustified nostalgia 4 things that never were.

"In retrospect," some say, "Prince should have stayed with WB... He had enough artistic freedom under his contract... He would have continued 2 evolve as an artist and would have been able 2 continue using the logistics of a major record company 2 distribute and promote his art..." etc. etc.

.

Not Ready 4 It

Such speculation is all, of course, utter nonsense. Had it not been 4 Prince's Emancipation, there would b no Rainbow Children, no One Nite Alone. Simply put, albums such as The Rainbow Children and One Nite Alone could never have come out on a major label.

A major label would never have granted Prince the artistic freedom he needed 2 create and release The Rainbow Children. The album had no singles or videos. It was not "promoted" thru any TV appearances. It was PRO-moted (i.e. given its forward movement) purely by the freedom that presided at its inception.

Compare that 2 Lovesexy in 1988. Prince never wanted 2 do a video 4 that album either. He also never wanted a single released - hence the CD with no tracking. The album was the creation of a unique artistic vision, and Prince was coerced by his label in2 treating it as a commodity 4 consumers. Videos were made, singles were pressed, charts were topped - but the whole process diluted the very essence of the album, and it was promptly deemed a "failure," simply because the industry was not ready 4 this type of artistic approach.

.

A Losing Proposition

It still isn't ready 4 it. In fact, the industry is now less ready than ever 4 this type of artistic approach. The commodification of music has continued at an unrelenting pace. 4 a long time now, the music and entertainment industry has been utterly unable 2 accommodate alternative, unique artistic visions. It has succeeded in implementing an artistic vaccuum which recycles the same tired musical ideas and sells them as "new," because its sole purpose is 2 feed its upper structures and satisfy its "shareholders" - at the xpense of artists, art lovers, and art itself. Albums such as Lovesexy and The Rainbow Children r simply not happening in such a system. They cannot xist within it. And neither would the artistic vision behind them b able 2 survive in such an environment.

If Prince were still under contract, there would b no NPG Music Club. Record companies hate the thought of losing manufacturing rights, because that is how the fundamental swindle takes place. They get a big fat check the moment the CDs leave the plant - whereas artists get paid on product sold, not shipped. And CDs r sold thru various chains that have vastly inconsistent accounting practices, thereby making it all 2 easy 4 the record company 2 claim that the CD didn't sell as much as it did, and withhold payment of what is due 2 the artist.

The whole system is designed so that the artist, the art, and the metaphysical phenomenon that art produces r always on the losing side, meanwhile fuelling the very system that entraps them. It works like a charm - 4 xecutives and big shareholders. Until the artists start leaving the system, that is. And art and music lovers with them.

When this starts happening, then record companies r scared and left scrambling. Because they know that, once this xodus reaches a critical mass - and it will, rather sooner than later - it's OVER 4 them. The very thing that their entire system is built on is abandoning them. They can try 2 reinvent themselves as multinational "media conglomerates," but they r not fooling anyone with an ear 4 music and a mind 4 art and soul.

.

Lest We Forget

No one should forget that this system xtends 2 live events as well. 4 many many years, it was a struggle 4 Prince's most ardent admirers 2 get good seats - let alone the best seats. The reason 4 it was simple: b4 tickets even go on sale via ticket outlets, a portion of the best seats r usually already "reserved". There is no need 2 xplain where or 2 whom these tickets go. Suffice 2 say that they do not go 2 those people who would enjoy them the most.

As well, the higher priced tickets r the ones that usually go 2 scalpers (who, needless 2 say, have their own place, rather comfortably, well within the system). And with the advent of auction sites, the tickets can now go systematically 2 the highest bidder - making the whole thing, in effect, an unbelievable racket. Indeed, whoever cooked up that scam should get a medal 4 one of the most profitable - and, unfortunately, perfectly legal - business ventures!

This is an xample of technological efficiency working against the interests of music makers and music lovers alike. The NPGMC, on the other hand, is a good xample of technology working 4 the benefit of those who make music and those who love music. The xisting system is effectively sidelined - and unsurprisingly quite irked! Promoters balk at the the idea of giving the best seats 2 NPGMC members. The moment that Prince, thru the grace of the NPGMC, wanted 2 take the best seats OFF the system and save them 4 the members, he was predictably met with Resistance.

The same issues xtend 2 the contents of these live events as well. U might remember the 1995 shows in Europe, when Prince played set lists that purposefully avoided the "greatest hits" 4mula and showcased many new songs and lesser known tracks. Back then, it didn't work out as well as hoped. 2day, people cannot get enough of such shows! The difference? 2day, those who attend the shows r club members, and real music lovers.

More generally, during the 90s, Prince tried 2 xperiment within the system. He had 2 give the industry the chance 2 follow him. Instead, they tried at every turn 2 stifle him. And his output suffered, because his mind was in2 the future, and theirs was firmly in the past... Try listening 2 the O}+> album and The Rainbow Children back 2 back, and tell us on which u can hear the sound of freedom...

.

Dig If U Will The Picture

So, let's "retrospeculate" 4 a moment or two... What if Prince had stayed within the system? What would he have done? Would he have written another movie score? Would he have written some songs 4 other people in the industry... But who?

Would he have got another rapper in his band? Or re-4med the Revolution? Revolutions cannot b re-4med - it would defy their very nature. Yet the whole industry is based on repeating the same things over and over, in a never-ending attempt 2 milk every single lucrative drop out of its "initial investment".

Don't get us wrong. There r no regrets about the past. But if u want the real story, don't ask the industry. After the release of The Most Beautiful Girl in the World, Prince really wanted 2 release more music both within the system and thru his own imprint (NPG), effectively "flooding the market". It didn't work out, because the industry was afraid of "saturation" - which is rather perplexing when u think that saturation, in the 4m of abusive repetition of the same things over and over again, is xactly what the industry actually feeds on.

What Prince had in mind was, of course, a very different kind of "saturation" - one that effectively never happens, because, as witnessed 2day all over the Internet and beyond, the demand 4 new music is ever growing, the music consumer has an insatiable appetite 4 music - and there is no such thing as "2 much" good music.

.

A Sub-Xistence

2 many music creators and music lovers, the situation created by the commodification of music might seem hopeless. After all, over the last few decades, the industry has devoted all its energies 2 perfecting a system that xploits artists with absolute impunity and manipulates people in2 purchasing musical product of dubious quality, instead of trying 2 further their understanding and appreciation of art. And it has, 2 a large xtent, succeeded. The system feeds itself with the flesh and souls of struggling artists and churns out plastic, using a conveyor belt approach 2 music that is supported by ever more "efficient" manufacturing and distributing processes.

Putting "production values" ahead of authentic artistry and musicianship, this approach uses peer pressure as a promotional vehicle 4 the products of its artistically-challenged recipes 4 "success". Young minds r easily fooled in2 thinking that what they r consuming is real food, when it actually is pure ear candy, with absolutely no nutritional value. Their un4med taste buds r dulled b4 they even get a chance 2 develop.

In a desperate attempt 2 stay "hip" and "cool", older generations easily forget the little they have learned about art, and try 2 make xcuses - from technological prowess 2 pseudo post-modern theorizing - 4 the fact that they 2 want 2 indulge in the "guilty pleasure" of consuming the latest commercial entertainment products.

But this kind of food does not nourish the soul. It merely ensures subsistence, a lower 4m of xistence - in effect, a sub-xistence. And, like junk food, it will eventually make people sick. Ur soul can only take so much artistic deprivation and commercial overbloat b4 it switches itself off. By that time, u might find that it is 2 late 2 turn around and try 2 re-open ur mind.

U might find that u r now living in a world that is artistically and spiritually in the dark. A world that entropy has brought down 2 the lowest common level - somewhere in the middle, not 2 good, not 2 bad. Then what will u do?

.

2 Understand This, U Have 2 Go Back...

It's not 2 late 2 open r eyes. In parallel 2 this entropic decline, an alternative has evolved. If u want 2 c how it started, just look back 4 a moment... but not in speculation. Instead, look at the facts.

Back in the early 80's, the world began 2 notice that a new, different kind of music was coming from - of all places - Minneapolis. But did they notice what the music said? "Uptown - U can set ur mind free"... "Reproduction of the new breed leader/Stand up and organize!" Unbeknownst 2 most, the seeds of change were being sown.

From 1984, people remember Purple Rain, the album, the movie - but do they remember the liner notes, or the last frame of the movie credits? They both read: "May u live 2 c the Dawn"... Again, only a few took notice.

In 1988, a bold new album entitled Lovesexy begins with these words: "Welcome 2 the New Power Generation". Two years later, the New Power Generation becomes the title of a song, and soon the name of Prince's powerhouse new band. But it soon becomes even more than that - a unifying concept, a central notion, an alternative. A record label (NPG Records). A store (NPG Store)...

Then, in the first half of 1994, a different kind of TV show reaches an unsuspecting audience world-wide. In it, a beautiful woman, alone on a Saturday night, tired of being stuck in her "peanut butter cookie hell", sees an ad in a magazine 4 a different kind of xperience. She sits down at her computer, logs in, and starts downloading... another world. A challenging new world of music, visuals, words and interaction. Sounds familiar?

The Beautiful Xperience... The NPG Music Club. As u can c, the solution 2 the problem was figured out a long time ago... The real world is just starting 2 catch up. R computer keyboards might not have a "COME" key yet - but the movement forward has begun.

.

Welcome 2 The Dawn

Had the industry allowed Prince's vision 2 dictate the evolution of his art, he would have evolved in2 the NPG Music Club anyway, within the system. But that was never the case. The industry was going in a different direction, which had less and less 2 do with music and more and more 2 do with money - and emancipation was the only way.

Don't b deceived by the "technical" appearance of the Club. Contrary 2 the industry's heavy machinery, the NPG Music Club is an ORGANIC entity, one that runs with the Truth at its center and is self-sufficient. It is not "digital", even tho it reaches its members by digital means. It is its organic nature that ensures its growth and success. It is its organic heart that makes it self-evident. It is its organic impetus, the fact that it connects its members 2 each other, and 2 the music, as whole human beings, that makes it the real solution, the real alternative 2 the collective hallucination currently known as the music industry.

The NPG Music Club just is. And no amount of speculation will change that fact. Those who have not yet joined r missing out on the best part... which is yet 2 come. When the Truth finally arrives 2 u, will u b lost on the other side? Will u still b alive?

[Edited 5/30/16 2:28am]

Anyone knows if he wrote those by himself? It looks like it, maybe with someone else editing a bit?

Very articulate. I'm a writer, I'd be proud to call a few of those mine.

Where is the soul in a computer-induced world?

If the world we create is driven by computers, where do we live?

Can true artistic talent still survive against this mass of pseudo-art?

Will those who use the computer survive against those who let it use them?

Can and will true art live on?

Is true art still feasible, still realistic in 2day’s mind-numbing, computer-aided digital haze?

U b the judge.

The NPG proposes 2 reverse the trend. NPG Online Ltd. wants u 2 use ur computer 2 make a difference. R site eliminates the matrixes. Xplore the music. Choose ur way. Let others b used. Tell us what u want. Say goodbye 2 the hype. Open ur mind. FEEL the music.

Wow - what an essay.

University of Minnesota was talking about granting him a posthumous PhD. Did they do that? They should.

Thanks for posting these!!!!!