We Don't Want Your Record (3 Viewers)

[washingcattle]

While I personally feel the same we're all coming from the viewpoint of people who grew up with physical media. There was a big hubbab last year over an intern at NPR who claimed the opposite, and really who are we to argue with that? Just because I used to buy crappy tape bootlegs to fill out my manics and blur or whoever b-sides when i was 14 doesn't make me a better listener to music than someone who has immediate access to them.

here, this yoke:

A WSJ Intern Replies To NPR Intern Emily White's Controversial Post on Music Piracy - Speakeasy - WSJ

At the end of the day music isn't a physical item. There's an argument to be made for music that was specifically made for vinyl/cd/tape or whatever can maybe be appreciated best in the correct format but I don't see why any new music should be consumed this way. Maybe we should be concentrating on saving the planet and creating less physical crap.

I don't think the physical item is the issue. I think the issue is that everything, the whole back catalog is free and readily available on-line. This has the effect of music being a right rather than privlege.

I worked shit jobs in order to buy albums and when i bought one, even a bad one I had to get my moneys worth which meant listening to it every day for a week. Some things I hated. Some I hated at first then "got" them after a few listens. Sonic Youth took me ages to get into when I was 14 but it was well worth the effort. The internet should have made it easier for oddities like them to exist but it probably hasn't.

I wrote a longer explanation of this in my "google rock" rant about Psychic Teens it's in the reviews section.

Basically bands giving away everything for free is devaluing the medium that's my theory on this.

Didn't fleetwood Mac do an album promo thing where they played the whole thing prior to it's release on american radio just after the invention of C90 tapes. Everyone who could do taped it off the radio and as a result the record never really sold well at all. At least i think it was them anyway.

Same thing now only it's getting to a ridiculous stage.

 

[Lili Marlene]

I don't think the physical item is the issue. I think the issue is that everything, the whole back catalog is free and readily available on-line. This has the effect of music being a right rather than privlege.

I worked shit jobs in order to buy albums and when i bought one, even a bad one I had to get my moneys worth which meant listening to it every day for a week. Some things I hated. Some I hated at first then "got" them after a few listens. Sonic Youth took me ages to get into when I was 14 but it was well worth the effort. The internet should have made it easier for oddities like them to exist but it probably hasn't.

Maybe it is a right. Maybe it should be more inclusive and not about who you know. If you think your music is too important for people who use spotify then don't put it there. You can still get your niche audience of people willing to seek it out. Illegal downloading has gone way down now that streaming is much easier than googling for torrents and rars so you probably don't have to worry about this anymore.

I wrote a longer explanation of this in my "google rock" rant about Psychic Teens it's in the reviews section.

Basically bands giving away everything for free is devaluing the medium that's my theory on this.

Well maybe we were the ones listening wrong with our very limited access to music? Maybe this is just the generation gap at play and you can't 'get' music made by people who grew up with free music all the time.

Either way there's no closing Pandora's box. If you're happy to be left behind that's fine, perhaps young music is only made for young people anyway.

 

[washingcattle]

Maybe it is a right. Maybe it should be more inclusive and not about who you know. If you think your music is too important for people who use spotify then don't put it there. You can still get your niche audience of people willing to seek it out. Illegal downloading has gone way down now that streaming is much easier than googling for torrents and rars so you probably don't have to worry about this anymore.

Well maybe we were the ones listening wrong with our very limited access to music? Maybe this is just the generation gap at play and you can't 'get' music made by people who grew up with free music all the time.

Either way there's no closing Pandora's box. If you're happy to be left behind that's fine, perhaps young music is only made for young people anyway.

But it isn't a right. It's a commodity. It always has been a commodity. Recorded music has been around for about 120 years and it's always been a commodity. Live music is something different and radio tv etc that's also a commodity but it's paid for by advertising. That's where youtube and the likes differ. They're billion dollar industries that are paid for by advertising and don't pay royalties.
Everything required to make a record costs money. Why should the record be available for free ? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It seemed to me that the idea of giving your music away free first came about around the time of Myspace when you'd put up demos and live recordings in order to get gigs and it made it easy to get an audience to see your band. Even then though you only got 4 songs. It just doesn't make any sense to me

You could be right though maybe I am old and out of touch but I don't think that explains it completely. Plus I do still like a lot of new music.



There's a very easy way to close the Pandoras box, it's simply a case of making the conscious decision to only allow one or two songs on an album streamable. If you like it download it, pay for it commit to it and live with it for a week. If not don't. Simple.

 

[Lili Marlene]

But it isn't a right. It's a commodity. It always has been a commodity. Recorded music has been around for about 120 years and it's always been a commodity. Live music is something different and radio tv etc that's also a commodity but it's paid for by advertising. That's where youtube and the likes differ. They're billion dollar industries that are paid for by advertising and don't pay royalties.
Everything required to make a record costs money. Why should the record be available for free ? It makes no sense whatsoever.

But commodities are marketable items. Markets are supply and demand and all that and with Spotify the supply way outstrips the demand. Spotify is legal and pays their artists. How much they pay is still up for debate and I'm sure it can be improved but it seems we can only speculate about it right now. So what then? Government intervention? Ban all streaming services and hope we can prosecute enough people into stopping it? Set up government supported indie rock and drone grants? We do it for classical music so why not. If you can find the funding.

There's a very easy way to close the Pandoras box, it's simply a case of making the conscious decision to only allow one or two songs on an album streamable. If you like it download it, pay for it commit to it and live with it for a week. If not don't. Simple.

I can't see that working but sure give it a shot, see what happens. Once again, can we prosecute the public into following this method because we sure as hell can't guilt trip them into it.

 

[ann post]

Too many people are making pointless records. I've used the 'golf' analogy before. People play golf because its an aspiration and lifestyle, makes them feel good. they get to mess with some equipment and there is a community. they will hand over cash to maintain the hobby and it doesn't matter to anyone else much unless you are a woodland creature of some sort. the larger part of these folks have no aspirations of going pro and are happy to play with a handicap. a lot of what comes out now are trophy albums.

the sooner about 80% of musicians realize that this is why they do music, the better. the sea of shit has never been deeper.

There arent less music lovers but there is every reason to be more dismissive of new music.

i know it throws up all kind of 'well what qualifies someone to make music etc type stuff' but generally a lot of this will be evident from listening.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

did any of yis read the morrisey book lads?

Just finished it. He's not keen on Mike Joyce.

Geoff Travis comes across as a whiny hipster.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

Is playing golf punk?

 

[GARYXKNIFEDX]

Nofx probably think so,but they suck.

 

[george mcfly]

Too many people are making pointless records. I've used the 'golf' analogy before. People play golf because its an aspiration and lifestyle, makes them feel good. they get to mess with some equipment and there is a community. they will hand over cash to maintain the hobby and it doesn't matter to anyone else much unless you are a woodland creature of some sort. the larger part of these folks have no aspirations of going pro and are happy to play with a handicap. a lot of what comes out now are trophy albums.

the sooner about 80% of musicians realize that this is why they do music, the better. the sea of shit has never been deeper.

I don't necessarily see the problem with that. If it makes someone happy to make a record I think that's fine as long as they pay for it themselves.

 

[Kermit McDermott]

Just finished it. He's not keen on Mike Joyce.

Geoff Travis comes across as a whiny hipster.

I haven't read it. I have read the severed alliance. Morrissey & Marr wanted to be on the cool indie label of the time but when they see the reality of being on a small label they do nothing but complain and blame all around them. Morrissey expected to be treated like a star from the start. I find the treated of Joyce & Rourke distasteful and quiet disappointing.

 

[washingcattle]

But commodities are marketable items. Markets are supply and demand and all that and with Spotify the supply way outstrips the demand. Spotify is legal and pays their artists. How much they pay is still up for debate and I'm sure it can be improved but it seems we can only speculate about it right now. So what then? Government intervention? Ban all streaming services and hope we can prosecute enough people into stopping it? Set up government supported indie rock and drone grants? We do it for classical music so why not. If you can find the funding.


I can't see that working but sure give it a shot, see what happens. Once again, can we prosecute the public into following this method because we sure as hell can't guilt trip them into it.

You seem to be mixing up piracy and band habits here. For me bands giving their music away for free is just not a good idea. As far as piracy goes there really isn't much that can be done.

I don't see a government doing anything about it but some have. You get paid for any gig you play in Denmark that's the law there.

For me it's all well and good when Guinness hand out a once off grant from their deep pockets to musicians but if they really wanted to do something meaningful them and their alcohol cronies could all pay into a pool to make sure that bands get paid for essentially filling venues with consumers of their products. They seem to have no problem with throwing sponsorship money at larger festivals where a tiny amount of funding trickles down to the grass roots. Same as football in a way. That's just one idea.

Anyway I'm not just nagging for no reason. The general consensus is that the Irish music scene (for example) is healthy and has lots going on plenty of records being released loads of gigs and that's true. But it could still be better. Instead of being the scene that celebrates itself, it's more like the scene that can't support itself which is sad because music is the one art form which should be self sustaining given that fact that unlike dance or theatre or painting or anything else really with the exception of photography the artists do actually produce a sellable mass production mass media product (if you get me).


By the way I mean self sustaining as in bands covering their costs not making a loss on recording, touring etc and any profits going towards funding their future projects. I don't think anyone is expecting to make a living off of any of this.

 

[Lili Marlene]

You seem to be mixing up piracy and band habits here. For me bands giving their music away for free is just not a good idea. As far as piracy goes there really isn't much that can be done.

I don't see a government doing anything about it but some have. You get paid for any gig you play in Denmark that's the law there.

For me it's all well and good when Guinness hand out a once off grant from their deep pockets to musicians but if they really wanted to do something meaningful them and their alcohol cronies could all pay into a pool to make sure that bands get paid for essentially filling venues with consumers of their products. They seem to have no problem with throwing sponsorship money at larger festivals where a tiny amount of funding trickles down to the grass roots. Same as football in a way. That's just one idea.

Anyally produce a sellable mass production mass media product (if you get me).


By the way I mean self sustaining as in bands coverinway I'm not just nagging for no reason. The general consensus is that the Irish music scene (for example) is healthy and has lots going on plenty of records being released loads of gigs and that's true. But it could still be better. Instead of being the scene that celebrates itself, it's more like the scene that can't support itself which is sad because music is the one art form which should be self sustaining given that fact that unlike dance or theatre or painting or anything else really with the exception of photography the artists do actug their costs not making a loss on recording, touring etc and any profits going towards funding their future projects. I don't think anyone is expecting to make a living off of any of this.

I'm not mixing up anything. Music appears to be free no matter what bands do about it. Once they record it and release it it'll be as free as the audience demands it. I don't know if this is a good thing but it's seems to be a reality.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post though. I didn't know that about Denmark, inneresting...

 

[ann post]

I don't necessarily see the problem with that. If it makes someone happy to make a record I think that's fine as long as they pay for it themselves.

Oh yeah its grand. Its more about the amount of stuff out there to wade through these days than anything. I take more offence to people playing golf to be honest, but for the conversation thats in it...

 

[rettucs]

Just finished it. He's not keen on Mike Joyce.

not at all. And I was sympathetic with him at first but 30 pages later I kinda got bored of his ramblings about the court case. It seemed the reason for writing the book was to say his piece about the judge's findings.

 

[rettucs]

oh, and the reason I brought that book up in this thread is that Morrissey seemed to suggest that a single would only be successful if the record company wanted it to be. As in, if they put their weight behind it it would be successful, regardless of how good a song it is or not.

That might have been him just whining though. If he had a single that he thought was great he would blame it on the fact that the record company didn't care enough to make it a hit.

 

[Anthony]

Oh yeah its grand. Its more about the amount of stuff out there to wade through these days than anything.

"waaaahh look at all the caaakkee. There's sooo much cakkkee."

 

[nooleen]

much of the cake is made of shit however, and you won't know which it is til you've taken a bite

 

[nooleen]

on the subject of morrissey, here he is celebrating christmas

 

[Jerry Twig]

If a band can't exist exist without money, then the band shouln't exist.

Some tough words from Bob Lefsetz - "If you’re poor, it’s your fault"

If the guys point is 'if you're in music to make money, then you're in it for the wrong reasons' then he's got a point, but I stopped reading at 'there, I said it'. Anyone who writes that is a dickhead.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

If you're making money from doing music, you''re doing it right.