Draw your own conclusions soul seekers...

Ocean Moves · 20 Jan 2006, 03:02

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4599340.stm

lazarus corporation · 20 Jan 2006, 09:09

I saw that news report some days ago and dismissed it as rubbish. You can never trust Psychologists, you know, they're only in it for the money.

The BBC wrote:Easily accessed tunes mean many music lovers are no longer excited at discovering and playing unfamiliar work, said the University of Leicester.

Psychologists monitored 346 people during two weeks to evaluate how they related to music.

They found music had "lost its aura" and was seen as a commodity.

"The accessibility of music has meant that it is taken for granted and does not require a deep emotional commitment once associated with music appreciation," said Dr Adrian North, who led the study.

Music is seen as a commodity not because it can be downloaded, but because it was commoditised years ago by the recording industry - i.e. it was packaged up into saleable units (7" singles, 12" albums, cassette tapes, CDs, whatever) and a price was attached (by market forces and/or by a cartel of the record companies) to these saleable units which is reasonably fixed across the whole industry/market.

Making something freely available does not make it be seen as a commodity - quite the opposite. What is changing is that these saleable units - CDs mainly these days - are not the 'aspirational items' they once were. 'Aspirational items' was a phrase used by a marketing executive once to describe non-essential items which the industry could sell at a disgustingly huge mark-ups because of very good marketing and a cartel-like control of the market.

It's either a case of crap journalism misreporting the research or crap research by a bunch of CogPsych students who have nothing better to do and no concept of what they're talking about.

Ocean Moves · 20 Jan 2006, 09:14

lazarus corporation wrote:I saw that news report some days ago and dismissed it as rubbish. You can never trust Psychologists, you know, they're only in it for the money.

The BBC wrote:Easily accessed tunes mean many music lovers are no longer excited at discovering and playing unfamiliar work, said the University of Leicester.

Psychologists monitored 346 people during two weeks to evaluate how they related to music.

They found music had "lost its aura" and was seen as a commodity.

"The accessibility of music has meant that it is taken for granted and does not require a deep emotional commitment once associated with music appreciation," said Dr Adrian North, who led the study.
Musi is seen as a commodity not because it can be downloaded, but because it was commoditised years ago by the recording industry - i.e. it was packaged up into saleable units (7" singles, 12" albums, cassette tapes, CDs, whatever) and a price was attached (by market forces and/or by a cartel of the record companies) to these saleable units which is reasonably fixed across the whole industry/market.

Making something freely available does not make it be seen as a commodity - quite the opposite.

It's either a case of crap journalism misreporting the research or crap research by a bunch of CogPsych students who have nothing better to do and no concept of what they're talking about.

well put !

Dark · 20 Jan 2006, 09:59

Utter bollocks.

lazarus corporation · 20 Jan 2006, 11:06

Dark wrote:Utter bollocks.

my response, Ocean Moves' comment, the news article, or the research mentioned in the article?

aims · 20 Jan 2006, 12:28

Given that he's a musician I'd go out on a limb and say he meant the article. I'd also be inclined to agree. Commodity or not, the easy access makes it more likely that you'll find something emotionally inspiring. Without torrent I'd never have heard the pre-FALAA Marian and NIN's live performance of Hurt, both of which are unavailable on hard media. And of course, "commoditising" my own work as mp3s has allowed me to present it to a wider audience - there's no way I could have justified the cost of a hard media release of anything produced so far. I will produce the first full length record on hard media, but the initial emotional contact and foot-finding was done with the web in a way that real life either couldn't have done or would have done far more slowly.

20 Jan 2006, 12:37

the common act of "cherry picking" tracks from itunes etc has definitely had an impacted on the way people view albums.

people seem to value a whole album less these days than the most popular tracks taken from it (the singles usually).

taken on an individual basis, these songs often loose impact. they're out of context from how the original artists intended.

imagine just hearing "flood I" without it being inbetween "dominion" and "lucretia"? or "flood ii"without having already heard "flood i"?

shame

aims · 20 Jan 2006, 12:52

While I can see what you mean, QB, I think that's just a continuation of the idea behind Greatest Hits compilations (be they for a band/genre/era), not a new development as a result of the internet. My dad for one refuses to buy Pink Floyd's Echoes, despite not having much Floyd on CD and it containing a lot of his favourite tracks, since Floyd played out of sequence is just odd

Of course I get around it by releasing things as whole zip files, not just single mp3s. Single track releases are, imho, only to be used to get a feel for the album and decide whether its worth buying as a complete work, not as a product in their own right. After all, Amazon's "Look Inside" feature or the availability of a sample chapter hasn't reduced books to being marketted as individual chapters. It's the same with music. One on its own is interesting, but its incredibly empty compared to enjoying them in sequence. Given that albums are traditionally mastered as a whole (for extreme examples, think "Here Today" -> "Monkey Land" and "Happiest Days..." -> "Another Brick...") selling songs separately does reduce the impact.

I guess it's also in part down to the artists. Mainstream musicians don't currently seem to do albums, they release compilations of 10 or so singles. There's less thought put into the work as a whole - if a song doesn't fit, I'll hold it back for a later release, or work on a project surrounding that particular song, rather than just slapping it down as part of a pseudo-album. If there isn't a cohesive feel to a record, why release it as such? Selling single tracks not written for a record is all well and good, but ripping a record to pieces and selling said pieces is daft.

I'm sure there's more to say, but I don't want to be late for German

20 Jan 2006, 13:05

Motz wrote:I guess it's also in part down to the artists. Mainstream musicians don't currently seem to do albums, they release compilations of 10 or so singles. There's less thought put into the work as a whole - if a song doesn't fit, I'll hold it back for a later release, or work on a project surrounding that particular song, rather than just slapping it down as part of a pseudo-album. If there isn't a cohesive feel to a record, why release it as such? Selling single tracks not written for a record is all well and good, but ripping a record to pieces and selling said pieces is daft.

absolutely, on all points

20 Jan 2006, 13:23

Hasn't there been research done that pretty conclusively demonstrates that people who download more music also buy more music? I seem to recall such.

I agree with the general sentiment as well that albums are whole works and individual tracks are fragments thereof; Re: the Pink Floyd Echoes, I have it, but I also have pretty much all of the albums that the tracks came off in the first place. They did a fairly decent job of trying to make the tracks from various eras segue together, but there are some real jarring disjoints in places. So I tend to listen to a full album. IMO someone flicking through album tracks is nearly as annoying as someone flicking through TV channels. Just listen to (or watch) the whole thing damn you!

Obviousman · 20 Jan 2006, 13:53

markfiend wrote:Hasn't there been research done that pretty conclusively demonstrates that people who download more music also buy more music? I seem to recall such.

I think I've read something like that as well. And it goes for me, most certainly

Anyway, I have to admit through downloading you start to collect more stuff of the same bands over and over. Although I try to find out about new/other bands, I think it does not go as quick as when I was a radio-listener anymore. I think it's just logical because you listen to the music you like all day long, and when someone sends you one song of a band, and you don't happen to like the song, you won't search on anymore.

But I do try to download albums as much as possible, because me too, I believe a song without a context is bollocks...

Debaser · 20 Jan 2006, 17:32

I'm obviously doing this listening to music all wrong......I never realised there was soooo much hard work involved. Here's me thinking it was an enjoyable thing.

I'm bugg ered, If I'm gonna start contextualizing it all.

By the way, is it still alright to sing along to it?

boudicca · 20 Jan 2006, 17:35

I have to confess, since I got me Soulseek, I don't think I will ever go out and BUY a record ever again.

Well, with a few exceptions, like if there was a new Sisters album. Actually, that's about the only one I can think of.

Having a "flesh and blood" CD complere with sleevenotes in my paws is a lovely thing, "supporting the artists" is all well and good... but at the end of the day, faced with the choice of getting something for nothing and a little more for a significant amount of money - I know what I choose.

However. I don't think this phenomenon has made music a commodity any more than it ever was. I can see the point to some of this article - the struggle to find rare music and the head-exploding glee when you finally did is gone, I guess. I remember my delight when I used to send away to CDNow for obscure records, receiving them after weeks of anticipation.

But downloading has broadened my horizons even further than they were before. I no longer hold off listening to a record which I think might not be my cup of tea (then I've wasted Â£15 on it). I give it a try. Currently in my download tray, some Chinese folk songs, Estonian Project Pitchfork-a-likes, an Iranian chanteuse and some Icelandic Black Metal on the express recommendation of BOF. Plus all the SWANS they don't have the sense to sell in HMV. Before, I was obviously reluctant to spend money on music I'd heard absolutely nothing of.

Dark · 20 Jan 2006, 18:08

lazarus corporation wrote:
Dark wrote:Utter bollocks.
my response, Ocean Moves' comment, the news article, or the research mentioned in the article?

The last two.

20 Jan 2006, 21:23

What's soulseek?

CellThree · 20 Jan 2006, 23:08

Soulseek is a p2p program allowing you to download songs directly off another user.

Also see DC++...

20 Jan 2006, 23:40

Like Limewire et al I guess.
Got the Abi Tatmus video of there. Oh yes.
(The wife was out!)

boudicca · 21 Jan 2006, 00:59

From the "commoditization" of music, to Abi Titmus in a few easy steps.

It could only be HL.

eastmidswhizzkid · 21 Jan 2006, 01:07

Debaser wrote:I'm obviously doing this listening to music all wrong......I never realised there was soooo much hard work involved. Here's me thinking it was an enjoyable thing.

I'm bugg ered, If I'm gonna start contextualizing it all.

By the way, is it still alright to sing along to it?

having never heard you sing ness i'd say yes, but as long as you stay out there in the flatlands.

Ocean Moves · 21 Jan 2006, 04:34

boudicca wrote:I have to confess, since I got me Soulseek, I don't think I will ever go out and BUY a record ever again.

Well, with a few exceptions, like if there was a new Sisters album. Actually, that's about the only one I can think of.

Having a "flesh and blood" CD complere with sleevenotes in my paws is a lovely thing, "supporting the artists" is all well and good... but at the end of the day, faced with the choice of getting something for nothing and a little more for a significant amount of money - I know what I choose.
.

I think soulseek is the future of taping your mates LP. Little more.
the music industry lived with tape cos it has built in degradation.

Dark · 21 Jan 2006, 12:34

Ocean Moves wrote:
boudicca wrote:I have to confess, since I got me Soulseek, I don't think I will ever go out and BUY a record ever again.

Well, with a few exceptions, like if there was a new Sisters album. Actually, that's about the only one I can think of.

Having a "flesh and blood" CD complere with sleevenotes in my paws is a lovely thing, "supporting the artists" is all well and good... but at the end of the day, faced with the choice of getting something for nothing and a little more for a significant amount of money - I know what I choose.
.
I think soulseek is the future of taping your mates LP. Little more.
the music industry lived with tape cos it has built in degradation.

This is said as I am recording a load of singles/LP tracks to take to school with me for the Art exam?

Yes, I'm the only person in the world who has replaced his mp3 player with his 7-year-old cassette Walkman.

Debaser · 21 Jan 2006, 20:33

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:
Debaser wrote:I'm obviously doing this listening to music all wrong......I never realised there was soooo much hard work involved. Here's me thinking it was an enjoyable thing.

I'm bugg ered, If I'm gonna start contextualizing it all.

By the way, is it still alright to sing along to it?
having never heard you sing ness i'd say yes, but as long as you stay out there in the flatlands.

Why you...I oughta tan your behind.