In an Overwhelmingly Commercial Society

~ We are not here to promote beer

The business of music isn't there to promote better or healthier music or to nurture the roots music in culture, which is to say to nurture it from the roots right up to the flowers. Sprinkling flowers at one's feet of one's teacher is nice but those flowers could only grow if they were part of a system of root inserted into the earth. Since the businessman is not there to promote the cultural ground of the music, what is his purpose? In music, the production manager or the person on the business end is there very much precisely for the purpose of robbery, robbing the musicians.

At best, the two sides negotiate but such negotiations are usually graveyards for musicians. Musicians lose. They are the ones creating music but the ones creating the music are the ones who are robbed. They do not get a fair share of the money or close to it. It is the artists who are (in some cases) immersed in noble creative things. They make an effort to produce things for others to enjoy—and then find out to their dismay that they are being robbed. They share the proceeds of their work with what is called "the industry," talent-free leeches who attach an apparatus to the leg of the musician and then blow into it like a harmonica. This is certainly quite repulsive. What more does this industry amount to—? ~ other than the effort to take the proceeds the artists generate (expressed in terms of money in accord with an existing economic system) and pass it out within this “industry,” a group of individuals who exist solely to take in some of the artist's produce (income) and share it with one another. In this manner, the proceeds get into the hands of many more people, which is aside from those of artists. Now I am not saying successful artists do not want to share. The artists and the fans care about the music. The industry does not, however. Their job is to distribute the income to their following. This should be well-described as a greedy network of open mouthed carp — goldfish at best. This network is called their "industry," which is insanity. Music is simply sound waves easily embedded in vinyl — the "records" we used to buy with enthusiasm. How I remember the lovely black vinyl records; we used to purchase these at the “record store.” It is not that the artists are selfish or do not understand that there are other persons involved who need to get paid. But not on a thousand-to-one ratio, and not at a rate of pennies per album if that. Sure. The artists are usually willing to share. Sure. They will share part of the proceeds from their fair art. But don’t reduce the whole thing to a business. I am sure they will share. It is good to share. But not good to get robbed of the whole thing. Yes, the business side takes part of their output, but why? Well... just because.... and, over time, the business end becomes super-important. The total of all the priorities of the business end is of zero value to humanity — and it doesn't help the musicians. And the musicians are the ones who produced the music. In a better economic system, there could be some limit to the number of persons who can leech onto them.

I demand that they justify this pernicious practice of taking over 90% of an artist's proceeds. Distribute the music to the customers, yes. A better way might be buyers were charged a few buck for the music, and if it were distributed to other persons in a way so that proceeds are shared equally, at least half for musicians. In the case of successful musicians, half could be distributed to some of the persons who protect and serve the musicians. In practice, (I have read a little about it but I do not have the real figures) the artists probably get 5%.

There are some basic consistencies to the very interesting phenomeon of this business, and all businesses. Businesses may want to generate excessive product. To big business, "better" is usually in terms of "more." And at the same time, they want to infect the public with the desire and lust. They will even give things away free to get more persons hooked. It does not sound very good to me; it does not sound very impressive. It shouldn't sound impressive. These practices have a limited span of time to flourish. Their whole lifespan may only be there for one or two hundred years. After that, it is outmoded. Summer is over, and now we need to see the fall collection. As the Doors expresed it in song: "This is the end."

So we need to understand somethng. Yesterday's paradigm is gone with the wind, it is fully outmoded. And now (and this we shall soon see) our society has ceased to function, or not very well. These days there seems to be a toss-up between "artificial" intelligence or "natural" intelligence. Hmmmm..... Will A.I. be used to bring us closer to our cultural roots or provide the basis for good flowers?

There is no case that artificial works better. The world is natural, firstly. The music scene is much changed in this new environment. In many cases, production has ceased. It has dried up. No more need for the artists, so they can leave L. A. Some have residuals they can live on. If you call that living. Some have but little to show for it and they need to find out some new cause, another reason to live because it shore isn't the music any more. Why they exist at all has now come into question, since they no longer get to be musicians or dress in something like paisley. That old system is gone. It lasted from the beginning of phonograph records to the end of the mp3 and beginning of napster. The old system is no longer serving a society that still has cultural production as an integral aspect contributing to art's parts. Instead of ripping musicians off and taking the profit the music business system is now destroying the music itself. It flies in the face of logic to retain this system that does not even retain the music it profits from. The music industry is a good case in point.

We live in an overwhelmingly commercial society. The entrepreneurial classes are themselves disgusted with this obsession with disaster. It is a disaster. The whole human mass is taking a headlong plunge into commerciality in the hope that this may satisfy their need for music in their lives. And it is a disaster, if it cuts off the function of music, as a lifeblood for culture, instead inducing Culture Shock.

. . . . .