Chris Cutler (Recommended Records - London)
levele
Did Lukin have the right to forbid the
access to the free mp3s ?
If he was a composer or artist
whose work was featured, I would say yes, he has a moral right. I
think permission should be asked and granted before any material
is made public. I would not like just any live recording I had
been involved in to be put up on a website. A website is a
permanent record, like a CD, painting, book. I think artists
should have control over their own work, especially over what is
put into the public domain. However, a demand for thousands of
dollars sounds wholly unreasonable (actuall it sounds greedy),
especially if he is only a participant. When a number of people is
involved I think they have to work it out amongst themselves first
(as Henry Cow does, for instance with its reissue policy). After
that it can go on a site or not. Problem here seems to be that no
one asked.
- Can such a behaviour of a former rebel now a
trader be called
reactionary (sorry for being brutal in
terms)?
Anyone can change their mind, see sense, rethink
their position; why not? I don't think it's necessarily
reactionary to want to control which of your own works are made
public. Also, looked at from a commercial position, suppose you
wanted to sell something you had made (in order to be paid for
your work in making it) it would not be wrong in my opinion to be
angry if someone else took it and gave it away for free (then your
work is never paid for). If you made a chair and someone took it
without asking and gave it to a passer-by in the street, it would
be perfectly legitimate for you to be angry. I wouldn't think that
was reactionary. Internet doesn't mean everything should be free,
does it? Internet doesn't care. Free or not free it's a human
choice. Suppose I make a CD and someone puts it up on a website
for free, suppose because of that I don't sell any and that
without any income I lose the money I spent making it and my label
goes bankrupt. OK, no more Chris Cutler records, free or not,
(maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing, but I would feel bad about
it). There needs to be some perspective. Life costs money. If you
want an artist to make art, they have to live. On free you can't
live.
- Can an mp3 site be understood as a free library
(only three songs from an
album) ?
Yes, it's a free
library and that's good. ReR puts up extracts of releases so that
listeners can have some idea of what the record is like. Don't get
me wrong, free is good. I like it. I am only saying that the
decision whether it is free or not should be a decision made by
the artist/worker/maker and not by some outside party who has
invested nothing in the work. Anyone can give away for free things
that don't belong to them, that's not work. The question has to
be, what are the consequences?
- Can live-recordings from
the past system be put on the Internet or
published by the
organiser of the concert?
They can, of course, the
technology makes it eas, but should they? I would say
unequivocally not. A performance belongs to everyone at a concert,
but a recording of a performance belongs, morally, only to the
performer. That's my view. If an artist agrees to put the work on
a site, that's fine. If not, it shouldn't be there. Or he or she
should be persuaded. There is no relation between recording a
concert for private listening (which I think is fine) and making
it available to the public.
- Should the government
support the author rights in these cases or is it a
utopia
(they have never so far).
Again I would say that if the
composer wants author rights, they should have them (very utopian
with the criminal collection agencies who collect and don't pay,
but ideally I think all rights should be paid) unless the author
agrees to waive payment. Then it's free. Payment is a whole
separate issue and my views are long and complicated! Sometime
I'll be somewhere to discuss this, it's a big question. I have
thought about it, but it takes more time than I have before you
need this back.
- Does the term underground have any sense
after the changes ? Is
underground the same as non-commercial,
or rather politically critical ?
In a capitalist system,
same as any other system 'underground' is a consensual grouping.
An involuntary underground is a bad concept. In the East European
situation 'underground' of course had a special meaning, one that
can not be the same now that the system has changed. There there
are still alternative groups of no-sayers of course. ReR is a
no-sayer, but I wouldn't call it part of an underground - but then
the things one is against in capitalism are more shadowy, complex
and diffuse than an entity as visible and monolithic as 'the
state'.
- What's your general opinion on music on the
Internet ?
Internet is a fine way to link people, including
'alternative people', and a good way to make music available. Now
that there is so much music and so little is distributed by the
handful of major commercial companies that dominate the market,
internet is a valuable resource for finding obscure music. There's
nothing wrong with the medium, question is, how is it used, by
whom and for what?
- Is the situation common in other
East/European countries?
- Internet doesn't recognise
geographical entities.
chris cutler
79 Beulah
Rd.
Thornton Heath
Surrey CR7
8JG
UK
www.ccutler.com