The burning question is how many people use music as filler?
Probably a lot.
How many more are listening to music less and less?
I think it's increasing in numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser
yes current media is all On All the time. its difficult to find a space for music to take a purchase on the senses.
sensory world is shot to shreds...
absolutely.
here’s a fact i always found interesting: music pre-dates the written word. it existed long before the first book was ever even conceived, and has played an important role in peoples lives in every known culture around the world since before written history of any kind ever existed. in other words, music has been in all of us since day one.
for most of human history, music was magic. it was rare, and experiencing it was universally considered to be among the most beautiful and meaningful of human experiences.
before books, along with poets and storytellers, the musician was the historian and teacher; the recorder of events, the collector and transmitter of ideas and philosophy, and the messenger that reaffirmed collective values and social tendencies. music and musicians still perform all of those functions today.
the problem is that no one's really listening anymore. music has never had less value or cultural importance than it has today.
sound recording is a fairly recent phenomenon compared to the lifespan of music itself. music has existed in one form or another for millennia, but systems capable of recording and playing back sound (as we know them today) have only existed for a little over a century. that’s just a tiny blip on the evolutionary scale of the art form—but it changed everything, for better or worse—both for musicians and for music itself.
with the advent of sound recording technology, and systems that were capable of the mechanical reproduction of recorded sound, for the first time in history, people were able to listen to music without having to be present during a live musical performance. technology "freed" music from the constraints of live performance, making it far more accessible, and for the first time allowed the listener to experience music outside of the human context of musicians performing it.
for better or worse, music became a mechanical experience for most people. (many would argue that at this point music itself started losing value and cultural significance. they're not wrong, but the art form still has a long way to fall in our collective appreciation from here!)
my own opinion: i think technology enhanced music in some ways (not all), up to a certain point: but it would seem the further technology advances, the less importance people lend to the experience. and it's obvious why...
much further along in the evolution of music, when i was growing up, we had to pay for music. (as generations before me did.) the fact that i had to save up for weeks to go down to the record shop and buy the latest release made me appreciate the experience even more than listening to the radio. (we value things that are hard to come by, and take for granted the things that are handed to us... that's an obvious truth about human nature that will never change.)
it's not a perfect comparison, but in a lot of ways, just as in the time when music could only be experienced in the context of a live performance for a ritual or social social event that was governed by the calendar, which was a practical obstacle between music and the listener, in a lesser but tangible way, having to pay for music had a similar effect on all the generations that followed. music retained most of its value, or importance, because it wasn't something you could have any time you wanted it, for free: there were requirements to obtain it.
fast forward to 2012, where everyone has a pocket full of music they didn't pay for on a zillion devices that spit out in tiny plastic sound, droning on and on in every imaginable space, place, and context, and the OP's question answers itself.
music as an art form is suffering because there's too way much of it, and it's way too easy to get.
Last edited by sound_music; 19th July 2012 at 08:22 PM..
Reason: long winding rant! sitting here printing stems all day...mind wandering, keyboard got the better of me. ;-)
That no one wants to buy either. I disagree with your first line/premise.
Music has never been less important to a person's life than it is today. Just look around. Music defined your lifestyle, clothing and outlook 40 years ago.
The Beatles changed pop culture. That has not happened since.
As you mentioned, there are many more 'diversions' for folks these days. Some (mostly under 30) are addicted to smart phones. Who has time to listen to music when all your friends are yaking/texting?
I used to see people with earplugs listening to music. Now they are listening to their friends, playing games or surfing 'apps'.
When I was a kid I had a ball and a bat, a guitar and a record player, add the transistor radio. Music took up a lot of my spare time.
Look at today's kids, they are doing many more things and those things leave less time for music, unless it's included as background music while engaged in other activities. Sure, they have the music on, but are they really listening?
^^ I've always preferred to think the movement was based on people, not on money, but now that I look back, you're right of course.
I honestly don't know what the difference is. I had a nostalgia night a while ago after a gig (not starting one now as it's almost 5 am), but the amount of top quality local acts was astounding. When compared to what's available now, it was like comparing Marvin Gaye to Justin Bieber.
Tbh, I'd hate to think that the movement against the big three has anything to do with decline, as I'd hate to see what bands in the past fought so hard to achieve be wasted.
Don't know if it was based on money, but you do need resources to fuel a movement. But who knows, doubt any movement can be exactly about one thing.
I agree it is really sad to see so many people's hard work, to build music wasted. You can only hope to see it turn around I guess and personally don't see it being turned around until the rampant theft is dealt with. Then maybe we will be able to find a solution, but who knows, I don't have my crystal ball right now ha.
Like I said the saddest thing is that it seems a lot of the thought (anti-major label) has caught on 10 years late. But those ideas are aimed at the wrong people today. In my opinion those ideals should be aimed at everyone taking advantage of artists these days and not aimed at the majors. Basically there is worst evils these days.
Don't know if it was based on money, but you do need resources to fuel a movement. But who knows, doubt any movement can be exactly about one thing.
I agree it is really sad to see so many people's hard work, to build music wasted. You can only hope to see it turn around I guess and personally don't see it being turned around until the rampant theft is dealt with. Then maybe we will be able to find a solution, but who knows, I don't have my crystal ball right now ha.
Like I said the saddest thing is that it seems a lot of the thought (anti-major label) has caught on 10 years late. But those ideas are aimed at the wrong people today. In my opinion those ideals should be aimed at everyone taking advantage of artists these days and not aimed at the majors. Basically there is worst evils these days.
I honestly think there are worse things happening in the industry these days than piracy, and I don't think it's holding back indie bands at all. If anything, i think smart use of the net and all the positives and negatives that come along with it Helps to breed a smarter and more loyal fan base, but i know that i'm in the minority with that opinion.
I always find it funny when i think of the whole anti-establishment thing, because it always seems to of kicked in ten years too late no matter who you talk to and what generation they're talkimg about.
I think part of the problem now is that bands that are railing against the machine (Radiohead and NiN for example) aren't marketed towards a younger crowd, whereas previous "protest" music was specifically aimed at a younger crowd.
__________________
Dust. Wind. Dude.
Progs - Reason 6, Live 8
Synths - Minibrute, Evolver, Blofeld, MoKeys
Drums - Korg EMX1, MaM ADX1
Guitars - LTD EC100, Hohner L75 Pro, Yamaha RBX375
Effects - Blackstar HT Dual, Aphex Acoustic Xciter, TCE Flashback, Red Witch Ivy, VFE Blueprint, MI Audio Tubezone, Boss ODB3, SPX 990
... the saddest thing is that it seems a lot of the thought (anti-major label) has caught on 10 years late. But those ideas are aimed at the wrong people today. In my opinion those ideals should be aimed at everyone taking advantage of artists these days and not aimed at the majors. Basically there is worst evils these days.
totally.
i think the majors have always been an easy target for the tech industry (and their legions of supporters) to point their finger at. the majors' shady history is legendary... pretty easy to hide behind.
i have no particular affinity or love for majors, but at least artists were paid, and had enforceable contracts with them etc. at this point, as you say, there are far worse evils to contend with.
another good point is how the hate for "major labels" somehow morphed into "labels" in the current tech zeitgeist. a whole generation's been duped into thinks every "label" is "evil". what about the thousands of great, ethical, profitable indie labels...? most kids are incapable of making the distinction (or could care less)...
Well Billy would say that wouldn't he, he can't write anymore and nobody wants to listen to him. Ego predicts he won't admit but point the finger. Pumpkins are still one of my favorite bands, but they went terribly wrong. Lost the hunger to big cheques. Happens all the time. Money is perceived as success instead of the craft. They get loads of money and reach some creative plato and rest on their laurels. Which means they done it for the money in the first place. Not a bad thing in itself. But don't cry when your business model starts failing. Hes running some wrestling company now oddly. Mr business man moved on to other ventures.
i think the majors have always been an easy target for the tech industry (and their legions of supporters) to point their finger at. the majors' shady history is legendary... pretty easy to hide behind.
i have no particular affinity or love for majors, but at least artists were paid, and had enforceable contracts with them etc. at this point, as you say, there are far worse evils to contend with.
another good point is how the hate for "major labels" somehow morphed into "labels" in the current tech zeitgeist. a whole generation's been duped into thinks every "label" is "evil". what about the thousands of great, ethical, profitable indie labels...? most kids are incapable of making the distinction (or could care less)...
Yep totally agree. One thought on the subject is pretty much any movement gets wrapped into and warped by pop culture, example being look at the hippy movement or even the early 80s punk movement.
At the same point it becomes frustrating discussing this topic when techies and young kids that use the calling cards of these movements and have very little knowledge of the scene that developed this thought process. Also in general regurgitating what tech companies have told them. Basically losing any real original meaning. Kind of like when Pepsi (or insert any large company) says "be unique drink Pepsi," "unique" has became a desired term, but with that does not have the original meaning any more and is just a marketing tool.
At the same point I guess it's up to the youth to make their own "scene." Which is pretty sad right now. So in a way the younger generation that has grown up with piracy and now are looking for their place in the industry, are kind of reaping what they sowed. Not that I am happy about this, but at same point some truth to it.
I personally don't fully understand the potential implications of the legislation, that's the problem...and there's very good arguments on either side as to what SOPA or similar legislation can and will entail.
Have a look at some of Eben Moglen videos or writings, his arguments against SOPA etc. are very convincing...this is someone who hasn't any financially vested interests and is dealing with the situation from an academic perspective.
Hmm wasn't familiar with Mr. Moglen before so looked up his bio. He does seem to have vested interests in this and is far from just "academic." At least defiantly has an agenda and is applying that agenda.
Would say far from an un-bias opinion.
Basically by mentioning him you are making Racks point.
Pro bono. But I agree that he has an agenda, everyone has an agenda though...My point was his interests aren't financial...which generally gives a somewhat less biased perspective.
All academic work is biased and has an agenda...
To be honest who knows, I have not seen Mr. Moglen's tax forms nor do I know the gentleman, but his centers/foundations need to get money from somewhere.
Where you get your money from, can lead to bias also. Not just his academic agenda, which also has foundation in where his money came from before his academic career.
Not stating anything scandalous. Just stating far from un-bias. Also possibly his views on free software are being projected onto another industry that he has no experience in.
Exactly, Paul MCartney isn't one of the richest musicians to walk the planet, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd aren't the best selling bands ever. Go back to sleep dude! Check your facts out, LOL....
(FWIW, I think a lot of the other artists up there are excellent too, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Queen, The Stones, AC/DC etc. ...just those are my personal favorites of popular music.)
every one of these bands or artists were at the forefront of popular music in their time. if you think they weren't chasing sales and singles to get to where they ended up, you're even more naive than i thought. (just forget the blouse altogether man... we've already seem 'em!)
micheal jackson alone, the undisputed heavyweight king of radio pop, has outsold every single one.
(also, you conveniently left out lots of top selling artists that you don't happen to like: whitney houston, bee-gees, shania twain, mariah carey, celine dion, backstreet boys, madonna, spice girls... etc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision
Good isn't subjective actually... McDonald's is popular...but if you think that is good food, you don't know what you're talking about; get it?
no, you're still not getting it. we're not talking about whether you personally think mcdonald's is good or not, we're talking about mcdonald's having the right to exist, not be exploited, and enjoy the same protections under the law, no matter what your personal opinion happens to be. you're still confusing your opinion with some sort of fact or basis for an arguement. they're not the same.
...pretty much any movement gets wrapped into and warped by pop culture, example being look at the hippy movement or even the early 80s punk movement.
it's true that almost any movement that gathers enough steam inevitably gets watered down so that the lowest common denominator can either understand it, or at least feel they're participating. i suppose the difference between the suburban kids decking themselves out in bell-bottoms and growing their hair in the 60s and today's "free information" generation, is that the people behind the hippie movement weren't ripping off artists and raping the world to the tune of billions in profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowood101
...it becomes frustrating discussing this topic when techies and young kids that use the calling cards of these movements and have very little knowledge of the scene that developed this thought process. Also in general regurgitating what tech companies have told them. Basically losing any real original meaning.
don't i know it! (but you gotta start somewhere...)
every one of these bands or artists were at the forefront of popular music in their time. if you think they weren't chasing sales and singles to get to where they ended up, you're even more naive than i thought. (just forget the blouse altogether man... we've already seem 'em!)
micheal jackson alone, the undisputed heavyweight king of radio pop, has outsold every single one.
(also, you conveniently left out lots of top selling artists that you don't happen to like: whitney houston, bee-gees, shania twain, mariah carey, celine dion, backstreet boys, madonna, spice girls... etc)
no, you're still not getting it. we're not talking about whether you personally think mcdonald's is good or not, we're talking about mcdonald's having the right to exist, not be exploited, and enjoy the same protections under the law, no matter what your personal opinion happens to be. you're still confusing your opinion with some sort of fact or basis for an arguement. they're not the same.
No, they weren't! Remember in my "naiveté", I was "DEAD WRONG"?!?
I'm confused now? Do you retract?
Where (in my "naiveté") did I say I had a problem with artists making money out of sales?
Michael Jackson was a talented bastard, didn't I just mention him? I'm quite sure he hasn't outsold The Beatles in overall sales...in the US or internationally. Prove me naive on this. Pretty please.
I did, and in my "naiveté" I forgot that (besides Madonna) they're all further down the ladder than the ones I just mentioned...
Are we? Really? Where (in my "naiveté") did I say I want artists to be exploited because they're inferior?
Anyways, I've got naivety to nurture; stop educating me for Christ's sake!
.
Last edited by emilision; 20th July 2012 at 01:45 AM..
Reason: A faceplam in the hand is worth two in the bush...
Living in Australia myself I have to disagree with 'Kaoz'.
The scene here is very difficult to sustain. Many artists are part timers.
There is a plethora of cover bands playing the major venues - Tribute To Bob Dylan, Classic Albums Live etc.
There is a very bleak future for young Aussie musicians, due to the poor state of the live scene here, poor record sales (other than for US/UK artists) and the tyranny of distance.
But then when 'Kaoz' states the 'industry deserves to die', you can see how confused this person is.
I don't think Wikipedia would have backed the anti-SOPA thing so much if it was just legislation protecting artists rights...
Well Wales is philosophically motivated by 'free information'. It's the blood in his veins, by which any other consideration is secondary.
I don't think 'free information' and commercial music* can mix.
*I say 'commercial' in the sense of music that has a fee attached, not top 40.
Well Wales is philosophically motivated by 'free information'. It's the blood in his veins, by which any other consideration is secondary.
I don't think 'free information' and commercial music* can mix.
*I say 'commercial' in the sense of music that has a fee attached, not top 40.
I agree with you there; Wales seems a bit full of himself too...he wants to be remembered as "someone who changed the world"...that said, I believe Wikipedia overall has become more democratic than just Jimmy's project.
I think part of the problem now is that bands that are railing against the machine (Radiohead and NiN for example) aren't marketed towards a younger crowd, whereas previous "protest" music was specifically aimed at a younger crowd.
Bands market to whoever is listening.
You think Radiohead decided to exclude under 30's?
The lack of politics in music has everything to do with the audience and nothing to do with artists. In recent decades, artists selling a lighter lyrical message have prospered, whereas artists selling a political message have struggled.
I also find it funny that artists such as Radiohead and NIN are being spoken about as radical/political.
I kind of wonder about them two though, TBH, because they pretty much had attained artistic licence to do what ever they wanted. It almost seemed like a publicity stunt with Reznor more than anything...and Radiohead: "In a 2011 appearance on The Colbert Report, Ed O'Brien said of the self-distribution strategy: "We sell less records, but we make more money."
Well to be honest Trent was the most accessible artist from an indie scene that had been growing for a long time (example Wax Trax). Basically a pretty boy in an indie scene that the majors decided to give a shot. Would consider him 20+ years detached from the indie scene. Or anything relating to developing artists.
Also don't forget that Radiohead and NIN made their name from major labels. Sorry know this has more to do with what Kaoz and I was discussing. Just your post made me think about it.
Why do people confuse the free software movement with pirates? It is free as in speech not always no money paid.
I am an advocate of FOSS, I still buy all my music.
Location: In an undisclosed bunker working on the music of the next generation.
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathromantik
Why do people confuse the free software movement with pirates? It is free as in speech not always no money paid.
I am an advocate of FOSS, I still buy all my music.
Free culture (in Lessig sense) is the extension of the free software concepts to other forms of media. If you read Lessig's book "Free Culture, Free Society" he explains this pretty clearly. Obviously it's not the same idea as piracy. But it's fair to say that these communities have negative views on many of the excesses of copyright, especially copyright duration and digital locks (ie. DRM, and laws that protect it). It's very common to see arguments for the expansion of fair use to cover things that are typically illegal today. It's obviously not black and white though.
It's also worth noting that copyleft licenses use copyright itself to subvert the the typical intentions of copyright though share-alike clauses. IE, it turns the "you can not share" of a typical copyright license to "you must share". I've heard it copyleft called "putting copyright on its head", which seems pretty accurate.
__________________
Sincerely,
freetard, esq. Musician & Producer, Freetard Records
Well Wales is philosophically motivated by 'free information'. It's the blood in his veins, by which any other consideration is secondary.
I don't think 'free information' and commercial music* can mix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathromantik
Why do people confuse the free software movement with pirates? It is free as in speech not always no money paid.
I am an advocate of FOSS, I still buy all my music.
Free culture (in Lessig sense) is the extension of the free software concepts to other forms of media. If you read Lessig's book "Free Culture, Free Society" he explains this pretty clearly. Obviously it's not the same idea as piracy. But it's fair to say that these communities have negative views on many of the excesses of copyright, especially copyright duration and digital locks (ie. DRM, and laws that protect it). It's very common to see arguments for the expansion of fair use to cover things that are typically illegal today. It's obviously not black and white though.
It's also worth noting that copyleft licenses use copyright itself to subvert the the typical intentions of copyright though share-alike clauses. IE, it turns the "you can not share" of a typical copyright license to "you must share". I've heard it copyleft called "putting copyright on its head", which seems pretty accurate.
The two quotes above are a decent response to chrisso's comment on free information, free culture, and Jimmy Wales/Wikipedia. Free culture is not a movement that advocates for the abolition of copyright or commercial works; it instead presents a case for the publishing of materials under a form of "some [or no] rights reserved" licenses. As freetard mentions above, and as I havepointed outpreviously, the CC licenses are empowered by copyright law. I don't even see mainstream free culture as an anti-copyright movement, per se; it's possible to stretch the ideals of free culture and suggest that such freedom should apply to all works universally, but I don't think it's right to characterize the foundation of the mainstream free culture philosophy as being so uncompromising in its reach. Free culture can very much exist alongside commercial culture.
everyone knows The Beatles are the best selling artists of all time...yawn indeed.
i think in your convoluted quest towards whatever it is you're trying to prove (which i'm still not sure about?), you've forgotten the original point you were trying to make. (which was a contradiction to begin with )
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision
a lot of the chart music in the 50s/60s/70s has been forgotten by now...music that was at the time as/more popular than the likes of Beatles...
the beatles have had more #1 hits than anybody: they were the definition of "chart music" in their time. they were a commercial radio machine. and yet you hold them in such high esteem despite this egregious offense?
so are you saying all those catchy #1 singles had nothing to do with their massive sales? (because according to you music that was "too commercial" was the downfall of the music industry... so that would be a little counter-intuitave...) or are you saying that in their particular case it's ok that they were totally commercial? (because you like them, so they get a free pass from the logic of your argument) or what?
Living in Australia myself I have to disagree with 'Kaoz'.
The scene here is very difficult to sustain. Many artists are part timers.
There is a plethora of cover bands playing the major venues - Tribute To Bob Dylan, Classic Albums Live etc.
There is a very bleak future for young Aussie musicians, due to the poor state of the live scene here, poor record sales (other than for US/UK artists) and the tyranny of distance.
But then when 'Kaoz' states the 'industry deserves to die', you can see how confused this person is.
I wasn't actually being serious with the deserves to die comment.
And I think you misread what I said - I've said plenty of times that the current state of affairs with the local industry is nowhere near what it was in the 90's (the second great peak of Aussie pub rock).
Having said that, if you're a top musician, there is still a lot of work out there, and you can make a comfortable living off of it, but it's definitely tougher when talking about a band, as opposed to an individual musician.
I will accept the confused tag though - just call me the Nigel Tuffnel of the forum.
The two quotes above are a decent response to chrisso's comment on free information, free culture, and Jimmy Wales/Wikipedia. Free culture is not a movement that advocates for the abolition of copyright or commercial works
But Wales is actively supporting a british student who was earning thousands of dollars a week by promoting unathorized television downloads.
And if you read many of the interviews Wales has given, he admits to being driven by free information culture.
I never said he was acting against copyright, I'm saying his personal mission colours everything he does and says.
By the amount of work they get I guess, which doesn't really answer your question lol
I'm talking more about top shelf session musos, that sort of stuff. I know a ton of great musos around the Sydney scene that make a very comfortable living off of a combination of session work and live work (be it their own gigs or with touring acts, tv shows etc).
Maybe I know some different ones, but the ones I know are largely working on cover band gigs. Playing out 5 to 7 nights a week just to keep afloat. Doing the 'Idol' grind. Doing the musical theatre grind.
Coming from the UK, I see the top players here as poorly paid, and doing less creative/original work, but more cover music, mindless tv and teaching.
You wouldn't see this in the UK or USA: ‘Bob Dylan Night’ The 50th Anniversary Tribute Dates Announced - Music News, Reviews, Interviews and Culture - Music Feeds
It is a complicated political matter quite aside from the nature of the site that O'Dwyer operated (which itself hosted no infringing content), because many believe that the US is bullying the UK in demanding that O'Dwyer be extradited on the basis of a controversial charge, despite never having set foot in the United States. Now, as an American, I don't know why all you foreigners bother getting so uppity about relinquishing your citizens to us in answering to our laws -- which rightfully have a global reach -- so frankly I think that Wales and the rest of the several hundred thousand petition signatories are wrong on this one, but to each his own (as long as each is an American!).
(Warning: sarcasm may have preceeded this disclaimer.)
For the record, I have absolutely no interest in fighting freely given information - shared.
Wikipedia is great. Free downloads (music and software) are great.
When people start sharing stuff they don't have permission to, or link to unauthorized stuff they don't have ownership of, that's not so great.
That's all I was saying.
Jimmy Wales can be as obsessed with free information all he likes, as long as that doesn't impinge on my freedom to control my own information. And I'm guessing that's where the conflict lies, because his personal belief powers him to fight my point of view. I'm not fighting his rights, he's fighting mine.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
every one of these bands or artists were at the forefront of popular music in their time. if you think they weren't chasing sales and singles to get to where they ended up, you're even more naive than i thought. (just forget the blouse altogether man... we've already seem 'em!) 
)
to all the rest of that hysterical nonsense. 
Musician & Producer, Freetard Records 
