dredg

Music Censorship

2004-06-01T17:50:00.000+10:00

Well, it looks as though this may be my last post, considering this is due tomorrow. I don't know what other people have thought of the blogger experience, but I've quit enjoyed. It's a much more low pressure form of assessment, which is always good.

Anyway, I came across this website, which also has an affiliated book and gallery. It is called Taboo Tunes. The book is called "Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands & Censored Songs", and the gallery is called "Broken Record: Taboo Tunes & the Graphics of Censorship". It seems quite an interesting read, detailed all sorts of lyrical content, album covers, controversial bands and the like. It even goes so far as to give a definition from Roman 451 BC or the singing of bawdy songs as "a disruption of public order". Damn music and its disrupting tendencies. It was punishable by death back then. Ouch. I think nearly the entire population would've been killed hundreds of times over by now if that were still the case.

It does more than just give a rock history though. It details corporate issues of the music industry and its effects on censorship:

Revealed here is how the intentions of artists are often negated by skittish record (and radio) companies who so easily cave-in whenever challenged by outside forces. No matter whether these artists were up-&-comers or established superstars, they all have felt the sting of censorship and, variously, saw their work reviled, rejected, recalled, repressed, and/or forcibly revised.

Quite interestingly, it also discusses government intervention, such as FBI pressure on John Lennon and Jim Morrison for there political stance.

It also accounts for very up to date issues, particularly the events post 9/11. By events, I mean the banning of 150 songs from radio airplay, legal band website content disappearing from Secret Service intervention. This next one is great. American never ceases to amuse me.

According to the cruelly misnamed USA–PATRIOT Act of 2001, anything the authorities now decide to define as “advocating terrorism” – including: home computers, libraries, diaries, and music – can be targeted and seized by the FBI.

It's nice how they leave "advocating terrorism" so vague. Makes it nice and subjective. Guess we all better burn anything we own related to Michael Moore, John Lennon, Rage Against the Machine or the Dixie Chicks. Does this mean I have to throw out my Fight Club DVD too? I'm not trying to get preachy with all this, but this kind of censorship is absolutely ridiculous.

Gigli's crap? No Way!

2004-06-01T08:55:00.000+10:00

Again, this has nothing to do with MSTU2000, but it is highly amusing. I found it on Rotton Tomatoes, a link to a CNN article, A Movie so Bad, even the Marketers Admit it. Gigli, the Bennifer movie that was so bad, the production company cut its losses and didn't even bother to market it. Well, cable network, Encore is using its lack of marketing and bad publicity as marketing fuel. Poor Bennifer and their egos. HA! It's a short article, so its worth checking out.

Frustration

2004-05-31T14:33:00.000+10:00

Forgive me while I vent my frustration/make a plea for CD manufacturers. This morning I purchased 3 CDs (slipknot - vol. 3, pj harvey - uh huh her, chemical brothers - singles, a mixed bag I know, all for only $62, thrifty).

Two of the three CD cases were broken in the little ring that holds the CD in place. Brand new, and I have to replace parts of the case already. If I took them on a plane and they broke, then ok, thats my fault, but these are straight off the shelf. How hard is it to make CD cases with little CD holder bits that don't break?

I think CD cases should be more like DVD cases. They are great. Holds the DVD in well and they DON'T BREAK!! Get with the times compact disc. Breakable stuff is sooooo last millenium.

Surely some of you feel my pain? Tell me I'm not alone!!?

Independent musicians and the internet

2004-05-30T11:11:00.000+10:00

Now, while I do have a tendency to post irrelevant things (see previous posts), I ensure MSTU2000 relevant posts go up as well. I found this article, Giving Away Music to Make Money: Independent Musicians on the Internet, from the online journal, First Monday. As the million others articles around at the momeny, it discusses the effect of the internet on the record industry, their need to adopt it as a resource, how they should go about doing this and the associated risks.

The part that I am interesting in is the section "Creativity and Financial Support: The Musician's Dillemma". It talks about musician's constant dilemma of whether to maintain creative control or give up a bit for the lucrative dollar. This is their job and financial support of course. This was a major dilemma when there was only major record labels available to release their music, but this all changed once the internet came onto the scene. Record labels dictated the sound of the industry.

This control allows the recording companies to manage the entire musical production system and maximize their revenues, but it means that musicians are often left behind as musical fashions and fads change.

However, there can be a tendency for bands to view the music industry with rose-tinted glasses, seeing themselves in front of thousands of fans, but ignoring the slow process of starting small, playing to crowds of 20 people who have no idea who you are.

Rose Meade Hart noted that "artists often have unrealistic expectations and one of those expectations can be that if they sign with a major label, they'll immediately release a huge, hit record. No one seems willing to start out small and grow into a superstar. Perhaps the Internet can be used as a new way of cultivating bands and helping the artists get the exposure and experience.

The internet can provide independent musicians financial support that is often sucked up by record labels. The current industry standard for royalties is $US0.0755 per track. Yes, you read that right. If you release and album with 20 tracks (lots of songs for an album, I know, but it proves the point well), you will get only $US1.51 per CD sale. No imagine if you are in a band with lots of members, like Slipknot. Divide 1.51 by 9, and that amounts to $US0.1678 each. Makes you wanna be a rock star doesn't it? Of course these royalty payment include when the songs are played on the radio, tv etc. but it still sucks.

If bands were to do it on there own, not losing out on revenue to the record labels, the idea of becoming a rock star doesn't look as grim.

Instead of $1 or $2 they might make per CD sold through publishers, a band might sell CDs for [half the price] of a CD sold in a store, and still clear $5 to $6 in profit. And if they're good, they get to keep all of it, including the rights to their own music. If they market on the Web, they can also keep control of their fan mailing list and Web site and they don't have to worry about major labels attempting to censor their lyrics.

Interesting, however I think record labels are encouraging their artists to use profanity in their songs nowadays. So controversial. Whoa, these record labels are pushing the boundaries. My previous post is a good example of it. What are the record labels gonna do to "shock" when profanity becomes the status quo? Bitch used to be foul language, now you see it in prime time, even on Oprah. Anyway, a bit of topic, but amusing nonetheless.

Late night rage

2004-05-30T10:09:00.000+10:00

I'm sure we all have our own stories of what bizarre/unique/horrible song we saw on rage at 2am. On Friday night/Saturday morning, I saw this song by some pop singer chick called "Frankie - F**k you right back". It's been my experience with pop songs that they just cover up the sexual innuendos with blatant metaphors or something, so they can be played on TV in prime time, while still being suggestive. Well, I laughed endlessly at this one. It makes no effort to cover it up, and its seems to me to be one of those, "i'm a tough pop singer because I say f**k repeatedly". Anyway, here are the lyrics (I cut out any oohs, uhs and yeahs). It gets funny in the fourth part:

Oh oh
oooh
no no no

(You know there's two sides to every story)

See I don't know why you cryin' like a bitch
talkin' s**t like a snitch
Why you write a song 'bout me
If you really didn't care
You wouldn't wanna share
Tellin' everybody just how you feel

×CHORUS×
F**k What I did, was your fault somehow
F**k the presents, I threw all that shit out
F**k all the cryin' it didn't mean jack
Well guess what yo, F**k you right back

F**k what I did was your fault somehow
F**k the presents, I threw all that shit out
F**k all the cryin' it didn't mean jack
well guess what yo, F**k you right back

You thought you could really make me moan
I had better sex all alone (ha ha ha ha)
I had to do your friend
now you want me to come back
you must be smokin' crack
Im goin' else where and thats a fact

F**k all those nights I moaned real loud
F**k it, I faked it, aren't you proud?
F**k all those nights you thought you broke my back
well guess what joe,your sex was wack

F**k all those nights I moaned real loud
F**k it,I faked it,aren't you proud?
F**k all those nights you thought you broke my back
well guess what your,your sex was wack

You questioned did I care
maybe I would have if woulda come to me
now it's over
but I do admit i'm glad I didn't catch your crabs
I can't sweat that cause Im not ur hoe

CHORUS
F**k What I did, was your fault somehow
F**k the presents, I threw all that shit out
F**k all the cryin it didnt mean jack
well guess what yo, F**k you right back

(you made me do this)

My favourite parts are
"You thought you could really make me moan
I had better sex all alone (ha ha ha ha)",
"fuck all those nights you thought you broke my back
well guess what your,your sex was wack" and
"but I do admit i'm glad I didn't catch your crabs"

Again, not a related post, but these lyrics just had to be shared. So bad.

Changing political economy of the music industry

2004-05-25T09:22:00.000+10:00

The anticipation is over. I have found something relevant to write about, and doesn't the title make it sound scary? Again, I'm going on about business stuff. While this isn't in relation to word-of-mouth alternative media, it is very interesting, despite covering some common ground.

I found a thesis by Mary Madden from Georgetown University, titled Independent Music and the Digital Economy: Articulating a Politics of Symbolic Exchange Through Online Community. Sounds even scarier now. "I'm cold and frightened and there are wolves after me" - Grandpa Simpson. The link is to the abstract, and from there you can go to her thesis. It is 94 pages, so I thought people might be more inclined to read the abstract.

Now, before I get into discussion about this, I will give you all a definition of political economy from dictionary.com stating that it is a "branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management". To define it further, as I have learnt of and understood it, "orderly arrangement and management of the internal affairs of a state or of any establishment kept up by production and consumption; esp., such management as directly concerns wealth" (emphasis added). There's always controversy when those controlling an artistic industry are "directly concern[ed with] wealth".

The major record labels, until the recent existence of P2P file-sharing, had a stranglehold on the access to music production and distribution.

Additionally, in an era where social consciousness is increasingly influenced by a handful of media conglomerates, the politics of power and the power of politics in any aspect of the culture industry becomes an important topic for critical analysis.

Major labels have had the power with CD sales and the high margins they received. Record stores are physically unable to stock the huge number of indepdent labels that exist, and they don't provide the kind of profit margins possible with major label distribution that are involved in mass production and mass audience advertising. This is influenced further by vertical integration or vertical business relationships between record stores and labels, with labels having the abiltiy to exert pressure on the store to stock and promote their products or else lose their business. Not much point in running a business if you can't make a profit is there?

This is where file-sharing and the business potential revolution of the internet is taking away the political power of the major labels. They can't go around to file-sharers houses and coerce them to share only their songs. Instead, they sue them. Fans share what they want, and quite often, the files they share that are legal are independent band's songs. It's funny to see that small player independent labels and musicians, along with most of the business world, realised and exploited the potential of the internet, except the major music labels didn't. Mary states that the two main factors of interest in relation to independent music communities and the internet are:

1) the communities' substantial presence online, which is crucial to establishing a voice within the current debate over digital music policy, and 2) the extreme contradictions (partially due to radio and television consolidation) between the presence (or lack thereof) of independent music in traditional media outlets versus its presence online.

Major labels are scrambling to catch up, and in doing so, are destroying what reputation they had. Bands and fans alike have realised they don't need the major labels anymore to make it in the music industry. Firstly, make some great music, establish dedicated fans (try starting with mates and family members, generally the easiest ones to sway), spread the word, share your music online for free and Bob's your uncle. What's more, its a hell of a lot cheaper. Well, its not quite that easy, but it's a hell of a lot easier than getting your foot in the door with a major record label. They have hundreds of demos rolling in and out every day.

The labels are losing their control of the political economy of the music industry. The independent community finally has the means to affect a revolution of the industry. Sounds like the fall of communism or something.

The article also discussed quite an abstract but interesting topic on the economic exchange value of music. It talks of how file-sharing has led to people to seeing music as "sign exchange value" rather than as a means to supporting the band. Mary states that it:

removes us so far from any understanding of the labor involved that we no longer value the product in relation to the artist and his/her labor. It seems as though we have instead come to value the code that is created, the signs involved.

I hope this isn't true. Hopefully people aren't naive enough to ignore the fact that being in a band is their profession, and they need to eat. It sucks to talk about music as a source of finance, due to the musical integrity issues is raises, but the two are inseparable. Do people think Maynard James Keenan (Tool), Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) or John Frusciante (Red Hot Chili Peppers) create their art for free, then afterwards go and work a day job to make ends meet? I don't think this is the case. Maybe file-sharers are just selfish? This maybe true for some, but not all. Far too great a generalisation. Many use file-sharing as a form of radio, except the songs are on demand rather than being required to work in with radio programming.

What concerns me is people finding value only in the "sign exchange value". Mary suggests that many "no longer value the product in relation to the artist and his/her labor. It seems as though we have instead come to value the code that is created, the signs involved." This concerns me not only that it refuses the artist their financial rights, but it seems to create a rift between the fan, the music and the artist. It is as if the fan is claiming the song as their own, disconnecting themself from any identification with the artist that created the song, denying them recognition for their creation, as well as rejecting one of the greatest aspects of music, music communities and the subculture.

Salmonella Dub gig

2004-05-22T10:00:00.000+10:00

Well, its 10am on Saturday morning. I can't get back to sleep, and cause my brother is still asleep in my lounge room after the Salmonella Dub gig last night, I can't go and sloth on the couch and watch rage. Maybe I should set off one of those streamer party poppers at him? Maybe not, cause he'd then proceed to kick the crap out of me.

Anyway, this post again is not 100% related to my blog, well its not related at all really, but I thought I would leave a note about... you guessed it, the Salmonella Dub gig last night. My throat, head and body ache from the music, and the $6 beers!! It was really good though. I can't remember whose blog it was that was talking about Sal Dub and their digital light show, but to be honest, it was nothing jaw-dropping. Don't get me wrong, the lighting was really good, but nothing more than any other gig with good lights. One of the most anti-establishment, anti-commercial bands, Pantera, had a better light show.

The music was great though. They play such a tight set with so many elements to each song. I want the guitar effects the guitarist has. I want to make my guitars make those sounds. When they introduced the song, "Love your ways", they said it was for all the ladies, but I decided to respond anyway cause I love that song. This resulted in Leon mocking me. Fair enough. I don't pass too well for a woman.

At risk of sounding like a geriatric old fart, they started way too late. It's hard trying to dance when the driving bass line is putting you to sleep. Lots of people were fine though. What's wrong with me? Maybe I was the only one not an illicit substance.

All-in-all, a great gig. Even managed to convert a couple of friends to sal dub fans. Good 'ol word of mouth. Hey, I just made this post related to my blog! Woohoo! My essay topic proves itself as effective in creating fans once again. I spoke to Ariel (girl in 3pm tut) after the tut the other day, and she said she heard about Dispatch by word of mouth, exactly what my assignment is on. Sweet.

Oh, my brother is awake now. Time to do nothing in his presence now.

Mainstream capitalisation of the alternative, Nirvana

2004-05-21T12:32:00.000+10:00

I found this article Select your Memory: Geffen, MTV and Pop Culture Exhumes Nirvana on Pop Matters. It's a bit off topic from the main direction of this blog, but it has some good bits in it.

As I'm sure you can gather from the article title, it talks about MTV and record companies lack of interest in the music, but great interest in the money that music can make (which is somewhat understandable. As much as we hate it, they are a corporation, and corporations are in it for profit, bottom-line). It begins with a very interesting quote:

"Within weeks high-powered executives were offering contracts to bands they had only seen once, college radio playlists became the objects of intense corporate scrutiny, and longstanding independent labels were swallowed whole. Rolling Stone magazine began making pious reference to the pioneering influence of defunct bands like Big Black and Mission of Burma, whose records they ignored when new, and MTV hastily abandoned its pop origins to push 'alternative' bands round the clock. By 1993, the mass media had risen as one and proclaimed itself in solidarity with the rebels."
— Thomas Frank, "Alternative to What?", Commodify Your Dissent: Salvos From the Baffler

It is a very disjointed article, with no real flow, but amonst it all, some interesting points can be found, discussing mainstream adoption of alternative and the cashing-in done by the record labels and MTV, embodied best in the quote:

"A lot of generations talk about where they were when Kennedy was shot. My generation, we talk about where we were when Kurt Cobain passed away. I was at my house with a friend and we looked at each other and said, 'That's it. It's over'. But even with all the sadness, what we have is the music and the moments. Nirvana's greatest hits package hits October 29th!"
— Iann Anderson

Our sorrow and love of Nirvana being commercialised for a $30 song, "You know You're Right". Kinda like the tabloids exploitation of Princess Diana's death. Distasteful isn't it.

Alternative media

2004-05-20T20:40:00.000+10:00

While scouring fellow MSTU2000 blogs, I came across charlette's blog, Life on a Note. She has a post on their about alternative media with a link to the article, Why "Alternative Music" Is Neither. I couldn't do a direct link to charlette's post, only her blog cause she doesn't have those permalink thingamagigs. The post is dated Thursday, 20 May though.

It is along the lines as a previous post of mine, Alternative media as R&D, and how alternative is adopted by the mainstream over time. Quite interesting and worth a look if you are one of the few not doing file-sharing. Or even if you are, its worth a look anyway.

In case you are curious about Dispatch...

2004-05-19T16:00:00.000+10:00

I don't know if people read my blog often or not, but if you do and are a bit intrigued by Dispatch, and would like to hear their music, go to their website and you can listen to every track online. Pretty cool, huh.

Tracks I recommend are:

The General (classic Dispatch song)
Flying Horses
Elias (can't get enough of this song)
Open Up
Time Served
Two Coins
Bats in the Belfry
Bullet Holes
Out Loud

Please leave comments on what you think of Dispatch. Enjoy.

Dispatch, word-of-mouth and the miracle of Napster

2004-05-18T16:28:00.000+10:00

In relation to my second assignment on Dispatch and word-of-mouth alternative media, I transcribed part of their DVD, "Under the Radar" (the title's relevance is intentional), relating to Napster, their fans, and the way they go about getting the music out.

Shawn Fanning (Founder of Napster) - I first heard of Dispatch, actually through a friend of mine. I was talking to him one day and he said you should check out this band, Dispatch. They're selling out shows in places that they've never been. So he said, check this out, you'll like it. So, I went to Napster, downloaded a few of their tracks and went to their website, and uh, really got into their stuff, I liked it a lot. I think part of it also, is just the fact that people learned about Dispatch through other means. They didn't hear them on the radio, they didn't see them on MTV. They learned about them through someone recommending it to them, which is a pretty strong way of learning about music. The fact that fans at the shows are so passionate is probably a direct result of that. And what's cool to me is that I think Dispatch realise that a lot of their fans, a lot of their grass roots following that they have is a much stronger bond than somebody who just heard a catchy track once on the radio.

Considering I do a Business/Arts dual degree, I have been looking at word-of-mouth or viral marketing through some business journal databases. In relation to what Shawn Fanning had to say,

They learned about them through someone recommending it to them, which is a pretty strong way of learning about music. The fact that fans at the shows are so passionate is probably a direct result of that.

By using word-of-mouth as an alternative advertising medium, while it isn't mass broadcasted, its effect on those who are exposed to it is far more effective. From the article, Word of Mouth is where it's at, "When the messenger is not the marketer, people pay more attention". (Unfortunately, I could not link any of these articles to it because it they are in journal databases. I will include references at the bottom if you wish to check them out). This makes sense, because the advertisements on TV, billboards and the like are made to convince you to use those products, to listen to this music, to drive this car. The person on the ad isn't telling you what they think, they are telling you what the script says. When an individual suggests you to check out a new band, the incentive to listen to them is far greater than if you saw an ad in Rolling Stone, because they are a satisfied fan, not an advertising company trying to earn a profit. "because users recommend a [band] to friends (voluntarily or automatically), the effect is considerably more significant than advertising or other third-party recommendations" (Fattah from Viral Marketing is Nothing New, 2000).

Brad Corrigan (Dispatch) - The deal with Napster is just that, it was amazing timing. Being independent, we never had radio at our fingertips, and we realised it wasn't realistic to think that if we made good music, that it meant automatically it would be just played. So we focused on touring, and Napster became that underground signal we were looking for.

Pete Francis (Dispatch) - You can start a band, and here's a way to get the music out. You don't need the record company, and that's what excited us so much.

Brad - Napster seemed to be a place where quality music actually did get exposed, cause if people liked music, then they could go find it... [Re: Napster Congressional Hearing] They just missed an opportunity to have an independent voice represent the fact that Napster isn't just about ripping people off. In the Napster years, more records were sold anyway. So I think right now, a lot of people are scratching their heads, trying to figure out what's gonna happen.

Chad Urmston (Dispatch) - So it was a real good thing for us, and we would always promote Napster at our shows saying, 'Burn away,' you know, 'it's cool with us'. And I remember telling Shawn Fanning, that people would cheer when we would mention Napster at our shows, and he was so psyced that Napster had this sort of underground respect.

Pete - I hope they do keep working on some sort of formula for it because the idea that one company should own a lot of the radio stations doesn't make sense.

Brad - All the labels mixed with two huge corporate umbrellas, run all of the radio stations coast to coast. There are radio stations now that are starting to realise that there's a void for music like ours. People just need to know that they don't have to deal with this.

Chad - Our bands growth is one of the most positive things that came out of Napster, as far as independent bands being able to have a national audience.

Now this part isn't as relevant to my second assignment, but it is still interesting. To Dispatch and undoubtably hundreds of other independent bands, Napster has provided them with a cheap avenue to distribute their music. This not only helps music distribution, but assists in growing fan bases by not only hearing their music on Napster, but the band approving. This lack of concern for profits always seems to rate highly among fans, doing it for the music, not the money, maintaining musical integrity. Dispatch's music and its freedom of availability on Napster wasn't the only things that helped them form such a strong following. They developed a relationship with their fans by differentiating what they offer as a band from other bands (particularly major label bands). (There I go again with the business talk). As Brad said, "we focused on touring, and Napster became that underground signal we were looking for", constantly giving their fans cheap concerts, often at college and high school functions, where entrance cost is either free or cheap, as well as promoting Napster at their shows, and nobody uses file-sharing more than college kids. Napster extended the scope of word-of-mouth, combining it with the digital medium.

Whoa, this post went on for longer than I thought. I don't feel I have completed everything I want to say, but I will post it anyway. There may be a part 2 to come, but please feel free to make comments on what I have done so far.

Word of mouth is where it's at. John Taylor. Brandweek. New York: Jun 2, 2003. Vol. 44, Iss. 22; pg. 26

Viral marketing is nothing new. H M Fattah. MC Technology Marketing Intelligence. New York: Oct 2000. Vol. 20, Iss. 10; pg. 88, 2 pgs

Word-of-mouth: Necessity or choice?

2004-05-11T19:26:00.000+10:00

I have to confess, this first article is only mildly related to word-of-mouth, it is also a mildly selfish post, as it encompasses both my assignment 2 topic area and one of my favourite bands of all time, Metallica (may seem cliche, but hey, the heart wants what it wants).

HOWEVER, I do detail an interesting contrast in the motives or reasons behind the use of word-of-mouth by metal bands in 1980s America and the band, Dispatch towards the end. So please, bear with me.

This article from Pop Matters is an extremely flattering review of Metallica's arguably best album ever, Master of Puppets. I was also pleased to find that this article also supports some of my arguments I proposed in essay 1, which I did on Metallica.

In the third paragraph, it speaks of Metallica in the early days:

It may be hard for younger fans to fathom, but before the release of Master of Puppets in 1986, Metallica were largely a cult band (some may say they were a cult band before 1991), ... Metallica's fan base was created by tape trading and word of mouth

It seems many bands that develop a strong following through word-of-mouth tend to either stay underground, or when they do break into the sight of the mass audience, they often collapse (for numerous reasons). Back in the 80s, when metal was at its strongest, it was firmly rejected by mainstream distribution, leaving the bands little choice but to find success through the use of alternative media. I think it's quite impressive that a band that begun on tape trading and word-of-mouth established themselves as one of the most successful metal acts of all time (some may suggest that this had to do with "selling out", but I'm really not concerned with that).

Another article on Pop Matters, Heavy Metal History: From Sabbath to Sabbath, also briefly speaks of metal's underground word-of-mouth channels.

Using descriptive genre boxes scattered throughout the book: UFO (1970 protometal), Raven (NWOBHM), Anvil (power metal), Coroner (German speed metal), Bolt Thrower (grindcore), Kyuss (alternative metal), Cannibal Corpse (death metal), Pan-Thy-Monium (avant-garde metal), and Fear Factory (nu metal). If you don't know these names, that's half the point: metal is most effective and virulent when it stalks its prey through underground word-of-mouth tape-trading channels.

I find this quite interesting in contrast to the use of word-of-mouth with Dispatch. Word-of-mouth for metal in the 1980s, while it was an effective display of their "anti-establishment tendencies", it was also a necessity in order for their music to be heard by someone other than angry neighbours during band practice, due to the lack of distribution channels. If you have heard Dispatch's music, it has great potential for success in the eyes of a mass audience, which is in stark contrast to metal. It seems to me that Dispatch chose the use of word-of-mouth, on the streets and on the internet, not because they had to, but because of the potential it held, not only in financial success with higher royalty percentages, but in developing a loyal fan base, maintaining musical integrity (never have to confront the issue of selling out if you never sign to a major label), and never being tied to down to the bureaucracy of a record label contract, among others. (My cousin from New Jersey has been going through a contract signing process for some 6 months now, if not longer. It is with Scott Weiland from The Stone Temple Pilots though, so that's pretty cool).

It seems to be an interesting issue to use word-of-mouth as an alternative medium, not as necessity, but as choice.

Word-of-mouth

2004-05-10T19:10:00.000+10:00

While googling all over the place, I came across this article regarding the alternative music movement in Italy.

The discussion of this alternative music in Italy seems to translate quite well to alternative music in general, but what interests me most about this article was towards the end, the mention of word-of-mouth as an alternative media.

"Finally, the salient aspect of alternative music, that which in fact qualifies it as such and distinguishes it from any other type of music ... is that the spread of alternative music occurred outside the usual channels ... The widespread dissemination of two generations of this vast musical, political and social legacy occurred, as is typical in underground cultures, solely by word-of-mouth. In an era of global communication in real-time, this huge, though largely misunderstood, phenomenon of artistic expression, is in fact, in direct opposition, (truly alternative) to the common patterns of mass communication."

It's an interesting stand point on word-of-mouth being the ultimate of alternative media. When it is looked at in relation to "mass" media, it seems to be the case. Newspapers, TV, ads, etc. provide one viewpoint or interpretation of a message to a mass audience. By using word-of-mouth, it is one-to-one communication, no mass broadcasting, but it also allows the individual broadcaster to provide their own interpretation on the message, not just the message itself. Word-of-mouth gives the opportunity to have direct engagement, input and criticism with the media as well as the message.

Any thoughts?

Copyright law

2004-05-10T10:09:00.000+10:00

On Saturday night, I was fortunate enough to meet a copyright lawyer at a party I went to. Of course, MSTU2000 was the first thing on my mind (not the heinous punch that was on offer).

I asked him something like this, "What's the deal with mp3's and copyright? Because I own over 300 CDs and am considering getting an iPod and copying all my CDs onto it, because it is a bit awkward carrying around a massive CD wallet."

He told me that, unfortunately, that's illegal. He said that in theory just about anyone with an iPod, (unless they purchased the songs over the internet) could be arrested.

He thinks this law is wrong and related it to when film companies took Sony to court for creating the VCR, saying that Sony are privileging people with the ability to pirate material. The argument that won Sony the case was that the VCR wasn't a vehicle for pirating material, but a vehicle for allowing time shifting (or something along those lines), giving the people the ability to watch a show that is programmed for 5pm to be watched at 8pm when they have the time. They have paid for the use of the material, they are just using it at a different time.

The lawyer then gave his opinion in relation to mp3's. He stood by that copying off the internet was illegal unless paid for or given permission by the copyright holders, however he believed that if you had purchased the CD, then you should be able to copy it onto say an iPod. He said instead of a time shift, it is a format shift. You tape the show at 5pm because you don't return home from work until 8pm (time shift). You convert your CD to mp3 format to allow you another way to listen to the music that you LEGALLY purchased. You can't fit 300 CDs into your pocket as well as an iPod. So long as you don't distribute the songs, this he believes should be legal.

This seems like a very logical position to me. When I buy a CD, I have purchased those songs for my own use, why can I not listen to them in a way that best suits my needs?

What do other people think about this?

2004-05-09T16:37:00.000+10:00

I've found direction for my blog without actually having direction. It's purpose will be to find focus for my second assignment, and considering I'm still narrowing that down, it's going to be a little scattered.

At least it will provide some variety... I hope.

Doing it on your own terms (sounds like a cliche movie slogan doesn't it)

2004-05-09T09:23:00.000+10:00

After consulting Jean, I have decided that I will most likely be doing my second assignment on something to do with alternative vs. mainstream media. One of the possible avenues with this is a band from Vermont, called Dispatch. Dispatch don't rely on major label, radio or MTV marketing. As mentioned above, they have made it on their own terms by use of word-of-mouth alternative media. While many bands seem to do this just to preserve their musical integrity, Dispatch did it with a business plan in mind, realising the potential for success it holds, as detailed in the article "The Viral Marketing of Dispatch: Word of Mouth". Their simple and smart process is:

"Step one: Eschew the competitive, quasi-glamorous bar scene in favor of the East Coast prep school circuit. By performing at elite high schools—which have ample social budgets and students eager to discover the next cool band—Dispatch essentially insured its future. The students would talk up the band to their friends at nearby schools, where Dispatch would play next. Step two: The mass of prep school kids becomes a mass of college kids spread across the country, leading to college gigs. The final phase: The fans then enter the real world, and Dispatch hits just about every big-city venue in the country, playing as many as six nights a week while touring."

Word-of-mouth was how I discovered Dispatch, however I found them over the internet, a form of digital media. But that's a whole other story.

Rockumentary

2004-05-04T12:39:00.000+10:00

Well, I still haven't found direction for this blog yet, but i wanted to post this up because I think anyone with even a remote interest in music will be interested. It is the website of a music documentary which is playing at lots of film festivals (sundance etc.) and is being hailed as "one of the most revelatory rock portraits ever made" (Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly), "more than a rock movie... One of the biggest ticket's at this year's [Sundance] festival... a portrait of the seminal rock and roll iron workers as they try to save the band from clashing egos, artistic inertia and discordant personal histories" (David Fricke, Rolling Stone).

Now don't just skip over when you hear who it's about, because you needn't be a fan to be intrigued by this film. It is Metallica: Some Kind of Monster. Follow the links to the trailer, reviews, synopsis, etc.

I urge you all to take a look, especially at the trailer. I'm a huge Metallica fan and a mild documentary fan, so the two combined is great for me. It gives a view into the rock icon world that an MTV of Channel V special would be incapable of doing.

Alternative media as R&D

2004-05-01T12:30:00.000+10:00

So thats some of the stuff I found on file sharing. Here is a short article on alternative media. It speaks of its beginning in the 1960s, FBI's attempt to shut it down and some of the modes of alternative media.

It makes an interesting comment, "It is just the r&d department, but what comes out of the r&d department affects how things get done in the future." I do Business/Arts dual degree, so while this may sound stupid to some (it does to me a little also), i want to look at this R&D (research and development) comment from a business angle.

It seems that alternative media (or R&D) has a profound effect on the future. A business example would be the R&D done by the corporation 3M, and the creation of Post-It notes. R&D, in all corporations, is an expense driven department, like advertising or marketing. R&D comes at a very large cost. But, from such a strong input of motivation, time and money, R&D has the ability to change the world. Think of how often you or people you know use Post-It notes, and what the hell you'd do without them. I'd forget all sorts of chores and errands if it weren't for Post-Its.

Now think how alternative media has effected you in the same way.

I hope that made sense to people.

RIAA Watch

2004-05-01T12:16:00.000+10:00

Here is a blog called RIAA Watch. I think it is quite self explanatory as to what its about. Their motto/slogan/punchline is "sharing information in the war against sharing". This blog has all sorts of links to articles, forum posts and other blogs regarding the RIAA's actions against p2p music sharing. They seem quite adamant that the RIAA will never win in shutting down p2p.

Are Pirates the devil?

2004-05-01T12:09:00.000+10:00

This is an article from Wired News, regarding the Pirate Act, and reducing the amount of proof required to prosecute. An excerpt from the article,

"In defending the Pirate Act, Hatch said the operators of P2P networks are running a conspiracy in which they lure children and young people with free music, movies and pornography. With these "human shields," the P2P companies are trying to blackmail the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue."

Makes these so-called conspirators sound pretty evil doesn't he? It makes note of the pressure film and music corporations are putting on the government, begging the question as to who is really running the show?

Are the RIAA the devil?

2004-05-01T12:08:00.000+10:00

I'm still not 100% sure what I want to do my blogger or my second assignment on. I've been having a poke around the internet, looking for ideas about file-sharing, alternative media and corporate control of the music industry among others. While I'm still not exactly sure of what topic I want, I thought I'd post some interesting items I found in my searches anyway.

This first article is a forum post on the RIAA's use of propaganda and their motives behind shutting down p2p file servers. The poster, Dela, provides some very valid points, and then resorts to quite a grim and extreme cause and effect process of the RIAA's actions with suing invididuals. However, Dela does seem to have a valid point. Scroll through the replies also. Some other posters have posted interesting links, such as a list of unidentified individuals the RIAA has subpeonas against.

2004-04-21T11:19:00.000+10:00

This is another test to try posting a website. Official website of a great band, Dispatch