Doonesbury

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:5bc421103mh637vrblr66cmn2l7hvoq7be@4ax.com...
> On 27 Feb 2005 09:48:09 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <0sbUd.8117$Ba3.3123@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> dmainc@earthlink.net writes:
> >
> >> Cool - then how can we get people to learn that stealing is theft?
> >
> >Duct-tape ear buds to their head, put in a feeding tube, and make them
> >listen to hip-hop for a week.
>
> We all know that doesn't work... people already listen to hip hop
> 24/7.

Excuse me again there, Al..... SOME people listen to hip-hop 24/7.
Others tend to have a desire to puke when they hear the kicker boxes
thumping 4 lanes over and ten car lengths behind on a crowded freeway.

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Why must you and others always compare P2P to radio and TV???

I'm not. It's a completely different animal, and I recognize that. I
just think that as animals go, TV and radio are gorillas and p2p is a
six-ounce hamster.

My point was that most people get their exposure to new artists through
more conventional media. The chances of being "discovered" via p2p are
so infinitismally small as to make the concept little more than an
interesting social study rather than an economic revolution.



> Right off I can honestly say I can't name 5 artist who benifit from
> P2P as I don't always remember names......but thats not to say they
> don't exist as its in writing and on TV in interviews.

Do I need to point out the irony in that statement, or is it
self-evident? That you know about these artists because you saw an
interview on... oh, never mind...



> A lot of people use music downloading to discover new bands in areas
> of music that they enjoy.

See, I don't believe that. I believe that SOME do, but I doubt "a lot
of people" do.

That's not even the point though. Even if there WERE "a lot" of people
actively searching for new acts, there are so bloody many wanks out
there and so many sources of material that the odds of someone good
being noticed are microscopic.

Then, even if someone IS noticed, the chances of getting enough people
to BUY something in quantities sufficient to pay the rent are so small
that it's a pointless exercise.

THAT'S my point. Sure it's possible to self-promote via p2p, but you
have a better chance of falling out of an airplane than you do of making
a living as a musician that way.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Troy]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Skill and talent are only 2 peices of the puzzle......You also need to be an
inovator and have origionality.No body ever made it because the could play
Hendrix with the same feel and note for note solos.

Hendrix himself made it because he was an inovator and had origionality

Talent exists.People who have talent don't have to work as hard mastering
their abilities as the people with less talent.Itjust comes natural to them.




play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h4n1219uv53pom3p6kv4ol3ta1gnatk7tj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:49:23 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
> <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:
>
> >It seems like the days of Tin Pan Alley and people employed as staff
> >songwriters are behind us. Again, I'm not sure if copyrights should
> >totally be abolished, but I think the current system is a bit
restrictive.
> >
> >I think it's hard to guess whether Berlin would have been a good teacher
> >or not. If he had a skill, it's unfortunate that others could not learn
> >that skill directly from him.
>
> There is a difference between skill and talent. And having a skill in
> music is different from having the skill to teach.
>
> Al
>
> >Cheers,
> >Trevor de Clercq
> >
> >Paul Stamler wrote:
> >> "Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teranews...
> >>
> >>
> >>>I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
> >>>performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
> >>>jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
> >>>think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
> >>>costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>Maybe I'm too much of a socialist or something. I don't know. I'm
> >>>obviously opening myself up to criticism and haven't really 100%
thought
> >>>through these ideas. Maybe I play too much classical music and
> >>>bluegrass to care about copyrights....
> >>
> >>
> >> Aw, c'mon. What do you do about someone like Irving Berlin -- a man who
was
> >> a thoroughly mediocre performer, probably would've been a terrible
teacher,
> >> engineer, whatever. In fact, he seems to have been a man with very few
> >> talents, but the one that he had -- writing pop songs for other people
to
> >> sing -- he had in spades.
> >>
> >> So how should he make his living, without royalties? Do ten hours a day
> >> pushing racks of pants in the garment district? Instead, he wrote songs
for
> >> eight-ten hours a day, and the world's richer for it, asnd he got paid
for
> >> his hard work. "Too much of a socialist", you say? Try this on for
size:
> >> "Never get between a worker and his bread." - U. Utah Phillips
> >>
> >> Peace,
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
>

 

[Troy]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You should refrase that last line to read

"You have a better chance of falling out of an airplane than you do of
making a living as a musician period."





Lorin David Schultz <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote in message
newsKzUd.12009$LN5.548@edtnps90...
> "Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Why must you and others always compare P2P to radio and TV???
>
> I'm not. It's a completely different animal, and I recognize that. I
> just think that as animals go, TV and radio are gorillas and p2p is a
> six-ounce hamster.
>
> My point was that most people get their exposure to new artists through
> more conventional media. The chances of being "discovered" via p2p are
> so infinitismally small as to make the concept little more than an
> interesting social study rather than an economic revolution.
>
>
>
> > Right off I can honestly say I can't name 5 artist who benifit from
> > P2P as I don't always remember names......but thats not to say they
> > don't exist as its in writing and on TV in interviews.
>
> Do I need to point out the irony in that statement, or is it
> self-evident? That you know about these artists because you saw an
> interview on... oh, never mind...
>
>
>
> > A lot of people use music downloading to discover new bands in areas
> > of music that they enjoy.
>
> See, I don't believe that. I believe that SOME do, but I doubt "a lot
> of people" do.
>
> That's not even the point though. Even if there WERE "a lot" of people
> actively searching for new acts, there are so bloody many wanks out
> there and so many sources of material that the odds of someone good
> being noticed are microscopic.
>
> Then, even if someone IS noticed, the chances of getting enough people
> to BUY something in quantities sufficient to pay the rent are so small
> that it's a pointless exercise.
>
> THAT'S my point. Sure it's possible to self-promote via p2p, but you
> have a better chance of falling out of an airplane than you do of making
> a living as a musician that way.
>
> --
> "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
> - Lorin David Schultz
> in the control room
> making even bad news sound good
>
> (Remove spamblock to reply)
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:19:09 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>Unfortunately, as you can see, there are hordes of people who believe
>that it's free *right now* and that's all there is to it.

Well, dude, don't you think that we North Americans *deserve* to
get music for free? It should be just like everything else: we
got here first, it's ours. And if you don't like it, take your
long-hair music back to where you came from.

We *deserve* the best Got-damn computer fostered music on this
planet, and don't you forget it. And we intend to get it.

Chris Hornbeck
"Anarchy only works among those who can control themselves." -ha

 

[Troy]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Could be but do you want "THEM" to be filtering your personal
information?.Do you want "THEM" to have a direct line into your life?.

Laws are different from country to country so until we have world wide web
laws I don't see this happening.Privacy laws still mean something to some
countries.The US is slowly losing the right to privacy.....this is not a
good thing and something to think about.





David Morgan (MAMS) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:RrzUd.62544$uc.13004@trnddc04...
>
> "Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:uqhUd.518251$Xk.277676@pd7tw3no...
>
> > if you had the awnser to the problem you would be a rich man.The problem
is
> > that the internet is such a vast region that it can't be policed.No one
can
> > control what you download upload or share.
>
> The good thing (or perhaps the bad thing due to privacy issues) is that we
are
> getting very near to having the technology to do just that. All we need
is a data
> base fast enough and capable enough to sort and file everything that's
moves
> across the lines. My impression is that they're getting *very* close
right now.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Troy <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>The point I was trying to make is that with the advaces of technology the
>software and hardware apps are making it very easy to digitize media and put
>it online for free downloads
>
>This type of activity can't be policed (as of yet) as the internet is to
>vast a land.

We understand this. The point is that just because it's easy to do doesn't
mean that everyone should do it. I can go out and buy a gun free and clear
and start shooting people. But I don't do it because first I know it would
be wrong, and secondly I know there would be consequences for me. This, in
spite of the fact that I know a lot of people who might need shooting at.

We all understand that the current technology makes it easy for people to
share media. What we don't understand is how this is all going to pan out
in the end.

Because if recorded material DOES become free, there will be little motivation
for people to make it, and therefore the supply will collapse. And if it
does become free, people must not attach much value to it.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1fyUd.11996$LN5.4375@edtnps90> Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca writes:

> - I can't spew the file all over the place, but I can play it on my
> iPod, burn it to a few CDs, and share it with my wife's and kid's
> computers (there *are* limits on distribution, but they're
> *reasonable*).

Sounds reasonable enough to me, until someone cracks the distribution
limitation.

But remember, the Doonesbury strip that started this whole discussion
was all about distributing music over the Internet, and how it would
change the life of WORKING musicians, not how it would change the life
of record companies or consumers of recorded music.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <LJuUd.522149$Xk.106920@pd7tw3no> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:

> Not to be arguementative but I can scan a book and digitize it in minutes
> thanks to new technologies such as word recognition on a printed page and
> high speed auto scanners.

Perhaps a small booklet, but how about a 500 page hard-bound book? I
don't know of a scanner that turns pages, so you'd have to cut the
book apart, stack up the pages, and let 'er rip. What you do next
depends on how much pride you have in your work. I haven't seen a
scanner/text recognition program yet that doesn't make a few mistakes.
You can run it through a spell checker and find some, but it takes a
good visual proofreading to find them all.

Putting a scanned-only work up for distribution is kind of like
putting a poorly processed MP3 music file up for distribution. Plenty
of people do it, and some who download put up with it.

> The point I was trying to make is that with the advaces of technology the
> software and hardware apps are making it very easy to digitize media and put
> it online for free downloads

Don't try this at home, kids. At least not now.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1109561752.371822.299940@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> atlasrecrd@yahoo.com writes:

> I posted that the reason this all came about was record company greed.

Some people think that anyone making a profit is greedy. The reason
wine prices in restaurants is greed. Download that!

> Neither myself or anyone else I've seen here advocates music being
> free. I was simply stating that had they not gotten greedy by not
> lowering CD prices when their manufacturing costs went down, then
> things might not have reached the point they are at.

This is where you're short-sighted. While the cost of replication has
gone down, and studio budgets are being reduced, other costs in
bringing the current product to market have soared. This is why Jimmy
Thudpucker (and others here) say that we need a new model for
distribution.

But counter to your little corner of the culture, not everyone
downloads music at random just to see what a particular song or artist
sounds like. They download what they see on MTV or hear on the radio.
So if the Internet becomes the next generation's radio, it will need
to be better organized so that real people can hear what the producers
of the music want them to hear, and can find that music for purchase
easily. That's part of the new model.

But the "but" is that as long as there are people who are able to get
for free what others are paying for, there will be a certain amount of
loss of profit. Prices have to be adjusted to compensate for that
loss. You don't think that part of the retail price of a pair of jeans
at The Gap doesn't include something to cover loss to shoplifters who
aren't caught? They don't make this loss up by catching a few
shoplifters making them pay a heavy fine (that money doesn't go back
to the retailer) - about all they can do is get their jeans back.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <p775211r7dtv3b4s83g083dg8u3h0hifft@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> >I'm only saying that under the circumstances (being distracted with
> >real work) there's no compelling need to listen to a specific piece of
> >music because you're not really listening to it anyway.
>
> How the hell do you know?

I'm really a brain surgeon. I know how the human brain works. You
can't fully multitask these things. Of course if you're concentrating
on the music while you're writing a report or a contract or a test
procedure, you could always let that slip. Then you might lose your
job and you wouldn't be able to buy music.

So it's all OK.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2cxUd.523238$8l.21881@pd7tw1no> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:

> Yup a book can be digitizes in minutes with technology that has been around
> for a few years now.

And you get sentences like the above. If this is what people are
content with, go for it. It's about time for me to re-read War and
Peace. eMail me a copy, please.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <H5zUd.524618$6l.318201@pd7tw2no> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:

> P2P is not all bad.It promotes the little guy but on the other hand it takes
> from the pockets of the well to do.

Let's test this theory. Stand up and be counted if you've purchased
music from a small artist about who you became aware as a result of a
P2P download.

Artist's name and web site, please.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <MkzUd.523795$8l.145763@pd7tw1no> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:

> Right off I can honestly say I can't name 5 artist who benifit from P2P as I
> don't always remember names......

Do you have a collection of downloaded music? Can you look some up? Or
don't you care enough about the artist to even record his name so that
you can tell someone else to keep an ear out for his music?

Naw, it's probably easier just to send him a music file that you think
is cool and leave it anonymous because you don't remember who the
artist is. What's wrong with this picture?




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <oGzUd.66078$wc.16483@trnddc07> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> Excuse me again there, Al..... SOME people listen to hip-hop 24/7.

He may actually be right about that. Those should be sentenced to a
week of 24/7 opera, or 90's Nashville.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:


> or 90's Nashville.


ewww. Have you no scruples?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>How do you equate 'growing your business' to 'free music'? You can't
grow
>without your income growing, and if the music is free, where is that
money
>coming from? , but I've made a living as a
>musician...for more than 30 years. And so have most of the
>people I work with. I guess we're just lucky.

I may be mistaken but I thought the jest of doonesbury was
that the musicians would not have their careers tied to sales of
albums, radio airplay
and business managers,
becoming Performers of Music,
judged on their performance skills in a live setting.

what was that dan hicks line
"canned music playing on the internet......."

dale.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Sorry dude, and I'm not trying to diss you, but the fact is that unless you
present those group names, I'd guess that not many of us would be able to
name any. And this is a group with national prominence in a number of it's
members.

I'll repeat, there are no national or international groups that got notice
from the internet, who can go to a concert in Boulder, Colorado from
Manchester, England, and fill the house based on internet awareness.

The problem doesn't lie in the ability to get awareness, it resides in the
vastness of the internet itself. There are so many groups, so many
websites, so many products of dubious value, and so many people of no talent
that wish to promote themselves that it's a veritible fact that a person
with talent, good music and good recordings will be missed by a majority of
the public no matter how hard they try.

We're NOT talking about making your $1000 back for a CD run, we're talking
about buzz, about concert attendance, about advertising and awareness.

One can't complain about one aspect of the system and express it as a
condemnation of the entire system. If you want the majors to have better
music, then work to provide it, whether it be yours or someone you know.
But if someone signs on the dotted line, then they've agreed to the
stipulations in the contract, and if they didn't negotiate fully in good
faith, they get what happens to anyone that doesn't negotiate in good faith.

In other words, no matter how you jump or dance, the last drop always seems
to fall in your pants.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http/blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nf6221p9l8pa4q2kg1kj9ggqcnou8aee3u@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:04:43 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> >But what you consider to be parasitic middleman is probably what you'd be
> >willing to pay for in order to get your property heard in multiple
markets
> >with the attendent live shows to supplement your meager earnings while
you
> >maintain your musical aloofness. And with tour support, you may get into
> >markets with bigger venues, tour sound that would be totally incumbent
upon
> >you to provide, radio spots so people know you're in town, etc.
>
> Sure... I'm speaking more of the distribution and record stores.
>
> >There is no such thing as an internet national or international act
unless
> >they had their start with a major. I'd like to believe that I can think
out
> >of the box when necessary, but I have to wonder just how anyone could
> >possibly end up a national act with only internet exposure, although I
did
> >come up with an alternative possibility about two years ago.
>
> Actually there have been acts that gained noteriety on the 'net first,
> then later going on to sell product in the conventional manner.
>
> Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You look at the consequences of 50 years of the pervasive control of the
market by a particular (and perverse) structure and assume that it could
never have been otherwise. The character and nature of the music
business today was molded by the structures of technology and corporate
management of yesterday. The Lieutenant on the Titanic who prided
himself on loading the lifeboats in an orderly fashion and sending them
away half-empty rather than permit any men into them....

The music industry was not very astute. If they had seen coming what
many of us saw coming-- the widespread adoption of the internet-- they
might have realized that making music available for download at a very
reasonable cost and in a format they had some control over would have
been fantastically lucrative. Now, (like the NHL owners, who come to
mind), they demand that we pay for their stupidity and lack of foresight
and greed. They deserve nothing.

That said, the "solution" is actually pretty simple. Mark the CD down
to about $8 or $9, where it should be. (Not sure where that exact
amount should be, but it should be competitive with the hassle and
annoyance of having to download).

But you wouldn't do that if you were incredibly greedy and shortsighted,
would you?

Don't believe me? What is Google selling? What kind of idiot
marketting idea did they adopt? How are they doing now? Amazing, isn't
it. Are they now worth more or less than a record company?

Remember, they started with nothing.

Explain to me again why the government should step in and restrict
technologies and prosecute people just to protect the music industry...
The government did nothing for Google. Poor them.

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
>
>
> That's not even the point though. Even if there WERE "a lot" of people
> actively searching for new acts, there are so bloody many wanks out
> there and so many sources of material that the odds of someone good
> being noticed are microscopic.
>
> Then, even if someone IS noticed, the chances of getting enough people
> to BUY something in quantities sufficient to pay the rent are so small
> that it's a pointless exercise.
>
> THAT'S my point. Sure it's possible to self-promote via p2p, but you
> have a better chance of falling out of an airplane than you do of making
> a living as a musician that way.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You're turning into a troll...

On 28 Feb 2005 10:22:25 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <p775211r7dtv3b4s83g083dg8u3h0hifft@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> >I'm only saying that under the circumstances (being distracted with
>> >real work) there's no compelling need to listen to a specific piece of
>> >music because you're not really listening to it anyway.
>>
>> How the hell do you know?
>
>I'm really a brain surgeon. I know how the human brain works. You
>can't fully multitask these things. Of course if you're concentrating
>on the music while you're writing a report or a contract or a test
>procedure, you could always let that slip. Then you might lose your
>job and you wouldn't be able to buy music.
>
>So it's all OK.