Untitled Document

            For your great-grandparents, music was something altogether different than it is today. For them to hear music, they had to go to symphonies or square dances. The lucky ones could hear scratchy recordings of Stephen Foster tunes on ancient phonographs. For your grandparents, a whole new world of access to music was opened up to them – radio. Now Frank Sinatra could entertain in every living room. More than half a century later, technology has advanced to the point where we can literally have music everywhere we go, if we so choose. I am prime example of the modern American who has surrounded himself with musical access at every possible point – I have a stereo in my living room, one on the second floor, a radio in the bath, a CD player in both cars, a radio at my office, and most importantly a PC fully loaded with MP3’s. I can have music literally soundtracking my life if I want, and often I do.
            Musical artists of every conceivable genre have never enjoyed such public adoration as they do today. Recording industry profits are at an all-time high, and continue to soar with no end in sight. The last ten years have seen a musical boom in this country. Along with this has also occurred the Information Revolution – digital information is now readily available and at our fingertips. And so you see, there was bound to be some crossover between the two. First the technology was developed to convert music to a digital format. Predictably, software followed which has been allowing for ever-easier transfer of this music over the Internet, the most of prolific of which has been Napster.
            Statistics kept since Napster’s inception in 1999 have shown that Napster, while promoting the free exchange of otherwise copyrighted material, has actually helped increase album sales! The prevailing trend seems to be that a user will download a song or two to sample an artist’s music, and then will proceed to purchase the album if he likes what he heard. And so the argument could be made that media-exchange software is actually helping to drive already stellar sales.
            But of course, that’s not the argument that is actually being made by the likes of Metallica, Snoop-Doggy Dogg, Christina Aguilera and others. They, and most vocally Metallica’s drummer Lars Ulrich, argue that Napster takes money out of their pockets and somehow infringes on their “rights” as an artist, even though in the reality that most of us live in, this is in no way the case. The reality of the situation is, Ulrich and co., in their ill-guided attempt to squeeze every possible penny from the consumer, are actually alienating fans and are costing themselves money and good will.
            Napster, Gnutella, Imesh and other popular exchange engines are now a way of life that cannot be stopped by any court, rock star, governing authority or computer savvy person. They are here to stay – that is fact number one. The “artists” recently convinced a federal court to side with them, ruling (in a sell-out, misguided decision that fifty years from now will be chuckled at by law students everywhere) that copyrighted material “cannot” be transferred over the internet – thus, Napster was forced to “filter out” songs that artists did not want exchanged. The problem? Some evil computer genius somewhere discovered that simply by modifying a song name, say instead of calling a song “Master of Puppets” you call it “Master of Puppets9,” Napster’s “filters” don’t catch it, and the exchange continues, uninhibited. I must say that, after the courts ruling designed to disable Napster has been put into effect, I have been as successful as ever as downloading music from that service.
            The counterpoint to Lars Ulrich’s argument is this – technological advances change the rules. It is in fact not the “right” of recording artists that they should be insolated from changing times, and they should be guaranteed a world in which their music always promises them full arenas and platinum record-sales. Jazz musicians in the 1920s made the same argument regarding the proliferation of radio. They were worried that broadcasting of music would allow for “copycats;” easy access to copying their improvisation style. Were their fears founded? Maybe. Maybe a trumpet player or two in Louisiana had their favorite licks copied by an up-and-comer in Chicago. Did it hurt anyone? No. The technological advance of radio obviously worked to greatest good of musicians and music lovers. Napster is no different. Despite the rhetoric, no one is profiting off Metallica’s music except for Metallica. The only way Metallica has managed to be hurt throughout this entire controversy is that they have turned off many would-be fans by their constant whining that their millions aren’t enough and that they should have more, despite the fact they haven’t, aren’t and won’t lose any money.
Time marches on, and eventually musical tastes will change and will mark Metallica as a relic of the past. With this, Metallica will face declining sales, spotty attendance at tours, etc. Such is the fate of all artists. I suggest that Metallica would be better served to sue to stop the progression of time itself – they will be as successful in this endeavor as they will be stopping Napster, and that’s to the good of us.

You got a problem with that, you record company sympathizing communist pinko? Then BRING IT ON!!!!

Back to: Home \| Archive
Jung On : Music • Part 3 The following is part 3 in a four part series on music in America and its importance in American life.	March 28, 2001
For your great-grandparents, music was something altogether different than it is today. For them to hear music, they had to go to symphonies or square dances. The lucky ones could hear scratchy recordings of Stephen Foster tunes on ancient phonographs. For your grandparents, a whole new world of access to music was opened up to them – radio. Now Frank Sinatra could entertain in every living room. More than half a century later, technology has advanced to the point where we can literally have music everywhere we go, if we so choose. I am prime example of the modern American who has surrounded himself with musical access at every possible point – I have a stereo in my living room, one on the second floor, a radio in the bath, a CD player in both cars, a radio at my office, and most importantly a PC fully loaded with MP3’s. I can have music literally soundtracking my life if I want, and often I do. Musical artists of every conceivable genre have never enjoyed such public adoration as they do today. Recording industry profits are at an all-time high, and continue to soar with no end in sight. The last ten years have seen a musical boom in this country. Along with this has also occurred the Information Revolution – digital information is now readily available and at our fingertips. And so you see, there was bound to be some crossover between the two. First the technology was developed to convert music to a digital format. Predictably, software followed which has been allowing for ever-easier transfer of this music over the Internet, the most of prolific of which has been Napster. Statistics kept since Napster’s inception in 1999 have shown that Napster, while promoting the free exchange of otherwise copyrighted material, has actually helped increase album sales! The prevailing trend seems to be that a user will download a song or two to sample an artist’s music, and then will proceed to purchase the album if he likes what he heard. And so the argument could be made that media-exchange software is actually helping to drive already stellar sales. But of course, that’s not the argument that is actually being made by the likes of Metallica, Snoop-Doggy Dogg, Christina Aguilera and others. They, and most vocally Metallica’s drummer Lars Ulrich, argue that Napster takes money out of their pockets and somehow infringes on their “rights” as an artist, even though in the reality that most of us live in, this is in no way the case. The reality of the situation is, Ulrich and co., in their ill-guided attempt to squeeze every possible penny from the consumer, are actually alienating fans and are costing themselves money and good will. Napster, Gnutella, Imesh and other popular exchange engines are now a way of life that cannot be stopped by any court, rock star, governing authority or computer savvy person. They are here to stay – that is fact number one. The “artists” recently convinced a federal court to side with them, ruling (in a sell-out, misguided decision that fifty years from now will be chuckled at by law students everywhere) that copyrighted material “cannot” be transferred over the internet – thus, Napster was forced to “filter out” songs that artists did not want exchanged. The problem? Some evil computer genius somewhere discovered that simply by modifying a song name, say instead of calling a song “Master of Puppets” you call it “Master of Puppets9,” Napster’s “filters” don’t catch it, and the exchange continues, uninhibited. I must say that, after the courts ruling designed to disable Napster has been put into effect, I have been as successful as ever as downloading music from that service. The counterpoint to Lars Ulrich’s argument is this – technological advances change the rules. It is in fact not the “right” of recording artists that they should be insolated from changing times, and they should be guaranteed a world in which their music always promises them full arenas and platinum record-sales. Jazz musicians in the 1920s made the same argument regarding the proliferation of radio. They were worried that broadcasting of music would allow for “copycats;” easy access to copying their improvisation style. Were their fears founded? Maybe. Maybe a trumpet player or two in Louisiana had their favorite licks copied by an up-and-comer in Chicago. Did it hurt anyone? No. The technological advance of radio obviously worked to greatest good of musicians and music lovers. Napster is no different. Despite the rhetoric, no one is profiting off Metallica’s music except for Metallica. The only way Metallica has managed to be hurt throughout this entire controversy is that they have turned off many would-be fans by their constant whining that their millions aren’t enough and that they should have more, despite the fact they haven’t, aren’t and won’t lose any money. Time marches on, and eventually musical tastes will change and will mark Metallica as a relic of the past. With this, Metallica will face declining sales, spotty attendance at tours, etc. Such is the fate of all artists. I suggest that Metallica would be better served to sue to stop the progression of time itself – they will be as successful in this endeavor as they will be stopping Napster, and that’s to the good of us. You got a problem with that, you record company sympathizing communist pinko? Then BRING IT ON!!!!