Pretty interface, impressive spiel. May try it for a little while. But:
It can't find my band. Searching for the band name gave 13 pages of zilch. Searching for our EP gave 0 pages of zilch. We may be small and unimportant but we have our own web page, which is redirected to from our own domain name (*bandname*.net), as well as myspace, facebook, bandcamp and jamendo. Google and Bing spray those across the first few pages, including the top two hits on each.
This result is somewhat contrary to their 'philosophy':-(
Of course, that would be a good motivation for everyone to claim they are journalists, thereby screwing up the legal system because you can't execute a journalist for murder as they'll claim it a political execution. Which makes it unfair to apply the death-penalty to non-journalists, obvious dual standards etc. etc. If we're being hypothetical/optimistic, could we not simplify things and just say you can't have the death penalty? I could go with that...
I was that kid! I've treated computers with respect ever since. rm -i etc. It's a bit like watching your kids play with fire so they learn about pain 'safely'. Then they go away and burn your work documents behind your back. Huh. Not sure where that analogy is going now. Yes, I still feel guilty.
It's a nice idea, and I'm with you on whispering in films (The Matrix is the offender that immediately comes to mind, but I'm sure there are worse.) However, I think you're under-estimating the job of a mixing engineer. Even if you were provided with stems (so all the guitars are pre-mixed, all the drums are pre-mixed, all fading and variation is already programmed etc.), mixing the elements of a track is a real jigsaw puzzle. Engineers have to use panning and equalisation to stop parts fighting over certain frequency ranges. Vocals vs guitars vs snare is a real problem. It may be possible one day for software to automatically produce a mix that is acceptable, or even "perfect", but it's far from trivial. I don't think the "best way" can ever involve taking skilled people out of the final mix. To make things worse, there is another step after mixing called "mastering" which is where final processing is applied to even out the volumes and frequencies across a record, and bring it up to (ever-increasing) commercial levels. So your device needs to then do the work of some of the highest-paid people in the industry. Automatically.
I'd settle for a format that included a selection of mixes which you could easily choose between. Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to say that on/.), but surely this is within the capability of the DVD format already? I'm currently facing this problem with an EP - I'd love to have a 'living room version' and an 'ipod version' but it seems too much to expect people to manage them. Dynamic range is a great tool, it makes things so much more engaging and powerful - but places extra requirements on the listener.
Part of me says: "let the ipod include a compressor/limiter that smashes the dynamics out of the music, then we can mix and master however we like!" This would be resigning us to inferior sound on portable layers. It would however lead to the interesting situation of people buying different makes of mp3 player depending on their taste in compression/eq - but what they might call "sound quality". This would be a FAR more noticeable difference than the type of data compression used.
This elaboration is useful, but still doesn't recognise the fundamental flaw in the argument. The idea that we have a choice between "forwards" and "backwards" on each issue doesn't recognise that there is more than one direction on some issues.
For example, in the UK we currently have a government that is stripping away individual rights as quickly as it can. "Forwards" would imply continuing with this process, "slowing/stopping" would imply not putting through any more anti-libertarian legislation. "Backwards" would imply repealing some of the worst offenders. Sounds good, right?
But this model doesn't acknowledge alternative paths such as defining what rights we can expect more clearly with a "Bill of Rights*" of some sort, or continuing but with a focus on hurting political activists, or continuing with a focus on curtailing our electronic freedoms. Or the burden of proof could be lowered but penalties lightened. Or some of the newer law could be given harsher penalties. Or you could try to ban something crazy like swearing in the presence of a person whose age is an integer multiple of 5. None of these movements would be considered "forwards" in the sense of society advancing- none of these would be considered "progressive" or "backwards" steps for government. They aren't all predictable on the basis of past movement. They're just steps.
*We do have something called the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't do what you think it does. Well, not a lot of it, anyway...
I largely agree. This expectation that top musicians will be multi-millionaires is unnecessary and absurd. It's really sad to see people on "reality" shows who believe that if they can just show their talent they will be made for life. Even worse if they are actually talented.
There is one sticking point however, which keeps us with the modern industry for now: production. We've developed an ear for expensive, skilled production. This has had unfortunate side effects such as the loudness war, the current generation's obsession with heavy compression, "I HAS AN AUTOTUNE" and more. But it has also made some ideas far more powerful. Would "Dark Side of the Moon" be as beautiful and immersive if it was recorded on a 4-track in a garage? I won't deny Michael Jackson's genius, but I think having Quincy Jones on side was a big help. Ditto the Beatles and George Martin. When you listen to a recorded work you are getting a lot of enjoyment from the hard work of producers, session players, mixing and mastering engineers. It's possible to do it without them, in fact it's easier and cheaper than ever, but many artists can't handle the technical side. One role the industry has played is to put together really talented teams that will complement each other. Do they deserve a huge cut for this? Maybe not. Are producers and mastering engineers overpaid? Some of them are (IMO, YMMV, IANAL, etc.) Does that mean the band deserves your money and they don't?
The interesting bit is that there does seem to be increased awareness of the artist getting screwed. This is partly raised whenever another high-profile 20th-century musician dies in poverty, and partly by successful bands like Radiohead and NIN conspicuously ridding themselves of "the system" at the soonest opportunity. I would love it if a label gave us a breakdown of where the money went from an album sale. Maybe a few more people would buy Lily Allen's records if they knew she would actually see some of their money? Could get embarrassing for some, of course: "All the royalties from this copy of Bittersweet Symphony will be paid to the Rolling Stones!"
You're quite right that there is a plentiful supply of good music. It may well be possible without full-time artists. If your dream is "enough good music for everyone" then we could be on track. I'm coming from a mindset where I believe that great music has a right to exist, and I am saddened by the idea of potential great music that is never created or never heard. Interesting parallel to the abortion debate, but let's not go there... I'm sure there is a lifetime's supply of great gigs in the US if you happen to live near some popular venues or good transport links.
BTW, if you make good music and its not available through the large chains... I'll buy it
You've got me confused now. Do you believe that you should buy recorded music or not? I understand both positions (and have problems with both, too!)
The smaller bands will make more money from gigs and merchandise from the fans that actually support them. The local bands will get more notice and the record industry will become a small advertising house.
What is a "local band" when people discover their music through the internet?
The internet equivalent to a local band is a band that is big on whichever sources you use, i.e. myspace, Jamendo etc. It's the bands that your friends have found and link you to. For practical purposes that's a huge difference. Thanks to the internet, I've discovered bands that I love, who will NEVER EVER tour the UK. Why? Firstly because they may be playing a relatively niche genre of music, and would not be able to pull in enough people to make it worthwhile, even if they are excellent in that niche. Secondly because being a "part time hobby" band is pretty incompatible with touring.
Music will become what it should be for most - a part time hobby. Lets also be honest here, it does not matter how little you people artists... music will ALWAYS be made (and people will always play football).
You want to see bands live, and you're happy for all musicians to be part-time? Ok, say I blow a couple of weeks' holiday to tour... I'm not going to be touring anywhere near you, am I?
I write/record/rehearse/perform in my spare time. I know I would be able to write far more, far better music if I was dedicated to it full-time. I have the utmost respect for those willing to make that leap, because it's quite a gamble and a sacrifice they are making, especially in this age. Is that good for music? Do you think a band like Radiohead could exist if they weren't 100% dedicated to it? You risk advocating quantity over quality.
Thank you! I was starting to worry that nobody appreciated this.
I can't speak for all genres, but for alternative and progressive rock: The whole is usually greater than the sum of its parts. Some albums are indeed just a collection of similar songs and are unsatisfying, but when it's done right an album can express so much more than a single song. Dark Side of the Moon anyone? When you listen to an album or a live show, somebody has carefully arranged a sequence of emotions for you to experience. I blame "shuffle" and radio DJs: we have a high tolerance for badly-arranged sequences of tracks.
Even when the songs don't tell a specific story, the way they interact is important. For example, my band was working on a demo: The first track of the demo uses vocal distortion to symbolise authority and oppression - harsh, inescapable commands from a PA system.
The third track deals with a character who sets events into motion and watches them spiral into a revolution. Our producer wanted to use vocal distortion at one point because it 'sounds great here'. We overruled him on the grounds that it contradicts the first track - this character is NOT in authority, and should not sound like the character who was.
It's a silly little artistic point, but when you listen to a body of work that has been thought through carefully it is a very wholesome experience, quite independent of how 'good' the songs are.
actually, fans do support their artist. "154,449 people had downloaded NiggyTardust. Of that number, 28,322 people chose to pay the asked price of $5 USD" from wikipedia. i would personally be happy to pay $5 to download an entire album, especially in flac format, as it was in this case. but this is rarely an option as the record labels are the equivalent to your 'rich guy'
You could definitely argue that Trent Reznor acted as a patron for this record. He's a wealthy, talented and influential music industry veteran who produced most it, wrote some of the music and used his own name and fanbase to promote it. And he did it because he believed in it artistically, not commercially. Surely that counts?
The GP has hit the nail on the head: digital music is potentially a profit-free zone once you get past the first sale. It seems only a minority place any value on it. If people want to make money out of recorded music you can't rely on the MP3 consumers. Club DJs still like their vinyl, film soundtracks still have to pay royalties, rock fans still enjoy live music... And there will be some wonderful wonderful music that doesn't fit in such a box and will never be financially rewarded.
The only way out of this is a major attitude shift, and that would require agreement on what we actually want. Enjoy the free music, and don't get too attached to expensive production.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty interface, impressive spiel. May try it for a little while. But:
It can't find my band. Searching for the band name gave 13 pages of zilch. Searching for our EP gave 0 pages of zilch. We may be small and unimportant but we have our own web page, which is redirected to from our own domain name (*bandname*.net), as well as myspace, facebook, bandcamp and jamendo. Google and Bing spray those across the first few pages, including the top two hits on each.
This result is somewhat contrary to their 'philosophy' :-(
Of course, that would be a good motivation for everyone to claim they are journalists, thereby screwing up the legal system because you can't execute a journalist for murder as they'll claim it a political execution. Which makes it unfair to apply the death-penalty to non-journalists, obvious dual standards etc. etc. If we're being hypothetical/optimistic, could we not simplify things and just say you can't have the death penalty? I could go with that...
I was that kid! I've treated computers with respect ever since. rm -i etc. It's a bit like watching your kids play with fire so they learn about pain 'safely'. Then they go away and burn your work documents behind your back. Huh. Not sure where that analogy is going now. Yes, I still feel guilty.
It's a nice idea, and I'm with you on whispering in films (The Matrix is the offender that immediately comes to mind, but I'm sure there are worse.) However, I think you're under-estimating the job of a mixing engineer. Even if you were provided with stems (so all the guitars are pre-mixed, all the drums are pre-mixed, all fading and variation is already programmed etc.), mixing the elements of a track is a real jigsaw puzzle. Engineers have to use panning and equalisation to stop parts fighting over certain frequency ranges. Vocals vs guitars vs snare is a real problem. It may be possible one day for software to automatically produce a mix that is acceptable, or even "perfect", but it's far from trivial. I don't think the "best way" can ever involve taking skilled people out of the final mix. To make things worse, there is another step after mixing called "mastering" which is where final processing is applied to even out the volumes and frequencies across a record, and bring it up to (ever-increasing) commercial levels. So your device needs to then do the work of some of the highest-paid people in the industry. Automatically.
I'd settle for a format that included a selection of mixes which you could easily choose between. Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to say that on /.), but surely this is within the capability of the DVD format already? I'm currently facing this problem with an EP - I'd love to have a 'living room version' and an 'ipod version' but it seems too much to expect people to manage them. Dynamic range is a great tool, it makes things so much more engaging and powerful - but places extra requirements on the listener.
Part of me says: "let the ipod include a compressor/limiter that smashes the dynamics out of the music, then we can mix and master however we like!" This would be resigning us to inferior sound on portable layers. It would however lead to the interesting situation of people buying different makes of mp3 player depending on their taste in compression/eq - but what they might call "sound quality". This would be a FAR more noticeable difference than the type of data compression used.
This elaboration is useful, but still doesn't recognise the fundamental flaw in the argument. The idea that we have a choice between "forwards" and "backwards" on each issue doesn't recognise that there is more than one direction on some issues.
For example, in the UK we currently have a government that is stripping away individual rights as quickly as it can. "Forwards" would imply continuing with this process, "slowing/stopping" would imply not putting through any more anti-libertarian legislation. "Backwards" would imply repealing some of the worst offenders. Sounds good, right?
But this model doesn't acknowledge alternative paths such as defining what rights we can expect more clearly with a "Bill of Rights*" of some sort, or continuing but with a focus on hurting political activists, or continuing with a focus on curtailing our electronic freedoms. Or the burden of proof could be lowered but penalties lightened. Or some of the newer law could be given harsher penalties. Or you could try to ban something crazy like swearing in the presence of a person whose age is an integer multiple of 5. None of these movements would be considered "forwards" in the sense of society advancing- none of these would be considered "progressive" or "backwards" steps for government. They aren't all predictable on the basis of past movement. They're just steps.
*We do have something called the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't do what you think it does. Well, not a lot of it, anyway...
there's no "objectivity" in that article
Whoosh!
I guess this is what happens when a tongue-in-cheek article is featured on Slashdot. Best avoided. Next up: How accurate are Facebook quizzes?
I largely agree. This expectation that top musicians will be multi-millionaires is unnecessary and absurd. It's really sad to see people on "reality" shows who believe that if they can just show their talent they will be made for life. Even worse if they are actually talented.
There is one sticking point however, which keeps us with the modern industry for now: production. We've developed an ear for expensive, skilled production. This has had unfortunate side effects such as the loudness war, the current generation's obsession with heavy compression, "I HAS AN AUTOTUNE" and more. But it has also made some ideas far more powerful. Would "Dark Side of the Moon" be as beautiful and immersive if it was recorded on a 4-track in a garage? I won't deny Michael Jackson's genius, but I think having Quincy Jones on side was a big help. Ditto the Beatles and George Martin. When you listen to a recorded work you are getting a lot of enjoyment from the hard work of producers, session players, mixing and mastering engineers. It's possible to do it without them, in fact it's easier and cheaper than ever, but many artists can't handle the technical side. One role the industry has played is to put together really talented teams that will complement each other. Do they deserve a huge cut for this? Maybe not. Are producers and mastering engineers overpaid? Some of them are (IMO, YMMV, IANAL, etc.) Does that mean the band deserves your money and they don't?
The interesting bit is that there does seem to be increased awareness of the artist getting screwed. This is partly raised whenever another high-profile 20th-century musician dies in poverty, and partly by successful bands like Radiohead and NIN conspicuously ridding themselves of "the system" at the soonest opportunity. I would love it if a label gave us a breakdown of where the money went from an album sale. Maybe a few more people would buy Lily Allen's records if they knew she would actually see some of their money? Could get embarrassing for some, of course: "All the royalties from this copy of Bittersweet Symphony will be paid to the Rolling Stones!"
You're quite right that there is a plentiful supply of good music. It may well be possible without full-time artists. If your dream is "enough good music for everyone" then we could be on track. I'm coming from a mindset where I believe that great music has a right to exist, and I am saddened by the idea of potential great music that is never created or never heard. Interesting parallel to the abortion debate, but let's not go there... I'm sure there is a lifetime's supply of great gigs in the US if you happen to live near some popular venues or good transport links.
BTW, if you make good music and its not available through the large chains... I'll buy it
You've got me confused now. Do you believe that you should buy recorded music or not? I understand both positions (and have problems with both, too!)
The smaller bands will make more money from gigs and merchandise from the fans that actually support them. The local bands will get more notice and the record industry will become a small advertising house.
What is a "local band" when people discover their music through the internet?
The internet equivalent to a local band is a band that is big on whichever sources you use, i.e. myspace, Jamendo etc. It's the bands that your friends have found and link you to. For practical purposes that's a huge difference. Thanks to the internet, I've discovered bands that I love, who will NEVER EVER tour the UK. Why? Firstly because they may be playing a relatively niche genre of music, and would not be able to pull in enough people to make it worthwhile, even if they are excellent in that niche. Secondly because being a "part time hobby" band is pretty incompatible with touring.
Music will become what it should be for most - a part time hobby. Lets also be honest here, it does not matter how little you people artists... music will ALWAYS be made (and people will always play football).
You want to see bands live, and you're happy for all musicians to be part-time? Ok, say I blow a couple of weeks' holiday to tour... I'm not going to be touring anywhere near you, am I?
I write/record/rehearse/perform in my spare time. I know I would be able to write far more, far better music if I was dedicated to it full-time. I have the utmost respect for those willing to make that leap, because it's quite a gamble and a sacrifice they are making, especially in this age. Is that good for music? Do you think a band like Radiohead could exist if they weren't 100% dedicated to it? You risk advocating quantity over quality.
Thank you! I was starting to worry that nobody appreciated this.
I can't speak for all genres, but for alternative and progressive rock:
The whole is usually greater than the sum of its parts. Some albums are indeed just a collection of similar songs and are unsatisfying, but when it's done right an album can express so much more than a single song. Dark Side of the Moon anyone? When you listen to an album or a live show, somebody has carefully arranged a sequence of emotions for you to experience. I blame "shuffle" and radio DJs: we have a high tolerance for badly-arranged sequences of tracks.
Even when the songs don't tell a specific story, the way they interact is important. For example, my band was working on a demo:
The first track of the demo uses vocal distortion to symbolise authority and oppression - harsh, inescapable commands from a PA system.
The third track deals with a character who sets events into motion and watches them spiral into a revolution. Our producer wanted to use vocal distortion at one point because it 'sounds great here'. We overruled him on the grounds that it contradicts the first track - this character is NOT in authority, and should not sound like the character who was.
It's a silly little artistic point, but when you listen to a body of work that has been thought through carefully it is a very wholesome experience, quite independent of how 'good' the songs are.
actually, fans do support their artist. "154,449 people had downloaded NiggyTardust. Of that number, 28,322 people chose to pay the asked price of $5 USD" from wikipedia. i would personally be happy to pay $5 to download an entire album, especially in flac format, as it was in this case. but this is rarely an option as the record labels are the equivalent to your 'rich guy'
You could definitely argue that Trent Reznor acted as a patron for this record. He's a wealthy, talented and influential music industry veteran who produced most it, wrote some of the music and used his own name and fanbase to promote it. And he did it because he believed in it artistically, not commercially. Surely that counts?
The GP has hit the nail on the head: digital music is potentially a profit-free zone once you get past the first sale. It seems only a minority place any value on it. If people want to make money out of recorded music you can't rely on the MP3 consumers. Club DJs still like their vinyl, film soundtracks still have to pay royalties, rock fans still enjoy live music... And there will be some wonderful wonderful music that doesn't fit in such a box and will never be financially rewarded.
The only way out of this is a major attitude shift, and that would require agreement on what we actually want. Enjoy the free music, and don't get too attached to expensive production.