Universal hate?

[Phyltre]

I know there's tons of threads out there taking aim at the RIAA. So, I have one question:

Are there any serious music fans/audiophiles/artists that DON'T hate the RIAA? 'Cause I strongly dislike them; and strangely enough, nobody seems to ever defend them whatsoever, they just try to offer explanations. If you don't hate them (yet) then please, tell me why.

[Mr Jones]

Couldn't care less either way, I find it very hard to objectively hate something/one that I have no direct interaction with.

Ask yourself the question, why do you hate them?, do you hate them for doing the job they are paid to do because it some small way it effects you ?, if that was the case then there are probably 1000's of organisations out there that also directly effect your every day life that you should hate.

Do I hate the governmet because it taxes the money I work hard for?, do I hate the police services because they would stop me from doing all the evil things I secretly yearn to do, Do I hate the guys digging up the road in front of my workplace, making me late for work every day?

Nope, it's just part of every day life, shit happens that effects you and 99.9% of the time you don't even notice. Why should I hate the RIAA for coming down on me for stealing an artists music on line?


So why is hating the RIAA such a big deal to everyone? fair enough they may be ripping you off by rigging up CD prices, big deal there are millions of products out there that are way way over priced, do you know how much it costs to make a bottle of beer compared to how much people pay for it for example (that's just a quick example I can give you because I work in the brewing industry by the way ), or do you hate them because they oppose you sharing your music out for others people to download, it's very noble of you to want to share your music with the world, and I'm totaly greatfull to all the people I've downloaded off over the years, but ask yourself this , would you be as willing to share all your other worldy goods?, I mean would you mind if I watched your TV through the window everyday, or popped around to use your washing machine every day because I didn't want to buy one of my own?

It's trendy and fashionable to hate the RIAA, but if you look at it objectively you'd probably see that they do actually have a bit of a point to make, but the current mentality of people is "something for nothing and fuck all those who say otherwise".

Sooooooo, why do you hate the RIAA?, don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending them, as I said at the very start of this post, I couldn't care less either way, I won't be defending them, nor will I be hating them....

[Phyltre]

Well, let me count the ways (reasons).

1. The RIAA does not care about what could be, only about what IS.

2. The RIAA is not interested in progress, only in continuity--unless it's in the DRM category. But then, that's just fighting change, right?

3. The RIAA seeks to bottleneck the entire nation's (world's?) listening habits based on their decisions, and supports what is almost univerally recognized as an effective monopoly towards that perceived goal.

4. The RIAA is the first organization in a long time to say that the consumer isn't always right, or even mostly right. And they're one of the first ever to use political influence to directly criminalize a significant percentage of their clientele, especially given that said criminalization is wholly unprecedented.

5. The RIAA is a lobbying group that seeks to control the government through money. This isn't a just process, it's a separation of the rich and poor, and makes a mockery of the governing process--where should money have an influence, if the leaders are capable of making good decisions anyway? (I know, this is basically standard ops for today's society, but it's corruption none the less.)

I have some more reasons, I think, but a thunderstorm threatens to cut out the power here so I'll just post this and come back. Mr. Jones?

Edit: Looking at reasons two and four, isn't the RIAA actually making REVERSE progress? Or am I being cynical?

Number 6. Music has traditionally been about expression, not only about a profit margin. The RIAA is using an effective monopoly system (supported by Clear Channel) to brainwash people into seeing musical expression only as a sellable product that should be mass-produced, while still giving off this faint deception that they're really doing everyone a favor.

[xenosomething]

bands and musicians have all the frickin' expression they could ever want. don't let their ripped clothes and unbrushed hair fool you....they are actually very happy and have lots of money and dont give a rats ass about any of this.


a solution to all this would be to listen to video game music. nobody will bother you about having 40gb of it of your comp.....and its better than all the other crap we hear these days too.

[Phyltre]

they are actually very happy and have lots of money and dont give a rats ass about any of this.

It's not those artists I worry about, it's the ones that get marginalized by the RIAA. The ones that never get the chance because they're not analyzed as being "worthy." You see, it's the artists that we DON'T hear from that I worry about. Once we hear their music, they've already passed screening. Sad but true, nowadays.

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by Phyltre
Number 6. Music has traditionally been about expression, not only about a profit margin. The RIAA is using an effective monopoly system (supported by Clear Channel) to brainwash people into seeing musical expression only as a sellable product that should be mass-produced, while still giving off this faint deception that they're really doing everyone a favor.

That would explain MTV.

[Phyltre]

MTV makes the rich artists richer, and makes the unsupported artists less appealing...while promoting a popular, hip culture with about as much variety as a tax form.

Really, does unlimited access to a producing studio make you a better artist?

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by Phyltre
MTV makes the rich artists richer, and makes the unsupported artists less appealing...while promoting a popular, hip culture with about as much variety as a tax form.

Promoting? More like propagandizing. The channel is driven by how much a record company is willing to shell out in order to choke their "artists" down the throats of the viewing audience.

[xenosomething]

who cares about the ones we don't hear?.....they suck!

why the hell do we need any more "artists" anyway?...dont we have enough already?

besides, a real artist wouldn't want too much attention anyway. ...it's all about the music isn't it? does not joining the riaa prevent them from playing their instrument? shouldn't they be happy with just the music they've created and not what that music can get them?

or am i using "artist" too literally?

[Namelessv1]

It's not so much that the unheard artists aren't getting in on the profits as it is the riaa stomping out any chance of them being able to display their artistry. The riaa is virtually controlling what is and is not allowed to exist in the realm of music.

[Phyltre]

You (edit: response to xeno /edit) make interesting points.

No, I don't think we have enough artists; or rather, that the artists that society considers popular fit into several rather narrow stereotypes, so that we have lots of soundalikes and many of the artists are virtual repeats.

Yes, it is all about the music, but if the majority of people can't get to it because it's being repressed, what are we to do, just go along? Since it's all about the music, we should all get to decide if we like it or not.

Naturally there will be capitalistic concerns attached to nearly any venture in our world; this is the nature of things. But money shouldn't be the sole conern, and I'd hope it's not the major one; good, different (or derivative, which can be equally creative) music should be important. But again, shouldn't we able to decide what we like, without a bottleneck overhead screening things out arbitrarily?

No, artists need to be literalized!

[CaboWaboAddict]

You want to see how much things are controlled? Call up any clearchannel station in your area, and request a song (even a hit song) by someone not on their 'playlist' and see if it gets played. I'm not talking about playing stuff out of the station's chosen genre, I'm talking about the bands they are not authorized to play.

[Namelessv1]

Clear Channel's list of songs with questionable content

All Rage Against The Machine songs

[LollipopLustKil]

Sad isn't it?

[xenosomething]

Originally posted by Phyltre
Yes, it is all about the music, but if the majority of people can't get to it because it's being repressed, what are we to do, just go along? Since it's all about the music, we should all get to decide if we like it or not.

people are being far too reliant on the riaa to give them music.

anybody who REALLY cares about discovering new music WILL find it *GUARANTEED*

no need to baby the majority of listeners by feeling bad for them because they dont get to hear what others hear...they simply aren't interested.

[NJK]

Originally posted by Dawg4Life2K1
Clear Channel's list of songs with questionable content

whoever made that list has to be brain dead.
no real music lover would place any of those tracks on such a list.

steve miller- jet airliner ????????

[LollipopLustKil]

It was only temporary after 9/11.

All those songs (someway or another) have something political or something to do with 9/11.

[NJK]

not all - they just went overboard with this
ghosthunting- or the old days of the communist hunts with McCarthy -
i've seen songs in that list that have absolutely nothing political or anything with 9/11 in it.

I strangly miss st claus songs ( he "dropping" things into the stockings of those who been good all year)

[LollipopLustKil]

In someway, like killing. Clearchannel sucks, they'll do anything to get these songs off the air.

[Phyltre]

Okay, the next logical question is, what does everyone here know about Clear Channel? I'm a bit less informed about them than about the RIAA, I'm gonna go do some research on them later...

[LollipopLustKil]

What do you want to know about them?

[Namelessv1]

http://www.clearchannelsucks.org/

Clear Channel owns over 1,200 radio stations and 37 television stations, with investments in 240 radio stations globally, and Clear Channel Entertainment (aka SFX, one of their more well-known subsidiaries) owns and operates over 200 venues nationwide. They are in 248 of the top 250 radio markets, controlling 60% of all rock programming. They outright own the tours of musicians like Janet Jackson, Aerosmith, Pearl Jam, Madonna and N'Sync. They own the network which airs Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Casey Kasem, and the Fox Sports Radio Network. With 103,000,000 listeners in the U.S. and 1,000,000,000 globally (1/6 of the world population)

[Myxomatosis]

The root of this and may other problems is capitalism.

[Phyltre]

I hadn't realized that Clear Channel was so dominant! That rollback of radio-ownership laws has certainly made some changes in the past few years.

I find myself agreeing with you, Myxo, but not without reservation. In my view problem is not only capitalism in and of itself but how capitalism affects our government--or rather, how we are allowing it to affect it. For instance, it seems logical that a governing group should not be making decisions based on personal interest; since I was twelve or so, I'd always thought that a system that left executive officials in the capitalistic system would always lead to corruption. A program by which elected officials would accept certain restrictions on their income as a responsibility of office would certainly do much to alleviate this system.

Our current system of slightly moderated capitalism runs on the tacit assumption that only those groups with significant funding deserve to be listened to, and that any group marginalized by the government will attain such funding (these two assumptions are from high school textbooks, mind you, not personal opinion.) Thereby, it is unusually easy for a monopolistic system to develop by companies legally gaining funds to seek barriers to entry from the government for other prospective competitors (this is from college-level economics.)

These super-companies, growing in recent years, are therefore represented in government by a factor of ten over the ordinary individual; they are capable of influencing lawmaking processes as a matter of course by drawing from funds specifically earmarked for the purpose. This is the standard definition of corruption, I believe.

Our current application of capitalism gives everything a price, even justice (highly paid lawyers) and lawmaking (lobbying.) When these two strongholds of democracy can be bought and sold--mostly bought--only those with overwhelming funds benefit.

[sonsofwisdom]

wow...clear channel is a big bitch...I can understand for 9/11 I mean...come on...that is a good idea. But now that it's been awhile I don't see why they think they should do that...man if a station here played all those guys they'd be way more popular that a clear channel station...of course clear channels stations to play music by local bands in their area, though later at night. And also...clear channel does play some rage, I've heard it not to long ago. I personally can't stand rage against the machine so I don't remember the song name...more of a musical sound thing and that I hate politics...but I do like some system of a down. I mean politcal bands are good cause they keep put down issues in peoples minds so it is stupid for a station to not play their music.

[Tarron_D]

Sonsofwisdom: I personally don't agree with your 9\11 comment. I took a look at that list and anyone who would ban some of the songs on that list is a sick bible humping retard. Personally I would like to see a song about knocking some buildings down, and it would have been better if one had come out right after the incident in question. Nevermind though, I guess I'll just go listen to Lucy in the sky with diamonds and maybe if I repent soon enough, I won't go to hell.

[sonsofwisdom]

Originally posted by Tarron_D
Sonsofwisdom: I personally don't agree with your 9\11 comment. I took a look at that list and anyone who would ban some of the songs on that list is a sick bible humping retard. Personally I would like to see a song about knocking some buildings down, and it would have been better if one had come out right after the incident in question. Nevermind though, I guess I'll just go listen to Lucy in the sky with diamonds and maybe if I repent soon enough, I won't go to hell.

well I see no need for insults...but you should not assume so many things about what you think my faith is friend. I will admit I am a Christian but to say I am a "bible humping retard" is unnecisary. You have a right to your opinion but not to offend others and to attack them for no reason.

I must ask...why do you think you would go to hell for listing to certain music? Are you one of those people who think you'll go to hell for lying as well? HA HA...let me tell you...you won't...I love Metallica, Marylin Manson, I listen to more "secular" artists than Christian...and you need to know...that has no influence on salvation.

Now to the subject:
The only reason I agree with not playing those songs after the incident is because it shows respect for those who died that day and for those who lost some one they love. But as I said before...that time has past now and that censorship has no place. That was my point.

True many more people die elsewhere in even more horrindous acts around the world, and I believe we should also show them respect too.

I understand that there are people who don't give a damn about the feelings and emotions of others...so I do not expect them to understand things like respect, showing homage...you obviously do not.

Again I must ask...why would you go to hell for listening to Lucy in the sky with diamonds? You apparently know nothing of Christianity. I listen to "God that failed" and I know I'm not going to hell for it...why should I...why should you? Next time...please try to make your point without being so dissrespectful of others views...I am not going to attack you for your beliefs nor did I...so why do you feel you must attack me?

[Tarron_D]

Maybe you seriously misunderstood me, but no where in your original post did you say you would ban the songs. I was talking about the people who DID ban the songs, not you. But I still think they shouldn't have banned the songs after 9\11. You obviously no nothing about music as an artform to say otherwise.

[sonsofwisdom]

Originally posted by Tarron_D
Maybe you seriously misunderstood me, but no where in your original post did you say you would ban the songs. I was talking about the people who DID ban the songs, not you. But I still think they shouldn't have banned the songs after 9\11. You obviously no nothing about music as an artform to say otherwise.

Actually I do, I am a musician myself and again with the insults...what drives you to continue that action, can you not express yourself with others in a civilized manner?

Can you not accept the fact that just because you have an opinion it does not mean it should be the only one accepted by the world?

Maybe I should rephrase my point:
I believe it showed great respect to not play certain songs on the air after 9/11, it was not done out of mallice as many people seem to make it out to be. After all, no one forbid anyone to listen to that music on those days or any other...
Clear Channel is a business...and not owned by the public...so they can do whatever they want and play whatever they choose. Why don't we harp on the classical music stations for not playing metallica s&m?

I agree with you that they should not continue such bans and I CAN agree that there is wrong in banning them even after 9/11, but I do not agree that it was a horrindous act done to prevent free speech. But again, I can agree that the generalized banning of music is wrong.

[Tarron_D]

Clear Channel isn't just a business, it is a HUGE business. Im not sure on my facts but it controls a major part of the media we see. I also don't agree that no one forbid us to listen to certain music. CLEAR CHANNEL DID, on the radio, which is what we are talking about! BTW, Im pretty sure the dead people, if they could be asked today, would not give a shit if a slipknot song was played on some random radio station if texas somewhere. Those people who died? They all listened to the same music that is on that list and they would not have a problem if it was played. Who the fuck is clear channel to decide what is respectful? I can't see your argument because half the songs on that list don't even feature a god damn electric guitar, let alone devil lyrics and violence!

And I don't think that certain music is going to send me to hell. Maybe you didn't catch the JOKE because you were too busy getting pissed at insults THAT WERENT EVEN DIRECTED AT YOU! Im sorry about the misunderstanding.

[sonsofwisdom]

Originally posted by Tarron_D
Clear Channel isn't just a business, it is a HUGE business. Im not sure on my facts but it controls a major part of the media we see. I also don't agree that no one forbid us to listen to certain music. CLEAR CHANNEL DID, on the radio, which is what we are talking about! BTW, Im pretty sure the dead people, if they could be asked today, would not give a shit if a slipknot song was played on some random radio station if texas somewhere. Those people who died? They all listened to the same music that is on that list and they would not have a problem if it was played. Who the fuck is clear channel to decide what is respectful?...

Then I owe you an apology, sorry for my misunderstanding...

Clear Channel:
Yeah that was something I was just thinking about, how large clear channel is. ...

I wonder if there is anything such as radio monopoly...I mean...clear channel IS huge, and I think they are too big really. Has anyone attempted to bring them up on such a charge? I mean...they are getting to big for their pants...and obviously...have pissed off WAY enough people...I would so sign a petition man to at the least limit clear channel

[xenosomething]

let clear channel ban those songs....like i said before: the people who really care about those songs don't need the radio to listen to them.



im not saying its perfectly right for them to do so...but its certainly not a serious problem.

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by sonsofwisdom
Then I owe you an apology, sorry for my misunderstanding...

Clear Channel:
Yeah that was something I was just thinking about, how large clear channel is. ...

I wonder if there is anything such as radio monopoly...I mean...clear channel IS huge, and I think they are too big really. Has anyone attempted to bring them up on such a charge? I mean...they are getting to big for their pants...and obviously...have pissed off WAY enough people...I would so sign a petition man to at the least limit clear channel

Quite the contrary. The FCC was the one who let them engorge themselves to such a ridiculous size in the first place. They, along with Viacom, control 42% of American radio. Since it was the FCC who allowed them to grow to such overwhelming proportions, they're acting as the FCC's personal lapdog, such as with Howard Stern. The FCC and Clearchannel are working in hand in hand to control American radio.

[LollipopLustKil]

Whichever one of you it was to say "Who is Clear Channgel to say what we should listen to and what is respectful and all that shit", your a dumbass. It's their right to ban whatever they want, for any reason they want. Why? IT'S THEIR FUCKING STATION.

What do you people not understand about that? If you don't like Clear Channel, or the songs they play, or because they banned a song you loved. Then here's a tip: Don't listen to them.

[Tarron_D]

Originally posted by LollipopLustKil
Whichever one of you it was to say "Who is Clear Channgel to say what we should listen to and what is respectful and all that shit", your a dumbass. It's their right to ban whatever they want, for any reason they want. Why? IT'S THEIR FUCKING STATION.

What do you people not understand about that? If you don't like Clear Channel, or the songs they play, or because they banned a song you loved. Then here's a tip: Don't listen to them.

Im sorry, just no alright. Maybe you don't get something. Clear channel is trying to take over the radio as we know it. They want to censor it any way they choose. Do you think it is going to be easy to "not listen to it" when all the stations are controlled by clear channel? Sure they have the right, but they are stupid and most people agree with me. I wouldn't have a problem if clear channel was some unknown station somewhere with a bug up their ass about "questionable" music. Unfortunately, they are on there way to having all of the stations under their censorship "system". At that point, it becomes my problem, and it pisses me off. These people don't like music, they like money. And they don't give a shit about anything else. They have their own little view about how everything should be, and because they have the power to do so, they're going to censor the shit out of everyday media.

Edit: I have more to say: Clear channel may have the right to censor based on business, but not on morals. Sure they have the legal right, but its still not the right thing to do. Its not the moral thing to do. They have the legal right to say what we can't see or hear, but they don't have the moral right to such bullshit. I can't stress this enough. A lot of people own shit that they do bad things with. They shouldn't be allowed to do those bad things just because they own it.

[LollipopLustKil]

Who cares if they "shouldn't", they can. And that right there is all that matters.

And yes, I find it very easy to "not listen to it", I don't think I've listened to a Clear Channel station in around a year almost. At my house, I have my music. Over 40GB of it, which basically is my own station right there, which I bring with me on my MP3 player. In the car, I listen to XM stations. So I don't have to listen to that bullshit.

You expressing your hate to Clear Channel will do nothing. There are websites dedicated to bashing Clear Chanel, but still, they do nothing.

[Phyltre]

Lollipop?

I care if they shouldn't. It makes an impact on our society. That means we should all care. If you don't want to care, go ahead and let everyone else get run over by them because you can't be bothered.

Not everyone can afford XM radio, or the bandwidth that it takes to accumulate 40 gigs, or the mp3 player even. Clear Channel is subverting a public forum for profits, and this is w-r-o-n-g. I didn't say it was illegal, because quite honestly I have no faith in the current system and know better than to believe that what is legal is right.

If this kind of streamlining and bottlenecking continues in the music industry, both in production and in broadcast, the creative future will be taking a severe hit. I suppose you think it's alright just to sit back and let them exercise their legal rights, because our expressing our concerns "will do nothing." But it's you who's doing nothing, it seems to me. You're just ignoring problems.