Komusa is an Australian, living in Japan, and playing electric blues. I have no idea how that works but it does and he's been a bluesman for quite some time. He's very good at it and has a good perspective on what's it all about, Alfie.
There are some articles of late which have been driven out of paranoid absurdity. It's for some other place to review that as the reason for mentioning it is I'm not proud of them but it would only compound a bad situation to remove them. Komuso offered his thoughts yesterday and, reducing a lengthy piece quite a bit, even if van Gogh were painting today, who would see his work when it's buried behind a billion selfies on Instagram.
The Why Do It part is clear as the only good reason for making art is you can't stand not making art. Whether it's any good you'll probably never know as, even if you get famous, that's not necessarily validation. Lennon would get furious about girls screaming when The Beatles played because they couldn't hear the music, that wasn't why they came.
Pushing away from reviewing my own madness, I seriously think study is warranted of a mechanism described in a subsequent article regarding how to capitalize AIFF music files. Reduced heavily from what I wrote originally, in that model the performer only needs to give away music as you're paid each time it's played because the music server (e.g. Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc) gets a taste of the money from the advertiser and the performer gets the rest. The advertiser pays because each time the song is played, an ad pops up in the listener's browser.
There are detail aspects some whizkid will need to resolve but the model will work without any particular hardship to anyone, even recording companies, and I'll be happy to go into any detail on that. There was some discussion previously with another old codger but he's in the same position as I: if I were younger then I'd be putting some whoop ass on this.
Much as indies would love to burn recording companies to the ground for murdering Napster, they've got the best stuff and they know the most musicians. You will still want a contract to make the best recordings possible as the only thing that really changes is the payment path ... which quickly becomes one golden gravy train.
The difference with this model is an indie performer doesn't necessarily need a recording company to get paid. The sole purpose of the recording companies in this environment is to provide the stone coolest stuff they can because they will want you to make the best stuff imaginable. Then, with their advertising capability, everyone makes boatloads of money.
If you've got any interest in this, please do comment and, if you could, use anything but Anonymous for a nickname. Call yourself x,y or z is ok but it's confusing when everyone is Anonymous. I'm not playing around on this crazy stuff as my logic circuits aren't too bad but my human interface processor is about as nuts as you will find.
So, Future of Music ... anyone in?
There are some articles of late which have been driven out of paranoid absurdity. It's for some other place to review that as the reason for mentioning it is I'm not proud of them but it would only compound a bad situation to remove them. Komuso offered his thoughts yesterday and, reducing a lengthy piece quite a bit, even if van Gogh were painting today, who would see his work when it's buried behind a billion selfies on Instagram.
The Why Do It part is clear as the only good reason for making art is you can't stand not making art. Whether it's any good you'll probably never know as, even if you get famous, that's not necessarily validation. Lennon would get furious about girls screaming when The Beatles played because they couldn't hear the music, that wasn't why they came.
Pushing away from reviewing my own madness, I seriously think study is warranted of a mechanism described in a subsequent article regarding how to capitalize AIFF music files. Reduced heavily from what I wrote originally, in that model the performer only needs to give away music as you're paid each time it's played because the music server (e.g. Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc) gets a taste of the money from the advertiser and the performer gets the rest. The advertiser pays because each time the song is played, an ad pops up in the listener's browser.
There are detail aspects some whizkid will need to resolve but the model will work without any particular hardship to anyone, even recording companies, and I'll be happy to go into any detail on that. There was some discussion previously with another old codger but he's in the same position as I: if I were younger then I'd be putting some whoop ass on this.
Much as indies would love to burn recording companies to the ground for murdering Napster, they've got the best stuff and they know the most musicians. You will still want a contract to make the best recordings possible as the only thing that really changes is the payment path ... which quickly becomes one golden gravy train.
The difference with this model is an indie performer doesn't necessarily need a recording company to get paid. The sole purpose of the recording companies in this environment is to provide the stone coolest stuff they can because they will want you to make the best stuff imaginable. Then, with their advertising capability, everyone makes boatloads of money.
If you've got any interest in this, please do comment and, if you could, use anything but Anonymous for a nickname. Call yourself x,y or z is ok but it's confusing when everyone is Anonymous. I'm not playing around on this crazy stuff as my logic circuits aren't too bad but my human interface processor is about as nuts as you will find.
So, Future of Music ... anyone in?
No comments:
Post a Comment