Should the artist starve?

[mh]

Here's an interesting one...

I'm a bit of a fan of early Cranes material, which is damn well difficult to get one's mitts on nowadays (although Cherry Red have recently done a nice Wings of Joy reissue). Fortunately I have a good chunk of it on vinyl from first time round, but the one item I'm missing is Fuse.

Now, I would like to be able to get it on CD (for portability and convenience reasons), and while I do have the necessary facilities to make a good vinyl rip, I would however also like to be able to give some of my hard-earned to the band for that goddam Fuse thing.

To the band, not to a collector or specialist retailer.

(Downloading it illegally - of course - never even crossed my mind )

Unfortunately, the band appear to be of the opinion that it's not representative of how they sound, and have publicly stated that they will never be reissuing it. Which is fair enough and entirely their prerogative, but as a fan who likes that side of them, I'd still like to have it, which - I suppose - is my prerogative.

So, leaving aside the band-specific stuff, and coming back to my thread title, there are loads of acts out there who have back catalog material that is no longer generally available (I'm talking about stuff that was previously available, not demos and suchlike). Fans however would like to have it, whether for curiosity, completeness, or enjoyment. Sometimes the reason why it's not available is outside of the band's control, but sometimes it's not. (The early Pink Floyd singles is another example, although there's little danger of them starving).

Which brings us right back to the thread title - in a situation like this, do you think the artist is doing the right thing by withholding the material from reissue, or do you care either way? Especially given that in the internet age, people are going to get it anyway?

[James Blast]

heard one of their albums, got it on "musicassette" outta the record library, it was 'orrible

sorry Michael

[mh]

That's OK James. For you I won't mind.

Must add that this isn't a roundabout way of trying to cadge a copy...

[James Blast]

nope, I have too much Gnu Club, Pigface, Zappa and SKA! to get thru.... oh! those Belgians..... even the Dutch wans.....

[psichonaut]

many gigs and some album here.....i love them....specially Allyson's voice
PM me if you want

[Maisey]

I don't know the band, but I see what you are trying to say.

Personally I try and get the real thing second hand because I like to have the artifact as well as the music, but to be honest if there is no way of getting money to that band by getting hold of that music I see no problem with getting it anyway you can.

That's what trading demo's and rarities is all about (IMO), the band will never make any money out of the recordings, but a dedicated fan will gain a lot of pleasure out of hearing them - and anyone that has got to the point where they are trying to track down unavailable stuff has probably already dished out enough to the band anyway.

Speaking of which, I paid £25 for my copy of the Quarriers EP a week ago

[James Blast]

Amen! up till the last line

[Dark]

If there's no way of getting the original song with the money going to the artist, then there's nothing lost by downloading.
's like the Body And Soul EP tracks, I would condone downloading them, all the way, until they're reissued. I downloaded a hell of a lot of Ghost Dance before buying the singles... but then, the money for them just went to second-hand merchants. Oh well.
For what it's worth, I do tend to buy albums if I want them, rather than downloading them.

[Ahráyeph]

I thought the original question was : 'should the band have the right to withhold material that used to be available if they think it isn't representative of them anymore, even if the fans are hungry for them and it could earn them some cash?', not the whole 'downloading illegally or not' issue all over again.

One thing should be taken into account here : the band still have to be owner of the material and unfortunately, what lots of - mostly major and big indie - labels do when they sign a band, is to try and get their sweaty paws on the rights to the songs. One such sad history is that of The God Machine. They became popular slowly and right before their second album was to be released, their bass player died. The group disbanded, but Polygram (IIRC) retained the rights to their catalogue of songs. Lo and behold, TGM is even more popular today (also because of singer/guitar player Robin Proper-Sheppard's new collective Sophia, which has reconnected with TGM's noisey past on their last few albums) but the albums have been long out of print and now fetch anywhere upward from 40 euros (£30 - $60) on eBay. Polygram just hangs on to the rights as some kind of stock value, so they can sell them and make a near profit. A disgusting practice, but remember what Michael Jackson did with the rights to the catalogue of them lot from Liverpool : exactly the same, much to the chagrin of the remaining three members at the time, most notably Macca. So that may be one reason why that much coveted album isn't being reprinted : the catalogue's selling value increases with time, but the band may not have been profitable enough to the suits back in the day to warrant a reissue.
If the band does retain the rights to their songs, it is up to the artist, indeed, to see whether or not they want to have the albums/singles/EP's reissued. Usually, they would give in to fans' demands and do just that, even if they aren't really comfortable with it. Remember, though, that these are artists and their integrity might be worth more to them than make an extra quid. So if the Cranes (and I do like them too) decide not to reissue their early work, that is their good right, albeit at the cost of the fans of their older work, hence increasing the risk that not only their old songs will be downloaded, but the newer ones too if a new generation of listeners comes to like them. In the Cranes' case, that might probably not amount to much, as their fan base isn't a massive one, but it would be good to at least think about doing those reissues after all, just to be on the safe side...

[mh]

I thought the original question was : 'should the band have the right to withhold material that used to be available if they think it isn't representative of them anymore, even if the fans are hungry for them and it could earn them some cash?', not the whole 'downloading illegally or not' issue all over again.

It was. Until it went off into the downloading thing again, which I suppose is kinda inevitable.

[markfiend]

IMO even if the fans think it's a bad decision, if it is actually the band's decision, let them make it.

(Another issue could be ex-members quarreling over rights, royalties, etc.)

[Lynchfanatic]

I love the Cranes, and as far as I know they are quite unknown, well here in Norway atleast. I think there should be a way to find all material, if not in the store, atleast on the net. That goes for all bands and directors.
Especially the "less known" bands. I havent heard Fuse, but would love to have all of their stuff, simply love them.

For instance my bf is in a band called Discordless, they are kinda known in Romania, and some on the net. Quite small still. But if they would ever make it big, they wont stop releasing their early stuff. They are changing their style quite alot lately, but you will still be able to get to the first ep on request. They are currently starting a net label.
(If you should be interested they started with noise and can be found on a cd called limbcollector, now they have changed to a style I dont know how to name, hehe)

Hope I didnt miss understand the thread completely there

[bananacamel]

I must admit, I find artists reactions to things like re-releasing back issues frustrating and in the light of readily available free downloads a little short sighted. Let's face it, recorded music has been massively de-valued since the advent of internet file sharing, artists should be thinking about squeezing every last penny out of their music as they can, before it all becomes nearly worthless.

A healthy second hand market value for a specific item isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I know very few fans that genuinely buy recordings for their potential re-sale value, they buy because they love the music and they want the band to make fruit from their labour, as monetary success will hopefully fund future musical output.

Cranes (Also a fan) refusing to re-issue back catalogue wont stop new and old fans searching out other output, it just stops the artist making any cash from it. Surely it's better to say "Here's what we used to sound like, and we're proud of it." and grab a few quid, than to almost deny it ever happened.

Surely the point of finding a new fan with new material will hopefully mean that said fan also buys the back catalogue. Hey presto increased cash into the bands coffers, rather than to vinyl traders.

I've had this issue finding Heavens End by Loop, you can get a copy on CD for £30, or you download an mp3 version from mp3fiesta for £0.50, what would you do? Personally if there was a way of buying an mp3 download from an official source I'd have gone there.

[Maisey]

I'm not so against bands withholding rereleases.

A band I like called VNV Nation did an EP called Burning Empires. It was limited to 1700 copies (i believe) and sold out pretty quickly. It's there to download if you want it, so its not like the music is being withheld, likewise you could just track down a fan with a copy and trade or copy it.

I ended up dishing out £50 for it (worth every penny I might add) and I'd be pretty pissed if it were reissued. Fortunately VNV have said they have no intention of ever doing so.

The girls never re-issued tracks like Train, maybe it would be nice if they did but hey, most of us bought the vinyl, the rest nabbed a copy of Some Boys, no one has really lost out.

[paint it black]

background to early cranes material removed in favour of the usual bollox.

nothing changes... ho hum

[bananacamel]

I'm not so against bands withholding re-releases.

A band I like called VNV Nation did an EP called Burning Empires. It was limited to 1700 copies (i believe) and sold out pretty quickly. It's there to download if you want it, so its not like the music is being withheld, likewise you could just track down a fan with a copy and trade or copy it.

I ended up dishing out £50 for it (worth every penny I might add) and I'd be pretty pissed if it were reissued. Fortunately VNV have said they have no intention of ever doing so.

Exactly, the item is limited but the music can be downloaded from the bands website, very commercially astute of them

The girls never re-issued tracks like Train, maybe it would be nice if they did but hey, most of us bought the vinyl, the rest nabbed a copy of Some Boys, no one has really lost out.

Well actually, the band has lost out, and by buying 'some boys' some slimy bootlegger has made a pretty penny from the someone elses work.

I guess that's the part that frustrates me, we live in a commercial age where you can get anything if you throw enough money at it. A bootlegger sees a gap in the market and makes some cash from it, fans don't really like it, they'd rather give the money to the band but they want the tunes so they open their wallets.

What is it about some artists, that stop them seeing the long term potential of all they're music? I see them as foolhardy.

So in answer to the original question, yes they probably should starve, it’ll teach them a valuable lesson in economics

[itnAklipse]

i propose a form of government (based on one or another form of monarchy) and social structure whose goals are intellectual and aesthico-spiritual attainment instead of economic growth and technological "achievement", then good artists need not starve.

Any takers?

[bananacamel]

Nah, who'd empty the bins?

[mh]

I suppose I come from a pragmatic perspective on this. If the material can be obtained anyway, then I see no wrong in making it officially available, even if it is an early work that the band may no longer like or feel is representative.

The mildly curious will quite happily ignore it (they'll just go for the greatest hits or most recent LP anyway), whereas the obsessive fan will want it to complete their collection, irrespective of musical quality. Far better to give them a legitimate means of obtaining it. Far better to give them a way of getting it that doesn't involve the fans also starving.

Of course, the ultimate call is with the artist, so this would lie in the realms of "a nice gesture to make" rather than being something they absolutely must do. I'm just curious about how other folks see the question.

[mh]

Nah, who'd empty the bins?

[markfiend]

i propose a form of government (based on one or another form of monarchy) and social structure whose goals are intellectual and aesthico-spiritual attainment instead of economic growth and technological "achievement", then good artists need not starve.

Any takers?

Monarchy? Seriously?

Personally I'd like to live with a "government" something like that of Iain M Banks' The Culture.

markfiend the anarcho-syndicalist.

Edit to add: on the other hand, this bit: social structure whose goals are intellectual and aesthico-spiritual attainment I quite like the sound of in a way.

[Big Si]

i propose a form of government (based on one or another form of monarchy) and social structure whose goals are intellectual and aesthico-spiritual attainment instead of economic growth and technological "achievement", then good artists need not starve.

Any takers?

Monarchy? Seriously?

Personally I'd like to live with a "government" something like that of Iain M Banks' The Culture.

markfiend the anarcho-syndicalist.

Edit to add: on the other hand, this bit: social structure whose goals are intellectual and aesthico-spiritual attainment I quite like the sound of in a way.