Saturday, December 29, 2007

We Rock Music 008

WRM 008 (2005)
Carol - "Sensual Love"




cjh said...


Do you have the permission from Still Music to put up full tracks (EPs) of Rondenion?

Why the fuck do you put up new music that Still Music (Rondenion) have spent money on to publish and very recent also, that is available on various online shops like Beatport, Emusic, Itunes? Do you think these artists work for free?

There is enough netlabels that would give you tracks for free, instead of putting up copyrighted tracks.

......or better start your own label, release some music, pay good artists that deserve it, press up some vinyl and press some cds, get some quality artwork, put up a proper website, drop some parties. GIVE SOMETHING BACK to the community, instead of leeching of the credits and dedication of others like Still Music do.

I wonder if you are brave enough to let this comment stand or if you will delete it?

Solid Goldberger said...

Alright friend, I'll leave this up for a while, but I must say, its kinda petty spamming another post for an out of print, vinyl-only release.

To correct you, I did not put up the full EP, but a couple tracks from his EPs, as well as links to his and Still Music's myspace pages, where people can find links to purchase the full EPs from Still's vendor of choice. Also, i gave a plug for their monthly event @ APT here in NY (where in one night they can make as much as months of downloads on iTunes).

If you've read my blog at all, you know that this is all done out of love for the Artists and their music, and if Rondenion or Still Music would have said something in the 6 weeks since those tracks went up, they'd be removed in a heartbeat.

I'm sorry if my blog offends your sensibilities, but I really do feel that I'm doing this respectfully, in a way that gives underrepresented artists and labels some well-deserved promotion, introducing their work to like-minded music fans who might never have heard of a Rondenion without the web of music blogs.


24carats said...

First off Carol?! Yes! This is, sadly, the last We Rock right? Secondly, spam, lame. Keep up the good work!

24carats said...

Oh, p.s. the id3 tags were flipped for these two tracks.

cjh said...

How do you know that Still Music earn more money from their APT nights? Have you asked Jerome Derradji about their numbers?

Did you ask if you could put the tracks up? Tracks that are still available from loads of online shops like Beatport, Emusic, Dancetracks (that have just closed up shop, same as Cisco in Tokyo)? Music that will be available for a very long time online. Why not just link to Rondenions Myspace account, where he have tracks for preview in the Myspace player?

The damage is already done when the first time they are shared for free and spread on P2P. Let Still Music or any other creator of sound/music decide how they will share and promote their stuff. I think they are quite capable to do that themselves. Good artists came up in the 70-80-90s without the use of blogs, from Chicago, NYC and Detroit. Good stuff will always surface. The channel that promote music may have changed from the airwavs to going through wires(internet), but it is still the same concept. People complain about there not are good alternatives now , they are wrong. I can list Last.FM, Emusic, Pitchfork, Myspace, Facebook, podcasting.........

I just fall to see why people that have made the "creation" should decide how stuff is distributed?

Let us take a random example:

What if Romanthony decides to sell his own discography on his own site or Myspace? But since some blog have rendered his stuff worthless, it is not worth it for him to invest in infrastructure/produce new stuff on a high level. Is it worth it for the artist to invest in proper equipment like proper AD converters? Produce high quality music like Daft Punk do? Is it not a artists right to make a living of
his own talent, not all people have the skill-set to be engineers, IT consultants, architects, etc. should they just go through life washing dishes?

This example is just a possible outcome of what could be the future. A lonely blog don`t matter in the big picture, but what if all people have this attitude to copyright. It should be the creator who should decide how stuff is presented and distributed.

cjh said...

Just a last question, do you do sound on productions for free?



Hope you had a good New Year Eve and have a good year.

mu0p said...




cjh said...

Why are you shouting? Who are we?

Tell me how you support a producer/artists, if they don`t play live?
Not all producers/artists play want to play live, they just want to produce music and make a living.



mu0p said...




...TO DJ






Solid Goldberger said...

Ok, here is a bunch of commentary, not necessarily in order:

mu0p: In your last comment, you pretty much summed up the reasons why I'm doing this blog in the manner in which its being run--and thanks for minus-ing the explative ;o). I am hoping that people who are still excited by this particular brand of house music get to discover new music that I've spent years trying to find. House music at its very essence is about communities getting together and sharing things: music, dancing, drugs, fashion, culture. In its most basic form, dancing is a communal activity, and on many levels it is my belief that it should be freely shared, in all its forms. It is the commerce of dance culture that has prevented, not furthered its progression.

I speak from the point of view of someone in their mid-20s growing up in the northeast of the US, in a time when dance music is once again entering the popular consciousness. During its last stateside popularity during the late 80's and early 90's, dance music grew through the underground, through raves and other "illegal" parties. When the law caught on, the culture shifted: dancing became relegated into city-sanctioned clubs, and the mainstream record industry tried to take advantage of the "buzz", attempting present electronic music to the American consumer in its own marketable (read: retail-able) corporate package. This obviously sucked, and largely destroyed the culture of dance music in the US, outside of a couple of major cities.

Forward ahead to the mid-aughts (so psyched that we're another year closer to getting a decade with a better name, by the way), and the internet has come along to save music again--despite what the RIAA would have you believe. Blogs and other community-minded sites are now the go-to sources for music and information, on the cutting edge, or in the case of this blog, the things that may have slipped through the cracks the first time. Justice, while not my favorite, is a perfect, obvious example of the power of the internet can have in not just promoting and spreading, but also selling music in the 21st century. And its not just house music that has taken off, underground hip-hop is back with a vengeance, and indie rock listenership, for better or worse, has continued to skyrocket, in direct correlation to its coverage and "hype" in the "blog universe". You just need to take the longview that we, the consumer, will still spend our entertainment dollar on music in the internet age, as long as we feel that the artist in question has earned it. And in that way, i hope that through my blog, i'm helping showcase some artists who have earned it.

I'm not trying to take away anyone's livelihood. Despite what you have said, cjh, i am not giving away any albums that are readily available for retail purchase, and in the cases of any tracks i may have posted or will post in the future that do contain currently available music, I am only sharing individual tracks in a manner that is only done for promotional reasons, fully legal, as documented in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (

This is not about the dissemination of "free" music; as you said in your last comment, mu0p, in "opening up ears to new music", I hope I'm also opening up new revenue stream for these artists, in the form of increased attendance at their DJ/performance gigs, as well as (hopefully) encouraging artists who have not recorded in some time to return to their studios, and continue producing great music.

The era of recorded music as a product is coming to a close, whether we like it or not, and the internet provides the opportunity for us, the consumers and citizens of the world, the means to reshape the marketplace in which the "music business" is conducted. In my perfect fantasy world, music is created for love and personal expression, not for profit or fame. And perhaps if that world becomes reality, as its rapidly heading towards, then musicians can reap the financial benefits based on the quality of their art, not based on business arrangements.

Again, cjh, I'm sorry that we're in dissagreement, but as long as the law provides me the opportunity, and there's still amazing music out there for us all to discover, I'm not gonna stop doing what i'm doing. And I hope that despite our differences that we can keep discourses like this going, because its that ability to interact and debate and share that make blogs and the internet as a whole so powerful and awesome.

Soapbox set aside.


cjh said...

The whole point here is that you don`t have the permission from the artist to put their tracks up in a quality that could damage their art.

It is the creator who should choose what to do with their art, not the blog. Why do you think Pitchfork don`t share full tracks? Xlr8r just give away free tracks with permission from the artists? DjMag gave away Omid16b`s album with his permission. Mail on Sunday gave away Prince last album with his permission.

Why don`t you include a text that shows that the artist have approved
the blog putting up the tracks?

The DMCA do not grant a blog access
to use tracks as promotion, without the consent of the copyright-holder, end of story.

Tony said...

Bootleg...and get your leg broke

Sam said...

I personally buy records if i want to hear whats on them but thats more because im picky about quality of audio than anything else

this blog doesn't hurt many artists at the moment when for example the whole crydamoure collection is put up for download they lose no revanue because you can only get those records second hand now anyway

and sharing music in this way helps me find new music

a couple of years ago for example i was into Rock and i downloaded the best of Lynyrd Skynyrd from a torrent i liked it so much that i went out and bought 5 studio albums and a DVD. i know i definitely wouldn't have bought them if i hadn't listened to the best of. the story is the same as to how i got into Daft Punk got the first 4 tracks from Discovery now im hooked got every album

i dont know about other people but i use this site more like a radio station than a free record shop if i find something i like i hunt it down and buy it

jommyc said...

Actually, this is called stealing.

This site should really be called "solidgoldburglar.con".

Try making your own music and posting that.

Solid Goldberger said...

oh snap, no he didnt!

jommyc said...

Solid Goldberger said...

"To correct you, I did not put up the full EP..." - actually you put up entire catalogues in the case of We Rock, Roulé and Crydamoure.

"...if Rondenion or Still Music would have said something in the 6 weeks since those tracks went up, they'd be removed in a heartbeat." - the time frame is irrelevant since you never alerted them to your posts in the first place.

"...I really do feel that I'm doing this respectfully, in a way that gives underrepresented artists and labels some well-deserved promotion, introducing their work to like-minded music fans who might never have heard of a Rondenion without the web of music blogs." - if you were doing this respectfully then you would have asked permission first. so you are not doing this respectfully. how can YOU adjudicate that these artists or labels are 'underrepresented' ? Are you a judge ? It's not necessary to post full tracks that do not belong to you online in order to bring about awareness.

" is my belief that it [music] should be freely shared, in all its forms." - your beliefs, as liberal as they may be, do not entitle you to any of the copyrights for the music/artwork you have posted and so your opinion does not matter here. the law still presides.

"...i am not giving away any albums that are readily available for retail purchase..." - yes, you are.

"...and in the cases of any tracks i may have posted or will post in the future that do contain currently available music, I am only sharing individual tracks in a manner that is only done for promotional reasons, fully legal, as documented in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (" - you are not authorized to promote this music. if you were then there wouldn't be any discussion. your american law has nothing to do with the French laws that govern the majority of the music you have posted here. unless you are prepared to pay for "promoting" this music as you call it, I suggest you take it down. inevitably, SACEM will ask you to do the same as will all the labels you have not sought authorization from.

"...I hope I'm also opening up new revenue stream for these artists, in the form of increased attendance at their DJ/performance gigs..." - 'hoping' does not make anything legal. and the last time i checked, Vertigo nor Roulé nor We Rock nor Crydamoure hold many "DJ/performance gigs".

" well as (hopefully) encouraging artists who have not recorded in some time to return to their studios, and continue producing great music." - it must be very encouraging for artists to see their hard work end up on sites like this, you really thought this one through. bravo !

"In my perfect fantasy world, music is created for love and personal expression, not for profit or fame." - well, some people live in the real world, and in the real world, music is created not only out of love but also for food and survival.

Basically, you have no ownership rights on any of the music you posted, and all the justifications in the world will not change that fact.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The problem, monsieur solid goldberger, is that you take on a consumer's point of view without even considering how the actual artists would take this. I personally wouldn't want some blogger posting my work without my permission. It's not about the money, it's about ethics and respect... the respect you only claim to have and truley lack.

Kilko said...

Solidgoldberger is posting these vinyl-rips because he wants people to hear great music which has been forgotten "ages" ago. He's bringing back good memories to people and letting everybody know how great French House-music really is. Not everybody has a vinyl-player and they've certainly not listened to a vinyl before, therefore Solid is spreading love by spreading MP3's of "neverbefore heard" vinyls to the public. I think it's great what he's doing.

jommyc said...

This is not a matter of opinion. It's copyright infringement and this person has zero class.

King Polo said...

I fully agree with cjh, etc. – Mr. Goldberger doesn't have permission to post these tracks, and therefore shouldn't. End of story.

But I don't think you guys go far enough. How many UNAUTHORIZED and ILLEGAL 'samples' are contained in these songs? By putting these songs up, not only is he stealing from the so-called 'producers', he is also stealing from the original musicians who wrote the music, just so some vultures could come along 20 or 30 years down the road and steal their work under the guise of 'sampling'. No wonder today's music is so devoid of the magic it once had – nobody puts any effort into it for fear that they will one day have their work stolen in this manner.

Modern 'dance music' (especially rap, but that's another story...) is a parasite on the legacy of musicianship and songwriting. Why is it that one can steal whole parts of songs, add a house beat, and call it their own song, and become FAMOUS from it when it's NOT THEIR SONG?

And whether or not the samples are even cleared, the damage is done just the same – some johnny-come-lately makes a name (and a lot of money) for himself by stealing from the hard work of musicians of the past, people who actually knew how to play an instrument, while these musicians eat cat food in their one-room flat with tears in their eyes. It's just not fair.

Often the original writers have no control of their work or perhaps they're no longer alive! How can you allow someone to 'use' their music in these circumstances!

In addition, blame should also be directed at all the DJs of the world, spinning the music of other people, making a LIVING from it, many with the nerve to consider themselves 'musicians' (they're not!) on top of this. For decades DJs, club owners and many other individuals have profited from the nightlife industry, while the people who created the music that allows it all to happen in the first place are left without a cut of the revenue, and limited means to control the use of their work (the records may say "unauthorized broadcast or performance of this recording prohibited" but does anyone follow this?? not any DJs!!!)

At least with radio play some royalties trickle down, but in clubs, especially illegal private events, there is no hope of any compensation.

I can't see it happening, but we really need to put an end to this DJ/sampling business all together. A total racket it is!

jommyc said...

In the interim (before this site is forced to shut down), I would like to add a few last words.

In response to King Polo, the music industry has its flaws. It is important to understand however that sampling does not necessarily constitute stealing. At least half of the time, original copyright holders are remunerated for the use of samples. I know this from personal experience. On the other hand, it is common practice for small-scale publishers to release original works containing copywritten samples without paying for their use. This, however, has almost no effect on the potential income that would be earned by the original artist as the numbers remain minute. But record companies are greedy, and when a track makes it big, their sample doctors and nurses are on hand to make it all better - and collect what is due. Even so, it is unlikely that the artists will even touch a penny of this since the vast majority of them signed their lives away from the start.

SO, who is to blame in the end ? DJ's ? Not really. Record companies ? Maybe. Artists who have a poor understanding of contract law ? Quite possibly... or is it Mr. Goldberger for his blatant ignorance and unmannerly and ignominious conduct ? I would say the latter.

Anonymous said...

I think we need to make some distinctions here...

1. Firstly lets differentiate between sampling and ripping artists off. I don't want to argue anything about income, I don't think a financial position will solve or expose anything as most artists don't really see that money anyways (jommyc mantionned something about this as well). I will like to point out the difference in terms of the art of music production. What Monsieur Golderger is doing, as I have mentionned earlier, is disrespectful to artistic creation when there is no permission acquired from the artists. Sampling, on the other hand, does not take the samples as their work... it is rather the creativity in using other songs (like a collage) that deserves the merit. It is the same for most artists eventhough it isn't always directly referencing other works as samples do. Think of writers and painters who themselves have studied and have been influenced by other works... who also may hold a library of references for inspiration. What I'm saying is that it is not enough to only argue based on the sample because you then overlook the actual work and the artistic creativity involved in transforming that sample into a new body of work. Needless to say, there are artists who do completely rip others off... that's a whole other issue.

2. This brings me to my second distinction. Those who create music in a more traditional manner (ie traditional instruments) call themselves musicians. House music, however, is the creation of MUSIC PRODUCERS. They are musicians in some respect, but this is a distinction that should not be overlooked. DJ's... well they're entertainers.

All in all, as that infamous song goes "video killed the radio star" well the internet is killing the music and video industries. Is this what society is moving towards? Unfortunately yes... Sites such as these are only acceleratingthe degradation of these industries and forcing them into emergency crisis.

jommyc said...

Piracy: Online and on the Street

It’s commonly known as piracy, but it’s a too benign term that doesn’t even begin to adequately describe the toll that music theft takes on the many artists, songwriters, musicians, record label employees and others whose hard work and great talent make music possible.

Music theft can take various forms: individuals who illegally upload or download music online, online companies who build businesses based on theft and encourage users to break the law, or criminals manufacturing mass numbers of counterfeit CDs for sale on street corners, in flea markets or at retail stores. Across the board, this theft has hurt the music community, with thousands of layoffs, songwriters out of work and new artists having a harder time getting signed and breaking into the business.

In response, the music industry has employed a multi-faceted approach to combat this piracy, combining education, innovation, and enforcement:

• With investigators deployed in cities across the country, the RIAA is working closely with law enforcement to pull pirate products off the street and to demonstrate that the consequences for this illegal activity are real.
• We are continuing our efforts to educate fans about the value of music and the right ways to acquire it and, when necessary, to enforce our rights through the legal system.
• Record companies have licensed hundreds of digital partners that offer a range of legal models to fans: download and subscription services, cable and satellite radio services, Internet radio webcasting, legitimate peer-to-peer services, video-on-demand, podcasts, CD kiosks and digital jukeboxes, mobile products such as ringbacks, ringtunes, wallpapers, audio and video downloads and more.

Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and, in the digital space, to give legal online services a chance to flourish.

byebye :)

Ahmar said...

Leave SGB alone. He's doing a decent job and in good faith that the purpose of the site is to promote underrated, under reviewed, and underexposed music to a larger audience. Yes, I do think there are both costs and benefits to the artists by him doing it but on balance, I think the site does MUCH more good than harm to the artists he posts. In terms of legality, I'm not even going to go there. I'll just post this:

hahahha clever

Events Calendar