what happens if SOPA passes?

npr?

haha I mean I guess those are bad examples w/r/t boring or not but they're competently run despite 'bureaucrats in washington'

I think it would be really sad if most art was like PBS and NPR

antiques roadshow is the fuckin' bomb imo

well come up w/ a better feasible model for what the music economy should look like 20 years from now. "I'm against piracy" doesn't solve any problems.

xp

i see your point, but those are single actors in a still-commercial space, and who have been forced to accept their highly politicized nature from the attacks leveled at them.

you seem to be arguing for a 'single payer' model for music, which is a whole other order of difference. right?

(there is a non-classical npr music station here and i basically hate it fyi)

xps 2 iatee

and really it's not like I'm for creating one-government-radio-station, I'm for the gov't giving living wages to artists who want to create art. this stuff happens in more enlightened countries already!

again I don't think 'taxing the internet' is the best way to go about this, but I'd like to hear an explanation for why the profit motive is the only way to for a society to create great art.

― iatee, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 10:39 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I didn't say it is. The big companies that provide content will not have any incentive to find and fund good content if all the revenue is just coming in via a tax. Good art will always happen obviously.

you seem to be arguing for a 'single payer' model for music, which is a whole other order of difference. right?

on the macro level, yeah basically

well come up w/ a better feasible model for what the music economy should look like 20 years from now

gonna look like this
http://dairyboycomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/hillbilly.jpg

i saw a dutch band open for low once. they were on a grant. they sucked super bad.

data point of one and all.

actually lol they didn't open for low now that i think, they opened for a friend's band. iirc.

I didn't say it is. The big companies that provide content will not have any incentive to find and fund good content if all the revenue is just coming in via a tax. Good art will always happen obviously.

big companies don't need to provide content! and making music w/ expensive production costs might not be financially feasible in the long-term. that sucks but there are also things about this that don't suck, like having all music in world history available to you. certain costs of production will go down.

The most underrated thing about the record label model of doing business - whether big label or moderate-sized indie -- is the advance. The advance is basically music startup capital -- it's one of the only things that enables a non rich person to finally quit that day job and go for it full time. I think this kind of full-time commitment makes for much better music, and I think it's a shame that fewer artists are getting a shot at making music this way. I've seen a lot of people who I thought were quite talented eventually just peter out because it wasn't really possible to make the transition to the kind of heavy practicing, touring, writing and recording you usually need to break through to an audience. There's no way to say for sure whether they would have done any better in the old model, but I don't think the current DIY model is all it's cracked up to be.

well that's the single easiest aspect to emulate

Sure, but however you slice it, less money spent on recorded music = smaller pie from which to give advances.

big companies don't need to provide content!

But they want to, because that gives them complete control over something. Even when they sign deals with external production houses etc., they have to compete with other big companies in order to secure those deals.

If a tax on all content were introduced and all content were free (remember this is a hypothetical extension of a theoretical possibility), they would stop producing decent content because there would be no need. It wouldn't matter how crap it was, as long as it was cheap and they weren't arousing sufficient suspicion to have the tax taken away. In Australia, our free-to-air television networks are required by law to produce a set percentage of local content every year, so they produce the shittiest, least risky rubbish you could possibly imagine.

and making music w/ expensive production costs might not be financially feasible in the long-term

Some of the best music (and television, and cinema, and writing) happens on a shoe-string budget. But, as Hurting said, those involved on shoe-string productions are only making do unless their art is commercially successful.

I mean I know you already know that but

Some of the best music (and television, and cinema, and writing) happens on a shoe-string budget. But, as Hurting said, those involved on shoe-string productions are only making do unless their art is commercially successful.

again...I'm for ensuring living wages for artists so they don't have to worry about commercial viability. and again...I'm not sure why big music companies even need to exist?

SOPA is what happens when they try to remain in existence.

like, avatar was commercially successful and I guess it's cool that movies like that can still earn back their insane investments. would we have more great movies if we gave 20 great directors 1/4 a billion dollars to play with? probably! and on some level it is a shame we cannot give everyone 1/4 billion dollars to make a movie w/. and eventually we prob can't even do that w/ the james camerons.

like, perhaps today's brian wilson wants to make today's good vibrations and cannot afford to do so because of today's music economy, and we're all being deprived of an imaginary piece of genius. that sucks! but there are lots of things that don't suck, like the fact that some 12 year old kid w/ spotify and youtube has more access to the history of music than most of us coulda dreamt of at that age.

please no more attempts to make good vibrations. can we pay people to not make music like brian wilson?

ps I'm not saying avatar was great I didn't see avatar.

perhaps today's brian wilson wants to make today's good vibrations and cannot afford to do so because of today's music economy, and we're all being deprived of an imaginary piece of genius. that sucks!

otoh today's brian wilson probably has garage band and a bandcamp page so

I mean where people in the '60s had to hire a studio and battle expensive and ever-failing equipment, today p much every middle-class kid can do what they like at home and at a fraction of the price.

and that's why today's records sound so wonderful

immaculate production values aren't a basic human right

lol m@tt

instead of one brian wilson we can get 20 mike loves

can we be shown weirdo + mike loves

idk, mike love vs. brian wilson which one of them was pushing the profit motive

the idea that the mid-20th century american capitalist market was and always will be the best way for great art to develop seems weird to me

idea that "great art" depends on any particular system is ridiculous. it doesn't even depend on monetary reward, and as autumn almanac said, it'll always happen. that's a non-issue.

thing is, this doesn't apply only to music. it applies to any form of art or information that can be digitized. if big business and government can't figure out a good way to protect the profits made from the sale music, movies, TV shows and books, then the internet will eventually be taxed in order to compensate for lost revenue and monitored/restricted in order to limit the possibility of piracy. seems inevitable to me.

like, wearing a tinfoil hat, you could view the emergence of digital media as a preemptive strike against internet freedom

I agree w/ the 'this applies to any form of art or information' - like I don't think this overall phenomenon is so far from the fact that encyclopedia britannica is having trouble paying the bills.

but I don't agree that the internet 'needs to be monitored/restricted' - SOPA was taken down by the populist + tech company response. and a more drastic bill woulda attracted even more attention.

Piracy needs to be combated by carrot and stick. Right now it's almost 100% stick, unless you're in America in which case it's maybe 85% stick.

antiques roadshow is the fuckin' bomb imo
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown)

TRUTHBOMB

"and that's why today's records sound so wonderful"

ha! although some people get it right. mostly people outside the mainstream.

bye-bye wikipedia!

now how am i gonna know anything?

A: Rolling Regional Thug Thread will take place in Petco parking lot after hours (boom-boxes provided).

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxzdagdiir1qdmmiqo1_500.gif

metal-archives.com is gone for the day! this'll be the first time I go 24 w/o using it in years!

I shld really buy a non US domain for ILX, just in case. Us foreign websites can't take no chances.

No Rateyourmusic today either, which isn't a terrible loss, but I've been using it to track what I listen to.

is the .ilx TLD still available?

French Wikipedia is so quaint

do we need a way to ensure that people can be artists full-time?

Until piratebay starts torrenting booze, inebriated members of the opposite sex, and the atmosphere of a dimly lit bar, perhaps artists can play live shows.

right, but the $ in live music is never gonna make up for the losses from recorded music

It was my understanding that a lot of ppl make the majority of their money touring or at least as much as they make from sales of their work.