Meet Kyle and his family

musicvid10 wrote on 8/14/2004, 10:25 PM
Every word of this post is true except for the first name of the subject.

Kyle lives in a town not too far from here. I have paid him to play in my pit orchestra three out of the past four years. He always brings one of his kids with him to get some experience in the pit, which is an irreplaceable experience for a musician of any age.

Kyle played with some big names back in the eighties. Made a pretty good living at it when he was single. Today he is married, has kids in high school and college, and he and his wife both teach. His oldest son worshiped Miles when he was in high school, and now plays classical trumpet at a major university. His youngest is a promising guitarist and following in his dad's footsteps.

Kyle has cut six albums during his career, all original music. He never acheived the recognition that Clapton or Beck (the first one!) did, but he did tour and gets airplay in several markets around the country. It is also likely that when you are in a supermarket, department store, office building, or "any"-Mart, you will hear his music interspersed between Kenny G. and old BeeGees tunes.

How does Kyle support his family and save college tuition for his talented kids? Well, if you think it is from his concert appearances and combined teaching income you are living in a fantasy. That doesn't even pay the monthly bills for their lifestyle, which any one of you who can afford Vegas would consider modest.

You see, every time one of Kyle's songs gets played in an elevator, a supermarket, a radio station or dentist office, he gets a penny or two. Every time someone buys one of his CD's, he gets a few more cents. And anytime someone performs his music at in public or records his music, he gets a few more cents, that is if they pay the royalties. That's how he can put his oldest kid through college. That kid could make it as an orchestra musician. Or become the next Maynard. His other kid deserves college too.

But no one will ever hear their talents unless we all do our part. You see, Kyle's business is music. And unless he gets income from his music, his dreams for his family will never come true. Kyle can't send out a bill every time someone performs his songs in public, or uses them in a wedding video, or tapes their amateur talent show and distributes it to twenty of their friends. That's why we have a system that is designed to get Kyle a few cents when you use or record his music. It's not a perfect system, but without it Kyle's kids wouldn't have the opportunity to join the next generation of performing artists, and Kyle might be working in an office building.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. A lot of you with kids in school are in business for yourselves or someone else. But what if your clients took your products and services without paying you? How long would you be in business or be able to afford to put YOUR talented kid through school?

You see, copyright regulations are not in existence just to protect wealthy record producers and publishers. Usually, it's the artist or their family that owns the right to the music that we all too often take for granted. And as often as not, their living depends on those pennies.

So, rather than seeking validation by asking if you really have to ask before using someone else's music, because you aren't making any money off it, or you are in business as a struggling videographer, and you don't see why something that's played on the air shouldn't be free, think of your kid and that school talent show and what it would be like if your living depended on income from that song he or she is singing tonight. On the other hand, if you write music, feel free to give it away. That's what everyone expects, right?

By the way, Kyle doesn't drive a Lexus to his kid's performances, doesn't own Vegas, and doesn't borrow money to send his kids to school. He's also one of the most down-to-earth, honest, and truly dedicated people I know. Enjoy his music on your way to work tomorrow.

Comments

farss wrote on 8/15/2004, 1:39 AM
Having known the children of a few well known local musos in my teenage years (one even played trumpet) I know how true this is. His children used to sleep in the draws of a cupboard as they couldn't afford cots.

I wonder how many here understand how copyright serves to protect US!
Getting a paying job sounds great, getting PAID for a job is another matter entirely. Now I don't know just how the law works in every country but most countries come close to the British law in some respects. It's quite acceptable business practice to include a clause that states that title to the goods remains with the vendor until payment is received. This means in the event of the entity you've done the work for going bust or just plain refusing to pay you're entitled to retrieve your property, you're not just an unsecured creditor.
Now this mightn't sound that exciting, just getting back your shiny DVD. However as I understand it, if they don't have title to the work that you have done then they also don't own the copyright. If they show in public, duplicate or any in way use your work they are in breach of the copyright laws.
This could be a much bigger stick to wield than just trying to persue them through the small claims courts where you may have little chance. It also provides a mechanism whereby you can give the work to the client to accept but still have protection. Once they start showing / duplicating it there's an implied acceptance but if they haven't paid you, potentialy you've got a pretty big stick to threaten them with.
Clearly before you start adding clauses to your contracts or writing threatening letters you need a real legal opinion on this, please don't take my word for it as this advice is worth exactly what you've paid for it.

Bob.

OdieInAz wrote on 8/15/2004, 6:54 AM
The founding fathers believed copyrights to be so important they are written into the consitution, Section 8, under "Congress shall have the power to..."

Don't know how valid this is anymore, since the same seciton also says the congress shall have the power to declar war. Nothing about delegating to one man.
RafalK wrote on 8/15/2004, 6:59 AM
Being priveledged to be a video producer for a local talent which is about to go national, I have personally experienced what it takes to bring a quality music piece to the radio.
Cincere's songs are played on three top stations in his hometown of Milwaukee, WI and the hit "I do" has been in the top ten request for over three months now. The latest song for which we just finished shooting last scenes of the video is called "Daddy" and includes custom composed and performed piece by the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, a chorus by the Milwaukee Children's choir and the Mount Olive Baptist Church choir. There are a lot of us who volunteered a lot of our time and material to Cincere and the price tag for just this one song was still over 10K. After seeing what actually goes into music I no longer expect to get it for free. I now know how much and how hard of a work it takes to make the song sound great and make the stage appearance look effortless, and for you to feel that the show was worth every penny you paid for the ticket.
BTW, if you'd like to find out more about Cincere, stop by at http://www.sevillemedia.com/cincere as well as http://www.simplycincere.com
beerandchips wrote on 8/15/2004, 7:20 AM
Didn't congress give one man this power?

Now back to what is important on this forum. Learning.
OdieInAz wrote on 8/15/2004, 7:54 AM
The point is that the orignal intent in the constitution regarded copyright and patents with the same seriousness of the art of war. As for political commentary relative to contemporary circumstance, none is indended. I belive the founding fathers intent was to avoid thier contemporary circumstance, where the kings and queens of old seem to make hobby of waging war. Without copyrights and patent protection, there would be no development of intellectual property.

With the copyright act of 1790, protection was for 14 years, with another 14 year extension possible. After that, works became public domain. With the passage of the Bono law, protection is now lifetime of the author + 75 years. The constitution requires copyright be of limited term, but in practice, congress seems to be incrementally approaching eternal life, which is what Bono's wife claimed he wanted.
Spot|DSE wrote on 8/15/2004, 6:56 PM
congress seems to be incrementally approaching eternal life, which is what Bono's wife claimed he wanted.
That's exactly what he wanted. He wanted his works to benefit his progeny in perpetuity. Kind of like a trust, as it were. James Brown also was one of the ones involved in this, you'll find most big name acts wanting similar. I don't think you'll find many of the smaller, much lesser known acts having difficult issues sharing their work, making it available for a reasonable fee and in some cases, no fee. Just recognition.
Whether agreed upon or not, someone's work is just that; their work.
Imagine in 100 years when classics and timeless pieces like "Bad to the Bone" and "Oh Yeah" keep getting used in films time and time again. Makes sense.
Personally, I don't see the need for eternal protection, but then again, I no longer have a child to pass this legacy on to. I guess it would be good to set up copyright royalties going to a favorite charity.
But as musicvid commented on, it's indeed pennies that come at the end. I'm happy to share my quarterly incomes from ASCAP....usually it's less than 250.00 per quarter, or about a grand a year. But I'm also not a superstar that has tremendous airplay, nor do I have to pay a share out for a Muzak version of my music. Muzak uses my music as-is because there are few vocals in my tracks.
Musicvid, thanks for putting a different spin, and more human view on this rough subject.
filmy wrote on 8/15/2004, 7:49 PM
Ok, just for the heck of it - let me tell you some stories as well. (And please read the whole thing at the end before you make a comment.) (And it took me about 2 hours to put all this down - what a way to spend a Sunday huh?)

Names left out...blah blah. I know a singer. He was a very famous singer of a very famous band whose music is covered to this day. If you sit down and talk to him he will gladly tell you how he has been ripped off and how he doesn't get any royalties because of how the industry is. Sounds like a good story - the story like above. Does he get any money when you use his music? Hell no!!! However with the person I am talking about what happened was after the bands, and his, "hit" status went down he found a need find money - more correctly he had a drug habbit. He needed money to support his habit so he sold the rights off to a song here, and a song there...until he had sold all of the rights off to all his "classic" songs. But he won't tell people that part of the story in public, ya have to actually know the guy for more than a few hours. In the mid 80's an entire new breed of musicians started coming out and hitting the charts and many of them sited this singer and his band as huge influences - many even covered his most popular song. Of course that led the singer to try a comeback, even saying how much he helped to make those bands stars and now that they were "top 10" they chould do more for him. The band he was in even reunited for a headline show at the Universal Ampitheatre and during the last song the stage filled with many of these people. What a night to be sure - yet all he made for that show was $2,500..to be split between 4 other people. So what is the point to this story? Maybe next time you pay to use a "classic" song on your production think about who is getting the money - it may not be the person who wrote it, or even performed it.

How about another one? Another person - a keyboard player mainly, but also guitar. If you see him now he looks like a nice grandfatherly type and a school teacher. Well, he is sort of. He is certianly one of the nicest, calmist laid back people I have ever met. Well he was part of a group that had a really *really* huge song...matter of fact the song stands as one of the 'anthems' of rock. He wrote other songs, sure. But this one song was sort of a joke - sort of inspired by a roadside trip to the bathroom. Who knew? Unlike the singer above this person never had a serious drug habbit and not too many vices overall - at least not enough to pawn off rights to all his songs. So now every time this song is played, and trust me it is a played *lot*, a check comes. He opens it and tosses it into his account...it isn't a big deal and certianly not somehting he ever really cared about. If it was he would still make himself highly visable and never would have left the band he was part of. (even more so considering that this "band" still plays on the oldies/classic tours) What is the point of this story? had that song never have been written this persons life would be, more or less, the same. He has a nice house in Woodland Hills, not Malibu or Bel Air or Bev Hills. He doesn't drive a Lexus or a Rolls. When the Hard Rock asked him to donate the guitar he wrote this song on he asked if they would give him another guitar. They did, he was happy...even if he only played it a few times. I think I was more amazed at it than he was because it was a Guild Brian May model, he was sort of like "I really didn't know who Brian May was I just thought the guitar looked nice". He could have gone out and bought a new guitar, or even get a full endorsment deal considering what song he was responsible for - but that isn't what he is about. If it was up to him he would probably allow free downloading of his song and use of it in films. Most of the time no one announces it was *him* anyway when they play the song, they credit the band he was in when the song came out. Publishing - it is all about the publishing. At this point use the orginal song in any production and it does nothing for any member of the band - just goes into the pockets of the label who have made their money back 100x over. But the person who wrote the song - yes, he gets a check.

One more story - A singer who writes some of the most heartfelt songs around and the band he is in, his band really, has been around for 25 years. Yet 95% of the world has never heard of the band or him. Every new person who "discovers" this band is blown away when they find out they have several albums out and have been around for 25 years...number one comment "Why aren't these guys huge???" At first they had to deal with a major label who decided to take this bands promotion money and put it into another, more popular (at that time) artist. This include their video budget and what little tour money they might have had. They couldn't get reviewed on the east coast until they played on the east coast - but the label wouldn't let them play the east cost...unless they paid for it themselves. (Read - "You want to showcase for the east coast press - you book the venue, you pay for the backline, you fly the band out there. You can come in and use our phones to call the reviewers however.") Along this 25 year path they have tried to get their music into films and on TV. They can't seem to get the right "big" push - they came close when the character of "David" on Beverly Hills 90210 got a job at the school radio staion. The bands promo photo adorned the wall of the station and the poster for the then current CD was on the wall above "Davids" bed. Pretty ironic that a band that the character seemingly liked enough to put a poster in his room was never heard or seen. (Ironicly another singer I know was hired to sing "Knocking on Heavens Door" because the producers coudn't afford what Guns and Roses wanted to use their verison of it. They really wanted it to sound like G'n'R so someone knew about this band with a female singer who had a bluesy voice - so they hired her. But even that cound't get them to use one of her bands own songs.) What is the point to this story? The singer and songwriter who has worked so hard and turning out music that has touched people in ways some of us can only dream that our work will someday touch someone has gone unnoticed. Want to use their music? Well at least one film maker did - the label sent them over to the singer and sort of said "Um...whatever he wants" and the singer, of course, said go for it. Too bad it was only a short film - and I highly doubt that it has played or aired in enought places to garnish any amount of royalites - but really this is not why the artist allowed his song to be used anyway. In this case the artist has paid for, and produced, the album. Really the label only distributed it. Nice deal if you can get it - not the norm however.

This is just to sort of put the main idea out here, once again, that their are many, many artists who are talented and would love for you to use their music. There are also many, many bitter artists who were/are in such a haze they didn't, and still don't, know what is going on and still others who really have been screwed over because of lawyers, labels and unfair laws. Not everyone is in this business for the money. Not everyone thinks the world has screwed them over. Yes everyone wants to see something for their years of hardwork but in a lot of cases it isn't really that important. In the case of the first singer I talked about - you could read MusicVids story and feel that by using any artists music "legally" you were helping out that artist..but clearly this isn't always true. Use a McCartney penned Beatles song, for example, and you wouldn't be putting money into Pauls pockets at the moment. The issue wouldn't be if he needs it or not, the issue would be that, as musicvid nicely has said "rather than seeking validation by asking if you really have to ask before using someone else's music, because you aren't making any money off it, or you are in business as a struggling videographer, and you don't see why something that's played on the air shouldn't be free, think of your kid and that school talent show and what it would be like if your living depended on income from that song he or she is singing tonight." So I do agree - use a Beatles song and if we don't pay it is taking money out of Michael J's pockets. Sing a song by the first singer I talked about and not pay for it's use and you are taking money out of the people who were low enough to take advantage of a drug addicted "rock star" when he was in a haze.

Ok - so here is the real point of what I say to all of this always - because the system is like it is now most people do not think there are ways to go about getting the needed license other than the "obvious" methods - and in going those normal routes one often gets the high end prices that once paid many of the artists never see much of anyway, and in some case not at all. And, as I said in another thread, the highest % of people out there shooting their kids dance recitals and graduations and so forth and than making dubs for their relatives don't have any clues that they are breaking any sort of law. Now I am *not* talking about publishing at this second, I am talking about the "getting the right to use this artists song in my video". Now in the scenerio that Musicvid mentioned "kyle" has written all these songs and kept publishing on them and he seems to be getting his royalties - much like the person I talk about in my second story. A school buys the sheet music and "kyle" would get a form of royalties. Someone buys a CD with one of "kyles" songs on it and he would get royalties. The radio plays an artists cover version of one of "kyles" songs and - say it with me - "kyle" gets royalites. And so on. However if you just take one of "Kyles" songs and use it on a wedding video and sell 100 copies of it - than "kyle" probably won't know about it or get any money from it. Chances are the label who owns the recording of the song won't either. This is where the problems start to come from. This is what the problem really seems to be - how does one contact "kyle" to see if one can use his song for anything? Perhaps one would try the label who either blows you off or tells you to pay them $2,500 or more for it's use but than also tells you to go talk to the publisher because they will have their own fee. Or what about the publisher who does the same thing? And once this is all done - there sits "kyle" with no knowledge that his music is being used for a car spot airing in Gants Pass, Ore. until he gets a check from BMI/ASCAP saying it was used in a local/regional TV ad...than "kyle" can go to the label and ask "Hey where is my cut of the mechanicals?" So, as many have said, how about some method of someone contacting the artist directly and saying "hey kyle i want to use your song in my film - I have a local band that will cover it and I'll record them doing it. How much?" or maybe "kyle" has his own version of the song that he will sell to you for a set amount? After all it *is* "Kyles" song right? So he can record it versions of it in any format and any style he wants and give it to whoever he wants. But the issue is how does one contact "kyle" and not the army of people ahead of him who claim to be looking out for "kyle" but may be only looking out for their own pockets? After all Musicvid says that "It is also likely that when you are in a supermarket, department store, office building, or "any"-Mart, you will hear his music interspersed between Kenny G. and old BeeGees tunes" so royalties aside someone must be making money from "Kyles" music - and it doesn't seem to be "Kyle".

yes the laws are in place to "protect" people like "kyle" however you need to ask youself a question - "How many people in the *world* are making music?" and than ask yourself "How many of thse people would allow me to use their music in my project?" and *than" ask "How do I contact all of these people?". Well thanks to the internet - let us all remember it is called the World Wide Web for a reason - we have a tool at our fingertips that can be used to find many of these people - and talk to them directly. More and more sites pop up daily with new bands, and old bands, and sites that deal with licensing. There is a change in the air - and many musicians are leading it.
farss wrote on 8/16/2004, 12:54 AM
filmy,
thanks for sharing that with us and taking the time to write it, yes I did read all of it!
However these scenarios are not limited to just musicians, authors, playwrites and artists in general all have suffered the same fate.
The previous discussion about expiry of copyright leads me to a set of perhaps specious conclusions.
In the digital age recordings can now survive forever.
There is a finite (but large) number of ways to arrange and perform music.
If copyright was made eternal then eventualy all possible music would become copyright at some point in the future.
If copyright eventually expires then at some point in the future no music could become copyright.
Unfortunatley my calculator ran out of digits trying to predict just when either of these events are likely to occur, presumbly it's about the same time hell is predicted to freeze over. Still it's something to consider. Perhaps it explains why for the last few decades the number of notable works seems to be diminshing.

Bob.
RichMacDonald wrote on 8/16/2004, 9:06 AM
Ok, so how can we keep Kyle's kids fed and also allow me to make a free backup of my CDs/DVDs before my kids get their dirty hands on them?
Spot|DSE wrote on 8/16/2004, 9:23 AM
You can do this now, as part of Fair Use. The problem comes in to play when you decrypt the encryption used to lock the vid. THAT issue has been clearly settled for now. You can't do it legally. I'm certain this will be turned around in some fashion in the next 18-24 months. For all but the most mass-produced CD's, this isn't at all a problem, as they're not encrypted. DVDs are quite another story with Macrovision/CSS, etc.
But the industry's position is, and likely will remain one of "if you wear out a pair of jeans, you don't get a free pair, if you wear out your motor, you don't get a free new one, etc. Why should music be different?"
Regardless of your opinion on the subject, any reasonable person will agree that this is a somewhat rational position to take. When we bought LPs, 8tracks, cassettes, we bought new copies when the old wore out. Now that they don't wear out and can only be damaged due to some form of abuse...
What do you do when your client comes to you 2 years later and says, "my kids got their dirty hands on my company promo DVD, can you give me a free replacement?"
You might make one, but because you've created a new mechanical device, does Kyle get additional revenue as the result of a new copy of the project containing his work being made? (he should, that's specifically what mechanicals are for)
corug7 wrote on 8/16/2004, 10:47 AM
I know this guy. He goes to my church, and he has a hard time keeping a job. His name is Al. Al K. Holik.

Seriously, I do understand why these artists would be upset about the use of their songs without permission.

The biggest problem is that there is no simple way for people in our industry (in the US) to play by the rules even if we want to. If someone comes to me and wants a wedding montage, and they want "OUR SONG" included, and I say "I'm sorry, I can't do that because I don't have the rights," they will just go to someone who will do it, and there are A LOT of those people.

The response by the music industry seems to be "That's not our problem."

Something that irritates me even more, despite the fact that the probablilty of being prosecuted for it is almost nil, is that if a song is playing in the background, I can't legally use that sound in my video. It is almost akin to the argument about smoking. Where does one person's right to blow smoke end? At my nose? Until someone comes out with an affordable way to cleanse the air of offending background music, I am going to use it in my work. Rather, I am not going to spend endless hours tweeking the sound so that the music is unintelligible. How else am I to retain the sweet nothings whispered by the Bride and Groom at a reception when "THEIR SONG" is playing in the background. Just as Musicians deserve to receive compensation for their work, I deserve the right to perform my job without fear of reprisal or financial duress. I don't get paid enough to deal with that, and I shouldn't have to worry about being strongarmed either.

Like I said, the probability of being sued is almost nil, but the fact that I even could be churns my stomach. Call me what you will, I call myself a REALIST.
farss wrote on 8/16/2004, 3:06 PM
Something that we never seem to discuss is what is the position of artists, these are the people that matter surely. Is their lot getting better or worse, are there more of them or less?
From what I can see overall the last 100 years has been pretty good for them. More people can afford to listen to music, read books and have paintings in their homes. Much of this due to the digital revolution.
But I'd be interested to here from those in the industry. All the arguments and the millions of words about copyright will in another hundred years just be a blip on the timeline of history. What really matters is are our lives getting better or worse and not just the public in general but more importantly the lives of artists in general.
From the little I know it would seem there are more people than ever creating music, writing books and creating moving images. I can now with a few mouse clicks discover music made in countries I couldn't even find on a atlas. That's great for us, but is the fallout from this going to inspire more of us to create or is it going to kill the creative process.

Bob.

PS, none of this is getting Kyles kids through college. Again Kyle's being ignored.
filmy wrote on 8/16/2004, 3:25 PM
Good question Bob! Too bad there aren't too many good answers - not that the answer aren't 'good" but the reasons people do things are varied.

Some people are in it for the money. At every level. I will name this name because he is pretty open about the reason he got into everything is pretty much out there, put out there by him. Gene Simmons of Kiss has pretty much always maintained he stoped teaching and started rocking to meet girls and get laid. His love for horror films and the extreme helped make Kiss a top draw and countless people have been influenced by Kiss. Along the way Gene has been a producer and an actor and in both cases when he would be asked why he was still doing "Kiss" he would always say "For the money". There is a horror story out there about the Kiss comic - it was being done with the blessing of Paul and Gene until it was finished and ready to come out. Than Gene made a call to the guy doing it and said, in so many words, "You can't do this. I have lots of money and will destroy you unless you give us everything." So you know - try to use something Kiss related with extreme caution.

However not everyone is like that. But not everyone just wants, or needs, to get their music heard. Others are just guns for hire and they probably make out the best because they are always working and getting paid to do what they "love". I can say from my own personal experiance that it sucks to not get credit for doing somehting. I co-wrote a song with a musician who ended up in a band signed to Warner Bros...my name was no where on the record, let alone the actual writing credits. But in the long run I am not tyring to sell myself as a songwriter so my future is not really at stake because of this one person not giving me credit.

On the money side it *really* sucks to work hard on somehting and than not get paid. Have had that happen as well - I felt a bit better knowing that the same producer left an unpaid money trail through out Hollywood and that it wasn't just me who was suckered by him. But on the other hand it should be my choice if I want to work for no money, or if I want to charge for my work. I work closely with a lot of musicians and most of them feel the same way but they don't always get a chance to do what they want - too many handlers. In my personal view I have seen artists loose more control over their own wants and be more controled by venues, managers and publicists. I think a huge part of it has to do with far more acceptance of the "teen idol" and these managment companies come in and buy up these artists lives for the most part. Many of them don't write their own music and turn to certian writers who churn out the same music for 100 different teen acts. (This is almost akin to buy out music and the reason more than one teen act has put out the exact same song in the same time frame)

On a film/video level I think certian 'events' that have happened should belong to everyone. But I am probably in the minority on that feeling. After September 11 a lot of people changed their outlook on life. I know some news camera people who were seriously considering changing what they do because of the 'scum' who snuck down to the locked zone in order to get "exclusives". Or people who got as far as the "legal" press zones and than bragged about what it was like. The people who were trapped when the towers fell have had serious issues with various things - such as their bosses making lots of money with footage they almost lost their lives shooting. September 11 can be forever looked at in a educational and historical way and I find it disgusting that some people were out there the same day selling "stock footage" of lower Manhattan. This is not to say that credit should not be given where credit is due, nor is it to say, again, that people should not be paid for their work - but there really is nothing stopping someone from selling footage of jumpers to the highest bidder for example. To me that is where some sort of "I shot this/made this/created this/wrote this" type of "law" should be in place. being a "work for hire" is pretty cut and dry except where it might involve something life changing, IMO.
PhilinCT wrote on 8/16/2004, 4:14 PM
Great Post. The issue is not that people steal the use of music, but that it is too difficult to buy the rights. Thankfully I have been married too long to have a wedding video, but if I had I would not even consider one with stock music, nor would I wish to see my daughter's dance recital video of her moving to different music then what she danced too on stage. Same for plays, thousands of community theater performers wish to see a good recording of their performance. None of these seemingly simple and life cherishing moments can legally be recorded today!

Someday the music industry will find away to let us pay them.
Phil
farss wrote on 8/16/2004, 4:22 PM
Filmy,
thanks for taking the time to write up such a long reply!

But in amongst all the legal argy bargy, do you (and others) think the lot of the average artist is getting better or worse? Are there more people creating and has the dramatic changes in technology enabled many who'd not been able to have a chance before or is it as I think SPOT suggested, that there's just SO much stuff out there that it's now almost impossible to find the good amongst the bad?

I remember as a teenager taking a short walk around any suburb you'd come accross at least one garage band giving it their best. Maybe I don't walk as much as I used to but they just seem to have vanished. Are they all hiding in a virtual space or are there fewer guys willing to do the hard yards of learning to play a real instrument or hold a tune.

Your comments about 9/11 are interesting, I guess not much can happen these days without it being captured on video. You sort of hit on a topic near to my heart, making a buck from others suffering. Maybe my ethics are too high but I don't know if I could find the stomach to hold a camera to my eye to record such an event. In my limited travels many times I've seen things I'd have loved to record but somehow, something in me says it isn't right to just capture some one else's image. I'm not even talking about stuff for money, just for my own use. I just feel that I'm taking advantage of some one else's less fortunate circumstances. To me this is what is at the core of "copy" right.


Bob.
Spot|DSE wrote on 8/16/2004, 5:19 PM
In somewhat support of my belief that technology has enabled many to make works (some good some bad, lotsa bad) notice that we've not had, and likely will never again have a Pink Floyd Darkside of the moon that was on the charts for longer than many people who were alive at the time. The days of labels building artists are gone. There will always be the occasional band or individual that will stand out, but (and maybe I'm wrong) there aren't any bands or individuals out today, that appear to be prepped to withstand the tests of time. Perhaps a Josh Groban, perhaps...or someone soon will come along that will appeal to the masses over time. But I don't see another Elvis, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, etc.
What the hell do I know...? I've was "Debut Jazz Artist of the Year" in the same year I was given a Dove award and found in the New Age bins, as well as the Native American bins. And was called a "World artist" by Rolling stone in the same year.
The industry today is about 'get em' in, get em' out, squeeze one or two hits, send em' down the road packing."
Look at Train....dropped for fewer than 500,000 units, after they won 2 Grammy's. Michael Bolton lost his deal for having fewer than 1M units, so was Rod Stewart. It's just a numbers game now, no integrity to the music mattering to anyone at the top levels.
One benefit of technology is that the playing field is *slightly* more level, with record companies (and HBO/Showtime/Discovery) paying more attention to the movement on the web. Problem is (IMO) is there is a LOT of crap to wade through to find the diamonds.
farss wrote on 8/16/2004, 6:13 PM
SPOT,
I think the 'lot of bad' comment is only too valid. I wonder how it's going in the other arts? We always focus on music but I'd imagine the same is happening with literature, poetry, painting etc.

Interesting you mentioned Dark Side of the Moon, watched a doco on the making thereof. Not only was that all done with analogue they didn't even have automation so it needed a few guys with cue sheets to drive the desk. I wonder how it would have turned out with the stuff we have today or would it never have happened. I always used to argue the opposite, being a techy type myself but I'm feeling more and more that making the process easier somehow kills off the creative spirit.

Bob.
filmy wrote on 8/16/2004, 6:46 PM
>>>do you (and others) think the lot of the average artist is getting better or worse? Are there more people creating and has the dramatic changes in technology enabled many who'd not been able to have a chance before or is it as I think SPOT suggested, that there's just SO much stuff out there that it's now almost impossible to find the good amongst the bad?<<<

Yes and no. On the yes part I think that there are probably more people making music now because of the "ease" in which it can be done. But just because someone can pick up Acid and some loops does not make them "good" nor does it really make them a "musician". Same goes for every one who buys a video camera and gets "free software" with it - it doesn't make them good, nor does it make them a "director" or "editor". And that is where the "no" part comes in.

Look at this another way - when punk sort of hit kids all over sort of went "We can do that!" and many a musician was born out of not knowing a damn thing about music, or the business. You might say it also gave real birth to the indy and the whole DIY movement. I know a guy who came over to Hollywood to work in movies, he was a punk from England and he used to say American punkwas made by a bunch of wankers who didn't have a clue. And I could see that because in England it was about something - somewhat like the 60's were here. But really - what were the Ramones? I loved them...but not because they had any sort of message. They were FUN. But if it weren't for that punk movment you wouldn't have people like Henry Rollins or Mike Watt or even Clem Burke. And in turn you wouldn't have bands like L7 and the LunaChicks and in turn bands like Blink 182 and Green Day. One thing leads to another, even if it is in direct. I say bands like Haunted Garage and the Genatourturers go back to someone like Screamin Jay Hawkins even though there was Alice Cooper and Kiss in between. I highly doubt some 15 year old right now thinking how cool it would be to dress like the dead and come out of a coffin has ever heard of Screaming Jay Hawkins.

So you take the whole PC revolution of right now - take Acid and take toys like Guitar Rack. get a Mac and Pro Tools. Not only can you make music you can record your own CD. There is a hell of a lot of talent out there, yes you have to find it...but it *is* there.

And this goes to the state of things overall - about 4 years ago I was asked to be part of an interview about film making. The guy starts asking me questions and I am am answering him and he stops me and says "Look, you keep telling me about these films but have you done anything on VIDEO?" See he was doing a story about feature films and directors who shoot video...and he said I really didn't fit in because I had only done 35mm feature film work. That comment has stuck with me to this day because in "old" hollywood it used be that people who had never worked in film, only video, were not taken very serious overall by those who worked in film and here I was being told what I had to say really wasn't important because I didn't work in video...not just video, but feature films shot on video. However he did use one comment from me - and I still say it today. I said that the whole video/computer revolution was good and bad - good because anyone can pick up a video camera and make something. Bad because anyone can pick up a video camera and make something.

On the other hand - and this is important - we now have 'everything" available to us because of cable, satellites and the internet. Can anyone really do something that no-one has seen or heard before? And if you look at what "big" films are coming out it is kind of sad. Remakes and sequels. I said this in another thread a few months back and it hasn't let up. Either the industry is in a really bad slump or it is just easier to pay for the rights to remake or do a sequel to something than face a lawsuit saying you have stolen something. And music has gotten an enitre new genre based around raves and such - yeah it is sort of like disco but easier to create. Slap a drum loop up and do some heavy keyboard sounds. IMO I don't think Acid would exist like to it does without that genre. I got into a conversation with a friend of mine who plays guitar - the topic of softare came up and they were pretty put off by Acid because there are no good loops out there for the whole neo classical metal vibe. And I hadn't thought if it that much until that point - but it is true. On the one side making music has gotten easier, but on the other it hasn't changed all that much.

So to really pin point your question - more "musicians" are out there, but technology really is not going to make someone play better if that is what they do. It make make someone "compose" easier or create demos easier but someone who wants to sit down on a garage band level is still going to be the same - they just might be able to record cheaper demos with a computer however. For those into recording, now we onto something - there could still be lots of "wow" factor. The first Boston album could be done today - NIN could be done again. Hendrix? Oh for sure he would be using a computer. Sgt Pepper? Oh yeah - times 100. (For a laugh check out Betallica - yes, it is what it sounds like. Beatles songs done ala Metallica. Pretty funny) Les Paul - really the person who started the whole mulitrack idea - for sure. Would any of this have the same effect? probably not, but that isn't the point - "is it good?" is the point. And remember not every single 10 year old has heard much of this "old stuff" - even NIN is "old" now. That is why someone like Blink 182 can come out and jam on old 80's metal and teens go wild, to them it is new. It is why a band like Phish can do a final show and sell over 70,000 tickets at about $150.00 a pop - to those 15 - 25 year olds who never really got to see the Dead they were/are the real thing. But to me it is just s local band who knew how to jam...sort of a garage band who hit the big time.

On the film side - I meet a lot of people who want to be the next big thing. They don't get that there are hundred of films made each year. Thousands world wide. FIlms that you might never see. Are they all good? No. But neither are the films that studios put out either. You can direct, you can edit, you can produce - you can do "anything" if you want to. But doesn't mean you are going to be the next big thing. But I DO think that the ease in which someone can now learn how to do these things is easier. Like I said before - pick up a video camera and do it, talent is learned as well as born.
musicvid10 wrote on 8/16/2004, 10:05 PM
Great comments, Phil, thanks!
OP
Spot|DSE wrote on 8/16/2004, 10:13 PM
Can anyone really do something that no-one has seen or heard before?
Yeah. Absolutely. Some of it might appear to be derivative at first glance, but it's not. Check out Linkin Park's "Meteora."
To toot my own horn, 15 years ago no one EVER had put Native American flute together with jazz, pop, heavy metal, or symphonic works. We caught a GREAT deal of hell for that. Same with Faruk Tekbilek when we did his "Suliman the Magnificent" recording. We got death threats, and this was way before 9/11. New sounds, new instruments, totally creative ways of doing things. Yes, there are many new approaches, fresh ideas, new deliveries of old ideas, but that is really what anything/everything is about, isn't it?
Overall, I agree, but think it's important that we keep in mind there ARE creative geniuses at work in the entertainment biz.
Farss, I don't think it's quite as wild in some of the other art forms, there isn't digital sculpture, painting, metal workings, etc. It's harder to do in those forms. A computer might assist, but the overall knowledge of the craft still requires an apprenticeship or a damn gifted soul, IMO.
Filmy, I'd dispute by definition, the person that makes music with ACID not being a musician. The computer has BECOME an instrument. How it's played, how it manipulates audio, how it's presented are all part of the artful craft of conveying emotion. Might not be your or my cup of tea, but it IS an artform, no different than the guy who paints with a Wacom tablet and Photoshop.
Acts7 wrote on 8/17/2004, 10:38 AM
I think its a sad state of affairs when you cant legally have your son's piano recital on video even though you purchased the sheet music - because someone else "owns" that song. Or if you buy a copy from someone who shot it professionally - thats even worse because now there was money involved.

Heres a really sad story... The church I go do has a passion for modern and cutting edge music. When they make of dvd or video of the service - THEY CANT INCLUDE THE MUSIC on it - UNLESS they purchase special licensing to include the music on the video. And thats a WEEKLY thing. How many people want a copy of a message / service - yet they cant injoy the bands performance unless the church shells out the clams for some songs that are getting put on a video that is given away??? Its just ridiculous in my opinoin.

spot - if I can ask what did you receive a dove award for - or if spot misses this post - does anyone know?

Thanks for listening to my $.02
filmy wrote on 8/17/2004, 2:07 PM
I think we are saying the same thing Spot. All I was saying with the "do anything that hasn't been done" comment was much like what you just said with the "Some of it might appear to be derivative at first glance," comment. I put in my Screaming Jay Hawkins comparison as an example. I don't consider Haunted Garage anywhere near what Screaming Jay Hawkins did, nor do I put King Diamond or Gwar in line with what Alice Copper did - but they all use the scare factor and horror movie themes in their shows. Toss in some fantasy and D and D and metal guitar and double kick - it always seems to evolve but also comes in cycles. When rock bands started using rear screen projection more and more people used to say what rock bands used it first. I saw Johnny Cash in maybe 1975 and he used it.

Even your own example about your flute playing 15 years ago. Before that there was Jethro Tull, there was Heart, there was Electric Light Orchestra to name a few of the more popular hard rock/heavy metal/acid rock/your heavy music descriptor here bands that also had flute. It may *not* have been native american flute but the combination of intruments had been done before so at a basic level if using flute in heavy music as already there, you might say you took it up a notch.

I don't think the overall "this will change things that way we know it" factor is as big as it used to be. At least not so much with music. Film to video, however, is still in a "wow" mode and the ability to have people who can not see, talk or move be able to create art via eye movements or subtle body part movements by using a computer is still very much a "wow" thing. Imagine seeing a film so amazing and powerful it makes you weep and than find out it was shot by a blind person and the music composed by a deaf person.

I don't always equate something brillant or moving as something that has never been done before. So I hope no one is getting that from what I say. And on the subject of Acid and loops - at the root of what Acid can do, anyone can do it. if I go out and hire top notch musicians to play a song and than I mix it and master it with Vegas does that make me a musician? I would hope no one thought that, I sure wouldn't. I never considered Eddie Schryer a musician even though he was/is one of the best, if not the best, at cutting master disks. I can not play flute for example, but if you gave me the notes I could put them into a midi program and have those notes play out with a flute sound - doesn't make me a flute player. However if I took a song and did a "Big daddy bouncing house mix" version using Acid and loops it would be a bit closer to what I might consider a musician. Taking a song and rapping over it is sort of iffy however. It is creative, and certianly some people have made a huge chunck of money doing that. Yes people can use computers to compose, I was not saying that at all - but if you can not play piano, or drums, or guitar or flute - using a program like Acid still won't make you be able to do it. Using a keyboard, or a Midi program, with those sound banks might be able to make it seem like you can play the real thing however.

I think my head is still rooted in getting people who do what they do, to do what they do. If I wanted a native american flute I would hire Spot if I had the budget. If I wanted rock violin I would probably hire Jami Szmadzinski. If I wanted neo classical metal guitar I would hire any number of the neo classical shredders out there... but if I wanted a slight Egyptian feel I would hire Marty Freedman. If I wanted emotion with a blues vibe - Clapton. Pure blues - maybe BB King. I really wouldn't want to take a midi program and put on "blues" and have it spit out somehting. I have tried it and it really made me cringe.
Spot|DSE wrote on 8/17/2004, 3:35 PM
Ah...heck Filmy, for you I'd play for free.... ;-)
OdieInAz wrote on 8/17/2004, 4:19 PM
A church I used to attend went to great lengths to keep things "beyond reproach" with ASCAP. Don't know the details, nor the $$$, but we ended up with a license to project the lyrics to contemporary sons for those unfamiliar with the particular song. Every copyrighted tune we used for slide transparencies had to say something about the license from ASCAP, including license # (in tiny print, of course).

I think we paid a one time fee for rights to use a bunch of songs in this manner. If the tune wasn't public domain, printed in a hymnal, or licensed from ASCAP, we didn't use it.