brooksbayne: we did close it [it being WWII] successfully. that’s why u won’t find anyone arguing otherwise. learn from the successful models.

zornog: Do you think that the Iraq war has the same merit as WWII?

brooksbayne: i think the global war on terrorism has the same merit as wwII, of which iraq is part.

zornog: Okay, answer this question: When does the war on terrorism end?

brooksbayne: it ends when it ends.

zornog: And how will you know when it’s ended?

brooksbayne: as i said, it’s over when it’s over and not one day earlier.

zornog: Okay, so let’s say one day the War on Terrorism ends. Does that mean terrorism ends?

brooksbayne: u need to reread my last two tweets. i’ve been quite clear.

zornog: No, you haven’t. “It ends when it ends” is actually a very vague statement. I’ll ask again: when does the War on Terror end?

brooksbayne: it’s not vague. when a outcome is based on participation of disparate parties, it’s up to all. so, it ends when it ends, finally.

zornog: Vague vague vague. “It’s up to all”? To what? To win? How do you “win” a war on terror? Is a peace treaty signed?

brooksbayne: examine those questions within the context of my response. you’ll find ur answer there. it looks like ur close to getting it.

zornog: No, actually, I get more confused. You don’t understand my questions. My point is that the whole War on Terror is worthless

zornog: because it cannot be won. There is no way you can stop terrorism by fighting a war on it.

brooksbayne: says who?

zornog: Says me! I’ll ask again: HOW do you end the War on Terror? At what point is it considered “over”?

brooksbayne: forgive me for not putting much stock in ur opinion. the question has been answered. u simply don’t like the answer.

zornog: Are you kidding me? Are you actually being serious? You did NOT answer the question. “It ends when it ends” is not an answer!

zornog: Do you think leaders during WWII said “It ends when it ends?” No, they said, “It ends when we kill Hitler.” That’s a reason.

brooksbayne: lol, ur so close to getting it.

zornog: Then why don’t you just tell me, O great leader of the free world?

brooksbayne: ”give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime.”

zornog: Ohhh, so you think establishing democracies is going to end the War on Terror. Well, good luck with that.

brooksbayne: that’s not something i said or implied.

zornog: Then what? Christianity? What are you implying? Why are you being so vague?!

And he stopped replying at that point.  Leaving me with absolutely no answers whatsoever.

But as I was writing the page I thought, “Gee, Josh, not everyone is Christian.  Some people might not want to download your album because it’s about Jesus and stuff.”

I don’t usually think about this because I myself am not a Christian — I’m a pretty laid back agnostic, if anything.  In the long run I don’t care if there’s a God because his existence does not change the fundamentals of morality and how we should utilize our lives.  I will stop talking about that now, cause I could write a whole other post about my feelings on objective morality.

Instead, I will offer up my separate, seemingly cutesy term for Christmas — Chrimmis.  I started saying Chrimmis years ago, for no real reason other than my family (esp. my father) is big on malopropisms and so we’re always substituting one word for another (e.g. “horse pistol” for “hospital” and so on), and so it seemed natural to say Chrimmis instead of Christmas.  But it ultimately has a separate meaning for me as well.

Christmas is a religious holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.

Chrimmis is a secular holiday celebrating the spirit of family by giving presents and/or generally hanging out with the ones you love.

Some will say, “But Christmas is about family too!” and I would agree.  But it’s more about Jesus.  And while I think that Jesus was an a-okay dude (had some nice stuff to teach people that unfortunately got twisted by fanaticals into slaughter, rape, pillage, and general mayhem), I think that Christmas leaves out all the other religions of the world, and thus the other people of the world, which is awful.

So, instead, I celebrate Chrimmis.  The term “Chrimmis” makes me think of my six-year-old self, waking up before dawn on Christmas Day, sitting by the pile of presents under the tree, waiting for my parents to wake up so that I can open them (the presents, not my parents).  The term “Christmas” however makes me think of old people singing dull hymns in church.  Not the place I want to be.

Anyway, I just thought I’d put that out there.  I understand that most of the songs on my album are Jesus-specific, but they’re also just songs.  Good ones, too.  So no matter what religion you may be, I hope you’ll download it and at least take a listen.

I also didn’t want to step on any toes with this post, so I apologize if you feel offended at all.  Generally I like offending people, but not with this one.  :)

The internet, however, is another beast altogether.  Busking is non-exististant.  There are no “live shows” unless they are online streams of an actual live show.  Thus, the sociology of what it means to play music, the gathering aspect of it, the culture of going to see a show, dissolves, and we are thrust back to square one without even realizing it.  So I thought I would attempt a discussion of the sociology of the internet, as it pertains to online music and fan gathering.  I would appreciate feedback on this, since this is mostly off the top of my head, and I could be dead wrong.

I have broken this down into three parts: Primary Sites, i.e., social networking sites; Secondary Sites, i.e., websites/music sites; and Tertiary Sites, i.e., weblogs/internet word of mouth.

Primary Sites

Let’s face it — these days, if you are a musician, you must have a Myspace.  This is the conundrum now in the Myspace/Facebook “war”: Myspace’s personal profiles are lacking the depth (read: stalk ability) that Facebook has in droves, but!, Facebook lacks the mass appeal of Myspace music sites.  Facebook “fan” pages are quite literally an afterthought — they appeared long after Facebook’s default style and logistics were solidified.  I personally don’t know any independent musician who has a lot of Facebook fans, but I know a lot of indie musicians who have tons of Myspace friends.

So, with regard to Primary Sites, I have only three, but they are the Big Three — Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter.  Let’s break these down even further in terms of sociability and outreach potential.

Myspace

Myspace is to Friendster what Microsoft was to Xerox — they stole ideas and made them massive.  Myspace remains the largest social networking site on the internet, though I suspect that it’s appeal is waning, now that there is a better, faster, sleeker option: Facebook.  The dilemma now as a musician is not “Should I get a Myspace?” but “Will people be my friends on Myspace?”  As Facebook gains in popularity, especially in the 18-30 demographic, it may be harder to gain friends on Myspace.  People are checking their profiles less often.  Less comments are being made.  Mass-migrations from Myspace to Facebook are happening.  I know several of my own friends who have left Myspace for Facebook.

How much does this affect you, the musician?  Well, it depends.  I am a big “profile” worrier; that is, I spend time thinking about how people view my profile as much as I do the music itself.  Right now I have about 200 friends on my music profile, and all I can think is, Is that enough?  If someone views my profile, will they say, ‘He doesn’t have a lot of friends, he must not be very good’?  It’s kind of childish, but think of it in a real-life context: you’re playing a show in a bar and there are only five people in the audience.  Now a young couple comes in, sees you playing your songs, sees the five people.  Do they stay?  Depends.  But my guess is they probably won’t, unless they’re immediately won over by your music.

I suspect, though cannot prove, the same true of Myspace.  How many profile views do you have?  How many plays on your music player?  Do potential fans look at this to gauge your popularity?  Of course they do, if they don’t know your music already.  I know it sounds shallow and “judging a book by its cover,” but it’s the truth of society: people like to be a part of something that a lot of other people are a part of too.  It’s security.  People are more secure with your music if they see that other people like it too.  They’re more willing to give you money for it, too.  This is why building a fan base is so important, because it “breaks in” new fans easier than going in cold.

My point is, get a Myspace, tell your friends about it, and start getting friends on your site, so that others will look at your profile, say, “They’ve got a nice following,” and start listening to your music.

Oh, and don’t, don’t, DON’T auto-start your songs.  That’s just bad ettiquete.

Facebook

As I mentioned above, the main problem with Facebook fan pages is that they are not promoted whatsoever.  Well, okay, looking back, I didn’t say that but it’s another problem with fan pages.  Right now, fan pages work best for hugely popular musicians, because when you add them, it shows up on your friends’ News Feed, and they all say, “Oh!  I like Captain Muffins too!”  (I wish Captain Muffins were a band, I really do).  They are not as likely to do this if the musician is lesser known.  But, in the interest of increasing your visibility, you should have a fan page.  You can pimp it through your status update, get your friends to join, and offer songs on that page that you wouldn’t hear on your Myspace page, which is nice.  The other nice thing about fan pages is that you can show your entire Discography, and all of the other info you enter is nicely presented (much better than Myspace, even).

The two biggest issues, besides promotion, are the lack of integration between your personal profile and your fan page.  Since Facebook is primarily a social networking site, and not as focused on promoting music, most people just have regular profiles there.  But if you decide to create a fan page, you have to send a whole new URL to people, instead of just having an extra box or something on your own Facebook page.  I think if you are the creator of a fan page, that fan page should show up on your profile.  Like my profile would have a box or area where it just says, “Check out Josh Belville’s fan page!” with a little picture of me or whatever.  I think this would bridge the gap between fan pages and personal profiles.

Facebook is a tricky beast though, in general.  It’s so wide open that it makes it hard to pin down anything, plus it’s strange privacy preferences make it difficult to pinpoint the type of people you’d want to be your fan.  Still, make a fan page there.  You never know what they might do to fix it.

Twitter

Twitter is the reason I am writing this post.  I joined Twitter in a moment in time when it seemed like micro-blogging was dead.  People had Twitters, and then they stopped using them.  I joined with extreme prejudice and wasn’t sure what I was getting into.

Now, a few months later, I have met so many amazing people who have given me more opportunities than I would’ve had otherwise.  I’m not even sure how.  But the truth is out there — Twitter helped me dearly.

As a musician, I would suggest joining Twitter as a person, not as a band/musician.  The great thing about microblogging is that it almost negates boringness.  140 characters is just enough to update everyone about your life without people going, “Too long, didn’t read.”  So use it like that.  Let people know how you’re doing, what you’re doing.  Talk about going to the recording studio, talk about the show you played last night.  And occasionally, self-promote your stuff.  But Twitter is unique in that it cannot be used solely as a promotional tool (or it shouldn’t be, at least).  Nothing is more annoying than checking my updates only to see tons of promotions and no updates of substance.  It’s bad form, ultimately.

So, get a Twitter account.  Use it, link it up to your phone, text updates right before your show.  Send a link every once and a while.  It’s a great way to keep up with fans without bogging them down (like with this blog post, haha).

Secondary Sites

This is just an all-encompassing generalization of all the music promotion websites out there, like last.fm and reverbnation and tunecore, etc etc.

There are two types of sites like these: sites that showcase your music, and sites that help you promote yourself.  The Next Big Sound is an example of the former, and ReverbNation is an example of the latter.

The truth is, it’s incredibly difficult to determine where your fan base will come from.  You might have 200 fans on Myspace and one fan on ReverbNation, and no fans on the other sites.  And there will be painfully few people (and I mean really painful) who will traverse different music sites just to be your friend — in other words, if you have a Myspace friend, there’s a very good chance that friend won’t be your fan on ReverbNation, simply because why should they?  They’ve already got you on Myspace.

I think that joining every single music site out there is a bad idea, since then you’re just spreading yourself too thin.  You’ve got to pick a couple and stick with them, and promote from them.  Right now my big sites are ReverbNation and last.fm, with The Next Big Sound coming in for novelty effect.  Last.fm is an excellent site (as I have already mentioned), and ReverbNation is going out of their way to help promote artists.  I have a lot of listeners on last.fm, but hardly any fans on ReverbNation.  Such is the way of life.  But rather than spend all your time making space on every single site out there, I suggest you find the one that works best for you and promote from there.  You will (or should) always have a core base in Myspace.  Think of it that way.  No matter where else you go, people will still find you on Myspace, just because it’s popular.

I’m also lumping in personal websites here because most people still get more hits through Myspace than they do through their own website.  It’s important to have your own website but just acknowledge where the fans come from first.  :)

Tertiary Sites

This is word-of-mouth, or sites that you can’t control, like music blogs, personal blogs, podcasts, and basically bloggy stuff.  These are important only in that they are other people talking about your music, rather than you talking about your music.  As much as we don’t like it, we all read music reviews to some extent, and the fact that other people like your music enough to display it on their blog is a big sign for potential new fans.  You can send demos to blog sites and hope for the best, but really, word-of-mouth should be just that: out of your hands (unless you’re very sneaky about it).  Once the ball gets rolling, don’t interfere, cause you could be the one that stops it.

Like I said, these are just ramblings from my own head.  If any of you out there in the faithful blogosphere have any additions, I’d love to hear them.  Especially from non-musicians — the fans, the music listeners.  How do you get your music?  How do you feel about social networking sites and how they affect music listening?

AND THE REST WAS HISTORY.

So I’ll just reprint what the article says, since it’s pretty short and some people (like me) don’t like to click on a bunch of links sometimes.  It reads:  

A few legislative notes:

Yesterday (the very day the CMA Awards were hosted in Nashville) Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed into law SB 3794, a bill that requires all public and private universities and colleges in the state to take proper steps to assure that their networks are not being used to illegally trade copyrighted material. It also requires each school to develop and enforce a policy for computer usage, network usage and ethics. The House IP subcommittee was abolished and will be bumped up to a full Judiciary committee.

My immediate thought upon reading this was: they’re gonna screw it up and get a bunch of college students pissed off at them.

Why?  Because politicians can be lazy.  They don’t want to explain what the policy is for computer usage, network usage, and “ethics” (what a gloriously general term that can be!), they just want you to make one.  Now.  So that they look good to the RIAA and MPAA, and can get re-elected by elderly people who hate rap music.

So they’ll throw this amorphous policy into the hands of a judiciary committee who will not take into account the fact that college students like to listen to music.  Rather, they’ll take into account that college students like to steal, which is simply not true.  Well, somewhat.  Anarchists like to steal.  I know a couple of college-aged anarchists, and they love stealing from “the man”.  But they’re a relatively small community of people, unless you go to Reed College, in which case they’re the entire student population.

In other words, instead of viewing this potentially devastating bill in a positive light, they are going to use it as an excuse to infringe on personal liberties.  Now, before you say, “Stealing is not a personal liberty,” let me say that I’m not talking about stealing.  Stealing is the tip of the iceberg.  The real issue here is the definition of terms — “computer usage”, “network usage” and “ethics” (especially ethics) – and how they choose to define them.  This will ultimately grant them the right to broaden their horizons, so to speak.  In essence, this bill could potentially further damage the music industry, instead of helping it.

So, as a bit of an open letter to the policy makers in Tennessee, allow me to explain to you exactly how you should use this bill, in a positive way, rather than a negative way.

It’s actually quite simple.  Throw away attempts to define “computer usage”, “network usage” and “ethics”, because you will spend more time quibbling over those definitions than you will getting things done.  Instead, do one simple thing: have the college subscribe to a licensed music distribution site, like eMusic or Rhapsody.  I’m sure they could get some kind of massive education discount for subscribing.  Then, put that subscription cost onto the student tuition.  ”Oh god no!” I hear you scream, but hear me out.  eMusic subscriptions start at $11.99 for 30 downloads, and $24.99 for 100 downloads.  One hundred downloads is a lot of songs, but it seems to be around what the average music listener might download, and it’s even pretty good for a heavy music listener/hipster.  So let’s assume a college opts for this.  Now let’s say it’s a college like Boise State, which has around 20,000 students.  Let’s also assume that since it’s a mass subscription, eMusic is awesome and knocks the price down to $19.99/month.  That’s $240 dollars per year.  $240 per year x 20,000 students is an egregiously large number — 4.8 million dollars.  That definitely sounds like a lot, but if each student is only charged $240 a year, then it’s not so bad.

Some schools might not like this, like Boise State, where tuition is only about $5,000 per year.  But other schools, private ones and ones with higher tuition costs might benefit from this added cost.  Imagine, colleges across the country spending upwards of 2 to 4 million dollars subscribing to your music service (I’m talking to you, eMusic).  The profit there would be incredible.  I’m sure eMusic could even lower their monthly price to $10 or $11/month and still make a tidy profit.

This now solves two problems, not just one: it solves the problem of illegal downloading on college networks by establishing a certified, licensed music service which becomes the premiere way students get their music.  Perhaps they’re only limited to 100 songs a month —  I don’t think students will object to that.  Secondly, however, there is a bonus solution to record labels: a new, widely used place to promote their bands!  And not only that, a site that is 100% guaranteed to be used by all college students on the campus.

Even better, this promotes healthy capitalism because it allows the colleges to choose which music site they wish to subscribe to, which in turn forces the music sites to get off their ass and make their subscription programs better, which lowers prices and increases demand.  It’s economics in action!

Of course, there are still some kinks to work out: obviously not all of the 20,000 students at BSU want to download songs online.  There ought to be a way to waive their subscription fee, then, in much the same way one would waive health insurance.  Plus the server requirements would be off the charts, but that’s easily handled these days.

My idea right now is grand but I think it honestly could be done.  These policy makers have the ability to push music distribution truly to the new millenium.  They just have to view the situation in a positive, forward moving light, rather than thinking of all music downloaders as “pirates.”

So to Tennessee and to you, Governor Phil Bredesen, I say this: there is a fair argument that online piracy is hurting the music industry.  But the damage is beyond repair.  We are facing a new and extremely ingenious way for millions of people to listen to new, amazing music, cheaply and quickly, and that way is digital distribution.  Rather than try to fix a sinking ship, why not join the rest of us who are leading the way and build a newer, sleeker, stronger ship?  Only then will the music industry rebound, like a phoenix rising out of its own ashes.

The reason some people hate Obama is because he’s a nice, honest man with nothing to hide.

I know, it sounds ludicrous.  How can you hate a nice, honest man with nothing to hide?  But if you think about it, Americans have been indoctrinated to politicians that are greedy, corrupt, morally misguided and full of so much bullshit it almost forces you to not listen.  We’ve heard Bush stumble about like a moron.  We’ve seen Dick Cheney pull the puppet strings from behind the curtain.  We’ve watched countless morally corrupt men take power, and good, honest people like Colin Powell try their best to make the situation better.  We’ve been watching it for eight years.  And let’s not forget all the past corrupt presidents.  Nixon gets more airtime than Carter these days.  Bad presidencies or bumbles in the White House are better known than triumphs.  Clinton caught Slobodan Milosevic, but all we hear about is how he had an affair.  Kennedy stopped the Cuban missile crisis but did he fuck Marilyn Monroe?  Scandal trumps praise.  Bad news is more entertaining than good news.

And so now we have two presidential candidates, one that is widely known as trying to get to the White House just to one up his father and grandfather (both four-star generals), who visibly gets angry and frustrated during debates, who goes on Saturday Night Live and is made fun of to his own face … and one who is calm, eloquent, and passionate without being fanatical.  One who answers questions with a smile and a firm answer.  One who looks good in a suit, not stiff and awkward.  Who stands gracefully.  Who looks good on TV.

And Americans are petrified of this.  It’s ingrained in our heads, that this kind of natural behavior is not becoming of a president.  Clinton was calm and eloquent, but he had an affair, so he was hiding something that whole time, right?  Obama must be hiding something too.  Terrorist connections, inexperience, etc etc etc.

This blog post came to me when I read on a friend’s Facebook wall a post from a young woman, a McCain supporter, was wary of Obama because “he is hiding a lot of stuff.”  This, I think, is exactly the type of misguidedness the McCain campaign is using to brainwash Americans.  They are sneaky, too.  Obama isn’t hiding anything because any question that he has been asked, he has responded to, calmly, clearly, and with the same answers, again and again.  He isn’t creating a story to feed to the media.  He is responding to the media.  Rev. Wright?  He has responded about him.  Bill Ayers?  Obama’s response has been the same.  So, knowing that Obama has nothing to hide, McCain’s campaign spins this as a lack of knowledge about Obama.  As though we don’t know enough about him, when, really, he has been more than thorough in his background.  Again, it’s very sneaky, and it speaks a lot to the attention span of the average American.  McCain supporters do nothing but repeat mindless and untrue talking points because they have nothing else to go on.

The truth is out there, folks.  Obama is just a nice guy.  He’s a family man, he grew up poor, so he is humble and kind.  He’s not a socialist, he’s not a Stalinist, he’s not a terrorist.  He’s no -ist.  He’s just a man.  And god I hope he’s elected tomorrow.