OFF: Courtney, the Biz, MP3 (was: Re: Star Nation)

[Doug Pearson]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:35:38 -0400, Michael Habiby <mhabiby1 at NYCAP.RR.COM>
wrote:
>I second that. Just read this yesterday. EVERYONE should read it.

I'll concur.

>Although I don't think her music is "crap". I respect her work but don't
>like it.

There are some artists' work that I will respect without necessarily
liking.  But I see no need to respect yet another interchangeable (except
for the singer) early-90s grunge-knockoff band.  There were enough of
those, already.

(apologies for "old-fart" story...)
... well kids, back in the late 80s, when only hipster record kollektors
who were wondering why nobody had yet thought of fusing the sounds of the
Stooges and Black Sabbath, the Sub Pop label, purveyor of all things sludgy
out of Seattle (well, there was also C/Z, Regal Select, Black Label,
Leopard Gecko and other indie labels, but you get the idea) wasn't exactly
a household name.  Except among certain record nerds such as myself, who
saw the label as a mark of quality in a music "scene" still buried under
the weight of 80s glam metal (Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, you know the story),
and rabidly purchased anything with the Sub Pop imprint.  Well, that all
changed for me when I eagerly tore open the package from Seattle holding
the second singles by two of Sub Pop's recent out-of-Seattle discoveries:
Hole, and the Smashing Pumpkins.  I played both records once, thought they
both sucked, and became far more discriminating in my purchases of Sub Pop
product.  10 years later, my opinion on neither band has changed.

>A read of this article will, however show her to be a very well spoken
>artist.

... or at least one with a good speechwriter ;^) [and it should be
mentioned that the first page or so of the article is nearly identical to
the (in)famous essay by Steve Albini about where album sales' profits go]

>> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:42:49 EDT, "Ted Jackson jr."
<tojackso at LIBRARY.SYR.EDU> wrote:
>I thought her essay was great, esp. the line to the effect of:
>'...with a record label, I'm almost giving away my music for nothing,
>so what's the big deal about Napster...'

Tough to argue with logic like that.  It's not companies like Napster that
artists need protection from, it's the major labels, publishing companies,
and the likes of the RIAA that artists need legislated protection from!

>BTW, I've never actually heard an MP-3 [sounds like a German
>submachine gun!]  Is the sound quality as bad as Courteney says?

No it's not BAD, but nor is it CD/pro-audio quality.  It's a great way to
check music out, store it on the web, send demos of your songs to
friends/bandmates, archive "lo-fi" live recordings in a small amount of
digital space, etc.  But they won't cut it for, say, evaluating the sound
quality of audio equipment.

There's another great take on this issue (congressional testimony from
Byrds founder/leader Roger McGuinn) at:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/7112000_rm.htm

And the Byrds weren't exactly some kind of minor underground phenomenon,
they were possibly the biggest American rock band of the mid 60s.  Since
McGuinn was the major songwriter in the band, he was seeing more royalties
than his bandmates who were just players.

        -Doug
         ceres at sirius.com