in this interview with New York jungle stalwart DJ Dara of Breakbeat Science shop fame, he discusses with Village Voice's Michaelangelo Matos, the problem of cultural overproduction in a digital era:
"I'm not necessarily crazy about this whole digital idea, and the fact
that anything can be released. I'm firmly of the belief that just
because you can release a tune doesn't mean you should. I do miss
[having] A&R men to weed out the mediocre music. Because there's no
overhead involved in releasing music anymore, the bar has been lowered
substantially. There's a lot of music out there that's OK, but it
wouldn't have been good enough to have been pressed on vinyl.
"When people say, "[This track sold] 200 downloads on Beatport in two
days," my question is always, "OK, you got 200 people paying $1.99 for
your tune. How many of those people do you think would've paid $12 or
$15 for it?" It's easy to get people to pay $2, but would they pay $12?
Because that's what it would have been a few years ago—they would've had
to if they wanted it. I think that the overhead barrier definitely made
sure [there was] a certain standard. There's always been bad music. But
I think there's less bad music when it costs money to put it out.
"People say, "This barrier's been broken, there's all this incredible
music that can be discovered now that wouldn't be discovered before."
But I see it the other way around. I see that the really incredible
music is being buried in an avalanche of mediocre music. [laughs] And it gets harder and harder to find it.
"Often, I'll be on Beatport and I'll just give up: "I cannot listen to
any more bad music that is right up there next to really quality
stuff." What happens is, I just end up going to the same artists that
I've known all the time, rather than trying to check out new people,
because so much of the new stuff that I check out . . . I'm not saying
it's terrible, but there's nothing that makes it stand out. It sounds
like a million other people."
Yes, indeedy -- in the transition from the Analogue System to the Digital System, the DIY principle has run rife -- it is now almost completely unchecked and undaunted by any reality
principle ie. the costs involved in the materiality of solid-form culture-objects that
must be first manufactured, then physically transported, then physically stored both by stores (shelf space being limited) and by individual collectors who are limited both in terms of cash and their living space.... all that filtering
that used to be involved, simply because releasing a record required investment either by label
or by the release-it-yourself artist... what seemed anti-aesthetic (a cold-hearted
financial calculus weighing up outlay and outcome) actually had incalculable aesthetic side-benefits at every step of the process
without these filters, checks, impediments, disincentives, discouragements, and yes, gatekeepers too... we are "free" to roam, increasingly confused and demoralised and with our appetite fading, through an impenetrably dense yet flattened cultural landscape, in which the great is buried by
the good which is smothered by the pretty good which is flooded by the
not really good which is engulfed by the really not good
5 comments:
Are you saying that in order to make things better we should institute a cost-based system or restrict access? I understand the sentiment here, but I think this is the wrong way to approach the notion. You have to weigh in others who would consider the lack of access demoralizing in their own right. This notion sounds both of an argument for privilege and some form of repression. Sure, it sucks to have to listen to more "crap" (a subjective notion), but shouldn't that help reinforce an artists aesthetic, as in they know what it is they don't want to do? Isn't that the discouragement you're looking for right there?
i'm just thinking about it from a punter's point of view, a consumer... and in terms of the finitude of time. every minute spent listening to something pretty-good or mediocre is a minute not spent listening to something really-good or great... but how do you get to past the pretty-good/mediocre to the really-good/great.... it involves sifting... this is a form of work, very wearing work... the astronomical increase in the amount of music being made x astronomical increase in amount of music accessible to us to hear legimately(through album streams, soundcloud, bandcamp, podcasts, free dj mixes, youtube, sudden drastic access to the whole globe, to the whole of archived history, reissue-mania-salvage operations putting out stuff that was never released or barely released in its own time) makes the difficulty of processing, sorting through, reacting, judging all the more challenging...
let alone before even factoring in the illegitimate access to music through illegal downloading
music becoming "free" as it effectively has would seem on the face of it to be a "better deal" for consumers, but in fact it has drastically multiplied the amount of stuff one has to check out, evaluate, have feelings about... in a lot of cases leading to ennui and a loss of musical appetite and musical affect (the long-haul critic's occupational hazard becomes everybody's potential predicament)
the old system, which is unrestorable, did pre-filter a lot of redundant signals...
there were costs with the old system (financial, restrictions of access) and there are costs with the new "free" system.... psychological, emotional, a draining of
time and energy
more is less
there's no such thing as a free lunch
etc
"There's always been bad music. But I think there's less bad music when it costs money to put it out."
Besides one's own experience, the only way anyone can make this assessment as a whole is based on information (personal stories, books, documentaries, etc.) from previous/older people and generations. DJ Dara's sentiment reminds me of my father's own sentiment towards the 70s; all he talks about is how much garbage music their was during that time. However, he lived in a place where his access was much more restricted, as compared to metropolitan areas where access of things allowed people who were willing to engage into a pathway out of what was predominantly popular during the time. What he was around and constantly subjected to was what shaped his view. The Ramones had a similar way of creative function that was build on the notion that "Rock n' Roll had turned to crap." That idea manifested into their being.
Restricting access dictates culture, which I believe to be wrong. There always has been crap music and there always will be crap music, just now the scenery is different. The big one, like you pointed out, is time and energy. Being on social media/media access outlets involves utilizing an incredible amount of time. However Beatport, like Myspace, Facebook, Subsonic, Spotify, Bandcamp, etc., are all tools. They appeal to those who want to use them and will use them because access is available. This has both positive and negative aspects, as well illustrated in the negative scope here. The positive side is, like I said, that cultural dictation is taken out of the hands of a privileged group of "taste-makers."
DJ Dara's emotional reaction is real, but it is also speculative. The idea that "A&R men" will "weed out" everything bad is bogus at best, is that to say that A&R have never gotten it wrong? (there is a great interview with an A&R fellow in the book Gig which will support that industry did effectively ruin itself)
This is speculative as well, but I'd like to kick the idea around: Let's use the band Death as an example. Pretend that Columbia exec. Clive Davis would have not "weeded out" that band based on their name. Would conversation involving the punk/proto-punk, or even the rest of the occurring musical landscape be the same? Would we be collectively tripping over other bands who were similarly influenced by seeing The Stooges? Would The Clash have to make room? It's silly speculation, but it deserves attention if the idea to solve what DJ Dara considers raising the "lowered" bar involves restriction (which like you said "is unrestorable").
Who knows, maybe some future retro-maniac will find all the good once the bad is sorted, or maybe they'll will think that all the bad is good, or maybe none of it will matter. I think I read somewhere that Bob Dylan once told Tom Petty "don't confuse what's good with what's popular," seems to apply here. Consumers will be consumers, and will always take the cheap/free over the higher priced. But make something strong enough and at some point somebody believes/values it enough, they'll pay for it. One might not earn as much per se, but aren't we all here to make beautiful art in the face of whatever sort of adversity? If Beatport sucks that much, shouldn't DJ Dara just quit using it? I hardly believe any of this leads to "loss of musical appetite and musical affect." Maybe I'll change my mind as I age, but perspective plays a role here, a very strong one I'd say.
I'm not going to get on a bus that says there isn't a lot of crap out there (on the internet as an entire whole that I can't fathom), but I'll take it over restriction to access of tools any day.
PS: I don't want to sound too snarky because I'm actually very grateful for the debate surrounding this.
"There's always been bad music. But I think there's less bad music when it costs money to put it out."
Besides one's own experience, the only way anyone can make this assessment as a whole is based on information (personal stories, books, documentaries, etc.) from previous/older people and generations. DJ Dara's sentiment reminds me of my father's own sentiment towards the 70s; all he talks about is how much garbage music their was during that time. However, he lived in a place where his access was much more restricted, as compared to metropolitan areas where access of things allowed people who were willing to engage into a pathway out of what was predominantly popular during the time. What he was around and constantly subjected to was what shaped his view. The Ramones had a similar way of creative function that was build on the notion that "Rock n' Roll had turned to crap." That idea manifested into their being.
Restricting access dictates culture, which I believe to be wrong. There always has been crap music and there always will be crap music, just now the scenery is different. The big one, like you pointed out, is time and energy. Being on social media/media access outlets involves utilizing an incredible amount of time. However Beatport, like Myspace, Facebook, Subsonic, Spotify, Bandcamp, etc., are all tools. They appeal to those who want to use them and will use them because access is available. This has both positive and negative aspects, as well illustrated in the negative scope here. The positive side is, like I said, that cultural dictation is taken out of the hands of a privileged group of "taste-makers."
DJ Dara's emotional reaction is real, but it is also speculative. The idea that "A&R men" will "weed out" everything bad is bogus at best, is that to say that A&R have never gotten it wrong? (there is a great interview with an A&R fellow in the book Gig which will support that industry did effectively ruin itself)
This is speculative as well, but I'd like to kick the idea around: Let's use the band Death as an example. Pretend that Columbia exec. Clive Davis would have not "weeded out" that band based on their name. Would conversation involving the punk/proto-punk, or even the rest of the occurring musical landscape be the same? Would we be collectively tripping over other bands who were similarly influenced by seeing The Stooges? Would The Clash have to make room? It's silly speculation, but it deserves attention if the idea to solve what DJ Dara considers raising the "lowered" bar involves restriction (which like you said "is unrestorable").
Who knows, maybe some future retro-maniac will find all the good once the bad is sorted, or maybe they'll will think that all the bad is good, or maybe none of it will matter. I think I read somewhere that Bob Dylan once told Tom Petty "don't confuse what's good with what's popular," seems to apply here. Consumers will be consumers, and will always take the cheap/free over the higher priced. But make something strong enough and at some point somebody believes/values it enough, they'll pay for it. One might not earn as much per se, but aren't we all here to make beautiful art in the face of whatever sort of adversity? If Beatport sucks that much, shouldn't DJ Dara just quit using it? I hardly believe any of this leads to "loss of musical appetite and musical affect." Maybe I'll change my mind as I age, but perspective plays a role here, a very strong one I'd say.
I'm not going to get on a bus that says there isn't a lot of crap out there (on the internet as an entire whole that I can't fathom), but I'll take it over restriction to access of tools any day.
PS: I don't want to sound too snarky because I'm actually very grateful for the debate surrounding this.
Truly great music has numerically always been few and far between and required a bit of effort to discover...the cream still rises to the top, and partly this is the role of djs, to do some of the sifting work for the rest.
I've no problem with the current situation.
Post a Comment