My delurked $.02.

I'm torn on the MP3 thing.


1)MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MP3S
I don't know what the solution will be. MP3s are here and I think they're
brilliant. I use them constantly, not in place of buying records, but as I
do with radio except it's on my schedule instead of the radio's schedule.
And depending on radio reception, they're often better sounding. 

 I've ran out and bought records lately based on a mention on this very
list, then a search for a sample. I ran right out and bought the Sound Track
of our Lives, ...And You Will Know Us By the Trail of the Dead, and other
records this way. I do this, and I'm not even stuck in some place with no
decent radio or record stores. 

I am fortunate living in LA and doing the work I do; I hear of new stuff
constantly. We have some good radio here. There's KCRW which is great if
predictable at times, and if that's not working for me, there's KXLU, a
college station where I've discovered many of the bands I love (Creeper
Lagoon, Belle and Sebastion, Fountains of Wayne). Just this morning I wrote
down three artists I heard on KCRW that I definitely want to check out:
Turin Brakes (who's name I've known for a long time, but hearing their song
"Pain Killer" this morning has made me actually pay attention), Rosie
Thomas, and Mellodrone. I will be searching for more samples (MP3S) from
them, and if I confirm my interest that was piqued while hearing their songs
this morning, I'll walk down to Amoeba and buy them. If they have a used
copy, I'll probably buy that. If not, then, I'll go to the new section
(unless it's a band I think is brilliant and I'm routing for, and I want to
be sure they get credit for my purchase (anything by the Replacements,
Posies, Black Rebel Motorcyle Club, Creeper Lagoon, Supergrass, The Doves
etc). I will of course be wracked with guilt about buying the used copies,
but I'll rationalize it with my desire to also purchase some books, maybe
see a movie sometime in the next month and pay my student loan payments.

So MP3s, are for me, a major way I check out new music to make purchase
decisions. But I wholly understand the major label position.

2) WHY THE MAJOR LABELS (RIAA) PROSECUTE FILE SWAPPERS
Usually the record companies make a killing off new technology (they can
repackage everything and sell it again). But this MP3 thing is the one new
format that the record companies weren't out in front of and still have not
figured out how to control. And control it they have to if they're going to
survive. Whether they should survive can be a matter of another debate, but
let's not lose sight of the fact that the major labels are big American
businesses with all the baggage and demands that go with that.

What the record company deals in, is that copyright, that recording. That's
all they have. Everything they do is an attempt to make money by selling
copies of that recording. With Napster and Kazaa etc., they lost control of
their copyrights. This might not be too big a problem in reality right now.
But the problem is scale. People have always traded recordings, but now it's
so easy and done on a much more massive scale. The record companies feel
they could lose control of their whole business as kids grow up thinking
that music is something free you get off the internet. And while many of us
follow ethics about this, I don't have much faith that the majority of
people really have much ethics. Our society rewards a lack of ethics in
general, and only gives lips service to displays of integrity. So I think
the record companies have a legitimate concern, even as I route for
independent artists and labels.

2)OWSLEY AND THE REALITY OF A MAJOR LABEL AS A BUSINESS 
Major label profit margins, from a pure business standpoint are
frighteningly slim. Where most businesses enjoy a 10% return on investment
overall in order to meet their pressures on our lovely quarter-driven stock
market economy, record companies are having a GREAT year if they see a 2 or
3% return. Many years they lose money. So they react pretty severely to
threats on their business like file sharing.

The Eminems and Britney's bankroll everything else on a label. This is a
business where passions rule. Owsley might not ever be in the running with
the Backstreet Boys, but someone at Giant believed in him enough to take the
risk that they could make money. I don't think anyone there conceived of
Owsley selling millions of records but every A&R gal has her pet project
that she gets on the label just because it's good and she'll work to balance
things out so it's profitable. Business climates change though and those
risks often don't pan out. Owsley seems to be a casualty of this. His
decisions are his and his alone, and he'll balance his need to feed his
family with his passions and with what will realistically allow him to
survive. He could just get out on the road like our hero Adam Marsland (who
really is my hero -- I admire the hell out of Adam), but there are
trade-offs, like not making quite enough money possibly and not seeing his
family as much. Maybe he can do that and do something else for money. I
don't know. It's difficult but possible and wholly up to each individual and
their situation. If he's producing with his wife, it seems he still gets to
use his talents, and do something he enjoys. The WB deal isn't totally dead
yet. How to treat it is his decision and no one can judge him for that.


3) ARTISTS, THEIR COPYRIGHTS AND DELUSIONS
When an artist signs a record contract she is often deluded by the
contemporary American myths that SIGNING A RECORD CONTRACT = FUTURE FAME and
that FAME = RICHES. And riches, the end-point, I'm very sorry to say, is our
highest aspiration as a member of American Culture. A confident artist
believes they have the potential to be huge stars, and therefore will be
rich. I can't tell you how many people think that musical success = money.
Or that selling 2000 cds and spending two months on the road will bring you
in enough money to live on (it can, but usually doesn't). The potential for
disappointment is staggering. It's downright delusional, the expectations
people have. And it's based on the very very few who do so well and get on
MTV's cribs and have so much of the dreaded bling bling, showing it off
(often fabricating it) and perpetuating the myths that are so seductive to
someone just starting out in their life and freedoms. 

At the point of signing to a major label everyone is telling the artist how
amazing she is, how huge she's going to be. People fawn over talented people
that look on they're way to success. (It's a different story with us
non-deluded passion players who can't get a dozen people to a local show).
Most rock/pop/hip hop artists being taken seriously by the majors are not
old enough to have come to see the myth of fame and fortune as false
(because the reality is it is HARD ASS WORK, to really make any impact on
people, the record has to be great, you have to play constantly and that
does not mean just in your home town, artists, even with a major's help have
to hustle and make their opportunities happen. I'll bet there are few people
who work as hard as Britney Spears). So an artist signs. In exchange for an
advance and recording costs being picked up, marketing money being spent,
and basically having a team of professionals develop a cohesive marketing
plan for the artist, she has signed away control of the copyright on the
recording.

If a truly independent artist chooses to put their MP3s up on their site or
MP3.com or some other place, it's no problem. But, if they've signed a
contract that assigns the copyright (ownership) of the recording to a record
company, they probably need the record company's permission. Sometimes this
is also no problem, and the record company treats an MP3 as just another
promotional tool. But they control that as part of their overall function.
They'll decide, perhaps with the artist and their managers about what to put
out as MP3s, whole album? a couple songs? In partnership with retailers? For
a limited time? The whole idea is to sell the records. Having a Napster
which allows anyone with a copy of the record to make it widely available
for free takes the control away from the record companies (who do rightfully
own the copyrights -- and it was the artists who gave it to them). That is
understandably very threatening to their business. Without their control
over the intellectual property they own, the record companies have nothing.
It's the end all/be all of their business and they seek to keep things under
very tight control. 


5) MP3S AS RADIO 
As I said. I use MP3s as radio, and I think it's brilliant. But for the most
part, MP3s have a major difference with much of radio: The record companies
know how to work radio, they practically control it. If you want a
mainstream radio hit, you just have to 1) spend the money to produce it at
the sonic quality and style that radio programmers are used to - and this
changes with the times, (this is also not done in a bedroom studio, not yet
anyway, though technology is getting there -- maybe you can't hear the sonic
difference, but a good radio programmer can); and 2) spend the money to hire
more effective independent promotion men than the companies also trying to
get songs added to radio playlists in a particular week. There is a big push
by the labels to get everything in synch for a single's release date to
radio. They spend a lot of time and money coordinating it. It's all about
initial impact and perception. The trade ads (that radio stations see) tout
which stations are all ready playing it. The independent promoters are hired
to do whatever they can to get it played and added to the rotation as
spinned as often as possible. It costs money, LOTS of money and often isn't
successful. But it is a prerequisite for getting anything played. Even
college radio seems deluged with releases and they put together charts on
what they're playing. There are independent promoters who just work college
radio. The point is, the record companies still control the recording even
if it's on radio. With MP3s, they potentially have no control, as they don't
with Napster and Kazaa and the rest. That's why they don't look at it as we
do. We use it as radio. But they don't have the control with MP3 that that
do with radio.

4) BOOK PUBLISHING AND LIBRARIES vs. RECORD COMPANIES   or HAVING A FRICKIN'
SOUL
Libraries the world over allow the public to read books without paying for
them. Yet book publishers don't scream about this. In fact, they sell them
the books, usually at a deep discount. And if people read those books, they
probably AREN'T then going to go out and buy it. 

WHAT GIVES? Why can't record companies give back a bit to the public?

Ignoring the fact that for some publishers (of Poetry, of Obscure Journals,
etc.) library sales are their biggest market, I think that the library
system was set up in a time when the world was very different than the one
we live in now, when there were values and ambitions other than making
money. Money really has become our society's main yardstick of success.
Even ten years ago, an artist would have been derided as a sellout if they
licensed their music to an advertising agency for a car ad, losing many fans
in the process. Now, it's seen as a career move. Libraries were set up at a
time when copyright laws still had some semblance of being for both the
author's good, and balanced with the public interest, i.e. the terms of
copyright ownership were much shorter with the idea that works going into
the public domain will inspire other work, both derivative and original.
Libraries are a staple of common good and society at it's most cooperative
the world over. But we're now in the age of massive greed. If libraries
didn't already exist. I doubt they'd become what they are. There would be
some, but it'd be tied up in political debates (should the government fund
this? Is it theft? etc.). They'd be thought of as an expendable subsidized
program and Fox News would do exposé's on how they're ruining America.

Record companies have never been an advocate for the good of the people
(with some exceptions like the Smithsonian's Institution's output of
historical recordings). They are an American business in contemporary times
and that means something: greedy and driven by our society's demands that
they be so. There are quarterly reports to file and stock prices that rise
and fall with those reports.

5) WHACKED PROJECTION OF THE DAY
I fear one day that as the book industries and record industries learn each
others money making tricks (both work with slim margins and intellectual
property), libraries could be a thing of the past as the publicly held
publishing companies give in to stock investor's demand for greater profits,
and take a cue from the Major Labels' battle with MP3s and cutting out this
library thing gets mistakenly viewed as a bold and visionary business move.
Even University libraries will not be immune. Our universities are beginning
to take on the feel of business as they cut tenured faculty in favor of part
time lecturers to save money, etc.

6) MUSIC PEOPLE
I know that most of the people that work for record companies get into it
because they love music. I don't think their intentions are bad. But
business realities driven by our society put conflicting pressures on the
ones that rise above the minimum wage internships to have any real say in
business practices. The whole model will change though if Record Companies
lose this battle and/or independent Artists find financial success on their
own. When Ani DiFRanco or Adam Marsland start showing off the Bling Bling,
it will be a whole different world. One in which I don't have to puke every
time I see that Mastercard commercial where some deluded kid can win a
record company enslavement, I mean, internship that promises him or her
getting rich someday as an executive. Much more realistic than doing it as
an artist, but sickening just the same.

Now back to workin' for the man.

Carl
np - OK GO!