Pete Tong on Ableton usage and other related stuff
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... =rss.index
Not a pete tong kinda guy myself, but thought others may be interested. He raises a couple of interesting points.
Pete Tong on Ableton usage in Wired Interview
this was interesting point:
"Tong: When I play live I probably play at least 75 percent new music that people haven't heard before. If a friend has given me a track they've worked on for months, I think it's rude to play it to a crowd for the first time and instantly reinterpret it. With Ableton you're almost bored if you don't do that. These technologies are to be welcomed, but, overused, any of them get boring."
and this is also: "The only thing holding Ableton back is its interface. The more it feels like a mixer, the stronger it's going to get."
"Tong: When I play live I probably play at least 75 percent new music that people haven't heard before. If a friend has given me a track they've worked on for months, I think it's rude to play it to a crowd for the first time and instantly reinterpret it. With Ableton you're almost bored if you don't do that. These technologies are to be welcomed, but, overused, any of them get boring."
and this is also: "The only thing holding Ableton back is its interface. The more it feels like a mixer, the stronger it's going to get."
-
sweetjesus
- Posts: 8803
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: www.fridge.net.au
- Contact:
sweetjesus wrote:interesting article...
i disagree with him on just about everything he says.
main point being about labels... why the hell should artists go and make labels rich and fatter if they've already done all the hard work getting a fanbase, and getting their music out there?
their contact books for one.
I doubt many artists could get to the next level without some kind of help, usually a label.
If you want to really get anywhere you need to be heard by people, and what a label essentially does is get your music heard by people (DJs) who have a reputation and dont hve the time to trawl through millions of unsigned artists and have to go on the recommendations of people who've done it for them and invested their time and energy into developing a good label that people will listen to.
Artists need labels if they want to get anywhere.
you are either a full time musician or a full time Label boss, you cant do both until you've made your name because both require full time + more work so you have to decide do you want to be, an artist or label?
Bands/Artists cant do all that on their own, or maybe more to the point they should be spending that time on their music and playing.
-
sweetjesus
- Posts: 8803
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: www.fridge.net.au
- Contact:
facts..forge wrote:sweetjesus wrote:interesting article...
i disagree with him on just about everything he says.
main point being about labels... why the hell should artists go and make labels rich and fatter if they've already done all the hard work getting a fanbase, and getting their music out there?
their contact books for one.
I doubt many artists could get to the next level without some kind of help, usually a label.
If you want to really get anywhere you need to be heard by people, and what a label essentially does is get your music heard by people (DJs) who have a reputation and dont hve the time to trawl through millions of unsigned artists and have to go on the recommendations of people who've done it for them and invested their time and energy into developing a good label that people will listen to.
Artists need labels if they want to get anywhere.
you are either a full time musician or a full time Label boss, you cant do both until you've made your name because both require full time + more work so you have to decide do you want to be, an artist or label?
Bands/Artists cant do all that on their own, or maybe more to the point they should be spending that time on their music and playing.
a) labels just hire publicists to get music to the right people, at most they have deals with content outlets to get certain amount of their content played.. nobody will push YOU as an artist.
b) music lawyers get more deals than managers and quite often a manager will get you a deal that benefits them in the longrun and hold out on deals which may benefit you.
c) label will do the artwork and production
d) a label wont get you gigs, but a booking agent will
e) you would have had to deal with ALL these things before a label picks you up these days
as for their 'contacts' books.. they deal with things kind of differently.. your manager is usually the person who can get your music heard by the right radio dj's etc.. radio stations have private invite only sessions where a select number of artists go every month or quarter and play them their music (if you can get an invite) and this will let radios pick out artists they wanna play as flavor of the month
once again the point is you have had to do almost all these things to get to the label anyway, so the 'next level' is a natural progression from there, and paying the right people (publicists, booking agents) is the key to landing yourself on the cool radio show or as support for madonna (ala deep dish) and things will just go from there.
labels used to be about nurturing artits... now they just get people who are already popular and successful and milk them for what theyre worth.
also you said that bands shouldnt be doing all that work on their own..but during the most crucial formative years, you are forced to and nobody will help... so why should you accept their help when they did nothing for you in the first place?
-
Sales Dude McBoob
- Posts: 2844
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC. USA
- Contact:
There is something to be said for both sides of this arguement (independant artist vs. label).
Labels can do things that mere mortals cannot. Some things are more obvious like distribution. Other things are less obvious. Back in the 1990's I was in a band that got signed. When the label put out our record, they put us on the road. While we drove around the coutnry in a sweet rented 15 passenger van and crashed at hotels (paid for by the label), the label had a radio team of 5 people that worked everyday pimping our brand new record to radio. Sure enough our record entered the CMJ top 200 that week as the most added album of the week. The next week we were at #16 on CMJ and #11 on the Gavin charts.
It was our (admittedly somewhat lame but catchy) music that got us on those charts, but it sure didn't hurt having a team of people working the record with radio.
On the other side of the coin, if people actually buy your record, you can make a lot more money as an independant. If you are on a major and your album sells 13,000 copies, you are considered a failure and usually dropped. If the same thing happens with a self release, you make $200,000++ and have a big ole
on your face.
I just bought a copy of Bob Dylan's Chronicle Volume One last night. Having a label really worked out for that kid!
Labels can do things that mere mortals cannot. Some things are more obvious like distribution. Other things are less obvious. Back in the 1990's I was in a band that got signed. When the label put out our record, they put us on the road. While we drove around the coutnry in a sweet rented 15 passenger van and crashed at hotels (paid for by the label), the label had a radio team of 5 people that worked everyday pimping our brand new record to radio. Sure enough our record entered the CMJ top 200 that week as the most added album of the week. The next week we were at #16 on CMJ and #11 on the Gavin charts.
It was our (admittedly somewhat lame but catchy) music that got us on those charts, but it sure didn't hurt having a team of people working the record with radio.
On the other side of the coin, if people actually buy your record, you can make a lot more money as an independant. If you are on a major and your album sells 13,000 copies, you are considered a failure and usually dropped. If the same thing happens with a self release, you make $200,000++ and have a big ole
on your face.I just bought a copy of Bob Dylan's Chronicle Volume One last night. Having a label really worked out for that kid!
-
sweetjesus
- Posts: 8803
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: www.fridge.net.au
- Contact:
The thing is, its not the 90's anymore and the majors won't do that stuff for most people especially at their own expense. This is what I'm getting at, if they did things like that to nurture your growth still then they would be relevant, but it seems as if the higher their income gets every year, the less they want to do for artists.Sales Dude McBoob wrote:There is something to be said for both sides of this arguement (independant artist vs. label).
Labels can do things that mere mortals cannot. Some things are more obvious like distribution. Other things are less obvious. Back in the 1990's I was in a band that got signed. When the label put out our record, they put us on the road. While we drove around the coutnry in a sweet rented 15 passenger van and crashed at hotels (paid for by the label), the label had a radio team of 5 people that worked everyday pimping our brand new record to radio. Sure enough our record entered the CMJ top 200 that week as the most added album of the week. The next week we were at #16 on CMJ and #11 on the Gavin charts.
It was our (admittedly somewhat lame but catchy) music that got us on those charts, but it sure didn't hurt having a team of people working the record with radio.
On the other side of the coin, if people actually buy your record, you can make a lot more money as an independant. If you are on a major and your album sells 13,000 copies, you are considered a failure and usually dropped. If the same thing happens with a self release, you make $200,000++ and have a big ole
I just bought a copy of Bob Dylan's Chronicle Volume One last night. Having a label really worked out for that kid!
Distribution is a whole seperate game and requires intimate relationships with local record stores and that's something only distribution companies can effectively handle. Fortunately, the majors do not have a tight reign on the distribution side of things yet.
I have very high level friends at some majors, one of them told me (over a philosophical coffee conversation 'we dont nurture young talent anymore, we focus our energies on the destiny's childs of the world now'..
okay, this is where we were talking about completely different things - you were talking about majors - pete tong wasnt necessarily in that context - he doesnt always just play "majors", as most dance DJs dont
I'm not interested in "Majors" at this stage, by the time I'd be anywhere near interested in a major I'd have to have enough credibility in my own right so that I'd feel comfortable negotiating with them, major labels are bank managers for already established artists
I was talking about independant house labels - without a label there was no way any of my tracks would have been played and charted by some well respected DJs, it was the fact that the label had a list of all the people they normally send stuff to who they know listen to it, so they sent and it got listened to then may not have made top of the pops but got some decent praise and modest sales from some decent DJs who I had alot of respect for, including "superstar DJS" played and charted
Any artist on our level, (unless you're thinking of joining a boy band there shawn
) would start on independent labels, or at least low down sub-sub labels owned by majors, so to us it's kind of irrelevant even worrying about what their A&R guys say, because they're reading from a different hymn book
I'm not interested in "Majors" at this stage, by the time I'd be anywhere near interested in a major I'd have to have enough credibility in my own right so that I'd feel comfortable negotiating with them, major labels are bank managers for already established artists
I was talking about independant house labels - without a label there was no way any of my tracks would have been played and charted by some well respected DJs, it was the fact that the label had a list of all the people they normally send stuff to who they know listen to it, so they sent and it got listened to then may not have made top of the pops but got some decent praise and modest sales from some decent DJs who I had alot of respect for, including "superstar DJS" played and charted
Any artist on our level, (unless you're thinking of joining a boy band there shawn
) would start on independent labels, or at least low down sub-sub labels owned by majors, so to us it's kind of irrelevant even worrying about what their A&R guys say, because they're reading from a different hymn book-
djadonis206
- Posts: 6490
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA.
It's all gone Pete Tong
Cool article - I personally think Pete Tong's aight...
From what I've seen in my short existance as a dj buying records and following certain artist music
It seems alot of dj's / producers start there own labels before they go 'bigger' I really only know dance music so a big label to me is Recycled Loops, Intec, Primate, Tronic, MB Elektroniks, CLR or Cacoon (so take it for what it's worth)
but then there you have it - all these labels are run by big dj's (or a staff behind them ???) who started the labels themselves
but it seems in order to go bigger you need to develop your own crowd, following, scene - as Pete Tong mentioned. I believe you do this by producing your own music, putting it out on your own label and throwing your own shows to promote yourself and your music. DIY
It seems this worked for me in the late 90's - the bigger production crews weren't booking me so I started throwing my own shows. They got bigger and bigger and then the 'other' production crews started booking me more and more. Until techno rave music turned into UK hardhouse and cheesy disco house remakes of bad 80's songs - I had to go back underground (I said that to be funny)
So I could see how getting down and dirty on your own through your own label, myspace, friendster, the internet, college radio or whatever could work if your looking to go bigger. The thing is though, what if you just go bigger on your own - then you don't need a big label, you did it on your own - which is very possible, very POSSIBLE. and almost worth pursueing to the end, why wait for Chris Liebing to blow you up, blow yourself up
Go to Miami, go to Ibiza - shake some hands, take some pictures, go to some after parties, pass out cd's, records, pictures of your kids what ever - make it happen.
Again, I'm completely clueless as to what I'm just saying I just kind of see it like that
later
Adonis
From what I've seen in my short existance as a dj buying records and following certain artist music
It seems alot of dj's / producers start there own labels before they go 'bigger' I really only know dance music so a big label to me is Recycled Loops, Intec, Primate, Tronic, MB Elektroniks, CLR or Cacoon (so take it for what it's worth)
but then there you have it - all these labels are run by big dj's (or a staff behind them ???) who started the labels themselves
but it seems in order to go bigger you need to develop your own crowd, following, scene - as Pete Tong mentioned. I believe you do this by producing your own music, putting it out on your own label and throwing your own shows to promote yourself and your music. DIY
It seems this worked for me in the late 90's - the bigger production crews weren't booking me so I started throwing my own shows. They got bigger and bigger and then the 'other' production crews started booking me more and more. Until techno rave music turned into UK hardhouse and cheesy disco house remakes of bad 80's songs - I had to go back underground (I said that to be funny)
So I could see how getting down and dirty on your own through your own label, myspace, friendster, the internet, college radio or whatever could work if your looking to go bigger. The thing is though, what if you just go bigger on your own - then you don't need a big label, you did it on your own - which is very possible, very POSSIBLE. and almost worth pursueing to the end, why wait for Chris Liebing to blow you up, blow yourself up
Go to Miami, go to Ibiza - shake some hands, take some pictures, go to some after parties, pass out cd's, records, pictures of your kids what ever - make it happen.
Again, I'm completely clueless as to what I'm just saying I just kind of see it like that
later
Adonis
-
Sales Dude McBoob
- Posts: 2844
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC. USA
- Contact:
I agree with you SJ... the 90's were different, but there is still a place for labels in the present and the future.
Not the token major labels. Most of them have been corrupt and evil from the get go. The majors that used to have merit and nurture artists stopped that practice a long, long time ago.
But there is a place for larger, more established independant labels.
First of all, there are a great number of super talented musicians who far too disorganized to do all of the things that would need to be done to be independant.
Secondly, there are still labels that nurture their artists. The last band I had from 2001 > 2004 at one point generated some label interest. Two people from the label Octane really liked our band. This was in early 2002. At that point that label had 2 bands and had just released Songs About Jane by Maroon 5. Our band's music was completely different from both of the bands on Octane. Octane never offered us anything, but their A&R guy was a fan and a cool guy and went to a lot of our shows.
Anyway, as the years went by Octane never signed anymore bands and they just worked Maroon 5. I was amazed last year that suddenly, almost overnight, the next thing you know Maroon 5 was everywhere, they were suddenly huge. Octane had ties with J Records, and when they caught on they had help from J, but still, the only reason Maroon 5 made it was that Octane concentrated on them and nurtured and worked them for 3 years non-stop.
I'm not a fan of their music, but it was amazing to see what a label could do for a band using the classic method of slowly and patiently building up the artist.
Not the token major labels. Most of them have been corrupt and evil from the get go. The majors that used to have merit and nurture artists stopped that practice a long, long time ago.
But there is a place for larger, more established independant labels.
First of all, there are a great number of super talented musicians who far too disorganized to do all of the things that would need to be done to be independant.
Secondly, there are still labels that nurture their artists. The last band I had from 2001 > 2004 at one point generated some label interest. Two people from the label Octane really liked our band. This was in early 2002. At that point that label had 2 bands and had just released Songs About Jane by Maroon 5. Our band's music was completely different from both of the bands on Octane. Octane never offered us anything, but their A&R guy was a fan and a cool guy and went to a lot of our shows.
Anyway, as the years went by Octane never signed anymore bands and they just worked Maroon 5. I was amazed last year that suddenly, almost overnight, the next thing you know Maroon 5 was everywhere, they were suddenly huge. Octane had ties with J Records, and when they caught on they had help from J, but still, the only reason Maroon 5 made it was that Octane concentrated on them and nurtured and worked them for 3 years non-stop.
I'm not a fan of their music, but it was amazing to see what a label could do for a band using the classic method of slowly and patiently building up the artist.
Because, as Pete points out, "There is genuine concern about how to stop music being passed around for free. Once you take the money out of music, it's not fair; people (artists, producers, managers and more) can't get paid."sweetjesus wrote:interesting article...i disagree with him on just about everything he says. main point being about labels... why the hell should artists go and make labels rich and fatter if they've already done all the hard work getting a fanbase, and getting their music out there?
Aside from the genuine artists not recieving their well deserved revenue, something I'd prefer to see them earning by returning to actually performing live rather than the now totally flawed and outdated model of record reproduction and distribution, the producers, managers and leeches can bloody starve for all I care
As fer his comments regarding our beloved Live - when he can work with more than 2 channels at a time, without the interface confusing him, then maybe his opinions will be worth taking on board. Who knows the coming year might even see him work up to figuring out an EQ3 and ping pong delay for himself
-
pxruthlessruler
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:06 am
"If a friend has given me a track they've worked on for months, I think it's rude to play it to a crowd for the first time and instantly reinterpret it."
this is what i have been saying - essentially - for over a year now. what other "art" lets you take other people's "art" and treat it as disposable? the fact that it needs to be done... is that not a reflection on the quality of the original?? i.e. if it wasn't crap people wouldn't "have to" make it into some "better". image if you did a painting and someone bought it... you go into their house and you see they add things... changed some colours... etc. a *true artist* would flip. yet "dance music" does without thinking. somehow i don't think the beatles, rolling stones, etc have someone saying "here, let me make it better". if we want respect for our "art" then we have to show it to each other. as it is it's easy for john/jane public to just say "see, i told you it sucks. they have to change it. what kinda art/artist is that?"
ok, so you can make the arguement that that's part of the "art of being a dj". well, if the dj's art is to devalue other people's art then it's no wonder the public doesn't give a toss about the music. the dj themselves are saying "this music isn't that good. here. let me. dj god make it good for you".
that's crap!!!
and then on top of that - again, as i have been saying - how does the public go and buy things that don't exist? the current problem with "dj culture" is that in turning it's back on respecting the artist's work it has given people nothing to relate to but the dj. MY GAWD!!! is r***** h*****'s, etc ego that sad?? is it look at me at all costs? why can't it be, "here i have some great music to play for you. i hope you like it. maybe you'll even go and buy it". as it is it's "look what i have that you don't". that's so 90's, no?
the point is, in destroying the original music the public has nothing to relate to and it says to the public that wants to still try to relate to it "hey, this isn't that good anyway. that's why instead of jerking off for you, i've made all these songs better. cause i said so". Y... A... W...FXCKIN-N
the whole "exclusive" and white label thing has turned off so many people. and this just takes it to a whole new level. without artists (read: people who's work is respected) and interest from the gen public there's going to be A LOT more bedroom dj's (cause no one is gonna wanna hear them play). note: i'm NOT talking about tons of people who will pile into some resort club somewhere and party to the music for that moment. i'm talking about people who will be interested in the music, they same way they're interested in any other type of music. why can't that be? and please no cliche arguements about "the public doesn't get it" etc. it's music! end of story. there's NOTHING about "dance music" that makes it any more or less special than rock, hip hop, jazz, etc
"Bands can build an audience all by themselves"... well, if EVERY band is doing this then there is just LOADS of clutter. it hasn't gotten out of control yet, or has it? we can't even tell if there are great bands being missed. we're all assuming "oh the internet will find all the great bands". but not for nuttin' but this is not a function of a great band. sure they need to promote but my guess is there are great bands not being found/heard because they are focused on their music. expecting bands to function like labels isn't realistic. and in the end we'll only be left with the bands that promote themselve best and not the best bands. which is basically what we have now, no? so where the big change??
"Podcasting is the next stage: " couldn't agree more!!! "radio" aside from real time call in, live broadcast, etc type stuff is a thing of the past. why get XM, sirrus?? why not just take your ipod, load it up and you have all the programming you want. satellite radio is for old people and once they die off it will fade. the next/new generation wants to control their entertainment. from video games (they a part of that entertainment) to the internet to the ipod, etc. satellite radio is just radio without the FCC. it's not how the next generation wants to be entertained. if that were the case why is tivo/DVRs, ipod video, etc all doing so well. people want the power to control what entertains them and when. sat-radio is traditional
"More and more broadcasters are podcasting now." again, more and more = more and more "clutter". i do think it's good but the next big question is - how to cut through the clutter. and since "taste" (in anything) is subjective how does one find stuff they like? it's not a popularity contest. yes, it's good but it's going to have it's limits. note: advertisers today complain of too much clutter since there are ads/impressions being made everywhere, all the time. and they're still trying to figure out how to cut thru it all. the irony is they're using music and the same platforms (read: internet, podcast, etc) so they're just adding to the clutter. yes, it's the way of the world but sooner or later it's gonna start looking like "the blob that ate the world".
add to the fact that digital music lower the barriers to entry to nearly zero. so now there's no reason not to have a "record label". so who and/or what is going to seperate the "good" from the "bad". also, keep in mind (with respect to DJing) that now ANYONE can DJ. it's some cheap downloads and some software. nothing major - you don't even have to learn to mix. so now that anyone can do it... will it still be "cool"? will the real creative type still be attracted to something that everyone is doing? is it all that interesting to them of would they rather build video game mods, edit their own video, etc??
"progress" always has a down side. what troubles me is that no one in "dance music" is looking at the whole picture. all they see is "it's cheaper" and "no more need to press records" and "no need to carry records". etc. but where does this leave the music and the "value" of the DJ?? and does showing a box of buring records in a print ad REALLY have to do with the music? is that REALLY respecting the roots of "dance music"/DJing?? time will tell.
sorry for the long repetitive rant...
this is what i have been saying - essentially - for over a year now. what other "art" lets you take other people's "art" and treat it as disposable? the fact that it needs to be done... is that not a reflection on the quality of the original?? i.e. if it wasn't crap people wouldn't "have to" make it into some "better". image if you did a painting and someone bought it... you go into their house and you see they add things... changed some colours... etc. a *true artist* would flip. yet "dance music" does without thinking. somehow i don't think the beatles, rolling stones, etc have someone saying "here, let me make it better". if we want respect for our "art" then we have to show it to each other. as it is it's easy for john/jane public to just say "see, i told you it sucks. they have to change it. what kinda art/artist is that?"
ok, so you can make the arguement that that's part of the "art of being a dj". well, if the dj's art is to devalue other people's art then it's no wonder the public doesn't give a toss about the music. the dj themselves are saying "this music isn't that good. here. let me. dj god make it good for you".
that's crap!!!
and then on top of that - again, as i have been saying - how does the public go and buy things that don't exist? the current problem with "dj culture" is that in turning it's back on respecting the artist's work it has given people nothing to relate to but the dj. MY GAWD!!! is r***** h*****'s, etc ego that sad?? is it look at me at all costs? why can't it be, "here i have some great music to play for you. i hope you like it. maybe you'll even go and buy it". as it is it's "look what i have that you don't". that's so 90's, no?
the point is, in destroying the original music the public has nothing to relate to and it says to the public that wants to still try to relate to it "hey, this isn't that good anyway. that's why instead of jerking off for you, i've made all these songs better. cause i said so". Y... A... W...FXCKIN-N
the whole "exclusive" and white label thing has turned off so many people. and this just takes it to a whole new level. without artists (read: people who's work is respected) and interest from the gen public there's going to be A LOT more bedroom dj's (cause no one is gonna wanna hear them play). note: i'm NOT talking about tons of people who will pile into some resort club somewhere and party to the music for that moment. i'm talking about people who will be interested in the music, they same way they're interested in any other type of music. why can't that be? and please no cliche arguements about "the public doesn't get it" etc. it's music! end of story. there's NOTHING about "dance music" that makes it any more or less special than rock, hip hop, jazz, etc
"Bands can build an audience all by themselves"... well, if EVERY band is doing this then there is just LOADS of clutter. it hasn't gotten out of control yet, or has it? we can't even tell if there are great bands being missed. we're all assuming "oh the internet will find all the great bands". but not for nuttin' but this is not a function of a great band. sure they need to promote but my guess is there are great bands not being found/heard because they are focused on their music. expecting bands to function like labels isn't realistic. and in the end we'll only be left with the bands that promote themselve best and not the best bands. which is basically what we have now, no? so where the big change??
"Podcasting is the next stage: " couldn't agree more!!! "radio" aside from real time call in, live broadcast, etc type stuff is a thing of the past. why get XM, sirrus?? why not just take your ipod, load it up and you have all the programming you want. satellite radio is for old people and once they die off it will fade. the next/new generation wants to control their entertainment. from video games (they a part of that entertainment) to the internet to the ipod, etc. satellite radio is just radio without the FCC. it's not how the next generation wants to be entertained. if that were the case why is tivo/DVRs, ipod video, etc all doing so well. people want the power to control what entertains them and when. sat-radio is traditional
"More and more broadcasters are podcasting now." again, more and more = more and more "clutter". i do think it's good but the next big question is - how to cut through the clutter. and since "taste" (in anything) is subjective how does one find stuff they like? it's not a popularity contest. yes, it's good but it's going to have it's limits. note: advertisers today complain of too much clutter since there are ads/impressions being made everywhere, all the time. and they're still trying to figure out how to cut thru it all. the irony is they're using music and the same platforms (read: internet, podcast, etc) so they're just adding to the clutter. yes, it's the way of the world but sooner or later it's gonna start looking like "the blob that ate the world".
add to the fact that digital music lower the barriers to entry to nearly zero. so now there's no reason not to have a "record label". so who and/or what is going to seperate the "good" from the "bad". also, keep in mind (with respect to DJing) that now ANYONE can DJ. it's some cheap downloads and some software. nothing major - you don't even have to learn to mix. so now that anyone can do it... will it still be "cool"? will the real creative type still be attracted to something that everyone is doing? is it all that interesting to them of would they rather build video game mods, edit their own video, etc??
"progress" always has a down side. what troubles me is that no one in "dance music" is looking at the whole picture. all they see is "it's cheaper" and "no more need to press records" and "no need to carry records". etc. but where does this leave the music and the "value" of the DJ?? and does showing a box of buring records in a print ad REALLY have to do with the music? is that REALLY respecting the roots of "dance music"/DJing?? time will tell.
sorry for the long repetitive rant...
"If a friend has given me a track they've worked on for months, I think it's rude to play it to a crowd for the first time and instantly reinterpret it."
Just because we artists are sensitive does not mean that we have to irrationally limit other peoples forms of expression. Every piece of art owes to the original source of inspiration. There is no such thing as stealing in art or music. Anyone who benefits from claiming their art was stolen, in anything but physical terms: Will Go to Hell if it exists.
Every great piece of visual art in the last several hundred years has propogated the ideas of others in the past. No lawsuits. And, audio compositions are not at all different. I would almost go so far as to say this about software, but I draw the line.
Having stated all of this, and back to my point, I find bad art annoying. I swam in the offensive shite growing up in the east village, and if there is one thing that is truly annoying, it is when something new comes out, and it sucks, but it's everywhere... Of course there are times when something new comes out and it's just such a miracle that it is everywhere!
I feel that if someone throws me a track I sometimes have a much easier time being objective about it and immediately turning it into something very much my own and beautiful, rather than if I was polishing the same turd I have been sitting on for a year. I have developed interfacing strategies with Live that are built on this purpose and it works.
The downside of all this, is the having to then hear your track, or that of someone else whom you love, mutilated. Part of releasing art into the world is so that it can be fu7%d with. It is an interactive feedback cycle. See something-make something- share something- See the derivative of something-exponents-fractals-organic psychedlia amorphous love. Mmmmm.
Or you can put on a suite, tighten your tie, press play on the cd player and you and your team of lawyers, etc can wave all your bling in front of the air, in unison, in front of a bunch of 12 year-olds and dolts in various stages of arrested development.
Giving people the opportunity to wittness creativity live, rather than have the illusion that art or music must be sterile, premeditated, and/or entirely the work of some entirely original (no such thing) genius (whatever) leads to horrible testosterock, dragonslaying hairbands, and gangster Rappers that have to stab people in real life to get "out of the box."
Music is information. Information is clay. My fridge is not information. You can not have it unless I trust that you are a terribly fascinating mind, and I am compelled. Then you can do with it what YOU want.
I realize that some of this comes across as unprofessional. There are merits to this, and course there are contradictions. My ideals are entirely impractible, but they keep me warm at night.
Just because we artists are sensitive does not mean that we have to irrationally limit other peoples forms of expression. Every piece of art owes to the original source of inspiration. There is no such thing as stealing in art or music. Anyone who benefits from claiming their art was stolen, in anything but physical terms: Will Go to Hell if it exists.
Every great piece of visual art in the last several hundred years has propogated the ideas of others in the past. No lawsuits. And, audio compositions are not at all different. I would almost go so far as to say this about software, but I draw the line.
Having stated all of this, and back to my point, I find bad art annoying. I swam in the offensive shite growing up in the east village, and if there is one thing that is truly annoying, it is when something new comes out, and it sucks, but it's everywhere... Of course there are times when something new comes out and it's just such a miracle that it is everywhere!
I feel that if someone throws me a track I sometimes have a much easier time being objective about it and immediately turning it into something very much my own and beautiful, rather than if I was polishing the same turd I have been sitting on for a year. I have developed interfacing strategies with Live that are built on this purpose and it works.
The downside of all this, is the having to then hear your track, or that of someone else whom you love, mutilated. Part of releasing art into the world is so that it can be fu7%d with. It is an interactive feedback cycle. See something-make something- share something- See the derivative of something-exponents-fractals-organic psychedlia amorphous love. Mmmmm.
Or you can put on a suite, tighten your tie, press play on the cd player and you and your team of lawyers, etc can wave all your bling in front of the air, in unison, in front of a bunch of 12 year-olds and dolts in various stages of arrested development.
Giving people the opportunity to wittness creativity live, rather than have the illusion that art or music must be sterile, premeditated, and/or entirely the work of some entirely original (no such thing) genius (whatever) leads to horrible testosterock, dragonslaying hairbands, and gangster Rappers that have to stab people in real life to get "out of the box."
Music is information. Information is clay. My fridge is not information. You can not have it unless I trust that you are a terribly fascinating mind, and I am compelled. Then you can do with it what YOU want.
I realize that some of this comes across as unprofessional. There are merits to this, and course there are contradictions. My ideals are entirely impractible, but they keep me warm at night.