Music
Larry Norman (4/8/47 - 2/24/08)
02/26/2008 10:42
I was sad to receive word yesterday on the theophilusj Yahoo group that Larry Norman passed away on Sunday.
Here is the statement that was in the message and can also be seen on Larry Norman's website:
Hello everybody.
Our friend and my wonderful brother Larry passed away at 2:45 Sunday morning. Kristin and I were with him, holding his hands and sitting in bed with him when his heart finally slowed to a stop. We spent this past week laughing, singing, and praying with him, and all the while he had us taking notes on new song ideas and instructions on how to continue his ministry and art.
Several of his friends got to come and visit with him in the last couple of weeks and were a great source of help and friendship to Larry. Ray Sievers, Derek Robertson, Mike Makinster, Tim and Christine Gilman, Matt and Becky Simmons, Kerry Hopkins, Allen Fleming and a few more. Thank you guys. Larry appreciated your visits very much. And he greatly appreciated the thoughts, wishes, support and prayers that came from all of you Solid Rock friends on a daily basis. Thank you for being part of his small circle of friends over the years. Yesterday afternoon he knew he was going to go home to God very soon and he dictated the following message to you while his friend Allen Fleming typed these words into Larry's computer:
________________________________
I feel like a prize in a box of cracker jacks with God's hand reaching down to pick me up. I have been under medical care for months. My wounds are getting bigger. I have trouble breathing. I am ready to fly home.
My brother Charles is right, I won't be here much longer. I can't do anything about it. My heart is too weak. I want to say goodbye to everyone. In the past you have generously supported me with prayer and finance and we will probably still need financial help.
My plan is to be buried in a simple pine box with some flowers inside. But still it will be costly because of funeral arrangement, transportation to the gravesite, entombment, coordination, legal papers etc. However money is not really what I need, I want to say I love you.
I'd like to push back the darkness with my bravest effort. There will be a funeral posted here on the website, in case some of you want to attend. We are not sure of the date when I will die. Goodbye, farewell, we will meet again.
Goodbye, farewell, we'll meet again
Somewhere beyond the sky.
I pray that you will stay with God
Goodbye, my friends, goodbye.
Larry
________________________________
Thank you to all of you who were so nice to my brother over the years. Kristin and I will post funeral information in the next day or two. Right now we're not able to function very well, but the whole family is here... our mother Margaret, our sisters Nancy and Kristy, Mike Norman and his new wife Tiffany, and Silver.
We miss him beyond words. Thank you for everything.
Peace to you all in Christ,
Charles Norman
The picture at the top of this post was either taken at the 2001 Cornerstone Festival in Bushnell, Illinois (see other pictures here). I should say that I rarely (maybe never) listen to any current selections of so-called contemporary Christian music--at least the kind that would be played on the radio or featured in Christian stores. But that's not to say that I don't appreciate non-traditional Christian music. When I've had a chance in the past, I've made it to the Cornerstone Festival, listened around in the tents for music that caught my interest and purchased CDs accordingly. And I've been fortunate to have seen Larry Norman perform a handful of times at those festivals.
If you don't know who he is, it's truly a shame (you can always read his Wikipedia entry, I suppose). Very few people warrant titles like "father of" or "pioneer" in their chosen field. Those who did know him and the significance of his loss Sunday, at the same time know his place is secure in the presence of God with his passing.
The San Jose Mercury News website ran a story about Larry's influence and death this morning, an overflow of information the writer had collected for his obituary. Frank Black of the Pixies is quoted in the article as saying of Larry Norman, "You know, I never met Jesus Christ, but he actually seems Christlike." That's not a bad way to be remembered, and especially to have it reported in the secular press.
I first discovered Larry Norman's music while in college when my friend Stan Gaulden played Norman and others on our campus radio station on Sunday mornings. It was simply called "The Christian Show." But it was a state university and eventually the powers-that-be pulled the show. I wonder if all that classic Christian rock vinyl still sits in some back office of KLPI or if it was thrown out years ago?
Of course my college-era discovery of Larry Norman was a decade and a half after he had already made his mark in the history of Christian music. The cassettes I bought then eventually wore out, and I gradually replaced them with CD's picked up at the Cornerstone Fest. Larry's music style reflects the late sixties/early seventies style that produced it, and it's easy to forget how revolutionary it was for its time (or even much later when I first heard it). I've heard some of the remixes and I suppose new artists will forever release their versions of "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?" and "I Wish We'd All Been Ready," but I prefer Larry's original versions, thank you very much.
And if the above songs are all you know of Larry's music, you should really pick up one or two of his CD's--especially one of his original "Trilogy" albums. Listening to Larry's music from the early seventies is quite different than some of the sterile "artificially sweet" stuff that passes for much of Christian music today. The Good News of Jesus Christ is always subversive to the values of the culture in which it's proclaimed, and the lyrics of Larry Norman's music reminds us that there are more social issues for Christianity to address than merely abortion and sexual orientation.
At the end of the Mercury News piece, Larry Norman is summed up (quoting Denny Fridkin) like this: "His ministry was really his music and his message was very simple: to love God and love your neighbor and help the poor."
Christlike indeed.
|
I'm No Music Critic, But...
06/18/2007 23:06
Tony Kummer of Said At Southern Seminary asked me if I wanted to review one of the songs on Derek Webb's new CD, The Ringing Bell. If you're interested, check my review of song number 7, "Can't Be Without You."
The M.G. Rhyming Revue...Review
08/24/2006 09:34
And now for something completely different...
These words provide the beginning of the second song on the album, "Everybody's Got to Get Their Own." This song, which is performed in the style of a contemporary country and western ballad, explores the litigious society we live in and the desire to obtain wealth from any means possible. Unfortunately for Jack, he learns that often what goes around comes around, but I won't give away any more than that.
Here's a brief rundown of the rest of the tracks:
• "Be Quick" is based on the nursery rhyme "Jack Be Nimble" and gives advice to those who would be slow to commit in a romantic relationship.
• "Don't Be Afraid" borrows from "Little Miss Muffett" to explore the fear of the unknown.
• "Nothing More Than This" is a hopeful duet reminiscent of the songs in a better animated Disney movie. It is based on "Starlight, Star Bright."
• "Old Woman" uses "Old Mother Hubbard" as a basis to explore the stressful tasks that mothers of large families often face when they don't have enough help in the home.
• "Peter" is performed in the genre of Russian Cossack folk music. It explores the difficulty husbands often have understanding their wives' desire for emotional intimacy. It is adapted from "Peter, Peter, Pumpkin Eater."
• "Piggies," based on "This Little Pig Went to Market" encourages parents not to neglect the brief amount of time they have to influence children before they grow up and move away from home.
• "Wake Up!" is probably my favorite track. It is an a cappella rendition of "Little Boy Blue" that deals with laziness and procrastination.
• "You Can't Unbreak an Egg," as you might have guessed is based on "Humpty Dumpty." This song, done somewhat in the style of a march, examines the consequences of our decisions and taking responsibility for one's actions.
• "Only the Memories" is the sole non-nursery rhyme song in this collection. It's the kind of song that would be appropriately sung at a high school graduation. Perhaps it is featured last on the CD because it is a song about growing up and provides a bridge between childhood when we first learn these nursery rhymes and adulthood where we have to face life head-on and often learn hard lessons.
I recommend The M. G. Rhyming Revue to you. While many of the songs are fun, don't mistake this album as a collection of nursery rhyme spoofs. This is not "Weird Al Takes on Mother Goose," but a rather a clever attempt to take something from our distant fond memories and combine it with the realities of life. As I mentioned, children will enjoy these songs, too--so it's appropriate for the whole family--but only adults will catch the broader themes.
The M.G. Rhyming Revue is available from Big Shoe Enterprises for $16.99. Split tracks and piano/vocal scores are also available. At the website, you can also listen to samples from the songs.
The M.G. Rhyming Revue is a studio-produced, eclectic collection of songs based on nursery rhymes aimed more at adults than children. That's not to say that children wouldn't like these songs, but it will take an adult with life experience to fully appreciate them. The music is written, scored and produced by Philip Wade, minister of music at Cypress Baptist Church in Benton, Louisiana. Philip also provides the lead vocal on many of the tracks.
It's no secret that most Mother Goose (the source for the "M. G." in the title in case you missed it) nursery rhymes had their origin long ago in historical, often political contexts. But later they were reduced to quaint little poems removed from their original contexts and quoted over and over by preschool children. Perhaps their origin combined with an adult's familiar but ignored recollection of these rhymes makes them the perfect venue for exploring the complex grown-up world we now live in.
Consider the familiar rhyme about Jack and Jill, but with a twist:
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after.
After all was said and done, Jack said, "This won't do."
They went on down to the county court and said,
"I think we'll sue!"
These words provide the beginning of the second song on the album, "Everybody's Got to Get Their Own." This song, which is performed in the style of a contemporary country and western ballad, explores the litigious society we live in and the desire to obtain wealth from any means possible. Unfortunately for Jack, he learns that often what goes around comes around, but I won't give away any more than that.
Here's a brief rundown of the rest of the tracks:
• "Be Quick" is based on the nursery rhyme "Jack Be Nimble" and gives advice to those who would be slow to commit in a romantic relationship.
• "Don't Be Afraid" borrows from "Little Miss Muffett" to explore the fear of the unknown.
• "Nothing More Than This" is a hopeful duet reminiscent of the songs in a better animated Disney movie. It is based on "Starlight, Star Bright."
• "Old Woman" uses "Old Mother Hubbard" as a basis to explore the stressful tasks that mothers of large families often face when they don't have enough help in the home.
• "Peter" is performed in the genre of Russian Cossack folk music. It explores the difficulty husbands often have understanding their wives' desire for emotional intimacy. It is adapted from "Peter, Peter, Pumpkin Eater."
• "Piggies," based on "This Little Pig Went to Market" encourages parents not to neglect the brief amount of time they have to influence children before they grow up and move away from home.
• "Wake Up!" is probably my favorite track. It is an a cappella rendition of "Little Boy Blue" that deals with laziness and procrastination.
• "You Can't Unbreak an Egg," as you might have guessed is based on "Humpty Dumpty." This song, done somewhat in the style of a march, examines the consequences of our decisions and taking responsibility for one's actions.
• "Only the Memories" is the sole non-nursery rhyme song in this collection. It's the kind of song that would be appropriately sung at a high school graduation. Perhaps it is featured last on the CD because it is a song about growing up and provides a bridge between childhood when we first learn these nursery rhymes and adulthood where we have to face life head-on and often learn hard lessons.
I recommend The M. G. Rhyming Revue to you. While many of the songs are fun, don't mistake this album as a collection of nursery rhyme spoofs. This is not "Weird Al Takes on Mother Goose," but a rather a clever attempt to take something from our distant fond memories and combine it with the realities of life. As I mentioned, children will enjoy these songs, too--so it's appropriate for the whole family--but only adults will catch the broader themes.
The M.G. Rhyming Revue is available from Big Shoe Enterprises for $16.99. Split tracks and piano/vocal scores are also available. At the website, you can also listen to samples from the songs.
The Family Side of Johnny Cash
07/20/2006 12:35
Most people can relate to Johnny Cash. We connect to him, regardless of who were are--saint, sinner, rich or poor. When I listen to him, he doesn't feel like a disconnected "celebrity," but a friend or a neighbor--perhaps at times I think of him as family. When Cash sings of pain and brokenness or redemption and peace, we understand because we've been there. His journey is like our journey. His songs prove that he understands.
Last year, when I reviewed Walk the Line, Darcie (Cash) Johnson emailed me, reminding me that she was Johnny's cousin (FYI: Darcie and my wife Kathy were fast friends in high school and roommates their first year of college). To be honest, I didn't remember the Cash-family connection. I knew that Darcie's last name was Cash before she married Jeffrey Johnson, but I don't think I realized her relation to the late singer.
Originally, I planned to post this story last year, but at her initial time of writing, Darcie couldn't find the picture of her and Johnny Cash. She sent it a few weeks later, but it got set aside in the busyness of my thoughts. Andrew's review of American V reminded today me.
Anyway, the story she related in her message rings so true from everything I've ever heard about Johnny Cash. I'm sure there are many such stories about him, but I believe Darcie's account perfectly describes Cash's love of family over fame and fortune. This event took place approximately 30 years ago when Darcie was seven-years-old.
Darcie writes:
I'm sure Kathy has told you that Johnny Cash and my dad are first cousins. That's why I play the guitar and sing so well!!! When I was about 7 years old and still living up north, he was performing at the Saratoga Fair in New York. My mom got tickets to the concert and we were at the fair for my father to race his horses. My mom had my dad send his race track ID tag backstage that had his picture and name on it. The two hadn't seen each other since they were small children in Arkansas but Johnny sent for them to send my dad backstage.
It was my mom and dad, my maternal grandmother (who became a country music fan that day), and me. He hugged and kissed us three women and talked over old times as children in Arkansas with my father for probably a half hour. The stage manager kept coming back and saying "Johnny, come on. You're on now" and Johnny would wave his hand and say "a few more minutes."
So June Carter and the Carter sisters were his opening act so they would sing another song. Then the guy would come back and say it again, Johnny would wave his hand again and June would sing another song. This happened 3 or four times before Johnny kissed us all and went on and June could rest her pipes.
Last year, when I reviewed Walk the Line, Darcie (Cash) Johnson emailed me, reminding me that she was Johnny's cousin (FYI: Darcie and my wife Kathy were fast friends in high school and roommates their first year of college). To be honest, I didn't remember the Cash-family connection. I knew that Darcie's last name was Cash before she married Jeffrey Johnson, but I don't think I realized her relation to the late singer.
Originally, I planned to post this story last year, but at her initial time of writing, Darcie couldn't find the picture of her and Johnny Cash. She sent it a few weeks later, but it got set aside in the busyness of my thoughts. Andrew's review of American V reminded today me.
Anyway, the story she related in her message rings so true from everything I've ever heard about Johnny Cash. I'm sure there are many such stories about him, but I believe Darcie's account perfectly describes Cash's love of family over fame and fortune. This event took place approximately 30 years ago when Darcie was seven-years-old.
Darcie writes:
It was my mom and dad, my maternal grandmother (who became a country music fan that day), and me. He hugged and kissed us three women and talked over old times as children in Arkansas with my father for probably a half hour. The stage manager kept coming back and saying "Johnny, come on. You're on now" and Johnny would wave his hand and say "a few more minutes."
So June Carter and the Carter sisters were his opening act so they would sing another song. Then the guy would come back and say it again, Johnny would wave his hand again and June would sing another song. This happened 3 or four times before Johnny kissed us all and went on and June could rest her pipes.
Goodbye, Johnny
07/20/2006 10:00
A Guest Review by Andrew Wells
[RICK'S NOTE: At the risk of overly-commercializing Andrew's review of Johhny Cash's music, I thought it would be helpful to provide direction to those who would want to obtain the music discussed here. All text links will direct you to the iTunes Music Store and if you prefer physical CDs, obviously all graphical links go to Amazon.com.]
I suspect that in the later years of his life--no matter how much he was re-discovered and declared "cool"--it must have been hard being Johnny Cash. Cash was the last living link to a type of country music that existed long before Nashville or even Hank Williams, back all the way to the Carter family and the 1800s, the last musical giant to walk the land. He carried the torch till the end, knowing that he had influenced many musicians, yet probably realizing a great deal of the past was going to die with him.
Even if it was a Nine Inch Nails cover, his last single "Hurt" from American IV: The Man Comes Around would have been a beautiful final statement. With all that he accomplished in life, all he had seen and done, "Every one I know goes away in the end." It is the loss of family and friends that mark his days. The music video is probably one of the most moving ever created, cutting back and forth between pictures of Johnny Cash in all the stages of his life and video of him as an old man among his memories. It would have been a perfect ending to Cash’s career.
Would have. Rick Rubin, Cash's producer, should have waited a lot longer to release American V: A Hundred Highways--or maybe not at all.
It's not that it is bad. Cash really seemed to relish stripping his style bare, and that comes through here. But none of the songs really have the punch of "Hurt," yet the whole album is an extension of that one song. Whether doing covers of originals, directly or indirectly, the theme of every song becomes death. Several seem to have been selected with his wife, June Carter Cash in mind (she passed away four months before he did). As a statement and as a historical document--Cash sings several traditional tunes--it has real value. As an album, though, it’s really hard to listen to.
Rubin states in the liner notes that eventually he will release a boxed set of Cash’s material called Unearthed. In the last months of his life, Cash was recording as much as he was physically able to, singing songs that had been passed down to him or had been well-known in his childhood. If Rubin had been wise, he would have added this last album to the set, instead of releasing it separately. American V doesn’t tarnish Cash’s career at all; it just doesn’t provide the closure like it should--like "Hurt" does.
After Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash's material seems to be on every recording label possible. There must be dozens of "greatest hits" CDs alone. The problem is that, as with Presley, you have to dig through a lot of Cash’s recordings to get to the real jewels, and his albums haven't all been reissued. Here are some recommendations if you are starting out, wanting to cover your bases or if you are just diving in:
For his earliest work, get The Sun Years which has all his important singles and several B-sides he made for Sun Records.
Cash jumped ship to Columbia Records (now Sony Music) when he couldn’t make the music he wanted. The absolute necessity from this time is Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison. It covers several different types, shows Cash at his best, and is arguably the greatest live album ever. Pick up the "American Milestones" edition if possible, because it has the complete (and unedited--be warned) concert. Johnny Cash at San Quentin is also supposed to be quite good, though not quite in the same category.
For Cash’s religious side, seek out Hymns by Johnny Cash, the "American Milestones" edition. Shortly after he died, Rubin released My Mother’s Hymnbook, a collection of hymns done in Cash’s later style. It hasn’t received near the attention that this last album has received—I’ve mostly seen it in Christian bookstores—but worth a listen.
From his American Recordings era, the essential is American Recordings. Just strumming a guitar, Cash takes a bunch of songs from wildly different writers (Nick Lowe, Henry Rollins and Leonard Cohen, to name a few) and somehow melds them into a cohesive, beautiful whole. His follow-up, Unchained, finds Cash going back to his rock and country roots, with great success. The third and fourth American albums, while well-produced, are hit-and miss.
Until we are able to hear Unearthed, the gold standard for "previously unreleased material" seems to be Personal File, a collection of songs Cash recorded in the 70s and early 80s but for unknown reasons never released. Again, it's just him and his guitar, but that was what Johnny Cash was all about.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Even if it was a Nine Inch Nails cover, his last single "Hurt" from American IV: The Man Comes Around would have been a beautiful final statement. With all that he accomplished in life, all he had seen and done, "Every one I know goes away in the end." It is the loss of family and friends that mark his days. The music video is probably one of the most moving ever created, cutting back and forth between pictures of Johnny Cash in all the stages of his life and video of him as an old man among his memories. It would have been a perfect ending to Cash’s career.
Would have. Rick Rubin, Cash's producer, should have waited a lot longer to release American V: A Hundred Highways--or maybe not at all.
It's not that it is bad. Cash really seemed to relish stripping his style bare, and that comes through here. But none of the songs really have the punch of "Hurt," yet the whole album is an extension of that one song. Whether doing covers of originals, directly or indirectly, the theme of every song becomes death. Several seem to have been selected with his wife, June Carter Cash in mind (she passed away four months before he did). As a statement and as a historical document--Cash sings several traditional tunes--it has real value. As an album, though, it’s really hard to listen to.
Rubin states in the liner notes that eventually he will release a boxed set of Cash’s material called Unearthed. In the last months of his life, Cash was recording as much as he was physically able to, singing songs that had been passed down to him or had been well-known in his childhood. If Rubin had been wise, he would have added this last album to the set, instead of releasing it separately. American V doesn’t tarnish Cash’s career at all; it just doesn’t provide the closure like it should--like "Hurt" does.
After Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash's material seems to be on every recording label possible. There must be dozens of "greatest hits" CDs alone. The problem is that, as with Presley, you have to dig through a lot of Cash’s recordings to get to the real jewels, and his albums haven't all been reissued. Here are some recommendations if you are starting out, wanting to cover your bases or if you are just diving in:
For his earliest work, get The Sun Years which has all his important singles and several B-sides he made for Sun Records.
Cash jumped ship to Columbia Records (now Sony Music) when he couldn’t make the music he wanted. The absolute necessity from this time is Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison. It covers several different types, shows Cash at his best, and is arguably the greatest live album ever. Pick up the "American Milestones" edition if possible, because it has the complete (and unedited--be warned) concert. Johnny Cash at San Quentin is also supposed to be quite good, though not quite in the same category.
For Cash’s religious side, seek out Hymns by Johnny Cash, the "American Milestones" edition. Shortly after he died, Rubin released My Mother’s Hymnbook, a collection of hymns done in Cash’s later style. It hasn’t received near the attention that this last album has received—I’ve mostly seen it in Christian bookstores—but worth a listen.
From his American Recordings era, the essential is American Recordings. Just strumming a guitar, Cash takes a bunch of songs from wildly different writers (Nick Lowe, Henry Rollins and Leonard Cohen, to name a few) and somehow melds them into a cohesive, beautiful whole. His follow-up, Unchained, finds Cash going back to his rock and country roots, with great success. The third and fourth American albums, while well-produced, are hit-and miss.
Until we are able to hear Unearthed, the gold standard for "previously unreleased material" seems to be Personal File, a collection of songs Cash recorded in the 70s and early 80s but for unknown reasons never released. Again, it's just him and his guitar, but that was what Johnny Cash was all about.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Whatever Happened to Christian Music?
05/21/2006 21:45
GUEST BLOG BY ANDREW WELLS
About twice a year or so, I break out some of my older music albums. I have been listening to music since around 1988, so I’ve been through a lot of music. This time around, I pulled out some old Petra (the Greg X.Voltz era, for those who remember) and, well, it rocked. Rocked hard, both musically and lyrically. “Chamelon”; “More Power to Ya”; “Get on Your Knees and Fight Like a Man.” What great music!
So what is the last Petra song I heard on the radio? “Lord I Lift Your Name on High.” A praise song with a more pop-oriented sound. Catchy, but nothing distinguished. And I have heard this song covered by at least a dozen artists, not to mention in church all the time. A far cry from “Why Should the Father Bother?” Maybe hearing the current Petra is okay for some, but for those with a longer history with the music, they are probably asking the same question I do every time I walk into a the Christian music section: What happened?
Christian music may be selling more and more product, and getting wider recognition, but musically and lyrically, it is in a huge creative slump, I think. I would love to listen to more Christian music, but I find it bland and boring (with some exceptions).
Most of the problem is that Christian music is a business, even if the industry’s goal is to honor Christ and shine a light on Him. And as the music business follows trends, so does Christian music. That is why there are so many praise and worship albums out and a bunch of younger bands doing what Petra is doing—making music that sounds the same as everybody else.
Please understand: there is nothing wrong with praise and worship music. Worship is an important part of the Christian life, and music is helpful in that point. And many of the contemporary praise songs are wonderful. But like anything else, I think it can get monotonous. For example, the only contemporary Christian radio station in my area (Columbia, SC) plays pretty much only praise music. Furthermore, they let listeners determine what they want to hear through Internet voting, so they play pretty much the same few songs by the same artists, and rarely play anything new. If you listened to this station without knowing anything, you’d think Steven Curtis Chapman stopped making music after his Speechless album (from 1999), that Mercy Me and Casting Crowns vanished after their big hits, and that Petra, the Newsboys and Third Day have never done anything but Christian music. Not every station is like this, I know, but it is frustrating.
There are artists past and present who are swimming against the tide, but the nature of the marketplace has driven them to the margins or out altogether. Charlie Peacock is the Paul Simon of Christian music; I know he is still making music, but I cannot find his albums anymore. Iona is a wonderful Irish/Celtic group that does albums around Christian themes; they do not even release albums in America anymore, and have not toured here in years. Sara Groves writes challenging, intimate songs about our relationship with God; I can find her in stores, but not on the radio.
But what really makes me sad is the loss of a lot of good artists. Steve Camp writes provocative songs in the spirit of Keith Green, but his uncompromising views have pushed him out of mainstream Christian music. Steve Taylor music was so eccentric with his music that he left the business entirely. Wayne Watson, Sandi Patty, Julie Miller, Kim Hill, Wes King, Phil Keaggy, Margaret Becker, Mylon Lefevere, Dallas Holm—the list goes on and on. And many record companies have let albums go out of print, so Christian music lovers cannot even check out musical history. Anyone seen a Degarmo and Key album lately? The 77s? Randy Stonehill? Whiteheart? Michael Card? Russ Taff? First Call?
As to the other problem—everyone making music that sounds the same—that is a common problem throughout Christian and secular music, both past and present. The market takes care of itself in some ways, eliminating some and leaving others (Crumbacher, anyone?). Furthermore, I would hope that any Christian musician(s) would be in the business for ministry and honoring God, and nothing else.
Certainly, God has given abundant talent to people who serve in music ministry, both in and out of church. And for many audiences, there is a certain comfort in the familiar. I do not know if there is a solution to the problem I am describing, but I would encourage people to look at Psalms for inspiration. Those poems and songs are about a lot more than praise—they cover every aspect of the Christian experience, and can be extremely challenging, convicting and inspiring. And finally, we must remember that God will put His message in the mouths of those He sends out, just as He did with the prophets and the disciples.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
About twice a year or so, I break out some of my older music albums. I have been listening to music since around 1988, so I’ve been through a lot of music. This time around, I pulled out some old Petra (the Greg X.Voltz era, for those who remember) and, well, it rocked. Rocked hard, both musically and lyrically. “Chamelon”; “More Power to Ya”; “Get on Your Knees and Fight Like a Man.” What great music!
So what is the last Petra song I heard on the radio? “Lord I Lift Your Name on High.” A praise song with a more pop-oriented sound. Catchy, but nothing distinguished. And I have heard this song covered by at least a dozen artists, not to mention in church all the time. A far cry from “Why Should the Father Bother?” Maybe hearing the current Petra is okay for some, but for those with a longer history with the music, they are probably asking the same question I do every time I walk into a the Christian music section: What happened?
Christian music may be selling more and more product, and getting wider recognition, but musically and lyrically, it is in a huge creative slump, I think. I would love to listen to more Christian music, but I find it bland and boring (with some exceptions).
Most of the problem is that Christian music is a business, even if the industry’s goal is to honor Christ and shine a light on Him. And as the music business follows trends, so does Christian music. That is why there are so many praise and worship albums out and a bunch of younger bands doing what Petra is doing—making music that sounds the same as everybody else.
Please understand: there is nothing wrong with praise and worship music. Worship is an important part of the Christian life, and music is helpful in that point. And many of the contemporary praise songs are wonderful. But like anything else, I think it can get monotonous. For example, the only contemporary Christian radio station in my area (Columbia, SC) plays pretty much only praise music. Furthermore, they let listeners determine what they want to hear through Internet voting, so they play pretty much the same few songs by the same artists, and rarely play anything new. If you listened to this station without knowing anything, you’d think Steven Curtis Chapman stopped making music after his Speechless album (from 1999), that Mercy Me and Casting Crowns vanished after their big hits, and that Petra, the Newsboys and Third Day have never done anything but Christian music. Not every station is like this, I know, but it is frustrating.
There are artists past and present who are swimming against the tide, but the nature of the marketplace has driven them to the margins or out altogether. Charlie Peacock is the Paul Simon of Christian music; I know he is still making music, but I cannot find his albums anymore. Iona is a wonderful Irish/Celtic group that does albums around Christian themes; they do not even release albums in America anymore, and have not toured here in years. Sara Groves writes challenging, intimate songs about our relationship with God; I can find her in stores, but not on the radio.
But what really makes me sad is the loss of a lot of good artists. Steve Camp writes provocative songs in the spirit of Keith Green, but his uncompromising views have pushed him out of mainstream Christian music. Steve Taylor music was so eccentric with his music that he left the business entirely. Wayne Watson, Sandi Patty, Julie Miller, Kim Hill, Wes King, Phil Keaggy, Margaret Becker, Mylon Lefevere, Dallas Holm—the list goes on and on. And many record companies have let albums go out of print, so Christian music lovers cannot even check out musical history. Anyone seen a Degarmo and Key album lately? The 77s? Randy Stonehill? Whiteheart? Michael Card? Russ Taff? First Call?
As to the other problem—everyone making music that sounds the same—that is a common problem throughout Christian and secular music, both past and present. The market takes care of itself in some ways, eliminating some and leaving others (Crumbacher, anyone?). Furthermore, I would hope that any Christian musician(s) would be in the business for ministry and honoring God, and nothing else.
Certainly, God has given abundant talent to people who serve in music ministry, both in and out of church. And for many audiences, there is a certain comfort in the familiar. I do not know if there is a solution to the problem I am describing, but I would encourage people to look at Psalms for inspiration. Those poems and songs are about a lot more than praise—they cover every aspect of the Christian experience, and can be extremely challenging, convicting and inspiring. And finally, we must remember that God will put His message in the mouths of those He sends out, just as He did with the prophets and the disciples.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
In Search of Good Christmas Music
11/30/2005 15:34
Guest Blog & Recommendations by Andrew Wells
Updated 12/7/2005
So this is Christmas...and the Christmas music is in abundance. It's amazing how many Christmas albums and singles are put out each year. Why, then, can no one seem to name any contemporary Christmas album worth buying?
One reason, I believe, is the roar of the market. It takes a lot of noise to get people's attention, especially in this day and age, and at Christmas, no less. This wasn't a problem even twenty years ago. Two, much of the Christmas music today is overproduced, rushed material hoping to capitalize on a singer's popularity. Three, the best Christmas music always looks to the past and to the standards--it is something in the very nature of the holiday.
With all this in mind, here are some Christmas albums and songs that I’ve discovered over the years that I think are jewels among the coal, along with a few comments:
Vince Guaraldi, A Charlie Brown Christmas. It’s the soundtrack to the TV special, but it holds up beautifully on its own. The extended instrumental version of “Christmastime is Here” is like watching a fine snow fall out the window as you sit by a warm fireplace. I am not officially in the Christmas spirit until I listen to this.
Elvis Presley, If Everyday Was Like Christmas. There are several different compilations; this one is the best because you can compare Elvis' first Christmas album with his second one; it’s like hearing two different people singing, which is sad if you know about Elvis' life. Added bonus: really great liner notes and some awesome pictures, including Elvis in a snowman costume.
Sparrow Artists, Christmas. This is a 1988 Christmas album from Sparrow Records that highlighted the company's various artists and musical styles. "Various Artists" albums are usually a mixed bag; that’s not the case here. Added bonus: trying to figure out what happened to all the artists on this album--Steven Curtis Chapman is the only person on this album who is still recording, as far as I know. [Rick's update: with the help of the friendly folks at Sparrow records, I actually found this on iTunes.]
Ron Sexsmith, "Maybe this Christmas." Pure bliss. A song that manages in under two minutes to be hopeful, sweet, thoughtful, melancholic, and have a xylophone solo.
Melissa Etheridge, "Happy Christmas (War is Over)." I’m no fan of Melissa Etheridge or John Lennon, but her live version of his song has real power and meaning behind it. [Rick butts in again: I can't find a legal source for this song on the internet either.]
There are more runner-ups than I could list. I would also recommend listening to a radio show called American Routes, which looks at various musical traditions throughout America. They have a couple of Christmas-theme shows a year, and do a wonderful job of finding some obscure and unique musical treasures.
Andrew Wells can be contacted at awusceng@yahoo.com.
If you have your own suggestions, feel free to add them in the comments. If you know of links to purchase any of the music I couldn't find, let me know that as well.
Note: some links on this page require iTunes. If you don't have it, you can download it by clicking the link to the left. But why don't you already have it? It's free.
Updated 12/7/2005
So this is Christmas...and the Christmas music is in abundance. It's amazing how many Christmas albums and singles are put out each year. Why, then, can no one seem to name any contemporary Christmas album worth buying?
One reason, I believe, is the roar of the market. It takes a lot of noise to get people's attention, especially in this day and age, and at Christmas, no less. This wasn't a problem even twenty years ago. Two, much of the Christmas music today is overproduced, rushed material hoping to capitalize on a singer's popularity. Three, the best Christmas music always looks to the past and to the standards--it is something in the very nature of the holiday.
With all this in mind, here are some Christmas albums and songs that I’ve discovered over the years that I think are jewels among the coal, along with a few comments:
Sparrow Artists, Christmas. This is a 1988 Christmas album from Sparrow Records that highlighted the company's various artists and musical styles. "Various Artists" albums are usually a mixed bag; that’s not the case here. Added bonus: trying to figure out what happened to all the artists on this album--Steven Curtis Chapman is the only person on this album who is still recording, as far as I know. [Rick's update: with the help of the friendly folks at Sparrow records, I actually found this on iTunes.]
Ron Sexsmith, "Maybe this Christmas." Pure bliss. A song that manages in under two minutes to be hopeful, sweet, thoughtful, melancholic, and have a xylophone solo.
Melissa Etheridge, "Happy Christmas (War is Over)." I’m no fan of Melissa Etheridge or John Lennon, but her live version of his song has real power and meaning behind it. [Rick butts in again: I can't find a legal source for this song on the internet either.]
There are more runner-ups than I could list. I would also recommend listening to a radio show called American Routes, which looks at various musical traditions throughout America. They have a couple of Christmas-theme shows a year, and do a wonderful job of finding some obscure and unique musical treasures.
Andrew Wells can be contacted at awusceng@yahoo.com.
If you have your own suggestions, feel free to add them in the comments. If you know of links to purchase any of the music I couldn't find, let me know that as well.
Personality Cult
10/28/2005 19:21
The music of philosophy...
I've been corresponding with Jason Snyder about an upcoming "Philosophy and Christian Thought" class I'll be teaching at Indiana Wesleyan University in February. This morning, he sent me a philosophically inspired song he's co-written, and I asked him for permission to share it with you. Enjoy.
"Personality Cult"
by Steve Helt and Jason Snyder
i was reading one day from the words of pascal
that men without gods would become gods themselves
well i look all around me and see that it's true
that man is engaged in a selfish pursuit
one half of mankind has declared there's no God
while the rest have all bought into humanist fraud
in sin we let go of the rules absolute
the Church lets it happen, its message dilute
it's a cult of personality
atheism a reality
won't you join the personality cult
you are fond of the writing that "God is dead"
but if you look closer that is not what he said
for Neitzche's intent was that we just don't care
we live and we die as if He isn't there
augustine warned of the middle class thing
that real religion is not what it seems
we cover our bases, half answer the call
but half of a Master is no Lord at all
it's a cult of personality
middle class religiosity
won't you join the personality cult
remember the moral of the story of job
our goodness or badness does not give us hope
for every salvation we must look to the Son
i think you'll find lots of saving to be done
I've been corresponding with Jason Snyder about an upcoming "Philosophy and Christian Thought" class I'll be teaching at Indiana Wesleyan University in February. This morning, he sent me a philosophically inspired song he's co-written, and I asked him for permission to share it with you. Enjoy.
"Personality Cult"
by Steve Helt and Jason Snyder
i was reading one day from the words of pascal
that men without gods would become gods themselves
well i look all around me and see that it's true
that man is engaged in a selfish pursuit
one half of mankind has declared there's no God
while the rest have all bought into humanist fraud
in sin we let go of the rules absolute
the Church lets it happen, its message dilute
it's a cult of personality
atheism a reality
won't you join the personality cult
you are fond of the writing that "God is dead"
but if you look closer that is not what he said
for Neitzche's intent was that we just don't care
we live and we die as if He isn't there
augustine warned of the middle class thing
that real religion is not what it seems
we cover our bases, half answer the call
but half of a Master is no Lord at all
it's a cult of personality
middle class religiosity
won't you join the personality cult
remember the moral of the story of job
our goodness or badness does not give us hope
for every salvation we must look to the Son
i think you'll find lots of saving to be done
October Returns
10/24/2004 20:29
"An Act of Grace"
Have you ever lost something really important? Have you ever lost something extremely important to you, but with no real hope of ever finding it again? That was the situation faced by Bono, lead singer of the band U2, in 1981. Following closely on the heels of success with their first album "Boy ," the young band was playing in Portland when they let the wrong people backstage. According to the story, some women who were allowed backstage stole a briefcase owned by Bono. This wasn't just any briefcase. It contained notes and lyrics for U2's yet-unproduced album, October .
Bono was faced with having to rewrite the songs while the band was in studio to produce the album, an experience described by the band as their worst sessions ever. Evidently, letting strange girls backstage has even more consequences than originally thought...
For years, Bono, upon every return to Portland, made an appeal to concert audiences in regard to the briefcase. The most recent appeal was made in 2001. Evidently, the rushed and revised October didn't hold up to his original vision he had in mind.
Then in a surprise announcement this past week, Bono announced that the briefcase had been returned . Think about it...after twenty-three years the missing briefcase has resurfaced. Evidently it was found years ago in the attic of a rental house and held onto by someone who didn't recognize its significance. A friend of the person who discovered it has spent the last year trying to contact the right people associated with U2 so that the briefcase could be returned. Evidently, it's no longer as easy to access U2 as it was for the women who went backstage in 1981.
Bono seemed ecstatic over the developments, calling the return of the briefcase "An Act of Grace." Now, speculation is rising among U2 fans on the internet whether Bono will want to produce a revised October that is closer to his original vision.
With the return of the briefcase, another mystery in the history of Rock and Roll is solved. And so much for my theory as to the glowing contents in the briefcase retrieved by Vincent and Jules...
Bono was faced with having to rewrite the songs while the band was in studio to produce the album, an experience described by the band as their worst sessions ever. Evidently, letting strange girls backstage has even more consequences than originally thought...
For years, Bono, upon every return to Portland, made an appeal to concert audiences in regard to the briefcase. The most recent appeal was made in 2001. Evidently, the rushed and revised October didn't hold up to his original vision he had in mind.
Then in a surprise announcement this past week, Bono announced that the briefcase had been returned . Think about it...after twenty-three years the missing briefcase has resurfaced. Evidently it was found years ago in the attic of a rental house and held onto by someone who didn't recognize its significance. A friend of the person who discovered it has spent the last year trying to contact the right people associated with U2 so that the briefcase could be returned. Evidently, it's no longer as easy to access U2 as it was for the women who went backstage in 1981.
Bono seemed ecstatic over the developments, calling the return of the briefcase "An Act of Grace." Now, speculation is rising among U2 fans on the internet whether Bono will want to produce a revised October that is closer to his original vision.
With the return of the briefcase, another mystery in the history of Rock and Roll is solved. And so much for my theory as to the glowing contents in the briefcase retrieved by Vincent and Jules...
The R.I.A.A.: A 21st Century Mafia, Part 2
06/22/2004 16:09
Much to do about data...
If you haven't read part 1 of this blog, scroll down and start there. Otherwise, you won't be up to speed.
Okay, where were we? In part 1 I tried to expose the fact that the actions of the RIAA in all their lawsuits was little more than bullying people into paying them money. Also, I wanted to point out the fact that our current laws on copyrights are in a mess because they have not kept up with our technology. Further, I tried to get YOU thinking about what kind of law is actually being broken in peer-to-peer music services, and begin to think outside the box in regard to the way musical artists and their fans exchange services (in this case, music) and payment for their service.
I left you with the suggestion that you pick up a book called Next: the Future Just Happened (which is already more than two years old, so if you haven't read it yet, you're really behind). And I even suggested that you borrow my copy. I suggest that you borrow my copy because, in reality, that's about all music swapping is equivalent to. Let me explain.
There's a reason that the original Napster was shut down (and you know of course, that Napster 2.0 has nothing to do with the original Napster, don't you? They just bought the rights to the name). The way Napster worked was that you bought the newest Avril Levigne CD and created MP3 files on your computer from it. Then you uploaded those files to the Naptster website, using their software which allowed other people to download the music. Pretty easy right? Yes, and even with our messed up copyright laws, the original owners of Napster had trouble defending what they were doing. Nevertheless, they uncorked a bottle of change upon the music industry. They demonstrated that music is easily transferred back and forth in data form. Further, once it's in data form, it's pretty easy to get it for free. And then, people everywhere really liked the idea of getting music for free. The problem was, however, that all the music was stored in one location. So once the RIAA legally targeted Napster, all they had to do was shut down Napster's servers to stop the music swapping.
As detailed in the book Next, the very day that Napster died, peer-to-peer song-swapping was birthed through the use of the networking software already built into the operating system of your personal computer. What peer-to-peer file sharing does is to set a folder on your computer with full download rights from any user. Software such as Kazaa and Limewire merely provide an interface for networking software that you already have. These programs allow you to do searches all across the internet for whatever song or artist or album (or video, video game, software title, etc) that you are looking for. Once you have performed your search, you find a list of what you are looking for available for download.
So, say for instance, that you want to get a copy of the song "Don't Tell Me" by Avril Levigne, but you don't want to pay for it. Well, perhaps -I- have paid for it and it is in the shared folder on my computer. You might be in another state or even in another country. But the internet connects us just as if we were in the same room with a crossover network cable between us. If you have a fast enough connection, within a few seconds, you have a copy of "Don't Tell Me" on your computer that is no different than my copy.
Now, getting back to the RIAA lawsuits...as I pointed out in my last blog, the RIAA isn't suing people who are downloading music, they are suing people who are sharing music. So, theoretically, they wouldn't sue you for making a copy of my "Don't Tell Me" MP3, they would sue ME. And this brings us back to the question I was asking at the end of my last blog--exactly what is it that I have done that is so illegal?
I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but the closest equivalent I have ever heard is that it is like someone leaving the doors to their personal library unlocked and wide open and letting anyone come in and get whatever they wanted. How is that illegal?
Let me restate what I said in the first blog. I am not condoning theft. I am being critical of our current copyright laws and our lawmakers for their inability to keep up with technology and the bullying tactics of a bunch of middlemen (the the music producers represented by the RIAA) who are making desperate attempts to hold on to a passe way of doing business.
Notice also, that there is a lot of spin that goes on in the way the RIAA presents their case. They talk about people stealing music. I guess that's because it's hard to rally people around the idea that you are going to sue someone for sharing something.
Since "stealing" music gets so much of the attention, let's go back to that idea. What is downloading a music file off the internet equivalent of? Well, about this much--have you ever gone into the library and made a photocopy of an article out of a magazine or book? Every photocopied an entire chapter? If you've ever done anything like this, you're about as equally guilty as the 15-year-old who downloaded "Don't Tell Me" from the shared folder on my computer.
But wait! you're thinking to yourself... Isn't it perfectly legal to make a copy of an article out of a magazine for your own purposes as long as you're not going to sell it or make any kind of financial gain from it? Okay, think about that really hard and apply it to the whole issue of song swapping. What's the difference? What's the real difference?
By the way, there are those who would make the case that it is illegal for you to even make a copy of that article for your own personal use, but I don't care to chase that rabbit.
In the final part of this series, I am going to throw a few more scenarios at you that aren't easily answered, and then take a look at the attitude of the current popular culture (especially teenagers) regarding this issue and demonstrate to you why this is a genie that is NOT going back into her bottle easily.
Stay tuned... a little while longer...
If you haven't read part 1 of this blog, scroll down and start there. Otherwise, you won't be up to speed.
Okay, where were we? In part 1 I tried to expose the fact that the actions of the RIAA in all their lawsuits was little more than bullying people into paying them money. Also, I wanted to point out the fact that our current laws on copyrights are in a mess because they have not kept up with our technology. Further, I tried to get YOU thinking about what kind of law is actually being broken in peer-to-peer music services, and begin to think outside the box in regard to the way musical artists and their fans exchange services (in this case, music) and payment for their service.
I left you with the suggestion that you pick up a book called Next: the Future Just Happened (which is already more than two years old, so if you haven't read it yet, you're really behind). And I even suggested that you borrow my copy. I suggest that you borrow my copy because, in reality, that's about all music swapping is equivalent to. Let me explain.
There's a reason that the original Napster was shut down (and you know of course, that Napster 2.0 has nothing to do with the original Napster, don't you? They just bought the rights to the name). The way Napster worked was that you bought the newest Avril Levigne CD and created MP3 files on your computer from it. Then you uploaded those files to the Naptster website, using their software which allowed other people to download the music. Pretty easy right? Yes, and even with our messed up copyright laws, the original owners of Napster had trouble defending what they were doing. Nevertheless, they uncorked a bottle of change upon the music industry. They demonstrated that music is easily transferred back and forth in data form. Further, once it's in data form, it's pretty easy to get it for free. And then, people everywhere really liked the idea of getting music for free. The problem was, however, that all the music was stored in one location. So once the RIAA legally targeted Napster, all they had to do was shut down Napster's servers to stop the music swapping.
As detailed in the book Next, the very day that Napster died, peer-to-peer song-swapping was birthed through the use of the networking software already built into the operating system of your personal computer. What peer-to-peer file sharing does is to set a folder on your computer with full download rights from any user. Software such as Kazaa and Limewire merely provide an interface for networking software that you already have. These programs allow you to do searches all across the internet for whatever song or artist or album (or video, video game, software title, etc) that you are looking for. Once you have performed your search, you find a list of what you are looking for available for download.
So, say for instance, that you want to get a copy of the song "Don't Tell Me" by Avril Levigne, but you don't want to pay for it. Well, perhaps -I- have paid for it and it is in the shared folder on my computer. You might be in another state or even in another country. But the internet connects us just as if we were in the same room with a crossover network cable between us. If you have a fast enough connection, within a few seconds, you have a copy of "Don't Tell Me" on your computer that is no different than my copy.
Now, getting back to the RIAA lawsuits...as I pointed out in my last blog, the RIAA isn't suing people who are downloading music, they are suing people who are sharing music. So, theoretically, they wouldn't sue you for making a copy of my "Don't Tell Me" MP3, they would sue ME. And this brings us back to the question I was asking at the end of my last blog--exactly what is it that I have done that is so illegal?
I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but the closest equivalent I have ever heard is that it is like someone leaving the doors to their personal library unlocked and wide open and letting anyone come in and get whatever they wanted. How is that illegal?
Let me restate what I said in the first blog. I am not condoning theft. I am being critical of our current copyright laws and our lawmakers for their inability to keep up with technology and the bullying tactics of a bunch of middlemen (the the music producers represented by the RIAA) who are making desperate attempts to hold on to a passe way of doing business.
Notice also, that there is a lot of spin that goes on in the way the RIAA presents their case. They talk about people stealing music. I guess that's because it's hard to rally people around the idea that you are going to sue someone for sharing something.
Since "stealing" music gets so much of the attention, let's go back to that idea. What is downloading a music file off the internet equivalent of? Well, about this much--have you ever gone into the library and made a photocopy of an article out of a magazine or book? Every photocopied an entire chapter? If you've ever done anything like this, you're about as equally guilty as the 15-year-old who downloaded "Don't Tell Me" from the shared folder on my computer.
But wait! you're thinking to yourself... Isn't it perfectly legal to make a copy of an article out of a magazine for your own purposes as long as you're not going to sell it or make any kind of financial gain from it? Okay, think about that really hard and apply it to the whole issue of song swapping. What's the difference? What's the real difference?
By the way, there are those who would make the case that it is illegal for you to even make a copy of that article for your own personal use, but I don't care to chase that rabbit.
In the final part of this series, I am going to throw a few more scenarios at you that aren't easily answered, and then take a look at the attitude of the current popular culture (especially teenagers) regarding this issue and demonstrate to you why this is a genie that is NOT going back into her bottle easily.
Stay tuned... a little while longer...
The R.I.A.A.: A 21st Century Mafia, Part 3
06/12/2004 17:58
Why the music industry is left with pretty few options other than to change...
Okay, to read any further in this blog requires that you read the first two parts to this blog or none of it will make any sense. Scroll down if you haven't already.
Let's recap:
• All the lawsuits from the R.I.A.A. have been been settled out of court so far.
• The actions of the R.I.A.A. are little more than intimidation tactics similar to those applied by the mob AND probably have no legal standing.
• In reality, the lawsuits have not been aimed at people downloading music, but at those sharing music.
• Recording artists actually make very little on sales of their CDs. They make money at the concerts. Music producers by-and-large make HUGE profits from the sale of music.
• Copyright laws have not kept pace with the advance of technology. Current copyright laws are not only outdated, but make the current issue with unauthorized (the term I am going to use from this point forward for music downloaded for free off the internet) downloading of music even more difficult.
In my previous posts on this subject, I put forth the challenge to know exactly what law people are breaking by swapping music. And I could find little equivalent outside of making photocopies of copyrighted material (including magazine articles) at the local library. Now, let me make the water a little bit more muddy. Consider these dilemmas:
1) If the claim is made that unauthorized music downloads are stealing revenue from the music industry, what about the purchase of used CDs? Here in Louisville in the Highlands, there are a number of stores devoted to the sale of used CDs, tapes, and even vinyl records. When those transactions are made, how much of the profit goes to the artist? to the producers? ZERO.
Heck, forget the issue of the used CD stores. What if I decide I don't want Willie Nelson's Stardust Memories anymore and give it to you? Have we just stolen from someone?
Here's the reality: used media is a huge business in the United States today. I rarely pay full price for any entertainment anymore, nor do I buy it new. I buy "previously viewed" DVDs at Blockbuster because not only are they cheaper, but they also come with a lifetime guarantee. Last week, I went to Gamestop and bought a used copy of XIII for my Xbox. I paid $16 for a game that is retailing at Target for $50 and discounted at Sam's Wholesale Club for $44.95. Did the transaction between me and Gamestop violate any laws? any ethics?
I can promise you that if the copyright owners of these materials could figure out a way to stop the sale of used goods or take a cut, they would. When used bookstores started popping up twenty years ago, some publishers actually resorted to putting statements on the copyright pages of their books stating that they could not be resold. Nobody paid any attention and you don't see such statements today very often.
2) What about music recorded off the radio? Radio stations pay for the license to broadcast music and legally you can record it all you want. Someone might counter that the quality of the recording of music played over the radio doesn't match the quality of music on actual CDs. So what? Do you care (or even notice) when you play music on the radio? And in regard to quality, have you listened to some of the satellite radio services? It's getting very close to the quality of actual CDs.What if a person created their entire music collection from recording on the radio, converting the songs to MP3 format and then creating her own CDs, puts them on her iPod? Has anyone been paid for this copy of the music?
3) Can I copy your copy of music if I've already paid for it? In 1980 I bought Billy Joel's Glass Houses on cassette (I remember debating whether it would be more advantageous to get the cassette or the 8-track). I listened to the tape so much over the next two or three years that it finally squealed when I played it. Now, would it be legal then for me to make a copy of your Glass Houses CD since mine is messed up? I can't return it to the place that i bought it. But since I paid for it 25 years ago and since Billy Joel's people got their money, is there anything illegal or unethical about me making a copy of yours?
Well, heck, Rick...should we just let people copy movies, music and software all they want, willy nilly? No, the three aren't the same. Certain songs and versions of songs are associated with the artist. The song "Devil Went Down to Georgia" is a Charlie Daniels song (I've heard, but been able to confirm that Daniels is no longer allowed to perform this song because of copyright disputes, but if this is true, it serves to illustrate how the power in the recording industry is in the wrong hands). That song is associated with him, not with his music label, legal issues withstanding. However, movies and software are very different. If you get a job coding Photoshop software for Adobe, and then you quit Adobe and go to work for Microsoft, you don't take Photoshop with you. It remains Adobe Photoshop, and there would never be a Microsoft Photoshop unless Microsoft bought it or Adobe (heaven forbid). Finding Nemo is Pixar movie. If John Lassiter leaves Pixar, and goes to work at Dreamworks, he can't make Monsters Inc. II at Dreamworks. Only Pixar can do that. The movie is associated with the production studio.
Music is different. If you are a musician, really all we need are you and your music. You need the funds to produce your music on a wide scale, but I'm not so sure the current way things are done is the best way to do this. Back to that thought in a minute.
However, the issue of unauthorized music downloads is not going to go away easily. In fact, I would say that we can't go backwards. Online services such as the iTunes Music Store are only a temporary solution to make folks like myself have a clear conscience about how they obtain theuir music and to pacify folks like the suits who make up the R.I.A.A. However, this is not a long-term solution. More about that in a minute, too.
Here's the deal...here's why this isn't going away anytime soon... Have you talked about this at all with a teenager? I teach at a Christian school and what I've discovered when I bring this up with my students is that they just look at me with blank stares or at most bewilderment. The Gospel Music Association funded a study recently that determined that Christian teenagers are just as much engaged in unauthorized music downloads as non-Christian teenagers. If they want a song or CD, they just go online and fire up Kazaa. Evidently, it doesn't matter whether it's Brittany or Third Day. The ethics of it don't even come into play in their decision because this is how it's been done since they first got interested in music. Would they walk into Wal-Mart and steal a CD? No, but they have no ethical thought process at all when it comes to downloading it. So what do we do? Write up Sunday School lessons about music downloading? Add a new chapter to Why Wait? Hold weekend retreats to study the issue? I don't think that's going to settle the problem.
Plus, there is so much misunderstanding out there. I've come across people that still associate Napster with illegal downloads even though it is now a legal music download store. Same goes for iTunes. I've heard people referring to "illegally downloading music from those places like iTunes." And a few weeks ago I remember talking with a woman who thought she was authorized to download all the music she wanted because she had the "paid for" edition of Limewire.
Let me tell you, 3000 lawsuits from the R.I.A.A. aren't even beginning to influence the issue at all. People are still downloading, but they've gotten smarter. There are a hundred or more websites that give instructions for downloading music without getting sued by the R.I.A.A . The main thing they tell you is to simply make sure that file sharing is turned off on your computer since the suits have come against those who are sharing music and not downloading. And for those who are still scared in regard to downloading, the new thing is to go to public wi-fi spots with a wireless enabled laptop and sit there and download all you want. This suggestion was implied pretty heavily not too long ago by Kevin Rose on the Screen Savers who is often seen wearing a "Music Pirate" t-shirt .
See, here's how this works. Whenever you are on the internet, you have an IP network address associated with your computer. The R.I.A.A. simply fires up peer-to-peer file sharing networks and gets the IP address of the guy offering "My Sharona" by The Knack available for download. That IP address is traced to a particular internet provider, kinda like with a phone number from a bell system or cellular provider. They issue a subpoena to the internet provider for your name, and then they sue you (the owner of the computer with that IP address). However, if you are in a place with public wireless access such as a library, airport, hotel, or coffee shop, the IP address cannot be traced to YOU (unless you just never leave).
I am writing this blog from a Heine Bros. coffee shop in Louisville, Kentucky. They have free wireless internet access (which is why I've started hanging out here instead of Starbucks which doesn't have wi-fi in Louisville). A while ago, there were six of us with laptops open (three Apple Powerbooks, a Dell, a Toshiba, and something I couldn't tell--if you're interested). Know how you spot the guys downloading music? They're the ones with the headphones on because they need to hear samples of the songs they are downloading. You can also tell because internet bandwidth slows way down in places like this when folks are downloading music.
My point is this: music downloading is a part of the culture now. Many of the people doing it don't even realize that there are legal and ethical issues around it. Technology has changed the way people obtain music. So what can be done?
Here's my suggestion, and I don't claim any originality to this. The way the consumer and musical artist relate to each other is going to have to change. The days of the large recording labels need to go ahead and check out because they've been on the deathbed a while, and probably weren't a good idea to begin with.
Music itself needs to be free. There...I said it. How does the artist make any money then? Here's how...
First, I should note that I come across some people who just like to have a physical CD in hand. So the physical item may not ever completely go away. If people want these, then they should be able to pay for them, but not at the current prices in the music stores today.
Secondly, what we need to realize is that the iTunes Music Store (and other such services) did not prove that the majority of people do not care to have a physical CD, peer-to-peer music swapping did. The music itself needs to be free to the enduser/consumer to download from an artist's website, swapped freely with friends and family and even copied from the CDs of those who just have to have the physical product.
This changes the purpose of the CD or music files themselves. They become the promotion for the artist. You like the artist well enough to go to their concerts, buy their t-shirts, and put their bumper stickers on your VW van.
Everyone is happy except the suits at the record labels. They will have to go out and get real jobs...
Okay, to read any further in this blog requires that you read the first two parts to this blog or none of it will make any sense. Scroll down if you haven't already.
Let's recap:
• All the lawsuits from the R.I.A.A. have been been settled out of court so far.
• The actions of the R.I.A.A. are little more than intimidation tactics similar to those applied by the mob AND probably have no legal standing.
• In reality, the lawsuits have not been aimed at people downloading music, but at those sharing music.
• Recording artists actually make very little on sales of their CDs. They make money at the concerts. Music producers by-and-large make HUGE profits from the sale of music.
• Copyright laws have not kept pace with the advance of technology. Current copyright laws are not only outdated, but make the current issue with unauthorized (the term I am going to use from this point forward for music downloaded for free off the internet) downloading of music even more difficult.
In my previous posts on this subject, I put forth the challenge to know exactly what law people are breaking by swapping music. And I could find little equivalent outside of making photocopies of copyrighted material (including magazine articles) at the local library. Now, let me make the water a little bit more muddy. Consider these dilemmas:
1) If the claim is made that unauthorized music downloads are stealing revenue from the music industry, what about the purchase of used CDs? Here in Louisville in the Highlands, there are a number of stores devoted to the sale of used CDs, tapes, and even vinyl records. When those transactions are made, how much of the profit goes to the artist? to the producers? ZERO.
Heck, forget the issue of the used CD stores. What if I decide I don't want Willie Nelson's Stardust Memories anymore and give it to you? Have we just stolen from someone?
Here's the reality: used media is a huge business in the United States today. I rarely pay full price for any entertainment anymore, nor do I buy it new. I buy "previously viewed" DVDs at Blockbuster because not only are they cheaper, but they also come with a lifetime guarantee. Last week, I went to Gamestop and bought a used copy of XIII for my Xbox. I paid $16 for a game that is retailing at Target for $50 and discounted at Sam's Wholesale Club for $44.95. Did the transaction between me and Gamestop violate any laws? any ethics?
I can promise you that if the copyright owners of these materials could figure out a way to stop the sale of used goods or take a cut, they would. When used bookstores started popping up twenty years ago, some publishers actually resorted to putting statements on the copyright pages of their books stating that they could not be resold. Nobody paid any attention and you don't see such statements today very often.
2) What about music recorded off the radio? Radio stations pay for the license to broadcast music and legally you can record it all you want. Someone might counter that the quality of the recording of music played over the radio doesn't match the quality of music on actual CDs. So what? Do you care (or even notice) when you play music on the radio? And in regard to quality, have you listened to some of the satellite radio services? It's getting very close to the quality of actual CDs.What if a person created their entire music collection from recording on the radio, converting the songs to MP3 format and then creating her own CDs, puts them on her iPod? Has anyone been paid for this copy of the music?
3) Can I copy your copy of music if I've already paid for it? In 1980 I bought Billy Joel's Glass Houses on cassette (I remember debating whether it would be more advantageous to get the cassette or the 8-track). I listened to the tape so much over the next two or three years that it finally squealed when I played it. Now, would it be legal then for me to make a copy of your Glass Houses CD since mine is messed up? I can't return it to the place that i bought it. But since I paid for it 25 years ago and since Billy Joel's people got their money, is there anything illegal or unethical about me making a copy of yours?
Well, heck, Rick...should we just let people copy movies, music and software all they want, willy nilly? No, the three aren't the same. Certain songs and versions of songs are associated with the artist. The song "Devil Went Down to Georgia" is a Charlie Daniels song (I've heard, but been able to confirm that Daniels is no longer allowed to perform this song because of copyright disputes, but if this is true, it serves to illustrate how the power in the recording industry is in the wrong hands). That song is associated with him, not with his music label, legal issues withstanding. However, movies and software are very different. If you get a job coding Photoshop software for Adobe, and then you quit Adobe and go to work for Microsoft, you don't take Photoshop with you. It remains Adobe Photoshop, and there would never be a Microsoft Photoshop unless Microsoft bought it or Adobe (heaven forbid). Finding Nemo is Pixar movie. If John Lassiter leaves Pixar, and goes to work at Dreamworks, he can't make Monsters Inc. II at Dreamworks. Only Pixar can do that. The movie is associated with the production studio.
Music is different. If you are a musician, really all we need are you and your music. You need the funds to produce your music on a wide scale, but I'm not so sure the current way things are done is the best way to do this. Back to that thought in a minute.
However, the issue of unauthorized music downloads is not going to go away easily. In fact, I would say that we can't go backwards. Online services such as the iTunes Music Store are only a temporary solution to make folks like myself have a clear conscience about how they obtain theuir music and to pacify folks like the suits who make up the R.I.A.A. However, this is not a long-term solution. More about that in a minute, too.
Here's the deal...here's why this isn't going away anytime soon... Have you talked about this at all with a teenager? I teach at a Christian school and what I've discovered when I bring this up with my students is that they just look at me with blank stares or at most bewilderment. The Gospel Music Association funded a study recently that determined that Christian teenagers are just as much engaged in unauthorized music downloads as non-Christian teenagers. If they want a song or CD, they just go online and fire up Kazaa. Evidently, it doesn't matter whether it's Brittany or Third Day. The ethics of it don't even come into play in their decision because this is how it's been done since they first got interested in music. Would they walk into Wal-Mart and steal a CD? No, but they have no ethical thought process at all when it comes to downloading it. So what do we do? Write up Sunday School lessons about music downloading? Add a new chapter to Why Wait? Hold weekend retreats to study the issue? I don't think that's going to settle the problem.
Plus, there is so much misunderstanding out there. I've come across people that still associate Napster with illegal downloads even though it is now a legal music download store. Same goes for iTunes. I've heard people referring to "illegally downloading music from those places like iTunes." And a few weeks ago I remember talking with a woman who thought she was authorized to download all the music she wanted because she had the "paid for" edition of Limewire.
Let me tell you, 3000 lawsuits from the R.I.A.A. aren't even beginning to influence the issue at all. People are still downloading, but they've gotten smarter. There are a hundred or more websites that give instructions for downloading music without getting sued by the R.I.A.A . The main thing they tell you is to simply make sure that file sharing is turned off on your computer since the suits have come against those who are sharing music and not downloading. And for those who are still scared in regard to downloading, the new thing is to go to public wi-fi spots with a wireless enabled laptop and sit there and download all you want. This suggestion was implied pretty heavily not too long ago by Kevin Rose on the Screen Savers who is often seen wearing a "Music Pirate" t-shirt .
See, here's how this works. Whenever you are on the internet, you have an IP network address associated with your computer. The R.I.A.A. simply fires up peer-to-peer file sharing networks and gets the IP address of the guy offering "My Sharona" by The Knack available for download. That IP address is traced to a particular internet provider, kinda like with a phone number from a bell system or cellular provider. They issue a subpoena to the internet provider for your name, and then they sue you (the owner of the computer with that IP address). However, if you are in a place with public wireless access such as a library, airport, hotel, or coffee shop, the IP address cannot be traced to YOU (unless you just never leave).
I am writing this blog from a Heine Bros. coffee shop in Louisville, Kentucky. They have free wireless internet access (which is why I've started hanging out here instead of Starbucks which doesn't have wi-fi in Louisville). A while ago, there were six of us with laptops open (three Apple Powerbooks, a Dell, a Toshiba, and something I couldn't tell--if you're interested). Know how you spot the guys downloading music? They're the ones with the headphones on because they need to hear samples of the songs they are downloading. You can also tell because internet bandwidth slows way down in places like this when folks are downloading music.
My point is this: music downloading is a part of the culture now. Many of the people doing it don't even realize that there are legal and ethical issues around it. Technology has changed the way people obtain music. So what can be done?
Here's my suggestion, and I don't claim any originality to this. The way the consumer and musical artist relate to each other is going to have to change. The days of the large recording labels need to go ahead and check out because they've been on the deathbed a while, and probably weren't a good idea to begin with.
Music itself needs to be free. There...I said it. How does the artist make any money then? Here's how...
First, I should note that I come across some people who just like to have a physical CD in hand. So the physical item may not ever completely go away. If people want these, then they should be able to pay for them, but not at the current prices in the music stores today.
Secondly, what we need to realize is that the iTunes Music Store (and other such services) did not prove that the majority of people do not care to have a physical CD, peer-to-peer music swapping did. The music itself needs to be free to the enduser/consumer to download from an artist's website, swapped freely with friends and family and even copied from the CDs of those who just have to have the physical product.
This changes the purpose of the CD or music files themselves. They become the promotion for the artist. You like the artist well enough to go to their concerts, buy their t-shirts, and put their bumper stickers on your VW van.
Everyone is happy except the suits at the record labels. They will have to go out and get real jobs...
The R.I.A.A.: A 21st Century Mafia, Part 1
05/29/2004 16:04
yeah...I said it...
This week the Recording Industry Association of America issued another 493 lawsuits against computer users who have supposedly downloaded music illegally. That brings the total somewhere around 3,000, but frankly I've lost count.
Question--have the lawsuits persuaded a significant portion of song swappers to stop? I really don't know. I've read some reports that say yes, and some reports that say no. But get this--none of the cases have so far made it to court. The users who have received subpoenas have been threatened with jail time and criminal fines that range in hundreds of thousands of dollars, but most of the cases have been resolved for two or three thousand dollars and no time served.
The RIAA claims that it doesn't know who they are suing--you're just an IP addresses on the internet to them, or so they say. That's probably true because it is certainly not good press for them when they sue twelve-year-olds and single mothers who make less than $20,000 a year .
What the average person does not know is that NONE of these cases have made it to court. See here's what happens when the Mob...ummm....I mean the RIAA comes knocking on your door. They tell you that you are bad, bad, bad because you have stolen music and the copyright laws say that you will go to jail and have to pay fines of $400,000 (which, of course, is hard to do when you're twelve years old, or on welfare, or clear $21K a year). BUT they quickly tell you of the LOOPHOLE. If you will kindly promise to never ever, ever, ever download music again AND pay a few thousand dollars, you won't ever have to worry about them again. It will ALL go away.
Hey, I think I saw a similar plot on The Sopranos a few Sunday nights ago...
Well, if this sounds like a shakedown...if it sounds like racketeering to you, I agree. And so does Michelle Scimeca , a New Jersey woman who was sued by the RIAA and has counter-sued based on the older gangster/racketeering laws in the law books. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.
I am glad to see Ms. Scimeca's counter-suit because the RIAA's claims need to be settled in a court of law. Everyone so far has been so intimidated by the RIAA that they have settled out of court. I've been privately hoping that someone would challenge them, that they would finally hit someone with the resources to fight back. Why? Is Rick Mansfield in favor of stealing music? No, not really. But our current copyright laws are so outdated, that by their standards, I honestly don't think that what song-swappers are doing is illegal.
Now before you send me your counterpoints (which, of course, I do welcome), hear me out. I didn't say that song-swapping wasn't immoral; it probably is. However, I'm not sure that our current laws would make it illegal.
I mean come on, I'll debate the whole issue with anyone, anytime, AND I'll take either side of the debate. That's how convoluted this situation is.
Copyright laws simply haven't kept up with technology. You know, twenty-five years ago, the television networks and movie studios tried to block your attempt to tape a television show on your VCRs. However, the courts decided that you can tape a show or movie or any other broadcast as long as it is for non-commercial use. Same goes with taping music recorded directly from the radio. I'll come back to this point in my next blog.
It's hard to determine exactly what crime you've committed if you get a lawsuit from the RIAA. See here's the dirty little secret: they aren't suing the people who are downloading music. They are suing people who are sharing music.
But for sake of argument, let's say they were going after the people who were downloading music because basically, if you are sharing it, odds are you've been downloading it. So what is that the equivalent of? Is it the same as going into Wal-Mart and stealing the latest Avril Levigne CD? Well, no not really because you aren't actually walking into Wal-Mart and sticking a physical CD in your pants and walking out the door while smiling at the greeters. In fact, you aren't taking anything physical at all. You're taking data and there it gets a bit iffy.
But someone might claim it's stealing because if you take this music, Avril Levigne isn't getting any money (which she put the time and effort into recording for your listening pleasure) for your ability to listen to her music. Well, let's think about this a minute. I can listen to her on the radio--granted not at my time of choosing--but I don't pay for that. Not the same, you say because the radio station pays for the right to broadcast it. Fair enough. But again, what is the equivalent crime? Since there's no physical theft, is it the same as sneaking into the music studio and stealing the reels she recorded. Well no, because you just made a copy. And there' s not even the breaking and entering charge because you've done this all from the privacy of your own home (or local coffee shop--more about that, too, in my next blog).
Here's something else you need to know. When you buy the latest Avril Levigne CD (regardless of whether you get the physical CD from Wal-Mart or legally download it from the iTunes Music Store ), you aren't really sending any money to dear sweet Avril. Actually most of it goes to the vendors and the music producers. Avril makes money when you buy her concert tickets and pick up the t-shirt while you're there. The record producers want Avril to go on tour to promote the CD which is where they make their money.
So who is being cheated when you download music? Well, if anyone is, its the record producers. And who are they? Well,...ummmm...they are the folks who make up the RIAA. Starting to make any sense now?
Now, you (and the RIAA) may counter, BUT, BUT, BUT the artists need the producers to fund the creation of their CDs. Well, maybe; maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, the way things have always been done aren't enough to keep up with the new digital age we're living in. Maybe we need a new way of supporting artists that will leave the middle men out of the loop. What if you could still support the artist and know that almost all the money you spend, whether on the concert ticket, the t-shirt, or even the physical CD actually went to the artist? What if the physical CD wasn't all that important. The music itself could be traded all you want, but you could still support the artist.
There may just be a way. I don't want to go there right now in this blog, but if YOU want to look into it further, I would suggest you read the book Next: The Future Just Happened by Michael Lewis (no I am not making any money on that link). You know you can buy that book OR check it out from the library OR borrow it from my own bookshelf.
And that leads me to the only real equivalent I know of for song-swapping. I will explore that AND play the Devil's advocate a bit more in the second part of this blog.
Stay tuned...
This week the Recording Industry Association of America issued another 493 lawsuits against computer users who have supposedly downloaded music illegally. That brings the total somewhere around 3,000, but frankly I've lost count.
Question--have the lawsuits persuaded a significant portion of song swappers to stop? I really don't know. I've read some reports that say yes, and some reports that say no. But get this--none of the cases have so far made it to court. The users who have received subpoenas have been threatened with jail time and criminal fines that range in hundreds of thousands of dollars, but most of the cases have been resolved for two or three thousand dollars and no time served.
The RIAA claims that it doesn't know who they are suing--you're just an IP addresses on the internet to them, or so they say. That's probably true because it is certainly not good press for them when they sue twelve-year-olds and single mothers who make less than $20,000 a year .
What the average person does not know is that NONE of these cases have made it to court. See here's what happens when the Mob...ummm....I mean the RIAA comes knocking on your door. They tell you that you are bad, bad, bad because you have stolen music and the copyright laws say that you will go to jail and have to pay fines of $400,000 (which, of course, is hard to do when you're twelve years old, or on welfare, or clear $21K a year). BUT they quickly tell you of the LOOPHOLE. If you will kindly promise to never ever, ever, ever download music again AND pay a few thousand dollars, you won't ever have to worry about them again. It will ALL go away.
Hey, I think I saw a similar plot on The Sopranos a few Sunday nights ago...
Well, if this sounds like a shakedown...if it sounds like racketeering to you, I agree. And so does Michelle Scimeca , a New Jersey woman who was sued by the RIAA and has counter-sued based on the older gangster/racketeering laws in the law books. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.
I am glad to see Ms. Scimeca's counter-suit because the RIAA's claims need to be settled in a court of law. Everyone so far has been so intimidated by the RIAA that they have settled out of court. I've been privately hoping that someone would challenge them, that they would finally hit someone with the resources to fight back. Why? Is Rick Mansfield in favor of stealing music? No, not really. But our current copyright laws are so outdated, that by their standards, I honestly don't think that what song-swappers are doing is illegal.
Now before you send me your counterpoints (which, of course, I do welcome), hear me out. I didn't say that song-swapping wasn't immoral; it probably is. However, I'm not sure that our current laws would make it illegal.
I mean come on, I'll debate the whole issue with anyone, anytime, AND I'll take either side of the debate. That's how convoluted this situation is.
Copyright laws simply haven't kept up with technology. You know, twenty-five years ago, the television networks and movie studios tried to block your attempt to tape a television show on your VCRs. However, the courts decided that you can tape a show or movie or any other broadcast as long as it is for non-commercial use. Same goes with taping music recorded directly from the radio. I'll come back to this point in my next blog.
It's hard to determine exactly what crime you've committed if you get a lawsuit from the RIAA. See here's the dirty little secret: they aren't suing the people who are downloading music. They are suing people who are sharing music.
But for sake of argument, let's say they were going after the people who were downloading music because basically, if you are sharing it, odds are you've been downloading it. So what is that the equivalent of? Is it the same as going into Wal-Mart and stealing the latest Avril Levigne CD? Well, no not really because you aren't actually walking into Wal-Mart and sticking a physical CD in your pants and walking out the door while smiling at the greeters. In fact, you aren't taking anything physical at all. You're taking data and there it gets a bit iffy.
But someone might claim it's stealing because if you take this music, Avril Levigne isn't getting any money (which she put the time and effort into recording for your listening pleasure) for your ability to listen to her music. Well, let's think about this a minute. I can listen to her on the radio--granted not at my time of choosing--but I don't pay for that. Not the same, you say because the radio station pays for the right to broadcast it. Fair enough. But again, what is the equivalent crime? Since there's no physical theft, is it the same as sneaking into the music studio and stealing the reels she recorded. Well no, because you just made a copy. And there' s not even the breaking and entering charge because you've done this all from the privacy of your own home (or local coffee shop--more about that, too, in my next blog).
Here's something else you need to know. When you buy the latest Avril Levigne CD (regardless of whether you get the physical CD from Wal-Mart or legally download it from the iTunes Music Store ), you aren't really sending any money to dear sweet Avril. Actually most of it goes to the vendors and the music producers. Avril makes money when you buy her concert tickets and pick up the t-shirt while you're there. The record producers want Avril to go on tour to promote the CD which is where they make their money.
So who is being cheated when you download music? Well, if anyone is, its the record producers. And who are they? Well,...ummmm...they are the folks who make up the RIAA. Starting to make any sense now?
Now, you (and the RIAA) may counter, BUT, BUT, BUT the artists need the producers to fund the creation of their CDs. Well, maybe; maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, the way things have always been done aren't enough to keep up with the new digital age we're living in. Maybe we need a new way of supporting artists that will leave the middle men out of the loop. What if you could still support the artist and know that almost all the money you spend, whether on the concert ticket, the t-shirt, or even the physical CD actually went to the artist? What if the physical CD wasn't all that important. The music itself could be traded all you want, but you could still support the artist.
There may just be a way. I don't want to go there right now in this blog, but if YOU want to look into it further, I would suggest you read the book Next: The Future Just Happened by Michael Lewis (no I am not making any money on that link). You know you can buy that book OR check it out from the library OR borrow it from my own bookshelf.
And that leads me to the only real equivalent I know of for song-swapping. I will explore that AND play the Devil's advocate a bit more in the second part of this blog.
Stay tuned...