Re: [microsound] microsound future correction

[Geoff Farina <geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 12/29/00 12:44 PM, "dave palmer" <palmderski1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> we should be figuring out new
> ways to protect our musical rights and find new ways to make money off our
> efforts instead of rally crying alongside piracy just because it seems
> somehow non-status quo.

Nobody embraces so-called piracy because it "seems somehow non-status quo,"
but because it in fact has helped proliferate independent music and helps
sell independent records by facilitating new communities around common
interests. 

My primary income has been from independent music for 7 years now, and the
Internet, so-called "piracy" and Napster/Gnutella have only helped me and
the label that sells my records. In general, most independent labels like
the one that puts out my records has not been hurt by the Napster/Gnutella
phenomenon, but has actually been helped by it. Independent CD sales in
general have been higher than they ever have in the past two years precisely
because the Internet and the proliferation of information technologies have
facilitated a strong interest in music and helped break down geographical
boundaries that would traditionally isolate independent artists and their
music. 

Your argument is the same argument that has been made throughout this
century and had it prevailed we would be without recorded music today, not
to mention many other technologies. The same argument was made earlier this
century by performance-rights organizations who naively argued that recorded
music would take money and resources away from live performances. There was
heavy opposition to the new technology of recorded music and it was only
able to be marketed after a long struggle. Of course, recorded music
facilitated a strong interest in music in general, which helped everyone
involved, and certainly helped promoters of live music.

Your argument was also made more recently lobbyists for the first-run movie
industry. The industry tried to stop VCR production for many years naively
thinking people would stop going to theaters to see movies. Fortunately for
all of us they failed to stop the new consumer technology, and to their
surprise, the years following the popularization of VCRs also saw a sharp
increase in the first-run movie industries profits. Today, of course, the
industry is stronger than ever.

In general it's dangerous to try and stop seemingly-threatening new
technologies without addressing the social situations and already-existing
inequalities that exist. Technology is built by us and we still have agency
within our current historical situation. Technology doesn't create problems,
but amplifies already-existing social inequalities. If we're living together
eating fish and rice (which we're not), it's not because of Napster, but
because of power inequalities that Napster simply brings to the foreground.
This is clear to anyone who studies the emergence of new technologies in
America.

--Geoff Farina

PS: Because of the cut&paste below, the last email in this thread made it
appear as if I wrote the following paragraph, which of course makes this
thread seem confusing. However, the following paragraph was written by Dave
Palmer, not me (Geoff Farina).


> on 12/22/00 12:13 PM, Geoff Farina at geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> once again i would point to the true profit margins of both the majors and
> most of the "indie" labels of which you speak. let me make it clear that i
> do not want to argue about what truely was the most profitable label, i want
> to mainly point out where i think the ability of artists to make thier
> living with thier art is headed. i appreciate what internet piracy has done
> for "underground" music but i'm afraid it will also help to destroy it.
> small time artists must garner very loyal fans to compete with what is
> coming, namely, the ability to download for free hi-fi recordings of
> anything placed on a hard drive that has any form of music sharing software
> on it. the majors will figure out a way to weather this storm and ,in fact,
> will probably find a way to control it somehow but the little person will
> lose alsmost all ability to profit from thier work. now those of you who
> don't believe in profiting from what you do need to all move in together and
> eat fish heads and rice for a while. it is unbelievably naive to think that
> making a living off of your art is somehow bad or detrimental to the work
> itself. you either make your own money from your art or you are completely
> dependent upon the machinations of others. we should be figuring out new
> ways to protect our musical rights and find new ways to make money off our
> efforts instead of rally crying alongside piracy just because it seems
> somehow non-status quo. in the end all this destruction of property rights
> will give more power to the labels and less to the individual and all the
> "radicals" out there will less heard than ever.
>> 
>> 
>>>> thrill jockey records was the most profitable record company in th US
>>>> last
>>>> year and they deal mostly with indie rock and various forms of
>>>> instrumental
>> 
>> This is silly. Any one of hundreds of major-label artists alone generate
>> more net profit than TJ's entire catalog, and there are many indie labels
>> that sell much more accessible indie music that make much more profit each
>> year than TJ. Look at the sound scans and you can get a glimpse at how
>> labels like TJ are excited to sell 15K-20K copies of one release, while any
>> one MTV star (Britney Spears) alone constitutes a massive industry
>> supporting many small companies that and merchandising endeavors.
>> 
>>> it is unwise to think that rampant piracy will somehow make underground
>>> music more viable,on the contrary, the small time operator will never be
>>> able to sell anything. perhaps this is what you want? if musicians can't
>>> make aliving off their music they'll be more dependent than ever on big
>>> business or private investment or fucking day jobs which really suck! the
>>> little person,like always, will suffer first.
>> 
>> But "piracy" is only a function of our current system of music
>> commodification. Many people say (and I agree) that the 20th century will be
>> remembered as a brief point in time in which music/art was treated a as a
>> mere commodity in our Capitalist system, with it's little idiosyncratic
>> categories of "royalties" and "piracy" playing into the brief and
>> relatively-meaningless drama. Music/art typically had a much more social and
>> communal function for thousands of years before our current historical
>> context, and Napster hints that it may reclaim this role in the future.
>> 
>> I should also say that music has been my primary employment for the past
>> seven years and recording royalties have been my primary income, second only
>> to performance fees, so I (seemingly) have a lot to loose in this debate.
>> However, I am in full support of Napster and Gnutella because what's at
>> stake is the stuff that makes underground music vital in the first place,
>> which is far more crucial to me than my own short-term profits.
>> 
>> Geoff Farina
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> website: http://www.microsound.org
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 
> 

--Boundary_(ID_BKgs/QuIunPxua7WdCDGKA)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="Re: [microsound] microsound future correction"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit