 David Gans' Utterly Predictable Response
|
Nov. 27th, 2005 @ 11:25 pm 
|
|---|
|
David Gans has a response to the shutdown of Archive.org's live Grateful Dead archives. Not only does he offer up the unsuprising moans of fan "entitlement" and accusations of greed on the part of Joe Deadhead, he actually claims to "not have a dog in the fight". I guess when you've had unfettered access to the Dead's live vaults for the last 20 years, that's an easy crutch to lean on.
But it doesn't fly for an instant. Let's take a look at his statements that leave little doubt that he supports this move. He writes:
"A couple of weeks ago there was another round of layoffs at GDP"
Well, boo-freaking-hoo! You mean they actually had to lay people off at an business that supports a band that hasn't really existed for about 10 years? What a joke. The suprising thing is that those people who got laid off didn't bother looking for other jobs once the money (i.e. Garcia) kicked the bucket. Talk about a sense of entitlement. Welcome to the real world, Ram Rod.
"They are doing this in order to protect their download business," is another cry I've heard. Well, yeah, and in what universe is that an unreasonable position?
The universe in which a band that built up a huge amount of goodwill with it's fans by not only allowing, but encouraging taping and trading. The universe in which the tape trader culture and the "every show is different" mythology was the driving force behind making the Grateful Dead one of the top-grossing live acts in history year after year.
So now that I've played by the rules, never charging to make a copy and never paying for a live tape, supported the band by buying their shitty studio albums, and always, ALWAYS showing up to the show with a ticket in hand (90% of them bought throught GDTS), they want to pull the rug out of from under me? I'm sorry that technology progressed to the point where it wasn't a complete pain in the ass to get access to good quality recordings, but I'm not the one who changed the rules late in the game.
"I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have a job on the periphery of the Grateful Dead organization, but I am not privy to their decision-making process and I don't depend on them for my income. I help to promote their official releases by playing them on the radio, obviously, but I also play a lot of unreleased music (and I've gotten some of that unreleased music from archive.org)."
It's real easy to say you don't have a dog in the fight when your personal collection is already complete. I wonder how he'd feel if the Grateful Dead Hour was dependent upon downloading shows from archive.org. Perhaps a bit differently.
Finally, Gans writes:
"There's a petition online directed at GDM and promising a boycott. "Now it appears doing the right thing for the fans, has given way to greed."
I think it is worthwhile to ask ourselves if there isn't some greed on the other side of the equation."
Greed eh? Where would that be manifested eh David? Would it be in all the Dick's Picks recordings I own? How about all the tickets I bought to shows where Jerry was smacked out of his head and couldn't play worth a shit? For a band that considers itself to be so forward-thinking and liberal, they sure do act just like the man when it comes to the brave new world of digital music. |
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/1292028/440605) |
| From: | ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) bodega |
|---|
| Date: |
November 28th, 2005 07:50 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
unfettered?
|
(Link) |
|
Uh, David actually got many of the shows he played on the air in the last year or so from Archive.org too. He has never had unfettered access to the Vault. Sure, his collection is more complete than mine or most mortals' but it's not as if he is one of the asshole hoarders who used to put cuts in their tapes before sharing.
I'd never idealize the Dead's business organization, but I don't see how even the open tape trading regime (and remember that the Dead, contrary to myth, didn't even allow taping until 1983) demands that people be able to download any soundboard they want.
Don't get me wrong: I loved the easy availability of shows at the archive, but do I think it's my birthright? No. And I've paid my dues as well, monetarily and otherwise.
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/2419327/623946) |
| From: | wew |
|---|
| Date: |
November 28th, 2005 09:36 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: unfettered?
|
(Link) |
|
You're getting hung up on a single word. Fact is, Gans has had access that no other collector has had to the band's archives for years, and as a result, is coming out in support of GDM/Koons' decision to restrict access. So what if he used Archive.org in the last year or so? He only did so because it was easier than driving up to Marin County (or wherever the recordings are stored) and getting a copy. Where was Gans in the Etree days?
I can see your point about not allowing access to the soundboards. That's all well and fine. But how do you explain the business model behind restricting access to the audience recordings? I mean, the Dead allowed people in to tape (you point out 1983 as when they started allowing taping; fact is, the taper section had been around and tolerated for years before then -- all they did in 1983 was to formalize what was already happening.), don't those tapers have a right to share their recordings on archive.org? I don't ever recall reading anything to the effect of "you're allowed to tape and share your recordings as long as technological progress doesn't make it too easy".
No, the fact is, that by deciding to restrict audience recordings as well, they've shown their true colors -- and that is a complete betrayal of the contract between the collectors and the band.
BTW, your birthright statement is a straw man. Noone's saying that the ability to download Dead shows is a damn birthright. However, mark my words -- GDM/Koons is going to go after the inevitable BitTorrent sites and eventually, individual collectors (the ones with huge collections offering to do hard drive trades) as well.
Personally, I think I have less a dog in this fight than Gans' does. I've got all the shows I personally went to, and most of the classics as well (those acquired during the Etree days 4-5 years ago). My listening habits steer more towards grime, IDM and dub these days anyways. What pisses me off so much about this is that the whole thing absolutely reeks of greed, and for an organization that claimed for so many years to be about the music -- well, to see this happen is one of the biggest demonstrations of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
November 28th, 2005 11:38 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: unfettered?
|
(Link) |
|
David Gans here.
Fact is, Gans has had access that no other collector has had to the band's archives for years, and as a result, is coming out in support of GDM/Koons' decision to restrict access. So what if he used Archive.org in the last year or so? He only did so because it was easier than driving up to Marin County (or wherever the recordings are stored) and getting a copy. Where was Gans in the Etree days?
First of all, Deborah Koons has NOTHING to do with the operation of GDP.
Second, since Dick Latvala passed away I have not had any access to the vault. Many things have changed in Deadland in the last ten years, and one of them is my relationship to the GD's archive.
I'm not the enemy here.
I posted an update on my blog; please take a look at it.
|
| From: | wew |
|---|
| Date: |
November 28th, 2005 12:44 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: unfettered?
|
(Link) |
|
Noone's saying you're the enemy, David. I've not written one single thing criticizing your personal character. I've listened to -- and appreciated -- your show for years. I also appreciate the clarification on your access to the Dead's archives. I'd like to say in response, though, that while "many things" may have indeed changed in regards to your access to the vault since Dick passed away, the fact remains that due to your unique position in the show-collecting community, your claim to not have a dog in this fight rings hollow, and I find your stance supporting their position a bit perplexing, although it appears from your post update that you are backing off quite a bit from your original stance. Re: Koons and her attorneys having nothing to do with the operation of GDP, well, that might very well be the case, but the fact remains that she stands to directly benefit from any funds that would be generated from the sale of $30 FLAC sets, and anyone who thinks that she had absolutely nothing to do with the archive.org decision is kidding themselves. After observing the way she's conducted herself in the wake of Jerry's death, I don't think I've ever seen a more money-grubbing person in my life, as is obvious from the way she's handled his estate and his commitments to Mountain Girl. After reading your follow-up on your blog, I must admit to being a bit mystified as to why you feel you are being "character assassinated" when someone is critical of your stances. Expression of strong opinions is an undeniable element of the blogosphere, and I challenge you to point out where I have written something that's critical of your personal character or "violent" in any way. There seems to be some hang-up on the definitions of "access" and "complete"; however, I'd venture to say that in relative terms (relative to the rest of the trading community), you've had more "access" and more opportunities to "complete" a high-quality collection than almost anyone out there, and I'll also bet that the GDH could run for years based on what's currently in your collection. It's not "blithe" to assert that this might color your (original) opinion just a teensy bit. Finally, you wrote:
"Nor has anything been said about discouraging smaller-scale trading of soundboard tapes."
Turning off archive.org's archives were step one. The fact that AUDIENCE recordings were switched off as well points us to a very logical conclusion that they will indeed go after soundboard trading in the future.
|
|
