well, i'm honoured to have inspired a Vinyl Room piece! Though I must say being a committed free speech advocate, I didn't intend to suggest the creation of any sort of regulatory body (!). More that perhaps newer artists might exercise a bit of humility in expecting someone to pay $40 for a record by someone who is still learning their craft. that it might be good to crawl before we walk.... (I think in some ways, the internet has made it too easy for artists to share every little thing they create with the world with no discernment necessary.)
On the other hand, as you point out, the discernment in keeping it under 45 minutes has a similar benefit.
I'm honoured that you decided, and not just once, to bless this space with such interesting and insightful propositions.
It's true that the whole "system" thing was me getting carried away with notions of authority and regulation which, I'm not going to lie, tend to tint my lens more often than I'd like.
I wholeheartedly agree that some humility on the part of new artists would be welcome. 100% we should learn to crawl before we walk. What you say about the internet making it too easy for artists to share every little thing they create with the world with no discernment is sparking another light bulb, my friend. I just loooove stirring up the hornet's nest, ain't gonna lie! 🤣
Yes, I agree that it’s too easy for artists to share work without much discernment.
I also don’t like the idea of some “body” of people deciding worthiness- historically this has not fared well for women and racial diversity.
I remember back when everyone thought vinyl would go the way of the 8-track tape, and record stores stopped carrying vinyl. Then it suddenly reappeared. Was it Pearl Jam that was one of the first few bands to do this?
The way that vinyl is now, my thoughts are that customers wouldn’t necessarily be so inclined to purchase a vinyl record that wasn’t someone they felt worthy of such. With streaming and YouTube, we can all listen to an album in its entirety before making that purchase. People buying the vinyl are making those decisions.
Thank you, Kristin! I like what you say about vinyl buyers today being more aware of the commitment of buying a vinyl record (as opposed to simply stream the music) and being more selective.
I'll go one better. I'm not at all convinced that "making music in your bedroom" has been a good thing overall for music.
the studio system served as an earned privilege -- an artist had to believe in their music enough to be willing to dedicate a substantial amount of time and resources to creating it. And to have enough confidence in their abilities to go into a studio with a professional producer and engineer to record it -- which in turn means that a producer and engineer had to think the music was worth their time. That's not nothing -- it's a very good quality filter.
The problem here of course is the above was true in the early days, before corporate media took over from the gatekeepers in music just like in publishing and movies, and those gatekeepers don't have discernment either or an interest in nurturing new and innovative art. sometimes in the 70s/early 80s, the gatekeepers stopped being artistic gatekeepers and started being suits with spreadsheets, and more and more so as the years passed.
I'd suggest that the top artists of today aren't doing anything to advance the form. They're repeating a tried and true formula because that's what sells because that's now how the system is set up, as a product not an art form. (this was also true pre-Fab in the early 60s, btw, and at other points as well. not unique to today)
So what's an artist to do? Make music in their bedroom, I suppose. but more self restraint and discernment in sharing that music with the world wouldn't, i think, be a bad thing.
PS meant to add that I'm not just talking about mainstream music here. Even underground/alt music used to require a recording studio, even if it was a lower end one, and thus some peer validation and some investment. And that was IMO a good thing.
You are so spot on. I’ve always felt something along these lines, but I’ve never been able to articulate it so well. There’s also this delicate double edged sword i.e. studio as a sacred place (with everything that it entails: professionalism, time, dedication, focus, curation, etc.) and the revolutionary impulse to rewrite the rules (or completely ignore them). All with pros and cons, but yes, I agree with your conclusion: great that folks are able to experiment more nowadays, but not every process is worth sharing with the world.
This is fair, though I'd respectfully pushback and note that in the late 80s/early 90s, there were a LOT of bands recording on pretty primitive equipment, often in someone's basement or garage. 99.9% of those never saw wider distribution that the area code they were made in, but it was still happening.
Thanks, Kev. This is interesting. Being the sound nerd that I am, I’d be curious to know how many of them were still recording on analogue (probably most, given the years you mention, especially if it was primitive equipment, as digital was a novelty back then and thus very expensive). And while I haven’t heard those recordings, I’d bet they were better than some of the stuff that gets uploaded on YouTube by some people these days.
I have been trying to remember the band from Athens, GA that were recording their own vinyl albums in an apartment 😂 I’m going to have a call a friend!
As vinyl enthusiasts , we like to feel the music we collect must be special if it exists in said format. But the reality is that we all have titles within our personal collections that have evaporated from memory faster than morning dew for one reason or another.
In terms of newer artists, I see a lot of independent musicians on Bandcamp offering vinyl pressings of their albums in limited numbers (usually ~500 copies). I think limited vinyl runs are a fair way for independent and major label artists to determine if future pressings are warranted.
If the demand is there, by all means press more. If it’s a dud, you’ll see that $40 sticker price drastically reduced on remaining inventory.
Thank you, Chris! You know, I was thinking about that the other day. I’ve bought some records off Bandcamp to support some artists and of course they're all records I liked and of course I think the artists in question are talented and deserved it but I just don’t spin them. More often than not, I end up spinning what I grew up with and what I find the most emblematic (regardless of when I discovered it).
Good question! My school of thought: if the artist feels ready and has the means, go for it. Practice makes better, and that includes recording and then selling your music. How can we improve if we fearfully hide behind not good enough? Thankfully, we don’t have a record label gatekeeper who dictates what’s good enough to press anymore. Gotta love indie pressing plants!
Thank you, Thea! I agree that practice makes perfect. I also think there’s merit in having the courage to come out of your shell and showcase your work. There’s always a fine balance between mustering that courage and having the humility to admit you need to go back to the drawing board.
I think artificial scarcity is the wrong way to go. As already noted, it would drive prices up, create black markets, and more. Worse, there would be a land war as people fought to be the ones who decided what got to be pressed and what didn't.
Ultimately, the market and supply chain decide what will get pressed and in what quantity. Someone can have all the cash in the world to get their record made, but if all the plants are backed up for a year, then they're SOL. If memory serves, Metallica recently bought a plant partly so they could control that vertical. Jack White has one as well, of course. If demand for more facilities is there, someone will build one. In the meantime, some labels are cassette only- it's cheaper and easier to make/distribute work. As for vinyl, I think the suggestion above regarding limited runs is the way to go. it's (possibly) easier for a press to squeeze in an order for 3-500 records. It's certainly cheaper for artists and/or smaller labels as well. And it lets them test the market- if they sell out right away, that's a signal. if they only move a couple, well, that is too.
Thank you! Very good points all round. Yes, I agree with you that if the demand for the facilities is there, that’s an encouraging sign for someone to build or acquire one. A particular issue that was constantly being mentioned a couple of years ago was how difficult it was to get the right people with the necessary knowledge and skills to use all the machinery required to press records. There’s less talk of this nowadats so maybe (hopefully) things might have improved on that front.
As I read this wonderful article, I couldn't help wonder if we're asking the wrong question? I agree that the "who" is problematic due to all the reasons listed, but what about the "what" or the "how" might be the better question. What I mean is, should we let anything be put on vinyl regardless of how it was recorded or mastered? How do we as buyers of vinyl know whether or not the care was taken to produce the master tapes accordingly so that we get the best sound on the vinyl? Maybe I am overthinking it, maybe not?
Thank you, Bob! You pose a great question. The what and how are key, especially the how (as I suspect we music lovers will never fully agree on the what). You’re giving me a great idea for a future post!
Thank you, Mark! Yes, absolutely. I felt it would be interesting, as you say, as a thought experiment, and also for us to realise how dangerous it would be to place stringent regulations on the vinyl market.
In this hypothetical question, if you restrict the rights or grant the privilege to press LPs for only musicians who "earned it," that becomes a gatekeeper and curator much like the Art Museum or the Academy Awards.
The very thought of a group of people being the gatekeeper of "what is worthy" immediately makes that notion problematic. And, of course, there is an equity and equality issue there, which is what we are dealing with now when you study the History of Western Art. It's a collection of white European men. All the "Old Masters" were white men, and mainly European (until the mid-20th century, when the Europeans were rebuilding from the war and the American giants exploded on the scene). Even then, who are the classic American Abstract Expressionists and Pop Artists represented in museum collections? Almost entirely white men.
Who initially decided to call it "Art" in the first place and put value on it? The collectors, curators, gallery owners, and art critics who were, you guessed it, rich white men.
Thankfully, we are now having open dialogue and questioning these systemic issues of racism and misogyny and why women and people of color are noticeably absent in the History of Art. Museums are trying to do a better job at inclusiveness (as are the Academy Awards), and they all have Directors of Equity and Inclusion on their staff. Some of these efforts, perhaps a lot, are performative, however.
Ultimately, museums say they want to be more inclusive so that everybody sees themselves represented. When we were last in NYC, however, we went to the Whitney Biennial on their free Friday night, and while the many people there were racially diverse, it most definitely wasn't income-diverse. Everybody was middle (probably upper middle) to upper class and clearly had at the very least a bachelor's degree, if not higher. Even on a free entry night, Museums have a problem marketing themselves to lower-income people or those without a college degree.
And then you have the private art galleries, in particular, which often don't feel welcoming, and I say this as somebody with a Masters degree in art! That cultural and educational snobbery is created by people who became gatekeepers of what is deemed worthy to hang in their gallery, and that presence is there as soon as you walk past the gallery's front desk.
Even if the people deciding on what artists get pressed to vinyl were a collective made up of a racially, culturally, educationally, financially, sexually, and gender-diverse group, it is still gatekeeping because somebody deemed one thing worthy and another thing not worthy.
That snarling, bored, noisy, sloppy, teenage punk band in the neighbors garage in Hemel Hempstead should always have the same rights to press their music on LP as the highly polished, yet mainstream multimillionaires like Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar, and the Foo Fighters.
Thank you, Michael, for your comment. The arbitrariness of the gatekeeping system is precisely why I said I wouldn’t consider it either. I cannot really comment on art history as I’ve always been more into performing arts. What I can say, from my experience and as far as music is concerned, is that it never fails to shock me how little representation there seems to be for non-straight/non-white/non- male musicians out there. I mean, here on Substack for example. I don’t normally write artist-specific essays, but with the few that I’ve done, I’ve already written more about female and non-white artists than many whose only or main niche is to write about specific artists or bands! It’s always, or almost always, straight white dudes writing about other straight white dudes. There’s an element of self-identification which plays a role as well, but it always surprises me— particularly, the lack of self-awareness.
Even your last comment, for example: the neighbours in Hemel Hampstead (which is at least 80% white) playing punk (typically straight male represented), as the ones being left out of a mainstream arena comprising two female artists (one black) and one black male!
It’s always easier to call out other people’s prejudice.
well, i'm honoured to have inspired a Vinyl Room piece! Though I must say being a committed free speech advocate, I didn't intend to suggest the creation of any sort of regulatory body (!). More that perhaps newer artists might exercise a bit of humility in expecting someone to pay $40 for a record by someone who is still learning their craft. that it might be good to crawl before we walk.... (I think in some ways, the internet has made it too easy for artists to share every little thing they create with the world with no discernment necessary.)
On the other hand, as you point out, the discernment in keeping it under 45 minutes has a similar benefit.
I'm honoured that you decided, and not just once, to bless this space with such interesting and insightful propositions.
It's true that the whole "system" thing was me getting carried away with notions of authority and regulation which, I'm not going to lie, tend to tint my lens more often than I'd like.
I wholeheartedly agree that some humility on the part of new artists would be welcome. 100% we should learn to crawl before we walk. What you say about the internet making it too easy for artists to share every little thing they create with the world with no discernment is sparking another light bulb, my friend. I just loooove stirring up the hornet's nest, ain't gonna lie! 🤣
Hahahaha love this!!
Yes, I agree that it’s too easy for artists to share work without much discernment.
I also don’t like the idea of some “body” of people deciding worthiness- historically this has not fared well for women and racial diversity.
I remember back when everyone thought vinyl would go the way of the 8-track tape, and record stores stopped carrying vinyl. Then it suddenly reappeared. Was it Pearl Jam that was one of the first few bands to do this?
The way that vinyl is now, my thoughts are that customers wouldn’t necessarily be so inclined to purchase a vinyl record that wasn’t someone they felt worthy of such. With streaming and YouTube, we can all listen to an album in its entirety before making that purchase. People buying the vinyl are making those decisions.
Thank you, Kristin! I like what you say about vinyl buyers today being more aware of the commitment of buying a vinyl record (as opposed to simply stream the music) and being more selective.
I'll go one better. I'm not at all convinced that "making music in your bedroom" has been a good thing overall for music.
the studio system served as an earned privilege -- an artist had to believe in their music enough to be willing to dedicate a substantial amount of time and resources to creating it. And to have enough confidence in their abilities to go into a studio with a professional producer and engineer to record it -- which in turn means that a producer and engineer had to think the music was worth their time. That's not nothing -- it's a very good quality filter.
The problem here of course is the above was true in the early days, before corporate media took over from the gatekeepers in music just like in publishing and movies, and those gatekeepers don't have discernment either or an interest in nurturing new and innovative art. sometimes in the 70s/early 80s, the gatekeepers stopped being artistic gatekeepers and started being suits with spreadsheets, and more and more so as the years passed.
I'd suggest that the top artists of today aren't doing anything to advance the form. They're repeating a tried and true formula because that's what sells because that's now how the system is set up, as a product not an art form. (this was also true pre-Fab in the early 60s, btw, and at other points as well. not unique to today)
So what's an artist to do? Make music in their bedroom, I suppose. but more self restraint and discernment in sharing that music with the world wouldn't, i think, be a bad thing.
PS meant to add that I'm not just talking about mainstream music here. Even underground/alt music used to require a recording studio, even if it was a lower end one, and thus some peer validation and some investment. And that was IMO a good thing.
You are so spot on. I’ve always felt something along these lines, but I’ve never been able to articulate it so well. There’s also this delicate double edged sword i.e. studio as a sacred place (with everything that it entails: professionalism, time, dedication, focus, curation, etc.) and the revolutionary impulse to rewrite the rules (or completely ignore them). All with pros and cons, but yes, I agree with your conclusion: great that folks are able to experiment more nowadays, but not every process is worth sharing with the world.
This is fair, though I'd respectfully pushback and note that in the late 80s/early 90s, there were a LOT of bands recording on pretty primitive equipment, often in someone's basement or garage. 99.9% of those never saw wider distribution that the area code they were made in, but it was still happening.
Thanks, Kev. This is interesting. Being the sound nerd that I am, I’d be curious to know how many of them were still recording on analogue (probably most, given the years you mention, especially if it was primitive equipment, as digital was a novelty back then and thus very expensive). And while I haven’t heard those recordings, I’d bet they were better than some of the stuff that gets uploaded on YouTube by some people these days.
I have been trying to remember the band from Athens, GA that were recording their own vinyl albums in an apartment 😂 I’m going to have a call a friend!
Let us know if/when you find out!
As vinyl enthusiasts , we like to feel the music we collect must be special if it exists in said format. But the reality is that we all have titles within our personal collections that have evaporated from memory faster than morning dew for one reason or another.
In terms of newer artists, I see a lot of independent musicians on Bandcamp offering vinyl pressings of their albums in limited numbers (usually ~500 copies). I think limited vinyl runs are a fair way for independent and major label artists to determine if future pressings are warranted.
If the demand is there, by all means press more. If it’s a dud, you’ll see that $40 sticker price drastically reduced on remaining inventory.
Thank you, Chris! You know, I was thinking about that the other day. I’ve bought some records off Bandcamp to support some artists and of course they're all records I liked and of course I think the artists in question are talented and deserved it but I just don’t spin them. More often than not, I end up spinning what I grew up with and what I find the most emblematic (regardless of when I discovered it).
Good question! My school of thought: if the artist feels ready and has the means, go for it. Practice makes better, and that includes recording and then selling your music. How can we improve if we fearfully hide behind not good enough? Thankfully, we don’t have a record label gatekeeper who dictates what’s good enough to press anymore. Gotta love indie pressing plants!
Thank you, Thea! I agree that practice makes perfect. I also think there’s merit in having the courage to come out of your shell and showcase your work. There’s always a fine balance between mustering that courage and having the humility to admit you need to go back to the drawing board.
Indeed!
Great thought exercise! Thank you, Faith!
I think artificial scarcity is the wrong way to go. As already noted, it would drive prices up, create black markets, and more. Worse, there would be a land war as people fought to be the ones who decided what got to be pressed and what didn't.
Ultimately, the market and supply chain decide what will get pressed and in what quantity. Someone can have all the cash in the world to get their record made, but if all the plants are backed up for a year, then they're SOL. If memory serves, Metallica recently bought a plant partly so they could control that vertical. Jack White has one as well, of course. If demand for more facilities is there, someone will build one. In the meantime, some labels are cassette only- it's cheaper and easier to make/distribute work. As for vinyl, I think the suggestion above regarding limited runs is the way to go. it's (possibly) easier for a press to squeeze in an order for 3-500 records. It's certainly cheaper for artists and/or smaller labels as well. And it lets them test the market- if they sell out right away, that's a signal. if they only move a couple, well, that is too.
Thank you! Very good points all round. Yes, I agree with you that if the demand for the facilities is there, that’s an encouraging sign for someone to build or acquire one. A particular issue that was constantly being mentioned a couple of years ago was how difficult it was to get the right people with the necessary knowledge and skills to use all the machinery required to press records. There’s less talk of this nowadats so maybe (hopefully) things might have improved on that front.
As I read this wonderful article, I couldn't help wonder if we're asking the wrong question? I agree that the "who" is problematic due to all the reasons listed, but what about the "what" or the "how" might be the better question. What I mean is, should we let anything be put on vinyl regardless of how it was recorded or mastered? How do we as buyers of vinyl know whether or not the care was taken to produce the master tapes accordingly so that we get the best sound on the vinyl? Maybe I am overthinking it, maybe not?
Thank you, Bob! You pose a great question. The what and how are key, especially the how (as I suspect we music lovers will never fully agree on the what). You’re giving me a great idea for a future post!
Several others have already mentioned the gatekeeper aspect to some party arbitrarily deciding who is deemed “worthy” for pressing vinyl.
It’s an interesting thought experiment but ultimately everyone deserves the same access.
Thank you, Mark! Yes, absolutely. I felt it would be interesting, as you say, as a thought experiment, and also for us to realise how dangerous it would be to place stringent regulations on the vinyl market.
In this hypothetical question, if you restrict the rights or grant the privilege to press LPs for only musicians who "earned it," that becomes a gatekeeper and curator much like the Art Museum or the Academy Awards.
The very thought of a group of people being the gatekeeper of "what is worthy" immediately makes that notion problematic. And, of course, there is an equity and equality issue there, which is what we are dealing with now when you study the History of Western Art. It's a collection of white European men. All the "Old Masters" were white men, and mainly European (until the mid-20th century, when the Europeans were rebuilding from the war and the American giants exploded on the scene). Even then, who are the classic American Abstract Expressionists and Pop Artists represented in museum collections? Almost entirely white men.
Who initially decided to call it "Art" in the first place and put value on it? The collectors, curators, gallery owners, and art critics who were, you guessed it, rich white men.
Thankfully, we are now having open dialogue and questioning these systemic issues of racism and misogyny and why women and people of color are noticeably absent in the History of Art. Museums are trying to do a better job at inclusiveness (as are the Academy Awards), and they all have Directors of Equity and Inclusion on their staff. Some of these efforts, perhaps a lot, are performative, however.
Ultimately, museums say they want to be more inclusive so that everybody sees themselves represented. When we were last in NYC, however, we went to the Whitney Biennial on their free Friday night, and while the many people there were racially diverse, it most definitely wasn't income-diverse. Everybody was middle (probably upper middle) to upper class and clearly had at the very least a bachelor's degree, if not higher. Even on a free entry night, Museums have a problem marketing themselves to lower-income people or those without a college degree.
And then you have the private art galleries, in particular, which often don't feel welcoming, and I say this as somebody with a Masters degree in art! That cultural and educational snobbery is created by people who became gatekeepers of what is deemed worthy to hang in their gallery, and that presence is there as soon as you walk past the gallery's front desk.
Even if the people deciding on what artists get pressed to vinyl were a collective made up of a racially, culturally, educationally, financially, sexually, and gender-diverse group, it is still gatekeeping because somebody deemed one thing worthy and another thing not worthy.
That snarling, bored, noisy, sloppy, teenage punk band in the neighbors garage in Hemel Hempstead should always have the same rights to press their music on LP as the highly polished, yet mainstream multimillionaires like Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar, and the Foo Fighters.
Thank you, Michael, for your comment. The arbitrariness of the gatekeeping system is precisely why I said I wouldn’t consider it either. I cannot really comment on art history as I’ve always been more into performing arts. What I can say, from my experience and as far as music is concerned, is that it never fails to shock me how little representation there seems to be for non-straight/non-white/non- male musicians out there. I mean, here on Substack for example. I don’t normally write artist-specific essays, but with the few that I’ve done, I’ve already written more about female and non-white artists than many whose only or main niche is to write about specific artists or bands! It’s always, or almost always, straight white dudes writing about other straight white dudes. There’s an element of self-identification which plays a role as well, but it always surprises me— particularly, the lack of self-awareness.
Even your last comment, for example: the neighbours in Hemel Hampstead (which is at least 80% white) playing punk (typically straight male represented), as the ones being left out of a mainstream arena comprising two female artists (one black) and one black male!
It’s always easier to call out other people’s prejudice.