Shan-Lyn and Dennis, I think mixing artists' music goes back to the whole thing of "mash-ups" that another poster brought up. As far as appropriation goes, there have been cases where artists have taken action against others where proper permission wasn't given, the best example I can recall being the Enya/Fugees song. As far as artists' building their careers on other's music, well, I'm a little more lenient on that due to the fact that that's how a lot of people get started. Yes, there are musicians and artists and theatre people who solely try and create original compositions from the start, but the majority of people learn from those they like. Now, if they tried to base their entire career off of appropriating music or art or plays, well, then I think they get what they sow. However, I don't necessarily feel bad if I like Marie Digby's cover of Rihanna's Umbrella song better. As far as this pertains to Loreena, I think there have been a few cases of artists' using Loreena's songs here and there as an inclusion to their body of work. To my knowledge, no one has really mashed up her work that I can tell or used it solely to launch their career. I understand where you are coming from though.
As far as the downloading music goes with regard to these posts, it is becoming clearer to me that this is turning into a bit of a generational gap. I guess I never realized the divide until this conversation was started, but I remain confident since Loreena initiated this discussion, that she will figure out a way to provide what we as consumers and collectors want in the future, be it high quality downloads, CDs for those that want them, and the like.
Hi Loreena, I would like to first say that I think you are a beautiful, interesting and very talented lady. I enjoy your music, and concerts very much. Your voice and melodies can send chills through my body.(nice chills) I've been listening to music for a long time. I enjoy many different artists over the years, and still do. I don't think music should be free, and I have always purchased originals. I also really enjoy the information about the music, lyrics etc, and the art work that comes in the originals. I also think that it gives a better understanding of the music. I will say that my collection has over doubled since I have purchased copies for different formats. I still have my old obselete, state of the the art stereo for vinyle, that sounds excellent and sometimes more realistic, and a 7.1 dolby that sounds excellent also. When I purchase some music I do so to support the artists, the shop owner, people trying to make a living, and it is a concious decision that I want to have my own personal copy. However I don't feel I should have to repurchase to hear new formats. I'm not sure how clever we think we are getting with all this new technology. The data on cds,dvds, does not last forever,it has a shelf life of about 25 years or less so I understand. Its a good thing the monks who made the Book of Kells used thick glazed vellum or parchment. I have also witnessed a lot of music shops close in my own small town. The process has almost become generic, and disposable or very short lived and impersonal for some. I really enjoy the live concerts in small venues the best, and would like to see more. In closing I have also witnessed many people who can sing and play who are musically enclined and do it because they love to, not sure if you can put a price on that. Robert.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert,
Posts: 40 | Location: Canada. | Registered: October 31, 2006
Hi Loreena...See what you started?? Really great topic. Shan...like I said in my 1st post..This can get very complicated. Loreena has a cousultant to keep it all straight and legal. You have to admire her business acumen in treading these waters.
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dlaws99: Hi Shan...more interesting stuff you bring up, but think about this. Elvis never wrote a single song. Sinatra never wrote a single song. I don't think Harry Connick Jr. has any of his own original material. The Byrds broke out with a Bob Dylan song (speaking of Bob), and The Eagles broke with a Jackson Browne tune. The song "You Don't Know Me" was written by Eddie Arnold and performed by Eddie Arnold...and Charlie Rich (best version)...and Ray Charles...and Harry Connick Jr. It's a "standard" (whatever that means). Here in Monterey, a small town, on any given Friday or Saturday night, there may be 100 or so professional musicians playing at the local clubs and such. Multiply that by all the cities and towns across the US and Canada and you have literally thousands and thousands of musicians, all playing other people's music. --Dennis--
Hi Dennis, I do understand what you've explained. Maybe it's me and just my view on 'authenticity' as I've always created my own songs. I had my fav artists when I was young (and they're still my favs), and learnt a lot about them. When Bob Dylan first broke out into the music scene, he was able to do this by first 'selling' many of his songs, (eg. to Peter, Paul & Mary), but though the lyrics/music belonged to Bob Dylan, it was Peter, Paul & Mary that gave it the 'flavour' and invested their passion into it. Bob never sang a single note. He collected his royalties this way before finally hitting the stage on his own.
Another eg. is Leonard Cohen. One of my favs when younger and actually born in Montreal, and when he sang "Suzanne" no one could really give it more merit than he, until Judy Collins came around (another one of my favs) and it was noted that no one was more qualified to sing Leonard's songs than Judy, because she respected that certain...how would I say...."quality and ambience" that a song will hold by its original artist.
What I'm trying to explain, is that many young artists today, don't do this. They just take a song from a well-known artist and virtually desecrate the whole 'feel' that it's original creator made. And I think that there should be at least some respectful collaboration between a well-known artist and one just breaking the ropes in, before the 'newbie' goes on a spree. At least, Judy Collins already had made her mark in the music industry before.
Yes, the times they are, indeed, changing. Because the artists today, just seem to take without any type of respect. I'm not putting all the young aspiring artists in the same boat, but there sure is a lot of lack respect going around nowadays.
Is it because they know they can legally get away with it? That they just don't bother to at least collaborate fairly with the well-known artist?
Elvis, may not have not have written a single song, as you've said, but look at all the imitators... I mean, they can't even develop their own style.... It's known that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but seriously, I think that some lines should be drawn somewhere. Take care.
Oh, Ms. McKennitt, I forgot to mention that another thing that is changing in the music industry is that people are turning more to New Age music thanks to Enya because she is getting more popular than we think. --Loreenya
Posts: 315 | Location: Sterling Heights, Michigan | Registered: December 04, 2007
Hi Shan...more interesting stuff you bring up, but think about this. Elvis never wrote a single song. Sinatra never wrote a single song. I don't think Harry Connick Jr. has any of his own original material. The Byrds broke out with a Bob Dylan song (speaking of Bob), and The Eagles broke with a Jackson Browne tune. The song "You Don't Know Me" was written by Eddie Arnold and performed by Eddie Arnold...and Charlie Rich (best version)...and Ray Charles...and Harry Connick Jr. It's a "standard" (whatever that means). Here in Monterey, a small town, on any given Friday or Saturday night, there may be 100 or so professional musicians playing at the local clubs and such. Multiply that by all the cities and towns across the US and Canada and you have literally thousands and thousands of musicians, all playing other people's music. --Dennis--
quote:
Originally posted by Shan-Lyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Loreena: SHIFTING MUSIC INDUSTRY PRESENTS NEW CHALLENGES
More and more I think of the Bob Dylan song, “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” Well it seems no business or industry is inured from this fact of life and particularly so the music industry.
<snip>
On a final note, I’d be interested to learn about your thoughts on the current state of the music industry. Do you think music should be free? Do you prefer to get your music online or from a music store? To discuss these and other issues, please visit our message board and share your views.
LM
Whilst it is true that a lot of music is obtainable 'gratuit' on the internet - as the internet is a vulnerable area for an artist to keep their works under a strict copyright law as this would require an exhausting surveillance - I am under the opinion that 'samplers' of the music should be laid out instead to the internet public media. This may not make people happy, so it's left at the artist's discretion to allow only certain songs they wish to propagate 'gratuit' in an effort to 'satisfy' their fans, while still being able to keep them coming for more. Careful discernment is needed by the artist, no doubt.
There is another area which I'd like to discuss. This may not be in what Loreena has specifically asked, but I have need to voice my opinion in another range: What I do find somewhat disturbing is when other people seek to take the song of an artist and build their own professional music career on that very song.
I do understand that certain works of music are accessible to the public, (public domain works) and various artists with their own unique styles will endeavor to try out the same lyrics according to their beat. What I find somewhat disturbing, however, are 'copycat artists' who are just beginning to break into the music industry and seek to imitate another artist. One can experience a lot of this on "YouTube" or "Google".
I must elaborate more in detail: Trying to 'imitate' is one factor, but if aspiring new artists are actually seeking to build monetary assets for themselves by using the very same song that certain artists (eg. Loreena) whom have poured their soul and passion into lyrics (even if the lyrics are considered 'public domain') and have created a very unique style/slant to these lyrics where the song becomes a virtual work of art or beautiful masterpiece that is loved by millions, then I am under the firm opinion that 'new aspiring artists' should try to be more authentic by breaking into the music scene by first creating their own lyrics, and thereby demonstrating their own unique style, instead of trying to get a 'free lift' and audience by capitalizing on a well-known artist.
I am under the opinion that well-known artists should take a certain measure of caution with their 'sheet music', as to not enable other musicians to desecrate their own blood, sweat and tears in a song they've made famous and loved by millions of fans. The distribution of 'sheet music' should be for the folks who simply want to practice their music lessons at home, but again, when some seek to actually monopolize by basking in the limelight of well-known artists and using them, these are 'music vultures'. IMO, copyrights should be slapped hard on 'sheet music'.
The aspiring new artists could at least have the courtesy to write to the well-known artist and let them know, "I want to build a musical career on your music, may I?" . It sounds strange, doesn't it. But if the 'sheet music' is there, legally available for them, they can easily turn around and say, "Hey, you don't care about your own music, so I'll take over and build my own musical career and I'll gain perhaps even your own audience". Ouch.
Ok, I've rambled my thoughts on that issue. Next...
As for the purchasing of music, personally, I like to buy the 'whole CD' rather than individual songs. I find that buying the music from a music store has a certain 'feel' of quality to it. However, if I really like an artist's music and their CDs are not available in stores, then I will purchase online. But rarely, as I take into consideration the privacy of my personal information.
Again, it's always at the artist's discretion as to what they would deem more appropriate for their own business in the handling of their music.
Kind regards, Shan-Lyn
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
Hi Loreena, 'In her book 'Treehouse' - a dedication to her poet father, Leonard Wolf, - Naomi Wolf refers to his belief that it matters not ' whether your creative work is valued in the marketplace, what matters is whether or not it is yours'. Further, that what is important is that the you (the artist) 'has put your emotion into it,driven your artists discipline into it, seen it through to completion and signed your name to it...recognising that your only wage maybe joy'.
When I listen to your music, in fact every time my partner and I watch your concert from the Alhambra (which is often), I think about Leonard Wolf's sentiment a lot...the only difference being that I would never think about not paying for the pleasure of listening to your creative endeavours. Or indeed the pleasure one can get from a visit to a specialist music store...a conversation with the learned owner, and the sheer joy that comes from finding someone else is on your wavelength.
Look forward to the time when we can see you live in concert in Australia.
Originally posted by Loreena: SHIFTING MUSIC INDUSTRY PRESENTS NEW CHALLENGES
More and more I think of the Bob Dylan song, “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” Well it seems no business or industry is inured from this fact of life and particularly so the music industry.
<snip>
On a final note, I’d be interested to learn about your thoughts on the current state of the music industry. Do you think music should be free? Do you prefer to get your music online or from a music store? To discuss these and other issues, please visit our message board and share your views.
LM
Whilst it is true that a lot of music is obtainable 'gratuit' on the internet - as the internet is a vulnerable area for an artist to keep their works under a strict copyright law as this would require an exhausting surveillance - I am under the opinion that 'samplers' of the music should be laid out instead to the internet public media. This may not make people happy, so it's left at the artist's discretion to allow only certain songs they wish to propagate 'gratuit' in an effort to 'satisfy' their fans, while still being able to keep them coming for more. Careful discernment is needed by the artist, no doubt.
There is another area which I'd like to discuss. This may not be in what Loreena has specifically asked, but I have need to voice my opinion in another range: What I do find somewhat disturbing is when other people seek to take the song of an artist and build their own professional music career on that very song.
I do understand that certain works of music are accessible to the public, (public domain works) and various artists with their own unique styles will endeavor to try out the same lyrics according to their beat. What I find somewhat disturbing, however, are 'copycat artists' who are just beginning to break into the music industry and seek to imitate another artist. One can experience a lot of this on "YouTube" or "Google".
I must elaborate more in detail: Trying to 'imitate' is one factor, but if aspiring new artists are actually seeking to build monetary assets for themselves by using the very same song that certain artists (eg. Loreena) whom have poured their soul and passion into lyrics (even if the lyrics are considered 'public domain') and have created a very unique style/slant to these lyrics where the song becomes a virtual work of art or beautiful masterpiece that is loved by millions, then I am under the firm opinion that 'new aspiring artists' should try to be more authentic by breaking into the music scene by first creating their own lyrics, and thereby demonstrating their own unique style, instead of trying to get a 'free lift' and audience by capitalizing on a well-known artist.
I am under the opinion that well-known artists should take a certain measure of caution with their 'sheet music', as to not enable other musicians to desecrate their own blood, sweat and tears in a song they've made famous and loved by millions of fans. The distribution of 'sheet music' should be for the folks who simply want to practice their music lessons at home, but again, when some seek to actually monopolize by basking in the limelight of well-known artists and using them, these are 'music vultures'. IMO, copyrights should be slapped hard on 'sheet music'.
The aspiring new artists could at least have the courtesy to write to the well-known artist and let them know, "I want to build a musical career on your music, may I?" . It sounds strange, doesn't it. But if the 'sheet music' is there, legally available for them, they can easily turn around and say, "Hey, you don't care about your own music, so I'll take over and build my own musical career and I'll gain perhaps even your own audience". Ouch.
Ok, I've rambled my thoughts on that issue. Next...
As for the purchasing of music, personally, I like to buy the 'whole CD' rather than individual songs. I find that buying the music from a music store has a certain 'feel' of quality to it. However, if I really like an artist's music and their CDs are not available in stores, then I will purchase online. But rarely, as I take into consideration the privacy of my personal information.
Again, it's always at the artist's discretion as to what they would deem more appropriate for their own business in the handling of their music.
Hello Loreena, You are fantastic! I enjoy your music and listen to it everyday. I prefer to buy your music directly from you on your website, that way you earn all of the income. I have most of your recordings and prefer to listen while I paint, as I am an artist myself and believe we must pay our artists, musicians, writers etc for their creative work always! or we will find the field emptying of top quality artists. Thanks for your lovliness and vision, hope to see you in concert again, as I was able to twice this past year. Lois Allen Charles
Posts: 2 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: November 03, 2007
PS - Releasing to the public domain is important. Current copyright laws have essentially drained dry the well of the public domain all in the name of profit. In a work-for-hire business, profit is assured by the time the work is released. So releasing to the public domain has little to no economic cost to the creator, but it does revitalize the artistic community. Mash-ups are the latest craze, but remixes and sampling can also be important artistic endeavors. Refreshing the well of the public domain is important for future artists the culture they will create.
Especially since many of Loreena's songs draw from public domain texts.
The question is not, "Should music be free?" The question is, "Music IS free, so how best to make a living from it anyway?"
It is human nature to share things we think are cool, people will never stop doing that. The internet makes it essentially free to share all forms of ideas - jokes, stories, pictures, movies, books, recipes, software, knitting patterns, etc and music recordings.
So, instead of trying to fight human nature and put the genie of the internet back in the bottle you as a creator need to figure out how to harness human nature and make it work for you.
Xuenay's already talked about the "ransom" business model - which is essentially a work-for-hire model. I believe that work-for-hire is the only feasible method of making a living as a creator where copyright is unenforceable.
One method of work-for-hire is the subscription - sign up fans to pay some amount every month, just like subscribing to cable tv. As long as each month's subscription revenues are at least equal to your minimum selling price, you release a recording to the public domain or maybe one of the more permissive "Creative Commons" licenses.
You might tier it so that there are a couple of pricing levels - if revenues reach the lowest level, a low-bitrate mp3 released, at the medium level a high-bitrate mp3 and if revenues reach the highest level a lossless flac released or maybe even the individual tracks as they were recorded so that people can remix the music, like the way Trent Reznor has done.
You can also have voluntary pricing - each subscription has a minimum fee, but fans can choose to pay more if they want. That way your greatest fans, those who really, really want to have a new recording released can put their money where their mouths are and help to insure that the revenues are high enough to meet the selling price.
Another option is custom performances. For those with enough money, sell one-off recordings of your songs that incorporate custom lyrics. Kind of like the way Elton John remade "Candle in the Wind" after princess Di died.
Ultimately the idea is to get paid directly for the labor of creation. Nowadays anybody can make a copy of a song, but only you can create a new Loreena McKennitt recording. So charge money for the creation, the part where you add value that nobody else can and leaving the unprofitable business of copying to somebody else.
PS - Releasing to the public domain is important. Current copyright laws have essentially drained dry the well of the public domain all in the name of profit. In a work-for-hire business, profit is assured by the time the work is released. So releasing to the public domain has little to no economic cost to the creator, but it does revitalize the artistic community. Mash-ups are the latest craze, but remixes and sampling can also be important artistic endeavors. Refreshing the well of the public domain is important for future artists the culture they will create.
Two arguments affect my position on this.. The first relates to the listener's ability to pay. From my perspective it should not be free to me - I have disposable income and can afford it, so I think it fair that I pay something for the music that I enjoy. But, what about someone who can't afford it and would an artist want their music denied to somebody if they genuinely can't afford to buy it? I don't think they would. Retailers can't operate in a manner that matches price to an individual's wallet so they charge a price which they think will make the best return.
The second point concerns what the artist actually receives from a CD sale. Generally, it's something like 50c to $1 - a ridiculously low fraction. The publisher and distributor soaks up the majority of the income, and has defended this by arguing that for every successful artist there are many others who are not successful which the record label is supporting/developing. Fair enough but again, the internet is making this tradtional business model redudant - the likes of youtube offers publicity.
I think Radiohead had the right approach to these trends when they lauched their latest album via internet. To recap, they didnt set a price and instead asked people to pay what they thought it was worth. I understand the average price paid was about $5. So, the band got 5 times the amount of revenue over what they would have traditionally have recieved and the average customer got the album for at least half of what they would have normally paid. Win win.
So, I think the new model will benefit customer and artist - it removes intermediaries something that both artist and listener will welcome.
A final point to note is that I prefer buying CDs. But I suspect that is a generational thing. I recall when I was a teenager, the record stores were full of teenagers. Now they're full of 30+'s ! So where are the kids getting their music? Well, from the internet. Any artist should be conscious of this - if they want their music to appeal tto the new audience, the next generation then they have to offer it in the media that that generation uses... downloads!
I am a firm believer in the idea that nothing is free. If we, the consumer, are downloading music, someone pays for it. We pay for it in ads or in some other fashion.
That being said, I am a child of the computer age. I've been downloading music since I was in college. I'm not proud to say that there was a time that I pirated music. However, that has definitely changed.
I don't believe that there is a detectable difference between mp3 audio at 128 kbps or up and old cassettes or vinyl. CD depends on the bitrate of the mp3. However, I do think that the method of downloading music is fantastic.
I'm very comfortable with paying for my music downloads, but I am unhappy with the restrictions that have been put on them. I used to get exposed to so many artists by sharing CDs or tapes or whatnot. Now, I can't say to a friend "Hey check this artist out" and send them a file. It's unfortunate that the social aspect of music has diminished.
I think the music industry has done a lot to hurt the consumer. I think they really need to re-assess the way they handle this new age of digital music and consider not being as greedy. I think greed is ultimately what is hurting all of us. That goes for musicians and listeners combined.
Thanks.
~Jessica
Posts: 1 | Location: Milwaukee, WI | Registered: April 20, 2008
Free music? You usually get what you pay for. If music was free (except for what one creates for oneself) we would be deprived of creativity and expression. Purchasing CDs or downloading? Where are the liner notes in a download? Where is the art work? CDs may have miniaturized everything compared to vinyl but at least we still have access to the story behind the "product." It is so rare that you attempt to bond with your fans, admirers, whatever we are. It is very much appreciated. Your music doesn't bring to mind the business of music but the art of it.
Really great topic.
