I'm so glad your name isn't Dustin,
At 04:35 PM 6/14/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I agree but I like to think that my modivation for making music is more than
>money. That is what separates us from them. The major record companies,
>napster, eminem, puff, and the others who play the mainstream game have only
>one modivation for everything they do, $. I think it is evident by the
quality
>of music played on the radio these days.
The problem with that is that most radio itself is
funded by major labels who have $ as their only
motivation. They're even worse than the puffy's,
and other sell outs (but what is selling out if they
don't really get paid?)-- they actually created those
monsters, and have complete control of them.
Some less money-hungry individuals make a rash
decision and sign the wrong contract and they're
sucked into the system as just a spot of grease
on the cog of a giant moneysucking machine.
The good news is that it won't be
>around very long, where as a well made track can outlive our kids. I do
agree
>that the artistic value of a piece is compromised when flaunted around the
net
>for free, but it is harmed even more when another person is selling it for
>their own profits. I would be a fool to be ingnorant to the fact that
>musicians need to be re-embersed(sp) for their work, but the true gold a
>person recieves for his/her work is the ispiration it instills on it's
>listeners. From that standpoint free music can be viewed as a blessing.
True, but you said yourself that artists do need
to get something back. I mean, they do have to
eat too. Should they get a full time job and
spend maybe a few hours a night on the music, when
they could be spending 8-12 hours a day on putting
out even more, and developing their sound even
further? What if they did make just enough to get
by and maybe even enough to get some better equipment,
etc... Better music would most likely result.
The question is, do we as a society value the
freedom of music and the freedom of that music
to be distributed without cost to all people for
their enjoyment, or do we value the *quality* of
that music and pushing boundaries in music even
further. I don't think you can honestly say that
we can have both, without some sort of compensation
system for the artists, so that they can continue
to develop and push their music further--and in
this capitalist system, I don't think the government
has our back either, so the artists do need to keep
a sharp eye out for themselves.
A lot of the great painters, etc., in history
became great painters because they came from
wealthy families that could afford to let them
just create new material to their heart's content.
Wouldn't it be nice if artists today could simply
be compensated (so they could continue creating)
-- not because of a wealthy upbringing --not by
chance-- but by the merit of their own
creations/accomplishments? --completely outside
of the reach of the major labels? (read: content
providers)
>I can
>relate to your comment about losing you soul to the mass media. That is why
>vinyl is so value, I am a strong believer that the true soul of electronic
>music lies in the analogue sound. Analogue is the true language of sound
>where as once it is copied digitally it is then translated to an unhuman form
>that somewhat loses the essence of the emotions and feelings put into it. Its
>like listening to an old Miles Davis track on CD then listening to the vinyl.
>There is something much more real hidden in the clicks, pops, and spaces of
>the analogue recording. I think that is where your soul lives, not in the
>digitally copied and copied again tracks distributed via internet.
Hmm... call me punk, or what you will, but I don't
really notice the difference between the two mediums
--but I drink both coke and pepsi too without notice.
I *do* know that mp3's sound far worse than cd audio.
A song I arranged 'day from hell' has all these clicks
as the main treble pieces of the track, but in the mp3
version they all sound like scissors snipping--
completely different.
cheers,
Dale
