It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:58 am


All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:56 pm
Posts: 71
mobese wrote:

I thought the same about vinyl being on the rise. In this interview Buzzo is saying that vinyl is actually selling less than it ever has. Who knows??



well...buzz would certainly know better than I would. although I think the decreasing number of album sales for individual artists like the melvins are probably also due in part to the sheer number of artists available to us now - each band's audience has been effectively diluted by the accessibility of music made possible by the internet. and I guess what little money the public is spending on music now is being spent across a broader spectrum of artists, so each of them gets a smaller piece of the pie rather than the big one they might have got before.

in light of that, I'd say the appearance of vinyl in commercial music stores is probably more likely due to its (temporary) popularity with the insufferable hipster crowd. it could also be that smaller indie record stores who previously stocked vinyl are closing down, which would obviously be more suggestive of a decrease in sales than an increase.

on a more positive note, what buzz was saying about releasing smaller runs of more expensive/special products does seem to be the best way for people to sell their art these days. not sure if anyone on here read that ebook about the creative commons concept, but there were quite a few examples of people from a range of artistic fields who have successfully made/saved their careers that way.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:00 pm
Posts: 58
yea, the smaller run special edition stuff seems to be the best route for physical releases. but then the question becomes is it worth it for the artist? i mean it can't be too motivating when you're looking at a situation where the majority are going to download your record for free and hopefully enough people buy the limited fancy packaged deluxe album to recoup production costs AND make enough for the artists to eat, live and make another record!

something definitely needs to happen to spark a renaissance in the appreciation of aesthetic form and it needs to happen in a powerful way to shift our culture's extremely warped perception of value.

cool about the http://holysons.bandcamp.com/ page. loving the recent mixes and the call of the wild stuff from soundcloud. i think a whole album with some bonus tracks for those who pay 10 bucks or more is a solid idea.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:13 pm
Posts: 123
unconfused wrote:
On the brighter side,, thanks Mobese!,, I needed a little encouragement to start setting up a bandcamp page... I'm about half-way thru getting started (http://holysons.bandcamp.com/) -- my idea is to issue a couple full Decline of the West out-take tracks and some lost lo-fi klassics thru the bandcamp page,,, this should be pretty perfect while we wait to schedule the next records...- if anyone has any particular ideas/preferences on what kind of tracks I should search for to post lemme know -- I'm also talking to Important about releasing 'My Only Warm Coals' alongside the upcoming Om record in around Feb... I'm trying to see if he can swing it on vinyl//kross yr fingers >>>>kILLER! 10-4



I'd definitely be into a kind of "definitive/director's cut" edition of Decline of the West. So if the recording sessions for the album produced 3 records worth of material it would be great to have these songs as bonus discs to the original album... I'd buy them as FLAC and burn them myself...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:04 am
Posts: 179
Location: Quebexico
mobese wrote:
[enough to] recoup [...], eat, live and make another record

warning: against the grain post here...

idea: music making doesn't need to be a money making venture to be a success. (Emil, anyone?).

none of "the best" (says me) music began with this intention i don't think? throw it out there and see what happens seems to be the logical approach. and document it because you need too. it should serve the artist first and everyone/thing else second. some of my favourite stuff is an expensive hobby i'm sure. there are a lot of those.

that said, it must feel shitty to have your original paying audience shrink while your new and/or accidental audience (i.e. anyone with access to the 'net and curious mind) grows exponentially as quickly as they can find you and not pay up.

i'm not quite articulate enough to get my point across but there is some of it anyhow... maybe i can tweak this later.

[/stirs the pot]

smaller runs make sense to me but crazy limited stuff is generally irritating.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:16 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:56 pm
Posts: 71
LBx wrote:

idea: music making doesn't need to be a money making venture to be a success. (Emil, anyone?).

none of "the best" (says me) music began with this intention i don't think?


you're right about that, of course...no sincere artist makes their art for the sole purpose of making money. so, technically with mp3s and digital recording etc you can make music for free, and give it away for free, and settle for feeling all warm and fuzzy when people like it. but the real issue is that the way our society operates forces us into a situation where whatever it is we do has to become a money making venture if we want to spend a significant portion of our lives doing it. and for most creative types I know, trying to make art in their spare time whilst working a day job is a total fucking drag. it kills their inspiration, saps their strength and more importantly it occupies most of their precious time. in my book, artists who are passionate and good at what they do already work hard enough - they shouldn't have to work a day job too.

you're also forgetting that the main issue here is not that artists can't make money from their music, it's more that the lack of money being made from it means a lack of money to fund it, and funding is pretty essential if you care about releasing your music as a tangible object. you can make mp3s for free, but you definitely can't make vinyl.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:13 pm
Posts: 123
amy wrote:
but the real issue is that the way our society operates forces us into a situation where whatever it is we do has to become a money making venture if we want to spend a significant portion of our lives doing it. and for most creative types I know, trying to make art in their spare time whilst working a day job is a total fucking drag. it kills their inspiration, saps their strength and more importantly it occupies most of their precious time.


THIS is why I really, really believe in the idea of unconditional basic income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

http://www.bath.ac.uk/casp/projects/cur ... mibia.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:40 am
Posts: 15
Location: Baltimore, MD
Concept:

As artists, accept the notion that — in general — your work is better when you work for it, not the other way around. The problem is an insistence on ownership of the ideas produced, in essence making it about you, not the work. Most artists had day jobs before they committed to the notion that their art should feed them. I'm not saying that artistic talents/ideas are worthless, I actually think it's the most valuable thing — good art/music, etc. — but ultimate value doesn't always result in acquisition of money or goods for exchange.

Insistence on owning one's ideas necessitates limiting who has access to those ideas. If the goal of making arts is communicating ideas through that art, then insisting on owning the idea is in direct opposition to the actual goal. Thus insisting on being paid for making that art is by extension in direct opposition to the actual goal. Ownership, and by extension licensing that ownership, is the shady side deal that talentless (outside of dealmaking) dude with an overcoat full of watches makes with artists to allow him to make money off the art too. If the goal is to make money, good luck to you, but I would argue that few people get into devoting time to creative pursuits merely to make money.

If you really want to foment the slow revolution, the only RIGHT kind of revolution, make art, give it away anonymously, and don't worry about what happens to it. Paint a picture, don't sign it, install it late at night, unseen by others, in a public space in a way that isn't destructive to the space it's hung in, e.g. on cardboard hung with rubber cement, and leave. Then don't be upset when it's gone. It went into the ether, and the people who saw it, and the way it was presented aren't affected by you, or the way you look, or anything attached to you. They just experience the work on its own terms, the ideas on their own terms. Maybe it offends them. Maybe it inspires them. Maybe it doesn't affect them at all. Maybe they don't even notice it. It's like throwing paint at a wall, some of it will stick, and some won't. You do it and you hope that eventually there's a critical mass of that type of behavior.

Now how do you do that with music?

All this said, I have no problem with the notion of paying for a physical good, and I generally WILL buy a record/book/print that I know is good, and that is interesting in its physical form. But I don't buy it to "support the artist" as much as I buy it because I want something nice to hold in my hands and look at while I'm listening to the music it contains, or want something nice to sit on my bookshelf, or hang on my wall. Most of the time, I prefer to buy physical copies from the artist when I see them on tour, mainly because I suspect that doing so has an effect on whether the artist gets to eat on the road. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that on tour you've already paid for the records, etc. at the merch table, so the money I drop there is conceivably going into your bellies/gas tanks, assuming you're not selling it all for cost.

But what the fuck do I know? I'm just a critical thinker. I'm not really making anything.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:01 pm
Posts: 1
so, not to ignore the visual arts necessarily, as i do sense that these “industries” are facing equally dark futures due to some very similar structural issues, but in an effort to clear up a couple of burning questions regarding the plight of the “professional musician” i was wondering what any of you thought about there being some need to redefine the role of the “music label”? because it seems to me that what labels are really doing these days, (and not always because they mean to, or because they even realize what theyre doing, although sometimes theyre evil and they do) but it seems like they have the undesirable effect of building unnecessary walls between the musician/band and his/her/their audience, by gathering together a grouping of bands which they believe are “similar enough” to market to one large target “consumer group”. is there any good reason to allow labels to completely take over the task of reaching out to people with marketing tools in order to turn artists into entertainers for the purposes of making money? when did art/music become synonymous with entertainment and allow its goals to be diverted in order to favor the goals of an industry? doesn’t the internet give musicians an opportunity to be more in control of the distribution of their sounds and ideas in a more immediately rewarding way both aesthetically and financially by offering a virtual venue in which to build interest in their work? do the bands you are in or know well see any increase in interest and/or revenue when they create and maintain websites and forums (such as this one, and holy sons new site)? is it just that musicians are lazy or can’t be bothered to connect with people more directly? or maybe they dont realize what an incredible tool the internet is? i don’t necessarily think that labels are totally worthless or anything that dramatic, but maybe they shouldn’t have quite so much control over who gets heard when and where and by whom....(of course this question is equally applicable to the institute of the “curator” in the visual arts, but im especially curious about the way that other musicians regard the work that labels do for them)...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:04 am
Posts: 179
Location: Quebexico
dropout wrote:
is it just that musicians are lazy or can’t be bothered to connect with people more directly? or maybe they don't realize what an incredible tool the internet is?

a lot of them, i think, or would say, are "part time" "professional hobbyists". and busy with other things.

some people spend their free time getting loaded, with their families or making music. sometimes said sounds are something incredible. sometimes not. sometimes it is spammed upon the world. and sometimes word of mouth gets it around and things happen. in 200X anyone interested can find what they are looking for.

dropout wrote:
is there any good reason to allow labels to completely take over[...]

i think a label of any stature takes away the vanity of a musician having to constantly say "look at me and listen to what i can do!" and does that for them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Problem.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:56 pm
Posts: 71
altar-ego wrote:
Concept:

As artists, accept the notion that — in general — your work is better when you work for it, not the other way around.

do you honestly think the quality of art currently being produced could be improved if all artists had to work day jobs and commit less time to their creative work? presumably they should all take shitty office or factory jobs so they can pay their rent, then make their art on the weekends when they're tired and drained of all creative energy, and probably depressed about having to work their shitty job, then feel happy to give that art away without due credit or compensation for the time, talent and materials involved in the belief that what they've done is in some way revolutionary? nice idea, but I'll pass.

practical concerns aside, applying a blanket rule about how art should be produced and shared is fundamentally against the spirit of art-making; art serves many different functions for many different people. for some, what they do is expressive and spontaneous and any tangible result means nothing because they're all about the process. for others, the process is difficult, tedious and time consuming, but they feel it's worth it for the results achieved... there are a thousand shades of grey in between, and all are equally valuable from an artistic viewpoint.

from where I'm standing, I only see the quality of art declining as its role in our lives becomes devalued, and the process of making it demystified. as skill and craftsmanship are passed up in favour of the ease and efficiency offered by technology, people have come to see art as something that anyone can make and should therefore be free. in the 'legitimate' art world there's an awful lot of this stuff going around:

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/gorgeous_stained_glass_windows_of_aleister_crowley_william_burroughs_/

which to me is little more than the visual-art equivalent of girl-talk. so many modern 'artists' in every field seem content to reference/sample/steal from people who were genuinely creative, skilled, visionary or avant-garde rather than aspiring to achieve something of comparable value, which I think is largely due to the fact that this approach is generally easier and more profitable than having any sort of integrity. if the rewards for making genuinely good art, monetary or otherwise, were actually reflective of the time/vision/effort involved, perhaps we would start to see more of it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group