Music Biz article in WSJ
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:35pm
Anders just sent me this article link from the Wall St Journal, guy from Ok Go talking about current music biz.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870372780457601759225903153...
Here's what i thought:
The corporate sponsorship thing is wack, I think, unless bands are using it as a means to specifically correct the damage done by those corporations. In other words, taking money from Nike might be acceptable if you were giving all of the money to Students Against Sweatshops or another such organization... that would be a good method of using the pure, free power of music to redistribute the wealth/power of the world towards greater justice.
Also, bands don't NEED all that corporate money. Dylan needed a pencil and a piece of paper to write Blowin' in the Wind, and a microphone to record it. If he had been given a million dollars in funding for it, how would that have helped the song? Making a good song is where the real power and art of music is, and that's free. Everything else is circus stuff, bells and whistles and acrobatics, which might sometimes be dazzling but is never moving. Otherwise billionaire Michael Bloomberg would be a better artist than Kimya Dawson, but he isn't. Yeah, those Dr. Dre productions of Eminem are pretty awesome and they cost a lot of money to sound that way, but I bet if you put Dre and Em in a room just with some sticks and rocks and a pencil and paper they'd still come up with something awesome.
jeff
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:25pm
#2
Jeff:
I think you're "unless"
Jeff:
I think you're "unless" was thrown out there as an afterthought, but just to jump in: taking the money from Nike and giving it to a non-profit/do-good organization is a hypothetical situation that wouldn't work. I don't think that there's anyway to start up a racket where you are taking so much money from a corporation and giving it to a charity/non-prof/etc that you're actually making a difference. In the end, you'd get exposure and the person you're giving money to would appreciate it. Nike, on the other hand, would be winning over a new crowd of customers who are won over by the talent that you have given to their jingle. Nike wins.
Stick with "the corporate sponsorship thing is wack." No "unless" needed. There are good financial reasons to do it--it's money--but all the other justifications don't hold up.
Governmental sponsorship, BTW, is also wack.
Barry said: That high level of sound quality (audio version of appearance) does not make me any more interested in listening to those songs than if they had an Olive Juice Studio-grade sound quality.
Barry, when was the last time you heard a record that was recorded to 2-inch tape? Let's not kid ourselves. It sounds like heaven.
Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:29am
#3
Governmental sponsorship - wack?
This is an interesting question that came to me recently when I watched the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" - The film didn't address it at all, but I thought about it afterwards. Governmental sponsorship.
In other words, government funding for the arts. IS this wack?
If you have no arts funding, then arts are only funded in the capitalist way - that is, by selling as many copies as the artist possibly can, making as much money as possible. Theoretically, according to the "best-case scenario" hypothetical/ideal form of capitalism, this creates a level playing field in which quality is rewarded and lack of quality is not, therefore great art will be "democratically" judged as great based on how many people chose to buy it - and if it doesn't sell, then it has been "democratically" judged to be not very good, so funding is thus very organically and logically decided.
The problem is that this system obviously leads to pandering to the lowest common denominator, in order to be funded. So, seen in this light, a capitalist system of NO government funding for the arts leads not to the best possible art but to the most public-pandering possible art.
WHO KNOWS what high quality/high budget films would be made if film makers could feel secure that they had good funding regardless of whether they made a multi-million selling "Spiderman" kinda thing?
WHO KNOWS what amazing music and lyrics Dr. Dre and Eminem would make together if they were set free from commercial concerns?
WHO KNOWS what amazing top-budget music Barry Bliss, or any of us, would make, with the top production skills and engineering skills available, as well as maximum time to THINK and create free from worry, if his funding was based on his artistic merit (as judged by democratically elected governmental arts funders), and not based on how much his/our music appeals to the teenage masses?
It's an interesting question to ponder. Undoubtedly, putting arts funding in the hands of the government has its own potential flaws and risks.... but we should not think for a second that our current system of funding based purely on mass appeal to the lowest common denominator is the best possible method of a nation producing the finest arts possible. Relative to this, governmental funding of the arts, if it was string-free, might really not be so wack.
Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:35pm
#4
should I post the video for
should I post the video for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" or "If I Had A Million Dollars?"
Can't decide. Oh well!
:P
In other words, taking money from Nike might be acceptable if you were giving all of the money to Students Against Sweatshops or another such organization...
To me the #1 priority is to conduct myself in the most dignified manner possible, which for me would mean bypassing the take (from Nike) no matter what.
I believe the example set of refusing Nike is nicer.
When you accept them as a corporate sponsor you are promoting them and helping to make them even more financially successful which means even more folks working in sweatshops--just so you can give the money to anti-sweatshop orgs.
Better to bypass that---though it ranks a good 2nd place in my book.
(Nike has not offered me anything, but I do girlcott their shoes and clothes--which includes Converse All Star shoes--now owned by Nike.)
Summary of my thought: No dignified result can come from an undignified process.
Also, bands don't NEED all that corporate money. Dylan needed a pencil and a piece of paper to write Blowin' in the Wind, and a microphone to record it. If he had been given a million dollars in funding for it, how would that have helped the song?
He did however need enough money up front to cloth, house and feed himself in order to be warm enough and have enough physical strength to write.
Some funding (even if it's from your job at Whole Foods) has to be there.
Not a miilion dollars, I agree.
Yeah, those Dr. Dre productions of Eminem are pretty awesome......,
That high level of sound quality (audio version of appearance) does not make me any more interested in listening to those songs than if they had an Olive Juice Studio-grade sound quality.
P.S. The company I work for in order to fund my art is not innocent and pure by any means--so there is a bit of hypocrisy on my part here.
I do my best, and I suppose we all pick and choose.
http://barrybliss.info/