| Author |
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:55 |
 Henry Plainview wrote:
Why does self-releasing inherently cater to the lowest common denominator? Wouldn't the freedom of not being confined by label executives let them do whatever they want? |
(Note I said reduced to not cater to). Doing whatever they want is not necessarily for the good. I don't mean in an excessive self indulgent way, but in a not learning by experience way. Most of everything is fashion driven, including literature and music, regardless of how experimental and futuristic people think they are being, the bulk of what they create is essentially derivative and influenced by whatever is fashionable at the time - that's how genres form, how a new album or novel becomes popular - by appealing to people who like similar material within that genre. In the worse case scenario that I depict here, (and I admit that it is a deliberately melodramatic and exaggerated worse case dystopia), the system is self-feeding and self-perpetuating - once poor quality becomes the accepted norm then people will automatically produce to that level. It is also limited by capital resource - and even though there are plenty of budding and aspiring artists out there who will try and convince us that $500 of home recording software and reading a book on sound engineering and music production can produce the same quality as a $500,000 studio, a $200/day sound engineer and a top-flight producer the reality is somewhat different.
Henry Plainview wrote:
You recognize the masterpiece by listening to it. ;-) |
And how, from the thousands of self-released albums let loose on the internet each week, do you find this masterpiece to get to listen to it in the first place? :-Þ
Henry Plainview wrote:
I almost never listen to self-released artists, because as you said, if in this era they can't get anybody to sign them, they probably are terrible. But I can't see the ability to self-release as a bad thing in any way. If you'd rather only listen to music that other people think is good, there will still be plenty of label releases this year... |
And with that the concept of self-release is doomed to inevitable failure and will never spark the revolution that many hope it will.
|
|
What?
|
 |
clarke2001
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:46 |
|
Good post, one that makes you think.
Indeed, it's a new era of artistic freedom - bordering on anarchy - but at the same time following (more or less) strict rules of sociology, or its rendering on a virtual plane.
The reflections of this 'movement' were (and still are) felt here at ProgArchives - in trying to determine what un/signed status means for an artist nowadays; it's more than hazy.
While putting all the pros and cons on the scales, it's necessary to observer an increased number of artist -and music in general - suitable for a music consumer. Before internet, there was a plethora of amateur musicians, and a fraction of ones who actually released something. Today, even if standards are set strict - and there's no allowance for below par recording that doesn't meet a professional level, let alone quality music, it's inevitable some cracks will appear in our virtual dam; one way or another there will be bigger number of artists then ever - and that is already happening, regardless of filtering.
The next issue is the actual quality that pops out from the crowd occasionally, and that is actually worth listening.
It's questionable will those artist sink into obscurity or be pushed forward to recognition, perhaps even stardom. In a primordial soup - ocean - of amateurish artists recording their idea badly - some will stand out of the crowd; one in 100 or one in 1000, creating something worth investigating. This is already happening, and some artist already have minuscule but present cult followers. I really doubt they will be propelled to the higher level of recognition and media; there are plenty of forgotten 70's records (mostly forgotten) which widened a circle of admirers, but most likely that is their threshold; they perhaps had a small base of followers back in their heyday (and they were released on a real, physical media), a few more that stumbled upon them in years to come (in a forgotten attic),but before internet, and a sphere of web surfers craving for obscurities - and that's about it. Not bad considering a short lived band from a 'small' country that released 500 copies in the 70's; 500 more CD reissues and 2000 downloads, be it legal or not. There are just too many names. Perhaps they will became a global phenomenon out of the blue in 2031, but that's less than likely.
The same applies to the new names recording and 'releasing' ints on their own, on internet. But in this case, chances they will be recognized are even slimmer - they don't have 20 or 30 years of history and a small fanbase for jump-start, Internet-wise; there is no avalanche (no matter how small it might be) to push them forward. What is left is the quality of a product as an advertising for the product itself; or at least its very existence - the domino effect of hyperlinks, forum recommendations and various audio/video samples will be smaller. But the feedback will exist, irrelevant of how far (or not) its branches are protruding. Basically, we're back to the word-of-mouth in the era of sophistocated communications technology. Blogosphere, social networking sites will do the job of mouths. It does rely on quality of the music - and perhaps that's the bast part.
The things will crystalize, in a way - before, we had thousands of amateurish bands, and selected ones that released something. Nowadays, determination will be in hands of an average surfer; if a surfer want's to turn the thing off just a few seconds after the music starts, it will get lost in digital vasteland. If it's interesting, it will get recognition among fans - perhaps fast, perhaps slow and tedious, and most likely non-profitable, but it could be measured by various traffic counters and a sheer number of references.
New genres, styles and movements will emerge - one that would never happen under the dictatorship of labels - the price of that is wallowing in an ocean of junk.
It's not necessary a bad thing, but each of us has to do our own, personal filtering before group and/or global filterings will occur.
And outside, in the real world, bands who care will be playing live.
|
|
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:20 |
Why does self-releasing inherently cater to the lowest common denominator? Wouldn't the freedom of not being confined by label executives let them do whatever they want?
You recognize the masterpiece by listening to it. ;-)
I almost never listen to self-released artists, because as you said, if in this era they can't get anybody to sign them, they probably are terrible. But I can't see the ability to self-release as a bad thing in any way. If you'd rather only listen to music that other people think is good, there will still be plenty of label releases this year...
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:16 |
^ I'm still discovering artists from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago that I
hadn't heard of - and those are from the days when the record labels
did this filtering for us - now it will take a lifetime to sift through
the self-releases from just this month alone.Truer words have never been spoken... 
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:06 |
Finnforest wrote:
Exceptional post and spot on.
The "new way" of doing things present the hugest chasm of contradiction. On the one hand, as Martin Orford noted here recently, the "new way" creates an ocean of "musicians" the world over who fancy themselves "artists" because they can now release their "albums" to the world without "the man" being involved, a process we help aid here by our new guidelines allowing such releases. The fact is that so many of these projects are of sub-standard quality in terms of writing, recording, and final product. You have what in the past would be weekend-hobby musicians now deeming themselves recording artists. You have reviewers who should know better willing to outrageously overrate some of these albums without much context (sorry, but I'm not one of those people opposed to the use of the word "overrate", it's a very legitimate concept.) I admit, I've been guilty of doing this myself sometimes though I try to keep my emotions in check and often adjust ratings later when I've had time to consider the larger picture. |
As you know, I do have an issue with the over-use and misuse of "overrate", however in this particular instance I do agree and indeed aprove of its use. Rating some of these self-releases on equal terms with other releases is rating them higher than they have any valid cause to be - that is judging the intention and ambition of one artist while over-looking its shortcomings against the actual achievement of another.
Finnforest wrote:
However, on the flip side, I'm not actually opposed entirely. First off, the truly quality musicians will gravitate to the top and get noticed, perhaps eventually getting an official label release. Second, for the majority that do not, I have been more than pleased on many occasions by the lovely work of hobby musicians and web-only bands whose myspace page serves as their main point of contact with the world. There IS good stuff in this ocean. One simply has to approach such releases with honestly in termsn of how good the quality is overall when compared to those "real" bands who have grinded it out for years, kissed all the arses, and sold their souls to the devil. This long process sucks of course, and is no guarentee of quality, but it is a process that does force out a lot of sub-standard product from reaching your living room. |
This is one thought process where I didn't quite get my words in order before posting... I do not believe that the quality musicians will rise to the surface, they will be lost in the miasma of mediocrity because the Internet is not a point source. As Momus said in 1991 (paraphrasing Andy Warhol) - in the future everyone will be famous for fifteen people - and the interet and self-releasing is making that future a reality.
Finnforest wrote:
The whole "new way" of approaching the music landscape just requires one to scoop the water from the ocean one cupfull at a time, throwing most on the beach and discovering the magic maybe one time over the course of one's day at the beach. It is something I welcome, because I am a person who enjoys the search for new music and the pleasure of writing about it for people. Again, I'm not opposed or afraid of the new world order, just sayin' its a very mixed bag and takes a lot of time to wade through the weak to find the awesome. Have fun with the hunt!
|
I'm still discovering artists from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago that I hadn't heard of - and those are from the days when the record labels did this filtering for us - now it will take a lifetime to sift through the self-releases from just this month alone.
|
|
What?
|
|
Pekka
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 03 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 6435
|
Posted: January 30 2010 at 15:53 |
A very interesting post, Dean 
For me this "new way" of releasing music is a great blessing, or at least so it feels at the moment. I'm a complete amateur in every positive and negative sense of the word, just doing my stuff slowly as a hobby realizing the very home-made production quality I'm capable of with my humble skill and equipment, and as long as that stands I have absolutely no intention to try and charge anyone money for listening to my stuff. But I love being able to get it out there as soon as I finish anything and get direct feedback. Mostly it's all positive since most people, like me, don't really like to give negative comments to beginners, but I've got a couple of friends who can say to me if they don't like something. And of course I enjoy when someone says they like my music. That little amount of feedback I get from this is much more valuable than the no feedback I'd get just messing around by myself with nobody else hearing my music.
That's some stream of consciousness babble I have from this subject. Every single piece of music I've finished in my life is up for free download, so far it's working great for me but give it a couple of years and perhaps it'll lead to great embarrassment
Edited by Pekka - January 30 2010 at 15:56
|
|
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Posted: January 30 2010 at 14:39 |
Exceptional post and spot on. The "new way" of doing things present the hugest chasm of contradiction. On the one hand, as Martin Orford noted here recently, the "new way" creates an ocean of "musicians" the world over who fancy themselves "artists" because they can now release their "albums" to the world without "the man" being involved, a process we help aid here by our new guidelines allowing such releases. The fact is that so many of these projects are of sub-standard quality in terms of writing, recording, and final product. You have what in the past would be weekend-hobby musicians now deeming themselves recording artists. You have reviewers who should know better willing to outrageously overrate some of these albums without much context (sorry, but I'm not one of those people opposed to the use of the word "overrate", it's a very legitimate concept.) I admit, I've been guilty of doing this myself sometimes though I try to keep my emotions in check and often adjust ratings later when I've had time to consider the larger picture. However, on the flip side, I'm not actually opposed entirely. First off, the truly quality musicians will gravitate to the top and get noticed, perhaps eventually getting an official label release. Second, for the majority that do not, I have been more than pleased on many occasions by the lovely work of hobby musicians and web-only bands whose myspace page serves as their main point of contact with the world. There IS good stuff in this ocean. One simply has to approach such releases with honestly in termsn of how good the quality is overall when compared to those "real" bands who have grinded it out for years, kissed all the arses, and sold their souls to the devil. This long process sucks of course, and is no guarentee of quality, but it is a process that does force out a lot of sub-standard product from reaching your living room. The whole "new way" of approaching the music landscape just requires one to scoop the water from the ocean one cupfull at a time, throwing most on the beach and discovering the magic maybe one time over the course of one's day at the beach. It is something I welcome, because I am a person who enjoys the search for new music and the pleasure of writing about it for people. Again, I'm not opposed or afraid of the new world order, just sayin' its a very mixed bag and takes a lot of time to wade through the weak to find the awesome. Have fun with the hunt!
Edited by Finnforest - January 30 2010 at 14:44
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 30 2010 at 14:11 |
One of the technological revolutions of the Internet age has been the marked increase in Self-Release and Self-Publishing of all creative arts. Fine-art, the written word and music have all been caught-up in this flurry of activity that promises to banish the corrupt self-serving corporate monster moguls to the annals of history and allow "the artist" the freedom to connect directly with the art-loving public.
But is this Utopian idyll an egalitarian dream or a self-delusional nightmare?
I have ventured into this world on many occasions, from the early beginnings of the World Wide Web and the look-at-me progenitors of social networking where I could create a "Home Page" to publish my confused rantings and musings on all manner of subjects and to present a primitive form of the eNovel for all the world to read or ignore at their leisure. Later I had several attempts to releasing my home-made music via numerous means from an AOL home-page, the original version of mp3.com, MySpace and LastFM to (finally) giving some of it away under Music and Musicians Exchange here at the PA. And more recently I have used a web-based vanity press to produce an actual printed paper novel replete with glossy paperback cover. What these experiences have taught me is that this is not a simple process, that the skills required are more than just being good at what you do. Of course my relative success or failure in these endeavours could be seen as jading my personal view of the whole process, but simply dipping a hand into these waters and plucking a self-released product at random will show even the most optimistic of "purchasers" that this is a far from perfect solution.
For all these one-man table-top ventures suffer from a number of failings that immediately mark them as being substandard and amateurish (in the worse possible connotation of that word) - they lack the judicious hand of the experts - the editors, the producers, the graphic artists and layout specialists and the management agents, the A&R men and the marketing teams who stand up to "the artist" and say that the product is not good enough, that the packaging is in need of refinement, that the work needs more work to be in any way, shape or form saleable ... While it is fashionable to cheer at the demise of all these industry middle-men and corporate hanger-oners under the assumption (though not completely without foundation) that they have corrupted the very nature of the business they draw their substantial salaries from, they do actually perform a valid and worthwhile role in the furtherance of the art as an art-form and therefore are a vital part of the creative process. While on the surface their job-functions ensure that the product will give a return on investment, it has the underlying responsibility of maintaining a level of quality that filters the worthy from the also-rans. This does not imply that they sort out the commercial from the unsellable, or even the professional from the amateur, but that they provide some necessary critical feedback to the artist prior to unleashing their prized creation onto the public, to ensure that what is heard or read is the best that the artist can produce.
Quality Control is not something that can be bolted on at the end, it has to be prevalent through the entire process, from the moment that *someone* says that a particular phrase is clichéd and should be re-written or discarded all the way through to the final presentation in its packaging and overall look, so that the product placed on the virtual shop shelves not only stands out against the plethora of other items from all the other dreamers, but is of equal quality to the best of what is on offer. So for a book not only does it have to be of the right readable standard, or if it is an album of music it has to be of a given listenable standard, but it has to be of the same professional standard as those produced by the established publishing houses and record labels.
Without this the music world (and by that I mean the music world at all levels – the underground and the specialist markets and not just the commercial pop and rock world) will be reduced to the lowest common denominator (if it hasn’t already), that all product will be as bad as each other rather than being as good as each other. Once we, as the buying/downloading/listening public, accept the limitations of what the artist deemed was good enough and take into account his excuses for the known faults of his work then we have bought into this myth and will have acknowledged sub-standard production methods (of content, packaging and promotion) as being the norm. The question then becomes how will be recognise a masterpiece in all the flotsam and jetsam that passes through our media players and hi-fi systems and by what means will the crème de al crème rise to the surface when all that is produced is produced by all that can produce?
Now, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that any single artist can possess all the talents to raise the level of what they create to an acceptable standard, or that a single band can contain individuals within their number with a share of theses skills, but in many ways they are complimentary and even counter to the creative process and would ideally be divorced from it. Artists often say that they are their own worse critic, but are they really? In reality are they any worse than their immediate friends and family, who to a man (and woman) will invariably be supportive rather than honestly (and brutally) analytical?
|
|
What?
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go
Topic Options
