smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | MogleyB@aol.com |
| Subject | Todd Vs. the RIAA |
| Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:05:41 EST |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (5.8 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Did anyone see this? a view form the inside Mb
> Commentary: 'Ignorant Thugs' Have Mishandled Downloadable Music Wed
October
> 22, 2003 06:29 PM ET By Todd Rundgren NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) -
Music
> is a sacrament. This has been true for thousands of years of human
history,
> save the last 100 or so.
>
> I'm sure it was not Edison's purpose to debase such an important aspect of
> our collective liturgy, but what would one expect when something that was
> once ephemeral and could only be experienced at the behest of other humans
> is reduced to a commodity on a shelf.
>
> The mechanisms of music, how and why it affects us the way it does, are
> still mystical even to a cynical older record producer like myself. Anyone
> who denies the depth and power of this medium has simply forgotten, in the
> face of the relentless Philistine argument, that all things can be
> commoditized regardless of their sacred origins -- that all music is worth
> exactly what the RIAA (Recording Industry Assn. of America) says it is.
>
> Most musicians who have enjoyed any success under this model are in an
> ethical bind: On one hand, you may believe that your survival depends on
> effective marketing of a commodity; on the other, you realize that your
> truest expressions are being trivialized to fit properly into a prealloted
> space. How many times have I heard the argument, "Love the record, but we
> don't hear a third single -- back to the studio?"
>
> I must remind my fellow players that for the vast majority of history we
> have only been appreciated for the quality of human expression we could
> produce at the moment. Great performances were only memories in the minds
of
> those who witnessed, each unique except perhaps for the calliope at the
> local merry-go-round which was, of course, a machine.
>
> The plain reality is that, except for a few notable aberrations, musicians
> will always be more appreciated, certainly in a financial sense, by live
> audiences than by labels and the listeners they purport to represent. The
> seemingly quaint idea that recordings were promotion for great performers
is
> no less true today. Ask Phish.
>
> Ask also whether, as a musician, you ever believed the RIAA was actively
> protecting your interests until they got into a fight with their own
> customers and started using your name, your so-called well-being, as
> justification. And when the customers became skeptical they became the
> enemy. And to follow the RIAA's logic, customers are therefore the enemies
> of musicians. Let us ignore the fact that if you ever got compensated for
> your contribution, it would have been because your manager and lawyer (and
> many before) forced the labels to recognize your labor in financial terms.
>
> The reason why the RIAA comes off as a gang of ignorant thugs is because,
> well, how do I put this -- they are. I came into this business in an age
of
> entrepreneurial integrity. The legends of the golden age of recorded music
> were still at the helm of most labels -- the Erteguns, the Ostins, the
> Alperts and Mosses by the dozens. Now we have four monolithic (in every
> sense of the word) entities and a front organization that crows about the
> fact that they have solved their problems by leaning on a 12-year-old.
Thank
> God that mystical fascination with the world of music has been stubbed
> out -- hopefully everyone will get the message and get over the idea that
> the musician actually meant for you to hear this.
>
> The RIAA protects musicians like the musicians union protects musicians:
> They reward hacks and penalize those outside the system. The labels are
not
> making this stink out of principle. They are not interested in the rights
of
> musicians who don't sell any records for them. That myth was exploded when
> Warners dropped Van Morrison for "lackluster sales."
>
> This stink is about a bunch of dumb-asses blaming the public for doing
what
> the labels could have -- and should have -- done 10 years ago. I know
> because I told them so, each and every one individually and relentlessly:
> Put the music on a server so you can deliver on-demand services to
people's
> homes. Seems so stupidly simple now.
>
> After nearly 40 years in this business I know who my friends are. I know
it
> isn't the labels who lost interest in my "fringe audience" decades ago. It
> is that fringe audience who still await any recording or performance I may
> come up with despite the RIAA trying to drive some symbolic wedge between
me
> and my listeners just because their ass is in a sling. Don't do me any
> favors.
>
> Audiences and musicians are on the same side. Musicians come from the
> audience (unlike record execs who come from the ranks of failed
musicians).
> We experience together the mystical sacrament that a musical performance
can
> represent. Additionally, we will be comfortably if not handsomely
> compensated by that audience if we can deliver a suitably affecting
> performance with some regularity.
>
> It's time to let the monolith of commoditized music collapse like the
Berlin
> Wall. Musicians can make records if they feel like it, or not. Wide open
> pipes are ready to transport us, mainstream and fringe alike, into the
ears
> of an eager audience who appreciates us and is more than willing to
> financially support us. Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand
because
> ... you know the rest by heart.
>
> (Musician Todd Rundgren is known for such 1970s pop hits as "Can We Still
Be
> Friends?" and "Hello It's Me," but his wizardry as a producer, music video
> pioneer and explorer of computer technologies is legendary in the
industry.
> Since 1998, his recordings have been underwritten by PatroNet, a
> subscription service that gives his fan base online access to works in
>
> progress.)
>
> Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.