Thanks to 24 Hour Party People, I'm discovering New Wave, albeit about 20 years late. From 1983, here's the original UK release version of New Order's Blue Monday (mp3, 10.2 MB), the best selling 12" single of all time.
Another tidbit about that song: it cane about when the band wanted to appease the audience betore having to do an encore while they, um.. "partied" back stage. they'd just let the drum machine go, then started adding some sequenced synths and such. someone decided it was good enough to put words to, and voila.. smash hit!
24 hour Party People is an incredible documentary!
FYI in 1985 - when that scene exploded in Manchester - Joi Ito was DJing at the Metro in Chicago - when and where House was born.
I was up in the VIP lounge, trying to explain multimedia. I had learned video editing (on a B&W portapak) at the same building - in 1973.
Especially, the scene where the designer presents the cover for the new New Order album - inspired by, and shaped like a 1,4mb dikette.
One of the most memorable moments in record-sleeve-dsign-history!
damnit. this comment shows my age :)
"How can you stay with a fat girl who says:
"Would you like to marry me
and if you like you can buy the ring"?
She doesn't care about anything
"Would you like to marry me
and if you like you can buy the ring"
I don't dream about anyone
except myself"
*not that I'm saying I have attended every one since then, that would be far too weird, even for the internet. I started high school in '88 is all I'm sayin'.
At any rate, now that I've outed myself as a dork that attended high school dances, let's get back to talking about you, not me. I'm just surprised you haven't found this music sooner. Better late than never!
Ceremony - New Order
Do It Clean - Echo & The Bunnymen
"Elephant Stone", "I Wanna Be Adored", "She Bangs The Drums", "Waterfall" - The Stone Roses
"Hallelujah" or "24 hour party people" - Happy Mondays;
"Hit The North" or "totally wired" - The Fall;
Love Will Tear Us Apart - Joy Division
Step On - Happy Mondays
"The Only One I Know" The Charlatans UK
Without further ado, here are some recommendations:
"Decades" - Joy Division
"Dice Man" - The Fall
"New Order" - Dreams Never End
I'm not sure Oasis totally fit into the scope that are being discussed here, but since I'm not sure many of those from the other side of the Atlantic will have heard much you should check out "Live Forever".
Anyone who doesn't agree with this statement should be tied down and beaten into a bloody pulp.
i don't know that i would call 24 hour party people a documentary... docu-drama perhaps?
haight street is awash in 80s style of late. it gives me a rash.
also 808 STATE fits in here somewhere
If you're really digging all that Factory stuff on the 24HrPP soundtrack, the Palatine box set will get you neck-deep into it. For the house/acid house material (Marshall Jefferson, 808 State, A Guy Called Gerald) the Moonshine "Classic Rave/Classic Acid" comps are excellent intros.
Aren't you worried about some RIAA goons coming to your door and asking you to remove the MP3 from your site? The posting is admirable, but I wouldn't have the balls to make such a post.
(Also, for the, er, record: The "Blue Monday" record sleeve was probably not inspired by a 1,4MB diskette. 1983, you know.)
Oh, and Marc Canter: "24 Hour Party People" is not a documentary.
Then if you edge towards the Smiths and Pet Shop Boys try "Electronic" which is a mixture of various players out of those bands. Disappointed being the original track.
If you are just getting into this music, all I can say is: buy "Heart and Soul," the Joy Division box set, and get "Power, Corruption, and Lies." You'll never regret buying the Joy Division set, and the essays in the booklet are awesome. Another great find in the same period is A Certain Ratio -- you can buy a great 2CD retrospective called "Early." They are like Joy Division, only funky.
Also, the Kylie/Blue Monday track is by 2 many djs, from As heard on Radio soulwax Vol 2, which is an entire album of glorius mash-ups, all mixed together, inlcuding "Dreadlocked Woman" which is an amazing cross between "Dreadlock Holiday" ('I don't like cricket, i love it...') by 10CC, and "Independent Woman" by destiny's child.
2 many djs are a belgian duo, and they have done about 7 "as heard on..." albums which are unofficial releases (god bless soulseek) plus there really is a radio soulwax show with them on (but in belgium, obviously. lucky belgians). Some of those bootlegs are even better than the official release, because they couldn't get copyright clearance for loads of the tracks.
more on all that here: http://www.2manydjs.org/
go. download, er, i mean, buy. enjoy.
and then there's balance005, mixed by james holden - amazon link. The first CD of that is the best mix I have ever had the privilege of listening to. And i've listened to a lot of mix cds.
"You pick up this working girl, hooked on crack..."
ahhhh. excuse me, i must go and listen to it right now.
Coming late to the MADchester scene but yearn for familiar beats ? try the Stone Roses remixes album (Amazon UK - has reviews).
i love their song 'getting away with it', so bought the first, self-titled album, but haven't really liked anything else by them.
The 1988 re-release of Blue Monday had a fantastic B-side, an instrumental version of the track, remixed. Technique is worth a look, too.
Thoughts from above hit the people down below
People in this world, we have no place to go
Man that creeps me out in a good way.
Not that this answers what you've said head on, but Warner Bros quite recently sent mp3s out to mp3 bloggers as part of a PR campaign blitz. I'd be very surprised if the music industry hasn't been covertly sending stuff out to mp3 bloggers as well as seeding P2P file sharing networks and striking conversations on forums to start underground buzz for certain acts. Jason has at least 15k readers any given day, if he wasn't a friend I'd be questioning whether WB put him up to this to drum up interest in New Order's catalog.
(And don't even get me started about how appalling it is that the labels don't let musicians own their own life's work. Prince talks about this in interviews with Rocky Mountain News and Wired published just this month.)
Apparently in the ads for the condos the slogan was "The party's over...it's time to come home" or something like that. I thought that pretty clever and kinda sad at the same time.
I remember it from the movie, but it might be a myth:
"this is incorrect and a common misconception. The sleeve of the 12" cost so much that it denied Factory an extra profit of just under a penny (UK) on each copy sold. Peter was determined to keep the 'floppy' sleeve and convinced Factory to go with the idea. However, demand and production cost and timings meant that the sleeve became progressively more simple with each repressing. The profits from the sale of 'Blue Monday' were large to say the least"
I agree with everything posted above, but frankly I'm kinda stunned that you're just finding this music now. I grew up in northern Ontario and every high school dance from 1988 on* had Blue Monday and a Cure song in it somewhere.
Then Northern Ontario was a cooler place than Northern Wisconsin. The only music I ever listened to as a kid was top 40, heavy metal, and country (the latter two not by choice). That's all the radio stations played and I didn't have any cool friends who knew about music smuggled in from the "outside world", so that sort of limited my options music-wise.
And it's not that I've never heard of or listened to music by New Order, The Cure, The Smiths, The Stone Roses, etc. (although I'd never heard of Happy Mondays before I saw the film), but I definitely missed most of it at the time and haven't before considered it all together in context as New Wave. As with art or movies, it's sometimes hard to appreciate something unless you know a bit about how it fits into the grand scheme of things.
I absolutely do not have the right to distribute anyone's music without their permission. If asked by New Order, Warner Bros., or the RIAA, I will gladly remove it from my server. As for why I'm doing it, a few random thoughts:
- I'm not permanently hosting mp3 files on my server. They'll stay on there for a few days and then I'll delete them.
- I'm not charging for the mp3.
- Because I posted that song, I've got fifty people (so far) discussing New Order and their music, nearly all of it complimentary. Thousands read the post and the ensuing thread yesterday. About 1000 people downloaded the song in a 12-hour period. Perhaps all that interest will spur some purchasing in the future, in the form of CDs or concert tickets. According to my Amazon Associates reports, one person has already purchased a 24 Hour Party Party DVD. Not a justification, but something to consider.
- Sales of Blue Monday will not be negatively affected by this post. No one who read this post or downloaded the mp3 was, prior to yesterday, waiting for an opportunity like this to find a free copy of Blue Monday rather than purchasing a copy. That is, if you're trying to say that 1000 downloads of the mp3 equals $1000 in losses for Warner Bros. (1000 copies @ 99 cents/copy), that's just plain wrong. Besides, Blue Monday is already freely available on mp3...it'll take you about 4 seconds to find hundreds of copies on Kazaa or Usenet. It seems unlikely that the particular copy that I'm offering for a few days will be used by anyone down the line to significantly affect Warner Bros' or New Order's ability to make money selling music. Again, not a justification.
- My use of New Order's content in this way seems to me to adhere to the spirit of fair use, although it definitely isn't fair use legally. In my opinion, because of the Internet (among other things), copyright law needs to be adjusted for the benefit of society at large *and* for the companies and artists who wish to make money selling music.
- I'm quite willing to have my mind changed on all of this. I really believe that there is almost no downside for New Order, Warner Bros., or the RIAA in my posting a single New Order mp3 to my site for a limited time and that there is the potential for a lot of upside for them, but maybe I'm missing something. You'll have to make a pretty strong argument though...I've listened to a lot of them over the past few years and nothing's convinced me so far.
Some related links:
Morning News roundtable with mp3 bloggers
USA Today article on mp3 bloggers
MP3Blogs Aggregator
Warner Bros is using mp3 blogs to promote their music
Bjork says, "God bless the internet"
Jeff Veen on How I stopped buying CDs and started loving music
Though I'm not completely sure it can be labeled as New Age, it's still good stuff!
The thing that amazes me about the Cure is that this is stuff I was nearly beaten up for listening to as a kid in the rural south and now I hear "Pictures of You" in an HP commercial, and the music sounds as well-recorded and engineered as any music being made today. Same goes for the Pixies as far as being way ahead of their time.
Jason, I guess the only concern about the download is that though you've presented great reasons why doing what you're doing *should* be legal, that doesn't make it legal, in fact. I would just hate to see you get in trouble or fined or both.
While I haven't downloaded the sample, I probably will, to finalize my decision whether to order a New Order CD. Based on all the chatter here, I'll probably be dropping twenty or thirty bucks at the iTunes Music Store, and buy at least two CDs. You are correct that the label legally controls these tunes, and can restrict their access as they please.
This doesn't change the fact that I would not have spent any money on these guys without the great discussion that Jason's infringement has engendered. Chew on that.
I had always (rather naively) believed that most of the British scene was lost on the US and am heartened by the responses in this thread. While we're on the subject of 80's underground legends, somebody has to mention spacemen3 and the jesus and mary chain - these bands had a profound effect on my outlook on music.
I too saw New Order a few times (once on a bill with Echo and the Bunnymen at a show where Ian MacCullough was so drunk he fell off the stage and hurt his leg, so he spent the remainder of the show sitting on the edge of the stage). The one thing that stands out in my memories of New Order live is that Bernard Sumner had a tendency to step out of the spotlight when not singing, giving the eerie impression that they were awaiting the second coming of Ian Curtis...
24 Hour Party People was a good movie. I wrote blurb about it last year. It's on the bottom of this page if any wants to read.
Also: Ed Stone-I am obsessed with PQM's brilliant track "You Are Sleeping" ("you pick up this working girl..."). Heard it on the really excellent Sharam Global Underground Toronto Mix. I'd love to hear that dropped late night in a club. "Black AM" is another great track on the Sharam mix. I look forward to checking out the Holden mix...thanks for the rec!
Be prepared to pay out the *ss for lawyers when multiple parties decide to sue you..... or worse, attempt to make an example of you over a track from 10+ years ago.
Better get a good lawyer now.....
New Order are not a Warners group. That shit spewing den of dogs could never release a group like New Order. They are a Factory Records group. You need to listen to Section 25, The Durutti Column, A Certain Ratio, and all the other truely great groups that appeared on that classic and most great of labels, run by the genius Tony Wilson.
That music is orders of magnitude better than the garbage of today. I know you want more. Rough Trade records released so many pieces of fantastic music that you will never again have to suffer the trash that crap groups currently assail you with. Early Mute records are an excellent source. SubRosa, early 4AD records, Beggars Banquet, Postcard, Early Creation Records....that is more than enough to be getting on with.
Before you die, you must hear "Colossal Youth" by Young Marble Giants.
Before you die, you must hear the first three LPs by Wire.
Then, you can die knowing that there is nothing more.
And as for your rationale behind posting the file, no amount of logic, explanation or reason will save you from the RIAA monster when it flashes its teeth at you. Of course, you are completely right, what you are doing can only help Warners sell CDs. But they are not interested in that. They are not interested in the fact that like a radio DJ, you are simply playing a song, in a delayed and piecemeal fashion. They are stupid. That is why they will never release a group like New Order, and it is left to the independent labels to embrace both the new groups, and the new technologies.
I was listening to Blue Monday as I drove home from work tonight and then I read this post and I just felt like I need to write all this down.
(Sorry for the long and preposterous babble)
If you take a liking to New Order, you might like the acoustic version of Bizarre Love Triangle performed by Frente (search the usual spots for it; "usual" meaning Amazon or iTunes, of course ;) ).
And on a tangent, don't forget DarkMateria's "Picard Song" which has a nice riff on this.
Thanks Jason! :)
I agree with you that copyright law needs to be adjusted, and I know you appreciate many of the complexities involved. That said, (for an outrageous example, just to make it personal) I think you'd agree that if someone chose to start selling a book called The Wisdom of Kottke without your permission, and made a million dollars, you'd persue legal action supported by the fine print at the bottom of your layout. Getting ripped off hurts when you're the artist. The fact that you're giving something away (that someone else is selling) doesn't make the issue much different, and free, unlimited distribution can be even more injurious to a product than for-profit illegal trade. Note: people often make the side note about concerts, t-shirts, etc. upselling if music is given away but these are not revenue streams controlled by the record label. In most cases the record label simply buys one thing from the artist: the exclusive right to reproduce their recordings. Also of note is that this is a business relationship that the artist has willingly entered into—they have sold the rights to the music to publishing and distribution companies.
My simple bottom line is this: An owner should have the indisputable right to set the terms that surround the distribution of the creative work, excepting fair use and public domain. As someone who makes their living doing creative work, I cannot imagine it any other way. However well intentioned or even beneficial it may be, New Order (or in this case the licensed owners of the work, Warner Bros) should [and do] have the right to say, "No thanks, we'd prefer to not have the type of publicity and promotion distribution that you think is good for us. We get to decide what we think is good for us, not you." This is how it is with the content on Kottke.org—you control the terms of distribution, and rightly so.
In the end, I fear that all this type of practice ultimately will spawn is more difficulty for artists trying to make a living, more restrictive legislation, and more user-unfriendly rights management technology. That's a lose-lose-lose.
Oh please.
John Darnielle of The Mountain Goats has said: I am totally in favor of tape trading, and file sharing never did anything wrong by me. People got into The Mountain Goats after downloading my stuff. The only people who are afraid of file sharing are the people whose albums are so dull presentation-wise that nobody cares about owning the actual finished product, and the people who have so little connection to their listeners that said listeners have no reason to care whether the artists they like are getting reimbursed for their efforts.'
Indie labels and distributors can't afford the massive PR blitzes the majors use to promote their artists. They frequently give away the catchiest songs on albums (i.e. would-be singles) as mp3s as a way to get listeners like me interested in music. You'd be hard pressed to find a single fan of indie rock who can't tell you they've gotten interested in at least a dozen bands, bought their records and tickets to their shows, because they first downloaded mp3s off of sites like Epitonic, mp3 blogs and filesharing networks. If anything, file sharing is surely in the running for best thing to ever happen to indie labels and their artists.
Thank you for making me feel about 70 years old by calling "Behind The Wheel" early Depeche Mode.
"Willingly" is such a charming word, it's not as if even the luckiest of new bands caught in bidding wars between major labels have the option to retain their rights.
As Courtney Love points out in her marvellous treatise on how labels screw artists over way back in 2000: Record companies stand between artists and their fans. We signed terrible deals with them because they controlled our access to the public. (...) When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.
John
Lia, you're right as well, record labels screw artists. Pirate CD manufacturing plants in Mexico screw artists. The guy selling CDs in Times Square screws artists. People giving away something an artist is trying to sell [arguably] screws artists—but in the end, I'm not debating the business model, my simple stance is it's the legal owner's right to be the entity that determines how promotion is done.
As I said above, I completely agree (with you, Jason, and Courtney) that copyright is in need of very serious reform. I don't think that fact justifies file-sharing or [if I'm an artist or owner] you making the decisions for me. Two wrongs don't make a right.
In the meantime, see file-sharing and Jason's post for what it is: civil disobedience, getting something that has value for free illicitly, and an infringement on the rights of the owner. Again, as a creative professional myself, I ask is my rights be respected, and in turn, I think it only honest for me to respect the rights of others—regardless of whether I like the terms they have set. If I didn't know Jason better, I might contend this whole thread is a stunt to get publicity and attention from mainstream media as the MP3 bloggers did so successfully with their Warner-NY Times dust-up. ;)
I'm not permanently hosting mp3 files on my server. They'll stay on there for a few days and then I'll delete them.
That's an irrelevant point, and shouldn't factor into one's decision on whether to go above and beyond current copyright law.
I'm not charging for the mp3.
But do you make money from your web site? Does your web site help in promoting you as an artist or designer, from which you make money? If so, then you are indirectly making money from posting the MP3 and promoting yourself and popularity.
Because I posted that song, I've got fifty people (so far) discussing New Order and their music, nearly all of it complimentary.
I'm sure that would largely be the case without posting the song and just making the comment. You're high enough profile that this would be the case I'm sure.
Thousands read the post and the ensuing thread yesterday. About 1000 people downloaded the song in a 12-hour period.
So, if New Order is selling that single for $2.00 a pop in stores, then you just cost them $2,000 in one day. Chump change for them for sure, but factor it in if 100 popular blogs and web sites across the planet did the same and received the same traction with the song. And then factor that over a longer period of time. It all adds up.
Perhaps all that interest will spur some purchasing in the future, in the form of CDs or concert tickets.
The keyword here is "perhaps." What right do you have to help promote New Order on the "hope" you might be able to help them sell more albums, concert tickets, or whatnot? Why does New Order not have the right to take such a risk willingly? Just because you think you might be able to help them out with some potential financial risk, no matter how large or small?
According to my Amazon Associates reports, one person has already purchased a 24 Hour Party Party DVD. Not a justification, but something to consider.
Again, would they have bought that DVD from the comment alone? Was the MP3 absolutely required?
Sales of Blue Monday will not be negatively affected by this post. No one who read this post or downloaded the mp3 was, prior to yesterday, waiting for an opportunity like this to find a free copy of Blue Monday rather than purchasing a copy.
You have no way to prove for or against this statement. This is a red herring point of debate.
Besides, Blue Monday is already freely available on mp3...it'll take you about 4 seconds to find hundreds of copies on Kazaa or Usenet.
That does not mean the song is free. That's an incorrect way of thinking about this issue, imho.
My use of New Order's content in this way seems to me to adhere to the spirit of fair use, although it definitely isn't fair use legally. In my opinion, because of the Internet (among other things), copyright law needs to be adjusted for the benefit of society at large *and* for the companies and artists who wish to make money selling music.
I would even say if the copyright laws changed -- as they rightly need to catch up with technology -- this particular example would still not fall into fair use. Let's look at an extreme example.
Say a white power organization did the same thing you just did. They posted the song because the love New Order and they love the name of the band. They post the song on their website and talk about how great the band is and get more people who want to join white power organizations from the community discussion that surrounds it. And it works to help them get 1000 people to download the song and they have 1000 new leads to attempt to recruit.
Should New Order be able to stop that group from using their music for their cause? No money is made by the white power group when they do this, just good old American free speech is generated.
What's the difference between your "fair use" of the song and the white power's organization's "fair use?" When is New Order able to prevent either of you from using the song in basically the same fashion, even though your goals are entirely different? At what point does New Order get the right to say, "stop using what we created for your own purposes."
I'm quite willing to have my mind changed on all of this. I really believe that there is almost no downside
The downside is the slippery slope. When the creator or artist of a creation loses control over their work unwillingly, we all lose. Tom said this already, although not in direct relation to the point I'm trying to make. More legislation might come to muddy the waters even more drastically than it is now, people are already becoming more trained to think they deserve artist work for basically free, and artists might start to make less money to live or have less incentive to create.
People need to stop thinking of the file sharing issue as largely a way to stick it to the record labels, IMHO. There's far larger issues at work on this and the ramifications of various positions need to be thought through in more detail than just thinking people should have access to whatever they want to access to because it's easy in the digital age.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad to see you discover New Order. They are one of my favorite bands. Tom gave me a gift of New Order's Low Life, shrink-wrapped with the original vellum sleeve! A Peter Saville classic that I'm keeping for all time. And my favorite album from the band.
As an artist and designer, I'm sad to see you post an MP3 in this manner further promoting the idea that all this stuff should be freely available without regard to what the creator of the music/writing/photo/design wishes. I think that's dangerous territory.
Civil disobedience is fine. Just fess up to that if that's what you are trying to do. But all those justifications you posted ring false to me.
The real issue is what is the right thing to do in the grand scheme of things regarding copyrights and content. What about copyright law needs to be changed? Just how far does the public's right go when compared to artist's rights? And how can we foster a creative community that can thrive in the future given changes to the copyright laws?
Digital technology has made it easier for people to be lazy with regard to paying for content, especially music and soon to be movies and high-res photography. Books will also follow once they become more accepted as fully digital. This will happen in less than 10 years, mark my words.
Yet, we are creating a dangerous mindset that copying anything digitally isn't illegal or harmful, at least this is the thinking in the general public at large. (Ask around.)
Imagine it this way: Back when folks invented the combustible engine, they couldn't have forseen the enormous problems pollution would be one hundred years later in the form of airplanes and automobiles. Actually, with some imagination and thought on the scale of using combustible engines across the planet, I'm sure they could have, and potentially even planned for how to deal with it. But, at this stage, the automobile and combustible engine have fostered a culture of people that believe driving is a God given right or that we have an economy that relies on it such there is no other way around it when clearly we are heading for disaster less than a century from now.
We have fostered a dependence on oil and gas. We as a society and culture have allowed that too happen and have been lazy in our responsibility to the planet in what harm we are doing.
We didn't think ahead.
While not on the same scale, digital technology is fostering a laziness in people right now in how they think about acquring content. What needs to be done is rigorous thinking about what digital technology means to artists and content creators, and their relationship to the public and their audience.
I'm glad John Darnielle digs file sharing. More power to him. But there's more going on here that needs to be discussed.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.

