If an artist is A) not super rich, B) on an indie or self-owned label, and C) his records are available where you live, is there any excuse for downloading them instead of buying them?

yeah I can feel that argt

It's much easier to make the "there are more hacks now than then" argument because you aren't really going to know who the non-hacks are really going to be until history weighs in; there's a shifting perspective component to this that makes this argument difficult to pursue.

That's a good point, but I'd argue that there are more musicians putting their music in front of the public (even it's just myspace pages and stuff on blogs) than there were before the internet made that possible. I think there are more hacks because there are more musicians.

barring that, do we have one example of a guy whose stuff is crazy good but just hasn't gotten the attention it deserves, but whose eventual embrace by history seems assured, given how audibly awesome it is?

i think we all know people like this, or at least i know i do. actually it's more likely it'll never be heard by very many people, in the case of certain friends who don't know how to market themselves or aren't interested in doing it, but still make awesome records.

I think there are more hacks because there are more musicians.

haha I am never going to disagree with this statement

xp Jordan: It's kind of sad to think that the eventual embrace by history is the best these folks can hope for, and that said embrace would happen before they die as opposed to after.

Jordan we're talking here about stuff about which you'd say "this is every bit as vital as Rubber Soul"

I say this as a guy who doesn't listen to the Beatles or anything but I really thing the argument that removing the profit motive from art makes for better art is hopelessly naive

haha I am never going to disagree with this statemen

also STFU singerman, I will play bass licks on your grave

well this doesn't go anywhere if we keep talking about what's "great," since we presumably have different ideas of that

NB I don't think file-sharing is cutting into ambition, but I do feel, in terms of the music I know, that there's a whole combination of stuff about fracturing audiences, lower bars for "hobbyist" entry, ease of dissemination, etc. etc. etc. that probably leads just naturally to a world where very few people get to make really grand/ambitious art where they're imagining and trying to communicate with a really large audience. This isn't the worst thing in the world, it's not the fault of anything in particular, and there's nothing about the internet or mp3s that keeps a grandly ambitious musician from trying to talk to the whole universe, but there you have it, that's kinda where things are these days.

"I miss the monoculture"

lower bars for "hobbyist" entry

well, but when the bar for professionalism got lowered by punk, we got: joy division, the cure, etc

I've gotten more pleasure outta this guy than anything else this year

That's great! Is he trying to make money off of this? If so, have you given him any? How is he going to continue to make things like this without financial support from the people consuming it?

also STFU singerman, I will play bass licks on your grave

you may add a post-punk bass line to Martin's "Agnus Dei", which is what I want performed at my funeral

as a guy who doesn't listen to the beatles or anything, i agree with that.

xxxp to j0hn

couple xposts

I cannot type and think at the speed of other people. Where would you date the interval of "people getting to make really grand/ambitious art where they're imagining and trying to communicate with a really large audience" from and to? — obviously Aristophanes wrote for a tiny fraction of the number of people who are watching the Britain's Got Talent finale I can hear in the next room (although as a proportion of the the population of the civilised world as he saw it I think he probably wins there)

I kind of wonder how low the bar for professionalism really was if you were in a metal band or a soul band in Britain in the 70s and mainly played working men's clubs

like I said, I am way in favor of low bars for entry -- you are talking to a guy who likes those early Beat Happening songs that are just like a pot, a pencil, and a boombox

^ NB for all I know maybe that'll change drastically in five or ten years, like suddenly everyone who misses grand statements or grew up with productive attachments to MCR records starts plotting out world-changing 40-year careers; who knows ... mostly all I'm saying is that envisioning an all-hobbyist culture seems great at providing certain things and maybe not as likely to provide others, and it'd be nice to see cultures that accommodate both

okay stupid thought experiment:

let's say we took the artists who are gonna be on ilm's top 100 of 00s lists and we gave them all a million dollars and said "make an album, go crazy!"

I feel like there would be at least a handful of expensive loveless/pet sounds-type masterpieces that otherwise wouldn't exist. but it's not nec. *wrong* that these artists don't have the opportunity - it's just the financial reality that they're dealing with. yeah?

"I say this as a guy who doesn't listen to the Beatles or anything but I really thing the argument that removing the profit motive from art makes for better art is hopelessly naive"

I'm not sure the profit motive is being removed though, just the exorbinant profit motive. I mean none of the rest of the folks you mention had expectations of being multi-millionaires.

Even the Beatles.

yeah but Aristophanes was writing for the annual festival which was a HUGE deal, like the hugest of the huge. was able to live off it, which I think is the point. if you can live better off doing something else, you're likely to do so - which, again, I have no issue with; people should try to live as well as they can & there's no shame in it.

as to my funeral, I'm hoping they sing "gothic anus"

xpost kind of agreeing with xpost

They had expectations of day jobs though. I think that's getting tangled up, a bit, the difference between getting rich and just getting paid.

this is too abstract for this thread but fwiw I also see the lack of grand / ambitious statements in philosophy, where I make my dough...well, except for amateur crackpots who aren't worth bothering with (but if you want I can hook you up). So I think this has something to do with our post 60s culture, not just the profit motive, though fuck if I can say precisely what.

that tends to be the confusion in the post-napster age - "these artists want to be rich!" - no, they just want to make rent xpost

also "living better off" ≠ maximizing profit, though I say this on so many threads I oughta can it

okay stupid thought experiment:

let's say we took the artists who are gonna be on ilm's top 100 of 00s lists and we gave them all a million dollars and said "make an album, go crazy!"

I feel like there would be at least a handful of expensive loveless/pet sounds-type masterpieces that otherwise wouldn't exist. but it's not nec. *wrong* that these artists don't have the opportunity - it's just the financial reality that they're dealing with. yeah?

^^ I agree with this. This is completely separate from the downloading issue, though, where people are taking music that has been released for-profit and not paying for it, directly impacting the distribution channels (which honestly I don't care about) and the people making the music (which I do care about, seeing as that's the commodity under contention and cutting off some of the funding towards creating more of it seems to not be a good thing for long-term success of people in the business now or future success for people wanting to make their passion into their vocation).

xp: J0hn says it best, unsurprisingly

If you sub in 'news' for art, there is a definite argument for socializing it (i.e., both removing profit motive, but also subsidizing it so people who are interested in pursuing a career there can hope to not starve in the process) I don't know if art is as important as news in the pecking order of things to subsidize, though.

Would you guys say state-subsidized BBC news is of generally higher caliber than say the profit-motivated US/Murdoch news machine?

john I feel like you've been pushing 'get rich = motivation' more than anyone in this thread!

having health insurance is the new millions of dollars

Would you guys say state-subsidized BBC news is of generally higher caliber than say the profit-motivated US/Murdoch news machine?

I would, but I generally assume everything from the UK that isn't funk- or food-based is better than what you'd find in the UK.

UK infinite loop

well this doesn't go anywhere if we keep talking about what's "great," since we presumably have different ideas of that

It goes to make for a very long thread.

This isn't the worst thing in the world, it's not the fault of anything in particular, and there's nothing about the internet or mp3s that keeps a grandly ambitious musician from trying to talk to the whole universe, but there you have it, that's kinda where things are these days.

There's nothing except the serious reduction in expected income, places to play, and attention of audiences, which have a significant impact. The musicians I know that are contending with this don't necessarily expect to or desire to talk to the whole universe or have huge audiences. Making a lower-middle class income playing the music they want to make, which requires significant composing and rehearsal time, and having sales in the thousands would be a-ok.

I think the long-tail view of this is probably that the current situation is the result of the shift to 90% of the population listening to records as their baseline mode of engagement with music (I know this may not be true of two or three of you on this thread)

I suspect opportunities to make rent may have dwindled greatly as a result of there being less and less need ('need') for there to be local bands who were good enough

Which I think is the other other side of the grand ambition/mass audience vs hobbyism/day job argument. Probably.

you know, i don't think a lack of profit motive is going to cut into ambition/artistry but into longevity. we're still going to get great records, but it seems like artists are way more likely to get frustrated with the work & expenses of recording and touring if there isn't any reasonable expectation of making a living.

xp

(I mean I kind of feel like what we're heading towards is a variation on communities of people being aware of local musical options to go see-hear: but instead of being communities of geography they're communities of interest and entirely dispersed)

(I'm pretty sure I don't feel this is a good thing, but oh well)

NB this is off-topic but my favorite thing about the lower bar of entry: every time I'm recording something at home I think about how in a few years there'll be young people who grew up with whatever I consider today's awesomely low bar of entry -- like kids who've been learning to mix in DAWs since they were 12* -- and that will be a whole different thing ... not a low bar of entry for "hobbyists" but people who kinda grew up "professional"

* hell, you can already see teenagers on YouTube who are already masterful at the technical tools of music-making -- when I was that age my version of multi-tracking was doing series of overdubs on a broken karaoke machine

xp Jordan - I think you're right. The appeal of sleeping on floors while on tour definitely decreases with age and experience.

xp nabisco: but can they play instruments and sing and actually compose? What you're arguing is limited to particular types of music.

"(I mean I kind of feel like what we're heading towards is a variation on communities of people being aware of local musical options to go see-hear: but instead of being communities of geography they're communities of interest and entirely dispersed)"

I think this would be especially great for Finnish rappers who now can hope for some kind of audience if they want to have a trip abroad or something. Or maybe meet a hip hop hero, like when James Hetfield gave that Iraqi metal band his guitar.

frankly, if you have to be sleeping on a floor, *should* you even be touring? I mean the breaking even point exists for some bands - and clearly doesn't for the majority of them. we can all agree that not *every* band in the world should be touring the country, right?

"but it seems like artists are way more likely to get frustrated with the work & expenses of recording and touring if there isn't any reasonable expectation of making a living"

Yeah, but I'm not sure this is the worst thing in the world. I mean seriously for every Bob Dylan/Neil Young there's like six Bruce Hornsbys.

john I feel like you've been pushing 'get rich = motivation' more than anyone in this thread!

― iatee, Friday, May 29, 2009 5:12 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

having health insurance is the new millions of dollars

― Ømår Littel (Jordan), Friday, May 29, 2009 5:12 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

iatee I think you conflate getting rich with turning a profit

(btw, I realize that my perspective as a dude who performs classical music is going to skew heavily away from the DIY-aesthetic, even if that's kind of how I went about it, just because there are so few ppl doing the things I do who have similar backgrounds; in the opera chorus, I am literally the ONLY person who does not have a master's degree in music)

I think this would be especially great for Finnish rappers who now can hope for some kind of audience if they want to have a trip abroad or something.

You're assuming they're going to be able to afford to go abroad! Who's paying for that?

frankly, if you have to be sleeping on a floor, *should* you even be touring?

oh man

Yeah, but I'm not sure this is the worst thing in the world. I mean seriously for every Bob Dylan/Neil Young there's like six Bruce Hornsbys.

haha again I cannot argue with this, but I would point out that there are evidently enough ppl out there who like Bruce Hornsby to justify his career, ergo there's no fair reason why he shouldn't have it

frankly, if you have to be sleeping on a floor, *should* you even be touring? I mean the breaking even point exists for some bands - and clearly doesn't for the majority of them. we can all agree that not *every* band in the world should be touring the country, right?

the thing here - again using the Beatles - is that touring makes you better. guaranteed. bands come home from tour better than they were before; the experience is nearly universal. if you can't tour, your room for improvement is limited. once you've toured enough, you can stop and probably keep growing (again, the Beatles, though they're a unique case). but lots of bands tour for several years before they find their voice, and it's how they find their voice; and this was true before "bands," in the age of the troubadour.

frankly, if you have to be sleeping on a floor, *should* you even be touring?

gotta start somewhere.

yeah I think I misinterpreted you - tho you did use the only billionaire rock band as an example...

xpost

"we can all agree that not *every* band in the world should be touring the country, right?"

I'm kinda pulling for Kemmuru to actually come meet Flava Flav.

"You're assuming they're going to be able to afford to go abroad! Who's paying for that?"

How do Finns normally go abroad? Maybe there's some year-abroad programs they can exploit?

"haha again I cannot argue with this, but I would point out that there are evidently enough ppl out there who like Bruce Hornsby to justify his career, ergo there's no fair reason why he shouldn't have it"

He can have it. He just has to figure out a better way to make money off it.

the thing here - again using the Beatles - is that touring makes you better. guaranteed. bands come home from tour better than they were before; the experience is nearly universal. if you can't tour, your room for improvement is limited. once you've toured enough, you can stop and probably keep growing (again, the Beatles, though they're a unique case). but lots of bands tour for several years before they find their voice, and it's how they find their voice; and this was true before "bands," in the age of the troubadour.

this may very well be true, but by this logic *every* band in the world should tour.

In Bruce Hornsby's case I will guess this involves licensing that damn baseball song a couple hundred more times.

my point, again, is that, in a given field, once the profit motive is gone, there is less likely to be good work, and what there is will be harder to find, because the #1 motivator for human excellence is the desire to get paid. I know that sounds cynical to some people; I'm one of them, often! but it seems to be true. you don't have hobbyist manufacturers of turntables, even though I'm sure there's much pleasure to be had in constructing a working turntable.

"How do Finns normally go abroad? Maybe there's some year-abroad programs they can exploit?"

Given how many young Europeans I meet abroad say things to me like "oh you're only vacation for a couple of weeks? how sad." I am guessing there is something they can explout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERASMUS_programme