DNA Sequencing
I'm enjoying this Kidneythieves album that they
sent us -- yay club swag! (You're coming to the
show next week,
right?) All I'd heard of them before was a two-song single that
someone gave me a few years ago, which I liked. This is
industrial-rock with female vocals and occasionally-trip-hoppy
electronics. They're a bit like Radio Iodine, or maybe Curve, if Curve
were Kittie. (No, that's not right. Oh, nevermind, I couldn't write a
music review to save my life.)
I will say, though, that I really miss industrial with guitars.
(Of course I really miss old-school EBM as well, which the arrival
of guitar-industrial pretty much killed off in the early 90s. But
whichever; the progressive house and/or retread-synthpop that most
people seem to call ``industrial'' these days just doesn't cut it for
me.)
I got a nice email from Phil Western apologizing for the Download
cancellation mess, which made me feel a lot better. I'm still edging
closer to deciding that the webcasts are just not worth the fucking
hassle, though. I haven't reached that decision yet, but doubt grows.
Here's a summary of the debate going on inside my head:
|
|
|
|
|
It's the way of the future: as the net becomes more pervasive,
net-based music will only become more common, and this shows the
artists, labels, and media that there's more to it than
warez-kiddies violating copyrights. What we're doing is legitimate,
moral, legal, and in the best interests of both the artists and
consumers. It's good to set that example.
|
|
|
It's insanely expensive: the very limited amount of webcasting that
we're doing costs us over $20,000/year in bandwidth and
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensing fees.
(And that price tag will get lots larger if the
CARP-pushers get their way and we have to pay RIAA as well.)
It's nice to stand up and be an example... but so very expensive!
|
|
|
It exposes the artists we book to an even wider audience than
those people physically in our building: this is good for the
artists, and thus good for the music scenes in general. Providing
wider exposure for small artists increases diversity and gives the
opportunity for non-corporate-controlled music to become known and
to thrive.
|
|
|
About twenty simultaneous listeners. That's what that $20k/year
buys us. Even the smallest terrestrial college radio station has
hundreds or thousands of potential listeners. We're not even on the
map as far as webcasters go: we can't afford to be. Even
after all this expense, it's still just a symbolic gesture: our
audience is so minuscule that it won't make a bit of difference one
way or another.
|
|
|
It lets people who couldn't otherwise attend our club in person
experience it, and be exposed to new music.
|
|
|
We charge people to come to the club, but we pay so
that those who don't come can listen in. What kind of sense does
that make?
|
|
|
It's a neat gimmick that gets us talked about. It gets us good
publicity, and thus more customers.
|
|
|
It could be drawing people in to the club, or it could be keeping
them away: ``oh, I'll just listen from home.'' It's impossible
to tell.
|
|
|
We're giving a gift to all the artists whose music is played here at
the club. Sure, it costs money, but it provides even greater
exposure to the artists than they would otherwise get just by
playing at a venue of our size. Spending money to support the arts
is good.
|
|
|
The artists don't generally seem to see it that way, so every time
we book someone, we have to have extensive debates with them about
it. This takes a lot of time, which costs money. It is also very
frustrating and discouraging. They generally react to our
philanthropy as if we're trying to rip them off!
Except for Download, they've always come around and agreed to it
so far. But we've never had any artist actually be excited
by the webcast. The best reaction we ever get from any
artist about it is ``complete indifference.'' It goes downhill from
there.
Also, we do very few live shows: mostly what we do here are dj
nights. Since there's no way in hell we will ever convince
the djs to type in their playlists, our dj webcasts will never have
the names of the actual artists in them. If a listener likes a song
they hear, what can they do about it? It doesn't help the artist if
nobody knows who they are. It might help the dj get more
bookings, but so what? Most djs just play other people's music.
(Oh dear, here comes the hate mail for pointing out that the emperor
of ``dj culture'' still has no clothes.)
|
|
|
But wouldn't you feel like a fuckin' idiot if you just gave up now,
after all this work?
|
|
|
Absolutely. But that's not a very good reason.
|
|
I wouldn't be having this debate with myself if it was any
of: cheap-and-easy; or influential; or appreciated. But it's
none of those, really.