Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hipster_bebop_junkie
I'd consider that a really odd statement. Fuck it. It wouldn't matter if the biggest genius making music today would hypothetically say that, it still sounds to me as if they are lowering an album to pretty much the same level a flyer has in the scheme of things. I can't agree with that. If that were the one and only function of a record, then it would have sense to just release it exclusively on the towns they're touring or fucking forcing bands to tour the whole world over in order to get exposure, which sounds nuts. The contrary (touring to promote the record) seems more reasonable. Since the vast majority of bands i love have never visited my town, and likely never will, i think it's obvious to me, especially considering the globalization, that a consequence of a tour is the spawning of a possibility that your music will get to some ears in far away places somehow, considering that no band can take their act to everywhere in the globe. Agreeing with that concept of what a record is and living in accordance with it, would limit my experience of listening to music to Los Tigres Del Monte, El Grupo Ronco, and all that horrible crock of shit that passes as música popular mexicana these days. Oh my god, that would be so grim.
|
It's not something I necessarily agree with, but I think what the artists who have said that are actually saying: We don't make money from record sells, we make money from the live show, so the record -- in a monetary sense -- becomes the "Advertisement" for the live show.