advertisement


Is the Vinyl Revival a passing fancy?

How long do you give the Vinyl Revival?


  • Total voters
    154
  • Poll closed .
Not originators but owners of the licences if its on a label signed off, it is a creative work whose ownership of that recording (and usually the IP rights for other media/uses) has been passed from band to rights holder.

Our right to ownership is that we own the physical carrier we do not own the squiggles or the dimples that the LP contains.

That same relationship carries over to downloads.
 
I do not think it is navel gazing, the philosophical underpinnings of record and music licensing is part of the big misunderstanding about ownership. You own a wall of carrier, not the music. You own a thing that holds music you do not own the music. That said, Napster Spotify etc is not a sustainable model for new music, its a great archive resource for music that has been thoroughly flogged to death, repackaged, warmed up for people to play again, and the bands do not see much money because the music is usually already sold to a licence holder... So I would much rather buy a download direct and listen, which is in fact what I do when I cannot find a streamed version online. But like the LP, CD or whatever, I do not own the bits, I merely own the right to play those bits. The carrier has gone but that carrier is irrelevant. Nice I agree, and preferred if I still had that mindset but inessential. if I lose the bits I get it from the service I bought the licence from.

I like that people collect records, but it really is a huge misunderstanding, right to play and ownership do no equate.
 
Get the to Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Tons of material that tries to chew away at that.

A while back I actually switched off the speakers and just read the sheet music, the actual playing was a distraction. (I also fundamentally disagreed with the interpretation, and that was the ego shouting at me over the top of the players so with respect I returned another week) listening was not why I was listening. Music and I have a tough relationship, we have been through a lot. I like recorded music but as I grow older I am not so sure our reliance on recorded music as representative of a canon of work is good for us.

A loose analogy might be literature. It's perfectly possible to read and enjoy/be moved by a poem or novel without knowing the first thing about literary theory, literary history, or the author. IMO, it's possible to get 'more' out a piece of literature if you know more about the context in which it was written, but closely reading/analysing a poem does tend to reduce its emotional impact, because you can 'see the workings'. The trick I guess is to swich off the critical part of the brain if reading for relaxation rather than study. I made the mistake of studying film as part of my BA; a mistake because although I enjoy watching films I have no real interest in what the director does to make a film 'work'.

There's a James Thurber cartoon of a cross-looking bloke in an art gallery; one bystander is saying to another: 'He knows everything about art, but he doesn't know what he likes'. An over-critical mind can spoil enjoyment, if enjoyment is what you're after.
 
I like that people collect records, but it really is a huge misunderstanding, right to play and ownership do no equate.

Isn't that what I said?

edit - noting that I merely added the concept of owning the right to play. Significant if comparing downloads to physical media, as I posted previously - one allows for the transfer of that ownership, one does not.
 
The trick I guess is to swich off the critical part of the brain if reading for relaxation rather than study.

This is I believe why the good lord invented air guitar.

@vital yeah,muon did. It was agreeing obliquely.
 
The trick I guess is to swich off the critical part of the brain if reading for relaxation rather than study.

This is I believe why the good lord invented air guitar.

@vital yeah you did. I was agreeing obliquely.
 


advertisement


Back
Top