The Future of the Music Industry.

Nice article from 2004 on the PBS Frontline website

More recent article by way of Freakonomics and the NY Times




Hello all, welcome to another rum induced post. And this really is a rum induced post. Hopefully my spelling will be okay. I'm just setting here with my headphones on, listening to School of Fish by Peter Namlook and Mixmaster Morris. The articles I have linked to have made some very interesting points about the future of the music industry, and offer much more depth than I could ever offer, but anyway. Myself, I'm not sure what I would say about the subject. But I have no doubt that it has changed forever.

The concern I have is that I, and my fellow music lovers may never again discover artists like Peter Namlook, et al. If not for the Internet, I would have never discovered a lot of the artists that I now listen to. Yes I know, you can't miss what you haven't heard. But I I think my life would be the poorer for not having heard some of the really different, even inspiring music that I have come across on the Internet.

I can't tell you the effect that music has on me. It's the only thing on this earth that makes sense to me. Music is the purest form of communication, even more so than sexual relations in my opinion. It settles and focuses my mind like nothing else. And unlike rum, it has no after effects. If I were ever to worship a god, it would have to be one that inspired excellent music in it's adherents. In fact, I might even say that the only gods worth worshiping are the creators of great music.

But the future concerns me. I have an abiding wish for the independent artists that are now using the Internet to bring their music to the masses, to continue to grow with the Internet. But there is no doubt in my mind that if the major record labels can find a way to control the distribution of music through the Internet, we will no longer be able to discover the many varied artists in the many varied genres that we now have access to. I can only imagine what that would mean for people like you and me that have long since given up on relying on radio and tv to find new music. I can't even imagine going back to a world where the lesser known artists and genres were dependent on radio to promote their music. How did such artists even survive back in the day?

Of course unfortunately there is a caveat to this. In a world where digital music makes it so easy to download music without paying for it, the independent label/artist can find it difficult to make a living without the promotion that a major label provides--touring for instance. Certainly it's cheaper for an artist/band to produce a record these days what with the ubiquitous music software that is available. But with the access that every artist has to the Net, one wonders how many artists are getting overlooked in the innumerable bits that are traveling across it. I'm sure the sheer number of artists on the Net makes it hard to find an audience. But of course with the Net, they have an avenue, a worldwide venue that they wouldn't otherwise have. I suppose there is an equilibrium that exists somewhere in there.

One thing is for sure: the days of limited choice for the music lover has passed. And hopefully the time of performers with borderline talent has passed as well. No longer do the radio stations, and by extension the major labels have a monopoly on what we can sample and discover. It will be much more difficult (one hopes) for less than talented artists to hold the publics attention by showing tit or muscle. I like to look at a nice pair of tits as much as the next guy, believe me. But music and booty--never the twain shall meet. And I mean as far as sex selling the music. There will always be a form of music that is built around the sensual, but it should still stand on it's own. There's plenty of shitty Electronica for example.

But getting back to the theme of this subject--I believe the future of music is indeterminate. Certainly a great deal of it lies in the digital realm, but just what that will look like is still up in the air, I think. I certainly hope that the ease of downloading isn't a two-edged sword. If the industry becomes too reliant on revenue from the downloads, and not enough people pay, then traditional CD sales might no longer be an option. Sort of an eggs in one basket scenario. It has to be tough for an up and coming artist. Should they sign with a major label and risk not be a favorite son when sales don't go through the roof? Or should they remain independent or sign with a smaller label and risk being drowned out?

Personally, I would like to see an all digital musical universe, with downloadable liner notes, graphics, and such. And I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be the case. I don't see how the major labels can continue with the old business model. They might try to buy up all the Internet competition and bully Congress into passing laws in their favor, but I don't see the music consumer, nor the artists, putting up with such nonsense. Just like anything concerning business, adapting to consumer tastes is the key to surviving. And if the major labels would get on board the digital train and give the RIAA legal arm the boot, they could be leaders, instead of hapless followers. Yes they would be smaller, and of course there are still questions and business models to be fleshed out. But if the powers that be (of every stripe) would come to their senses, the future of music can be a place where every artist has a fair shake at being heard, and can succeed or fail based on the merit of their music, and not how fuckable or charming they are.

It should be interesting to say the least. Your thoughts?

Net Neutrality, coming to an Internet near you?

Congress Considers New Net Neutrality Bill (PC World article)

Save the Internet website


So apparently a new Net Neutrality bill was introduced in Congress last week. The article says that it isn't the first one to be introduced. More specific bills were introduced in 2006 in the Republican-controlled Congress, but they failed. No doubt they didn't want to upset their business friends ability to rape consumers. Although to be honest, I don't know the exact reason why it failed before.

It's about time the FCC got off its ass and made itself useful by coming down hard on companies like Comcast and others that are trying to control paying customers access to the Internet. Apparently that's what this bill is designed to do--get the FCC to keep a close eye on this. If the big ISPs were left unfettered, the only people that would get unrestricted access to the Internet would be the corporate customers that could afford it. Not only could they throttle your connection with impunity, but they could prevent you from going to your favorite shopping site because that company didn't meet the ISP's demands.

Mind you, this isn't nearly as sexy for the FCC as fining some broadcaster for allowing someone to say "tits" or "blowjob" on their network, or for fining them for a naked butt, but it's still part of their job. After all, governments are supposed to protect people. And if they can't be convinced to be just a little bit more then the fucking moral police for the religious nuts in this country, then Congress will have to step in and insist. Seeing a naked ass or any other body part, or hearing someone swearing doesn't really hurt me. Not having the ability to freely obtain information and freely conduct my business--that hurts me. I'm not saying that the FCC has been completely inactive on this, but clearly a Republican appointee isn't exactly going to be a crusader for consumer rights.

I'm certainly less than enthused that Congress is getting involved in something like this. I don't trust them one bit to not fuck it up. Congress legislating the Internet scares the hell out of me. But I guess it can't be avoided, and this at least has the appearance of being a good thing. My hope is that this bill will send a message to these companies that the Internet is to remain neutral for all parties involved, period. They're already making billions on their services, and when I had cable, I cringed at the cluster-fuck of a bill that I got each month. And just how much money do these companies need?

We should all hope that this bill isn't just a myopic, pedantic exercise in futility, or simply a bone thrown to consumers/voters to keep them fat and happy voters/consumers. A bill with real teeth is needed that looks towards the future of the Internet. If there is bound to be legislation, then do it right the first time, because as sure as shit stinks, this will come up again every time a new technology is invented, or a new use for the Internet comes along. The Internet should always be a superhighway, as it used to be called. By all means, charge for the on-ramp, you have a right to make money; I'm fond of money as well. But please, don't restrict me to the slow lane, or tell me which exits I'm allowed to take.

And let's face it, if Congress doesn't get it right, there will no doubt be plenty of hackers and such more than willing to take up the challenge. And I sure as hell don't want to get caught in that pile-up.

Run for the hills! Evolution is coming!

Cosmos Magazine article

Well, I came across this nice little item from the Cosmos magazine website. It's a bit old, but it still demonstrates the dangers of religion in this world, and why we must be vigilant. It seems that one of the head Christians in Kenya was, and no doubt still is, worried about the "evil" of evolution in his country in the form of the National Museum of Kenya and it's hominid fossil exhibit.

I guess the good bishop isn't so sure of the veraciousness of his religion since he feels compelled to try to lead a fight to have the truth of Evolution suppressed. I guess his god isn't strong enough to overcome a museum exhibit in it's quest to make this world a Christian world. That's one pathetic god if you ask me. Foiled by fossils and nerdy anthropologists.

Maybe if Christianity can rid the world of all the competing religions, and rid the world of the science that is making religion more and more marginal everyday, then the Christian god can finally claim victory. I guess they have no choice but to use coercion, pseudoscience, and fear to win this battle, since Christianity isn't exactly winning willing converts hand over fist.

Maybe if the good bishop and his flock would have spent more time preaching acceptance, love, and tolerance, instead of an us against them mentality, perhaps Kenya wouldn't being going up in flames right now. Of course Christianity will never be able to solve those kinds of problems, nor will any other religion. People will always try to find a scapegoat when the shit hits the fan, and there isn't one goddamn church on this planet, of any religion, that doesn't have a ready supply of people that believe they have the only truth, and a disdain for anyone different then themselves. And they sure as hell have holy books that make violence seem like a duty.

Religion has a good side you may say; it helps many people. But don't be surprised when you use a fucked-up formula like religion to live by, that for every Dr Jekyll, the formula makes a Mr Hyde. And you don't have the right to be defensive or protest your innocence when you create a monster and it goes on a rampage through the countryside.

And that's exactly what this idiotic attack on National Museum of Kenya is. A rampage by the ignorant monsters that religion has helped to create and nurture.

Brains on my mind...

Excellent article from Brain Connection

Okay, so my original post was November 4th, and it's now February 11th. I really do intend to make this a regular thing. I'm still not sure what my little blog will become, if it becomes anything at all. I don't expect that it will become anything special, or that it will get a lot of visitors. But, that's okay, I do this kind of thing for fun and to occupy my time. That leads me to a subject that's been rolling around in my brain for a while. And the following could be completely asinine. I am an amateur supposer after all.

I have this philosophy that humans do things, everything, aside from the things that we do to survive, because we're bored. From our greatest works of art, to our economies and everyday things like going to the movies; all of them, they're done because our brains have this insatiable need to be occupied with some task. I think that might be the greatest impetus for evolution. For some reason our brains are hardwired for the need to always be engaged in some activity.

Think about it, if that wasn't true, how far would we have evolved to this point? Say for instance that our brains only cared about being replenished with nutrients, and that for the rest of the time we had no concern about learning or exploring. Would we even still exist? Isn't the structure and function of our brains the thing that gave us a leg up on other species?

I would guess that our brains have evolved this way because we, along with our ancestors, had the need to out think larger and more aggressive species. And now that we are more sure of our safety and our next meal, the remnants of those evolved traits now need a new outlet of expression. I might be on the wrong track here, but my hypothesis is that the more adept a species is at hunting and surviving, the less developed the brain will be because of it.

I realize that that may seem counterintuitive because man is said to be the greatest hunter, and we have the most developed minds. But my reference is in regards to the pure physical and instinctive traits that are so advantageous to hunting and killing. For instance, a dinosaur that is a good hunter just by it's very nature, will not have a need to develop different skills besides those that it possesses by default. Yes, our ancestor wasn't the only species that wasn't equipped to be the best hunter, so why didn't the other species become smarter like us?

That's a question that I need to answer to my satisfaction.

I think the answer could be that we were lucky to have developed a larger cranial capacity over time along with a brain that was more able to evolve while similar primates, and other species, weren't as lucky and thus perished. And of course our ancestors were better positioned with a better equipped body than other animals to take advantage of our slowing growing intellect. In fact, it may very well be that our physical makeup is in large part the catalyst that caused our brains to evolve. It may be that it's no coincidence that out closet relative in the animal kingdom physically speaking, are also some of the most intelligent creatures.

In the end, the evolution of our brains strikes me as kind of a blessed curse. We made it this far because of our brains, but the intelligence that saved us is the same intelligence that makes us restless and apt to do harm to others; as well as occasionally depriving us of the ability to embrace for what it is, as opposed to what it could be. I guess your philosophy will determine if that restlessness is a desirable trait, something to be tolerated, or something to be avoided.

Of course without the destruction of the dinosaurs, we probably wouldn't be here anyway. I wonder, what would life be like now if they hadn't perished? And what will it be like the next time around? It may be that our species is a one in a million, and earth will never again see a similar serendipitous triumvirate of brain-body-environment once we have gone.

It makes you think...