'The Return Of The Spectacular Spinning Songbook', Nov. '11

[Jack of All Parades]

[quote="Natasha"]

"I have this unpopular opinion that everything must be shared and the way we think about authorship and authoral rights is a little mistaken."

I am very uncomfortable with your seeming willingness to dismiss and abuse a basic legal precedent: Intellectual Property. By all means share but with proper compensation and credit given to the author/artist. Anything less leaves one open to being a thief in my eyes.

[Natasha]

I have this unpopular opinion that everything must be shared and the way we think about authorship and authoral rights is a little mistaken.

I am very uncomfortable with your seeming willingness to dismiss and abuse a basic legal precedent: Intellectual Property. By all means share but with proper compensation and credit given to the author/artist. Anything less leaves one open to being a thief in my eyes.

And you're not the only one. But this is not about override intellectual property, this is about finding other ways to share knowledge, other ways of compensation. There are many ways to do that such as copy left, creative commons and alikes.

Of course this must come from the artist - everyone has the right to chose how they want to recieve from their work. Just to be clear, I do think everything should be shared. But I won't stop downloading so I guess I'm still a thief.

I just think that if things were more flexible everyone would win (and not just a few). That's all.

[jardine]

i'm a writer. If "everyone wins," how do i win if my work is simply taken? I know that you might win because you can get it free. i know that we might all win against "the man" because the big publisher doesn't get a cut. more people might read what i write, but then, who wins then? ok, so...yes, you are a thief.

don't get me wrong, I download "things." But if i like them, I then buy them (one reason is not very noble, because the quality of downloaded stuff on 600 dollar earphones is just unbearable). the other reason is because i want that artist to continue making music and want, in some very very very small way, to contribute to that.

and, too, yes, the price of cds is bloody stupid and has undermined itself...

[Natasha]

But if i like them, I then buy them (one reason is not very noble, because the quality of downloaded stuff on 600 dollar earphones is just unbearable). the other reason is because i want that artist to continue making music and want, in some very very very small way, to contribute to that.

And that's exactly how you win (not the only way but one way of "everybody winning"). If you consider publishing your books online and people like them they may consider buying your book so you can keep on writing or just because they want to have it on their shelf. And what if you consider let your reader decide how much they want to pay on your book/music/whatever (Radiohead? Anyone?)? Is it utopic? Yes, but not impossible and there are many suceeded cases already. Or you can let the industry decide whether people will like what you do or not and how much they must pay for it.

I'm a musician, most of my friends are musicians and many bands I know started putting their music on myspace for free download and got more fans and audience to their shows. And there are those who didn't and their music is avaiable online anyway.

One thing is for sure: people won't stop downloading just because you called them thief, pirate, or something. But they will stop if they realize it's not worth it. I truly believe you can cope with that and things will change gradually. You can give up of some things to get others. You can also give people something more, something irreplaceable and unique and they will be willing to pay for it.

[Jeremy Dylan]

And what if you consider let your reader decide how much they want to pay on your book/music/whatever (Radiohead? Anyone?)?

That's a straw man example. By the time Radiohead did that, they had millions of fans who had been buying their records for years and had a loyalty to their brand. They had the benefit when they started out of a major record label marketing machine behind them, paying for their recording costs, photo shoots, getting their records out to the media, etc. And by the time they got to In Rainows, even if they had ended up with nobody deciding to pay anything for the album, they're making enough money out of their normally priced back catalogue for it not to ruin them. We don't know how well Radiohead did out of that venture (I've seen online surveys that put it at about four pounds on average), but since they didn't repeat it for The King of Limbs, it's not unreasonable to assume it wasn't an unqualified success. Not to mention that they released In Rainbows to stores on regularly priced CDs a few months after the download scheme.

[Natasha]

By the time Radiohead did that, they had millions of fans who had been buying their records for years and had a loyalty to their brand.

Sure, that's what I'm talking about. They had conquered a fanbase despite the download thing and this fanbase is what will keep their carrer going (not just record sales). They (fans) are the ones who buy the records and the others wouldn't buy it anyway. If they didn't put the album avaiable online it would be avaiable anyway. This is not just about money, it's about loyalty and other ways to make money.

They also may have changed some people's mind by doing this. People may have stopped to think about it. That's how change begins.

This leads us back to the thread's subject: For me, Elvis' message is not simply "don't buy it", it's "think about it first".

[Otis Westinghouse]

i'm a writer ... the quality of downloaded stuff on 600 dollar earphones is just unbearable

Sounds like you must be winning pretty well already!

[sulky lad]

Perhaps Jardine shoplifted them ( no offence intended !!)
To serious matters, if we don't treasure all creative people then the incentive for them to put their art in a public domain is inevitably diminished. I'd be the first to admit to bootlegging shows and,as I'm sure I've said in the past, I have never made money out of it; conversely I'm probably hugely out of pocket by the time I pass on those recordings to other people but I do that as a sort of let-out clause to excuse my thievery. However, I would never pirate a CD to pass it off to another person either for profit or out of "kindness" If my kids like what I play and want the CD, I'll but them a copy. I really hope the content of the Return Of the Spectacular Spinning Songbook does become available separately because I want to hear the material but I'd find it almost impossible to contemplate downloading a pirated copy. There's a quote by the Man himself years back along the lines of " live bootlegs can be fun but studio piracy is the work of thieves and scoundrels " and I've taken that as my guide . Jeremy expresses this so much better than I can, sorry

[Otis Westinghouse]

Bootlegs do nothing but help foster sales of recordings, I'm sure. They keep the fandom bubbling, and therefore CD and ticket sales. I believe in being principled up to a point about copying of studio recordings, but I have no problem with making a copy of something for my son. I've already bought it, and he's not going to anyway, it's not that much different to lending. I used to take lots of CDs out the library and copy them, made sense when they were £1 (and revenue was going to the artist from). Now they're £3 or something! You can go to somewhere like zoverstocks on Amazon Marketplace and buy them for that price. I tend not to copy stuff of people who are less successful, e.g. I've turned down requests for Ron Sexsmith CDs as they've never sold enough, though I do make compilations in the hope of fostering interest.

As someone whose job is based on the selling of IP (publishing, though of the educational variety, does that make me 'The Man'?), it's important to avoid theft, but it's also important to reassess your role and try and provide something that people want to pay for. Of course the music industry shot itself in the foot with CDs, hoist with its own petard digitally, but at least now the lesson has been learned and they are far cheaper in relative terms than 20 years ago.

The incredible amount of live music on offer everywhere that Natasha refers to can only be good news. There's an irony that while the studio-crafted item has become less valued and more ephemeral, the transient live experience is a huge money generator. The memories from a good gig can stay with you forever.

[johnfoyle]

A interesting round-up of the usual cliches, old and new, about Elvis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi ... qus_thread

[krm]

I like the renaming from Costello to Costalotto

[Jeremy Dylan]

On the bootlegging question, I don't think there's any real moral quandry there - if something isn't available commercially, you're not doing anyone out of their just income by distributing it. However, if someone were to sell a bootleg, I'd look askance on that, as it then becomes someone making a profit by exploiting the works of others, who aren't being remunerated.

[Jeremy Dylan]

A interesting round-up of the usual cliches, old and new, about Elvis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi ... qus_thread

Crimey, that's a bit obnoxious. If you were reading that unawares, you'd think Costello was boycotting the UK, which is odd as I saw him play 3 gigs there last June. I don't get this attitude that sometimes pops up in the UK press that British people who choose to live somewhere else are doing it as some kind of 'Fuck You' to their place of birth. The Aussie press doesn't harbor ill-will toward Huge Action for setting up shop in the US and making Hollywood movies.

[Kevin Davis]

Natasha, it seems you're using your own idealistic, hippie-ish ideas as to how much an artist should be willing to share as grounds for defending why you think it's okay to simply take from the artist when he or she doesn't comply. Your argument is tantamount, to a lesser degree, to taking a rape victim to task for wearing provocative clothing--you're essentially taking the blame off the pirate for stealing and placing the blame on the artist for not figuring out how not to be stolen from. Logically, that's about the emptiest pro-downloading stance you could take, even ahead of the equally vapid, "They're rich enough already--they don't need my money!"

I read an interview with the Decemberists' Colin Meloy where he said that, overall, he imagines downloading has probably been more beneficial for their career than detrimental to it. But his band also came of age in a time where downloading was already an irrefutable reality. Smart bands do learn to adapt, and denial of the way things really work is ultimately not going to serve any artist well. But that's still no defense of the act itself.

Don't get me wrong--I do agree that the means by which the digital revolution has affected music are probably significantly more complicated than any of us industry outsiders understand, even though I think the end result is pretty obvious. Furthermore, I think there are rare occasions where using common sense to make a morally-centered exception is reasonable, though usually the exception involves the artist already having been compensated for their work in this way or that. An example would be in 2004 when EC released The Delivery Man, then re-released it again a few months later with an extra track--"She's Pulling Out the Pin"--stuffed into the middle of it. I feel like that kind of thing has become increasingly common in the music business, and I can't fathom an artist or label really thinks even the hardest-core fan is going to re-purchase a brand new CD that they just bought in good faith for the first time a few months prior. I bought the original Delivery Man on the release date, and had no misgivings whatsoever about seeking out that one track on its own. When artists release multiple editions of the same album, with each one featuring different bonus content, I have no problem seeking out the stuff that accompanied the versions I didn't pay for. Generally speaking, I have no issue with the idea of downloading an album and listening a few times for preview purposes, so long as it gets deleted or thrown away after several uses. Sites like Grooveshark are making this kind of thing less and less necessary, but still--I wouldn't buy a car without having test-driven it a few times, and a CD should be no different. So I do think there's some fairly explicit gray area, founded on sense and logic if not necessarily the law.

Ultimately, the internet can be an extremely useful tool, both for musicians and for listeners, but finally it falls to the consumer to determine whether they're using it responsibly. I think the final question really amounts to whether you're being part of the problem or part of the solution. It's a shame to read arguments like Natasha's, which essentially mistake the former for the latter on the grounds of some self-righteous, tertiary idea about the way things "should" be. I suspect it's that frame of mind which is more harmful than anything.

[sweetest punch]

Amazon.com has now the DVD for pre-order: http://www.amazon.com/Elvis-Costello-Re ... 151&sr=1-2
Releasedate is also January 24, 2012.

[Jack of All Parades]

That is the argument for me in a nutshell. Succinctly stated and well argued. Thank you. As Otis, Jeremy and Mr. Davis state, I too have no problem if the particular cd is commercially unavailable in making a copy of the same cd for friends or family who may be interested in it particularly as I have previously and legitimately purchased it. Short of that, though, I draw my moral line.

[Natasha]

Guys, I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm not saying download is a right thing. I'm just saying it's inevitable and since it's inevitable people should find other ways to cope with that. Also I'm not saying that music and entertainment industry must end and we should go back to the troubadours era or something.

I also want to point out that I think download is diferent from piracy (the secong one implies taking profit of other's work, not just stopping them from profiting). I'm not trying to justify neither one nor the other.

I just think it's funny how I'm the only one here being called thief for something that everybody does (even though you all try to justify it saying you'll buy the CD after "test-driving" it. It's all the same crime in the end). All I'm saying is that ndustry has changed, culture changes, laws eventually change too. Let's have this convesation again in ten years or so, ok?

[Jack of All Parades]

Actually I have never illegally downloaded music- not because I am 'ancient' and technologically challenged, although my daughters might disagree, but because I do not agree with the way it cheats an artist. Here I am talking about illegitimate and indiscriminate theft of intellectual property. Download from an authorized site with subsequent reimbursement to the artist and to the middle man I have no problem with, just do not find that product as satisfying as the hard copy in my hand. You seem to blend the two means of acquisition, legal and illegal, in your explanation of how you acquire music- that disturbs me.

[docinwestchester]

A interesting round-up of the usual cliches, old and new, about Elvis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi ... qus_thread

“Elvis has never suffered fools gladly,” says his old comrade at Stiff Records, Nick Lowe. “Unfortunately, he happens to work in an industry made up almost entirely of fools.”

Good quote.

[docinwestchester]

Amazon.com has now the DVD for pre-order: http://www.amazon.com/Elvis-Costello-Re ... 151&sr=1-2
Releasedate is also January 24, 2012.

Nice, but where's the Blu-ray? Please?!

[cwr]

In 1994, I drove to Chicago to see my first Elvis Costello concert in Tinley Park. Before going to the show, I happened to stop into a CD store where I happened upon a copy of the CD "Barbados Megamixes." It was a bootleg of what ended up being released a year later as Kojak Variety, which of course had been recorded back before MLAR. I bought it, of course.

I wonder if there is any person on earth who bought "Barbados Megamixes" who did not go on to buy either the official first release of Kojak Variety or its 2-disc Rhino reissue? I bought both. Elvis was right to be annoyed that it got leaked. I don't regret buying the bootleg first.

The Wendy James Demos -- I tracked down all the official releases, even the rare promo "Clown Strike" CD that had "Do You Know What I'm Saying?" I bought the vinyl single of "London's Brilliant Parade" to get the only release of "London's Brilliant." I then bought a "Plugging The Gaps" bootleg which allowed me to have a CD copy of that track. Years later, I acquired the pirated disc of the WJ demos which included 4 that have never been released. One of those tracks ("This Is A Test") has never been heard in EC's demo form, and the last we heard was that EC had lost track of where the original recordings were, so none of these came out on the otherwise exhaustive Rhino reissues. We possibly have the pirates and thieves to thank for those 4 unreleased tracks existing at all, at least if Elvis never happens to find the originals.

"Where Is The Love?"-- the most obscure of the Toussaint/Costello co-compositions from TRIR, only available as an "album only" iTunes track. It's a pretty good song, I like it better than at least a few of the co-writes that made the album. I only own it because someone gave me an iTunes gift card and I decided to use it to purchase the entire album -- having already bought it on CD and vinyl-- for a third time JUST for that single track. I have since shared it with several personal friends who are also EC fans. I'd happily have spent a dollar on it, but ten dollars for an album I'd already bought twice burned.

I also bought the McCartney/MacManus demos, the ones that EC got snarky about when an interviewer recently admitted to having purchased the same disc. I don't regret having bought it, and I will eagerly line up to buy the exact same songs if EC ever gets his wish and McCartney agrees to let them be released officially.

These are all examples of things that cross a line for a lot of people-- I'm buying stolen goods, or I'm sharing a thing I bought with friends of mine, which is probably a grey area for some. But I don't feel the slightest bit bad about any of these. I have bought almost every item of music Elvis has put up for sale in the almost 20 years I've been a fan, and I will continue to do so, as long as it's not crazy stuff like $300 box sets.

My first EC "live" bootleg was The Gangster Is Back, and I can still remember how fucking excited I was to listen to that for the first time. I'd happily buy that concert again if EC ever released it in any format.

[History History]

Review of The Return of the Spectacular Spinning Songbook in The Sunday Times:

How much time do bands spend agonising over set lists? Which of the big hits should they put in early, to get the audience up for it? And which should they save for the end? Never one for industry norms, Elvis Costello chooses to allow a giant gameshow-style wheel to determine his running order. To make this work, you need an excellent catalogue of songs and a band who never let the energy levels sag. Costello has both. Culled from American shows earlier this year, the set list makes a phenomenal live album. Add in a DVD, a 10-inch vinyl disc and the usual "lavish" packaging, and you have the ideal Christmas indulgence for fans - at about £200, a price that even shocked Costello himself.

[Natasha]

You seem to blend the two means of acquisition, legal and illegal, in your explanation of how you acquire music- that disturbs me.

No, I don't and I think I made it clear (if I didn't, I'm sorry). Despite my few years of life experience I know the difference between wrong and right, legal and illegal. It's great that you think that way (about not downloading) but the reality is that most of the people don't act that way (if they did, we wouldn't have this conversation). Will people change their minds about this? Maybe. But I think the actual approach is wrong. Of course we can leave things as they are now and count on people's "dim conscience", as Elvis said.

[the_platypus]

the quality of downloaded stuff on 600 dollar earphones is just unbearable

Not necessarily-- there are a lot of lossless formats. "Downloaded music" doesn't necessarily mean 128kpbs lossy mp3s.

[Otis Westinghouse]

I took great pleasure in downloading Van the Man and the Chieftains' magnificent Irish Heartbeat for nothing. It was on Amazon for like £48, and pretty much nowhere else. So I stole it! Then again, I bought it on cassette when it came out. I'm innocent! Why on earth is such a great record not readily available on CD?