The album has an advisory for explicit lyrics. Are warnings necessary or just an appeasement of the overly sensitive? Why do you think that only music and television/films that carry warnings/ratings when literature and visual arts don't have similar systems?
That's too long an answer to deal with in this forum… but… kids listen to music, watch movies, play video games etc but do NOT typically go to art galleries! Advisories are just that. They do NOT (yet) constitute censorship as long as such products are not discriminated against and refused market exposure. If you don't want your 8 year old listening to Motherfuckin' bitch-gonna die gangsta rap then someone needs to make it known that the content may be inappropriate for him/her. Simple..?
What are your personal views about online music sharing and piracy laws?
Big double edged sword there. Currently it is killing the recording industry as we know it, like termites eating away at the foundation but there has to be a re-thinking of the industry as a whole, particularly in respect to the "artist" and the consumer of the "artist's" creation. It is not fair for an artist to spend a
year of their life creating a product that costs a small fortune to create and market, and never be adequately compensated for that effort. Mind you, this was going on long before downloading, only the record companies were pocketing the money long before it got to the artist.
Now they are losing that slice of revenue and many record companies are dropping acts, or not signing them in the first place because their cash flow is being strangled. Some artists actually stand to benefit from releasing their music online, having it widely pirated and publicly dispersed so that the impetus is to check out the live show, sell tickets and merchandise at the shows and walk away with more money than if the record sold 2 million copies and the record company pocketed all the revenue, which is often the case.
As a consumer I resent the trend of placing 2 or 3 excellent compositions on a CD with 8 pieces of "filler" and then charging for the entire package. This is like watering down your drink at the local bar…it pisses people off! So who do we blame for this? Is it the artist who should be writing better songs? Or the record labels who should exercise better
"quality control" and demand a better product before releasing it in the first place? So you end up downloading the 2 or 3 "good" songs, and never buy the album. Labels need to re-invent their place in the marketplace.
Bands have been going "indie" for a while but the current trend is for a stronger online presence with some acts releasing exclusively online. Do you think the traditional methods of big labels are out of touch with the times? (ie Radiohead and Paul McCartney have recently left their label, EMI, with McCartney calling EMI "boring").
If I had some control over the industry I'd propose the following, or something to this effect: Legislate that free downloading is a criminal offense not unlike grand theft such as Enron bilking their shareholders of millions of dollars. The stakes are much the same so the penalty should be as severe. Juvenile offenders should be subject to the same penalty as someone hacking into a major savings and loan co. and sucking millions of dollars out of corporate accounts, because the crime is the same. Eventually the labels will go broke, shut down, and the artists will be left in the cold with no income.
The P2P sites should be redesigned and have to register as "distributors of licensed materials", this includes motion pictures, and have to keep records of downloads and pay royalties accordingly. Materials should be categorized as "new" meaning 1-5 years on the market. With a different category for materials 5-20 years of age. Beyond 20 we would be looking at a "Classic" category, and lastly "public domain" like classic Christmas songs, historic speeches, classical music etc, should be available free of charge. New releases and category 1 downloads should cost about $.85 ea. Category 2 songs $.20 ea, and the classic $.05 per song. Furthermore a straight 50% of these revenues should be payable directly to the artist or their estates, with any record label having no more than 50% stake in the fees charged per download. A large percentage of record company revenue was used to pay for distribution, advertising, and other promotion of the product. These days almost all of this is free or of minimal cost due to the internet being the ideal vehicle to promote a new act.
With some of the major record store chains already closing their doors, something has to change.