The Eagle's Walmart Deal - WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

[radiationroom]

Last week, HITS Magazine ran an editorial on the Eagles Walmart deal, posted online at http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/new ... ws06873m01 - My email reply to the editorial was posted almost immediately as a comment below the editorial on the HITS website. My email reply, posted as an article at http://www.radiationroom.com/rrs/eagleswalmart.htm is crossposted here as well for comment.

EDIT: Radiationroom.com URL to my Eagles/Walmart piece has been fixed and is working now.

NOTE: If the HITS website asks you for your email address when clicking the article link, you can spoof the address if you wish and still get access to the website. I've been on the HITS spam list for years and have yet to recieve anything from them.

NOW, Question for each and every one of you. After reading both the editorial and my comments, what is YOUR opinion? Where do YOU think music retail is heading? My concern is that with the loss of mom & pop retail it will be just that much more difficult to break new acts as well as get indie exposure. No, I'm one of those who believes that the internet is only one piece of the puzzle and NOT an end-all and be-all solution to the loss of physical presence, both in the distro of music recordings as well as making up for the loss of live venues. But I'm currious as to what YOU think and want to know what PROMOTION stratigies you are engaged in and whether or not physical presence in the form of CDs and (yes I'm asking this) actual physical in person live performances are part of your music marketing plans.

*****

THE EAGLE'S WALMART DEAL - Are big-box exclusives with big-name acts the industry's savior or the final nail in the coffin of indie music labels and retail?

By DJ Carli - November 10th, 2007 - 1:23AM

Hits Magazine's Lenny Beer Blog wrote an editorial, dated November 9, 2007, about Billboard's rule change that allows exclusives such as the Walmart/Eagles deal to be included in chart tallies. Below is my email to Lenny Beer Blog in response to the editorial. What suprised me is that within a matter of minutes, HITS posted it as part of the comments below the editorial, highlighting the key point of my comments in the last paragraph.

It looks like I might have struck a nerve here. Keep watching Radiationroom.com over the next few months as I will be writing more on this subject. - DJ Carli

TO: lennybeerblog ***AT*** hitsmagazine ***DOT*** com

Subject: Walmart Eagles Comment, Billboard has to track USED product

Dear Lenny Beer Blog...

If the Eagles/Walmart exclusive is a sign of what is to come, then what is going to happen to indie stores when the big-boxes have exclusives on the hits? Where are the new acts going to break? Certainly not on radio, because new, unsigned acts more often than not lack the necessary payola needed to bribe their way onto the major radio chains. MTV is worthless, and there is so much crap on the internet these daze that breaking an act on Youtube without off-line promotion is difficult if not impossible.

Yes, these sales need to be reported, but there needs to be a qualifier in analyzing those sales. The Eagles are a legacy act and were probably paid a good chunk of money for this, considering the rumors that Don Henley and Glen Frey can't stand to be in the same room together much less play in a band together. While the Spice Girls/Victoria's Secret deal is to be expected (low-IQ music and lingerie somehow goes together), if more hit acts get canabalized by exclusives that will ultimately make it HARDER to get mainstream retailers such as Boscov's and The Bon Ton, who used to have CD sections, to start stocking discs again, unless they have exclusives of their own.

Not to discount the fact that my local mom & pop here in York PA, which stocks roughly twenty thousand titles at any given time, does a brisk business in new and used VINYL, used CDs and cassettes, and consignment merchandise such as guitars, stocks very little in the way of current hit CDs.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS SOUNDSCAN AND BILLBOARD ADD CATIGORIES AND RANKINGS FOR 2ND HAND CDS AND BOTH NEW AND USED VINYL. There is no data that I know of which tracks the sale of 2nd hand merchandise, which is information that would be very useful to all segments of the biz. My bet is that the head bagels at the focus group research agencies eyes would pop when they find out just how many teenagers these daze are listening to the likes of Areosmith and Deep Purple next to their Korn and Killers.

Have a great day.

Peter Carli

*****

FOOTNOTE: To those who bitch about "DJs and karaoke" taking live gigs away from bands, mix DJs like myself are loosing gigs to karaoke shows as well. I HATE KARAOKE!!!

[GooberNumber9]

I'm actually more interested in your footnote about DJ's and Karaoke. They are not the only things "taking away gigs from live bands". One local bar found out they made so much more money on nights when they featured a football game than they ever made on a live band that they stopped booking bands entirely and are big into sports nights.

Sports nights, DJ's, and Karaoke are cheaper, more popular, easier to put together, and present much less risk (in terms of liability) than a live band. Not only that, but live bands are often too loud for orders to be comfortably heard at the bar.

Maybe what people in live bands should consider doing is figuring out how the DJ's and Karaoke acts are besting them and reacting accordingly.

BTW, I LOVE going to Karaoke, and I'm in a band.

Personally, I HATE guitar hero! Learn to play a real guitar! :)

Todd Wilcox

[E Car]

The ONLY thing that can happen to the music industry is what happens in every other industry on earth--ball bearings, oil, doilies and pork bellies included.

That is price differentiation.

Where higher demand equals higher prices.

Better songs cost more.

If the labels fail to realize that now, whoever buys their assets when they fail will. There is no "savior" at a fixed price, because fixed prices are what's killing them.

Indie or multinational--it makes no difference. Every label has an exclusive on their artists and is free to sell them wherever they choose.

Sooner or later, the indie world will be like boutique audio equipment manufacturers and the big labels will be like Panasonic, Berringer and Guitar Center.

This is what the market wants--and this is what the market will get. Anyone who wants to subsidize music--like Fugazi (a good example for my Maryland and DC comrades)--and keep their prices artificially low, is free to do that as well, but it will likely be harder and harder for them to stand out, get shows, and survive in that mode.

In a sense, Fugazi was able to do it because they were pioneers and because that was their marketing--or in more pc terms: that was part of their value, or what differentiated them from other bands. Kind of like union labor working below scale.

[radiationroom]

I'm actually more interested in your footnote about DJ's and Karaoke.

Cool. Let's start another thread on the subject.

EDIT: Subject started! - http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopi ... 216#428216

[radiationroom]

The ONLY thing that can happen to the music industry is what happens in every other industry on earth--ball bearings, oil, doilies and pork bellies included.

That is price differentiation.

Where higher demand equals higher prices.

Better songs cost more.

If the labels fail to realize that now, whoever buys their assets when they fail will. There is no "savior" at a fixed price, because fixed prices are what's killing them.

The labels DO recognize that. It's why "variable pricing" has been the maninstay of the biz ever since the 1960s. iTunes is fighting tooth and nail to get rid of variable pricing because while charging more for the hits makes sense from a music business model, a multiple price-point structure flies in the face of what iTunes is trying to do with their download service - ie: drive iPod sales. Part of the problem with discount pricing, both with digital distro as well as conventional CD sales is that RETAILERS {such as Walmart and iTunes} SELL HIT TITLES AT A LOSS in order to drive sales of other products in their stores. My bet is that the Eagles exclusive is a money looser for Walmart, but the store traffic generated by the CD is more than made up for in the sale of other merchandise that carries a higher mark-up than any music title could.

The number one problem facing music retail is big box predatory pricing on the hits and not internet downloads. Labels used to be able to set "minimum advertised prices" in the same way that gear manufacturers set price minimums so retailers don't price war each other out of business. The record labels understand full well that indie retail is their friend and that big boxes really don't give a damn about music. What happened is that there was an anti-trust lawsuit brought against the RIAA when the majors tried to enforce minimum prices to keep Walmart, Target, and other chains from using hit titles as loss leaders. Hits drive the business, and the canibalization of hit sales by big box retail is what is actually driving indie retail out of business.

Indie or multinational--it makes no difference. Every label has an exclusive on their artists and is free to sell them wherever they choose.

True. Which is why the potential of a total and complete vertical music business monopoly by Live Nation has me so concerned. Imagine being signed to a company that not only owns ALL of the big concert venues, but promotes ALL the shows at those venues, routes ALL of the shows that plays those venues, owns the merchandising rights for those acts who play those venues, and operates as the acts' record company, record producer, music publisher, professional manager, road manager, and legal advisor. With an almost total lock on national concert venues, Live Nation can start demanding "take it or leave it" offers to whomever wants to play at the national level. Either you sign with them or no career.

FYI - Live Nation used to be Clear Channel entertainment, and while Clear Channel Radio and Live Nation are separate companies on paper, there is no guarentee that they will actually operate as separate companies "in the wild". I would love to audit their books sometime and see who actually owns what. I'd be willing to bet that there is whole lotta cross-ownership between the two companies with all the requiste nods and winks that go with insider business dealings. We really need some Sherman Act enforcement here.

Online ref: Madonna/Live Nation Deal - http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... 58163.html

Sooner or later, the indie world will be like boutique audio equipment manufacturers and the big labels will be like Panasonic, Berringer and Guitar Center.

My concern is that there will be no indie world, other than a few renagades such as Ani DeFranco.

While having internet presence is a defacto requirement today, one still needs to have "brick & mortar" places to play to establish a following. DiGiRaTi types like to boast that Colbie Caillat got signed simply due to her popularity on Youtube, a claim that I seriously question due to the fact that her pop is a well connected record producer. If she got signed due to her Youtube videos, then what did she do to stand out of the half-million other music vids on Youtube? I'm sorry, but the "free music" and "internet will save the world just post your music online and you will be successful" claims of DiGiRaTi such as Chris Anderson are pie-in-the-sky IMO. One needs to play live in order to develop the audience rapport necessary to develop audience/brand loyalty. And the places where one used to play while developing their career prior to being signed to a booking agent, much less management, a label, or a publsher are becoming as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth.

This is what the market wants--and this is what the market will get. Anyone who wants to subsidize music--like Fugazi (a good example for my Maryland and DC comrades)--and keep their prices artificially low, is free to do that as well, but it will likely be harder and harder for them to stand out, get shows, and survive in that mode.

The problem is the number of newbies who are willing to work for free just to get their foot in the door, and the fact that the typical bar owner {at least in my area} now expects discount rates from everybody across the board regardless of skill, experience, name recognition, or service type. While "price warfare" is not as much of a problem for live acts as it is for DJs and karaoke shows, it can still kill an act's prospects for long term success because it takes longer for an act generate the necessary income stream to quit their 40-hour and concentrate on their music. This "who will work the cheapest" verses "who can do the best job" is one reason why I quit DJing in vomit joints more than a decade ago.

REMEMBER GOLDEN MUSIC BUSINESS RULE NUMBER ONE! Bar owners are not in business to provide you with a venue for your band to play or for you to DJ. Bars are in business to do one thing, SELL ALCOHOL, and your music offerings are the bait that bar owners use to get people to come to their establishment and consume their alcoholic beverage product and not the competitors'.

And don't count on "advertisement sponsored music" to be the solution, as promoted by free music DiGiRaTi types. If you have to rely on ad agency support to have a music career, you will be focus group tested to death before you even have a chance to play your local vomit joint much less on a real stage. If you flunk the focus group test, no career. It will be everything that you HATE about commercial FM, brought to the local live music level.

In a sense, Fugazi was able to do it because they were pioneers and because that was their marketing--or in more pc terms: that was part of their value, or what differentiated them from other bands. Kind of like union labor working below scale.

Fugazi was also an act who was nearly impossible to book. When I was running the Fenix club in York PA, they were seemingly never available since their tour was always full. I do not know if that was due to the way they priced their show or because they had a big following. {As for me, I never really cared for punk, but that is a subject that is beyond the scope of this thread.}

Thanks for the great conversation! Talk with you later got to go get some bills paid :ar15:

73's - Peter Carli

[E Car]

Hi Peter,

Music has variable pricing but not true floating prices like every other industry. Only with floating prices (with demand dictating price) can an independent band who may reach a smaller audience be important enough economically to get the attention of, successfully negotiate with and order around the likes of Live Nation, and Warner Brothers.

The trick is to go above the quality and sophistication that the multinationals can offer--just like Armani, Gucci and the like do. WalMart's stranglehold on middle American distribution doesn't affect designer labels in the slightest.

The model of punk is broke and the model of touring to sell booze is way broke. (Or, more accurately, making records to advertise tours that hope to sell booze and merch). But fixed (or "variable") pricing necessitates it.

The only way out is for artists to leap-frog the whole Sony, Live Nation thing just like they do in fashion, high end audio and everywhere else. And to do that demand must dictate prices just like everywhere else.

Relying on people's good will to support and spread music is like relying on co-ops to spread organic produce--they're not set up to grow fast enough to do it. (Nor do they seem interested in the job of bringing what they do to the masses--much like most indie bands don't seem to want the job of having a mass audience.)

But however it happens, organic produce and better music is the future. And it won't be cheaper than factory/multinational food/music.

It doesn't matter that McDonalds or WalMart (or Live Nation) is everywhere because as soon as people can afford better, they leave. And any attempts to move their brands upmarket usually fail miserably. People don't want expensive stuff from cheap, restrictive or manipulative companies.

If they can afford something better, they want something better.

The problem with music is there's no where to go. Selling for $18.99 a CD instead of 12.99 doesn't mean anything more than a few pennies after all is said and done.

But a band that sold CDs for $46--or $75--that would get the suits attention.

At that price, bands wouldn't need Live Nation, Sony or anyone else--they wouldn't have to tour at all if the didn't want to. They would dictate terms to their labels, live venues and most the other people they did business with. Think about it, if Gucci agreed to do a line with Wal-Mart, they could write their own contract.

The challenge is to get punks to think like Prada--which they covet in secret (believe me, I know), but can't admit in public due to mainstream punk attitudes about "selling out" and having money (which are just as rigid and backwards as mainstream mainstream attitudes about "fitting in" and having money).

As soon as the counterculture gets the balls to tell other punkers--or indie-ers--that what they're doing is MORE valuable than mainstream fast food music--and charge for it--then the whole issue of labels, touring, etc. will sort itself out. Until then, it's just talk--and people hoping for someone else to save them.

The music industry is the first to reach this crossroads because it's the first to have entirely digital production and distribution--eventually films, television, magazines and books will have to adapt floating prices.

And then we'll get as much great culture as we have great cars, gadgets, organic vegetables and banking services. Because it will pay market rates. Right now, artists have to voluntarily subsidize music (and make unnecessarily frustrated music because of it)--so like any subsidized industry, music gets boring, complacent and self-satisfied--less valuable.

And it won't be a counter-culture anymore--that is it won't be so angry and bitter and youth-centric. It will have just as much music for adults as it does for kids. It will be a culture instead of a youth culture. And represent all types of attitudes and values not just rebellious ones.

The whole indie-mainstream thing is arbitrary and won't last long. Any industry with floating prices has no such distinctions--because there's a continuum of values and prices. You can get jeans at Old Navy on sale for $10 or union made Dickies or hipster jeans in Williamsburg for $80 (guessing here), or vintage re-issue Levis for $160 or new designer jeans for anywhere from $200 to $1600.

The same will be true with music, film, and every other content industry soon enough. And it will change who the power brokers are I can guarantee.

Live Nation won't matter won't matter to people who love music any more than McDonalds does to people who love food. There will arise an entirely new Whole Foods-esque style of live venues who cater to these higher end bands. Smaller and nicer and better run most likely.

Venues and labels have so much power now because the services they provide--marketing and tours--are more valuable than the music the artists make.

The only reason this happens is because the value of the music is artificially restricted by fixed prices. As soon as the music can compete with the suits, then the suits have to bend to the music, instead of the other way around.

About retail--indie retail is only failing on the low end--on the high end, it's thriving--just like boutique audio. There is no future in which a ten man shop makes or sells inexpensive goods in a developed country for the same or less than a multinational. And why should there be--no one in developed countries wants to work those jobs anyway. Do you?

America's past may be blue collar, but it's future isn't. They're even outsourcing white collar jobs now.

So what's left?

What's above pushing paper?

Making music, films, and the like.

As soon as it pays, that's what we'll all be doing.

[E Car]

By the way--who the fuck labeled me "ass engineer"? Fuck you tape Op.

[fossiltooth]

By the way--who the fuck labeled me "ass engineer"? Fuck you tape Op.

Chill out. We've all been there. There is a progression of silly titles based solely on how many times you've posted, not on how ridiculous your posts are... although I think that would make for a much better naming system.

Incidentally, I disagree with your vision for the future. First of all, "Popular" music is made for the general populace. Live Jazz and "Classical" are subsidized by the wealthy.

Just as there are fine, attractive, well-crafted products in the world of high-end design, there's a lot of garbage. Why do you think people buy Louis Vuitton wallets? Because they look good? No, no, no, no, no. People buy a lot of this crap because it shows they have truly expendable income, and are a more bloated fat-cat than the the next guy. It's about status.

Are you suggesting that this is what should happen to music?

Luckily, no one will ever be able to prove their status by saying aloud "When I'm at home, I listen to more expensive albums than you". Those people just sound like d*cks, and nobody cares. On the other hand, people have been using music as a meaningless fashion accessory for decades, but price has never been, and in my estimate, will never be, part of the equation.

Whole Foods is successful, because it is seen as being a fairly high end, but thoroughly accessible. You could make $20,000 a year and shop at Whole Foods every week. No problem.

There probably should be a degree of price differentiation in music. And there is. In the form of concert ticket prices... sometimes. There can a big difference between seeing an established touring act at a good venue for $20-$30 and seeing a new local band for $0-$10 at a local small room. On the other hand, sometimes, a crappy band who has played together twice can $20 at the door at a small venue, while an awesome indie band who can actually play together and provide true value, might get $15 at the door at a better-sounding venue. Of course, there are a lot of $40-$100 tickets out there and many people are willing to pay those prices for a truly memorable live experience.

Let's leave personal taste out of it for a moment... It all come down to this: many people in this world (the rich included) don't actually understand the true relative values of music and art when judged solely by craftsmanship or originality. For instance, there's a lot of valueless crap in the high-end art world. I've seen painfully uninteresting pieces of driftwood sell for $20,000-$30,000 dollars at art auctions.

When it comes to the high-end of art and fashion, the rich aren't paying for value. They're paying for exclusivity. In turn much of the extra expense doesn't go into material or craftsmanship as much as it goes into essentially subsidizing designers who would go out of business otherwise.

Do you suggest that this is what should happen to the world of music? I hope not. People already have enough status symbols. Can the rest of us please have recorded music?

[JGriffin]

By the way--who the fuck labeled me "ass engineer"? Fuck you tape Op.

We all go through it. It's the ranking system. You'll be "ass engineer" until you've posted a certain number of times, then you'll be something else, I forget what. "gettin' sounds," probably.

[kdarr]

Come on, man. I had a rough night and I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man!

[<|>]

[i am monster face]

I'd rather have the Eagles clogging up the aisles at some store I never visit than having their crap steal precious floor space at my favorite neighborhood shop. I don't really care what the Eagles do.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I can't stand the Eagles. They sure didn't lose my sale.

They also seemed to be okay with it. I'm not sure how this really affects me. They sold a lot of cds. It was recorded in a studio. The record label and the band get paid lots of money. The band records another record in a studio.

If they want to sell their wares in smelly wal-mart, go ahead. I'm still not buying it.

I'd also like to know where in York, PA there is a mom and pop store that stocks 20,000 discs. Seriously though. Next time I'm home, I'll check that place out. What and where is it?

Ian

[RefD]

the last time i bought music in person at a store i was living in another country, hadn't turned 30 yet and was still dating the woman who would later become my wife.

so, 1997?

i only buy cases of diapers, gallon jugs of distilled vinegar and 100 watt GE floodlamps at WalMart.

the day i find better sources for those items is the day i stop entering that pit of semi-humanity forever.

[E Car]

By the way--who the fuck labeled me "ass engineer"? Fuck you tape Op.

We all go through it. It's the ranking system. You'll be "ass engineer" until you've posted a certain number of times, then you'll be something else, I forget what. "gettin' sounds," probably.

Just like a fraternity, huh? A little humiliation and you get to hang with the in crowd. The fact that it's supposed to be funny makes it even more stupid and infantile.

__


Justin you bring up some interesting points, but none that dispute my premise, I think.

Replace my fashion or food examples with boutique audio and I'm almost sure you wouldn't be arguing that Lavry users are all effete egomaniacs who just aren't punk enough to be seen in a studio with Mark of the Unicorn converters.

Or that Neve freaks are just afraid of what their buddies would say if they saw them using M-Audio pres.

You may believe in certain qualities (like hand-soldered and beautifully-"colored" audio gear) and not in others (like hand stitched and "beautifully colored" clothes), but that doesn't mean it's not truly valuable--or of real importance to others.

This is the exact reason why the democracy of the market is replacing the "value-based' decisions of the elites around the world--none of us are perfect and the market gives us all equal opportunities to grow and learn.

I've bought $300 cashmere sweaters from Barneys (I'm actually wearing it today) that pilled up on the second wearing. Total junk.

On the other hand, I'm fortunate enough to have some $800 cashmere sweaters that are doing a great job at lasting a lifetime. Obviously it's not a direct correlation--they're not only made to last, just like a Stratocaster isn't only built to sound good (it is also made to look good and feel good--resonate with people in as many ways as possible), but there's no value-police watching how people spend their money--nor should there be.

So who's to say that clothes of a certain color and cut aren't just as important and valuable as pres of a certain color and EQs with certain points?

Higher priced goods are often where discoveries are introduced. Hybrids are more expensive, unleaded gas, organic produce, etc. etc. The same would likely be true in art--we don't know because we don't allow higher priced mass art.

Keeping music prices artificially low doesn't get anyone more or better music any more than socialism's fixed prices got Eastern Europeans more or better cars or India's population better more drinking water or better health care.

Nothing is free--and in socialist, or fixed price systems, consumers pay dearly for what they get--if, that is, they can get what they want at all. Most people over the age of 35 or so don't have much music, literature, films, or books they love, unless their tastes run very, very indie or mainstream. (Or the subsidized Jazz and Classical you mention.)

From the perspective of the market, these people pay for low prices on what they do like by being culturally frustrated most of the time. (Just like a bad relationship.)

___

On one hand you say that the masses don't know anything about art but then assert that music is "for the people". Market mechanisms allow the people to value things with their money. We have plenty of mass group culture but very little relevant niche culture.

Certainly large demographics aren't the only "people" who matter. Floating prices allow niche communities to support their own artists. Whether they be Equadorian Timbale players who play snooker or CEOs who rock. Money isn't always about money.

Allowing floating prices isn't anti-democratic, fixed prices are.

____

Regarding the value of art--short term it's easy to fool just about anyone. But the market always properly values art long term. Just like it properly values Valley People compressors, Tapco patch bays, V72 preamps and Aural Exciters. You can't sell something bad for much money for long. So some people get taxed for being confused about what value is--that's life. And the cost of learning and growing.

The market finds obscure Delta bluesmen and outsider freaks, guys with 12 paintings and dreamers who only wrote one book. It finds--and rewards--the best and forgets the rest (except in music, where it forgets everyone except those with a current smoking hit).

It seems silly to prevent art from being made on the premise that it might not be what someone thinks is good.

What is there to be afraid of?

___

If you could only have one, would you rather have WalMart and sweatshops or Louis Vuitton and workshops?

Would you rather have only Guitar Center and Berringer or only Mercenary and Neumann?

Now realize that we don't have to pick, but that in music, we currently ONLY have the cheaper.

No Mogami, API or Neumann--just Tascam and Yamaha.

I own both Tascam and Yamaha gear, but I value other, higher quality tools much more than I do them.

If I want better music, film, books and television and I'm willing to pay for it, why should anyone be able to limit what others can produce profitably for me?

How is the group holding back the individual any different than the individual holding back the group? Why doesn't everyone deserve freedom? The cool, the uncool, the clear-headed, the deluded--everyone?

What are we afraid of? Too much music?

The truth is that there are certain very valuable attitudes, viewpoints, emotions and feelings that the counterculture, or youth culture, doesn't or won't deal with. When more artists can reach more audiences profitably, those subjects will get covered.

Indie thinks it knows it all but it doesn't.
___


As far as people not listening to certain kinds of music to gain status, I don't know what planet you're from, but most people I see really pimping a certain genre do it because they think certain music makes them waaay more cool.

Why else would someone wear a mullett or acid wash (or call someone an "ass engineer") unless they thought it made them look cool. Anti-status is the same as status--just that instead of trying to look rich, you're trying to look real, cool, authentic, cutting edge or hip. Same thing in my book.

For what it's worth, I rocked my Green River t-shit as hard as anyone--I wanted all the squares to know exactly how cool it was to be broke and "real"--to skateboard, be a bike messenger, blah, blah, blah. They were tools, I was cool. End of story.

Music is a huge status symbol for people--that's why we put stickers on our cars and wear t-shirts of certain bands--and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. One of the ways we identify ourselves by what we consume. ("I finally have Neve pres!" "That Gates Sta-Level looks soo sweet.")

This, of course, is unholy to admit in the counterculture, but it's true. And it's no different wearing Louis Vuitton than it is wearing a Yoga or Sepultura t-shirt (ironically or not). (Or a BAE shirt) We're telling people about ourselves. We wear what we want, say what we want, eat what we want and drive what we want.

It's called being free.

The whole counterculture thing is predicated on giving one insider knowledge--on being hip, down, and different. Why do you think rents in your zip code are so expensive? Because the weather is so good? Because it's artsy and cool.

--

What I suggest should happen is that people continue to do what they want. Buy what they want, make what they want, value what they want and enjoy what they want.

What I am suggesting that that process leads to is an inevitably growing continuum of prices, quality, manufacturing methods, distribution channels, career choices, and consumer options.

The music industry is no different than any other in this regard, it's been trying to grow in T-shirt prices and tour tickets but that's not working. People want the music itself to grow.

If people care more about music than they do T-shirts, and I firmly believe that they do, then either the price for each will eventually reflect this truth or they'll get consistently better t-shirts and consistently worse music.

Put another way: if the solution for the music industry's woes was cool, a hipster would have already figured it out.

[apropos of nothing]

Have you thought about charging $50,000 for that rant? Cuz obviously you put a lot of work into it. ...And that effort is utterly wasted by giving it away for free on a message board.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

Just like a fraternity, huh? A little humiliation and you get to hang with the in crowd. The fact that it's supposed to be funny makes it even more stupid and infantile.

man you are really taking the rank thing personally. calm the hell down already.

so do you actually believe that we should be selling cds for 50 bucks? you think anyone would buy them? how do we define what music is 'better' and therefore worth more money?