Disallowing taping & trading is financial suicide

[johnagrandy]

Preventing taping and trading is all going to be proven to be nonsense in the long run.

You can't stop audience members from making reasonably high-quality recordings of live shows. The devices are small enough to be hidden anywhere and the fidelity is becoming amazing.

Live shows are frequently much better than the studio sessions which originate the tour.

People are going to trade the recordings for many many different reasons: philosophical, mercantilism, efforts to spread the word, etc. People are always going to figure out how to do it no matter what crap the recording industry and technology providers come up with to stop it.

No one can shut it down.

Any artist who tries to shut down taping and trading of their live shows alienates potential fans whose numbers are many times that of their established fan-bases.

Jazz musicians must be on the vanguard of the movement against corporate control of music as a finite commodity. Jazz musicians must alter their approach to making a living at music. They can not view music as a commodity and fans as consumers of that commodity.

Instead they must view their fans as partners in their music, and approach the financial question differently : how to gain the trust of as many "fan-partners" as possible ?

In the long-run, those jazz musicians who make efforts in this direction will prosper. Those who do not (except for highly-publicized and marketed "icons" of labels) will suffer economically.

I have almost everything John Scofield ever did officially. I also have dozens of bootleg recordings, many of which are just plain better than the official stuff.

Why did I and why do I continue to buy every new official piece of Sco music at full price from a channel he promotes (Amazon) and never trade for it or download it from a pirate site ? Because I view myself and other fans as partners in what he is doing for the world, and Sco has financial needs just like the rest of us, and so if I benefit from his music then its my obligation to financially support what he is doing.

Why do I trade for unofficially recorded live shows? Because it's music I want to listen to and there's no other way to get it and I believe that my total purchases of official CDs & tickets to concerts adds up to a fair financial contribution to what Sco is doing. How many $ is a personal decision every fan must make on their own.

So, paradoxically, those artists that just give a thumbs-up to the floodgates of taping and trading will ultimately do much better than those who don't.

Why? Because they greatly expand their fan-partner bases and probability theory says the more people who interested in what you're doing, over the long-run the more shows you will play, the more money you will make at each show, and the more official recordings all of your fan-partners are going to buy.

The best example I can think of is Charlie Hunter. Hunter knows there are literally hundreds of bootlegs of him and his various jazz units, and him with various jam bands such as GAT, being traded all over the internet and mail and in person. He doesn't try to stop it.

But he does have an elaborate website with a huge variety of merchandise. Fans like me are more motivated to buy various interesting stuff directly from CH because we know the $ are probably going to those people who actually created something, and not those who are disinterested providers of capital to finance ventures and distribute the product. Some of those providers are great human beings, but some of them are not. I'd rather get my money more directly to the artist.

I don't buy a particular piece of Sco or CH music because I want to "own" that music. I buy it because both of them almost always create something very worth listening to. And so I financially contribute to their endeavors.

Edited October 8, 2005 by johnagrandy

[Guy Berger]

I agree that artists can benefit from embracing this kind of stuff*, but "financial suicide" is extreme and unrealistic.

Guy

*Though conversely, there are gains from monopoly power over live recordings.

[johnagrandy]

I agree that artists can benefit from embracing this kind of stuff*, but "financial suicide" is extreme and unrealistic.

    Guy

*Though conversely, there are gains from monopoly power over live recordings.

←

I think financial suicide is very realistic for most.

What happens when's there not just a few CH style jazz artists ? What happens when 50% or more artists sell their stuff from their own websites and allow taping & trading of live shows ?

It's getting easier and easier to create and host high-quality e-commerce websites.

No question that the talent will be split on both sides, because musical talent is not representative of views on this issue. But music buyers always have to make choices. You can't own everything.

Right now, I have to decide if I want Nicholas Payton "Sonic Trance", or do I want

Dave Douglas "Freak In". I can't really afford both, but I want to get into this wave of music.

I have no idea what those two particular artists' policies are on live taping and trading.

But if one of them is definitely for it, and one of them is definitely against it, and I've got a live tape of one of them, and not for the other, and it's obvious to me that the music is incredible, then I'm going to go with the artist whose live tape I have.

[Guy Berger]

I think you are overestimating the number of fans who will ever be interested in collecting large numbers of live recordings.

Guy

[johnagrandy]

I think you are overestimating the number of fans who will ever be interested in collecting large numbers of live recordings.

        Guy

←

Doesn't have to be someone with a large collection of live recordings.

The best example is I want to hip someone I know to an artist's music but they aren't convinced enough to buy a CD. I have five choices:

(a) hang out with them and play the CD. This is not realistic because of distance, schedules, other things to do when you see someone, desire to listen alone, etc.

(b) go to a live show. That's kind of pushing the person because it's expensive. Plus all the reasons above.

© buy them an official CD. Costs me $. Only in certain relationships is gift-giving appropriate, etc.

(d) burn them a copy of an official CD , but then I'm breaking the law.

(e) give them a copy of an unofficial taped live show of the artist that the artist is cool with. Costs me next to nothing. Easy to do. There's no time obligation on my friend's part: if they don't like it they can just turn it off and say nothing to me. Nobody feels like their time or money got wasted.

Another example: I learn about an artist and based on other people's opinions, they seem right up my alley, but I don't want to shell out any money without hearing a least 30 mins of their music. I can either download or seek out an unofficial tape of a live show , or I can get my hands on a bootleg of an official CD.

I don't want to break the law or go against an artist's wishes (if they're still alive). So it's way more likely I become a fan of this artist if there are free easily-obtainable tapes available. Then once I'm a fan, I start spending money on their music on some kind of regular basis. They gained a long-term fan.

[relyles]

I doubt that any time in the near future there will be a significant enough percentage of jazz artists embracing the recording and trading of their live performances that those that don't embrace the "wave" will be committing financial suicide. There are other ways that an artist can generate enough good will that fans will support the music. For example, Ellery Eskelin isvery uncomfortable with the idea of people recording his live shows. He knows it happens and that ultimately he probably will not be able to stop it, but he is far from embracing the practice as a form of positive marketing for him. In fact, he sees it exactly the opposite. He is one of those artists whose objection is not necessarily the immediate financial impact, but his preference to control how his music is presented and distributed and what is retained for posterity. In Mr. Eskelin's opinion (and I am sure others as well), a recording of a live performance where he has no control of the sound quality and/or he may not have been satisfied with the performance can actually have the opposite affect. Under these circumstances he thinks some potential fans can be discouraged from investigating his music further if the first thing they heard was a live performance that he had no intention of becoming a permanent record. Despite, his reluctance, I think Mr. Eskelin is very much respected and supported by the fans of the kind of music he plays.

Somewhat long winded post and I hope my point did not get lost. I personally have a collection of well over 2500 unofficial live recordings. Despite my own personal obsession with trading, I have to believe your opening statement is somewhat of a stretch.

[johnagrandy]

Not long-winded for my ears.

At the first level of depth, the problem with artists attempting to protect the quality of their legacy is, as you point out, even those who are opposed to live taping and trading know that there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Therefore the potential "permanent record" becomes whatever an artist performs in public.

This gets back to my earlier point regarding music as finite commodity vs an infinite experience.

Attempting to compartmentalize music as a finite commodity is an artificial construct that began with the advent of the first recording techniques.

Before that time, it was only possible to experience music live. Therefore, for most of human history music was strictly an infinite experience. Perception of music as a finite commodity is a modern-day aberration of the natural harmony of the universe. For serious music, it is paramount that this perception be discarded.

Irrelevant of how a listener experiences a music, all potential impacts on the listener are possible. Differentiation between modes of delivery of a music is largely irrelevant to the potential impact on the listener's soul.

Multiple listenings to a more carefully crafted work may indeed increase probabilities of a specific neuro-cerebral impact occurring. However, improvised musics have as their intrinsic natural potential that the most powerful vibe can and will eventually be created at a non-temporally predetermined instance of creation.

Edited October 9, 2005 by johnagrandy

[Chuck Nessa]

Not long-winded for my ears.

At the first level of depth, the problem with artists attempting to protect the quality of their legacy is, as you point out, even those who are opposed to live taping and trading know that there is nothing they can do to stop it. 

Therefore the potential "permanent record" becomes whatever an artist performs in public.

This gets back to my earlier point regarding music as finite commodity vs an infinite experience.

Attempting to compartmentalize music as a finite commodity is an artificial construct that began with the advent of the first recording techniques.

Before that time, it was only possible to experience music live.  Therefore, for most of human history music was strictly an infinite experience.  Perception of music as a finite commodity is a modern-day aberration of the natural harmony of the universe.  For serious music, it is paramount that this perception be discarded.

Irrelevant of how a listener experiences a music, all potential impacts on the listener are possible.  Differentiation between modes of delivery of a music is largely irrelevant to the potential impact on the listener's soul.

Multiple listenings to a more carefully crafted work may indeed increase probabilities of a specific neuro-cerebral impact occurring.  However, improvised musics have as their intrinsic natural potential that the most powerful vibe can and will eventually be created at a non-temporally predetermined instance of creation.

←

What the heck are you smokin' boy?

How do these guys make a living?

The "audience" of which you are one part, is not nearly as important as the creator of your "good time".

If you need to do "multiple listenings" then you need to pay the artist(s).

I do not accept the rest of your "heebie jeebies".

[johnagrandy]

What the heck are you smokin' boy?

How do these guys make a living?

The "audience" of which you are one part, is not nearly as important as the creator of your "good time".

If you need to do "multiple listenings" then you need to pay the artist(s).

I do not accept the rest of your "heebie jeebies".

←

Sorry bro. Ain't gotta be smoking shit to figure out what's comin'.

Who do you think's gonna kick Microsoft's ass ? A Microsoft clone ?

No. Microsoft is gonna get its ass kicked by open source. The trend is firmly in place. The money is made providing the experience not the commodity.

Even Microsoft figured this out and has released a .NET codebase as open source.

Sco's audience is 10x what it was before he hit the jam-band scene. And how do you think so many young people got hipped to what's he up to? The answer is: Live shows and trading of tapes of live shows. Infinite experiences. Not finite commodities.

And Sco's vastly increased audience will support him in many ways, seen and unseen. Friends Seen And Unseen.

You're livin' in the past man. But it ain't too late for you ...

You always gotta pay close attention to how the young people perceive the world. Otherwise you get old.

Miles knew that very well.

[Chalupa]

Miles knew that very well.

Miles didn't allow taping

[Chuck Nessa]

You're livin' in the past man.  But it ain't too late for you ...

You always gotta pay close attention to how the young people perceive the world.  Otherwise you get old. 

←

Not in the past, just with some sense of justice. If that doesn't exist in your world, I'll happily exit.

You blame "youth" for your "greed" it seems.

[johnagrandy]

Miles knew that very well.

Miles didn't allow taping

←

He would if he was alive and playing today.

Miles was a very hip cat. He caught every societal trend before it got goin' big and got way in front of it musically and experientially.

Miles left us before the enabler (the internet) really got goin'.

Edited October 10, 2005 by johnagrandy

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Boy, you must have really known Miles.

Mike

[Chuck Nessa]

For me it is really distressing if current technology "trumps" ethics.

[Guy Berger]

Boy, you must have really known Miles.

Mike

←

Never underestimate a good seance.

Guy

[Guest]

At the first level of depth, the problem with artists attempting to protect the quality of their legacy is, as you point out, even those who are opposed to live taping and trading know that there is nothing they can do to stop it. 

I mostly agree with your take on the issues here, but I think you need to flesh out your arguments a bit more. The above argument applies to murder and rape, doesn't it? There really isn't much anyone can ever do to stop these things altogether, but does that mean we should not try to discourage or mitigate them? I think not. Those who think that recording or trading live music is unethical will also think not regarding live music. So the fact that it can't be stopped is not a sufficient argument in itself.

The question then is should we attempt to discourage or mitigate it, and if so in what ways.

I can think of two options here for arguments, though there are probably others as well.

One is to try to change the minds of the folks who believe it is unethical, that unlike murder or rape, recording or trading live music is not unethical or immoral. It does not cause illegitimate harm to others. It's a reasonable and legitimate human activity. Therefore attacking the people doing it is the crime, not vice versa. I tend to agree with this argument, but it's a hard sell for most. It may not be practical to argue, even if it's "right".

That leads to the second argument, the utilitarian argument. Regardless of whether it's immoral or unethical, trying to stop it will be more destructive, more immoral, overall than allowing it. The cure is worse than the disease. I think this is a good argument too. The only way to really stop it to any great degree would be to construct a police state with the power to monitor everyone's cd collections and computers.

No thanks. The taping/trading is far less harmful and dangerous to most people, even if you think it's unethical.

Therefore the potential "permanent record" becomes whatever an artist performs in public.

This gets back to my earlier point regarding music as finite commodity vs an infinite experience.

Attempting to compartmentalize music as a finite commodity is an artificial construct that began with the advent of the first recording techniques.

Before that time, it was only possible to experience music live.  Therefore, for most of human history music was strictly an infinite experience.  Perception of music as a finite commodity is a modern-day aberration of the natural harmony of the universe.  For serious music, it is paramount that this perception be discarded.

Irrelevant of how a listener experiences a music, all potential impacts on the listener are possible.  Differentiation between modes of delivery of a music is largely irrelevant to the potential impact on the listener's soul.

Again, a good start, but I think you need to flesh out the arguments better.

You use the terms "infinite experience" and "finite commodity".

It seems to me that the first attempts to commodify music did not arise with recording technology as you argue, but rather with the building of private concert halls or rooms where only those special few inside who paid the right price could partake of the commodity inside, while those outside were closed out by walls and such. And the only reliable way to make sure people paid was to make sure that those who did not were excluded from the experience.

It is this concept that has been extended to recordings. Recordings are something to be kept scarce and exclusionary, so that people must pay the highest possible entrance fee for the privilege of hearing them.

You're then left having to construct a different dichotomy than "infinite experience" vs "finite commodity". The former was made a "commodity" already, and the latter is certainly still an "experience", even if it's finite and a commodity.

So would your arguments apply to the commodity on sale in a closed, exclusionary concert hall? If not, I think you need to explain why not, and explain why they still apply to live recordings anyway. There has to be some reasonable distinction between the two that would account for the different view on each.

Earlier you wrote:

(a) hang out with them and play the CD. This is not realistic because of distance, schedules, other things to do when you see someone, desire to listen alone, etc.

This is something to explore. Is it not completely arbitrary that it is "legal" and/or "ethical" for your friend to hear the CD while hanging out with you, but if you make him a copy or pass a file to him over the computer to hear, then it becomes "illegal" and "unethical"? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Still earlier you wrote:

So, paradoxically, those artists that just give a thumbs-up to the floodgates of taping and trading will ultimately do much better than those who don't.

Why? Because they greatly expand their fan-partner bases and probability theory says the more people who interested in what you're doing, over the long-run the more shows you will play, the more money you will make at each show, and the more official recordings all of your fan-partners are going to buy.

The best example I can think of is Charlie Hunter. ...

I think you're wishful thinking here. You would need to provide something more concrete than anecdotal evidence.

You underestimate the power of the argument that the manipulation of scarcity is the most reliable way to reap more financial reward. Try telling a rich owner of a large concert hall that he'll "do much better" if he opens his doors to anyone that feels like showing up, rather than excluding them until they buy his tickets.

I think you also miss that many recording artists, and more importantly all record companies, do not view "shows" as the basis of their income. Getting them to view live shows as the basis of their income would be a complete shift of paradigm. Gigs seem to be only a means to an end in the major music industry. They're a way to get people to buy more of the recordings. That's it.

Just some food for thought.

[Peter Johnson]

Boy, you must have really known Miles.

Mike

←

Never underestimate a good seance.

Guy

←

[marcello]

Here's my two cents:

Trading of live in-released concert recordings does help the popularitry of a artist. It can get his music in the hands of people who who might not otherwise know anything about him or her, and stimulate new fans to see a live show or buy a commerical recording.

In the Jazz Business, in most cases, commerical recordings are co-produced by, or at very least have a great input from, the artists. It is his definitive musical statement, with much work and thought going into repertiore, personel, mixing, and sequence. This is a thoughtful process and is considered the artists's benchmark. Not random live gigs, although those can achieve great music and collabortions that are also memorable; and maybe even important .

Commerical recordings, by a far margin, create the demand for personal appearances and generate the publishing income ( if the artist is also a composer) that are the life blood for most; not freely traded cdrs. I don't know of one venue booker who does not gage a artist's popularity by looking at his commercial recording sales and the airplay that they produce. Mainstream business models will always rule .

That being said, artists produced music being downloaded from his own site is the wave of the future, but only through partnerships with traditional recording companies and distributorships along with radio airplay.

[marcello]

I think you also miss that many recording artists, and more importantly all record companies, do not view "shows" as the basis of their income.  Getting them to view live shows as the basis of their income would be a complete shift of paradigm.  Gigs seem to be only a means to an end in the major music industry.  They're a way to get people to buy more of the recordings.  That's it.

Just some food for thought.

←

joshd,

You were making good sense untill this last paragraph.

Unless a jazz artists is recording every week, his personal appearance income far outstrip his recording income, and one of the criteia that record companies look for is if the act has a frequent touring schedule. They realize that live appearances fuel cd sales. Which leads to more airplay, which leads to more media recognition etc, etc...

[Guest]

I think you also miss that many recording artists, and more importantly all record companies, do not view "shows" as the basis of their income.  Getting them to view live shows as the basis of their income would be a complete shift of paradigm.  Gigs seem to be only a means to an end in the major music industry.  They're a way to get people to buy more of the recordings.  That's it.

Just some food for thought.

←

joshd,

You were making good sense untill this last paragraph.

Unless a jazz artists is recording every week, his personal appearance income far outstrip his recording income,

You're probably right about that, but I don't think it's true for Britney Spears. I was thinking more broadly than jazz artists there, note "major music industry".

For an artist who does in fact make the bulk of their income from live performance, it is a good argument that live recording/trading by fans will generate more income. If they get more fans to gigs, that might easily offset any supposed loss they might take in recordings, which was small to begin with. Their record company might not like the idea of (what they see as) sacrificing the recording end to boost the gig end though.

For artists who make the bulk of their income from recordings, it probably won't float. And for their record companies it certainly wouldn't float.

and one of the criteia that record companies look for is if the act has a frequent touring schedule. They realize that live appearances fuel cd sales. Which leads to more airplay, which leads to more media recognition etc, etc...

←

I think you're sort of agreeing with what I said here. The touring is still viewed as the means to an end. It helps "fuel" something else, but that something else is still really what it's about.

[johnagrandy]

Boy, you must have really known Miles.

Mike

←

That's the obvious thing to say. The obvious bores me. Doesn't it bore you?

Do you think being close to Miles would have given someone an "in" on predicting where he was going next ? I say not a chance. No one could predict where he was going in that manner.

Miles never stopped evolving. He innovated in and mastered each form in its societal context , and when that form exhausted its ability to communicate the message relevant to the world as he now saw it, he tooks risks and he moved his music forward.

There were no guarantees the people would like the next Miles, that they would understand the next Miles, that they would appreciate the next Miles, that they would pay money to support what he was doing.

There were no laws about that. The man saw where he had to go to be relevant to the next wave of perception, and he went there, and it was full of risks every time. Just because he pulled it off doesn't mean it was destined to be that way.

Extrapolate his trend of seeing the future before others' saw it, and it's a very strong case he would have been one of the first to see the next giant wave in society : the wave against ownership of ideas.

Ownership of ideas was on the rise in the late 19th and most of entire 20th century. Today, that concept has already peaked and is in decline.

Ownership of ideas is bullshit. Because where did the ideas come from? From hundreds or thousands or millions before you. And every one of those before you owes a huge debt to those before them.

Jazz has been very ill for over two decades. Jazz fell into a cyclical trap and became irrelevant to societal change.

But the world is only cyclical for those who become afraid and reverse course and live in the past ...

The seeds of the emerging next wave in jazz have been sown for two decades now as those who would manipulate all of our institutions and resources stealthily rose to power and stole society from us. Their power orders of magnitude larger than their numbers.

And this societal revolution against a corrupt and decaying power-structure will merge with the stronger and earlier wave of the revolution against ownership of ideas.

Look how far behind jazz is in comparison with the vanguard of the revolution, in fields such as computer science, and in the open source movement, and in the free trade of information on the web.

Fuck ownership of ideas. The universe owns the ideas. A million minds before led to what is now. What right do I or you or any man have to claim ownership of what was built upon a billion thoughts before?

Most of jazz no longer leads the way in radical thinking. Most of jazz has become irrelevant to society.

But jazz will react against itself, as it always has, and jazz will become revolutionary again.

Edited October 10, 2005 by johnagrandy

[Guy Berger]

Fuck ownership of ideas.  The universe owns the ideas.  A million minds before led to what is now.  What right do I or you or any man have to claim ownership of what was built upon a billion thoughts before?

It takes work to create ideas. Maybe giving people ownership of their ideas for some period of time is the best way to make sure that people put in that work.

FWIW, I still am not convinced by your "financial suicide" claim. The overwhelming majority of jazz fans are indifferent to the fruits of taping.

Guy

Edited October 10, 2005 by Guy

[Guest]

Fuck ownership of ideas.  The universe owns the ideas.  A million minds before led to what is now.  What right do I or you or any man have to claim ownership of what was built upon a billion thoughts before?

It takes work to create ideas. Maybe giving people ownership of their ideas for some period of time is the best way to make sure that people put in that work.

Guy

←

Or maybe not. I don't think Einstein ever owned the idea of relativity theory, yet he created it anyway. Maybe it's also a good thing that he didn't have to first write a check to each 'owner' of the previous ideas he used before he could create it, or maybe he wouldn't have bothered.

[neveronfriday]

Maybe judging the number of recordings traded is an age issue?

If you know where to look (and we're not talking the usual trading forums), there is an unbelievable amount of tapes being traded. I was surprised myself when I saw it. Get yourself, f.ex., a DC++ client, find the right hubs and you're smokin'.

I have no interest in this stuff myself, but just checking one or two Russian hubs, I could double my collection of CDs easily ... and I have lots.

And that's just jazz recordings.

If you were into trading Led Zeppelin live tapes, I think every fart they ever produced was caught on tape by some "fan" and you could download it.

Edited October 10, 2005 by neveronfriday

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I simply think that *you* believe something and to give it more credibility you've made the decision in your head that *Miles* (a famous dead guy you probably never met) would have believed this too. If you wish to make your point, leave the "what would Miles (or Jesus) do" out of it.

There's a whole lot of taping going on. As best as I can tell, it's NOT being done out in the open like at a Grateful Dead show. Some groups, yes. Most, no. It's being done secretively. I've witnessed artists confiscating recordings from the taper. I strongly suspect that if asked *ahead of time* a large number of artists would NOT allow taping. After the fact, now that a recording exists, they may turn a blind eye because they don't want to persecute their fans (and that's reasonable). So just because an artist hasn't come right out and said, "Do not tape or trade" doesn't mean the artist is encouraging this.

The other thing is that there is a generation of listeners out there who DO NOT buy music. Everything is free to them. And you know what else? They DO NOT attend live shows. Music - whatever form: commercial or private - is just one big buffet that someone else paid for. And they throw away the dishes afterwards.

From a scholarly perspective, private recordings are wonderful because they allow another view of the artists, the repertoire, the concept. What we know about certain artists and certain periods relies heavily on private recordings to augment and enhance the existing commercial issues. I think the private recordings are important. BUT I don't believe they are being used in this way, particularly as duplication and distribution has gotten easier.

What I have seen of the trading community shows me that there are a whole lot of people who DO NOT own every album already. These people DO substitute live tapes for commercial issues. They collect and collect and don't even listen in some cases. They build their trade lists so they have currency to get more. And no, I don't believe that for every CDR they burn that they're out there buying something that will support that artist. Heavens, if that were the case, the record industry sales would be skyrocketing!

A good portion of the traders DO have good intentions. They're against the buying and selling of private tapes. But see above - a huge number of people are simply against paying for music, full stop! Some of them DO try to avoid the trading of commercial material, but many do not. I see frequent open trading of out-of-print items where instead of tracking down something that might be harder-to-find, they treat said item as *equivalent* to a private recording. This deprives the artist and the label that invested the money from possible income at a later time. The reissue folks aren't going to produce a legit issue if a huge portion of their target market has already got the item. And PLEASE do not give me that line about how "as soon as a show becomes available legitimately, we solemnly swear that we will destroy our CDRs and purchase it" - that's rubbish.

And yes, at times I have exceeded the posted speed limit while driving.

Mike