I read this interesting excerpt from the keyboardist from Stratovarius (Jens Johansson). I don't necessarily agree with his assessment of Napster (I think it must've been written in 2000 or 2001 when they were getting sued), but it's interesting to see a viewpoint that isn't from a mutli-million dollar recording industry puppet. I actually respect what Mr. Johansson does as a musician and I appreciate the music that Stratovarius provides. Unlike the Britney Spears, Paris Hiltons, or other Johnny Come Latelys, Johansson and Stratovarius produce true intellectual property and have definite rights to call themselves artists.
In reading his entry, I do sense a conflicted viewpoint though. It reminds me of Vader in Return of the Jedi where Luke is telling Vader that there's still some good left in him. Johansson rightfully points out how the music industry big shots are nothing but slime. But he also is very anti-corporate in his views of Napster (even though now they've become a "legitimate" corporate puppet). He does acknowledge too that bootlegs have, like file sharing, been traditional means where fans could obtain music they normally could not as well as spreading recognition where some bands normally could not penetrate in terms of market share. So he's obviously in limbo on where to take a stand, even though at the end he readily acknowledges that at the very basis, his livelihood is at stake.
Ultimately, if we were comparing him to Return of the Jedi, the money would be the "Dark Side of the Force." If you got rid of the money factor, I'm certain that Mr. Johansson would appreciate companies like YouTube, Napster, and other file sharing systems in spreading his (former) band's good name (well someone else decided to shut that down, but that's a different story entirely).
Still, one of the most important paragraphs in his write up is:
"Artists get fucked enough anyway. The music industry is notorious."
By his own admission, this means that it's perhaps the industry as a whole that's hurting artists? Perhaps, the greed of corporations tend to treat their artists as mere pawns in a high stakes game where only the most politically savvy can survive?
Reading other parts of his site, he mentions about how a musician is like being unemployed. In some ways, it's like a start up or venture company where you might not be making any money and just working out of a garage. In many ways, he is not unlike Shawn Fanning, creator of Napster, who worked out of his college room towards success. So there's definitely something in common with both people and the idea of not being employed for doing your dreams is the basis of that commonality.
He also mentions the common excuse/fear most artists use in describing their (hesitant) support for the Big Media industries: if people download for free, then the artists won't get compensated and will eventually stop doing it. I seriously doubt this will ever happen. For every artist that gives up, a thousand more will spring up because they see a gap that they can fill. Heck, look at all the guitar videos up on YouTube. None of those people will probably make a cent, but they're immensely popular and are doing more for the recognition.
In the end, the problem always boils down to money. When do the artists get compensated? Part of me thinks that artists should simply be like software engineers. Rather than making money per label with the crappy royalty fees, they should just get an annual salary. That's one way to solve the greedy artists problem (it worked for the Shaw Brothers in Hong Kong!). Let's face it; most artists just want to be rich and not have to work a 9-5 job. I find it offensive when they say that the thousands of hours put into recording their label becomes worthless as a result of people downloading their music. Doesn't that mean that more people recognize that they're great musicians? So again, the only thing the artists want is money.
Le'ts hear the old Ted DiBiase song:
Money, Money, Money, Money, Money!
HAHAHHAHAHAHA!
Everybody's got a price to pay for the Million Dollar Man!
Well, even if these artists get a flat salary like any good software engineer, there still is an issue of getting people to pay for their music and movies. So we return to the fact that money is involved again.
Perhaps, it's a good time to end the whole notion of money.
Currency just makes no sense. I don't understand how someone like Matt Damon get tons of money for doing so little. On the other hand, an elementary school teacher barely receives enough. Then you have the global economy where people's skills are devalued in one country and further devalued in another, leading to job losses in some countries. Or better yet. You have these useless old people sitting on a board, playing God essentially and barely doing anything socially worthwhile and making enough to feed part of Africa.
Does the whole notion of money make any sense to you?
Sure, I've read about supply and demand. I know about the need to value things to create opportunities of exchange.
But the problem is that the system is abused, manipulated and completely out of control, except for a few elite who understand how to manipulate the game for their own short term gain.
So common sense, rationality, conventional wisdom go out the window for pure avarice.
Johansson's inherent problem is not Napster, the company, nor the public as downloading his music and potentially turning his hard earned work into a meaningless epiphany. Johansson's real problem is that the system of currency and valuation as well as trickle down economics make absolutely zero sense in the postmodern world, except for the tiny elite that have control over the system.
Johansson might be recognized as a great keyboard player, but he's still a little guy because he's not a pure tool by the corporations he unwittingly supports.
Since starting work, I realized over the course of the last 9+ years that the majority of these economic bubbles and recessions are always caused by Wallstreet. Their constant attempts to manipulate the market and play people are what create these financial gaps. At the basis, the stock exchange no longer has any true value because none of it makes sense, except against for the few investors and people manipulating the game.
The stock market and institutional banking are also known as "trusts" for a reason. The public implicitly trusts these institutions to grow their money. However, as Wallstreet historically has demonstrated, they cannot be trusted because their greed supersedes the interests of the public at large. Wallstreet and institutional investing really do not have a meaningful place in the 21st century society. It is an archaic institution founded upon the flawed trickle down economics principle. And it's flawed because when the shit hits the fan, it hits everyone as well and there are no true winners with the few rarities.
So after this lengthy diatribe, what can we use as a substitute for money? We still as a society and as a global society need to determine a system of bartering that is somehow equal and fair.
I don't have a pure solution, but I've started noticing things in the online world. For example, I recently joined an online SNS game off of Facebook called Mob Wars. It's like any silly role playing game where you have stuff, property, stats, power, fights, etc. But to grow in the game, you need more money, people on your team, equipment, actions, etc. So one way you can obtain more is through using your PayPal account to increase your virtual money (which I admittedly have done), your energy or your mob members. Also, you can obtain "favor" points through partnerships that do not necessarily require monetary compensation, but "actions" like viewing ads, taking surveys, watching videos, etc.
When I did my report on online advertisement, one of the key things in measuring the success of clickthrus/conversion rates was this notion of "performing actions." So perhaps getting someone to buy something is not the end goal of a campaign. Perhaps, the end goal is to watch ads or register for a newsletter. These are small signs of a new economy. Similarly, the virtual online world/game SecondLife has the notion of "virtual money" as well. And as we're seeing sometimes virtual money means more than "real money" as people sell their characters through 3rd party websites like ebay.
I've mentioned before how the stock market would considered a kind of web 1.0 artifact whereas online keywords are now the true measurement of companies in the online world. Perhaps, someone can create a trading system for keywords online. Or perhaps we need a bartering system for actions. I've discussed many times with friends about trading services and building systems where people decide the value of their service.
If we go back to Johansson, since his band is pretty much dead, his value might be helping new musicians to produce music. Obviously, his experience, talent, ear for music and depth of knowledge in keyboards are a wealth that any musician one day aspiring to be the next YouTube idol would want.
Another chief advantage in this is that America potentially won't be sold off as the dollar value of the land decreases proportionally to middle class America's pocket books. I mean, imagine this: everyone gets some sort of home, food, water, transportation, all these essentials. Luxuries are the only things where we need to barter. It is socialistic in many ways but the main idea is that people can survive without living in excess (and therefore suffering from obesity, gas price problems in having oversized SUVs, etc.) while still having some illusion that their work isn't entirely meaningless in being able to compete for luxury goods.
It's wild thoughts but at this stage of the game, what options are there that won't offend everyone? Besides, Google already is doing part of this and they're receiving great praise as the best company to work for. So if that's the case, why not just spread the idea to an even greater degree?
Sphere: Related Content
Trackbacks: (Trackback URL)
