The problem with Dave Lowery's lengthy rebuttal of a 20-year old NPR intern's blog post about where she gets her music is not so much the points he's making, it's that he has done it in a way that's rather stupid. At one point, he scolds the kid, "You've unfortunately stumbled into the middle of a giant philosophical fight between artists and powerful commercial interests. To your benefit, it is clear you are trying to answer those existential questions posed to your generation." I think Dave knows the feeling, but sadly, only one of them is playing fair.
Emily White's piece was fascinating both for its candor and for explaining what the world looks like to a "digital native." To me the most interesting part is the idea that she has barely ever paid for music, but that she's never actually stolen it. That says volumes about the way the landscape has changed. That's worth talking about like an adult. But the adult in the conversation can't seem to muster a coherent, let alone respectful, argument.
So what's wrong with Lowery's response?
Let's take it from the top: "My intention here is not to shame you or embarrass you." Actually, that's exactly his intention. At least be honest.
He also insists he's "not trying to set up a 'strawman,'" Though this "corporate backed Free Culture movement" sure looks like one. And let's not mention his itemized list of expenses he thinks college students have to endure.
He throws out unfounded assumptions with reckless ease. "The accepted norm for hudreds [sic] of years of western civilization is the artist has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time." Mozart just flipped over in his unmarked pauper's grave. That is an amazingly incorrect statement.
How about some distracting inappropriate analogies? Sure: "Even in the case of corporate record labels, shouldn't they be rewarded for the bets they make that provides you with recordings you enjoy? It's not like the money goes into a giant bonfire in the middle of the woods while satanic priests conduct black masses and animal sacrifices." Actually, I wouldn't mind a bonfire, because I always imagine the money goes to record execs who spend it on cocaine for the 16 year old runaways hanging out by their giant swimming pools. Which of us is more right? Don't even think about that — this isn't about class war, we're talking about the rights of artists.
But finally, and this is the clincher that made me give up fuming and actually write something about this mess. No mincing words: he is saying here that file-sharing kills people, specifically Mark Linkous and Vic Chesnutt. "Shortly before Christmas 2009, Vic took his life. He was my neighbor, and I was there as they put him in the ambulance." Now if you are arguing with any sense of perspective, any sense of respect for others, any sense of common decency, then this is not done. "I present these two stories to you not because I'm pointing fingers or want to shame you." Again, that is exactly what he is doing, and the only correct response is an honest, "fuck you."
I hate this kind of sloppy, malevolent ranting because I know there is a point at the bottom of this, and I think he's right. From an ethical and a commercial point of view, I agree that artists deserve a livelihood. And when it is done responsibly, correctly, I am an eager participant. I listen to a lot of streaming music, just like I used to listen to the radio, and I buy what I like from Amazon's MP3 store, not just because it is convenient (I know, don't get him started on that!) but because it seems aware that the old price structure was foolish and criminal. I do this even though I too am a content creator who has been pretty harshly treated by sweeping technological change and corporate ass-hattery. When I decided back in the 90s to work my ass off to become a journalist, no one predicted the entire industry would be a corpse in 2012. I know what's its like to see your work undervalued (worse, because I didn't get the rights to anything I created), get routinely screwed, and find your bank account dangerously close to empty. That's why I take ham-handed lectures from folks like Dave Lowery so badly.
There is plenty of guilt to go around for how the music industry got into this mess. There are the record companies, of course, who seriously thought it was alright to charge $16 for a CD until a few years ago. There are the artists, who were so stuck on the familiar routine of albums and touring that they refused to think more creatively about ways to jump off the railroad tracks. And there are, of course, the bit-torrent folks, and also the college students whose big crime was to accept music from friends as a gift.
Emily White explained to us the reality of the situation, and too often people on Lowery's side resort to the equivalent of bitching that the sun comes up everyday in the east. He needs to persuade people, and this sure as hell isn't the way to do it. As bad as the situation may be, when you think about technology allows us, it is pretty exciting, and it deserves a much better dialogue than this. To reprise, I would say to Dave...
I am genuinely stunned by this. Since you appear to love being a Big Thinker, and as someone who enjoys reading and engaging with thoughtful, respectful arguments, I am now legally obligated to issue this order: Old crank, dustbin, jump.
You are doing it wrong.
Emily White's piece was fascinating both for its candor and for explaining what the world looks like to a "digital native." To me the most interesting part is the idea that she has barely ever paid for music, but that she's never actually stolen it. That says volumes about the way the landscape has changed. That's worth talking about like an adult. But the adult in the conversation can't seem to muster a coherent, let alone respectful, argument.
So what's wrong with Lowery's response?
Let's take it from the top: "My intention here is not to shame you or embarrass you." Actually, that's exactly his intention. At least be honest.
He also insists he's "not trying to set up a 'strawman,'" Though this "corporate backed Free Culture movement" sure looks like one. And let's not mention his itemized list of expenses he thinks college students have to endure.
He throws out unfounded assumptions with reckless ease. "The accepted norm for hudreds [sic] of years of western civilization is the artist has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time." Mozart just flipped over in his unmarked pauper's grave. That is an amazingly incorrect statement.
How about some distracting inappropriate analogies? Sure: "Even in the case of corporate record labels, shouldn't they be rewarded for the bets they make that provides you with recordings you enjoy? It's not like the money goes into a giant bonfire in the middle of the woods while satanic priests conduct black masses and animal sacrifices." Actually, I wouldn't mind a bonfire, because I always imagine the money goes to record execs who spend it on cocaine for the 16 year old runaways hanging out by their giant swimming pools. Which of us is more right? Don't even think about that — this isn't about class war, we're talking about the rights of artists.
But finally, and this is the clincher that made me give up fuming and actually write something about this mess. No mincing words: he is saying here that file-sharing kills people, specifically Mark Linkous and Vic Chesnutt. "Shortly before Christmas 2009, Vic took his life. He was my neighbor, and I was there as they put him in the ambulance." Now if you are arguing with any sense of perspective, any sense of respect for others, any sense of common decency, then this is not done. "I present these two stories to you not because I'm pointing fingers or want to shame you." Again, that is exactly what he is doing, and the only correct response is an honest, "fuck you."
I hate this kind of sloppy, malevolent ranting because I know there is a point at the bottom of this, and I think he's right. From an ethical and a commercial point of view, I agree that artists deserve a livelihood. And when it is done responsibly, correctly, I am an eager participant. I listen to a lot of streaming music, just like I used to listen to the radio, and I buy what I like from Amazon's MP3 store, not just because it is convenient (I know, don't get him started on that!) but because it seems aware that the old price structure was foolish and criminal. I do this even though I too am a content creator who has been pretty harshly treated by sweeping technological change and corporate ass-hattery. When I decided back in the 90s to work my ass off to become a journalist, no one predicted the entire industry would be a corpse in 2012. I know what's its like to see your work undervalued (worse, because I didn't get the rights to anything I created), get routinely screwed, and find your bank account dangerously close to empty. That's why I take ham-handed lectures from folks like Dave Lowery so badly.
There is plenty of guilt to go around for how the music industry got into this mess. There are the record companies, of course, who seriously thought it was alright to charge $16 for a CD until a few years ago. There are the artists, who were so stuck on the familiar routine of albums and touring that they refused to think more creatively about ways to jump off the railroad tracks. And there are, of course, the bit-torrent folks, and also the college students whose big crime was to accept music from friends as a gift.
Emily White explained to us the reality of the situation, and too often people on Lowery's side resort to the equivalent of bitching that the sun comes up everyday in the east. He needs to persuade people, and this sure as hell isn't the way to do it. As bad as the situation may be, when you think about technology allows us, it is pretty exciting, and it deserves a much better dialogue than this. To reprise, I would say to Dave...
I am genuinely stunned by this. Since you appear to love being a Big Thinker, and as someone who enjoys reading and engaging with thoughtful, respectful arguments, I am now legally obligated to issue this order: Old crank, dustbin, jump.
You are doing it wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment