4 students sued by RIAA over music sites

[Yorick]

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?

I never said that.

As far as this goes:

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 don't know anyone who ignores their fanbase, though I knew Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain were frustrated with theirs. However what you are describing is oftne referred to as an artist "selling out". Letting the market or their fans dictate what music they do, rather than their music being a true expression. It's wierd. One poster here will criticise "manufactured pop" and the other will criticise the opposite. Do you guys see this? "manufactured pop" is musicians making music for the market. You Thorin, are already getting what you want and you're complaining.

I've been saying, that the pick and choose song function could rob the world of creations that live outside of market pressures. As it stands an artist can do singles - for their fans or the market - and album tracks more for themselves. It's a nice compromise, and fans can skip the tracks if they want, without financially hamstringing the artist, or they can attempt to understand the more difficult song.

It's a fact that some songs take effort to appreciate, but once done, provide greater enjoyment.

[ 04-21-2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]I have the feeling you misunderstand me, but I was referring to the same Max Martin you mentioned earlier on and similar writers/producers... Who was (partly) behind the success of the Backstreet Boys, 5ive, 'N Sync, Britney Spears, to name a few; a person who after a more or less failed career as a glamrocker doesn't care about keeping the best songs to himself, because he releases none under his real name. And you tell me, with the almost trivial differences between some of the acts he's launched or helped to launch, that none of the songs originally intended for one of his acts ends up for another?
I'm not sure where I made any claims of the ones behind the "hitgroups" nowadays not being REAL musicians and expending REAL creativity, as I'm pretty sure I didn't; but do me a favour and don't sling terms like "pile of horse manure" and "very very insulting to musicians" around so easily. It's a bit uncalled for, and actually quite unnecessary.

[Melusine]

I fully agree with Groj here Hugh. You're so adamant on this issue you're not even TRYING to see what I'm saying (or what anyone else is). Don't give me that "ignore more experimental, longer songs simply because they are harder to get into" stuff mate, when I myself listen to frikken classical and 'harder to get into' music ONLY. Puh-lease.
I know you are hugely and widely experienced in the world of music but that doesn't mean you can discount others' experiences (as in: I tell you I know a band who deliberately recorded a crappy song, you have never heard of something that, so you discount it completely.)
I've tried my best and you should know how much I'm on your side... but there's just no arguing with you in this manner, Hugh.

[Thorfinn]

Yorick, the tone of virtually every post you make shows how you feel, far more than anything you said explicitly.

Sting produced hit songs so that he could pour his heart into what others consider "filler". (The unwashed heathen scum! How could they not appreciate his art?)

Artists who produce songs their fans want to hear are sellouts.

The numerous references to "real" musicians.

The "you will grow to appreciate it" mentality -- we artists know better than you mere listeners.

Artists write albums with a complete picture in mind. To listen to the songs in any other order or to skip one or another is like skipping books in a trilogy.

In virtually every post, you make it clear that you consider anyone who does not appreciate albums as you do to be inferior. That they need to develop a taste for the more experimental themes that give a deeper meaning.

BTW, I have only downloaded a handful of songs, and only then when specifically invited to do so by the musician himself. My point is not to impugn your art, but that by your single-minded drive towards the gestalt of an album, you are ignoring the fact that the bulk of the buyers do not agree with you, and have a few favorite tracks to which they prefer to listen. They do consider certain tracks filler, whether or not you think growing to appreciate those tracks will lead one to some higher understanding. To that extent, you are ignoring your fanbase. Some of them may like just one song from a CD, and by making them buy the entire album for $20, you are providing an incredible boon to the piracy industry.

Seriously, most musicians I know have no problem understanding how the War on (Some) Drugs increases the incentives for the black market, yet fail to understand how their bundling of music does the exact same thing.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Grojlach: I have the feeling you misunderstand me, but I was referring to the same Max Martin you mentioned earlier on and similar writers/producers... Who was (partly) behind the success of the Backstreet Boys, 5ive, 'N Sync, Britney Spears, to name a few; a person who after a more or less failed career as a glamrocker doesn't care about keeping the best songs to himself, because he releases none under his real name. And you tell me, with the almost trivial differences between some of the acts he's launched or helped to launch, that none of the songs originally intended for one of his acts ends up for another? I'm not sure where I made any claims of the ones behind the "hitgroups" nowadays not being REAL musicians and expending REAL creativity, as I'm pretty sure I didn't; but do me a favour and don't sling terms like "pile of horse manure" and "very very insulting to musicians" around so easily. It's a bit uncalled for, and actually quite unnecessary.

AH well no worries. I still luv ya Grojl.

Edit:

Anyhow, I was attempting to say, that Max Martin is a genius, and shouldn't be denigrated simply because millions of people enjoy the music he creates. As the producer he "owns" the sound far more than his acts, as evident from the similarity of the records. When you buy a Britney record, you are actually buying a Max Martin record with a pretty girl as it's "packaging" or brandname.

It's no different to bands of yesteryear, except that Martin is not required to promote and tour his records, and can work on other records with other "packaging".

How is the Beach Boys Brian Wilson any different from Martin? Brian stopped touring with the beachboys and so was not part of "the band" that the fans went to see in concert, yet Brian was the musical genius who in many cases recorded ALL the VOCALS.

By taking a derisory view of "manufactured pop" you do the producers - who are the real artists of "manufactured pop" - a disservice.

That's what I'm trying to say Grojl.

[ 04-23-2003, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Melusine: I tell you I know a band who deliberately recorded a crappy song, you have never heard of something that, so you discount it completely

Because in music, what's good and bad is SUBJECTIVE. There is no absolute on what is good and what is bad. So a band record a song they write in 5 mins? That doesn't make it a bad song. Many of the most popular songs around are written in a short time. SO a band throw on a song they don't really care about? Many "hits" bands have are songs they don't care about. Like Ween's "Pushin' daisies" (or whatever it was called) hit that was bizzare, yet sold volumes. I gave examples of artists hating their hits.

It's the subjectivity that I was pointing out makes such a statement of yours impossible to make.

There is no such thing as good and bad in music. No such thing as "crappy". Many would call Arnie deFranco's recordings "crappy" unbalanced recordings of inaccessible grating music. Others would call it quirky, inspired, emotive, rebellious and carefree avantgard folk of benchmark quality.

Subjectivity is what makes labelling a song a "filler" pointless.

That's what I'm saying Sarah. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Yorick, the tone of virtually every post you make shows how you feel, far more than anything you said explicitly. Sting produced hit songs so that he could pour his heart into what others consider "filler". (The unwashed heathen scum! How could they not appreciate his art?) Artists who produce songs their fans want to hear are sellouts. The numerous references to "real" musicians. The "you will grow to appreciate it" mentality -- we artists know better than you mere listeners. Artists write albums with a complete picture in mind. To listen to the songs in any other order or to skip one or another is like skipping books in a trilogy. In virtually every post, you make it clear that you consider anyone who does not appreciate albums as you do to be inferior. That they need to develop a taste for the more experimental themes that give a deeper meaning. BTW, I have only downloaded a handful of songs, and only then when specifically invited to do so by the musician himself. My point is not to impugn your art, but that by your single-minded drive towards the gestalt of an album, you are ignoring the fact that the bulk of the buyers do not agree with you, and have a few favorite tracks to which they prefer to listen. They do consider certain tracks filler, whether or not you think growing to appreciate those tracks will lead one to some higher understanding. To that extent, you are ignoring your fanbase. Some of them may like just one song from a CD, and by making them buy the entire album for $20, you are providing an incredible boon to the piracy industry. Seriously, most musicians I know have no problem understanding how the War on (Some) Drugs increases the incentives for the black market, yet fail to understand how their bundling of music does the exact same thing.

You are forgetting that I am a listener and a fan of everyone elses music I like/buy other than my own. I am only an artist/creator of my own work. So I can speak as a consumer, and as an artist. It's not like there is an "us/them" situation.

However, with a slight change you hit a nail on the head.
We artists know our own music better than listeners. That is an indisputable statement.


Additionally "That they need to develop a taste for the more experimental themes that give a deeper meaning." is also true. Accessibility relies on familiarity. If something is new with no foundation of familiarity for a listener to draw on, repeated listenings must occur for truer appreciation to follow. The more familiarity the song contains, the more the song has to lure a listener in. This is a fact, not an elitist view. The scale works up to an inverse level, where if the song has too much familiarity it is boringly predictable.

It's a fine balance. Pop music is an incredibly fine balance.

Some music is indeed an "aquired taste" requiring more effort to appreciate, yes from US listeners, including myself and other artists not involved in the creative process. Again, a statement of inclusivity, not elitism.

[Yorick]

What does a dyslexic drummer do after a joke?

Ching badoom.

[LordKathen]

Are you bumping this Yorick?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: Are you bumping this Yorick?

Why do you ask?