No, it's not. You need permission to use a song on an album. And sometimes you need to pay a fee to use it. Whether the RIAA or ASCAP or whoever goes after someone is up to them. But you can't just use a song that someone else wrote on your album without getting their permission. Fair use doesn't apply here. I know, I've had to ask permission from publishers/artists/copyright owners.
Indeed. I use a MOTU 828 with a variety of mics. The current project I'm working on, we did some sax, and it sounded excellent in an AKGC414EB.
I think a lot of the "expense" is in the mixing. Last couple of sessions I did, we recorded like for 8 hours, and they spent 3 times that in mixing and mastering. The project I'm doing now I'm spending a TON of time mixing....I think that is the major expense you find in doing an album.
Ok, so, then you are in agreement that the RIAA does not deserve to make money off ads? The photographer of course gets money (if the picture is not public domain), that is how it works now.
I just see it like if FORD or Nike are not proposing this. It's the same as them wanting Ad revenue off any searches for their products.
Well, the concept of an RIAA and the actual execution of it seem to be out of sync now. They RIAA should be for the Artists. It should be a mutually benefital arrangement. It isn't. However, in theory, the RIAA should be for making sure the little song writer gets as much credit and profit as the other person. I think they have done this to a good degree.
No, I was trying to make a point that some of their unreleased recordings, which were not done in a huge "studio", sound better than the stuff they finally released on CD. Example would be "My Immortal". There is a great, Piano and voice version which sounds way better than the stuff used on the CD.
As to whether you like the group, thats up to you. I'll admit I like about 4 songs from them.
No no, I mean if you write a song, and some other "artist" gets it and makes a hit of it. Is that fair? Or if they use it in a Remix, and make it a hit, is that fair?
It is a big deal. They already are making money for each video that Yahoo shows. What they want now is a cut of AD REVENUE. This would be like Ford Motors bullying Yahoo for every piece of ad revenue for every search of "Ford Mustang", regardless if they actually BUY anything. Totally not right. They, the RIAA, are selling a product. Music videos, music, CDs, digital music. This does not entitle them to make money off someone elses ads. It's insane.
And if you don't agree, then you need to take down the daily dose of Kool-Aid.
Oh yeah, now that is a great idea. "Go on the internet for information".
How about people put away the TV, and read some books?? Take some classes at a community college or something? How about doing something to educate themselves. You can't believe anything you read today. You need to have and be able to find multiple sources to verify something. And you need to be educated to know how to do that, and how to "read between the lines".
No true at all. There are a ton of small studios around that can and do produce some great sounding music. You can also invest $5K or so in your own equipment and get the sound that you want. People don't have to record to 96Khz+ using Nuemann mics. You can get great results using just Shure stuff. Hell, my favorite stuff from Evanescence was done using average stuff. Their engineered stuff sounds.....engineered, and not as good to me.
So, studio time myth is busted. Marketing though is where the RIAA and Labels could help you....
Well, I think we DO need the RIAA. For example, if you write a hit song, and someone else TAKES it......what happens to you? The RIAA has strict licensing rules for songs. That is a good thing. You can protect your stuff through them.
However, the RIAA is completely failed to grasp the digital music stuff. They should stick to the iTunes type model and offer songs for $0.99 (US). That is generally what everyone wants to pay per song. They should also offer EVERYTHING they have available online. If they want to charge more, then they should offer higher bit rate versions for more.
As for promoting artists, do we really need another ASHLEY SIMPSON? No. Do we need more Americal Bozo artists (Idol)? No.
Why not? Why shouldn't they? Wait, then maybe every little click ad revenue here on Slashdot should go to whatever company is advertising, regardless if someone spends the money on the actual product. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT.
I think the record labels need to get a grip. Their product is music. If someone BUYS music, they should get some profit. If a commerical company uses the music in something (Ad, radio), they should get some profit. If someone uses the music in a remix, they should get some profits. If someone puts it on a Blog or Webpage, and makes money off it, they should get some of the profits.
But to say that if someone types in Madonna, or Backdoor Boys, and they get some of the ad revenue is insane. I suppose FORD motor company would want the same thing. Or Nike, or Coke, or....everyone.
Not all cellphones have Windows Mobile 5.0. Idiot.
"you use M$ music service it will be that much simpler (think: integrated into the operating system)" great. Does it include viruses? Spyware? Going to blue screen on me?
You need to cut back on the doses of Microsoft Kool-Aid.
Microsoft won that by bundling/embedding their browser in the OS. We have since learned, via court cases, that this is illegal.
Will they do that again? Perhaps, but web browsing and internet music downloads are two different beasts. You are downloading music to some sort of portable device and/or a computer. It's the portable device that is dictating what one uses to download music, and the iPod/iTunes combo is the clear leader so far.
It's like Microsoft and Sony with the Xbox vs. PS/2. They can throw a lot of money to make it in a market, but music is a different thing for Microsoft. They can't be mediocre and do it all with software. If it was that simple, they would be ahead now. It's about the portable device, and the design of the device. Not that WMA vs. AAC. iPod vs. ???
1. Has been done. See Napster and REAL. 2. Has been done, mostly. 3. That has been done as well. 4. Again, that has been done. 5. Interesting idea, the wireless car stereo. 6. Haha.....Creative has done this before I believe. And it didn't do so well....
Seems Apple is holding out and still smacking down the competition.
Ah, but the time has passed for that. No one wants anything other than an iPod. Kids don't want other brands, they want an iPod. And why shouldn't they? It works great, and has the best design of any player. It's damn sexy.
I for one am not interested at all in the NON iTunes stores out there. They have more restrictive DRM than Apple does. And who wants to RENT music?
Is that already there? How many people serious drag their computer along to listen to music? Few to none. Besides, you have Napster and other things being bundled with computers, and I see that taking off......NOT!
It's about cellphone and iPods. Not Windows and Computers.
No no, it's like VHS and Beta. Apple is the VHS and Microsoft is Beta. Most everyone has a VHS player (iPod), and Microsoft is trying to get the industry only to produce things in Beta format even though a minority have Beta players (iRiver, Rio, Samsung, etc).
Why should the industry listen to Microsoft? They don't have a share of the portable player (ie: iPod) market. They basically want to push subscription services (which most people seem not to want).
Basically, the industry needs to deal with Apple, not Microsoft. Microsoft is not a player in the game anymore. Microsoft is a a Johnny Come Lately.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems that the world's biggest democracy should run the worlds biggest, free net.
No, it's not. You need permission to use a song on an album. And sometimes you need to pay a fee to use it. Whether the RIAA or ASCAP or whoever goes after someone is up to them. But you can't just use a song that someone else wrote on your album without getting their permission. Fair use doesn't apply here. I know, I've had to ask permission from publishers/artists/copyright owners.
I think a lot of the "expense" is in the mixing. Last couple of sessions I did, we recorded like for 8 hours, and they spent 3 times that in mixing and mastering. The project I'm doing now I'm spending a TON of time mixing....I think that is the major expense you find in doing an album.
I just see it like if FORD or Nike are not proposing this. It's the same as them wanting Ad revenue off any searches for their products.
Um, 1980s called and they want their hairstyle back.
Well, the concept of an RIAA and the actual execution of it seem to be out of sync now. They RIAA should be for the Artists. It should be a mutually benefital arrangement. It isn't. However, in theory, the RIAA should be for making sure the little song writer gets as much credit and profit as the other person. I think they have done this to a good degree.
As to whether you like the group, thats up to you. I'll admit I like about 4 songs from them.
To quote Homer Simpson "A little form column A and a little from column B"
No no, I mean if you write a song, and some other "artist" gets it and makes a hit of it. Is that fair? Or if they use it in a Remix, and make it a hit, is that fair?
Nope, go look for yourself. "In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies.
And if you don't agree, then you need to take down the daily dose of Kool-Aid.
How about people put away the TV, and read some books?? Take some classes at a community college or something? How about doing something to educate themselves. You can't believe anything you read today. You need to have and be able to find multiple sources to verify something. And you need to be educated to know how to do that, and how to "read between the lines".
So, studio time myth is busted. Marketing though is where the RIAA and Labels could help you....
However, the RIAA is completely failed to grasp the digital music stuff. They should stick to the iTunes type model and offer songs for $0.99 (US). That is generally what everyone wants to pay per song. They should also offer EVERYTHING they have available online. If they want to charge more, then they should offer higher bit rate versions for more.
As for promoting artists, do we really need another ASHLEY SIMPSON? No. Do we need more Americal Bozo artists (Idol)? No.
I think the record labels need to get a grip. Their product is music. If someone BUYS music, they should get some profit. If a commerical company uses the music in something (Ad, radio), they should get some profit. If someone uses the music in a remix, they should get some profits. If someone puts it on a Blog or Webpage, and makes money off it, they should get some of the profits.
But to say that if someone types in Madonna, or Backdoor Boys, and they get some of the ad revenue is insane. I suppose FORD motor company would want the same thing. Or Nike, or Coke, or....everyone.
Yeah. I agree. Battlestar Galactica, Rome, Boston Legal, Stargate (SG and Atlantis), House, 24, and MythBusters are the only things my TV is good for.
Damn Mr. Carroll! Give Steve Jobs back his REALITY DISTORTER. That is strickly a device for use by THE STEVE only!
"you use M$ music service it will be that much simpler (think: integrated into the operating system)" great. Does it include viruses? Spyware? Going to blue screen on me?
You need to cut back on the doses of Microsoft Kool-Aid.
Will they do that again? Perhaps, but web browsing and internet music downloads are two different beasts. You are downloading music to some sort of portable device and/or a computer. It's the portable device that is dictating what one uses to download music, and the iPod/iTunes combo is the clear leader so far.
It's like Microsoft and Sony with the Xbox vs. PS/2. They can throw a lot of money to make it in a market, but music is a different thing for Microsoft. They can't be mediocre and do it all with software. If it was that simple, they would be ahead now. It's about the portable device, and the design of the device. Not that WMA vs. AAC. iPod vs. ???
2. Has been done, mostly.
3. That has been done as well.
4. Again, that has been done.
5. Interesting idea, the wireless car stereo.
6. Haha.....Creative has done this before I believe. And it didn't do so well....
Seems Apple is holding out and still smacking down the competition.
I for one am not interested at all in the NON iTunes stores out there. They have more restrictive DRM than Apple does. And who wants to RENT music?
It's about cellphone and iPods. Not Windows and Computers.
Using us to keep their RECORD PROFITS coming is more like it.
No no, it's like VHS and Beta. Apple is the VHS and Microsoft is Beta. Most everyone has a VHS player (iPod), and Microsoft is trying to get the industry only to produce things in Beta format even though a minority have Beta players (iRiver, Rio, Samsung, etc).
Basically, the industry needs to deal with Apple, not Microsoft. Microsoft is not a player in the game anymore. Microsoft is a a Johnny Come Lately.