Out Of Hibernation

Blowin' the dust off. So much, SO much, I have noted in the music world in the last 5 months, and none of it have I posted here. Most of it, I have forgotten. But I will stretch these creaky old joints and drum up what I can.

FLASH: In a table-turn so ill it would make DJ AM (R.I.P.) proud, the big-four record labels are being sued for piracy! Turns out they haven't been paying artists for using their songs in compilations. Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.

Alsowise, Rolling Stone magazine just released its list of the 100 Best Albums of the Decade. I'll ruin the suspense for you now and tell you that Radiohead took top spot, with their 2000 album, Kid A. While I am currently phasing in and out of a Radiohead kick, and this album has grown on me this year in a way that if Loretta grew on me that way, I'd say, "Yeah. That's nice,"* I'm more interested in the comment section of the article.
Scroll to the bottom and you'll find a ton of comments going somewhere along the lines of this: "You forgot [album]! Where's the love for [artist]?! This list is a sell-out, too mainstream, etc."

And they're definitely onto something.

I, too, found this list to be populated not with the innovative albums, not the music that's evolving what we hear, but more mainstream, mass-audience stuff. And yes, I am aware that "best" in the music business must take into account whether or not people actually bought the album. But there also seems to be an air of the panelists going through the motions. For example, Bob Dylan's Modern Times got 8th spot. The album is solid, but the honour feels like an obligation; as if to say, Dylan's a living legend, so how could his music not still be the absolute (8th) best of the last 10 years? Never mind that his creative peak was more than 30 years ago.

Anyway, it is a symptom of best-of lists that almost every reaction will run along the same lines. We all have music that's touched us more deeply than the music on this list, and it's hard to get ourselves out of that subjectivity and define winners. Then again, the only real winners are us, the people who get to listen to it all.

If I don't post again, happy holidays! Though I sincerely hope I do.

*Family Guy quote. Sorry it's so non sequitur.

PIRACY!

I'm not a watchdog for any legal organizations or anything, but whilst looking for tabs for Donovan - Sunshine Superman, I stumbled across this about the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and their Digital Music Report for 2009 (it's linked in the story below - stop asking so much of me!).

According to NME.com, there's been tons of downloading going on. How much? See for yourself. It's in the billions, I'll tell you that much. That being said, they've also recorded six straight years' worth of growth in the digital music industry. So maybe it's a case of the money-makers asking for gold when they've already got silver. Let me know what you think.

And if all this hubbub's got you in a tizzy, take a walk in the snowy tranquility. I'm just kidding, it's a pain in the ass getting around out there right now. And it's cold. And I don't want to - alright, alright, sorry. Bring some summer with you.

Ze Future

What you're juuuust about to read is the first of a series of blogs on the future of music, as I see it. But more specifically, how it affects you and I as consumers of music. There are plenty of factors at play here, in regards to technology, and it seems to have everyone in a tizzy. (Did he just say 'tizzy'? I blame the schools.)

So, here's my take on the whole issue of downloading music. Be it legal or piracy, be it a problem for musicians or legal watchdogs, let's have a look at the future. Didja bring popcorn?

---

Conor Oberst (a.k.a. Bright Eyes) once lyricized, "The future hangs over our heads / and it moves with each current event..." So what's hanging over our heads right now? Nothing less than the future of music as a medium - that is, how we're going to get our grubby mitts on some new tunes. The current events moving this future along? The lines drawn, whether real or imaginary, between the music labels, the policing groups (notably the RIAA), and the consumers. We, the consumers, have been getting away with lots and lots of downloading without paying for the songs we're downloading. Napster had its heyday, and there's also been KaZaA, Limewire, and others with their turns in the limelight - ah. That is by no means meant to be a pun on the aforementioned downloading service... but I like it, now that it's there.

But with this freedom and expression of the Web 2.0 ideals of user-created interaction, comes legal repercussions from those who are saying, "Hey. Wait. That studio time cost us money, the mixing cost us money, and you know for damn sure that our manager takes a cut. Where's our money?!" The labels that front artists the funds aren't getting funds back. There's a bit of a gap in the nature of our economy. Granted, the RIAA lunging after consumers and nailing 15-year-olds with billion-dollar lawsuits seems like overkill, but I've not known watchdogs to be underwhelming.

The question we all have to ask ourselves is this: Just because we can get something for free, does that mean we should? I won't bother comparing this to cars or furniture or any other physical possessions, but it's worth asking yourself. If musicians are suspected of using someone else's music, they can and will be sued. It's not fair to allow one copy of an album become accessible to an unlimited sea of listeners who will then have no reason to buy said album. Simply put, if you want to hear a new album, buy the album.

So how do I feel about illegal downloading?

Here's how.