John, I just think it really sucks that you have to keep coming here and explaining your position on all of this. Most artists pull whatever shit they want without explaining to their fans. And that's cool, they're allowed to do that. The fact that youmake an effort to keep us all informed is really awesome, and probably one of the reasons why I like your music as much as I do. (You know, aside from the actual music.) But still, you shouldn't have to keep on repeating the same thing over and over to people who are refusing to try and see things from your perspective.

Or something. I don't know. Pie?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2007 01:53AM by megan_d.

you have to admit, with the most views of any of the other topics, it is a hotbed of debate. people are bound to cross one another; feelings get hurt. but we're all here for the same reason.

hey john, i think you should post a thread on books you like. im reading off the modern library list; its great.

and i was wondering if you ever say 'i, claudius'.

cheers.

um, meg, this is great! interaction is fun. dont take it so seriously.

It's just my opinion on the matter, monkey boy.

On the topic of books, what is the modern library list? It sounds interesting.

uh, its the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century.

[www.randomhouse.com]

i put what i read in my blog here:

myspace.com/thebloodeverywhere

Quote
Dilaudid
Im also a singer/songwriter, and i will say that an artist does not record something for their own enjoyment.You dont record stuff to just let it sit in a box somewhere, or on a shelf in your room.I dont know of any other artist who records music for it strictly to remain unreleased.If your recording then that means you want that music to be heard.I dont care if it's just a voice and guitar demo recorded on a shitty radioshack taperecorder like i use,you want someone to hear it.If you dont,then erase the shit! Some of my favorite tapes are demos made by artist who recorded on a shitty tape player just to get the idea down.I like those demos cause the songs are such a pure idea at that point,you get the songs as they are coming through, shal i say.Not after its been toyed with over and over again in the studio.I like lenny kravitz's idea of demos.. "For me, the first time I do it is always the best,When you cut a demo, even though it can sound like sh-t, you just don't get that same vibe when you're in the studio. You're trying to live up to the demo and it's not as cool. I did them once or twice and never made a demo again."

I feel like John responded to this better than I'm really able to, but I wanted to at least echo his sentiment. I'm a songwriter myself, and there's plenty reasons I can think of to record a song other than for someone to hear it. And anyway, there's a huge difference between recording a song for your friends/family to listen to (to help you gain perspective, perhaps) and recording a song for EVERYONE to listen to. Just because something has been recorded does not mean that everyone has a right to it.

And anyway, yeah, when HaFG was recorded, John probably did intend for it to be heard. But he changed his mind. Why is that wrong? Artists let albums get deleted and go out of print ALL THE TIME. Sometimes we (the fans) are worse for it, sure, but it's not our call to make.

As for the idea that demos somehow capture the emotion and rawness of a song better than a studio recording, I don't buy that at all. I'm as big a fan of lo-fi recording as anyone, but I'm NOT a huge fan of the whole "first thought best thought" school of creation.

(And isn't it kind of vain and egocentric to think that just because you commit something to tape, people are even going to want to hear it?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2007 01:54PM by jebreject.

Quote
John
though it's kinda weird that people are so cavalier about it ("well, I want it; end of story"

I think "people" is kind of limited to Dilaudid here.

This whole thread is kind of upsetting. It's amazing that people still have trouble understanding that just because a song was released or leaked, does NOT make it public property, or give you any "right" to hear it. It is a privelege to be able to listen someones music, and when the author asks you not to listen to it, you just shouldn't, especially if it's someone that you claim to have respect for. Honestly, it's just common courtesy.

Well I don't know so much if it's about being privledged, but beyond that, yeah, you're exactly right, and anyway, this is John's house; you don't go into a dude's house and spit all over the floor just 'cause you think you have a right to (or 'cause your friends let you spit on their floors)

I'm really interested in what it is that causes us (as fans of music) to feel entitled to this stuff, no matter what (whether it means we have a right to download an album when we can't afford to pay for it, or the right to demand that an artist release his unreleased material). Is it because music is treated more as a commodity than an artform? Or is it because we believe that art doesn't belong to anyone in particular, a sort of vulgar anti-intellectual property stance? And I must make it perfectly clear that I'm not above all this: I've downloaded my fair share of albums, I've listened to things there's a good chance the artist didn't want me listening to. Maybe that's WHY it's such an interesting question to me, because I know that the arguments don't hold up under scrutiny, but we make excuses for them anyway.

Art and the Artist and the relationship an artist has with it changes from one person to the next, but I personally believe that when a person creates something whether it be a sandwich or a story or a song it is that persons and that persons only, but that person can decide to share it, and when they do, we should be thankful (or angry if its a sandwich with laxatives in it. bitch.)

I hope everybody understands that I don't dislike Dilaudid or consider him the bad guy or a troll though - I argue spiritedly about shit I'm passionate about and this happens to be one of those areas, but I sincerely & with the full brunt of the word LOVE anybody who digs my songs

word

Word.

Aw, now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Quote
megan_d
Aw, now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Don't you just love it?

I love it.

Quote
monkeyskull
uh, its the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century.

[www.randomhouse.com]

i put what i read in my blog here:

myspace.com/thebloodeverywhere

Haha the reader's list of the top 100 novels on that site is so despicable it makes me a little sick to my stomach. Top 3 is two Ayn Rand novels and an L. Ron Hubbard? Peeps be straight-up trollin, unless by 'best novel' they mean 'author with the most insidious cult'.

Lol, that's exactly what I thought when I wondered over to look at that list.

well, im not impressed with the readers list either, i hope you understand. id rather set myself on fire than read l. ron hubbard. but, the editors list is enlightening, to say the least. there is something to gain personally and intellectualy from reading any one of those books, even if they seem droll or the subject matter isnt that exciting. case in point: 'room with a view' i thought was awful most of the way through, but the last quarter of it kinda clicked with me. i dont regret reading any of the books on this side of the list and have found some great reads. i encourage everyone to try to read from this list, if not for the sheer entertainment value and possibly more.

Quote
lixxiestabber
Art and the Artist and the relationship an artist has with it changes from one person to the next, but I personally believe that when a person creates something whether it be a sandwich or a story or a song it is that persons and that persons only, but that person can decide to share it, and when they do, we should be thankful (or angry if its a sandwich with laxatives in it. bitch.)

This is an interesting idea! While I do think we should be thankful for any good art that's made available to us, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that the art belongs only to the artist ... I'll have to give this some thought!

(man heathcote is right, what awful smilies)

Quote
monkeyskull
well, im not impressed with the readers list either, i hope you understand. id rather set myself on fire than read l. ron hubbard. but, the editors list is enlightening, to say the least. there is something to gain personally and intellectualy from reading any one of those books, even if they seem droll or the subject matter isnt that exciting. case in point: 'room with a view' i thought was awful most of the way through, but the last quarter of it kinda clicked with me. i dont regret reading any of the books on this side of the list and have found some great reads. i encourage everyone to try to read from this list, if not for the sheer entertainment value and possibly more.

I seriously believe that a person not only gains nothing but loses a considerable amount by reading Ayn Rand.

um. i honestly tend to distrust anything too popular as a part of my nature; i am a cycnical bastard. if 29 out of 30 people tell me i should read a stephen king novel or a ayn rand novel, chances are im gonna try my best to avoid it, for the simple fact that, hey, whatever book mentioned already is getting enough attention, there might be something else, something rare and wonderful that no one has read. that is why i champion the editors list by the modern library. the board of editors are educated and thoughtful people of high merit. ill go by that every time.

but don't you ever think that 29 out of 30 people might be right and you might actually enjoy the thing?

(with the exception of ayn rand. anyone who enjoys ayn rand has serious psychological issues)

yeah, but if i thought that i wouldnt be cynical would i?

cynicism is largely overrated AFAIC

See, now I am hugely tempted to try and read ayn rand.

I mean it's worth it just so you can toss it aside in disgust I guess