ONE cannot help but feel slightly embarrassed upon examination of how we as American consumers choose to spend our money. We do not mind the absurd price tags for designer clothes, but it might be considered outrageous to spend more than a dollar or two on a once-Chihuahua-promoted burrito, the meat composition of which has recently been called into question.
One of the sadder manifestations of this trend, in my opinion, is the illegal downloading of music. I regret having to put it that way with its negative connotation. I am most certainly guilty of this, but I do not feel immoral for doing so nor do I feel any sort of civic inclination to desist. Expecting people to pay for music in the Internet Age is just silly: There is no explicit incentive to do so. Major record labels very desperately have been trying to sweep this simple fact under the rug since Napster and understandably so. But like trying to deny evolution, it is an exercise that reveals itself as both oafish and adverse.
It is important to recognize that the paradigm shift caused by the Internet and the digital audio format has done great things for music. It has created virtually an infinite amount of space for musical acts to populate and subsequently gather a following, which is a wonderful circumstance for any artistic craft. However, since there is no longer any financial exchange, this new openness can ironically stifle the development of new acts as practical considerations become a priority. Major record companies are declining; like railroads they are relics of a bygone era. But as they are corporate entities subject to the vicissitudes of a capitalist economy, we need not be concerned. However, we do value creative pursuits and musical variety. If Lady Gaga and the Haus of GaGarbage is the only flavor that can survive, then this truly becomes an ethical issue which we must examine as responsible consumers.
Since the days of the vinyl record, the incentive to pay money for a record was not just to hear it, but to possess it - to be able to listen to it whenever you wanted to. It appealed to the collector's instinct in the consumer; the degree of physical ownership allowed one to identify his collection. Vinyl gave way to the cassette tape which gave way to the compact disc, but the general paradigm was intact.
But Napster and the iPod changed everything. When you can download any song you want for free and you listen to them mainly on your computer or on a portable device, the physical medium becomes less significant. The collector's instinct remains, but it is indulged by the hard-drive and no longer the leather CD booklet. Additionally, the way we listen to music is different now. One used to sit down and listen to a record in the same way one sits down to watch a movie. But now we take music with us wherever we go and subject it to voracious consumption. The old business model cannot keep pace with the new culture.
No one understands this better than Trent Reznor, the creative force and sole member of Nine Inch Nails. As a highly influential veteran of the music business and Golden Globe winner for his soundtrack work on the acclaimed film The Social Network, Reznor has continually demonstrated his distaste for the music industry's reckless disregard for artistic integrity and has pioneered new business models that circumvent the record label while facilitating sustainable exchange between musician and listener in the Internet Age. When I saw NIN at John Paul Jones Arena in 2008, Reznor ended the show by condoning the theft of his music, but encouraging us to purchase the record for HEALTH, the opening band. The futility of greed is a key lesson here: one that he might have picked up from Metallica's lame feud with Napster, which I guess really annoyed the band ("Let's call our next record St. Anger! Yeah!"). Free from record label ties, NIN offered its last two releases in several formats with varying price packages, the most basic of which made the music available for free.
Though the method cannot be extended to smaller, lesser-known bands, its success represents innovation and attitude-change in the right direction. We, too, have to adapt our mentalities. Our attitudes as consumers must change to reflect the newly emerging value of sustainability. Obviously, paying for every single song or record we listen to is not an option. And with the rise of the new wave of services such as Grooveshark and Pandora, we can no longer "possess" music on our hard drives; our playlists and preferences are saved on the Internet and can be accessed on any computer. I think we need to select a "good" to purchase to support smaller bands that receive little financial compensation. We can stop buying the Harry Potter DVDs that already make over $1 billion each at the box office and see more shows at the Jefferson Theater or the Paramount Theater. We can buy vinyl or a T-shirt. We just need new ideas.
\n
Ravi Katari is a research assistant in the Department of Ophthalmology.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
