So just in case that long post was a bit daunting, I figured I would write a smaller post on something a bit less controversial. Actually, way less controversial. And yes, it is related to music.
If you don't really follow music this won't mean much. In fact, it will probably bore you to tears.
It seems to be a pretty well accepted axiom that a key to success, or at least a measure of success, is to be signed to a major label. I mean, how else are you going to get your CD on the shelf at target? Or playing on the radio?
But it seems to me that, for the majority of music that I listen to, the band is going to be far more successful on an indie label. This isn't about indie elitism or anything like that, it just seems like the Big Four and their subsidies need to seriously reconsider the way that they operate if they want to stay around.
Suppose a band is signed to Universal. Besides providing money for recording and production, Universal is going to pimp them out to radio stations, department stores, promotions, advertising, the whole deal. Some bands get more of this than others, to be sure, but the gist of it seems to be that the major bands are given this attention, and in the process Universal (could be BMG or Warner or EMI, or any of the companies they own) is throwing out money to get exposure. Some bands stick and become popular, others fall to relative obscurity and, even if they headline concert tours and stay on department store shelves, they really aren't making bank. They'll have their fans, but for the most part, the advertising didn't do much.
I think the problem is that huge labels rely on signing hundreds of artists in order to make money. And, it works, the people involved are certainly making a lot of money, but they also stand to lose a lot to piracy. Their biggest bands get pirated, they have nothing. And the rest, well, they'll have their fans, but if they aren't big enough to be massively pirated to significant financial loss, they aren't bringing in lots of money either.
And the problem is that the company relies solely on its variety of music to draw fans, on individual bands, rather than recognition and loyalty. Nobody's going to say "they're signed to Atlantic, they must be good" because Atlantic has signed the Blue Man Group and the Velvet Underground and everything in-between, you just can't say anything about a band because they're signed to Atlantic. The label really doesn't tell you anything about the quality or style of the music, you're not going to find many die-hard Atlantic fans, and there certainly aren't many people paying attention to whatever new Atlantic puts out. The record label is solely the means of distribution, and relies on the individual bands as the brand name.
Now take an example like Hydra Head. I can say, well, they've signed Isis and Converge and Jesu and Kayo Dot and Sunn O))) and Botch and Cave In, if I see an artist I don't recognize and they're on Hydra Head I may consider buying them based on the label alone. Same goes for something like Southern Lord. The label has a level of quality attached to it, and not only that, but a certain style or at least attitude of music, so that the label alone gains loyalty. Hydra Head (or Southern Lord, Robotic Empire, Neurot Recordings, etc.) doesn't need to promote its artists, signing them and letting them tour with other artists is enough to gain exposure and a fan base, because fans of bands on that label are already paying attention to who they sign. The label has recognition beyond just being well known, they have a reputation that the major labels lack.
This also means that they don't have to worry as much about piracy, because they already have a steady fan base for their label, and while they're certainly making bank off their top artists, someone downloading a song off them is possibly gaining interest in the label, whereas, again, nobody's going to download the new Gnarls Barkley single and think "I need more Atlantic!" Since the indie labels don't rely on megastars and singles they don't need to worry so much about their singles being pirated.
More than just that, bands that could never be pimped out on a major label can make it big and make the smaller label money. You aren't going to hear a band like Daughters on the radio, it would do nothing to help them because the general radio-listening public isn't interested in that sort of music. On a major label, it wouldn't be worth the money to heavily promote them, they would just slip into the obscurity of the back catalog. On a label like Hydra Head, though, people will notice when they get signed, see them touring with other bands on the label, buy their music. By building up a specific reputation, the label doesn't need to pay to promote each band, the act of signing them promotes them, and brings in revenue for the label.
What major labels need to do is specialize. And I realize they do this (Warner has Roadrunner) to some extent, but there's still an obscene amount of advertising for bands on Roadrunner, it's less a self-promoting label and more the face they put on to sell music to Hot Topic (I realize Roadrunner used to be an independent label, but this is as it stands now). Warner seems to be getting on this more than the other big labels, at least, they've also got a sizable share of Sub Pop which does have that label recognition, but for the most part the label advertises individual bands separately. I couldn't even tell you what label most of the stuff I hear on the radio is signed to.
Basically, I think that if the big record labels want to stay alive, they need to specialize, gain a specific reputation, keep their library manageable enough that it's possible to keep up with them. That seems to be the only way they can really gain the attention of devoted (rather than casual) music fans, and while casual fans may be the biggest audience, they're also much more likely to pirate a few singles and never pay a cent. Big industry record labels need to gain the consumer respect that indie labels already have if they want to stay alive and reap the benefits. Then they won't have to shell out millions to promote every band they sign, and maybe they can keep their CDs down to the $10-$12 price of most indie labels. Good for the consumers, good for them.
See, I told you there would be music.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Dichotomy and Values in Politics (and Abortion)
I wrote my introduction while I was sitting at a taco shop waiting to pick my sister up from the dentist. I got bored and wrote this too. I may have trouble transcribing it, my handwriting is far from perfect and I used a sort of smudgy pen.
Anyway, I know I said that this would be more music than politics. I promise the music will come! but for now, this is on my mind. Actually, it's been on my mind since last night when I was watching the political debates. I'm not a big fan of Obama or Clinton, they seem far more alike than different politically, even if Obama has a much better personality (or at least portrays one, these are politicians after all). Not a huge fan, but I think McCain seems a bit too hawkish and, even if he has some liberal ideas that keep him from being an out-and-out conservative, I don't really want to have another four years of Republican policies. I'm not blaming everything on them, certainly a lot of things happened in the past 8 years that were completely out of the government's control, but things aren't looking too good right now and a different set of ideas couldn't hurt. Anyway, my point here isn't really to argue democrat vs. republican, it's the lesser of two evils as far as I'm concerned and that wasn't really what I wanted to get at.
What is important is that it seems like our politics are based on polarizing moral issues and middle-of-the-road and compromising political issues. Look back at presidents, they're remembered by what they did, not their moral strengths and weaknesses, but people like to vote on the moral positions of candidates rather than what their results will actually be, and these things can run contrary to one another.
Take abortion. Big issue, probably the one that's lost the fewest supporters on each side. Completely polarized opinions (legal vs. illegal) based on ideas that aren't ultimately that different. Neither side actually wants abortions to occur. Some of the most avid pro-choicers I've met considered abortion wrong and would never do it themselves. The idea of abortion as a lazy contraceptive and a nonchalant decision is mostly myth, embodied by a few ignorant people but not at all representative Pro-choicers don't want to kill babies, pro-lifers don't want to enslave women. But people vote on this issue, I'd venture to guess that a lot of people vote republican or democrat based solely on it because, let's face it, it's a lot easier to take a stance on than most complicated economic issues.
The things is, it doesn't really matter who wins. Bush has been in office for 8 years and Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned, it would take a lot of such a major court case to be reviewed and reversed, and it isn't like a pro-choice person in the white house can somehow make it more legal than it already is. People vote on the morality of the politicians (supposed morality I should say, these are politicians, it's easy to claim a stance to get votes) but it isn't like there's going to be any major change either way.
And really, and I'm not trying to argue against pro-life necessarily, I think abortion is absolutely terrible and would be happy if it never happened again, it isn't like even if abortion were illegal, it would go away. In Venezuela, for example, where abortion is illegal in all but the most extraneous circumstances, among teenage girls botched abortions make up nearly a third of all deaths, by some estimates, and making abortion illegal doesn't have much of an effect on the abortion rate (per the same link, and plenty of other sources agree). So by making abortion illegal, A) the same number of abortions happen and B) they are much more dangerous. You can make it illegal and feel good about making a moral decision, but if it still happens just as frequently and many more women die because of it, you haven't really solved anything, you've just hidden the problem.
And the problem is, people are going to get unwanted pregnancies, and a lot of people disagree on the value of the life of an unborn child. It is very hard to convince people to make moral decisions when they don't follow your moral code, and legislating that morality won't make them suddenly agree. It would be great if everyone agreed that abortion was wrong, but that isn't going to happen. What can be changed, however, is the percentage of unwanted pregnancies. With no unwanted pregnancies, there will be no abortions. Even better, since nobody wants an unwanted pregnancy, you don't even need to stir up controversy against them!
And the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, practically, is through better sex education. Yeah, the most foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy (excluding rape) is abstinence, but abstinence-only sex education doesn't work. Kids do stupid things, see: drunk driving, it doesn't matter how big you play up the risks to be (and it doesn't help that most programs exaggerate them), as long as someone doesn't morally agree with you to begin with (in which case they'll abstain), they probably won't listen to you, especially if they're a teenager. And if all a kid knows is "don't," what are the odds that they'll take the initiative to learn how to have safe sex?
You may see more comprehensive sex-ed as "training" them, but
A) safe sex isn't only for extra-marital couples
B) you can know how to do something and also know it's wrong
C) if you don't want your kid to have sex, talk to them.
Let the schools give them the knowledge they need to safely have sex if they choose to, so if they do rebel (as kids do) at least they won't also get pregnant, resulting in an undesirable teen pregnancy and possible undesirable abortion.
Now, given how polarized our system is, abstinence-only education almost always is coupled with pro-life policies, and more comprehensive sexual education is almost always coupled with pro-choice. The most effective means of preventing teen pregnancy, and thus the most effective way of preventing abortion, is coupled with pro-abortion policies! And since legal or illegal abortion has almost no impact on the rate of abortions, it is the pro-choice candidates that push for the policies that reduce abortions the most.
My point isn't "vote democrat," I'm divided on the issue myself. My point is, because of how polarized our system is, reasonable policies don't always go with one another. You aren't likely to find a pro-life candidate who supports detailed sex ed because they don't meet either end of the spectrum. Big issues just don't exist in a vacuum, there are a lot of factors to consider beyond the major stance of the candidate.
But that's just the utilitarian in me talking. I care more about what gets done than a politician's personal views. I understand wanting a strong moral leader, but these are politicians, politicians lie about their values to get votes. do you honestly think every president we've ever had was a Christian? If a politician is your moral representative, you're out of luck.
If you disagree, tell me. Would you vote against a policy you agreed with if doing so would actually further your own goals? I'm pretty sure I would.
Music next time. I promise.
Anyway, I know I said that this would be more music than politics. I promise the music will come! but for now, this is on my mind. Actually, it's been on my mind since last night when I was watching the political debates. I'm not a big fan of Obama or Clinton, they seem far more alike than different politically, even if Obama has a much better personality (or at least portrays one, these are politicians after all). Not a huge fan, but I think McCain seems a bit too hawkish and, even if he has some liberal ideas that keep him from being an out-and-out conservative, I don't really want to have another four years of Republican policies. I'm not blaming everything on them, certainly a lot of things happened in the past 8 years that were completely out of the government's control, but things aren't looking too good right now and a different set of ideas couldn't hurt. Anyway, my point here isn't really to argue democrat vs. republican, it's the lesser of two evils as far as I'm concerned and that wasn't really what I wanted to get at.
What is important is that it seems like our politics are based on polarizing moral issues and middle-of-the-road and compromising political issues. Look back at presidents, they're remembered by what they did, not their moral strengths and weaknesses, but people like to vote on the moral positions of candidates rather than what their results will actually be, and these things can run contrary to one another.
Take abortion. Big issue, probably the one that's lost the fewest supporters on each side. Completely polarized opinions (legal vs. illegal) based on ideas that aren't ultimately that different. Neither side actually wants abortions to occur. Some of the most avid pro-choicers I've met considered abortion wrong and would never do it themselves. The idea of abortion as a lazy contraceptive and a nonchalant decision is mostly myth, embodied by a few ignorant people but not at all representative Pro-choicers don't want to kill babies, pro-lifers don't want to enslave women. But people vote on this issue, I'd venture to guess that a lot of people vote republican or democrat based solely on it because, let's face it, it's a lot easier to take a stance on than most complicated economic issues.
The things is, it doesn't really matter who wins. Bush has been in office for 8 years and Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned, it would take a lot of such a major court case to be reviewed and reversed, and it isn't like a pro-choice person in the white house can somehow make it more legal than it already is. People vote on the morality of the politicians (supposed morality I should say, these are politicians, it's easy to claim a stance to get votes) but it isn't like there's going to be any major change either way.
And really, and I'm not trying to argue against pro-life necessarily, I think abortion is absolutely terrible and would be happy if it never happened again, it isn't like even if abortion were illegal, it would go away. In Venezuela, for example, where abortion is illegal in all but the most extraneous circumstances, among teenage girls botched abortions make up nearly a third of all deaths, by some estimates, and making abortion illegal doesn't have much of an effect on the abortion rate (per the same link, and plenty of other sources agree). So by making abortion illegal, A) the same number of abortions happen and B) they are much more dangerous. You can make it illegal and feel good about making a moral decision, but if it still happens just as frequently and many more women die because of it, you haven't really solved anything, you've just hidden the problem.
And the problem is, people are going to get unwanted pregnancies, and a lot of people disagree on the value of the life of an unborn child. It is very hard to convince people to make moral decisions when they don't follow your moral code, and legislating that morality won't make them suddenly agree. It would be great if everyone agreed that abortion was wrong, but that isn't going to happen. What can be changed, however, is the percentage of unwanted pregnancies. With no unwanted pregnancies, there will be no abortions. Even better, since nobody wants an unwanted pregnancy, you don't even need to stir up controversy against them!
And the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, practically, is through better sex education. Yeah, the most foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy (excluding rape) is abstinence, but abstinence-only sex education doesn't work. Kids do stupid things, see: drunk driving, it doesn't matter how big you play up the risks to be (and it doesn't help that most programs exaggerate them), as long as someone doesn't morally agree with you to begin with (in which case they'll abstain), they probably won't listen to you, especially if they're a teenager. And if all a kid knows is "don't," what are the odds that they'll take the initiative to learn how to have safe sex?
You may see more comprehensive sex-ed as "training" them, but
A) safe sex isn't only for extra-marital couples
B) you can know how to do something and also know it's wrong
C) if you don't want your kid to have sex, talk to them.
Let the schools give them the knowledge they need to safely have sex if they choose to, so if they do rebel (as kids do) at least they won't also get pregnant, resulting in an undesirable teen pregnancy and possible undesirable abortion.
Now, given how polarized our system is, abstinence-only education almost always is coupled with pro-life policies, and more comprehensive sexual education is almost always coupled with pro-choice. The most effective means of preventing teen pregnancy, and thus the most effective way of preventing abortion, is coupled with pro-abortion policies! And since legal or illegal abortion has almost no impact on the rate of abortions, it is the pro-choice candidates that push for the policies that reduce abortions the most.
My point isn't "vote democrat," I'm divided on the issue myself. My point is, because of how polarized our system is, reasonable policies don't always go with one another. You aren't likely to find a pro-life candidate who supports detailed sex ed because they don't meet either end of the spectrum. Big issues just don't exist in a vacuum, there are a lot of factors to consider beyond the major stance of the candidate.
But that's just the utilitarian in me talking. I care more about what gets done than a politician's personal views. I understand wanting a strong moral leader, but these are politicians, politicians lie about their values to get votes. do you honestly think every president we've ever had was a Christian? If a politician is your moral representative, you're out of luck.
If you disagree, tell me. Would you vote against a policy you agreed with if doing so would actually further your own goals? I'm pretty sure I would.
Music next time. I promise.
Introduction
In a bout of egotism I've decided to start a blog (I've tried before. I failed). I'm an avid message board poster, and have been for about seven years now, and I figured that if I can contribute pages and pages to forum topics (I think my record is about 30 posts in a single thread, each one pretty long and detailed) then there's no reason why I can't organize my thoughts in a single location. Some of this may be cut and pasted or modified from posts, most of it probably won't be. I doubt anyone will be reading this, I certainly have more of an audience on forums, but it seems more efficient to have one place to post everything.
So, as a bit of an introduction, I'm a fan of music, and probably liberal politically. I say probably because, while I am a huge advocate of personal liberties, I'm ultimately fairly utilitarian to that end. Sometimes liberal policies work, sometimes conservative policies work, and I probably lean more heavily towards liberal policies now but it isn't because of some innate unchanging code of ethics, just because they seem to work better. I care more about results than ideology, especially when it comes to economic issues. If you disagree strongly with me, I don't think you're terrible or unintelligent, please don't think the same about me either. I enjoy considering issues, I'm really not cemented in any of them. Really, I'll probably write more about music than politics, because music is much more interesting and much less controversial.
My blog's title is just the name of a Circle Takes the Square song. Seriously, I suck at picking out names, so I just scrolled through my iTunes library for something that might describe a blog. It isn't a perfect title, but I think it fits well enough.
That's my introduction. Goodbye for now, I'm sick of writing about myself.
So, as a bit of an introduction, I'm a fan of music, and probably liberal politically. I say probably because, while I am a huge advocate of personal liberties, I'm ultimately fairly utilitarian to that end. Sometimes liberal policies work, sometimes conservative policies work, and I probably lean more heavily towards liberal policies now but it isn't because of some innate unchanging code of ethics, just because they seem to work better. I care more about results than ideology, especially when it comes to economic issues. If you disagree strongly with me, I don't think you're terrible or unintelligent, please don't think the same about me either. I enjoy considering issues, I'm really not cemented in any of them. Really, I'll probably write more about music than politics, because music is much more interesting and much less controversial.
My blog's title is just the name of a Circle Takes the Square song. Seriously, I suck at picking out names, so I just scrolled through my iTunes library for something that might describe a blog. It isn't a perfect title, but I think it fits well enough.
That's my introduction. Goodbye for now, I'm sick of writing about myself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
