Finally, someone cares about quality

[hsosdrum]

Neil's "Achilles Heel" as you put it is how to reconcile his past words and actions (cool then) with his current deeds (and nowadays, so far as the record business is concerned, his irrelevance) and make it all fit together with his love (and NEED) for money

Record business? What record business? Wake up and smell 2015: the entire record business is now irrelevant. Today, musical artists make their living touring. (I would say "playing live,", but so many touring musicians merely mime to backing tracks that the term "playing live" is largely inaccurate.) The way to survive in the music biz today is to get your ass out in front of people and perform; being a jazz fan, this does my heart good, since nothing can substitute for the direct communication between an artist and a live audience, and on that basis, ol' Neil can still compete with the best of 'em.

[Wagner]

Record business? What record business? Wake up and smell 2015: the entire record business is now irrelevant. Today, musical artists make their living touring. (I would say "playing live,", but so many touring musicians merely mime to backing tracks that the term "playing live" is largely inaccurate.) The way to survive in the music biz today is to get your ass out in front of people and perform; being a jazz fan, this does my heart good, since nothing can substitute for the direct communication between an artist and a live audience, and on that basis, ol' Neil can still compete with the best of 'em.

I disagree with your assessment of the "way to survive" only being "to get your ass out in front of people and perform" (but that's another discussion entirely)
It certainly helps, I would agree, but is far from being a requisite

Maybe it is for competing TRENDY "acts" but for ARTISTS and MUSICIANS? Don't think so...............few make money "touring"...........UNLESS you are one of the current, in style flavor of the month "performers", or a War Horse (Bruno Mars and Paul McCartney) doing millions in concessions, licensing and add ons (getting paid)

The primary reason (for MOST) for doing live shows is still, even in 2015, is to promote "RECORDINGS or MUSIC" sales and hopefully garner name recognition (we'll drop the use of the nowadays somewhat ambiguous term "records") regardless of delivery format...............that and publishing revenues (watch TV lately?

I also do not think that true "artists" are doing a lot of the miming you are referring to...............maybe folks like Britney Spears perhaps?

There are also a hell of a lot of the music loving public that either do not, or cannot, attend concerts for any number of reasons; one's geographic location being the biggest deciding factor as for that option, after cost, even today

The way for them "to survive" (artists and acts) is for them to be PAID for their work and obviously Neil agrees; maybe not entirely with his words but certainly by his deeds

Maybe I should have included "quote unquote" when referring to the "record business", that or referred to it more accurately as the "recording industry"

It, and music publishing is still alive and well friend, as long as there are lawyers and money involved

THAT is the basis for PONO and everything else Neil Young has done in the past 35-40 years or so and I have absolutely NO problems with that.................just be honest about it

Keep in mind as well that the highest percentage of revenue streams and actual dollar amounts (totals, not per album or event) for the record industry today are being generated by artists, acts and catalogs posthumously

And you cite JAZZ as your example?! JAZZ is better at losing money than Classical music in today's market (I love JAZZ, Hard Bop and back as well as Classical but this conversation is about music players, delivery formats, the "business" and motives)

[BMWCCA]

FWIW:
Kind of Blue (180g Vinyl)~ Miles Davis
is number 51 on the Amazon current sales list of vinyl and CD (not downloads). That's the first jazz album I ran across and that doesn't include CD sales for that album, either! Oddly, it's listed as #3 on the just Jazz chart where the CD version is #8. Weird.

Even weirder (to me) is that Barry Manilow is listed on the Jazz charts! So is B.B. King, and Amy Winehouse. Never mind.

[hsosdrum]

I disagree with your assessment of the "way to survive" only being "to get your ass out in front of people and perform" (but that's another discussion entirely)
It certainly helps, I would agree, but is far from being a requisite.

Except in rare cases, these days touring is absolutely a requisite to making money at music. I'm afraid you're woefully out of touch with the way the music world now works.

Maybe it is for competing TRENDY "acts" but for ARTISTS and MUSICIANS? Don't think so...............few make money "touring"...........UNLESS you are one of the current, in style flavor of the month "performers", or a War Horse (Bruno Mars and Paul McCartney) doing millions in concessions, licensing and add ons (getting paid)

Being an "artist" does not immunize a musician from the economic realities of today's music business: if you want to show a profit you have to play live. (And just who bestows this immunity of "artist" that you speak of, anyway? Certainly a subject for another thread.)

The primary reason (for MOST) for doing live shows is still, even in 2015, is to promote "RECORDINGS or MUSIC" sales and hopefully garner name recognition (we'll drop the use of the nowadays somewhat ambiguous term "records") regardless of delivery format...............that and publishing revenues (watch TV lately?

Again, you're applying pre-2000s economic thinking to a situation that has completely changed. Most listeners today get their music free, or from streaming services that pay nothing (or practically nothing) to the artists. The era of music being bought-and-paid-for by the listener is more than ten years dead. You and I may pay for CDs and downloads, but the overwhelming majority of the music-consuming public does not. It's morally wrong, but it's a fact of life here in 2015, and nobody's yet come up with a way to prevent if from continuing.

The way for them "to survive" (artists and acts) is for them to be PAID for their work and obviously Neil agrees; maybe not entirely with his words but certainly by his deeds

You'll get no argument from me on this point.

Maybe I should have included "quote unquote" when referring to the "record business", that or referred to it more accurately as the "recording industry" It, and music publishing is still alive and well friend, as long as there are lawyers and money involved

Alive? Yes, but well? Not so much.

And you cite JAZZ as your example?! JAZZ is better at losing money than Classical music in today's market (I love JAZZ, Hard Bop and back as well as Classical but this conversation is about music players, delivery formats, the "business" and motives)

I cited jazz only as an example of music that can be experienced to the fullest only when listening to artists play it live, since its essence is improvisation. Experiencing talented and skilled musicians create art out of thin air in-the-moment is the most rewarding, thrilling and complete experience I can have as a receiver of art. For me, no other art form even comes close. As soon as you add a dollar sign to the equation art begins to become commerce, and good art rarely equals good commerce, just as good commerce rarely spawns good art. THAT'S what was wrong with the music business from the mid-70s until its collapse about 15 years ago. Whatever rises from its ashes is bound to be better for art.

[Wagner]

FWIW:
Kind of Blue (180g Vinyl)~ Miles Davis
is number 51 on the Amazon current sales list of vinyl and CD (not downloads). That's the first jazz album I ran across and that doesn't include CD sales for that album, either! Oddly, it's listed as #3 on the just Jazz chart where the CD version is #8. Weird.

Even weirder (to me) is that Barry Manilow is listed on the Jazz charts! So is B.B. King, and Amy Winehouse. Never mind.

Yep, that one's been a cash cow for more than a few.....................for a long time now; BLEW UP (or is that "Blue Up!") in the late '90s all over again

I think Classic Records alone pressed it about 6 different ways inside of 5 years.............correct speed, original speed, blue vinyl, black vinyl, 180 gram, 200 gram, 45rpm etc etc etc

I know, I own 4 of them not counting my "daily driver" plain vanilla CeeDee copy

Besides being a fabulous ground breaking Jazz album read by a dream line-up there are other forces at work with that one; it's really "in", can you dig it?! Wow man, that is so KEWEL!

My Son recently finished his masters in music at UNC-G; they have the horn Miles used to make "Kind of Blue" on display in the lobby of the music building; when you see it it is difficult to imagine that that instrument was the one you hear on that recording ("looks" like a 10 pound student horn)

As for classifications of music? My fave is what "they" consider "R&B" now, as in "you've got to be pulling my leg!" Sad, isn't it?

[Wagner]

Except in rare cases, these days touring is absolutely a requisite to making money at music. I'm afraid you're woefully out of touch with the way the music world now works.

You're dreaming; "art" has always (ultimately) been about money since time began...........wasn't inviting a debate, just stating my opinions based on the facts as I see them

The driving force behind Bach to Mozart to Wagner to the Beatles and everything in between (that and nookie)

They are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the naive

CRAP is about money too, but as I have said, THAT IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION (but the right people with money can and do elevate CRAP to "art" status) They do it all the time and that is where and why the lines start to blur

You should try actually reading my post(s)

[rusty jefferson]

Interesting TED talk on the general subject. Not Neil Young, but the changed landscape for artists and performers.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palm...ge=en#t-106235

[Wagner]

Interesting TED talk on the general subject. Not Neil Young, but the changed landscape for artists and performers.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palm...ge=en#t-106235

Too funny! Thanks to all of this digital progress we're reverting to the barter system?

I mean, Amanda should be rolling in it, she does live shows all the time? (have a daughter who is or was a big fan)

[hsosdrum]

You're dreaming; "art" has always (ultimately) been about money since time began...........wasn't inviting a debate, just stating my opinions based on the facts as I see them

The driving force behind Bach to Mozart to Wagner to the Beatles and everything in between (that and nookie)

They are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the naive

CRAP is about money too, but as I have said, THAT IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION (but the right people with money can and do elevate CRAP to "art" status) They do it all the time and that is where and why the lines start to blur

You should try actually reading my post(s)

Have you ever tried to create art, or have you ever been close to anyone who has tried to create art? Art is about the artist's need to tell truth—nothing more and nothing less. Money is strictly a sideshow. Rarely, an artist's genius is recognized during their lifetime and they become wealthy as a result (Picasso and Stravinsky, to name two). Much more often, the artist spends their life struggling to make ends meet. (A struggle which informs their art, forming the strongest direct connection between money and art.)

Again, you confuse art with commerce. I'll provide a quick lesson: Kenny G = commerce; John Coltrane = art. Kenny G = rich; John Coltrane = not so much (his death notwithstanding). Beatles = art & rich (one of the few happy confluences between the two).

P.S. I read and enjoy your posts; you're one of the few people around here who's even crankier than I am.

[Wagner]

Have you ever tried to create art, or have you ever been close to anyone who has tried to create art? Art is about the artist's need to tell truth—nothing more and nothing less. Money is strictly a sideshow. Rarely, an artist's genius is recognized during their lifetime and they become wealthy as a result (Picasso and Stravinsky, to name two). Much more often, the artist spends their life struggling to make ends meet. (A struggle which informs their art, forming the strongest direct connection between money and art.)

Again, you confuse art with commerce. I'll provide a quick lesson: Kenny G = commerce; John Coltrane = art. Kenny G = rich; John Coltrane = not so much (his death notwithstanding). Beatles = art & rich (one of the few happy confluences between the two).

P.S. I read and enjoy your posts; you're one of the few people around here who's even crankier than I am.

So, your definition of what is, and isn't "art" is the de facto standard now? As well as who is, and isn't, an artist?!

Save your quick lessons (and pigeonholing)

For what it's worth, as for creating or being close to what I would consider "art", yes I have, but a true artist doesn't "have to try", only sharpen/develop his skills of delivery

As for Pablo and Igor? That's a good one!

Enough of this foolishness

[Ducatista47]

As one who has done creating and living hand to mouth, I offer an insight. The urge to create is potentially pure; it is a matter of the spiritual. The urge to have your work appreciated is purely a matter of the ego and of arrogance. The urge to make money is divided; survival is a necessity to continue to create but the drive to gain wealth is once again ego and most of all arrogance.

More than a few have ignored survival in the throes of creativity and perished. The brilliant reedman and flutist Eric Dolphy could not bring himself to stop playing - practicing - to take insulin and he died holding his horn.

The tendency of many artists, driven creative individuals, to voraciously seek out each others output and feedback, is not a need to be appreciated. It is a means to expand and further their well of experience from artists they know are on to something worth knowing.

[hsosdrum]

As one who has done creating and living hand to mouth, I offer an insight. The urge to create is potentially pure; it is a matter of the spiritual. The urge to have your work appreciated is purely a matter of the ego and of arrogance. The urge to make money is divided; survival is a necessity to continue to create but the drive to gain wealth is once again ego and most of all arrogance.

More than a few have ignored survival in the throes of creativity and perrished. The brilliant reedman and flutist Eric Dolphy could not bring himself to stop playing - practicing - to take insulin and he died holding his horn.

The tendency of many artists, driven creative individuals, to voraciously seek out each others output and feedback, is not a need to be appreciated. It is a means to expand and further their well of experience from artists they know are on to something worth knowing.

Amen.

[SEAWOLF97]

Fact is a properly encoded mp3 (at the very least 128kbps for stereo, and more importantly a decent codec such as the original fraunhofer) *is* better than FM broadcasting on almost every aspect, and *much* *much* better than cassette tapes.
In practice a well encoded mp3 is indistinguishable from the original, and that is exactly what it was meant to be.

For Xmas my son gave me the 180g , remastered Immersion LP of "Wish you Were Here" ... it's great.

Inside the package was a chit for free downloading the album direct from the manufacturer. I took a look at the site just after opening the LP and saw the download was MP3's and didn't bother.

So last week I finally got around to it. To their credit, at least they were coded 320kbs.

Today I burned them to CD and put in the Arcam to see what I had. Holy Crap , they sound awesome.

It's maybe the best that I've heard that album sound.

MP3 ain't necessarily crap.

[Wagner]

As one who has done creating and living hand to mouth, I offer an insight. The urge to create is potentially pure; it is a matter of the spiritual. The urge to have your work appreciated is purely a matter of the ego and of arrogance. The urge to make money is divided; survival is a necessity to continue to create but the drive to gain wealth is once again ego and most of all arrogance.

More than a few have ignored survival in the throes of creativity and perished. The brilliant reedman and flutist Eric Dolphy could not bring himself to stop playing - practicing - to take insulin and he died holding his horn.

The tendency of many artists, driven creative individuals, to voraciously seek out each others output and feedback, is not a need to be appreciated. It is a means to expand and further their well of experience from artists they know are on to something worth knowing.

You are correct when you say the urge to create is potentially pure but that doesn't guaranty a creation that anyone is interested in, for any reason

How's THAT for "ego and arrogance" (and gives a whole lot of folks excuses to do very little day to day, even pretty much nothing with their lives) The poor misunderstood starving artist routine; "if only they could see what I see" (or hear what I hear or whatever, you fill in the blank)

Good example? Yoko Ono, her visual, written and musical "art" Many admire her and consider her the real deal, many people can't stand her, same as with anything and everything
A year or two before, OR after, whatever the trend is has past, she's a nobody, but marry the right guy, hang out with the "right" people and put some MONEY behind it and she's still doing shows at the MoMa as well as executing on publishing and record deals if she wants them (right guy, right people, money, it's all one and the same)
One can rationalize anything (creative work) into, or out of, being "art" by simply defining it by it's creator's "state of mind" (the altruists reveling in their muse) Many times crap being romanticized long after the fact of it's creation; yesterday's rejects become tomorrows inspirations............
What (on more levels than I care to type "rebuttals")

"ART" and what is and isn't (genuine) is an impossible debate to resolve; a real losing game because in order to acknowledge one you must dismiss the other (both the creation and the medium) Example of what I am trying to say? Woodworking Who decides when it goes from "craft" or "trade" and becomes "art"?

BUT, I do apply one criteria in defining my provincial view: will this piece still be sought after, enjoyed and appreciated by ANYONE 100 years from today...........if the answer is yes, then I consider it legitimate

100, 200 years from now, for whatever the reason and whatever the level of sophistication the audience may or may not possess, you think Neil Young's going to be on that list? And that's all I was saying when this thread became derailed

As for Dolphy? He didn't even know he had diabetes; in fact Mingus has been quoted as saying he thought someone had killed him

[Krunchy]

Neil is for all intents and purposes 70 years old now; the only thing he knows about what "sounds" good is what somebody tells him

That's gotta be one of the stupidest remarks I've eve read. If you don't like his sound/music, voice that's fine and I hope your remark is about the PONO(I dont have one) not his overall studio or live sound.
I highly doubt Neil needs anyone to tell him what sounds good, an ignorant remark, youre way out of your element there Bub.
I also don't see what his age has anything t do with anything.