Is There a Liberal Trend in History?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

That's nonsense, we emaciated countless Catholics.

Say what you like about Cromwell but you can't deny the work ethic.

**AustonT**

reds8n wrote: That's nonsense, we emaciated countless Catholics.

Say what you like about Cromwell but you can't deny the work ethic.

I'm still rolling a little form the Brit poster that said Cromwell was a republican victory for England.
One of the many reasons Cromwell brought the Jews back to England, you know past the economic and educational benefits, was to piss off the Pope. Which at the time must have been delectable.

**reds8n**

He was definitely an angry chap.

IIRC at school I was taught that more than this he brought them back to England as this would, in some way or other, help bring about the return of Jesus and therefore the end of the world.

.. Which... well..... can't deny the ambition of the plan I guess.

Dull dresser too, especially compared to the Cavaliers who, at the very least, had fantastic hair and hats.

**English Assassin**

dæl wrote:I chose Radiohead as they were the most notable example of self publishing in music to date, which is kind of telling as I bet they aren't the only to try it. But we are only at the beginning of this "new age."

That Radiohead are high-profile doesn't make them any less worthless as an example, since when they released In Rainbows for (effectively) nothing as a publicity stunt/vee-sign to EMI, they were sitting on the accumulated proceeds of fifteen-odd years of international megastardom achieved while signed to the aforementioned label. You might as well be pointing to SwanSong (the vanity label created by LEd Zeppelin at the time the were the highest-grossing rock act in the world) as a successful indie label. Point me to a band/artist established in the last decade who have achieved even moderate commercial success (let's say - setting the bar very low - charting an album in the top forty on either side of the Atlantic and headlining an arena tour) without having been signed to a label, and your argument might have something to stand on.

dæl wrote:Recording these days isn't expensive, I have Ableton, and some instruments and could make an album for pretty much nothing. Even recording in a small studio isn't that expensive, I used to volunteer in a studio in Bristol and that place didn't charge massive amounts. It just seems to me that the creative industries are not populated with creative people, and this is down to the monopoly held by publishing companies. Its a bit like patent law, its so expensive that your average person will need backing from somewhere else and that somewhere else has far more business acumen and will make far more cash for doing relatively little work.

Let's say you and your three-piece band want to record and tour your first album. Total the costs of studio time, producer's wages, pressing, artwork, promotion, venue hire, equipment hire, transport, roadies' wages, travel and subsistence and solicitors' fees, and you'll be talking a five-figure sum in pounds stirling, all of which you would have to meet before you had any chance to profit. Yes, the music industry is run by crass, money-grabbing shysters; that is not news, but they fulfil a necessary commercial role.

**Ahtman**

English Assassin wrote:Point me to a band/artist established in the last decade who have achieved even moderate commercial success (let's say - setting the bar very low - charting an album in the top forty on either side of the Atlantic and headlining an arena tour) without having been signed to a label, and your argument might have something to stand on.

Do you mean ever or that just did well at some point without a major label?

**dæl**

English Assassin wrote:
dæl wrote:I chose Radiohead as they were the most notable example of self publishing in music to date, which is kind of telling as I bet they aren't the only to try it. But we are only at the beginning of this "new age."

That Radiohead are high-profile doesn't make them any less worthless as an example, since when they released In Rainbows for (effectively) nothing as a publicity stunt/vee-sign to EMI, they were sitting on the accumulated proceeds of fifteen-odd years of international megastardom achieved while signed to the aforementioned label. You might as well be pointing to SwanSong (the vanity label created by LEd Zeppelin at the time the were the highest-grossing rock act in the world) as a successful indie label. Point me to a band/artist established in the last decade who have achieved even moderate commercial success (let's say - setting the bar very low - charting an album in the top forty on either side of the Atlantic and headlining an arena tour) without having been signed to a label, and your argument might have something to stand on.

If you count being on your own label as self publishing then there is ¡Forward, Russia!, and Bright Eyes, and Foreign Beggars, and µ-Ziq (don't know if he's charted but has a cult following, and glitchy idm rarely charts)

English Assassin wrote:
Let's say you and your three-piece band want to record and tour your first album. Total the costs of studio time, producer's wages, pressing, artwork, promotion, venue hire, equipment hire, transport, roadies' wages, travel and subsistence and solicitors' fees, and you'll be talking a five-figure sum in pounds stirling, all of which you would have to meet before you had any chance to profit. Yes, the music industry is run by crass, money-grabbing shysters; that is not news, but they fulfil a necessary commercial role.

As I said, you don't need a studio, just your rehearsal space, a laptop and Logic Pro. Production is hard to learn, but again you don't need to pay massive wages, I have a number of friends who have incredible abilities in production. Artwork can again be done by friends. Touring shouldn't be a case of heres an album, lets hire Wembley, it should be organic and evolve from smaller venues. This is whats wrong with the modern music scene, you have bands like the Arctic Monkeys, who were thrust into the spotlight without the necessary experience.

What I'm trying to say is just because something is happening in a certain way now, doesn't mean that's how it should. Which dovetails quite nicely with the whole point of this thread, we need to progress into a new way of thinking about art, remove the monopolies of the copyright industry and the mainstream media, and make art for the sake of art, not as an exercise in moneymaking.

**biccat**

English Assassin wrote:Point me to a band/artist established in the last decade who have achieved even moderate commercial success (let's say - setting the bar very low - charting an album in the top forty on either side of the Atlantic and headlining an arena tour) without having been signed to a label, and your argument might have something to stand on.

Charting an album in the top 40 and headlining an arena tour is "moderate commercial success"?

I don't think either of those are possible without a record label simply to handle distribution and coordination. That's like asking for a list of non-corporate entities who are members of the Dow Jones. Virtually impossible simply based on administrative grounds.

**Kovnik Obama**

poda_t wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
poda_t wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

marriage and gay rights, etc.

By your account KKK are social right protectors because they had an opinion on the social right movement.

uh, no. Go back and re read what's posted there, and read the context into it. I don't know where you got that interpretation from.

Admittedly, a non-sentence is a hard point to start with. The question was ''Which civil rights protection, apart from gun control, has the conservative been preoccupied with? You answered 'Marriage and Gay rights'. One of which they only defend a very strict and narrow definition of, which isn't civil at all, while in the second case they oppose them. This is not civil right defense, it's right's denial. And before anyone ask the stupid question, no, you do not have a civil right to the biblical or traditional definition of marriage.

Okay, now please be so kind as to articulate what series of conclusions entitle you to make the accusation that I am making an argument supporting the bigotrous statements contained in a flawed ancient document that was mutated with every retelling and likely the product of an overactive schizophrenic imagination centering on the notion of the metaphorical existence of some bi-polar schizoid cosmic all-knowing boogeyman with magic powers?

I grant that your dictionary definition of liberty is correct, but it is not a reasonable poll of its working definition.

TLDR: We collectively agree on what is or is not liberty, and try to run with it because we have to live together. Otherwise we'd live in an anarchy.

I think what you are forgetting your lessons from Rousseau. You insist that certain definitions are predicated on absolute facts and exist in a vacuum. This is not the case. Bear with me, I need to build up the argument and there's much that's obvious, so don't take it as snide remarks. The fabric of our society is built on a social contract, and what's at issue is what does or does not constitute an element in the social contract. Gun control, gay marriage, (and god forbid, the gak Satan Helper--whoops, sorry, i had a slip, I meant Stephen Harper-- is pushing through: e-monitoring, and permitting FBI agents free reign in Canada) are examples of issues on which people disagree about. Competing notions of morality orm the basis of opinion, and whatever philosophy informs that morality decides what that individual will or will not consider as morally correct. You can go on about how inhumane it is to restrict the rights of the GLBBT community, but you will have advocates from every corner arguing how wrong it is, either for religious perspective, biological wrongness (which, again, is also mis-informed because that kind of stuff is fairly common in nature), or the dumbest argument pertaining to progeny (we're at 7 billion people with a capacity to feed, what, twice that amount, and have trouble feeding 5 billion?). All of this is given, but given that the social contract is in a continuous state of re-forging, you have to accept competing notions of what is right and wrong are vying to establish themselves as the "correct" definition. If you dismiss another's viewpoint out of hand, simply because it doesn't conform to your own conception of reality, that doesn't make you correct, it merely makes you ignorant. I'm not on about tolerance, but finding resolutions through dialogue.
You could argue this from a Hegelian perspective or from Mill's perspective, about how we need to reach the next higher order through increasing our awareness, but in the end, practicality demands you have to run by the mores of the majority. I understand why it's called "tyranny of the majority", but you can't establish a method of governance centered exclusively around appeal to minorities and interest groups. If you start pandering to every minority or interest group, you won't have a single body of rules, just a large body of exceptions. This is fine in an anarchical system, but given that as common men we do not live in an anarchical system, we need common ground to hold us together, not just politically, but socially. Since social interaction is a relevant component in all political interactions, and that social behavior insists on being bizarre and founded on irrational beliefs, politics will be impacted by that senseless irrationality--like Satan Helper--oops, did it again, Steven Harper--'s need to openly permit foreign agents into Canada. It's sufficient that how you establish change is by forcing dialogue and an evaluation of the arguments presented, and making more information available for individuals to make their own decisions. Now as I understand it, while gay rights are not universally recognized across the united states, more liberal states do recognize GLBBT rights, while certain other states don't. The way to establish a greater respect for a liberal viewpoint is by enabling people to make their own decisions for them. You can shove down their throats GLBBT, gun control and Satan Helper's agenda all you want, if you offer no option, the human natural inclination to resist kicks in.
You can argue with me that "Liberal" or "Liberty" is a clear and absolute singular definition out of the dictionary, but I guarantee you that the only working definitions are the ones that favor the most popularity and share the greatest consensus. There is after all a reason we do not exist in an anarchical society.

Except the meaning of words is all but a conventional affair in the democratic sense of the term. They do not get created by vote, or consensus, but on one side on the differentiation of meaning, and at a second time by popularization. There is no social contract behind language, it's an act of discovery and of formalization of the world. The difference on which the definition of liberty his based has become widely known since Stuart Mill, but was present in the Nicomenian Ethics. This recognition of an undefined term couldn't have appeared at all in many minds at the same time, or else it would have already been defined as such. Terms might evolve by social forces, but in this case there will always be an expertise based on safekeeping the previous meaning.

And it isn't the fact that we have clear, conventional terms to use that makes us a civil society, because we don't. No conversations happens in perfect semantic parallelism, and most of the time they require quite a lot of effort to regulate and make sure you avoid incoherence. The reason why we are a civil society is because we accept that Big Brother doesn't want us to reach for the guns every time we don't understand each other, and that he's got more guns than us.

Your argument is reliant on an undistinguished notion of freedom, called freedom of choice, while Frazzled, for example, used the notion of freedom of license. None of those is 'Liberty', and none of those can represent correctly 'Liberalism', since this is what we try to relate it too. The distinction was made 2300 years ago ; use it, it'll make you avoid stupid positions like ''well, from a point of view the Soviets were libs''.

**Ahtman**

dæl wrote:If you count being on your own label as self publishing then there is ¡Forward, Russia!, and Bright Eyes, and Foreign Beggars, and µ-Ziq (don't know if he's charted but has a cult following, and glitchy idm rarely charts)

Jack White seems to be doing fine with Third Man Records, his own label and LP production company. His solo album reached #1 on Billboard and is doing quite well.

**dæl**

Ahtman wrote:
dæl wrote:If you count being on your own label as self publishing then there is ¡Forward, Russia!, and Bright Eyes, and Foreign Beggars, and µ-Ziq (don't know if he's charted but has a cult following, and glitchy idm rarely charts)

Jack White seems to be doing fine with Third Man Records, his own label and LP production company. His solo album reached #1 on Billboard and is doing quite well.

Didn't want to include people who were famous before they started their label, but he has done alright for himself.

**Melissia**

"This is the thing that keeps scaredy pants like me awake at night: What if we get to a situation where NOBODY EVER PAYS FOR ANYTHING EVERY AGAIN."

Wouldn't that means the writer wouldn't have to pay for anything ever again, and can thus write books to their heart's content and publish them for free? Just saying, his nightmare scenario needs more elucidation, because he's really saying "What if we get in a situation where NOBODY EVER PAYS FOR MY BOOKS EVER AGAIN." rather than "anything".

**Kovnik Obama**

"This is the thing that keeps scaredy pants like me awake at night: What if we get to a situation where NOBODY EVER PAYS FOR ANYTHING EVERY AGAIN."

Hookers would become my new best friends (and bartender)

**sirlynchmob**

Kovnik Obama wrote:"This is the thing that keeps scaredy pants like me awake at night: What if we get to a situation where NOBODY EVER PAYS FOR ANYTHING EVERY AGAIN."

Hookers would become my new best friends (and bartender)

but without the need for money you'd be hard pressed to find a hooker. what exactly would she be selling herself for?

**Kovnik Obama**

Force of habit

**Ahtman**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:"This is the thing that keeps scaredy pants like me awake at night: What if we get to a situation where NOBODY EVER PAYS FOR ANYTHING EVERY AGAIN."

Hookers would become my new best friends (and bartender)

but without the need for money you'd be hard pressed to find a hooker. what exactly would she be selling herself for?

I've heard that on occasion sex can be fun, and even life affirming. Some people even do it without getting paid.

**sirlynchmob**

Ahtman wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:"This is the thing that keeps scaredy pants like me awake at night: What if we get to a situation where NOBODY EVER PAYS FOR ANYTHING EVERY AGAIN."

Hookers would become my new best friends (and bartender)

but without the need for money you'd be hard pressed to find a hooker. what exactly would she be selling herself for?

I've heard that on occasion sex can be fun, and even life affirming. Some people even do it without getting paid.

ya I've heard that to. but you see hookers do it for the $$$, XXXXXXXXX do it for fun

self edited

**Ahtman**

sirlynchmob wrote:ya I've heard that to. but you see hookers do it for the $$$, XXXXXXXXX do it for fun self edited

If money isn't an issue there would no longer be hookers. If we are going to imagine as radical a change as a society without the need for money, we can also imagine that there are always massive orgies going on and one night stands for everyone.

**Kovnik Obama**

Clearly, imagination land is awesome.

**Kilkrazy**

reds8n wrote: Note that most people who downloaded their first digital only album didn't pay for it

http://rb101182.hubpages.com/hub/From-Disc-to-Digital-Music-Industry-Business-Practices-in-the-21st-Century

Yeah, well, I didn't pay for the first album I dubbed to compact cassette in 1979.

I started to buy music once I could afford it.

The problem will be if young people these days do not start to pay for things once they can afford them.

**English Assassin**

dæl wrote:If you count being on your own label as self publishing then there is ¡Forward, Russia!, and Bright Eyes, and Foreign Beggars, and µ-Ziq (don't know if he's charted but has a cult following, and glitchy idm rarely charts)

Of which the first two are respectively signed to Mute and distributed by EMI, and on their own label and distributed by Sony, and the last two are obscure example of niche genres (and in both cases don't play instruments).

Ahtman wrote:Jack White seems to be doing fine with Third Man Records, his own label and LP production company. His solo album reached #1 on Billboard and is doing quite well.

Third Man is a vanity label, his solo album was distributed by Columbia Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music. Moreover, Jack White is hardly some unknown bluesman; he already had the fanbase and accumulated capital of six multi-platinum White Stripes albums (all but the first of which he released while signed to V2, a subsidiary of Universal Records).

dæl wrote:As I said, you don't need a studio, just your rehearsal space, a laptop and Logic Pro. Production is hard to learn, but again you don't need to pay massive wages, I have a number of friends who have incredible abilities in production. Artwork can again be done by friends. Touring shouldn't be a case of heres an album, lets hire Wembley, it should be organic and evolve from smaller venues. This is whats wrong with the modern music scene, you have bands like the Arctic Monkeys, who were thrust into the spotlight without the necessary experience.

I'm far from convinced that obliging artists to rely upon the charity of their friends would be an improvement on the present situation. Whether or not you really need a studio, you still need to pay for a producer, recording engineer, mixing engineer and mastering engineer to produce a professional-sounding recording. As for touring, who mentioned Wembley? Taking an unknown band to prominence requires touring nationally, which means playing thirty or forty dates in horrible clubs in provincial towns, which will very seldom turn a profit; that comes when your band are established and can charge thirty quid a ticket and another twenty for a t-shirt.

dæl wrote:What I'm trying to say is just because something is happening in a certain way now, doesn't mean that's how it should. Which dovetails quite nicely with the whole point of this thread, we need to progress into a new way of thinking about art, remove the monopolies of the copyright industry and the mainstream media, and make art for the sake of art, not as an exercise in moneymaking.

A way of thinking which doesn't include paying for it, and justifying that with some vague finger-pointing at a nebulous but evil-sounding "copyright industry", yes?

**dæl**

English Assassin wrote:
dæl wrote:If you count being on your own label as self publishing then there is ¡Forward, Russia!, and Bright Eyes, and Foreign Beggars, and µ-Ziq (don't know if he's charted but has a cult following, and glitchy idm rarely charts)

Of which the first two are respectively signed to Mute and distributed by EMI, and on their own label and distributed by Sony, and the last two are obscure example of niche genres (and in both cases don't play instruments).

Forward Russia weren't signed to Mute when they released their first album, they were on their own label, Dance to the Radio.
Bright Eyes have been around for over a decade, all their earlier stuff was through Saddle Creek.
Foreign Beggars aren't really that niche, and are probably one of the most famous artists in the British Hip Hop scene.
There is no difference between making music on a laptop, to making it on a piano. To claim otherwise is elitism, and childish, and shows you've never tried to make music on a laptop.

English Assassin wrote:
dæl wrote:As I said, you don't need a studio, just your rehearsal space, a laptop and Logic Pro. Production is hard to learn, but again you don't need to pay massive wages, I have a number of friends who have incredible abilities in production. Artwork can again be done by friends. Touring shouldn't be a case of heres an album, lets hire Wembley, it should be organic and evolve from smaller venues. This is whats wrong with the modern music scene, you have bands like the Arctic Monkeys, who were thrust into the spotlight without the necessary experience.

I'm far from convinced that obliging artists to rely upon the charity of their friends would be an improvement on the present situation. Whether or not you really need a studio, you still need to pay for a producer, recording engineer, mixing engineer and mastering engineer to produce a professional-sounding recording. As for touring, who mentioned Wembley? Taking an unknown band to prominence requires touring nationally, which means playing thirty or forty dates in horrible clubs in provincial towns, which will very seldom turn a profit; that comes when your band are established and can charge thirty quid a ticket and another twenty for a t-shirt.

Believe it or not you can pay your friends for work they do. Making a professional recording doesn't require seasoned professionals. Every one of my friends bands seem to get paid (albeit not much) for playing, they must be doing something wrong by not ending up out of pocket, I shall inform them posthaste.

English Assassin wrote:
dæl wrote:What I'm trying to say is just because something is happening in a certain way now, doesn't mean that's how it should. Which dovetails quite nicely with the whole point of this thread, we need to progress into a new way of thinking about art, remove the monopolies of the copyright industry and the mainstream media, and make art for the sake of art, not as an exercise in moneymaking.

A way of thinking which doesn't include paying for it, and justifying that with some vague finger-pointing at a nebulous but evil-sounding "copyright industry", yes?

No, a way of thinking that pays those responsible for the art appropriately. Decentralising music and removing the monopoly that is currently held and is putting out so much tripe solely to make money, is the way forward. Or would you prefer to just be force fed the likes of justin beiber for eternity? Because that stuff certainly doesn't fall under the remit of ars gratia artis.

**Ahtman**

English Assassin wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Jack White seems to be doing fine with Third Man Records, his own label and LP production company. His solo album reached #1 on Billboard and is doing quite well.

Third Man is a vanity label, his solo album was distributed by Columbia Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music. Moreover, Jack White is hardly some unknown bluesman; he already had the fanbase and accumulated capital of six multi-platinum White Stripes albums (all but the first of which he released while signed to V2, a subsidiary of Universal Records).

You should work on a football field, what with all the time you spend pushing back goal posts.

Find example of X.

Here is X.

No no. They have a well known distributor.

But it is still a separate entity, and a distributor is not a label.

Well it can't do small less known bands or others to really count, that is just vanity and doesn't count as a label.

Not everyone on that label is well known.

Well the guy who owns it isn't an unknown.

**schadenfreude**

If a person starts act like or talk like reality has a liberal bias then they have become so conservative that their perspective has become detached from reality.

Of course you can flip that around and say...

If a person starts act like or talk like reality has a conservative bias then they have become so liberal that their perspective has become detached from reality.

People believe what they want to believe, and they don't want to believe inconvenient facts. The last thing that a delusional person wants is a reality check.

**thunderingjove**

LoneLictor wrote:Yesterday my somewhat crazy brother went on a rant about how history has a very liberal trend. He traced back from like the fething dark ages, talking about how things steadily get more and more liberal. He talked about how the more advanced a society is, the more welfare there is and that sort of thing. Even though I mostly agree with him (mostly, some of the stuff he said was still crazy and stupid) I kinda stopped listening at that point. Then he started going through American History, and how far we've gone from the US's quite libertarian-ish beginnings to the society we have now.

So, I figured this might as well start an intellectual conversation or at least an entertaining flame war. Does history have a liberal trend? If so, will it continue? And where will it stop?

Discuss.

There are no real trends in history, except that even this too shall pass.

**sebster**

The interesting thing I've noticed about internet piracy is how many people will switch back and forth between purchasing and piracy. If a thing is easier to buy than to pirate and they have the money, that's how they do it. If the thing is easier to pirate, they'll do that instead. There seems to be an assumption that pirates simply do not pay for anything, ever, and that isn't what I've observed from my friends that pirate stuff.

The morality talk is all good and well, but I don't really think it impacts things as much as convenience.

The extent to which you cannot stop piracy is the extent to which you'll have to make sure your product is more desirable, and priced low enough, that people prefer it to taking a risk with a poor or infected pirated copy.

reds8n wrote: Note that most people who downloaded their first digital only album didn't pay for it

http://rb101182.hubpages.com/hub/From-Disc-to-Digital-Music-Industry-Business-Practices-in-the-21st-Century

In 2007, after Radiohead’s contract with EMI Records had expired, the band decided to self-release their new album In Rainbows as a digital download from their website, and allow users to select their own price for the album. The worldwide results showed that an average of 60% of users downloaded the album for free, while the other 40% paid for the album. The average price per paid download was $6.00 worldwide, and in the U.S. was $8.05 (Cabral, 2009).

It's worth pointing that, IIRC, the average paid voluntarily to the band was about twice what the band would have been distributed under the old recording model. Though as you point out, Radiohead then went about charging a fixed price for their next CD, the utterly sucky King of Limbs, which means that on at least some level the idea of people paying what they want doesn't really work.

I'm not sure I'd conclude that Radiohead are a poor example, because they had years of backing by a major before releasing their album as a download. The counter is that there is no reason to assume the old model has to be the model going forward. The up front production costs fronted by publishers are nowhere near as high as they used to be, exposure to the public no longer requires access to radio stations, and sales no longer need the up-front costs of printing CDs.

I'm not saying that's going to happen, but I'm not going to write it off entirely, either.

And for the record, when In Rainbows was available for download I kept putting off downloading it, week after week, and only bought it when I saw it on sale as a CD in a store, where I promptly paid the typically outrageous price we pay for CDs in Australia. I'm a creature of habit, I guess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

English Assassin wrote:Point me to a band/artist established in the last decade who have achieved even moderate commercial success (let's say - setting the bar very low - charting an album in the top forty on either side of the Atlantic and headlining an arena tour) without having been signed to a label, and your argument might have something to stand on.

There's a big problem with stating that because something hasn't happened, it never will.

Ultimately though, the industry will eventually change to meet new market conditions, or ultimately those new market conditions will be unable to deliver what the present structure delivers. All the talk in the world, either by us or by artists or industry executives, will be unable to change the fact that economic systems (ie where the money is) determine the final result.