Napster is a program that allows the trading of digital music
files over the internet. Some of this music is traded with
the permission of the artists and their labels (for promotional
purposes...), but in truth, far more of it is done without
any express or implied permission. As a recording artist,
a number of people have asked my opinion...so I looked into
the issue just enough to be able to express my opinion clearly.
My first actual experience
came earlier today (8-2-00), when I downloaded the Mac version
of Napster (called Macster). I logged in and went in
search of some music. I was stunned at just how much music
there really was on there. Old, new...everything. Almost every
artist I looked for was on there. I found copies of songs
I had been trying, unsuccessfully, to buy for years. I tried
to download many songs...and found that quite a few were not
available for whatever reason...but a few were. The quality
of the cuts was not that good. In my experience, MP3s really
need to be encoded at 192kbps to sound truly near-CD-quality.
128 is fine for listening at low levels thru computer speakers...but
it certainly is not good enough for full audio levels in most
cases. I would say that I was probably successful...after
quite a few tries...in downloading roughly 50% of the songs
I sought.
A lot of people are very upset
about this issue. Bands like Metallica and 'N Sync have
come out strongly against it, rapper Chuck
D. (no relation! ;-) is pro-Napster and Courtney
Love has come down somewhere in between.
OBSERVATIONS
OF THE PROBLEM
Well,
the bottom line for me is this: Unless permission is given
by the owners of the music (artists, labels and publishers),
the downloading of music via Napster, Gnutella or direct user-to-user
trading is STEALING. It's wrong. I am opposed to it strictly
on those grounds. I don't believe I need to say any more about
that.
Now...to
be fair...there ARE other problems with the recording industry
that need to be stated. The labels (who everyone loves to
hate...) basically exercise total control of the music industry
as we know it. On the downside, it means that they largely
control what music you hear. In order to protect their investment,
they have a hammerlock on radio so that an independent artist
has no chance...and they largely control the press as well.
Am I a conspiracy theorist? Not at all...here's how it works:
(Fictional Label Rep speaking) "Oh, you want an interview
with Britney Spears for your radio station/newspaper column/TV show? Sure, we
can arrange that...but I need to listen to this great new
band and give it some coverage and some spins....yeah, here's
their video, too. So...if we see eye-to-eye here, I can have
Britney call you next Thursday morning...and you'll be the
only one in your market to have access to her for such and
such a period. OK?" It's very simple...you leverage your
strength to promote your new investment. It even makes sense...as
long as you view art as a commercial commodity (which, in
this society, it certainly has become...). Does it matter
if that great new band is any good or if they are just another
bunch of pretty faces spewing mindless fluff? No, not really...just
take a look at the current state of popular music and you'll
see that the industry has hardly brought us to some high degree
of quality.
DO THESE PROBLEMS JUSTIFY
STEALING FROM THE INDUSTRY?
While I agree that the influence of the industry is not a
real positive thing, I can't go so far as to agree that this
justifies stealing. Would you therefore say that it's OK for
a homeless family to break into your house and steal you blind
simply because they have nothing of their own? I doubt it.
When homeless people steal, they go to jail just like anyone
else. And the fact that the artists, in general,
don't
ever see much of the $40 billion generated by the recording
industry doesn't justify it, either. They made the choice
to sign whatever contract they signed. That's their reality
for the duration of the contract. No one MAKES them stay under
contract.
I have no problem
with those who want to divorce themselves from the recording
industry because they are disgusted with it. Don't wanna buy
albums from the 4 "big boys"? Fine. Want
to survive on free
downloadable LEGAL music (such as that found on music sites
such as MP3.com)? More power to you. Here's the bad news,
though: Much of that stuff is complete garbage. Not just mediocre...but
really bad. You will most probably significantly lower the
quality of your listening if you choose to go that route.
There are some fine artists there in all genres...but, trust
me, you'll find there are REASONS why labels pick the people
they do...and that there are a TON of reasons why many musicians
couldn't record for a label no matter what they did. The fact
is that the labels do save us a lot of time and frustration
by providing a semi-healthy filter to sort out the better
stuff from the worse stuff. Of course, they make a lot of
poor judgements (which happens many times because of egos,
drugs, sex, money, power, etc...) ...but they still are WAY
better than no filter at all.
SOME SUGGESTIONS
Here's
a better idea. Take a stand for something positive, instead
of just tearing down the bad stuff. Sadly, the labels (in
a HUGE demonstration of their ignorance and arrogance) have
missed the opportunity to take the lead in downloading digital
music files. They are scrambling now to catch up. But I would
recommend the following:
WHAT
THE LABELS NEED TO DO:
Set it up so that we can buy single cuts from the artists
we desire for 99 cents apiece in downloadable form. Why
should I have to pay for an entire album when I don't really
want it? If I am totally enamored with an artist (and there
aren't many of them...), I will CERTAINLY buy their whole
album. But, in WAY too many cases, an artist only has one
good song per album (were you guys paying attention with
Britney's first album or what??)...heck, charge TWO BUCKS
for that hit song, if you want....but give me the power
of choice. And once I have purchased the cut for 99 cents
or whatever, I can burn my own custom CD, listen to it on
a casssette or my computer or whatever I want to do.
Provide
a lower-quality streaming audio version of all the cuts
on every album they sell so that we can shop intelligently.
WHAT
THE BUYING PUBLIC NEEDS TO DO:
Take a personal stand for what's right. Stop stealing. If
you want to support an artist, do so by buying their product.
Then make your own MP3s for your own personal use.
Let
the labels know that you want the power of choice...to buy
single cuts at a reasonable price.
Strengthen
the hand of the indies...find an independent artist you
appreciate that you can support by buying their products
and attending their concerts.
WHAT
THE ARTISTS NEED TO DO:
Take more of an active role in promoting your music directly
to the public. Use the web and any other available technology
to bond with your fans. Cut some of your dependence on the
labels. Support other artists you appreciate. Understand
that people may only like a few of your songs. Find or write
better ones...win them over with quality, rather than just
image.
FINAL THOUGHTS
For me, this is not brain surgery. It's a somewhat sad situation,
yes...but hardly on the scale of world hunger. We all could
do with a dose of reality here. Stealing is wrong. Art has
value. Free markets are generally a good thing, but sometimes
power makes people a little crazy. Let's stop being deceived
by image and marketing and look for people who create beauty
and speak truth...whether the truth is pretty or not.
Thanks for listening,
-cb |