Who is more responsable for what is produced in musical terms? The listener influences the market in that the quantity of what he/she buys determines the amount and nature of what is being sold, therefore shaping the music market and the cultural landscape that we experience in the media and everyday life. Do you think that the musician should really have a moral duty in all this, or do you think that you just to have to accept it and suffer the consequences? I mean, your 50/1000 copy releases are fine and dandy, but they hardly really make an impact because the fail to reach a wider audience that could double or treble their real potential impact. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, you think?

[Crumb's Crunchy Delights]

Who is more responsable for what is produced in musical terms? Listener. The listener influences the market in that the quantity of what he/she buys determines the amount and nature of what is being sold, therefore shaping the music market and the cultural landscape that we experience in the media and everyday life. Do you think that the musician should really have a moral duty in all this, yes or do you think that you just to have to accept it and suffer the consequences? No. I mean, your 50/1000 copy releases are fine and dandy, but they hardly really make an impact because the fail to reach a wider audience that could double or treble their real potentialimpact. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, you think? Good, stuff released in those quantities is usually rubbish.

[the ikara cult]

Supply and Demand innit. The dealer isnt likely to take a proven source of income away and the addict will continue to take the stuff to try and get the memory of that first hit back, despite the law of diminishing returns when it comes to taking the same variety of substance. But then most people arent addicts and are quite happy with a recreational joint from time to time

[pbradley]

The listener isn't responsible for what is produced but the listener is responsible for what that is produced overall becomes valuable commodity. Therefore it is the responsibility of the musician to decide what course of action, if any, they should in order to make money, stay artistically true, or both. Of course, though, the public is ultimately responsible for this environment but they aren't responsible for the musician's choice. Demand doesn't necessitate supply on the individual level but demand will find alternative suppliers which is a fact that can persuade any reluctant would-be supplier.

I hope that was an intelligent answer. Rather typical SY fan hipster rhetoric. lol indie, etc.

[king_buzzo]

well, you have to consider that the musician is also the listener.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Who is more responsable for what is produced in musical terms? The listener influences the market in that the quantity of what he/she buys determines the amount and nature of what is being sold, therefore shaping the music market and the cultural landscape that we experience in the media and everyday life. Do you think that the musician should really have a moral duty in all this, or do you think that you just to have to accept it and suffer the consequences? I mean, your 50/1000 copy releases are fine and dandy, but they hardly really make an impact because the fail to reach a wider audience that could double or treble their real potential impact. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, you think?

It's a good question; I'm of the impression that the market tends to define the musicians. I, like most people, know plenty of people in bands. And, like everyone in bands, I think I've got it right and am doing something worthwhile that isn't derivative nonsense - this isn't necessarily the case, obviously, because everyone likes the smell of their own shit.

Buzzo is right to say that the musician is also the listener - I would clarify this and say that a musician is a listener before they are a 'creator'. I find there's two and a half sorts of musicians I like - the sort who listen to as much as they can (Sonic Youth), and the sort who either listen to nothing (the Fall, it seems) or absorb music by osmosis (folk music).

I'm not sure that moral duty is the right way of phrasing it; unles you're talking about lyrical content, which, if politicised, alludes to a politico-moral responsibility (I don't think you are)... basically, I would suggest that the artist has a certain aesthetic responsibility, generally defined by the individual. Much as I'd like for every musician to accomodate what I see as their aesthetic responsbility, they really aren't going to. The slew of average, ten-a-penny derivative of third-rate nonsense bands are going to continue to grow, and I'll see them supporting bands much like them for as long as I continue to go to gigs. So long as they're personable, I don't see any reason to criticise their apalling music - I've changed my mind on this point: it's an aesthetic responsibility, and while I'm right to myself, I am not right absolutely (not yet, give me 5 years); ultimately, someone's aesthetic choices are not terrifically imporant.

Urr... this is a bit of a drifty statement. Essentially, I think a lot of bands are shit because they don't listen to enough records; they are victim not to market demographics (which are, ultimately, defined by the individual living in society) but not realising/ exploring what market demographics are available to them (and we're all guilty of this to a degree - the hollow epithet 'I listen to a bit of everything' will never, ever be true for anyone).

[PAULYBEE2656]

if you dont like or offended dont listen. the listener alwyas has the power of the off button.

[auto-aim]

Originally Posted by Glice

Urr... this is a bit of a drifty statement. Essentially, I think a lot of bands are shit because they don't listen to enough records; they are victim not to market demographics (which are, ultimately, defined by the individual living in society) but not realising/ exploring what market demographics are available to them (and we're all guilty of this to a degree - the hollow epithet 'I listen to a bit of everything' will never, ever be true for anyone).

I think i can agree with this.. a lot of people I see, their frame of referance is so narrow that they can only pose more possibiliy for trouble down the line. (for the band and the listener) I'm not commenting on what's responsible but I think in terms of this artist have a to try and represent themselves as best they can rather anything else. Something that's unique to themselves.

[terminal pharmacy]

From my years of experience in the retail side of music as a commodity, the record comapnies influenced the store managers by offering good deals and fringe benefits on certain records. in australia at least the record charts are not influenced by the people are listening to but to how many units the stores buy and not how many the public buy. so for a musician to create something that is market specific and not from there soul is somewhat abhorent to me. i think the artist has the responsibily to make the music that cleanses and enlightens their own soul, and if that music is liked by others then that is brilliant, also if the music is liked only by the artist that is also brilliant. to me it is a cathartic ritual and not making about making money from it, although it would be nice to make a reasonable living out of making music.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

From my years of experience in the retail side of music as a commodity, the record comapnies influenced the store managers by offering good deals and fringe benefits on certain records. in australia at least the record charts are not influenced by the people are listening to but to how many units the stores buy and not how many the public buy. so for a musician to create something that is market specific and not from there soul is somewhat abhorent to me. i think the artist has the responsibily to make the music that cleanses and enlightens their own soul, and if that music is liked by others then that is brilliant, also if the music is liked only by the artist that is also brilliant. to me it is a cathartic ritual and not making about making money from it, although it would be nice to make a reasonable living out of making music.

See, the problem with that, is I would guarantee that even the most insipid, useless band you can think of - certainly signed at least - probably believes that they are expressing something worth expressing and their 'art' is the true manifestation of their soul. I think the notion of market forces is possibly a synonym for zeitgeist, which is to say, there's no sinister record label foisting things on the public - everyone is the public. There's a good reason some very, very bland music is very, very popular, and that's because it means an awful lot to more people. Some of it I like, some of it I don't, but I don't have to listen to the radio unless I want to, and that suits me fine as a placid consumer of music.

AND STUFF AND THINGS.

[terminal pharmacy]

look for an essay by theodor adorno, i think it is called the culture industries revisited, in this bookThe Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture