WTF: The Day the Music Burned.

rickenvox said:
I don't disagree with any of your points, but have one minor counterpoint: I've only seen the actual Mona Lisa at the Louvre, but I've never heard a master tape of the Coltrane Impulse albums, while I own each one and have spent hours listening to each one. Unlike the Louvre, the master tapes are not the medium or location for people to consume/enjoy that art.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But, as I understand it, before mastering, before production, those recordings, if preserved well, preserve the "paint brush strokes" of the artist as near to original as was possible at the time of recording. Now, will the world end if some unknown jazz artist, or Chess blues artist who was not discovered at the time (Van Gogh??) who might be the equivalent of Robert Johnson or an Etta James is not preserved to be listened to later? I suppose not. But to me, it is still a huge loss, in addition to the loss of whatever new mastering or mixing could be done with old recordings. An example in the article is the Sgt. Pepper stuff that has been mixed and rendered differently. I would wonder what George Benson 70's playing would sound like without all the synth strings added. Maybe that can be done with digitized versions that already exist, but having the masters is important from an art preservation point of view. At least to me. Maybe not the same as the Louvre, and I was not trying to make that comparison that literally, but there is some comparison I would say.
 
rickenvox said:
Somehow we survive without any (or few) recordings of pop music from the 19th century. Do you think in a hundred years music consumers will have any interest in 85% of the music we now consider important from the last measly 50 years? How many bands can you name that were contemporaries of Jelly Roll Morton and his Red Hot Peppers? 3 if you're a jazz fan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is really short-sighted.

One, art has nothing to do with 'survival'. We could technically survive if music was made illegal. Doesn't mean anything.

Two, it would be a huge loss if things like classical or other genres from that century were somehow recorded on physical media and then lost forever. Also, where they were recorded on sheet music they are still around and people still play the songs. Losing them, like losing works of literature from the 19th century, would also have been very bad. Choosing one ragtime player is a bad example because older artists are known better than him and also just because not everyone has specialized knowledge doesn't mean no one needs that knowledge.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
And was spun and buried 11 years ago. The extent of what was lost is just now coming to light. Take a read of the article. It it is some pretty compelling stuff that was lost. in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I won't read the article. I refuse to support that shitty rag. If took eleven years for the lost to come to light, it's probably not that big of a deal. Seems like there wasn't;t much demand there.
 
Bones McHorror said:
This is really short-sighted.

One, art has nothing to do with 'survival'. We could technically survive if music was made illegal. Doesn't mean anything.

Two, it would be a huge loss if things like classical or other genres from that century were somehow recorded on physical media and then lost forever. Also, where they were recorded on sheet music they are still around and people still play the songs. Losing them, like losing works of literature from the 19th century, would also have been very bad. Choosing one ragtime player is a bad example because older artists are known better than him and also just because not everyone has specialized knowledge doesn't mean no one needs that knowledge.
Click to expand...

Jelly Roll was jazz, NOT ragtime!

I just think we're overly fixated on our own small slot in history. Let's count the important works of literature in English from the 19th century and compare that to the innumerable blur of pop culture recordings, books, films, television shows, and whatever supposed fine art we've produced in the last 50 years. It's impossible that that pile of "pop" is going to be preserved 100 years from now. History will let out a big sigh of "so what" to the plethora of mediocrity we've amassed in our current era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
reverend1 said:
I am missing something? We don't have a new music thread here. Every once and a while new stuff gets slipped into my Spotify/Pandora channels. Way back when we had college radio, new music on 120 minutes, trading tapes/CD's with friends. These days I find more new stuff from hearing artist interviews on podcasts, or on Youtube channels I follow.
Click to expand...

Every time I start a new music thread, it drops like a rock. New music doesn’t need an invitation.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
Maybe some of it was useless at that point. And that gets into the preservation point of the article also. And the view of the gentleman interviewed who used to do a lot of the work. Preservation, as best as possible, of the original recordings, To me is of value. And the fact that it was more or less covered up in plain sight via spin from the company, is annoying to me. To me those recordings are a form of art, and access to the original recordings, as best as can be preserved , Brings that art to life much like the difference between a reproduction of some form of visual art versus the actual paint work on display in a museum. None of this has anything to do with whether or not there is a valuable new music. Much like preserving old paintings has nothing to do with the value of new visual art. In my mind at least.
Click to expand...
You do realize everything is finite don't you? Especially any man made thing. even our digital may someday go away but there's way more chance of stuff exsisting when it does because there are so many exact reproductions....clones. As for artworks, paintings. I've never been to a museum to view the classics but i sure as shit get feeling from viewing reproductions and I doubt if I saw the original I would have a different take.The essence of the reproduction will convey the same feelings at least overall in general....perhaps I would get a rise out of seeing a brushstroke but it would only marginally change my association with the viewing.

The only constant in life IS CHANGE....and change can be viewed as the fire in this article....it is what it is. Don't lose sleep over it.
 
rickenvox said:
Jelly Roll was jazz, NOT ragtime!

I just think we're overly fixated on our own small slot in history. Let's count the important works of literature in English from the 19th century and compare that to the innumerable blur of pop culture recordings, books, films, television shows, and whatever supposed fine art we've produced in the last 50 years. It's impossible that that pile of "pop" is going to be preserved 100 years from now. History will let out a big sigh of "so what" to the plethora of mediocrity we've amassed in our current era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If this burned up just Winger and Stone Temple Pilots records, you'd have a point.

But these are recordings of people who actually matter. And not some completist collection of everything ever.
 
As far as financial value, it appears that UMG made a large claim for damages against NBC/Universal, the landlord there, and settled the matter for "an undisclosed sum." How large is not reported, other than a recollection from the former employee interviewed. This is known from a review of "litigation and company documents, thousands of pages of depositions and internal UMG files" the author was able to review. There was some commercial value, not even considering social and historical value, and UMG pursued a claim for that value, and got a settlement.

As far as the other arguments of over focus on 20th century recordings, there is good new music, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme/don't worry about it, I say maybe there is SOME truth in that. But if we have the ability to preserve what amounts to factual information (recordings of art that occurred) now, when we didn't have that ability in the prior centuries, it seems to me to be of value to do so. As a record. I would think if we had ways of recording what happened in the centuries before more accurately, there could be value there.

And that there was a loss in this case.. The commercial value can be debated, and it is apparent from this thread that a lot do not believe in a greater social value in preserving this information and art. I take the other view, that there is value in preserving that. That, of course, is open to discussion and debate.

As history is spun over the years, so that decades begin not to resemble themselves any more, it seems that since we can preserve information through good digitization and renewal of that resource, and preservation of analog information, it should be preserved, in only so we can go back and hear what things actually did sound like. I would suggest that preserving other forms of information in terms of scientific, mathematic, historical, (one can go on) work would also be of value, beyond a bunch of encyclopedias and/or wikipedia.

There are further reasons discussed as to why in the "shitty rag" if anyone cares to read about them. If not, no need to worry about it, as has been pointed out.
 
Life is short and dumb. People make art (even bad art) to take the sting out of existence and to take a swing at immortality. Of course the void will win in the end, but it’s sad when people’s attempts at grandeur and transcendence are thwarted.

And some of the “great works” of 19th century literature were not “great” in their time. But by hanging around, they grew in stature and esteem. It would have been sad if Moby Dick burned up before it could be appreciated. And it’s sad that people 75 years from now won’t have access to original masters of some silly pop thing that might seem prescient or crucial at some point in the future.

Some of y’all are a bunch of intellectual Marie Kondos.

We can live without fun so let’s all just eat bugs.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
As far as financial value, it appears that UMG made a large claim for damages against NBC/Universal, the landlord there, and settled the matter for "an undisclosed sum." How large is not reported, other than a recollection from the former employee interviewed. This is known from a review of "litigation and company documents, thousands of pages of depositions and internal UMG files" the author was able to review. There was some commercial value, not even considering social and historical value, and UMG pursued a claim for that value, and got a settlement.

As far as the other arguments of over focus on 20th century recordings, there is good new music, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme/don't worry about it, I say maybe there is SOME truth in that. But if we have the ability to preserve what amounts to factual information (recordings of art that occurred) now, when we didn't have that ability in the prior centuries, it seems to me to be of value to do so. As a record. I would think if we had ways of recording what happened in the centuries before more accurately, there could be value there.

And that there was a loss in this case.. The commercial value can be debated, and it is apparent from this thread that a lot do not believe in a greater social value in preserving this information and art. I take the other view, that there is value in preserving that. That, of course, is open to discussion and debate.

As history is spun over the years, so that decades begin not to resemble themselves any more, it seems that since we can preserve information through good digitization and renewal of that resource, and preservation of analog information, it should be preserved, in only so we can go back and hear what things actually did sound like. I would suggest that preserving other forms of information in terms of scientific, mathematic, historical, (one can go on) work would also be of value, beyond a bunch of encyclopedias and/or wikipedia.

There are further reasons discussed as to why in the "shitty rag" if anyone cares to read about them. If not, no need to worry about it, as has been pointed out.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more.
 
the analogy here is if some handwritten copy of Moby Dick had been burned up in the fire of some archives library, while several thousand copies existing around the country. It's growth in popularity would not have been affected in the least.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bones McHorror said:
If this burned up just Winger and Stone Temple Pilots records, you'd have a point.

But these are recordings of people who actually matter. And not some completist collection of everything ever.
Click to expand...

All of their published recordings will still exist and live on without the master tapes. How many never before released, posthumous recordings have you ever bought that were better than the artist's original releases? Those master tapes are mostly devices for record companies to continuing creating the illusion of new products from long dead and exhaustively documented artists. Marketing bullshit.

Although I am looking forward to the new Scorsese Dylan documentary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bones McHorror said:
If this burned up just Winger and Stone Temple Pilots records, you'd have a point.

But these are recordings of people who actually matter. And not some completist collection of everything ever.
Click to expand...
Matters to who ? Winger and STP are just as valid to many people.
 
Wow. I realize that I may be in the minority here, but did y'all read the entire article? There are so many missing masters. I learned a lot about masters vs. newer ways of saving music. I didn't see it in the article, but I think I've read that Prince saved all of his masters & did most of his recordings in that fortress that he built. There was a quote in the article from him resembling that if you don't own your masters, they own you.
 
BlockInlay said:
Couldn’t get the article to load. Was nirvanas stuff destroyed please?
Click to expand...
Also, since I don't pay for The New York Times/The New York Times Magazine, I ran out of free articles to read. Fortunately, I was able to finish reading the article on my phone after being cut off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top