Dear Rock Stars -- Who Will Speak the Truth?

[multi]

Dear Rock Stars -- Who Will Speak the Truth?
By George Ziemann ( wizard@azoz.com )
A few months ago, I set out on an editorial quest to make to make a difference in the way people perceive the music industry and to clear away some of the smoke and mirrors. Considering that I am one lone person with no name recognition -- not a spokesperson for a well-funded lobbying group, not a member of the press or any media organization -- the success of my effort has led me to see a completely new problem.

In December, I posted an article called "RIAA Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy." Thanks to people like Wired.com, SlashDot, MusicDish.com, DMusic.com (the four sites which helped me initially push the story), the story spread. It spread so well, in fact, that (as of this writing), if you do a Google search for "RIAA Statistics," you have to wade through an awful lot of me before you find anything actually published by the RIAA. As a writer, this means that I have pretty well kicked the RIAA's ass (although the fact that they have removed their entire website for the past month may be a contributing factor).

And one member of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences found it enlightening enough to include in a paper submitted to NARAS addressing their future stance concerning the RIAA.

Therein lies the greater problem. Why did I have to tell them that the RIAA's position was based on fabrications and unsupported assumptions? What has everyone else been doing before I came along?

First of all, my "research" took about an hour, maybe two. It wasn't rocket science, just simple math. It took much longer to express it than it did to figure it out.

Secondly, until November, 2002, I had basically paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to the RIAA or anything they were saying. I didn't really care about the Napster hearings, other than to give a listen to what some of the "rock stars" had to say in front of Congress. At the time, I gave testimony the same deep consideration I might give to, say, an episode of "Behind the Music" on VH-1. I didn't really do any downloading, always thought mp3s were inferior and, as a result, couldn't really care less what happened to Napster.

So why am I the first one to publicly speak out on the simple facts? Why has my writing eclipsed the entire RIAA site? I am nobody. Why didn't I read about this in Rolling Stone or Spin magazine? Where are the people who rely on the music industry to make a living? Why didn't someone at NARAS bring this to our attention? Where are the rest of those truth-hunting journalists? Why wasn't this on 60 Minutes or Dateline? Fox News? CNN?

The only conclusion that I can draw is that each and every representative of the American media is either too lazy or too stupid to question the RIAA's propaganda. The second possibility is that they did notice and didn't bother to mention it, in which case, they are no better than liars. Either way, they cannot be trusted to deliver the truth to us.

To all of those people, I ask -- What else are you lying about?

The second largest problem lies with the people I used to call "rock stars." If you guys are getting ripped off, it's your own damn fault.

About a month ago, Rod Stewart and Clive Davis were on the Today show. Among the questions from Katie Couric came a request for a viewpoint on downloading. Clive Davis pretty much followed the RIAA script. This is to be expected because the RIAA actually represents him, as the head honcho of a record label. When it came to Rod Stewart, Rod said something to the effect that he wasn't really going to comment on that while Clive Davis was sitting right next to him.

Evidently, Clive keeps Rod in his suitcase or something, because I haven't heard Mr. Stewart make a public comment on downloading since. Thanks for helping the cause, Rod. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It helped us all so much.

I would like to even more specificly question Don Henley about his public position.

Let me make sure I've got this right, Don. Downloading mp3s is wrong because it it stealing from you to listen to your music for free. At the same time, you're paying "independent promoters" to put your music on the radio -- where we can listen to it for free.

The fact that you don't like paying the independent promotors is immaterial. The fact that payola is illegal is immaterial. What is material to this question is the simple fact that while you, and almost every other member of the "music industry", is trying to convince me we should pay you to even hear your music (much less own a copy), you are simultaneously paying the radio conglomerates to force feed us exactly the same songs.

I defy anyone in the entertainment industry to justify this.

I'll even go one step further -- I already know the answer. But I'm going to wait a week or two and see if anyone else in the industry has enough balls to step forward and say it first.

I'm not talking about someone who "used to be a party to major label deals." You can save your breath. Go to another party.

I'd also like to exclude Janis Ian from this one. That is just because she is the one and only "industry" voice that I have heard (or read) discuss downloading and CD-Rs in an intelligent, factual manner. I have great respect for Janis because she is honest. But I've already bugged her enough. It's time to hear from someone else, unless Janis is the only honest person in the entertainment business, which is a distinct possibility.

So, if you are what the masses would consider a "star," and would like to help me clear this up, please explain to the public why the same music is free on the radio and not on the Internet. If you do, your version of the story is next.

Otherwise, I'll have to tell them.
from