Doonesbury

[Guest]

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

On 26 Feb 2005 20:51:25 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <sek1211nmal368el6v0urb5ajd1hqhkuhf@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> I was referring to the fact that manufacturing costs are considerably
>> lower for CDs than they were for vinyl LPs.
>
>That's true, but the production and promotion costs for a modern
>commercial pop CD are higher than any vinyl LP. I'm sure you recognize
>that this is where all the money goes. The manufacturing, even with
>vinyl, is just a small portion of the total cost.
>
>> 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.
>
>Aha! So you agree that musicians need day jobs in order to make a
>decent living? I think that's the whole point.
>Understand that "day job" is a term for steady work regardless of when
>or where it's performed. A day job could be playing in a bar two
>nights a week, playing schools two days a week, and spending a day a
>week divided between the home studio writing, practicing, and
>recording, and writing letters to get more gigs, doing the books, and
>planning for the future.

Yes, I will agree that musicians may need to supplement their income
with other work. That's not to imply I have some solid day job, I
don't. I do business in other areas related to music, that aren't
actually playing music. There have been times where I made great
money from playing, and other times where I've made none. It's good
to be flexible. I don't quite understand what point you feel you've
won. Although I'm kind of spaced out with a cold at the moment so
mabye that's the problem...

Al

 

[Guest]

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

In article <u2l121pbaua21qll22j8lenuvukghcadm1@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

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

Actually yes, and they do that in the United States, too. As do some
private underwriters. The National Endowment for the Arts Folk Arts
program gives honoraria (it used to be $5,000, maybe it's more now) to
folk musicians and artists. My friends Marcy Marxer and Cathy Fink
who produced a Grammy-winning CD of songs about eating healthy have a
grant to tour schools teaching about good nutrition through their
music. And how did they get that grant? By having a good idea and
banging on doors until they found someone to give them money to do it.
The tour wasn't handed to them by a record label.



--
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 26 Feb 2005 20:51:26 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <qlk12190lm8fl9sgskfg1p2k90t4f59lvj@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> >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?
>
>Sure, and his staff.

Which is still a far cry from a major label.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

In article <bdl1211pdsuepg41jpp3fba9n5cr3suv7h@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> How big do you think a studio has to be to record a hip-hop record?

I don't know. I've never recorded one. How many top selling hip-hop
records are made in home studios? Surely if they could be, they would
be.

> 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

Maybe they don't need a piano or orchestra, but they need a whole lot
of samples, and a lot of processing, and people with the skill and
imagination to take a sample of music that we all know and love and
turn it into something that's different and appealing. And they DO use
a lot of tracks. I think that it would be quite possible for someone
to do this on a kitchen table with ProTools, but apparently there are
techniques and tools involved that require the skill of more than just
a vocalist.

> For every
> Nora Jones there are at least dozen Ushers, Eminems, 50 cents etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Those are all top selling pop
artists whose records sell for $13-$16 and probably have about the
same sales and profit margins. Now if you had said that for every
Norah Jones there are at least a dozen Als, I'd believe you. But I've
heard of NJ and heard her music, and I haven't heard of you.

> 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.

Sure, recording budgets are smaller today for just about everything
than they were five years ago. That's why so many large studios are
dropping out of business. But they still manage to spend the same
amount of money or more on a project. I think that what bothers you is
where they put that money. They don't pay the artists more, they don't
pay the engineers more, they pay more for the marketing and packaging
of the artist. But take that away and there'd be nothing to sell. Or
maybe that's your point. I can't disagree there.

> 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.

Yeah, and then they broke up. Didn't Annie Lennox just do music for a
film that's up for an Academy Award?


--
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 26 Feb 2005 20:51:27 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <u2l121pbaua21qll22j8lenuvukghcadm1@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> BTW don't governments do that to an extent in Sweden, Canada, etc?
>> Support the arts, I mean?
>
>Actually yes, and they do that in the United States, too. As do some
>private underwriters. The National Endowment for the Arts Folk Arts
>program gives honoraria (it used to be $5,000, maybe it's more now) to
>folk musicians and artists. My friends Marcy Marxer and Cathy Fink
>who produced a Grammy-winning CD of songs about eating healthy have a
>grant to tour schools teaching about good nutrition through their
>music. And how did they get that grant? By having a good idea and
>banging on doors until they found someone to give them money to do it.
>The tour wasn't handed to them by a record label.

Tours are "handed" to people?

Al

 

[Guest]

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

In article <5ao121hpi5o2u3psmpe83lsq12hbdlgiag@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> Look at the current top 40 singles chart, and tell me how many of them
> required grea acoustics, and orchestra and exeperience players.
> Current pop music trends support the use of midi, sampling and loops.

Don't forget the crack and the bling.


--
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 26 Feb 2005 20:51:28 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <bdl1211pdsuepg41jpp3fba9n5cr3suv7h@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> How big do you think a studio has to be to record a hip-hop record?
>
>I don't know. I've never recorded one. How many top selling hip-hop
>records are made in home studios? Surely if they could be, they would
>be.
>
>> 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
>
>Maybe they don't need a piano or orchestra, but they need a whole lot
>of samples, and a lot of processing, and people with the skill and
>imagination to take a sample of music that we all know and love and
>turn it into something that's different and appealing. And they DO use
>a lot of tracks. I think that it would be quite possible for someone
>to do this on a kitchen table with ProTools, but apparently there are
>techniques and tools involved that require the skill of more than just
>a vocalist.
>
>> For every
>> Nora Jones there are at least dozen Ushers, Eminems, 50 cents etc.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this.

What I mean by this, is that some of the biggest money-makers in pop
music do not require a conventional studio that is set up to record
conventional live instruments, since they don't use any.

Those are all top selling pop
>artists whose records sell for $13-$16 and probably have about the
>same sales and profit margins. Now if you had said that for every
>Norah Jones there are at least a dozen Als, I'd believe you. But I've
>heard of NJ and heard her music, and I haven't heard of you.
>
>> 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.
>
>Sure, recording budgets are smaller today for just about everything
>than they were five years ago. That's why so many large studios are
>dropping out of business. But they still manage to spend the same
>amount of money or more on a project. I think that what bothers you is
>where they put that money. They don't pay the artists more, they don't
>pay the engineers more, they pay more for the marketing and packaging
>of the artist.

That's right. I was talking about the money spent, making the music
and making the recording. Not the money spent making the hit.

>But take that away and there'd be nothing to sell. Or
>maybe that's your point. I can't disagree there.

That is my point, more or less. So in a way, whenever you are buying
a CD, a lot of what you are paying for is the marketing, not the
music. Of course any artist needs some marketing to be sucessful, but
there are a lot of different ways to do that. Unfortunately it's sort
of become the tail wagging the dog.

>> 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.
>
>Yeah, and then they broke up. Didn't Annie Lennox just do music for a
>film that's up for an Academy Award?

Got me...

Al

 

[Guest]

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

In article <o2p1219u97e74ihivccd8jmdrioserm3bm@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> Fine, then put a small tax on computer or on broadband connections.

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

I don't use my computer to download music. Why should I pay a tax on
it for that purpose? Remember all the complaints about the tax on
recording media when people claimed they were using it to record their
own 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?)

On 26 Feb 2005 20:51:29 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <5ao121hpi5o2u3psmpe83lsq12hbdlgiag@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> Look at the current top 40 singles chart, and tell me how many of them
>> required grea acoustics, and orchestra and exeperience players.
>> Current pop music trends support the use of midi, sampling and loops.
>
>Don't forget the crack and the bling.

Let's not go there...

 

[Guest]

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

In article <5ao121hpi5o2u3psmpe83lsq12hbdlgiag@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> I don't think I
> should have to pay for downloading an old song by Aretha or the Carter
> family so I can play it on my computer... when I've already purchased
> it in two formats (in some cases, three formats). IMO I've already
> paid double for this music. It just saves me the time of ripping the
> CDs to download them.

Like you have time to listen at your computer, but you don't have time
to listen in a place where you can play a cassette or CD? I guess you
really don't care that much about the music. Why not just log on to an
Internet radio station? They play lots of good music there, and it's
(at least for the most part) legal. It's what I do. I also have a
radio in the room with my computers, and a cassette deck. And I don't
think it's too much of an imposition to stick a CD in the computer's
drive and play that as opposed to digging through a folder and
clicking on a file.

So how about we put a questionaire on music download sites?

Web site: "Do you already have this song on a CD, cassette or vinyl?"

If you answer yes, then you can download it for free. If you answer
no, you have to pay a dollar.

> What people don't seem to get is that for young people today, the
> internet is just like a big radio, they really don't think of it as
> stealing.

And if they used it like a radio, it wouldn't be stealing. Kids these
days!


--
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 26 Feb 2005 20:51:30 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <o2p1219u97e74ihivccd8jmdrioserm3bm@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> Fine, then put a small tax on computer or on broadband connections.
>
>AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
>
>I don't use my computer to download music.

Yeah, and lots of people don't use blank CDs to copy audio either.
But he still pays a tax on the blanks.

>Why should I pay a tax on
>it for that purpose? Remember all the complaints about the tax on
>recording media when people claimed they were using it to record their
>own music?

Well, maybe you can think of a better way. I'm just making
conversation here, it's not a senate hearing.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Feb 2005 20:51:31 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <5ao121hpi5o2u3psmpe83lsq12hbdlgiag@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> I don't think I
>> should have to pay for downloading an old song by Aretha or the Carter
>> family so I can play it on my computer... when I've already purchased
>> it in two formats (in some cases, three formats). IMO I've already
>> paid double for this music. It just saves me the time of ripping the
>> CDs to download them.
>
>Like you have time to listen at your computer, but you don't have time
>to listen in a place where you can play a cassette or CD?

Because I do a lot of work on my computer, and my hi-fi is in another
room... damn.

I guess you
>really don't care that much about the music. Why not just log on to an
>Internet radio station? They play lots of good music there, and it's
>(at least for the most part) legal. It's what I do.

I do that too, but sometime I want to pick the tunes. What's wrong
with that, when I've already paid for them anyway?

I also have a
>radio in the room with my computers, and a cassette deck. And I don't
>think it's too much of an imposition to stick a CD in the computer's
>drive and play that as opposed to digging through a folder and
>clicking on a file.

Playlists, Mike, playlists. Like I said, who cares, since I have
already bought the music, in some cases 2 or 3 times. It is also
possible to record live streams, did you know that?

>So how about we put a questionaire on music download sites?
>
>Web site: "Do you already have this song on a CD, cassette or vinyl?"

Well, prove I don't. Why am I assumed guilty? I have some songs on
my hd that aren't on my CDs... I admit it. Are you going to turn me
in? Mostly oldtime blues and folk songs that were never properly paid
for in the first place by the record companies. If you want to talk
about ethics, it's not exactly like the music biz has a fine track
record. It's extremely difficult for me to feel their pain. If there
is a new paradigm and perhaps people start to make less money from
royalties, and more from live performance, I don't think that is
neccesarily a terrible thing.

>If you answer yes, then you can download it for free. If you answer
>no, you have to pay a dollar.

Mike you can pick on me all you want, but what is your solution? File
sharing isn't going away no matter how much teeth-gnashing takes
place.

>> What people don't seem to get is that for young people today, the
>> internet is just like a big radio, they really don't think of it as
>> stealing.
>
>And if they used it like a radio, it wouldn't be stealing. Kids these
>days!

OK, let's call it a radio with a cassette recorder attached to it.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:k5o121hrri60369ljtj4jc0fc5arp5r2v4@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:05:44 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Back in the late 60's and early 70's, when FM was just getting hot in genres
> >other than classical, DJs would prompt the audiences that they were about to
> >play entire album sides so that the audience could tape the program. It was
> >quite the little 'movement'.
> >
> >Sure, it was slightly controversial, but recordings of a broadcast would
> >rarely sound as good as the vinyl,
>
> MP3s don't sound as good as CDs either...
>
> Al

What some of these guys are getting at, is that 'technology' will eventually
enable massively high bandwidth, thus near clones of the original.

 

[Guest]

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

"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
news:1109439330.a9b744568c295cf34ffdb53d98d72b70@teranews...
> I guess I don't really care if these top "artists" get compensated in a
> high salary range for being marketing fodder. I just wish the music
> were more freely available, especially in formats other than just the
> 2-track album release. At the end of the day, I'm arguing for more
> music being available in the public domain.
>

I think a nice number is 50 years for copyrights. After that, it should be
public domain.

Patents are a different issue because they very directly affect innovation
and the common good.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1109420391k@trad...
>
> 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 guess I was shifting gears a bit, I was talking about companies and not
individuals. I just think all this stuff about how music is going to be free
is not going to happen.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:5ao121hpi5o2u3psmpe83lsq12hbdlgiag@4ax.com...

> What people don't seem to get is that for young people today, the
> internet is just like a big radio, they really don't think of it as
> stealing.

Education is an important thing. ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
news:1109451940.03f20b0a72478f40361377a81215b2b5@teranews...
> See, the problem is I have trouble believing in "talent". I believe in
> being well-educated/trained and working hard. Some people are innately
> smarter than others, but that just means they learn more quickly.
> Others can learn the same things, it just takes more time. Don't they
> say it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? Maybe the 1% can't be
> taught, but the 99% can.
>

You can get by on either talent or education, that's obvious. But there are
definately some really untalented people out there.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:13:12 -0500, "reddred"
<opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
>news:1109451940.03f20b0a72478f40361377a81215b2b5@teranews...
>> See, the problem is I have trouble believing in "talent". I believe in
>> being well-educated/trained and working hard. Some people are innately
>> smarter than others, but that just means they learn more quickly.
>> Others can learn the same things, it just takes more time. Don't they
>> say it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? Maybe the 1% can't be
>> taught, but the 99% can.
>>
>
>You can get by on either talent or education, that's obvious. But there are
>definately some really untalented people out there.

And some really talented ones, as well. I think it's pretty easy to
tell the difference, although Trevor seems to disagree with me.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news2p1219u97e74ihivccd8jmdrioserm3bm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:39:27 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> >The radio pays royalties and sells advertising so you can be enticed to
> >*purchase* your favorite music.
>
> There are ads all over the internet too.
>
> Al


On binaries groups ? ;-)

 

[john]

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

On 2/26/05 3:05 PM, in article sE4Ud.31195$uc.15033@trnddc01, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>> In my view it is not theft.

You find a wallet full of cash on the sidewalk.
Also inside is the full contact info of the owner.
What you do next defines what you are.



Let's get at something clear.

Taking Something,
that is Clearly and Knowingly Offered for Sale,
Without Paying,
and Without The Owner's Permission
is THEFT.

Next?