Jimboo

Now ,now that is a fair point but..........Distribution and actually getting the bands music to be heard is the biggest problem. It always has been the difference. Funny though if you think about it. Take Sony , record label , dvd and film distributor makers of cassettes and mini discs and cdr's their players and recording hardware. There advertising is telling you that you can record and make your own c.d's. The very small print reminds you that you must own the material. What did they think we would do with the technology? Make our own little mix tapes? Keep them to ourselves? Nah they made a rod for their own back. They bitched about cassettes (ruined album covers with that stupid pirate logo) If it caused them to lose so much money then why do they keep on making the technology better and more available? I download and i buy the album if i like it. I believe the artist should be able to make a living out of his work. Still once the touring costs and the video shoot etc , etc are taken away the poor bastards income is next to nothing. So what to do? I am not going to pay for a computer file of inferior quality. Perhaps the record companies need to be a little more selective concerning the acts they sign. 40 odd albums released a week? You need streaming and downloads to even have a small chance of being able to hear the sheer volume of music that is out there. We love music but it is seen nowadays as a cheap commodity like tesco own brand baked beans. The record companies could save bucks if they stopped the endless re-mastering , expanded , deluxe versions of every album they own. Be like the Rhino label a download could never replace their product.

Tangerine dream phaedra - perfect or zeit or atem. Anything by Cluster. Stars of the lid (very , very slow).

Different excellent utter shite.

How much are you wanting to spend ? Richer sounds are ok but it is a case of quantity over quality.

My God if you have never heard that lot before are you in for a treat!

"the mass of other, non-musical things that gave rise to Nirvana's popularity " You mean following their musical popularity it gave rise to all sort of non-musical reasons as to the perceeption of the band. Death , Suicide = Rock & Roll martyrdom. An untarnished image. A legacy is left and that turns into the myth. Then you have to play the records. Ok, verse chorus verse , screaming guitars , rawk vocals and a pretty boy singer. Nothing that new. To be fair before Nirvana the guitar was in danger of being so last year. They are not that bad. Cobain himself was not all that happy the way things got out of control. I would have liked to have seen where he was going next. Nirvana (i believe) were going to split and had Cobain managed to sort himself out who knows. He couldn't have done anything as bad as the Foo Fighters surely?

Just leave that thin wild mercury sound alone , ya hear?

There is little chance of anyone finding your webpage either. There is little chance of anyone finding or writing about your band. There is little chance of someone noticing your band as a free download amongst the others. It is not a realistic option.

I understand what you are saying. Look in the good old days when i fought the punk wars it was the same idea. You get labels like stiff and rough trade all trying to do the same thing. You still have to get the music to the people. So you have to be able to by pass traditional methods. You still as a musician have a right to earn a crust. If you want to play live to 3 guys in Biffy Clyro t-shirts and a fat guy polishing glasses in some grubby estate pub fine.

God help me , and they FIND it how? "hello mr radio dj me and my band do not want to sign for a record label. Here is our cdr give it a kisten and a spin will ya" ? "sure kid" " Hello mr record shop look here is a cdr from a band that refuses to be signed to the majors. Ignore your suppliers and put it in the window and give folks a free listen on them headphones on the wall , well just move the Interpol album somewhere else" "sure kid" We have a website named after our band and we are on my space . I know there are over 100 million web pages but we are gonna stand out well because WE are the new Monkeys cept we have conviction. Hey we have uploaded our album for free on your peer 2 peer site. I know you have never heard of us . We do not get played on the radio you cannot get our product in the shops but we got a website. Are we signed? No we don't believe in that. Why ? Cos we are teaching the majors a lesson. We are an unsigned band and we are gonna stay that way. Download our music for free and then we can buy new gear and studio time an er a transit van and get a really good producer for nothing. Yeah fuck the man!

oh , ok where?

How would that work?

do question the motives of any artists that sign to a major label (which is why I wouldn't even entertain the merest possibility of such a thing when it arose), Why?

Which part do you need clarifying? If an artist does not want to get paid for his work and is against being pimped. How are they to survive? Playing clubs and pubs. Again how many acts are "pure" How do you get your music to the people?

As opposed to who?

Er sound quality for one. I am not nor will i ever "pay" money for bit rate and files. If you have all of your music on i-tunes or stored on a computer ,then you are a shmuck. The big bad boys have the infrastructure and distribution and their grubby little hands hold the pen for the magazine writers and their reviews. They are a necessary evil. How many "indie" and "underground" bands say no when a major comes knocking? 100 million web pages , more shit on my space than you can wave a stick at. Give the artist a fair deal and you buy the product so the band make money and the producer has a studio and you can listen to a quality sound (if you are smart) on a decent hi-fi. The infrastructure is not there. The big boys just buy it up and then they (bands and labels) lose all their supposed kudos and people like you moan cos it ain't rock & roll enough for ya.

Good points , Still Fleetwood Mac did alienate their audience several times. Unlike Rilo they did it by producing a good album and a set of songs. Crow is just radio FM let us not kid ourselves that she evolved or has made any impact cept for the odd semi inducing videos. If Rilo lose their present audience where is the new one coming from? They are a cult act at the best of times. I agree they should be allowed to evolve and change styles. What i object to is the gilding of the lily from the critics and the faithful stammering that actually they like a couple of songs. I am yet to read anyone who thinks this a good album (bar the critics) Hell you couldn't even say it while defending them. It ain't the change of direction that rankles. It is just a very poor album by anybody's standards.

Well they sound as though they have given up. Fuck your audience around by releasing a fleetwood mac fronted by sheryl crow west coast tuesday night club crowd album and a long career you don't have. Was there some sort of bet concerning the track smoke detector ? I mean come on man lyrically fookin hell.

Makes you wonder why they bothered don't it?

Let us cut to the chase. I have owned this for over two weeks now. Utter shite!! No really it is.

Don't suppose you can remember the Billy Idol one can you?

No you are. If i were to say that Elton is correct music was better in the seventies. It would be a matter of opinion as to whether you agreed with him. As i stated it would come down to a matter of taste . Therefore if you prefer music from the seventies then up to a "point" you would agree with him. However if you think today's bands are better then you disagree. My "point" is that if you think as you yourself wrote" a 'point' would generally be thought of as a universally agreed upon or proven 'truth'." An opinion is not necessarily a valid point. As shown that premise cannot be the case. A "point" is not ,cannot be and never has been "thought of as a universally agreed upon or proven 'truth'" That would be a loose definition of the word fact. So is Elton correct , no. You were correct when you said "Elton John in this scenario has wrongly interpreted the broadening out of the music currently listened to and simply 'available' as being the lost, searching souls of a population in need of great musical inspirations" So i actually agree with your point! However your point is not necessarily an agreed or even a proven truth though is it? Or were you stating an opinion? The Internet is changing the rules. Critics and music publications are feeling the pinch (my space and blogging allows you to hear an artist rather than a critics opinion of one) Downloading is rife and people like me who download and then buy the product are becoming a rare commodity. It is a good thing because bands are able to reach out to a wide audience and the word of mouth scene is often a more trustworthy guide as opposed to record company hype. How the attitude of the "now "generation with the ability to download from peer to peer sites and the seemingly acceptable happiness of an inferior sound (mp 3) on their i-pod's will affect the industry in the long run remains to be seen.

Actually upon thinking about , no. You are as about as wrong as it is possible to be.Had i said as a "point" of fact you would then only be half right. You see i can point out you are wrong. There you go.

Dunno , anyway it is a fact.

Well now that would be a matter of taste wouldn't it?