Packaging

[fearandpanic]

what's "restricting" the music, if anything, is the piss-poor distribution network in place for experimental music releases on most labels, the larger audience exists already.

Yes, agreed. Mass production is the alternative to niche-market oriented "luxury" artworks, which have their own history, usually of reacting against mass production in a reactionary way in the face of commerical disinterest, retreating into unaffordable, contrived luxury for the select few. The comment I quoted had that ring to it more than anything else, even though intelligence was being appealed to more than cash or "education."

As for funding on the public level, a more fully supported and attended public concert life would increase the numbers of those interested in buying recorded music of the same kind, of which they're largely unaware, not unappreciative or unreceptive to. A musical culture that's largely restricted to items that you have to buy is automatically limited, except for small numbers of the curious, to the already convinced. That said, I can't foresee states, especially the kind that are in power now, having any role to play in making recordings available, but they can be coerced into funding events of various kinds.

appeals really really strongly to the well-educated bourgeoisie.

You're in the wrong century if you're still equating education and the bourgeoisie. That term does actually mean something, and applying it casually to "cultural appreciation" belongs in that century too. I imagine an extremely insignificant number of people listening to "this music" belong to that class.

I would argue that art without commerce is impossible

I'd have to draw your attention to the history of art before the Renaissance and the development of markets.

The above quotes presuppose that art and commerce are separate entities

They're separate concepts, yes. That doesn't exclude the possibility of them being bound up with each other (including in an opposing relationship). Not being able to tell the difference between basic concepts is a matter that you'll have to work out for yourself.

[flies]

I imagine an extremely insignificant number of people listening to "this music" belong to that class.

i guess you missed the 'how much music do you buy' thread

most of what you just posted makes sense to me.

Re gov't vs private music promotion: I don't think the government would be much better, or even very different; that is, gov't would be better at some things and worse at others, overall i don't see a clear winner between the two.

on a more gneeral note, i think it might be a better paradigm to think of these small, money-losing labels as private charities rather than business; charity might be too loaded a term - non-profit organizations, anyway.

[maRi]

Musicians self-publishing of self-financing their own material directly

a more fully supported and attended public concert life would increase the numbers of those interested in buying recorded music of the same kind, of which they're largely unaware, not unappreciative or unreceptive.

i think leo records has a very good policy.

I say to some musicians: “I cannot sell your CDs. Let’s try to sell them together. I shall oblige you to buy a certain amount of CDs from me at a distribution price. You will be selling them at your gigs at the full price. You are welcome to pocket the difference”.

The scheme works very well for those musicians who play gigs and concerts, and some musicians are very happy with this arrangement. They come to me again and again, and some of them amassed very impressive portfolios which help them to find new gigs. However, if a musician does not perform regularly the scheme is no good to him. He would sit on a pile of his own CDs for which he had to pay a distribution price. It is a loss of money for him, and a loss of money for the label because he does not generate any publicity and his name remains as obscure as before. Ultimately, I took a decision not to release one-off CDs however strong the music might be. I work with those who are prepared to hustle for gigs and concerts and play as often as possible.

[jon abbey]

i think leo records has a very good policy.

it's ok from a practical perspective, but much like creative sources, it doesn't produce much of lasting musical interest (what is "lasting"? what is "musical"? what is "interest"?).

[maRi]

what is "lasting"? what is "musical"? what is "interest"?

you can replay the same joke again and again. as i've said already - i'm not questioning basic concepts.
what's of lasting musical interest to you might be less universal than you think.

[jon abbey]

what's of lasting musical interest to you might be less universal than you think.

actually, I'm pretty well aware of what a minority opinion I have in that area, thanks.

also, Leo doesn't work the way described in your quote, only Leo Lab does, at least as of a few years back. I can't say I've paid much attention to Feigin Enterprises for the last few years.

[Alastair]

also, Leo doesn't work the way described in your quote, only Leo Lab does, at least as of a few years back. I can't say I've paid much attention to Feigin Enterprises for the last few years.

You've got to pick a pocket or two.



Sorry, that's Fagin.

[will]

Fear, you're doing the thing where you quibble about minor word usage while ingoring the main point of a post. This might shock you, but there is an offhand usage of the term "bourgeois" to refer to self-consciously mannered / "cultured" middle classes in developed countries. Sad as it seems, people sometimes use words in ways that escape beyond their original intent.
I guess you agree, though, that there isn't an easy way to get more people listening to this music, eh? Jon's point about crappy distribution is good. I think that the problem rests at least a little bit on the lack of enduring institutions in this area of culture work. Labels and distros have to deal with a maddening patchwork of teeny parallel businesses, and these businesses are constantly disappearing, with new, totally inexperienced ventures taking their places.
I think that a smarter way to do things would be for multiple labels to come together under a single banner, thus pooling the money for better advertising and, concurrently, better chances of securing distribution. The problem is that this would require much more coordination and less of a free hand for each label owner. This is something that might be hard for people to give up.
So, in some ways, the whole flap about packaging indexes deeper structural problems with the entire venture of contemporary improvised music. I think that a bottom-up strengthening of the institutions that publicize this music would position it far better to receive the attention it deserves. The top-down is a nice idea, but is also pretty utopian, from my perspective.

[bryan]

This might shock you, but there is an offhand usage of the term "bourgeois" to refer to self-consciously mannered / "cultured" middle classes in developed countries. Sad as it seems, people sometimes use words in ways that escape beyond their original intent.

Music makes the people come together
Music mix the bourgeoisie and the rebel

...I am very guilty of using/understanding words in a contemporary context rather than the historical usage. This is part intentional (popular colloquial usage is much more important to me).. and part ignorance of academic/ theoretical usage of terms.

It seems to me that it is extremely important to remove as much vagueness from language for theoretical writings (I keep blanching at giving "A Thousand Plateaus" a crack).. but this makes such texts accessible only to a few because of the specialized language used.

[user_1705]

I'd have to draw your attention to the history of art before the Renaissance and the development of markets.

Hmmm, you'd consider art created at the behest and patronage of the Church (Byzantine, Roman or otherwise non-christian ) an improvement over art developed in a "free" market scenario? Or perhaps you are referring even earlier than that, when art was simply, and I use the word lightly, propaganda perpetuated by the powerful. ppppppppppppppp.

Only if we go back far enough, I think, to when art was being created in caves by guys tripping balls do we find a type of art that will hold up to this ideal of it being seperate from other things.

Ha, sorry this is so off topic. I'm going to go back to my lurking ways and forget my mouth.

[/quote]

[flies]

Hmmm, you'd consider art created at the behest and patronage of the Church (Byzantine, Roman or otherwise non-christian ) an improvement over art developed in a "free" market scenario? Or perhaps you are referring even earlier than that, when art was simply, and I use the word lightly, propaganda perpetuated by the powerful. ppppppppppppppp.

i think he was just providing an example of art existing without a 'market'. The artists still had to please their patrons tho, so the situation was materially very similar.

[user_826]

"So, in some ways, the whole flap about packaging indexes deeper structural problems with the entire venture of contemporary improvised music."


would you please hi-lite some of the deeper structural problems, in your opinion ?

[Dohol]

Aluminum foil and masking tape make the best packaging.



Old newspaper after that.

[seht]

Music is cool. Visual Art is cool. It's cool to get both together for the same price as only getting one of the two.

i'll BET it is. and spare no thought for the poor fool that's losing money and slowly going broke, bringing you this bargain on a platter.

Gaaahhhhh.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

How should we break down the cliquey boundaries? I'm not saying that you have to have the final solution to the problem you present, but without some inlking of any alternative and - equally important - how to get there, your criticisms begin to appear somewhat like baying at the wind.

Part of the other thread, the Stockhausen one, went briefly into what to do about private vs. public funding, whether this a helpful route to go down or not. Of course public funding gets around the "market" problem to a certain extent (as it can sink money into the unprofitable, like the English government did after 1945 while the Labour party was in power. Institutions set up in that period, like the Arts Council, have remained in place and have financed musicians like Rowe and Wastell, say). This "top down" attitude to culture brings with it other problems of course, but there's one "inkling of an alternative." Musicians self-publishing of self-financing their own material directly, another.

This is no inkling of an alternative for packaging.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

you know that Southern Lord probably doesn't overlap with Soundscan very much, not sure how far 20,000 over six months would get you on charts anyway, and I also think that's worldwide, not just domestic.

but yeah, still, pretty interesting. to me, it gives me hope that there is that kind of purchasing audience out there, just a question how to reach enough of them so that I can continue making new records.

totally unsure about these question :

- if SL can get good distribution, why can't Erstwhile or other labels?
- is a joint venture with a label that has good distribution possible?
- is SL succesfull because it has good distribution, or is it is succesfull because they've put out the right records at the right time?

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

I would argue that art without commerce is impossible

I'd have to draw your attention to the history of art before the Renaissance and the development of markets.

Earlier in history most art was commissioned and dependant on the powers that be. The artists (craftsmen actually would be a beter term) were commodity for patronage.

edit : excuse me, bdbdbd already pointed that out.