Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Larry Mc, Apr 14, 2019.
Written by Ian Tamblyn................. It's long but well worth reading.
This is the best article I've ever read on this subject, I thought you guys would have been all over this. He touches on
Audiophile equipment as well when he talks about the growth of music and the "baby boomers". How weapons of
war had lot to do with sound.
Hey buddy, do you mind? We dont have time for this sort of stuff anymore. We are busy over comparing our defective lps and 45's in the RSD thread.
Seriously though, thannks for the article. Good read.
Is it ironic that his article was copy/pasted without a link or attribution? Like, it's totally FREE, man!
I disagree with the "changes happened so quickly" thing. CDs were introduced in 1982, didn't peak until 2000, and sold pretty well into the 2010s (and though are way past their heydey, are not extinct).
For some reason van Gogh comes to mind. Starving artist that in many ways wasnt recognized during his lifetime as a genius.
Yes, times have changed. Yet, if your a genius out there then youll create. And youll create something thats inspirationally inventive. Should it be paid for? Well, Id rather die a van Gogh than be a rich rock star whose work will most likely be forgotten in 50 yrs. Create the timeless and to hell with technology.
People have to eat. But what is left behind is what matters.
"I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own." -Nikola Tesla
Well, in the late seventies I was making $50-$75 a night playing in clubs, as a kid. Venues were on every other corner in even small towns. People loved going out to hear music. I was never out of a gig and I was living pretty good, a shrimp dinner was $3.25 and gas was .50 a gallon, ciggies were .50 a pack. The music scene is a shriveled, underfed husk of what it used to be.
I think these days everyone has such a widespread, different music taste, even from person to person, everyone is into something very different. The internet allowed people to easily see what else is out there. I can discover 10 new artists I’ve never heard of in 10 seconds now, all of a different genre. If I decide I like the music of one of those groups I may decide to buy the record, but I’m not usually very likely to follow them much longer because I’ll discover something new. There’s so much stuff out there now because the record companies don’t have a stranglehold on what people listen to now.
When it comes to live music, my friends and I never like the same type of music so nobody wants to go to a concert together anymore. Even a free live show in a bar will only garner interest from maybe one or two of the people I know
Whilst I agree 100%. I even wished I'd written it. Me thinks this may be a touch far too philosophical a read for this forum.
Many good points. I remember getting a CD burner in 1999, and even though blanks were expensive, my first feeling was, "Well, it was nice while it lasted!"
Did Tesla feel that way late in his life? I don't know?
I don't live my life thinking about what I leave when I die. I'm trying to live for today.
I'm old enough now to realize the truth changes as time goes by. Almost everyday I read posts
on the internet about rock stars in the past and sometimes it's not what happened or what
I'm not arguing with you Mpayan, but I've always thought artist were reaching out to tell the world how they feel.
Maybe some don't care, I don't know, but I have a lot of friends that play music at home that would love to play in
front of people for money.
Would the Beatles or The Rolling Stones developed into the great groups they did if the weren't successful
A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music
I think sometimes we have too much time to think. One of my favorite things to do here lately is to look at old photos from the 1800's and early 1900's. Especially the children of that time. Some were very old looking. Like little men. Some were chimmney sweeps or. Newspaper boys. I dont reckon they thought past the next meal. Or what we would think about them in 100 yrs.
I, like you, am just an ordinary average guy (to steal a Joe Walsh line). I dont do much but to live my life one day at a time also.
I guess my point was though is that technology and its advantages or disadvantages, social changes whether good or bad, economic strife or abundance may affect the genius' directions with his achievements. But it shouldnt ultimately keep him from explorations end.
This may be going in a direction thats too far into another topic but to bring it in a bit Id say that artistry works within the surroundings its given. And even prospers. It takes imagination and time. Those who are artists should give themselves time and let go of what restrains them. Whether that be greed, society or any other distraction.
Would the Beatles have been as creative without the fame, fortune etc? Ironically they probably had more time for their art at first. They were driven to create perfect little pop songs. Then to make statements. But that fame and myopic outlook eventually led to a negative creativity. They were eaten up and ate each each other. So yes and no. Fame and fortune were both a positive (the isolated life of a Beatle could do no more than create) and a negative (too many silly disctractions).
Its no different today. There are events that universally happening that genius can comment on through art. Id argue that the real distractions are not from the outside but from the undisciplined inside. Picaso didnt just wake up a great painter.
Music is an art. Social media is not. The craft of making music, has perhaps robbed many artists of making art, due to the complexities of the need to subsidize that rapture with making the craft as well.
What if somebody told Hank Williams that, in addition to managing his own band, booking his own gigs, laying-out his own album covers once he'd finished mixing and mastering the recording in his basement, after days of having the freedom to second-guess every musical decision he'd made over the period of the extra weeks it would have taken him to perfect it because he had the ability and equipment to do so at a whim - so he did - over and over - then figure out the distribution system, make deals with Amazon or BandCamp, arrange for uploading it all onto Spotify and Pandora, work out the rights clearances over radio and live stage performances, DMCS clauses for online...and then go through the rigorous processes of booking air time as he traveled the country, choosing hotels to stay in to keep up with his fans on facebook and Twitter based on how free their wifi was, and make himself available for media interviews...all after having read the books on it thanks to Robert Fripp telling the industry they were dinosaurs and he was a small, intelligent mobile unit...well, do ya really think the person that had had to make all these "adjustments" in his way of the process of creating art, craft and social media, would turn out to be the same Hank Williams?
More'n likely, he would have spent more time concentrating on his drinking. Pour, open mouth, raise glass, tip glass, set glass down. Almost makes considerably more sense as a career choice.
Left behind for whom? A successful musician can provide for their family. A starving artist can't.
It is a great article. Small criticism: I suspect that he overstates punk's importance out of personal sentimentality and overreaches when he tries to link it to the collapse of the musicians' unions. I can't imagine corner doo-wop groups or teenage surf bands in the 50s were overly concerned about that sort of thing, but maybe it was different in Canada.
Are the Beatles really the band to hold up as the standard? Or does their massive commercial success put them into a category all their own? Seems to me that none of the normal rules apply to them.
Thank you. Punk didn't happen in a vacuum. The late 70s also saw the rise of corporate arena rock. The Ramones' 76 debut is certified gold. Boston's debut from the same year is 17xplatinum.
Thanks, I saw this on a facebook page.
I wanted to draw attention to him as a musician and a writer: https://www.tamblyn.com/
What's wrong with my post? I didn't change the article, is that the inclination that the link is more true than the article and author being highlighted who wrote the article?
It's the one example that almost everyone knows.
Loved reading it.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Tommy, nice to read something positive...
Yep, I noticed the irony right away.
Click on what? Your OP provided no link. And it shouldn’t be up to the reader to search for it.
Just because someone astutely points out that you copied another’s published work in its entirety without proper attribution (or for that matter, any indication you had permission from the author to do so) and that work discusses how the public expects music to be free, does not make that someone a troll.
Generationally, though, I came up listening to tapes. I didn't get my first CD player until I was a teenager. Then came the boom of the iPod / MP3 / downloading. Even more shocking to me is how streaming has supplanted all of that (which we didn't really have the widespread means of doing until the smart phone). So that is a lot of relatively rapid change in my lifetime, a new format every decade, a lot more than some other industries (I guess how we consume movies, games and TV have had a parallel arc with some differences).
And to top it off, I've now got a very expensive vinyl habit.
Separate names with a comma.