[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: thoughts after coffee

Isn't it interesting that the list incorporated Lynz's thoughts from a
month ago into a current line of thinking?  I was wondering when I first
read that post exactly where it was coming from.  And it did seem a
little unfinished (under-finished).  But that's a beautiful thing, cos
open-ended thoughts lead us to new places.  Yup.  So thanks.  

Here's a thought (or a few thoughts) about music and ownership.  We all
know that when music started among the early people that ownership
couldn't really have been an issue, at least not as we think of ownership
now.  Seems like somebody sings, an' somebody else picks up the tune, an'
pretty soon it comes back to the first singer, only he can't recognize it
anymore.  Cos that's what music does.  That's what Jazz and Blues were
doing before we incorporated them into the twentieth century music
industry machine (of which, more to come), right?  Mostly.  And
individual players incorporate their own soul-style onto the song/tune as
it circulates around (which is what's being talked about for this tribute
album thingummy).  Up until recording was possible, songs could only
exist like that, in performance.  (Though I'm sure songwriter rights and
copyrights were in the works already by the time we got dem Victrolas
a-spinnin' l'il black circles).

So that's, like, the legend of pure music.  But nothing's pure here, and
that's okay.  To the extent that the picture I'm drawing is true, it
applies only to the various strains of folk music.   City- and church-
sponsored symphony dealies have always been a different game.  An
institutionalized game.  But that's okay, I think, cos without the
sponsoring institutions there would be no symphonic music.  It's too
expensive, takes too much organization, thrives in expensive rooms with
good acoustics. So, in that case, I'm pretty pro-institutional meddling
with music, though I know it has its drawbacks.

So, getting (closer) to my point . . . The music industry, which, like
Jay says, is sometimes bloody horrible to observe, is also bloody
important . . . 

The 20th c. music industry totally disrupts that beautiful
music-free-to-roam ideal.  This is true.  But it also enables the mass
distribution and recording procedures that we have.  Down to the least. 
I.e., lately, the ADAT revolution has enabled a whole lotta home, grass
roots recording (I think OtR did GDBD on ADAT).  Which is great.  Would
ADAT technology have been developed without the "industry" making
music-making into such a big-bucks big deal?  I really doubt it.  And,
even closer to home, would I have heard of OtR without the technology and
distribution developed by the big industry?  Probably not.  25,000 copies
of GDBD.  Dang.  How many early, pre-recording musicians even played to
that many people, ever, all together?  Popular music as we know it would
not exist without the popular music industry.  It's a crazy thing.  (Mike
Knott reference!  Yay!)

I want both things.  I want a huge record industry, developing technology
and distribution, and keeping venues open, directly or indirectly,
because, y'all, frankly, Hanson, Third Eye Blind, N Sync, and the Back
Street Boys keep the whole works financed and moving forward.  There are
no indie bands without a mainstream for them to be independent from, and,
even at that, independence is a matter of choosing which things to be
dependent on--which technologies, venues, distribution methods.  AND I
want music to be something that people who love and/or play music can
have easy access to, without worrying about legal issues (heh.  yeah,
Bruce, I know, it's under control).  These two things can conflict, I
know.  But I wish the reason for the conflict was always the business
suits and never the artists.  I don't think L and K will object to their
music being spread around by people who love it (meaning the trib album).
 That's what music's for, and it's not like anyone's taking food off of
the OtR table.  Fans will be buying this thing.  Or, if they're not
already fans, they'd soon become fans, because no matter what y'all do to
these songs, their quality will speak for itself.  (Can I get an *amen*
out there?)

(The opposite, BAD, situation is like last year when the Rolling Stones
killed the Verve.  I'm really upset about that.  Exile on Main Street
('72?) may be a great album, but the Stones haven't exactly been breaking
ground lately.  I find it unconscionable that these wrinkley
gazillionaires would sue a young band for *money*.  Writing credit,
maybe.  But money?  And, yeah, I'm sure the pressure of all that
contributed to the Verve's break up.  The Stone's are the real enemy ! 
<tear picture> </tear picture> This has been a tangent.)

Heh.  This is long.  It's my (possibly twisted) nature, maybe.  Somebody
asked me if I'd "introduced" myself to the list.  I didn't really; I just
jumped on.  Maybe I should leave my bio to your imaginations?  Any
guesses?

Anyway, thanks for reading.  

Shalom,

Fred

np: Big Audio Dynamite  --  F-Punk
nr: too much film theory


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.