Re:
The DJs primary purpose is to expose music. That is the original
history of DJing. It is how this all started. A lot of things have >changed
since the early days of radio, but I fail to see how the DJs >primary
obligation to expose artists has ever mutated.
I'm sorry, I must disagree with you on this fine point. The primary purpose
of the DJ is to entertain an audience. If a DJ's primary purpose was to
expose artists then a DJ could play a set of terrible artists and do it
really poorly and yet they would still be doing their job well because they
are exposing artists.
Regarding the early days of radio, the DJ's purpose then was to entertain or
keep an audience captive so that they could sell commercials (just as it is
today on mainstream radio).
Entertaining an audience is always job #1 regardless if you are a mobile
wedding/birthday party jock or Superstar DJ Fancypants.
MEK
From: "Phonopsia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jayson B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <313@hyperreal.org>, "Jeffrey
Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [313] taking off labels
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:27:14 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jayson B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 313@hyperreal.org
<313@hyperreal.org>
Date: Monday, March 12, 2001 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: [313] taking off labels
>At 12:05 AM 3/12/2001, Jayson B. wrote:
>>Like someone said earlier, your forgetting that somebody WROTE that
track
>>and i'm sure they would want people to hear it and own it.
>>
>
>Agreed, but the dj is doing them a favor by playing it... he's not
>prohibiting the promotion of the track or anything like that, simply
>promoting a nameless track, at that point. It's certainly not
detrimental
>to the track itself, when you consider that you'd never have even heard
it
>to want it had the dj not played it for you (assumming it's something
>you've never heard before).
But this is why clubs are required to pay BMI and ASCAP dues. Royalties are
a legal requirement. There is a sound principal at work. If a club or radio
plays a song, the artist deserves (funny word) to get some reimbursement
for
it. It's a generally accepted means of exposure. Not all clubs pay dues,
but
they are liable to be shut down if they don't. Similarly not all
underground
labels are members of BMI or ASCAP. The issue is that but for this system,
clubs would not have the authorization to play *any* music. It's a flawed
system, but it illustrates the principal at work. The idea of paying
admission is based on this principle. The question isn't "why shouldn't you
take labels off", it's "how can you justify doing it"? I have yet to hear a
sound argument as to why it's OK to steal that exposure from the artists.
Maybe the question should be "why are clubs not required to post a
tracklist
at the end of a set"? That may be extreme and hard to implement, but you
can
see what I'm getting at. We're fortunate to be able to hear music before we
buy it through whatever sanctioned or unsanctioned means are availalable to
us. We're fortunate that laws aren't stricter, requiring that each track's
info be announced every time it's played (this would be annoying in a
club).
The DJs primary purpose is to expose music. That is the original history of
DJing. It is how this all started. A lot of things have changed since the
early days of radio, but I fail to see how the DJs primary obligation to
expose artists has ever mutated.
Tristan
----------
Lots of music, pics and info here:
http://www.mp3.com/stations/313
http://www.mp3.com/Frogbot
http://phonopsia.tripod.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<FrogboyMCI> on AOL IM
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
