Re: GG and Napster and MP3

[Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Anne M. Marble wrote:

> >     Finally, and in deference to the subject of this board, what might
> Glenn
> > Gould have thought of it all?  He talked about anonymous Medieval artists
> > (like stone-carvers working on cathedrals) making permanent contributions
> > without ego or recognition beyond earning their daily keep.
>
> True, but while GG liked this concept, I can't imagine him being satisfied
> under those conditions. Besides, those conditions wouldn't work in today's
> artistic world. How would an anonymous artist market himself? Artists in
> Medieval times didn't have to worry about that, but artists today do. (Why
> do you think Eric Flint made one of his books available for free?!)

Exactly.  Unless one has a Charlotte Church marketing machine behind one's
career, it's hard to get noticed.  We have to work full-time jobs outside
music for the "daily keep", and pretty much give our musical contributions
away for free.  (The other job can be rewarding too, but it leaves less
time for the music.)

I occasionally get approached to write an arrangement or do some other
small music project, and it's remarkable how often the person assumed I
would just do it for free in my spare time.  When I mention my usual
$25/hr fee up front, I often never hear back from them again and the
project doesn't happen.  Even if it's a project that I *would* do just for
fun in my spare time sometime, I can't feasibly keep giving away all my
musical efforts for free.  There's family time, housework, friends,
hobbies, reading, etc. also needing my attention during my spare time,
before much practicing or writing music or preparing a concert.  The way
to give the music more priority is to get paid for it.  (Not to mention
that it took 25+ years of work and study to develop the skills in the
first place, so it would be nice to get something back from it,
recognition that it's worth money.  Musicians and other artists have
university loans just like everybody else....)

So, it's easy for someone like GG to say that it would be fun to be an
anonymous artist or craftsman...he's saying it from a position of already
being well established, and with regular income rolling in from
recordings.  GG at that point in his career didn't need to spend any of
his energy trying to get noticed.  He just went along working on whatever
he wanted to (which was, I think, his point).  The artist can do better
work when able to focus on just the creative part of it, not on all the
other parts that pay the bills or generate fame.

As for promotion, I've looked back toward the beginning of this clavichord
project that John Hill and I did last summer.  Over the past year and a
half I've put in more than three times as much time doing all these little
promotion and production tasks than I ever spent writing or practicing or
recording the music.  (My wife helps with it some, too, in her own spare
time.)  That's time and money out of pocket just trying to get noticed as
a serious musician.  See, a classical musician is pretty much Nothing
unless there's a marketable CD that people can get.  Even if there are 15
years of well-respected professional concert work and other projects
behind oneself in the career, none of it Really Counts unless there's a
recording available.  (There's even a local folk/gospel singer who
promotes herself everywhere as a "Recording Artist" rather than as a
"musician" or "singer"...all her concert posters focus on how she can make
and sell recordings, not on how she can do musically in a live
performance.)

Basically, except for the hyped superstars, one has to have a different
job to be able to afford to become recognized as a musician...and the time
doing that job takes away from being a musician.  It's a circle that works
against being a musician.  That's a musical aspect that Glenn Gould never
really had to deal with.  And a musician with Gould's recognizable sound
would never be mistaken for anonymous, anyway, even if he'd tried it.

> The concept of the artist who thought all musicians should make their money
> from concerts rather than from recordings would've made GG shudder. :->
>
> He might have liked the idea of sharing experimental work, such as the
> "Idea of North." Work that people might not have sampled otherwise because
> they didn't know what it was like. But then, he could've shared that
> through MP3.com, just as Bradley does. (BTW it always saddens me when
> people treat MP3.com with hate and scorn because they think it's like
> Napster. It's obvious they've never even visited the site.)

Exactly.  MP3.com and Napster are totally different.

If a serious musician can use mp3.com and other new technologies to get
noticed, it's great!

Last summer before I'd even heard of mp3.com I met one of the other
classical musicians who has his work out there, John Michel (cellist).  I
think he was one of the earliest to take advantage of mp3.com as a place
to promote conventional classical work (regular professionally-produced
recordings, not just people's sequenced MIDI creations).  We were both in
a week-long festival: he was playing the Shostakovich 1st concerto in one
of the main concerts, and I was playing various pieces on harpsichord and
organ in other events.  (There was also a Glenn Gould film festival as
part of this week.) He gave a wonderfully moving performance of the
concerto: I think as good as or better than I would expect to hear if I
went to hear Yo-Yo Ma or another "established star".  He really can play.

And he's been doing a terrific job promoting himself on the internet.
(http://www.cello.org/ICS_Director.html and elsewhere.)  I'd wager that in
two years of internet exposure he's reached the attention of more people
than he has in nine years of concerts and teaching.  Again it's that
observation: if there's a recording available for convenient purchase, one
is taken more seriously as a musician than if one merely does the concerts
and teaching.  The recording shows that one takes oneself seriously enough
to have done a recording....

As GG predicted, it's more important to be a recording artist than a
concert artist.  But it's also important to do those live gigs.  It helps
one's musical style stay directly communicative and fresh.  And it
impresses those listeners who (like me) will always be more pleased with
the memory of an outstanding concert than with a carefully controlled
recording.  The event is meaningful.  I was at John Michel's concert, and
*know* I was moved by his performance.  He was right up there playing it.
So, when I'm sifting through the stuff available at mp3.com I'm more
inclined to listen to and buy John's work than anybody else's, since I
*know* he can really play.  The recording is just a confirmation of
something I already know is true.  I've met him, and know that he's both a
nice guy and an excellent musician, no electronic intervention involved.

And I enjoy the fact that every time I go listen to John play the Barber
sonata (a live recording!) on mp3.com, he gets money (from advertisers).
He deserves it.  He has real talent and he's worked hard.  If instead his
music was merely circulating on Napster, as endlessly reproducible copies,
he'd be receiving nothing for that.


Bradley Lehman | http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/ | Dayton, VA, USA
CD's: http://www.mp3.com/bpl

"Music must cause fire to flare up from the spirit - and not only
sparks from the clavier...." - Alfred Cortot