That's not to say that I don't like music, because I do, alot. It's an integral part of my life. But the industry is continually making itself look like a fool.
I've written an essay and done an Original Oratory about this, and now, I'm writing a blog post. Since none of you have seen or read my essay and oratory, they are posted at the bottom of this if you should like to read them.
First, however, is my current trifle with the music industry: It makes the fans stupid. I've complained in the past that it is going about piracy wrong (OO and Essay) and that it continually makes asinine decisions based on the current forms of music distribution, ways to make music profitable, and dealing with protection of the music.
Now, after perusing the website "Who Is Arcade Fire?" it is apparent that the current form of the music industry leads to people getting all the wrong ideas about music and talent. The website chronicles the outburst of angry and confused music listeners who watched the Grammy's and didn't know who The Arcade Fire is (they won Album of the year). I don't care that people don't know who they are, although it is a tad surprising. The bigger issue is what people as a whole seem to think about music and its "goodness".
Now I'm going to go through a couple of my least favorite posts in no specific order, then I'll summarize everything bad here.
1. Link
"The Grammy's are fixed, like straight up; how are all these nobodys[sic] winning? And why is everyone from Arcade Fire Hideously ugly? #appalled"
-DeannaEffiinMack
My biggest problem with this is the notion that attractiveness should have anything to do with talent. I trust that no one who will read this thinks that, as that is one of the most mind-numbingly stupid things to think.
The other issue is Ms. EffinMack's logic. If the Grammy's were to be fixed, why wouldn't they choose a more profitable band? Or perhaps she means that they're fixed in that the most talented choice wins. Obviously that is a travest of some sort.
She also, like so many others, wonders how "all these nobodys" can win. Popularity does not equate with talent. They can coincide, but they are separate entities.
2. Link
"Nowt[sic] on TV so gonna listen to The Suburbs brand new, un-deserved[sic] Grammy winning album Arcade Fire. Bet it isn't as good as Gaga!!!!"
-The Leroy
Lady Gaga is cool and all, I guess, but her overblown popularity shouldn't be a basis for which other things are ranked. Her performance-art music videos, bizarre fashion, and other acts of attention-grabbing are more what she is known for at this point than her music. A google new search for Ms. Gaga gives more results for fashion and Egg related things than anything musical.
I'm not trying to deny that she is talented, but people should not default to "she should win" before ever hearing the other music.
3. Link
"I can not believe that unknown artists will earn a world-renowned artists like justin and lady gaga for that reason cease to believe in the legality of prizes"[sic]
-Mr. N
I didn't realize how broken that English was until I transcribed it just now. I believe what Mr. N (his name was blurred out) is trying to say is that he is baffled when musicians that he (being an incredibly informed individual) has never heard of are victorious over the "world-renowned" artists like Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. Because of this he has lost his faith in the Grammy Awards.
I've already discussed how popularity or renown should not be a basis for merit, so Imma interpret renown as "acclaim".
Now, lets compare the Metacritic (A critic aggregate website. Basically they score something based on the average scores given by a multitude of critics) scores for the albums up for the Grammy for Best album:
Source
As you can see, of the albums up for Best Album, the most "renowned" is that of The Arcade Fire, beating Lady Gaga by 10 points. Eminem's album "Recovery" did beat it in terms of user rating and number of weeks at the #1 spot, those are both based on normal run-of-the-mill people, the majority of whom are not particularly cultured.
As for Mr. N's claim that "justin [Bieber]" is also more "renowned" than Esperanza Spalding. While Justin Bieber is indeed more renowned in the real meaning of the word, acclaim wise(which is again how I'm interpreting it) his albums on Metacritic garnered a 65 and 68, neither of which are bad, but they aren't spectacular. He got a movie that idolizes him, and tours where he has to be protected by overzealous fans. He has a team of writers helping him create pop music, and on his first album, he was only responsible for four of nine songs.
Esperanza Spalding, though far less renowned, is far more acclaimed. She was specifically selected by President Obama to perform at the Noble Peace Prize Ceremony, she was chosen to close the first night at a prestigious Jazz festival, and was featured in a tribute to Prince that also featured Patti LaBelle, Alicia Keys, and Janelle Monae, all well-respected R&B artists. She composes or arranges all of her own work, and taught herself how to play the violin by the age of 5 and since then learned how to play at least four other instruments. She was given a scholarship to a prestigious arts high school, and has been featured on albums by five other artists since 2001.
Which of those sounds like the worthier choice?
4. Link
Man 1: "Arcade Fire? Really?"
Man 2: "I seriously just heard of the for the first time when that guy announced that they were performing. Anyone who wins album of the year should be known by EVERYONE!"
To Man 1's credit, at least he didn't call them "RK Fire" or "The Suburbs" like so many others.
Man 2 is the one I have the issue with. He claims that "Anyone who wins album of the year should be known by EVERYONE!" This is another example of renown vs. acclaim. While I agree that anyone who wins should be known by everyone, it should be because they win that everyone knows them, notthat they win because everyone knows them.
5. Link
"How can this group get album of the year when they didn't even have as many top 10 as Gaga. Did this group even have a number 1 hit?"
-paulguynj
To answer Mr. Guynj's question: No, the Arcade Fire did not have a number 1 hit. That has so little to do with it winning album of the year it's almost silly. Even if they won song of the year without it being a number 1 hit, that would be fine, but the fact that their album won without it is completely sensical.
Funnily enough, Arcade Fire's album that won spent one week at the top of the charts, while Lady Gaga's spent a whopping zero, only reaching number 5.
This has absolutely no bearing on Arcade Fire's victory, but Mr. Guynj fails by his own faulty logic.
6. Link
"Who the he'll [sic] is that Fire who ?"
-DogBountyHunter
I don't know what Mr. Dog is asking so I'll just answer "No."
7. Link
"WHAT. THE. HELL. WHO IS ARCADE FIRE????????? AND WHY DID THEY STEAL EMINEM/LADY GAGA's AWARD????!!!!!! Like. Is this real life....??????"
-MollyMoney
First of all, please don't yell, Ms. Money.
Second of all, there is no 'stealing' involved. Arcade Fire was just a more talented band.
Third, how can you say that the award is both Eminem's and Lady Gaga's? Right there you're saying that the award can be owned by more than one artist, which is false. Just as false as the existance of the ability to "steal" awards.
Fourth, Ms. Money, you should get some sort of psychological help if you doubt the existance of reality simply because Arcade Fire won a Grammy.
8. Link
"Who is Arcade Fire and why did they win album of the year? Esperanza Spalding? WHO THE FUCK? Grammys have something against famous people."
-xNachoSpears
Answers:
They are a Canadian seven-piece indie rock band, and they won because they had the best album this year.
I'm confused as to what you are asking by saying "Esperanza Spalding?" so no answer is given
Ah, now I see. Esperanza Spalding is a 21 year old jazz bassist who has been the target of much acclaim, as detailed above.
As for your statement that the Grammys have something against famous people, might I direct your attention to the other nominee's, the winners of Record and Song of the year, and pretty much all the other nominees and winners.
It's not some sort of insult to be nominated, Ms. Nacho.
To summarize all this:
- Famous/renowned =/= talented.
- The most talented people won.
- The Grammys have been around 53 years, and somehow I doubt that they don't know what they're doing.
I blame this mindset on the Music Industry's current format: pushing single's down your throat until you cannot breathe. Shoving "popular" musicians/bands in your face until nothing else is visible. Don't get me wrong, there can be good singles and some popular acts are good, but they are not the only important songs or artists, and are certainly not always the best.
People like singles, and focus more on those than anything else. Like Mr.Guynj said earlier, "How can [Arcade Fire] get album of the year when they didn't even have as many top 10 as Gaga?" Well, they can by not relying on singles or booster-tracks.
The way to be popular and really monetize money for a band is to make an ultra-popular single and sell it by itself or with some other songs. People may buy the album if they like the single enough.
However, due to digital music, people can just buy the single. Or, since its justonesong, they can pirate it.
I'll say this again: in a time where piracy runs rampant, the concept of a physical album, cd or vinyl or tape or 8-track or whatever, should be re-popularized. That way, there is an incentive to pay for and own the whole album.
I might only speak for myself, but I thoroughly enjoy having a physical cd to open, to read the insert, to see what the CD itself looks like. Its exciting for me, and thats why I continue to purchase CD's as opposed to digital music.
I want to support bands, and I want to get something tangible out of it.
Purchasing digital music nowadays is essentially just donating money to bands. You aren't getting something you couldn't get elsewhere. Tangible forms of music distribution should be what the music industry uses to boost their profits in a time of digital piracy.
The Arcade Fire outrage is an example of the mainstream mindset when it comes to music now: "Everyone knows this song so it is good. I should buy it." No one tries to find good music or expose themselves to "nobodies" like Arcade Fire.
There is still hope though, and as more and more people continue to pirate music, and thereby expose themselves to more music, maybe unheard of but still great bands can get the exposure they need to become recognized.
That being said, please go to TheNoodleMinions.Bandcamp where every album is free. Song by song will cost you though.
The decision is yours.
References:
Here be the Original Oratory and Essay:
Oratory
There is a plague promulgating in our society.
A new form of disobedience that is becoming less and less considered so.
You may ask yourself, what is this plague, what is this growing problem, this infiltrating monstrosity.
Well, let me give you an image.
A man walks down the street, he is bobbing his head listening to the Black Eyed Peas or Radiohead. You don't know who he is, or what kind of person he is, but there is a 36% chance that he has been taken by this nonchalant attitude, this new idealogy that avaliability equals ownership. There is a 36% chance that this song wasn't paid for, it was illegally pirated. See, nowadays, piracy is a growing problem, one of the most prominently committed acts of illegality.
With the average teenagers mp3 player having 800 pirated songs, what is to be done?
Well, the answer, dear people, is not as simple as it seems. Many of the problems associated with this illegality are seemingly bad, such as this 36%, more than a third of people, downloading music. The average teenager's music device holding 800 illegally downloaded songs. 95% of downloads considered illegal.
These all sound like awful things, but in reality, only 10% of all illegal downloads are actually considered a loss in profit. The problem is that illegally downloading music is not a cut-and-dry as it seems.
the main methods and reasoning behind the attacking and halting this piracy are flawed.
Attempting to halt illegal music downloading is not fruitful for the following three reasons: many methods for stopping this are non-functional and not exclusive to the piraters, music piraters on the whole are more interested in music, and pirating music has re-instilled appreciation of music that is good, and that isn't mainstream.
The methods for halting piracy usually involve either attacking the piraters through suing or other such legal ramifications, changing the files to become unshareable, or changing the way the files are used.
____-The problem with suing is that the downloading can only be discovered through IP addresses, which means people can easily be declared at fault for something they couldn't possibly have done. The RIAA, which is the recording industry association of america, a leading distributor in music, and therefore a leading attacker of piracy, understandably, often sue without considering the obvious. THere was a case in which the RIAA sued people that could not have done it, including a dead woman, and a family without a computer.
____-changing files to be unsharable usually involves rules for the file, a leading example being DRM or digital rights management. THis is a set of 'rules' for a file that makes it more difficult to share. Apple computer's 'fairplay' is an example of DRM software. It prevents the user from having the file on more than five computers, which is a shortcoming for people with many computers, as they do own the music. It also locks the user into using an iPod brand device, as opposed to any mp3 player of their choosing.
____-Changing the ways the files are used is the third most prevalent way to attack piracy. An example of this is Sony's copy prevention software. This software installed a rootkit on the computer which ended up allowing malware, or malicious software, onto the computer. It also used a large amount of the computer's system resources and often led to computer crashes.
The next problem with halting music piracy is that music piraters are on the whole more interested in music. There was a poll taken by The Independant, a british newspaper, that found that 1 in 10 people admit to pirating music, and on average the people who had pirated also paid more money on music than the nonpirates. they paid $77 on average while the others paid $33 on average. There are also studies in which it was shown that they buy more cd's, bootlegs, and talk about music more.
The final problem is that music piracy has actually been reinstilling a need for quality in the musical world. People that pirate music are not as interested in the attractiveness of the performer as they are how it sounds, how good it is. If people were doing it for any reason other than quality of music they would probably be buying the music as a form of stature societally. They would want to appear to like the music rather than actually like it. Pirating music also allows for a try-before-buy idea, which means, essentially, people would listen to this music before actually purchasing it, so as to make certain that they will enjoy it. This weeds out many of the shoddier musicians and groups, leaving only what the majority considers to be, on the whole, quality music. This allows for bands and other musical acts that may not have the exposure or money GET the listener support they need, as the internet is quite a place to tell everyone, and if the music is readily avaliable, well then, there you go. Preventing piracy will not only cut sales, and annoy and alienate listeners, but it will also make it far more likely that only the over-exposed bands get listens, only the mass-produced popular same-old stuff.
These problems and flaws with halting music piracy show why simply stopping music piracy is a) not as easy as it sounds, and b) more misguided than can be successful. Because the current methods for removing piracy have unintended and alienating sideeffects, piraters are more inclined towards music than most and do in fact buy more than the average person, and piracy has been helping the musical culture, as a whole, stopping music piracy cannot be as good an idea as is to be believed, and in fact may be more debilitating to the music industry, an indeed the music world as a whole. So maybe, this growing plague, this infiltrating monstrossity is merely an as of yet undiagnosed form of superiority, of ever-strengthening, of perfection. Maybe this illegality will bring about musical promise for the future.
*The above is a basic idea of what I would have said, it's not very polished or structured.
Essay
The music industry has existed in some form or another since the 18 th century, starting by selling printed works of music. Now that printing was an relatively easy and widespread thing to do, it was very obvious to commercialize the written form of music, and the industry thrived. When the advent of recordings came about in the late 19th century, the music industry soon picked up on the potential of this situation. Radio airplay started to become very popular, and suddenly musicians and bands did not need to perform to become popular or well-known. Now, they could be heard on the radio all across the country, or on recordings purchasable on record or tape. In both of these situations, new technology and new ideas were used to bring music to the masses. More obscure musicians could break out of that label. The music industry back then learned from the times and adapted to give themselves the best possible scenario. If only the current incarnation of it would do such a thing. Nowadays, the music industry has so many faults that it is taking the slow process of becoming irrelevant and speeding it up. It is misunderstanding the current times to an extreme that is benefiting no one. They are set in their ways and are fighting against the current. The music industry is slowly but surely killing itself. It is misunderstanding the current trend, resisting change, and raising prices to unbelievably high prices. All that, and to top it all off, the advances in digital music are removing the need for physical products.
One of the ways the music industry is m isunderstanding the current time is by ignoring the plethora of new ways artists can make themselves heard. It is true that getting signed to a major label and getting all the benefits of that will probably make an artist heard, but the amount of bands and artists that get that privilege is low. Now, with websites like Bandcamp or Youtube, anyone with an instrument, a voice, and some talent can be heard. Bandcamp allows any user to upload their music and sell it at any price, including nothing. This allows bypassing labels and any part of the mainstream music industry. Why would anyone go to something more mainstream like iTunes, when Bandcamp offers higher quality music and less restrictive extensions and no annoying rules associated with the files (Bandcamp)? The music industry still rarely offers higher-quality digital music that is universally accessible. Youtube is another alternative form of outreach that has become popular. Anyone can record themselves singing a song or advertise any new music they have for sale. While it is true that the music industry has used Youtube to its advantage, the unlabeled musician has used it with much more success (Youtube). Another issue with this is that anyone who has ever had an issue with a label or a distributor will want freedom to do what they want.
An example of this occurring is with Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. He had many issues with record labels proving to be more of a hindrance than a help. This culminated with Reznor failing to follow through with a project he wanted to do due to record label misguiding. The moment his contract ran out, he released an album for free and more people downloaded and have that music than many of his previous records. He also released a special edition physical package of the album, which had items included that could not be digitally downloaded. It was also made worthwhile because it was a limited edition pressing (NIN.com). A similar ploy by Thom Yorke of Radiohead, in which their album In Rainbows was released for a limited time as a pay-what-you-want album. The album managed to make number one on the charts in the US and UK despite three months of essentially free availability. These experiments in selling music both show that people still buy music even if they have the music for free. This is usually not viewed as a problem if it is sanctioned by the artist, but in the case of music piracy, it is viewed as a completely different and detrimental issue.
The music industry is taking the worst possible steps towards the growing issue of music piracy. One of the most common methods of removal is DRM, or digital rights management. DRM is a set of extra rules that is imbued on a form of digital media. Some forms of it include limiting what people can do with their purchased music. DRM sometimes even specifies that people do not own the music they purchase. There was a case where Sony installed a rootkit onto peoples computers. This rootkit was a form of malware that actually attacked the users computers (Sony Suit). Standard DRM, like Apple's Fair Play, adds rules to the music. Fair Play prevents the owner of the music from putting the music on too many computers, or put the music on a non-Apple music player. These DRM issues are not only annoying to pirates, who can rather easily counteract them, but it annoys and alienates those who have legitimately purchased the music. In fact, if one pirates the music, they will not have the annoyances of DRM. This pushes people away from purchasing music legitimately, and right back into the follies of pirating (What is DRM?).
Another method to deal with music pirates is to sue them. This is intended to make an example of the pirate and to prevent others from doing so because they are too scared. This method was less than effective, however, because most people pity those being sued by the labels. In many cases, the record labels bully the ones being sued into settling for exorbitantly high prices and they never recover financially (Some Strange...). The other issue comes with the methods used for tracking pirates. See, the labels track based on IP addresses, which are scarcely exact, and cause confusion and misguided lawsuits. There have been cases where people who do not even have a computer have been sued. For example, there was a case where an 83 year old woman who had been dead for months was sued for music piracy. The RIAA, or Recording Industry Association of America, initially refused to believe that the woman was dead, but after media coverage of the incident, dropped charges. On top of her being deceased, the woman never knew how to use a computer anyway (RIAA sues dead...). Situations like this lead to a loss of respect for the RIAA and any other similar distributors. To illustrate that point, there is another article, this time a fictitious one, entitled “RIAA Sues Family Dog” which is a parody of real accounts where the RIAA has sued those who cannot possibly have pirated music (RIAA Sues Family...). The music industry is putting their customers in bankruptcy and embittering everyone against them. This leads to a stronger resentment towards the music industry, instead of keeping everyone in line.
The music industry is resistant to change, this much has been evident as of late. The music industry has only advanced in the last century in terms of format, going from open-reel tapes to vinyl to cassette to CD to digital music. Other than that, very little has changed. The music industry does not do anything to change the way a format is used, only what format is used. Now that they are in the digital age of music, they fight as hard as they can to make no changes to it. When pirates come and try to give it away, they attack them, as previously mentioned. The concept of the album, that is, a set of a dozen or so songs grouped together in one coherent release, is dying out. Purchasing one song instead of an album is a burden financially, because albums are costly to produce and when only one twelfth of the album is purchased, there will be a loss in revenue. That is what was great about non-digital media, there was no way to pick and choose. Now that digital music is available, the picking and choosing runs rampant, and for the most part, only independent online retailers, like Bandcamp are allowing users to decide if they want to sell single tracks (Bandcamp). Albums are going to die as a concept, and with it, deep tracks, and albums that are a work of art in themselves. Singles used to be intended to promote the album, not as an alternative to it. People would listen to singles and decide whether or not they liked that band or artist, and then elect to purchase the album or not. Now, the music industry is pushing people towards single-track purchases, which slowly kills a profitable section of the music industry.
Another huge problem is the rise in prices. Music prices have been rising and everyone is bothered by it. There is no sense in raising the price on something people were willing to steal at a lower one. If people would rather steal an album than pay ten dollars, they will also be sure to steal one that costs seventeen. This is also true of single-track purchases. Those are much more likely to occur if the albums cost a lot. Consumers are not the only people getting annoyed at this. Trent Reznor, who was mentioned earlier, voiced his outrage at the exorbitant prices on his 2007 album Year Zero at a concert in Australia. He encouraged his fans to “steal it” because the Australian distributors were ignoring the outcry to lower prices (Trent Reznor Tells...). This is a widespread issue with few advocates. The labels seem to be oblivious to the fact that high-priced albums are not going to be bought when piracy or single-track purchases are options. They need to instead lower their prices so people will start buying them again.
The simplest solution would be to charge subscription packages or buffet-style music programs, similar to the Zune pass, which allows unlimited plays from an unlimited amount of music for a monthly or yearly charge (Zune.net). The issue in all of this is that the music industry is dealing in nonexistent goods now. Digital music is not something real, per se, but is a bit of electronic data that can be infinitely copied with no cost to anyone. Supply and demand has no meaning here, because there is infinite supply. The demand can be literally any value ever, and the music will still be essentially worthless. The music industry is fictionalizing the supply issue, and by doing so is clinging to the last strands of a dying empire (Wong). If they focused on physical products or physical events, then they might be able to salvage what is left, but as it stands, the music industry is selling smoke, it cannot be much longer before everyone demands fire.
References:
"Bandcamp." Bandcamp. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. http://bandcamp.com/.
Bridis, Ted. "Some Strange Twists in Music Piracy Lawsuits." RedOrbit. 23 Aug. 2004. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. .
Brown, Peter. "What Is DRM?" Defective by Design. 2007. Web. 5 Dec. 2010. .
"The Facts." Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA). 2004. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. .
Masnick, Mike. "Pirate Bay Loses A Lawsuit; Entertainment Industry Loses An Opportunity." Techdirt. 17 Apr. 2009. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090417/0129274535.shtml.
“NIN.com” NIN.com 17 Dec. 2010.
O'Brien, Terrence. "Trent Reznor Tells Fans to Steal Music." Switched. 18 Sept. 2007. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. .
"RIAA Sues Dead Women, Refuses to Believe She’s Dead." My Consumer Electronics. 26 Apr. 2006. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. .
"RIAA Sues Family Dog; Yet Another Botched Lawsuit." Associated Content from Yahoo! - Associatedcontent.com. 9 Jan. 2008. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. .
Shields, Rachel. "Illegal Downloaders 'spend the Most on Music', Says Poll." The Independent. 1 Nov. 2009. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. .
"Sony Suit" Sony Suit. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. http://www.sonysuit.com/.
Van Buskirk, Eliot. "Labels: Lower Music Prices And Increase Your Profits, Study Says." Wired.com. 29 Jan. 2010. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/labels-lower-music-prices-and-increase-your-profits-study-says/.
Warner Chappell Reveals Radiohead’s ‘In Rainbows’ Pot of Gold." Music Ally. 15 Oct. 2008. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. http://musically.com/blog/2008/10/15/exclusive-warner-chappell-reveals-radioheads-in-rainbows-pot-of-gold/.
Wong, David. "5 Reasons The Future Will Be Ruled By B.S." Cracked. 18 Oct. 2010. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html.
"YouTube." YouTube. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/.
"Zune.net." Zune.net. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. http://zune.net/en-US/.
This essay was submitted and I got an A, so it can't be too, too bad. Shrugs. Fuck.
No comments:
Post a Comment