Shifting Music Industry Presents New Challenges

I'm in my mid 20's and will freely admit to downloading music, but that said IF I like what I've downloaded I go out and buy it in digital format online. I do not believe that music should be free (unless those who make it wish it to be so), but I do believe that people should have the opportunity to hear what they may purchase. It would be nice to see the industry develop a file format for download that expires after one or two plays and does not allow for the file to be burned. I realise this is very difficult as no matter what encryption is developed it will eventually be broken, but it has to start somewhere. I know some online sites have streaming preview clips, but these are often very short, of rather poor quality, and do not give the listener a real feel for the music.
As for where I buy, I prefer online. I will buy a CD, but usually only when I'm at a concert. I do not believe we've reached a point where online distribution can be the sole method, but I do see a day when it could be. Digital formats have surpassed CD quality, reduce the cost of music, are incredibly easy to get, and can cut out the middle man in distribution leaving a greater profit for the artists should they choose to sell the music themselves.
The industry the way it is today simply does not work. Piracy is a very real problem and one that cannot be fixed by multi-million dollar lawsuits against fans (Metallica tried it and look how well that worked). The industry spent too long fighting digital forms of music rather than embracing them as a method and mode of distribution.
Even with more development in the area of selling digital music people will still download illegally, you will never eliminate it, but I honestly believe once the industry puts a real effort into selling music online you will see the number of illegally downloaded songs drop.
For me, nothing compares with getting the CD. It represents a complete work of art, not just for the music itself, and some albums should be listened to as a whole for their thematic approach, but also for the album art and performance pictures, lyrics, background information on the songs, etc. Again, in my perhaps backward opinion, it cheapens the value of the whole album experience when it gets downloaded piecemeal, sometimes even pirated, and all the labor and detail that went into creating a complete work of art is essentially lost. I've listened to Loreena's CD's for years, collected them all, they're a part of the background music to my life.
Hello Ms. McKennitt,

Great topic, and looks like there are many replies. I'll keep it short. I love music, and I do not have a problem paying for that love. Sure, I would like to see the cost be reduced. Sure, I would like to see the artist get most of the profits, and cut out the middle-man-large-greedy-corporation-types. Sure, I see a day when physical media distribution will be eliminated.

Currently, I prefer CDs, due to the fact that as a condition of fair-use, I want to be able to move a copy to whatever media I need to, to be able to listen. I will eventually digitize my entire collection, and then I may be interested in an electronic-only distribution. I only hope that the "industry" will settle on a free and open lossless standard. I am NOT a fan of proprietary standards (read Apple or MS).

All the best,

Billt
I notice that a lot of people keep saying that music shouldn't be free because the artist still needs to get paid. But music can be free and still guarantee the artist a living. I thought I'd mention a couple of more examples of this - Loreena, since you're in the music industry, you've probably already heard of them, but I thought I'd mention them all the same.

The simplest way to get paid nonetheless are "gratitude sales" - simply put up the product up for download for free, and offer an optional chance for the downloader to pay an amount of money that they choose. The band Radiohead recently did just this, with the result that nearly 40% of the downloaders did actually pay (link). The average price paid for a download (for those 40% who did pay) was six dollars. With 1.2 million people downloading the album, that's an overall profit of nearly three million dollars (2.88 million dollars, to be more exact).

There's also the recent Nine Inch Nails example - they didn't make their latest album free, per se, but they did sell it online at a very low price (five dollars). In addition, they sold more expensive versions of it, such as a limited edition, 300-dollar ultra deluxe version, and people bought it, despite the chance of being able to get the music nearly for free. This is also an answer to the people who are saying that music shouldn't be free because they like having the physical CD: music being free doesn't prevent one from also selling a physical copy.

There's also the ransom model option - under the ransom model, an artist announces that she has created, or is working on, a piece of art, but is holding it for ransom. The artist picks a certain amount of money and tells people how they can donate. If enough people donate so that the ransom amount is met, then the artwork is released for everybody to enjoy for free. In 2005, the game designer Greg Stolze announced that he was releasing his game Meatbot Massacre under the ransom model, with a ransom of $600. The amount was met five months before the deadline. This might technically not be making music "free", since somebody has to pay for it, but after the ransom sum is met it is free for everyone's consumption. It is also a great way for an artist to defend against file-sharing if they really feel it is cutting into their profits: nobody gets the music before the sum has been met, therefore nobody can copy it to their friends.

One final thought - there's a lot of music available online these days, be it legally or not. I would wager that the average youth today has a greatly larger music collection than the youth 20 years ago. In a way, the competition is getting more intense: even if people did pay for things they could get for free, people's money and attention are limited. Offering music for free may be a valuable way to not fall behind in the competition.
Good morning everyone.

My views on the purchase and distribution are probably just as complicated as the actual market! Let's see, though, if we can do a bit of summing up...

Presently:
- People will swap music whether the artists like it or not. This was initiated by the introduction of magnetic tape. I doubt there's anyone here in the days before CDs and MP3 ripping that didn't copy tape to tape...
- Do we go to parties? I would think so. Do these venues have a public performance licence (UK)? Probably not...
- Who here prefers try before you buy? I know that the majority of the CDs I've bought have been bought on that basis...
- Who is going to police the previous three items in this list?

In some respects the passing of MP3s provides artists with an extra level of advertising that they may not get through standard means. There are many CDs I simply would not have bought unless I had listened to the artist (s) in the first place.

I first listened to Loreenas music back in the early 90's, and have never looked back. Since then I have bought five or six of her albums and thoroughly enjoyed every single one. My favourite will always be 'The Mask and the Mirror', as it was the first ever. Even this one was on a taped copy until I bought it.

Another recent adition to by digital music collection is Pearl Jam's Ten (a truly classic album). I used to have this on CD but lost it in a move. I've now got a digital copy which has jogged my memmory, and I'll go and buy the CD again (probably from Amazon).

The thing that's obvious, as I say, is that it's practically impossible to protect all of the music all of the time; anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Perhaps, then, it's time to meet this problem head on and give away sample tracks from albums, saying: 'These are a couple of the worst tracks from the album, come and see what the best are like!'.

It's all about advertising, promotion, getting that picture across of how good the artist really is. Loreena's always been in my collection since the first time I heard her - I would not have it any other way. I dare say that there are a lot of others out there who simply have not heard her sing but would feel the same way as I if they did.


Kind regards,
Paul.
I prefer to buy music from a store or online from Amazon or Chapters only because I like having the CD with the information about the artist and music. I really enjoy Loreena's CD's with the booklets and the stories behind the music and how they came to be. I have downloaded music in the past but I still prefer the other way.
Although I have occasionally downloaded a song (when I wasn't really interested in the album (ok, I'm dating myself ... CD!), I prefer to buy CDs. Then I can download them into my computer myself if I want to, or just listen to the CD. I tend to make CDs of my most prized CDs for use in my car because I don't want the weather to damage the original disks. But I'm a CD buyer.

One other thing -- I read every word of the liner notes, and (probably because I do graphic design) would miss seeing the design of the product, which I greatly admire always.

-- barb
Excellent, couldn't agree more! The sooner rap & hip-hop go away the better!!!!!
Music is about one thing, music! You don't even need lyrics. When telling a story they are there to embellish the music and melody.
It is a shame how the people get stereotyped in the gangster rap thing however.
I don't like rap and/or hip-hop, but it has nothing to do with the people. I love the blues and I really enjoy the music of Robert Cray, Keb Mo', Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters, Otis Rush, Otis Redding and eight million other artists. It isn't at all about the color of skin it's about the music. There are artists doing rap like Eminem and I consider a lot of what Limp Bizcut does as rap (not all but most). The bottom line is if I don't like it it's gone!!!
I am very open minded about my music as I posted earlier. I guess you can't like everything. A lot of my friends wouldn't like Loreena's music, but that doesn't stop me from listening and going to see her. I'm sure there's many people that don't like Loreena's kind of music and that's what's great about living in North America, if you don't like it you change the channel or shut it off.

quote:
Originally posted by Loreenya:
quote:
Originally posted by Loreena:
SHIFTING MUSIC INDUSTRY PRESENTS NEW CHALLENGES

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


Hello, Loreena, or should I say Ms. McKennitt:

You touched on that issue of music as changing very well. I believe that we are losing sight of what music truly is. Nowadays, rap and hip-hop are taking over the airwaves, which is indeed most appalling, because it seems to be exclusive to and often associated with black people and thus, making them look like they are a bunch of gangsters and criminals. It's pure garbage. People claim that rap and hip-hop are "music", but that's not true.
The real definition of music is something with a "melody", like your music, which hip-hop and rap do not have, it's all talking poetry with laced with profanity, gross sexual content, drugs and violence. As your contemporary, Irish singer/musician, Enya said, "Music is the soul of any song". How about you, ma'am? What's your take on that whole hip-hop and rap nonsense?
--Loreenya
quote:
There's also the recent Nine Inch Nails example - they didn't make their latest album free, per se, but they did sell it online at a very low price (five dollars). In addition, they sold more expensive versions of it, such as a limited edition, 300-dollar ultra deluxe version, and people bought it, despite the chance of being able to get the music nearly for free. This is also an answer to the people who are saying that music shouldn't be free because they like having the physical CD: music being free doesn't prevent one from also selling a physical copy.



Speaking of Nine Inch Nails, I read somewhere that they put their new cd "Ghosts" up on Amazon MP3 thru TuneCore, and earned $1.6 million dollars in just a few short weeks. They are calling Trent Reznor a genius, as it only cost him about $50 some dollars to do that.
Loreena I am glad you asked this question of the community. I haven't seen such participation from any other artist that I know of. It is a credit to your dedication to your fans. It is also a question close to my heart as a musician and as a member of the Free Software Movement.

There are many things that can be done to move into the 21st century music world. Of course one of the most important things is to make it so that artists can still make a living producing the works that their fans love. At the same time that mode of production and distribution should be something in line with the level of current technology and needs of the community.

I am not going to try and convince people with my words as I am not the Verbose writer in the world. I am instead going to direct you to some pages about the Free Software and Free Culture movement that might give you some good ideas.

this first link is to a bunch of Essays by Richard Stallman talking about Free Software and licenses and such.
gnu philosophy

This second is to a website that talks about why DRM technology should not be included in music and in other media in general.
defective by design

These two links are to information on the Ogg Vorbis format. This is a music codec that is free for all to use and install. It is not encombered by patents and also give superior sound quality while compressing into a smaller space.
play ogg

vorbis website

This last site has information on Free Culture and Creative Commons.

http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
There will always be changes in societies that would try to suit new life styles. The music industry is just like the cinema industry with the issue of DVDs. Will DVDs replace going out to the theatre? NO. There is a convenient aspect about Online or DVD that suits people's needs BUT there is a fundamental need for socializing with other humans and being exposed to art, which you cannot have Online. Music is like books. You can get books via Amazon.com but it will never replace going to bookstores and browsing or sitting and reading a few pages on the spot, or even interacting with professional staff who can open your eyes on something else. You are exposed to much more than you would be by Online ordering. I always buy CDs and books from three dimensional places, but of course, it is very hepful to see what is out there by going online. However, I think it is good to have both as it makes marketing and accessibility to any lifestyle. One should not replace the other. And honestly, I do not think it will. There are people who like commercialized stuff, others who like art and quality. Museums will never disappear just because you can buy art online. In modern societies we have a tendency to forget that technology is a MEANS not an END. Music, art, books, movies, all have reached a point of being more accessible via different media in order to reach people worldwide. It is a great thing but let's not lose ourselves in techonology. It is good that in a small town in Africa one can download music but I should not be limited to do the same in New York City if I prefer to go to the store or order it online. It is about lifestyles and preferences. I love good literature as much as I love quality music. You do not download one chapter of a book and you miss the point in downloading one song from an album. There is continuity and artistic effort put in an album (particularly the style of Loreena's music)that most people miss unfortunately. It is like a classical music concert. You do not stop in the middle. An album is a story, and good art may not be understood by everyone. The music industry is changing, but this is not a threat. It just opens to other lifestyles and forms of accessibility. What matters is quality...and word of mouth.
Good morning
As I mentioned yesterday I was considering makinging my fist online purcahse. I decided to purchase "The Visit" via Itunes. I enjoyed listening to it on the way to work this morning. In retrospect I would rather have the physical CD since I do like to read the credits and of course any information the artist would like to share. Also the bit rate was only 128k. When I extract music from CD's to listen on my Ipod I set the bit rate higher.

Paul D
I purchase Loreena's music in CD form, and I prefer that (because, frankly, I like the packaging and the excellent recording.)

However, otherwise, I do buy a lot of singles on iTunes for my iPod. But I don't love the sound quality, and I've never bought an entire album that way -- I just use this for working out at the gym.

The only way I believe music should be free is when it's on the radio, or when there's one promotional song put out on the internet to intrigue listeners.
I believe music should be purchased. Artists need to eat. I feel proud when I support someone's genuine labor of love. Creativity is a vital pursuit, one to prize and perpetuate.

I enjoy acquiring CDs online--so much simpler.

I heard a comment on NPR about downloading singles to the exclusion of a musician's entire CD. The speaker proffered that what we lose in this habit is the song's place within the CD's context--like reading a chapter from a novel and missing out on the rest of the story.

I agree with the idea that in order to appreciate the narrative that a musician has composed through his or her CD, one has to experience the entire CD before focusing on one or two of its songs.
Dear Ms. McKennitt

I sincerely hope this finds you in the best of health and spirits. Smiler I will freely admit, at the outset, that brevity is not a concept I have been able to learn. And while, at first glance, you, and/or others, may question the relevance of most of my argument to the issue of the current state of the music industry, I do still believe and argue that what follows does relate to what I perceive to be the underlying factor in all human conflicts, including that within the beleaguered music industry. That does not mean that nothing else contributes. I only mean that all the other factors in our existence that lead to conflicts between us themselves stem from this most basic problem.

In answer to you query I prefer the tactile experience of a physical CD and the interaction I have with the music store employees, as well as my fellow shoppers. And that is how I will always continue to acquire my CDs. As for the cost of music and musicians’ compensation, in short, I don’t think music should be free. Granted, a person may be walking in a forest and suddenly hear a melody in their mind, which some would argue is a gift from another realm, while others would argue that the environment stimulated deep, ancient, and unconscious layers of that person’s mind to coalesce various elements and forces together to form the melody. But, that is besides the point, for regardless how one argues the person acquired the melody, at the end of the day, that person is the one who toils to shape it so as it can and will be shared with the general public. If nothing else, and for no other reason, decency demands that they be compensated for the time and labour they invested in doing that.

Some people have thus far at least spoken of the recording companies’ and studios’ greed and dictatorial control of the music industry, as well as the public’s starved need for a voice and the ability to finally participate in that industry and the global musical conversation more fully than they were previously allowed to and able to. Another factor that must also be mentioned, while many will criticize me for saying this, is the public’s ignorance of and (on the part of many, I’m sad to say) apathy towards of the musicians’ role in that industry, and the impact on them that their actions, rooted in vengeance and ignorance, would have. But, in my humble opinion, the problem stems not only from the afore-mentioned factors, but, critically, because of a long-held, long-practiced, never addressed (at least not sufficiently or justly) corruption of the concept of value.

We human beings, along with other beings, have the virtue of being born with inherent value. Whereas the objects around us have “assigned value”, value that people bestow upon them. Alas, thanks to human ego, pride, arrogance, greed and ignorance, we employ the same attitude towards the earth’s basic elements. So when we see gold in the ground, for example, we see qualities in it that we so admire and hold dear and thus afford it “value” above all other things, despite the fact that these qualities are, at most, secondary to the functions it performs as part of the living mechanisms of the earth at large, the bio-sphere, as scientists call it. But even then, despite these “qualities” and the “value” we bestow upon the gold because of them, it still has “value” only in the sense of how it can serve us, how we can use it. But the fact is that the gold has “value” only for as long as it part of a living system and continues to play a role in the processes, mechanisms and functions of the existence of an organism, or, in this case, the bio-sphere. Otherwise, it would remain on the surface of the earth, in the core, or somewhere in between, which, of course, it doesn’t.

Until we recognize, accept, acknowledge, admit, and embrace the fact that what’s around us has “value” of its own accord, were it another organism, or a part of a living system (much as our white blood cells are part of our living system), such that it doesn’t need a human being to assign it a value, however carefully considered and calculated that assigned value may be, and realign our value systems accordingly, troubles such as those daunting the music industry, and more serious ones such as climate change, food shortages, and all the political conflicts that continue to plague human kind, will continue to be a constant presence in our lives, and a curse haunting us night and day, in dreams and in waking hours. I am adamant in my belief that no proposed solution(s) can or will work – and definitely cannot and will not last, nor have a lasting, meaningful impact during future generations and centuries – unless we realign our value systems. We must do so on a social level – in our global interactions, in our communities, and in our families –, as well as on an individual level, the most crucial level of all.

Due to the circumstances of my childhood, of my whole life actually, and to the available options, I have been compelled to spend most of my life engaged in observing others, as well as in introspection. These two activities have taught me a great deal, not least that my ego is inherently worthless, and that I learn to place it above other people and other things. Actually, when I am unaware of my inherent value, and especially when I deny it, ego, along with its two siblings, pride and arrogance, is what takes its place. They are three sides of the same thing, an unholy trinity of sorts. Our lives, our existence either reflects and incorporates our inherent value, or is dominated by ego, pride, arrogance, greed, and ignorance, which displace our value if we deny it, and the delusions they cocoon us in.

The most important lesson I ever learned is that when a person treats another being, human or otherwise, well, with respect, with compassion and with dignity etc., it is because that person already treats themselves as such.

Whereas, when a person treats another being, human or otherwise, as something of no value, as something fit only to be used, abused, enslaved etc., as an object, and/or as dirt or scum etc., it is because that person already treats themselves as faeces.

I learned this at least as much, if not more, from my own actions, as much as I learned it from other people’s actions, and learned it the hard way too, I might add!

I feel the need to reiterate my treatise on value, because of how important and fundamental it is and how it permeates all aspects of our existence.

Underscoring all human conflicts is the corruption of the concept of value. We “value” gold not because it is inherently valuable, as a person, dog, a frog, a rose, or a pine tree are, but because we choose to regard it more highly than other metals, than other things generally. But, at the end of the day, it is just that, a metal. For as long as it is in the ground, it can be considered to have “value”, in that it plays a role in the mechanisms and processes that the earth uses to sustain itself, even if it does so over a very prolonged period of time, and even requires a long period of time for it to be tapped to perform that role in the first place. The seismic activity that conveys it to the surface and back down again demonstrates that role – but I don’t know how well the scientific community understands that role, even knows what it is, and how it is performed, assuming that they even acknowledge that the gold does indeed perform a vital role in the earth’s living mechanisms. Otherwise, it would remain in the earth’s core, on the surface, or somewhere in between. We humans, and other organisms, on the other hand, already possess a basic, inherent value, by virtue of being a living organism, whereas the inanimate objects we make, even though we make them out of elements found in the earth, are worthless and have only as much “value” as we choose to bestow upon them. For said elements lose whatever “value” they have once they’re harvested, since they no longer sustain a living process. While an exception can be made for a home or a medical device, etc., it is only valid when the least amount of, and only the most indispensable, elements are used in the most sustainable manner – thus, there is no reason to take more metals out of the earth, when there are plenty that we already dispose of in landfills and keep lying around in junkyards etc. For as long as we have a system wherein people have to acquire value in order to obtain objects, then socio-economic-political conflicts will persist. It is absurd, at the very least, that a person with inherent value would have to labour to acquire something inherently worthless. I don’t mean that it is absurd to labour period, but that the labour be in exchange for, and for the purpose of, obtaining objects that people choose to assign a “value” to, and how much “value”. It is wrong to create a correlation between the two, since our knowledge, experience, and abilities, as well as our capacity to learn, amongst other things, are part of us, and thus our value extends to them as well – we, as a whole being, are valuable, “lock, stock, and barrel”, as the saying goes. Thus, to create and maintain that correlation is to suggest that these objects have more value than said knowledge, experience, abilities, and capacity to learn etc., and thus, ultimately, more value than us. When we acknowledge that and reset our value systems, and thus our economic systems, to reflect our true values, and that of our fellow beings, and the agents the earth uses in its living mechanisms and processes, the true relationships we have between each other, with other beings, and with the objects we make and harvest, we’ll be at least a huge step closer to having more peaceful relations amongst each other. The rest will greatly depend on each person’s choice to acknowledge, accept, embrace and uphold their, and their fellow beings’, inherent value. For as long as people choose to deny their own inherent value, then they will continue to deny other people’s and other beings’ inherent value as well. There is no escaping that reality.

If I’m walking with someone on a sidewalk somewhere and we are discussing and debating an issue (or various issues) and I decide not to tolerate their views etc., then I’ve done the equivalent of going over to a manhole, opening it and descending deep enough to be able to reach into the contents, so as to splash my companion with some of them!

Why do I use this analogy? Human beings are equal at the most basic level. When we deny our inherent value, or aren’t even aware of it, we simply create and submit to delusions to the effect that one person, or a group of people, is of greater or lesser value than others. By choosing to be/become intolerant of my companion’s views etc., I am essentially declaring that I am superior to them and that only my views can be correct, valid and acceptable etc. – and I which must hence impose upon them and be certain to convert them to said views etc.

But, since I can’t actually change the equality that exists between us, I can only delude myself into a lie, wherein we are of two different statuses. The irony is, because of the lesson I stated above, even in my delusion, if I am to debase them, the only way I can do so is if I already am unaware of my inherent value, and especially if I deny it, and thus treat myself as, and maintain such an attitude that I am, something of little or no value, thus stooping to soil my companion during our stroll, by not tolerating their views (some-thing I’m quite willing to do, since I don’t acknowledge myself to have any value that I should worry about soiling!)! Even if that were not the case, and I was fully aware of and embraced my own value but denied my companion’s, it would still be impossible to soil them without soiling myself first!

The greater my expression of my intolerance (raising my voice, shouting slurs and insults, assuming aggressive postures, manipulating (or at least trying to manipulate) them, and, ultimately, actually physically assaulting their person, such as punching, or even pushing or shoving them), the lower I am descending into the sewer to grab worse contents still – after all, in my delusion, by taking those actions, I’m supposed to be demeaning them more still (which in itself means that I must stoop lower still to effect the delusion of forcing them into an abysmal status)!

I know from personal experience that being honest with oneself is much harder than the average individual is willing to admit, and harder still to do, because of our ingrained habits. But those habits themselves are the result of our beliefs and what we value, and those sets of things we consider as morals and ethics etc., as well as the result of the lifestyle we lead, which in itself is a result of our beliefs, values and choices.

When we discuss, we agree on equality and mutual respect, amongst other things, between us, in terms of interacting with one another. Whereas, suppose I were walking to a friend’s home and I encountered someone along the way, who “perceived” a reason to and did punch, or otherwise assault me. That is a bad, unethical, and morally wrong conduct and behaviour. Think of it as the equivalent of them choosing to descend into an enormous sewer, so as to splash me with some of the contents.

Were I to acknowledge that behaviour, I am, in essence, declaring to the person that I agree that it is acceptable to submerge ourselves in the sewer’s sea of waste to address and greet each other, and that, while there, it’s acceptable to interact by means of throwing handfuls of waste at each other, much as we would were we playing in a swimming pool or a body of water.

Now, imagine their conduct (punching or assaulting me) as the equivalent of lobbing a handful or sewer waste at me. Then, were I to then choose to admit that kind of behaviour to my list of possible options of courses of action to consider, as to how to generally greet and address people, and how to specifically respond to the other person, then I would’ve done the equivalent of descending to their chosen level within the sewer’s huge sea of waste. When I consider that option, I’ve sunk deeper. Once I’ve decided upon it, I’ve sunk deeper still. Once I’ve begun putting it into action, I’ve sunk deeper and deeper still. And once I’ve completed the action, then I’ve hit rock bottom. Granted, all this takes place in my subconscious. But the equivalent must be true, or we would not acknowledge what the other person did, let alone respond to them, verbally or otherwise, as many of us do, when confronted by a conflict, including violent ones. Remember that, at the end of the day, regardless whether a person threw that handful of waste at us, an animal frolicking, or looking for food, in the waste accidentally did, or an especially strong gust of wind whipped some onto us, as might happen if a flood caused some to coalesce in a depression in the ground near the road, the end result is the same: we got soiled and our highest priority is to hurry to the nearest place where we can thoroughly clean ourselves and change into a clean set of clothes, be that our home or our friend’s home, whichever is closest for our purposes.

Understand that, at some point in an individual’s life, when confronted with such a scenario as being punched by someone, they do progress through those stages, even if they know it’s wrong and choose to suppress this process to their unconscious, or are unconscious of it to begin with, because they have indeed accepted the other person’s claim “I’m worthless!”, and that they themselves became as worthless, if not more still, by being punched etc., and thus have chosen to give greater significance to exacting revenge!

Listening and hearing are two different things. When a person is truly listening, they not only hear the words, they feel the emotion behind these words too. True communication occurs when someone truly listens and not just hears the words.

Whether we realize it or not, communication breakdown is often the root of all relational problems. Communication breakdowns often stem from misunderstandings, or from unclear or a lack of communication. Try to put yourself in the mindset or situation of the person with whom you’re in conflict. Considering their perspective may help foster empathy and help in conflict resolution. If you are having a problem with someone and want to resolve it, make sure the channels of communication are and remain open!

Above are lessons I either learned myself or came across and I merely offer them, perchance they help someone. What I will be bold enough to suggest, to anyone, is this: DO NOT, EVER, EVER, EVER do something because someone else values it/thinks it’s good/ important etc., because society values and generally practices it, so as to make someone else happy (at a cost to yourself. Somehow or other this will come back to spoil your happiness, because your own needs have been compromised, since your conducts, and their relative priorities, were determined by someone else’s values and expectations!), and/or to make someone proud of you etc. Unless the person looking back at you from the mirror genuinely VALUES this or that, DO NOT DO IT. Or you’ll be wasting your life living other people’s lives and fulfilling their dreams and expectations etc. in your own life. So both people lose (Their values are reflected in your life and actions, NOT THEIRS, while you don’t get to fulfill YOUR OWN DESIRES, and don’t get to LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE and CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SET OF VALUES and BELIEFS etc.!).

Thank you most kindly for all the time and effort you invest in affording us the opportunity to transcend our daily lives and conflicts, the opportunity to connect with and rise to the divine, if such a thing does indeed exist. Smiler Your labour and sacrifice are most gratefully appreciated. Smiler Take very good care and have yourself a most joyous day, every day – and a most fantastic weekend too. Smiler May your losses be restored! Smiler May your sorrows end! May your troubles permanently leave you! Smiler May your best, most loving, most peaceful, most joyous, kindest, most generous and most compassionate wishes come true! Smiler May you always be happy and content! Smiler May you always be healthy in mind, body, and soul! Smiler May you always sleep your nights in peaceful and healing slumber! Smiler May your best, most joyous, most peaceful most liberating and fulfilling dreams become your reality! Smiler And may your spirit forever soar free! Smiler


Love And Light Smiler
Peter Kassar
(In Toronto: North York: Willowdale)
I don't think that music should be free any more than my job should be free to those who employ me. You give a service, you should be paid for it.

I prefer to buy music in a store but have no problem buying online if the store does not have what I want. Sometimes I will 'special order' an item if it won't take any longer than if I were to buy it online.

I rarely download, don't like the idea of it, and basically only do it if I have to...meaning I need an odd track or version that is only available through download. I need to have something tangible in my hands. I like the experience of going to a store and looking through the items for sale.

I STILL buy vinyl!! I miss the album size artwork and like the fact that many artists continue to release their albums in lp form.
Hi everyone, I still prefer to go out and buy my music. I would miss the fun of just going out to get it!!!I also love the packaging and the stories. It makes sense as an artist and business person to make a CD and then go out on tour. Call me old fashioned Wink ~Kate
Big GrinI prefer to buy the CD. I don't think music should be free. The artists and their bands and support people all have to be paid. We can't expect people to perform and record for nothing. If you give of your time and energy to create for us, we should...at the very least...give back by paying to attend concerts, for CDs and DVDs, etc...
I saw Loreena in Nashville last year, and that concert was worth every penny and MORE of the ticket price. I had just had major shoulder surgery 9 days before that concert, and I would have had to be on my death bed to miss it! Absolutely the artists should be paid!!
I do not own an I-pod, nor do I download and burn music illegally from file sharing sites, for 2 reasons: One, I do not feel it is right to help myself to music that any artist has put time and effort into creating that particular work of art, and make no mistake, any song by any artist is a work of art! I know musicians and artists in the local scene here in Columbus, Ohio,and some artists that have had fair to moderate success nationally as well, and a lot of effort goes into the creation of any artists or groups music, and they rely on the profit they make off of that music to make their living and provide for themselves, their families and their employees. My second reason is that I am totally technologically incompetent and would probably manage to crash the whole internet if I tried to download any song from some file sharing website, and it would be glaringly obvious to anyone (but me)just WHO managed to screw up the whole world wide web! Razzer Anyway, I prefer the quality of a legitimate, legally produced CD. That being said, I do know one artist who records roots rock in Nashville and also plays the Ghost Fiddle (AKA the Glass Harmonica; glasses of water filled to certain levels to produce clear notes when he runs his fingers over the rims...) He performs on that ancient instrument at Renaissance Festivals across the country, and his music as both a roots artist and on the Ghost Fiddle is quite good, I enjoy both sides of his musical personalities. His name is Donal Hinely, and he sells both kinds of his music on CD's at the Renaissance festivals where he performs, as well as his gigs in Nashville and on his website, but you can also download his tunes for free on his site as well. This is a VERY unusual position for any artist to take nowadays, but he believes that music is or should be universal and accessible to everyone, and that people who may not be able to afford to pay should not be denied the enjoyment of his talents...so there are many sides to this issue, even among artists, it seems. Cool Ted! Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Cd:
These two links are to information on the Ogg Vorbis format. This is a music codec that is free for all to use and install.


Loreena's albums are available in FLAC format in most countries. (Except Ancient Muse in the US because Universal Music is evil).
hi:
I prefer to buy cd's as opposed to itunes or amazon...And the price for Loreena's music is quite fair, considering there's so much pretty music to listen too!! Although like most people, I would like to get a little extra, like perhaps an enhanced cd (with a little video).. I do like to buy music videos from itunes, does loreena have any videos out there? Thanks for this forum gregg
I am a European citizen currently living in the USA.

The question that comes to mind is: the larger store here in the US sells the CD's at round $7 to $13 (that's about 4 to 8 euro for a CD), whereas in europe, CD's in the larger store cost around 25 to 30 euro's or $ 40 to $ 48.

I thus understand a lot better US citizens saying "music should not be free" when they pay so little for it, and european citizens hoping that "music will one day be free to have" because it is costing them a fortune.

It's also a matter, then, (I think) of how much we deem this printed copy of art worth... will the nice US citizen defend paying $ 40 for one CD, as the europeans are already doing today?
Hello Loreena, Thanks much for the newsletter!

I actually get my music both from buying CD's and from purchasing on the internet. But they all go onto my Ipod.

It mostly depends on how impatient I am to get it, if I want to keep the CD, and whether it's available in the stores I visit.

There are certain artists that I absolutely must have the CD to keep in my music library.

Do I think music should be free? Not really ~ although an occasional free "perk" would be nice. As an artist, I know that I work hard to craft my jewelry and I know that musicians work hard as well. I will gladly pay the money to hear wonderful music. (Which is why I own every one of your CD's).
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.

Quinlan Road began, as many of you know, at my kitchen tabletop and busking on the street. Beyond being a passion, it was inevitable it would become a business. Quinlan Road was built on people hearing the music and then choosing to stay in touch by joining the Quinlan Road Community.

As the music industry continues to evolve, we want to be sure that we don’t lose you in the flotsam and jetsam of the changing times. More than ever, we want to stay close to you, to narrow the distance between ourselves and you and hopefully by doing this we’ll be able to serve you better in a variety of ways. We are hopeful the best way for us all to stay connected is through the Quinlan Road Community – and that you’re enjoying what we have to offer.

As you know, there’s no cost to join and being a member gives you access to front-of-the-line tickets to concerts, participation in online chats, quarterly newsletters, breaking news updates and access to exclusive contests and special offers.

We thank you for your membership and your continued interest in the music and ask that if you know anyone who’s a keen supporter and would benefit from membership, please encourage them to join too.

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
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.

Quinlan Road began, as many of you know, at my kitchen tabletop and busking on the street. Beyond being a passion, it was inevitable it would become a business. Quinlan Road was built on people hearing the music and then choosing to stay in touch by joining the Quinlan Road Community.

As the music industry continues to evolve, we want to be sure that we don’t lose you in the flotsam and jetsam of the changing times. More than ever, we want to stay close to you, to narrow the distance between ourselves and you and hopefully by doing this we’ll be able to serve you better in a variety of ways. We are hopeful the best way for us all to stay connected is through the Quinlan Road Community – and that you’re enjoying what we have to offer.

As you know, there’s no cost to join and being a member gives you access to front-of-the-line tickets to concerts, participation in online chats, quarterly newsletters, breaking news updates and access to exclusive contests and special offers.

We thank you for your membership and your continued interest in the music and ask that if you know anyone who’s a keen supporter and would benefit from membership, please encourage them to join too.

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
I believe that downloading music "for free" is theft, pure and simple. As I musician myself, I appreciate that artists earn their living from their art, work harder at their "jobs" than most non-artists and typically earn much less than what they sacrifice in order to create in the first place---without the relative certainty of making any money at all in the end, much less "company perks" or "benefits." In my opinion, we are in many ways living in a kind of dark ages; much of the so-called music one hears today has no lyrical, melodic--or spiritual--value at all. When an artist such as Loreena McKennitt brings such joy to so many and captivates imaginations in such a positive way, how can one justify a free-ride download of her music. It's absurd to think that is okay. Thank you for this beautiful community. Thank you, Loreena, for your beautiful mind. MatinaMCoulouris@aol.com
I am very much of the opinion that we as the receivers of music are privileged to enjoy the gift that other (more creative?) people can bestow on the world. But that like most things in life, this must be paid for in the good old-fashioned way ("I do something for you, and you either pay me or do something for me"). It’s happened that way since antiquity, but there have always been and always will be people who ‘want something for nothing’.

However... yes indeedy, 'the times they are a changing' and the Internet and file sharing exist. This is a fact of life and unless we all choose the Chinese way of 'democracy' and have our free access to the net 'over seen', then that's the way it will stay. Thank goodness!

I DO prefer to buy a legitimate CD. But I have to be honest, nowadays I want something that goes beyond the musical content as well, something that is inherent in the packaging etc. that makes me want to actually buy the physical thing rather than download for ‘free’ and burn onto a dime-a-dozen CDR...

So I would say this to Loreena – If you intend to continue to supply physical CDs etc. then you need to offer something that merely downloading and listening to can't compare with. And you're already doing it! Who could have resisted the temptation to buy the fantastic bundle packages that were offered through this site over Christmas? I know I didn't! Signed CDs, beautiful presentation boxes etc. It all makes for a great package that makes me glad to part with my money! And let's not forget the bonus DVD editions that had me re-stocking my Loreena CD collection, even though I already had most of the titles already! Double purchases and so bonus to Loreena there I would say? And she deserves it.

Does all this 'beautifying' of the finished package detract from the musical content? It's an argument, but for me, it only leads to enhance the overall experience.

Many vinyl aficionados will tell you that packaging wise, there is simply noting to compare to LP sleeves and that almost unique experience of handling, reading, taking in the artwork and even SMELLING the thing whilst the record spins and the music pervades. So in the days of CD, the artists and manufacturers have to be smart and try to add something to the experience of actually owing the legitimate, finished article if the 'physical' industry is to survive.

Personally, I will be very sad to see the day when all music is ONLY presented for download and no physical product will exist, as that will certainly make me feel less involved in the process of the artist presenting their work to me.
Loreena, if I understand your kind invitation, you would like to hear our ideas and opinions about how best to distribute your music, given our changing technology. A new "business model" is needed, since the current ones are becoming less useful. Your criteria would seem to include: to preserve your artistic integrity; to reach old and new patrons ("fans") in a globally convenient way; and to receive the money necessary to support your creative work and maintain technical quality.

First, I would like to believe that we, your most enthusiastic patrons, would be willing to invest in your work to the extent we are able, in the hope that you would have more freedom to create. Most musical artists probably do not have a following like yours. Finding out how large this following is, and how much our investments would cover your financial needs, is of course difficult. Perhaps something along the lines of the National Public Radio (NPR) model of the U.S. would be worth a try. That is, an appeal is made for membership to a patron community. Levels of membership have different prices but bring special benefits. Perhaps these benefits could include early access to new recordings, priority for live performances, or limited release gifts. I would be willing to pay $50 to $100 per year for such a membership. However, it does seem unlikely that special memberships alone will be able to subsidize free access for all to electronic copies of your music.

And speaking of NPR, is it possible there are radio-based opportunities? In the U.S., there have been a few successful nonprofit programs that reach a wide audience, such a Prairie Home Companion and Thistle & Shamrock. Satellite radio is also a possibility. If these avenues offered an additional means of supporting your work, I would welcome them.

It seems there will always be a demand for physical media, which are currently CD's and DVD's. There is value in the quality of these media as well as the need to give them as gifts, or to collect them. I know this is still my primary means of collecting your work. If you can continue to sell these through your Quinlan Road site on the web, that is sufficient for me.

The electronic mass market channels, such as iTunes and Amazon, appear to be necessary and somewhat helpful. I'm unaware of any artistic compromises involved in using these channels, but I have no firsthand knowledge of this. Presumably they would preclude you from offering your electronic media for free from your website. The alternative would be to do your own electronic distribution from your website, which would work for me but would appear to involve a great deal of technical overhead. Also, I imagine, you would severely limit the reach of your music if you avoided the mass market channels on the web.

Finally, there is the question of your tours. Like most everyone, I would love to hear you perform live, but I am more interested in new recordings. If your tours make recordings possible, then I'm all for them. I can only speculate as to whether you feel live performances reduce your creative output.

I'm hoping others in this forum have better ideas, and perhaps some success stories based on personal experience in the music industry (or outside it). If you decide to return to busking on the streets of Canada, be sure to send me your itinerary ;^)
It's easier to buy a CD than to spend time downloading music. I don't have an Ipod & am computerly challanged & not interested in trying to figure out how to download things. As for music being free-get real. Music is how a musician earns a living. They spend a lot of time & energy writing & recording. It's often a fulltime job & musicians deserve to be properly compensated for this & for the pleasure the music brings to the listener.
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.
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
Hi all,

very interesting debate. Should music be free?

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!

Regards to all.
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.
quote:
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.
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
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
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.

Cheers

Richard Watts
Melbourne
Australia
[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.

Kind regards,
Shan-Lyn
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.

Add Reply

Likes (1)
SumariMike
×
×
×
×