So I don't think Lars Ulrich was completely correct in speaking out against P2P's. But I also don't think it is right for record companies to be taking so much money from bands or artists either. If Lars would have said "I think that record companies should give a larger percentage of the profit of albums to the artist, because without the artist, the record company wouldn't be getting any money at all. And if the record companies decide to take my advice, and give a large portion of album sales back to the artist, I would highly discourage the use of P2P's because with this new system, you would be cheating the artist, and not giving them the respects they deserve for the hard work they have done that you are enjoying in your headphones."
A statement like this makes perfect sense to me, but with the current system, it looks like Lars was just looking out for Lars.
Indy Media does seem to be one way of dealing with this problem. With Indy media, most all of the profit from an album would go back to the artist, which would solve the problem of big studios taking most of the profit. The downside is that an Indy artist can't get nearly as much promotion as they could with a huge studio. So some of the benefits of Indy Media include getting most of the profit from your work, having much more control over your project, and having much more of a sense of artistic moral integrity. The downside is, you might be fantastic, and have a great sense of artistic moral integrity, but have to wait tables the rest of your life because not enough people know about your album or your live shows for you to get any profits anyway. Not that you wouldn't have a blast creating the music that YOU want to though. Just might not be able to make a living off of it.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Lars Ulrich, and the music industry
Lars Ulrich needs to stay away from the mic. Back in his Master of Puppets days, he really had some crazy chops going for him, and he's an overall pretty decent drummer. But I'm not sure how much good he really did anyone by coming out and bad mouthing P2P's. From what I understand in class, most of the people don't get hardly any money from their record sales because most of it goes back to their record company, except the really huge acts, and Metallica would be one of them. The band deserves a good amount of money. They were a great band from their thrash days up to their blues-metal days, and have some of the best riffs in the history of riffs, but I think there was a point where getting the fame they finally deserved (in this case, they were still teenagers, but I'm speaking of bands in general), and getting too much money made at least one member of the band a little too greedy. Lars Ulrich, making a huge amount of money from The Black album, which still sells a ton of copies from what I understand, finally made it. Once he gets there he decides that he thinks it is annoying that these people are listening to his music without paying for it. That's understandable to a certain degree, but there are still quite a bit of people paying for Metallica's albums, and hardly anyone paying for band A, who just put their stuff on Oink. After a while, people start to really dig band A, and they decide that they're so good that they are gonna go to Wal Mart, and actually pay for an album by them, and then attend one of their shows.
I don't think Metallica understood how helpful P2p's were to small bands just starting out. They just saw P2P's as one opportunity where they fail to get more money, and failed to look at the benefits it has for other bands.
I haven't checked out the deal with Radiohead's new album yet, but from what I have heard you say, I think that in a perfect world, this is how the music industry should operate. Admittedly, I only buy CD's of bands that I want to support, and I listen to new music of bands I have never heard of by other means. Since I really enjoyed OK Computer, and The Bends, I might give Radiohead a little something. Donations seem a little insane to me, but it is certainly a very Christian idea. If you like their, art, they are confident that you will pay them enough for it so they can still make a living. It's a wonderful concept that will never get very far in the U.S. with mainstream acts like Metallica of which some members are far too greedy and suspicious of the public.
I don't think Metallica understood how helpful P2p's were to small bands just starting out. They just saw P2P's as one opportunity where they fail to get more money, and failed to look at the benefits it has for other bands.
I haven't checked out the deal with Radiohead's new album yet, but from what I have heard you say, I think that in a perfect world, this is how the music industry should operate. Admittedly, I only buy CD's of bands that I want to support, and I listen to new music of bands I have never heard of by other means. Since I really enjoyed OK Computer, and The Bends, I might give Radiohead a little something. Donations seem a little insane to me, but it is certainly a very Christian idea. If you like their, art, they are confident that you will pay them enough for it so they can still make a living. It's a wonderful concept that will never get very far in the U.S. with mainstream acts like Metallica of which some members are far too greedy and suspicious of the public.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Another reason to stay intellectually engagd in popular culture
The previous blog explored one of the reasons why Christians should engage in more than just surface level discussions of film and music. Here are some more reasons.
As Christians, by standing aside, and watching culture from a distance, there isn't much hope of having any impact on it at all.
If we simply protest and picket certain things we HEAR about that we don't like, it isn't going to help create a Christian voice in popular culture. In the beginning of the first chapter of Eyes Wide Open, the opening of The Last Temptation of Christ is discussed. Most of the Christians protesting never saw the film for themselves. Do you think Martin Scorsese, who has veraciously studied the history of Christ, and is somewhat of scholar of history in general, is going (to paraphrase John Mayer)change his mind from the paint on a sign? It would have been much more beneficial for a Christian professor to watch the film, and then respectfully challenge Scorsese as well as Nikos Kazantzakis on their theology in the film. I'm sure both of them would be more than happy to discuss where they are coming from. The film had many wonderful things to say about Christ that are very true, and Christians could have benefited greatly from getting a new perspective on what it means to be both fully God and fully man. There were huge theological problems in the film also, but they all merited discussion not picketing.
If we can work side by side secular movie producers, and directors, and screen-writers, and bring what we have to say from a Christian perspective to the table, instead of creating our own separate film industry just for christians, I think our culture would be much richer because of it. I don't how possible such things are, but the idea at least seems somewhat plausible.
As Christians, by standing aside, and watching culture from a distance, there isn't much hope of having any impact on it at all.
If we simply protest and picket certain things we HEAR about that we don't like, it isn't going to help create a Christian voice in popular culture. In the beginning of the first chapter of Eyes Wide Open, the opening of The Last Temptation of Christ is discussed. Most of the Christians protesting never saw the film for themselves. Do you think Martin Scorsese, who has veraciously studied the history of Christ, and is somewhat of scholar of history in general, is going (to paraphrase John Mayer)change his mind from the paint on a sign? It would have been much more beneficial for a Christian professor to watch the film, and then respectfully challenge Scorsese as well as Nikos Kazantzakis on their theology in the film. I'm sure both of them would be more than happy to discuss where they are coming from. The film had many wonderful things to say about Christ that are very true, and Christians could have benefited greatly from getting a new perspective on what it means to be both fully God and fully man. There were huge theological problems in the film also, but they all merited discussion not picketing.
If we can work side by side secular movie producers, and directors, and screen-writers, and bring what we have to say from a Christian perspective to the table, instead of creating our own separate film industry just for christians, I think our culture would be much richer because of it. I don't how possible such things are, but the idea at least seems somewhat plausible.
Eyes Wide Open-Old American Band Stand Standard
In Eyes Wide Open, Romanowski brings up the point, that like most people, Christians want to have media to relax to, and ease their mind, and most of them don't think a lot about the films that they watch, or the music that they consume. "'It has a good beat, and you can dance to it' suffices for determining musical quality".
The statement, unfortunately, captures about 25 percent of the people I see on facebook, when they describe what music they like.
I suppose part of the reason such a statement bothers me so much is because I naturally tend to over analyze media because it is just part of my make up. So when I see something like "Anything that can make me move my rump", it goes against every way I think.
Secondly, I think that such a standard for determining musical quality, or even film quality ("it has lots of action in it" for example is a statement equivalent in the film world) undermines our capacity for creativity and our ability to understand and appreciate art that is part of being in the image of God. God has given the human race so much potential creativity, and along with that creativity, the ability to appreciate creativity. By giving up our ability discuss film, and music in any type of intellectual format, we are robbing ourselves of a great opportunity for enrichment, but also robbing the artist. The worst case scenario is this: the public becomes so indifferent to cinema and music and art in general, and in what ways it moves them, that artists are no longer motivated to create anything beyond what gives an instant sensation to the consumer. The artists stops trying to achieve ingenuity because he is never made to think in such terms. Instead, the aim of art is simply to produce instant gratification for the consumer in the easiest way possible. The idea of trying to reach one's full potential in creativity that God has given him or her is squelched until the ideal and idea of ingenuity, and creativity is a thing of the past.
The statement, unfortunately, captures about 25 percent of the people I see on facebook, when they describe what music they like.
I suppose part of the reason such a statement bothers me so much is because I naturally tend to over analyze media because it is just part of my make up. So when I see something like "Anything that can make me move my rump", it goes against every way I think.
Secondly, I think that such a standard for determining musical quality, or even film quality ("it has lots of action in it" for example is a statement equivalent in the film world) undermines our capacity for creativity and our ability to understand and appreciate art that is part of being in the image of God. God has given the human race so much potential creativity, and along with that creativity, the ability to appreciate creativity. By giving up our ability discuss film, and music in any type of intellectual format, we are robbing ourselves of a great opportunity for enrichment, but also robbing the artist. The worst case scenario is this: the public becomes so indifferent to cinema and music and art in general, and in what ways it moves them, that artists are no longer motivated to create anything beyond what gives an instant sensation to the consumer. The artists stops trying to achieve ingenuity because he is never made to think in such terms. Instead, the aim of art is simply to produce instant gratification for the consumer in the easiest way possible. The idea of trying to reach one's full potential in creativity that God has given him or her is squelched until the ideal and idea of ingenuity, and creativity is a thing of the past.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
More negatives
Another way conglomerates can control how people think is by stifling anything that they don't particularly care for. By owning so much, it is hard to keep their values in check. Since one conglomerate could potentially own about fifty percent of everything of what fifty percent of the population watches each day, who would report on the conglomerate doing anything ilegal, or unethical,? Since they own so much, they can easily stifle any negative information about themselves, leaving their greed unhindered.
Also, if a certain conlomerate leans a certain way politically, to the right, for example, they would have no reason to report anything from the other side if they didn't want to. They could only report the things that the left has done wrong and the right is doing right. Then all the viewers of everything the conglomerate owns would only be exposed to the conglomerate's viewpoint, which would put their political views a little off balance. Each and every American is guilty of being put off balance to some degree by this process, some more than others.
A great film about some political position that a conglomerate disagrees with doesn't have to get any exposure, which would result in a good number of people not being able to witness the great film-making, and a good amount of hard-work from great minds would be squelched. Of course, the makers of the film could look elsewhere for distribution, and may succeed, but I am trying to highlight the worst of what could happen.
Also, if a certain conlomerate leans a certain way politically, to the right, for example, they would have no reason to report anything from the other side if they didn't want to. They could only report the things that the left has done wrong and the right is doing right. Then all the viewers of everything the conglomerate owns would only be exposed to the conglomerate's viewpoint, which would put their political views a little off balance. Each and every American is guilty of being put off balance to some degree by this process, some more than others.
A great film about some political position that a conglomerate disagrees with doesn't have to get any exposure, which would result in a good number of people not being able to witness the great film-making, and a good amount of hard-work from great minds would be squelched. Of course, the makers of the film could look elsewhere for distribution, and may succeed, but I am trying to highlight the worst of what could happen.
Negatives of Conglomeration
Even though it has already been touched on somewhat in The Positives of Conglomeration blog, I will touch on the problems of media conglomeration in more depth.
Conglomerates have the option of controlling wayyyy to much. A very simple sentence, but there is no better way to say it. It is very easy for them to shape people's opinions, and way of life. MTV started out basically just showing music videos, and letting the music that they play dictate how Teens should live. But more and more, the music began to fade into the background, and talk shows and reality shows took over, which really let MTV's idea of the ideal guy or girl in their teens show through. With Tom Green, Jackass, along with the ever popular spring break shows, they showed some very impressionable teens what they should be doing in Highschool, and college.
What is scarier, as you have mentioned, is that Viacom, who owns MTV, also owns Nickelodian, which is for the younger kids, between about 4 and 11. When I was a kid, like most kids with Nickelodian, that was pretty much all I did if I wasn't doing anything with friends. I didn't really notice much wrong with it. I haven't really sat down and watched a show on Nickelodeon in the past 8 years, but even if they still are pretty wholesome, I don't think that really matters. The idea that they can bring a kid up, from childhood through their 20's or so, with shows for each different age group, in between is a bit scary. Even if the values that viacom is advocating are good ones, if a child nev thinking forer steps back, and takes a deep breath, and looks around, they might never fully grasp the concept of thinking for themselves.
Conglomerates have the option of controlling wayyyy to much. A very simple sentence, but there is no better way to say it. It is very easy for them to shape people's opinions, and way of life. MTV started out basically just showing music videos, and letting the music that they play dictate how Teens should live. But more and more, the music began to fade into the background, and talk shows and reality shows took over, which really let MTV's idea of the ideal guy or girl in their teens show through. With Tom Green, Jackass, along with the ever popular spring break shows, they showed some very impressionable teens what they should be doing in Highschool, and college.
What is scarier, as you have mentioned, is that Viacom, who owns MTV, also owns Nickelodian, which is for the younger kids, between about 4 and 11. When I was a kid, like most kids with Nickelodian, that was pretty much all I did if I wasn't doing anything with friends. I didn't really notice much wrong with it. I haven't really sat down and watched a show on Nickelodeon in the past 8 years, but even if they still are pretty wholesome, I don't think that really matters. The idea that they can bring a kid up, from childhood through their 20's or so, with shows for each different age group, in between is a bit scary. Even if the values that viacom is advocating are good ones, if a child nev thinking forer steps back, and takes a deep breath, and looks around, they might never fully grasp the concept of thinking for themselves.
Positives of Conglomeration
I'll try to get to the positives of a conglomerate first, because I am less about them. One advantage of conglomeration is consistency. Because a certain conglomerate owns a bunch of different companies, it is easier for them to control the quality of each media text that they own. Therefore if something like Viacom releases great programming for kids (this is purely hypothetical), then one could be fairly assured that if they decide to release programming for teens, that it would probably be quality also. The conglomerate probably wouldn't allow something to pass through its grasp that they detest. Also, if a certain company is under a conglomerate, like Miramax, which is a company who tends to make fairly artsy films, they are more likely to get publicity. If Miramax wasn't under Disney, there would be a very small chance that many of the films by Miramax would get as much publicity as they have. As a result of being owned by Disney, in the last few years, a lot of Miramax films have been nominated, and even won for Best Picture, one being Shakespeare In Love.
For the distributors that are under a conglomerate, they can be more assured that if their product is good, they will get exposure. If one were to look at a film put out by Miramax, or a film by some independent company, and both films are of equal quality, the independent one would probably just be played at various art houses around the states, and people in the Akron/Canton area would have to go to The Palace Theater, which just might play the film. Miramax, on the other hand, would have the pleasure of seeings its film played at Tinsletown, and a bunch of local Cinemark theaters that everyone has easy access to.
For the distributors that are under a conglomerate, they can be more assured that if their product is good, they will get exposure. If one were to look at a film put out by Miramax, or a film by some independent company, and both films are of equal quality, the independent one would probably just be played at various art houses around the states, and people in the Akron/Canton area would have to go to The Palace Theater, which just might play the film. Miramax, on the other hand, would have the pleasure of seeings its film played at Tinsletown, and a bunch of local Cinemark theaters that everyone has easy access to.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
I am at a loss at how to properly be involved in worship music as a Christian. I have found what you mentioned in class to be true, but I'm not sure how then worship music can be a good thing. What pleasure is correct to gain out of it? And how are we to let the music affect us?
If we understand that certain chord progressions and certain melodies can easily bring about a great surge of emotion, regardless of what the lyrics are about, how are we to worship then? Once we understand that the music itself is making us feel all warm and fuzzy inside (sometimes, if it is good at least), are we suposed to resist that feeling, or is the fact that we understand what is going on beyond just the words and music make it ok to still get that warm and fuzzy feeling? I am dumbfounded at what constitutes the right way to worship but I could take a stab at it.
I believe that as Christians if we concentrate on what the words are, and understand how the music may be affecting us, I don't see it wrong to let our emotions come through a bit. If we make it a point to only let the music bring out in the words truths that make more sense emotionally, we can be aware of the temptation to simply mistake our emotions getting carried away by the music. We need to remain conscious of not mistaking a great chord progression, or vocalist, or guitar solo for a movement of the holy spirit.
If we understand that certain chord progressions and certain melodies can easily bring about a great surge of emotion, regardless of what the lyrics are about, how are we to worship then? Once we understand that the music itself is making us feel all warm and fuzzy inside (sometimes, if it is good at least), are we suposed to resist that feeling, or is the fact that we understand what is going on beyond just the words and music make it ok to still get that warm and fuzzy feeling? I am dumbfounded at what constitutes the right way to worship but I could take a stab at it.
I believe that as Christians if we concentrate on what the words are, and understand how the music may be affecting us, I don't see it wrong to let our emotions come through a bit. If we make it a point to only let the music bring out in the words truths that make more sense emotionally, we can be aware of the temptation to simply mistake our emotions getting carried away by the music. We need to remain conscious of not mistaking a great chord progression, or vocalist, or guitar solo for a movement of the holy spirit.
When expertise overshadows pleasure of a media text
Having expertise in a media is a great feeling. Why? First of all, I think everybody who loves something, and desires to become an expert on it, desires to know more than the next expert, and hopes that if he or she were asked a question about the particular media, that he could answer it. Having an expertise in a certain media text is fulfilling then not only because the media text itself is a source of enjoyment, but the knowledge of that particular media text is fulfilling in itself. Of course, it may be embarrassing to know certain facts, but deep down inside I think most of us still like the fact that we know them.
Being an expert can even go as far as researching a media text far more than enjoying the media text. You could watch films about the history of films and be obsessed with the history of film without actually consuming THAT much film. Of course, in the beginning, when your fascination with film history is sparked, it would have to be from watching a good amount of older films that span through different decades. But after the initial introduction, the expertise in the subject could outway the enjoyment of the subject. For some reason, I know (or at least did know a few years ago) what film got best picture from about 1962 -up. For some reason the dates in my Accademy Awards Handbook got cemented in my head obviously because I was fascinated with what got Best Picture when at a certain time in my life. I haven't seen all the movies for best picture from 1962-up but I know the dates for them, which might be somewhat of an example of what I'm talking about.
Being an expert can even go as far as researching a media text far more than enjoying the media text. You could watch films about the history of films and be obsessed with the history of film without actually consuming THAT much film. Of course, in the beginning, when your fascination with film history is sparked, it would have to be from watching a good amount of older films that span through different decades. But after the initial introduction, the expertise in the subject could outway the enjoyment of the subject. For some reason, I know (or at least did know a few years ago) what film got best picture from about 1962 -up. For some reason the dates in my Accademy Awards Handbook got cemented in my head obviously because I was fascinated with what got Best Picture when at a certain time in my life. I haven't seen all the movies for best picture from 1962-up but I know the dates for them, which might be somewhat of an example of what I'm talking about.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)