What is SPEDREX?

Upcoming Events

Featured Blogs

 

Interview with Everyone But Pete

Monday, October 15, 2007

Oct. 11th, Providence Rhode Island

After watching them play at Brown University as part of the Digital Freedom University campaign (check out www.digitalfreedom.org for more info), I got to sit down with the band to get their take on digital freedom, music, and their experiences as a band. Here is my interview with Jim, Brian, Andrew, and Chris, the four members of Everyone But Pete.

Me: First off, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. To start, I have to ask the question that is burning in everybody's mind: what happened to Pete?

Jim: (laughs.) Actually, Pete is our friend who is helping us out tonight. He used to work at various different guitar shops (Guitar Center, Chuck Levin's, etc.) and he was explaining to a co-worker about our band, and the co-worker said, "So, the band is basically everyone but Pete, huh?" Pete told us the story, and the name just stuck.

Me: Well, guys, you came here as part of the Digital Freedom campaign. Digital Freedom is all about how consumers use their digital media; in particular, for college students and indy rock acts like you, this concerns the usage of P2P networks and file-sharing. How do you guys use P2P networks?

Jim: Well, we need a way to get our music to listeners. I cannot stress how important our myspace page has been. Over and over, people on myspace tell us that they got our music from a friend, who downloaded our song, for free, off the internet. While we want to make money off our music, we want people to hear it. The internet allows bands like us to reach people we never could without it. If they buy an album, come to a show, then that's great, but for us, we need listeners, and the internet is one of, if not the, best ways to get our music to a large audience.

Me: The "evil boogeyman" of file-sharing is Metallica. Everyone has seen the image of Lars Ulrich standing in front of his mansion claiming that file-sharing is ruining his life. What happens when you guys become Metallica? When you guys get big enough that file-sharing actually hurts you more than it helps you, does that change your mentality?

Andrew: I think that, for starters, no one can "be" Metallica. Metallica is one of the seminal rock acts of all time, and they deserve their due. They made metal mainstream; before them, no one saw metal as a legitimate genre. Now, things are different. I think that there are so many bands, and so much demand for bands, that people are going to seek out them as easily as they can. A big problem for me is being confined to a genre; with the internet, we can reach a wider audience than we could without it, which allows us to cross genres successfully.

Jim: Yeah, you know, Metallica got big before the internet was even around. They ran a more grassroots campaign to get their music out, which we also do: going to bars, venues, whatever, giving out cds, building interest by being with people, and all that. But like Andrew said, you can confine yourself when you do that. Metallica was not going to non-metal venues to give out their cds; they stayed within their comfort zone, so to speak. With the internet, our comfort zone is far wider than theirs. Will our thinking change? I'd like to think no. It's very hard for me to imagine going from giving my music away over the internet in the hopes of eventually getting to a certain level (the Metallica level) where I get paid for my music, to turning around and demanding all sorts of money for my music, to the point of actually going after my own listeners. It seems very hypocritical.

Brian: I agree. I think it's totally hypocritical. As an artist, I value my intellectual property. But I give that property away, and that is my choice. It's not an XBOX 360. I want people to come and hear my music, not take it home and "own" it. Personally, I think that file sharing is a great thing. I think it should be free, and I hope more people "steal" as much music as possible. It forces bands to go out and tour, which is far more important or fun than making a cd. I don't think that a studio band could survive in this day and age; if all you do is sit in a room and record music without actually presenting it to the people, you're not really in a band. I hope people download my music for free, I hope they share it with their friends, and I hope they come to our shows. That's how I want to make my living, by playing to crowds, not to sound studios.

Jim: Really, we don't want to be Metallica. As strange as this may sound, I personally am not in this to make "millions." Don't get me wrong, millions would be nice, but my goal is to be able to make a living doing this. I want my job to be playing in a band, and I want to play as well as I can, in front of as many people as I can. If I can't make millions and millions of dollars, that's fine, because I'm doing something I love to do.

Me: You guys talked about being "confined to a genre," and how the internet helps bands break that mold and branch out, either to different audiences, or into different sounds, or both. The set you played tonight ran the gamut from very soft music to fairly hard rock 'n' roll. Do you think that having a set sound is a disadvantage? Or do you think that being too eclectic with your sound can hurt you?

Jim: I go both ways on this one. I think the fun in writing music comes from being able to write without being nailed down to one genre or sound; at the same time, I can understand how people can get frustrated with bands that go all over the place with their sound.

Chris: Yeah, the thing about music before the internet is that people used to categorize the bands and their fans like "jocks, nerds, etc," in terms of who listened to what. If you were into punk rock, that was what you listened to and that was how you had to dress to be a part of that community. Now, people have ipods, and if you ask a random person what type of music they listen to, they're bound to say "everything." You can find music ranging from Slayer to Savage Garden on any given mp3 player these days. I think that the internet and file sharing allows bands like us to find new sounds that twenty years ago, we never would have bothered with.

Andrew: I agree with that. There's far too much emphasis on image in music. You'll always have your "McMillions," like Avril Lavigne et al, but then you'll also have those hardworking bands like the Mars Volta that just do it and do it and stay with it until something breaks for them. Those guys built an entire fan base around At the Drive-in, their first band, and then went from there into Mars Volta, which is a totally different sound. For me, and for us, it seems to be that you have to create an image, than match a sound to that image. We sound the way we look, and we don't have a set "look," per se, so our sound is not set in stone, either. So with hard work, we can do what we want to do without having to worry about being confined to a sound or an image. At the outset, though, I do see some advantages in being easily identifiable. When people can categorize you, they can relate to you a little easier.

Me: Jim, you were a part of the debate tonight, and you all watched it. What were your thoughts on the discussion?

Jim: I was blown away. Being part of the debate, I had to go online and do a ton of research about Digital Freedom and what they are fighting for. I still don't completely understand the issues, and I think that a lot of people in this country who should know about digital media issues are in the dark about what is happening right now.

Chris: I liked that the debate was "fair and balanced." I mean, Digital Freedom.org could have just gotten a few people who supported their views and held a "pep-rally" for an hour. Instead, they got a guy from NBC to come and give the other side of the story, which I thought was very smart and also taught me things I did not know about the media industry's stance on file-sharing and use of digital media.

Brian: I learned a ton. I thought that this issue was confined to the record industry, and that it affected mostly artists. I had no idea that movie studios and content distributors were so concerned about what is happening with technology these days. Personally, I'm all for file-sharing, and I don't give a damn about piracy.

Jim: (laughs.) Yeah, but you can't just be for one side. I see Brian's point of view, which reflects how all of us think, which is that file-sharing is far more helpful than it is harmful. But I can also see it from the point of view of companies like NBC. David Green, the man representing NBC at the debate, mentioned that companies were losing $18 billion to piracy, with major motion picture companies losing $6 billion per year. More often than not, the bottom line is, and should be, dollars. Losing that much is cause for concern, so I can see how they would try to restrict use of digital media when they think that it can help prevent such huge losses.

Me: You mentioned that you think the issue is still "underground," that people do not know as much about the issue as they should. Do you think maybe there is a disconnect for people because there's no physical object being taken? When I steal an XBOX 360, there is a physical object that somebody can point to and say, "he stole that." Nobody can see me reach into a computer and steal a few lines of code. Do you think that has any impact on how people view, or fail to view, the situation?

Chris: I think that the issue is still hazy, but I think that is changing. I do think it's hard for people to visualize stealing an "intangible," but with colleges being cracked down on so hard by record companies, I do think awareness is being increased as to what is happening.

Andrew: The root of what is going on has to do with two things: one is the anonymity of the ip address. When you steal the XBOX, not only can people see the object you're taking, but they can see you. When you download a song off the internet, all anybody sees is an ip address. Basically, the record companies and the major media conglomerates are fighting a faceless and massive group of people. They try and make examples of people they find, but there is no identity to "file-sharers" as opposed to an actual thief. The second part of the issue is whether or not we (society) should view art as a commodity. Because you cannot pick up a song and take it around with you, like you can a physical object, intellectual property is different from physical property. I think my intellectual property should be protected from people who want to steal it and claim they made it; I don't think it's the same as my house, though. If someone wants to share my music with another for free, all the more power to them.

Me: Okay guys, here's the classic stock question for bands: who are your influences?

Jim: Queen, Butch Walker.

Bryan: Chile Peppers, Victor Wouton.

Andrew: Led Zeppelin, Soundgarden, Mars Volta, At the Drive-In, any shredders basically.

Chris: Polka. Just kidding. I'm a huge Carter Beaufort fan (drummer from Dave Matthews Band), but other than that, my influences are not drummers so much as guitarists or whole bands. I grew up listening to Tom Petty; he's one of my main influences.

Me: Well fellas, thanks for the interview, and you put on a great show. Now, let's go get drunk and see if we can find out where the hell Peter Griffin lives.

Everyone But Pete: That is a great idea.

Needless to say, much hilarity ensued.
8:49 AM   Comments:
Post a Comment