quoted 8 lines I was suggesting building a community using the
> I was suggesting building a community using the
> combined power and strength
> of the individuals involved AND the record labels,
> rather than using
> something which they are inherently against because
> of stigma. First
> impressions count and therefore labels are going to
> think MP3=Piracy.
It's interesting how equal opportunity you are, or
rather how label-centric your stance is. I know
someone has to stand up for the providers of music,
because without them, we'd all be walking around
listening to leaves falling to the ground in a
musicless society, with attuned ears keen at
identifying types of bird due to their characteristic
calls. It's clear from your two lengthy emails that
you're basically speaking from the point of view of a
concerned label boss, but your ingenious ideas place
you more in the marketing department, or r+d. Look
Muffin, I'm sorry, but I don't give a toss about
conveniencing the labels. If they wanted me to fill
out a 3 question survey before I could listen to 2
minutes of a sneak preview of a new track, I'd go to
Kazaa or another file sharing program to find the file
(in its entirety) there. I make no apologies for
this, it's simply another way of operating that's
possible now because of technology. Why is the
traditional system better than the emerging one? Why
shouldn't labels accept this new state of affairs and
embrace it? (For instance www.irdial.com). I know
they're used to getting money from the public for
their product, but there's nothing inherently correct
about that process, it's just one of many--as is mp3
file sharing--as is the labels giving the product away
and asking for donations--as is majors going back to
the vinyl/tape formats and eschewing digital media in
the most blatant greedy capitalist Luddite move ever.
None of these is the inherently correct method. It
seems that you want to cling to the traditional way of
doing business, which is fine, but not necessary.
Really it's just that the ball has rolled into the
public's side of the court now, and the labels want it
back. Maybe Muffin wants to pull up the dividing
lines and create one big happy family. Something
tells me that regardless of his intentions, his
proposals won't change anything regarding p2p sharing,
but might make the labels feel better about things via
the smokescreen of the questionaire/preview mp3 idea.
The thing that prevents us from being one big happy
family is just as much that, because of the commerce
involved, the public is being blamed for preventing
label men (not even the artists themselves!) from
eating/surviving, as it is that some people aren't
paying for music as much as they used to. As in the
following:
----------------------------------------------------
I mean, who's going to contemplate giving their lives
to promoting new
interesting music if they can't afford to eat?
----------------------------------------------------
You mean, "if they can't afford to eat by the profits
they should earn off their product," right? Are we
that unadaptable? The majority of labels/artists who
make music I like (and I'm not alone here, list) work
other jobs to fulfil those needs. Is that wrong?
Why? As for promoting new interesting music, again,
use the new tools at your disposal. Promotion via mp3
or online in another form is the most powerful method
available. It will get music heard in nooks and
crannies never before imagined. Is that the point of
promotion, or is it only profit-oriented? If you feel
you should be compensated with money for this, ask for
it. Don't fuck people over in the old way. Most
people who like you will support you, and if that
doesn't cut it, then get into a more lucrative arena.
There are a lot of money-making opportunities in the
world, from the shite to the dope. Perhaps, though,
your label can make money by selling material to
advertisers, a la Low-Gap, Mogwai-Levis,
various-Volkswagen. More and more IDM is popping up
in the mainstream media--use those payoffs to support
something positive like further label development or
new releases.
----------------------------------------------------
That's what soulseek should be about, but because it
doesn't involve the
labels actively it's not favoured.
----------------------------------------------------
By whom? The labels, oh, right. It's important that
p2p is in their favor. Next........
-----------------------------------------------------
I mean, what gives you the right to think that you
'deserve' music. As BOC
said "Music has the right to children".
-----------------------------------------------------
Muffin, this is the type of comment that provokes
pages-long emails. Your antagonistic attitude against
the lay music listener sounds like that of a
threatened, cornered a+r man. Who said we deserve
music? Is that really the question? People are going
to create music, regardless of its effect on the
industry. Presumably, they won't be opposed to its
being heard by the public, if that's what they so
intend. If every artist/label was vaporized today; or
if all recorded music was vaporized; or every p2p
system in the world was prohibited, I doubt people
would be complaining about their rights being
violated. You're focusing on the wrong side of the
equation here: the public isn't to be chided for
downloading music or exploiting Soulseek without an
equally extended finger pointing toward frustrated,
querulous label execs. It's they who cling to the
rallying cry of "rights" in this situation. BOC's
nonsensical title doesn't backup your claim. If
anything, it backs up a connection between music and
its audience--curiously omitting the exchange of cash.
In a BOC sense, anyone's music can engulf far more
children via p2p than otherwise.
Ben
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org