Larry Slavens wrote:
Joe (I) wrote:
>>since I insist on my
>>right as an artist to control what happens with my art. Pretty simple
>> concept.
>
> Simple? Yes and no.
> So what makes that performance good enough for those people in the venue,
> but not good enough for me to listen to at home?
I think it is a crucial difference, one that is at the heart of this
debate. When you stand up and sing a song, it is gone at the moment that
it is born. However, if somebody tapes it it then becomes a different
thing from an ephemeral instant in time. If you are having a sub-par
night for some reason, at least the damage is over as soon as it
existed, unless somebody is taping it, at which point the damage can go
on forever. I think this story (which I am only remembering from an
article I read years ago, and probably butchering) illustrates, at least
tangentially, my point:
A visitor to Picasso's studio reaches into the trashcan and retrieves a
discarded piece of work and asks if he might be allowed to have it as a
keepsake. Picasso says "No, no that is worth millions of dollars. If you
would like to buy it, contact my agent." The visitor remonstrates "but
this was trash moments ago" and Picasso says "yes but now it is a Picasso".
While I am not saying live performances are trashcans, I am trying to
show the difference in my mind if you merely witness my performance,
good bad or ugly, and go home with the memory of it in your mind as
opposed to your taking a record of the performance with you, to be
replayed through time as representing my work. While it may do that, I
still instist on the right to leave that performance in the trash if I
so desire. Live performance and taped performance are two completely
different creations, with different sets of criteria. Once that tape
machine is on, a completely different set of rights comes into play, all
of them mine.
I had to learn this the hard way when I released some stuff on my little
label that the artists weren't especially pleased with, and it really
hit home to me how painful and invasive of their basic rights it was for
me to do that. I realize tapes are not releases, but I just see no way
to avoid the fact that the artist has absolute veto power over taping.
I find myself in an odd position here because I am really trying to
define a very important right while not especially worried about the
current reality. As far as I am concerned, the guy who wrote in from
Australia about how hard it was for him to ever see any of these people
in person and how important tapes were to him makes perfect sense, and I
understand that tapes in reality present very little if any threat to
the artist unless abused. I just hate to see music treated as something
apart from the artist; like Will Miner said something like "didn't the
artist basically give up his right to it once he sings it" (or at least
that's how it struck me) and I just can't stand that.
> But Joe, weren't you exposing your art to the public in that show that my
> hypothetical buddy recorded? Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but if
> Thompson didn't want people to hear those songs until the album came out,
> then what was he doing playing them in public performance?
again, I think there is a huge difference in the transient nature of a
live performance vs. a tape. If tapes of his new material get out way
ahead of the record and get played on the radio for instance (easy to
have happen) then it really screws up the thing he is trying to do.
> You must have more artistic control than many performers.
I'm talking about broad rights based on control of copyrights, masters,
etc. When you sign a record deal, you are actually signing away your
right to control those masters. However, with unsanctioned tapes, you
never got the chance to even do that. This is a fundamental difference.
> And the serious tape collector is confused too. Does the circulation of live
> tapes take income away from the artist?
It takes away the ability to derive income from those recordings of the
artist's performance. I see no way around this fact. Regardless of how
salubrious the effect on the artist may be in the end, free tapes are
still a violation, no matter how well-intentioned or benign, of the
basic idea of ownership of artistic property. You can be very casual
about this right, as the Dead and others are (were), or you can be all
humped up about it, which I guess most big touring acts probably are. I
could probably argue either way, depending on if I woke up as the
hippie/commie me or the budding hard-ass me as I slowly morph into my
father the corporate defense lawyer.
I think much of this is rapidly being made moot by digital-realm
recording and duping. It will soon be that artists will only derive
income from the very first incarnation of their music (and from
controlled licensed usage, which won't be altered) and after that they
will simply get used to living with a large shaft in a delicate part of
their anatomies.
>
> (And after years of not participating in discussions because of the digest
> factor, and having posts ignored, it's an honor to be debated by Joe Gracey.
> And I'm not being facetious.)
Well, since you put it that way, you can tape the show.
JEG
--
Joe Gracey
President-For-Life, Jackalope Records
http://www.kimmierhodes.com
