Professional musician supports filesharing

[Gtrmon]

I am a professional musician, perhaps artist is a better word, and I fully support file sharing. Let me tell you why.

When I was 16 and playing in bands in the early 80's, I can remember the record company crying about cassette tapes destroying the industry. When some generic pop song I had to learn came on the radio, I taped it.
Today, I download it. I will never spend money on generic corporate crap. Then as now, when an artist put out a work of art, I bought it to support the work of the artist.

With the growing pop culture, it became easier and more profitable to push clones rather than unique artists. Remember Nirvana? Instead of letting Kurt Cobain be a reclusive artist, the record companies created a pop culture myth. They sold it big time to the teens of the 90's, and sold billions of dollars worth of clothes, accessories, and, ahem, cloned pop music. This rediculous profit is what record companies are trying to protect.

The selling of a corporate-created pop culture pushed a lot of art of the air. Most radio stations are very similiar, and many are owned by the same company. Even if you like the music on the radio, it must surely piss you off that some COMPANY has decided that you won't get to hear 90% of the new music being released today, because it doesn't fit into their demographic report. Look at the radio choices of the biggest radio market in the US- NYC. There are hundreds of radio stations, and blessed little difference between them. Everyone is so desparate to be as generic as possible so that they can sell, sell, sell, to as many people as possible, that creativity and uniqueness have become harder and harder to find.

The first album I downloaded was a solo album from Jon Anderson of Yes. It was not for sale in the US. You could buy it in Japan and the UK, but not America the Free. Why? US record companies chose to not make it available. Not enough profit margin. Huh? But there would be a profit, yes? I decided that the record company did not have the right to hold music, or any other art, information, or technology hostage. To make up for this, when Yes come on tour I go see every show I can. That money supports the artist more directly than album sales.

I like a lot of the 'new' music out today. I buy very little of it. Instead, I spend my money on music that I go out of my way to find. I listen to Internet streams and college radio. I find artists that are doing something that appeals to me, with or without major label backing, and I support their performances and recordings.

People oppose p2p because it hurts the artists. But if the average artist even a dollar off of a $17.99 record, that is a lot. And, if the record company can hurt the artist, they will. Many bands never saw a penny from their work. Billy Joel, I understand, got almost nothing from his first few albums because of contract misdealings. Procul Harem, who wrote the mega-hit anthem Whiter Shade of Pale, have also never been paid for their work. This record company practice is as common as young naive girls who want to become stars.

Ironically many artists support p2p. Members of Dave Matherws Band commented that they and all their families had more money than they could spend, so they would rather just have their music out there. Greatful Dead and other jam bands allow and encourage taping at their shows.

Filesharing may hurt big companies, but big companies have been hurting music for a long time. Their time to die has come.

Long live Rock!

Peace.








[/i]

[battye]

Hi, welcome to the forum, and thank you for the post. You have very valid points there, also something that I think a lot of artists (that don't support P2P) don't realise is that downloaded music can also be seen as a sample, if you like their work, you'll go out and buy the album, go to their concerts etc.

[me here]

Awesome to have another voice of reason here Gtrmon... thanks for the post. Some great points in there from an artists point of view...

thanks and hope to see ya round the rest of the forum..

[quicksilver]

I read your post, and appreciate the time you took to write it Gtrmon.

It is good to let the folks know that its not just Joe public getting hit in the pocket, as you say, the artists are tied in with these
mass market "productivity over talent" type contracts, that serves to perpetuate the "pop" culture..
Some of the greatest artists of all time took years to hit the top spots, but folks recognise talent and purchase accordingly (when they can get their hands on it ).
I listen to many artists, and the internet allows me to gain a "radio style " preview of the stuff I like, which makes me able to purchase it knowing
What I,m getting at better quality with a few bonus tracks on the disk, plus information about the artist that inspire ideas of our own.

I never complain about this its business, albeit over time they have found ways to decrease production costs that are never passed on to the consumer,
in fact prices have usually risen, but still despite all this, actual disk sales are up.

We as file sharers are the nemesis of the recording industry, for one simple reason, we have the power to take away their entire market .

If a new artist wants to escape the rat race and "hit it big" they need only host their music on a paypal type of site and every cent goes to him/her,
no more middle men, packaging or production costs, in fact this is what some people are trying to acheive already.

When someone is able to gain popularity in this way, it will lead to a complete change in marketing strategy, and I suspect more than a few redundant
business "managers" and "tour directors" who have already become increasingly worried at not being able to control the market or treat artists as commodities.

We would be able to purchase music we like after maybe hearing a small sample and choose any artist, rather than those who are "Pushed" onto us,
by cynical marketing folk.

[Gtrmon]

Greetings all. After writting yesterday, my fiancee and I watched a film called The Corporation. http://www.thecorporation.com/

An absolutely stunning view of the Corporation at work. Corporate philosophy is more insideous than I could have imagined. My summary simply won't do justice. But in short, the film asks 'If a Corporation is legally a person, what kind of person is it?" The Corporation is viewed from the points that a psychologist would use to classify someone psychotic and dangerous to society. From hiring child psychologists to write advertising directed at five year olds, to pollution, rights violations, and government manipulation, this film chronicles a vast dark side to this monster.

Peace, Gtrmon

[Rat]

Hi Gtrmon, welcome to the forum. Thanks for you insights. This is turning into an interesting thread.

You ask what sort of person 'the coporation' might be? I think they'd be a mean, cruel, heartless, callous fraudster.

[quicksilver]

I see folks are moving ahead faster than I though , well done to the artists, they no longer have a unwanted parasite to contend with.

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,66969,00.html