[Musik] Idolerna hälsar (på hos) fansen personligen via YouTube

Bästa läsare!

Häromdagen satt jag och letade efter bra musik på YouTube. Jag hittade ett fint stycke med en mycket duktig violinist – vars namn jag för stunden glömt bort men som är hyfsat känd och turnérar året runt, inte minst enligt den som lagt upp klippet för några år sedan. Det roliga var att musikern ifråga hade hittat sitt klipp och skrev en kommentar där han tackade för de varma orden som kontoinnehavaren skrivit. Ni kan väl ana vad glad personen som lagt upp klippet blev.

sb Tea Company - Flowers

Nu har jag blivit sittande här igen, botaniserandes psychedelica från slutet av 1960-talet, och hittade ett ljudklipp med Tea Company från Queens utanför New York och deras 10-minuterslåt ”Flower” som den östtyske hippien Anhalter Udo lagt upp på webben. En annan användare – signaturen sergi213 – kommenterar och menar att låten är ett plagiat från Jimmi Hendrix ”Hey Joe”.  Men då dyker plötsligt låtens upphovsman upp och sätter rekordet rakt…

sb Tea Company - Flowers 2 Frankie Carr – eller Frankie Carretta som han hette på den tiden han spelade i Tea Company – brukar titt som tätt skriva kommentarer till klipp med hans musik som hans fans lagt upp, och ibland berätta lite om instrumenten han använt. Säkert till stor lycka för ett fan som Udo.

För den som gillar udda musikstilar – alltså som är ljusår från den uttjatade skiten som spelas i P3, RixFM, Metropol, Energy och gu’ va’ de där kanalerna heter – är YouTube absolut det bästa som uppfunnits sedan elden och skivat bröd, enligt min mening. Tack vare tillgängligheten är det också lätt att ge de ovanliga musikstilarna eller den bortglömda musiken chansen till ett par återlyssningar. Det är faktiskt så att man kan behöva lite tid på sig att gilla det man inte hört förr. Alla som köpt ett soundtrack med Mark Knopfler vet vad jag talar om; först vid tredje, fjärde eller femte genomlyssningen börjar man älska låtar som ”Wild theme” eller ”The Long Road”.

Hälsar eder Peter Harold

Om Peter Harold

Libertariansk skribent och författare. Driver den libertarianska bloggen "Skrivarens Blogg".
Det här inlägget postades i Musik. Bokmärk permalänken.

9 kommentarer till [Musik] Idolerna hälsar (på hos) fansen personligen via YouTube

  1. Rune skriver:

    I P3, RixFM, Metropol, Energy och P4 bestämmer de stora internationella musik och skivbolagen vad som skall spelas. Då är det ju företrädesvis Universal som håller i taktpinnen.
    Inte ens Sveriges Radio har kommit undan denna korruption.

    • Peter Harold skriver:

      Jag har en stark känsla av att Universal eller liknande bolag ha ett och annat att säga till om på YouTube. Det dyker upp ”förslag” i högerkanten som verkligen inte är i närheten av vad jag lyssnar på…

  2. Bengt Hesdorf skriver:

    ”En mycket duktig violinist”
    Om ni gillar violinspelande underbarn så bör ni kolla in denna dam: Lilli Hyd´n hon spelar, i mitt tycke, som en gud.
    Själv hade jag förmånen att få uppleva henne live när hon spelade på Roskilde för många år sedan tillsammans med Paramentic Funkalic (George Clinton)

  3. Bengt Hesdorf skriver:

    Vi skall inte diskutara musiksmak men frågan är hur mycket skivbolagen styr vilken musik som vi kan lyssna på.
    Innan internet så hade skivbolagen monopol på vilken musik som vi då hade att välja immellan.

    ”Throughout the debate on sharing culture and knowledge in violation of the copyright monopoly, one question keeps popping up. But it’s not a question as much as an insult to all artistry.

    We’ve all heard the objection to sharing culture and knowledge many times – “How will the artists get paid, if you manufacture copies of their creations without paying them?”. This question is delusional on so many levels I’ve lost count.

    First, artist that are copied do get paid, only not by a per-copy sale (which you couldn’t sell at all today if the economy worked) but in other ways. I encourage copying of my leadership handbook Swarmwise, for example, because I know the book promotes other avenues of income. The average income for musicians has risen 114% since people started sharing culture online on a large scale, according to a Norwegian study. Other studies agree with this observation.

    Second, even if they didn’t get paid, people who share still don’t carry any kind of responsibility for the business models of other entrepreneurs. Because that’s what artists are once they go plinking their guitar in a kitchen to wanting sales: entrepreneurs. Same rules apply to those entrepreneurs as to every other entrepreneur on the planet: nobody owes an entrepreneur a sale, you have to offer something which somebody else wants to buy. Wants. To. Buy. No excuses, nothing deserved, just business.

    Third, we don’t live in a planned economy. Nobody is held accountable to the question of where somebody’s next paycheck is going to come from except that very person. In Soviet Russia, you could tell Vladimir Sklyarov that his guitar plinking was highly artistic and that his next paycheck would therefore come from the Bureau of Incomprehensible Arts. But we don’t live in a planned economy, we live in a market economy. Everybody is responsible for their own paycheck – of finding a way to make money by providing value that somebody else wants to pay for. Wants. To. Pay. For. No excuses, nothing deserved.

    Fourth, even if this set of entrepreneurs magically deserved money despite not making any sales, control of what people share between them can still not be achieved without dismantling the secrecy of correspondence, monitoring every word communicated – and fundamental liberties always go before anybody’s profits. We never determined what civil liberties we have based on who can profit and who can’t.

    But let’s go to the root of the question. It’s not a question, it’s an insult. One that has stuck around for as long as artistry itself, for it implies that artists need or even deserve to get paid. No artists think in these terms. The ones that think in these terms are the parasitic businesspeople middlemen that you find defending the copyright monopoly and then robbing artists and their fans dry, laughing all the way to the bank while exploiting a legal monopoly system ruthlessly: the copyright monopoly.

    Meanwhile, among artists, there is one insult that has remained consistent throughout artistry in history, an insult between artists that rips somebody’s artistry apart, that tells somebody they’re not even worthy of calling themselves an artist. That insult is “You’re in it for the money”.

    “How shall the artists get paid?”, implying artists won’t play or create otherwise, that they’re doing it for the money (only for the money), is a very serious insult.

    There’s a reason “sellout” is a sharply negative word in artistry. Artistry in the very large majority aren’t happy at all when you’re asking them if they’re playing to make money; it’s a grave insult. The frequently-heard notion that you don’t create culture if you’re not paid for it comes from those who exploit artists, and never from artists themselves.

    After all, we create not because we can make money off it as individuals, but because of who we are – how we are wired. We have created since we learned to put red paint on the inside of cave walls. We are cultural animals. Culture has always been part of our civilization, rewarded or not.

    However, if an artist wants to sell their goods or services and become an entrepreneur, I wish them all the luck and success in the world. But business is business, and there is nothing that entitles an entrepreneur to sales.

    The copyright monopoly was never intended to ensure income for a particular group of people. This is a common false counterargument in the copyright monopoly debate, even among people who agree that the current monopoly is beyond insane: “but we must find a way to ensure that artists are compensated for their work”. This is simply a thoroughly false statement; the goal of policymaking is to ensure art is created and available to the public, and whether somebody is paid for it is completely beside the point.

    This argument about rewarding creators of art is a very common way of trying to derail a discussion about the copyright monopoly. Regardless of the logical dishonesty in defending a system that locks 99.995% of artists away from any royalty with the argument that “artists must get paid”, and then steals most of the rest of the money from the 0.005% of the artists, it’s still a recurring argument. The problem is that it is utterly false and a diversion; compensating artists monetarily was never a goal with the copyright monopoly.

    As I’ve written before, nobody is entitled to any compensation for any amount of work, ranging from minuscule to infinite. The only thing that entitles an entrepreneur – artists included – to any kind of compensation is a sale.

    When no sales are made, is this a problem for an artist? Undoubtedly so. Sometimes even tragic. But does that make it a problem for the entire world? There are three answers to that question: No, no, and no, in that order.

    No trade ever had special laws guaranteeing its income, especially not against the progress of technology. When households got electricity in the 1920s, and the biggest industry in most European and American cities went belly-up in a few years – the icemaking industry – nobody asked for a refrigerator fee, despite many personal tragedies.

    Going back to the specifics of the copyright monopoly, the US Constitution is positively crystal clear in its justification for the existence of the copyright monopoly:

    …to promote the progress of science and the useful arts…

    Do you see anything about securing income for any particular group in society there? No? That’s because it’s not there. It was never a goal.

    The copyright monopoly is a balance between two competing interests: the public’s interest in having new culture and knowledge produced, and the same public’s interest in having access to culture and knowledge. The public is the only stakeholder in the copyright monopoly construct. The only stakeholder. Somebody’s income or non-income does not factor into it.

    So the problems that needs to be solved are two: how we make sure that new culture gets created, and how me make sure that this culture is available to the public at large. How somebody gets compensated is not a problem on the table.

    (At this point, several people would argue that no culture would get made if people aren’t compensated for making it. That statement is blatantly false, as proven by successful authors like Cory Doctorow, whose books are free to copy. As are mine. Once you realize that successful authors do earn money even with rampant copying, you can relax the neurotic “every copy must be controlled” attitude. But even if they didn’t, that would still not be an argument to give up freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, and expression online.)”

    Källor:

    http://falkvinge.net/2013/09/16/how-shall-the-artists-get-paid-isnt-a-question-its-an-insult/

    http://falkvinge.net/2013/09/28/the-question-was-never-how-do-we-make-sure-artists-are-paid-it-was-always-how-do-we-ensure-art-is-made-and-available/

    • Peter Harold skriver:

      Ja, till och med jag bjuder på mina musikaliska alster utan att blanda in skivbolag och dylikt. Att dessa alster sedan inte är direkt vad folk skulle välta kiosker för är en annan sak. Men hade jag haft talang som musiker hade jag kunnat marknadsföra min musik gratis och tagit betalt per biljett när jag uppträtt.

  4. Gubben skriver:

    Men min käre Skrivare!
    VAD HAR DU EMOT HARRY BRANDELIUS???

  5. try this skriver:

    So there was a challenge. These additional flights are likely to need, including boxes, protective covers, tape, bubble wrap, padlocks and more.
    However, the car ferries company will be exceptionally comfortable.
    Scientist say the magnetic poles could send the birds flying south
    in the summer. 3 The Airlink 100 will take you directly to your
    terminal. Everyone has to remove their shoes in the European Union will begin permitting
    a limited category of liquids, aerosols and gels in containers. http://footystar.co.uk/profile/windymundy

Du är välkommen att kommentera inlägget! Jag tillämpar yttrandefrihet, men du tar givetvis ansvar för det du skriver. Reklam åker dock i runda arkivet.

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s