Self-Promotion, Mass-Consumption

File-Sharing has certainly played an huge role in the development of music and the music industry in general. Personally, file- sharing has affected me in multiple ways, and just like its affect on the music, some of the changes are good, some are not so good. Obviously there are two sides to the argument over file-sharing. The anti-piracy group's most strong claims are that file-sharing is an illegal usage of copyrighted content, which not only breaks laws, but also causes a significant loss of profit from an artist's work. The "pirates" are made out to be criminals, and the RIAA states that "downloading is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local convenience store". The supporters, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, use a very similar rhetoric to that of the anti-net neutrality crowd. They claim that the RIAA's war on file-sharing is pointless, not generating money for the artists, and has made file-sharing even more popular, now with more sharers than presidential voters in the U.S. Their goal is to find a happy medium where the artists receive payment and the fans can still download without a guilty conscience. Most of all, though, the supporters claim that stopping file sharing cuts off "innovation", the same thing the cable-model supporters claimed the phone-model people were doing by not letting tiered pricing and content control become the new way of the web.
For me, all of this downloading mess seems a bit chaotic. I am personally a strong believer in vinyl recordings, and the artistic quality that comes with a physical LP. I don't purchase music unless it is an LP because otherwise i feel as though i am being ripped off. A CD is small, easily ruined with scratches, and the artwork is virtually non-existent. Beyond all of that, a CD is a digitized version of the music, and consequently the warmth humanistic side to the recording is lost in the format. I do download music, but only when i want to "try it out". I hear about a new band, and based on if i like it or not, i will decide to support the artists, either through purchasing the recording or attending their performances. I would say 90% percent of the time i download anything it is either posted on a blog approved by the artist, or has been uploaded as a bitTorrent file with approval of the artist. Most independent artists cannot afford to press large quantities of records/cassettes/CDs and instead focus on making D.I.Y. packaging that displays the artist's devotion to their craft and release limited numbers of recordings. Then, they upload their recordings on blogs, simply asking the downloaders to comment if they like the album. From this information they can then monitor how much of a demand their is for any particular recording and can decide to do a second pressing if their is a high enough demand. This is not at all the same as stealing from a store, because the store has already purchased the recording from the artists. Thus in stealing from a store, you're just taking money away from the store, not the artist. Therefore, in allowing your material to be released online, you are sacrificing a minuscule profit in return for wide exposure which in turn will lead to
As a musician who records extensively myself, i don't quite understand how independent artists are hurt from this form of downloading. For any struggling artist, the number one form of "payment" received is exposure. Anytime a person who cares about art downloads recordings from these artists, they are simply become exposed to something they otherwise would not have ever heard or purchased. They same goes for small scale sharing, whether it be through the copying of purchased material for friends, or posting the material on your blog for download. To me, i feel as though only those who are truly interested in doing the digging and searching through small blogs and by word of mouth with friends are interested in pursuing new music and supporting artists who actually make real art, and in this scenario the process of illegally downloading is legitimized in my eyes.
On the other hand, major label artists are a different matter. I personally do not support most major label recording artists, at least the ones currently producing "music", and so in my opinion i feel that downloading music from major label artists and spreading it in any form is wrong solely because in the uploading/downloading of their music, people are just furthering the vitality of really bad music, and continuing the destruction of our culture's perception of musical art and performance in general. Also, this mass downloading of major label artists is just perpetuating the notion of music as a commodity to be consumed by the listener and spit out. People download 50 albums a day, eat them up, and then drag it off their external hard drives into the trash to make space for the next 50 albums. The "digital death" that music has seen from its format transition to the CD was hard enough, but now i'm afraid that the whole idea of a recording existing as a physical piece of art work that you can feel, hold, watch, and experience will be destroyed with this current hyper consumption.

2008: The slow death of analog still drags on well into the 21st century. Just as it seems as though the ol' standard of media formats should be beginning to see its last days, we instead are beginning to praise and covet those archaic analog relics from the past. In both music and film there seems to be a fluctuation between analog and digital recording/equipment depending on there genre. With film, the majority of modern Hollywood classics, the action flicks, the megacomedies, young teenage horror dramas...it's all shot on digital equipment, edited with computer software, shipped off to major movie theaters like the Metreon via satellite connections, and projected onto the screen with fancy HD digital projectors. On the other hand, 2008 shows the underground film scene to be bustling with ambitious purist filmmakers determined to stick to the original beauty and warmth of celluloid by shooting with 16mm and 8mm, despite the increasing production costs of shooting with analog equipment. With music it's the same situation. The majority of popular music made today is produced completely digitally and with the highest digital sound quality, while the underground music scenes all tend to contain areas which appreciate the warm, lo-fi, sound quality of analog instruments/equipment.
For me, this whole digital vs. analog issue has played a significant part in my life as an artist. I consider myself to be a filmmaker and musician, and personally, i have always tended to enjoy the quality and reality that analog provides. I grew up listening to my parent's record collection, and always loved the entire vinyl experience, the rotating disk with the needle gliding in the grooves, the music melted into the hot wax, it's the only organic media format, it was what got me to love music. So when it came to making my own music collection, i stuck with vinyl, buying up both new and used LP's since the age of about 15. Even though CD's were making their way into the mainstream media, and cassettes were still widely used, i never bothered buying a compressed form of the original real recording. I commonly refer to the format of CD as the "digital death" of any form contained on it. Digital compression does detremental damage to a piece of music, and for me, all i want is to hear a piece in the form the artist intended. For instance, listening to a John Coltrane album that was originally recorded for vinyl formatting on a CD will be a completely seperate, more detached musical experiece.
I record electronic music as well, and i am aware of the divide the exists within the genre itself amongst analog and digital performers. Digital enthusiasts utilize MIDI controllers and software of virtual module emulators of classic analog synthesizers like the Arp Odeyssey or the Moog Voyeger to achieve their intended sounds. I, however, am dedicated to creating sound through analog equipment. I utilize circuit bending techniques to restructure old electronics to function on a more spuradic level, opening up the possibilities for artistic creation without the insertion of pretensions from the artist. With both my filmmaking and music creation, i see the pro sides of digital, and mostly, what they boil down to is that it is easier to create using digital. Everything is more effecient, more easily executed, and more "perfect". However, i do not think this represents the way the real world is, with all its imperfections, and rather instead I see digital as a virtual simulation of the real, a postmodern simulacrum of what real art is all about. So, overall, i embrace analog formats of media in an attempt to preserve the original, the organic, and the real that can be associated with artistic creation.

ELECTRO WASTE-O

When evaluating the topic of e-waste in today' society, it seems to stand as one of the many hypocritical byproducts of globalization and the new techno-industrial revolution. The shocker comes when you see just what is being done with all our electronic waste while we find ourselves in the midst of a second wave of global ecological consciousness akin to the 1960's eco-awakening. All you have to do is look at a few photos or videos of this travesty and it will become clear that this certainly a pervasive issue.
So where do we start when evaluating the roots of the problem at hand with e-waste? I feel that it is essential to look at the way technological marketing and manufacturing has evolved over the past 30 years, and in doing so it will become clear as to what the catalyst of this issue has been. Henry Ford first introduced the notion planned obsolescense with his mass marketing of the Model-T. Planned obsolescense is basically the idea of a product being designed to deteriorate after a few years, forcing the consumer to constantly purchase a newer version of the product from the company, thus increasing the business's profits significantly. This idea of strategical marketing and production has carried over heavily into today's technology consumption, and in my opinion is the main reason for all our e-waste problems. Just look at all the ad's on TV for "newer, improved, longer-lasting products", which constantly make the consumer feel as if they are in need of a "better" version of something they already own. Companies like Apple add a built-in shelf life of a few years for their computers and electronics, and make repairing theur products such an annoying procedure that it appears to be worth it just to buy a new version of the product.
In order to make any sort of progress with all this e-waste piled around us, we must take matters into our own hands. Make yourself conscious of these marketing ploys and resist the temptation to buy the latest version of the iPod when your old one 's battery seems to be dead. When your product is done, try to find a good home for it where it can be propperly reused. Effective recycling methods do exist for electronic products, it is just highly priced and mostly utilized by businesses rather than individual consumers. On the larger side of things, companies need to understand that in order to function on our planet, we must be sustainable. Business's must account for their massive output of wasteful materials by possibly redesigning their products so that they might be more easily taken apart, separated, sorted, and recyced in a cheaper, more effective methods that would allow homeowners and small scale consumers to afford the recycling costs.