Blogspots...

[marcello]

How many musicians have told stories about being 13 or 14 or 18 and getting paid to play for the first time, and how it changed their view of what they wanted to do? And a large part of that becomes sustaining an audience by creating music that appeals to them.

When vibraphonist Joe Locke was about 16, and he was playing with older musicians in the ghetto, he was paid in chicken wings!

[papsrus]

I think there's really a dichotomy between music's primary purpose (to provide enjoyment to the listener)

I am not a musician but I've been an artist in other endeavors. I'm pretty sure that this is not the primary purpose of music, unless you are a pretty vapid musician. The primary purpose of art in general resides in personal issues with the artist himself. Artists make art for themselves. It's great if others end up appreciating it, but we make music, or paint pictures, or write books, or create chess games for ourselves primarily.

But then I'm being picky here.

I wouldn't necessarily quibble with this. "Providing pleasure" vs. "generating income" was the main idea. Simply looking at music from two different points of view. Listeners are generally pretty focused on the "pleasure" part and don't think too much about the "generating income" part, I would guess.

[JSngry]

When vibraphonist Joe Locke was about 16, and he was playing with older musicians in the ghetto, he was paid in chicken wings!

Hell, depending on the quality of the wings & the cost of gas, that ain't necessarily a bad deal.

[7/4]

When vibraphonist Joe Locke was about 16, and he was playing with older musicians in the ghetto, he was paid in chicken wings!

Hell, depending on the quality of the wings & the cost of gas, that ain't necessarily a bad deal.

It's better than getting paid chicken shit.

[JSngry]

In the near future all past recorded media will be available for download ( in Hi Res.), the the owners and copyright holders will be paid. They will use a format like the one Media Guide uses ( and Media Guide is owned by ASCAP) to digitally monitor downloads/plays, to determine compensation.

Two questions -

1) Is this just wishful thinking, or is something fixing to happen for real?

2) Does "all" really mean all?

[connoisseur series500]

I really don't think its that difficult or off base. Artists can be motivated by more than just what is inside yearning to find expression.

And I'm not interested in that kind of vapid crap.

Again, that's Hannah Montana.

At the core of it, artists do what they do because they have to. Hopefully, they can make some cash along the way, but that is secondary.

If money becomes the greater impetus, then you get art crap. This is pretty universal.

Tell Jim, and Joe, and Randy that they do what they do for money, or because they just don't want to get a real job! I don't think so, Dan. I know Free doesn't do what he does for $. No way, Jose!

[Dan Gould]

I'm not going to keep arguing with you Paul but I am quite sure that Free does what he does because of a paycheck from Florida State University.

[Noj]

It's a bit of a balancing act. The intentions of the artist must be focussed on creating the best artwork possible, which is what gives the artwork integrity--and also what can make it sell. So long as the "intentions" of the artist aren't used as an excuse to rip the artist off, then I agree to an extent that making money isn't the ultimate goal so much as achieving artistically.

[Dan Gould]

Actually Paul I've got to make one more comment:

For many years, B.B. King has told the story of how he'd play his guitar on street corners in Memphis. When he'd play a spiritual, he always got a "praise the Lord" or similar comment from passersby. But when he played the blues, that's when they reached into their pockets and tossed money into his guitar case. And B.B. made note of what type of music helped to keep his belly full.

Now, is B.B. King's music "vapid"? Or is at an expression of what is deep inside him? Is he an artist, or was he Hanna Montana 50 years ahead of her?

[connoisseur series500]

How do you know that BB's blues wasn't the best vehicle for his expression as an artist? Perhaps people threw money because they recognized some genuine art.

I guess we're going nowhere on this discussion. We'll let Free tell his point of view if he ever sees this thread.

[Dan Gould]

How do you know that BB's blues wasn't the best vehicle for his expression as an artist? Perhaps people threw money because they recognized some genuine art.

I guess we're going nowhere on this discussion. We'll let Free tell his point of view if he ever sees this thread.

B.B.'s talked about his background in gospel music. He clearly made a decision based on economics, as his story so amply demonstrates. He didn't feel the blues more than he felt gospel. He went where the money was. And he certainly brought the same artistic skills and inspiration to his gospel tunes as he did his blues.

And no one can deny that his music wasn't "vapid".

[Noj]

The main difference is BB King is an artist first. He's selling the blues. Music is his top priority, and he knows when he plays the blues his best it will sell.

The "vapid" types Conn is referring to are using music to sell an image. Music is secondary to appearance. The primary concern is making music which fits the image and doesn't distract from the image.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Noj

[JSngry]

As long as we're talking about Jim, and Joe, and Randy...

Let's pretend it's 1968 instead of 2008, and that instead of creating their own product as they (wisely, imo) did in 2008, they recorded/released their albums for some "regular" label. They sold ok, nothing got to be a hit, but they did ok.

Now, fast forward to 2008. The label that Jim, and Joe, and Randy recorded their albums for is long gone, part of some vast corporate "holdings" where it's probably not even known to exist. (Or, if the 1968 "regular" label was a local/regional job, perhaps the owner of the label has passed on, his family having little to no interest or concern in the specifics of the catalog.) They - the holders of the catalog - license a few things here and there, the more "popular" numbers, but the Jim, and Joe, and Randy cuts are languishing, gathering dust, forgotten as they can be. Or maybe nothing from the catalog gets any play anywhere, simply because everybody's forgotten about it and not that many people knew about it in the first place.

Until...

Some crate-digger finds one of the old LPs, digs it, cleans it up, and blogs it. Then, hey, a few more people get to hear it, and they like it. Some hipass DJ samples one of the cuts for some dumbass MC. Now more people are interested. Suddenly, Jim, and Joe, and Randy are getting phone calls from magazines in foreign countries asking about their band and it's history, and...who's got the masters to your shit, anyway? Next thing you know, there's a little reissue coming out, ain't no whole lot of money in it for anybody, but it's more than anybody's made off of it in years, possibly even more than anybody made off of it even then, since Jim, and Joe, and Randy, now older and wiser but still some badass players, parlay all this into some club dates and festival appearances, and it still ain't no whole lot of money, but etc etc etc.

This is not a particularly far-fetched scenario, as Dallas' own Roger Boykin has gone through something like it with his own Soul-Tex label, a very local label that he used to put out his own stuff back in the late 1970s, and one which lay totally dormant until the crate-diggers/bloggers got hold of it. Ain't nobody made no whole lot of money out of it, but...you know. Where once there was no real value, now there is some. Potential vs kinetic value, if you will.

So yeah, for every 100 bad blogs out there, ones that outright thieve, there's 1,2, maybe 3,4, or 5 ones that are involved in a dynamic like the one above. And if somebody can explain to me how value ultimately created by initially disregarding the letter of law is still not ultimately value created, perhaps even added, I'm willing to listen.

Generalizations are just that, that's all I'm saying, just as a movie is not a book, and a book is not real life.

Edited July 27, 2008 by JSngry

[connoisseur series500]

Gotta admit that Jim is making a good point here. If music is to sell it has to be played and heard. The masses hear only tunes selected by the media and promoted by big labels. In the old days they used payola, right? Maybe these blogs represent a way to bypass all that.

[Dan Gould]

Jim, my one problem with your scenario is that for the vast majority of bloggers and their users, there is simply zero interest in buying a legitimate copy if it becomes available. We all talk about "doing right" but I don't get any sense that there are many people who are regular downloaders who even think in those terms.

So if this kind of word-of-mouth momentum builds so that some people get some gigs in the future, great. But I don't see how it builds to a reissue that puts money in their pocket. I think most people who might have bought won't buy it when they already have it.

[JSngry]

Gotta admit that Jim is making a good point here. If music is to sell it has to be played and heard. The masses hear only tunes selected by the media and promoted by big labels. In the old days they used payola, right? Maybe these blogs represent a way to bypass all that.

Well, it's a slippery slope and not exactly "100% pure", and lord knows, lets hope a better way comes around, but for right now... the scenario I describe above rings at least a little true because...it's based in reality.

As are Chuck's vexations at finding what he's not been able to reissue yet offered for free. It's all reality. Reality, as the man said, is a bitch.

There are lots of grey areas in this whole thing that should be acknowledged equally alongside the black ones and the white ones.

That's all I'm saying.

[JSngry]

Jim, my one problem with your scenario is that for the vast majority of bloggers and their users, there is simply zero interest in buying a legitimate copy if it becomes available. We all talk about "doing right" but I don't get any sense that there are many people who are regular downloaders who even think in those terms.

So if this kind of word-of-mouth momentum builds so that some people get some gigs in the future, great. But I don't see how it builds to a reissue that puts money in their pocket. I think most people who might have bought won't buy it when they already have it.

And yet Dusty Groove and other such outlets continue to stock items aimed at the same market as some of these blogs. Somebody's releasing them, and somebody's buying them (and a lot of these micro-labels have websites where you can download per-song at quite reasonable rates).

In reality, not that many people have ever bought that much music. Back when I was a kid, my parents and their friends bought a few singles, and even fewer albums. And that was the norm. Even during the "boom years" of the 60s & 70s, serious music buying was a specialized interest. People with 100 albums thought they had a lot. Seriously!

I truly believe that the "freeloaders" and/or the "bystanders" have always been with us and they always will be, and as such should be figured into the equation as part of the "cost of doing business". Would that it were not so, would that you, I, or somebody, could spur some action in this regard. But realistically, there's always a fairly notable # of people who like hearing music, like having some of it, but just don't care enough about it to buy it. In fact, I'd wager that a lot of the blog freeloaders listen to the music they get at best casually. Very casually. And that they'd never buy what they download. So is that really a "lost sale" or is it sale that was never going to happen anyway?

The problem is that this is neither 100% one way or the other, and yeah, some potential sales are effected, and yeah, the "culture" is changing along with the technology. But I don't know that we've ever lived in a world where everybody buys everything they want all the time. Some people "prioritize" and eventually buy what they can't afford right now, Some people "prioritize" and don't ever buy things they want, some people "borrow" what they don't want to or can't buy, and some people flat out steal. As it was then, so is it now.

The more things change...

Edited July 27, 2008 by JSngry

[Dan Gould]

Well, the stealing is far greater now because of technology. I don't know how many people managed to walk out of record stores with some 12 inch vinyl under their coats.

But I am not at all sure that you are right about how casual these people are. Consider what was said above about the guys getting brand new BN or Classics reissues for free, and the "ethics" espoused at that site. Those aren't casual music listeners. They are hard core jazzers who are happy to steal the music they want.

Same with some of the comments I see at the blog that inspired this thread. Those folks seem like hard core music lovers - and when they find out that they can't have something for free because it is available commercially, they spit bullets in what some of them think is righteous anger.

[JSngry]

Also want to add, that, yeah, in the Jim, and Joe, and Randy scenario, yes, blogging might cost some sales. How many? Who knows?

But -

without blogging, there wouldn't be a Jim, and Joe, and Randy reissue in the first place. Remember - this was material made in 1968 that was for all intents and purposes "lost" until Craig Kratedigger & Billy Blogger got involved.

So what has more value, 50-90% of something, or 100% of nothing? Especially since now that something is now out there in "contempororary" format, the odds increase of commercial/film/etc placement.

Guaranteed, no. Just better than before.

[JSngry]

Well, the stealing is far greater now because of technology. I don't know how many people managed to walk out of record stores with some 12 inch vinyl under their coats.

But I am not at all sure that you are right about how casual these people are. Consider what was said above about the guys getting brand new BN or Classics reissues for free, and the "ethics" espoused at that site. Those aren't casual music listeners. They are hard core jazzers who are happy to steal the music they want.

Same with some of the comments I see at the blog that inspired this thread. Those folks seem like hard core music lovers - and when they find out that they can't have something for free because it is available commercially, they spit bullets in what some of them think is righteous anger.

Don't get fooled into thinking that everybody (or even nearly everybody) who "has" a lot of music is a "serious listener". Far from it...

And yes, there is a dark side to all this, unquestionably so. I'm just saying that a realistic assessment of the macro-picture here takes into account the grey areas as well as the black & white ones.

[paul secor]

If some of this stuff had any chance of being legally issued I'd happily buy it...there isn't any money to be made from it, so it most likely won't be. Does that mean it should just fade into oblivion? At least some of these artists can at least be remembered for their music online...they get 0% exposure sitting in a dusty bin in the back of a record store somewhere.

I have no answers, I'm just asking questions.

No answers to your questions. I'm just amazed that a lot of people think that they have the "right" to hear something just because they "want" to hear it.

[Niko]

Well, the stealing is far greater now because of technology. I don't know how many people managed to walk out of record stores with some 12 inch vinyl under their coats.

besides vinyl under coats, there always were home-made cassette copies of albums....

[Dan Gould]

Well, the stealing is far greater now because of technology. I don't know how many people managed to walk out of record stores with some 12 inch vinyl under their coats.

besides vinyl under coats, there always were home-made cassette copies of albums....

Not always.

[Soul Stream]

I'm more in the Jim camp on all this. Crate-diggers and D.J.s have tapped into a market that just didn't exist previously. How many Funk 45 compilations are there these days? DustyGroove has it's own label now. Like Jim said, Roger Boykin's reaped some rewards he otherwise wouldn't have seen imho. As a musician, I should/would be the first to jump on this wagon if I thought it was really hurting musicians. Is it hurting U2 and Kid Rock?... probably, I guess. I don't care about those guys. The majority of Musicians haven't made money from recordings and never will. They do it to get gigs, document their music, promote themselves, get articles written, ect. The last thing on their list is making money from a recording. Monk paid Bob Weinstock 128 dollars (that he borrowed from Orrin Keepnews) to get out of his Prestige contract and go to Riverside. Monk OWED them money, what a joke. I know lots of working musicians, successful on lower national levels, ect. It's always been about keeping the ball rolling....making a record, touring, working, ect. I don't see those working musicians complaining about downloads. Just Metallica, guess they need new race cars.

[Shawn]

If some of this stuff had any chance of being legally issued I'd happily buy it...there isn't any money to be made from it, so it most likely won't be. Does that mean it should just fade into oblivion? At least some of these artists can at least be remembered for their music online...they get 0% exposure sitting in a dusty bin in the back of a record store somewhere.

I have no answers, I'm just asking questions.

No answers to your questions. I'm just amazed that a lot of people think that they have the "right" to hear something just because they "want" to hear it.

See Jim's hypothetical scenario above.

There are still tons of Hollywood movies from the 30's and 40's that have never been issued on either VHS, DVD or whatever...stuff I've wanted to see for 15 years or more...probably will never see them because there's no money to be made on releasing them. But if somehow these things magically appeared online you think I wouldn't watch them after waiting decades? Durn tootin' I'd watch 'em.