|
|
Post by mszue on Jun 22, 2012 15:12:08 GMT -5
I am sorry you can't watch it...wonder why...I copied the blurb under it:
Rufus Wainwright mimes to his recording of Judy Garland's "Get Happy" at the Glastonbury Festival, 22nd June 2007. It was his second attempt at it as the sound went down half-way through the first attempt. The dancers are actually his band.
It comes from a 'set up' he did of copying Judy Garlands famous version in a come-back concert she had done...singing Get Happy. There are so many layers of irony and meaning here....iconic example of musical polysemy...love to see Adam come out with something like this some time....though you could have fun with his numerous versions of CIGC I suppose...but they were not as purposeful as this is...
I've seen numerous versions of it....shows his outrageousness..and sense of humour. The first time I heard his "My phones on vibrate...for you" I just cracked up!!! He is a very brave man...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 15:42:14 GMT -5
Would love to hear thoughts on this article: What Happens If No One Pays for Music? www.salon.com/2012/06/20/steal_this_album_what_happens_if_no_one_pays_for_music/Excerpt: But Lowery’s argument – despite a few misspellings and the jumble of well-considered and rushed thoughts that the Web all but requires – is one of the most important meditations on the state of music in our time. He drops some crucial statistics here, among them that “Recorded music revenue is down 64 percent since 1999,” and that “The number of professional musicians has fallen 25 percent since 2000.” He refers indirectly to something equally important: The money being spent on music is not ending up in the hands of musicians, or even labels, or members of the creative class, from the record store clerk to a label president. It's going to Apple – which could, thanks to iTunes, buy every surviving label with pocket change – and other technology companies. |
|
|
|
Post by glittergma on Jun 22, 2012 21:23:03 GMT -5
sorry, i think my tiger screw the page up,,, LOL! It's ok, it was worth it to see holst do all that *bumping*!!   ETA: Plus I love tigers!! 8-) |
|
nikki
Member
Posts: 747
Location:
|
Post by nikki on Jun 23, 2012 9:33:30 GMT -5
Would love to hear thoughts on this article: What Happens If No One Pays for Music? www.salon.com/2012/06/20/steal_this_album_what_happens_if_no_one_pays_for_music/Excerpt: But Lowery’s argument – despite a few misspellings and the jumble of well-considered and rushed thoughts that the Web all but requires – is one of the most important meditations on the state of music in our time. He drops some crucial statistics here, among them that “Recorded music revenue is down 64 percent since 1999,” and that “The number of professional musicians has fallen 25 percent since 2000.” He refers indirectly to something equally important: The money being spent on music is not ending up in the hands of musicians, or even labels, or members of the creative class, from the record store clerk to a label president. It's going to Apple – which could, thanks to iTunes, buy every surviving label with pocket change – and other technology companies. First of all, thank you very much Junie for posting this article and for your previous post on fandom, which I was quietly mulling over before I read this. What stood out were two statements that framed the debate for me. On the one hand, the ultimate statement of "generation ME": "All I require is the ability to listen to what I want, when I want and how I want it. Is that too much to ask?", Versus a truly compelling rebuttal by David Lowery: "You have grown up in a time when technological and commercial interests are attempting to change our principles and morality. Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change–if a machine can do something, it ought to be done. Although it is the premise of every “machines gone wild” story since Jules Verne or Fritz Lang, this is exactly backwards."
I really enjoyed David's full response: thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/No matter which way I look at it, I can only agree with him - we can call it by so many other names, blame technology etc, but in the end, what is happening is the sum total of each individual's moral choice. Would I, growing up in my son's generation (he's 17), make different choices? I would hope the answer is "yes", but that is by no means certain. The consequences are dire for individual artists. It makes me incredibly sad. To me, artists, and the artistic spirit should be cherished and valued. And for the music industry, less profit equals less artists and less diversity of artistic expression as companies try to hedge their bets on "safe" artists making "safe" music. We have this debate around Adam's artistry on a regular basis already. I didn't know anything about how widespread illegal music downloading is and I found this gem from none other than Sean Parker talking about Spotify: www.quora.com/How-many-songs-are-legally-downloaded-each-year-and-how-many-songs-are-illegally-downloadedSo it's roughly 4 billion legal to every 4-10 trillion illegal downloads annually. I'm not sure if this is for the US only or worldwide. It's a wide guesstimate, but I was truly staggered by those numbers. My God, that's 1:10,000 illegal downloads using the 4 trillion estimate, and 1:25,000 for 10 trillion. (Using the US definitions of billion and trillion). And only 30% of the world is online so far. It was also interesting, but hardly surprising, that Sean framed the debate in terms of, "Well, anti-piracy laws have been an abject failure" (so Spotify is now free to screw the artists), rather than the individual, moral imperative that David speaks of. I couldn’t resist my own guesstimate of what Adam's "real" sales might look like in a less technologically-enabled world. Assuming the numbers are for the US, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say Adam's sales would be 1:10, so around the 1.2 million mark so far. A hollow calculation, I know. I have multiple copies of Trespassing that I give away to people, which is one way I like to support him. The other day I gave a copy to a lovely guy in his late 20's that regularly makes me my morning coffee. We chat frequently about the dance clubs he also works in. He already likes Adam but didn't know his new CD was out. As soon as I gave him the CD, he immediately put it on the cafe's sound system. By the end of Shady, he'd made arrangements with 2 of the other staff to download the disc to their PCs. >:( It puts into perspective the effort needed now to really get a "sale". I also really liked what you wrote about technology and the changing nature of being a fan. Particularly that of being a producer. Marketer could well be in the mix. Technology has also driven a whole new emphasis on relationship and the rise of the notion of customer (in this case fan) as marketer like never before - of consciously trying to find ways to establish a depth of emotional buy-in to the degree that people voluntarily become active and willing "promoters" of the brand/product/artist. In the music business, artists now more than ever need this “gold” category of fans to help them survive. In Adam's case, reality TV singing contests build that emotional investment unashamedly and rapidly; the back stories, viewer voting to play a vital part in launching someone’s career. Many of the behaviours (like voting) that have been actively “shaped” during the program spill over into the next phase of the person's career (to, for example make requests on radio). I’m not meaning to sound cynical and I’m not saying for one moment that Adam doesn’t genuinely respect and value his fans. I'm not saying that we are being mindlessly manipulated and don’t have our own genuine reasons for being Adam's fan. And I'm definitely in the joy camp. But it is a business, and companies are actively pursing this way of looking at fans - so maybe a “buyer beware” warning label might be appropriate. ;D |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2012 13:12:10 GMT -5
nikki, thank you for this thoughtful response. I held off on giving my own thoughts about the article to see what others felt. I have written two well-reviewed books over the years (not best-sellers lol) but the sales, however modest, fell off to nothing about two years ago except for Kindle. I watched an interview with a local bookseller not long ago who was closing his doors. He said basically no one would buy a book now at any price.
That was what struck me -- at any price. People say they want creative content but they don't want to pay for it. I've had friends ask me if I'm going to do another book and I just kind of put them off. The truth is that I'd like to, but exactly how? More people read my posts every day on Adamtopia than have read my books.
It's kind of like what happened with sex after birth control came along -- there was so much free stuff that it ruined it for it for the shady ladies. LOL. Seriously, I really don't know what the answer is.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitrabbit on Jun 23, 2012 13:53:37 GMT -5
nikki and @juniemoon I read the NPR article and rebuttal earlier, but need to reread it. This part in David's response was especially compelling to me: ----------------- "The existential questions that your generation gets to answer are these: Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself? Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself? Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music? This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it’s as if: Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money! Hardware: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money! Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class. Screw you, you greedy bastards! Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!"--------------------- It's also very interesting to me that among the group he's particularly addressing (the NPR intern, hipster, socially conscious, creative young) people are often very aware of where their veggies come from, and buying fair trade coffee, and supporting local business, and cutting down carbon emissions by biking and various other ethics-based behaviors that can require much more individual effort and sometimes monetary output (eating organic) than for example paying for itunes downloads.
|
|
Holst
Member
Posts: 4,786
Location:
|
Post by Holst on Jun 23, 2012 15:18:21 GMT -5
Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself? Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself? Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?These are really good questions. The only answer I can come up with is because music "piracy" is so easy, so convenient. I'm not sure it has as much to do with money as with convenience (obviously some people can't afford all the music they would wish for). Regarding the bold statement, to me, it's similar to why our society insists on paying public servants (teachers, police, fire fighters, etc.) fairly low wages. Most American claim that these are highly valuable professions, yet don't want to pay much for the service. On the other hand, many are willing to go deep into debt for expensive cars, new computers, phones, etc. (which makes our businesses wealthy) without flinching. Same with music: we have a society that seems almost obsessed with music and artists, but we aren't willing to spend money on it. Junie, said: "I have multiple copies of Trespassing that I give away to people, which is one way I like to support him. The other day I gave a copy to a lovely guy in his late 20's that regularly makes me my morning coffee. We chat frequently about the dance clubs he also works in. He already likes Adam but didn't know his new CD was out. As soon as I gave him the CD, he immediately put it on the cafe's sound system. By the end of Shady, he'd made arrangements with 2 of the other staff to download the disc to their PCs. It puts into perspective the effort needed now to really get a "sale".' The speed at which people copy music is astounding--because it is so easy. The CD itself is getting obsolete, as we know. I'm still trying to purchase things I want (usually online), but we are a dying breed. As a music teacher, I have watched the evolving technology via my students. It used to be that I gave chorus students recordings of me singing their part on cassette tapes so they could practice at home. Eventually that changed to CDs (no one had a way to listen to tapes). Now, I have kids download their practice tracks from a web location. A few kids will need to burn CDs to take home if they don't have a computer at home or iPod. However, a number of families no longer have a way to play physical CDs anymore other than a computer. I haven't really said anything profound here. It's just what I mull over in my mind. Mika, sorry about your reaction to my blank "bump" posts. I just couldn't bare trying to read another of these really good, but long, posts and having to scroll sideways on each line (and long line lengths are harder to read anyway). It was interfering with my comprehension. I guess that's my OCD. We'll be on another page before we know it, and you'll never have to look at the blank posts again. Thanks for all the lovely words you write.  |
|
mika
Member
Posts: 542
Location:
|
Post by mika on Jun 23, 2012 16:55:45 GMT -5
Prev. deleted: Thanks to our kind Mod for tidying us up.
Nica -- thanks much for deleting image - but your gorgeous Tiger made a lovely header - I hope you repost him. I am very not tech savvy but can tell you how I resize. (I edit images haphazardly (guessing at pixel size) saved under pictures in my pc before going to tinypic to upload, but I know more competent people go about it a more elegant way.)
|
|
mika
Member
Posts: 542
Location:
|
Post by mika on Jun 23, 2012 22:12:38 GMT -5
I think that some of the angrier responses to the NPR and Trichordist posts that boil down to 'damned selfish kids today got no values' are powered by something other than concern for musicians/artists. Maybe whatever makes us always want to denounce the upcoming generation as self-absorbed. (And frankly coming from what I assume is largely a combo of Boomers and Gen-X (incl me), are we really in a position of generational moral superiority? Personally, I doubt it.) To be clear, I think David Lowery is a brilliant, kind man who always includes a few self-deprecating, humorous comments acknowledging that things look much different to him from this end of the age and profession spectrum. I have no issue with his rebuttal article -(well one serious quibble about something I thought was inappropriate but I've taken that up with him directly). He mostly went out of his way to speak to the young woman (and indirectly her fellow younglings) in a non-judgmental way. The same was not true of many comments that followed the sites of both articles. (Honestly, in the comments, I also think there's a touch of vitriol there tied less to her opinion and more to the hostility sparked by a - a) young; b) presumably privileged/educated; c) woman/girl. ) When I read the article, I was actually startled that (overwhelmingly) she hadn't gotten her library from illegal downloads. She got them from: - her family's music collection - swapping mixed cds - some live show downloads from a boyfriend - ripped from her college radio station while listening - free promo copies from her work place (in my day, stations and stores routinely gave these to employees when they cleaned house) I'm not saying it's perfectly okay but a lot of this was common practice before Gen Y - the digital revolution changed the scale and quality but the actions are not so different. (Of course I have not just cd but cassette tape mixes from friends cause I'm old  .) And this generation was born along with the technology and the information flow - they adapted to each other. Business models, marketing and distribution are still scrambling to catch up - and when they do - don't count on them having musicians' interests at heart. I think this may be the heart of David's crusade - to get creatives informed and involved as the new order takes shape and they're completely shut out. I'm a bit skeptical of assertions that any other generation wouldn't have responded the same way under similar circumstances. (And I should note, I possess no illegal music downloads - including of any music w/Adam vocals - but I was out of the loop for those key Napster years so it wasn't part of my experience) As for the argument that 'well, I could do it now, but I choose not to' - sometimes that's because of more disposable income (there is a wide disparity of wealth among young people - they aren't all rolling in money if you check natl poverty stats). But more important, they have a different mind set - not about right and wrong, but about what trading music means - an act of communal art sharing vs an act of theft. And David was trying to show another perspective on that. (Though I'm inclined to believe that, at 21, he would have collected music much in the same way she has if it had been an option - I think he was more taken aback mainly by the size of her library and most of all by her assertion that her generation will never buy albums (which I think is overstated but still, I see where she was going). I think her closing is a perhaps poorly worded suggestion that she and her kind are prepared to pay if a distribution method matches their habits - which is true more often than not re consumers of any age. I feel not very virtuous in this area. I save photos from the internet that are not mine and send them to friends to enjoy or laugh at. I found a documentary on You Tube recently that I've been eager to get a dvd of for years - but it's over 20 yrs old and out of print - how long do I wait before I see if it ever comes out on dvd before I download it and share with friends w/no financial compensation to brilliant filmmakers? Is it more honorable to wait for it to disappear forever? I don't know. I've shared poetry here with you - some from poets w/copyright still in effect. How many people who condemn this girl regularly download or share informal copies of ~something created with no compensation not only to artists but everyone involved in its creation/production? All I'm saying is I think there may be more gray areas in this issue than we sometimes see on first glance. And maybe Emily White is no Veruca Salt (from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - not the band  . ETA: But these conversations and articles ARE important. I had no idea about Spotify until I started reading relatively recent articles. In fact, I originally set up my acct when musicians on twitter started linking to playlists there. I've deleted it in trying to do my small part - and trying to buy more from artists home pages but iTunes is so damned convenient :-/ |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2012 0:11:18 GMT -5
Everything you wrote here, mika, was so interesting but I especially felt interested in this part:
I'm a bit skeptical of assertions that any other generation wouldn't have responded the same way under similar circumstances. (And I should note, I possess no illegal music downloads - including of any music w/Adam vocals - but I was out of the loop for those key Napster years so it wasn't part of my experience)I agree with this, that the issue should not be a generational divide. Back to my admittedly boring book experience ... the idea of getting something for nothing knows no age limits. Now that Amazon offers copies of books for sometimes as little as 1 cent(!), what incentive is there to buy a $20 book? I've had people boast to my face that they bought my book for $2. Yippee-skippy. Let's face it -- it's over for making any kind of compensation for doing creative work. Virtually every form of content has been disrupted, from books to music to movies and television. If there is no scarcity of reading material or music or poetry or photography or videos of cats falling off the sofa, why would anyone pay for it? The old business models were based on scarcity and control. If I want to read, I need to go buy a book (or someone, like my library, has to buy it). If I want music, I have to buy it. Now I can read all the day for free, go down the rabbit hole of great music and live performances all the day for free. Now ... to give this a twist, a little ... one assumption that we are making is that to be an artist, you have to make a living from your art. This belief is frequently used as a club with which to beat aspiring artists into giving up their art and getting a “real job.” In fact, making an income – from art or accounting or anything else – requires the skills of an entrepreneur or a business person. Making a living is a separate activity from one’s art. Adam was an artist for several years before he made a living from his music. He will, hopefully, continue to be an artist for many years to come, even if something awful happened and he stopped making an income from his music for a while. (As happened to Mel Torme and Tony Bennett.) The selling of Adam’s art began with his Idol journey. All artists need a break to get started, and Idol gave Adam a chance to succeed that he didn’t have before, something to make up for the fact that he had artistry but virtually no audience and no platform. If Idol were a piece of real estate it would be #1 in location, location, location. By making it on Idol Adam was able to bypass years of attempting to make a living in seedy nightclubs and third-rate venues. But the best location in the world isn’t enough without fans willing to pull out their wallets and buy your art. Adam has built a remarkable fan base who will pre-order everything he does and wait by the mailbox for it to arrive, wild with excitement. As for the rest of the world ... understanding, finding, and selling to a mass audience has little to do with art or passion and everything to do with marketing – which is where RCA and DMG come in. Almost all artists worry deeply about selling and Adam is certainly no exception. In interviews when Adam is asked about the main differences between his old life and his new life, he often says, “Money.” Though he does not seem materialistic, he does love expensive clothes and you can bet he gets a kick out of plunking down $1800 for a pair of boots. In a larger sense, Adam is certainly aware of the dire situation in today’s music industry. He knows he has to make money for a lot of people to keep doing what he loves. When we wonder if Adam will “make it,” we are really wondering if he has what it takes to make art and sell it at the same time. The true test of Adam as an artist is whether he freely expresses his personality through his music and communicates with our hearts and our dancing feet. Trespassing is already an artistic success. The true test of Adam as a business person is whether people will buy what he is selling. We wait and hope.  |
|
.)