Idealism, Pragmatism, and The Music Industry

This week, while browing from the news, I came across a rather interesting article. Entitled, "NiN’s Donation Model Doesn’t Work for Most Artists”, the article explored how this innovative method of album releases does not work for all musical artists. It’s very possible you have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, to explain: recently, two famous bands, Nine Inch Nails (NiN) and Radiohead released their newest albums on the internet, free for download. Fans were not required to pay anything for the download, but were free to make a donation; essentially pay as much for the album as they thought it was worth. This approach was hugely sucessful. According to the article: “NiN made $1.6 million in the first week their album was available for download, and Radiohead said it made more money online than with all of their other albums combined.” Wow! Not bad for a “free” release!

So many were impressed by these results that some believed that this would be the future of the music industry. Every album release from now on free for download? Could this goal be too idealistic to work?

Well, turns out, maybe. The article goes into depth as to how the “donation model” doesn’t work for all, if not most, artists. For starters, NiN and Radiohead were already hugely popular bands and had a very solid fanbase. And yet, as many know, amid the massive music industry, only a few ever make it to the top. For the millions of “undiscovered” artists out there, such a method generally doesn’t work.

The article uses the website Jamendo as an example. Jamendo is based on the very same principles as the donation method; artists upload their music on the site, and users download their music for free, with the ablity to make donations. To be blunt: “Of the 423968 users, 1650 have donated something, little under 0.5%. In total, these users were good for 2712 donations adding up to just over $36,000.” The top grossing artist on the site has made just over $1000 in three years.

So unfortunately for both eager music fans and artists alike, this donation method isn’t the new face of the music industry. And yet, does that mean that this idealistic goal is merely a dream, a giant “what-if” that exists only in musical utopia?

I would argue no. As the article is quick to bring up, Jamendo is not a failure. While the donation method has not raked in profit like artists would have wished, for many, getting their music out is the best they could have hoped for.
“The people who download their music for free, and like it, are potentially the people who visit their gigs, buy merchandising, and tell their friends about this great band they discovered. Lesser known artists will never be able to generate a decent income from donations, but making their music available for free sure is part of a viable business model.”

Bill Ayers or McCarthy?

If you’ve been following the presidential race at all in the past couple weeks, you may have noticed a constant reference to a man named Bill Ayers, someone the McCain campaign has been linking to Barack Obama. Bill Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at UIC, but during the sixties and seventies, he was a cofounder and member or the radical left Weather Underground

organization, an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and several other government buildings. As a result, the FBI labeled them as a domestic-terrorist organization. (Although these actions were certainly wrong, it is worth noting that warnings for evacuation always preceded the bombings, and as a result, none were ever injured in the attacks.)
So where is the connection to Barack Obama? Well, turns out, Ayers and his wife, both currently very successful and distinguished college professors, live in Hyde Park, the same place where Obama and his family live. The relation between the two is explained clearly in a recent Chicago Sun Times article:

In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn [his wife] hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.

In addition, Ayers and Obama interacted occasionally in their roles with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a not-for-profit group charged with spending tens of millions of dollars it obtained through its affiliation with a school-improvement foundation created by late Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's board of directors. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on which organizations should get grants. The groups worked on school-reform efforts between 1995 and 2000.

Obama’s connection with Bill Ayers is indeed fairly minor. Not to mention, the Bill Ayers today is certainly a much different person than who he was in his notorious anti-war activism days. (The Sun Times Article compares him to Bobby Rush, Black Panther-turned-U.S. Representative, for his work with Mayor Daley to overhaul Chicago Public Schools.) However, the McCain campaign has repeatedly referred to Obama’s minor connection with Bill Ayers as a major issue that voters should be concerned about in this election.

So why am I bringing all this up? Well, I realize that we just finished up our “Perilous Times” unit, but I couldn’t pass up this connection. In a recent interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, Michele Bachmann, Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, made some comments that sounded eerily like McCarthy. Yeah, McCarthy! Remember him? Watch the interview here.

I find it troubling, but rather unsurprising, that as the McCain campaign and the GOP are entering a “time of peril” (Real Clear Politics Poll: Obama +5.0), they are starting to exhibit similar tactics as McCarthy to gain control of the people. If you noticed toward the end of the interview, Bachmann stated that she suspects Barack Obama to be Anti-American, and thinks the media ought to try to uncover who else within Congress might possess such views. “I have here in my hand a list…”

All too good to be true?

While browsing my regular online news sources today, I came across a rather intriguing headline:

U.S. Investing $250 Billion in Banks

Yikes! If you add that to the 700 billion bailout plan that was just approved, lets see… that’s…
well, that’s a ton of money.

The last time I checked, our nation did not have that kind of money to spare, in fact, I recall that our nation was already in quite a deficit as a result of the war in Iraq among other things. With the presidential election just around the corner, debates on taxes, increased funding for education and other things, and social security leave me wondering: how is it all possible? Where will that money come from?

Of course, as this entire economic crisis has constantly been compared to the Great Depression, it is only fitting that we also compare the solutions of these two issues. Interestingly enough, the New Deal also relied on a lot of financial aid from the government. Under the New Deal, the government employed thousands of people to work on large government projects, with the emphasis often primarily on providing jobs and wages rather than creating things the government really needed. That is not to say that these New Deal government projects were not beneficial, but rather, that the idea was mainly to solve the issue of unemployment and bring the nations economy back on track. So I suppose in that instance, further spending of money by the government was successful in solving the economic crisis.

However, it is still hard for me to believe that the government will be able to fund the bailout plan, invest further in American banks, while all the while carrying out the promises that both presidential candidates are making; increasing funding in important areas like renewable energy and education, while at the same time decreasing taxes. During the great depression, New Deal legislation was by far the highest priority in the government, and drastic measures and sacrifices were made in order to steer the economy back on track. However, in this present day situation, it appears as if the government is using money as a simple solution to all problems and the average American thus feels little direct impact of the economic crisis. It’s as if no sacrifices need to be made, an approach that I believe is too good to be true, and one that I find logically impossible. The way I see it, at some point or other, the balance will have to be restored. We can’t keep solving financial issues with money we don’t (as to my knowledge) have, as some point in America’s history, someone will have to pay up, and pay up big. This may not concern the government; after all, most of its members are already pretty far up in their years, but it concerns me. I don’t want to pay the past generation’s debts, I don’t want my children’s taxes to be funding a bailout plan that happened years before they were born.

So when I read the article about the U.S. Treasury investing heavily in U.S. Banks, banks that were on the verge of collapse only days ago, I worry. Perhaps, like the New Deal, this really will solve the economic crisis. Maybe the best thing we, as a nation, can do is invest in ourselves. I know little of economics; perhaps, in the end, this will all balance out. But I worry. Something tells me this is all too good to be true.

It’s a little recession, not a depression.

Browsing through the recent news on my computer, I came across an interesting article. What first caught my attention was the title, paired with the news category. The title, “See a Pattern on Wall Street,” seemed like a pretty common article title, especially these days, but it was not under the business or U.S. news category, but rather under science. Hmmm… Click, click.

The article began even more bizarrely. Two pictures of seemingly random marks. “Take a look at the two blurry images below. Can you see an object hidden in each one?”

And the article reads: “Before I give the answers, here’s another question: Do you feel a certain lack of control over events right now?”

Anyways, if you were like me you notice the image of Saturn in the image on the right immediately, and strained a little bit to discern something out of the image on the left. I eventually decided that it was a face. You see it? Well, if you were like me, you probably weren’t all to concerned about that, you were more interested in how on earth this had anything to do with Wall Street.

Anyways, after this intriguing introduction, the article begins to explain itself. Apparently a new scientific study shows that when people are primed to feel out of control, they are more likely to perceive patterns where they do not exist. So yes, it actually is Saturn on the right, but the left is just a random mess of lines. As the events of Wall Street have little to do with me (at least directly), the little prompt at the bottom of the images did not really affect my viewing of these images, but I would be very curious to see what a Wall Street investor might make of the image on the left.

Anyway, the study also showed that people are more prone to believing conspiracy theories and superstitions in times when they feel out of control. The article cites, for instance, that past studies have shown that deep-sea fishermen have more elaborate rituals and superstitions than fishermen who fish near the coast, where conditions are more predictable. Overall, I believe that the results of these studies make sense. The feeling of things being out of control that this article constantly refers to is almost synonymous with “Perilous Times,” our current theme in American Studies. Making this connection, I looked back at all the time periods we have covered thus far under this unit, searching for the same parallel. Salem Witch Trials. Wow, what a key example! The town would choose a crazed witch hunt over the admission that the events that were occurring were beyond their control.

In fact, the results of this study, reflecting countless eras throughout the world’s history, can perhaps explain early American Puritan society. According to Puritan belief, God alone chose who was to be among his elect, those who would be saved and taken to heaven. It did not matter how you behaved in life, for after all, according to Puritan belief, if you did good, it was because God granted you the capacity to do good; essentially you were not in control of yourself. Now, if you recall from the point of this entire article, people try to draw order or create the illusion or order amid an environment in which they feel out of control. Therefore, the great Puritan paradox was born. It was the idea that if you were among God’s elect, he would bring you great fortune in life, and consequently wealth and good fortune were sure signs that one must be among His chosen. In effect, therefore, Puritan society was not unlike most societies; wealth and fortune determined social standing. In fact, the Puritans, under the immense burden that lay upon their minds that they were not in control, took it one step further, with community rankings that decided how close to the front of church one sat.

The case of the Salem Witch Trials also reverberated in my head upon reading another example presented by the article, the bombing of London. According to the article, while the bombing of London during WWII was completely random, people spontaneously created that illusion that certain areas, certain blocks were chosen as targets while others were intentionally spared. People even went so far as to accuse residents of spared regions as being Nazi sympathizers to the point in which their safety and lives were at risk. The very idea that in both of these cases, people would more readily turn on others than face the reality that what was happening was beyond their control strikes me as scary, and yet dreadfully true. Thus, in this “perilous time” that we currently face with the stock market and the economy, it comes to me as no surprise that people seek out a simple, organized explanation. But the reality is much more complex, the stock market fell and banks failed not because of one person or one problem, but because of numerous issues that accumulated over years, going as deep as the very nature of your nation’s economy.

Upon looking at these times in history, it may appear these recent studies do little but scientifically prove the obvious. However, I found the end of the article quite interesting and thought provoking. The scientists noted that the delusion of order was in fact beneficial in some cases because it relieved depression and increased confidence. (My mind now jumps back to Wall Street. An entire economy based upon confidence. No wonder why the government keeps encouraging people to keep investing. Whether the market is under control or not, perhaps the best thing for it would at least be the illusion that everything is under control.)

Anyways, I would like to end with a quote from Dr. Whitson, one of the scientists who ran the experiment, from the article:

"Feeling in control might be one of the central animating forces for psychological and physical well-being. Not only are people who feel in control less likely to see things that aren’t there and end up chasing ghosts, as our research shows, but there are also a wide variety of health and societal benefits. When people are given information about a medical procedure – and thus feel less uncertain – they recover more quickly."

So perhaps deceiving ourselves in these times of peril isn’t the worse idea.

It’s a little recession, not a depression.
You have nothing to fear but fear itself.