Jump to content

Monicker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,582

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Monicker

  3. Posted

    Quentin Tarantino should direct it.

     

    Please no, for the love of all that is good in the world, no.

     

    If Emile Haynie is credited on the production, then yes. The truth is he just lets me run wild in the studio while he's passed out drunk.

     

    O hai AT loon! I wuz wonderin when u were going 2 show up around these parts. I see you ran amok on Blue Velvet. KIT, buddi!

    0

  9. Posted

    I was told my an ~inside source~ that she has had the Interscope deal for a long time but when she 'blew up' so to speak they said she was 25, instead of 26. They wanted her to be 25 when they found her (even though the found her long before that) and 26 sounded too old to begin in the music industry, too close to thirty.

     

    Not saying anything about you or your source, but this is such stupid reasoning. Humans continually baffle me.

    0

  11. Posted

    Naw, i do the POOR MAN'S COPYRIGHT: mail myself a copy and never open it! Does that really hold up in court? Probably not! Actually, that's a lie, i don't even do that. I've yet to copyright a single piece of music. This is for the simple reason that i don't feel anything is ever finished. Also, i'll have you know, humble narrator of ours, that i've only ever made one piece of music that is entirely electronic. But i have a bunch of stuff that's all acoustic instruments. And anyway, my heart is acoustic, evil, MY HEART. Isn't that all that matters??!

    :shy:

    0

  12. Posted

    What's weird though (on the subject of leaks hurting sales) is that you have to take into account the fans' subjectivity: for a lot of people they'd be kind of bummed out to get a previously leaked song on an official album. It would be seen as a wasted opportunity. What unheard music could have been on there instead? And these people may very well not end up purchasing something because of this. Yet, on the other hand, for many other people--and i would argue that this is probably determined by what sort of an audience it is (which is typically dictated by the sort of artist and music, and i think more and more by generation)--having a previously leaked song show up on an official album is a great, exciting thing and reason to celebrate because they get to have, on an official product that they can hold in their hands, the music in full quality (a 320 kbps mp3, the highest mp3 encoding, which we're lucky to get, is far from that, and keep in mind also that a lot of unreleased stuff isn't always mastered, and sometimes not even properly mixed, not to mention that a leaked song might take on a new life on a released album if new overdubs are added or if different elements are rerecorded). That's important to a lot of people. There are factions in the large landscape of music fans, and they all have differing interests and priorities, which affects what they place value in.

    1

  15. Posted

    I feel groggy and i'm in a weird mood and i'm just going to ramble and spout out thoughts related to the direction that this discussion has taken. I should probably drink tea and move my body around, but oh well.

     

    The subject of leaks is quite complex. There are so many variables and considerations to take into account. I've yet to form a definitive opinion on the matter, and that bothers me because i'd like to neatly wrap my stance on the matter in a pretty little bow, feel certain about it, be done with it and move on to something else. That said, what Baby V Alex said earlier today in another thread is one of the few things i can say i really feel certain about:

     

    I love leaks because they are a side of the artist that the labels don't wanna show sometimes

     

    I don't think this point can be overstated. In general, a lot of leaked music isn't really "commercially viable" and we'd be unlikely to hear it otherwise. It's unfortunate how often a popular artist isn't fully represented because of what the label deems marketable. So, why not subvert capitalism, right? Sounds good to me.

     

    However, that, of course, is not the only thing to consider here. There's the artist's thoughts and feelings about their unreleased material circulating; their financial standing can be a factor (though that can introduce a moral slippery slope); the moral issues of piracy; is intellectual property not property?; should music be free?; a real, tangible, full quality product vs. an inferior copy, and the relative monetary value of each. The list goes on and on, hence why it's so complex.

     

    The thing is, the subject seems to be pretty elastic, varying from case to case, depending on an artist's own views and their situation. In Lana's case, leaks have certainly helped her develop a greater fan base. But as evilentity reminded us, we don't know her stance on leaks. It would be a different scenario if there was word from her saying that she's actively opposed to leaks (for whatever reason, be it she is embarrassed by her older stuff and doesn't want it circulating; she doesn't consider it finished and doesn't like the idea of people hearing works in progress, etc.) As i said before though, what we do know is that she hasn't exactly shied away from sharing her music throughout the years. Once an artist becomes a public figure though their back catalog, how it gets handled, and who has and should/shouldn't have access to it becomes a pretty hairy situation. But the control is pretty much out of her hands now. You'll recall that there have been times where even her posting a video to her own YouTube channel lead to WMG pulling it.

     

    Being a professional musician/performer is a weird concept. What a luxury to get paid to make music! And how remarkable that we live in a world where it's even an option. I've never fully known what to make of this, and i say this as someone whose entire life revolves around music, whether it's creating it or appreciating it. Now, would i want my demos to slip out of my fingers and get into the public's hands? Ignoring the fact that most people probably wouldn't give a shit about my music, no, probably not. That's because i am very controlling about how i want myself and my work to be represented and heard. There are others, of course, who have a completely different view of the situation. Should the way that we approach leaks vary from artist to artist? Is that realistic or even possible? Really, at the end of the day, someone's demos and unreleased work is none of our fucking business. It's their or some company's property. But that's also not realistic, it's not the world in which we live. The proverbial can of worms or pandora's box has been opened long ago, and as things stand now, there doesn't really seem to be any going back, no? This is the culture now, it has been for a while, and is only moving more and more in a certain direction. I think the game just needs to be reinvented, and i am curious to see where things go in the next decade or so, because something fundamental in the system has to change. Maybe in the future we'll find ourselves purchasing vials of Lana's sweat in an attempt to have something tangible and personal amidst a cultural sea of sameness, all those 1s and 0s. Of course, that'll only be after some company has convinced us with their advertisements that we want and maybe even need Lana's sweat...

     

     

    EDIT: I forgot to mention one very important thing--the one undoubtedly positive thing that has resulted from leaking in the internet age: third parties (bootleggers) hardly, if ever, get to profit from other people's music anymore. And that's a really great thing. Why should anyone profit from something they don't own, had no hand in creating, didn't fund, AND obtained illegally?

    7

  18. Posted

    I think the auto-welcome-thread feature defeats the whole purpose of introduction threads. It doesn’t allow one to introduce her/himself in their own manner and individualize it--it sucks any life out of it. It also takes away the choice of whether or not one even wants their own introduction thread. What's the point of a bunch of people saying hi to someone who isn't even aware that there's an intro thread for them? Additionally, automatically created threads for every new member is going to create an insane amount of clutter; that section will quickly be a mess.

     

    Another vote from me for themes. It’s important, it can really help minimize eye fatigue! Websites with a white background are the absolute worst idea as far as the health of your eyes are concerned. You’re just staring at a white light. If you’ve ever used a forum with a black/dark gray background, i think you’ll agree that your eyes thank you endlessly for it. I reckon people should have this option.

     

    I still maintain that Fan Art should be in the General section, or maybe part of the the Graphics section, because fan art doesn’t have to do with Lana per se, as much as it has to do with the artist of the fan art. It seems really out of place to me.

     

    Lastly, i am a bit wary of interesting/relevant Lana topics being “lost” in the chat section, rather than being archived in threads. I think it would be very easy for those who don’t use the chat to miss smaller things of interest if these things are only mentioned in the chat and nowhere else.

    0

  20. Posted

    So this thread has clearly revealed a trend: her hardcore fans are not acquainted with many people at all who like her. In fact, most people, you all are reporting, either dislike her, hate her, mock her, think she's weird and boring, are annoyed by her, or haven't even heard of her! Which begs the question, if we, probably her biggest fans, hardly know anyone who's into her, how the hell has she sold over 2 million records? Where are all those people who bought the album?

    0

  21. Posted

    Imma kick back and watch this train run out of steam while people project their guilt onto others, assume Lana's motives and intentions, and pretend to know how the music industry works. All, of course, over a tall glass of maple syrup lemonade, a mountain of spaghetti, and a slice of lemon pie cake.

     

    NO, but 4 seriously guyz, this is, uh, insane. Pooling money together so that one person can make a trip to DC to hear some old recordings and then report back with a verbal description of them? There's liking an artist's music and then there's being pathologically obsessive. That said, i'm not trying to stop anyone here. Be merry and carry on.

     

    To those who moralistically recoil at the mere thought of tracking down these songs, and cite the "personal" nature of her unreleased music as evidence for leaving it be: these songs are registered at the LOC, not sitting on an old hard drive of hers in oblivion. Throughout the years leading up to getting signed to a major, she has distributed her music, whether at shows, giving physical copies to acquaintances and colleagues, or putting them up online. And now she's a major artist. You think a signed artist has the agency to just release whatever music whenever they desire? What do you think record labels, label executives, and distributors are for? She's under contract, of which we don't know the terms--she can't just "release" her music as she pleases, so the argument that because she hasn't done so yet she must not want to, is meaningless. That is flawed logic and a gross oversimplification.

     

    Maybe she doesn't care for that old stuff. Maybe she doesn't even think about it anymore. Maybe she's embarrassed by it given the age at which it was recorded. But again, Sirens was given out to people, and these other unknown songs are registered with the LOC. The fact of the matter is that she is now a public recording artist with a back catalogue of registered music. This business about her old songs being "too personal" is hogwash. The idea being discussed in this thread wouldn't even cause material to leak. Now that is another topic altogether--the moral implications of pirating intellectual property. Why don't we discuss THAT rather than making shit up?

    15

  23. Posted

    I didn't know it was a fan made either, however I always thought it sounded a bit strange when changing from the chorus to verses. But you're right, the person who made it didn't get enough credit at all.

     

    This is not at all a jab at you or anyone specifically: the person who made this edit DID get sufficient credit, but this fan base is a bit notorious for either not paying attention or forgetting things. I lamented about this on LDR.FM shortly before it went down. It seems that we go in cycles, retreading the same erroneous information and rumors, only to correct and debunk then over and over again.

    1
×
×
  • Create New...