DazeyDiver wrote:this new album, the Slip, she is really, really boring.

Indeed. The only track I find tolerable is, "The Four Of Us Are Dying" and it's just more of his instrumental schtick, so is "Corona Radiata" but I think that track is trying too hard to be included in the next installment of Half-Life (even down to it's space/physics related title).

That $300 package is a great racket. With all 3000 sold, he brought in about $750,000. If he was a normal person, that would be a lot of money.

Steve, if everyone was an amateur or dabbler in music, do you think that we'd have Bartok or Raymond Scott or Duke Ellington? Les Paul? Those guys worked on their music 24/7 and had no choice but to try to make a living from it. No one who is dabbling is going to advance music like they did. Maybe i'm missing what you are saying..?

to me this says:
music=valueless
limited edition knick knacks=priceless

thanks, trent.

C'mon the guy is being smart. So what if he made a lot of money before in the corporate mainstream. Can you really fault him? He made it. What's the big deal?

And now he's doing the smart thing and cutting out the suits. Good for him. What's crazy is that all rockstars aren't doing this.

Maybe I missed the part where he was being all "above it all". I'm not really paying that much attention.

And also I like RED. Is there something I missed with these guys? They seem like good people to me.

Please educate me.

scntfc wrote:to me this says:
music=valueless
limited edition knick knacks=priceless

thanks, trent.

Why would this say free music is "valueless"? By the way, the ghosts release had a $5 pay option for digital formats.

givemenoughrope wrote:Steve, if everyone was an amateur or dabbler in music, do you think that we'd have Bartok or Raymond Scott or Duke Ellington? Les Paul? Those guys worked on their music 24/7 and had no choice but to try to make a living from it. No one who is dabbling is going to advance music like they did. Maybe i'm missing what you are saying..?

Those people all had some kind of patronage market to work. If such a market didn't exist, then no, those particular people wouldn't have done it that way. They could still have done it.

I use the non-patronized geniuses like Conlon Nancarrow, Harry Partch and the underground rock scenes to point out that one doesn't need a pre-existing external support network in order to eventually make a lasting body of work.

steve wrote:...one doesn't need a pre-existing external support network in order to eventually make a lasting body of work.

the only thing anyone needs is audience.

that damned fly wrote:

steve wrote:...one doesn't need a pre-existing external support network in order to eventually make a lasting body of work.

the only thing anyone needs is audience.

Or the ability to sell a shit load of beer.

steve wrote:Those people all had some kind of patronage market to work. If such a market didn't exist, then no, those particular people wouldn't have done it that way. They could still have done it.

I use the non-patronized geniuses like Conlon Nancarrow, Harry Partch and the underground rock scenes to point out that one doesn't need a pre-existing external support network in order to eventually make a lasting body of work.

By patronage market, do you mean grants or does that include selling records via a major? It looks like Partch received some grants and Nancarrow the MacArthur late in his life...not like it matters. Even if all of these people mentioned were handed a million dollars a year (or nothing) from wherever, judging by their personalities they still would have been doing music 24/7. So, yes, I agree.

I guess I just take issue with the words 'dabbler' or 'amateur'. It seems like your typical pop star for whom the actual music takes a backseat to almost everything else dabbles in music. Someone who pulls their mind out over a score or plays 30 towns in a month is more than a dabbler. They're possessed; grant money/profit or not.