Re: Great article on music sharing/streaming.

[www.stereogum.com]

I have never liked any of Albini's music and very little of what he has produced (not because I think it is bad, just not my tastes.) by I have always respected him. Sort of like a punk Zappa. His words here are so spot on.

Spot on?

"The one exception to this was the brilliant BBC DJ John Peel."

Wait, what? Is that a typo? The one exception? Has he never heard of Rodney on KROQ? I still listen to the Rodney comps on a fairly regular basis - that and the Flipside comps are just as essential as the Peel Session comps. Maybe Rodney never played Big Black and that's the reason for the omission, I dunno...

BCE, I meant his views on streaming and the current state of music.

I can't imagine listening to any of Albini's music, though I've enjoyed all of his productions I've bought. What I like most about Albini is his intelligence and forthrightness. He seems like the most honest guy in the "music industry." I generally always read any interviews and pieces he writes. He seems to tell it like it is, even though I don't like downloads, personally.



Former TP subscriber [81, 82, 83, 84]

[postpunkmonk.com]
For further rumination on the Fresh New Sound of Yesterday®

As I read this piece, I kept waiting for Albini to address the quandary of how musicians can make fair money from their recordings, in the online music business.

Well, I was right.

Quote

"Music has entered the environment as an atmospheric element, like the wind, and in that capacity should not be subject to control and compensation. Well, not unless the rights holders are willing to let me turn the tables on it. If you think my listening is worth something, OK then, so do I. Play a Phil Collins song while I’m grocery shopping? Pay me $20. Def Leppard? Make it $100. Miley Cyrus? They don’t print money big enough."

Sure, he was joking about the grocery store experience, I know ... but that first sentence confirmed my suspicions. Albini apparently doesn't have answers to that problem that are any better than anyone else's.

don't know what the article said (since OP posted cold link) but it's worth noting
a) he has opined with his answer to that very question in the past as a public speaker and elsewhere
c) he's one of the only producers that doesn't take points
e) loved me some Songs About Fucking over the weekend what a genius album (but better than Rapeman or Atomizer? Couldn't tell!)
g) also heard the new Shellac and it's the best of the last few



Post Edited (11-20-14 19:25)

Delvin, his point is that things are better now than they ever were. Before it was difficult to get an album made and distributed. Now those things are fairly easy. The only musicians who benefitted from album sales were the rock/pop stars. The middle to lower class bands were getting screwed by their labels, or didn't have enough of a following due to poor distro/exposure etc. So if you are a working class band, its easier to get exposure (which means you can tour easier.) If your sound is good and you work hard, you can make a living.
And like Paganizer said, he gets paid by the hour instead of collecting royalties for his engineering, so he practices what he preaches. His philosophy is very working class and punk.

Oh yeah, I knew about Albini's compensation ethic as a producer -- sorry, Steve, I meant as a studio engineer. I remember his statement in an article about In Utero: "In my opinion, anyone who gets royalties for a record that he didn't write or play on is a thief."

I was just saying, he didn't present any ideas about how musicians can get paid reliably and fairly for online distribution of their music. Sure, the new systems make it easier for an artist's music to receive wide exposure, but it doesn't ensure that even a talented, worthy artist can make a living. I see this as a big deal -- the underbelly of the online system. If anything, he made light of the whole issue with his grocery store joke. (Don't get me wrong, the man's entitled to joke about whatever he wants. But for a guy who's widely regarded as a principled thinker abou these things, he didn't seem to have anything to offer about that one.)

Of course, the web page kept pointing out that Albini had a lot more to say, and provided a link to the full text. So perhaps he does have ideas, that just got overlooked in the editing.

I don't know, Delvin...I get Albini's point. He probably knows a lot of people who ended up declaring bankruptcy thanks to the old system.

I have really good friend who was in middle management at Rhapsody.com, and Tim Quirk (of record label train wreck/slept-on-my-late-dog-Maggie's-sofa band Too Much Joy) used to be their creative guru or something along those lines, so I bought a Rhapsody subscription at their behest many years ago.

My friend works for Zillow now. Tim Quirk is at Google. My $15 a month Rhapsody subscription remains. I can afford it. And I don't think I'm taking money out of the wallets of babes.

Albini and Quirk have a lot in common on this topic (another lead balloon re. Quirk):

[www.theguardian.com]