5 ms·
On the other hand, when did we get to a point where an artist should have no control about how their work should be presented? Anyway, presumably you can still
by Scarblac 5y ago
On the other hand, when did we get to a point where an artist should have no control about how their work should be presented?
Anyway, presumably you can still copy the album to a playlist and shuffle that.
- logical_proof 5y agoThat happened the moment that they recorded it and sold it you to listen to at your convenience. To think that an artist should have the ability to tell me how to enjoy their art is just ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with an artist saying that the best way to listen is x, y, or z. But, to tell me I have to listen in their order strikes me as invasive.
- melenaboija 5y agoMaybe it is a discrepancy on who thinks that owns what. Artists own their creations and maybe have the right of not wanting to call it their album if it is not shon as they want. On the other side I guess they could just choose another platform and I am pretty sure that Spotify did because they think it is better for their business, whatever that means.
- sp332 5y agoArtists have certain rights, like copyright. But they do not literally own their creations if they have sold them. See "first sale doctrine" for example.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- otterley 5y agoThe “first sale” doctrine applies to physical copies of copyrighted works, not to licensed digital streams. You don’t get a physical medium with a streaming service, nor do you get a “copy” in the legal sense.
- CyanBird 5y ago> On the other hand, when did we get to a point where an artist should have no control about how their work should be presented? They do have control, they can merge all the tracks into a single long file and sell it like that, but this is not what is happening here, she decided to murk with how the consumers choose to engage with the artwork
- PeterisP 5y ago> when did we get to a point where an artist should have no control about how their work should be presented? Since forever? When did artists have rights to control how their work is presented? There are restrictions on making derivative works (but that goes beyond simply presenting the work in a different way), and there are explicit permissions to present works in ways where artists are likely to disagree - e.g. parody and satire; and at least in USA the courts have repeatedly rejected the notion of "moral rights" i.e. being able to restrict the context the work is used if the economic rights have been properly licensed. The composer does not have the right to restrict me from playing their song on an out-of-tune instrument while trying to fart in unison; the poet does not have the right to restrict me from reading their poem with a horrible pronunciation and with commentary that completely misses their point; the painter does not have the right to restrict me from using their masterpiece as a literal doormat for wiping dirty boots. Copyright grants them exclusive rights on making copies and a few other things, but not control about how these copies of their work should be presented or used.
- eddieroger 5y agoI’m glad I’m not the only person who thought this. Do we think Da Vinci intended the Mona Lisa be presented in a museum, behind glass and a rope? If I were to commission and buy art and hang it in my bathroom, the artist can voice their preference for me not to, but at that point it isn’t their call. Albums can be played arbitrarily, it’s just a lot easier to do that digitally than changing out vinyl.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- notimetorelax 5y agoIt’s funny you bring up Da Vinci, he notoriously did not finish his works and perfected his paintings all his life not giving them back to the client.
- ibejoeb 5y agoIt depends on what you consider the unit of work. Sometimes a song is a unit, but often it's the album. Shuffling an album for this type of work is more similar to reading chapters of a novel out of order.
- caslon 5y agoWhen RCA released the first commercial record player in the 1930s.
- whimsicalism 5y ago> On the other hand, when did we get to a point where an artist should have no control about how their work should be presented? Literally millenia ago.
- delecti 5y agoI mean, millennia ago, music was only live, and the musician could stop if they so chose.
- whimsicalism 5y agoAnd they couldn't stop anyone from reproducing it however they wanted after hearing it or seeing it written down? Their work (ie. the song) could be presented however anyone felt like it.
- delecti 5y agoI think there's a meaningful difference in a "reproduction" that's a perfect digital copy of the artist's performance, and just playing the same song yourself.
- laumars 5y agoSince CD players included a shuffle button. Before that, since it was possible to record songs from the radio into a blank cassette. And before that, since DJs included a second turntable to allow them to structure a set their way (Jimmy Saville pioneered this. Such a shame he turned out to be a monster).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tomc1985 5y agoYeah I don't get this. Once the work is released it's out the artist's hands. The artist has no control. This is how it has always been and how it should always be.
- Pulcinella 5y agoThis is literally not true and is ahistorical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#Visual_Artists_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#Visual_Artists_Ri...
- tomc1985 5y agoFirst of all, the law is only as good as its enforcement. Without enforcement the law effectively does nto exist. Second, that link says nothing about audience consumption, it only preserves the provenance and integrity of the work. As mentioned elsewhere copyright covers the rest but both of these constructs are mental and somewhat illusory. More importantly your audience has to subscribe to them to follow them. Third, at first glance that appears to only cover the USA. I am advocating for a rejection of these principles.
- seized 5y agoWhy does one artist, who a majority of people may not like or listen to, get to dictate how everyone listens to all music on a service?
- jafo 5y agoBecause we tolerate it. It doesn't seem so long ago we didn't have much of an ability to pick what music we listened to. This will seem alien to younger HNers, but it is true. You listened to what was played. Sure, there were records and 8 tracks et al, but portability was limited. Not being able to choose what we listened, when you listened to it, or how you listened to it to peaked with disco - the backlash hit simply because you could not escape it...it was EVERYWHERE....radio, tv, movies, commercials...it died of overexposure. Then for a hot minute - about 35ish years - we had complete freedom to choose how and what we listen to. Starting at about 1980 with the Sony Walkman + cassette, you could organize music to be portable the way you wanted, at a price of time and effort. This price dropped to almost nothing by the mid 2010s with mp3s and mp3 players. Complete musical freedom! The problem? Even "almost nothing" wasn't good enough, we demanded it to be "nothing". So here come the streaming services to rescue us from the burden of work required to maintain our freedom....