I know, I know. It's been almost two weeks since the last post, and that was just a video of some guy playing some overplayed song from last summer on some weird instrument that no one really understands. I've been neglecting my duty as an entertainer, and for that I apologize. Although, in my defence, a lot of shit's been going down over the last couple of weeks as Carrie and I get set to move into the new digs. In fact, you should feel overwhelmed with gratitude that I took a few minutes out of my hectic schedule to have this little chat with you. Here I am, bending over backwards for you... for what? So that you can chuckle a little bit and instantly forget everything I've said as you go back to your chronic Facebook monitoring? You know what? Fuck this. You don't deserve an update, you ungrateful piece of shit.

Who the fuck put this mirror here anyway? Can't you see I'm trying to write a...

Pissing Vinegar vol. 42: This Pumpkin's About to Get Carved: the Joys and/or Perils of Downloading Music

Okay, here's the situation...

Let's get one thing straight: I love my job. I absolutely fucking love it. There is nothing on this rapidly deteriorating planet that I would rather do for a living than work in a music store. It's completely stress free (most days), I never get called to stay home due to lack of work, and I get to listen to music all day long. And the discounts! Bless thee, God of Staff Discounts, for bestowing upon me the great privilege of buying CDs for a lower price than most of my lowly peasant customers (most days). It's the greatest job ever! You know about how everyone talks about their dream job? I fucking HAVE it.

For now.

You see, children, we are living in an age of great turmoil. This is an age where CDs are downloaded more often than purchased, and the people whose livelihood is selling music are having their numbers thinned at an alarming rate. This is because the majority of people don't download like me. This is, in a nutshell, my downloading habits:

1. I check my sources (radio/indie charts, press releases, official websites, etc.) for the newest music from both new and more seasoned artists that interest me. I determine what song is the current single, find it, download it.

2. Once I have enough tracks, I burn off a compilation CD of the newest tracks.

3. After a few listens of the compilation, if a new artist (or an artist I'm unsure about when it comes to buying a CD) catches my interest even more, I'll likely download their album, listen to it and, if I enjoy what I hear, BUY the CD.

No matter how many people tell me the way I do things is evil, I know it's the right way to do (music) business. Not that I expect everyone to go to the same extremes that I do, but I really believe that downloading is an essential step in determining whether or not you should support an artist. It's one thing to listen to three tracks on Myspace; it's quite another to buy the album and realize that those three are the only three half decent tracks on the album you just paid twenty bucks for. That's why I download full albums. The way I see it, if a band sees fit to write three good songs to use as singles, pad the rest of their album with dogshit, and put it out under the guise of awesomeness, they're trying to fool me. By downloading the album, I save myself the humility of owning a shitty record that I thought was going to be awesome. In this respect, survival of the fittest comes into play. Quite simply, if you want to sell records, you're going to have to (gasp) WRITE GOOD SONGS.

It's not that I don't take the occasional gamble; last week I bought Pride Tiger's new album without having heard a note. I can't explain it; something about the album intrigued me. Well, after listening to it, I can tell you that those boys are WAY too fond of Kiss' "Detroit Rock City". Guess I should have downloaded it.

Anyway, here's the problem. Kids these days don't even have CD players, ergo what's the fucking point of buying CDs when they can just download a torrent and fire that bitch over to the iPod/phone/whatever the hell they're storing their songs in? Now that the mp3 is growing pubic hair, there's a whole generation of kids emerging that have never had to pay for music. That, to me, is incredibly unnerving. Here I am, working a job that I adore, and knowing all the while that it's about to be over. Within years (maybe even months), all this downloading will have taken its toll to the point that the store I work in will close, damning me to grunt work in some god-forsaken call centre. Or worse. All because no one else is downloading sensibly. It's all take, take, take with you guys, and if it ain't free you don't fucking want it.

So, what's the record industry to do? They've tried damn near everything to get you to buy CDs. First, it was the "enhanced" CD (which was ultimately pointless, as they only gave access to shit that you could already readily find on the internet anyway). Then was the sweeping mania of the "bonus" DVD (which was horribly overdone and not much of a bonus at all in most cases). Then came the "dualdisc" (which, I think we can all agree, we should just forget and never speak of again). Nowadays, the music industry has taken a cue from Hollywood (which is sort of like asking a drowning man for swimming lessons), and started releasing "deluxe", "special", "limited", "collector's", and "we need smack money" editions of CDs. This is a fucking horrid idea, especially when the supposedly superior edition of the album comes out weeks or months after its original release. I've always been vocal in my disgust of this practice, as it blatantly and unapologetically punishes the artist's most passionate fans by forcing them to buy what is essentially the same piece of "art" multiple times.

One of the worst offenders is Roadrunner Records, who routinely releases special editions with bonus DVDs and/or bonus tracks and/or more elaborate packaging of their artists' records. Basically, if one of their artists' records sells well enough, they repackage said record with some of these features, usually nine months to a year after its original release. You know, there was once a time when Stone Sour would have followed up last August's successful album with a new studio album about now. Instead, they're releasing a special edition of the same album with some bonus tracks and a DVD. It's a slap in the face to guys like me who downloaded that album, and enjoyed it enough to support the band by buying it. It's a corporation telling me that I was a fool for acting so quickly; had I waited ten months, I could have gotten a much better version of the album. Sadly, though, enough people will buy the special editions to warrant continued practice of this nature.

To be fair, though, at least the Roadrunner reissues have enough added content to call it a special edition and have it so. Some labels are going about it entirely the wrong way. Sony, for example, was very proud to be releasing some of its best sellers earlier this year in what they affectionately called "ecopaks". They were marketed as environmentally friendly alternatves to bulky, plastic jewel cases, a CD purchase that not only got you great music, but also saved the planet. Essentially, what it equated to was exactly the same CD you already owned, except this time there was no booklet and no tray for the CD, ergo an easily scratched CD that gave you pretty much no liner notes to peruse as you listened to it skipping. Not excatly the cure for the downloading blues.

I must say, however, pretty much the worst special edition I've seen is on Toby Keith's new album, "Big Dog Daddy". Now, at this point I should mention that I am in no way, shape or form, a country music fan (unless by "country", you mean "Johnny Cash"). Maybe I'm just sheltered to the way country folk do business; this could be normal practice. Here's the deal: in some U.S. stores, Toby Keith's new album is packaged with a bonus DVD. I saw someone online talking about paying $10 for it at Target. However, if this poor misguided soul hadn't been so hasty, he/she/it could have paid just $47 to join Toby Keith's fan club to get a T-shirt and the exclusive "Warrior Edition" of the CD (available seperately for only $13.99). Sounds awesome, you say? I bet it is! After all, it's got exclusive... packaging? Oh, you mean, like, a cloth box or something, right? Well, not exactly. All that's special about the "Warrior Edition" packaging is a little bar across the top that says "Warrior Edition", and a little stampy logo type thing on the bottom corner. Oh, and the kicker? No bonus DVD. Yikes. Am I ever glad I don't listen to Toby Keith, or that motherfucker would be getting some serious hate mail from this warrior.

Now, the point should be obvious at this point. Some people are really fucking greedy. And, because of these grabsss fucktards, you download more. And, because you download more, the grabass fucktards are trying to squeeze more money out of the stuff that actually sells. And, because of this, more and more of you have elected to download. It's a vicious little downward spiral, and I didn't want to get caught up in it. I didn't want to be the guy that downloads an album with no intention whatsoever of buying it. I would give it a chance and, if I liked it, I would support the artist, because it's the right thing to do. Today, however, I have made a decision. And to you, it won't mean much, because chances are you download with no intention of buying often. But for me, it's a first, which makes it epic. It's monumental. And I'm asking the world to join me.

Let's download the new Smashing Pumpkins CD.

For those who need reminding, or to be brought up to speed, strap in. Here's a quick timeline I like to call "Billy & Me".

1990: Smashing Pumpkins released "Gish", which I didn't hear until a few years later. In retrospect, I thought it was fucking awesome.
1992: Smashing Pumpkins released "Siamese Dream", which I thought was fucking awesome.
1995: Smashing Pumpkins released "Mellon Collie & the Inifinite Sadness", which I thought was a wee bit pretentious, but still fucking awesome.
1998: Smashing Pumpkins released "Adore", which I thought was the worst album of all time. Literally, I said that, and still do. Not because the music was awful (though, honestly, for the most part it was). It was what I considered a normal reaction to being let down so horribly by the band that I thought was fucking awesome. Considering the staggering accomplishments of the three previous albums, "Adore" was seriously fucking heartbreaking. It was like finding out your girlfriend fucked your best friend while you were asleep (which I can say, because I have; not the fucked part, the found out part).
2000: Smashing Pumpkins released "Machina", which I decided to give them a second chance on in light of the rocking first single. I wasn't disappointed by the album, but I got the feeling that I would have been had "Adore" not existed. Nevertheless, it wasn't the worst album of all time, so things were getting better.
Later that year: Smashing Pumpkins break up, citing some bullshit excuse about Britney Spears' popularity being the reason the Pumpkins aren't selling records (the real reason obviously being a noted lack of people as forgiving as me).
2003: Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlain released "Mary Star of the Sea" with their new group Zwan. Two things are vividly clear: this ain't the Pumpkins, and this ain't the Pumpkins.
2005: Billy Corgan releases "TheFutureEmrace", his first solo album. It seems as though the sole intention of making this album was to attempt to create an album worse than "Adore". Billy knows this, too; on the day the album is released, Billy takes out full page ads in Chicago newspapers, citing his desire to reunite the Smashing Pumpkins. Having been exposed to his wretched non-Pumpkin material, I encourage the reunion fully.
May 2007: The new single, "Tarantula", is released. Rocking way harder than most would have anticipated, the track is good enough that I make a mental note to buy the new album, entitled "Zeitgeist", when it's released in July.
Last week: It's announced that FOUR versions of "Zeitgeist" will be released; the regular, 12-track edition, and three other, 13-track editions, EACH containing a DIFFERENT bonus track, dependent on WHERE you buy the CD.

This practice certainly isn't anything new; Back in 2001, Blink-182's "Take off Your Pants and Jacket" was released in three different, colour coded versions. Which colour you chose determined which of three bonus tracks you got (my personal favourite is the yellow one; it has "Fuck a Dog" on it). And lately, more and more artists are offering exclusive bonus tracks to versions of their albums sold at specific stores (i.e. If you want to own Poison's rendition of "SexyBack" on CD, you've got to shop at Wal-Mart). It's a nasty, disturbing trend I could talk about for hours (and, judging by how long this rant is getting, I just might). But for now, I want to talk a little more about why we should download the new Smashing Pumpkins record.

We've established that it's not uncommon to get a certain bonus when buying an artist's album from certain people. However, when you look at most of the artists who practice this act, you'll see greedy rich rockstars or divas who love nothing more than squeezing another $15 and up out of their devotees. Smashing Pumpkins were supposed to be different. Smashing Pumpkins were supposed to be about the joy of music. Smashing Pumpkins were supposed to be for the fans, not against them. Smashing Pumpkins were supposed to not force their hardcore fans to buy their record four fucking times to own all the songs from "Zeitgeist" guilt-free. We've got a situation where a percentage of people are going to shell out $40 or more when they should have shelled out much less.

And it seems as though Billy hasn't even taken fans outside of the U.S. into consideration. Of the versions being produced, one (the standard, 12-track version) is being released outside of the states (this could change; for now, it seems this way). The bonus tracks are available on iTunes, and at Target and Best Buy. That's it. Other, smaller chains get nothing. Independent music stores (like the ones that supported Smashing Pumpkins early in their career, helping to make them rock stars) get nothing. Unless you want to support the Smashing Pumpkins AND a massive corporation at the same time, YOU get nothing. Is this any kind of treatment to be getting from a band that's supposed to be making a comeback? I mean, it's not as if we're all clamoring for this album like it's the second coming of Led Zeppelin; Billy must have forgotten the reason the Pumpkins called it quits in the first place. To refresh your memory, Billy, your band stopped selling records on the account of making much shittier music than you're capable of, and your output in the seven years since has been generally worse. Now is not the time to piss us off; you should be begging us to let you back.

It's time to put a stop to it. Smashing Pumpkins aren't the worst offender, but this scheming seems to hurt the most considering the circumstances. So I say we hurt back. I can't believe I'm saying it considering my profession, but DON'T BUY THIS ALBUM. If sales suffer, it will send a clear message; we won't be fooled anymore. We won't mindlessly give you more and more money. We won't be punished for loyalty. We won't let corporations dictate what music we can and can't have. We won't be sad for taking away your business.

I won't see you on July 10th.

Here endeth the ePISSle.