Doonesbury

[Guest]

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

In article <znr1109351826k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com wrote:

> Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
> Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
> Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
> http/www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

That sound effect they put on that page is incredibly annoying.

--
Jedd Haas - Artist
http/www.gallerytungsten.com
http/www.epsno.com

 

[Guest]

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

I think you don't see people who win the lottery go back to working a
day job either, but that doesn't mean it's right. Selfishness and greed
usually cause people to drop out of contributing in a positive way to
society once they don't have to anymore.

I don't understand how our society rewards musicians who perhaps make
one or two musical offerings (i.e. albums) and are able to retire on
these earnings. Are those people really musicians at the end of the
day, anyway? I'm not saying someone who is a musician should be working
a day job (like in a factory), but there should be a strong incentive
for them to teach, thereby giving back to the musical community.
Performing is also a fine way to make a living.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

reddred wrote:
> "Trevor de Clercq"
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however
> meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job.
>
> And the funny thing is, all you guys that think there is no way to make
> money distributing music, whether on CD's or over the internet, are just
> plain wrong.
>
> jb
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I'm not sure what the difference between a musician and a songwriter is,
but I would consider myself to be both. I have a bachelor's degree in
music theory/composition from Cornell and a master's degree in music
technology from NYU. I've worked as a senior technician at Right Track
for a couple years and am now employed as the on-staff technician for
the audio and video studios at the New School. I also have an
Associate's degree in electronics (as a lark, but it was fun to learn
about actual "engineering" as opposed to your average "recording
engineer" who usually doesn't understand what a resistor is, sadly).

I play piano, cello, guitar, mandolin, bass, and sing all pretty well.
I also play a little banjo, violin, drums and pedal steel but only in a
mild sense. I've been producing about an album every other year, all of
which are freely downloadable from my web site (www.midside.com). My
version of "Silent Night" was used as diagetic music in Michael Moore's
"Fahrenheit 9/11". I didn't receive a penny. I don't intend to sue him.

I guess I'm not a full-time "professional" musician right now, but it
wouldn't be that hard to switch over. I've taught guitar lessons off
and on over the years and once had Mel Bay buy my transcription of a Dan
Crary album. As I said in a previous post, my mother, brother,
grandmother, and grandfather all are/were full-time professional
musicians. My father is a full-time artist. All of them teach or have
taught and perform or performed as part of their income. Right now I'm
exploring the recording/technical side of music. For what it's worth, I
plan on applying to PhD programs for composition in the fall.

If I had the server bandwidth to do it, I'd love to put all my music up
in its unmixed multi-track form. I wish albums were available like that
for the public. It would be a great learning tool, like viewing the
score to a symphony. In the back of my mind I think I'd like in the
future (when bandwidth becomes more available), to start an
"open-source" music project where artists can post the multi-track
versions of their albums for people to download.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Ricky Hunt wrote:
> "Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
> news:1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teranews...
>
>>Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright laws.
>
>
> Are you a musician or songwriter (in a professional sense)?
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

And is probably at least 20 times worse, quality-of-music-wise.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <9efv119jsuctn0918kmf7v1ffvid45kd4i@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>
>>Scott, will all due respect, this is example is very far from a
>>typical modern recording.
>
>
> Yeah. A typical modern recording costs 20 times more. But probably
> sells a little better.
>
> --
> 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?)

> Oh, and I suppose you also object to buying a book by Ernest Hemingway
> and having to pay the bookseller full price for that? Since when did
> anybody offer discounts because the writers or artist was dead? Or do
> you think you're going to get an Andy Warhol work for less money
> because he's dead? Grow up.

Yes, totally. That's what I like about the Dover publishing company.
They reissue books in the public domain and charge very little for the
prints (which they probably have to do in pretty small runs anyway
considering the relative obscure nature of their titles). I'm happy to
pay for a good or service, the good in this case being a physical object
like a book (or CD), but I have a problem paying for a "right" (or other
intangible). It's strange that "rights" can be bought and sold, even on
merely a grammatical level. I believe in ownership of property, but
ideas....hmmmm....not sure. To me, a musical composition falls into the
idea category.

And I think not being selfish with ideas is a big part of being humble,
mature, and "grown up".

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

 

[Guest]

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

In article <_6-dnQT6t_j4SoLfRVn-2A@adelphia.com> opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com writes:

> And the funny thing is, all you guys that think there is no way to make
> money distributing music, whether on CD's or over the internet, are just
> plain wrong.

Make some sales, sure. Make a profit, maybe - a few do. Make a living
wage, also maybe but it involves a lot of hard work and a small
handful are successful.

Make a couple of million bucks for a few years? S'not gonna happen.
That requires "the music machine."

--
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 <d9vv1116ksp7luuqjisgo4tk4j9nfkgovg@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> On 25 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <588v11l80hpk2kmaliauas6oveom1m9hhr@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net
> writes:
> >
> >> CDs cost about 60 cents to make
> >
> >Not everyone is like you, recording yourself with equipment that cost
> >you noting,
>
> ??? My equipment was free???
>
> and having a living income so you don't have to work while
> >you're making that 60 cent CD.
>
> I don't quit follow your logic Mike.

I'm just trying to figure out how you make CDs for sixty cents.
Obviously what goes on to them costs you nothing to make. How can you
do that without either free equipment or free studio time?

> FYI, what I live on would be
> starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician
> for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial
> enterprise.

No, not OK. How long do you want to live like that? And do you think
everyone who wants to make music should? I know you have to start
somewhere, but you have to eat, and eventualy you'll have
responsibilities to others than yourself.


--
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 <8pvv111jv5ojef2ptjcdkd5rbr1kac0s77@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently
> trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons,
> or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and
> is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit.

There may not be cash or eagle feathers or goat skins handed over
after a musical perfomance at a tribal gathering, but in nearly all
cultures that have integrated music into the culture, the musicians
have a special standing in the community. Sometimes they're fed,
sometimes they're housed, Sometimes they're even paid. Maybe what we
need is for the government to support the music industry. How'd you
like that?



--
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 <gkvv119h8qunp74nbaabglgds5n6d5gb34@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen
> are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your
> point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and
> stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist?

Because the artist has to spend his time being an artist and doesn't
have time to run a record production and distribution company.


--
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 <7uvv11l8rdi6ppe633pj717agsokbeua74@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> That is one reason. The other reason is that it's no longer
> neccessary to spend very much money to make a pop record.

I think there is. Otherwise why would we be rading all these messages
here from people who complain that even after buying a couple of
thousand dollars worth of gear (not very much money) their records
don't sound like the commercial recordings they hear? The answer is
that those recordings cost a whole lot more to make because they're
made in studios which have been constructed for the purpose, with
equipment that's been selected from a large collection (all of which
has been paid for), the "artist's" music has been supplemented by
other musicians, writers, and arrangers, all of whom are paid a living
wage, the recording and mixing is done by not one artist in his
bedroom but by a team of engineers and producers all of whom are
making a living wage.

Many of these costs can be amortized when you're in the business and
use the same facilities and human resources close to full time, but
not when you're an individual with no established track record.

> But kids mostly don't want to hear that sound anymore anyway. They
> like acts like Moby, who just uses midi and sampling to cut and paste
> stuff together. Same thing with most R & B and Rap music.

So why don't we hear much more of that sort of music produced by
individuals? And why doesn't it sell? It's a good hobby. Now I'm not
tuned in to this culture so maybe there really are individuals making
serious money at home producing such recordings. Educate me. Most of
the home made music that I see is from singer/songwriters (who pretty
much support themselves by touring, supplemented by CD sales).


--
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:

> There may not be cash or eagle feathers or goat skins handed over
> after a musical perfomance at a tribal gathering, but in nearly all
> cultures that have integrated music into the culture, the musicians
> have a special standing in the community. Sometimes they're fed,
> sometimes they're housed, Sometimes they're even paid.



The Mexican bands around northern California (at least) seem to be
living examples of this, thanks to the Mexican community, who seem to
appreciate what they have.

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Feb 2005 11:14:09 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <d9vv1116ksp7luuqjisgo4tk4j9nfkgovg@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >In article <588v11l80hpk2kmaliauas6oveom1m9hhr@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net
>> writes:
>> >
>> >> CDs cost about 60 cents to make
>> >
>> >Not everyone is like you, recording yourself with equipment that cost
>> >you noting,
>>
>> ??? My equipment was free???
>>
>> and having a living income so you don't have to work while
>> >you're making that 60 cent CD.
>>
>> I don't quit follow your logic Mike.
>
>I'm just trying to figure out how you make CDs for sixty cents.
>Obviously what goes on to them costs you nothing to make. How can you
>do that without either free equipment or free studio time?

I was referring to the fact that manufacturing costs are considerably
lower for CDs than they were for vinyl LPs.

>
>> FYI, what I live on would be
>> starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician
>> for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial
>> enterprise.
>
>No, not OK. How long do you want to live like that? And do you think
>everyone who wants to make music should? I know you have to start
>somewhere, but you have to eat, and eventualy you'll have
>responsibilities to others than yourself.

I've lived like this most of my life. I've made some good money here
and there, and have made some modest investments. Most of the times I
did earn decent money, it was not from playing music. And I don't
mind recording being a hobby, it's my choice. I still get paid to
play music in other venues.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <gkvv119h8qunp74nbaabglgds5n6d5gb34@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen
>> are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your
>> point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and
>> stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist?
>
>Because the artist has to spend his time being an artist and doesn't
>have time to run a record production and distribution company.

Like Prince?

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:07:01 -0500, "reddred"
<opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:8pvv111jv5ojef2ptjcdkd5rbr1kac0s77@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:06:09 -0500, "reddred"
>> <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:1109369904.1a047c680ceb604ebc07b305732591fc@teranews...
>> >> Because it's worth spending money on art and music for no other reason
>> >> than to create quality art and music. When did people start making
>> >> music solely because they wanted to make money?
>> >
>> >I think it was in ancient Greece. I know for sure it's been since the
>12th
>> >century or so.
>> >
>> >jb
>>
>> I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently
>> trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons,
>> or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and
>> is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit.
>>
>
>Bullshit. There has always been pop music and the musicians have always had
>to sing for their supper. Just because you don't read about it in Beethoven
>class doesn't mean it wasn't there. Go listen to Bernart de Ventadorn. You
>will find many of the same themes and musical structures that are in the top
>40 today.

My point was, in indigenous music, if people did trade music for
dinner or whatever, it is a far cry from the today's structure where a
small amount of (often marginally talented) entertainers and their
record companies become super-rich thanks to modern marketing
strategies. There was great music for 1000s of years before we had
Sony.

Al

>
>In 'primitive' societies, music was also divided into sacred music ('high
>art') and popular music. In west Africa, the popular musicians would travel
>from town to town and trade their services for food or goods.
>
>These things will never really change. Only occasionally in a society is
>there an upper class wealthy enough to support 'fine art'. But the people's
>demand for music is continuous.

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <8pvv111jv5ojef2ptjcdkd5rbr1kac0s77@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently
>> trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons,
>> or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and
>> is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit.
>
>There may not be cash or eagle feathers or goat skins handed over
>after a musical perfomance at a tribal gathering, but in nearly all
>cultures that have integrated music into the culture, the musicians
>have a special standing in the community. Sometimes they're fed,
>sometimes they're housed, Sometimes they're even paid. Maybe what we
>need is for the government to support the music industry. How'd you
>like that?

OK, now I'm gonna be a communist, is that it? I don't expect anyone
to support me. I just don't care for the current system, & even
artists who have been very successful still complain about their
record companies... why is that? We don't often hear authors complain
about their publishers.

BTW don't governments do that to an extent in Sweden, Canada, etc?
Support the arts, I mean?

Al

 

[Guest]

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

I think most people should live a lot more frugally and modestly than
they do. Does everybody in America have to drive an SUV and own a big
house and have brand new appliances and a huge home theater? When did
this become a right or something that is owed to every citizen?

My mother raised me and my brother by herself through teaching piano and
flute, singing in church on sundays and doing some gigs on the side. We
technically lived below the poverty line. But I don't think we lived in
poverty. We had all of our needs attended to. Not a big house or a
fancy new car, but why do people need those things?

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <d9vv1116ksp7luuqjisgo4tk4j9nfkgovg@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

>>FYI, what I live on would be
>>starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician
>>for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial
>>enterprise.
>
>
> No, not OK. How long do you want to live like that? And do you think
> everyone who wants to make music should? I know you have to start
> somewhere, but you have to eat, and eventualy you'll have
> responsibilities to others than yourself.
>
>
> --
> 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?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:01:49 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>play_on wrote:
>
>> The other reason is that it's no longer
>> neccessary to spend very much money to make a pop record.
>
>Got any idea what Clearemountain or the Alge's get to mix a track? It
>ain't chump change.

Do they mix R & B and rap music? Take a look at the top 40 sometime.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Feb 2005 11:14:11 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <7uvv11l8rdi6ppe633pj717agsokbeua74@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> That is one reason. The other reason is that it's no longer
>> neccessary to spend very much money to make a pop record.
>
>I think there is. Otherwise why would we be rading all these messages
>here from people who complain that even after buying a couple of
>thousand dollars worth of gear (not very much money) their records
>don't sound like the commercial recordings they hear? The answer is
>that those recordings cost a whole lot more to make because they're
>made in studios which have been constructed for the purpose, with
>equipment that's been selected from a large collection (all of which
>has been paid for), the "artist's" music has been supplemented by
>other musicians, writers, and arrangers, all of whom are paid a living
>wage, the recording and mixing is done by not one artist in his
>bedroom but by a team of engineers and producers all of whom are
>making a living wage.

How big do you think a studio has to be to record a hip-hop record?
Do you think they need a grand piano and an orchestra to do that? 48
tracks? Aside from the vocals, a lot stuff isn't even miced anymore,
it's just plugged in direct. Of course there is still some
high-priced engineering, mixing and mastering talent, however many of
these type of recordings are made in fairly modest studios. For every
Nora Jones there are at least dozen Ushers, Eminems, 50 cents etc.
Sure there are still rock groups who need big studios, but they are no
longer a large share of the market. My argument is not that amateurs
can do it, but that making a hit record no longer requires the same
kinf of huge investment that it once did.

>So why don't we hear much more of that sort of music produced by
>individuals? And why doesn't it sell? It's a good hobby. Now I'm not
>tuned in to this culture so maybe there really are individuals making
>serious money at home producing such recordings. Educate me.

Ever heard of the Eurythmics? The cut their first (hit) album on an 8
track tascam at their home. And that was in the 1980s.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:01:45 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>play_on wrote:
>
>> CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you
>> saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?
>
>That's funny. I bought a CD that cost me almost a grand. Had some kind
>of software on it. Was I ripped off?

You tell me...

>The cost of the plastic is irrelevant, yeah? What's the paper worth in a
>Hemingway novel, compared to the words on the paper?

I see your point, however *my* point was that even as the cost of
producing and manufacturing recordings has decreased, the cost has
gone up.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:51:57 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ea8v11tq7i220hk40jrdvbati38lg1ie1j@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:14:08 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
>> <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright
>> >laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or
>> >intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song
>> >or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim
>> >the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so
>> >much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other
>> >recordings or compositions.
>>
>> Absolutely correct. Even the great classical composers ripped off
>> folk melodies with abandon.
>>
>> Al
>
>C'mon Al, even Bethoven was paid for his compositions by the Royal court.

What's your point? Sure Beethoven was paid, as long as he stayed in
favor, but not the peasant that may have originally come up with the
melody he swiped.

Al