It seems that each generation experiences its own revolution. I don’t mean ‘revolution’ in the sense that the government has been overthrown and our dictator hung in the town square to be stoned. I mean it in a much more broad term. If I’m going to nail down what I’m referring to, I’ll call it “social revolution.”
I Googled “social revolution” to see if it was an original concept or not, and it turns out I’m not that original. It’s a term that one website described as (fragmentsweb.org), “Social revolution is nothing more than a change in the way we live our lives. It springs from changes in the way we think.” I like that wordage, so I won’t bother creating an original description to pass off my ‘non-original’ concept. So, think of it as nothing more than a new way that we live our lives based on new advancements by people; whether these are technological progressions, or advancements in ideology.
These progressions often affect the masses. I think women’s suffrage is a good example. As a race, we decided that, that was the appropriate time to put an end to one of the major inequalities between male and female US citizens. From that point on, women have made major strides in leveling the playing field both at home, and in the workplace. And while feminists may not believe the playing field is fair (and they probably have a valid argument), there’s no doubt that in the last 80 years, the gap between females and males has closed more than it had in the previous 500 years. When it’s looked at from that perspective, it’s slightly more refreshing. The list goes on and on when it comes to these social revolutions. Some only affect a niche sector of society, but none-the-less, society changes. Everything from Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb to automation to the creation of video games has severely impacted society. And even though some of these new creations affect only a niche group of people, they size of the impact it makes on the individuals within that group can be large.
I recently read an article from the music website Spinner.com (Article). The article was talking about the band Land of Talk (who I’d describe as the Yeah Yeah Yeahs with most of the "edge" stripped from the sound) and the release of their latest album “Cloak and Cipher.” Following the release of the album, the lead singer, Elizabeth Powell, updated her Facebook page with the following update: “To all you lovely people who are ripping off the album, contrary to what y'all may believe, I live in a rented apartment, have no car, my 2 visas are maxed out so I can float the band until we start making money. Not very glamorous, eh? Anyways, you are definitely not helping our situation. Food for thought.” This was in regards to a huge influx in their material being downloaded illegally from torrent sites and other non-paying avenues. This is essentially a plea for their fans to pay for their material instead of stealing it so they can make a living recording music. And it’s hard not to feel sympathetic…or is it?
When we talk about social revolutions, the one that has impacted my life the most is the electronic transferring of digital media (aka, torrents). This expands from music to movies to television and so on. It’s incredibly easy to “steal” this material and save yourself the $3-20 charge for renting or buying this media. The truth is, this is 2011. Some things have advanced and it’s clear who has benefited the most from this age of illegal-media sharing. If the scale was being adjusted based on levels of favorability, the scale would have fallen to the ground on the consumer side and launched into the air on the artist/producer side. The unfortunate part is that this doesn’t have the same burden on every artist.
Top music icons such as Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, Lady Gaga, etc. still see millions in income every year through album sales. Why? I don’t think there’s a single answer, but I’ll attempt to offer my opinion.
The media has a huge role. Companies like Clear Channel dictate what music they put on the airwaves. And the only thing the separates two bands with a similar sound is the exposure they’re given to the masses. Let’s face it, does American Idol make their contestants famous, or do the contestants make American Idol famous? I despise American Idol for this reason. It’s nothing more than the media exposing what they feel would appeal to masses (aka, bring in revenue) more. And the best is that they aren’t shy about it. I’m guilty of having watched American Idol a few times in my life (how else can I form an opinion on it?), and I can remember instances where Simon Cowell asked the rest of the judges if they felt that specific contestant, ‘had the look.’ Think about that for a second. “Had the look?” This is a show based on making an all-encompassing (look, sound, etc.) “idol,” and I understand that, but ‘the look?’ The last I looked, I can’t see the person I’m listening to when I’m driving down I75 at 80mph. In fact, it’s the last thing on my mind. One way to support this opinion is William Hung. Williams Hung is famous for his rehash of “She Bangs,” which was originally recorded by Ricky Martin. William Hung is a millionaire based on appearances and album sales from his exposure on American Idol. Would that have happened without that exposure?...that’s a rhetorical question.
My point is, the media is who have control of what gets put on our airwaves and receives a piece of that industry wealth. You can be a no-talent hack, but if you get signed by Sony and/or broadcasted by Clear Channel on a consistent basis, you’ll come out ok.
Land of Talk is a band signed to an independent label. They don’t get the exposure of Linkin Park (and it pains me to even reference them). But here’s why I don’t have any sympathy for Ms. Powell. Most of these bands signed to an independent label should be lucky anyone even took the time to download their material. I listen to a lot of music and I go to a lot of live shows. And it’s a rough estimate that 95% of the shows I go to, I never once paid for their recorded music. Do I feel guilty? No.
If I hadn’t taken the time to listen to some bands illegally, I never would have been exposed to that band in the first place. And when I show up at a show, I consider that my payment. If a band is good and they come within 20 miles of me, I’ll go. I know I’m in the minority, but the majority of people listen to the radio exclusively. Therefore, those people certainly wouldn’t have been exposed either.
This is 2011. I don’t think bands should feel entitled to selling albums because they release one. The internet allows bands to get their music out there far more easily than 20 years ago when the radio was, more-or-less, your only option. Because of that, there are far more bands that record music now than then. Many bands in the independent music scene have a very unique sound. And if their sounds can’t carry them to album sales and they’re disappointed about it, either change your sound to appeal to more ears, or continue recording for the love of it. Sometimes you can’t have it both ways.
I’m really not trying to tell people to steal music. What I’m saying is that people may not have the budget to blow money on an album they may not like in the first place. Wouldn’t you, as an artist, prefer for someone to steal your work and give it a listen than to not have them listen at all? Who knows, maybe they’ll be in attendance at your next concert.
PS – I actually enjoyed Land of Talk’s first album, “Some are Lakes,” but I never did listen to “Cloak and Cipher.” I’ll put that on my to-do list.
No comments:
Post a Comment