Jump to content

Disallowing taping & trading is financial suicide


johnagrandy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First of all, that "Bands That Allow Taping" list is real funny. There's a lot of bands listed (1367 to be exact) and some of them do NOT allow taping (like Mose Allison), so I think that knocks it down to 1318 and then if you only show active bands it's down to 1289.

BUT - has anyone HEARD of these bands? Now, I'm not the most with-it hepcat but it looks to me like these are a bunch of local unknowns. Definitely not all - by no stretch - but a LARGE portion of the list.

Next - "It is not stealing if the artists condone it"

I have serious reservations about that statement. The artists may be all free and easy about things, but what about their label? what about their management? what about the club/hall? etc. etc. Also - what about the composers of the tunes? and the publishing companies? Certainly SOME artists might be in a position to present an unequivocal legal position on this, but I would say a LARGE number would not.

Mike

The list seems realy old and stale. A lot of last updated 2001 and 2002s in there.

The approved bands list also seems to have a shit load of qualifications and ground rules as well.

Some examples:

Allman Brothers band:

If you ever have problems getting your equipment in the door, tell security that Kirk West, their road manager, has given you his personal permission to tape. If they still give you a hassle, demand that they call him on the walkie-talkie and he'll personally help you out.

Please note that the ABB does NOT ALLOW online file trading, oddly enough.

Is it that easy to convince a security guy that it's cool?

The notes on a band called Cat Power:

When I asked Chan Marshall, she said they wouldn't allow any DATs. Analog would be fine, but no DATs. I then tried to convince her that practically nodody was using analog gear anymore, and in the end, it was okay with her provided she got a copy. Inside the venue, her soundengineer (who happened to be the most unprofessional I've ever dealt with) told me they never allow board feeds, but using a mic stand would be fine.

If you would like to record a Cat Power show, be prepared to be told lots of rather contradictory things. Also, Chan Marshall is a very fragile, sensitive and moody person. Keep that in mind when you talk to her.

:g

The Cure:

The band has apparently said in interviews that they don't mind folks taping them, but they never inform the venues of this mindset, so its stealth or nothing.

Belgium customs fined a Cure trader recently...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it make a difference to anyone if instead we are talking about the circulation of copies recordings made of radio or television broadcasts?  Presumably, at a minimum the artist consented to the performance being broadcasted initially.  I also believe that any reasonable person would expect some people who hear or see the broadcast to record it for their own personal use.  Does this alter the analysis or opinions at all?

Having been part of negotiations with dozens of musicians concerning broadcasts of performances, I can say most were concerned with the future dispersal of the material and some declined. The contracts specified a one time broadcast and copyright protections. You are free to interpret the wishes of the artists and parse these against your interpretation of the legalities.

Folks mentioned above include McCoy Tyner, Max Roach, Stanley Turrentine, Freddie Hubbard, Earl Hines, Benny Carter, Benny Goodman, Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Anthony Braxton , Art Hodes, Sarah Vaughan, Lester Bowie, Cecil Taylor, Bud Freeman, Betty Carter, Jimmy Smith, Steve Lacy, Ahmad Jamal, Dizzy Gillespie, etc. I think you get the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swear to God - that's one I *have* heard of - not heard, just heard of.

Who could forget a name like that!

Back to the subject;sort of:

I have kids that are 18, 20, 21 & 22.

The 20 year old is a jam band fan. One of the ways that these groups market themselves is that they record every one of their concerts. Then they make those concerts available for download (for a fee) or they will mail you a pressed copy of the concert that you attended.

Pretty smart, I'd say.

That is a viable option for some jazz artists, especially if they use only thier own tunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, that "Bands That Allow Taping" list is real funny. There's a lot of bands listed (1367 to be exact) and some of them do NOT allow taping (like Mose Allison), so I think that knocks it down to 1318 and then if you only show active bands it's down to 1289.

BUT - has anyone HEARD of these bands? Now, I'm not the most with-it hepcat but it looks to me like these are a bunch of local unknowns. Definitely not all - by no stretch - but a LARGE portion of the list.

Next - "It is not stealing if the artists condone it"

I have serious reservations about that statement. The artists may be all free and easy about things, but what about their label? what about their management? what about the club/hall? etc. etc. Also - what about the composers of the tunes? and the publishing companies? Certainly SOME artists might be in a position to present an unequivocal legal position on this, but I would say a LARGE number would not.

Mike

Mike, if you weren't here, I would be the squarest guy on the board. For that, I am grateful. Just kiddin'. :)

But seriously, I recognize many of those band names, and trust me, I am out of the loop.

Regardless,

The exact total is likely hard to quantify, as many jam bands are even more obscure than those listed. And, for example (though not limited to), the jam band scene has quite comprehensively embraced taping and trading. Several thousand bands in general and in total, may not be off, however, to hyperfocus on such extrapolations of exact quantity could be misintrepreted as a diversion. :w

So,

with that said, on to your next concern:

I said "It is not stealing if the artists condone it"

To which you've responded

"I have serious reservations about that statement. "

Your reservations have a lot of qualifications. "What about the label..." and so on. Good points, kind of, except that the main focus on this thread has been on artist rights. The label, mgt, etc.. are all implied. I believe that if an artist enters into a relationship with a label that does not allow taping of shows, and said artist doesn't abide then serious legal issues should rightly ensue. Not sure your objections or reservations fly here. They certainly aren't logically sufficient to negate much of anything, if that were indeed your intent.

It is interesting that no one has really shown how the economic model is possibly flawed. I mean, it could be, heck I don't know.

g

p.s. I have read elsewhere that Metheny, Scofield, Hunter, and many other jazz artists allow taping. Is this true? I would be interested in knowing if it is encouraged by their label or not. If the model works, and the labels would know, they would likely encourage it. I really am intrigued by this whole concept. Can't wait to hear where the boys from organissimo weigh in on this somewhat controversial subject. I can officially decree that it is at least worth considering.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT - has anyone HEARD of these bands? Now, I'm not the most with-it hepcat but it looks to me like these are a bunch of local unknowns. Definitely not all - by no stretch - but a LARGE portion of the list.

Mike

Mike, I'm alarmed that you have not heard the sonic pleasures that are offered by that famous organization called: ANAL CUNT.

But if you go to see them, remember:

Beware, if the singer is in one of his famous drunken blackouts, stay away from him.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it make a difference to anyone if instead we are talking about the circulation of copies recordings made of radio or television broadcasts?  Presumably, at a minimum the artist consented to the performance being broadcasted initially.  I also believe that any reasonable person would expect some people who hear or see the broadcast to record it for their own personal use.  Does this alter the analysis or opinions at all?

Having been part of negotiations with dozens of musicians concerning broadcasts of performances, I can say most were concerned with the future dispersal of the material and some declined. The contracts specified a one time broadcast and copyright protections. You are free to interpret the wishes of the artists and parse these against your interpretation of the legalities.

Folks mentioned above include McCoy Tyner, Max Roach, Stanley Turrentine, Freddie Hubbard, Earl Hines, Benny Carter, Benny Goodman, Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Anthony Braxton , Art Hodes, Sarah Vaughan, Lester Bowie, Cecil Taylor, Bud Freeman, Betty Carter, Jimmy Smith, Steve Lacy, Ahmad Jamal, Dizzy Gillespie, etc. I think you get the idea.

The whole VCR craze really had the NFL reelin' for a while. Whatever happened with all that?

g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the drug patents issue:

Although it is easy to blame patents for the problems in fighting AIDS, it is very doubtful if patents are really an obstacle in providing drugs to poor countries:

I think this is a pretty silly statement. The whole point of IP is to put up obstacles to cheaper alternatives.

But IP protection varies from country to country. In countries that don't offer much IP protection, patents aren't an obstacle.

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, that "Bands That Allow Taping" list is real funny. There's a lot of bands listed (1367 to be exact) and some of them do NOT allow taping (like Mose Allison), so I think that knocks it down to 1318 and then if you only show active bands it's down to 1289.

BUT - has anyone HEARD of these bands? Now, I'm not the most with-it hepcat but it looks to me like these are a bunch of local unknowns. Definitely not all - by no stretch - but a LARGE portion of the list.

But why can't you look ahead to what's coming ? Empiricism only works in the hard sciences.

When I first contacted Susan Scofield years ago about getting Sco to join the ranks of the few (at that time) who make some forms of their music available for free (or at reduced cost) , she thought I was a bootlegger and I had to convince her that I wasn't.

Then, a very interesting thing happenned: Sco went on the jam band circuit ! I know Dead/Phish/Galactic heads who all of a sudden are asking me "Who's this guitar monster "Sco" ? " They totally dug him. One guy even thinks he's Jerry reincarnated. Whatever. If it spreads the vibe, that's cool by me.

And Sco also switched his policy on taping and trading. In an interview I can't find right now, around the time of "Bump", he said he wasn't sure where he stood on that issue. But today he is for it ! Miles always had good taste in bandmates !

Each may have their own opinions on Sco, of course, but my opinion is that he's the greatest living jazz musician in terms of how well he's playing. Wayne or Sonny may have more legacy, but Sco is on fire like no one else right now.

He brushed the dust, dirt, and grime away, talked to the young people, and correctly saw that the only really revolutionary trend that's going on today is the trend against ownership of ideas. And he wanted to get on the right side of it.

Fuck ownership of ideas.

"I always say it's not my Arkestra, it belongs to some other force which wants certain things to reach people." Sun Ra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bands who want to encourage taping and trading as a means to expand their audience base/bond closer with their fans/whatever should be free to do so. Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea at all, and have never said no when asked by an audience memeber if they could tape and exchange a show. So it's certainly not the concept that I have a problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the attitude that anybody/everybody who doesn't "play along" is an enemy of the people or some such.

This is pretty ironic. It seems that your position is that anyone who doesn't "play along" with the concept of IP is an "enemy of the people or some such". People are only allowed to make arguments for or against certain types of IP, but not against the concept. And if they violate this they are "dangerous" and their ideas are nothing but "bullshit" and "nonsense" and deserve no consideration, let alone *mutual respect*.

That's bullshit, as is the attitude that the very notion of IP rights is malevolent. You can certainly make arguments against (and for) certain implementations of the laws as they currently exist, but to say that the concept itself has no merit is just plain nonsense.

What such absolutist thinking promotes is the destruction of balance - balance of power, balance of rights, balance of compensation, every kind of balance, including, perhaps most importantly the balance of mutual respect.

Those who want to take part in a mutual attempt to redefine that balance are doing a beautiful thing, I think. On the other hand, those who seek to impose it across the board come hell or high water can go fuck themselves. Tyranny is tyranny, period.

It's hard for me to determine how much of your comments are in reference to me, or to the original poster, or to some vague group of "them" out there, but to whatever extent they are intended as a response to me they are difficult to understand.

You spoke repeatedly about "utopia" and how it "can't ever exist". I can't find where I've ever offered anything about "utopia". If IP laws are done away with it would not produce a "utopia", and such a world had always existed until a couple hundred years ago, and another world without IP obviously could exist again.

And I find it hard to understand how arguing against the concept of IP is a call to "tyranny". The folks arguing against IP don't need cops or other jackboots to impose their view. Their view simply occurs naturally. You guys need them to impose your view. So I don't know exactly where "tyranny" comes into this.

and btw...I don't think you're a tyrant or a would-be tyrant just because you disagree with me on this issue. You just perceive an aspect of the world differently than I do. I can have *mutual respect* for someone who believes that IP is legitimate. I don't know why you can't do likewise. Perhaps it's too much "absolutist thinking".

Lastly, a quote from that bullshit and nonsense spouting, utopian tyrant Thomas Jefferson:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it...He who receives an idea from me, receives instructions himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should be spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature ... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, a quote from that bullshit and nonsense spouting, utopian tyrant Thomas Jefferson:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea...as he who lights his taper at mine

Dude, he's talking about a different kind of "taper."

Nice quote and all, but since you're quoting Tom you know that he ended up taking the patent office gig and that he later changed his tune a hair, seeing value in how intellectual property rights encourage invention.

Don't know about others but I feel like I've read the complete disregard of intellectual property ramblings in Wired, only instead of the peach & purple background of the O the color scheme was hot fuschia and lime green. I file it in the same place as the "new economy" and Dow 36,000 articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, a quote from that bullshit and nonsense spouting, utopian tyrant Thomas Jefferson:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea...as he who lights his taper at mine

Dude, he's talking about a different kind of "taper."

Nice quote and all, but since you're quoting Tom you know that he ended up taking the patent office gig and that he later changed his tune a hair, seeing value in how intellectual property rights encourage invention.

That view is in the full quote, so I don't think he changed his tune. And he already held the patent gig when he wrote that.

His view was that there is no "right" of intellectual property. There is no issue of "ethics" in terms of the "rights" of the creator of the idea. This has nothing to do with it. The only possible justification he saw for IP was purely social-utilitarian, and then it was only very limited. He said only that it could be reasonable for government to create a temporary "gift" of IP in cases where the society thought there was some social utility in doing so. He also argued that in cases where it did, it should only be for a very limited time (14 years he supposed), or there shouldn't be any, as its harm and embarrasment to society would outweigh any supposed benefits.

I think I share this view. There could be some cases where I'd agree with some kind of utilitarian justification for creating certain limited IP, but I would want a very high burden of proof to be met for the perceived benefits, and a good accounting of the costs in each case. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of IP laws wouldn't come close to meeting such burdens, and that their existence is a slippery slope that strongly trends toward not meeting these burdens, as corporations and other concentrated power and wealth who benefit most from such laws can just keep dumping cash into the campaign coffers of politicians to keep expanding such laws into absurdity, and there isn't much in the way of a comparable countervailing force to put the brakes on it.

In addition, as these things pile up, more and more IP "owners" develop a sense of entitlement or 'right' to these fictions. This is totally at odds with Tom J's view, no matter which of his tunes he was singing.

Anyway, you can read the full Tom J letter here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do.../a1_8_8s12.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the drug patents issue:

Although it is easy to blame patents for the problems in fighting AIDS, it is very doubtful if patents are really an obstacle in providing drugs to poor countries:

I think this is a pretty silly statement. The whole point of IP is to put up obstacles to cheaper alternatives.

Now how do you explain the three facts I have listed above, which show that even where no patents exist, drugs are not available to those who need them?

The problem is that generics, which generally cost less than 10% of the original drug, are still to expensive for the countries most concerned by epidemics. Generics producers want to make profits too.

The WTO Doha system makes it possible to grant compulsory licenses on patents (basically making the patent valueless in those countries), but it is not used.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_...if_import_e.htm

Edited by Claude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the drug patents issue:

Although it is easy to blame patents for the problems in fighting AIDS, it is very doubtful if patents are really an obstacle in providing drugs to poor countries:

I think this is a pretty silly statement. The whole point of IP is to put up obstacles to cheaper alternatives.

Now how do you explain the three facts I have listed above, which show that even where no patents exist, drugs are not available to those who need them?

I would explain this by saying again that I'm not claiming that IP is the only obstacle, or that without them everyone would get all the drugs they need.

The problem is that generics, which generally cost less than 10% of the original drug, are still to expensive for the countries most concerned by epidemics. Generics producers want to make profits too.

Fine, but if you can get 10 times the amount of the drug for the same price you can help 10 times the amount of people. If IP makes you pay 10 times the amount you can only help 10% of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first contacted Susan Scofield years ago about getting Sco to join the ranks of the few (at that time) who make some forms of their music available for free (or at reduced cost) , she thought I was a bootlegger and I had to convince her that I wasn't.

Then, a very interesting thing happenned:  Sco went on the jam band circuit !  I know Dead/Phish/Galactic heads who all of a sudden are asking me "Who's this guitar monster "Sco" ? "  They totally dug him.  One guy even thinks he's Jerry reincarnated.  Whatever.  If it spreads the vibe, that's cool by me.

And Sco also switched his policy on taping and trading.  In an interview I can't find right now, around the time of "Bump", he said he wasn't sure where he stood on that issue.  But today he is for it !  Miles always had good taste in bandmates !

Each may have their own opinions on Sco, of course, but my opinion is that he's the greatest living jazz musician in terms of how well he's playing.  Wayne or Sonny may have more legacy, but Sco is on fire like no one else right now.

He brushed the dust, dirt, and grime away, talked to the young people, and correctly saw that the only really revolutionary trend that's going on today is the trend against ownership of ideas.  And he wanted to get on the right side of it.

Doesn't Scofied have limitations? For example, if I remember correctly doesn't he limit his consent to the taping of his jam band group and not necessarily his acoustic jazz groups? Also, I think I also remember that he does not allow online or bittorrent distribution of any of his music. Assuming I am correct I do not think an artist with qualifications is the best example to use to prove your points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in response to some name-calling in the Scofield Live thread:

From Scofield's website:

"TAPING POLICY: John Scofield allows taping at the discretion of each venue on a case by case basis. No video taping, no board patches, sorry. Taping of his Jazz Trio or other jazz oriented projects will not be permitted for reasons outside Scofield's authority -- contractual obligations and the wishes of other musicians with differing opinions. No Scofield tape may be posted on any internet download sites -- they are for individual trading only. We regret any disappointment this may cause. Contact can be made through the website."

Each may have their own opinions on Sco, of course, but my opinion is that he's the greatest living jazz musician in terms of how well he's playing.  Wayne or Sonny may have more legacy, but Sco is on fire like no one else right now.

Ok, I'm probably one of the bigger Sco fans on this forum, but isn't this a little over the top??

Edited by Aggie87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each may have their own opinions on Sco, of course, but my opinion is that he's the greatest living jazz musician in terms of how well he's playing.  Wayne or Sonny may have more legacy, but Sco is on fire like no one else right now.

Ok, I'm probably one of the bigger Sco fans on this forum, but isn't this a little over the top??

No more over the top than that inspiring call to arms

Fuck ownership of ideas.

:party:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

01)

No Scofield tape may be posted on any internet download sites
lmao - Doesn't take much brains to figure out who is going to comply with that rule. It's like giving a kid a bar of chocolate and saying: "You can take it home, but you CAN'T EAT IT. HA!" Plain stupid.

02) What we have yet to mention here are many live tapes with godawful sound. What you have are all these amateurs with equipment they can't handle, people who had board access and then ran their files through enhancers and whatnot, just because they also stole the software and CAN manipulate the sound files ("cool, man"), idiots that place their microphones right next to that fat dude who yells "YEAH, MAN" into every quiet passage or next to the only couple having sex during the concert, and so on.

03) The whole discussion is superfluous. The traders will record and trade no matter what. As mentioned many times here, more often than not they belong to a sub-breed that does not give a hoot about anything or anyone as long as they get their fix and can wank off next to fourty piles of once-heard recordings (respectable traders not withstanding).

04) The collectors I've run across on the Internet are often the types that WILL collect anything, no matter how bad, retag it, list it, annotate it, whatever ... they probably also collect Japanese teenage girl's spit in plastic bags (new fad hopefully not heading our way soon).

Waste of time.

:g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee - "reasons outside Scofield's authority" - isn't that exactly what I brought up earlier?

And "at the discretion of each venue" - please find me the club or hall that will officially permit taping without compensation, etc.

I got no interest in these "jam bands" and I do NOT see them as dragging the rest of the music industry down the road with them. They're a particular hippy trippy corner of the world. Howsabout a list of artists who actually have recording contracts who support this idea?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first contacted Susan Scofield years ago about getting Sco to join the ranks of the few (at that time) who make some forms of their music available for free (or at reduced cost) , she thought I was a bootlegger and I had to convince her that I wasn't.

Then, a very interesting thing happenned:  Sco went on the jam band circuit !  I know Dead/Phish/Galactic heads who all of a sudden are asking me "Who's this guitar monster "Sco" ? "  They totally dug him.  One guy even thinks he's Jerry reincarnated.  Whatever.  If it spreads the vibe, that's cool by me.

And Sco also switched his policy on taping and trading.  In an interview I can't find right now, around the time of "Bump", he said he wasn't sure where he stood on that issue.  But today he is for it !  Miles always had good taste in bandmates !

Each may have their own opinions on Sco, of course, but my opinion is that he's the greatest living jazz musician in terms of how well he's playing.  Wayne or Sonny may have more legacy, but Sco is on fire like no one else right now.

He brushed the dust, dirt, and grime away, talked to the young people, and correctly saw that the only really revolutionary trend that's going on today is the trend against ownership of ideas.  And he wanted to get on the right side of it.

Doesn't Scofied have limitations? For example, if I remember correctly doesn't he limit his consent to the taping of his jam band group and not necessarily his acoustic jazz groups? Also, I think I also remember that he does not allow online or bittorrent distribution of any of his music. Assuming I am correct I do not think an artist with qualifications is the best example to use to prove your points.

Maybe not the best example, but certainly a relevant and thought provoking one.

His limitations regarding groups essentially other than his own, are probably out of respect for his fellow players in those semi-ad hoc'd conditions. Additionally, he ought not make assumptions about what upcoming configurations may or may not approve. Seems like a reasonable policy to me. Mr Scofield is a serious and hardworking artist with brilliant management. To me this is quite evident.

This is a good discussion to have, and I am glad to see that some folks are at least considering its plausibility.

g

(edited for typo)

Edited by GregN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each may have their own opinions on Sco, of course, but my opinion is that he's the greatest living jazz musician in terms of how well he's playing.  Wayne or Sonny may have more legacy, but Sco is on fire like no one else right now.

Ok, I'm probably one of the bigger Sco fans on this forum, but isn't this a little over the top??

No more over the top than that inspiring call to arms

Fuck ownership of ideas.

:party:

:g:g:g

Although, to be hionest, the "ownership of ideas" is a rather bogus concept. What's not bogus, however, is the ownership of what results from those ideas. Kinda like potential energy vs kinetic.

Now, once an idea gets realized, a "product" results, and there's only two ways that product can be distributed - for free or at a cost. If anybody wants to argues that all product should be given away, be my guest, but I gotta go out for a little while. This is Tina, she'll be your sitter for the evening. Don't worry, Daddy will be home before your bedtime.

The other alternative (the only sane one, usually) is for there to be an exchange of some sort between consumer and provider. The terms of that are indeed open to both material and philosphical "negotiation" beteeen parties, and I'm certainly no hide-bound traditionalist in that regard.

Now in music, sure, nobody "owns" an idea. An idea is an inspiration, and as Ra stated, the inspiration comes from someplace else. But the transformation of the idea into a realization, the change from potential to kinetic, inevitably belongs to somebody. Yeah, Ra's ideas weren't his, but he made one helluva lot of recordings of those ideas, and who owns those (rhetorical question)? Can't tell me that all those recordings just magically appeared one day, or that they were "gifts" to the world. No - the cat sold them! Did he have no right to do so? Of course he did! Did the Arkestra play every gig for free? Of course not!

And face it - not every musician has either the ability or the skills to organize successful recording sessions, much less handle the logistics of a tour. So they gotta get somebody else to do it for them. That is a service rendered, and who's gonna pay for that? Surely nobody's gonna make the claim that these services should be rendered with no compensation whatsoever! Again, terms of that exchange are up to the individuals involved, but the point is that, to paraphrase Sam Cookem an exchange is gonna come.

I'm repeating myself, but apparently my thoughts are proving "difficult to understand" for some, so let me say it yet again in another way. Unless and until musicians' (hell, every human's) material needs are totally provided for up front (as if...), there will be "product". And as long as there's "product", money will, indeed, must change hands, be it for recordings or concerts or t-shirts or whatever in order for the musician to function at his/her profession w/o having to fall back on "supplemental income".

This argument/discussion/tirade/whatever this is ought to be about newer/better/different ways for the musicians to legitimately earn and keep more of that money and how to generate more exchanges of it in the first place (which it could have been until the "utopian" blahblah came into it), not about how they don't deserve any in the first place because nobody "owns" the results of an idea. To the end that taping and trading of shows can be used to facilitate that first set of objectives, I'm all for it, provided that, as with all exchanges, the terms are mutally agreed on and mutaully beneficial. Beyond that, hey, whatever works, dig? Keep it there, and I'm on your side all the way.

But when I start hearing simple-minded blather, such as "ideas belong to the universe" (hey - asparagus belongs to the universe too, but unless I find some growing wild on some public land, somebody pays for it in some form or fashion before I eat it) and such in defense of the second proposition, yet again I say - fuck that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fuck ownership of ideas."

Hey man, that's my fucking idea!!!!

:g

In all seriousness, it is the artist's choice and people should respect that. If a fan gets mad at an artist because he/she doesn't allow taping, then the fan can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. Make your own music if you don't like how I "control" mine.

:g

That said, I don't really lose any sleep over it. I doubt anyone is taping organissimo shows and I did have someone ask me once. I said no, but he wanted to take a board feed. I think I like Sco's position: No board feeds. You wanna tape it? Bring your own gear and mics.

I don't worry too much about CD copying either. It's going to happen and there's nothing I can do about it. As long as people come to the shows and buy tickets, I don't care.

So to summarize, fuck people who don't come to live shows. Music is about being IN THE MOMENT, not revisiting it post-event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to summarize, fuck people who don't come to live shows.  Music is about being IN THE MOMENT, not revisiting it post-event.

Gotta give you fullest loveprops for that first sentiment, but to the second, I gotta ask - do you play your albums only one time and then throw thew away? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...