As the next presidential election rolls around, few Americans are happy with a state of the union. The Fed is inflating the dollar, the government won't stop wasting money on inefficient programs and needless wars, and there is less transparency than ever. Obama was elected on change, but his policies are not unlike a moderate Republican 20 years ago. He is seeming more and more like a neoconservative, giving bailouts and tax breaks to huge corporations while the average American gets the shaft. But up until now, the GOP offered no sound alternatives. All corporatists, from Newt to Mitt to Santorum, or jokes, like Palin or Trump.
Today, I have slightly more hope. Not just because Ron Paul announced his candidacy. I like Paul, but he is more socially conservative than I would like and can come across as old and kooky. Rather, someone I've had my eye on for awhile, someone actually feasible, practical, logical, intelligent, entered the race for the GOP nomination: Gary Johnson.
Johnson is the former governor of New Mexico. His tenure was significant for a number of reasons. New Mexico is a 2 to 1 Democrat state. He was elected and reelected. In the process, he vetoed more bills than all other governors combined. No corporate welfare. No useless spending. That was his policy. When he did leave office, New Mexico was one of four states with a surplus. On the personal level, Johnson is a libertarian. He believes in the individual, and he lives as an example. Out of college, Johnson built a construction business from the ground up. By the time he sold the company 23 years later, it was one of New Mexico's largest construction companies, with a multi-million dollar value and over 1000 employees. On top of this, he participates in triathlons, climbed Mount Everest - and he's only 58. Unlike Paul, he's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-immigration. Like Paul, he advocates ending the War On Drugs and legalizing marijuana, and rejects auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy. Personal freedom is what Johnson is all about.
Though I don't see Johnson winning due to his low recognition status, his and Paul's presences in the debates will surely bring a new dynamic. The GOP can't deny the problems with these two loudmouths around. I have faith that this election cycle might actually usher in some real change - at the very least in the direction of freedom and in the heart of the average American rather than the Forbes 500.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Pros And Cons Of P2P
The battle against illegal file sharing has proven to be the most important issue of the modern music industry. The turn of the century marked the beginning of an online music revolution, with peer-to-peer (P2P) networks such as Kazaa and Napster becoming popular music services, notably for being free of charge - as well as for engaging in copyright infringement. In effect, music sales have dropped significantly in recent years.
In March of 2000, 'N Sync's “No Strings Attached” broke one-week sales records when it moved 2.4 million units. This has yet to be broken. In fact, the chances of it ever being broken are doubtful upon examination of the charts. In June 2009, every album on the Billboard 200 chart cumulatively sold less than 'N Sync did in its first week nine years earlier. Has music become less popular? In a world of constantly advancing connection capabilities? Quite the contrary. In 2001, the iPod hit stores, and with it, the idea of music as a physical product began to fade. In an effort to crack down on file-sharers, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued nearly 35,000 people. But sales continue to drop. And in reflection upon the last decade in music, the second best-selling album was in fact “No Strings Attached,” by 'N Sync! And at number one is The Beatles' “1.”
While illegal downloading undoubtedly hurts major labels, it has huge benefits for everyone else. It's become incredibly simple for artists to mass distribute music on their own with three easy steps: find an online service, plan the release, and promote. These tools are readily (and cheaply) available on the Internet. For a piece of the profit – which would have been taken by a record company anyway – TuneCore will accept uploads from any artist. It takes minutes to set up, and within two weeks, it could be on iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon, and Napster. For promotion, social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, last.fm, and iLike have millions of users ready for the next viral entertainment.
Through the Internet, artists are instantly globalized. Without need for a physical record, artists are no longer dependants of corporate intent. Indeed, if record companies don't find solutions, artists will go elsewhere. The same rule can be applied to music buyers looking for cheap and easy access to the music they love. The increase in music accessibility, with the help of the MP3 player, means consumers are listening to more music, more often. With iTunes, one can buy individual songs and albums instantly, and with illegal P2P services, one can download an even broader selection of music for free. With the line between mainstream music and the marginal music of global and sub cultures becoming increasingly blurred, it no longer rests on major record labels to manufacture music. The music listener can easily find anything, from obscure to popular, on the ever-expanding Internet.
In March of 2000, 'N Sync's “No Strings Attached” broke one-week sales records when it moved 2.4 million units. This has yet to be broken. In fact, the chances of it ever being broken are doubtful upon examination of the charts. In June 2009, every album on the Billboard 200 chart cumulatively sold less than 'N Sync did in its first week nine years earlier. Has music become less popular? In a world of constantly advancing connection capabilities? Quite the contrary. In 2001, the iPod hit stores, and with it, the idea of music as a physical product began to fade. In an effort to crack down on file-sharers, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued nearly 35,000 people. But sales continue to drop. And in reflection upon the last decade in music, the second best-selling album was in fact “No Strings Attached,” by 'N Sync! And at number one is The Beatles' “1.”
While illegal downloading undoubtedly hurts major labels, it has huge benefits for everyone else. It's become incredibly simple for artists to mass distribute music on their own with three easy steps: find an online service, plan the release, and promote. These tools are readily (and cheaply) available on the Internet. For a piece of the profit – which would have been taken by a record company anyway – TuneCore will accept uploads from any artist. It takes minutes to set up, and within two weeks, it could be on iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon, and Napster. For promotion, social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, last.fm, and iLike have millions of users ready for the next viral entertainment.
Through the Internet, artists are instantly globalized. Without need for a physical record, artists are no longer dependants of corporate intent. Indeed, if record companies don't find solutions, artists will go elsewhere. The same rule can be applied to music buyers looking for cheap and easy access to the music they love. The increase in music accessibility, with the help of the MP3 player, means consumers are listening to more music, more often. With iTunes, one can buy individual songs and albums instantly, and with illegal P2P services, one can download an even broader selection of music for free. With the line between mainstream music and the marginal music of global and sub cultures becoming increasingly blurred, it no longer rests on major record labels to manufacture music. The music listener can easily find anything, from obscure to popular, on the ever-expanding Internet.
The Loudness War
It's a fact that people respond more positively to louder audio stimulation. With the progression of technology, the music industry has always tried to capitalize on this, resulting in the "loudness war." It originated with the introduction of the compact disc, which doesn’t have the same dynamic limitation that vinyl does. The call for a louder listening experience in the analog era ultimately resulted in a loudness “arms race” upon the emergence of the digital music format, due to competition between radio stations and recording studios to create louder, more powerful records. Because maximum dynamic levels are available in digital recording, increasing the overall loudness of a track will eventually saturate the audio, creating a sound that is uniformly loud throughout.
Destroying the loudness range actually takes away from the emotional power of the music, instead creating what is called "listener fatigue," and exceeding the saturation point has the tendency to create clipping, or unwanted distortion, in a recording, destroying the quality of the audio. Additionally, radio stations and MP3 players have audio equalizers and volume control; the purpose of the loudness war has therefore been defeated – and has arguably resulted in turning off more listeners than it has attracted. The production quality of albums such as “Memory Almost Full” by Paul McCartney and “Death Magnetic” by Metallica has received criticism for being muddy and annoyingly loud. “Death Magnetic,” in particular, has been characterized for being distorted and musically undefined. As of June 2009, an online petition calling for its re-release without dynamic range compression has been endorsed by over 20,000 people. Whether or not calls from fans and within the industry will result in the death of the “loudness war” remains to be seen.
Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory? is generally seen as a catalyst, mixed louder for crowded pubs. Masterer Vlado Meller later mastered Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication, which was criticized for being atrociously loud. Nowadays, artists like The Strokes, Kanye West, and Katy Perry have louder records than the Megadeth releases of the 80s. On the other hand, many indie and post-punk artists like The Cure, Hot Hot Heat, and Nine Inch Nails have retained creative control and avoided the "loudness war" phenomenon.
Destroying the loudness range actually takes away from the emotional power of the music, instead creating what is called "listener fatigue," and exceeding the saturation point has the tendency to create clipping, or unwanted distortion, in a recording, destroying the quality of the audio. Additionally, radio stations and MP3 players have audio equalizers and volume control; the purpose of the loudness war has therefore been defeated – and has arguably resulted in turning off more listeners than it has attracted. The production quality of albums such as “Memory Almost Full” by Paul McCartney and “Death Magnetic” by Metallica has received criticism for being muddy and annoyingly loud. “Death Magnetic,” in particular, has been characterized for being distorted and musically undefined. As of June 2009, an online petition calling for its re-release without dynamic range compression has been endorsed by over 20,000 people. Whether or not calls from fans and within the industry will result in the death of the “loudness war” remains to be seen.
Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory? is generally seen as a catalyst, mixed louder for crowded pubs. Masterer Vlado Meller later mastered Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication, which was criticized for being atrociously loud. Nowadays, artists like The Strokes, Kanye West, and Katy Perry have louder records than the Megadeth releases of the 80s. On the other hand, many indie and post-punk artists like The Cure, Hot Hot Heat, and Nine Inch Nails have retained creative control and avoided the "loudness war" phenomenon.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
One Size Doesn't Fit All
My problem with politics is the same as my problem with music. It's the same; whether we're talking about government agendas or industry standards, hipster pretention or neocon moral pretention, it doesn't matter. Everyone is always so certain that if something works for them, it must in fact work for everyone. It's this "one size fits all" mentality that has destroyed both the economy and image of pop music.
Let me break it down. I'm not an objectivist libertarian. I firmly believe in the power of the individual, and I think everyone has his or her own idea of what society should be, of what ideal music is, of what's moral and immoral. To me, the only things that are decidedly moral are what is private to oneself and what is consensual between persons. The rest is up for debate. Abortion? Good luck finding any universals there. I think it's an individual issue. Others think it's murder. The death penalty? I think the justice system leaves too much room for error and the government needn't make life or death decisions regarding citizens. Others (oddly the same group that feels that abortion is murder) think it's justified. Violence? I think it's only justified in self-defense. Others (usually the same group that feels that abortion is murder and the death penalty is not) think it can be used to promote a greater good.
Okay, those are the landmark left vs. right issues. On these issues, I side with the left. What about the trickier issues? What about things like welfare, health care, the War On Drugs? Many will argue (on either side of the aisle) that these issues are too touchy, too impersonal, too widespread to be left to the individual. Penn Jillette, magician of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! fame says it nicely.
Penn might come off as a dick, and he's obviously biased and relying on a few ad hominems, but he's right. I'm not talking about fringe safety net welfare here to help the select few that are on the streets (partially because of the government, but that's another thing). But saying health care is a right means taking away a different right from a laborer. Health care isn't free, and doctors go to school, work long hours, and take a lot of risks. Saying health care is a right implies obligations on the part of others to provide it. And if health care, something extremely expensive, is a right, then why not food and water? Where do you draw the line? A government that intervenes so far as to say "food and water is a universal right and we can provide it" is preposterous and the result would be disastrous (and Soviet-esque). The truth is, you can't know everything about everyone. You can't assume what works for you will work for everyone, and you can't assume what should work will work. Systems are more complicated than anyone can understand from their own personal standpoint, as Penn points out. The problem with health care is that there is no one universal set problem-and-answer. We can't know what everyone needs, what will work for 350,000,000 people simultaneously. Laws can't and will never make everyone happy. So don't make them. Fair doesn't exist, because everything is completely subjective and open-ended. Affirmative action becomes just as one-sided as the racism it fights. Feminism becomes so extreme that it too is sexist. We understand what works for ourselves and sometimes what works for our closest friends and family. But no one is better at spending my money than me, and no one is seemingly worse at spending my money than the government. Look at the government. They're in mountains of debt. When they've clearly mismanaged public money to this extent, why would anyone want to give them more? Universal health care sounds so nice and benevolent. But leave it to the individual. And those willing to work for others who cannot support themselves do exist, and they will help.
One might wonder, how does this even apply to music? Easily. Turn on pop radio and 90% of it sounds the same. You can align certain songs on the Top 40 and they will progress simultaneously. Not only that, but their tones and timbres are the same too! And yet I meet very few people who love Top 40. Most people love pop, whether it's indie pop or pop punk or baroque pop or noise pop. But try and compare those 4 subgenres and you'll find some overlap in structure but monumental differences in tone, timbre, character, substance, instrumentation, etc. Some people like angsty pop. Some people like experimental instrumental pop. Some people like ambient pop. The problem with the music industry is it sets itself up on something that is, in their eyes, seemingly universal. It's not, and they were doomed to fail! The Internet opens up individualism and democratization in music and now whole new genres are popping up all the time. It's stupid to be pretentious about music taste; everyone likes something different. Your taste is not better than my taste, and vice versa. And I certainly don't want to hear music that's manufactured to try to satisfy as many peoples' tastes as possible. You end up alienating everyone. But hey, if you do like Top 40, that's cool too.
JUST LEAVE IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
Let me break it down. I'm not an objectivist libertarian. I firmly believe in the power of the individual, and I think everyone has his or her own idea of what society should be, of what ideal music is, of what's moral and immoral. To me, the only things that are decidedly moral are what is private to oneself and what is consensual between persons. The rest is up for debate. Abortion? Good luck finding any universals there. I think it's an individual issue. Others think it's murder. The death penalty? I think the justice system leaves too much room for error and the government needn't make life or death decisions regarding citizens. Others (oddly the same group that feels that abortion is murder) think it's justified. Violence? I think it's only justified in self-defense. Others (usually the same group that feels that abortion is murder and the death penalty is not) think it can be used to promote a greater good.
Okay, those are the landmark left vs. right issues. On these issues, I side with the left. What about the trickier issues? What about things like welfare, health care, the War On Drugs? Many will argue (on either side of the aisle) that these issues are too touchy, too impersonal, too widespread to be left to the individual. Penn Jillette, magician of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! fame says it nicely.
Penn might come off as a dick, and he's obviously biased and relying on a few ad hominems, but he's right. I'm not talking about fringe safety net welfare here to help the select few that are on the streets (partially because of the government, but that's another thing). But saying health care is a right means taking away a different right from a laborer. Health care isn't free, and doctors go to school, work long hours, and take a lot of risks. Saying health care is a right implies obligations on the part of others to provide it. And if health care, something extremely expensive, is a right, then why not food and water? Where do you draw the line? A government that intervenes so far as to say "food and water is a universal right and we can provide it" is preposterous and the result would be disastrous (and Soviet-esque). The truth is, you can't know everything about everyone. You can't assume what works for you will work for everyone, and you can't assume what should work will work. Systems are more complicated than anyone can understand from their own personal standpoint, as Penn points out. The problem with health care is that there is no one universal set problem-and-answer. We can't know what everyone needs, what will work for 350,000,000 people simultaneously. Laws can't and will never make everyone happy. So don't make them. Fair doesn't exist, because everything is completely subjective and open-ended. Affirmative action becomes just as one-sided as the racism it fights. Feminism becomes so extreme that it too is sexist. We understand what works for ourselves and sometimes what works for our closest friends and family. But no one is better at spending my money than me, and no one is seemingly worse at spending my money than the government. Look at the government. They're in mountains of debt. When they've clearly mismanaged public money to this extent, why would anyone want to give them more? Universal health care sounds so nice and benevolent. But leave it to the individual. And those willing to work for others who cannot support themselves do exist, and they will help.
One might wonder, how does this even apply to music? Easily. Turn on pop radio and 90% of it sounds the same. You can align certain songs on the Top 40 and they will progress simultaneously. Not only that, but their tones and timbres are the same too! And yet I meet very few people who love Top 40. Most people love pop, whether it's indie pop or pop punk or baroque pop or noise pop. But try and compare those 4 subgenres and you'll find some overlap in structure but monumental differences in tone, timbre, character, substance, instrumentation, etc. Some people like angsty pop. Some people like experimental instrumental pop. Some people like ambient pop. The problem with the music industry is it sets itself up on something that is, in their eyes, seemingly universal. It's not, and they were doomed to fail! The Internet opens up individualism and democratization in music and now whole new genres are popping up all the time. It's stupid to be pretentious about music taste; everyone likes something different. Your taste is not better than my taste, and vice versa. And I certainly don't want to hear music that's manufactured to try to satisfy as many peoples' tastes as possible. You end up alienating everyone. But hey, if you do like Top 40, that's cool too.
JUST LEAVE IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)