Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Andre,
Well-said. i often imagine a world where some of my favorite musicians made
different choices. Steve Reich could have become an academic philosopher.
Eno could have become a chemist. Robert Fripp could have become an
engineer.
My world would have been infinitely bleaker had these people made other
choices. Because of this sense of enrichment, i am glad to support,
directly
and fiscally, the musicians whose work i consume.
On the other hand, mass distribution of music has been a horrible thing.
Over and above the effects you describe in which people become alienated
from the real energy and effort involved in the production of music, there
is the environmental impact. Even if what i had to communicate musically
had
wide appeal, which i sincerely doubt, the image of a warehouse full of CD's
and cassette tapes with my name on them-no chance of them gracefully
bio-degrading for the next 10,000 years-gives me the shivers. i can barely
face up to the consequences of the plastic i do consume, much less handle
the responsibility for bringing so much more into the world.
i relish participating in the emergence of a vehicle like the Internet by
which i can learn about people who produce musics i enjoy and which allows
me to support them more directly. When i think about a future in which that
music can be distributed more directly from producer to audience with much
less environmental impact, i feel a distinct sense of hope.
On a completely different note, i was wondering if any of you loopists have
been exploring yet another natural extension of looping: playing the loops
by hand in an ensemble setting? Over the 11 years i've been looping i've
gradually gotten interested in longer and longer loops. And i've been
exploring layering loops of different cycle lengths to produce still longer
loops. i've also gotten more interested in the human feel that arises when
a
group finds its natural tempo. (E.g., what one experiences in a drum
circle.) Has anyone been experimenting with this sort of thing?
i'd be especially interested to hear of other's experiences in this kind of
setting. Additionally, if anyone has developed useful techniques for
maintaining/splitting attention while playing long, hypnotic loops, i'd
really like to hear about them.
--greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre LaFosse [SMTP:altruist@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 1:25 AM
To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com
Subject: Re: the CDs --> Liberate Music!
> I would even encourage artists to give their music away for FREE!
[Of
> course, at this point in my life, I am still the consumer, and
not
the
> artist, so I may be biased here.]
Hmmm.
I realize most of the people on this list aren't actively making
their
living through playing music, and that even fewer are making their
living playing their own music. I've got no problem with people
who
want to trade or give away their music out of sheer goodwill or the
desire to have their music heard.
However, here are some arguments for an artist actually charging a
price
for what they do. (Hopefully this won't utterly reek of a
struggling
musician complaining about his lot in life.)
Making music takes time. Trying to make music in certain ways can
take
a *lot* of time. Just getting yourself to the point where you have
the
technical facility to realize that music (be it practicing a guitar
or
programming samples in a computer) can take a *very very* long
time.
Coming home from working eight hours in a "day job" and then trying
to
muster up the energy and concentration to do a few hours of serious
practicing (not just vacant noodling in front of the TV) is a
hugely
draining proposition.
So trying to turn one's music into one's profession is often born
largely out of the need to set aside the necessary space in one's
life
to pursue their music the way they want to.
Many people who are serious about music have spent countless hours
throughout their entire lives trying to hone their craft. It's not
just
a case of idly sitting around thinking about how great it would be
to
get paid money to strum a few chords -- it's a very serious
investment
of discipline on many different levels. A lot of musicians still
struggle to maintain that sort of dedication even while doing
non-music
related jobs in order to make ends meet. To suggest to someone in
this
position that they might better serve their creative muse by giving
away
music they have recorded in the name of liberating the creative
spirit,
and then subsidize the expenditure by selling *t-shirts* of
themselves,
is a dubious proposition to say the least.
The idea of "alternative merchaindising" (t-shirts, posters, etc)
works
well for a name act which has a fixed identity, an existing fan
base,
and/or "product value". People buy shirts from these acts because
they
want to identify themselves as fans in public, and be recognized as
fans
by other people who are presumed to have a knowledge of the artist
in
question. In short, you can get a lot of milage out of wearing a
Marilyn Manson T-shirt at a rock concert. You'll get about
1/1000th
of
a mile to the gallon wearing a "Joe Schmoe, Internet Loopist At
Large"
shirt when you check your e-mail.
You're absolutely right that online marketing and distribution is
going
to completely change the way music is bought and sold, and you're
right
that it allows the artist to eliminate the middleman. For those
very
reasons, the idea that the artist should therefore start giving
their
music away through this sort of medium is a pretty unsympathetic
point
of view.
Just about any band or artist web site nowadays has a page of sound
bites online where people can download samples of the act's music.
Posting excerpts is the ideal way to go, since it gives a listener
a
taste of what the band has to offer; at the same time, if someone
wants
the entire piece, they need to buy the recording. The artist's
music is
exposed to just as many people as it would be if it were given away
online, but the artist isn't forfeiting their right to try and get
a
tangible return on a lifetime's worth of work -- to say nothing of
a
very real investment of finances in order to get the music recorded
in
the first place.
If someone is actually taking the time and expense to record and
mass-produce (or even burn individual CD-Rs) of their music, the
least
you can realistically expect is that they'll want to cover the cost
of
doing so. I realize that there are people (including some of you
here)
who will and do go further, and give away these items in the name
of
sharing your music. I sincerely applaud your approach, but I also
fully
empathize with those who want (let alone *need*) to see a return on
their investment.
My experience has been that the average person who buys records (or
for
that matter, many people who follow music seriously and are
themselves
musically active) don't really have the first clue as to what the
realities of trying to make a living in the arts is really like,
either
in terms of the situational realities of the marketplace or in
terms
of
the psychological realities that an artist in that situation is
prone to
dealing with on a day-to-day or minute-by-minute basis.
So, for all those who have no doubt spent every bit as much time
and
dedication pursuing their music as has been detailed above, and are
still perfectly happy to have music as a hobby, a side interest, or
a
lark, more power to you.
But I'd like every person reading this to do one thing: Think about
your
favorite musicians and artists. Think about how their music has
affected your lives. Think about the investment of time and
resources
that it must have taken for them to be able to bring these things
into
being.
And then think about whether or not this music could realistically
have
come into being if they hadn't pursued music professionally.
--Andre LaFosse
http://home.earthlink.net/~altruist