Free Speech: themusicalrevolution.com

Today, musicians perform live, the industry sells songs and we pirate that music via the internet. The fact that musicians in good concience have difficulty selling us "our" music, businessmen have no problem with it and we are taking the music back all serve to support a theory of a "collective subconciousness". The most aware feel guilty, the least aware feel no guilt and the rest of us feel cheated. Still, one can't deny that nothing is free, but what should we be selling?

Before we proceed to write off the music industry as idea bandits, maybe we should look at other industries. As a person of this planet, do we not own the planet? It's all ours (within reason). If this is so, how can any industry sell us anything? Perhaps every industry is just delivering what's ours to us. Maybe we are simply paying that industry for it's service of that delivery, not the product itself. This line of thinking seems to excuse the music industry; in fact, it justifies it wholly. It is this writer's opinion that in order to settle this argument, we should poll everybody. Would we pay the forestry industry to bring us wood for furniture? Would we pay the pharmaceutical industry to turn our chemicals into life saving drugs? Should we pay a musical industry to steal our collective ideas and sell them back to us as product? A little?

The idea of everyone's brains composing music together would seem a little more than radical if it weren't for the fact that the present day music industry seems to reflect it. The artists, those the most "plugged in", aren't (for the most part) really selling music as product. They play it live and people who wish, pay to see them perform. The artists act as a vehical for the creative "collective subconciousness". On the other hand, industry execs (those less "plugged in") openly resell "our" ideas back to us. Ignorance is bliss?

If we accept a creative "collective subconciousness" , then, perhaps shareware does make the most sense after all. All of those with a computer can download music for free, with the understanding that they make it available to all others; all those who had a hand (or mind) in making it. If this were held to be true then the only concern would be that everybody should have access to this shareware and the music.

Finally, the idea that we all create art collectively WOULD be devistating to today's music industry. Making a living in music would become almost impossible. Modern day industry thrives on product. Collective ideas are tough to sell as product. But. A live act or show is saleable. Music derived from a "collectice subconciousness" is a great marketing tool; it is a great way to attract people to new ideas/ways of thinking. Those who truly immerse themselves in the inspiration and creation of music could make a living as a sort of musical "idea ambassador". The music industry, however depreciated, may just end up back in the hands of those who truly love music; those willing to give their life to it.

Could this theory actually be out there? Are there regular/non artistic people who feel that they should be able to download "their" music for free, even though someone invested a lot of money in pirating those communal ideas and packaging them for the public? Bet on it! You can find them amongst artists themselves, shareware participants and music fanatics. Are they right? Who knows? As an artist myself, I am more than a little worried. How will "I" survive? But. Should they have to change for me?