Hacker News Reader

Comment by alan_cx | Hacker News Reader

From what I can tell, and the model I would advocate, is that recorded music is advertising for a live tour, which does make the money.

And, IMHO, that is how it should be. A recording, to my mind, is faked music, produced to an inch of its like. Its like air brushing. A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist. Buy a MP3 or CD and you are buying 5% artist, 95% corporate skimmed off "tax".

Granted a lot of pop act's tours are fairly faked up, but at least you see the buggers put in the effort!!!

IMHO, "piracy" keeps these artists honest.

View on HN

A recording is fake music as much as cinema is faked theatre. They're two different expressions, and both can be amazing. I don't understand why artists that adjust to one form deserve to be paid while the others don't...

Also, producers, engineers, etc. that enable recorded music to be fine tuned to perfection deserved to be paid. They won't go on tours.

The real question is: are labels/distributors paid too much? In this day and age, I think so, and that's why services like Bandcamp deserve to be supported.

>From what I can tell, and the model I would advocate, is that recorded music is advertising for a live tour, which does make the money.

Actually, from thousands of interviews I've read from artists, live tours are always a losing proposition money-wise.

Except for big bands (from Rolling Stones down to Kings of Leon or White Stripes levels of big) for any alternative artist, much less a group, it's bleeding money. And, no, merchandise doesn't do it, either.

>A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist.

So those post 1965 Beatles albums, when they stopped performing live, are not real art. You know, like Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper, Revolver et al.

That's ridiculous - a musician that writes/records and doesn't perform is just as valid as a musician that performs and doesn't write/record. People that say otherwise are usually the same people that feel entitled in not paying for recorded music.

Have you ever heard Dark Side of the Moon live? Pink Floyd basically try to recreate the album note for note onstage, including playing tapes of the famous effects. The production was timeless, an integral part of the music. They have probably played it hundreds of times cover to cover over the years.

Or you can take, in contrast, Like Spinning Plates by Radiohead. The music was recorded backwards, then run forwards. Thom Yorke learned the backwards melody, which gives the lyrics a clipped, alien quality. When they perform this song live, they use significantly different instrumentation.

Is the album performance fake? No, it's impossible to do in any other way.

There are many more examples I know, including bands that aren't worth a D live and bands that just record their live performances in the studio and call it a record. For me, hearing an album that is hard to perform live is a thrill, can't wait to hear what the band does with it.

Wow, what gives you the right to define what sort of musical activities are valid? You come off as someone who resents artists and think they should only be allowed to make a living on your terms.

Maybe you haven't watched the last few Superbowl halftime shows, but live performances can (and often are) produced to within an inch of their lives, too.

Wait, so if I don't perform live I'm not a "real artist"? Thank god I can throw out all my music, thank you for enlightening me!

Hoodie Allen agrees with this.

which is why all electronic music is fake and not real art!!

And Pixar movies are also not real art!! /dumbopinions

Reply on news.ycombinator.com