Feature Articles
By Marilyn Bergman, President and Chairman of ASCAP
Last year, ASCAP and
venture capital fund Constellation Ventures sponsored
"Musictech East: Making Music Together," a
conference uniting creators, technologists and high-level
government officials to discuss the latest issues in
copyright protection on the Internet. "Making Music
Together" was held in New York and webcast around
the country, and our speakers included ASCAP President
and Chairman of the Board, Marilyn Bergman, Marybeth
Peters from the Register of Copyrights, Mitch Glazier
from the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House
of Representatives, Steven Marks from the RIAA, Will
Poole from Microsoft, Marc Geiger from Artist Direct
Entertainment, Bruce Polichar from IBM, Jill Cuniff
from the group Luscious Jackson, and former Living Colour
songwriter/guitarist Vernon Reid.
One of the conference's high points was Reid's
keynote speech, which addressed many of the conflicts
and contradictions that he, as a flesh-and-blood creator,
sees in the reproduction of his work in the digital
domain.
Good afternoon. It seems that a lot of the discussion
about the Internet as it relates to artists these days
is about the possibilities the Internet offers
artists primarily as a direct marketing tool.
For example: ways that an artist can bypass the marketing
model of record labels to market their work directly;
ways the artist can be in more immediate communication
with their fan base; ways the artist can find new fans;
ways the artist can distribute a wider variety of releases
in different genres than those that have mass appeal;
ways an artist can distribute work differently.
| The Internet is
supposed to be a tool. But it's a tool in service
of what? |
But since that discussion is happening in so many places,
and people in this room are probably at the center of
that discussion, I thought I would explore something a
little different. What I like to call "the flesh-and-blood"
issues that I may want to avoid as a person, but have
to grapple with as a songwriter. Because that's what most
of us who write music and lyrics do. We wrestle with the
"flesh-and-blood" issues as part of creating
and expressing.
The Internet is supposed to be a tool. But it's a
tool in service of what? Does it enable us to get closer
to the heart of the matter of the human condition? Or
does it enable us to avoid the thorny questions we don't
really want to ask?
| . . .whoever defines
the terms that we as a culture use to describe
things or people has a lot of power. In fact,
you can tell who has power in a relationship by
who defines the terms, literally. ... we don't
write music to "provide content." |
Today, we have heard a lot of people talking,
and here I am talking, a keynote speaker.
So let's look at words. Words can be very powerful. And
whoever defines the terms that we as a culture use to
describe things or people has a lot of power. In fact,
you can tell who has power in a relationship by who defines
the terms, literally.
If I called a "plane crash" an "unscheduled
landing", you would know I worked for the airline.
If I were the brother, or father, or friend or someone
who was on that plane, I wouldn't be calling it an "unscheduled
landing."
"Content provider." I wonder if there is
any composer, or lyricist, or songwriter in this room
who thinks of him or herself as a "content provider."
Now, our music will end up on the Internet, probably
whether we sanction it or not, but we don't write music
to "provide content." So, it's easy to see
who is defining the terms, who holds the power in the
relationship between the technological and creative
communities.
As people who write music, who concern ourselves with
the human condition, we are writing from the heart,
from the soul, about things that touch us or move us
or inspire us as human beings. And the people who are
seeking out our music are not looking for content to
fill their hard drives. They are looking for music,
rhythm, melody, lyrics that touch them, or move them,
or inspire them. Yet, the term "content provider"
has become a standard way of describing who we are.
It is a technology term that distances people from flesh-and-blood
reality. Creative people, whether we write music or
books or create artwork, are the flesh-and-blood reality.
We have to eat. In fact, many creative people have to
struggle to be able to eat. We aren't paid salaries
for our ideas by large corporations with new technology
development divisions. We earn our living by the fact
that people relate to what we create enough to want
to listen to it, hopefully over and over again.
| When we talk about
the Internet and intellectual property rights,
we are really looking at who we are as a culture.
|
When we talk about the Internet and intellectual property
rights, we are really looking at who we are as a culture.
There really isn't anything new here, except that the
Internet exacerbates certain mind-sets of the culture
as it is, like: "How can I get it for free? Now that
I've figured it out, I'll share it with as many people
as I can so they can get it for free (or maybe just to
show off that I was the one who figured out how to get
it for free)."
The anonymity of the Internet promotes the "How
can I get it for free?" attitude. Someone who wouldn't
be comfortable going into Tower Records and stealing
a CD, because they would be too embarrassed or afraid
of getting caught, doesn't mind trying to download something
without paying for it. In fact, the more you can scam
off the Internet, the bigger of a hero you are.
We are also a culture of anxiety. Am I good enough?
Am I worthy enough? Am I sexy enough? Am I safe enough?
While you're browsing on-line, you have these not-so-subliminal
messages coming at you -- "This is not a secure
site. It can be seen by a third party." What does
that mean? Who is that third party and why do they care
that I visited that site? The Internet has us scrambling
to set up this whole elaborate system of checks and
balances. As artists, we are asked to cooperate with
a system and a culture when there is no real trust between
anyone. How can you create something wonderful without
trusting each other? How can you take a great leap forward
and cover your butt at the same time? How can we convince
the women and men involved in designing technology and
making money from technology and using technology that
we are here for a purpose other than being "content
providers?"
|
There is nothing wrong with using the technology.
As long as we remember what it is in service of.
Getting to the heart of the human condition, the
flesh-and-blood issues. |
Which brings me full circle, back to the question:
If the Internet is a tool, what is it in service of?
How can we, as creators, use it to get closer to the
heart of the matter of the human condition?
A few years ago, when I had access to the first RealAudio
files, I found a site with sound clips of Tibetan monks.
The sound quality was very poor -- it was this lo-fi
sound gurgling out of my computer. But something of
their devotion lived, and that was very powerful. It
had nothing to do with the technology. The intention
and expression of that music could transcend any technological
limitations.
This is what is exciting to me as a creator in terms
of the possibilities of the Internet as a global communication
tool. I could tap into these Tibetan monks and have
a very powerful personal experience in my house on Staten
Island. I can browse around online and find some "News
of the Weird" which triggers some interesting thought
streams for me. I can communicate with people who listen
to my music and let them know I appreciate their support
directly, wherever they are in the world.
As an artist, it is very easy to be seduced by the
technological wizardry syndrome. I need the newest gimmick,
the fastest modem, the latest model. There is nothing
wrong with using the technology. As long as we remember
what it is in service of. Getting to the heart of the
human condition, the flesh-and-blood issues.
So, with all the possibilities for all of us, as creators,
as venture capitalists, as people who use the Internet
for whatever we do, to be seduced by the technology,
we have to be very diligent. We have to be diligent
about reminding everyone all the time, that we are not
"content providers" out there to serve the
interests of technology giants. We are artists who create
music that moves people, that touches people, that inspires
people. That's how we live. That's what we do. And the
music that we write is what is of real value to the
people who seek it out. And that is why it needs to
be valued by the culture.
TOP
| 
