Letter to Emily (1 Viewer)

[Space]

I'm aware of all that and read the article before but yeah Apple do seem to be the winners, so income has not dropped much and they're just bitter that apple make more money than they do.

 

[sleepy]

Just got around to reading this article. Maybe this is very crass of me but doesn't the paragraph below say more about America's health care system than the effects of illegal downloading?

"Shortly before Christmas 2009, Vic took his life. He was my neighbor, and I was there as they put him in the ambulance. On March 6th, 2010, Mark Linkous shot himself in the heart. Anybody who knew either of these musicians will tell you that the pair suffered depression. They will also tell you their situation was worsened by their financial situation. Vic was deeply in debt to hospitals and, at the time, was publicly complaining about losing his home. Mark was living in abject squalor in his remote studio in the Smokey Mountains without adequate access to the mental health care he so desperately needed"

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

"Deeply in debt to hospitals" is a sentence that really shouldn't exist.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

I notice I didn't finish my post above. I meant to say.

I suppose the sale of individual singles isn't as lucrative as selling an album with 7 tracks of filler although I've heard that the profit from 3 single downloads is roughly the same as a physical cd sale in the US through traditional channels, ie if you buy a cd in a record shop or Barnes & Noble, Walmart etc.

 

[Diumraid]

"Deeply in debt to hospitals" is a sentence that really shouldn't exist.

Communist!

 

[Diumraid]

As for the notion that young people are not buying music, digital single sales are enormous, the single has replaced the album by and large as the primary sales unit for music in the US and UK. Lots of pop singles of the last 5 or so years have sold 5 and even 10 million downloads. Ke$ha, The Black Eyed Peas, Bruno Mars have all sold more digital copies of some of their singles than the Beatles did of almost any of their 45s. This is while the videos for these songs have 100,000,000s of views on youtube. I suppose the

It seems there are plenty of people who don't really engage with what the internet can do vis-a-vis piracy, so a quick and easy $1 or €1 download to their phone is the way they get music they want to listen to away from youtube. Piracy or the shift to digital does seem to have decimated the low-to-mid echelon sphere of artists who were on major labels but never had a huge amount of fans.

The "record labels treat acts like pigs so I'm not giving them my money" argument is so worn out at this point.

Rabblerabble etc.

Most secondary school kids I've talked to download songs legitimately through their phones. As some people have said, it's harder work to pirate and these kids are LAZY. Making music for lazy kids is the way to go

 

[Diumraid]

Those of us who fetishise the music object were always a breed apart. It used to be that vinyl / cassesttes / CD's were the most utilitarian ways to experience music. MP3s are way more so. When faced with the CD he's just ripped the modern user of music sees the skin of the banana he's just eaten ... pretty much. It's a category error to confuse a music fetishist with a music user.

 

[Diumraid]

PS I don't use the word fetishist in a leery sense, rather it's the magical aspect where plastic and cardboard are imbued with power that you can't run your car on ...... yet

 

[hugh]

I've been away so am a bit late to this but .... There's an essay I've been reading by a dude called GS Evans called Art Alienated, the gist of which is that most forms of art/cultural activity underwent a major shift during the 19th/20th Century whereby rather than being things that people do, they became things that people consume. So, for example, at one time there were really no such thing as professional musicians, instead people made music within their families/communities/immediate social settings. Similar thing goes for other art forms such as dance, theatre and so on. The shift occurred when making art became the domain of the art specialist, who was a professional, and everyone was persuaded that this was the correct way to engage with these cultural activities i.e. you sit in a concert hall and listen to the music specialist, as opposed to sitting around singing a few songs with your family/community/mates. Or in other words, people have become alienated from art in their lives. They don't create their own culture, they consume it.

Maybe what's happening here is that the whole concept of the music specialist is becoming economically unviable and will therefore die out, and maybe that's not necessarily a completely bad thing.

 

[hermie]

What about court minstrels, travelling troubadours, dances troupes and players? Surely these notions go back centuries? Also if people, as you say, made music within and for their families/communities/immediate social settings I'm assuming they were looked after by these groups. In the modern global community they are not, I don't think.

Even if people simply supported their local bands/artists maybe that would be tenable. But I think a lot of the point from the start of this thread is that many people, including those actually within the industry itself, contribute nothing monetarily whatsoever.

 

[snakybus]

What about court minstrels, travelling troubadours, dances troupes and players? Surely these notions go back centuries? Also if people, as you say, made music within and for their families/communities/immediate social settings I'm assuming they were looked after by these groups. In the modern global community they are not, I don't think.

Even if people simply supported their local bands/artists maybe that would be tenable. But I think a lot of the point from the start of this thread is that many people, including those actually within the industry itself, contribute nothing monetarily whatsoever.

This is it. Court troubadours didn't have to buy Marshall stacks.

Seems to me that the easiest target in the world is the kids. Okay, yes people should pay for music but at the end of the day it's the people who benefit the most from whatever money music does generate to ensure that musicians are taken care of - whether that be Apple, amp companies, ISPs, journalists, whoever. The people who actually STILL make a living from a so-called industry. If you're going to throw mud, it should be at these guys. The kids are just getting their tunes on.

 

[hermie]

This is it. Court troubadours didn't have to buy Marshall stacks.

Seems to me that the easiest target in the world is the kids. Okay, yes people should pay for music but at the end of the day it's the people who benefit the most from whatever money music does generate to ensure that musicians are taken care of - whether that be Apple, amp companies, ISPs, journalists, whoever. The people who actually STILL make a living from a so-called industry. If you're going to throw mud, it should be at these guys. The kids are just getting their tunes on.

This is far from ideal also and happening already I think. More and more musicians are putting their names to gear/products etc. Artists who wouldn't have done in the past are now actively canvassing to have their work used as marketing tools. I've heard of a reasonably well-known Dublin band who split up recently after narrowly missing out on a major advertising campaign. This is another knock-on effect, bands will increasingly pander to big business if that's where the money's coming from.

 

[hugh]

What about court minstrels, travelling troubadours, dances troupes and players? Surely these notions go back centuries?

Sure, but they were nothing as prevalent as professional practitioners are in our time, and only gradually became professional at a fairly late stage. Even then it was nothing like the 20th Century where it has become the case that the vast majority of people's experience of music is as a consumer rather than a participant. Even taking the example of the court minstrel, most of the time they were simply servants employed who had extra value as it were because they could play instruments well, and their primary function was to play music to accompany dancing, which was itself an elaborate activity that required skill and practice (or in other words, a participative activity). People at medieval courts were also expected to be able to sing and play when called upon anyway.

All the above is open to contradiction as I only half-know what I am talking about here.

Also if people, as you say, made music within and for their families/communities/immediate social settings I'm assuming they were looked after by these groups. In the modern global community they are not, I don't think.

Even if people simply supported their local bands/artists maybe that would be tenable. But I think a lot of the point from the start of this thread is that many people, including those actually within the industry itself, contribute nothing monetarily whatsoever.

The global/local thing here is a really important point. The whole raison d'etre of the music industry in the 20th Century is to encourage worship of global stars because that's where the dosh is. In other words, convince people that it's far better to shell out 70 quid on a ticket to see Madonna than it is to pay a tenner in to see a local act, or (horror of horrors) don't pay anything at all to sit around with your mates and sing a few songs. And this is obviously tied up in a whole pile of stuff about, as you say, communities/families not functioning very well anymore.

And Snaky ... you don't need Marshall Stacks to make music! Though obviously it always sounds better if you have them ...

 

[snakybus]

I think my point Hugh is that there is still a "music industry" - Marshall is part of it, so are music journalists, so are festival organisers, so are companies like iTunes etc. And okay in medeavil times maybe the local harpsicord or lute maker was making a few quid too and everyone else was sitting around singing In Dolce Jubilo for free, but there was no "industry", where there is one now, even if margins are way down for producers of the main thing that makes it tick.

But yeah I think a return to the days of thinking of music as a community thing where everyone can and does participate is great for sure, and I'm all for it.

 

[hugh]

Absolutely. The problem as I see it is that most of the discussion around this stuff is about what is best for the "music industry" and how that industry, and all those who directly or indirectly depend on it, might survive in these new circumstances. There seems to be little consideration of the fact that the "music industry" is a relatively recent phenomenon and much less of the fact that it's needs may not at all correspond with those of "music" as such.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Absolutely. The problem as I see it is that most of the discussion around this stuff is about what is best for the "music industry" and how that industry, and all those who directly or indirectly depend on it, might survive in these new circumstances. There seems to be little consideration of the fact that the "music industry" is a relatively recent phenomenon and much less of the fact that it's needs may not at all correspond with those of "music" as such.

Attention all musicians,

Due to file sharing the first inversion of the e flat minor chord is being retired, apologies for the inconvenience, please refrain from using this chord in future compositions.

Apologies for the inconvenience, but you can blame the kids.

Regards,

Music.

 

[ann post]

did i post on this already? i meant to avoid it like the plague but instead have read the whole thread about twice.

here's the deal anyways - if you are a musician in this day and age, don't enter any level of business with an engineer, sound tech, duplicator, manager, venue or any other role that isn't actually inventing and performing the music unless its on a profit sharing basis. otherwise you are directly propagating a model where you fund the music industry without fair share of the money made, and anyone working in the above roles who are not responsible for inventing and performing the music who are not willing to work entirely on a profit share basis are equal to every other industry demon who time and time again has screwed over the people who make the product that keeps your job in existence.

in the present, that includes me by the by, but unless people are willing to work that way i cant see it ever being a sustainable industry.

 

[pete]

It would have been nice if Lowery had mentioned some of these upsides provided by the digital revolution, or pointed out that musicians now get a whole lot of incredible stuff for free themselves that would have been filed under ‘pipe dream’ in the past (free recording, free manufacturing, free distribution and arguably some free marketing are not to be sniffed at). And you don’t hear Lowery argue, for example, that by opting for the free, ‘self-recording’ approach, musicians have put a lot of recording studios out of business, or caused the deaths of record producers (as somebody who self-produces a hell of a lot of my music, I sincerely hope that I have not inadvertently killed anyone).

http://www.chrissingletonmusic.com/...-lowerys-letter-to-emily-white-has-total.html

 

[ann post]

i just had an email conversation with a pro journalists who was refusing to reviewing my stuff because i didn't want/cant afford to send a hard copy. chances are i wont get a review now for challenging the the thing. maximum levels of facepalm though. dunno where to start with that one. didnt think journo's had any interest in hard copy at all these days.

 

[GO]

Well...for the first time in two tears I've gone looking for an illegal download and cant even find what I'm after...I'd say the war on piracy is being won.