I always thought the concept of the The Residents "Not Available" record was
really good. They recorded a record with the specific intention for it to
never be released...to see what would happen when they recorded a record
with the knowledge that no one would ever hear it. It was released years
later (just before Eskimo) without their permission, but apparently they
didn't care as it has served its purpose as an experiment. Of course it's a
testament to how good the Residents are that their proper studio records are
just as bizarre as "Not Available".
Anyway...good to check out as an example of "pure non-commercial' music. And
well also because everyone needs to own a few records by The Residents...
Jeff
on 12/13/00 1:18 PM, Hectik9@aol.com at Hectik9@aol.com wrote:
quoted 67 lines Hi,
> Hi,
> I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. I was only responding to a
> few remarks that basically said "if an artist tries to make a living off
> his/her art, the content of the art is demeaned". Sorry, I don't have the
> whole quote in front of me anymore. I don't dispute that consumerism is bad.
> I'm not going to say that the companies themselves are anything less than
> exploitive. I never did say either of those things. It's a problem, and we
> are all a part of it. But that's not what I was responding to. I'm merely
> saying that when art changes hands, the artist may be demeaned (along with
> the consumer), but not the art itself.
>
> Beyond that, the way he represented all this was extremely problematic.
> By doing it only in terms of "indie" or "corporate", he hurts his point
> regarding the nature of consumerism. With record labels, it's not so black or
> white. This isn't a battle between good and evil (though at times it does
> appear that way). Many indie labels operate exactly like corporate labels.
> Worse than that, they use their "independent" status as a kind of
> advertising. A perfect example of that would be the pseudo-punk label,
> Epitaph. Each year thousands of kids spend millions of dollars on what they
> think is a revolutionary product. Epitaph employs the same tactics as most
> corporate labels. They have $500,000 signing bonuses for a few artists. Kids
> don't realize this (they probably wouldn't care that much anyway), and as a
> result Epitaph continues to exploit its "indie" status. That hypocrisy seems
> a whole lot worse to me than the blatantly commercial tactics of Columbia.
> I mean no disrespect to indie labels in general, so don't start flaming
> me. I realize that the vast majority don't operate in this fashion. I was
> merely trying to make a point about such broad generalizations.
> cheers,
> Sam
>
>> this fails to meet matt's point - as he sez "to argue otherwise is to ignore
>
>> the simple economic reality of such companies" - Columbia is dealing smack
>
>> it prefers it if you want the junk so you return and return and return and
>
>> return and return and return and return and return and return again and
>
>> again and again and again and again so the money grows and grows and grows
>
>> and grows and grows and you move without motion (listening to i.e. kind of
>
>> blue) but stay right where you are
>
>> in the economic reality matt mentions.
>
>>> Maybe the money and
>
>>> the company's dealings with the artists is demeaning to the individuals,
>
> but
>
>>> that doesn't change the end result. Since we are all talking about Miles
>
>>> Davis, I'm going to go ahead and ask: when you listen to "Kind of Blue",
>
> do
>
>>> you hear the sound of Columbia's corporate greed coming through your spe
>
>>> akers, or some of the most beautiful and amazing jazz ever recorded
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>