Ahab Has A Blog.

our buddy over at unbeat, years ago on leaving los angeles - something he'd do again if it didn't mean having to go back - jimmied up a little paean of hate to Hell-lay. It went a little something like this:

so we were much amused to see people in L.A. wearing t-shirts with a similar logo, years later. not one, but two. they looked really new. they were outside amoeba records. unbeat 'n us'd probably get more credit for this kind of crap if we actually bothered to plaster our stuff all over, but i guess we're just too lazy. saraight. we got more.

the t-shirts' logo looked different, but we claim credit in the name of unbeat. if the jolly roger were an X, it looked like this. Without the splatter, either, but with the same 'i heart ny' typeface:

I X
L A

far be it from us to begrudge anyone a chance to sell a lousy t-shirt off a two-dollar idea but we feel props are in order. well, not in order, exactly, we just want to point out that if ever there were prophets of inchoate loathing, it's the guys at unbeat, and if there's anyone capable of recongizing a talent for being uselessly prescient, we're it (takes one), and if there's any place that one can proudly hate even while living there quite happily, it's probably LA. And if there's any place that would forgive us for this shameless self-backslapping, it's most definitely LA.

Speaking of which, if there's anyplace where we recommend driving like a jackass, switching lanes madly in a futile attempt to gain a few car lengths, occasionally interrupted by blatant rubbernecking, and all while talking on a cell phone, it's gotta be LA. That town knows how to make unrepentant and reckless selfishness feel goo-o-ooo-d.

Smell ya later, "Southland" (even your local news munincipal moniker is lame).

here's an oddball argument. suppose people pay for music because they want to, not because it's the primary means of listening to it (the main assumption of riaa et al). they pay for it because they like it and are proud to own it. they want to support the artists, and they want to show off to others that they are fans of this particular music. they have a relatively fixed amount they will spend, regardless of how much money they make, with few exceptions. an odd view? it fits the facts...

the music industry does not hold this view. they believe that people pay for music primarily so they can hear it. of course, if this is true it is very odd that the music which sells the most is also the music that can be heard for free the most. if this weren't true, why payola? Why would the music industry pay so much to have others let people hear music for free?

having just heard tarantula hawk (on wfmu) i turned to google, found their website, and downloaded an album for free smartly delivered as a single mp3 track without track listings or artwork, making for a poor subsitute for having the cd/lp, but still allowing complete listening. i see more and more musicians outside the mainstream whorehouse of major label life turning to this self-release. why do they do it?

the most obvious explanation is that they generate exposure, and they aren't going to lose sales that they wouldn't have had no one heard them in the first place. and they certainly have the right to let their own music out this way: not even a rabid industry stooge such as hilary rosen could deny that (you'd have to be jack valenti to come up with that kind of whopper). this is a bigger and more unstoppable threat to the major label regime of shit than kazaa et al. so what's the endgame?

suppose that all music is generably available, if in a slightly inconvenient or imperfect form, for free. would people still buy music? yes. after all, kids still wear band t-shirts even though they could make their own more cheaply. but the music people would buy would be the music they can't stop listening to. interesting. survival of the fittest! so what why are all those fine capitalists of the RIAA member companies so afraid of this future? don't they believe in competition? perhaps not.