top of page
long_live_digital_music.jpeg
tranzine.gif

Edition #6
Rio de Janeiro, 2003

This is the recipe of Oliviero Toscani, former advertising photographer for Benetton, for a better world

Unraveling the distinction to understand the complexity of human identity

A new era for the music industry

DJ Carl-Joakim talks about his electronic project and the scene in Australia

The DJ from the outskirts of Sao Paulo who conquered the world

What are the uses of this plant? Why is it banned?

Freeing yourself from the networks of religious dogmatism

podcast.jpg

NAPSTER INTERFACE (REMEMBER??? :)

TAGS: activism, culture, music

After Napster, the relationship between artists and music consumers will never be the same again. If, up until the 90s, you were obliged to buy albums in record stores, nowadays you have access to practically any music you want on the internet, whether for free or at negligible prices. Napster is no longer free, but in compensation, we have a variety of other file-sharing programs like Soulseek, Kazaa, Morpheus, eMule, Muze, etc.

But many people say that an artist should be against their music being exchanged on these file-sharing programs because it harms them, as they end up not selling as many CDs. But is that true? Who benefits from maintaining this system? Who established these rules? Who came up with the idea that you should record an album with a record label (preferably a major one) with twelve or eighteen songs and sell the album in stores, with a bunch of intermediaries in between? The result: in the end, you (who created the music and should earn the major part) only get a pittance per sold CD. Of course, if an excellent contract with a record label emerges, offering various advantages for you or your band, it would be radical to deny it. But let's be honest: the market is saturated with payola, rules, and restrictions. If there are alternatives nowadays, why not give them a try? You can sell your music and promote it on the internet.

The idea of promoting your music on the internet, obviously, is the big breakthrough - technology is there for a reason, it's a chance for a clean revolution. It's to democratize art itself, precisely to provide means and weapons for us to disrupt the mediocre system that reigns in the cultural scene of the planet.

Established mainstream artists like Metallica sue fans who downloaded their music because these (few) artists are already structured and come from a time when they were forced to work with record labels. Now, it's a new era. Now is the time for a new mentality. It's not for the future - it's here, now!

I say it is an opportunity for revolution because it is an chance to radically and profoundly change the structure that exists today through peaceful means, without fighting, just on the basis of talent, of art. Put an end to the middleman. This sounds a bit utopian, but it's not... We have several examples of commercially successful bands recently that managed to create their fan base mainly through advertising on the Internet (Artic Monkeys, CSS, Lily Allen, etc.). Some artists, when they release new albums, make them temporarily available for free on their own page (Combichrist, for example). Would this be commercial suicide? If it were, I doubt they would act like this... Not every artist, however, finds it advantageous to do this, preferring to release just a few songs for free, on their own website and/or on websites specialized in promoting artists, which serve as a lure for the rest of their collection for sale on iTunes (EDIT 2024: or in other virtual stores like Bandcamp, not to mention streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, etc.).

And how can you support yourself nowadays, since it seems that there is no longer much profit from selling music? - The solution is to do shows. The purpose of distributing music digitally is precisely to publicize your work, which generates feedback for your live performances. Some artists even hand over their albums to street vendors and ask them to copy and sell it as pirated music, as they believe that this will give them a more advantageous return.

If on one side there are people, an entire civilization, wanting to listen to great music, and on the other side there are people making great music, why have someone in the middle, making money without producing any art, just pasteurizing, mediocrizing, controlling, directing the art and taste of others under their interests? It is important that this scheme is overturned...

So far, the internet seems to be a concrete instrument capable of promoting this direct approach between art and people for the sake of art. Happy is whoever can achieve this direct meeting with the public, without payolas, cliquey groups and, above all, without a pasteurizing record company.

 

Collaborated Ricardo Antonio

DKANDLE_Tranzine.jpg

“DKANDLE weaves swirling multi-colored vibrant unearthly soundscapes, blending fuzzy and reverberating Shoegaze textures, mesmerizing Dream Pop meditations, sludgy Grungey tones and moody Post-punk strains, heightened with soul-stirring lyricism and pensive emotive vocalizations”

THE HISTORY OF NAPSTER

What do you have to say on the subject? Leave your comment below

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
jaba.jpg

DISGUISED JINGLES

DEMOTEKET
A special place in the heart of Stockholm

bottom of page