I'm not really following the whole "crack addict" analogy, but whatever the case, you're correct about the dumbed-down garbage that gets shoveled to the masses, for the most part.
However, that wasn't the point that I was addressing. My point was that up until now, the legitimate, talented artists out there had little choice but to give in to signing horrible contracts that pretty much eventually deprive them of their firstborn in order to have any hope of even moderate success in their craft, due to the fact that the major labels controlled the market so throughly.
With the both the availability of the internet, and the plummeting cost of recording technology coupled with its vastly improved quality, that's changing, though, and that's my point. Artists are starting to be able to circumvent the traditional process and market themselves directly to the people, and cut the traditional label system somewhat out of the process...and *that's* what really has the RIAA crowd scared. This is wholly different than some people trading mp3s that were ripped from a major-label-produced CD.
BTW, I'm an American, and drive quite frequently without listening to music, with no ill effects. I'm not sure what the intent of your comment was, whether it's just another requisite elitist "non-US-resident Slashdot slam on Americans as dumb or ignorant" or whatever, but I'm sure that cars in other countries are equipped with radios/CD players/what-have-you as well, so I don't really see your point here.
I couldn't disagree more. Most of the time, honest musicians are just doing what they can do to eke out a modest living, and the major labels are more than happy to take advantage of their rather desperate economic situations and sign them to insane deals in which there is little if any hope of the musicians making any appreciable living.
Take a look at what passes for a standard recording contract sometime; I think that you will find it very eye-opening.
Now, could musicians refuse to sign these deals? Sure they could, but it's much easier to say that while posting to/. than it is to turn down a deal that might give you a few meager bucks so that you can make rent and eat in the short run, but will end up screwing you back to the stone age in the end. The major labels are fully aware of this, and they know that they have such a stranglehold on the industry that they can keep their little fiefdom/cartel/whatever you want to call it going...and that's why the internet and digital music and copying scares them so much, because the new technologies are allowing artists to explore new avenues of distributing and promoting themselves, avenues which don't involve the major labels and their draconian contracts. Sure, there's the whole issue of IP and theft of existing copyrighted material, but that's just for the short term. The bottom line is that the majors' business model depends on being able to tightly control distribution of an artist's product, and now that the genie's out of the bottle, they are acting in desperation to protect their regime.
Do they honestly care about getting $12K from some college kid? I doubt it. It's not about his money, it's about using intimidation and scare tactics to make an "example" of him so that they can continue their iron-fisted rule.
My suggestion is to download the music, and then contribute directly to the artists, doing and end-run around the 'AAs.
Sure, technically, it's still stealing, there's no denying that, but all you'd really be doing is getting the money to the people who actually deserve it, and not the crooks who are stealing from them in the first place.
If I were an artist on one of these major labels (God forbid), I'd much rather have a fan tell me that he/she downloaded my music illegally and then give me a couple of bucks out of appreciation rather than buy a CD off the rack for $17.99, and I get the nickel or dime or whatever for creating the music, while the record company makes the lion's share.
An indication of how strange times are: I find myself in total agreement with a poster whose nick is "CommieLib"! To be fair, though, although I believe in free trade in principle, the things that are happening now are taking that just a bit too far. I guess that makes me a "right-leaning moderate", whatever that really means. Guess it goes to show you that no system is perfect....
As an Austin resident, gee, I sure would like to know where all these IT jobs that you claim have come here are. All I can seem to find is a bunch of bogus postings from companies that want to appear to be doing better than they really are to pacify their shareholders' fears or recruiters who don't really give a rat's ass because they are looking for the bigger better deal. Meanwhile, the few listings that are posted get on the order of 300 applicants...per hour.
In the meantime, the dumbasses on our oh-so-esteemed city council are busy wasting time voting in a smoking ban for clubs and restaurants, so I'm gonna gonna have twice the fun trying to book a gig in clubs that are shutting down due to the lost revenue.
Welcome to the Big Lie that is Austin. Oh well, I guess it's a good thing that it's a "dry heat" in Phoenix...
No kidding! As far as I'm concerned, he is a far more disgusting person than she will ever be. So what, she's vain and confused; other than that, she's pretty much harmless. On the other hand, do we really need yet another overly self-impressed jerkoff with a loud mouth and a law degree in this world?
Who cares what that makes Rush Limbaugh, et. al.? You're missing the point entirely, and that point is that whoever has a right to speak out about whatever, whenever, and the fact that a large number of people decide on their own, WITHOUT any government coercion, to boycott or otherwise distance themselves from said speaker, is NOT the equivalent of a government-enforced "code of conduct".
And yeah, sure, McCarthy destroyed lives and careers in the most evil of ways. He also wound up getting the colossal beat-down in the end by people who were fed up with his shit. He's lucky he pulled that stuff fifty years ago. These days, he'd probably have been shot.
Do you actually believe that? Put it this way, I disagree vehemently with the viewpoints of both Chomsky and Moore (Biafra, I can't speak to, not being as familiar with his views). I consider them both to be self-important blowhards who are more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to push their one-sided and flawed agendas.
That having been said, I firmly believe that they have every right to have their say. I wouldn't want it any other way. So, how is it, exactly, that they have been prevented from expressing their viewpoints? How do they have any less right to their opinion than the Limbaughs and Hestons of the world? I see no evidence of their having been arrested or threatened with any sort of government-backed legal action which occurred as a direct result of their having publicly stated their views.
Also, since when has it been a crime to have a Mac or Linux box, or to like science fiction, or to be a Muslim? Or to possess things that were made in France?
I think that you're confusing popular opinion and preference with the concept of rights. Just because people may be angry with Michael Moore for his comments, and may boycott him, does not prevent him from being able to say these things.
This reminds me of the big speech that Tim Robbins gave about the "chill wind" or whatever, where he referenced McCarthyism and all that good stuff. Well, guess what, Mr. Robbins, you can say whatever you like, but, sorry, despite all your grandstanding, the fact that people decide that you are an ass for saying your piece does not mean that the SS is at your doorstep.
Re:Indeed - but we can hope for a pendulum effect.
on
Cheap Audio Production
·
· Score: 1
After perusing your oh-so-illustrious post history, I can say with confidence that if you hate our music, we surely must be doing something right.
Good day.
Re:Indeed - but we can hope for a pendulum effect.
on
Cheap Audio Production
·
· Score: 1
Mod parent up! By using a ProTools Digi001 at my house, my band was able to record a pretty decent demo (check it out here if you're interested) for well under $2K. We were able to take the time we needed to experiment with arrangements and parts (and yes, overdubs, it happens in any recording situation), and really get things right.
If we had spent the equivalent amount of money in a studio, we might have gotten 4 or 5 days total production time. We would have had to rush things, so there would be much less time to get good takes, and there would be virtually no time left to mix. I've been down that road before, and I have to say, being in the rare position of knowing more about the subject at hand than most/.ers, ProTools, or something similar, is unquestionably the way to go.
According to the Declaration of Independence, rights are not given by government, but by the "Creator", however you choose to define it. So, your argument is pretty much at odds with the tenets of that document. Fair enough.
Now, in your scenario, who is doing the forcing at gunpoint?
You must have me confused with the original parent poster; I never mentioned anything about taxes. That having been said, yes, taxes are a necessary evil so that the government can stay solvent. Who gets taxed, how much they get taxed, and by what means is another issue altogether. I don't know what "logic" of mine you are referring to; again, I assume that you are talking about the parent poster.
About the land-rights issue: this seems to be a basic point of yours, so I'll bite. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, if I don't have a right to the land I live on, who does?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really following the whole "crack addict" analogy, but whatever the case, you're correct about the dumbed-down garbage that gets shoveled to the masses, for the most part.
However, that wasn't the point that I was addressing. My point was that up until now, the legitimate, talented artists out there had little choice but to give in to signing horrible contracts that pretty much eventually deprive them of their firstborn in order to have any hope of even moderate success in their craft, due to the fact that the major labels controlled the market so throughly.
With the both the availability of the internet, and the plummeting cost of recording technology coupled with its vastly improved quality, that's changing, though, and that's my point. Artists are starting to be able to circumvent the traditional process and market themselves directly to the people, and cut the traditional label system somewhat out of the process...and *that's* what really has the RIAA crowd scared. This is wholly different than some people trading mp3s that were ripped from a major-label-produced CD.
BTW, I'm an American, and drive quite frequently without listening to music, with no ill effects. I'm not sure what the intent of your comment was, whether it's just another requisite elitist "non-US-resident Slashdot slam on Americans as dumb or ignorant" or whatever, but I'm sure that cars in other countries are equipped with radios/CD players/what-have-you as well, so I don't really see your point here.
That may well be a waste of money, but this *definitely* is.
I couldn't disagree more. Most of the time, honest musicians are just doing what they can do to eke out a modest living, and the major labels are more than happy to take advantage of their rather desperate economic situations and sign them to insane deals in which there is little if any hope of the musicians making any appreciable living.
/. than it is to turn down a deal that might give you a few meager bucks so that you can make rent and eat in the short run, but will end up screwing you back to the stone age in the end. The major labels are fully aware of this, and they know that they have such a stranglehold on the industry that they can keep their little fiefdom/cartel/whatever you want to call it going...and that's why the internet and digital music and copying scares them so much, because the new technologies are allowing artists to explore new avenues of distributing and promoting themselves, avenues which don't involve the major labels and their draconian contracts. Sure, there's the whole issue of IP and theft of existing copyrighted material, but that's just for the short term. The bottom line is that the majors' business model depends on being able to tightly control distribution of an artist's product, and now that the genie's out of the bottle, they are acting in desperation to protect their regime.
Take a look at what passes for a standard recording contract sometime; I think that you will find it very eye-opening.
Now, could musicians refuse to sign these deals? Sure they could, but it's much easier to say that while posting to
Do they honestly care about getting $12K from some college kid? I doubt it. It's not about his money, it's about using intimidation and scare tactics to make an "example" of him so that they can continue their iron-fisted rule.
Maybe it's that way in *your* language, but it's not the only way. Zealot.
My suggestion is to download the music, and then contribute directly to the artists, doing and end-run around the 'AAs.
Sure, technically, it's still stealing, there's no denying that, but all you'd really be doing is getting the money to the people who actually deserve it, and not the crooks who are stealing from them in the first place.
If I were an artist on one of these major labels (God forbid), I'd much rather have a fan tell me that he/she downloaded my music illegally and then give me a couple of bucks out of appreciation rather than buy a CD off the rack for $17.99, and I get the nickel or dime or whatever for creating the music, while the record company makes the lion's share.
An indication of how strange times are: I find myself in total agreement with a poster whose nick is "CommieLib"! To be fair, though, although I believe in free trade in principle, the things that are happening now are taking that just a bit too far. I guess that makes me a "right-leaning moderate", whatever that really means. Guess it goes to show you that no system is perfect....
As an Austin resident, gee, I sure would like to know where all these IT jobs that you claim have come here are. All I can seem to find is a bunch of bogus postings from companies that want to appear to be doing better than they really are to pacify their shareholders' fears or recruiters who don't really give a rat's ass because they are looking for the bigger better deal. Meanwhile, the few listings that are posted get on the order of 300 applicants...per hour.
In the meantime, the dumbasses on our oh-so-esteemed city council are busy wasting time voting in a smoking ban for clubs and restaurants, so I'm gonna gonna have twice the fun trying to book a gig in clubs that are shutting down due to the lost revenue.
Welcome to the Big Lie that is Austin. Oh well, I guess it's a good thing that it's a "dry heat" in Phoenix...
</bitchAndRant>
No kidding! As far as I'm concerned, he is a far more disgusting person than she will ever be. So what, she's vain and confused; other than that, she's pretty much harmless. On the other hand, do we really need yet another overly self-impressed jerkoff with a loud mouth and a law degree in this world?
Umm, I'll go with the dumb blonde, thanks.
The article says: Just reach down with both hands and grab your knees...
$695? I think that I'll just go ahead and grab my ankles...
How does Sharp Develop compare in quality and features to VS.NET? I might consider switching IDEs if it works as well or better.
Normally, they are known by the term "frat boys".
Or a BS Detector?
Ha! Limp Bizkit preaching about being phony? The irony amuses me.
"Stupid White Men" is only worth reading if you're interested in the techniques that Michael Moore employs to *severely* distort the truth.
Kinda funny how we never seem to hear the Susan Sarandons of the world complaining about the situation in other parts of the world, isn't it?
That's why I prefer my anti-spam system, known as "Firing Squad". Use it once, and all spam will stop.
I'm assuming that you have documented evidence to back this up....
Who cares what that makes Rush Limbaugh, et. al.? You're missing the point entirely, and that point is that whoever has a right to speak out about whatever, whenever, and the fact that a large number of people decide on their own, WITHOUT any government coercion, to boycott or otherwise distance themselves from said speaker, is NOT the equivalent of a government-enforced "code of conduct".
And yeah, sure, McCarthy destroyed lives and careers in the most evil of ways. He also wound up getting the colossal beat-down in the end by people who were fed up with his shit. He's lucky he pulled that stuff fifty years ago. These days, he'd probably have been shot.
Do you actually believe that? Put it this way, I disagree vehemently with the viewpoints of both Chomsky and Moore (Biafra, I can't speak to, not being as familiar with his views). I consider them both to be self-important blowhards who are more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to push their one-sided and flawed agendas.
That having been said, I firmly believe that they have every right to have their say. I wouldn't want it any other way. So, how is it, exactly, that they have been prevented from expressing their viewpoints? How do they have any less right to their opinion than the Limbaughs and Hestons of the world? I see no evidence of their having been arrested or threatened with any sort of government-backed legal action which occurred as a direct result of their having publicly stated their views.
Also, since when has it been a crime to have a Mac or Linux box, or to like science fiction, or to be a Muslim? Or to possess things that were made in France?
I think that you're confusing popular opinion and preference with the concept of rights. Just because people may be angry with Michael Moore for his comments, and may boycott him, does not prevent him from being able to say these things.
This reminds me of the big speech that Tim Robbins gave about the "chill wind" or whatever, where he referenced McCarthyism and all that good stuff. Well, guess what, Mr. Robbins, you can say whatever you like, but, sorry, despite all your grandstanding, the fact that people decide that you are an ass for saying your piece does not mean that the SS is at your doorstep.
After perusing your oh-so-illustrious post history, I can say with confidence that if you hate our music, we surely must be doing something right.
Good day.
Mod parent up! By using a ProTools Digi001 at my house, my band was able to record a pretty decent demo (check it out here if you're interested) for well under $2K. We were able to take the time we needed to experiment with arrangements and parts (and yes, overdubs, it happens in any recording situation), and really get things right.
/.ers, ProTools, or something similar, is unquestionably the way to go.
If we had spent the equivalent amount of money in a studio, we might have gotten 4 or 5 days total production time. We would have had to rush things, so there would be much less time to get good takes, and there would be virtually no time left to mix. I've been down that road before, and I have to say, being in the rare position of knowing more about the subject at hand than most
Well, there was that trivial little thing known as an atomic bomb....
Give 'em a shitload of amphetamines 'n' coffee.
According to the Declaration of Independence, rights are not given by government, but by the "Creator", however you choose to define it. So, your argument is pretty much at odds with the tenets of that document. Fair enough.
Now, in your scenario, who is doing the forcing at gunpoint?
You must have me confused with the original parent poster; I never mentioned anything about taxes. That having been said, yes, taxes are a necessary evil so that the government can stay solvent. Who gets taxed, how much they get taxed, and by what means is another issue altogether. I don't know what "logic" of mine you are referring to; again, I assume that you are talking about the parent poster.
About the land-rights issue: this seems to be a basic point of yours, so I'll bite. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, if I don't have a right to the land I live on, who does?
Awaiting your answer....