Music Piracy: the bands fight back

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Music isn't work, music is art.

Even if you disagree with the above- since it became easy to record music and distribute it freely, there has been more music, not less music.

I'm sorry that real life contradicts your view.

Yes, it's art when you make it for free and give it away. When you're sufficiently talented and/or skilled that people will pay you to play/buy your stuff it loses that heady status as 'art' and becomes mere lowly 'work'.

That's why you're a artist (I presume) and Stravinsky was a mere worker.

[Tiny Poster]

Popular chart-bothering grime "worker" Wiley has plenty of hits and sells out gigs, yet he gives out tracks for free almost daily on Twitter. Why is he destroying musicians' livelihoods so?

[thepuffpastryhangman]

He gives away other people's work without their permission? Is that allowed?

[thepuffpastryhangman]

While we're at it Tiny, was Stewart Lee wrong to demand the removal of the link to that bootleg tuther week?

[Tiny Poster]

bababooey bababooey

That's a topic for another thread.

[jutl]

Music isn't work, music is art.

Art can be work.

Even if you disagree with the above- since it became easy to record music and distribute it freely, there has been more music, not less music.

(a) I'm not sure how you know this.
(b) I can see how easier access to recording technology might result in more recorded music, but I'm less sure about the second point. If you mean that the internet makes distribution less constrained, then I'd agree. If you mean that distribution at low/no cost means there is more music I find it harder to see a rationale. Surely if there were easy distribution combined with a willing market for paid music, that would stimulate music production even more? Isn't it safe to assume that most people who do something willingly would do so even more willingly if you paid them?

[NoSleep]

It's been tending towards that for years, jutl; more music comes out in a week than used to come out in a year, three decades ago. For one thing, it was highly unusual to have a recording studio in the home before the emergence of affordable home recording technology in the 80s. Computers have made that even easier.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

That's a topic for another thread.

So far as I'm aware one already exists, should I check what you had to say about it there?

In the meantime a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, or just a 'Y' or an 'N'. Ta.

[Famous Mortimer]

He gives away other people's work without their permission? Is that allowed?

Without following Wiley on twitter, I'll take a stab in the dark and say it's his own work he's giving away. This answer, of course, will not satisfy you, or you'll pretend you were asking something different, and the argument will never enOH GOD WHY AM I REPLYING TO THIS POINTLESS TROLL

[thepuffpastryhangman]

You're not a happy man by the look if things FM. But I'd imagine that doesn't prevent you from seeing the difference between you giving away something that belongs to you and you giving away something that belongs to someone else.

[MojoJojo]

Once again, artists being able to give music away for free, and that the internet/digital production means it's a lot cheaper to do so, is somehow connected with piracy being OK.
If they want to give music away for free, no one has any objection to that and it's allowed within the law.

It's only piracy if you refuse to pay for something a musician wants you to pay for. Yes, free music is nice but that doesn't mean you have to make it impossible to charge for it.

Even if you disagree with the above- since it became easy to record music and distribute it freely, there has been more music, not less music.

That's nothing to do with piracy, though is it?

[NoSleep]

That's nothing to do with piracy, though is it?

It does devalue the product, though; there being loads more new material around to choose from. Piracy is a good, affordable way to listen to a lot of material until you find something you like; far better than the radio or music journalism.

[jutl]

It's been tending towards that for years, jutl; more music comes out in a week than used to come out in a year, three decades ago. For one thing, it was highly unusual to have a recording studio in the home before the emergence of affordable home recording technology in the 80s. Computers have made that even easier.

Yes, more recorded music I can see. Easier access to recording and playback technology might well reduce levels of performance, though. S?S! said there was 'more music', which seems very broad and hard to justify, but maybe I'm being over particular.

[Famous Mortimer]

It does devalue the product, though; there being loads more new material around to choose from. Piracy is a good, affordable way to listen to a lot of material until you find something you like; far better than the radio or music journalism.

And there's lots of musicians who've come to appreciate this, to the extent of giving away their own music every now and again. I don't follow many musicians on t'internet, but ALT-J are always giving away remixes of their stuff; Tiny Poster mentioned Wiley, and there's a long tradition of rap fellas doing mixtapes with some of their own original work on, for free.

I'd like to re-read the original Lowery article with figures to back up his claims, I think. Or a proper debate that's not choked by somewhat zealous reply moderators.

[NoSleep]

Yes, more recorded music I can see. Easier access to recording and playback technology might well reduce levels of performance, though. S?S! said there was 'more music', which seems very broad and hard to justify, but maybe I'm being over particular.

Well, it is a thread about music piracy, and I don't think ticket forgers/touts are the focus.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Michelangelo's David, being a commissioned piece, is obviously less of an artistic achievement than a Fruity Loops mp3 that's been freely distributed. That much is fucking obvious. Similarly, the stick from a Magnum, set in chewing gum on a bus shelter is higher art than the
Brandenburg Concerto, the latter being mere "work". But the problem lies in comparing 'Magnum stick in gum on shelter' with the Fruity Loops freely distributed mp3, what merit based criteria best serves the purpose? Or is amateur (despite being the greatest form of everything) analysis impossible and we're forced to leave it up the professional critics to decide. (My money's on the Magnum stick piece, the only problem bring words can't do it justice, not even amateur ones for free)

[thepuffpastryhangman]

I presume Shoulders? won't be watching Germany v Italy tonight, he'll prefer to watch a pub team in has no personal investment in play 5-a-side on a local AstroTurf amenity. Free da football!

[NoSleep]

Yes, more recorded music I can see. Easier access to recording and playback technology might well reduce levels of performance, though. S?S! said there was 'more music', which seems very broad and hard to justify, but maybe I'm being over particular.

Have to return to this. Are you seriously suggesting there is less live music around today than before? I'd say there are not only the same number of gigs around as before, but there are lots of opportunities for amateurs to perform in public, compared to the past, as well as the emergence of tribute bands, etc. Open mic nights, for instance. My local pub has a jam club where you can turn up, plug in and play along.

[jutl]

Have to return to this. Are you seriously suggesting there is less live music around today than before? I'd say there are not only the same number of gigs around as before, but there are lots of opportunities for amateurs to perform in public, compared to the past, as well as the emergence of tribute bands, etc. Open mic nights, for instance. My local pub has a jam club where you can turn up, plug in and play along.

I'm not sure these haven't always been there, though. Also, if you go back to C19th then live music was the only option, and far more people could sit down at, say,  a piano and perform music in the vein of Knees Up Mother Brown or some such shit. People spent their afternoons giving each other recitals in their homes. So, yes, I'm not sure I know how to compare the trends easily. I don't think it's simple to say that live music is as prevalent as ever, and I do think we can say that recorded music obviated the need for some categories of performance. 

[thugler]

Have to return to this. Are you seriously suggesting there is less live music around today than before? I'd say there are not only the same number of gigs around as before, but there are lots of opportunities for amateurs to perform in public, compared to the past, as well as the emergence of tribute bands, etc. Open mic nights, for instance. My local pub has a jam club where you can turn up, plug in and play along.

Actually, having played in a couple of bands, there are far less live music venues for Original music. Covers bands/jam nights etc are everywhere but new live music venues have shut down. I expect this is due to licensing and whatnot though not downloads.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Also, once upon a time most of the population would engage in live music during formal worship. A far greater proportion than engage in all live music combined today.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I presume Shoulders? won't be watching Germany v Italy tonight, he'll prefer to watch a pub team in has no personal investment in play 5-a-side on a local AstroTurf amenity. Free da football!

Try arguing without using an analogy.

[NoSleep]

I'm not sure these haven't always been there, though.

It certainly wasn't prevalent in the 70s (apart from folk clubs, where members of the audience would entertain the gathering and this dates back to the 50s/60s), and it was quite difficult for a band to get on the live circuit, which was all agency-run and catering mostly to record companies. If there was live music in a local pub, then it was a trad jazz band (never amplified bands). Things begin to loosen up in the 80s a lot more. As well as the folk club idea spilling out to local arts centres and local pubs, and the emergence of tribute bands (never heard of a tribute band until, possibly, the late 80s).

Also, if you go back to C19th then live music was the only option, and far more people could sit down at, say,  a piano and perform music in the vein of Knees Up Mother Brown or some such shit. People spent their afternoons giving each other recitals in their homes.

If you're counting music making as a pastime, then people are at home, on their PC, making a beat and uploading it to Soundcloud/Bandcamp etc.

So, yes, I'm not sure I know how to compare the trends easily. I don't think it's simple to say that live music is as prevalent as ever, and I do think we can say that recorded music obviated the need for some categories of performance.

I'd say CaB Radio is an example of the 19th Century idea returned; people entertaining one another from their own homes. It isn't all just playing recorded music; I've even hooked up live jams on NINJAM or set off multiple buddha machines for half an hour or more.

[NoSleep]

Actually, having played in a couple of bands, there are far less live music venues for Original music. Covers bands/jam nights etc are everywhere but new live music venues have shut down. I expect this is due to licensing and whatnot though not downloads.

It did get better from the 80s onwards, but I think you're right in thinking this is down to the licensing of venues, which is a ton of paperwork for a landlord these days.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Try arguing without using an analogy.

I already did that. You had no answer then either.

[Cagey Joe]

Try arguing without using an analogy.

You're completely avoiding an obvious point to attack his methodology.

The preciousness of art is for big wankers.

[Johnny Yesno]

It did get better from the 80s onwards, but I think you're right in thinking this is down to the licensing of venues, which is a ton of paperwork for a landlord these days.

Not any more. Woot!

Industry welcomes "monumental" Live Music Act

A law passed yesterday (8 March) to reduce restrictions on live music in small venues has been welcomed by venues, entertainers and the UK music industry.

The Live Music Act means venues in England and Wales with a capacity of under a 200 people will no longer need local authority permission to hold performances of live amplified music between the hours of 8am-11pm. It also removes audience limitations for performances of unamplified live music.

Jo Dipple, chief executive of music industry body UK Music, said the act was the result of "dogged commitment to musicians" from Lord Clement-Jones who introduced the bill to the House of Lords, and MP Don Foster who promoted it in the House of Commons.

She said: "For a private members' bill to receive royal assent is a monumental achievement, even more so for one that is introduced in the House of Lords. This has happened only five times in the past decade.

"The global success of our industry is dependent on a flourishing network of small venues, where tomorrow's headliners can learn their craft and develop their career."

She added: "Allowing these venues the freedom to host live music is a huge boost for British artists and means more opportunities for developing talent, as well as enriching our local communities and the economy overall." 

Paul L Martin, founder of entertainment agency Excess All Areas told Event: "For a while now, live musicians, singers and cabaret artistes have feared that some of the best small venues would be discouraged from having entertainment by the red tape and costs that the previous permits would create.

"The cabaret scene in particular is almost always in an intimate space of less than 200 and so we in the scene are all very pleased to hear this news. I believe this will help our long heritage of live entertainment and marvellous performers in this country to flourish even further and help generate more revenue for venues too."

Singer and actor Gary Albert Hughes, who will soon perform at small venue Battersea Barge, said: "The Live Music Act is an incredible step forward for the UK's live music scene. A lot of exciting young performers use these smaller music venues as they prefer a more intimate personal setting to communicate with their audience. They are serious music venues in their own right as well as places where musicians, singers and actors such as myself learn our craft and hone our skills."

Jonathan Allen, owner of venue Brixton Jamm, said: "Anything that lessens the bureaucracy that people need to go through to stagelive music events is a good thing."

Kat Zaripova, marketing coordinator at Hard Rock Café London, which recently held an Absolute Radio session with band The Fray, said: "Live music is already in our total license so this won't affect us directly, but as a potential venue to hold live music events we think it's a brilliant act to have been passed. It means that more venues can now participate and show the world the amazing live music that goes on."

The act is likely to come into force by autumn 2012.

[thugler]

I think there's more to it as well. Maybe covers bands are a more certain way of making money these days. It can be incredibly hard to promote gigs with fairly unknown acts.

[jutl]

I think there's more to it as well. Maybe covers bands are a more certain way of making money these days. It can be incredibly hard to promote gigs with fairly unknown acts.

To be fair though, they are nearly all shit.

[Johnny Yesno]

To be fair though, they are nearly all shit.

Original bands, covers bands or venues?