11–20 of 52 posts
In a world where there was no way to enforce copyright laws or prevent copying, that would be the case. Artists would make their money by playing gigs and merchandising, and "buying" a song or an album would be just a way of tipping them.
That sentence is taken out of context. Reading the whole post, it is clear that Arrington is referring the importance of recorded music in monetary terms, not artistic.
I agree. Between the two, Arrington seems closer to the truth. Pretty cheesy to quote him twice like that.
The problem here is that, all context considered, Arrington is going one step further than just saying that the artists don't deserve compensation here. He is very clearly raising the point that artists shouldn't expect to be compensated at all for recordings ever.
Of course this is quite disapointing to me as much of the music I listen to cannot be created live by its artists but instead takes days or months to prepare. With the advancement of computers, more and more often, musical composers will be able to use just a computer to create music that traditionally could only be created by live musicians - and lots that can only be created through computers. Guess I'd better kiss that goodbye.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Between the two, Arrington seems closer to the truth. Pretty cheesy to quote him twice like that.
The TC article title clearly says that artists should not be compensated for recordings. No context, that's the title and therefore the overall message that Arrington wants us to take away. What most of the article says is that the artists shouldn't expect to be able to retroactively be compensated when they had previously agreed not to be in this particular situation. The problem here is that, all context considered…
What kind of music?
Mike Arrington seems like a nice enough guy, but the quoted sentence does have a certain, rather chilling, Ellsworth Toohey flavor to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TC article title clearly says that artists should not be compensated for recordings. No context, that's the title and therefore the overall message that Arrington wants us to take away. What most of the article says is that the artists shouldn't expect to be able to retroactively be compensated when they had previously agreed not to be in this particular situation. The problem here is that, all context considered…
>Of course this is quite disapointing to me as much of the music I listen to cannot be created live by its artists but instead takes days or months to prepare. What kind of music?
Not all music is an extravagant performance art.
He mistakes a mistaken analogy. The poets that he names are not selling out live readings and the sculptors are not putting on live creation events. When it comes to music, yes, a concert tour is more profitable for the artist than their recorded music is. This is the one difference between musicians and other artists. While I don't completely agree with Arrington, I do believe that this blog post calling it the sadd…
Mike Arrington seems like a nice enough guy, but the quoted sentence does have a certain, rather chilling, Ellsworth Toohey flavor to it.
Can you give an example of something Toohey said that you think has a similarity?
Toohey was a prominent architectural critic who could make or break an architect by a yea or nay in his column. The guy's statements always forwarded an agenda of diminishing the value of individual excellence and achievements in favor of fitting into the popular mode. If a talented architect not under his sanction dared to showcase his work, Toohey would use his influence to shut him down. In context, what he said always sounded insightful, but when you stepped back, you realized how scary his statements were. A quick search yielded this Toohey quote, for example, that falls in line with the theme:
"Artistic value is achieved collectively by each man subordinating himself to the standards of the majority."
The Arrington quote was so evocative because Toohey could personally create popularity and buzz, so he'd literally say something as self-serving as "the supposed greatness of an architect's building is irrelevant . . . the question is, are people [like me] talking about it?"
To be absolutely clear: I am not comparing Mike Arrington to Ellsworth Toohey. What I am saying is that the sentence, as worded, could definitely be a line from one of the latter's monologues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Of course this is quite disapointing to me as much of the music I listen to cannot be created live by its artists but instead takes days or months to prepare. What kind of music?
Almost any type of music where vocals are not the focus can today be created through computers. More than people realize already is today. I am thinking of instrumental music such as classical, of course electronica of all types, even a bit of jazz and other styles. Not all music is an extravagant performance art.
I am very fond of the music of master session bassist Abraham Laboriel. He's played on thousands of albums, and while he has played in bands, he's just too busy as a very in-demand session player to be playing live constantly. He rarely does anything even remotely like a "tour". If I want to hear Abraham play, the easiest way is through a recording.
Even more extremely, recordings can bring together musicians in a way that would be implausible to do live. If you enjoy the music of musicians A, B, C, and D, all of whom have their own career as a musician, it might be very rare to hear them all play together live, just due to their schedules. But get them together for a week, either in a studio or on a stage, and you can make an awesome recording that captures something rarely heard in person.
The model of "recordings are marketing tools for live performances" is not necessarily bad or wrong, but I don't think it applies in every instance.
That sentence is taken out of context. Reading the whole post, it is clear that Arrington is referring the importance of recorded music in monetary terms, not artistic.