DJ Shadow: classic or dud?

to be quite honest, not *every, no - i get send review copies of a lot of stuff, because peeps wants me to write abt it.

so yeah i'm part of the big bad machine i guess

but you know if someone said 'hey, i wasn't going to buy a copy of that black flag book you slaved over for 18 months anyway, so its alright if i steal a copy right?' i would be pretty fucked off tbh

how about movies and tv shows?

that's not logic that's larceny

xp

have not downloaded movies and tv shows, though i have watched youtubes that probably weren't uploaded by the copyright holders

did you pay for photoshop and every single program on your computer? are you that one person out there who really did pay for every single thing on your computer?

i don't have photoshop, and yeah i paid for my copy of word.

"don't sweat it man everybody does it"

yes: i usually wait to pay full-price for the boxed-set dvd of tv shows that are shown for free.

i've downloaded some music for free (esp during ilx's great ysi phase) but it's intellectually hard to defend. now i don't. i think the one movie i've downloaded was michael moore's 'roger and me', not on dvd. so with the odd exception i don't feel too bad -- but, as i say, it's intellectually hard to defend and im a terrible hypocrite whose views should not be heeded.

did you pay for photoshop and every single program on your computer? are you that one person out there who really did pay for every single thing on your computer?

― iatee, Saturday, January 9, 2010 6:12 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark

i stole the whole computer.

they were a rich family and bad things happen to people all the time.

but you know if i was savvy enough to swipe computer programmes off the net, etc, i'd at least admit i was being a cheap cunt, not come up with some bullshit justification for how i "deserved" to have it for free because bill gates is rich and hey fuck it man i wasn't going to give him my money in the first place

I'll bet you can't. Pitchfork isn't just going to listen to everything that comes across their desk, and they're certainly not going to say "Wow, here's some dude in his bedroom with no label and no distribution. Let's put it on "best new music" even though he doesn't tour and the only way you can get it is from his myspace page."

a quick google suggests 'clap you hands say yeah' as a pretty clear example of this.

― iatee, Saturday, January 9, 2010 1:02 PM Bookmark

Clap Your Hands Say Yeah had the same publicist as David Bowie, which might also have something to do with how David Bowie just happened to show up at their shows, which in turn was pretty much the thing that broke them

did they have the publicist from the start?

What does "from the start" mean? They had the publicist when they got big.

i'd at least admit i was being a cheap cunt, not come up with some bullshit justification for how i "deserved" to have it for free because bill gates is rich and hey fuck it man i wasn't going to give him my money in the first place

i mean correct me if i'm wrong but this arguyment wouldn't stand up in court, not even in this place you call 'america'

so the publicist wasn't what made them big

i mean correct me if i'm wrong but this arguyment wouldn't stand up in court, not even in this place you call 'america'

well we're not having a legal argument right now. if we were, I would say yes, you are right, it is illegal to download things.

No, I mean they had the publicist already before they got big.

I mean sorry but you're really fucking naive to buy into this "a million hands across the internets" stuff. It's just a publicity line.

perhaps you should campaign to have the laws changed, your argument is clearly water-tight i don't see how anyone could reasonably object
xp

they were the first thing that came up w/ google search for an example. I don't know anything about them beyond that and I don't think this strain of the argument really matters cause publicists cost money and if the money is disappearing we won't have to worry about them anymore.

perhaps you should campaign to have the laws changed, your argument is clearly water-tight i don't see how anyone could reasonably object

when more people disobey a law than obey it, yeah, maybe it's a law that is gonna have to be changed one day.

But that's exactly the fucking point - it costs money to get people to notice your music.

so when the money disappears people just won't notice music anymore?

when more people disobey a law than obey it, yeah, maybe it's a law that is gonna have to be changed one day.

they say you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one...

when the money disappears the entire infrastructure will disappear. who will found pitchfork, etc?

but i'm sure you've already thought it through this far.

who will found pitchfork?

googlers?

found

When the money disappears I would guess you have more bands that make cheaper albums, have smaller audiences and last for less time.

o brave new world that has such things in it

RIP

a. publicists
b. pitchfork

yeah! fuck the man!

don't you have a free copy of an album to be reviewing?

oh ZING

we may not have money but we can still LAUGH

I would also guess that the exceptions will be bands that are amazingly good at doing their own publicity. I don't think there's anything wrong with that but I don't think it's a good thing to require of every band.

why is that worse than a world where the bands who buy the best publicists get big?

what about a world where bands are post-apocalyptic biker gangs who roam the wastelands of what used to be California fighting each other for precious record contracts?

When the money disappears I would guess you have more bands that make cheaper albums, have smaller audiences and last for less time.

― pithfork (Hurting 2), Saturday, January 9, 2010 6:24 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

otm.

basically "no man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

"basically "no man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.""

Lot of blockhead writers out there, I guess.

"When the money disappears I would guess you have more bands that make cheaper albums, have smaller audiences and last for less time."

Poor U2.

yes it is only bands you hate who will be fucked over

that's what makes it alright

It's not "poor U2" it's "There isn't going to be a next U2" except there also isn't going to be a next Talking Heads or a next Nirvanna or a next Steely Dan or a next Michael Jackson or a next Sonic Youth even.

And whatever, maybe that's just the way it is. There was no Sonic Youth of the 1920s, why should there be one of the 2010s? Just saying that you can't expect to keep getting all music for free and not see any impact of any kind on the music.

I'm not saying there isn't going to be any impact. I am just saying that music will a) still be produced and b) I don't really give a shit.

About the plight of musicians that is.