4 students sued by RIAA over music sites

[Yorick]

Hi Sah! BOO YAH!

I disagree with you Hugh that artists usually create the album as an inseperable whole, and also with the assertion that there aren't a lot of albums consisting of a few good songs and lots of useless fillers

My issue is "filler" is totally subjective. One persons trash is anothers treasure. I have never recorded a "filler" in any of the records I've made. The concept just doesn't exist to the artist or producer, just to the listener or perhaps record co. exec. Each song is like a child. Say an album by a major act has "fillers" written by ten different people. To the writer, the 'filler' is their livelyhood. A child they gave away to another artist.

Calling songs "fillers" is actually quite insulting, and ignores the subjectivity of taste.

Re. the album - I never said it was inseperable. It's a whole comprised of conjoined individual units. Like the Trinity if you will The songs are meant to stand alone, but are created within the albums context. Artists move on from album to album. Albums have an "identity".

Good to read you Sarah. Be safe and well. [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

Adieu

[Melusine]

I know you're talking from your own perspective, Hugh, and from that point of view I agree with you dear!! I haven't heard a single song of your either that I'd dare call a filler!! Of course it's insulting if you worked hard at a song and someone called it a filler. But (unfortunately!) not all artists are like you. I cannot help but stick to my opinion when I consider the "constructed, mass-produced" artists who would never have been able to write a single good line themselves, who cannot even hit pure notes most of the times and whose blunders on the recordings are smoothed out with all the cool tech stuff we've got nowadays... They do NOT "make it" by strength of talent but simply by being snapped up by some smart manager with a good sense of timing, lots of contacts in the right places and a well-oiled promotion machine.
Be honest - we both know that in every respect, you are a FAR, far better singer than say Britney Spears. A lot of teen boys would disagree, but I also daresay you are better looking than her [img]tongue.gif[/img] . Yet she is world famous and you are not - even though by force of talent and will-power, you deserve it more!
I know even the crappiest hobby bands are proud of what they do, and calling a song a filler to their face would be rude. But that doesn't mean they ARE quality songs! Sorry Hugh, but it's NOT always insulting to call a song a filler (even though if you talk directly to the creator of it, you should be tactful). You have got to agree with me that there are good songs and bad songs out there. I have *known* bands who wanted to make an album but weren't good enough writers to fill it with good stuff , so they recorded a badly covered song off someone else, or quickly wrote a song of their own that they knew was crap...
With pushed artists who didn't get where they are on their own merits, I maintain their albums often contain a number of songs with hit-potential, the singles, and a number of songs which simply don't cut it. That's what I meant. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm not talking about a difference in taste, or about hard-working artists creating an album: I'm talking about songs put out for the sole opportunistic reason of making a lot of money.

Good to see you too, Hugh! I hope you're doing well [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-18-2003, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Melusine: With pushed artists who didn't get where they are on their own merits, I maintain their albums often contain a number of songs with hit-potential, the singles, and a number of songs which simply don't cut it. That's what I meant. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm not talking about a difference in taste, or about hard-working artists creating an album: I'm talking about songs put out for the sole opportunistic reason of making a lot of money.

I agree.
Often, most of these pushed and prefabricated artists have the same team of "masterminds" behind them; the same people who discovered them, producers, the real song composers and writers, record company bobo's, image specialists... They've basically got one "major" pool of songs and song-ideas, probably not even knowing for which artist they will be used during the writing process.
They'd be nuts to give all the best songs to only one of their acts, knowing they could only pull it off to release 3, 4 singles of that same album to make it financially worthwhile anyways; and they're most likely not making those albums for the critics, but for a mostly single-centered public... So if they realize that one of those never-to-be-released-as-a-single songs intended for the album one of their acts could be a big hit if launched as a CD-single by one of their other acts, why not do it that way?
Sure, maybe "filler" is a bit of a harsh term, but it's not even that strange that the albums of these prefabricated artists mostly have a few singles on it to "sell" it; those who buy it will most likely do it because of those singles or the image of the artist and won't really care that much about the quality of the other songs on it... Those "filler" songs, while not single material, are often sufficiently satisfactory enough and close enough to the hit singles to please the target audience, anyways.

[ 04-18-2003, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Melusine: I know you're talking from your own perspective, Hugh, and from that point of view I agree with you dear!! I haven't heard a single song of your either that I'd dare call a filler!! Of course it's insulting if you worked hard at a song and someone called it a filler. But (unfortunately!) not all artists are like you. I cannot help but stick to my opinion when I consider the "constructed, mass-produced" artists who would never have been able to write a single good line themselves, who cannot even hit pure notes most of the times and whose blunders on the recordings are smoothed out with all the cool tech stuff we've got nowadays... They do NOT "make it" by strength of talent but simply by being snapped up by some smart manager with a good sense of timing, lots of contacts in the right places and a well-oiled promotion machine. Be honest - we both know that in every respect, you are a FAR, far better singer than say Britney Spears. A lot of teen boys would disagree, but I also daresay you are better looking than her [img]tongue.gif[/img] . Yet she is world famous and you are not - even though by force of talent and will-power, you deserve it more! I know even the crappiest hobby bands are proud of what they do, and calling a song a filler to their face would be rude. But that doesn't mean they ARE quality songs! Sorry Hugh, but it's NOT always insulting to call a song a filler (even though if you talk directly to the creator of it, you should be tactful). You have got to agree with me that there are good songs and bad songs out there. I have *known* bands who wanted to make an album but weren't good enough writers to fill it with good stuff , so they recorded a badly covered song off someone else, or quickly wrote a song of their own that they knew was crap... With pushed artists who didn't get where they are on their own merits, I maintain their albums often contain a number of songs with hit-potential, the singles, and a number of songs which simply don't cut it. That's what I meant. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm not talking about a difference in taste, or about hard-working artists creating an album: I'm talking about songs put out for the sole opportunistic reason of making a lot of money. Good to see you too, Hugh! I hope you're doing well [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sarah, there are a couple of things here. The first is Britney may be talentless... but her producer Max Martin is a genius. Max Martin is the musical genius behind many "manufactured" and hugely successful acts in pop music. The sheer volume of hours and the groundbeaking creativity in his work, especially in making her sound good for example, is without question. He created that whole genre of pop. The Britney "oh baby baby" big lrft hand piano/huge vocal sound.

The best songs are not always the singles. Length alone dictates what a single is. 3 mins is optimum. 6-7 mins? forget it. It automatically excludes the song from single possibility. Are you suggesting all songs that are six minutes are not good? Simply because it doesn't have "hit potential" doesn't mean the song isn't great, or even the best on the record.

Secondly, what you're calling "fillers", the more obscure, harder to appreciate material off an album, often is what helps a band achieve longevity. Creating fans of greater loyalty. The "filler" is where an artist or producer can be experimental, without the constraint of three minutes, and radio limitations. The "filler" is necessary to musical growth with our culture. They introduce new ideas and sounds into the sonic world, which allows singles to then develop from the familiarity of hearing that sound. Jeff Buckley creates obscure work, along comes a more commercial Coldplay with his sound in a more accessible format and bang. Bigger hit. It happens again and again. The Cranberries on the back of the obscure yet incredibly beautiful sound the Sundays developed. U2 created Achtung baby on the back of sounds developped by obscure artists. In turn, the songs which were NOT hits, contained stronger elements of that musical language, which seminally influenced countless artists.

Without the "filler", as a society, we'd only have collections of singles. Bottom feeding on themselves.

This is part of my beef. By only taking the initially appealing songs, the singles from an album, and ignoring the more experimental, challenging and often more expressive songs, we as a culture will "dumb down" the musical horizon. I've heard it said Sting used to record a couple of singles to sell the album out of necessity, and pour his artistic soul into the rest of the album. His heart went into the "fillers".

Albums ARE designed as a whole. The public face - the single - which spearheads promotion of the product; and the "filler" - the heart and soul, the meat and potatoes of an album - which achieves loyalty and longevity from a fan base. It's a good thing that not everyone likes every song on an album. Only the hardest core fans will.

Plus, albums are extremely satisfying to make.

So, I repeat. A fan does not download an artists individual songs without permission or paying.

[ 04-20-2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Often, most of these pushed and prefabricated artists have the same team of "masterminds" behind them; the same people who discovered them, producers, the real song composers and writers, record company bobo's, image specialists... They've basically got one "major" pool of songs and song-ideas, probably not even knowing for which artist they will be used during the writing process.

This is a pile of horse manure. The producers and writers are REAL musicians, expending REAL creative energy making below par talent that looks good in a bikini sound good so that non-selective consumers - who would otherwise ignore the older fatter musical genius if they presented work without the 'face' society usually demands and expects to see - actually checks out their work.

The money writers get from having songs on anothers album, usually funds their own projects. Same with producers. Daniel Lanois' own albums achieved nowhere near the success of the albums he produced for U2.

You are being very very insulting to musicians, writers and composers who pour so much energy into a project.

Giving away your 'best' song to another artist is very difficult. Ironically I have to use 'best' in the context of 'hit potential' as that's the language being used here

If you have a problem with how music's promotional presentation is "manufactured" look no further than the average Joe that buys (or doesn't buy as is the case now) records.

[ 04-20-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Sarah, I just saw this : "or quickly wrote a song of their own that they knew was crap..."

Come on! I don't know anyone that has ever willingly recorded a song they knew was crap, except for an artist who knowingly records a mega-hit for commercial success. Icehouse's Iva Davis hated his hugely successful "Electric Blue" which he wrote with Mr.Oates, from Hall and Oates.

See this is the problem. Most artists would call the mega-hit which sells all their records "crap" and call the "filler" which you're calling hastily written garbage, an inspired work of genius.

Robert Plant hated "Stairway to Heaven." Dave Dobbyn hated his mega hit "Slice of heaven" so much he wouldn't perform it at gigs - much to fans disappointment - and had his career go down the toilet. Paul MacCartney wrote a hastily written song called "Yesterday". John Lennon derided Pauls higher selling songs as "Grandmothers music". Jim Morrison hated the Doors biggest hits - which the guitarist Robby Krieger usually wrote - and poured his soul into the obscurer poetic songs of his own creation. Filter have one song called "Take a Picture" which was huge, yet was totally different to the rest of their work, which undoubtably expresses their musical creativity way more that the simplistic, radio friendly, repetative "Take a picture" did. I haven't heard another single of theirs to date, yet that single sold albums for them. I've been influenced by the far more experimental songs on their record, I wouldn't have otherwise heard.

[ 04-20-2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[antryg]

Yorick, while I agree with you that some of the best music on an album aren't the "hits", I disagree that artists don't release songs which they know are bad. This may be done for several reasons. Some artists/groups are under mandate "finish the album by X or we will cancel the project". Sometimes artists in conflict with their label release songs which they know are poor to get out of contractual obligations. For example, Lary Norman's In the Garden was released for this very reason. I make this claim based on an article in Time magazine and hearing him state the same during a concert. Other times bad songs are released by artists who view music as just their job and not a "calling" ie. "We need to turn out a new song by the end of the day to finish this album." I have seen video interviews where several different performers have stated that they only do it for the money/fame/girls/etc. It isn't about the music for all muscians.

Personally, I never buy an album based on hearing one song. If it is a group or artist that I don't know, it could be that the one song I hear will be the only one which I will like. However, after hearing that one song, I will seek out the album and listen to it and then make a choice whether to buy or not.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by antryg: Yorick, while I agree with you that some of the best music on an album aren't the "hits", I disagree that artists don't release songs which they know are bad. This may be done for several reasons. Some artists/groups are under mandate "finish the album by X or we will cancel the project". Sometimes artists in conflict with their label release songs which they know are poor to get out of contractual obligations. For example, Lary Norman's In the Garden was released for this very reason. I make this claim based on an article in Time magazine and hearing him state the same during a concert. Other times bad songs are released by artists who view music as just their job and not a "calling" ie. "We need to turn out a new song by the end of the day to finish this album." I have seen video interviews where several different performers have stated that they only do it for the money/fame/girls/etc. It isn't about the music for all muscians. Personally, I never buy an album based on hearing one song. If it is a group or artist that I don't know, it could be that the one song I hear will be the only one which I will like. However, after hearing that one song, I will seek out the album and listen to it and then make a choice whether to buy or not.

Ant, there are many people involved in a record. One two or even seven people in the project may not care about every or any songs, but you can rest assured at least one person will care about a song at some stage of the recording or it wouldn't get done at all.

Usually each song means more to different people. Producers care more about some tracks than others, artists may care more about different tracks to the producer. If there is a band, this is quite normal. Politics come into play, and a "bad" song will be included because it is the bassplayers baby. It's his only song, he cares about it and needs it for the money and will leave the band if it's not on. So the song goes on.

Does this make the song bad? IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

Anyway, did you hear about the polish/irish/whatever musician? He's doing it for the money... (boom boom)

Sorry Ant. None of us do it for the money. If we did, we'd be sadly disappointed. It's never "just a job" to make an album. An album is not a dodgy wedding gig or badly produced 30 second ad. More often than not albums take way more than they give back, on every level.

Re. albums released because of a label conflict, these are few and far between. Compared to the amount of albums released that's a drop in the ocean.

Finally, the "finish the album" pressure is on the producer, not the artist. The artist may very well be distraught by the result of a producers rush job, and simply have to settle with the end result. This doesn't mean the songs are bad, just not totally as intended. Again, whether this is good or bad is subjective.

I must point out, I don't think people here understand the producers role in a recording. Grojls post in particular highlights a misconception about the recording process.

The producer is the equivalent of a films director and editor rolled into one. The artist is often the starring actor of a film and may or may not be a scriptwriter as well. But without a director envisioning a completed entity the whole thing doesn't happen.

A producer can love a record even if the songs are "below par". A producer can love a record even if the artists and musicians are "below par". A producer is given clay to make some art with. Sometimes there's a lot, and clay that's easy to work with, other times the clay's wierdly coloured, or in small quantities.

But, there's no denying the time, care and energy that goes into shaping the clay no matter how much there is.

So, justifying stealing mp3s because "some songs are fillers" is an extreme insult to the people who bring you the music you love.

[ 04-21-2003, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Thorfinn]

Yorick, are you telling me that it is wrong to skip tracks I don't like? Do I have to listen to every song on an album, even those my subjective taste dislikes?

Lots of people DO consider several of the tracks filler, and that lowers the value of the CD to those people. You can call it a labor of love or whatever you like, but every song your customers skip is one more reason not to buy your next album.

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with whomever it was who earlier said that the industry really needs to get with the times. It needs to figure out a way to market songs more directly on the net. Full CDs, if you think they will sell, but more probably something on the order of a buck or two for each song. For a couple bucks, it really is not worth it to search for a pirate copy, and most people will feel guilty for having stolen food from the table of the owner of the rights to the music, anyway.

And that should provide valuable feedback for the artists, telling them what types of songs the fans like, and which they don't like. Not that the artists can't keep making the songs for art's sake, but they should not expect the same crowd to buy them. Sure you can ignore your fanbase. Come to think of it, ignoring your fanbase is exactly the reason people cut their own party compilation disks now -- you guys are too stuck on making the kind of album you want, rather than the kind of music the buyers are willing to pay for.

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Yorick, are you telling me that it is wrong to skip tracks I don't like? Do I have to listen to every song on an album, even those my subjective taste dislikes? Lots of people DO consider several of the tracks filler, and that lowers the value of the CD to those people. You can call it a labor of love or whatever you like, but every song your customers skip is one more reason not to buy your next album. Actually, I'm inclined to agree with whomever it was who earlier said that the industry really needs to get with the times. It needs to figure out a way to market songs more directly on the net. Full CDs, if you think they will sell, but more probably something on the order of a buck or two for each song. For a couple bucks, it really is not worth it to search for a pirate copy, and most people will feel guilty for having stolen food from the table of the owner of the rights to the music, anyway. And that should provide valuable feedback for the artists, telling them what types of songs the fans like, and which they don't like. Not that the artists can't keep making the songs for art's sake, but they should not expect the same crowd to buy them. Sure you can ignore your fanbase. Come to think of it, ignoring your fanbase is exactly the reason people cut their own party compilation disks now -- you guys are too stuck on making the kind of album you want, rather than the kind of music the buyers are willing to pay for.

I dont disagree with what you are saying Thor. But in my view, music is an art and should have nothing to do with money, period. If you make a living at it, your lucky. It should not influence your art. If I was to have my songs being passed around the internet, I would be happy people we're interested in what I have to play. Relying on the people for your income is downright not art. Never has, and will never be. People who are art collectors, music collectors, whatever, are interested in the money, before the art. They depend on the fans opinion to sell and make money. True art in my eyes (or ears) has nothing to do with money. So what if people are making money of it, it does not effect the art in me that created it in the first place.

Now, with that said. If you are somebody like Yorick, you depend on sales so you can progress as a musician and make more albums, and hopefully make a living at it. In this regard alone I agree with his frustration. But to use the art as a defence is contradictive. Your art is your art, no matter who listens to it, legally or not. I have mostly stayed out of this debate, becouse I dont think you guys are going to get anywhere. Just my two cents here.