Reconsidering Attitudes by George Ziemann -- July 12, 2006 An Alert Reader has pointed out to me that I may have been unfair in my assessment of karaoke. In July, 2003, I said this: The entire industry needs reform. Karaoke is a perfect place to start. If downloading is "piracy" then karaoke is a cancer that threatens every musician in the world. It must be eliminated. Not only does every karaoke club rob actual musicians of income and venues to play, I'd bet that the majority of them are not paying any licensing fees for the music they use. Yeah, I guess that was a little harsh. And let's see... yeah, July 2003. It all makes sense now. I especially and specifically hated karaoke that year, as the result of a particularly disturbing experience. It was the mere beginning of what one might call a series of unfortunate events, had that title not already been taken. But I digress... Here are the counterpoints to my rant. A lot of places that have karaoke would probably not hire a live band, even if karaoke did not exist. Therefore, other than the occasional minstrel guitar player (acoustic please, and not too damn loud), karaoke doesn't really hurt working musicians all that much. Some people go to bars to participate in karaoke because they think it is fun. It lets them pop out of their shell occasionally. They wouldn't go to see a live band anyway. Again, no effect on the performer. Those are valid points. None of us are sure about the licensing issue. Afterthought July 13 -- I still don't think downloading is piracy and that was the "if" part that the "then" portion relied upon. Since I think the "if" is false, it really doesn't matter what happens next. However, if you do view downloading as piracy, I'm betting there are some issues with karaoke, too. -- End Afterthought I still don't like karaoke, though. But that's just me. Alert Reader's second, and more challenging, question concerns my earlier position that mp3s are merely advertisements for the higher-quality physical product. I've been saying this for a long time. Does it hold up? The basic facts have not changed. An mp3 file is audibly inferior to the CD version from whence it came. It only contains a fraction of the original information. It's always going to be that way. On the other hand, the general public seems perfectly satisfied with 128k mp3s. Sounds good enough to them. An mp3 will work on almost every device, including the standard CD player. It goes where you want it, when you want it to. Every time. While no one is making any money from mp3s, the cost to drop one copy on the Internet to let people hear your music is almost nonexistent, so it is still an extremely cost-effective as an advertising tool and, especially compared to the "old days" before the Internet existed, a way for potential fans to find your music. What has changed since I first took my position on this issue is that Apple has sold well over a billion songs for a buck each, at not much better quality than your standard 128k mp3 file. My own experience in this time period seems to indicate that given a choice between 128k and a higher bit rate (192k) -- even if they're free -- people will still go for the low-end file. Kind of further destroys the myth about needing super-expensive state-of-the-art (whatever that ever meant) microphones and recording gear. The audience can't tell the difference. So the question really relies on your intent. Why did you make a CD in the first place? To make money? For people to hear your music? What do you want to get out of it? You've got to give people something, especially now that getting new music played on the radio requires a corporate decision. You don't have to give it all to them, though. Leave them wanting more and have it available for sale. Or hire a publicist. Personally, I'm going to keep making every effort for people to hear my music and some of it will always be free. But again, that's just me. Your mileage may vary. Cutting to the Chase by George Ziemann -- July 13, 2006 If ever a question arrived in my email that deserved a serious response, this is it. It kind of rounds up several topics that I probably never would have attempted to being together in one article, but it really captures a train of thought that I have had on more than one occasion. The Question What if a musician thinks he can give something to the audience? He hates record companies, the RIAA, and ASCAP. But he is willing to sacrifice his ... soul... for an audience -- an audience who's looking for something better but doesn't have the time to spend searching for music on Dmusic.com or Purevolume.com. He's not writing music for the audience, and he doesn't do it for the audience. He does it because he loves music (understandably, hating commericialism). He thinks that he can give something better than all the robotic stuff on the radio (physical and internet alike), and get a bit more attention then the regular underground artist on a website. Going with something he's against (commercialism) to help other people find his music (assume his music is great, and previously he rejected record company deals). Most people don't spend time on the internet looking for better music than what's available to them with a remote. Imagine if tons of artists wrote amazing songs, but all hated the RIAA and commercialism, leaving the audience missing something they don't have the time to search for. He wants to show, not aggressively, that there's better music out there. Do you think that all these musicians (or he, musician) should be given record deals, small or big labels, to be known, and give better music to millions of people out there? Let them know that it isn't all robotic? I'd prefer to hear your opinion, but leave out the fact that musicians can independently promote themselves without the help of record companies (dmusic, purevolume, localbands, myspace). I know this. First of all, I'm not sure why the writer thinks I have the answer to this. After all, you won't find my CD at WalMart or BestBuy. This is because my own self-promotion sucks. Also, I'm an old fart that still likes rock and roll, so I don't expect to break into the Top 40, like, ever. But you never know. A miracle could still happen. There are a lot of 50-year-olds who probably still like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. Some them might like us. Maybe AARP will sponsor a tour, but we'll need roadies because we're simply not capable of carrying the gear any more. Self-promotion is sort of a paradox to me. I would rather have someone else tell you how great I am than have you hear it from me. I could be lying. My daughter, who earned a degree in communication, says that artists shouldn't try to market themselves. They are too close to the work to be objective. So the artist should have someone who knows them and appreciates them write the superlatives and comparisons. But let's go beyond all that. Let's say, hypothetically, you're the mythical "next Beatles" waiting in the wings for your debut. You are going to change the world. Seriously. The places where you can promote yourself always end up being a fulfillment of the Yogi Berra saying, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's always too crowded." When there are already 20,000 artists at a site, why should anyone notice you? How do you rise above the clutter? Luck, karma, fate or a total accident seem to be the most frequently attributed. If you are the next Beatles, it'll just happen, when you least expect it. Be prepared at all times. Visualize success and it will just come to you. If you'd rather be more pro-active about your future, there is always the good old-fashioned publicity stunt. It would seem that another, perhaps more logical, way to find your audience is to find an audience that likes what you already like and figure out how to introduce yourself to them. Yes, I know, there is nothing like what you are doing. But it came from somewhere. You've got influences. Let's review a portion of the original question: Do you think that all these musicians (or he, musician) should be given record deals, small or big labels, to be known, and give better music to millions of people out there? Wouldn't that just create another ocean that you're trying to swim in? Isn't that myspace? There is no easy answer to this. It helps if you have an act, a clear definition of what sets you apart from everyone else. What is it that you do better than anyone else, why is it better and how can you make it better than it already is? I think the most important factor is the ability to believe in yourself. Once you lose that, you're screwed. There's always going to be someone saying you suck. There's always going to be the guy in the back of the club that yells out "Free Bird!" You'll always be too damn loud, not this, not that, too much, not enough, whatever. It's always something. I don't know how drummers tolerate the abuse that they must go through between Day 1 and becoming competent. Here's another side of the question. What if those millions of people out there you're trying to reach don't want better music? What if they really, really like pre-programmed, repetitive, familiar, simple music? It's got a good beat and they can dance to it. Also remember that you can get a record contract and still remain obscure forever. It's all a big crap shoot. Magic may also be involved.   The Moral Dilemma by George Ziemann -- July 14, 2006 More from my inbox: Alert Reader here, with another difficult bit of logic: You say downloading isn't piracy. I assume you mean P2P filesharing, of music the artist hasn't made freely available. I also assume if it's not piracy, it's not wrong, in your opinion. But if the artist, like you, has chosen to give some songs away free, and expects payment for others, how is it not wrong to ignore their intentions and get the music free? I'm not trying to attack you, I'm honestly wrestling with these issues for myself. It'd be so much simpler if fairtunes.com was still around, and I could just get what I want and pay what I want without supporting the major labels. Another possibility is to buy used CDs. I have very limited money, so it'll stretch farther that way, and not support labels. Unfortunately it also won't support artists. Has the RIAA attacked this yet? The RIAA has grumbled about the resale of used CDs, but so far the First Sale doctrine seems to have trumped their efforts. As you say, buying CDs doesn't help the artist. For those not familiar, fairtunes was a way to pay the artist directly. Al Kooper had a similar thing going on, but I forget that site's name. Not that it matters; both are gone. It was a great idea, but apparently never caught on. Your average artist would make more money if everyone who downloaded their music sent them five bucks but didn't buy the album. I don't think downloading is piracy. Period. No qualifications. If you can find it floating out there in cyberspace, grab it and enjoy. That is not where the moral issue lies, any more than it is the responsibility of a radio listener to worry about whether the station's license to broadcast is valid or whether they have paid their royalty bill this year from ASCAP and BMI. The moral (and legal) issue lands in the lap of the person who is offering that file to the world. Story from a rock star guy -- "So I had just finished this new album and I mailed a copy to a few of my friends. One them them wrote back to tell me that he ripped it, posted it on the Internet and made 10 copies for all the people he knew would want to hear it. Like he did me a favor. I wouldn't have minded if I had picked a couple for him to share, maybe the same tunes I'd try to get radio airplay for. But he gave away the whole damn thing." If you've ever been in a band, you know that the following is true: Your best friends are your worst customers. They're not gonna pay to hear you play. They expect free admission, total access and a copy of your record. And a t-shirt. Maybe pizza and beer. This is their reward for liking you back when you were really kinda lame. But if the artist, like you, has chosen to give some songs away free, and expects payment for others, how is it not wrong to ignore their intentions and get the music free? A couple of years ago, the Rolling Stones played at Sun Devils Stadium here in Tempe, Arizona. I could feel the kick drum in my living room. U2 had speakers up so high that the vocals were actually crisp. They have outdoor concerts all the time in Tempe. From my back yard, I've listened to Billy Idol, Bachman-Turner, Blues Traveler, Jeff Beck, and a bunch of other people. If the cloud cover is just right, it sounds fantastic, but not very loud. Do I owe these guys the price of a ticket? Should I feel guilty? I don't think so. I'm an old fart. I should be filing a noise complaint, but really I'm wishing they would turn it up just a teeny bit. What if the artist's intention is to make as much money as possible, get laid every night, drink themself into a stupor, do massive amounts of drugs, or e) all of the above? What if the artist's intention involves shooting his competitors to narrow the list of contenders? What if the artist spent a lot of time making sure the recording worked as one coherent piece, meant to be played in its entirety instead of piecemeal and disjointed -- like when your iPod is set to shuffle songs. "iTunes is a great idea. It reminds me of the old days when you bought a single for ninety-nine cents, and if you liked that, you bought the album. But it's not as good for selling or even acclimating people to the album as an art form. I was up until the middle of the night sequencing this thing [his latest album]. And I am starting to think, 'Who cares? 'Cause they're just a bunch of button pushers.' But I am not giving up my art. I make complete pieces of work, I like to think." -- Tom Petty in Rolling Stone An artist may expect, want, deserve, and/or even desperately need payment for their work. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, even if you have a recording contract. I've worked for more than one "star" whose career has peaked. Some of them load their own gear and they're going to keep playing until they die because, well, that's their job. They wouldn't know what else to do. There does not exist a system which even attempts to both let you find anything you want and fairly pay the artist. If they did, people would complain that there's too much to choose from. And what's fair? If a Bruce Spingsteen song is worth a buck, what's mine worth? At $5 for an 11-song CD, my per-song price is already below 50 cents. But the only person who has bought one in the last two years is Carl (Hayden, the guitarist). It is not up to the audience to correct the current starving artist dilemma. The audience cannot be counted on. Today they're into hip-hop. Next year, who knows? Could be another round of boy bands or more cartoons. It is up to the artists. The artist has to make something that you want and are willing to pay for. It's your choice. It's always your choice.