Going into this story, I immediately thought of "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing". way to extend that as "upper management is responsible for making sure the left hand knows what the right is doing, and enforcing coordination."
big business? it may not be nice, but at least the objective of money technically acquired aboveboard is straightforward (financial criminals are hard enough to predict, let alone the motives and actions of other types of malcontents)
I figure your skills with old languages, having familiarized you with general programming concepts, should carry over fairly well to new languages, even though there are a lot of changed details. Old knowledge may lie dormant, but hopefully it will come rushing back once triggered.
It seems obvious how this might point the Indian project in the right direction, but will OLPC be able to learn anything form involvement in the ultracheap Indian effort?
If that actually bothers enough people, the market will show that. And, there may be room for both. And if someone doesn't like the economic reality, tough.
I'm not a Broadway/theater person, but I am a concertgoer, so I'm speaking from that experience.
And it's not like this makes it a completely fake act, either.
As noted in my other reply, Zeppelin had an wexcess of scale that seemingly sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. Pink Floyd was wildly experimental, which itself sometimes worked for me and sometimes didn't. Ya just gotta remember when it comes out really well. I made an analogy of that to Monty Python's comedy
I've noticed that even amongst classic-rock fans, everyone has their preference of a particular band or another. That's cool.:)
I'm too young to have seen either live
I like 'em, but I do admit that the super-extended versions could get out of control. However, they seemed to have done a great job with moderate extensions and variations of their other songs.
Zeppelin seems to me a band defined by excess and scale. I figure that sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Some of my Zep bootlegs feel great, others feel meh, but that may be a sound-quality issue. And everybody has bad nights.
I've never listened to music under the influence, concerts or recordings.
People complain about those rendered unemployed by labor-saving technology. Quite literally Luddite. However, if X people are able to find something else to do, then there's economic progress since more and different things are being produced.
X must be greater than the production cost of the labor-saving technology [which itself employs some people] for this math to work, but X doesn't have to encompass the _entire_ group of people who were replaced by the technology.
Yes, this works in the aggregate not on an individual level, and yes, it's not instant.
How to distribute the gains presents another economic challenge, but that shows up with a lot of econ issues.
"Oh good, it sounds different from the album, they must be playing it live, but wait, they could have recorded a secret alternate version to play back from tape for this purpose." Reaches the point of silly speculation, though.
Yeah, those who really like a particular act have seen it multiple times or want to.
People do this with some films they really like, even though those are exactly the same each time [except for Rocky Horror.:P]. Considering that, it's no surprise that a lot of people would go to repeat performances of a live show that has some minor variations between showings. Could there also be some intentional variation built in to encourage this audience? Yes, but it seems like the bulk of the crowd is only going to be willing and able to see it about once anyways.
Even with live albums, people still go to concerts. 100%-live and technologically-accented is a narrower version of a similar divide. Both markets can be captured.
I very much know what "real music" is, and I still like that stuff, thankyouverymuch...and what's this with putting bar bands (or indie musicians in general) on a pedestal?
Some people like pro wrestling even though components of it are faked and even if the fans acknowledge it as such. What’s it to ya?
Does it matter why a show is great or why people think it is?
If technology makes it less “live”, but the customers still like the experience, then so be it. Most think it doesn’t matter, doesn’t hurt much, or might even be an improvement. To those who care, tough shit if your expensive niche is expensive and if your artistic idealism/snobbery doesn’t mesh with actual people in the real world. Economics and/or time should speak for themselves.
The music is an important part of the show, but it’s not the entirety of the show – other parts remain “live” (perhaps those which are harder to computerize and which are the truly essential components of the “live experience”). It’s been a recurring observation of mine that live entertainment has to offer something that “the studio” doesn’t; the show doesn’t have to be _completely_ live.
On the pop-music analogies elsewhere in this thread: Pop concerts tend to be visual productions as well as or instead of the music.
(Thus, the Broadway analogy holds surprisingly well?)
As with any genre, there is variation in quality. Trapt and Nickelback are both rock bands, but so is (insert your band of choice here). I like Lady Gaga [putting flame-retardant suit onNOW], but that doesn’t mean I like the other stuff. In part this is because she often breaks outside of the strict characterization of the genre that the comments complain about. She definitely does sing live and handles her own piano/keyboard; I like pointing out the songs/performances that emphasize this. Her backing instrumentalists at least seem to provide strong accents. (It seems like electronic beats could be hard to completely reproduce live, especially acoustically; that’s just the nature of the genre) She very much fits some characterizations of the genre, such as the nonmusic aspects, especially well.
The best live music I've been to so far was Flogging Molly, but the best show I've seen so far is hers, not that her music is _bad_, especially by the standards of the genre.
And yes, the crowd is itself part of the experience.
I saw a Zep cover band a couple nights ago (how’s that for serious and authentic music, huh?); I noticed a couple of crib sheets on stage but didn’t care because it still rocked.
I know more about Zep than Floyd, so that's what I'll speak on:
I think one of the few things of theirs Zeppelin couldn't really play live was When The Levee Breaks, thanks to its production tactics [Fellow Led Zeppelin IV track The Battle of Evermore was also largely excluded from their concerts, in that case maybe because of Sandy Denny’s vocal part.] A lot of great bands (such as those) included studio experimentation amongst their greatness; some of that stuff logically wouldn't be able to be produced live, though it also logically follows that musicians of that caliber would be better able to translate than most. Were any studio ideas nixed because they couldn't be translated live? Then again, those bands have a lot of other material that could be played; you can't play your whole discography at every show, anyway.
When I spent a lot of time playing Starcraft 1, I liked the single-player mode as much as Battle.net multiplayer.
Single-player campaigns or custom scenarios were a totally different game. And I admit that I was bad enough that I was often challenged enough by the AI, and too rushed by good multiplayer people.
Not to mention the join-and-drop people and the extra-resource maps and assorted other little issues
"America, the most trusted names in news in our country are a couple of comedians. This is scary."
If being funny is necessary to help get people interested in good news, the pragmatist in me approves. I mean, entertainment value is often used to help get people interested in bad news (fight fire with fire?)
BTW, the British seem to have legendarily crappy news sources (such as the Daily Mail), but also some good ones [The Guardian reporting on this WikiLeaks disclosure comes to mind as a particularly salient example]
Different perspective may be the key in addition to general quality.
At a bare minimum, that would be the function of government: to maintain a properly functioning market machine. I figure - take that, anti-government types.
"The ultimate expression of business without government control is the Mafia".
Slashdot Mirror
and accents too...and yes, sex is a universal language. :P
subtitles and dubbing can both be a pain in the ass in their own ways, BTW.
The Yanks and the Brits are divided by a common language
I suppose trade jargon would make it even worse
Going into this story, I immediately thought of "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing".
way to extend that as "upper management is responsible for making sure the left hand knows what the right is doing, and enforcing coordination."
"The invisible hand sometimes gives you the finger"
Alternately, the increased hybrid-car cost could in part be a case of internalizing a negative externality of environmental damage
big business? it may not be nice, but at least the objective of money technically acquired aboveboard is straightforward (financial criminals are hard enough to predict, let alone the motives and actions of other types of malcontents)
I figure your skills with old languages, having familiarized you with general programming concepts, should carry over fairly well to new languages, even though there are a lot of changed details.
Old knowledge may lie dormant, but hopefully it will come rushing back once triggered.
It seems obvious how this might point the Indian project in the right direction, but will OLPC be able to learn anything form involvement in the ultracheap Indian effort?
Joint ventures FTW!
If that actually bothers enough people, the market will show that. And, there may be room for both. And if someone doesn't like the economic reality, tough.
I'm not a Broadway/theater person, but I am a concertgoer, so I'm speaking from that experience.
And it's not like this makes it a completely fake act, either.
As noted in my other reply, Zeppelin had an wexcess of scale that seemingly sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.
Pink Floyd was wildly experimental, which itself sometimes worked for me and sometimes didn't.
Ya just gotta remember when it comes out really well.
I made an analogy of that to Monty Python's comedy
I've noticed that even amongst classic-rock fans, everyone has their preference of a particular band or another. That's cool. :)
I'm too young to have seen either live
I like 'em, but I do admit that the super-extended versions could get out of control. However, they seemed to have done a great job with moderate extensions and variations of their other songs.
Zeppelin seems to me a band defined by excess and scale. I figure that sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.
Some of my Zep bootlegs feel great, others feel meh, but that may be a sound-quality issue.
And everybody has bad nights.
I've never listened to music under the influence, concerts or recordings.
Things like Rocky Horror are admittedly a case where automation wouldn't work as well due to the special nature of the product.
People complain about those rendered unemployed by labor-saving technology. Quite literally Luddite. However, if X people are able to find something else to do, then there's economic progress since more and different things are being produced.
X must be greater than the production cost of the labor-saving technology [which itself employs some people] for this math to work, but X doesn't have to encompass the _entire_ group of people who were replaced by the technology.
Yes, this works in the aggregate not on an individual level, and yes, it's not instant.
How to distribute the gains presents another economic challenge, but that shows up with a lot of econ issues.
"Oh good, it sounds different from the album, they must be playing it live, but wait, they could have recorded a secret alternate version to play back from tape for this purpose." Reaches the point of silly speculation, though.
Yes, a good concert has to add something that the studio recordings don't provide in order for the act to be successful. The question is what and how.
I admit is was extremely frustrating and sad to watch to the decline of some older relatives, Alzheimer's or otherwise.
Yeah, those who really like a particular act have seen it multiple times or want to.
People do this with some films they really like, even though those are exactly the same each time [except for Rocky Horror. :P]. Considering that, it's no surprise that a lot of people would go to repeat performances of a live show that has some minor variations between showings. Could there also be some intentional variation built in to encourage this audience? Yes, but it seems like the bulk of the crowd is only going to be willing and able to see it about once anyways.
Even with live albums, people still go to concerts.
100%-live and technologically-accented is a narrower version of a similar divide.
Both markets can be captured.
I very much know what "real music" is, and I still like that stuff, thankyouverymuch...and what's this with putting bar bands (or indie musicians in general) on a pedestal?
Some people like pro wrestling even though components of it are faked and even if the fans acknowledge it as such. What’s it to ya?
Does it matter why a show is great or why people think it is?
If technology makes it less “live”, but the customers still like the experience, then so be it. Most think it doesn’t matter, doesn’t hurt much, or might even be an improvement. To those who care, tough shit if your expensive niche is expensive and if your artistic idealism/snobbery doesn’t mesh with actual people in the real world. Economics and/or time should speak for themselves.
The music is an important part of the show, but it’s not the entirety of the show – other parts remain “live” (perhaps those which are harder to computerize and which are the truly essential components of the “live experience”). It’s been a recurring observation of mine that live entertainment has to offer something that “the studio” doesn’t; the show doesn’t have to be _completely_ live.
On the pop-music analogies elsewhere in this thread:
Pop concerts tend to be visual productions as well as or instead of the music.
(Thus, the Broadway analogy holds surprisingly well?)
As with any genre, there is variation in quality. Trapt and Nickelback are both rock bands, but so is (insert your band of choice here). I like Lady Gaga [putting flame-retardant suit onNOW], but that doesn’t mean I like the other stuff. In part this is because she often breaks outside of the strict characterization of the genre that the comments complain about. She definitely does sing live and handles her own piano/keyboard; I like pointing out the songs/performances that emphasize this. Her backing instrumentalists at least seem to provide strong accents. (It seems like electronic beats could be hard to completely reproduce live, especially acoustically; that’s just the nature of the genre) She very much fits some characterizations of the genre, such as the nonmusic aspects, especially well.
The best live music I've been to so far was Flogging Molly, but the best show I've seen so far is hers, not that her music is _bad_, especially by the standards of the genre.
And yes, the crowd is itself part of the experience.
I saw a Zep cover band a couple nights ago (how’s that for serious and authentic music, huh?); I noticed a couple of crib sheets on stage but didn’t care because it still rocked.
And you can like both/all categories anyway.
I know more about Zep than Floyd, so that's what I'll speak on:
I think one of the few things of theirs Zeppelin couldn't really play live was When The Levee Breaks, thanks to its production tactics [Fellow Led Zeppelin IV track The Battle of Evermore was also largely excluded from their concerts, in that case maybe because of Sandy Denny’s vocal part.]
A lot of great bands (such as those) included studio experimentation amongst their greatness; some of that stuff logically wouldn't be able to be produced live, though it also logically follows that musicians of that caliber would be better able to translate than most.
Were any studio ideas nixed because they couldn't be translated live? Then again, those bands have a lot of other material that could be played; you can't play your whole discography at every show, anyway.
Also, you could play live as much as you could, and modify or play from tape the most complex irreducible bits, like Queen did for Bohemian Rhapsody.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Rhapsody#Live_performances
Think of all the stuff The Beatles did in the studio long after their concert career ended.
TFA says they tested with an SLR; cameraphones could *really* use this, as the quality is low enough already (at least mine is.)
When I spent a lot of time playing Starcraft 1, I liked the single-player mode as much as Battle.net multiplayer.
Single-player campaigns or custom scenarios were a totally different game.
And I admit that I was bad enough that I was often challenged enough by the AI, and too rushed by good multiplayer people.
Not to mention the join-and-drop people and the extra-resource maps and assorted other little issues
"America, the most trusted names in news in our country are a couple of comedians. This is scary."
If being funny is necessary to help get people interested in good news, the pragmatist in me approves. I mean, entertainment value is often used to help get people interested in bad news (fight fire with fire?)
BTW, the British seem to have legendarily crappy news sources (such as the Daily Mail), but also some good ones [The Guardian reporting on this WikiLeaks disclosure comes to mind as a particularly salient example]
Different perspective may be the key in addition to general quality.
Marginal analysis: already committed to the huge bids [fixed costs], the $20 always has a marginal cost of $1 - at least that's how I think it works
At a bare minimum, that would be the function of government: to maintain a properly functioning market machine.
I figure - take that, anti-government types.
"The ultimate expression of business without government control is the Mafia".