What is wrong with obscure songs??

[QUINNY]

Blaxman: what was that soft caress that I just felt!! You do have a way with words.

[jedweber]

IMHO: There's nothing wrong with obscurities so long as you buy them on legitimate re-issues. That way at least the writer, composer and featured artist on the music, MIGHT just get some money out of it. i.e. some material recompense for creating such a 'gem', and the music industry might not go into meltdown,
Buying from second hand stores, cut out bins or worse still, downloading MP3 puts no money back into the recording industry.

I think it's a big mistake to assume the interests of the record companies and artists are necessarily the same...

What if the music is out of print and the "recording industry" will not re-release it? What about performers whom the 'recording industry' considers too marginal, or unusual, or outdated, etc.? What about young performers who can't get a recording contract because the industry doesn't know how to package and sell them to the bland corporate radio stations that have taken over the market? Do you think these performers are upset if their fans hunt down second-hand music or (heaven forbid!) circulate MP3s? No! Many artists depend on this kind of promotion, which helps them build up a small but loyal group of fans

Read this article from singer Janis Ian, who certainly doesn't trust the music industry to look after her best interests:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

[QUINNY]

You said it "small and loyal". For most of the bands that depend on this, substitute the word mediocre. IMHO, We're arguing over the good or bad of mediocrity in effect. There's a certain amount of truth in the argument that obscure records are just that because they weren't good enough (for mass sales). Now most music from the disco era was made for one simple reason. To make money. So by that token, the obscure ones failed to a larger or lesser extent. No musician is in the business to be a nobody. Every musician wants to be a star and as big a star as possible.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but ultimately the hits are the winners. I'm not saying that's right, just stating what is obvious to me.

[jedweber]

To Quinny:

OK, I suppose that 70's disco was one of the more 'commercial' forms of music going, and I doubt there were many tortured self-conscious 'artistes' laboring away on the fringes, as there might be with jazz or folk-rock, etc. But even so, suggesting that obscurity = mediocrity seems pretty harsh. Even in the early days there must have been performers and producers going for a more "purist" sound for dance music lovers, even if they knew that limited the pop appeal. Weren't there? I can't believe everybody was trying to make a "Copacabana" or "Disco Duck." (Actually, that's a good question - when did this consciousness of more 'pure', 'deep' dance music develop? I know it was there by the 80's.)

Anyway, haven't the other postings shown that even some very substantial hits from other eras are now widely forgotten, and considered obscure? How can people find this music and rediscover these artists without some degree of music sharing? Don't you think this could easily lead to MORE demand and more purchasing of 'legit' CD versions? It does in my case...and that's what the evidence collected by Janis Ian and others found in general...

But those short-sighted greedy idiots at RIAA just want to declare war on a whole technology instead of figuring out a way to give customers what they want. You know, compared to an average citizen, I'm a DAMN good customer of the music industry - and I'd be more than willing to PAY for MP3 downloads (it would save me the trouble of hunting for a track and assure the quality!) So these companies don't even have to re-issue, package and promote a physical CD to sell more obscure music. But it seems they just want to sit on their ASSets and screw over both the smaller artist and the consumer...to protect a handful of people like Eminem and Metallica who were the major victims of file swapping.

I didn't mean to go into a rant but it makes me so angry - What other industry treats willing potential customers this way? They really deserve to be swept away if they can't change...

[Funky Dude]

Jedweber wrote:

To Quinny:

OK, I suppose that 70's disco was one of the more 'commercial' forms of music going, and I doubt there were many tortured self-conscious 'artistes' laboring away on the fringes, as there might be with jazz or folk-rock, etc. But even so, suggesting that obscurity = mediocrity seems pretty harsh. Even in the early days there must have been performers and producers going for a more "purist" sound for dance music lovers, even if they knew that limited the pop appeal. Weren't there? I can't believe everybody was trying to make a "Copacabana" or "Disco Duck." (Actually, that's a good question - when did this consciousness of more 'pure', 'deep' dance music develop? I know it was there by the 80's.)

Anyway, haven't the other postings shown that even some very substantial hits from other eras are now widely forgotten, and considered obscure? How can people find this music and rediscover these artists without some degree of music sharing? Don't you think this could easily lead to MORE demand and more purchasing of 'legit' CD versions? It does in my case...and that's what the evidence collected by Janis Ian and others found in general...

But those short-sighted greedy idiots at RIAA just want to declare war on a whole technology instead of figuring out a way to give customers what they want. You know, compared to an average citizen, I'm a DAMN good customer of the music industry - and I'd be more than willing to PAY for MP3 downloads (it would save me the trouble of hunting for a track and assure the quality!) So these companies don't even have to re-issue, package and promote a physical CD to sell more obscure music. But it seems they just want to sit on their ASSets and screw over both the smaller artist and the consumer...to protect a handful of people like Eminem and Metallica who were the major victims of file swapping.

I didn't mean to go into a rant but it makes me so angry - What other industry treats willing potential customers this way? They really deserve to be swept away if they can't change...

Well said mate!

As far as I'm concern, I say "FUCK THE RIAA!!!". They are a bunch of tightarse wankers who want to grab more and more money so they buy more suits and ties and caviar and mahogany furnature and Cuban cigars which in turn has slowed me down in discovering more obscure disco as I have to rely on searching the markets for disco records which I do anyway even when I download MP3s, but it's a slower process, and also this has ruined the fun of being able to listen to audio samples on this disco website. They've ruined everything just to protect a few mainstream artists like Eminem.

I don't give a rats arse about the RIAA, I'll get my music anyway I can whether it be on MP3 or on record/CD/cassette. If I can ONLY get the music I want on MP3 I'll get it on MP3 regardless of how morally wrong it is and I still go out a buy records anyway even if I downloaded the MP3 version. For example, last year I searched a list of 12"s on some site looking for ones from 1975 and one I downloaded was "Hollywood Hot" by Eleventh Hour which is a great funk classic. Now this is the first time I've heard of them, but this year I went to Cavions scrapyard and looked through the record collection and came across Eleventh Hour's "Hollywood Hot" album and I BOUGHT IT! I swear if it weren't for MP3 sharing I would have never discovered this group. So that's 1 up for MP3s. Out of all the artists I've only ever heard Metallica bitch about MP3 sharing, but that's because they are so bloody successful that they don't need to rely on MP3 sharing to get record sales because they are SO FUCKIN' WELL KNOWN WORLD WIDE!!! I'm not saying I hate Metallica, they are a great metal group, one of the best that's why they are so popular, but as I said in their case they already have the record sales.

Anyhow I hate the RIAA . As far as I'm concerned they can just go and shove VB cans up their arses because I don't give a rats arse about them.

[Blaxman]

Welcome Jedweber,

I really apreciate your words about that MP3 issue. Agreed!

When the industry is talking about MP3 they are thinking of today's artists, not the old ones, these they forgot completely. In many cases they forgot to pay them too!!

Peace

[BrunoRepublic]

Bernie has a point about the potential for MP3s as a marketing tool. I too don't do MP3s, and strongly dislike the "all music should be free" attitude that they have given some people. But I also think that the record industry blew it when it came to this. Napster was a golden opportunity -- it would not have taken much modification to require the label and publisher info to be imbedded in the ID3 tag. Napster could then have gone to a dual-level service -- one which was free, but allowed only uncopyrighted material or stuff that the labels wanted to promote, the other which had a flat rate, and offered everything. This way they could track the downloads to base the top 40 charts on, as well as gain revenue from older material without all the hassle of distribution. But the big labels didn't want to change, or lose the complete grip that they have on music sales (note to Europeans: I realize that the situation is somewhat different over there in regards to indie labels, but in North America it is virtually impossible to have a hit without major label support).

Quinny: I'd love to be able to buy all this stuff on CD. But most of it is gone and it ain't coming back. Whenever I come across a battered old LP for cheap that I discover I really like, I will gladly buy the CD if one exists (recent example: "Car Wash" soundtrack). But the music industry doesn't care about what I think, now that I'm past the age of 25. It's like I don't exist. Everything new is geared towards teenagers. (Ironically, when I was a teenager, there were no top 40 radio stations as they were all geared towards the "baby boomer" market segment). Format radio assumes that I want to hear the same 50 songs over and over again for the rest of my life. I hear the Eurythmics' "Here Comes The Rain Again" on the radio at the office more often now then when it first came out. No word of a lie. I used to go to all the big record stores every week, and I would never leave empty-handed. I never thought the day would come, but now there's just nothing in them for me. The stores get bigger and bigger, but their actual selection is dwindling. Maybe if you lived here, you would see why I sometimes think there's a conspiracy to bring the number of albums in print down to about 50 or so.
BTW, if you're going by the premise that only the more popular stuff was worth bothering with, then why did only 3 of your choices make the top 500?

Bouncing off on a tangent, and keeping in line with one of the main purposes for this forum:

FunkyD, if you liked "Hollywood Hot", then check out the "Street Talk" LP by The Bob Crewe Generation if you can find it. It was written and produced by the same folks at around the same time. Jussi introduced me to this one, and it's great. Quite an oddity in that BCG were previously known for cheesy MOR stuff.

Oh, and it's available on CD... in Japan.

_________________
Or, as they say in the classics:
"Say Terrance, what did the Spanish priest say to the Iranian gynecologist?"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Graham Start on 2002-10-07 22:37 ]</font>

[Blaxman]

Hey, let's make a deal!

The RIAA dont give a shit to us, and we dont give a shit to RIAA!!

Thinking well, today seems that RIAA just give 'shit music' to us!!

OK, now I'll stop this 'shit talk'!!! :lol:

Peace

[QUINNY]

It's interesting that the youngest member has the most beligerent stance regarding the RIAA and 'FREE' MP3 access.
FunkyDude: I appreciate your love of the '70s music, but you've done it ( and so far as I can see, expect to do it) on the cheap. For that I cannot fully respect you or your views and I hope you can understand why without being offended. I used to spend at least a quarter of all my earnings on records (many of which are NOW obscurities).
That's not to say that I love the RIAA and that's not to say that they haven't been stupid.
Graham: The trouble is that there is no effective way of policing what happens to files once downloaded. You can have encryption etc, but that won't stop anyone from making a perfectly good analogue copy and re-converting to digital with minimal signal degradation. Once you've let it go, you can wave goodbye to having ANY control. That is the one big problem.
I know I'm harsh in saying obscure = mediocrity, but that is the bottom line isn't it? Why do you think music has become so less acceptable to you or I? Apart from us getting older and less able to accept modern styles, the very fact that thousands of mediocre artists can release product, have a dedicated following and make a living means the essence of music is being diluted NOT enriched. The whole music genre is/has been taken over by anarchy in effect. The major record companies represent a more ordered approach and generally, only they can generate enough cash to nurture superstars. That's why there are very few bands with longevity now. Music has suffered badly.There IS such a thing as too much choice (I never thought I'd say that 20 years ago).

[Funky Dude]

Why don't the record companies get every damn record ever made remastered to CD and then we'll be all happy :grin: .

And have a website where you can listen to sound samples of every song that exists so you can choose what you wanna buy instead of buying a CD blindfolded and finding out that it sucks like shit and was a waste of money. Fortunately this hasn't happened to me with CDs but I get the odd crap record from time to time.

This issue is so bloody frustrating as we are going in circles just like when DJ Phil was having a whinge about us downloading MP3s.

Is there any solution that will make everyone happy, not just one party only?

[BrunoRepublic]

On 2002-10-08 03:14, QUINNY wrote:

Graham: The trouble is that there is no effective way of policing what happens to files once downloaded.

It's always been that way. You have no effective way of policing what happens to a record or CD once it has been purchased. One person could make 100,000 copies of any LP or CD. People tape stuff off of the radio. There's never been copy-protection on cassettes, yet that never seemed to hurt sales (except perhaps eastern Europe).

Napster had been embraced by the masses, many of whom would've paid for a decent, quality, reliable, and legal service. Yes, there would be people who would try to get around it, but those are the same people who used to tape all their friends' albums instead of buying their own. Had Napster not been sunk, there would've been no need for other P2P networks... but that's all moot now.

I know I'm harsh in saying obscure = mediocrity, but that is the bottom line isn't it?

Only if mediocrity=low sales. There are many factors that go into what makes a record sell; the quality of the music is only a small part of that. I'd even say that these days, it's irrelevant. The music industry has become so image-focused and market-driven that the actual music is only a by-product.
As for what affects sales... the specific time period that it's released, how it's marketed, and importantly, how many people actually get to hear it are what determine this. In North America, the industry has successfully built a market where there is no place to hear anything that isn't backed by a multi-million dollar marketing campaign. (This also serves the industry well in that the money for said campaigns all comes out of artists' advances, so the labels lose nothing, and the artist gets screwed). You cannot seek out what you do not know exists. People here live and die by what's on TV -- so if there's no flashy videos (brought to you courtesy of a vieled form of payola, again to ensure that only the majors get on), the music doesn't exist.

I take it that you think Britney Spears, Eminem, Backstreet Boys, and their ilk are the very height of western culture, and produce fabulous melodies that enlighten the soul and embrace the human condition? Going by your reasoning, their sales figures would indicate this.

Why do you think music has become so less acceptable to you or I? Apart from us getting older and less able to accept modern styles, the very fact that thousands of mediocre artists can release product, have a dedicated following and make a living means the essence of music is being diluted NOT enriched.

I don't know about the UK... but this is NOT the case over here. Each passing year, we have less and less choice, fewer albums in print, radio stations from Halifax to Los Angeles that all share identical playlists, and fewer and fewer new artists being promoted. If you lived here, you would swear that only 20 new albums get released every year. "1984" was never like this.

The whole music genre is/has been taken over by anarchy in effect.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Five majors control everything now.

The major record companies represent a more ordered approach and generally, only they can generate enough cash to nurture superstars.

Because they've shaped the industry to the point that a major marketing campaign is the only way to get new product to break through.

That's why there are very few bands with longevity now.

No, it's because all new music is done with the idea of "what target market is going to buy this" first. As soon as said market outgrows or tires of something, they move on. Artists are not allowed to create or develop, they are contracted to produce product for the labels to market. There is no process of making demo tapes, gathering a local following, indie releases, getting signed, etc., anymore. The labels decide "we need a bad-boy image hybrid rock/hip-hop act for the important under-21 male crowd" and then hire some kids to fit the bill. They hire the same songwriters to write all the songs (check out how often "Max Martin" appears in the credits on boy/girl bands!), the same remixers, the same producers. The latest method of using TV shows to select whoever is going to provide the public face for their product simply proves how the music has nothing to do with the final product.

I can only speak of my experiences here. Perhaps in the UK, there are massive record shops loaded with thousands upon thousands of obscure mediocre releases, radio stations never play the same song twice, and the average consumer is simply overwhelmed at the massive array of choices before them. But in North America, this is not the case. The industry has embraced an Orwellian approach that I believe is responsible for the sordid state that it's currently in.

I have always loved music, and I always will. I love it far too much to limit myself to the same 50 albums for the rest of my life. I want to hear music that speaks to me, that resonates within me, that moves me. I have not found that in the mass-marketed product that the industry tries to shove down my throat.

[QUINNY]

FunkyDude: That's why I said originally that I wouldn't get involved. I just knew it would go nowhere fast.
To answer your question, I don't think there is any way this can be resolved so that both points of view can both be satisfied. To have every record remastered for CD would be a monumental task and the man hours necessary would be astronomical. For every one minute of record you're possibly talking 30 minutes to track down masters, arrange for safety copies to be made etc, plus it could take one hell of a time to restore sound quality. Many many masters simply don't exist anymore and many reel to reel masters have suffered very bad damage in storage due to tape formulation problems. It's the less well known masters which are more likely not to show up or be damaged because they haven't been stored properly.

[Blaxman]

But, Quinny. If the master tapes no longer exists, what we can do about it??

Which is your suggestion? We must forget it?

We must rescue them from another sources (LPs or whatever)?

Is it our fault if the 'beloved' Record companies nor even knew how keep their own recordings?

If in my collection I only had hits, I would have only 1,000 records not 5,500!!

Anyway, we can see clearly that the major part of collectors (of any kind of stuff) and members of this site prefer rare items, cant you see it?
If you do not prefer, OK. Nothing wrong with that but, we made our choices already!

So, let's go ahead.

Peace



_________________
SENHORES DO GROOVE - BRAZIL

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Blaxman on 2002-10-08 20:11 ]</font>

[QUINNY]

Graham: I can't believe that there are not THOUSANDS of bands releasing product in the U.S. It's so easy and damned cheap, to make your own CD these days. And any band with reasonable savvy can promote themselves very effectively, albeit to a smallish audience.
Why do you think the major stores only stock so many items. Logistics dictate that you can only hold so much product, and because no-one wants to pay a reasonable amount for a CD these days, who would stock a load of records that have no promotion behind them? That would be financial suicide. I'm not happy saying this, but, having a status quo is more sane than not having one.
Back in 1979 I doubt if there were more than 1200 albums released in the UK in a year. There's probably at least 5 times that amount of albums released now. " You like Andean nose flute, with a mix of afroeuropean jazz funk, tinged with opera? Certainly sir, I have just the CD for you right here". Maybe exaggerated ,but I.m sure you get the essence of what I'm trying to say. Everything is niche driven now. There's just too much product.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to work out that the chance of having a hit thes days is so much slimmer, that all these competing Cds make it even more difficult for anyone to make a buck or have a hit 'cos music sales are on the way down overall. The pie can only be cut up so many ways.

Video killed music - I agree wholeheartedly. There is less emphasis on musical content now, but I guess we all have ourselves to blame for that, 'cos most of us embrace(d) MTV. When Duran Duran spent £500,000 on one video I knew the writing was on the wall. Not many others saw it coming though, certainly not the Record Label bosses. However, if you're in business and the other guys start getting one over on you, what can you do?
This is why I feel more choice inevitably leads to a dilution overall. Too many factions are always gonna tear the sucker up.

[Nano]

Bernie, you're witness I didn't say a word on this thread either!
Phew, lucky me for that weekend trip! :lol: