|
Grex > Music2 > #88: Selling Out -- What does it mean to you? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 9 new of 58 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 50 of 58:
| 
Sep 21 21:13 UTC 2000 |
*shrug* So get a PC with a decent sound system and a microphone, plop down
a few hundred for a mixing software, and have at it.
What's the complaint? We're "losing music" how? Why is music more legitimate
if it's been recorded in ultra hi fi on super duper equipment?
And if it's just the RIAA's fault, why don't these great musicians get more
turnout when they show up at pubs and whatnot?
It's an empty complaint. If the music is so culturally relevant that it simply
*must* be preserved for posterity, it will be, one way or another. Most
recorded music is tripe... no big surprise. Here's the big bombshell: Most
recorded music that has nothing to do with the Establishment is tripe, too.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 51 of 58:
|
Sep 21 23:44 UTC 2000 |
Well, there I won't disagree with you -- Sturgeon's Law works in music, too.
(90 % of everything is crap, I believe it is...)
|
other
|
|
response 52 of 58:
|
Sep 21 23:50 UTC 2000 |
most musicians i know are too busy being musicians to learn how to be computer
savvy enough to record their stuff and reproduce it themselves using home
computer and audio equipment.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 53 of 58:
|
Sep 21 23:54 UTC 2000 |
Okay. My complaint is that the music which I like, fanatically, is not
terribly well represented in record stores, or in the public consciousness
at all. I happen to enjoy folk music, from the singer-songwriter genre to
the Scandinavian folk-rock scene. Now, yes, I have connections and have
researched enough to find out where I can get what I need (a big wave of the
hand to krj and micklpkl), but what if I were where I was in the early 80s,
not knowing ANYTHING about this genre, except that I wanted to hear more of
it, and not having the resources which were in place then? (Aka the wonders
of Schoolkids, which usually had the records I was reading about, and/or had
a huge stock of things I hadn't read about, but looked fascinating...) Given
the lousy state of most mall record stores and the dearth of songs on the
radio or on television, I would probably forget being interested in music at
all. That's what makes me unhappy about the situation as it is today. There
is no way for new consumers to find out about genres which aren't big
money-makers for the RIAA. There is very little way for the small-time
recording artist to get his or her product to the consumer, except through
the big companies. It's very frustrating, and gets more so with every band
that I discover that I'd never hear of, except that I went ot this festival,
or got sent to this concert.... and who's been around for years. It's the big
disconnect between fans who'd buy the music if they could, and the bands who
would be happy to sell it to people, if only they could.
|
brighn
|
|
response 54 of 58:
|
Sep 22 02:11 UTC 2000 |
*shrug* The record companies are comanie, not charities.
Some of my favorite albums sold five copies, too. That's the way it goes.
Actually, I attribute it more to the radio stations than to the record
companies.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 55 of 58:
|
Sep 22 16:22 UTC 2000 |
I think the cost of producing your own run of one thousand
vinyl LPs in 1980 is not much less than the cost of producing one
thousand CDs today.
It's still a big investment, but I think a lot more individual
artists and groups are doing it.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 56 of 58:
|
Sep 22 21:39 UTC 2000 |
Look, Mike (#43), any band that wants to distribute their music for
free is welcome to do so; and while good quality mixing and such are
more expensive, the minimum cost, from buying a computer on up, of
making a simple demo and getting it out on the web (not necessarily on
Napster) where people can hear it can't be more than $5K.
If you want to complain about the crime of lousy distribution and the
tendency towards LCD pap, by all means do so: but professional
distribution costs money, and it's not the bands who insist on being
paid for their work who are causing the problem.
Indeed, the great advantage of the web is that you can bypass large
parts of these distribution costs if you want - though in practice you
then spend half your time doing your own publicity and distribution.
If that's the wave of the future, then economic pressure may force
bands to stop charging for recordings altogether, and that will create
its own economically interesting times; but if so it'll be the problem
of the bands that charge. I can't at this time have any sympathy for
listeners whining about being charged at all. (Overcharging is a
different problem.)
FolkWriter (#53), I like a lot of the same sort of stuff you do, and
I'm glad it's a minority taste, or otherwise I could only hear it live
in football stadiums, not the best venue for acoustic folkies. Again,
thanks to the web, and email, and Usenet, etc blooming etc, targeted
distribution of news about bands geared to your personal tastes is
easier than ever; and ordering copies of it is easier than ever too.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 57 of 58:
|
Sep 23 00:15 UTC 2000 |
Agreed, it's easier now. But I am worried about the people who don't have our
advantages! (I have been on the Internet for about ten years now, and know
how to find what I want, and can order things from England, etc. if I want...
but what about the people, some of whom I even work with, who aren't computer
literate, and who aren't knowlegable enough to find things which aren't at
the local Borders or mall store... ) I'd rather hear my music in small venues,
it is true, but it'd be very nice if some younger people were exposed to it,
as well.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 58 of 58:
|
Sep 23 05:20 UTC 2000 |
That's all true, but it was just as bad in the old days too. Then it
was virtually impossible to keep up with folk, or any other minority
musical taste, unless you lived in an urban environment where it
happened to flourish.
|