From: Alex Hillinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Aaron Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Goldstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
amanda kgb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bpm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Mandel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Darren Keast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Glicksman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Diana Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason
Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Kasnitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Zemlicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jennifer Cole
Masset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Masa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt MacQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Miss Guided
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathan McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phil Osophy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Reggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard
Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, seth hillinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wesley Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Prince speaks
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:14:18 -0700
The truth from the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as
Prince. (In his special numeric "language" and all...)
http://www.npgonlineltd.com/freedomnews.html
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 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.
--
Alex Hillinger
.....................
Groovetech
1417 10th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
.....................
<206> 861-7611
<206> 860-7691 fax
.....................
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://groovetech.com
