Last week, legendary hip-hop group De La Soul shocked the music world when they made their entire catalog free for 25 hours. What made it so interesting was how they chose to do it: by releasing it through a Russian music site. Essentially, they pirated their own music. One can safely assume this wasn't looked upon to kindly by their record label.

But while De La Soul's method of giving away their music was novel, the concept of free music really isn't. On Spotify, it's basically a fact of life: you can go online, and listen to just about any song by any band (save for a few holdouts) whenever you want. Essentially, the record labels have conceded the war against free music. They fought the Napster with iTunes, and of course, making Napster a paid site, but it didn't work. As long as you have internet access you can listen to pretty much anything you want without it costing you a dime.

This might seem like a radical, troubling concept, but really, it's no different from how we've treated literature for years. A library is essentially a place that allows you to gain the knowledge contained in a book without spending any money. This process isn't that much different from downloading music or watching a movie for free. And yet, the library is a completely accepted and admired concept, which it should be.

But why do we think of books so differently than we think of music? Why is getting to read a book for free great, but listening to an album for free is somehow bad? It could be because of where music and literature are viewed with regard to their place in culture. We see reading as fundamental and necessary, while listening to music is viewed more as frivolous entertainment. The problem with this is that neither art form is definitively serious, or definitely frivolous. You can start with a Shakespeare/Justin Bieber comparison, and I can fire back with a Beatles/Stephanie Meyer comparison.

So, the availability of music for free on everyone's computer basically puts music on the same plane, where anyone can experience it free of charge (admittedly, you still need to own a computer, but we are getting closer). Now, this tends to frighten some people because of the idea that if we can just have music, no one will want to buy it. I disagree with this logic because if you can listen to something ahead of time, you can decide ahead of time if you want to buy it - it's more of an important decision.

But more importantly, it allows us to experience music without necessarily having to support the artists who make it. If you're curious about R. Kelly's new record, but don't want to support him because of his well-documented history of sexual abuse, you can listen to it without giving him any money. You may still have anxiety about listening to his music at all, but at the very least, you aren't actively supporting him.

While we've essentially made music free via the internet, we're still making progress with movies. Yes, you can find any film under the sun on the internet, but not in a protected, legal realm like with Spotify. Which is a shame, because there are a lot of controversial movies that are difficult to make up your mind about without paying money to see them beforehand. When The Help came out in 2011, it was extremely divisive. Some saw it as a whitewashed history of racism designed to make white people feel good, while others saw it as genuinely heartwarming. I wanted to see the movie for myself and make up my own mind, but what if I ended up agreeing with the former group? I had already given the studio my money! I would walk out of the theater feeling dirty about supporting them.

This leads to the obvious case for free art: we can appreciate the work of loathsome individuals without making them richer, and we can make up our minds about controversial art without having already paid for it beforehand. We've reached a point where free books, and free music are essentially readily available at all times. This hasn't caused people to stop buying either one, but it does allow them to make a more informed decision about who they want to support, and it makes it easier to avoid supporting the wrong people. The studios and record labels will bristle, but it's hard to see how this is anything other than a good thing.

It’s all over blogs and shit that musicians should hate Spotify and other music streaming businesses because they do not compensate artists enough. My heroes Thom Yorke, David Byrne, and Nigel Godrich have all made written statements condemning Spotify, claiming they hurt the blooming artist. These three [white men] have been my heroes, my inspiration. Somehow though, for the first time I find myself strongly disagreeing with their statements. I believe we are in a digital age, where information is shared equally by all. Should we not have access to music the way we have access to books? Could our society not be improved by the socialization of enjoying others’ music?

David Byrne, of the band Talking Heads, wrote last week in a New York Times Op – Ed, “In the future, if artists have to rely almost exclusively on the income from these services, they'll be out of work within a year.” Yes, of course times change,but in my opinion, that just means that the artists’ service should change too. In art school, I learned from an established professor that a great artist uses what they have, that they conquer their limitations. When David Byrne mentions these future artists, it is assuming that they make their music using fancy studios, full orchestras, and the latest equipment. Musicians now shouldn’t sit on their ass and complain about how they don’t have enough money to rent a studio, rather they should prove they are worth listeners' time and make something with what they have. 

Take me for example, I would love to have a full band and studio time, but I don’t have the money, so I just use my slow and decaying 4 year old slow laptop, and I make it work because that’s what a great artist does. Byrne fails to see the possibility that a different kind of musician could become prevalent. Musicians are already starting to become known for their resourcefulness and DIY quirks and charms that happen under the circumstance of a DIY budget are appreciated. This is the whole point of hipsters, isn’t it?

Nigel Godrich was quoted in a lengthy blogpost saying, “Smaller artists who are not in the position to charge anything like the Rolling Stones or Madonna [on merchandise and concert tickets] are not the ones that benefit…” blah blah blah. Yes ok, just making good music doesn’t sell anymore. So artists should find something that does. This is the whole point of merchandise. I put up my songs for free on bandcamp (when they aren’t a sarcastic $500), but every now and then I get someone who gives me some dough, just because they enjoyed the service I gave them and felt they could help out. It’s like busking, and it isn’t a disrespectful way to be an artist in my opinion. But this occasional generosity doesn’t in any way come near to the amount that I have made by selling T shirts, posters, and albums. How closed off and stubborn does a musician have to be, to not be able to make a package or some type of physical representation of what their music is, and then offer that to fans in exchange of money?

Or if not a physical copy of something, artists should just focus on the experiential aspect of listening to music, by making concerts so good and so different that people would be willing to pay for it through ticket sales. What even is music and why should it be considered a different medium than merchandise and performances? It’s all the same. Being considered an indie/pop musician today is an art form in itself. 

I leave you, Buffalo aspiring musicians like myself, with this: if you want to navigate the world, adapt to it. There will be more musicians out there than in the past, there will be a surge in creative expression, but if you want to get anywhere with it you need to set yourself aside by being truly out of the box. The box being preconceived notions of what is required of you.

Yet another football season is upon us, meaning once again, Buffaloians will desperately try to convince themselves their beloved Bills are about to turn the corner, and finally reach the playoffs. Of course, the odds are stacked against them. They've already lost the first two quarterbacks on their depth chart, as well as cornerback Stephon Gilmore, who will miss the first six weeks. But no matter how the Bills do this season, you can enjoy the proceedings a little more with buffaBLOG's 2013 Buffalo Bills playlist.

The Who - "Who Are You"

This one goes out to undrafted rookie Jeff Tuel, who will likely be starting at quarterback for Sunday's opener against the Patriots. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Bills fans either had no idea who Jeff Tuel was, or had an extremely vague memory of his time at Washington State. Maybe Tuel will turn out to be a revelation, but I'm guessing most fans would be a bit more comfortable with an opening day starter who they've actually heard of.

The Book Of Mormon - "Hasa Diga Eebowai"

To wide receiver Stevie Johnson, who memorably blamed God for his dropped pass against the Steelers in 2010. It may have seemed ridiculous at the time, but what Bills fan hasn't thought of yelling "fuck you God" at some point during the last 13 playoff-free seasons?

2Pac - "All Eyez On Me"

To rookie QB EJ Manuel, who will likely take over the reigns from Tuel once he recovers from knee surgery. Manuel will face more pressure than anyone else on the Bills roster this season. The Bills fan base has been tormented by mediocre quarterbacks ever since Jim Kelly retired, and some may be over eager to add Manuel to scrap heap. If he doesn't get off to a good start, he will face a lot scrutiny right away.

The Ramones - "Glad To See You Go"

To Chan Gailey and Ryan Fitzpatrick, two people who most Bills were happy to be rid of when last season was over. No matter what happens, at least we won't have to see the so-called Amish Rifle throw another brutal game-ending interception while Gailey stands on the sidelines looking perplexed. That's definitely something to celebrate.

The Mountain Goats - "This Year"

To the Bills fans, who are gonna make it through this year, if it kills them! No matter how many gruesome interceptions are witnessed, or how many blood vessels are burst after a dubious pass interference call goes against the Bills, they are gonna make it through this year, if it kills them!

Norman Greenbaum - "Spirit In The Sky"

Just in case they sign Tebow. And maybe for a bit of goodwill after the inclusion of "Hasa Diga Eebowai."

Accept - "Fast As A Shark"

To C.J. Spiller, the most talented player on the Bills roster, and quite possibly the fastest running back in the NFL. While the Bills have plenty of questions at quarterback position, few doubt that Spiller will have a great season, and make life a little bit easier for Manuel, as he adjusts to the pressure of being a starting QB in the NFL.

Blur -  "No Distance Left To Run"

To Fred Jackson, who unfortunately looks to be on the down swing of his career. Spiller has replaced him as the starting running back, and last year, Jackson lacked the explosiveness that marked his early years in Buffalo. Jackson is 32, older than the vast majority of running backs, and he may not have a lot of miles left. Here's to hoping Freddie goes out in style.

Nine Inch Nails - "Into The Void"

To the possibility that the Bills could thrive in a relatively weak AFC East this year. The Patriots lost four of their top five pass catchers from 2012, and it's possible that Tom Brady will have a hard time adjusting. Meanwhile, neither the Jets or Dolphins look particularly inspiring. So, while the Bills have their share of problems, they are not alone, And if they start strong, rallying behind their new QB and coach, they might turn a few heads.

Dire Straits - "Money For Nothing"

To Mario Williams, who is going to really start hearing it from the fans if he doesn't start living up that giant contract he was given in March 2012. Williams had decent numbers last year, but he failed to become the dominant player so many expected him to be. This is his chance to prove he was worth the investment.

Beulah - "If We Can Land On The Moon, Surely I Can Win Your Heart"

If we can land a man on the moon, surely the Bills can creep into the playoffs.

ZZ Top - "Sharp Dressed Man"

At least they have cool uniforms.

The Isley Brothers - "Shout Parts 1 And 2"

You can't go wrong with the classics.

I've only recently gotten used to having Spotify in my life. When I joined in August 2011, it basically felt like the final frontier of getting music from the internet. Sure, you could torrent any album you wanted anywhere, depending on how strong of a guilty conscience you had about it, but now you didn't have to. Everything was just right in front of you. This was already partially true with Grooveshark, and even Youtube, but even with those you had to go through the process of searching for a given song. Now, every album a made ever made is just right in front of you. In the two minutes or so it takes you to download Spotify, you essentially have a library of popular music through the ages right in front of you. It felt like the music industry waving the white flag. Telling us to take what we wanted, just as long as they surrendered on their own terms. It's been great for the purposes of listening to whatever you want, but Spotify became even more fun once users had the option to make their listening choices public.

That's when things became both hilarious, and a little bit embarrassing. After a month or so of being amused by the listening choices of my Facebook friends, I decided to make my Spotify public. Within a day, I had been thoroughly mocked for openly enjoying Metro Station's 2007 smash "Shake It." You're probably laughing at me right now, aren't you? Well, bite me. It's a fun song, even if Miley Cyrus's brother is a bit of a jerk. Another memorable moment came when I decided to enjoy some old school Linkin Park, and one my more indie-minded Facebook friends simply wrote "hahahahahaha." I may be leaving out a "ha" or two, but you get the picture. Now, I could explain why I think Linkin Park are a legitimately solid band, but that's an issue for another post. The point is, once my Spotify was public, any claim to indie cred I may have staked was firmly out the window. I listen to tons of uncool music, and now the whole world knows it.

And you know what, I'm happy. There's something genuinely freeing about admitting you like some of the lamer music out there. I mean, how long can you and your friends argue about who hates Nickelback the most? Everyone has their guilty pleasures, and Spotify forces out into the open. A few weeks ago, a friend of mine was teasing another friend of mine for listening to Jesse McCartney's 2004 hit "Beautiful Soul." I wanted to join in, but the truth is, I don't think that song is half bad. Don't get me wrong, when it came out, I hated it, and I hated Jesse McCartney for having the surname of a freaking Beatle when he was unloading his schlock upon the universe. But fluffy pop songs tend to grow on you over time, and "Beautiful Soul" made its way into my drunken late-night listening habits, somewhere between Roxette's "It Must Have Been Love," and White Lion's "Wait." If you already thought my taste in music was bad, the more beer I drink, the worse it gets.

There's something strangely egalitarian about our listening choices public. No alleged music snob is as snobby as they claim to be. Everyone has a Katy Perry song or five that they think is actually pretty okay. We have the option to make our Spotify listening choices private, but I don't see the point. Why be embarrassed because you listened to a ridiculous song that half of your friends probably secretly like too. I thought Spotify would be known for the being the music industry's last stand before waving the white flag to the internet, but now I think it's true legacy will be forcing to be honest about some of the music we like. I still like plenty of critically respected music, but I like my share of crap too. And thanks to Spotify, I will no longer be ashamed of it.

What is it about The xx? With just a piece of music, they burrow into the softest emotional space of the heart and pry those feelings to the surface.  It's the "he said, she said," the moment that overcomes when you're sitting next to the person who shared your world and suddenly they're a stranger, or perhaps it's the thoughts that race through the depths of your mind while holding your head in your hands, wondering why. The songs that comprise their debut album, xx, are the anxious nights of discovering love. Their sophomore album Coexist "finds itself on the other side of heartbreak, when the light returns."

In their past productions, the groups heart-sinking lyrics bring up images of scribbles on loose-leaf paper, desperate attempts at salvaging a sinking love. This album, while still sticking to the romantic ups and downs life brings upon us, has a more mature vibe. Romy Madley Croft and Oliver Sim's signature harmonizing duet is unfailing. Jamie Smith helps create instrumentals that are mesmerizing and beautiful. Combined, the tracks create a personal realm that is entirely relative to the listener.

The 'x marks the spot' prismatic rainbow of oil separating from water of their album artwork metaphor represents what the album holds. "I was reading up on oil on water - when you see a puddle on the floor and it’s a rainbow. Oil and water don’t mix, they agree to peacefully coexist," says Croft.

The spooky repetitive whirring sound effects of "Try" is a fresh sound for the London-based group. The pondering thoughts and soothing bassline accompanied by steel drums in "Reunion" is suddenly silenced about two minutes in and transforms into a more upbeat pace. The imagery in "Sunset" is incredibly powerful and it's clear through their lyrics that the time and experiences between their first album release and now has brought them wisdom. Maturity is understanding and accepting the inevitable estrangement that comes with broken love. "I saw you again, it felt like we had never met, it's like the sunset in your eyes...what have you done, with the one I love," sings Croft. This album is not drowning and gasping for air but is grounded and knowingly acknowledges things will not be the same.

The song that I found the most uplifting and moving comes after nine tracks of somber acceptance. The healing sounds of "Swept Away" and beatific lyrics are the silver lining of the album. Perhaps strategically placed at the end, this song with it's bouncing nature and hi-hats, is the beacon of hope.

Grade: A