Artistic director of Bebop and Beyond
Voice your opinion
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:59:18 EDT
Subject: Shityn Marsalis
Letters to the Editor
Jazz Times 2/8/00
Most musicians no longer read the trade magazines but
the audience does.
I think this is a mistake because musicians have lost sight of the fact
the audience believes much of what is being written. This being the case,
felt that I must comment on the "Future Views" interview with
Wynton Marsalis in the March 2000 issue of JazzTimes.
By his words, Mr. Marsalis has indeed proven to be "intensely focused"
on his own agenda and quickly dismissive of music that falls outside that
realm. Undoubtedly, the magazine and he will get much flak because of
revision of jazz history, trashing of other musicians, (including those
helped him gain credibility on his own first recorded efforts), and his
dismissal of others, experiments and explorations as "bullshit."
Many of those who have the audacity to disagree with Marsalis have the
tendency to be so aghast (and often rightly so) by his misinformation
attitude that, their criticisms, if printed at all, often tend to degenerate
into name calling. This often has the effect of making themselves appear
bitter, the result being that Marsalis is given even more press.
An unfair criticism of Marsalis is, in my opinion, the constant barbs
directed at him for his choice of programs to be presented at Lincoln
He is simply doing exactly what he was hired to do with the money that
given to this huge not-for-profit cultural organization; that of documenting
and exposing the music of the past. The question is, why is it that what
basically a repertory company and a museum of American culture is now
looked upon as the standard for and even important to the evolution of
jazz? And how is it that "past" has become to be synonymous
The proclivity of the press has traditionally been toward
sensationalism; hence, reams of print and seemingly unending series of
magazine covers devoted to every scatological statement from Marsalis
and his seeming compulsion for exposing his onus.* Controversy sells.
and the more negative the better.
For almost 20 years the media has been fostering the top gun mentality;
the promotion of one lone soul as not only the "most accomplished
generation" but also the spokesman for all generations. Albeit, perhaps
long time in coming, it is inevitable that the hype will be discovered
just another case of the "emperor,s new clothes" as it was with
Lewinsky Scandal and the statement that jazz is "back to the centerstage
American culture" when record sales are down to less than 2% of the
Time may prove Marsalis will have the most to suffer...not only from the
hype, but also from his apparent glee in consuming his comestibles in
same location that he deposits his excreta. History will judge his
accomplishments alongside of those of the likes of Armstrong, Ellington,
Parker, Mingus, Coltrane, Coleman, Rollins and Basie--- to name just a
None of these or any other jazz artists, with the possible exceptions
Jelly Roll Morton and Paul Whiteman, were presumptuous enough to "define"
what jazz is or be so willing to take on the mantle of being its pundit
Concerning Marsalis, statements: by trivializing and denigrating the concepts
and contributions of Parker ("jamming on the bandstand" and
the acting on the paradigm that "improvisation is the lifeblood of
jazz") and practically everyone else who has ever played jazz music,
including his heroes, he either misses or is consciously skipping the
point...that these jams (which were interestingly "historically never
a part of jazz music) gave rise to all the music's theoretical and formal
concepts. In this statement he reveals his disdain for on the job training.
Does the importance of apprenticeship which has always been recognized
as being indispensable to becoming expert in any art form no longer apply?
If so, this is an observation that can only be perceived as coming from
a lack of experience. Media hype and CBS by canonizing him from the age
of 18, often to the point of intolerance of contrary opinions and the
and/or shelving the efforts of others (In these safe, cyberthink times,
having a contrasting opinion to that of the status quo is tantamount to
having a bad attitude----it does not compute!) played down the importance
apprenticeship and consequently robbed Marsalis of his. Here was an example
of a promising, capable, original, naive talent for reasons of
sensationalism and greed, being beguiled and distracted from aspirations
being a creative artist to those of assuming the role of a master craftsman.
Marsalis should be more pitied than censured for this. Who, at 18 wouldn,t
take the money?
I have over 20,000 CDs and LPs in my collection consisting of virtually
everyone ever purported to play jazz in America...from the ODJB of 1917
now...in addition to other kinds of music. I have hundreds of scores and
arrangements. I went to Berklee and studied composition for four years.
and many others like me can analyze, categorize and calculate our hunkers
off, but I think that most of us agree that from all these things one
only grasp the fundamentals. I am unclear as to what Marsalis, concept
the verb "to educate" really is. Does it go beyond mere programming
techniques and analysis?
I count my true education from the time I played with Ray Charles, a four
year apprenticeship with Charles Mingus and the last 30 years on the road
playing for all kinds of audiences. I am sure that I speak for many others
who have had the same kinds of experiences.
More quotes and disagreements:
"...jazz music has never been developed on any level by any popular
broke off from jazz."
So much for the songs of Porter, Gershwin, Kern and others----basically
large part of the repertoire...including his own.
"....one thing about European music is that it,s
still being played in all
of its glory all over the world...."
European music subsists in "all its glory" due to funding by
and societies; the same funding Marsalis covets and receives.
"Some musicians all want to imitate hip-hop and
all that other shit. Why
would we want to imitate that?"
For better or worse, that "shit" is here and is part of the
our times. Is the only way to incorporate a new influence or for that
any influence in jazz is by imitation? Hmmm....what does this imply?
"....(before Parker) it was always the arrangement and a little bit
True (those pesky piano players excepted!), if we are to believe that
3 minute recording is the absolute testament as to the nature of the
performance practices of the time. Again, there is the problem of those
pesky piano players.
How does one learn the correct history and find out whether
statements and prejudices hold water?
LET HE WHO HAS EARS; HEAR!
1) Go see live jazz in venues other than museums, opera houses and supper
2) Listen. Listen to everybody---not what you are told is hip----
3) Compare. Listen to Marsalis, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, Don Cherry,
etc. back to back Indeed, listen to musicians of every instrument this
4) Choose the musicians that YOU like and support them.
How do you find out about various players?
If you like Pops, chances are that you will hear Earl Hines---he had a
big band with Dizzy ---- to Bird--- to Miles----to Trane----to Dolphy.
Everything is connected. After all of this, if one wishes to make a career
music he/she must seek out a master and learn from hands on experience
the maestro,s side. Leonardo did (Da Vinci, not DiCaprio).
By acknowledging the contributions only of Armstrong and Ellington and
that, from secondhand experience, Marsalis coming from an understandably
limited perspective continues to exploit his visibility to present gross
distortions of the record; the result being that he is more and more
influential in making people forget about the true jazz history. One is
reminded of "music appreciation" courses where the overemphasis
Beethoven and Brahms made people forget or minimize composers like Faure,
Ives, Spohr and all of music before Bach.
Marsalis seems to think that he alone can take jazz to a time that never
truly existed----before solos and improvisation. In this area, I consider
motives suspect, especially since he has decided that he wants the world
know and accept him as a major composer. A composer that lives by the
"rules" and by what is accepted in the academy as composition,
naturally see improvisation and too much "feeling" by the musicians
threat. If he really understood Ellington, he would know that Duke wrote
charts to feature specific soloists, styles and orchestrated and wrote
inner parts based on his musicians individual timbres and idiosyncrasies.
It is unfortunate that Marsalis, who is in the position to fulfill all
his own fantasies, and, because of his coddling by the press could do
much to expose the music and its practitioners in positive terms, chooses
promote such a narrow agenda and through his forum chooses to do it by
means of Orwellian gobbledygook so often in four-letter words---- the
usually a sign of a limited vocabulary. It's more than unfortunate; it's
just plain boring.
This is America after all. Marsalis should be able to say anything he
wants. However, by choosing to unceasingly present his plans for the "final
solution" to the jazz problem to the point of presenting them as
THE CORRECT ONES as if they are from the mouth of GOD to the exclusion
and/or neglect of those of others, and by promoting one opinionated individual
as the beginning and end of everything, the media (who are often only
to eager to promote verbal onanism) not only polarizes the jazz community
but as is so in the examples of Kenny G., Madonna, Ricky Martin and the
Spice Girls raises mediocrity to formerly unimagined heights.
(*onus----correct spelling---means: burden)
Of course, only about 5% of this was published!
This is an unedited
transcript of Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment
conference, given in New York on May 16.
Please forward this to any musicians you know:
Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is
piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention
of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
I want to start with a story about rock bands and record
companies, and do some recording-contract math:
This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge
deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No
bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is
my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify
it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr.
[the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.
What happens to that million dollars?
They spend half a million to record their album. That
leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for
20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split.
After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000
That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record
The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How
a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another
rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that
any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country
are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name
our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos.
The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video
production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio
promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the
radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use
middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified
broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
All of those independent promotion costs are charged
to the band.
Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable,
the band owes $2 million to the record company.
If all of the million records are sold at full price
with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties,
since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in
recoupable expenses equals ... zero!
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million.
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced
the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000
in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail
advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn
Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans
handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention
trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well
be working at a 7-Eleven.
Of course, they had fun. Hearing yourself on the radio,
selling records, getting new fans and being on TV is great, but now the
band doesn't have enough money to pay the rent and nobody has any credit.
Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its
work ... they can pay the mortgage forever but they'll never own the house.
Like I said: Sharecropping.
Our media says, "Boo hoo, poor pop stars, they had
a nice ride. Fuck them for speaking up"; but I say this dialogue
is imperative. And cynical media people, who are more fascinated with
celebrity than most celebrities, need to reacquaint themselves with their
When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright
1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at
a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi,
or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers.
When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record
companies own our copyrights forever.
The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.
* The RIAA *
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier,
with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment"
to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under
the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over.
By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill
was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions
of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years --
billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists.
A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the
copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody
Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years.
But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts"
never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work
for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that
the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry
practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being
eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't
mean anything. Until now.
Writing and recording "Hey Jude" is now the
same thing as writing an English textbook, writing standardized tests,
translating a novel from one language to another or making a map. These
are the types of things addressed in the "work for hire" act.
And writing a standardized test is a work for hire. Not making a record.
So an assistant substantially altered a major law when
he only had the authority to make spelling corrections. That's not what
I learned about how government works in my high school civics class.
Three months later, the RIAA hired Mr. Glazier to become
its top lobbyist at a salary that was obviously much greater than the
one he had as the spelling corrector guy.
The RIAA tries to argue that this change was necessary
because of a provision in the bill that musicians supported. That provision
prevents anyone from registering a famous person's name as a Web address
without that person's permission. That's great. I own my name, and should
be able to do what I want with my name.
But the bill also created an exception that allows a
company to take a person's name for a Web address if they create a work
for hire. Which means a record company would be allowed to own your Web
site when you record your "work for hire" album. Like I said:
Although I've never met any one at a record company who
"believed in the Internet," they've all been trying to cover
their asses by securing everyone's digital rights. Not that they know
what to do with them. Go to a major label-owned band site. Give me a dollar
for every time you see an annoying "under construction" sign.
I used to pester Geffen (when it was a label) to do a better job. I was
totally ignored for two years, until I got my band name back. The Goo
Goo Dolls are struggling to gain control of their domain name from Warner
Bros., who claim they own the name because they set up a shitty promotional
Web site for the band.
Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah,
seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright
law. One lobbyist says that there's no one in the House with a similar
view and that "this would have never happened if Sonny Bono was still
By the way, which bill do you think the recording industry
used for this amendment?
The Record Company Redefinition Act? No. The Music Copyright
Act? No. The Work for Hire Authorship Act? No.
How about the Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999?
Stealing our copyright reversions in the dead of night
while no one was looking, and with no hearings held, is piracy.
It's piracy when the RIAA lobbies to change the bankruptcy
law to make it more difficult for musicians to declare bankruptcy. Some
musicians have declared bankruptcy to free themselves from truly evil
contracts. TLC declared bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent
of the $175 million earned by their CD sales. That was about 40 times
less than the profit that was divided among their management, production
and record companies.
Toni Braxton also declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold
$188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of a terrible recording
contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. Bankruptcy can be
an artist's only defense against a truly horrible deal and the RIAA wants
to take it away.
Artists want to believe that we can make lots of money
if we're successful. But there are hundreds of stories about artists in
their 60s and 70s who are broke because they never made a dime from their
hit records. And real success is still a long shot for a new artist today.
Of the 32,000 new releases each year, only 250 sell more than 10,000 copies.
And less than 30 go platinum.
The four major record corporations fund the RIAA. These
companies are rich and obviously well-represented. Recording artists and
musicians don't really have the money to compete. The 273,000 working
musicians in America make about $30,000 a year. Only 15 percent of American
Federation of Musicians members work steadily in music.
But the music industry is a $40 billion-a-year business.
One-third of that revenue comes from the United States. The annual sales
of cassettes, CDs and video are larger than the gross national product
of 80 countries. Americans have more CD players, radios and VCRs than
we have bathtubs.
Story after story gets told about artists -- some of
them in their 60s and 70s, some of them authors of huge successful songs
that we all enjoy, use and sing -- living in total poverty, never having
been paid anything. Not even having access to a union or to basic health
care. Artists who have generated billions of dollars for an industry die
broke and un-cared for.
And they're not actors or participators. They're the
rightful owners, originators and performers of original compositions.
This is piracy.
* Technology is not piracy *
This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as
I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed.
I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my
copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work
with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side,
in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how
to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable
than the one I saw today.
I also think Metallica is being given too much grief.
It's anti-artist, for one thing. An artist speaks up and the artist gets
squashed: Sharecropping. Don't get above your station, kid. It's not piracy
when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster or Gnutella or Freenet
or iMesh or beaming their CDs into a My.MP3.com or MyPlay.com music locker.
It's piracy when those guys that run those companies make side deals with
the cartel lawyers and label heads so that they can be "the labels'
friend," and not the artists'.
Recording artists have essentially been giving their
music away for free under the old system, so new technology that exposes
our music to a larger audience can only be a good thing. Why aren't these
companies working with us to create some peace?
There were a billion music downloads last year, but music
sales are up. Where's the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads
are creating more demand.
Why aren't record companies embracing this great opportunity?
Why aren't they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around
to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are
stimulating this new demand? What's the point of going after people swapping
cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto
us, the writers of their profits.
At this point the "record collector" geniuses
who use Napster don't have the coolest most arcane selection anyway, unless
you're into techno. Hardly any pre-1982 REM fans, no '60s punk, even the
Alan Parsons Project was underrepresented when I tried to find some Napster
buddies. For the most part, it was college boy rawk without a lot of imagination.
Maybe that's the demographic that cares -- and in that case, My Bloody
Valentine and Bert Jansch aren't going to get screwed just yet. There's
still time to negotiate.
* Destroying traditional access *
Somewhere along the way, record companies figured out
that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than
it is to nurture artists. And since the companies didn't have any real
competition, artists had no other place to go. Record companies controlled
the promotion and marketing; only they had the ability to get lots of
radio play, and get records into all the big chain store. That power put
them above both the artists and the audience. They own the plantation.
Being the gatekeeper was the most profitable place to
be, but now we're in a world half without gates. The Internet allows artists
to communicate directly with their audiences; we don't have to depend
solely on an inefficient system where the record company promotes our
records to radio, press or retail and then sits back and hopes fans find
out about our music.
Record companies don't understand the intimacy between
artists and their fans. They put records on the radio and buy some advertising
and hope for the best. Digital distribution gives everyone worldwide,
instant access to music.
And filters are replacing gatekeepers. In a world where
we can get anything we want, whenever we want it, how does a company create
value? By filtering. In a world without friction, the only friction people
value is editing. A filter is valuable when it understands the needs of
both artists and the public. New companies should be conduits between
musicians and their fans.
Right now the only way you can get music is by shelling
out $17. In a world where music costs a nickel, an artist can "sell"
100 million copies instead of just a million.
The present system keeps artists from finding an audience
because it has too many artificial scarcities: limited radio promotion,
limited bin space in stores and a limited number of spots on the record
The digital world has no scarcities. There are countless
ways to reach an audience. Radio is no longer the only place to hear a
new song. And tiny mall record stores aren't the only place to buy a new
* I'm leaving *
Now artists have options. We don't have to work with
major labels anymore, because the digital economy is creating new ways
to distribute and market music. And the free ones amongst us aren't going
to. That means the slave class, which I represent, has to find ways to
get out ofg enough to know that any alliance where I'm an owned service
is going to be doomed.
When I agreed to allow a large cola company to promote
a live show, I couldn't have been more miserable. They screwed up every
single thing imaginable. The venue was empty but sold out. There were
thousands of people outside who wanted to be there, trying to get tickets.
And there were the empty seats the company had purchased for a lump sum
and failed to market because they were clueless about music.
It was really dumb. You had to buy the cola. You had
to dial a number. You had to press a bunch of buttons. You had to do all
this crap that nobody wanted to do. Why not just bring a can to the door?
On top of all this, I felt embarrassed to be an advertising
agent for a product that I'd never let my daughter use. Plus they were
a condescending bunch of little guys. They treated me like I was an ungrateful
little bitch who should be groveling for the experience to play for their
I ended up playing without my shirt on and ordering a
six-pack of the rival cola onstage. Also lots of unwholesome cursing and
nudity occurred. This way I knew that no matter how tempting the cash
was, they'd never do business with me again.
If you want some little obedient slave content provider,
then fine. But I think most musicians don't want to be responsible for
your clean-cut, wholesome, all-American, sugar corrosive cancer-causing,
all white people, no women allowed sodapop images.
Nor, on the converse, do we want to be responsible for
your vice-inducing, liver-rotting, child-labor-law-violating, all white
people, no-women-allowed booze images.
So as a defiant moody artist worth my salt, I've got
to think of something else. Tampax, maybe.
* Money *
As a user, I love Napster. It carries some risk. I hear
idealistic business people talk about how people that are musicians would
be musicians no matter what and that we're already doing it for free,
so what about copyright?
Please. It's incredibly easy not to be a musician. It's
always a struggle and a dangerous career choice. We are motivated by passion
and by money.
That's not a dirty little secret. It's a fact. Take away
the incentive for major or minor financial reward and you dilute the pool
of musicians. I am not saying that only pure artists will survive. Like
a few of the more utopian people who discuss this, I don't want just pure
artists to survive.
Where would we all be without the trash? We need the
trash to cover up our national depression. The utopians also say that
because in their minds "pure" artists are all Ani DiFranco and
don't demand a lot of money. Why are the utopians all entertainment lawyers
and major label workers anyway? I demand a lot of money if I do a big
huge worthwhile job and millions of people like it, don't kid yourself.
In economic terms, you've got an industry that's loathsome and outmoded,
but when it works it creates some incentive and some efficiency even though
absolutely no one gets paid.
We suffer as a society and a culture when we don't pay
the true value of goods and services delivered. We create a lack of production.
Less good music is recorded if we remove the incentive to create it.
Music is intellectual property with full cash and opportunity
costs required to create, polish and record a finished product. If I invest
money and time into my business, I should be reasonably protected from
the theft of my goods and services. When the judgment came against MP3.com,
the RIAA sought damages of $150,000 for each major-label-"owned"
musical track in MP3's database. Multiply by 80,000 CDs, and MP3.com could
owe the gatekeepers $120 billion.
But what about the Plimsouls? Why can't MP3.com pay each
artist a fixed amount based on the number of their downloads? Why on earth
should MP3.com pay $120 billion to four distribution companies, who in
most cases won't have to pay a nickel to the artists whose copyrights
they've stolen through their system of organized theft?
It's a ridiculous judgment. I believe if evidence had
been entered that ultimately it's just shuffling big cash around two or
three corporations, I can only pray that the judge in the MP3.com case
would have seen the RIAA's case for the joke that it was.
I'd rather work out a deal with MP3.com myself, and force
them to be artist-friendly, instead of being laughed at and having my
money hidden by a major label as they sell my records out the back door,
behind everyone's back.
How dare they behave in such a horrified manner in regards
to copyright law when their entire industry is based on piracy? When Mister
Label Head Guy, whom my lawyer yelled at me not to name, got caught last
year selling millions of "cleans" out the back door. "Cleans"
being the records that aren't for marketing but are to be sold. Who the
fuck is this guy? He wants to save a little cash so he fucks the artist
and goes home? Do they fire him? Does Chuck Phillips of the LA Times say
anything? No way! This guy's a source! He throws awesome dinner parties!
Why fuck with the status quo? Let's pick on Lars Ulrich instead because
he brought up an interesting point!
* Conclusion *
I'm looking for people to help connect me to more fans,
because I believe fans will leave a tip based on the enjoyment and service
I provide. I'm not scared of them getting a preview. It really is going
to be a global village where a billion people have access to one artist
and a billion people can leave a tip if they want to.
It's a radical democratization. Every artist has access
to every fan and every fan has access to every artist, and the people
who direct fans to those artists. People that give advice and technical
value are the people we need. People crowding the distribution pipe and
trying to ignore fans and artists have no value. This is a perfect system.
If you're going to start a company that deals with musicians,
please do it because you like music. Offer some control and equity to
the artists and try to give us some creative guidance. If music and art
and passion are important to you, there are hundreds of artists who are
ready to rewrite the rules.
In the last few years, business pulled our culture away
from the idea that music is important and emotional and sacred. But new
technology has brought a real opportunity for change; we can break down
the old system and give musicians real freedom and choice.
A great writer named Neal Stephenson said that America
does four things better than any other country in the world: rock music,
movies, software and high-speed pizza delivery. All of these are sacred
American art forms. Let's return to our purity and our idealism while
we have this shot.
Warren Beatty once said: "The greatest gift God
gives us is to enjoy the sound of our own voice. And the second greatest
gift is to get somebody to listen to it."
And for that, I humbly thank you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Courtney Love
© COPYRIGHT 1996 - 2007 and Beyond
- Mel Martin