RSS Bookmark / Share

Archive for the ‘External Content’ Category

November 26th, 2012

Animation Live at Barcelona Jazz Festival – tonight from 830 pm

Tags: , , , , , , , | 0 Comments

BOB BELDEN & ANIMATION

MESTRES – Rare Noise Night

BOB BELDEN & ANIMATION

FECHA

Lunes, 26 de noviembre

LUGAR

Conservatori del Liceu, 20.30 h.

PRECIO

20 € Ant. / 25 € Taq.

VÍDEO

Señor Bob Belden: usted, ay, no forma parte exactamente del mainstream jazzístico. Díganos unas frases que hagan que el público pueda interesarse por usted. «Estamos tan arruinados como vosotros.” Caray. ¿Otra? «Era hacer este bolo o ir a la cárcel.” Ya ven: Bob Belden, un nombre detrás de las reediciones históricas de Miles Davis y Herbie Hancock -entre muchos otros-, productor y erudito del jazz, es también una leyenda de la música que, insobornable, ha decidido caminar por otras vías sin perder el humor y el sarcasmo. Su último proyecto es una reencarnación de su banda ANIMATION, cuatro jóvenes que junto con él – «somos una banda de verdad” – interpretan un sentido homenaje a Manhattan con Transparent Heart, un disco emocionante publicado, claro, por una discográfica que no es como las otras, Rare Noise Records.

Bob Belden, saxo soprano y flauta
Pete Clagett, trompeta
Roberto Verastegui, teclados
Jacob Smith, baix eléctrico
Matt Young, batería

CONCIERTOS RELACIONADOS

June 21st, 2012

Paul Resnikoff puts the nail in the coffin

Tags: | 0 Comments

Our Digital Innocence Just Died. And David Lowery Killed It…

I spent an entire afternoon reading and re-reading the storm of articles, comments, analyses and emails related to one impassioned and eloquent retort.  The New York Times, NPR, Los Angeles Times, Techdirt, Hypebot, Lefsetz, the Huffington Post.  Thousands of words, hundreds of comments, dozens of emails, several proposed guest posts; I’m not sure I’ve experienced anything quite like this.

Because David Lowery didn’t just touch a nerve this week, he may have single-handedly crushed years of post-physical, ridiculous digital utopianism.   In one crystallizing, cross-generational and unbelievably viral rant.

And after a decade of drunken digitalia, this is the hangover that finally throbs, is finally faced with Monday morning, finally stares in the mirror and admits there’s a problem.  And condenses everything into a detailed ‘moment of clarity’…

 

(1) No, artists can’t simply tour and sell t-shirts.

It doesn’t work.  In fact, shockingly few indie artists can pull this off, except for those developed at some point by the major labels (ie, Amanda Palmer) or a serious group of professionals.  Most of the others that are managing to squeak out a living on the road are doing it with great difficulty and are working non-stop.

 

(2) The recording is now effectively worth $0; its surrounding ecosystem has collapsed.

Some people buys CDs.  Less purchase vinyl.  iTunes downloads are still increasing.  But averaged across all formats and personal valuations, the recording has effectively become worthless.  And that has had drastic repercussions for the music industry, and the lives of otherwise creative and productive artists.

 

 

(3) Spotify is not a beneficial solution for artists.  Certainly not right now, and quite possibly, never.

Will Spotify ever put a meal on an artist’s table?  That’s extremely speculative.  Sure, it might eventually mimic Sweden-like penetration in the US.  But that is not happening right now; it’s not a fair solution for artists right now.  Instead, it is shuttling people like CEO Daniel Ek towards stratospheric riches, fattening major labels, and potentially giving Goldman Sachs bankers another joyride.

 

(4) Kickstarter will mean something to artists in the future, but only to a relative few.

 

Amanda Palmer may hold the world record for a long time, but there will be other Kickstarter stories.  Some will come out of nowhere, most will involve previously-established artists, particularly those already developed by a major label or similar entity.  This will not replace the vast financing once offered by recording labels.

 

(5) DIY is rarely effective, and almost always gets drowned by the flood of competing content.

It doesn’t matter if you’re singing directly into the ear of your prospective fan.  Because they’re listening to Spotify on Dre headphones while texting and playing Angry Birds.   Some can cut through, but most cannot without serious teams, serious top-level marketing and serious media muscle.  Justin Bieber ultimately needed the machine, no matter how beautifully his YouTube story gets spun.

 

(6) Sadly, most artists are worse off in the digital era than they were in the physical era.

Actually, we have David Lowery himself to thank for this realization.  Because the implosion of the recording has impacted nearly every other aspect of music monetization (though certainly not music creativity itself.)  And its replacement is generally a fraction of what a ‘lucky’ artist could expect in an earlier era.

Again, all great for fans like Emily White, but not so great for everyone else.

 

(7) Younger people mostly do not buy music; they do buy hardware and access.

They gravitate towards free digital content, and occassionally pay for things like concerts when they have the money.  Emily White isn’t a fourteen year-old, she’s a young adult that probably doesn’t want the morality trip.  And neither does anyone else – regardless of the generation.

 

(8) Older people buy less music than before; they more frequently buy hardware and access.

If you really want to sell a marked-up bundle, make another Susan Boyle.  It’s still a market that doesn’t revolve around free music and constant fan contact.  But older people file-trade, they stream, they steal and they buy less than before.

 

(9) Google is a major part of the problem.

Lowery is right.  Google is not interested in protecting content creators; their interests lie elsewhere.  Copyright is a nuisance to them, unless it involves their own code and algorithms.  In fact, anything beyond the DMCA erodes their ability to serve customers, remain competitive, and make money. Which is why the Pirate Bay is one of the ‘hottest’ searches, and why adding ‘mp3’ to any artist search produces pages and pages of results.

 

 

(10) You are a major part of the problem.

Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s helping musicians.  It’s not file-trading, but the payouts on Spotify, Pandora, Turntable.fm, or whatever else are shockingly low.  It’s a rounding error, towards 0. The paradox is that music fans are living in abundance, while artists are barely getting scraps.

 

 

(11) Google, the ISPs, and hardware manufacturers have won.

It doesn’t matter how brutal the war with Hollywood becomes; how many Dotcom mansions get raided.  Music fans aren’t going to start buying albums again; in fact, beyond the playlist, the concept of pre-packaged bundling will become increasingly foreign to newer generations.

It’s not about who’s right, it’s now the world the entire music community lives in.

 

(12) Everyone lies about stealing.

I’ve only heard a few people actually admit to file-trading: my close friends, Bob Lefsetz, and Sergey Brin.  If you have an iTunes collection of more than a few thousand songs, you’ve almost certainly swapped, torrented, or swapped hard drives in your life.  And almost everyone has a collection of a few thousand songs.

 

(13) Mass-marketed, ‘lottery winner’ style successes will continue.

Niches are available and sometimes responsive; more often, top-down mass marketing wins.  And most musicians are playing extremely bad odds.

 

(14)  This ISN’T the best time to be in the music industry.

Conferences like MIDEM make money off this sort of Kool-Aid optimism.  But I work in the music business right now; I was at a major label in the late 90s.  And the reality is that this is the greatest time ever for fans, but definitely NOT the best time for those trying to make money from those fans.  And as David Lowery so darkly described, it can be one incredibly depressing trip for even a ‘successful’ artist.

 

That’s the reality we now live in, and you really have David Lowery to thank for making it obvious.

March 25th, 2012

Bob Belden MasterClass at Manhattan School of Music

0 Comments

Dear Friends,

I’ve been given a rare opportunity to present this strange idea to unsuspecting students at the Manhattan School of Music. As punishment for

some unknown offense, the master class is scheduled for 9am on Tuesday, March 27 2012 at 9am…..

Its open to the public. just email me I will put you ‘on the list’ plus none….

In a nutshell: the thought process behind this ‘convergence theory’ is mixing the ‘techniques’ of composition, orchestration, sound design, audio engineering, 5.1 and x,y,z/3-D surround mixing, digital video recording and processing, digital video editing and codec-centric file creation in conjunction with cellular/live animation, live ambisonic audio mixing, live video remixing in a circular and spherical visual projection to ‘compose’ a singular or unique ‘inclusive and immersive hyper-world’.

When minds of different creative directions collaborate, there is a collective diffusion that improves the idea and has the potential for further investigation and elaboration.

FOR INFORMATION : The Manhattan School of Music is at 122ND & BROADWAY | 917 493 4428 | WWW.MSMNYC.EDU

November 8th, 2011

A Message From The Past

0 Comments

Dear Friends,

two years ago I sent the following message to Steve Jobs. I got no response and would like to share it with you.

*************************

Hello Mr. Jobs,

This is a file that allows Mac users to bypass DVD players and DVD discs (carbon positive) by
making iTunes perform the same functions, as well as uncompressed 5.1/7.1 HD Audio.

(Desktop Surround)

I’m a jazz musician/producer in Manhattan. Your age. I have produced hundreds of CDs in most
formats as well as 5.1 SACD discs. My last CD, “Miles From India”, was nominated for a Grammy
in 2009.

Have yet to meet anyone who can watch “Saving Private Ryan” in 5.1 from iTunes. Except me.

*************************

Manhattan

October 19th, 2011

Ode To Technical Reproducibility

Tags: , , , | 0 Comments

Dear Friends,

I came upon this fascinating article, by Frederic Rzewski, straight and pari-passu from The Opinion Pages of the NYT.

I simply could not hold back, as it deals with one of my greatest intellectual concerns, the interplay of music and technology (and society for that matter) – I simply have to share it with you urgently…so enjoy.

Manhattan Out

Prophecy of Machines

By FREDERIC RZEWSKI

Is music technology?

Max Weber, in his last book, “The Rational and Social Foundations of Music, ” published in 1921, a year after his death, says, basically, yes.  Like every other aspect of civilization, music is subject to a relentless and irreversible process of rationalization, culminating (for him) in the organization of the symphony orchestra.  This was at a time when the recording industry was in its infancy, and radio had only just launched the new technique of broadcasting.  Weber could not have foreseen the effect of these two things on the art of music, but he might well have imagined it.

It was a revolutionary time, full of explosions: you can hear them in the recordings of Marinetti reciting his poetry; you can see them in Tatlin’s designs for enormous skyscrapers. It reeked of the future.  Artists (like Schoenberg) thought of themselves as  prophets.  They imagined things that one could do with technology, liberating people from older forms.  Some of these visions became reality decades later.

What survived the 1950s were not the masterpieces of Varèse and Stockhausen, but the techniques they developed.

Whatever prophetic aspirations artists may have had 100 years ago, however,  today they belong to the past.  This world has been abandoned by its gods— among them the notion of the artist as a kind of shaman or wise man.  Today artists are proletarians with privileges: workers in the culture  industry, like the writers in Fitzgerald’s “The Last Tycoon,” well paid sometimes, but servants nonetheless.

Recording, like electricity, has been around for little more than a century.  Radio as a public medium for less than that. Computers have only become widely available since the 1980’s.  Edison did not grasp (at first) the consequences of his gramophone for music; he thought of it as an office machine.  Why wasn’t it invented 100 years earlier?  It was a fairly simple mechanical device.  Mozart might have liked it.  There is no technical reason why we couldn’t hear recordings of Beethoven’s improvisations.  But the time was not ripe.  It didn’t take long for Edison to realize the commercial potential of his machine, nor for the machine to have an effect on the art of music itself.

One of the most obvious effects of recording was to replace musicians with machines.

For Mahler’s audiences, for dance halls where the big bands played in the 1930’s,  and for people who went to the Community Concerts in the ‘40’s (when the United States was the center of classical music), music was an activity, a social event.   Today for most people “music” is a piece of plastic that you buy in a store, or a magic pod around your neck.

In the 1950s, when the first electronic music studios were created, it was still possible to imagine that a new form of music was being created that was ideally suited to electronic media.  What survived, however, were not the masterpieces of Varèse, Stockhausen and other experimenters of the time, but the techniques they developed, which then became a part of the standard vocabulary of industrially produced music.

For better or for worse, technology has surpassed art, not only in its power to reach and influence public imagination, but also in prophetic vision.  The technology of music lays the ground for the further evolution of music itself, and of other technologies as well.

(Whether the progressive rationalization of music, however, is a process which must expand indefinitely, or on the contrary must reach a limit, depends largely on the fate of capitalism. If the primary form in which music is consumed is increasingly that of electronic media, this process is part of the expansion of monopoly capitalism in the late 20th century.  The reduction of music to data accelerates the circulation of capital.)

Technological innovations come about, independently of the consciousness and will of their creators,  because they are objectively necessary.  At the time Weber was writing his book, artists, musicians, and poets were full of prophetic visions, largely based on the glorification of machines.  In the meantime, this prophecy has become a reality.  What has become of the vision?

In the century that separates us from the futurists, a subtle change has come over the relation of art and technology:  if the “avant-garde” (a military term first used with reference to culture and society around 1820 by the French socialist writer Saint-Simon) was once prophetic, it now occupies a subaltern position.  Technology is now dominant, art an appendage, a marketing tool.

Or is it?  Is there something left of the visionary avant-garde, or is it a thing of the past?

Can art still have something of the prophetic function assumed by the avant-garde of the late 19th and early 20th century, or has it been irrevocably absorbed by industry? Can art still be a harbinger of technological progress, even to the extent of forecasting its demise, along with the capitalist system of which it is a part?

Art has become a tool of the machine it has helped to create.

Music notation,  which is at least as old as writing itself and possibly older, is nonetheless in its modern form a technology which has evolved over the last thousand  years, and which has had a profound effect on the art.  It makes counterpoint possible, as well as the coordination of disparate elements in an orchestra.  Everything from instrument design and construction to the machines used for recording and transmission has affected the art itself.  So yes, Western music is very much technology.

In the 18th-century innovations in instrument design greatly expanded the dynamic range of many instruments: a development reflected in Beethoven’s chiaroscuro techniques and in the massive orchestral effects of 19th-century symphonic composers like Berlioz and Wagner.  Such effects are still to be found in the early electronic music of half a century ago.  Now that most music is heard through one or another form of electronic reproduction, the dynamic range has been reduced to zero.  There is only one dynamic: loud.  As a result composers (as if in imitation of Beethoven) become deaf.

The explosive expansion of technological resources has led, paradoxically, to an impoverishment of the language of music.  This process— consisting in a return to basic tonality, harmonic simplification, disappearance of counterpoint, replacement of developmental variation by hypnotic repetition, mindless re-juggling (sampling) of pre-existing historical models rather than genuine innovation, general dumbing-down of the vocabulary — corresponds historically with what has been called the “Great Regression”  (1980 to the present):  a period characterized by the crumbling of the great guiding models of the past (without any viable new ones), and an ensuing cultural, economic, and political stagnation.

(Some 20 years ago I attended a concert of Elliott Carter’s music followed by a  discussion with the composer.  Someone asked why he had not done any electronic music.   He replied that electronic music was primarily concerned with sound, whereas he was interested in writing; and in this context electronics, far from being an  advance, was a regression to the stage of hieroglyphics.)

Technology has no doubt conditioned art from its very beginnings.  But for most of its history art has nonetheless been master of the relation.  In the course of the 20th century a subtle reversal has taken place.  Art has become a tool of the machine it has helped to create.  The art which half a century ago set out to change the world has become a passive instrument  of that world’s malfunction.

Where there is danger, the Saving grows also. (Hölderlin).  Technology has undeniably had a positive effect on music as well:  The technical level of young musicians today is astonishingly high; instantaneous access via the Internet to the great masterpieces could lead to an increase in musical literacy; and the mutual confrontation and merging of different musical cultures could result in a quantum leap to a new stage of the art.  This would depend, however, on a major breakthrough in public consciousness, something theoretically possible for which there is little evidence at present.

Music is more than just technique.  It must have what Arthur Rubinstein called “soul,” or it is not worth the paper on which it is written — just as a technically perfect performance without understanding is no more than the sum of its inert mechanical parts.  If the “avant-garde” has no soul — if it is simply a branch of the market — then it has given up its historical claim to leadership.  It is dead.  But the questions that gave birth to it in the first place remain.  The new materials, the new channels of communication dictate the content.  But they also cry out, like the locomotives and steamships in Mayakovsky’s poem, for “new forms”.  We need, more than ever, a new art that will “drag the republic out of the mud.”

This article was adapted from an address given by the author at a conference on music and politics at the University of Warsaw in September.

FYI : Frederic Rzewski is a pianist, teacher and composer, and was co-founder in the mid-1960s of the group MEV (Musica Elettronica Viva), with Alvin Curran and Richard Teitelbaum. He has performed and recorded worldwide and written many pieces, including “Coming Together” (1971) “Attica,” (1972) and “The People United Will Never Be Defeated!” (1975)

Signals

  • RareNoiseRecords Jukebox
  • Tags

  • © 2010 DenseSignals
    WordPress Blog designed
    & built by Salt