Join 3,523 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Smart artists benefit from "piracy".
October 18, 2002 1:33 PM   Subscribe

Smart artists benefit from "piracy". Jane Magazine recently completed their "Reader-Produced CD". The songs were chosen from reader submissions and final selections were made by Jill Cunniff (of Luscious Jackson) and Kendall Jane Meade (of Mascott). All of the songs can be downloaded, which will most likely lead these bands to greater commercial [and financial] success than they would have had without the Jane CD. These artists are smart, and the music is good. Jane shares music all the time, and it's usually good. Kind of an example of the ideas presented in this post in action. Apologies in advance to all the manly men who look at a girly magazine.
posted by valval22 (8 comments total)

 
Well...

There's no question that an unsigned artist will benefit from this sort of song-sharing. Unfortunately, I don't see this effort as particularily brave or progressive (though it is pretty cool).

Things could get interesting if and when a big artist already has an album out on the market, but decides to give it away anyway.

(Almost like Wilco. And it didn't seem to hurt YHF sales, did it?)
posted by Pinwheel at 1:46 PM on October 18, 2002


Ever since Heartbreak Ridge, it's been okay for manly men to read girly magazines.

Thank you, Clint!
posted by AccordionGuy at 2:25 PM on October 18, 2002


Apologies in advance to all the manly men who look at a girly magazine
Sometime I think you don't understand me at all *sigh*
posted by holloway at 2:58 PM on October 18, 2002


Hey, I know Kendall. She's got a beautiful voice and a pleasant disposition.
posted by Mo Nickels at 3:59 PM on October 18, 2002


jane magazine rocks. it's honest and i think it has a little bit of everyone in it. maybe not.
posted by prescribed life at 6:49 PM on October 18, 2002


Forget the apologies - how about a "crappy Flash-only page" warning instead ?
posted by godidog at 4:14 AM on October 19, 2002


I'm sorry I didn't warn about the Flash. Bad oversight. My post was getting longer than I thought necessary, plus the main content wasn't as bad as the Jane homepage. Apologies.
posted by valval22 at 7:49 PM on October 19, 2002


Valval22: Your apology goes too far and makes me feel I now have to try and justify my (usual) crass moan; viz:

I can see that a Flash-based story might be significant anyway and that clever people like you will post it to Metafilter, but I would like to be warned in advance that I cannot read it and, just maybe, if I moan a bit, I can influence a couple of people who might thereby be tempted not to make similarly crappy, exclusionary sites.

Viva El Web Libre ! ( or something ).

BTW, http://www.jane.com gives me a page telling me I need Flash and [what I guess is] the article gives me a broken object, implying pure, lazy, shitey, Flash.
posted by godidog at 8:25 PM on October 19, 2002


« Older Boris Artzybasheff...  |  Hubbert's Peak: the impending ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments