should everything be commercially available?

my attitude is that all music deserves to be heard by as many people as might be interested in it. and that outside club culture, "thorough, well-curated" career overview collections are a good way to expose interesting & important artists to curious would-be fans.

my attitude is half-formed as usual, but i take issue with this.

some music goes out of print because of the vagaries of business, legal wrangles. or because people forget about it. or because nobody who knows about it considers it commercially viable to publish it.

but sometimes artists deliberately choose to release limited editions, small runs, hard to find records. and there might be a number of reasons this happens. to create a deliberately valuable or collector-y object, for example. National Record Store Day stuff strikes me as harnessing this kind of thing for good rather than simple profit inflation but maybe best not to get into art vs. commerce arguments when the line is so blurry already. another reason people might want to make their records hard to find, or transient, or exclusive, is a feeling that maybe not everything has to belong to everybody who wants it, that communities can try to hoard their own commodities?

the functional logic of the market, especially the online market, and the continuing existence of mp3 blogs and other free copyists of the arcane means that this idea is open to being contested at all times, and is practically near impossible. but i think the questions are interesting - why should artists' work be available to any curious audience? why shouldn't artists seek to exclude, to try to speak only to the audience they choose?

i'm not talking only about "elitism" here tho i guess that's part of the answer for some people. i just think the idea that everybody shd be packaged in some way for my convenience is an idea very much born of the specific market economy we live in and not the self-evident democratisation it might look like.

...and also because to present a piece in one context and not another might feel to the artist like a change in the actual qualities of the piece

this started as a discussion of questions i was asking in the nomination and discussion thread for possible top 100 electronic dance tracks of the 00s, but yeah, i agree that it probably deserves its own thread (not least so that it doesn't clog up that one).

in general, sure. artists have the right to determine how their work will be presented. some court the broadest possible audience while others keep their work more secretive for various reasons. i have no objection to that. but as we move farther away from the point at which a given work of art was created, it belongs less to the artist and his/her immediate context and more to "the world" in general, to the evaluative and categorical impulses of posterity.

though people are different, of course, i assume that most artists would welcome some measure popular acclaim and acknowledgment, especially as they age past their moment of peak celebrity within their particular niche. better, imo, that the septaugenarian moodymann be loved by the world than by a die-hard cadre of 12"-hoarding dance partisans.

i guess all i'm saying amounts to "he might well not see it that way, and why not?"

like i say, the internet renders this argument moot in a lot of ways, but the cussed bit of me usually admires people who don't want the world's admiration.

Is it better to matter to fewer or be another takeaway flyer trudged into the ground?

i think it's fine if you want to reach the biggest possible audience and fine if you don't, but i think that the kind of desire for artist retrospective/overview that contie was talking about isn't valid across all artists or forms of music.

Again, from a dance music perspective; Ben UFO says he tries to keep Hessle 12"s in print (toward end of interview) and I like his strand point on this;
http://www.littlewhiteearbuds.com/podcast/lwe-podcast-115-ben-ufo/

As a purchaser of vinyl it does irritate me when labels do short runs. It encourages this sort of idiocy on Discogs; http://www.discogs.com/Anonym-Chelsea/release/1806423

well, everything is a "takeaway flyer" to those who don't care. and everyone has the capacity to care deeply, whether or not they're deeply invested in a particular scene/moment.

i sort of wonder if the philosophical and aesthetic assumptions of certain scenes keep artists effectively imprisoned there. it may well be that kenny dixon would say "no" to soul jazz (or universal or whoever) if they approached him about releasing a three-disc career comp. if so, then that's his business, and so be it. but if it's not that, if his music is being held back from the world at large by the insularity of the community that supports him, then it's hard for me not to see that as something of a shame.

the question is moot. there was aesthetic value in shorter runs & limited editions, and it is imo a minor loss to culture but a loss nonetheless that you can no longer have such a thing. but given the immediate total availability of everything, there really isn't any such thing as a short run or limited edition, not in the sense that there was when you either had something or knew a friend who did or you were never going to hear it/see it/even know about it.

i think that the kind of desire for artist retrospective/overview that contie was talking about isn't valid across all artists or forms of music.

but validity of that sort doesn't exist, not in a universal sense, anyway. the desire for a retrospective may not be valid according to one way of thinking about it, but that doesn't make it any less valid in other contexts. adaptability and flexibility are more generally valid, imo, than philosophical purity. once art exists, people should be free to make of it what they will. this is valuation, not devaluation, even if the meaning and function of the work change radically.

re: the immediate total availability of everything

it's not as easy as you might think to track down all those moodymann 12"s. given his rep, a lot of his best work remains surprisingly obscure.

yeah you're right, I enjoy dance stuff when I hear it but it's not something I know much about - I can really only speak for my own little corner, where limited editions are sort of a way of talking a customer base who knows they can have everything for free into dipping into their pockets for something that's a little more special than a bigger run

yeah i nearly mentioned artists like Nurse With Wound who seem to me to be using exclusivity to different ends - a deliberate collectability. again i see nothing wrong with that. i guess part of the issue here is that music is one of those art forms where the product can be separated from its physical presentation - a lot of record collectors don't buy the records especially for the music they contain.

like i assume it wd be a lot easier to track down Moodymann's whole oeuvre in some form *cough*mp3s*cough* than to get hold of all the vinyl

yeah, it just takes some doing ... as i'm finding. i'd love the have the 12"s, but i'm not made of money, so files will do just fine.

Had this thought, oddly, this morning, stamping my feet about a RSD release that was not even available in the UK. And within half an hour of stamping my feet, I had it.

And that's been happening so much recently, that things which are not ~commercially available~ for whatever reason - within 3 clicks I have them anyway. And I find this frustrating - so I can't imagine how the artists must feel about this.

Are they not available because there are licensing issues, or problems with the record label - or because they want to keep their work out of the hands of boring, uncool middle aged women like me? Would they rather just have been paid for my getting the thing, and they're frustrated with this system too?

On the one hand "everything, all the time" culture really freaks me out a bit. It seems so tilted towards breadth instead of depth. (Though I'm such an obsessive that, the things I love, I'm going to really love and obsess on and carolanne play over and over until I'm memorised every detail.) But I'm not sure that this enforced rarity is such a wonderful thing, either. It just seems to ensure that your precious things end up in the hands of twats with money to burn.

If it's a quality issue, where an artist thinks that their Work X is really deeply terrible and they don't want anyone to hear it, I'm sympathetic to that. (Hell, there's an album I wish I could scrape off the internet, but our moneygrubbing former label have other ideas.) But that's a different mentality to the thing of trying to create a collector's item fetish object.

I'm trying to fetishise objects less, to be honest. I feel like I'm drowning under physical possessions and I just wish I had less of them.

Whats RSD?

I guess when its famous people stuff gets in the hands of marketeers that scoop them up and drive up the price, thats stuff kinda already aimed at a core fan base that will buy anything as long as it has the name on it, i don't really get that mindset though

otherwise if its a smaller print run well its probably actually about the right size for a print run - don't really think of that as enforced rarity - just the correct amount of something, instead of overpressing

but i don't understand completism, i don't understand buying something because its got a particular name on it, i don't understand paying more than $10 for a record, maybe $15 for something old and out of print. loads of amazing records sitting out there in stores or on discogs for $1

lots of the things I'd really like copies of are impossible to find and then if I do find them they're dirt cheap

i don't understand buying something because its got a particular name on it

the rest makes sense to me, but this is a little baffling. names can be helpful indicators of content.

naw i mean having to buy everything that comes out just because of what name is on the sleeve, the completism thing - idgi

RSD = Record Store Day, mentioned upthread.

I suppose with a small print run, it's hard to tell what's going to be the proper amount of records to press. The enforced rarity angle only comes in when it feels like someone is deliberately pressing less than the demand. (Thinking of that Uncle Acid & The Deadbeats thing from last year here)

xp

oh yeah, that. agreed.

Completism makes sense if everything an artist touches is gold. There are some people I'm like that with, that I know that everything that makes it into print of some kind is likely to be good. Then there's people like Richard D James where really, there are diminishing returns on the rarer stuff, and quite frankly, there's no way to collect it all, neither do I feel the urge to.

i think that "everything somebody touches is gold" is in the ear of the beholder tho. i can totally understand the urge to want to hear everything done by an artist you love enough. i'm less sympathetic to buying stuff with nothing on it you haven't already got because it's collectable, but if that's how you want to spend your money then good luck i guess.

Well, I think some artists have better quality control about what makes it through the gates.

Some people don't feel the need to release 12 limited edition vinyl albums of analogue synth noises. (And yeah, I waited for the MP3 release.)

I suppose what I'm saying is, I think that everything shouldn't be commercially available, but it should really be up to the artist to know what not to put out, even if people are howling for more releases.

lol thing is me and you differ about the Analord stuff tho i wdn't defend everything that's ever been released by RDK :)

RDK??? dunno how that happened, must be a lost Kennedy brother

lol most of my fav records are by people who made other records I really don't need to hear

a record that becomes rare on immediate release is bullshit imo, yeah that enforced rarity thing - want no part of that

old records that are rare - thats cool - minute they got big price tags on i'm no longer interested though i don't live in a museum

otherwise if its a smaller print run well its probably actually about the right size for a print run - don't really think of that as enforced rarity - just the correct amount of something, instead of overpressing

this may be true at the time, but nothing is true forever. like with dance music, labels probably print to demand (or imagined demand, anyway). as many DJs as you figure are gonna need one, that's how many you print. and if more are needed, then you print some more. but the needs of DJs in the moment may not be a good indicator of the long term interests of the world in general. that's where a purist focus on DJ tools and live mixes might become a limit on the ability of the music to find its "proper place in the world".

^ yeah but most of that stuff is going to turn up cheap enough on discogs anyway

lotta $1 bangers out there from the past - more than you could ever wade through....problem is usually finding out what things are as much as finding copies

i once went to a Record Release Party gig of a freak-folk act known for ltd runs of their CDRs, and you couldn't even buy said record AT THE SHOW. it was already "sold out"

problem is usually finding out what things are as much as finding copies

yes! and this is why concentrating on "significant" artists isn't always the most rewarding way of approaching some genres

the fun in owning a copy for me is totally destroyed by that kind of elitist bullshit

guarantee there's a million $1 12s out there more fun to play and more fun to own

"significant records" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "significant artists"

Hey, I like the Analords. Mostly. I just REALLY think he needed an editor to go through and whittle them down to about, say, 6 albums. But point taken. I mean, I really don't need any Smojphace records, K?

I dunno. Some people have one really great record in them, and you don't need to worry about the rest. But with other artists, it's like you learn to trust them, and accept that you'll give an ear to most anything they do.

define significant however u want

yes! and this is why concentrating on "significant" artists isn't always the most rewarding way of approaching some genres

has nothing to do with genre and everything to do with the way people approach music. to some listeners, "significant artist" is a very helpful way of negotiating the sea of musical possibilities. to others, less so. like, i'm specifically interested in moodymann at the moment. someone else's opinion that artist-orientation is not the ideal approach to the genre is therefore useless to me.

i was careful to say "not the most rewarding". i get that orientation is very useful for some people. i get that when you hear something you really dig you want to immerse yourself in it. but i'm suggesting that there are other ways of exploring records that might ultimately prove to be a richer experience, and that some genres are less amenable to a "great artist" reading than others.

yeah, i get you. it's not like an interest in a specific artists can't happily coexist with interest in significant records, dollar bin bangers, etc.

like i don't give a fuck about a standard canonical history of rock music either but i can see that a) on some level it is a true reflection of the way popular rock has been produced and consumed and b) the canon is so entrenched that it's a legitimate thing to discuss and think about, even if you contest it or reject it

neither a) nor b) are necessarily true for all flavours of music tho i think

or one level it makes a lot of sense to think about the history of dance music as being centred on the garage bands and one hit wonders and not the Beatleses

and some of this might account for why single artist comps are less of a thing

like i want a copy of this is jungle sky vol 4 for that soulslinger "rock lobster" thing. can't imagine anybody wants much money for it, and don't feel inclined to immerse myself in the soulslinger ouvre.

I do think this conversation is being derailed by the fact that we're talking about several different genres - not that it's the genre itself that makes a difference, but who is expected to buy a record. That if we're complaining bout limited runs for indie artists who only expect to sell 100 copies vs limited runs where DJs are the people who will buy the records? (Sometimes wonder how some labels manage to stay afloat considering they seem to give out more promos than they ever sell 12"s but still.)

i said right at the start that there's different reasons for limiting supply but any and all of those are pertinent to the thread question i think.

and some of this might account for why single artist comps are less of a thing

this is true, but i'm inclined to think that important artists sort of "deserve" a certain kind and quality of attention, perhaps especially if they toil in genres that don't focus on the significance of the artist as an organizing principle. like it's their due for the work they've put in and the joy they've given, a gesture of thanks. it arguably makes them easier to share with the world at large in a way that will amplify the gratitude.

i'm primarily concerned here with EDM artists, the way that their legacy is perpetuated and shared

"deserve" vs market economics vs the artist's wishes for themselves is the nub here isn't it?

once your product is out in the world you don't have much choice as to who takes an interest in it, but it's reasonable to try and exercise choice as to the ways in which your work is presented to the world - as far as you have control over that.

and isn't there something beautiful about the idea of an art without legacy? about evanescence (cue terrible band joeks) and experiences that live within maybe a finite set of brains?

not that i'm identifying any particular artist for who that is or isn't an ideal, i'm just suggesting it as a possible ideal

i love finding old records and its like wtf is this, and it just is what it is and who even knows

and isn't there something beautiful about the idea of an art without legacy? about evanescence (cue terrible band joeks) and experiences that live within maybe a finite set of brains?

yeah, it is a nice idea, especially in this commodified age. and i'm new to the artist that this is all sort of indirectly centered around, so i can't really speak to his desires and how they play into the way his legacy has been curated. i'm just a recent convert to his music and naively want it to be more recognized among the (perhaps imaginary) group of "people like me".

I think that perhaps the whole Nuggets goldrush thing kind of turned me off that ideal of "ooh, I will find this old record that will be WTF is this and who even knows" because it all got so carefully documented and labelled and found that after a while, it just became about the rarity of the thing, and not the actual goodness. And then when MP3s hit the Nuggets obsessives, it was just like... there no longer *was* such a thing as that kind of rarity when anyone could find, like, obscure 60s Thai garage rock covers of Bond Themes at the click of a mouse.

more music should be harder to hear

lol, sure. basically i just want the people who make the music i like to receive some recognition for it. maybe that's money, maybe it's acknowledgment, maybe it's availability or something else, i dunno. the more the better though.

What, recorded at frequencies that only dogs and children under the age of 15 can hear?

x-post

after a while, it just became about the rarity of the thing, and not the actual goodness

which is why afaik the widespread mp3 availability of previously obscure record collector stuff hasn't damaged the prices much? maybe ebay has pushed prices down because instead of hunting round yr local shops or record fairs you can literally search the whole world for things

seems to me that the prices for most things have gone up astronomically in the last decade, due to the fact that everybody in the world can bid on the same things at once.

ok that makes sense, i don't collect or pay it any heed

Who is the artist that this is centred around, because I'm sorry but I kinda gave up on the electronic music nominations thread after the first 500 posts or so. :-/

Sorry, I'm losing track of this thread because I've been trying to read it, and watch lifeboats out on manoeuvres in the bay, and steam some vegetables and drink a pint of doom bar all at the same time, and my concentration is shot.

Great thread idea this. NV what you said about ' the idea that everybody shd be packaged in some way for my convenience is an idea very much born of the specific market economy we live in and not the self-evident democratisation it might look like' very much struck a cord with me. Like in the past I've seen people more or less dismiss whole genres of music because they lack ease of consumption, or because they don't fit with the exact method of consumption preferred by the listener. It's a very entitled attitude and beyond that just not a very healthy way to approach the world.
OTOH though I'm not sure I'd want to hold up artists who stand against this process of extreme availability as some kind of heroic figures. Although I'm not convinced this is the case with Moodyman in particular, I think that generally only releasing music in small runs, only releasing your music on vinyl/physical media etc can often be quite a cynical exercise that is very much part of 'playing the game' in the music industry - because it hypes up demand for your music, with everyone rushing to get hold of a precious copy before they vanish, and it because it creates a kind of mystique of your music being in some way special (whether or not this is borne out in reality) which in turn helps guarantee a strong niche fanbase who feel bonded to it and return over and over again. Also it obv feeds into this whole culture of collector-fetishisation which I also feel is not very healthy.

"ooh, I will find this old record that will be WTF is this and who even knows" because it all got so carefully documented and labelled and found that after a while, it just became about the rarity of the thing, and not the actual goodness.

totally agree with this, its more about just hearing things and going oh yeah this is great. i like a lot of "small records" in that i dont want to say look at this "amazing best ever hidden nugget" more like, ah im feeling this right now, its a smaller thing

which is why afaik the widespread mp3 availability of previously obscure record collector stuff hasn't damaged the prices much?

because loads of great old records aren't expensive, will never become collectors items, and discogs is full of them

(Realise a lot of what I said already covered by other posters but felt like chipping in anyway).

think the thread is about kenny dixon jr/moodymann

Oh, Moodyman. Never mind! I gotcha.

"i love finding old records and its like wtf is this, and it just is what it is and who even knows"

i endorse this statement.

think the way im looking at this is when you go to a foreign city and see the sights and yes the sights are amazing but just wandering around neighborhoods and getting the bus somewhere randomly is also amazing. are those streets more amazing than the great cathedral or gallery....no probably not, but i know where i have more fun

relevant interview with kenny g of ubuweb just went online seconds ago

http://rwm.macba.cat/uploads/20120425/memorabilia_kenneth_goldsmith_conversation_eng.pdf

Like in the past I've seen people more or less dismiss whole genres of music because they lack ease of consumption, or because they don't fit with the exact method of consumption preferred by the listener. It's a very entitled attitude and beyond that just not a very healthy way to approach the world.

as i see it this is sort of backwards, no offense. the problem isn't that people dismiss these genres, it's that they aren't given the proper point of entry. we aren't all obliged, after all, to find our way into all things. it just doesn't work that way. our lives are small and brief. for the most part, we find what we best help each other find. and that means adapting to the needs and wants of people whose needs and wants are different than your own.

if we prioritize "the record" over the artist then we risk marginalizing the artists that make records happen. a record never had an idea, never composed a track, never had to feed a family. it is people who do these things, and people who deserve the attention and reward for the place music holds in our lives. that's why i'm kind of a zealot about the importance of the artist, and about the value of sharing and outreach. sure, there will always be interesting records to find and buy for cheap, but that does little for the artists who made them.

there will always be interesting records to find and buy for cheap, but that does little for the artists who made them.

― THE KITTEN TYPE (contenderizer), Thursday, April 26, 2012

true for all used records regardless of price

also i buy plenty new music

new records: cost price no limited edition bullshit
old records: cheap dont line scalpers pockets

and there are a lot of great moodymann records either way

The underground will always be alive and well. The mainstream doesn't care about us. We're no threat to them because they can't possibly understand us. You know, in this culture everyone wants to be in the white hot center. I say let them. We'll take the margins where there is real freedom. This will continue unabated for those who cherish such values.

from that Kenneth Goldsmith interview. feeling him.

"a record never had an idea, never composed a track, never had to feed a family. it is people who do these things, and people who deserve the attention and reward for the place music holds in our lives"

wait, hold on, are you saying that people are better than records? that's absurd.

feel like if you want to remain outside the library of babel then you shouldn't record and distribute your music

that seems a bit absolutist

to be fair, most people shouldn't record and distribute their music.

god loves a trier

as i see it this is sort of backwards, no offense. the problem isn't that people dismiss these genres, it's that they aren't given the proper point of entry. we aren't all obliged, after all, to find our way into all things. it just doesn't work that way. our lives are small and brief. for the most part, we find what we best help each other find. and that means adapting to the needs and wants of people whose needs and wants are different than your own.

I take your point here - certainly people aren't obligated to investigate anything, and certainly there are also many people who would be willing to give something a chance if it was more easily available or closer to their current sphere of interest. I am also very much in favour of the kind of sharing of knowledge among fans that you talk about here, and indeed this makes up a large part of my engagement in online music discussion, despite my feeling that I'm neither an expert or an insider on anything much in particular. And there have totally been times when I've shared the frustrated sense you describe that an artist is harming themselves - both in terms of their chance of getting the recognition we feel they deserve and just their ability to make a half-decent living - through the way that they choose to release and present their music.

However I also do believe that people's decision not to engage with certain kinds of music is not solely down to the scarcity/availability of it and ease/difficulty of access to it considered in an objective sense - it can also often be to do with the particular ways that someone has chosen to consume music, and to they way that they see themselves as a consumer (and sometimes perhaps more widely as a person). Common examples of these choices that I'm sure we've all encountered - "I will only buy music on vinyl, I refuse to buy mp3s as I feel they are worthless and that labels who trade in them have poor quality-control". Or "I will only buy albums of individual tunes, and don't listen to collections of DJ-mixed music or radio shows because they do not give me enough close control over what I listen to and when". Or "I will only buy and listen to mp3 at 320kb and above, anything lower is offensive to my refined sense of hearing".
(I realise here that I'm splitting the difference between what I presented upthread as two different sides of the debate. I dunno, it's something I need to think more about).

There is no reason for music should be hard to get in 2012. Exclusives are a great way to make me completely disinterested in your music; why should are you making it harder for me to give you money?

And allowing music be out of print in the age of digital distribution is completely asinine and borderline obscene in this age of eternal copyright.

as i see it this is sort of backwards, no offense. the problem isn't that people dismiss these genres, it's that they aren't given the proper point of entry. we aren't all obliged, after all, to find our way into all things. it just doesn't work that way. our lives are small and brief. for the most part, we find what we best help each other find. and that means adapting to the needs and wants of people whose needs and wants are different than your own.

and this isnt an entitled attitude...?

In the age of digital downloading, records that would otherwise not make enough money for a physical re-release should now at least be digitally available.

someone gave me a copy of the ruby jones album on curtom today for free! such a good album. sadly, none of you have ever heard it.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/8397241/Ruby+Jones+rjonesa.jpg

and this isnt an entitled attitude...?

well, no. i seem my "job" with regard to the music i care about as evangelistic (i'm bad at my job, btw). i don't want people to give it to me, i want to give it to others. it'd be nice if other people were doing the same thing, but i don't necessarily expect anything of anyone.

art history is littered with tales of ostensibly great and important figures who died in poverty and obscurity because the fashions of the moment changed or were never with them in the first place. with that in mind, there's every reason for every fan to be an evangelist, a popularizer, a sharer. this is the sort of thing that keeps an artist's name alive and allows their reputation to grow and spread. altruistic evangelism wants the beloved creator to be enjoyed and celebrated by as many people as possible, so that they don't have to suffer the indignities of waning cult celebrity.

scott, by way of comparison, is an accomplished evangelist. he may like records more than people, but he likes records a lot, so it works out okay.

i've got to say that your privileging the artist over the work feels like a way of justifying your personal preferences via the idea of "people are more important than objects", i don't think that argument holds archeologically or in a world of mass-produced goods. some aesthetics are about subsuming the individual in the culture - the culture is more important than Great Man theory, and who cares if the artist's name is alive?

and most times in a DJ set you won't have a clue who 90% of the records are by