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

Re: [microsound] mp3 redux



ermmm. to be honest..
I doubt that many people on this list produce music that would appeal to
enough people to make it into their main income earner..
'Microsound' music is a rather small clique in a genre of genres. For me, I
find the conversation fostered by this list generally more interesting than
any of the music associated.. In fact I find it odd that with such strong
viewpoints and concepts most 'microsound' stuff is relatively unchallenging
and
unprogressive. Obscurity doesn't imply worthiness as I'm sure you'll all
agree, it also doesn't sell well! :)

tom

p.s. ta for the albini link, he got some vision..(imho)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Renick Bell" <the3rd2nd@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [microsound] mp3 redux

> There's a moral point that continually comes up regarding downloading -
support
> the indie labels if you download. This indie boosterism doesn't do it for
me.
> As much as I'd like to lend a hand to other artists, this capitalist world
> forces me to be more practical. There is an idea that artists should be
able to
> earn enough money from their creative endeavors to support themselves and
their
> families. I would love to be a part of that (sometimes questionably)
enviable
> group; however, I doubt many people aside from the superstars and other
> major-label-supported performers are doing so. To those list members with
CDs
> out, remind us if the income from sales of your CDs is your only or major
> source of income. If it is, would you be kind enough to tell us not your
> income, but a self-assessment of your standard of living (lower-class by
> American standards and proud of it, comfortably middle-class, rich-as-hell
and
> not done yet)?
>
> The continuing death of labels (such as Strictly Rhythm
> http://www.discjockey101.com/oct2002.html) means that labels aren't
keeping up
> with the times. They are offering an obsolete product. Some people
continue to
> promote packaging (case, liner notes, hand-drawn/printed art) as a
> justification for the production of CDs. However, it's arguable that these
are
> contributors to environmental problems. The mining of the aluminum at the
core
> of the CD destroys wildlife habitats, the solvents used in sputtering the
> aluminum disc with plastic are toxic, the use of the plastic in the cases
> supports Bush's oil empire, the cardboard in the sleeves brings down more
> trees, the manufacturing process uses too much electricity which wastes
> resources, the selling of the CD in stores through distributors promotes
an
> inefficient delivery system, and so on. Why buy such a product when it is
> available, minus all drawbacks, for free on the web? There is the moral
> argument that I should buy it because not to is stealing. However, if
buying it
> means supporting and affirming all of the aforementioned ills, wouldn't
> downloading be at least in morally neutral territory?
>
> The only arguments I hear on various lists are moral ones. Why do all
writers
> ignore the economic side of this, imho, primarily economic issue? What is
the
> product that an artist can provide that is compelling enough to buy? I
have a
> well for my water; why would I pay the city for their water system? Live
> performing is one aspect. Jello Biafra moans about the
> artists-as-traveling-minstrel, and given the poor environmental conditions
of
> most venues (cigarette smoke, drunken spectators, competition with the
> meat-market background), I can see his point. Those of you who are selling
CDs
> and performing live, what is the breakdown, percentage-wise, in the
income?
> Steve Albini writes (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html) that for most
> major label bands, the CD is already a vehicle for promoting a tour (the
only
> real source of income).  Interestingly, farmers have been facing a severe
> downturn in the price of their commodity. Without subsidies, farming in
America
> isn't profitable. The same goes for American manufacturing. In our world,
> everything has become too easy to make and so there is too much of it.
Core
> economic issues are being challenged in ways that haven't been before.
> Capitalism relies on scarcity and unlimited resources (sounds absurd from
the
> start, doesn't it?). We are rapidly facing the end of scarcity (at least
for
> many information-based products) and the end of unlimited resources (oil,
land,
> wood, others).
>
> So the real question is: how can artists make a living at art in this
economic
> situation? For me, donations aren't a viable answer; I already find the
> Salvation Army guy at Christmas to be a nuisance. What is a compelling and
> morally-superior product that an artist can produce to make a reasonable
> income? While it's clear that the problems with capitalism are
long-standing,
> it doesn't appear that other viable systems are forthcoming. I realize
it's a
> little OT, but can anyone recommend recent writing (preferably web-based)
> discussing these problems? Anyone know any outstanding articles on gift
> economics?
>
> Renick
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------