Having recently discussed my love-hate relationship with the music of Ryan Adams, I thought tonight's conversation with The Wife was somewhat interesting.
While in the car on our way to our favorite smoke-filled bar, the new song by Adams and his band The Cardinals, "Let It Ride," came on the radio. There was a distinct pause in our conversation, after which The Wife piped up with the line that had playing around the fringes of my consciousness at exactly the same time: "God damn Ryan Adams."
"Let It Ride" is a great song: tuneful, finely written, and just long enough to leave you wanting more. Once again, the spoiled brat of singer-songwriter music has produced something of sublime brilliance, which only makes some of us resent him further.
As the song ended, I presented the missus with my associated moral quandary. To wit: is it ever acceptable to steal/bootleg an artist's work if you find the person reprehensible in some way? Maybe the guy has a record of spousal abuse, or is on record as making anti-Seimitic statements, does it then become a matter of measuring the artist against your own code of ethics when deciding whether or not to download a free copy of their work?
I opined that this could be the case, for instance if the artist in question was a rabid pro-lifer (Tad Williams), or had espoused homophobic sentiments (Shaggy, Axl Rose). The Wife, being less philosophically intransigent than yours truly, said she'd be more forigiving of someone having different political beliefs, but would have fewer qualms about bootlegging the work of someone she regarded as an asshole (i.e. Adams).
My views on the issue are somewhat more black and white. I tend to think ripping off another's work is wrong, and if you really have that big of a problem with another person's beliefs or actions, you should just avoid their work altogether (which ties in with my view that any sports team that continues to use Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll (Part 2)" at their games is enabling his child porn addiction).
Going beyond that, if you look hard enough at any artiste, you can probably find ample reason to view them with distaste. Lewis Carroll has a penchant for little girls, and Dave Sim is an unrepentant misogynist (among other things), to name but two blatant examples. I guess too many Stella Artoises(?) have gotten me rambling, but the question I would put to you is: what sort of criteria (if any) would you use to justify downloading free copies of the works of certain singers/authors/actors/directors, if you weren't simply going to ignore them in the first place?
I won't download or copy music myself here in the United States, but don't have a problem buying pirated CDs in other countries. I guess the criteria is that American copyright law must be followed while international copyright doesn't matter?
If they're dead. I mean, really. I scrupulously won't download from living artists, even of the Mick and Keith level. But do I really care if Yoko Ono gets to bleed another penny from the lifeless corpse of her husband?
I do make an exception for artists who have not made it big and have young children. Michael Hedges, who dies with two young children, did not have his music published. Because of his insane tunings and weird talent, it's almost impossible to listen to it and figure it out if you've never seen him perform the song live to give you a hint. So a group of fans put together guitar sheet music (tabs), and then requested that, if you downloaded the tab, you gave money to the foundation that had been set up to help his kids. Hedges was not well known when he died, and certainly had not amassed a fortune to support two young children. I contributed.
But, in general, if the artist is dead, well, I just don't have a problem with stealing from the dead. But I won't steal from the living, even if they could buy and sell me a million times. one doesn't earn money because one needs it. One earns money because one deserves it. And an artist who has put forth music I like deserves it, IMHO.
That said, personality never enters into it. Harlan Ellison is one of my favorite writers. Many people in a position to know contend that he is also a first class prick. I don't know, and don't care. I happily pay him for providing me with the hours of entertainment. What he does when he's not providing me with that entertainment is between him, his morality and the law. If your point is that you'd rather not enable behavior you find repellant, well, that's your prerogative, but, for me, if I like the artist I pay for the art. I don't pay the artist to be someone I like, and don't care if I like him or not.
Personally, I don't try and rationalize my desire for free music, I just don't feel bad about it instead. Its stealing, but so is swiping that pile of pens and sharpies from the office, and I feel no guilt over that either. I will say this though, most of the new music I've bought in the past five years (as opposed to music by artists I already know and enjoy), I've found by downloading a couple of tracks off of ye olde internet. Including (b)Ryan Adams' old band Whiskeytown (Faithless Street is such a good damn album). And while I can understand the logic of "he's a prick, its okay to swipe his music!", I'm not going to limit myself to swiping music by artists that piss me off. I'm remarkably nondiscriminatory in my thievery.
Pete has a post up asking when it's OK to download music. What I've learned is that downloading questionable/illegal MP3s......
| --Posted to Perverse Access Memory on May 19, 2005 11:00 AM:. |
I believe that current thinking is that Lewis Carroll probably wasn't interested in the little girls sexually, he just liked little girls. Expect to be contacted by some frumious lawyers around brillig.
I'm going to try to keep this from becoming a long, rambling, convoluted explanation on my feelings about free downloading, but I'm not making any promises. Here it goes:
When it comes to major label material, I feel little to no remorse whatsoever. Basically, downloading a free song that appears on a release from Warner or Sony amounts to stealing a box of pens from a company like Enron. First, the song in question was most likely the only good one on an album that was loaded down with 40 minutes worth of filler. So instead of Warner getting to mug me for what amounts to a $20 single, I beat them to the punch. Second: As for the artist in this deal, I still don't feel all that bad since most artists on the majors make ridiculously little money in the bargain (I've read that it was something to the tune of 12 cents to the dollar). They more than make up for it with the tours and the merchandise.
As for the indies, well there's slightly more guilt, but still not a whole lot and here's why:
If I downloaded a tune from an artist that I dig, chances are that album is pretty damn good and I'm going to end up buying it anyway (since most indie albums are not entirely geared toward "the single"). I believe that applies to most fans of indie music. Even if I do not buy the album, I'm most likely going to see that band when they head to the Big Apple on their tour. So they're going to get paid one way or the other. And I'm going to spread the word to all my friends. One of the other reasons I don't feel too guilty about the free download is that the vast majority of indie artists aren't all that upset about it, going by what I've read. I've read the opinions of Fugazi's Ian Mackaye, Superchunk's Mac McCaughan, Henry Rollins, and Bob Mould and they all are kind of flattered that someone would bother to "steal" their material. For them, it's all about people listening. They know that more often than not, that free download leads to someone buying the album and going to the show and buying the t-shirt. It's about exposure, exposure, exposure.
Speaking for myself, I don't give a damn if someone downloads one of my songs for free. I'm just glad that they're listening. In the interest of full disclosure, my bandmates and I do not rely on album sales to put food on the table for mamma and baby. We're more hobbyists (I hate that term, but I can't think of a better one right now). We all have real day jobs to pay the bills. Still, we don't sweat the couple of thousand free downloads of our stuff that are out there. I'm just glad that people are listening. And if it means that they'll buy something in the future, or come see us when we play, I'm more than fine with that.
Hope I didn't ramble too much there.
Bryan
If you're going to steal a Ryan Adams song, steal Come Pick Me Up. I have, and I don't regret it at all. I dig a couple of his songs but his attitude in the interviews I've read of him is so slimy and pretentious that I don't care to funnel money his way.
I say, if the artist expresses an "I don't give a fuck" attitude toward you, you are free to return the favor. He'll make plenty of money when tour season comes.
I do not download music without paying, period.
In part this is because I am a social justice geek, and darn it, I'm not going to allow an artist being a dick to be an excuse for me to break the law.
In part, however, I would like to support a model of music distribution that involves paying a flat fee for unlimited future plays. The alternative, paying per play, is obnoxious and will undoubtedly involve a wasteful escalation of encrypting and decrypting. I would much rather throw my money at the first concept so that it takes off. If I don't let my wallet vote, somebody else is going to help decide the way music is distributed, and I might not like what we get.
Dave Sim is an unrepentant misogynist (among other things)?
Never noticed it.
I try to support artists that are just starting out OR small record labels- like Ryan's label, LOST HIGHWAY. I also have no qualms downloading a band and then buying their CD later IF I like it. I did that with the SHINS.
In the end, I hate corporations and I feel that when you download and burn a CD, you're sticking it to da man and not so much the artist. If you download a CD, like it, go see a concert and buy a shirt, you're really supporting the artist on the highest level.
And..hating Ryan Adams is so passe. I mean, really. Lets all start a "he's an asshole" campaign against someone new...like Elvis Costello or something.
And..hating Ryan Adams is so passe. I mean, really. Lets all start a "he's an asshole" campaign against someone new
I just registered "donlewisisanasshole.com"
I've never downloaded a tune that wasn't free to begin with. Not out of altruistic beliefs, or even legal fears. I've abstained from doing so out of pure lethargy. I've tried using those P2P sites and if couldn't get any of them up and running within 5 minutes, so I just gave up. Since I don't like most "popular" music anyways, I'm generally buying cds from smaller or indy artists. And I'd like to think that my purchase encourages them to make more music.
I will, however, burn compilation CDs and give them to people in order to help broaden someone's horizons on a particular genre of music or specific artist (bluegrass, hip hop, alt country, down tempo, etc). But since I don't give out full albums or receive any money, I don't think its illegal or immoral.
I suppose while we are on the topic of free music downloads, I should give a shout-out to my old friend MC Frontalot, who leads the charge of the Nerdcore hiphop movement. Do consider buying something from his store if you like his music, which can be found here:
HAH! I've owned that domain for years...nice try!
Geez, dude. I thought for sure we'd at least get an overt reference to Zeppelin in this suspiciously titled entry. ...
Here's one guy's criteria: My friend boasts an impressive library of between 3000 and 3500 CDs, almost all purchased off the shelf. He won't copy music for himself, but has been known to provide copies for a friend now and then. He won't burn someone if they're up-and-coming, as he figures they're still dependant on sales, both from a cash standpoint and a contract standpoint, but when it comes down to, "Do Mick and Keith really need my $2?" it's burn, baby, burn.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but at least it's got more thought behind it than some.