babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Unreleased for good reason.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Unreleased for good reason.
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 November 2002 04:01 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Man, am I the only one who thinks the "new" Nirvana song is awful. Now, I came late into the Nirvana camp, having dismissed them as hacks specializing in cacaphonous noise until the "Unplugged" special. But the new song is, well, cacaphonous noise. Eech.

Sub-question: any thoughts on the pillaging of dead artists' back catalogues for "new, unreleased material." Does it really do the artists justice when the record companies or families release a bunch of stuff the artist sprobably had good reason not to release in the first place? Huh? Huh?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 20 November 2002 05:30 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a toughie. Even when I thought any of my conpositions had merit, there was always a lot of stuff that was simply awful and embarrassing. Personally, I'd be a bit mortified if someone published my old poetry.

That said, all of that stuff can be illuminating. It's much easier to forgive early dreck than later dreck. An artist that started off pretty crappy but becomes good doesn't usually suffer just because the crap is still floating around.

An artist who is good and then suddenly becomes crappy, on the other hand...

I think releasing slushpile material is probably more like early crap than late crap.

You can get all tangled up trying to determine what's ethically best, unless you go by commercial agreements, in which case whatever makes the copyright-holder the most money is what's best. If an artist didn't want to share with the world, but the art would enrich the world...? Or if an artist's family didn't want to publish?

Personally, I'd stick with the artist right up until he dies, then go for the public good. That doesn't mean the artist's family should be left out in the cold... but the son of the guy who wrote "Happy Birthday to you..." has lawyers on retainer to review movies, television shows, and news footage for any unauthorized use of the song. He also has a few investigators on the prowl, but they're more expensive and less productive. He threatens a suit and obtains a settlement for every violation.

Not a good posterboy for the progeny of artists, in my opinion.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 21 November 2002 12:13 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sub-question: any thoughts on the pillaging of dead artists' back catalogues for "new, unreleased material." Does it really do the artists justice when the record companies or families release a bunch of stuff the artist sprobably had good reason not to release in the first place? Huh? Huh?

Of course not. It should be stopped for the simple reason it will spare us, god-forbid, any more Beatle songs or Jimi Hendrix playing Polly-Wolly-Doodle on a ukelale.

But of course, the leeches that own the rights need another BMW. Or whatever.

Its the same problem since cds took over. When bad musicians only had 45 minutes to fill you got less shit. Now they have, what 72, on a cd. And of course Jewel, or some other lame-ass surely cannot be expected to self-edit out their precious ode to the fish they had when they were 12. Give me a frigging break.

I used to love Bob dyan, love him. Now he makes reallly long cd's versus taut 40 minute albums. Of course there's gonna be crap. That crap from 30 years are the "un-released nuggets" now.

No wonder I don't buy music anymore, i just steal.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 21 November 2002 12:24 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course not. It should be stopped for the simple reason it will spare us, god-forbid, any more Beatle songs or Jimi Hendrix playing Polly-Wolly-Doodle on a ukelale.


Ah, but does he set it on fire at the end?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 21 November 2002 12:30 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But of course, the leeches that own the rights need another BMW. Or whatever.
I agree. I hate being a mark for those greedy bastards, and won't buy their "new unreleased" crap.

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jenene
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3353

posted 21 November 2002 07:15 PM      Profile for jenene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Courtney Love owns Nirvana music rights.Apparently she needs money.Let's hope she buys some soap.
From: pacific NW USA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca