3 ms·

Gatekeeping isn't boolean, it falls on a spectrum. If your rationale about preventing un 'authorized' use is in fact true, the process must be effectively keepi

Gatekeeping isn't boolean, it falls on a spectrum. If your rationale about preventing un 'authorized' use is in fact true, the process must be effectively keeping some notional gate some kind of closed even if it's only from people you (or maybe even the original artist) consider to be acting 'unscrupulously.' If musicians' priorities were for the world to share in their musical indulgence not just in listening but also in like-minded creation, they would release as much of their mixing tools/backgrounds/stems/etc as possible. Since the capitalist framework is a foregone conclusion, they need to keep some secrets in their sauce to produce scarcity to justify a price for their labor so they can eat... Because the farmers and butchers all keep gates of their own kind, too :)

Juliate 3y ago
> If musicians' priorities were for the world to share in their musical indulgence not just in listening but also in like-minded creation, they would release as much of their mixing tools/backgrounds/stems/etc as possible. They do. For a price. When you know how to ask. The thing is, if you really want to « like-minded create », you do not need, not even want their stems (you can find most of them anyway online, if only for learning). If your thing is not « consumption » but creation, your own voice/process/way matters more (and is more fun) than starting from the studio separate tracks. As for the music _business_ side of things, attention (hence scarcity management) on and availability/capacity to provide are the two main levers you have if you want to live from it. As with any other business actually.
ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
I don't really get the point you're arguing for. I disputed a specific mistaken proposition, that "holding up industry secrets is deemed more important than fostering a community of personal growth". It's a mistake on several levels: there's no dichotomy as it's presented in this sentence, and the reasons for not providing multi-tracks and project files are different. > If musicians' priorities were for the world to share in their musical indulgence not just in listening but also in like-minded creation So? They have other priorities so this is not what they do. Teaching is an industry that's only an adjacent and derivative activity to the cultural sphere of arts. It's of no concern for the artist, unless they choose to capitalize on their skills/knowledge/experience.
- rschneid 3y ago
  I'm agreeing with you that there are many reasons why the music Industry doesn't share stems but also concluding that many among those could be rationally considered gatekeeping by various groups. I'm not disparaging the industry as a whole or the individuals who comprise it, but the reality is simply messy. Many signed artists I'm sure wish they could distribute their stems or more of their process, but are hindered/prevented from doing so by labels. Seems close to what gatekeeping means to me, but that's just like my opinion, man...

Juliate 3y ago

> If musicians' priorities were for the world to share in their musical indulgence not just in listening but also in like-minded creation, they would release as much of their mixing tools/backgrounds/stems/etc as possible. They do. For a price. When you know how to ask. The thing is, if you really want to « like-minded create », you do not need, not even want their stems (you can find most of them anyway online, if only for learning). If your thing is not « consumption » but creation, your own voice/process/way matters more (and is more fun) than starting from the studio separate tracks. As for the music _business_ side of things, attention (hence scarcity management) on and availability/capacity to provide are the two main levers you have if you want to live from it. As with any other business actually.

ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago

I don't really get the point you're arguing for. I disputed a specific mistaken proposition, that "holding up industry secrets is deemed more important than fostering a community of personal growth". It's a mistake on several levels: there's no dichotomy as it's presented in this sentence, and the reasons for not providing multi-tracks and project files are different. > If musicians' priorities were for the world to share in their musical indulgence not just in listening but also in like-minded creation So? They have other priorities so this is not what they do. Teaching is an industry that's only an adjacent and derivative activity to the cultural sphere of arts. It's of no concern for the artist, unless they choose to capitalize on their skills/knowledge/experience.

rschneid 3y ago
I'm agreeing with you that there are many reasons why the music Industry doesn't share stems but also concluding that many among those could be rationally considered gatekeeping by various groups. I'm not disparaging the industry as a whole or the individuals who comprise it, but the reality is simply messy. Many signed artists I'm sure wish they could distribute their stems or more of their process, but are hindered/prevented from doing so by labels. Seems close to what gatekeeping means to me, but that's just like my opinion, man...