arrrrrr

I've been thinking about a touchy subject since reading this article: musical piracy. This is a very prevalent practice that many people engage in, though few would agree on record that they actually steal music.

So here goes: I steal music. Wow big surprise huh? I'm always talking about new music, I'm in college so I have limited funds, connect the dots if you will.

Okay so I guess that makes me a perfect target for prosecution. I've written it down. I'm serious about it. But don't just think of me as an IP address to track down and sue. Hear me out first.

First of all the music industry is bloated. It is dated. It is operating at a less than optimum level. Why? First of all because of the CD. CDs are much more expensive than they should be, and the format is quickly losing popularity. Digital is where it is at right now, and because the music industry does not want to invest in the switch to digital formats, they are besieged by people who would rather simply steal an album than pay at least $10 for a CD that they are going to rip anyways (which is of uncertain legality, so breaking the law may be involved either way).

There are many creative and new ways the music industry could make the switch to digital. While variable pricing options instituted by Radiohead and Girl Talk might not work for every artist and label, other methods are definitely feasible. Artists could utilize downloads by making users watch a few advertisements then offering the download, or by trading downloads for spreading the artist's popularity, such as by emailing info about them to friends. Increased popularity is probably more desirable for small indie bands than a few cents in royalties for music sales anyways. Or do something like Amie Street and price music based on its popularity. When it is unknown, prices are low. If the music is good and people like it, the price slowly rises until a set level.

However I am not advocating the destruction of physical albums. I often enjoy the packaging that comes with albums, such as liner notes, artwork, and bonus material. Also physical formats such as vinyls are often of higher quality than mp3s. So keep these formats, but the music industry simply has to adapt to the digital age or fall due to rampant piracy.

Another possibility for artists is to simply go indie. A little creativity can produce great ways to spread the music and also make money. Artists often do not get much money from album sales. Most of it comes from merchandise sales and from live shows, so capitalize on that by making your music known. I know that I would be delighted if a band challenged me to find a way to make them known.

So what about me? Am I just trying to justify my theft of music? Allow me to clarify myself. Yes, I do download music. However, a few scenarios now arise from here. I may dislike the album, and the music rusts away in my library. I do not upload music onto p2p sites for others, so nothing further happens to the files. I probably would not have bought the album anyways, so in the end no harm is really done. If I like the music I usually blog about it, so in a small way I spread word of artists. I will show friends youtube videos and tell them to listen to tracks on Last.fm, which is legal, so I am still not furthering the spread of piracy. Also I will go to live shows for bands I like and at every single show I have been to I have bought merchandise. This more than offsets the small loss an artist experiences when I find an album online.

Also, if I really enjoy an album, I will go out and buy a physical copy, first to show my support for the artist, and second because I like higher fidelity music that comes packaged with interesting material.

So in the end I really am not causing the destruction of quality music that the RIAA claims I am. I do try to do my part for an artist, however modest my part may be. But also I would not have bought a few hundred albums at $15 each to begin with. I buy albums that I really like, and that is how it should be. I shouldn't have to pay an exorbitant amount for an album that turns out not to my taste.

Another important point: I have yet to see an artist complain about sales due to piracy. Simple logic dictates that if an album is good some people at least will buy it. Some people will download it, but if you are the one offering downloads you can decide how it works. So who IS complaining? The RIAA is complaining, claiming to be working in the interest of artists. The RIAA tells the artists that downloads are evil, and the artists agree since the RIAA is supposed to be working for them. What the RIAA does NOT tell artists is that they have options.

So what has to happen? I like to try looking for a positive approach, so here is my view: the RIAA needs to embrace the digital age and if it is truly working in the interests of artists and labels it should stop thinking about its own profits and start the transition to digital sales. If that does not happen then we really need to ditch the RIAA and encourage the artists to start looking for alternative methods.

Also, go to shows. Most bands are on a whole new level live anyways. Buy a shirt or poster while you're at it, so you can remember how awesome the show was. This is where bands really make their money, with no middleman taking most of the profit. If you are sincerely trying to support a band then I don't think that downloading an album or two is an unfair trade.

Maybe some people don't share my views and steal music simply because they don't want to pay for it, but I feel that this is not the majority. Most of us do it because it is much more simple than buying it. This small distinction creates an opportunity to capitalize from the situation.

hipsters

I have very strong feelings when it comes to hipsters, but not in the way that is usual. Okay the wikipedia link won't tell you much about them, and I don't know if this link will work because it says the site is currently down for maintenance, so I'll try to explain what a "hipster" is for the curious.

A hipster (in my view), is a person who refutes the mainstream. Everything about it. If something is mainstream, it sucks. Hipsters are very much into aesthetics. According to the might-not-be-working article, that's about all they're into. Also there's a streak of "irony" that permeates the culture. They view wearing vintage clothing and drinking cheap beer *cough PBR cough* as "ironic" and so very much desirable. Past this point hipsters are harder to describe. They usually listen to faddy indie music (MGMT, Justice, Animal Collective, etc), and very few will actually admit to being a hipster, due to the strong negative conotation.

Once you've been around college campuses long enough, you can easily pick out the hipsters. They often dress pretty ...hip, for lack of better descriptor. If someone has his/her right pant leg rolled up, you can almost be sure he/she is a hipster. People with fixed gear roadbikes? Very much likely. Tight pants, scarves, alternative lifestyle, the list goes on and on. They're also pretty rabid about music. They take pleasure in finding "new" bands and think people who listen to "mainstream" music to be beneath them. Of course these are probably the extreme cases, but you do see quite a few of them around campus, so not that extreme.


Okay, so a lot of those descriptions match me. Am I a hipster? Yeah, from those descriptions I guess I am sorta hipster-ish, but I feel there are major distinctions. Hipsterism seems to be a double headed culture. In one part there are those who try to be as different as possible. Just because they think different means good or whatever. But on the other side there are those who think being a hipster is the "cool" thing to do. So they try to emulate it and fail badly. That's probably where a good deal of the stereotypical hipster behavior comes from. These people think they are better than others because they are "hip". They mutate what might have been a relatively benign and enclosed subculture into the semi-mainstream mess we see all over the place. They become the sneering contemptuous mob that shows up at shows and annoys the fuck out of everyone.

And because the subculture has gone semi-mainstream, it sort of perpetuates itself and turns against itself. Obviously a subculture can't be a subculture if it goes mainstream, especially if the subculture emphasizes being non-mainstream. Everyone hates the label of "hipster", even though some of the original aspects are perpetuated and weren't really that bad. So while people may be hipsters, they sure as hell do not want to be called hipsters.

Okay so that's my analysis. Nothing too groundbreaking, but here's where I get really angry. The "hip" thing to do currently seems to be hating on hipsters. Like the second article I linked, a lot of people really think hipsters are completely without saving qualities. They adamantly reject anything that is hipster, and even make groups showing how much they hate hipsters.

So what is wrong with this? I dislike hipsters, or at least the current definition of hipsters, but I am not virulently against all of the principles of hipsterism, nor am I going to hate someone just because they fit some artificial mold, some created definition. By doing that you completely block out the possibility that there might be an individual underneath the veneer. You loathe a group of people not because of who they actually are, but by how they are seen.

This is really almost the same thing as hipsterism, except the new generation is consumed completely by their antagonism towards hipsters. You can never base a subculture exclusively on negativity, and in this case there aren't really any other qualities, such as music or aesthetics, to provide a positive influence. Hating on hipsters is gaining ground because hipsters have gone mainstream, and so they must be rejected. Does this possibly sound exactly like hipsterism? And now the tail end of hipsterism, the "popularity" aspect, is catching on as well. It is faddy to show your contempt for hipsters. So you make groups, you blog, you talk about how much you hate hipsters. Because you don't fucking know any better.

I don't really see hipsterism dying out, or this new fad supplanting it anytime soon, but the whole mess just seems like a vicious cycle of one group running and another group following, all the while contempt is spread throughout the culture.

I guess I'm trying to say dislike a person because of how he is, not because of how he is perceived. If a person is obnoxious, then by all means hate away, but maybe not everyone who owns a road bike or wears a keffiyeh is a total douche.

And above all else listen to music because it is good music. Don't listen to it because all the cool kids are doing it, or because you are trying to be unique. Base what you listen to on your taste, and take into account what others think. Don't just be completely devoid of taste. That makes you uninteresting.

Oh yeah and don't listen to all that mainstream music you hear on the radios. The hipsters were right about that shit, man.