Unlike almost all major music artists, Chuck D has been outspoken in supporting Napster and other new technological assaults on the music monopoly held by the major labels. Here's his take in today's NYT, which will not please many of his superstar compatriots. Go Chuck D, still revolutionary after all these years -- NN
NEW YORK TIMES April 29, 2000 `Free' Music Can Free the Artist By CHUCK D
ATLANTA -- Unlike many of my fellow artists, I support the sharing of music files on the Internet. The Recording Industry Association of America has sued Napster, an Internet application that helps people find, copy and share songs free of charge on the Web, arguing that it encourages users to violate copyright laws. Some artists have spoken out against Napster as a threat to their livelihoods, and most recently Dr. Dre and the band Metallica have become involved in lawsuits against the service.
But I believe that artists should welcome Napster. We should think of it as a new kind of radio -- a promotional tool that can help artists who don't have the opportunity to get their music played on mainstream radio or on MTV.
As someone who has been connected to hip-hop and rap music for 22 years, I've seen how difficult it has become for the majority of artists, songwriters, producers and independent labels to get their music to the fans directly, without signing with a major label and subjecting themselves to rules that are in the best interest of the label.
Beginning in the late 1980's when video hit the scene, record companies upped the ante on what it took to promote and market a song, totally squeezing the small, independent entrepreneur out of the distribution game. Now, with most radio stations playing popular favorites and with the high cost of making and distributing music videos, it is almost impossible for an independent record producer or an artist to get music to fans.
I believe this structure has hurt the artist more than someone passing a song around free of charge.
Not that most artists ever have much say about how their work is marketed and sold anyhow. Most contracts only guarantee artists a few cents in royalties from each record sold. And if a song doesn't become a hit, the label can cease selling it but still own rights to it forever.
The major labels have also benefited from being a step ahead on the technology that allows the listener to hear and keep music. As the technology progressed from phonograph to stereo hi-fis, eight-track, cassettes and CD's, record companies have been the only ones able to repackage the music they own to fit the new format. And in fact, when companies like Sony bought record companies, they gained control of not only the music but also the device needed to hear it.
The last straw was the CD period, when labels increased their markup without raising artists' royalties in kind. At the same time, record companies created the concept of a disposable artist; with jacked-up marketing and promotional costs, record companies stopped nurturing career artists. They have been able to fatten profits by flipping small batches of artists in and out.
That is today's music industry.
Well, Napster has been a thorn in that bull's side. By exposing people to music, companies like Napster are creating new fan interest and establishing a new infrastructure for unknown artists to attract an audience -- a new radio for the new millennium.
But the question remains: Will the corporations that dominate concede to sharing the musical marketplace? We'll see. Until then we will slowly see formations of new rules and regulations that will eventually support many more artists than the record companies of yesterday. The Internet has created a new planet for musicians to explore, and I'm with that.
Chuck D is the lead rapper in the group Public Enemy and the founder of Rapstation.com.