Dave Allen: Gang of Four rants & more

Dave Allen now rants over at Pampelmoose

2006-11-25T08:51:00.001-08:00

Daily posts from Dave Allen can now be found at his blog Pampelmoose.

Robert Friedman's Living Will

2005-04-01T14:04:00.000-08:00

Subject: Another Perspective
LIVING WILL IS THE BEST REVENGE

by Robert Friedman
March 27, 2005

Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here's what mine says:

In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semiexistence. Fifteen years wouldn't be long enough for me.

I want my wife and my parents to compound their misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.

I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I'd be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.

I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who fell into a well.

I want those crackpot strangers to spread vicious lies about my wife.

I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather for weeks on end, so they can bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.

I want all those people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.

I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.

I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars and all other hangers-on - to start calling me "Bobby," as if they had known me since childhood.

I'm not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a "Bobby's Law" that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.

Even if the "Bobby's Law" idea doesn't work out, I want members of Congress - especially all those self-described conservatives who claim to believe in "less government and more freedom" - to trample on the decisions of doctors, judges and other experts who actually know something about my case. And I want members of Congress to launch into an extended debate that gives them another excuse to avoid pesky issues such as national security and the economy.

In particular, I want House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to use my case as an opportunity to divert the country's attention from the mounting political and legal troubles stemming from his slimy misbehavior.

And I want Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to make a mockery of his medical training by misrepresenting the details of my case in ways that might give a boost to his 2008 presidential campaign.

I want Frist and the rest of the world to judge my medical condition on the basis of a snippet of dated and demeaning videotape that should have remained private.

Because I think I would retain my sense of humor even in a persistent vegetative state, I'd want President Bush - the same guy who publicly mocked Karla Faye Tucker when signing off on her death warrant as governor of Texas - to claim he was intervening in my case because it is always best "to err on the side of life."

I want the state Department of Children and Families to step in at the last moment to take responsibility for my well-being, because nothing bad could ever happen to anyone under DCF's care.

And because Gov. Jeb Bush is the smartest and most righteous human being on the face of the Earth, a man who has never made a mistake or allowed his judgment to be sullied by personal or political concerns, I want any and all of the aforementioned directives to be disregarded if the governor happens to disagree with them. If he says he knows what's best for me, I won't be in any position to argue.

Robert Friedman is editor of Perspective. He can be reached at friedman@sptimes.com.

My wife had a party

2005-03-29T22:13:00.000-08:00

Originally uploaded by Pampelmoose.

Nemo Design in sunny Portland, Oregon has a wonderful warehouse in the inner east side of town where I keep an office for Pampelmoose. Studio Nemo, photographer Trevor Graves place, is a great place to throw a party. So on 3.26.05 we did, for my wife Paddy's 40th.

Gang of Four in England 2005

2005-03-16T22:20:00.000-08:00

Gang of Four 2005
Originally uploaded by Pampelmoose.

A tour diary of sorts written for Portland, Oregon's Willamette Week.

Gang of Four

The Gang's All Here
After 23 years apart, post-punk darlings Gang of Four reunite, and Dave Allen is there with a more, um, mature point of view.

BY DAVE ALLEN, GANG OF FOUR BASSIST

Editor's note: If there were a Grammy for most namedropped band of the year, the surly post-punkers of Gang of Four would walk away with the golden gramophone this year. A critical favorite since the release of its debut, Entertainment!, in 1979, the Leeds quartet's name began showing up in national glossies in 2003 with the frequency of a sporty new deodorant. As Spin and Rolling Stone rolled out articles on Gang-inspired bands including the Rapture, Franz Ferdinand, Liars and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, the influence became an assumption. Everyone loved Gang of Four, even those who had never heard them. A couple of years ago a reunion tour was unthinkable. But massive national exposure can heal wounds in a strange way, and late last year Gang of Four announced its return. Last month Jon King, Andy Gill, Hugo Burnham and Dave Allen took the stage together for the first time since 1981 for a five-city British tour, where they encountered photo-phone wielding fans, the British music press and taxidermy. Allen, the band's bassist, current Portland resident and admitted geezer, explains in his tour diary.

The Montague Arms, London, Jan. 21

From the lip of this pub's tiny stage, past the Karen O-inspired fashionistas, past the chavs (that's new slang for poseurs), just beyond the puzzled stares of the seen-it-all-before bar staff, through the cigarette fog I can make out the shape of an old-fashioned horse-drawn carriage carrying a full-sized stuffed zebra and a big-horned sheep! It turns out that the pub's owner is a retired taxidermist and he has decided to decorate his establishment with some samples of his trade. Surreal? Surely, but not surprising considering the circumstances. Finding a pub full of the latest-generation U.K. hipsters sharing space with stuffed animals once seemed as likely as a Gang of Four reunion. Now they're both reality.

Welcome to the "secret show," a fine English tradition that always takes place in London because England is so small and all the music press is based here, or at least what's left of it. Tonight's fans are not the types that spend precious minutes poring over badly written music rags; news travels faster by texting each other's mobiles. They are here to display their original tattered Human League T-shirts and their New York Dolls pins, and although these kids may not have been born when we released our debut album, Entertainment!, they sure look good in their signature chav Burberry outfits. (For the record, Burberry is now declasse, definitely out of style, so please discard any clothing that has its signature check pattern.) In London nightlife your connections are paramount, and these guys all knew whom to call to find out where we were playing. Three hundred eighty fans have managed to squeeze into this venue that holds about 200 people. Earlier, with the help of our road crew, I waded through the crowd outside to pluck my friends from the heaving mess and get them in; right now it feels far beyond dangerous.

We kick off the set with "What We All Want," and amazingly, to me, anyway, the crowd sings along. They whip out their mobiles and snatch grainy and blurred photos that are instantly texted to friends who may just be languishing in the throng outside the venue. Who knows? A phalanx of professional photographers fight for space down front, and as we charge headlong into "Not Great Men," the crowd surges to and fro across the room throwing beer everywhere, a heaving sweaty mass that threatens to engulf the stage. The heat is intense, cigarette smoke burns my lungs, sweat floods my eyes, it is so fucking loud, and I love it. We end with "Damaged Goods," and the place detonates.

The Academy at Manchester University, Manchester, Jan. 24

Having got the first gig under our belts, we are feeling more confident. The chatter in the van is significantly upbeat, but I have a knot in my stomach as tonight is our first official public show in 23 years and all the major broadsheets - the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent and the Guardian, have dispatched reviewers; it's that difficult second show coming off the high of the pub gig. We also know that Jon Pareles, chief music critic for The New York Times, is busy pecking away at his laptop in a London hotel, filing his review of the London show. Oh mercy!

The Academy at Manchester University is cavernous. The road crew is ringing out the monitors, smoke begins to creep across the stage, and the tour support band the Departures sheepishly cross the hall to shake hands. It's an interesting moment: Here we are face-to-face with one of the bands who have openly name-checked us; they are clearly excited to meet us. My limp handshake exposes my inner turmoil; I am probably twice as old as these fresh-faced young men!

The sound check only reinforces my anxiety. The pub gig was incredibly energetic because we fed off the audience that was mere inches from our faces. Tonight we will be separated from the audience by a row of metal barriers and a motley crew of security guards. I presume that Manchester may live up to its reputation for being England's most violent city. That's not the root of my anxiety, though. By definition, large gigs always remove that intimacy between fans and bands. Gang of Four feeds off that energy; we will have to work hard to maintain our edge tonight.

Julian Baggini, an English philosopher, interviews me. We had agreed to meet and finish up an interview that began about a year ago. We have an interesting but contentious discourse on his views of how "success" can or should be measured for artists working within their chosen disciplines.

Showtime. My idea of Gang of Four's current level of success is measured as follows: If you can't begin to play the opening song of your set because the crowd is screaming so loud, that's success; if you don't have to sing the chorus of your songs because the crowd sings it for you, that's success; if you are 49 years old and still play and leap around the stage in front of a sellout crowd that calls you back for three encores, that's success. Julian 0, Dave 1.

Next day the reviews are all extremely positive, and no one got hurt in the very boisterous crowd. I'd call that successful. Tonight on TV, Mark E. Smith, leader of the Fall and legendary curmudgeon, rambles on about how everyone in the British media is a poseur, how all bands except the Fall are crap and how he has had the right to fire the members of each of the 26 different lineups the Fall has had. His criteria for this are simple: "I don't want to work with anyone as old as me, and anyway they were all crap musicians," he says. Various darlings of the media are rolled out to trumpet Mark's genius; I change channels.

Shepherds Bush Empire, London, Jan. 28

The camaraderie that exists among all bands has now reappeared among the members of Gang of Four. After rebuffing the nostalgia crowd who implored us not to sully the reputation that has been hoist so high, we have now performed in five cities to adoring fans both new and old and have been received with open arms. Tonight, though, is the reason we have been honing our chops around those provincial cities. Our public show in London, home of the cynical music press. The knives will be out.

All 2,500 tickets to the show sold out in early January. The Shepherds Bush Empire, on the edge of the West End, is but one of those many wonderful Victorian or Edwardian theatres scattered all over London. In the '60s and '70s it played host to many rock bands as a live venue for the BBC's televised music shows. There was a fallow period for a while, but nowadays it serves as a midsize rock venue full time, and, in an odd way, it is perfectly suited to the job. From the stage, I think that I can see everyone in the building; from the crush of the dance floor up through three tiers of balconies, all eyes are on us. The audience is our friend, a room full of smiling faces; it's ours to lose. London audiences are historically hard to please, but tonight we appear to have their support as the room erupts at the first notes of each song and cacophony greets the end. To have any audience these days respond in such a way to our angular, metallic, white sexless funk is a surprise, but this tour has been full of surprises. More noise, heat, smoke and roaring as we end the third encore with "I Found that Essence Rare." The final song of the first leg of the tour, and with the audience's stomping of the boards ringing in my ears, I finally feel like it's time to party.

Originally published on WEDNESDAY, 2/9/2005

2004-11-26T15:00:00.000-08:00

Gang of Four reforms. Yes it does. The interest has been there for years from many people outside our camp and yet within it we could never agree whether we actually wanted to do it. I for one have railed against nostalgia in past newsletters and columns so that's the hurdle that I placed in my own path regarding band reunions, not that it's insurmountable.
November 8th and I find myself on a United flight to London's Heathrow; I even got upgraded to business class. 6.55 AM November 9th and I'm searching the arrivals area for Hugo. 7.10 AM there he is. It was suddenly real, as real as the London drizzle basting the outside of the Heathrow Express as we head in to Paddington Station. We join about a hundred people in line waiting for a taxi. It's at this point that I realize the dollar is worth about 50 english pence, in other words two dollars to the quid. I ruefully presume that Alan Greenspan knows what he's doing as I am to read in a few days that Bush's Treasury Secretary, John Snow, whilst visiting London said that the US would be doing absolutely nothing to slow the dollar's descent into the basement against other currencies. Other countries can now help pay down the debt of US consumer excesses, but I digress.
London's Mayor, Ken Livingston, or Red Ken as he's affectionately known to the inhabitants of Greater London, came up with a plan to combat London's legendary traffic congestion by imposing a daily tariff of about £7.00 (yes, $14.00) to drivers who enter central London so now we speed through light traffic from Paddington. I use speed without irony as at one point in very recent history Londoner's crawled along at a pace less than that of 18th century horsedrawn carriages. Me and Hugo are dropped off outside the Euston Travel Inn. For the price of a suite at the W in Seattle, £90.00 or $180.00, we are offered a room with a twin bed and a pull out couch. No thanks. We park our bags and head over to the offices of Big Life Management in search of Jazz Summers, the man who will be managing the reincarnation of Gang of Four. Cat wrangling comes into my mind but that might be the jet lag.
To be continued.

2004-05-10T11:13:00.000-07:00

Ok, I've signed up with FeedBurner so that you can now get my rantings and ravings via RSS feed. Here's the url to subscribe to - http://feeds.feedburner.com/DaveAllensBlog I use News Wire Lite to receive RSS feeds. Here's their address to get your own RSS browser http://ranchero.com/

2004-05-10T10:16:00.000-07:00

Out of the gate I have to say thanks to all of you who wrote me emails thanking me for the Pixies review in last week's newsletter. I had no idea that my long-winded ego-centric puff piece would have resonated that deeply amongst you. Although I'm glad that it did because casting light into the darker recesses of the human stain gets me out of bed in the morning. Still, remembering as I write that the Pixies are now living it up, post-Coachella on the Brazilian tour circuit , gave me pause over this morning's first cup of Joe; two thoughts - Brazil, I wish!..... and despair + nostalgia = $$'s.

I know I should be less cynical and I try believe me. Meanwhile having beat the New York Times to print by two days, with my story of how I got my live Pixies CD, courtesy of DiscLive's trailer full of technology behind the theatre that night, I have to give a nod back to the NYT's Jon Pareles for his overview of this years Coachella Festival. He affirms my cynicism.

And I quote, " The new wave was the old school and the 1960's were rock prehistory at the fifth Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival this weekend." He goes on to review The Cure(!), who headlined on Sunday night, for whom he appears to have a fondness, but eventually having scanned four stages over two long days reflects that unfortunately "For most of the Coachella Festival, rock history began in the mid-1970's."
So maybe it's true; Death to the Pixies indeed - we need fresh, we need new. Nostalgia may kill but history is destined to repeat itself, unfortunately. Meanwhile pundits, keep your eye on Broken Social Scene - you read it here second.

- Dave

Dave Allen (DA)
Matt Wright (MW)
Kurt Dahlke (KD)
Jenny Tatone (JT)

Telephone, Mu Meson, Blitzen Trapper, DJ Joelskool and Phil Busse, Lola's Room, May 8th, 8PM, $5
Despair + nostalgia = $$'s could also be a calling card in this year's election campaigns. He (they are always he's) who points out our shortcomings whilst getting dewy-eyed about the past, will most likely raise the most moolah. And that folks is why Phil Busse has more than a million dollars in his war chest and will be Portland's next Mayor!
Just kidding...he may have energy, charisma, charm and ideas by the bucketload, of which about 20 or so of us were witness to firsthand at the home of the lovely Heidi McBride last week, but unlike Francesconi he's cash poor. As much as Matt and me would love to line Phil's pockets with the green, we are pleading poverty. Instead we are throwing a party of sorts at Lola's Room in the Crystal Ballroom this Saturday, May 8th from 8pm on. Phil Busse is the Master of Ceremonies all night so you'll have a chance to heckle him in between sets by Portland's very fine Telephone and Blitzen Trapper plus Washington State's finest, Mu Meson. DJ Joelskool will spin the rock too - until very late he says. All of this for just $5. And you can get free admission to a Portland music seminar - see below. (DA)

Free Music Business Seminar - Register in Advance
All of you musicians who have ever complained to me about the music industry, the music scene, how to book a tour or how to replace a drummer who spontaneously combusted at your last gig - your prayers have been answered, sort of.

On May 21st come on down to Lola's Room in the Crystal Ballroom from noon until 6:30pm for a one day FREE music conference. It's called Music Business Chops and it's a series of one day music seminars traveling up the west coast. I put together the Portland panels, and I have also arranged for FREE admission - read on to find out how to get in for free.

Panelists include Mark Baumgarten, Willamette Week's music editor, Terry Currier of Music Millennium, Bart Day a local music industry lawyer, Jim Brunberg of local Mississippi Studios, and my good self.
There will be other music business professionals throughout the day.
You will all have a chance to ask those pointy questions you've always wanted to ask. You can also sign up for a free one-on-one song demo evaluation and career mentoring session.

The event is sponsored by GC Pro, Guitar Centre's Professional Division and also by the following magazines: EQ, Keyboard, Guitar Player, Bass Player, Pro Sound and Surround. DiscMakers is also a sponsor and that company's VP of Sales and Marketing, Tony Van Veen, will be speaking too. And best of all, it's absolutely FREE!

There are two ways to get free access to this event. (1) Come to Lola's Room this Saturday for the Telephone show and I will be handing out postcards that gives you access. (2) Register here - promo@musicbusinesschops.com. (DA)

First Thursday Happenings
Portland’s most loved/hated monthly art event rears its head tonight, and Dave and I will be there. More specifically, we’ll be at John Brodie’s art opening at Stumptown Downtown (128 SW Third Avenue), featuring (gasp!) art that actually addresses society! Brodie’s installation is comprised of cardboard signs, like the one’s homeless people employ, featuring surreal and brutally honest messages (eg. “We were beautiful in the early days”). Then we’ll be heading over to Old Town for the grand opening of the Fashion Incubator’s new space. The Incubator is a great organization devoted to empower local designers and shops. See you on the streets! (MW)

“Signs, Desperate” by John Brodie, Opening reception: Thursday, May 6 from 6-9pm, Stumptown, 128 SW Third Avenue

Portland Fashion Incubator Grand Opening, 23 N.W. Fifth (corner of Fifth and Couch), 5 – 6pm

Kurt Ponders Decorative Art and the Saward Collection
The dirty word is Decorative art. And here, where many of the spasms of growth are so worked up with defining Portland art or coming up with the ‘next thing,’ it can be instructive to check back with the old non-existent Northwest School of art. It’s tough to be a visionary anyway, and it’s nice to know people can be counted on to make vital, beautiful worked based on a few simple principals.

I crammed into the cramped hallways of a Kaiser Permanente office recently to check out the old-school crew and some fantastic Northwest art from the ‘50s through the ‘70s. This special Last Thursday show displayed the Saward Collection, put together by Virginia Saward, a Northwest artist herself and husband of Kaiser Northwest’s founding medical director.

Mingling with some of the artists, including the delightful Eunice Parsons, I attempted to absorb the draughts of eastern-mysticism, and earth vibrations coming off of mostly abstracts and landscapes. It’s a nice trick in a 3-foot hallway jammed with people holding out maps or plates of crackers, but one I’m not good at.

Louis Bunce was well represented; his large-scale painting Monolith overpowered with a cluster of earth-toned rectangles hovering in gauzy, fleshy space. Nearby Byron Gardner’s Master of the Western Land conjured an ill flutter of black crow-y strokes with religious fervor. George Johanson’s cool cityscapes managed to subvert 3D space, while Melinda Thorsnes’ psychedelic portraits were the exception that proved the rule.

Too much coolness to absorb in one evening, but I’ll be delving into more research, because there’s deep value in this nominally decorative art. There’s little in the way of pedagogy in a painting of the beach, much less the pushing of any boundaries, but somehow that injection of reverent, Northwest mysticism makes it A-Ok. (KD)

Jenny Ponders Art-Punk and the A-Frames
While art-punk often arrives as an afterthought to pretension, don’t expect the A-Frames compelling art-punk set to contain an ounce of it when they play North Portland dive Porky’s Pub Tuesday. And if it’s anything like the last Portland stop the Seattle trio made in the winter, it’ll not only lack elitist snoot, but will outdo it with burning bass repetitions, sparse, tension-drenched guitar work and mighty, robotic beats.

The unassuming, blue-collar demeanor behind the band – chief songwriter and singer/guitarist Erin Sullivan, drummer Lars Finberg and bassist Min Yee – sets their dark, angular punk rock sound distinctly apart from the rest currently mining the apocalyptic post-punk soundscape. Sullivan – who runs Dragnets Records with Finberg – speaks-sings about surveillance cameras, electric eyes and robots as if he were standing frustrated and lost under a black cloud – it’s creepy but delightfully infectious. Despite the thumping simplicity and repetition, the band’s heavy, sluggish sound gets under your skin like shivers infiltrate your spine.

The A-Frames debuted in 2002 with a self-titled album released on Dragnet/S-S Records, following it with last year’s 2 (S-S Records) – both vinyl editions are currently out of print, but CD versions are available. Sure, the show is likely to ignite Wire and Joy Division references but you won’t walk away with a handful of influences as your only source of post-show conversation. There’s simply so much more to the A-Frames – it’s unspeakable so don’t bother explaining to your posturing friends. (JT)

Matt Ponders "Things," Death Cab, and Melissa Farrick
“Not my thing.” Music fans turn this phrase whenever they’re feeling too lazy to explain why they don’t enjoy a certain band or kind of music. But if you think about it, it’s a pretty bold statement. Defining what is and isn’t “your thing” amounts to nothing less than defining yourself, a task that takes most people the better part of a lifetime. Still, last night it seemed pretty obvious which of the night’s live music choices/”things” was mine; I inadvertently chose to wear the exact same outfit that Seth Cohen from The OC was modeling in the photo accompanying Amy Phillips’ excellent Death Cab for Cutie piece for Willamette Week, and more than one of my friends had already asked me if I was going to the show. Well, of course I was – as an “indie-rocker” Death Cab is my “thing,” right?

Maybe, but not last night. The show sold out early, and my friends and I headed to Berbati’s for lack of anything better to do. I had never heard of the singer-songwriter on stage, Melissa Farrick, but one look around the room and it was clear: this was someone else’s thing entirely. The crowd consisted mostly of very enthusiastic lesbians, and Farrick’s lyrics were very much queer-oriented; one of her songs, “I’ll Hold You Up All Night,” provided the most explicit description of lesbian “relations” I’ve heard set to music. But watching Farrick, a lone woman on stage with a guitar, pouring her heart and soul into her confessional, deeply personal songs, I realized it didn’t matter. The real power in music lies in its ability to transcend the silly cultural walls we surround ourselves with, and lay bare the soul, naked and raw. Yes, that’s music – the only “thing” that matters. (MW)

Guest Top Ten List: John Chandler, Portland Tribune

01) War - Grooves so tight you can hang your laundry on them.
02) Iron & Wine - Typical for me: I always discover the great ones like two years after everyone else. Soft and bold like the last majestic words from a dying monarch.
03) Destroyer - Still trying to put this one into words. Daniel Bejar slays me.
04) The Gentle Soul - Old '60 folk-pop reissued on Sundazed. At first listen it's sugary, guy-girl hippie poop. But it grows on you and soon you're infested with smiley vibes. For a gloomy jerk like me, it could prove fatal.
05) Spirit - "The Family That Plays Together" is a criminally neglected psych-pop classic. Most prefer "12 Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus" but this one kills. From start to finish, it's hooks galore that shimmy and soar.
06) Bob Pollard - Rediscovered his first solo album, "Not in My Airforce." Wow! Why was it on the shelf for so long?
07) Fairport Convention - "What We Did On Our Holidays" never fails to bring me back from despondency. Sandy Denny's voice can thaw even the coldest hearts.
08) Horror Hop - Fantastic compilation of scary, haunted house R & B and rockabilly from the '50s and '60s.
09) The Coachwhips - Aaaagghh! My brain's exploding!!!!
10) The Cowsills - You got a problem with that?

2002-10-17T09:28:00.000-07:00

From the perspective of one who has spent the last 25 years working as a
professional in the indie music and radio business, Dan Krimm's comments are
right on target here. But there is a very important aspect to the story that
neither he nor Brian Cullinan have mentioned.

Consolidation of the retail sector of the music industry over the last 10
years has radically changed 40 year old power relationships, and is now well
advanced in marginalizing and driving most niche, catalog, and even medium
selling 'product' out of the commercial retail channel.

Changes in the cost of marketing programs (i.e. paid shelf space at up to
$3.50 PER UNIT) and aggressive inventory management (60-90 day shelf life)
are inexorably pushing all but well-financed and widely promoted mainstream
releases out of stores. There is very little difference between record
retail and the supermarket industry at this point, which explains grocery
giant Yucaipa's purchase of Alliance Entertainment two years ago.

More than ever it is a mass market/commodity business, and the "middle
ground" that Dan refers to --

"The in-between. Not the tippy top and not the shower singers. The diverse
ocean of personal, passion-inducing, *meaningful*, moderate-audience quality
music."

-- whether represented by artists, indie labels, or worthwhile imports --
which formerly colonized the margins of the mainstream system, is now
scrambling to find new ways to exist in a dramatically changed ecology. All
this has been well documented over the last two years in Billboard's Indie
and Retail Track columns.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that CDs are now so easy and cheap to
record and manufacture, leading to an irrational glut of releases at every
level of the market. This is one of the underreported sources of buyer
fatigue and disenchantment with the music industry. It's just too time
consuming to deal with, and huge numbers of listeners simply don't bother.
It represents the other enormous market that digital distribution is
currently blowing.

Brian C. is right in saying that the integrated services that major labels
provide will remain valuable for those heat-seeking artists willing to trade
their freedom and their copyrights for what increasingly amounts to a paid
upgrade to their public relations profile, rather than a rational long-term
business deal. The dangers of this Faustian bargain with fame and fortune
are well known, and one can only hope that those who chose this path are
willing to accept the consequences along with the advance.

What interests me is what these and other established artists do after they
fall or get pushed off the major label tailgate. They now have new options
for distribution and promotion and -- one of these days -- internet
broadcasting, including, as John Parres says, the services of independent,
non-label based service professionals, most of whom are veterans of the
legacy system.

Ani DiFranco has become a hero to indie musicians because of her stalwart
insistence on maintaining control of her own career and releasing her
recordings on her own label through independent distribution. She has done
just fine without the help of a major label -- maybe better. She works in a
mainstream genre, so her challenges are less difficult than what confronts
those working in non-mainstream genres, who are currently stuck between A.C.
and B.D -- After Consolidation, but Before Digital.

For most artists, the "alternative market" that Dan is asking for
(I'm not talking about "non-traditional retail" which includes dozens of
alternative non-record industry retail channels large and small) faces
enormous difficulties getting going, but also very encouraging possibilities
in the future. Indie and moderate market artists and companies have always
been willing to work with these challenges and use all the tools and
services at their disposal to reach their audiences.

These now include artist and label web sites, easy access to worldwide
fulfillment of CD purchases, streaming samples, promotional downloads,
electronic mailing lists, chat rooms, fan and online review sites, up to
full blown genre portals like andante.com and rootsworld.com -- AND what's
left of internet radio.

As soon as the smoke clears from the current battle over internet
broadcasting, there should be an explosion of niche and syndicated
programming available online, signalling the real start of a new era in
smaller audience broadcasting.

Three things we have learned from direct experience over the last 15 months
with our own subscription streaming service, the Hearts of Space Archive:

-niche audiences are far more engaged and loyal than average consumers

-they have been_chronically_starved_for content in the legacy system of
broadcasting and music retail

-these people are not jaded (on the contrary, they are tremendously
appreciative) and they are willing to pay for a well conceived service

Therein lies the opportunity for the middle ground, and it will not take
anything approaching a total redesign of the music business to get to a far
better place for this level of the market than the legacy system has
afforded since the 1960s.

All this can happen now, without wireless and with only normal growth of
broadband. The hardware people are starting to deliver the necessary
portable devices, but we are finding that there is a sizable market of
people who are happy to be served at their PCs. And as Andrew Odylzko (who
inadvertently started this thread...) says with admirable clarity, it takes
about 10 years for any substantial change in user behavior in
telecommunications.

All we really need for this to take off are sensible statutory royalty rates
for digital transmission, and integrated service providers who can offer
artists, labels and internet broadcasters the tools they need to build
businesses around serving these audiences.

We've done it with off the shelf software, industry standard formats and a
few commercial service providers. We have happy subscribers, we're paying
our bills and building our user base. We were lucky to be able to leverage
our archive of public radio programming, but others can do it their own way
as long as they can target an audience and serve it well.

Stephen Hill

HEARTS OF SPACE timeless music for a changing world
P.O. Box 5916, Sausalito, CA 94965

stephen.hill@hos.com
www.hos.com

2002-08-23T10:19:00.000-07:00

Dave Weinberger on copyright arguments

http://hyperorg.com/blogger/

I lost an argument about copyright protection on the Internet the
other night. I lost the same argument a couple of weeks ago. In fact,
I lose this argument every time I have it. Most recently, to a
Washington lawyer at a semi-friendly business dinner. I said that
we've always been allowed to make copies of music and books: Yes, but,
the lawyer said, the Internet lets one copy serve thousands of people.
I said, the record companies rip off the artists who only get a buck
or two out of the 15 to 20 we pay. Yesbut, says the lawyer, that's the
contract they signed and you don't have the right to deprive them of
those few dollars. I said, photocopiers are used to violate copyright
all the time, and we're not talking about disabling them. Yesbut
digital technology gives us a way of protecting intellectual property
and we have no excuse not to use it.

We'd started arguing when the soup was served and would have made it
all the way to figuring out the tip, except around the time that we
were putting down the dessert menus, I realized what I actually
believe. (Took me long enough.) "Look," I said, "I know my argument
isn't coherent. I can't defend the things I'm saying. But, I haven't
really said what matters to me. I'm not looking for free music. I'm 51
and employed. I can buy the music I want. And I'm a writer; I'm in
favor of people getting paid for what they create. The fact is I don't
know what the law should look like . But I do know in my heart three
things.

First, the industry's gotta change. We have a recording business that
was built around its ability to solve what was once a really hard
problem - distributing music. Now any 11 year old with Internet access
can solve it. So, the current recording industry has to change or > fail.

Second, I don't think any of us know how to change it. Our current
common sense doesn't work. I mean, we protect intellectual property,
but our own government has a system for making a single copy of a book
available for free to thousands of people without the author getting a
dime. It's called the public library. But we're ok with that. We don't
yet know what we're going to be ok with on the Web. It's too early and
it's too different and we should be careful of making bad, hasty
decisions.

Third, and this is really what matters to me. The very thing the most
conservative among us have dreamt of, have died for since the founding
of this country, is now within our grasp: free markets, free speech,
worldwide. And we're blowing it because some dinosaur companies insist
on maintaining their grip on every last dollar before their industry
dies. 500 million of us can see how close it is, how the world economy
would blossom, how the human spirit would get dizzy with possibility,
and we're arguing about how we can best prevent it? We should be
talking about how we can explode the barriers.

So, I don't know how the law should change. I'm not a lawyer or
legislator. But what's at stake isn't whether some of us get music
without paying for it but the type of world we're building. We're have
the chance to move from a world based on scarcity and greed to one
built on abundance and generosity. And the effect will be evolutionary
growth ....unless we stay really stupid about it.

That's what I said. Then we had coffee. Nothing changed.

Dave Weinberger

2002-08-18T11:05:00.000-07:00

Didn't see this posted. Apologies if it's a repeat....

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020813/gtmusic
/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

POSTED AT 6:24 PM EDT Tuesday, August 13
MP3s not source of music industry woes: Study

By JACK KAPICA
Globe and Mail Update

The record industry has it wrong: Swapping music MP3s is not the cause of
the industry's woes, but it may be the cure.

That conclusion comes from Forrester Research, an emerging-technology
research firm, and flatly contradicts what the record executives are saying.

In fact, Forrester's latest study, released Tuesday, says that consumers
need a "Music Bill of Rights" to protect their right to get tunes over the
Internet.

The five major international record companies, through their trade
organization, called the Recording Industry Association of America, have
been blaming a 15-per-cent drop in record sales over the past two years on
Net-based file-swapping services, starting with Napster.

In reality, other factors led to the drop in revenue, Forrester said: the
economic recession and competition from surging video-game and DVD sales.

"There is no denying that times are tough for the music business, but not
because of downloading," Forrester's principal analyst, Josh Bernhoff, said.
"Based on surveys of 1,000 on-line consumers, we see no evidence of
decreased CD buying among frequent digital music consumers."

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020813/gtmusic
/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

2002-08-18T10:46:00.000-07:00

August 18, 2002

Type name here
Type address here
City, State zip

Dear Seattle music community member,

At 7 p.m. August 29 in the JBL Theater, EMP is hosting a free panel that really means a lot to me. It’s called “Where Do We Go From Here? Artists, Technology, Activism and the Industry.” Here’s why I’m so excited about it.
These past few years have been a whirlwind for all of us involved in music. New technologies have utterly changed the rules. Home recording studios grow ever more efficient, and the Internet provides new means of distribution, so that independent artists can find an audience more readily than ever before. At the same time, the consolidation of the music industry, including major record labels and commercial radio, makes the mainstream harder to enter than ever before. Music makers negotiate between extremes as they try to satisfy themselves creatively, reach people, and live healthy, satisfying lives.
How can one person comprehend the intricacies of copyright law and webcasting and the Federal Communications Commission and major label accounting practices and mechanical royalties and …. It’s very hard to absorb all we need to know to thrive in the music world. Yet if we don’t become informed, musicians and their allies risk being swept up in change, rather than mastering the possibilities it creates.
With “Where Do We Go From Here?” EMP and the Future of Music Coalition invite you to become part of an ongoing public discussion of these matters. The panel features artists and artist-rights advocates frankly discussing how they deal with the myriad upheavals in the music industry. Topics raised will include the state of radio; the wild world of the Internet; the battles in Congress over topics like radio consolidation and the work-for-hire law; musicians and health care; and artists’ relationships with the system that (we hope!) supports them, including labels and the concert industry. Many of us entered these conversations around the time that Napster made file-sharing a hot debate; so much more has transpired since then, and we all need to educate ourselves and share information.
The panel includes Jenny Toomey and Michael Bracy of the FMC, a not-for-profit think tank that examines the music industry in search of policies, technologies and business models that can benefit artists and fans. You might know Jenny from her stellar recording career with Tsunami and other ensembles, or Mike from his work with the Low Power Radio Coalition and Misra Records. Also joining in will be musicians Krist Novoselic, Dave Dederer and Dave Allen. But the audience is going to make this event work – we need people like you to share your experiences and opinions. As a group, we can share in a vision that may shape policy and the business world in significant ways.
We hope you will attend our forum. If you know nothing about these subjects, it’s a chance to learn. If you know a lot, it’s a way connect with others. Please help make EMP a home for discussion about the most important aspect of music-making – integrating it into a whole and happy life.

See you there!

Ann Powers, Susie Tennant, and Sarah Sternau

2002-07-02T09:44:00.000-07:00

A Squall review - http://www.NWscuttle.com/htmdocs/0207/aural.html

July 2002

Aural Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Allen and Squall
Close to the cutting edge as possible
by Kurt Dahlke

e're waiting at a red light behind a bus. The bus proceeds into the intersection (turning right, actually, but this doesn't seem important). So we cruise on into the intersection following the bus (which had been blocking our view of the light), blithe in our lack of knowledge that the bus was turning right on the red. Cue the Trans Am, which punches us 20 feet over and spins us almost 180 degrees onto the opposite sidewalk.
Squall: deep, wide and difficult to describe. [Photos by Soren Coughlin-Glaser; click for a trip to Squall's Web site.]

Being on the receiving side of that blow, I got off damn easy. Just a week hobbling about on a cane. That, and a curious hand injury that makes me unable to fully touch my left thumb to the corresponding smallest finger.

I spend a few days on the couch, obsessively listening to The Infinite, a collection of tunes from Shriekback, a weird British post-punk art-funk band – that, in addition to being way ahead of its time, also featured some of the best, most interesting bass-playing in rock.

I must be delirious. “If Dave Allen can do it, so can I,” I think. Then I rush off to buy a bass guitar and begin my own dubious musical journey.

Dave Allen's musical journey, which also includes co-founding the polemically revered outfit Gang of Four in 1977, is certainly not dubious, and it's far from over. He's here in Portland, still chasing the muse, getting as close to the cutting edge as possible with his new outfit, Squall.

Squall, a self-described creative collective, appears manifest as a group of guitarists, keyboard players, samplers, DJs, MCs, video artists and percussionists who throw down music that's deep, wide, and yet as ephemeral as the air.

A recent early-May PSU Music Department gig was "too early in the day for us," Allen says. Though listeners have no clue anything is amiss, Allen admits the crew isn't exactly used to playing stone-cold sober at noon. That's OK, Dave, most of us aren't used to listening to music like yours in that condition either.
No longer sure what's coming from where: two turntables and stone-cold sober at noon.

And the idea is strong enough to survive unscathed, even without the MCs, video artists or booze. Squall's revolving-pro lineup of non-jam band jammers mix jazz, funk, turntable-ism, rock and more into a concoction that frees the tendrils of your mind while remaining bolted to the basalt by Allen's saurian grooves.

Numerous samplers load the air with rhythmic white-noise mantras, the drummer pours out syncopated funk beats and Allen settles into one of his trademarked angular ganks, a reflexive looping groove that stimulates the hypothalamus.

Thusly emancipated, Brian "Ice" Berg, the nicest man in Portland music, the DJ, and the guitarist are freed to follow sundry paths, providing the spaced-out digressions that are the aspiration of this type of music.

Squall provides a large group of eager-to-get-outside students (and one homeless guy doing interpretive dance) with a nice hour of fused grooves that never become repetitious or overlong, even with so many sound sources that the sound-guy admits he's no longer sure what's coming from where.

Ultimately, it's difficult to describe Squall. Jazz-funk hip-hop to dance, too? Maybe. I need to see the full show at the proper place, proper time and under the right conditions, to try to get it right. And I need to see it many times. So do you.

In fact, with such a group of highly talented, varied musicians hitting on so many genres, anyone who likes any kind of music probably has a good reason to get caught up in the Squall.

2002-06-24T11:01:00.000-07:00

Wow, it's been over a month and no ramblings from me. I will be filling this space really quickly.

2002-04-30T21:28:00.000-07:00

Well, in a strange way I still feel very connected to Silicon Valley actually. After arriving here in Portland to work for Intel I realized very quickly that the content holders were not going to give up their hold on things easily, that they would try and hang on to their market share as best they could. I decided that to return to what I do best, making music, would put me back in touch with that je n'est ce quoi that artists have, you know, the reason why we do it although we don't understand why.
And now I understand why I was involved in the search for a new delivery system all these past years, it's the music stupid! And the major label system knocked the wind out of my sails. So by going back to my roots as it were, I have discovered that my passion for change is greater than it was at Emusic.com and Intel.
All I have to do now is make music which keeps me sane and find a job at a forward thinking company that can use my skills and still allow me to keep playing too!
Meanwhile I watch the label system twist and turn in the wind.
It's all very metaphorical of course!

Dave

On 4/30/02 8:31 PM, "Woody Lewis" wrote:

> Believe me, I understand. I especially appreciate your having migrated
> from the Silicon Valley world back to music. I've been lazy with my
> writing and playing for too many years, and should in fact be on the
> edge w/hip hop. Indulgences in decades gone by are fun, but not
> particularly productive or innovative. I've had fun playing the oldies
> for boomers that recognize them, but probably need to be out there
> where you are.
>
> /w
>
>
> At 05:39 PM 4/30/02, you wrote:
>> I understand. Just my preference is to listen to artists who do things
>> differently. And I admit, some of the artists I admire the most recycle the
>> old stuff too. Right now I am purposefully avoiding these retro rock
>> recyclers like Ryan Adams and The Strokes, Hives etc just to avoid polluting
>> my world as I am in the middle of a new progressive hip hop recording right
>> now.
>>
>> Dave
>

2002-04-18T11:46:00.000-07:00

Brad,

I believe you are missing the point. It may bother you that people like Ian
and myself are not in it for the money or the girls but I don't believe that
either of us have said that making money is evil. I believe very strongly in
the art form and being paid is a consequence of my talent as an artist. I do
believe that the commercialization of music has resulted in bad music
though, just turn on the radio. Maybe everyone who worships at the altar of
Mammon should lighten up too!

Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Willcox"

"during the first interview I was ever a part of, the woman who was
interviewing us asked, “Are you in a band for the girls or for the money?”
And at the time it had never occurred to me that anybody on earth would be
in a band for either one of those reasons. From my point of view, it just
seemed insane. I thought that people were in bands to play music, and that
was it. It never occurred to me that there would only be these two
choices."
>
> One thing is certain--this guy didn't join a band to exercise his sense of
> humor. Sheesh, lighten up.
>
> The real problem I have with holier-than-though testaments from musicians is
> the reinforcement of a certain political correctness--the artist's mind
> should not be tainted by commercial impulse. And this attitude is
> transferred all too easily to discussions of online file-sharing and free
> music generally. I'm the most pro-P2P guy around, but that doesn't mean that
> I think money is evil, commercial ambition betrays the audience, or creating
> for a market invariably results in bad music. In fact, that sort of
> prejudicial thinking might be as damaging to the future of a viable digital
> marketplaces as corporate short-sightedness and rigidity.
>
> Brad

2002-04-18T11:42:00.000-07:00

Jim,

Of course Ian MacKaye's position sums up mine exactly. In fact Ian and I had
a lengthy discussion about this at Future of Music and in subsequent phone
calls over the last few months. Interestingly Fugazi followed in the steps
of my band Gang of Four in attempting to reach people by playing music that
we felt everyone was entitled to hear. Fugazi's $5 concert ticket price took
things further than Gang of Four but we would actually play for free as
often as possible at benefits attempting to raise political awareness among
our audience.
Ian and his band are highly principled in their stance and it is heartening
that he, like me, is still playing and forging ahead attempting to make a
difference. I think we both understand very clearly that success comes in
many shapes and forms and definitely does not require a recording contract
to validate it.

Dave Allen

On 4/18/02 7:17 AM, "Jim Willcox" wrote:

> RE Paul & Dave's conversation about making a living playing music:
>
> I'm in the process of editing a joint interview with Ian MacKaye (Fugazi)
> and Mike Watt (the Minutemen), and jeez, their takes on being a musician are
> so totally at odds with what I'm hearing from most younger artists. Here are
> a few snippets of the Ian MacKaye's conversation -- if anyone's interested
> in the whole article, I should have it edited and posted on our site next
> week:
>
> MacKaye: "My point as a musician is that I want people to hear my music. It’
> s not about getting paid. So, that’s really clear to me. And if I write a
> song that somebody else wants to hear, that’s great. But I’ve written plenty
> of songs that people don’t want to hear, and that’s all right, too. But when
> you ask me a question like what sort of advice can I give people, in my
> opinion it’s to just love what they do. And that way, if they end up
> thinking they’re a failure, at least they would have spent their time doing
> something they love. That’s it. That’s all I can think of, because each
> scenario, or each context, is so different...
>
> "What struck me when I was at that [Future of Music] conference was that
> there were all these questions from people saying, “How can we go on tour
> and make a living from our band?” And I’m thinking, 'Wait a minute, where’s
> this entitlement coming from?' People who can manage to squeeze music out of
> a stick with wires on it are already blessed, they’re already fortunate as
> it is. And if they’re able to play with other people and write songs, that’s
> an incredible blessing, too. Most people would be very happy to have that.
> If they can actually write a song and go on tour, they’re fortunate beyond
> belief. But then when I hear people say, 'How can we go on tour and make a
> living?' It’s like, 'God, you should be just happy you can go on tour. You
> should be happy you can play music at all.' The thing is, if you write
> music... all I can ever think about is to write a good song -- to make
> people WANT to see you. It’s not like a career path. It’s not like you
> decide, well, either I’m gonna be a waiter or I’m gonna be a musician. It
> doesn't work like that, where you just automatically decide 'I think I’m
> just gonna be a musician and make my living that way because it looks like
> those guys make a lot of money.' That’s just insane. Because the thing about
> being a waiter, for instance, is that you’re working in a restaurant in a
> structure that [is already established] -- people are gonna come eat, and
> you can bring their food to them, or whatever.
>
> "But when it comes to music, it’s not like you automatically get an audience
> just because you’re in a band. You have to be bringing something to the
> table that makes people want to come. THEN you can start talking about
> whether or not you can make enough money to eat yourself. It’s a really
> interesting phenomenon. I think that people now are thinking about it in
> terms of a career path. But I just never have thought about it, ever. From
> my point of view, in the beginning, when I first started playing music,
> during the first interview I was ever a part of, the woman who was
> interviewing us asked, “Are you in a band for the girls or for the money?”
> And at the time it had never occurred to me that anybody on earth would be
> in a band for either one of those reasons. From my point of view, it just
> seemed insane. I thought that people were in bands to play music, and that
> was it. It never occurred to me that there would only be these two choices.
> So it’s very hard for me to really empathize with people who can’t figure
> out how to make a living from their music. Instead of that, how ‘bout making
> some music, and then we’ll see if a living can follow?"
>
> "I always tell people, music is a form of communication that predates
> language, straight up. It’s been around forever. And it wasn’t until about
> the turn of the century that they figured out a way to 'bottle the water,'
> you know? Before that, music was a river. It was a river, and everyone could
> sip from that river. But then, someone came along with the idea that, 'Hey,
> we can bottle this, and we can sell this water.' And people were like,
> 'Well, that’s kind of cool, that’s convenient, because I can take it home
> with me, or I can put it in my pocket, take it on a walk and have something
> to drink,' which is fine. That’s a reasonable industry -- to go ahead and
> put some water in a bottle and sell it. That’s fine. But the problem is when
> they start trying to discourage people from going to the river, or trying to
> close [down] the river, or even worse, poison the river -- then it’s not all
> right. Then it stinks.
>
> "And, for me, music is not an industry. Music is not even entertainment. It’
> s not just a soundtrack. Music is part of life. It is a straight-up form of
> communication, and it resides in every person in the world. And that’s where
> I’m coming from in terms of music. That’s exactly the world that I want to
> be... At the same time, when it comes to music, there are certain elements
> of what we do with music that are just distasteful. If people see music as a
> living, they’re just screwed. They’re just gonna make something that’s not
> music, in my opinion. But there are plenty of other people out there who are
> making incredible music who are not even thinking about money, and that’s
> really where you’re gonna find all the new ideas. It’s always in the free
> space."
>
> Anyway, you get the idea. For Watt and MacKaye, they never really had a
> choice -- they were put on this earth to make music, and all the other stuff
> came after -- and actually, because of -- that. As a side note -- Fugazi
> never charged over $5 for a concert ticket because they wanted their music
> to be heard by anyone who wanted to listen.
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
>
> James K. Willcox
> Editorial Director/VP of New Media
> StarPolish
> http://www.starpolish.com

2002-04-16T14:20:00.000-07:00

Brad,

As a musician on the list I have to say that I totally disagree with the
contention that digital piracy is the main cause for lower sales. I would
suggest that the labels have lost touch with their customers and that retail
stores don't work as a destination (I include the Megastores in this
equation). The industry has managed to disenfranchise at least two
generations of new cd buyers and kids these days who do buy cds turn around
and burn multiple copies for their buddies.
The music industry is still looking in the wrong direction. Meanwhile the
Internet offers huge potential for artists to do things their own way. It
offered the same potential to the labels too but they appear to be fighting
it rather than embracing it. As Jim Griffin has often pointed out on the
list, the customer is always right, and the customer is obviously voting
with her feet.

Dave

2002-04-16T14:14:00.000-07:00

From: Wendy K
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:58:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Internet Piracy and musicians

We woke up to this story being reported on BBC TV Breakfast news.
Here's how it went:

BBC reporter interviewed guy who manages Rough Trade, the record
shop and from the looks of it, they were on Talbot Road in Notting
Hill. Pete Donne (I think his name) from the shop said that he
wasn't surprised that vinyl and CD sales have increased in the UK as
we have "a strong relationship with vinyl and collecting in the UK".

They showed a UK teenager who said she'd downloaded loads from the
internet but she was still going out and buying her CD's, in fact she
thought she was buying more because she was finding more bands that
were like ones she liked. Another journo said that the main reason
why there wasnt such an impact in the UK was because not that many
people had broadband, and it was taking people half an hour to
download a song so they werent bothering. Ok, as of Aug 2001 .net
magazine only 2.3% of the UK households were connecting this way.
However, he forgot about schools and work where people are
downloading away. April 1st, BT reduced adsl rates to encourage
people to get broadband.

(btw: Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Spain, Norway, UK, Italy in
that order for broadband connectivity in EEC)

if you're going to talk about piracy and musicians, there's as much
piracy going on outside the net in different countries as there is
online - can we go after all of the terrorists/pirates in the world?
or is there something we can learn from them?

i cant see the disappearance of vinyl -- yet. i work with and know
too many people who would rather spend $100 on a record than eat for
two weeks.

wendy

________________________
http://www.ninjatune.net

2002-04-12T13:37:00.000-07:00

SXSW interactive and the post post-boom landscape
Information Wants to Be Worthless
BY BRUCE STERLING
Bruce Sterling takes stock of the situation.

I can't wait for this next South by Southwest Interactive. I don't know why
they still call it that, though. They used to call it "Multimedia." Now even
"Interactive" sounds corny.

If I were them, I'd rename the event every year. This year in particular
demands a major image rethink. How about "SXSW Cyberspace Terrorist Paranoia"?
"SXSW Axis of Evil Global InfoWar"? Might we arrange open-house tours of Enron
and Global Crossing, perhaps using chartered buses? Why, there's just so much
to discuss!

SXSW Interactive has suffered surprisingly little from the collapse of
dot-communism. The core demographic at SXSW is the woolly-eyed digital
creative, a species of creature from way before the Boom. Those characters were
never anywhere near the big IPOs. They were all fueled by sheer subcultural
coolness.

Back in the Neolithic dawn of the Internet, you see, the academics who built it
used to beat the living crap out of a businessman the very moment they saw him.
One peep of commercial spam on their stainless not-for-profit network, and the
net-gods would reach right into your router and just throttle you, like an
egg-sucking dog. Businessmen would take one look at that impossible Internet
code, and they'd pick up their gray flannels and flee headlong to CompuServe
and Prodigy. You young folks these days, you probably don't even remember
"CompuServe." They croaked from being way too compu-servile.

Graying cyberpunk that I am ... all carpal-tunnel and bifocals ... I can well
remember some weirdo pals in the Information-Wants-to-Be-Free contingent, idly
wondering what would happen if the business world ever "discovered the
Internet." Obviously they would buy up every machine in sight and try to make a
profit at it. That much was dead obvious, for that was the period's
Reagan-Thatcherite modus operandi. Clearly all us artsy cybergoofballs would
have to find some other place to chatter and swap our lies, like, say, faxes or
CB radio.

But one scenario was way too far-fetched and idealistic, even for the likes of
us. What if it turned out that the Net was just plain too much for business to
handle? That it was downright toxic to free enterprise?

But look what happened. When was the last time that you saw commerce, global
capitalism, competition, the profit motive, the real deal ... choking on
advanced technology as if they'd swallowed a jalapeño? What a spectacle! It
ranks with the beached gasping of Marxism-Leninism in 1989.

Unworkable business models, the squalid collapse of e-commerce plans and b-to-b
markets. Hundreds of dead corporations, with e-biz magazines gone thinner than
Kate Moss. And those overachievers from Enron, my God! Thinking so far outside
the box that they're in the witness box.

I could well go on, but you don't want to hear this story from me. You want to
hear this from Lawrence Lessig, noted author of Code and Other Laws of
Cyberspace and The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected
World. Lawrence Lessig will be keynoting SXSW on the cogent subject of "The
Creative Commons." Lawrence Lessig is a Stanford law professor and Lessig is
one heavy cyber-dude, he is heavier than depleted uranium. He despises
copyright abuse, and he also knows who, how, and why they stole our broadband.
I love that Lessig guy. Just knowing the truth is out there, it cheers me all
up.

Okay, so the Net has proved toxic to business and nobody's making any money
there. That stopped the profiteering, except for the spammers of course ...
hucksters who are methodically bringing net.commerce into such putrid disrepute
that it may well never recover. Lack of money, though, is not stopping the
innovation. It never did. The Internet now reaches half the population of the
USA. It is starting big seismic rumblings in China, Iran, and India, societies
that lack their own AOL Time Warner and therefore have some dead-serious uses
for cheap global network communication. Worldwide, people use the Net for
e-mail. E-mail never had a real business model, but it was one feature
everybody always wanted. The Net is becoming the planet's water cooler. It's
all about the schmoozing and the gossip.

If you think the business scene at this year's Austin 360 was morbid, and
demoralized, and pitiful, and I was there, and boy was it ever -- well, you
should have seen the Davos World Economic Forum up in New York City. Which I
also witnessed, for reasons I don't much care to explain. Okay, I'm
topic-drifting here, but don't flame me just yet. You see, everybody at Davos
was scolding, not the computer-crazy Americans, but the Japanese. They expect
the Japanese banks to crater just any minute now. And get this: The Japanese
never swallowed any New Economy Kool-Aid. The Japanese bend metal, they make
Sony Walkmans and cars. They're still royally screwed. Try explaining that.
It's sure more than Fortune or The Economist are able to manage.

Houston is supposed to be a solid, non-nonsense, oil-bidness town. Houston
doesn't have any SXSW. Poor Houston is the snakebitten home of Enron, while
Austin's feckless cyberslackers are still grinning and hitting the Return key.
Yeah, Dell fired some people here, so maybe local rents will drop and all the
potters and tapestry weavers will return from Wimberley. Man, anything's
possible these days.

The good folks of SXSW Interactive have a whole lotta blogging in the schedule.
You may have never heard of "weblogging," because it never yet made anyone
rich, but blogging is a way cool deal, man. Metafilter, Memepool,
Boingboing.net, I'm on those blogs all the time. Blogdex, Daypop, those sites
rock. SXSW Interactive is totally awash in the cream of blogger royalty.
They've got Meg of Megnut, and Derek of Powazek, and Jason of Kottke, and
Jeffrey of Alistapart, and a very Mongol host of other bloggers. If this
recital means nothing to you, you are probably old and near death now.

Unlike those stellar bloggers, I was way too lazy to build any software, but I
myself have a blog these days. This is a sure symptom of a major social
contagion. It's much like my teenage daughter's AOL Instant Message mania. Her
Mom and I, we were kinda worried about her 90% digital social life, until we
realized that we don't have to buy her a car or any gasoline.

Net types like to catfight about whether blogging is the Way Forward or utter
self-indulgence. Since it is almost certainly both at once, blogging is quite
the hot topic. So there will be some bloggery debate, with scowling, and
finger-wagging, and pepper-gassing. Yes, blogging has its limitations. There
isn't much in the way of original content, for instance. Weblogging consists
mostly of logging one's websurfing activities, then making sardonic comments
about whatever you see. An activity one's admirers find hilarious. Yet admirers
rarely pay for this. Except in their admiration.

Fame, glamour, gold ... so funny how that works! Camgirls, for instance. The
trials and tribulations of girls with Web cameras, those are issues one might
well broach with a SXSW expert, like say, Amanda from Amandacam.

Sometimes, as a camgirl ... no, I am not a camgirl myself, but I maintain a
chilly, detached, surgical interest in their doings. As a camgirl, you might
post some lovely and somewhat indiscreet pictures of yourself on the Internet.
Or a picture of your boyfriend. For instance, your sweet, geeky boyfriend that
you stole from some other camgirl, who is somewhat less attractive than you,
and therefore gets fewer expensive toys from her admirers, purchased and
shipped from her handy Amazon wish list. Margaret Mead could get three or four
hot anthropological monographs out of this behavior, easily.

At least you'll be better off than poor Chu Mei Feng in Taiwan, who is a female
politician who got cammed against her will by a jealous woman. Chu Mei Feng had
a highly unprivate romp with a married Internet entrepreneur. That footage got
spread to every horny Chinese guy on the Net. Today, all around the Pacific
Rim, poor Chu Mei Feng is bigger than Monica Lewinsky. Everybody's Googling for
her downloads. Chu Mei Feng is not attending SXSW, so presumably that means the
rest of us get to discuss her and her remarkable, uh, issues. Chu Mei Feng is
one of those entirely noncommercial, communitarian Net phenomena, of such
intense interest to activists, intellectuals, and academics. And to science
fiction novelists. Man, 21st-century life is rich and full!

Got some gamers showing up. Harvey Smith from ION Storm, for instance. I'm glad
to see gamers on the SXSW scene, as when it comes to commercial Net
entertainment, online gamers have the golden touch. Massive multiplayer online
games: They're ticking like clockwork. People are in those game environments
whacking at virtual dragons with imaginary swords and man, do these game guys
coin the cash. Players of Everquest even sell their Everquest gear on eBay. To
judge by the auction traffic, Everquest players, who are not even human but
virtual characters, have a higher per capita income than Russians.

Meanwhile, Slate and Salon and Feed and Plastic, and all these supposed
professional communicators, man, do they ever suffer. I'd like to see one
political organizer, even Begala or Carville, who could put together an online
crowd that can match those clamoring masses of Ultima or Everquest. When will
the mainstream catch on to this? It's so baffling.

Lotta Web designers. They're always there. They travel in clumps. Because they
speak their own unique languages, these people. Specifically, they speak
ActiveX, ASP, CGI, HTML, Flash, and Java. It's a wonderful thing to see a
profession so young, yet already so arcane. Furniture designers had to work for
hundreds of years before they ever used terms like "ischial tuberosity." Even
magazine designers, the closest relatives of Web designers, well, they still
kinda speak English, at least until you get them started on typography.

This would be a very good time to hang out with the Open Source people, before
they get formally reclassified as a national security threat. Have you noticed
that Microsoft is declaring that "security" is their brand-new, No. 1 reason to
live? And how about that alphabet soup of new American cyber-security agencies?
Like, for instance, the "Information Awareness Office" at DARPA, which is being
run by Admiral John Poindexter, of Iran-Contra fame?

I'm not trying to wax all Noam Chomsky here, but those Open Source people ...
they are, like, a multinational, leaderless, heavily networked outfit with
little-known agents and sympathizers in dozens of countries. Countries like
Finland. And Norway. It's definitely the Axis of something, I dunno what, but
something Scandinavian and fishy. You wouldn't believe how many active Linux
zealots there are in India. India is right next door to a place, which is right
next door to a place, that had some terrorists.

Sulekha.org is a Web site for Indian expatriates that is run out of Austin.
Sulekha is the most sophisticated ethnic community Web site I've ever seen. I
just webclicked a movie ticket for the Austin showing of Haan Maine Bhi Pyaar
Kiya, starring Karisma Kapoor. Somebody should pass the word to the SXSW Film
Festival that Bollywood is slithering into town via the Internet.

If Napster and its P2P clones ever get loose, nobody in the music business will
make any money ever again. And if 802.11b ever works, nobody will sell Internet
access and AOL will go broke. And if Linux had a decent graphic user interface,
Bill Gates would have no business model. Bill would have to spend all his time
giving vaccinations to little kids. You tell me what we're supposed to do about
this menace.

There are a few highly interactive groups that I don't see at SXSW Interactive.
They would be cops, terrorists, and the military. It hasn't escaped the notice
of authorities that Shoe-Bombing Boy was very into Yahoo and Hotmail. The
hounds of infowar are poring over captured al Qaeda hard disks as you read
this. The computer cops have a new top-level cybersecurity office. As for the
military, they were Internet from day one. If you websurf for the Pentagon's
"Joint Vision 2020" on "network-centric warfare," you'll see a digital
cluetrain like you wouldn't believe. We'll be seeing a lot more out of these
people on the Net, we're gonna get all cheek-by-jowl and cozy with 'em. And you
know what? They're so noncommercial, too!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Sterling, one of the premier names in near future fiction, is a Hugo
Award-winning writer, and the author of Heavy Weather, Holy Fire, and
Zeitgeist.

2002-04-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

The Cd listening post dilemma.

You know, this is one of those interesting questions. Listening stations have worked both ways for me personally. Just yesterday, no doubt wracked with guilt by Michael Greene’s Grammy speech last month, I bought four cds. I intended to only purchase one, “Geogaddi” by Boards of Canada which I picked up instantly. Then I picked up “Wanna buy a Monkey?” by Dan the Automator, “Simple Things” by Zero 7 and “Honeymoon” by DJ Cam. My criteria in these purchases was simple. I love everything that Dan the Automator & DJ Cam have done and I can’t get enough of Boards of Canada. Zero 7 on the other hand was a band that I have read about but was never compelled to search for online and luckily for me (them, their label?) they were on the listening station. I listened, I liked, I bought. Now in the past I have picked up cds that have been given glowing write ups and then I’ve listened to them in store and realized that my tastes and the average record reviewers tastes are way, way different, so therefore no sale occurred. So it’s Catch 22. The industry’s problem is simply that the Clear Channel and Infinity radio stations broadcasting their over-sanitized crap day in day out over the airwaves does not appeal to the young, new, generation of record buyers nor the boomer demographic like myself. The above mentioned cds I bought are most likely not getting any airplay (except for Dan’s “other” outfit, Gorillaz) but if people were exposed to them they would buy them. They are all brilliant albums in their own diverse way. This is where Webcasting Internet stations will beat the broadcasters in the long run. Launchcast, Music Match and RadioFreeVirgin are where it’s at for me and an awful lot of people I know. Maybe with enough cool content being accessed online via Internet Radio the retailers will get to rely less on the listening stations because the customers are far more informed when they enter the store. And those customers are not there to browse but to buy the cool music that they’ve been exposed to. As for what to stock, that’s a whole scenario that relates to the store buying in more of the cds that are in the listening station because the labels have bought into the program. And of course the more bought in is a problem if they don’t sell because then there is more to return and that hurts the artist and the label. So, Catch 22 indeed, damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

2002-04-09T12:11:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Evan Silverman's blog entry about The Rosenbergs status with DGM
resulted in a great deal of criticism of the label, and a dialogue of sorts
between the two sides ensued.

Here follows The Rosenbergs' ultimate public apology to DGM, as well as
responses to Evan's diary entry from David Singleton and Robert Fripp,
principals of DGM, illustrative of the typical set of expectations and
responsibilities that define the artist/label relationship, whatever the
combination of good intentions, admirable ethics, and not-so-traditional
business model might be.

http://www.krimson-news.com/

Public Apology From The Rosenbergs
Mr. Crimson at 12:00:00 AM - KCNN Feedback (0)

To whom it may concern, it has come to our attention that Evan's diary entry
a few weeks ago has brought a lot of negative criticism on the folks at DGM.
First of all, Evan's opinions in his diary are his and his alone and do NOT
reflect anyone else's in the band. Second, Unfortunately, Evan, after a
particularly difficult day being hassled by our creditors, stepped outside
the lines of not only business but friendship and said some things that he
now sincerely regrets. To a man, each one of us are, and will always be,
extremely grateful to what Robert and David and the staff at DGM have done
for us, and getting a few hundred dollars screwed up in transfering channels
does not mean that our 2-plus year relationship with them is ruined---These
setbacks, along with the credit situation we now face, are not the fault of
DGM or anyone else involved with us, but one of the many consequences we
knew we'd face trying to go against the major record label system. We as a
band, including the infamous Evan, would like to issue a public apology to
Robert and everyone else at DGM as they have received some pretty nasty
emails over the last couple of days accusing them of "Screwing us over"-
nothing could be further from the truth. Robert's company was built on
honesty, integrity, and respect for the artists and those are extremely rare
traits in the music business- They are the only company in the industry we
would've gone into business with on just a handshake. Hopefully, the folks
that were willing to jump on the negative bandwagon, and we appreciate their
concern and support, will read this, too, and realize that when things go
wrong and people get frustrated, they say things they don't mean. I'm sure
Evan wishes he could take it back. We all hold DGM in the highest regard and
hope they do the same for us and wish them all the best in whatever the
future holds. I'm sure it will be good.

Sincerely,

David, Joe, Joe, and Evan (The Rosenbergs) :)

http://www.krimson-news.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?topic=61&forum=9&start=15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
And here is David Singleton's public response to Evan Silverman's recent
public diary posting... Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Open letter to a disgruntled artist.

Dear Evan,

I was sorry to read in a recent diary posting that you are «fucked». I am
also concerned that you wrote «I wish they (DGM) didn't leave us dry,
throwing aside the contract and going against their word». This is quite
simply untrue and grossly inaccurate. It may be that you do not speak on
behalf of the other band members, but as your words have been widely
reported, it might be useful for me to clearly describe the details of DGM's
relationship with the Rosenbergs.

It is well documented that the Rosenbergs wished to own their musical rights
and control their own career. Aspirations which DGM fully supports. We have
always believed that such freedom is really only possible in a situation
where the artist «pays their own tab». As the Rosenbergs were initially
unable to pay their own way, Robert and I undertook to loan the band up to
$150,000, with interest payable in the normal way, so that the band could
«self finance». DGM became the Rosenbergs management company, on a standard
20% management commission.

The financial history of our relationship with the Rosenbergs has been
roughly as follows :

The studio gets paid : $60,000.00
The producer $10,000.00
The mastering engineer $4,616.29
The graphics company $1,404.00
The video maker $5,000.00
The CD manufacturer $26,321.93
Your lawyer $10,000.00
The band's per diems and expenses $29,500.00
Travel and delivery expenses $2,587.84
The bank (interest) $16,514.25
The publicists and PR $28,904.49
We buy a van for the band to use $10,631.00

In fact virtually everyone gets paid, except Robert and David, who take out
loans against their houses to pay the bills - to pay your bills. I have no
complaint with any of this. This is what we undertook to do, and we were
happy to have supported you. I have never regretted the decision until
reading your posting, which makes me wonder if our goodwill was misplaced.

To deal directly with the issues you raise :

DGM «promises us X amount of money for three records».

This is untrue. We offered to loan you a rolling $150,000 ie. if it was
repaid after the first album, we would extend the same loan for a second
album. I suggest you read the inconsistencies in your own posting more
closely. You acknowledge that DGM «gave us more money than promised», while
at the same time suggesting that we are somehow in breach of contract, and
moaning that we have not lent you even more money. Perhaps you feel that the
figure of $150,000 is not significant to us, in which case I should point
out that the loan I have taken against my house on behalf of the Rosenbergs
is larger than my entire earnings last year. That is a measure of the
commitment that you have received.

You imply that Robert and I are in some way responsible for your credit card
debts and rehearsal room costs. I fail to understand why you feel that I
should be responsible for your personal finances. I too have credit card
debts, but do not expect someone else to pay them on my behalf. Far from
«paying your own tab», you clearly expected Robert and David to pay it for
you indefinitely. Your comment that it somehow shocked you when «we found
out that we'd be responsible for that money» is most revealing. The rest of
the world is responsible for their own finances, why should the Rosenbergs
be uniquely privileged?

You say that your «business manager knows it's bullshit».

I value Angus's opinion. He is the only other person who has yet to get paid
by the Rosenbergs. He has certainly never told me anything of the kind, and
if he believed this, I am sure he would have said so. I do know that he
recently asked if we were able to loan an additional $3,000 to prop up your
personal company - and we declined. It is your personal company, for which
the band members are responsible. It is for the four of you to earn the
money to sustain it. Or not. Robert and I do not ask you for loans to
sustain DGM.

4. «Our manager works at DGM, so he's in a sticky situation as it is»

This is among the more bizarre comments in your posting. Your manager works
at DGM. DGM is your management company. Where else would you expect him to
work? How is his situation sticky?

5. «Things like using connections to get us on a tour was impossible»

We have always made it very clear to all our artists that DGM is not in the
business of creating a market for music. This must be the work of the music
and the artist. In your case, we spent nearly $5 per CD in advertising and
promotion. A spend which means that we have, in effect, lost money for every
CD sold. Even now, the CDs are being returned unsold by the shops. A
privilege for which Robert and I will continue to pay.

Finally :

«There was very little positive to come out of our relationship with DGM»

This is clearly your view, and I have no desire to persuade you otherwise.
But let us examine our relative positions:

The band have been able to make a record, and to tour. They have paid
themselves a salary, albeit a small one, far in excess of any income that was
derived from their music. Their ability to do this has been funded entirely
by DGM. They own the rights in their recording, and their video, are
contractually free, and control their own career.

By contrast, David and Robert have given the use of all our staff, and a
large amount of our personal time and creative energy over the last few
years. We have taken out loans, on behalf of the band in excess of $150,000,
on which we continue to pay the interest of over $1,000 a month - expenses
which, according to the contract, the band should reimburse. We have yet to
receive any such payments from the Rosenbergs (and nor, in truth, have we
asked for any, as we know the band have no money). Our reward for this work
is to see a band member tarnish the name of the company with inaccuracies
and misrepresentations.

For the future, our relationship is clearly at an end. The trust and mutual
respect that is necessary has broken down. DGM has moved on. We now accept
that much of the music that we wished to help bring into the world is
prejudiced because the artists are not willing to do the work and take the
responsibility that is necessary to «pay their own tab». Robert and David
are no longer willing to pay the tab on their behalf. Robert himself is
still working to repay the large loan that established DGM in its early
years, which enabled DGM to support the work of the Rosenbergs.

The Rosenbergs also will move on. Robert and I continue to believe in the
ultimate success of the band's creative drive, as much as ever. We are not
in the business of taking artists to court in order to get repayment of
outstanding debts. Consider it as a loan from a member of your family. It is
for you to decide how and when you intend to repay such a loan.

Best wishes,

David Singleton.

[ This Message was edited by: DanKirkd on 2002-04-09 01:48 ]

Posted: 2002-04-09 01:33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I have received the following from Robert Fripp for posting here and
elsewhere... Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

The Future Of The Past

(from Robert Fripp's Journal).

Saturday 6th. April, 2002; 08.52

Bredonborough, Worcestershire.

The sun is shining, the sky is blue & the temperature brisk.

The world is mad, if television news is any guide to the world. The news
according to English tabloids suggests, the world is madder than that. Any
reasonable person would despair. But hope is unreasonable and love is
greater than that. And love is greater than that.

My reflections of this sunny English morning are directed towards DGM's
larger present moment: its beginning, development, present condition & how
it may best address its future.

The beginning and development: DGM began as an ethical company &
mysteriously became a not-for-profit corporation.

The present condition: David Singleton & myself are no longer prepared to
fill the gap between the two, to continue as sponsors of the NFP. This
filling-of-the-gap consists of:

1. David is overworked & underpaid, at less than the manager of our Los
Angeles office & at 20% of the salary he was offered to run a comparable
firm.

2. Robert is overworked and unpaid, while maintaining a large company debt.

So, if David is overworked & underpaid, and I am not paid at all, DGM is
much as it always was. What has changed is that David & Robert are no longer
prepared to hold together what is possible & what is actual by underwriting
& subsidising the operations of DGM with our time, energies & borrowed
money.

No blame: DGM is a conviction company, not a career move (and occasionally
staff found the gap too wide). But negotiating the critical space between
the possible & the actual requires that we recognise degrees of necessity.

DGM became unmanageable. Unless David & I are to put most of our creative
energies into maintaining the company and its structure, it will collapse
sometime during 2002. We are not prepared to create musical product to
support the structure. Any structure, inevitably, seeks to define itself as
the raison d'etre and act accordingly. Rather, we have chosen to honour the
company's founding spirit, unfix the structure, re-introduce the Mobility
into DGm, and move on.

In making this choice, in taking this decision, we acknowledge that DGM has
already moved on. Sufficient notices of this intent have been posted &
available for some time.

DGM is not in bankruptcy, not about to collapse, not in financial trouble.
We continue to have the same problems with cash-flow that we have always
had. In that respect, nothing has changed.

We have problems with cash-flow because the records we release don't sell in
large quantities, certainly not enough to support the artists as
professional players. To put this slightly differently, our artists don't
sell enough of their records to support the company. But, why should the
artists sell their records? Shouldn't DGM sell their records?

DGM makes records available that might not otherwise enter the world, or
under conditions that would prejudice the music and/or its creators; and
where possible we connect the audience to that music. It was never the remit
of DGM to become a promotional structure dedicated to marketing & promoting
artists and their work.

So, here is a key point: DGM was created as an artist-friendly &
music-driven new-model record company which inherited the baggage,
expectations & assumptions of an old-model, conventional record company:
finance, marketing & promotion. DGM carried the negative weight of this
expectation without the corresponding total ownership & exploitation of the
artist and all their works. The conventional presumption in favour of the
record company was reversed: the main risks were carried by DGM but without
the corresponding property ownership & recoupment strategies. Much of this
is attributable to:

the presence of an artist within the flat hierarchy of the company during
its early days;

that the company was founded in response to injustice.

DGM staff are well aware of old-model exploitation & the
almost-impossibility of earning a living from music. Accordingly, they have
sometimes made artist-supportive judgement calls that were easily explicable
but, from a financial viewpoint, indefensible.

We can do whatever we want, providing we pick up the bill. Historically, the
bill has passed primarily to David & Robert. No blame: artist-friendly is
part of the company's culture. But DGM came too close to being what The
Vicar somewhat dismissively calls «The Charity».

DGM began in a music-industry world very different to the industry of today.
What appeared mad & unsustainable to us in 1992 is increasingly acknowledged
in the mainstream media of 2002 as being mad & unsustainable.

Building a new-model record company during the recession & financial turmoil
of the early 1990s was like something like this:

crossing a bridge between two utterly different ways of doing things;
building the bridge while crossing it;

Endless Grief firing bullets from behind & chopping the supports;

future prospects on the other side hiding;

faith in the inexpressible benevolence of the creative impulse.

While making the crossing, we traveled with as many family members as we
were able. In 2002 we are on the other side of that particular Great Divide.
Some of our family fell away & some of our family are still with us; but it
is no longer our responsibility to hold up an umbrella for them.

A key failing of David & myself throughout DGM's history has been to support
a member of the Team when wiser counsel would allow them to stand on their
own feet, even where this included falling over. This failing is:

partly the fault of trying to be helpful;

partly the arrogance that accompanies rescue attempts;

partly feeling responsibility for the repercussions of our initiatives.

It became very apparent in mid-1999 that a new new-model was & that
DGM-as-constructed was not that model. The creation of Bootleg TV was driven
by David's vision of an appropriate business & distribution structure to
match our original aims given the rapid changes in the industry, those
changes primarily driven by technology. An efficient structure to address
DGM music distribution & business would have freed David & Robert to return
their greater attention to music, production mastering & creative projects.

Bootleg TV raised $4 million and closed, along with many other companies in
the high-tech downturn, without being able to meet its promise. The need for
that model continues & the vision of that model persists. Someone,
somewhere, is addressing it at this moment. When broadband comes to life, a
version of this model will take off. Bootleg TV is worthy of a separate
history, along with the history of Endless Grief, as a snapshot of one
period of social, cultural & economic history.

DGM has done some things well, some things not well.

1. DGM Was A Very Bad Conventional Record Company: Failure.

i) DGM was a very bad conventional record company, but DGM was not set up to
be a conventional record company. A Conventional Record Company:

a) provides artists with a publicity & promotion machine;

b) provides (relatively) large amounts of money (much of which doesn't
actually reach the artist);

c) and in return for the risk and investment owns the artist/s and nearly
everything connected to them, in totality.

This is one approach, and it continues to have effect.

ii) Artists have tended to expect of DGM that it function as an old-model
company - quasi-managerial and providing promotion, distribution &
financing - while enjoying the benefits of DGM as a new-model record
company: artist profit-sharing, non-exploitation, non-ownership, non-risk.

iii) DGM was useless at establishing the names and careers of artists who
were not already well-established.

iv) One artist has expressed disappointment that their records were not
better distribution. Distribution was not, and is not, a difficulty for DGM.

DGM can put its records on display in nearly every record shop on most of
the main streets in the Western world. All this entails is paying for the
display, paying for the pressing, paying to ship the record to the store,
paying for the record to be shipped back again when no-one has bought it,
and paying to store the returned CDs.

The question is: why should DGM pay for this when there is no reasonable
chance of recovering & recouping the cost? Alternatively, how much does the
artist consider fair that DGM should lose on making their records available?
We have no wide catalogue of successful artists to support the relatively
less successful on the label. Who pays for the distribution?

DGM makes available records that otherwise probably would not have been made
available. If this is not acceptable to the artist, then better that we all
move on. This particular artist moves on owning two albums, and DGM moves on
with the accumulated debt of making those two albums available.

v) In his diary, now at Krimson News, Evan of The Rosenbergs has expressed
dissatisfaction with DGM's financial dealings. If Evan would like to «spill
the beans» on DGM dealings, as he puts it, he has my encouragement and
support.

Evan's comments are easily understandable & readily forgivable. They are
also injudicious, misleading & a little unfair. At the end of our business
relationship The Rosenbergs will own their record & DGM will be owning the
$150,000 Rosenbergs' debt.

The defining moment for me was lunchtime on Thursday 28th. March, 2002 at
DGM HQ near Salisbury, Wiltshire. David & I were meeting to discuss the
current & arising situations presently underway. Adrian Molloy, The
Rosenbergs' manager that DGM employed & whose office is now at HQ, came into
David's office and asked for $3,000 to settle The Rosenbergs' financial
accounts in the US.

The agreed ceiling of $150,000 for The Rosenbergs had already been reached;
I did not consider it my brief, nor DGM responsibility, to extend our own
borrowing to put The Rosenbergs' books to bed: rather, I see that as the
artists' own responsibility. So, I declined.

Robert the younger man, burning with music while facing a largely uncaring
world, and an older man whose sharp judgements have become rounded with many
years' experience of disappointments in life, I am now more accepting &
understanding of events & people's reactions that once would have elicited a
harsh response. But, simply put, if given the choice I would rather own my
record than the large debt that enabled it to enter the world.

Perhaps the distance between those who pay the bills, and those who expect
them to be paid, is too great.

vi) DGM employees have, in the main, been artist-friendly &
artist-supportive. Some have authorised advertising that had no hope of
recovering the cost by generating additional sales. David & others spent
many hours discharging managerial functions, that were not part of our
responsibility, when the costs of that time could never be recouped. Several
of the artists were well aware that they were taking advantage of DGM's good
nature.

vii) DGM's close proximity to Guitar Craft and Crafties in its early period
generated a supportive & non-judgemental context more appropriate in Guitar
Craft than for a company that had to pay its bills. Pennies did not always
drop and, when they did, not always quickly.

viii) DGM UK administered DGM US for nothing & DGM Japan for nothing.

DGM took no money for organising & negotiating releases in Japan. Our
Japanese partners took a percentage & we considered that adding a DGM UK
percentage was onerous for the artists. DGM US became self-sufficient but
didn't seem able to reach the point where it could support the UK operation.
So, DGM UK survived on the European distribution which, spread over 10
territories, required huge amounts of processing - paperwork, administration
& accounting. It often cost more for DGM to render accounts to the smaller
artists than the total of their royalties.

viii) The Vicar has looked on in disbelief at the business decisions of DGM,
the trading organization he dismissively calls «The Charity».

Summary:

i) Good at presenting music to the world that would otherwise probably not
have been presented, or under conditions that would have compromised it. Not
any good at encouraging people that weren't interested in buying it to buy
it.

ii) Not very good at providing artists with large amounts of money. However,
for the Crimsons at least, the royalties that otherwise would not have been
available became part of the income stream of the lifer-pro musician.

iii) Not very good at promoting the careers or artists that the public
didn't know.

iv) DGM's global view was not matched by sales.

v) To some extent, DGM appears to influence the people that influence the
people. If that's all we achieved, that's already quite a lot.

vi) Bootleg TV would have provided a distribution & business structure that
DGM was unable to provide, working almost completely in the world of bricks
& mortar.

Conclusion:

Never allow your business to become reliant upon artists: there is a
conflict of interest between what is right, true & necessary; and supporting
the business structure. The creative act cannot be other than hazardous.
Were DGM to continue as it was, it would become perverted.

The distance between those that pay the bills, and those that expect them to
be paid, is considerable.

2. Ton Prob Production Mastering: Success.

This is mainly David & Robert taking original analogue tapes of varying
quality and making them sonically presentable, even exceptional. David's
conscientious work over long days & nights, weeks & sometimes months, made
the King Crimson archive series - Epitaph, The Nightwatch, Absent Lovers -
and the Collectors' Club possible. And where DGM artists delivered records
that were not quite of the standard all had hoped for, then David sprinkled
fairy dust.

3. The King Crimson Fan Club: Failure.

The success of the KC Archive series & the Club lead to DGM becoming a de
facto KC Fan Club. Normal business was often interrupted and delayed by fan
communications & interaction.

4. The King Crimson Collectors' Club: Wonderfully Mixed Blessing.

A stunning model of how to provide archive material & snapshots of process
to those most interested: success.

As a business model, only 3,000 members make this nearly uneconomical: close
call.

Discovery of rare items, including materials not yet available: success +.

As a way of focusing on the past, and holding back the future: close call.

As a way of identifying DGM with the KC Fan Club: total success.

5. King Crimson Quasi-Management: Mixed.

i) The industry looked to DGM as responsible for the entire KC catalogue, de
facto KC management, and responsible for all of KC activities over the
years. This worked for as long as DGM had the confidence and support of the
Crimson players.

Increasingly, several early members expressed their lack of confidence in
DGM & its RHVL. Discussions aimed at establishing a consensus regarding
releases & licensing became fractious, extensive & time consuming, even
aggressively insulting on an escalating basis. Seeking agreement among early
Crims on a common course of action might be seen as the triumph of hope over
experience.

We have a high tolerance of dissent and a low threshold for active ill-will.
In DGM office-speak this is sometimes referred to as the No-Jerk Policy.

1969-71: Failure.

ii) 1972-2002: Success.

Irritation, angst, disagreement. Pride in the work. No ill-will.

6. DGM Website: Mixed.

i) Guestbook & Diaries: Success.

DGM has been very good at encouraging interaction & dialogue between its
artists & family, and the interested public. This didn't generate income
directly, but that wasn't the primary aim. Any sales were a fortunate
outcome - this might be a DGM leitmotif.

The written word/s represents a high investment of energy & attention from a
lot of people. Most Diarists hesitated before exposing themselves to public
ridicule and I am grateful that they proceeded. Many comments on the
Guestbook have been highly informative, although probably not always in the
ways that the poster intended.

Guestbook & Diary functions are not properly the job of DGM. DGM initiated
them, sponsored them, they are well-received. Now the idea works, it is
appropriate that this is over to someone else to maintain it.

ii) E-Commerce: failure.

The new home for the Diaries & Guestbook on Krimson News validates the work,
although this is not reflected in DGM income. The website was an old-model
creation, before steam gave way to electricity, and the site's operations
were subsidised by DGM. A new-model site would have allowed for online
ordering, streaming, downloads & subscription services. Attempts to set this
up failed.

Acts of heroism by Dan took the site about as far as it could go without a
complete rebuild, and a complete rebuild was impossible while the site was
fully up and running. Dan managed to get a Model T onto modern highway but
it was never possible for the site to become self-supporting.

7. DGM Catalogue: Mixed.

Some of the catalogue would not have been released without DGM and deserved
to be. And some releases did not have quite the musical necessity that the
world needed their appearance.

8. DGM US Office: Mixed.

It may be impossible for an American office to have an English brain, unless
that English brain is also resident in the American body.

The Past

Where we are going is how we get there.

There is no mistake save one - the failure to learn from a mistake.

All those who have given me real, or imagined, offence - please know you are
forgiven.

Those I have offended, for any of my real or imagined failings, please
forgive me.

The Future

Monday 8th. April, 2002; 14.56

DGM HQ.

Call & e-mails are coming in, and Bill Bruford is visiting tomorrow, with
concerns over The Sad Event. The change in DGM's condition, from that of
about-to-be-moving-on to that of being-arrived-at-having-moved-on, is not
sad at all. It is a triumph, resurrection, rebirth, a Wonderful & Joyous
Event.

16.03 An e-mail has arrived for David Singleton from a character whose
ongoing correspondence with us has been reliably hostile. Today's letter is
friendly and open, commiserating with what he perceives as the collapse of
DGM. Why should his only friendly & open letter be in response to our
(presumed) failure?

17.31 David of The Rosenbergs has been on the telephone, disassociating
himself from Evan's comments. This for soon-posting to the shell DGM site.

DGM Business Aims.

May we trust the inexpressible benevolence of the creative impulse.

DGM is a business structure & vehicle for the projects of Robert Fripp,
David Singleton & The Vicar, trading under precepts of the ethical company.
These projects include King Crimson, the ProjeKcts, Soundscapes, Ton Prob &
The Vicar Chronicles.

The Ethical Company

Recognisable features of the ethical company, in the literature and
discussion of business ethics, involve these attributes:

transparency,

straightforwardness,

accountability,

owning-up,

honesty,

fairness,

common decency,

distributive justice.

Recognisable features of a company whose base is ethically challenged are
these:

dissembling,

use of threats,

unkindness to employees,

a widespread use of gagging orders,

an inequitable distribution of company income.

A company which would rather conduct its business:

verbally (particularly with regard to disputed issues) instead of committing
its views to writing;

commonly resorts to litigation, or employs the frequent threat of such;
employs gagging clauses as standard policy;

pays its directors highly disproportionate sums in comparison with its
employees;

this company is suspect and should be avoided wherever possible.

It is a sad commentary on current business and public life that this needs
to be written, or debated.

transparency + straightforwardness=honesty

accountability + owning-up=responsibility

distributive justice + fairness=equity

common decency=goodwill

The Four Pillars of The Ethical Company

Honesty

Responsibility

Equity

Goodwill

Robert Fripp,

DGM HQ, Wiltshire, England;

Monday 8th. April, 2002.

[ This Message was edited by: DanKirkd on 2002-04-09 01:49 ]

2002-04-09T11:59:00.000-07:00

Here's a blog take from Evan Silverman (Rosenbergs).

http://www.livejournal.com/users/esterling/

4:42 pm - The deal with DGM

As some of you know, the Discipline Global Mobile website is now down. And
by clicking "links", you'll see that we are not listed as "DGM Artists" but
as "Friends of DGM". So I guess this means I can spill some of the beans.

When we signed with DGM in November of 2001, everyone involved was very
excited. But slowly everything started to unravel. I really think they did
the best they could have done with the limited overhead they had. They gave
us more money then promised. But, with only a handful of bands and
employees, things like "using connections" to get us on a tour was
impossible. With the exception of the tour with Echo & the Bunnymen, of
course.

Still, even though there was very little positive to come out of our
relationship with DGM (as a management company) after August 2001, we were
still against severing the ties, partly because DGM supported us when no-one
else did. But all that changed when Adrian came to town last month. We found
out that...

Despite our contract with DGM, which promises us X amount of money for three
records, DGM was not going to give us any more money. And that, for all
intents and purposes, we're not even on DGM any longer. Turns out there is
simply no money for them to be able to give. But that also means that the
$500 promised for our rehearsal space could not be covered. We had borrowed
that money when DGM had told us "the money is currently being wired", so we
were screwed.

And I'm screwed, in a bad way. The Amex bill, which DGM said they were going
to pay, is in my name. It's not that much, but is way over the $25 I have in
my bank account right now. We found out that we'd be responsible for that
money. Which means that I'm responsible, since the whole band is terribly
broke.

WHICH MEANS THAT every other day I'm getting calls from American Express
telling me that I now have bad credit.

Our business manager knows it's bullshit. Our manager also works at DGM, so
he's in a sticky situation as it is.

And I'm fucked.

I still have nothing personal against Mr. Fripp or any other employees at
DGM. I wish some things went different. I wish they didn't leave us dry,
throwing aside the contract and going against their word. But wishes don't
really mean shit, do they?

So we're doing the only thing that we can do, which is move on. We've
written a lot of new songs and we're sure that things will soon take a turn
for the better. In the meantime, anyone want to pay my Amex bill?

2002-03-31T11:39:00.000-08:00

Test after 104 error

2002-03-27T13:57:00.000-08:00

The Short List Of Music

2002-03-26T17:01:00.000-08:00

Rosen said the music industry wants consumers to use music in any way they'd
like... "No industry has been as generous as we have," she said.

Intel's Les Valdez disagreed, showing a copy-protected Charlie Price CD that
can play on your PC, but can't be copied. While Rosen said there was a
"peaceful coexistence" between the technology and entertainment business,
Valdez said, "We have nothing of the sort."

-----------------
http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=1490&a=24572,00.asp

Show Report: PC Forum Focuses on Digital Rights

March 26, 2002
By Michael J. Miller

What should the role of government be in regulating privacy, copy protection,
and other digital rights? That was the theme of the opening panel at the annual
PC Forum conference this week in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Much of the conversation dealt with the recent hearings held by the U.S. Senate
Commerce Committee and with legislation drafted by committee chair Senator
Fritz Hollings (D–S.C.) that would require digital rights management and copy
protection to be built into electronic devices.

Hillary Rosen of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said the
rhetoric around the Hollings bill has been unfortunate, because the music and
technology businesses are working together better than they did a few years
ago. She said that people in the in the entertainment industry are not looking
for the kind of lock and key solutions that, some say, the Hollings bill is
proposing.

Rosen said the music industry wants consumers to use music in any way they'd
like. She adds that the industry doesn't get the credit it deserves for already
affording consumers the opportunity to use the music the way they want, such as
by making compilation CDs from CDs they have bought. She said the industry only
complains when there are file-sharing services and other things that let people
get the music without first buying the CDs. "No industry has been as generous
as we have," she said.

Intel's Les Valdez disagreed, showing a copy-protected Charlie Price CD that
can play on your PC, but can't be copied. While Rosen said there was a
"peaceful coexistence" between the technology and entertainment business,
Valdez said, "We have nothing of the sort."

But the two agreed that entertainment companies need to develop new business
models to legally allow people access to music. Valdez said that piracy is a
serious concern, but he said controlling piracy "doesn't start with DRM
[digital rights management]; it starts with a business model."

Lotus Development and EFF founder Mitch Kapor recalled how in the early and
mid-1980's, Lotus and others tried to put copy protection in their software
products. The consumer backlash was so strong that this approach was retracted
in favor of other methods. He added, "At this point, no one really believes
copy protection will be effective in a straightforward way."

Kapor said he didn't think the movie industry really wanted the Hollings
legislation to pass. Instead, he said he thinks that the film industry hopes
the bill will scare the technology companies into cutting "a deal that will
screw consumers." He agreed that a good answer for the music industry would be
to offer the diversity of content people want at a price they want to pay. The
alternative, he said, is teaching kids not to pay for music.

"Government has been pretty good in its history about thinking about rights,"
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA.) said. Where it often fails, she said, is as a
regulator. She said this is because most of the people involved in the
discussion today have business interests in mind, not the rights of the people.
The question shouldn't focus so much on how to regulate, but instead on what
copyright laws should look like in the digital age.