" Most fans paid $0 for Radiohead album"

"The research firm did not say how many people in its study actually bought the album."

not very insightfull, is it?
at least they didn't state how many dollars they lost or how much they earned.

>> not very insightful, is it? <<

no it isn't too impressive a "study" really - sorry!
doesn't sound too promising, though, for what seems like a really good experiment.
while we're both here, open-g honey: what did you mean by MI in your previous post?
(sorry for being dense, but you're used to me by now) :E

and just a sidelight, but:

>> Nothing needed to be hacked to download the free 64kbps Bigger Bang album.
if one read the news about it you knew where to go to get it. <<

isn't that because someone else had hacked it, though, and uploaded it in savable form? i mean:
the form it was in on rs.com couldn't be downloaded/saved without horsing around with it, could it?
maybe that's just my techno-primitivism, sorry



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-07 12:14 by with sssoul.

I am curious too sssoul, but I assumed he meant Music Industry......(MI)

a few years ago when Pearljam released a string of sbs from their tour,there was virtually no mixing or overdubs, minimum artwork and packaging and little promotion. I would venture to say more effort have been put into some of the more well known bootlegs so every release would not have to be a full blown event. Especially since now the shows could be made available as downloads only. Willie Nelson seems to have accomplished quite a few releases this way. It's something to ponder.

>> I assumed he meant Music Industry......(MI) <<

ah so - thanks Lukester honey!
and yeah, online releases do seem like something to ponder -
people just help themselves to the music anyway, but it's a way to cut one's losses, i guess.
sigh - is that the way it's supposed to be? i need to reread the Orpheus myths ...

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-31 06:09 by cirrhosis.

yeah right

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what i was hoping is that your principles for
> supporting only underpaid musicians
> might include something like an idea for a Better
> Way to organize the "music industry".

Not my department, sorry. Anyway, I don't see how the "music industry" (why the scare quotes?) could be reformed independently of the larger society. It's not a closed system. It like other industries and institutions has increasingly pursued bottom-line results, with decreasing regard for human or spiritual value. As long as the CEOs (who oversee multinational conglomerates, trying to sell widgets alongside compact discs) are making enough money to satisfy their desires and employ peons, this model works for them. This is so at least for commercialized music like rock. Classical and art music are funded differently, though clearly with their own accompanying problems.

> sure, but ... sorry, this is getting fuzzed up
> again: since this 1% you feel okay with
> freeloading from (your term!)
> is comprised of what you consider "the best
> artists" then ... ...
well, they're related but not synonymous by any means. See the Eagles thread.

> where does the point come where you deem great
> artists no longer worthy of support?
> is it more like "i dig what they do so much that
> i'm entitled to have it for free",
> or more like "other people have already paid them
> enough so they don't need me to"?
the latter, by all means. Sorry that by being a fan since the somewhat early days (if that's true?) you had to pay to support my habit. Maybe you were the one loyal fan whose consistent purchasing pushed them over the tipping point into megastardom. But history happens. I've been a fan since almost before I can remember, but I wasn't in a position to buy anything until Dirty Work. Which I bought dutifully. Steel Wheels, courtesy of its feel-good corporate strategy, was popular enough that I didn't have to. I taped it from a friend.

> and yes, most people have limits to how much time
> they can spend paying attention to music -
> for most of us it maxes around 17 hours per day.
phhhtttttt! another useful reminder to me that I'm not the biggest music fan around. That's how much time I'm supposed to spend reading, and it doesn't happen either.

> so if you weren't cluttering up your senses
> with fatcat artists, you would have more time and
> attention to seek out, appreciate & support
> artists who (in your scheme of things) deserve it;
> plus which, by boycotting fatcats instead of
> freeloading,
> you wouldn't be subject to accusations of stealing
> music. all kinds of advantages, see?!
you're still confusing my resentment of the fatcats with intrinsic dislike of their music. There are of course many people who feel that way--I'm probably the only stones fan in my academic dept.--but I'm not bad at separating the two. I try to make up for it by not letting people here forget that these cats are incredibly fat, even lovable "ronnie" and that icon of authenticity who lives in dangerous Connecticut.

> >> your "twilight of the corporate gods" scenario
> notwithstanding. <<
>
> smile: you're deliberately misinterpreting what i
> wrote, but ... i forgive you, since i just
> deliberately misinterpreted you :E
heh... but I'm genuinely intrigued by the aristocratic romance your and Chris F's premodern sense of honor and duty calls up for me. But I've been reading Nietzsche.

> we seem to agree that some entirely new set-up is
> needed; my concern (which you keep sidestepping)
> is that too many people are getting to feel too
> comfortable about not paying for music they love -
>
> not because they've thought about it much, but
> just because they have the technology to
> freeload.
> that (for me) is not a way to go, because it fails
> to account for the artists' need for and right to
> income.
it's this disdain for "comfort" and "entitlement" felt by "the people" I find intriguing... you're not a monarchist are you? just a small-r republican?

> why don't you just take the books you want, or
> borrow them from a library and photocopy them -
I borrow, I photocopy, and I don't know what you mean by "take," but I think you're underestimating how much reading I mean. So I have to be eclectic, buying the occasional new (hopefully remaindered) book as well.

(it's not "just" photocopying, by the way, which is often more expensive and almost always a huge pain in the ass.)

> doesn't the principle of "they're great/rich
> enough already" apply to authors as well as
> musicians?
yes, to some, and it's built into copyright law, isn't it? Penguin Classics doesn't give a share to the estate of, say, George Eliot, just to the editor of the current edition, I believe. Of course, shits like Disney have successfully lobbied to have their copyrights extended.

well ... thanks cc, but it would be a more interesting conversation if you'd try at least a little
to keep in mind that my concern isn't for the Stones in particular; it's for musicians and recorded music,
because i like musicians and recorded music and would like to see them thrive; and for the ethical issues i see
(for example whether or not "because i can" is enough justification for whatever i feel like doing).
but anyway! by "why don't you just take books" i meant helping yourself to them without paying for them -
but i realize that neither shoplifting nor photocopying are cheap & easy enough to feel readily justifiable.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Where is the evidence of the Stones buying their
> own music? Please share this this information if
> not false or incriminating.
>
> Secondly, I never stated as a spokesperson for the
> Stones. If you were a member of the Stones, would
> you like someone else confiscating your efforts?

You should tell that Mick Jagger himself who is known to have bought bootlegs publicly and who is very aware that bootlegs were one of the factors which made the Stones so great! And Keith Richards stated in an interview that he is downloading music from other bands all the time and does not buy the records.

When the Oakland ’69 bootleg was released the Stones felt pressed to answer with a great ‘live” albumGET YER YA-YA’S OUT! which obviously sold so well that in fact the bootleg did not affect sales but increased them. And it is a plain shame that the Stones were never able to release their greatest live album from Brussels & London 1973, which in my opinion is one of the greatest live albums of all time, officially. Without that album a central element of the Stones’ work is missing.

The problem about the body of work is that basically no prominent band can release all the stuff that is spreaded on bootlegs. Would it make sense to release say five complete shows with basically the same setlist from any given tour? Who, except for the very hard fans, really wants to listen to the fiftieth version of Jumpin' jack flash? I bought so many official records and CDs that I am not feeling very guilty about the non-official releases. The Stones cannot complain about me; they earned enough money from me. Today there is no more money involved in the CD trading among fans so it’s non-commercial.

By the way, the Stones are not very clever about their releases. Apart from the fact that there is still no complete collection with all the official tracks in one box set the released CDs like THE SINGLES - THE LONDON YEARS ‘remastered from the original tapes’ and produced by Andrew Loog Oldham where some songs appear in inferior quality: mono versions instead of original stereo takes. This is really annoying on tracks like ‘We love you’ where the stereo effect was part of the psychedelic soundscape.

Then there is the problem about bonus tracks. For instance, you have to buy a Japanese issue of STRIPPED to get the great track ‘Honest I do’. What sense does that make to a European fan?

That is really not very pretty for a band which undoubtedly is one of the greatest rock bands ever.

i should add that i can clearly (yeah its true!) keith said in a interview...that he is very proud of the bootlegs...and it is no problem for him...if i find this interview(i have it!) i will be the first to post it...but trust me i tell the truth!

>> And Keith Richards stated in an interview that he is downloading music
from other bands all the time and does not buy the records. <<

... where did you see that interview, please and thank you?

>>>>ah: the Bowie Principle. it's strange for me to think of recorded music as just a flash in the pan,
or as a mere advertising gimmick to promote concerts. i like recorded music,
and think it's a brilliant invention. but maybe you're right. in which case
we can stop wondering where all the great albums have gone ... oh well, it was a gas while it lasted


As I stated before, I don't think there is any positive correlation between the financial revenues an artist expects to gain from his art and the artistic quality of the art.
I might even add that it would not surprise me if the correlation appears to be negative.

I mean to say: as long as artists feel the urge to express themselves, they will release recorded music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-07 10:31 by marcovandereijk.

... and as i stated before, that notion really sucks.

at the extreme end of things: dying unrecognized in poverty doesn't enhance the quality of an artist's output
(nor does it give him/her access to studio time to make these recordings you expect.)
before reaching that extreme: there are miles and miles of gifted people who give up music careers,
not because they're untalented, but because they find they can't earn a living at it,
largely because too many people are happy to rip them off. it used to be primarily other "music industry" people
who were ripping them off - club owners, promoters, managers, record companies -
and now the fans are joining in, mostly thoughtlessly, i believe: just because we can.

the history of the highly romantic view of musicians/artists you're presenting
is really interesting to me. artists themselves are largely to blame for overpromoting it -
mainly to pull chicks and as an excuse to get high a lot - but it's BS anyway.
musicians are not songbirds - they're part of quite demanding societies that expect them
to pay for food & shelter, support their children, show up more or less on time, file tax returns, etc.

sure, feeling moved to create/express oneself doesn't depend on financial reward -
we all have those moments, and even pursue them occasionally, when we have the time/energy/materials to do that.
but we are talking (aren't we??) about professional musicians: people whose gift entertains/moves/touches enough people
that society allows them to concentrate on that full time. which means supporting them, in some form -
feeding/housing the travelling minstrels, giving change to streetcorner musicians, buying tickets to shows, etc -
and if we want recorded music, it means someone needs to support the recordings somehow.

how does this sound to you: "studio technicians don't need to be paid for what they do -
as long as someone has a craving to engineer sound, they will supply us with recorded music"?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-16 17:14 by with sssoul.

>>>.. and as i stated before, that notion really sucks.

Thank you for stating it this clearly.

And like you, I only find this an interesting line of thought. Let's not confuse this with any private opinion I might have on the subject. It's just that a debate like this helps to unveil the ethics of bootlegging.

In my country the general idea is that artists should be able to be an artist and not worry about financials. That's why there are a lot of funds to stimulate young artists. Funds we all pay for by paying taxes and funds that are raised by non governmental organizations. It does not mean Big Money for the artists, but enough to make a decent living for as long as the art is not lucrative enough. I am a strong supporter of this system as I believe it gives every artist a chance to express himself.

I am sure there will be capitalist countries that will never embrace this idea, but wouldn't it be nice to ponder over the idea what this system might do to the Music Industry.

marco what country do you live in and what are immigration requirements?
;-)

>> It's just that a debate like this helps to unveil the ethics of bootlegging. <<

cool.
i do still want to differentiate between bootlegging (unreleased stuff) and pirating (what cc calls "freeloading" )
because to me they're two different sets of issues that only sometimes overlap.

sponsoring musicians is a time-honoured tradition, of course, and could be promising -
or quite creepy, depending on how it's carried out. some of what cc wrote
reminded me of the Japanese system of designating great artists as Cultural Treasures
who are supported by society as a whole. since music is an intangible, and since technology exists
that allows recordings of it to be proliferated/shared easily and cheaply, the work of these artists
could then be treated as an inalienable right, like air - but of course that does depend on
the artists being supported and provided with the means to develop and produce their work.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-19 12:12 by with sssoul.

yes, most of the world's great art (in "high art," anyway, which rock rarely could be seen to qualify as) has historically been supported by patronage. This changed with commercialization and democratization. Not a bad tradeoff (at least the democracy part, if it ever really happens here in the US of A), but it leaves us with this dilemma.

I don't see us coming up with a "win-win" model for artistic distribution outside of a sweeping political-economic transformation, not to say revolution. Support your local socialist!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-07 17:10 by cc.

I just read that 62 % of those who downloaded Radioheads new album didn´t pay anything. For those who paid the average sum was ca 5 dollars. They didn´t steal it, but...

why dont they just set up a music librbary system - the infrastructure is already there with itunes and the consumer has warmed to that - then there would be no ethical decision.

OLDKR

well, tell us more oldkr!
in a normal library, there are limits to how many copies are in circulation.
how would a digital online music library compensate artists
for people copying/sharing whatever they want in whatever quantity they want?
charging the honest clients more for downloads to make up for the freeloaders seems to backfire pretty fast -
i mean: it's what record companies have been doing for ages, and people (naturally!) resent the high prices,
which they then use as justification for freeloading. if the money were going directly to the artists
instead of to record companies, maybe there wouldn't be quite so much resentment
(or quite such high prices), but i don't know how hopeful i am about that (cf Radiohead's experiment).
what i'm afraid of is that digital technology has cultivated really large numbers of people
who just plain see no reason to pay musicians for recorded music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-09 09:15 by with sssoul.