What may seem like a throwaway, the twiddly gathering of odd-ish creaks and whistles we hear in this song's opening 25 seconds or so, is in retrospect an intriguing hint of the powerful agglomeration of sound that Perkins and his idiosyncratically-named band pump out as this one ramps up. Among the instruments the group plays are upright bass, saxophone, pump organ, harmonica, harmonium, trombone, banjo, and clarinet. (This is not your father's rock band.) I advise turning up the volume so as best to hear the deep and mighty sonic breaths that propel this cryptic dirge forward. Perkins sings with an offhanded, cumulatively heart-rending ache; a startling phrase or two comes to the surface ("Black is the color of a strangled rainbow," for one); but the song's meaning lies more in the convincing churn of the the musical and lyrical momentum than in precise denotation. (In other words: I don't know what he's actually saying.)
Perkins was featured on Fingertips around the time of his 2007 solo debut CD; check out that review for the executive summary of his sad backstory. He's been playing, with long-time friends, as Elvis Perkins in Dearland at least since then. The band's self-titled debut CD is due out on XL Recordings in March. MP3 via the Beggars Group web site.
Free musics New Commentary online
At long last, the Fingertips Commentary has reemerged. The topic is nothing less than the free and legal MP3 itself, something so obvious to write about that I haven't, previously, written about it. I will post the whole essay here on the blog in two parts, beginning Wednesday. For the eager, curious, or bored, you can see the on the main Fingertips site.
Free musics from Jessie Kilguss (singer/songwriter combines spacious sound with clarity of expression)
What I like right away here is the clarity in Kilguss's voice. The overall mood--upbeat, spacious, minor-key, with a piano pulse--has a familiar, Sarah McLachlan-like sheen to it (and nothing, it should be noted, remotely Americana, the genre, about it). But Kilguss does not milk the drama with any extra vocal ache or wooshiness. This makes an immediate difference, to me. Music of this general sort does not usually come with a restrained singer. (Maybe her previous career as an actress keeps her from having to get all melodramatic vocally.) Kilguss has a pretty tone--prettiness is the first thing to go when histrionics set in--and she doesn't even lose it in her upper register, which is where many pop sopranos get all airy and blowy. At the same time, she doesn't have one of those "hey listen to my pretty voice" kind of voices either. Restraint, again, is the key.
The other principal thing I like about "Americana" is the left turn the song takes at the chorus. First we get a brief hit of string-like synthesizers, as the piano either disappears or is overwhelmed, and the word "Americana" sung anthemically, but then, hey--check out that unexpected chord shift (1:08) as she sings the word a second time over accompaniment that lags engagingly behind the beat. One more unforeseen chord awaits us at 1:20, and by now it's apparent that this elusive-sounding chorus is driven by neither melody nor lyrics but by a surging, almost orchestral musical flow. The lyrics alone on paper do not begin to suggest the music, which is not a disconnect but a testament to the songwriter's musical imagination.
You'll find "Americana" on Nocturnal Drifter, Kilguss's second album, which she self-released earlier this month.
The other principal thing I like about "Americana" is the left turn the song takes at the chorus. First we get a brief hit of string-like synthesizers, as the piano either disappears or is overwhelmed, and the word "Americana" sung anthemically, but then, hey--check out that unexpected chord shift (1:08) as she sings the word a second time over accompaniment that lags engagingly behind the beat. One more unforeseen chord awaits us at 1:20, and by now it's apparent that this elusive-sounding chorus is driven by neither melody nor lyrics but by a surging, almost orchestral musical flow. The lyrics alone on paper do not begin to suggest the music, which is not a disconnect but a testament to the songwriter's musical imagination.
You'll find "Americana" on Nocturnal Drifter, Kilguss's second album, which she self-released earlier this month.
Free musics from Little Joy (delightful, islandy world pop with a wondrous melody)
A delight from beginning to end, "No One's Better Sake" rolls along with a shuffling, organ-infused island beat and a casual sensibility that belies how beautifully this little song is put together. What we have here is that rare pop composition that is constructed around a full 16-measure melody--listen and you'll see how the entire verse is an unfolding melody (from 0:18 all the way to 0:54), even as the song's gentle, world-pop sway implies a simpler melodic framework. The chorus does its magic in eight measures, as the organ comes back to the fore and the song's lone, exquisitely placed minor chord just melts the heart there at around 1:04. (At least, it feels like the only minor chord; I could be wrong about that.)
Singer/guitarist Rodrigo Amarante has an endearing, laid-back vocal style that gives the lyrics the quality of a developing conversation; he often sings as if he's just then deciding what to say. At the same time, Amarante's
processed vocals call to mind the Strokes distinctive vocal sound, which may be no accident: the trio Little Joy is a side project for the Strokes' drummer, Fabrizio Moretti (the third member is singer and multi-instrumentalist Binki Shapiro). Amarante, it should be noted, is far more well-known in his home country, Brazil, than Moretti is in the U.S.; he gained fame as a member and eventual leader of the Brazilian band Los Hermanos, which is currently on hiatus.
"No One's Better Sake" is a song from Little Joy's self-titled debut album, which was released in November on Rough Trade Records, to not a whole lot of fanfare. The band took its name from their favorite bar in Echo Park, the section of LA where they lived while recording the album. MP3 once again via the web site, which has had a great run of offerings lately.
Singer/guitarist Rodrigo Amarante has an endearing, laid-back vocal style that gives the lyrics the quality of a developing conversation; he often sings as if he's just then deciding what to say. At the same time, Amarante's
processed vocals call to mind the Strokes distinctive vocal sound, which may be no accident: the trio Little Joy is a side project for the Strokes' drummer, Fabrizio Moretti (the third member is singer and multi-instrumentalist Binki Shapiro). Amarante, it should be noted, is far more well-known in his home country, Brazil, than Moretti is in the U.S.; he gained fame as a member and eventual leader of the Brazilian band Los Hermanos, which is currently on hiatus.
"No One's Better Sake" is a song from Little Joy's self-titled debut album, which was released in November on Rough Trade Records, to not a whole lot of fanfare. The band took its name from their favorite bar in Echo Park, the section of LA where they lived while recording the album. MP3 once again via the web site, which has had a great run of offerings lately.
A Free and Legal MP3 Manifesto
So: let every album have one free and legal MP3. Other songs must be purchased; the album, if desired, must be purchased as well. If this were the industry standard, if every album had one free and legal MP3, the industry would be in better shape, and the path for future growth clearer.
Here are five reasons why:
1) Free and legal MP3s do not equal lost revenue.
Let's begin by shredding once and for all the fantasy that every free and legal MP3 downloaded equals money the record companies aren't receiving. That's a patently false, self-serving assumption.
To begin with, when you offer a free and legal MP3, you invite many many experimenters, people who grab it because it's free but would never have bought it if it weren't free--who often would have no idea it even existed if it weren't free. There's no lost revenue in that at all. This would be like saying it was lost revenue every time someone heard a song on the radio but didn't go out and buy it.
Okay, and then what? Well, they listen and decide if they like it. If they don't, then these people would not have bought the song anyway. Again: this is not lost revenue.
If the downloader likes the song, then we get to the all-important fork in the road: he or she can then buy another song from the album (or maybe even the whole thing), or still not buy anything further. In the first case, you've created revenue, so, okay, phew. But then there's that troubling second case to deal with, and this is probably one that has the labels fretting: "You mean they downloaded the song for free, they liked it, and they still aren't giving us any money?"
Well, yeah, maybe. But it is shortsighted to see this as simply lost revenue. What you generate here instead are two important things: customer goodwill (hey! they keep giving me a free song! and they're sometimes really good!) and technologically effective promotion. Look: this "free song" will pop up in the listener's iPod, will make it onto playlists, will generate awareness of the artist in question. Over time, there's still significant sales potential, especially in this day of fostering community between artists and listeners. Record companies must begin to understand the promotional value of this exposure, which leads us to point number two:
2) Free and legal MP3s are the single most valuable way to promote artists to music fans in a post-radio age.
Let's return to the plight of our magnanimous Nonesuch friend (see yesterday's post). So, yay, he protected every single song on a worthwhile but off-the-beaten-path album. I have to wonder: are copies of the Sam Phillips album therefore flying off the shelf? Do people think, "Well, crap, since I can't have any free songs I better buy the whole album?" Not in 2009 they don't think this.
The easiest and most effective way to promote an album, especially an album that is not in any case destined for million-seller (or even 100,000-seller) status, is by making a free and legal MP3 readily available. Give people a song to have, to listen to in the context of their preferred music-listening environment. Let it spread around the internet, friend to friend, blog to blog.
I find it ironic that record labels that are squeamish about letting loose free and legal MP3s had no problem for decades handing out free physical copies of their records to radio stations. Oh, well, one might say, that's an entirely different thing. There were huge audiences at stake. Giving a free record to a big-city radio station could result in millions of dollars of sales.
True enough, at the very top end of the music market, commercially speaking. But these same record labels also had no trouble shipping copies of many albums destined for obscurity (where's the return on that?), and no trouble shipping albums to some pretty tiny radio stations, including all those college stations with audiences that number in the dozens at any given time.
Truth be told, radio has pretty much disintegrated for the majority of recording artists. Hardly anyone gets on the radio. (Sam Phillips certainly doesn't get on the radio, outside of a coterie of "adult alternative" stations.) And it doesn't matter because nowadays, people's computers and people's iPods are, effectively, their radios. That's where they listen to music, both old and new. And the only way record companies can get on these "stations" is--how?
You got it: by giving people a free and legal MP3 to download and play--to, essentially, "program" on their own personal station. Because, yes, in order to listen on computers or MP3 players most easily and comfortably you have to give people the song, not expect them to sit there trapped in their browser listening to a stream, or trapped on a particular web site where music is free if you watch the ads, and not sitting in front of a screen watching a video. (Am I the only one left who realizes that a video is not a song? Just curious.)
And guess what? Delivering a free and legal MP3 to all of them costs a lot less than printing CDs and shipping them out for free to hundreds of radio stations around the country. Never mind lost revenue, what about all the expense involved with that entrenched promotional technique for all those years? To the extent that it "paid off" when a handful of records hit the big-time, fine--that was then. For the music industry to move forward in the 21st century, it has to relinquish that pray-for-a-blockbuster mentality, and the marketing techniques that went along with it.
Give people one song, make it easy to download and use anywhere they want. That's how you get your records played on these individual "radio stations." They usually have just one listener each, but there are millions of them across the country.
3) One free and legal MP3 per album makes for easier and less confrontational policing.
For starters, if there is automatically going to be one free and legal MP3 from every album, right away you'll have fewer bloggers posting illegally distributed tracks. I'm guessing many will be happy to stick with the legal one, particularly if approached reasonably; right now, for far too many albums, and for pretty much every major-label album, they don't even have this choice.
Second, when labels set about policing things online, they can use an approach which is kinder and gentler and thus much more likely to move future music-sharing behavior in a more legally-oriented direction. "The track you have been sharing is not legally available for free online distribution," the email can state. "However, were you aware that the song 'Free and Legal,' from the same album, is in fact available for free online distribution? Here's the link."
Or whatever. The point is, with one sanctioned free and legal song from every album, the record industry will finally be closer to being on the same page as 21st-century music fans. Record labels will effectively be entering their world rather than creating phony and pointless and old-fashioned barricades.
This strikes me as a more important issue than anyone seems to bother to realize. Thanks in large part to its well-known campaign to sue people who were illegally downloading their songs, the major record companies spent the better part of the current decade in open conflict with their own customers and potential customers. As a believer from the outset in free and legal MP3s, I obviously have no sympathy for those who have chosen to download a lot of music illegally, but I also have no patience for record companies who choose only to see that behavior as reprehensible rather than try to understand the context and work to find a middle ground.
After all, the record companies, from the outset, could have combatted illegal downloading with this idea: "Hey! Do legal free downloading instead!" But they chose instead to see this as a war and to see their customers and potential customers as enemies. Not real smart in the long run.
I would also, by the way, have no sympathy with bloggers who, in a world in which there is a free and legal MP3 available from each album, would continue to post songs that are not freely and legally distributed. Bloggers are perfectly entitled to tell the world what songs they like; they are not entitled to decide on their own what songs to make available for public consumption. This is a freedom that many presumed to take from the outset, but this freedom continues to have no basis in fairness or legality.
4) If you have to give away one good song this means you must, in theory, put out albums with more than one good song on them.
Needless to say, this would be another excellent outreach strategy for a bedraggled industry.
Although I can offer no direct evidence of this theory, I am pretty sure that there exists in the music industry an additional resistance to free and legal MP3s that has to do with the suspicion that if a music listener gets one good song for free, they won't buy the rest of the album. (After all, why else would Mr. Nonesuch be so resistant to releasing one Sam Phillips song?) To the extent that this is true, I'd say that music listeners have been well-trained over the years by their experience with albums that have only one good song on them in the first place.
As long as giving away one good free and legal MP3 from an album is the equivalent of giving away the store, as it were--because it is in fact the only good song--then, yes, this is a legitimate concern. There is one pretty straightforward solution to this, however: make sure the albums you're releasing are actually good. The days of fooling people into buying a whole album based on hearing one good song really have to be over if the Free and Legal MP3 Manifesto is to be effective. Surely we don't need so many albums anyway, as fewer people appear to be interested in buying them in the first place.
Note that this does not mean there will be no more albums. Can we finally agree to put an end to this black-and-white, all-or-nothing, sound-bite-oriented world view? If albums are going through a less-popular phase this hardly warrants the idea that no one wants to record them or listen to them henceforth and forevermore.
5) The music industry herein has a newborn opportunity to affirm the value of what it is selling.
Okay, so stick with me here, because I know that lots of people still think that handing out free digital music undermines the idea that music has value. To begin with, songs have become mere files, and files are eminently and endlessly copyable and distributable; add to that free distribution and where's the value? Where's the possibility that people will pay for it?
And the record companies themselves have gotten so spun around and bamboozled by the fledgling century's digital realities that here they are, after years of complaining that giving away free music compromises the idea that music has value, lining up to experiment with the idea of giving unlimited access to music on streaming sites via a minor or bundled fee--something, ideally, that the end user won't even notice or realize he or she is paying.
Talk about devaluing music! Treating music as a utility, like electricity or water, inherently devalues the artistry and effort of any individual artist, the subjective worth of any given song. But the industry seriously considers this idea now because, well, it's desperate, like an addict whose supply has pretty much run out. It'll try anything to get its mojo back.
Returning to the spirit of the Inaugural Address, I'd like to suggest that the industry seek not the pipedream fix but seek instead the true opportunity in this long-standing crisis brought on by digital distribution. What that opportunity may be is nothing less than the full embrace of what it has to offer us.
I mean, think of it: here are companies selling one of humankind's most profound creations: song! Often grouped into album! And for decades upon decades now, these same companies have largely sought to treat their products as just that--mere products. (Or, in true industry parlance, the singular: "product.") But these aren't screwdrivers and frozen pizzas that are being sold. This is music. The word itself has magic in it. When something is music to your ears, it's wonderful, delightful, perfect. When you have to face the music, you're dealing with something significant, serious, not to be ignored.
I know that many many musicians have been waiting, without hope or encouragement, for record companies to understand the inherently special nature of their offerings, waiting for the suits and the bean counters to take into account the personal, aesthetic, subjective, and artistic aspects of their so-called products, not just in terms of projecting sales but in terms of how they do business from the ground up.
And now: here's their chance. Not by forcing value upon us (e.g. suing from an aggrieved position) but by proactively asserting that their products do indeed have value. Invaluable value.
And they can do this, paradoxically, by first offering us a gift. Never mind the promotional merit (which, as discussed, is real and significant)--how about simply seeing the mandatory free and legal MP3 each album must offer, according to the Free and Legal MP3 Manifesto, as just that?: a gift. The record companies and artists will give this gift to music fans, now, because the technology has long since arrived to make it possible, because it's a valiant way to break into our fragmented, overconnected lives, because they so value what they produce that they want, first, to share it with us.
Because: when they hand out a yummy free sample of something earthy and organic at Whole Foods, do you think, "Well, gee, this must be worthless if they're willing to give it away?" Or, "Hey, this must be pretty good or they wouldn't be giving out tastes?"
The music industry has completely blown it so far, but here at the outset of what clearly is a brand new day I'm thinking maybe it's not too late. And we, the music fans, can assume our responsibility in the matter as well. We can receive this gift with newfound appreciation. And with our appreciation we can likewise offer our hard-earned dollars when we hear something that moves us, that lifts our spirits, that assures us that it was created out of hope and inspiration and artistry.
And yeah I know not every piece of music is created in this manner. And I know this whole issue is complicated by convoluted circumstances and thorny issues. But I have a dream. And now I have a Manifesto. Change, as we have seen, may begin with just such things.
Here are five reasons why:
1) Free and legal MP3s do not equal lost revenue.
Let's begin by shredding once and for all the fantasy that every free and legal MP3 downloaded equals money the record companies aren't receiving. That's a patently false, self-serving assumption.
To begin with, when you offer a free and legal MP3, you invite many many experimenters, people who grab it because it's free but would never have bought it if it weren't free--who often would have no idea it even existed if it weren't free. There's no lost revenue in that at all. This would be like saying it was lost revenue every time someone heard a song on the radio but didn't go out and buy it.
Okay, and then what? Well, they listen and decide if they like it. If they don't, then these people would not have bought the song anyway. Again: this is not lost revenue.
If the downloader likes the song, then we get to the all-important fork in the road: he or she can then buy another song from the album (or maybe even the whole thing), or still not buy anything further. In the first case, you've created revenue, so, okay, phew. But then there's that troubling second case to deal with, and this is probably one that has the labels fretting: "You mean they downloaded the song for free, they liked it, and they still aren't giving us any money?"
Well, yeah, maybe. But it is shortsighted to see this as simply lost revenue. What you generate here instead are two important things: customer goodwill (hey! they keep giving me a free song! and they're sometimes really good!) and technologically effective promotion. Look: this "free song" will pop up in the listener's iPod, will make it onto playlists, will generate awareness of the artist in question. Over time, there's still significant sales potential, especially in this day of fostering community between artists and listeners. Record companies must begin to understand the promotional value of this exposure, which leads us to point number two:
2) Free and legal MP3s are the single most valuable way to promote artists to music fans in a post-radio age.
Let's return to the plight of our magnanimous Nonesuch friend (see yesterday's post). So, yay, he protected every single song on a worthwhile but off-the-beaten-path album. I have to wonder: are copies of the Sam Phillips album therefore flying off the shelf? Do people think, "Well, crap, since I can't have any free songs I better buy the whole album?" Not in 2009 they don't think this.
The easiest and most effective way to promote an album, especially an album that is not in any case destined for million-seller (or even 100,000-seller) status, is by making a free and legal MP3 readily available. Give people a song to have, to listen to in the context of their preferred music-listening environment. Let it spread around the internet, friend to friend, blog to blog.
I find it ironic that record labels that are squeamish about letting loose free and legal MP3s had no problem for decades handing out free physical copies of their records to radio stations. Oh, well, one might say, that's an entirely different thing. There were huge audiences at stake. Giving a free record to a big-city radio station could result in millions of dollars of sales.
True enough, at the very top end of the music market, commercially speaking. But these same record labels also had no trouble shipping copies of many albums destined for obscurity (where's the return on that?), and no trouble shipping albums to some pretty tiny radio stations, including all those college stations with audiences that number in the dozens at any given time.
Truth be told, radio has pretty much disintegrated for the majority of recording artists. Hardly anyone gets on the radio. (Sam Phillips certainly doesn't get on the radio, outside of a coterie of "adult alternative" stations.) And it doesn't matter because nowadays, people's computers and people's iPods are, effectively, their radios. That's where they listen to music, both old and new. And the only way record companies can get on these "stations" is--how?
You got it: by giving people a free and legal MP3 to download and play--to, essentially, "program" on their own personal station. Because, yes, in order to listen on computers or MP3 players most easily and comfortably you have to give people the song, not expect them to sit there trapped in their browser listening to a stream, or trapped on a particular web site where music is free if you watch the ads, and not sitting in front of a screen watching a video. (Am I the only one left who realizes that a video is not a song? Just curious.)
And guess what? Delivering a free and legal MP3 to all of them costs a lot less than printing CDs and shipping them out for free to hundreds of radio stations around the country. Never mind lost revenue, what about all the expense involved with that entrenched promotional technique for all those years? To the extent that it "paid off" when a handful of records hit the big-time, fine--that was then. For the music industry to move forward in the 21st century, it has to relinquish that pray-for-a-blockbuster mentality, and the marketing techniques that went along with it.
Give people one song, make it easy to download and use anywhere they want. That's how you get your records played on these individual "radio stations." They usually have just one listener each, but there are millions of them across the country.
3) One free and legal MP3 per album makes for easier and less confrontational policing.
For starters, if there is automatically going to be one free and legal MP3 from every album, right away you'll have fewer bloggers posting illegally distributed tracks. I'm guessing many will be happy to stick with the legal one, particularly if approached reasonably; right now, for far too many albums, and for pretty much every major-label album, they don't even have this choice.
Second, when labels set about policing things online, they can use an approach which is kinder and gentler and thus much more likely to move future music-sharing behavior in a more legally-oriented direction. "The track you have been sharing is not legally available for free online distribution," the email can state. "However, were you aware that the song 'Free and Legal,' from the same album, is in fact available for free online distribution? Here's the link."
Or whatever. The point is, with one sanctioned free and legal song from every album, the record industry will finally be closer to being on the same page as 21st-century music fans. Record labels will effectively be entering their world rather than creating phony and pointless and old-fashioned barricades.
This strikes me as a more important issue than anyone seems to bother to realize. Thanks in large part to its well-known campaign to sue people who were illegally downloading their songs, the major record companies spent the better part of the current decade in open conflict with their own customers and potential customers. As a believer from the outset in free and legal MP3s, I obviously have no sympathy for those who have chosen to download a lot of music illegally, but I also have no patience for record companies who choose only to see that behavior as reprehensible rather than try to understand the context and work to find a middle ground.
After all, the record companies, from the outset, could have combatted illegal downloading with this idea: "Hey! Do legal free downloading instead!" But they chose instead to see this as a war and to see their customers and potential customers as enemies. Not real smart in the long run.
I would also, by the way, have no sympathy with bloggers who, in a world in which there is a free and legal MP3 available from each album, would continue to post songs that are not freely and legally distributed. Bloggers are perfectly entitled to tell the world what songs they like; they are not entitled to decide on their own what songs to make available for public consumption. This is a freedom that many presumed to take from the outset, but this freedom continues to have no basis in fairness or legality.
4) If you have to give away one good song this means you must, in theory, put out albums with more than one good song on them.
Needless to say, this would be another excellent outreach strategy for a bedraggled industry.
Although I can offer no direct evidence of this theory, I am pretty sure that there exists in the music industry an additional resistance to free and legal MP3s that has to do with the suspicion that if a music listener gets one good song for free, they won't buy the rest of the album. (After all, why else would Mr. Nonesuch be so resistant to releasing one Sam Phillips song?) To the extent that this is true, I'd say that music listeners have been well-trained over the years by their experience with albums that have only one good song on them in the first place.
As long as giving away one good free and legal MP3 from an album is the equivalent of giving away the store, as it were--because it is in fact the only good song--then, yes, this is a legitimate concern. There is one pretty straightforward solution to this, however: make sure the albums you're releasing are actually good. The days of fooling people into buying a whole album based on hearing one good song really have to be over if the Free and Legal MP3 Manifesto is to be effective. Surely we don't need so many albums anyway, as fewer people appear to be interested in buying them in the first place.
Note that this does not mean there will be no more albums. Can we finally agree to put an end to this black-and-white, all-or-nothing, sound-bite-oriented world view? If albums are going through a less-popular phase this hardly warrants the idea that no one wants to record them or listen to them henceforth and forevermore.
5) The music industry herein has a newborn opportunity to affirm the value of what it is selling.
Okay, so stick with me here, because I know that lots of people still think that handing out free digital music undermines the idea that music has value. To begin with, songs have become mere files, and files are eminently and endlessly copyable and distributable; add to that free distribution and where's the value? Where's the possibility that people will pay for it?
And the record companies themselves have gotten so spun around and bamboozled by the fledgling century's digital realities that here they are, after years of complaining that giving away free music compromises the idea that music has value, lining up to experiment with the idea of giving unlimited access to music on streaming sites via a minor or bundled fee--something, ideally, that the end user won't even notice or realize he or she is paying.
Talk about devaluing music! Treating music as a utility, like electricity or water, inherently devalues the artistry and effort of any individual artist, the subjective worth of any given song. But the industry seriously considers this idea now because, well, it's desperate, like an addict whose supply has pretty much run out. It'll try anything to get its mojo back.
Returning to the spirit of the Inaugural Address, I'd like to suggest that the industry seek not the pipedream fix but seek instead the true opportunity in this long-standing crisis brought on by digital distribution. What that opportunity may be is nothing less than the full embrace of what it has to offer us.
I mean, think of it: here are companies selling one of humankind's most profound creations: song! Often grouped into album! And for decades upon decades now, these same companies have largely sought to treat their products as just that--mere products. (Or, in true industry parlance, the singular: "product.") But these aren't screwdrivers and frozen pizzas that are being sold. This is music. The word itself has magic in it. When something is music to your ears, it's wonderful, delightful, perfect. When you have to face the music, you're dealing with something significant, serious, not to be ignored.
I know that many many musicians have been waiting, without hope or encouragement, for record companies to understand the inherently special nature of their offerings, waiting for the suits and the bean counters to take into account the personal, aesthetic, subjective, and artistic aspects of their so-called products, not just in terms of projecting sales but in terms of how they do business from the ground up.
And now: here's their chance. Not by forcing value upon us (e.g. suing from an aggrieved position) but by proactively asserting that their products do indeed have value. Invaluable value.
And they can do this, paradoxically, by first offering us a gift. Never mind the promotional merit (which, as discussed, is real and significant)--how about simply seeing the mandatory free and legal MP3 each album must offer, according to the Free and Legal MP3 Manifesto, as just that?: a gift. The record companies and artists will give this gift to music fans, now, because the technology has long since arrived to make it possible, because it's a valiant way to break into our fragmented, overconnected lives, because they so value what they produce that they want, first, to share it with us.
Because: when they hand out a yummy free sample of something earthy and organic at Whole Foods, do you think, "Well, gee, this must be worthless if they're willing to give it away?" Or, "Hey, this must be pretty good or they wouldn't be giving out tastes?"
The music industry has completely blown it so far, but here at the outset of what clearly is a brand new day I'm thinking maybe it's not too late. And we, the music fans, can assume our responsibility in the matter as well. We can receive this gift with newfound appreciation. And with our appreciation we can likewise offer our hard-earned dollars when we hear something that moves us, that lifts our spirits, that assures us that it was created out of hope and inspiration and artistry.
And yeah I know not every piece of music is created in this manner. And I know this whole issue is complicated by convoluted circumstances and thorny issues. But I have a dream. And now I have a Manifesto. Change, as we have seen, may begin with just such things.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
