[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
and i always knew that murder could be good. (OtR tribute tahlke)
greetings and goode afternoon.
first, Bruce Lachey, i admire you for taking on the
mechanics that most people frankly don't have a
clue about. thank you for taking initiative to nudge
us over the months and offer your services in all
areas of organization, the spreadsheet, studio work,
production, etc. - thank you deeply.
to everyone interested in this project that doesn't
recognize what Bruce has done and is committing
to, take time to think about it. then act.
this will be no small feat of whim.
lynzi's valid (yet rhetorical - or are they really?) questions:
>> I can't figure out any of it. how much of the work
>> the artist creates is theirs, how much belongs to the
>> audience, the reader, the possesser of it? is it
>> still theirs, even when they give it away? in that
>> sence, are all of Klimt and Chagall and Van Gough
>> still very much theirs despite that they're dead and
>> their stuffs hanging stoically in museums? is the art
>> the personification of the subject? making the
>> subject to real owner? argh...what's the point of my
>> wondering...?
jennifer's addition:
> The way that I've always looked at it is, art work isn't *owned* by the
> artist, but rather is an extension of self, of soul. There are certain
> pictures that I've painted that I look at and say, That Is Me. Not, that
> is how I feel or that painting effcts me emotionally, but that with that
> painting, I took a piece of soul and put it on display. In that way, the
> painting is an extention of myself. Where as a veiwer of it can identify
> with the painting to extremely high degrees, but because they could never
> have created that unique work, it is not an extension of themselves,
> merely something that they identify with.
(KEEP GOING! KEEP GOING!)
lynzi:
>> and I ask you again:
>> what makes Over the Rhine?
>> is it words scrawled in the hand of Linford? the
>> soulish voice of Karin? the six folks on stage, in
>> lights? the folks that it has been? is it an
>> essence--Michael Wilson photographs, tobacco boxes,
>> sepia tones, and sunny orchards graced with apples?
jennifer:
> Yes, but it is also that extension of their souls that combined in a
> unique way to create over the rhine. We can only identify with that,
> not be that.
> Which is where I start haveing problems with the tribute album.
> In a sence we're taking an artists work and perverting it with out their
> permission. In general, I think that tribute albums are wrong to do
> unless the artist is dead, or that group of artists has disbanded. Until
> that point it feels to close to plagerizum for me, because that artist is
> still out there creating, and still performing that song that we've then
> taken and done and SOLD.
a slightly enocomic [ = not romantic in any way] view?
think of industry for a moment. brilliant people creating
and honing their ideas, creatively solving problems and
such.
the end result : product. money.
now consider the music industry. in the case of our
beloved OtR, these are brilliant people creating and honing
their ideas, creatively expressing themselves and such.
the end result : product. money.
the difference as i see it on this Wednesday afternoon ~
in industry, the accomplishments made are guarded
fiercely, all data is highly proprietary to keep an
advantage over competitors. i've been shoulder deep
in several industries over the past ten years, and it has
always been this way across the board.
the goal: secretly conceive and bring new ideas into
fruition, then secure a way of materializing the result
in mass quantities. then explode into the public
(and competitor's) eye, then sell and gather in the
fruits of labour at record levels.
(ok, that did not sound as different as i has intended either)
my point is, and yes - i just may have one here,
the music industry is comprised of people that express
ideas to share with others. these ideas do not come free,
and the creators of these ideas expect to get paid top
dollar for their work. and the people that HIRE these
creative folks expect to get paid considerably more.
(hm. that was no different from industry, either. go figure.)
(shrug.)
please help me, i seem to have only now remembered
that the music industry really is no different from the
automotive or consumer industry.
i seem to have only now remembered that music is
romantic only when we clap hands over our eyes to
the bloody horror of the music industry.
does the fact that we call creators of ideas "artists",
or "engineers", or whathaveyou, really change much?
music improves the quality of our lives, no doubt -
it's why we read these darned messages every day.
consider life, for another moment, without industry.
for me, it's passionate love and hate.
but who can say the quality of our lives is not improved
by it, regardless of its cost to us and the environment?
please take a look at underdeveloped countries,
my friends, we live an indulgant life.
(have i dug a hole for myself just now
that will take weeks to crawl out of?)
what we must look at here is MOTIVE.
why does Chris Emery program?
probably for the wage it brings him, and probably
because it's in his person to do it, and do it well.
the same could be said of myself in design,
or of Linford and writing music.
would any of us do it for free?
...would we really?
do not even reply with the "but artists NEED to create
and express, and that's different from everybody else
in the world because artists need to express -
money or no money." load.
that only works for a fleeting while...
cupboards become bare, and jaws draw tight.
if i didn't get paid to design, i'd still do it as it is a great
passion of mine. but i'd only do it on top of something
else i do well and make money doing.
if someone designs a product that will improve the quality
of life for the human race, does he or she OWN this design?
are they the ones to receive the return?
surely.
now what if this person is an employee in a corporation?
surely not - those who own that person own their ideas also.
so who owns these ideas that Over the Rhine has
conceived of and put new dresses on from time to time?
i'm not clear of the legal agreements made between
Linford and I.R.S. and the other agencies involved,
but i'd be very curious to know...
(so - WHO owns the ideas, who OWNS the...)
and it's for non-profit, for charity - the tribute album, you know.
jennifer, i have no intention or desire to "become"
Over the Rhine when go in to record Murder.
i absolutely want to NOT be Over the Rhine.
that's the point - i may not even "identify" with OtR
during the recording of this song. i most likely will not.
the plan is to kick the song into the spectral nether
regions of what is acceptable to the human ear, and
to at the same time offer something that refuses
the listener ability to press the skip button...
this is slightly beside the topic here, yet not.
when each of us go in to record our song, the result
is that person's interpretation of the song. i hope i hope
i hope that no one intends to re-create something that's
already been done by the band themselves.
PUSH here, people. push.
PUSH the old blood through the capillaries by force of the new.
i doubt i'm the only one here that sees this as a tremendous
opportunity to use the many talents of this forum to come
together and re-INTERPRET Over the Rhine's music.
am i?
Bruce has already stated (five times now i see)
that he will get the band's permission.
i believe he will do just that...
the final conclusion, after it all:
LET THE PERVERSION OF SONGS BEGIN!!!
i do not write this to dash anyone over the rocks of shores,
i am merely attempting to shed light.
for those half dozon of you not scared off by posts over
two lines stating "woo-hoo!" or something, i thank you.
your comrade and co-conspirator,
jay
NP: Cranes - _EP Collection Volumes 1 & 2_
"...Every form of creativity is for me only possible in an extreme situation
of life..."
Blixa Bargeld (Einsturzende Neubauten, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds)
(|==========-=-=----=----=---- - - - - - -
<{---o<(\,- Sir Edward Jay, the Second ov Harnish -,/)>--o---}>
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ICQ #13819982 ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
http://members.aol.com/jaharnish2
(|===========-=-=------=-----=-- -- - - - -