|
martle
|
 |
« Reply #135 on: 10:54:46, 04-10-2007 » |
|
As someone involved in various attempts to up NN's game over the last few years, I'll back up tinners here. And I agree that it's in a lot better state now than it was say 7/8 years ago. That's a lot to do with the editor, Schoel Stadlen, but also to do with increased internal resources at spnm; and it's obviously got something to do with the demonstrable appetite for more in-depth writing amongst NN's readership. None of which is to deny that there's a way to go yet...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
Ian_Lawson
Posts: 59
|
|
« Reply #136 on: 11:11:32, 04-10-2007 » |
|
Hello Richard,
I would say that a very small proportion of all music is cravenly commercial. – and even that doesn’t make such music automatically bad.
I sincerely hope that others would not have a problem with your listening choices given that it’s not anyone else’s business.
My point is that music produced for public consumption is a commodity, irrespective of its supposed commercial potential. For the last hundred years or so even the ‘intellectual property’ contained within the CD, Score, download, ticket (or other tradable form) has been an independently tradable commodity.
Therefore there is no such process that can meaningfully be described as ‘comodification’ in progress.
If you so wish, however, there are practical steps that could be taken to de-commodify music. For example do away with the concept of copyright. Given that the internet has provided a way to distribute music at negligible cost this would in effect decommodify music at a stroke. I’m not quite sure it would mean that more people would listen to the ‘right’ sort of music though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #137 on: 11:25:07, 04-10-2007 » |
|
Ian
There's a fairly extensive discussion between myself and George Garnett above seeking to explain precisely why the term 'commodification' is used rather than 'commercialisation', and also attempting to clarify that in this context 'commodification' does not refer to 'commodities' in the sense of saleable goods, but to a concept of 'commodity form' derived from a quite specific tradition of thought including philosophers of music such as Adorno.
I'm not saying you have to agree with any of what those philosophers say, but the points you raise have already been raised and discussed above in some detail.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #138 on: 11:31:40, 04-10-2007 » |
|
Indeed, t_i_n.
I would say that doing away with the idea of copyright is a good idea, not so that people will listen to the "right" sort of music (there is no "right" sort of music) but to make some contribution to creating a "level playing field" in which all music is as far as possible equally accessible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian_Lawson
Posts: 59
|
|
« Reply #139 on: 11:47:13, 04-10-2007 » |
|
T. I. N
What is ‘commodity form’?
I suppose it would be asking to much for this expression to mean anything along the lines of ‘in the form of a commodity’?
Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain (in your own words) what this debate is about and what this process of ‘commodification’ actually is. (Assuming it is a process)
Richard,
Even though there are arguments against the concept of intellectual property.
Would its abolition solve the problem (whatever that is) of commodification, given that, apparently, ‘commodification’ isn’t anything to do with being, or becoming, a saleable commodity?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #140 on: 11:53:57, 04-10-2007 » |
|
T. I. N
What is ‘commodity form’?
[...]
Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain (in your own words) what this debate is about and what this process of ‘commodification’ actually is. I thought I had done, actually. Here's the message in question: http://r3ok.myforum365.com/index.php?topic=1521.msg64284#msg64284I'm quite happy to elaborate if you have questions about what I wrote, but it would be nice to have some indication that you had read my previous posting. It would help me feel that if I take the trouble to post again my efforts are going to be rewarded with your attention. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
Ian_Lawson
Posts: 59
|
|
« Reply #141 on: 12:01:23, 04-10-2007 » |
|
Do you mean this bit:
“the cultural artefact constituted for consumption rather than autonomously ... Does that help, or is that still all unfamiliar jargon?”
Yes I did read that, and translated it to mean ‘a piece of music composed with the aim of being popular rather than for its own sake.
Presumably my translation is wrong – so it is that aspect I would like you to elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #142 on: 12:26:22, 04-10-2007 » |
|
Indeed, t_i_n.
I would say that doing away with the idea of copyright is a good idea, not so that people will listen to the "right" sort of music (there is no "right" sort of music) but to make some contribution to creating a "level playing field" in which all music is as far as possible equally accessible.
I don't advocate removing the concept of intellectual property except in the context of a complete removal of the concept of property. Also, once such a level playing field is created, an unequal playing field will soon emerge again because of communal repromotion of the "good" products and concomitant disregard for the rest. Not that that is a thing to be lamented, as long as the emphasis is on communal as opposed to "by some cultural elite". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #143 on: 12:38:58, 04-10-2007 » |
|
I don't advocate removing the concept of intellectual property except in the context of a complete removal of the concept of property.
It would make a good start though! Jeremy Grimshaw's article (it's only a few years old) about Philip Glass's Low Symphony Yes, very interesting indeed, Colin. My feeling about Glass's attempts to orchestrate was always that if his compositorial image of the music is the way it sounds in recorded form rather than in a concert hall, why does he need to bother with "real" instruments at all? and Grimshaw deals with this question in a forthright way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #144 on: 12:46:08, 04-10-2007 » |
|
I don't advocate removing the concept of intellectual property except in the context of a complete removal of the concept of property.
It would make a good start though! I don't think so. I think it would be good to start somewhere else, such as the ownership of land. Intellectual property should be last, if one can't have it all simultaneously. I'm only speaking hypothetically, of course. Before we communalize property, some other issues need to be taken care of, such as convincing the society that it is in their best interest to let such voluntary, democratic dissolution of property rights be in their best interest. As you were, ladies and gents. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #145 on: 12:49:59, 04-10-2007 » |
|
Yes I did read that, and translated it to mean ‘a piece of music composed with the aim of being popular rather than for its own sake.
Presumably my translation is wrong – so it is that aspect I would like you to elaborate.
It isn't "wrong", if I may step in here, so much as incomplete, in so far as while "the aim of being popular" (by which I presume you mean "the aim of extracting the maximum profit from listeners", since this is the way music becomes "popular" in our society) is a reasonably unambiguous concept, "for its own sake" doesn't really have any clear meaning at all as far as I can see. How can music have a "sake"? Appealing to slippery ideas like this is often a means of not addressing the real issues of how and why music is made. The key word in t_i_n's sentence is "constituted", which he carefully uses instead of "intended". CD: the thing is (and I speak as an advocate of the same revolutionary transformation of society as you do) letting go of the concept of intellectual property in its inherited form is something it's actually within our ability to do something about, as, if you like, an example. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #146 on: 12:55:01, 04-10-2007 » |
|
How can music have a "sake"?  CD: the thing is (and I speak as an advocate of the same revolutionary transformation of society as you do) letting go of the concept of intellectual property in its inherited form is something it's actually within our ability to do something about, as, if you like, an example. All previous attempts in this direction thus far have been less than democratic, so I felt the need to state that for the record. But I still don't see the giving up of intellectual property rights, as, if you like, a symbolic gesture, as a gateway to general liberty. Unless its ''inherited form'' is something I don't know about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #147 on: 13:10:04, 04-10-2007 » |
|
I still don't see the giving up of intellectual property rights, as, if you like, a symbolic gesture, as a gateway to general liberty. Unless its ''inherited form'' is something I don't know about.
I wasn't really talking about symbolic gestures. Most of the efforts currently being made to hang on to the existing notion of "intellectual property", certainly as far as music is concerned, are being made by entities (like the rapidly-shrinking number of big players in the "industry") whose very existence is threatened by the free exchange of recorded music over the internet. What I was saying was that these increasingly-desperate attempts don't interest me much, and since recorded music has to this extent already become less of a "commodity" than it previously was, I would prefer to embrace the advantages of this development in terms of "levelling the playing field". That was all really. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #148 on: 13:13:01, 04-10-2007 » |
|
But I still don't see the giving up of intellectual property rights, as, if you like, a symbolic gesture, as a gateway to general liberty. How aught I think of that (the idea that intellectual property rights should be the last to go) in a way that doesn't sound rather hypocritical? (I don't think you are, but ... oh you know what I mean I hope; could you expand that point a little bit for me?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #149 on: 13:19:52, 04-10-2007 » |
|
I would prefer to embrace the advantages of this development in terms of "levelling the playing field".
Having not fully thought through the implications of this, I must bow out -- for now -- with skepticism. More later when I've mulled it over. incre: I don't see what's hypocritical, nor do I take the implication personally. In any case, intellectual property is for me qualitatively different from physical property. Can we agree on that? Then perhaps all the rest might follow logically. I re-emphasize that it's all hypo crithetical. The ideal case is an overnight, democratic decision to dissolve all property rights in one go. I've been peeking at the pears on my neighbor's tree for quite some time now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
