Music and Internet Ethics

[Kudzu Guillotine]

I just hope music consumers and musicians are able to work out a business model that both are happy with. Unfortunately we seem to be a very long way from that ever happening. In the meantime I'm going to continue to do my part by paying for music and not stealing it. There's a lot of people out there struggling to get by, including many of our favorite musicians. If I can help them out in even the smallest way for enriching my life with the art they create I am going to keep doing so.

[John A Arkansawyer]

A typically thoughtful piece from Nicholas Carr: Beyond Theft and Sharing

[John A Arkansawyer]

Another smart person explains the problem: Nonprofits giving grants, underpaid writers doing their work for love, and the rags we still call newspapers give the illusion that we’re just going through an awkward adjustment period, but it’s an illusion. We are in big trouble. Content is the most important thing in the world; if we don’t figure out how to pay properly for it, we won’t have it.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Another smart person explains the problem: Nonprofits giving grants, underpaid writers doing their work for love, and the rags we still call newspapers give the illusion that we’re just going through an awkward adjustment period, but it’s an illusion. We are in big trouble. Content is the most important thing in the world; if we don’t figure out how to pay properly for it, we won’t have it.

Interesting piece. I'm going to chew on this for a few days before I comment fully but the short answer is that in some ways I think the author is absolutely right but in others they are absolutely wrong. Quick response on the absolutely wrong part; just because someone is paid and trained to be a journalist doesn't make them one and just because someone is not paid or trained doesn't mean they aren't. Musicians have always proven this dichotomy and will continue to do so. I'm thinking journalists, both professional and amatuer, will do so as well. Of course payment models have become problematic in the internet age but "the sky is falling" is not an answer. Ok back to chewing on it. More later.

[Beebs]

Quick response on the absolutely wrong part; just because someone is paid and trained to be a journalist doesn't make them one and just because someone is not paid or trained doesn't mean they aren't. Musicians have always proven this dichotomy and will continue to do so. I'm thinking journalists, both professional and amatuer, will do so as well.

I'm just gonna shoot from the hip.

Disagree. Music is art. It's training can come from anywhere or nowhere and the quality of the end product is completely subjective. Journalism should absolutely not in any way shape or form be art. Journalism should be disciplined methodology, objective to its core. One learns to practice journalism through solid training (not saying that this training can only come form some highfalutin academic program, and not saying that one cant practice journalism with an artistic hand).

Personally, I think the confusion about what journalism is and what is credible journalism, is one of America's biggest problems. We could sure use some Edward R Murrow right now.

[beantownbubba]

Personally, I think the confusion about what journalism is and what is credible journalism, is one of America's biggest problems. We could sure use some Edward R Murrow right now.

Like.

But I'd also add that much of the reason for the confusion or lack of understanding is the result of the journalists themselves fucking up in numerous ways.

[kendix]

The problem with objectivity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... bjectivity

[Beebs]

Personally, I think the confusion about what journalism is and what is credible journalism, is one of America's biggest problems. We could sure use some Edward R Murrow right now.

Like.

But I'd also add that much of the reason for the confusion or lack of understanding is the result of the journalists themselves fucking up in numerous ways.

Not even just fucking up, the problem has gotten so far that "actual" journalists often seem to not know the difference between journalism and everything else. How is Mr and Mrs average American supposed to know if you cant find an example in the New York Times or on CBS News?

[Beebs]

The problem with objectivity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... bjectivity

No. "The Problem with Martha Raddatz" maybe but not "The problem with objectivity".

to my previous point of "even journalists don't know objective journalism anymore, etc, etc..." Raddatz has no business wording a question like she did about Iran. It's not her place to label Iran "america's greatest security threat" (or whatever she said). That's just sloppy editorializing.

My impression of the article is that he's saying true objectivity is unobtainable so we shouldn't bother at all. weak

[Tequila Cowboy]

Quick response on the absolutely wrong part; just because someone is paid and trained to be a journalist doesn't make them one and just because someone is not paid or trained doesn't mean they aren't. Musicians have always proven this dichotomy and will continue to do so. I'm thinking journalists, both professional and amatuer, will do so as well.

I'm just gonna shoot from the hip.

Disagree. Music is art. It's training can come from anywhere or nowhere and the quality of the end product is completely subjective. Journalism should absolutely not in any way shape or form be art. Journalism should be disciplined methodology, objective to its core. One learns to practice journalism through solid training (not saying that this training can only come form some highfalutin academic program, and not saying that one cant practice journalism with an artistic hand).

Personally, I think the confusion about what journalism is and what is credible journalism, is one of America's biggest problems. We could sure use some Edward R Murrow right now.

I think you and I agree what journalism is. My point was that it can come from the most unlikely sources, but you're right at it's heart is objectivity the kind that journalism programs (those that still exist) rarely teach anymore. Journalism may not be art, but it is an "art form" and you're right we haven't seen the likes of an Edward R. Murrow in a very long time.

[kendix]

The problem with objectivity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... bjectivity

No. "The Problem with Martha Raddatz" maybe but not "The problem with objectivity".

to my previous point of "even journalists don't know objective journalism anymore, etc, etc..." Raddatz has no business wording a question like she did about Iran. It's not her place to label Iran "america's greatest security threat" (or whatever she said). That's just sloppy editorializing.

My impression of the article is that he's saying true objectivity is unobtainable so we shouldn't bother at all. weak

The crux of what Greenwald, who is one of the least objective yet also one of the most valuable conveyors of information out there, is saying:

"(In fact, one could reasonably make the case that those whose thinking is shaped by unexamined, unacknowledged assumptions are more biased than those who have consciously examined and knowingly embraced their assumptions, because the refusal or inability to recognize one's own assumptions creates the self-delusion of unbiased objectivity, placing those assumptions beyond the realm of what can be challenged and thus leading one to lay claim to an unearned authority steeped in nonexistent neutrality. That is why I believe that journalists who candidly acknowledge their opinions are better at informing others than those who conceal their opinions: conceal them either from others or, as is often the case, even from themselves."

As a graduate of journalism school, I wish true objectivity was attainable but it's just not. I can promise you that they're still teaching it, but as Greenwald pointed out, it can be dangerous when people are parading around under the banner of neutrality. Who you are, where you're from, how you were raised, what you believe politically, etc. are always going to subconsciously color what you write or--maybe more importantly--what you don't write. Acknowledging this is not "weak" or giving up.

[kendix]

Murrow, by the way, definitely had a point of view. Two good articles about the myth of Murrow being "objective."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/atty ... ivity.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/oc ... iasection2

[Smitty]

On Spotify and Music Consumption

Music shouldn’t be free. It shouldn’t even be cheap. If you consume all the music you want all the time, compulsively, sweatily, you end up having a cheap relationship to the music you do listen to. In turn, this kind of market makes for musicians who are writing with the burden of having to get your attention, instead of writing whatever they’d write if they were just following artistic impulses. It’s increasingly difficult and un-rewarding to write music that is considered, patient, and simple* when the market increasingly demands music that is easy, thoughtless, and careless.
We shouldn’t have everything we want all the time, not in music or anything else. The only reason we do have that relationship to music right now is because we’re taking advantage of technology and a lack of regulation. It makes sense. If that technology did the same thing for food or shelter, we’d be talking about that. Don’t tell me though that this is a consumer-dictated market; it’s this way because we’re taking advantage of it, not because we thought up and implemented a good way of doing things. Like I said before, just cause it’s so doesn’t make it right

[Kudzu Guillotine]

John Mellencamp article from The Huffington Post:

Good News! Ten Commandments Reduced Now to Only Nine

[Smitty]

There's No Money in Indie Rock; Cat Power is broke

You know times are tough for indie musicians when even Chan Marshall—who released a Top 10 Billboard album and played sold-out concerts this year—is bankrupt. The singer known as Cat Power has announced a likely cancellation of her upcoming European tour because of financial and health problems. Before taking the stage in Minneapolis last night, Marshall broke the news on Instagram with the following message:

I MAY HAVE TO CANCEL MY EUROPEAN TOUR DUE TO BANKRUPTCY & MY HEALTH STRUGGLE WITH ANGIOEDEMA. I HAVE NOT THROWN IN ANY TOWEL, I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT BEST I CAN DO ...

It's no shock to learn that musicians lead financially precarious lives, but the thought of an artist as big as Cat Power going broke is particularly disheartening. The album Marshall released last month was as successful as any indie product could hope to be in 2012. Sun broke the Bilboard Top 10 and made a splash in Europe, peaking at No. 6 in France. It went over just as well with the critics, with reviewers calling the album "honest, accomplished, and pretty much just beautiful." Then she did what's required of every modern day songstress wanting to put bread on her table—she went out and played, selling out a number of clubs. If that's not enough to turn a profit in indie music, then all the artists who didn't make it onto the Juno soundtrack must be very deep in the red.

[beantownbubba]

The battle continues to rage. Some good info on the actual numbers involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/busin ... h_20121105

[StormandStatic]

Well, in regard to Cat Power, a lot has been going on that I can't imagine is helping her bottom-line. She personally financed the recording of her most recent album, so as to maintain complete control. In addition, she hasn't really toured much in the last few years before these recent shows, so she basically didn't have a steady income besides royalties, and who knows how much those are nowadays. And because of her mental health she's been in and out of various hospitals, and I certainly don't know if she has health insurance, which is a rarity among a lot of musicians (see: Vic Chesnutt, Sparklehorse, etc).

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Rihanna among musicians fighting Pandora's move to cut royalties

[tinnitus photography]

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/

[beantownbubba]

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/

Mama, don't let your children grow up to be musicians.

[tinnitus photography]

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/

Mama, don't let your children grow up to be musicians.

the funny thing is, all the members of Galaxie 500 went to Harvard.

[Steve French]

Quick response on the absolutely wrong part; just because someone is paid and trained to be a journalist doesn't make them one and just because someone is not paid or trained doesn't mean they aren't. Musicians have always proven this dichotomy and will continue to do so. I'm thinking journalists, both professional and amatuer, will do so as well.

I'm just gonna shoot from the hip.

Disagree. Music is art. It's training can come from anywhere or nowhere and the quality of the end product is completely subjective. Journalism should absolutely not in any way shape or form be art. Journalism should be disciplined methodology, objective to its core. One learns to practice journalism through solid training (not saying that this training can only come form some highfalutin academic program, and not saying that one cant practice journalism with an artistic hand).

Personally, I think the confusion about what journalism is and what is credible journalism, is one of America's biggest problems. We could sure use some Edward R Murrow right now.

JOurnalism is a trade. Perhaps a calling, sometimes a profession. But art? not so much.


Also this is really interesting inverview: ex-pat Kiwi who lives in Noo Yawk. He is KISS' business manager: interesting interview:

<iframe src="http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/remote-player?id=2538786" width="100%" frameborder="0" height="62px"></iframe>

[StormandStatic]

The problem with objectivity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... bjectivity

No. "The Problem with Martha Raddatz" maybe but not "The problem with objectivity".

to my previous point of "even journalists don't know objective journalism anymore, etc, etc..." Raddatz has no business wording a question like she did about Iran. It's not her place to label Iran "america's greatest security threat" (or whatever she said). That's just sloppy editorializing.

My impression of the article is that he's saying true objectivity is unobtainable so we shouldn't bother at all. weak

The crux of what Greenwald, who is one of the least objective yet also one of the most valuable conveyors of information out there, is saying:

"(In fact, one could reasonably make the case that those whose thinking is shaped by unexamined, unacknowledged assumptions are more biased than those who have consciously examined and knowingly embraced their assumptions, because the refusal or inability to recognize one's own assumptions creates the self-delusion of unbiased objectivity, placing those assumptions beyond the realm of what can be challenged and thus leading one to lay claim to an unearned authority steeped in nonexistent neutrality. That is why I believe that journalists who candidly acknowledge their opinions are better at informing others than those who conceal their opinions: conceal them either from others or, as is often the case, even from themselves."

As a graduate of journalism school, I wish true objectivity was attainable but it's just not. I can promise you that they're still teaching it, but as Greenwald pointed out, it can be dangerous when people are parading around under the banner of neutrality. Who you are, where you're from, how you were raised, what you believe politically, etc. are always going to subconsciously color what you write or--maybe more importantly--what you don't write. Acknowledging this is not "weak" or giving up.

Yeah, they teach just this in any good history department. Unacknowledged assumptions are actually one of the most frustrating things to read when going through old documents, because they can be everywhere especially when you get into issues like the so-called civilized/savage dichotomy, which, in the field I'm studying (American Indian History), pops up all the time. It's immensely annoying because the people writing these things cannot even fathom a logical argument against their beliefs; they believe themselves so thoroughly 'objective' as to be conveying the greatest truths humanity has ever seen. What's even more amazing is that assumptions like that, particularly in the 'progressive' and 'left' circles I frequent, are more alive now than ever.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

This article from The New Yorker doesn't really have anything to do with ethics but does address something I've attempted to articulate here on numerous occasions, how the amount of music at my disposal is overwhelming (and I don't even use Spotify). Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think this would be something I'd find myself complaining about but when filing away CD's earlier today I noticed a good handful I'd completely forgotten about that I purchased. That's because I have a tendency to rip them to iTunes and oftentimes never even listen to them afterwards. It doesn't happen a lot but the fact that it happens at all is what bothers me. I was very reluctant to become mp3 friendly several years ago but that was for entirely different reasons having to do with fidelity. I definitely prefer the convenience of my iPod and having so much music available to me via iTunes but it's come at a cost. I no longer spend time with each new album purchase like I used to.

Spotify and the Problem of Endless Musical Choice

[Beebs]

[Zip City]

About 1/2 way through, Seth Avett makes a great point about the flip side of "the internet means no one buys any records anymore"

[tinnitus photography]

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think this would be something I'd find myself complaining about but when filing away CD's earlier today I noticed a good handful I'd completely forgotten about that I purchased.

agreed. i filed my LPs a few weeks ago and found a bunch of stuff still sealed...

[John A Arkansawyer]

It's a cheap shot. It's also a good point:

[tinnitus photography]

well, i think it conflates 'sharing and using' and 'exploiting financially'

[John A Arkansawyer]

well, i think it conflates 'sharing and using' and 'exploiting financially'

Like I said, it's a cheap shot.