neutral milk hotel demos

[John]

Ultimately, I believe there is a responsibility on both the artist and the consumer in this situation. The artist has to agree that there is a higher calling than purely his own vanity in the creation of art and the consumer has to agree to take the product in whatever shape it's presented in context, and I think that most artists grossly underestimate the ability of the consumer to do this. I mean, a bootlegged tape of a bunch of demos is a step on the path of creativity, not an arrival point. I know that, everyone else knows that. But ultimately, if it has to do with with the creation of the art, then I think it has a place for the consumer to hear.

I (cheerfully and agreeably) just don't agree! I think if the "consumer" runs across something rather obviously meant for circulation among friends and family, then that consumer should think hard about whether it's cool to just let it loose into the world. And obviously I have personal issues with this; it's gonna smart, having to actually physically eradicate the record of my creative growth (my worktapes, I mean), but because I don't want people "sharing" that record, that's exactly what I'm eventually going to have to do, and I resent the hell out of that.

[Greg Nog]

Hey guys I know I'm coming to this debate late but I took some totally awesome pictures of diesel's toothpick house when he wasn't home  
diesel you should lock yr windows!  ha ha

[diesel_powered]

I think that, being an artist, having to accept that consumers had a RIGHT to it... that I had a responsibility to provide it and not keep it to myself... well, I think that's kinda bull.

First of all, it's a toothpick MANSION which I'm going to SHARE WITH THE WORLD once it's done as a postpostmodernist statement about the relavance of the Dingbats in our world today....

And secondly, if making art is your thing then you do have a responsibility to provide it just like if medicine is your thing then you have a responsibility to provide that. I mean, if someone developed an AIDS vaccine and then decided that they couldn't give it to the world because they were afraid of the world scrutinizing them, you'd be outraged. But instead, we're arguing about the right of the artist to be timid and avoid the public. Art is a dialogue between artist and consumer, if you lose sight of that then you're not making art anymore.

(I can't wait for John to weigh in on this... I am so about to get my ass kicked.)

[diesel_powered]

Hey guys I know I'm coming to this debate late but I took some totally awesome pictures of diesel's toothpick house when he wasn't home  
diesel you should lock yr windows!  ha ha

GODDAMMIT!! THAT WAS MY DEMO HOUSE! I WAS JUST CIRCULATING THAT AMONG FRIENDS! IT WASN'T READY FOR THE PUBLIC! Ohhhh you are SO GETTING YOUR ASS SUED, MISTER! I HAVE MY LAWYER ON THE PHONE RIGHT NOW! YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT BILL, 500 MILLION IN PUNATIVE DAMAGES!! HOW DARE THEY INVADE MY PRIVATE CREATIVE PROCESS!!

*sob*

[rockmeamadeus]

Well, then... it appears we have a philosophical debate on our hands... first your going to have to define art... then the particular place that art COMES from in a person... then the reasons why one creates art... then the reasons why a concumer desieres some art above other art... then there's the whole good art/bad art duiscussion.

See? It's all such a crazy argument. I must agree with John here, in that it is my personal right as an artist to wipe my ass with my paintings if I so desire, as they are mine. Personal rights are, to me, far more important than some ideal of Art as Belonging to the Masses.

[heather marie]

See? It's all such a crazy argument. I must agree with John here, in that it is my personal right as an artist to wipe y ass with my paintings if I so desire, as they are mine. Personal rights are, to me, far more important than some ideal of Art as Belonging to the Masses.

this is what i have wanted to say in all these types of arguments/debates/whatever you want to call them, but i am bad with words. so, go blake!

[Universal Coffee]

Don't do it John!

[John]

Don't do it John!

oh it's a done deal man it's just a question of when, I don't want people hearing my worktapes nor reading my damn notebooks

[Universal Coffee]

Oh well. Maybe you could record the sound of you destroying it, and release it as a bside?

[SPACERACE]

Personal rights are, to me, far more important than some ideal of Art as Belonging to the Masses.

ding ding ding

[Nickosaurus]

It's interesting, though, that so many visual artists' sketches end up in the public domain once they are dead and no longer able to protest.

[SPACERACE]

well yeah, because the harsh edge of betraying someone's wishes when it comes to their art is a whole lot easier to stomach when they can't do a damn thing about it.

[John]

that's what's so heartbreaking about it! I mean, no artist wants to destroy what he made, completely eliminate it from the earth...but it's what you gotta do, 'cause otherwise people are gonna disseminate it to their hearts' content

[Andrew_TSKS]

i think diesel is doing a bad job of framing the debate. so i'm going to step back in for a second.

none of this has jack shit to do with responsibility. art may have "saved your life" but it never actually SAVED ANYONE'S LIFE. so the comparison to medicine as a false one.

but.

once an artist gives or sells their work to one person, under the doctrine of fair use that person may give that art, in turn, to anyone else they choose, as long as they aren't selling it. this is a strictly legal interpretation, but if you're going to take it to a "moral" level, then i'd love to hear all about how libraries are immoral, since that's in essence what you are arguing.

as for the artist surrendering the right to privacy, this is not true on a personal level (and i think that's where a lot of people overstep boundaries--i.e. showing up at mangum, jandek, or whoever else's house). however, it IS true on an artistic level, at least inasmuch as people who enjoy that artist's work beyond a certain degree are going to want any scrap of that work, including demoes, cast off recordings, etc. the artist has every right to withhold such things from the public, but once it's given to one or ten or one hundred people, those people have the right to pass it on to others if they so choose. if the artist asks them not to, they're assholes for doing it, but if the artist doesn't say anything like that to them at the time, then they have no responsibility to do anything other than what they want with it (as long, again, as they are not selling it).

this situation is something all artists must accept if they are going to share their art with the public, and ESPECIALLY once they start making a living off of it. if they don't like it, they should not share their art with anyone at all.

ok, i'm really just procrastinating an essay about a friction song, so i should stop this and get back to that.

[Nickosaurus]

Oh, I know it's heartbreaking, it's just odd how we seem to accept that kind of theft much more than from a musical artist.

[Andrew_TSKS]

It's interesting, though, that so many visual artists' sketches end up in the public domain once they are dead and no longer able to protest.

for the record, this has to do with copyright law. all copyrights become void when the holder dies, unless his/her estate files for extensions. such extensions have become far more common over the last 75 or so years, but are still far from universal, and eventually everything will hit the public domain unless current copyright laws are changed. i for one feel that this is a good thing. art supporting an artist is one thing, but becoming a perpetual source of income for whoever ends up owning the copyright two hundred years later is ridiculous and unnecessary.

[Nickosaurus]

I'm well aware of copyright laws. The issue here is a moral, not legal one

[SPACERACE]

art may have "saved your life" but it never actually SAVED ANYONE'S LIFE. so the comparison to medicine as a false one.

debateable.

once an artist gives or sells their work to one person, under the doctrine of fair use that person may give that art, in turn, to anyone else they choose, as long as they aren't selling it. this is a strictly legal interpretation, but if you're going to take it to a "moral" level, then i'd love to hear all about how libraries are immoral, since that's in essence what you are arguing.

i guess i'm not understanding the library analogy, but i'm thinking: if an artist calls a close friend to tell him about a sweet new song or whatever, and tells him that he's really proud of it, and that he can show it to whomever he wants, then cool. i think it's reasonable to say it's in the public domain. on the other hand though, if the artist calls his friend to ask for a hushed critique on a song that was maybe tough to make, or maybe just wasn't very good, it would be a terrible friend that still went out and showed that to people.

[Andrew_TSKS]

i'm talking about the other 90 per cent of the time, when the artist doesn't say anything either way. in those cases: fair game. and this is one of those cases.

libraries disperse artistic work to anyone who wants to enjoy it, free of charge. you can check cds out from the library and listen to them 100 times for free. what if a library ended up with an old neutral milk hotel demo because someone donated it to them? anyone could go listen to it for free, and even make a dub of it if they so chose. is that wrong?

[Andrew_TSKS]

art may have "saved your life" but it never actually SAVED ANYONE'S LIFE. so the comparison to medicine as a false one.

debateable.

sure, but medicine is NOT debatable. so it's a false comparison.

[SPACERACE]

well that's not the fault of the library's. the argument shifts to whoever donated it, where they got it, if they got permission, etc. etc. ad nauseum. i mean, i get the free of charge thing, but i'm still having trouble seeing where they directly violate anyone's wishes.

and of the times when the artist doesn't specify what they'd like done: well, then you ask them. not so hard. if ol' mr. mangum were dead, it would be a little less cut & dry, but at this point, you're moving into a room in a house after him. i doubt he's impossible to contact regarding this stuff.

art may have "saved your life" but it never actually SAVED ANYONE'S LIFE. so the comparison to medicine as a false one.

debateable.

sure, but medicine is NOT debatable. so it's a false comparison.

i think it was just a rhetorical metaphor anyway.

[John]

Andrew the library analogy doesn't hold at all. Libraries don't seek out manuscripts that were never published, and good luck checking out a private edition of 20 from any known library. Libraries supply published materials for use.

Under your version of things artists have it worse off than any worker in the history of the world: no right whatsoever to determine the use of their work. It's as though the artist were some contemptible creature who, having publicly given vent to the muse within him, forfeits all right to self-determination. Well! I know you get all mad about this, and there's really nothing I can do about that, but things are rather more complicated than "either completely private or completely public." And fair use isn't nearly so settled a question as you seem to be suggesting.

[John]

...and seriously: if anybody ever paid somebody a nickel for something, then it's free to the rest of the world forever? C'mon, now.

[SPACERACE]

listen, you "artists" need to just accept your fate of being cursed with permanently public thoughts and emotions, and get back in the kitchen and record us some more songs.

jeez.

[John]

I hear and obey, boss!