Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 7th Sep 2010 10:25 UTC
Multimedia, AV Every so often we publish here at OSNews articles about copyright, about the war of the "old media" establishment against everyone else. Many, myself included, have argued that the way to get out of this mess -- short of changing the law -- is to have more artists release their work under a Creative Commons license. However, after a few years it became obvious to me that CC would never be able to change the industry all by itself. Offering a Free license, and having 30,000 albums released under it, was still not enough. Until the Summer of 2009, that is. Update: Added audio samples.
Thread beginning with comment 439675
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
yes and no
by jonnybutter on Tue 7th Sep 2010 14:25 UTC
jonnybutter
Member since:
2010-09-07

The author is sort of on to something important, but doesn't go far enough.

First of all, to supplant record companies, you have to get outside of the thought-horizon they have created. The most important aspect of that is to reject the idea that genre determines quality. In decades past, especially in the 1960s -70s (or so), innovation happened because many artists ignored genre, or 'format'. They created *new* genres, by following their instincts and mixing things together as they saw fit. They heard music in their heads, and realized it, rather than worrying about what the genre or format was, or what the marketing plan was. Record companies had no idea what was going on, and just signed up a bunch of people with long hair, funny clothes, etc.

Radio (in collusion with the record companies) began to think of music in terms of format, and marketing people loved it - they needed to pigeonhole the stuff to sell it. But genre is an invention of marketers.

I hear so many people these days say 'If you like [x-formatted music] you'll like [y-formated music]', because the genre is the same. But that's a total mistake: there is good techno, and bad techno; good country and bad country, etc etc. etc. Genre has no bearing on quality. So, first, become de-obsessed with genre.

Second of all, artists need to make a living. That is totally overlooked these days. It's great if you can make some stuff in your spare time, with cheap tools, etc. But true excellence takes time and work. Giving the work away doesn't solve this problem, obviously.

Third thing: the Impressionists - and any other rule-breaking artist innovator - has to know what the rules they're breaking ARE. Those impressionists were well trained in the traditional art of painting. There is a huge difference between knowing what you're doing when you break the rules, and just breaking them because you don't know any better.

sorry for the rant, but we need to think a little deeper about this, because it's very important.

Reply Score: 3

RE: yes and no
by Laurence on Tue 7th Sep 2010 15:45 in reply to "yes and no"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Third thing: the Impressionists - and any other rule-breaking artist innovator - has to know what the rules they're breaking ARE. Those impressionists were well trained in the traditional art of painting. There is a huge difference between knowing what you're doing when you break the rules, and just breaking them because you don't know any better.

Yes, but it's also true that sometimes knowing the rules makes it harder to think outside of the rules.

In my opinion, people are either talented or they're not. Talented musicians will still compose good songs even if it's a little raw due to inexperience. However experienced bad musicians will write well produced but ultimately dull music.

Reply Parent Score: 2