yahoo indeed

a friend of mine hooked me up with the yahoo unlimited music service for my birthday. i think he paid $50 or $60 and i get access to all the songs yahoo has, which is considerable but not everything. for instance i've noticed they must not have given michael jackson any cash because there are virtually no beatles songs. similiarly, radiohead must have failed to sign on with yahoo. (and hey, sometimes the computer is a more convenient vehicle to play music, compared to fishing through a rack of cd's to find a desired song.)

in short, i really like the service. i seem to be reconnecting with my inner-80s man. (stranger still, i must have been more effeminate in the '80s than i recall because abc and talk talk and soft cell and many of the bands i sort of left behind, were tragically unhip and teetering on the brink of quentin crisp, if you know what i mean.)

all this browsing and rediscovering reminded me of where music was a few years ago as an industry. napster was seemingly banishing music exec after music exec to a life on skid row and metallica was sueing and mtv hosted round tables and legislation was introduced all in the name of the struggling business of selling music.

let me approach the point i am struggling to make from a different perspective. reading a new yorker article on brent scowcroft the other day i was reminded the main reason for the first gulf war was because saddam hussein had invaded kuwait and american oil interests were jeopardized. where vietnam seemed more an idealogical war, (we feared the soviet union and in light of the cold war made a high priority of fomenting democracy, [capitalism,] abroad,) george h w bush took us to the gulf to protect american business interests. and while lives were not lost protecting the music industry, the government did step in with similiar goals; protect an industry's interests. instead of oil supplies, the music industry required the protection of intellectual property.

something about this doesn't sit well with me. i know we've bailed out other industries in the past. i know we've loaned money to chrysler and a couple of our aircraft builders and none of these sit well with me.

it has been said that insider trading does the stock market a favor. it nudges prices in the direction they are going to go anyway thereby abating sudden, more cataclysmic shifts that could initiate the harm of panic. i think that's crap too. when you are constantly propping up systems to avert challenges (problems,) you are essentially just hiding problems with the system. if the market needed the pre-movement spurred by insider trading, (which it does not,) the viability of the market as a system would have to be questioned and a systemic change would need to be implemented as opposed to relying on a group of cheaters to make it right.

when chrysler had it's trouble in the '80s, the federal government should not have intervened. if our economy took a hit, it would only have caused us as a nation and a society to work harder to right the ship.

books are free at libraries, (as they should be.) the intellectual property rights are not protected in the manner of a recording artist, nor should the recording artist's rights ever been protected in the way they were/are.

by constantly propping up various industries within our economy, we do it a disservice. it is no longer organic. the economy no longer takes on a life of its own as capitalism suggests it should. instead of growing into areas as demand deems, it tends to stay within a fenced area and in effect, eat it's own ad nauseum.

i believe had congress left napster to its bidding those years ago, we would have arrived at this current state of bliss known as yahoo music engine much sooner. the consumer has known the album was a lousy way to purchase music for a long time. the industry sold us this idea that the album somehow represented a larger work. it could cover a period of time or even a concept but the idea was, it was better than the single, which was so limited by its accepted format. well this was a slimy way to sell us poor u2 songs like 4th of july, when i look at the world and bass trap. (in fairness, u2 has been the kosher hot dog of bands over the years, very little filler, compared to others.) the idea was that we were all collectors interested in the arc of the life of the band blah blah blah and it was just so serious. right. . .

well, the single is making its return and not in its old form. with the yahoo music engine, (and yahoo is just one of many companies, likely not even the best at it, offering similiar service,) the consumer can pick and choose songs to listen to or purchase. the price i've seen seems to be between 79 and 99 cents per song. as an example, (and sticking with u2,) at 99-cents per song, i could have paid about $8 for the songs off of how to dismantle an atomic bomb that i like and ignored the last three songs. that is a more consumer friendly business by light years than the old model.

is it unfair in some way to the artists? hell no. in fact, it merely rights previous wrongs, (selling us filler we nver asked for.)

did you ever hear a song called birds fly (whisper to a scream,) by icicle works? i liked that song back when it came out so at some point in time, i went out and bought the whole record. every second of the record outside of that song sucked. it was horrible.

how about tell that girl to shut up by transvision vamp? digging your scene by blow monkeys? what was that song by robbie neville? how about interpol or the spin doctors? (in their cases, since every song sounds just like the one i liked, all the rest of the songs are filler.) collective soul? that evan dando got a lot of mileage out of one good song because the record company sold an album full of filler and had the good fortune of some media critics proclaiming the emperor to be exquisitely attired but now we can admit the truth, the lemonheads sucked.

so i am ecstatic about the emergence of this form that is the yahoo music engine. there are about three jet songs i really like and one by the darkness and one by remy zero and several songs from the past i need to pick up for a cd i'm compiling to give out as a favor at my wedding and i can do this for the cost of one album.

had legislation never passed to beat down napster, it is likely the music industry would be weaker today as people would still be freely sharing, (something we were all taught to do in kindergarten,) their music with one another but it would have evolved more quickly, in search of the avenues of revenue recently discovered. these devices such as the mini ipod and the nano would have come along sooner.