The RIAA Armageddon has begun

Our intention is not to embarrass or shame her.

Then why not send this essay as an email rather than posting it in public.

I might have agreed with what he wrote but it was so patronising I could only get through the first few sentences.

"modestmickey"

And guess who weighs in!

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2012/06/18/the-david-lowery-screed/

Be the new Curt Flood

Flood sat out the entire 1970 season. The Cardinals sent two minor leaguers to the Phillies in compensation for Flood's refusal to report. One of them—centerfielder Willie Montañez—went on to a 14-year major league career. In November 1970 the Phillies traded Flood and four other players to the Washington Senators. He signed a $110,000 contract with Washington but played only 13 games of the 1971 season, with a .200 batting average and lackluster play in center field. Former teammate Gibson later wrote that Flood once returned to his locker to find a funeral wreath on it. Despite manager Ted Williams's vote of confidence, Flood retired.

as someone who still feels guilty about the time i was really glib in front of a musician I admire about ripping their music, I had no problem with David Lowery guilt-tripping someone who was glib about getting the benefits of being a music lover without having to spend a dime.

Yes, in context, lowery's article isn't condescending at all. I felt bad for the 21 year old intern a few times when he really got going, but overall, given the last sentence of her post, everyone clearly needed a lecture

And that Lefsetz post. Good lord, that guy, for all his 'straight talk'. He's wrong about everything it means to be human, and singlehandedly justifies every momentary bit of excess in David's article:

You start first with a killer product. And then you leverage this for change. Knowing that economics are more powerful than emotions.

...The problem is the artists.

Our intention is not to embarrass or shame her.

Then why not send this essay as an email rather than posting it in public.

I might have agreed with what he wrote but it was so patronising I could only get through the first few sentences.

― badg

OTM

Lefsetz is also bang on the money, especially this:

To be fighting file-sharing is akin to protesting dot matrix printers. File-trading is on its way out. Because it takes too much time to do it. And you don’t fight piracy with laws, but economic solutions. It doesn’t pay to steal if you can listen instantly on Spotify and its ilk.

(no disrespect intended to you, Milton, as obviously there are two sides to this)

Hardly, only if you're dumb like Lefsetz. As Lowery points out, Spotify and it ilk's business model is based on the threat of piracy. Even if streaming was to completely take over it would be reliant on the (now) hidden threat of downloading. So downloading still utterly relevant whether you agree with Lowery or Lefsetz's prescriptions.

I had no problem with David Lowery guilt-tripping someone who was glib about getting the benefits of being a music lover without having to spend a dime.

This being NPR, no doubt dude has PLENTY of experience guilt-tripping people about free music. LOL

Steve Albini, who has had problems with Lowery's recent stances anyway:

The two examples Lowery uses, Chestnutt and Sparklehorse, are prime examples of bands induced into living above their means and ending up in sharecropper status. Sure they had a money tit for a while, but when it becomes obvious to the money people your band's sales can't pay for quarter-million dollar recording budgets, then those budgets go away along with the other slush money those bands get to take advantage of.

It's not the fault of the audience that they were in a game rigged to induce wild, unsustainable expectations.

the 'picking on an intern' aspect of this is kind of silly imo -- she's an adult that wrote and published a piece in a high profile outlet, maybe she did or didn't get paid for it, but people should get to respond to what she wrote however they wish without it becoming about them beating up on a poor college kid. her byline prob shouldn't have had the word 'intern' in it just because it's kind of diminishing to begin with. lots of writers start as interns, it's no biggie.

I'll believe downloading is on its way out when I can no longer find things I want to download. Which, granted, may be happening, with the megaupload meltdown; it definitely is harder to find certain things. But I would be happy to live in a world when rips of old vinyl and true obscurities abound, and most other stuff is pay-to-play. The issue right now is one of temptation, not convenience. It's the equivalent of leaving an unattended bowl of candy on your porch on Halloween and expecting the honor system to surmount something so appealing and free.

I don't think streaming is the solution, just the medium, and I don't even need to read Lefsetz to know whatever he has to say is dumb. And the OTM Lowery thing - fuck thinking he sounded patronizing, boo hoo - seemed very much the tonal twin of nearly everything I have ever seen him write, from Camper Van Beethoven liner notes to similar essays in recent months, and I have no problem with it all. The guy has seen it from every side, as an artist, producer, label guy, academic, and he does a great, very effective job personalizing the effects of downloading by highlighting the fates of Linkous and Chesnutt, even honestly underscoring mitigating factors (drugs, depression) while still explaining the effect loss of income had on them. Lost amidst the debate is his concrete suggestion that if people profess to care yet still steal, they donate to one of his recommended music charities.

Unless he's privy to something none of us know, Albini is a complete dick for claiming Chesnutt, a paraplegic with a billion medical bills, and Linkous, a depressive with drug issues, were somehow "living above their means." In today's America, their means would likely have bought them a park bench for the night.

he seems to be pretty obviously talking about them as musical projects rather than the individuals' personal finances

Well, I'm not saying that you personally killed Mark Linkous, but...

Albini is a complete dick for

surely some mistake here

Unless he's privy to something none of us know, Albini is a complete dick for claiming Chesnutt, a paraplegic with a billion medical bills, and Linkous, a depressive with drug issues, were somehow "living above their means." In today's America, their means would likely have bought them a park bench for the night.

iirc there is a larger issue than downloading music here, can't quite put my finger on it tho

he's a crank revisionist, there's plenty of ad hominem, crabby shit, and many people have it worse than professional musicians, but the only reason I can see for begrudging lowery's grumble is to make yourself feel better about benefiting from a shitty situation for the people who create stuff you love.

I learned about this exchange from a tweet by, guess how, Aimee Mann, Our Lady of Perpetual Grievousness.

"Unless he's privy to something none of us know, Albini is a complete dick for claiming Chesnutt, a paraplegic with a billion medical bills, and Linkous, a depressive with drug issues, were somehow "living above their means.""

To me the stories of Chesnutt and Linkous seem more linked to the poor state of our nation's healthcare system than illegal downloading but what do I know.

they do seem more linked, but if you go "yee-ha, i love weird hip music and i don't have to pay for it" forgive somebody for noting those weirdos tend to die broke and unhappy.

Who doesn't die broke and unhappy these days?

it really sucks that Linkous and Chesnutt's sad, complicated stories have become poker chips in this debate because a friend of theirs used them as a prop in his argument

yeah that really sucks, that lowery what an asshole

It really sucks that they're props in the Obamacare argument.

i actually agree with Lowery more often than not, but y'know, if he catches feelings about Albini or whatever accusing his dead friends of being deluded major label beneficiaries then DL should definitely realize that's on him

Let's just be thankful that before file sharing no musician died broke and unhappy.

if only lowery could give his friends the consideration we do by not acknowledging that economic issues affected their well-being. maybe he can join us on a more respectable S&D thread.

people should really think about WHY they want to say Lowery should be glad they had it so good

albini's been a cassandra about the alt-bubble long enough that it's fair for him to point out this shit, and he's right that the chickens are coming home to roost. but when one of us lucky college dj/writer ducks says "what you need to do is think about how to better serve music lovers like me" i don't mind a musician stepping up to say "actually you've got it criminally good right now."

definitely

"forgive somebody for noting those weirdos tend to die broke and unhappy"

But that's not a recent thing entirely... unless you want to blame downloading for Nick Drake or whatever.

Linkous overdosed on antidepressants at the height of his success. and in the last 7 years of his life cobbled together one Sparklehorse album partially with previously released tracks. and remained on a major label his whole career even with indie-level sales. the whole thing was pretty sad, and i was crushed to hear about his suicide. but i don't imagine there's any scenario where he'd be alive today because of bigger royalty checks.

industry downturns are just part of the sad circle of life

"that's really sad about your friends, david. here, have some rationalizations about how they were doomed even if their lives had not been negatively effected by a change in economy."

To me the stories of Chesnutt and Linkous seem more linked to the poor state of our nation's healthcare system than illegal downloading but what do I know.

Obviously national health care is a bigger issue than downloading, but they're tied together, you know. These guys had expensive problems, and lack of money may have had a role in treating them, go figure.

Also, lame to dismiss this as Lowery playing them as chips. They were flat-out friends of his. Peers, colleagues, neighbors and friends. And per Albini, he can be totally reasonable, but to paint/taint Chesnutt and Linkous somehow as windfall beneficiaries of major label largesse ... I dunno, man. Those guys were pretty marginal.

If anything, Linkous and Chesnutt are actually examples of how major labels were free to spend money on more marginal acts when the getting was good.

i think that's Albini's point. those guys never had mass appeal but a couple years of living off of unrealistic label budgets can permanently screw up someone's personal finances, and income/expense ratios.

Albini has this horse that he rides as a hobby...

Band gets advance pre first album, everyone celebrates (including label people) on the ticket, makes album.

Band gets told 2nd album is required, but as 1st album didn't sell a mill, budget is smaller. Band eats sensibly.

Band gets told 3rd album is due, but no budget at all. band pack in, label goes OK see you, etc.

don't know if it's correct in those cases, but that seemed to be what he was getting at.

the thing that people don't get a lot of times about anti-major label philosophies is that it's more from a place of fiscal responsibility than not caring about money. Ian Mackaye places a lot of pride in the fact that Dischord never lost money on a project, because they never overinvested in anything with unrealistic expectations for the return, which is basically the case with the overwhelming majority of major label albums.

xpost

yeah, albini's point is more along the lines of major label deals being designed to keep artists indentured in debt, company store type stuff

"that's really sad about your friends, david. here, have some rationalizations about how they were doomed even if their lives had not been negatively effected by a change in economy."

― da croupier, Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:52 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

that's exactly the kind of thing i was lamenting when i said it's kind of unfortunate that DL made them the focal point of the discussion. because look, now we're talking about these two people instead of the larger context in which he brought them up, and the same thing is probably happening on a hundred other sites at the moment.

wow

talk about killing the messenger

"it's just a shame he brought his friends out to be rationalized away by us internet assholes"

I seriously doubt Linkous and Chesnutt were raking in the cash. And Albini's general point is sound. It's porting these specific dudes into his model that is problematic. I'm not sure how less money would have helped two guys with depressive streaks, one a drug addict and the other a paraplegic. Lowery specifically cites a decline in lost income over the last decade in their cases. They were good friends, you'd think he would know.

I do wonder about some of Lowery's later stats, namely this stuff:

Of the 75,000 albums released in 2010 only 2,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. Only 1,000 sold more than 10,000 copies. Without going into details, 10,000 albums is about the point where independent artists begin to go into the black on professional album production, marketing and promotion.

At the peak of flushness - say, the year 2000 - how many albums were selling more than 5000 copies? More than 10,000? I have a weird feeling those numbers have been pretty much stable for a long time.

well, i bet he has a lot of broke musician friends, but he chose to only name the two that recently killed themselves. maybe that was an emotional choice, maybe it was chosen to put an emotional charge into his argument. either way i'm not sure it was a very wise choice.

if only lowery realized the kneejerk defensiveness he'd get from music fans who don't want to admit their complicity in fucking over musicians

who are we talking about here. i bought a copy of the last Sparklehorse album AND reviewed it, man, my conscience is clean.