Hearing VS. Listening

Today we are inundated with noise.  Noise of every kind. Conversation, traffic, dogs barking, music, commercials, noise.  We are constantly bombarded with this noise until we are desensitized to it.  After thinking quite a bit on this subject I turned to Google to see what others had said about this. It turns out that this is a hot-bed topic.  The majority of the results I found were scholarly and business-management types of articles but nonetheless I think I may have found what I was looking for.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the definition of Hearing is "to perceive sound with the ear" whereas listening is "to consider with thoughtful attention."  So, hearing is a physical thing, but listening is a cognitive response to what has been heard.  Hearing is passive and occurs even while we sleep.  Listening involves hearing, but also involves two other key elements; paying attention and understanding.

I feel that one of the major problems in music today is that people are no longer listening.  I don't mean listening to a song on the radio while dodging traffic in your Audi, but LISTENING.  Sitting back and giving an album from your favorite artist the attention it deserves.  The "Golden Age" of the music industry was a simpler time.  A time when albums mattered and people actually paid for music VS sharing it.  In fact, sharing music meant that you cared enough for the music to allow a friend to listen to the record... or moreover that you bought another copy for someone...  These concepts seem lost on today's culture.

WRONG- LISTENING IS BELIEVING!

I don't mean to beat the "piracy is wrong drum" or insinuate that where we are culturally today is a lesser place than in the 70's and 80's but moreover to suggest that perhaps we should reevaluate how we listen to music.  Reassess why we listen to music.  There is more music being consumed in 2010 than ever before.  We are constantly hearing more and more music.  It is on our computers, in our cars, streaming on our phones, and literally everywhere around us.  Much of which is "free", some of which is paid..  It doesn't really change the experience with this type of content...

To this end, I feel that we as an industry and society have forgotten the beauty in the album.  The artwork, the fluid transfer from song to song, the complete package.  Much of this is to blame on the industry itself... chasing one-hit wonders and singles over the album...  How do you compare something like Dark Side of the Moon, Jay Z's Black album, Wyclef Jean- The Carnival, The Clash- London Calling to Ke$ha, or the Black Eyed Peas?  The answer is you don't.  You can't.  The reason being the artists creating the aforementioned albums were creating albums... creative bodies which contained tracks.  Creative bodies which were meant to be heard in one fell swoop.  Not $0.99 at a time.  Not to pick on Ke$ha (although I do love picking on her) I would venture a guess that despite it's success, "Tik Tok" is greater than the sum of the whole from her freshman release "Animal".   Sure "Money" is a great tune... but it is not greater than the sum of the whole on "Dark Side of the Moon"...  These albums were built for listening.   There is something fundamentally wrong with the scenario where flash in the pan success of the single outweighs album stability.  I believe this is why we have forgotten how to listen.

I challenge you as you go away from reading this to find an album and truly listen to it.  Listen to the transitions from song to song.  Print out and read the liner notes.  Learn who produced it, where it was recorded, who wrote the lyrics and dive in.  This exercise will give you a new insight into the art of the album... and why the sum of the whole is so very important (even if it does cost more than just buying the single).

Currently I am Listening to Vampire Weekend's "Contra"

Ping... what's the point?

So anyone not living under a rock has most likely seen information on Apple's newest venture, "Ping" in the past few weeks.  Ping is Apple's answer to social media phenoms like Facebook and Twitter utilizing a new network from which we can share our musical tastes, see what our favorite artists are listening to, and see eachother's new <ahem> profiles.  I dont believe they are wrong in wanting to jump onto the social bandwagon, just flawed in their approach.  Other music services have integrated into these other platforms successfully... just look at iLike and Spotify among others.  they have utilized the tools (read: API) that are out there and integrated into the places we already reside rather than requiring us to create yet another new profile to participate.  Why must Steve Jobs always recreate the wheel?  Granted, his quest to "build the better mousetrap" usually yields righteous results- but I fear that this one may fall flat.

So how does this affect artists?  Well, if you are a Major Label talent with a huge following already it has been an easy transaction.  At launch, most of my favorite mainstream artists had pages...  Apple did a good job of making sure the the stud horses of the stable were included at launch but what about the others?  Will they get lost in the herd?  Initially, Tunecore was the only 3rd party mentioned loading content and now it has opened up to a few more aggregators such as the Orchard and CD Baby.  According to Digital Music News, Apple plans to open up to other labels and aggregators but at this point it is slow going.  As far as I can tell at this point, independent groups have no option for inclusion other than the use of a 3rd party.

In the end, will Ping be a game-changer?  Probably not.  Truth is, Apple should have accessed some of the already prevalent technologies in the marketplace to strengthen their launch.  I don't know if John Q Public is going to be willing to join yet ANOTHER social network.

“It’s totally cool if I only use 00:30 seconds- that’s not infringement”

This is a phrase I hear all too often.  For some reason, this has been ingrained into our heads throughout the years...  The idea that doing something wrong is fine if you do less of something that is wrong is preposterous to me.  That is like thinking that speeding in your car is OK if you only go 10 miles over the limit rather than 15... speeding is speeding and copyright infringement is copyright infringement. The proper legal term for this is "de minimis" use.  Or in the long form latin, "de minimis non curat lex" -meaning the law does not care about trivial things.  This is in fact a common defense to a law suit (much like it's more overused big brother Fair Use).  This is not a RIGHT... but a DEFENSE.  There is a big difference in these two words.

De Minimis VS  Infringement

photocopying a cartoon and putting it on the fridge = de minimis

photocopying a cartoon and placing it in an advertisement or displaying it publicly even in a very trivial way= infringement

So how does this apply to musical recordings...?  The fact is, the de minimis rule does NOT apply to sound recordings.  As decided by the Sixth Circuit court of appeals in Bridgeport Music Inc. VS Dimension Films.  The use of any part of a sound recording in sampling or otherwise is infringement.  Whether you agree or not, this is in fact the law now.

For more information on this and other topics in copyright infringement check out this page

Bottom line is-  if you are going to use music in any length, way , or form-  Pay the owner of the intellectual property.