friday, june 9
v: naked laaaaadies! yeh where would ART be without the naked ladies, you know?
word.
a THOUSAND fucking dollars?!?
i can't even begin to tell you how scary it was to walk into the restaurant and hand them the bill and the prospect for the repairs. because somebody didn't wash the salad enough, my teeth needs a thousand dollars worth of dental work. it's fucking outrageous.
thak ghod i'm not paying.
...i hope.
---
i bought more water colours. i'm painting naked laaaaadiiiiies. it's like the poor girls version of em's nekkids, except, uh, not. hmm. i would paint something else, i would, but really... a chair with an apple, or a naked lady? duuuuh. heheh.
---
and on that note: jennie's views on the whole metallica vs. napster thing.
so i look around and everyone is drooling over 'freee!!! yeah, man, rebel!!" music files and laughing and hating all over the big bad band because "they NEED more money?? assholes!!" and um, i realise it's not the popular view, but i actually don't have a problem with metallica policing their material online. why? coz, uh, they made it?
i don't care about metallica specifically. they do have a lot of money. what i don't understand is how the issue seems to be "evil corporation trying to keep the MUSIC from US THE FANNNNS!!! POOOO!!" and ignoring the fact that music, like it or not, is in this context a product. why -should- all music be "FREE, man! FASCISTS!!" ?
i don't walk into a gallery and rip the paintings i want off the wall and take to kinko's to copy, so why is it so okay to download every track off of a recently released and widely available cd and burn to your own cd?
art is abstract, and i have no idea how to put a price on it, but can somebody explain to me why a person should spend years out of their lives working full time on crafting their music if they're not getting any form of pay when they bring it to the public?
you can argue all you want that downloading files and burning your own cd's does not stop you from buying new stuff, in fact, it increases it, but you don't see why you should have to buy a whole album for "that ONE song from an album i'd never buy ever."
somebody worked to make that one track. regardless of wether the rest of the album sucks - why should the one track people like be free? if you tape it off of radio, video, cassette, whatever, that's a different ballgame, but how can you defend that the one song that has any pull for you should be free when it came out of the same labor as the whole album?
i don't particularily care for metallica. i do care for plenty of other artists, and not many, if any, of them have the resources metallica does. if you can defend being against metallica because "they don't NEED more money, assholes!!" then think about a band like throwing muses which broke up because they -couldn't afford- to stay together as dayjobs were a necessity and tours impossible.
there are so many thousands of tiny bands and artists out there struggling to make their music while holding down 'real' jobs. they don't sell millions of cd's - plenty of them don't even sell thousands. their tours consist of 10 cities at a time in miniscule locales and often barely, if at all, break even.
"all music should be FREE, man!!!"
no, thanks. i don't like to imagine the future where artists are expected to work for free while existing. i'd imagine it sounding a lot like a multitude of the very free, very homemade attempts at mp3.com.
*shrug*
image © jennie alibasic