Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Stellar Auditorium

Pages: [1] 2
1
Everything and Nothing / Re: Dani of Celer has passed away
« on: July 09, 2009, 12:22:17 PM »
Oh, God!! This is so sad, and at what a young age indeed... I've been listening to a lot of Celer a lately, and I think I'm more saddened by this than any of the other famous people that died recently.

2
Other Ambient (and related) Music / Re: Discovering New Labels
« on: May 06, 2009, 08:11:04 AM »
http://www.glassthroatrecordings.com is a very interesting label that might appeal to some of you, not exactly ambient or not even exactly new whatsoever, but they only recently started to get a bit known. Their own description about their music is "Progressive, Mournful Drone, Ambient, Soundscape, Pagan Folk, Somber Classical, Ritual/Healing, Environmental, Noise and Funeral Doom". I'd say it's a kind of a mix-up of styles all bound by a kind of naturalistic spirituality, if you get what I mean. Kind of close to the Aural Hypnox guys but without all this ritualistic stuff. I'd recommend some projects like Ruhr Hunter, At the Head of the Woods, The Elemental Chrysalis for a start. All of their releases also come in excellent, home made looking packaging. 

Regarding some other labels that were mentioned, I'm a lot into Students of Decay and all of Richard Skelton's projects (Release-Sustain and music) lately. That guy here http://www.murkhouserecordings.com is also planning to release Lps of Library Tapes, Elegi, and Selaxon Lutberg in the future and has been doing a good job with rock/metal related material until now.

 

3
Everything and Nothing / Re: Asperger's syndrome
« on: April 28, 2009, 08:52:03 PM »
Of course, most of these symptoms are quite generic and could relate to mild cases of social anxiety, for example. Actually, I can relate to many of these symptoms myself (for example speech, non-verbal communication, the social aspect quite often). I've came upon Asperger's syndrome in the past and took some on-line tests to check it out, I guess I could be described as a borderline Aspie, some told me I am, some didn't. Still, it doesn't interest me much to visit a doctor and get an official diagnosis, because I sense this could serve as an excuse to accept psychologically traits and parts of my character that can be improved with constant effort in everyday life. Then again, this is not to say that when a problem looks serious enough, professional help shouldn't be sought. But it might end up being an easy solution to tell to yourself "I'm ill" rather than adress the problem in the context of everyday situations, which is far more important.

4
Now Playing / Re: HELP: name this artist
« on: April 27, 2009, 09:36:22 AM »
Heh, I wonder if the guy from Endless Ascent posted this thread after the album had been "discovered" or if it was a funny coincidence. In any case, downloading it now, these three tracks were quite promising.

5
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 24, 2009, 04:41:10 PM »
I do not understand the logic why because of no money is involved the product quality would be low ?....there is no evidence for that.  your logic must be based on an short-term perception... In the future the whole humanity will work together in open source projects on an non-commercial basis, this has been proven that this is the most creative and best way to create software....prove me wrong... I think is the right path to go.

Ι definitely have my doubts about that, although I see it as an interesting perspective, that still hasn't grown up so much as to convince me that it's a viable solution for the future. Profit has been the deciding factor for the formation of the whole western society, including the arts, and in the presence of capitalist economy, will continue to do. Music is not exactly operating systems anyway... as for the rest you've written, it will have to wait for another day, goodnight for now.

6
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 24, 2009, 04:11:11 PM »
I think if you start as an artist, you could not expect anything in turn, you ask how the artist is going to survive on music, I think maybe you have wrong expectations, to survive on music is only a dream, and a reality for a very few.  To be a musician is not a work, it is not a way to make money as I see it. If you need to pay the bills and get food on the table and still want to be and free/independent music you should take some part time job, maybe a few days each month. Or come up with some other idea.
If you accept to live in an lower living standard you really do not need an full time job, a full time job would of course be an total disaster for every creative musician, freedom I think is an important element for every music, as I have said before, it is an lifestyle.



The problem is that the quality of the music we are listening today is a product of this "capitalist" system, or the commercialization of music, in other words, and will be deeply affected if the current system collapses, and professional musicians stop to exist. It's not so much about the artistic impulse, I'll actually agree on you on that most musicians do not create their art under the basic premise that they want to make a living out of it (which is still a great factor, let's not forget). There are also many things that come between the process of creating the art and you, listening to it at home. Professional studios for example, will vanish; why should someone pay a huge amount of money at a professional studio when it's impossible to get the money back? Or why should someone continue to massively produce expensive hardware processors and consoles if everyone's working with free, low quality vsts? Or actual instruments? Or pretty much everything that is a part of the music industry? Everything will dwindle or even vanish, and without professional musicians, the quality of the music will never be the same. We'll have instead of one Steve Roach, a million of Steve Roach wanabee composers writing mediocre music in their bedrooms with mediocre means in their free time, and exchanging mp3 files via myspace or something. Think about it.

That is why I am saying we need no labels in the future, we need no labels in the future that will steal the money from the artists. The artist deserve the big majority of the money, the labels are the real thieves in my opinion. I would feel way more motivated to buy music If I did know the money did get the the artist, If I buy from Steve Roach and Robert Rich I can feel kind of confident that the money goes directly to the artist.  This is why I recommend every artist on this planet, to create their own label...

Oh, and about the evil-label thing. Just remember that not all artists have either the money or the time to produce and promote their releases. That's what a label is supposed to do: to take in their hands all the menial work that has to be done while the artist is left to do what he/she does best: create art: It would be much better if the relationship between artist and label was improved, rather than totally severed. I feel a lot of independent labels are actually going in the correct direction concerning this, most of these people are working hard and receiving much less in return. Which means that what they're doing is very helpful to the artist, and at the same time there is a fair relationship economically between them.

7
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 24, 2009, 03:36:48 PM »
Immersion, I think I'll write a few words in response to your posts, mainly because I think the gap (generational, ideological, etc) between the rest of the people that post here and yours is so huge, that is seems impossible for a conversation to happen at this point. You're mistaken in some things you try to present as facts: it's very rare that musicians get such a low percentage of the sales, which is actually the policy of corporate labels and not small/medium size independent labels such as Hypnos. These kind of labels treat the artist in a much fairer way, because they want to give incentive to the artist to sign with them. Besides that, the size of the independent scenes is so small, that BOTH artists and labels can hardly make a living, the earnings are pocket money comparing to a "real" job, and very often these people spend equal and perhaps even more hours per day to this than they would (and they do, of course) at a regular job (do you think that an ambient 1000 copies cd release gets sold right away? It might take even years, if ever). So, I think you should perhaps re-think the concept of "charity" that you seem to look into with contempt: spending 10-15 euros or dollars to buy a recording of an artist (or even label) you are very fond of not only achieves you a personal connection to them, but it ensures that they'll be motivated to continue to produce excellent art in the future, as so many times we have said in this thread. Of course you can't buy everyone's album, but at least try to support these that are truly "important". Which should perhaps also include the labels that made their music known to you, and spent a lot of money (which might not get back) manufacturing the product and promoting it. And all of this hardly has to do anything with illegal downloading.

8
Now Playing / Re: HELP: name this artist
« on: April 23, 2009, 02:24:37 PM »
Seems like a difficult job, but it shouldn't be. Searched "lost in the details" in discogs, myspace, and last.fm and the only song that came up was of a pop band called Minibar, but it's not that. Since google also doesn't come up with anything when combining song titles (that is, except your own posts, heh) means that this album is unreleased. The only sure way to find out where you got it, is to go to the places you usually download music and search for the song titles. Could it be websites that host artists and allow legal downloads? Could it be file sharing programs? Well, you should know, except in the worst situation that some guy single handedly gave you these songs, in which case, better luck next time : D

Good music however, keep us posted if something comes up!


9
Everything and Nothing / Re: Selling CDs in a Download Society
« on: April 22, 2009, 04:36:32 PM »
I do visit record stores often, even if I rarely buy music from them nowadays, as I'm looking for specific albums that are usually found in several mailorders throughtout the world. Most of the time, I'll just visit a store in order to browse through the albums, ask the owner to listen to something on the cd stereo and generally have some interaction with the people there, talk about new albums, lives, and in general music geek stuff. So, first of all, communication and interaction is important, and it is something that cannot be found when you're just browsing some mailorder site and ordering with your credit card. Of course, that implies that the people there will have some connection in the field of music that interest you more, and which is the other major point: specialization. While I listen to many different music genres, I am generally more selective concerning what I buy: ambient music, rock and metal music, folk and traditional, classical music and avant-garde for the most part. I'm also buying music that's more underground usually, so that means I find no interest in wall-mart type of stores that mainly sell albums from big corporate labels.

There are actually two records shops that I buy records from (in Athens, that is by the way) one that is the gothic/neofolk/industrial type which brings a lot of ambient/dark ambient music, and another one that is more accustomed to avantgarde and "progressive" music, from electronic to unconventional pop and rock. If I could have an ideal record shop though, I would like to visit a store than would be even more specialized though. I would be great if there would be a shop that would share all of my likings, but since this is not possible, I'd like to have a shop that I would KNOW it has the new Robert Rich record there, rather than me visiting them one to one of telephoning them until I find the one. (which is what internet and mailorder are, of course. Would you imagine that that are record stores that, even to this day, do not have a website and list of the albums they sell?).   

About downloading well, I'm sure it made it clear in the other thread, heh. Every week, I'll come upon ten records that I've read or heard good words about them, or listened to a sample that sounds interesting. I'll try to download all ten of these albums and listen to them once. It turns that, as for the 3 or 4 first, I was very mistaken, they're a load of crap and get deleted right away. Other 3 or 4 of them 10, are fairly good albums but nothing to get me very excited. I'll probably keep those and give them another chance sometime, deleting them if they still don't convince me or keeping them for "archival" purposes. Then, there probably will be one or two albums that totally blow me away: these are the albums that I'm actually buying, taking into consideration that the initial enthusiasm of the first listening will remain. So, I buy about four albums per month, although when the time of an order comes, I'll most probably take something additional as well, finding something I once searched for, etc.

So, that's pretty much one week from the life of an "illegal downloader" I guess. I hope I don't get excommunicated by this community or something : P and that I've helped you a bit understand this phenomenon more. Oh, and Bill, if you don't find this answer adequate, you can send me the actual survey if you want.

chris

10
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 22, 2009, 03:22:49 PM »
I would bet that there's not one person involved in this conversation who has not made a copy of a disk (or made a mix-tape) for a friend, downloaded some rare obscure out-of-print LP, or otherwise broken copyright laws.  We've all broken a law at one point or another, some of us more often (and severely) than others.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try aspire to a higher standard.

I mean, look at the shit they were offering on that Deleted Scenes, Forgotten Dreams blog a few months back.  And that's just one of many hundreds of such sites!  If just 200 people downloaded each releaseónot an unreasonable number to assume, and perhaps even an understated figureóit's an incredible amount of piracy and clearly there has been an equally incredible impact on labels and artists because of it, with no original sale to back it up.  Half the time these albums are leaking onto the 'net via promos, etc., and the labels/artists could be losing thousands as a direct result.

Or some ones could be actually winning! I'm well aware of that blog, and in fact (hold deep breath now...) I have even sent them an album we've released! (of course, with the agreement of the artist) I know it totally sounds absurd, but this is a perfect example of an alternative internet promotion that I wanted to point out. I did this at a time when sales of that particular album were totally frozen, and weeks had passed without any order. As a result, the album had been download by over 300 people just a couple of days (probably much more, not all bandwith provider websites show stats and it was uploaded in many sites) and I got three new orders in the following days. So, it seems that not only the downloads did not negatively affect the sales of the album (it still sells, although ahem very slowly as the rest of our stuff) but it gave a wide exposure to the artist, and essentially did promotion and helped him reach an audience that might be interested to check out more future works of him, and as we all know, all promotion is essentially cashes-in sometime.

Now, I'm not trying to be smart and say that something like this can apply to labels as Hypnos as well (it probably doesn't). In fact, there are just two ways, you either try to bring down any kind of file sharing thus not allowing the album to "leak out" to the internet and relying just upon the artist and label's name and promotional appeal in order for it to reach its audience, or you can go along with the tide and allow this whole situation and even use it. I can't provide a definite answer about this right now, but personally I find much interest in this new way of things, and I suggest everyone, musician or producer to study it in order to understand it, and see how it can help him or not, accordingly to each one's situation.

11
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 22, 2009, 02:26:06 PM »
Of course, I was well aware of that when I posted, and actually the answer to that is in my previous post. The problem isn't that the original buyer makes a copy of the album after selling it, the problem is that the 2nd buyer is actually buying a used cd! It's not a play of words, but the problem seems to be more on the action of selling a used cd a priori, than the actual duplicating of the album. To illustrate this better, I'll tell you the following: even if the original buyer never made a copy/rip of the album, the EXPERIENCE of listening to the cd would still be there. It's the same type of argument that someone used when saying than playing a record for your friends might samely constitute a problem, in the same vein of thought. So, basically I conclude that the only real problem is in the buyer not getting the album directly from the artist, which is way more harmful than the 'duplication' of the copies. That is almost irrelevant, which is perhaps something that can be said about downloading as well.

12
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 22, 2009, 02:01:06 PM »
If illegal downloads usually led to the music being purchased soon after, there would be no controversy and none of us would be complaining about the technical illegality of the downloads.

The reason there's a problem is that far more often, the illegal downloads PREVENTS a sale of the music afterward.


I know, but I am not talking about this case, am I talking about the, perhaps, unfrequent case that I'm describing, which applies to me, as someone who still continues to at the same time, download and buy music without a decrease in volume. The real question I believe, is not if illegal downloading affects the sale of cds (we know that it is a negative affect) but if it is worth propagating against it and persecuting the people that are carrying it out. For all of the reasons that I have described, I do not share this opinion. 

In this situation, you have 2 listeners enjoying the recording as if they "own" it, and yet only 1 copy has been purchased from the artist.

I see no problem about this. The artist has been paid for this very copy, and what happens is that the act of buying (sorry if I'm not not making sense, but neither English or law is my forte) is transferred to some other man. The seller, has accomplished his due towards the artist and does not hurt anyone if he keeps a rip of the cd certainly. The buyer however, should have bought a copy directly from the artist rather than buying this used cd. He's much more liable than the seller for the problem, in my book.

And if an album is out of print, and yet freely available as an illegal download, then there is little chance that sufficient demand for a re-release will ever occur. Prior to file sharing, there would be significant demand for reissues of certain out of print recordings (remember the early FAX label releases?) which usually led to a legitimate reissue. If no such demand ever builds back up (because everyone who wants the recording just downloads it on bittorrent), then such reissues will not happen, and in that sense also, the artist and/or label has been harmed.

I'm unsure that this happens in all cases. Sometimes, an unheard album at its time will be "re-discovered" through the file sharing networks and get hyped up, which will end up in the record being re-released. I'm aware of many such cases, especially in the rock/metal underground, which has been among my main "fields" in the past. In any case, personally I'd be glad to buy a re-release of a long out of print record that I have once downloaded, as with any other music.

This just keeps coming down to: I want to own what I want, I deserve it and it should fit my personal model economy.


Please try not to attribute to me things that I never said. I don't know if I deserve it, but I want it, that's certainly true. And in fact, what I'm trying to do is to compromise my desire as to not allow it have a negative effect on the world. Essentially, to provide my final argument, I believe that this approach only strengthens good art: taking into consideration that the amount of money I spend on music has remained stable because of my economic needs as a human being, illegal downloading has allowed me to make a much better selection of the records I was going to buy, in comparison to buying blindly or relying on short samples, thus providing with financial support artists that consequitively deserve it more. Essentially, as pretty much everything, downloading is a tool that can be used for a good and a bad purpose. I know that its hard for everyone to comply with this and that currently it is abused rather than used, but one can only hope, and try to actively change the world by voicing his/her opinion.   

REMEMBER THIS:
The BIG winner in this downloading p2p (etc) frenzy is the BIG internet companies who simply sell access to downloadable files by bandwidth. They are the new capitalists. They of course WANT plenty of free stuff available to download. It's straight money to them.


Very correct, this is why I never was a rapidshare premium member or any other websites of that sort. There are file sharing programs that do not demand subscription, have ads, or any sort of commercial attributes though. Uhh, enough for today...

13
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 22, 2009, 12:37:20 PM »
Unfortunately, it is true however. According to the law, the minute you sell a cd, you no longer have the rights to own said CD and it is actually illegal to burn it to your library and sell it. Again, it does not matter what you think or feel is right, the law is the law.

PV

No, what we feel and think is important. The law isn't some god-given commandment that people should accept a priori, it is a social contract made in order to hold society together. But, law is always imperfect, because society progresses and changes every minute. I believe we should debate rather than blindly accept everything that is imposed towards us, because either these things that the law is supposed to protect by supressing certain actions now might be invalid (hypothesis) or need to be reconfigured to fit recent developments. In our case, we all know we're "breaking" the law by illigally downloading music, but when someone ends up buying it shortly thereafter, how is any damage done? Why should we conform to the status quo when essentially our actions do not harm anyone, and instead offer us roads towards self-expansion? Would it REALLY cause any problem to anyone if we download an album that is our of print and can't be found anywhere else, rip a cd that we have bought from the artist (and then sold for an equal price), or download an album that we have already ordered from the artist as a preview (I think that was the case with Immersion, if I'm not mistaken?) I'd like an honest response concerning this...  

14
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 22, 2009, 09:18:51 AM »
I know you were just offering an example, but I'd say you probably shouldn't walk up to Steve Roach or anyone else and say "Your work deeply affected me but not enough that I was willing to sacrifice anything at all in order to obtain it"

Well, the biggest problem is that this rationalization doesn't happen in the first place, because young generations have little or no interest at all in the concept of intellectual property, as they've come to consider downloading as something that's totally natural. My example was deliberately extreme (well, let's consider that this poor fan messed up, being in awe while meeting such a great musician  ;D) so as to portray my belief that personal communication can be sometimes a much greater reward than album royalties and so on. Of course mr. Steve would get shocked, but I would like to believe that he would gently suggest the guy to go buy some actual copies of his albums "because it's the right thing to do, and you know, I have to pay my bills" not tell him to f*** off or something. Then, perhaps all would go in the right way.

15
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 22, 2009, 08:15:06 AM »
I have to say that these last responses were the kind of responses I was expecting while writing that first post, I knew it wouldn't make me exactly popular here, but I think it is important that the "other side" is represented in this argument. I do not primarily consider art as labour, but as an expression, that does not "demand" back anything of material nature, except communication and an exchange of ideas, perceptions and experiences. I'm not infuriated when someone "illegaly" downloads my music, but I am on the opposite very glad, in that it succeeds in finding an audience, in that it succeeds in affecting human beings even in such a small ways. That reflects my personal opinion on how art "should" be, but, of course, the problem (and I acknowledge that) is that not everyone shares it. I wrote in the first post that when someone offers something, then one is entitled to demand "something" back. This "something" is a financial compensation for a lot of people, which is something that even though I don't share, I try to respect, and that's why I still continue to buy (a lot of) albums to this day, as I have clearly stated in the first post (this also applies to software - I have donated to and registered some plug ins that I regularly use, and will soon buy the DAW I have came to use more after a period of experimentation). Is listening to some music that you're not going to end purchasing because you didn't find it good enough that much of a crime? It could be considered as a "spiritual crime" perhaps, but if some guy meets Steve Roach tommorow and tells to the man "Hey, I've downloaded most of your music and I was deeply affected by it, it changed the way I see music" do you think he'll be mad at him? I don't know, I can't speak for the man. But I know that this fan will eventually buy some of Steve Roach's music, because he'll eventually understand that art except expression IS also labour, and if the musician doesn't get back at least of portion of what he gives back to the public, he'll soon cease to do so. And if one doesn't understand this, he should be made so. Not with lawsuits, but with reason. Does this sound idealist and idyllic? Perhaps it does, but its realization constitutes a world that is culturally, artistically and ethically much more advanced, in my personal opinion. Brian Bienowski is correct in that it is not necessary to have everything at your disposal in order to create great art (or, as a "consumer", to be affected on a personal and cultural level) but I think it is obvious that a greater availability only widens these potentials, it doesn't hurt them. It is not necessary to digest all of this art, one can tell soon enough if something's worth your attention (downloading some music works kind of like a preview anyway, like listening to some streaming songs off myspace - if it's not your thing, you'll delete it right away). Of course, all of this has negative aspects as well, overconsumerism being the most obvious one. As Paul Vnuk also said, the amoralism of the generation that has learned to take and never give back is another one. These are major problems that deserve to be fought however, rather than working as an easy excuse to revert to the previous situation.

16
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 21, 2009, 05:08:19 PM »
Is it? I don't know, I'm not sure that everything I mentioned has been adressed before.
 
I don't think it can be just "about the packaging", even if file sharing continues to be thrive and be practised. Mp3 files that are available in blogs range around 256 kbps, which is a rather mediocre quality, at least regarding to the audiofile's needs. Also, a new digital format, that would would surpass the 44.1 khz 16 bit quality would be of great use to the industry, to do the same thing that blu-ray does to the dvd (don't forget that cds are falling and vinyl is rising because digital formats never actually surpassed true analog quality). Generally, I feel that physical media's biggest capacity for quality and immidiate access will always give them an edge over downloads, but then again, that only concers people that care about these things in the first place.

17
Everything and Nothing / Re: Downloading Music and Rights
« on: April 21, 2009, 03:36:36 PM »
That's an excellent conversation here, I've been very concerned about this matter lately, as anyone else who has even a small place in the music industry. It's obvious that everyone here is talking from their own perspective, and I don't see, in the responses to Immersion, a wilingness to understand the way of thinking that is the current, especially for the young generations, who are more accustomed to "music piracy" than anyone else. 

I believe art, thought, and intellectual property in general is something which is too much important to be treated like a simple commodity. Obtaining the essence of a work (the actual music of a cd, the text of an e-book) does not constitute theft according to my ethics, and that comes from someone that is a musician and a label owner at the same time (I have financed about 7 releases in total, some mine, some of other people). While all the arguments made in favour of the intellectual property holders are no doubt correct - one should not produce something without receiving back something, again) I believe the cultural benefits attainted by the "liberation" of art and information are way more important. I've been a part of the generation that grew up with music piracy (I'm 25 years old) and I just own a 10% percent of all the music I have ever listened; being totally honest with myself, I have to say that I could never have enough money in my life to attain the same amount of musical knowledge. And I own about 800 cds, Lps, and cassettes altogether... I have also produced a great part of my music with the help of pirated music software (I know talking about these things in a public forum is a taboo, but I feel it's very important for this conversation). I would never have made the music I've made or have the knowledge I have without internet and file sharing. And exactly the same happens with most people in my generation, who I noticed have became people with quite high knowledge, character and artistic thought because of this situation.

It's also very important to be realistic; it's not music piracy that financially kills musicians, it's that people don't buy cds anymore. I would have bought exactly the same amount of music hadn't piracy existed, because the amount of money I spend in music has more or less stayed the same throughout these years, listening to a much wider amount of music has only allowed me to select much more carefully and attain only the pieces or art that are the most important to me, which I want to experience in the best audial and visual quality available. This, need to have a physical representation of something I love, and the knowledge that this system can only continue to function if the music producers receive back financial support, is what drives me to still buy music to this day, and this is exactly what I believe we, as the "music industry", should propagate to the music listeners and the world. Not the stern, conversative approach that considers downloading some music a theft, and will do everything it can in order to punish it, as all corporate labels do at this moment. The problem, of course, is that very few people think in the way that I have described, essentially because the majority's approach to art is much more superficial comparing to people in this forum, for example. The again, this is a bonus for small, specialized labels and genres. In any way, the tide has definitely changed and, independently of everyone's opinion, it doesn't seem to be going back in the immidiate future.

Musicians and labels got to find new ways in order to survive. I have personally given for free all albums of mine (as a musician, I mean) as a download to everyone that asked me; mainly because I believe that art is personal communication and this is what I was seeking at the time; however, I also provided the link to some mp3 blogs, and in result, while my work was practically unknown at that time, I recieved an influx or orders for some cassettes and cd-r I had released then. This proves that, unless the music is actually heard first, it can't be expected to sell, and that more and more people are buying music nowadays in the way that I have described: not as to listen to the music, they have already done so, but in order to attain it in the best quality available, and as a physical object which by "owning" represents their adoration towards it. Of course, it doesn't always work that way: there's a fine line between availability that helps and hurts an album. It's a very complex issue, but just think of the following: some blogs have more hits per day than a medium size ambient/drone/experimental label's website...

Finally, musicians and labels should always try to provide to the public new things that can't be reproduced. It really hurts when I see some cheap jewelcase releases with a 4-page booklet and mediocre layout: why would anyone want to own that? Also, live performances: that seems to be the only certain source of income for musicians at this time: the experience of a performance can never be really reproduced. I'd love to see performances of ambient artists but there are so few, especially of the Hypnos type, not the drone bands that are all over nowadays. And the list should definitely go on...

18
Everything and Nothing / Re: E-bay Auction
« on: April 21, 2009, 12:33:57 PM »
Ok, saw a few ebay topics while I browsed so I'm going to post it. By the way, since we have multiple copies of these albums, you don't have to necessarily bid on this auction, just let message me here or in info@newagedawn.co.uk if you're interested. Thanks.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320362414896&ssPageName=ADME:L:LCA:GB:1123

19
I was wondering if it would be ok to post a link to an e-bay auction, we're selling a bulk of ambient/drone cds that I thought would be of interest to the people around here. Not one of these -sell a rare item 20 times its original price- auctions, just trying to reduce our stock so as to finance some upcoming releases. I tried searching but I didn't find anything relevant. Thanks.   

Chris

20
Other Ambient (and related) Music / Re: Dreamlike/ambient Classical Music ?
« on: December 21, 2008, 06:22:35 PM »
I have mixed feelings about the use of classical samples.  Sometimes it can be done effectively, but it can also be a very lazy way to compose.  Probably the worse use of a classical sample I can remember was Shuttle 358's crude misappropriation of part of Harold Budd's 1st Obscure Records album on "Understanding Wildlife."  Ugh.

Forrest

I was thinking about why I felt differently about the Procer Veneficus compared with the "9 Beet Stretch" stretched-out Beethoven piece.  The first used chopin, but left artistic fingerprints....the sound itself was changed, and the artists identity was placed ontop of it: the name, the images etc.  I feel it was revisionist.

Whereas, Leif Inge, the artist who came up with the "9 Beet Stretch" idea, left the identity of the piece intact- it wasn't given another name, and the artist was working in an invisible sense.  I think I felt like the artist allowed a closer glimpse of the original, as opposed to a revisionist approach.

While I share your opinion concerning the identity of the work when subject to some kind of alteration and re-presentation, I believe Procer Veneficus is justified in a way since the music has been transformed up to a point of no recognition, to a point where the sampled material's character is diminished, and the character of the procession takes the lead, in a way. If it should be Procer Veneficus' Treatments of Chopin Pieces or Chopin Piecies by Procer Veneficus, that's left to the judgement of each artist, but what's important is that the original artist should always be mentioned. If that's the case, I personally don't have much of a problem. P.V. creates his music from a variety of sources as far as I know, including acoustic and electric guitars and treatment of found sound. That 24-hour Beethoven's 9th is amazing btw, great find!


Pages: [1] 2