2. Drive for an hour and then pay for parking/drive around to find parking.
3. Arrive there 8PM and wait outside in a line for 0.5-1 hour (the establishment that you paid over $50 in tickets won't let you use the restroom because nobody is allowed inside until the band is ready).
4. Get inside. Wait indefinite time (from 1-1.5 hours) until the opening band starts.
5. After opening band finishes, wait another 1-1.5 hours for the band you paid tickets to start.
6. Show finishes.
You start around 6PM and you are done at 1-2AM. Eight hours to listen to a 1.5 hour set from the band you're supporting. Meanwhile, all this empty time you end up buying junk food and alcohol from the establishment.
I hate going to live shows because of this reason - it's a time sink. Why don't the musicians start their shows on time and print the time each band will be starting on the tickets so I arrive and enjoy the show and leave.
This seems a little overstated to me -- most of the places I go to see a show open their doors when they say, most openers aren't *that* late and most gaps between acts aren't *that* long, in my experience -- but tweaking the details doesn't change your overall point, and there's a lot of truth in your post. I don't go to shows as much as I used to, despite how much I want to because I know that's how acts make their money; I've got to go to work in the morning and I just can't get away with it like I used to.
If someone expects to make millions playing music, then they are ignorant and ought to select a different career. You post strongly implies that they should somehow be able to - hence cpu's reply.
Except it doesn't imply that at all -- the difference being the difference between making a statement about an individual and the world at large. I tried to clarify that in the reply to the post immediately preceding yours.
I wish there was some way to reply to several posts in a tree with one reply, so one didn't have to choose between saying the same thing a zillion times, or only replying to one time someone said it and leaving others' questions/comments/ripostes/whatever unacknowledged. Blah.
2. In no way did I assert that anyone deserves to make money at something simply because they want to do it. How you got that out of my post, I'll never know.
You said "The problem is that your statement that "an artist can make it on their own" is, for the most part, not true. Never mind millions -- almost no artists are making a basic living selling music anymore." To which I and my GP say "So what?" No one is paid to do what they love just because they love it; they're paid to produce a product that has demand. If your friends aren't making any money, then there's either too much supply or not enough demand.
I do think it's a problem that almost no artists are making a simple living selling music anymore; but it doesn't logically follow that I think anyone should expect to make money selling music.
If it's still not clear what I'm actually trying to say, let me rephrase it by making a similar statement: I don't think anyone should expect to grow up and become a doctor, but I think it would be a very bad thing if nobody grew up and became a doctor.
but anyone that really expects to make a living at it based on their desire to do so is ignoring reality for the sake of wishful thinking.
But again, my comment a few parents up wasn't that anyone expects to make a living at it; so I don't know why this comment keeps getting made. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said that.
Let me put what I am saying another way: I have no expectation that any specific individual artist should be able to make a living making music. Long before the internet era, I'd seen tons of people with tons of musical talent and ability and devotion get exactly nowhere; so I'm not under any illusions that anyone that decides to make music professionally should have any expectation of making a living at it. But I do think that it would be a good thing if somebody, somewhere (other than, of course, the major labels' American Idol-ish diva of the month) was able to make a living at it. For me, what sucks isn't that John Doe or Jane Schmoe don't make a living at music; it's that seemingly nobody does anymore.
A year ago or so, I had a conversation with the lead guitarist for one of the really popular bands out of Seattle in the 90s. It didn't surprise me at all when he told me that he really doesn't make any money at music anymore; it's been a long time since their peak in popularity. What caught my attention, though, was his emphatic statement that nobody else he knows makes money at music these days, either.
That artists made any money from recordings was never really true, except for a few really big acts. Witness Roger McGuinn of the Byrds (testimony before the house judiciary committee) to name just one:
In 1973 my work with the Byrds ended. I embarked on a solo recording career
on Columbia Records, and recorded five albums. The only money I've received for
these albums was the modest advance paid prior to each recording.
In 1977 I recorded three albums for Capitol Records in the group "McGuinn Clark
and Hillman." Even though the song "Don't You Write Her Off" was a top 40 hit,
the only money I received from Capitol Records was in the form of a modest advance.
In 1989 I recorded a solo CD, "Back from Rio", for Arista Records. This CD sold
approximately 500,000 copies worldwide, and aside from a modest advance, I have
received no royalties from that project.
So there's nothing new there. Live gigs were always the life blood of any musician in the "recording era".
I think from the late 60s into the early 90s, it was true for more acts than just a few really big ones; it just simultaneously wasn't true for many acts that you'd expect it to be the case for, because (to put it very simply) they were being screwed by their labels. Much of the over-the-top pagentry of the stage shows for arena rock bands from the 70s (e.g. Electric Light Orchestra's spaceship on the Out of the Blue tour) was intended to serve as promotional material; Parliament/Funkadelic even took a loss on their tours for years, despite selling out most venues, for that very reason. I agree, though, with the general notion that even then, the pendulum eventually swung back in the other direction as you looked at smaller and smaller (in terms of popularity) bands.
I think both are true. I agree that it's a paradigm shift. Where I think the problem lies now is that much of the music audience doesn't realize this -- doesn't realize that if you like an artist and want them to keep making music, the best path to see this happen is to go to shows and spend money at shows.
Related story: at a sold out Sebadoh reunion show I went to maybe a year ago, also in DC (hi neighbor), my wife pointed out when we arrived that Lou Barlow was working the merch table. I've seen a lot more of that lately -- big artists working the merch table themselves. It's probably good for all parties: fans get an opportunity to meet and actually talk with performers they love; performers save money on another person in the van during the tour, and likely sell more stuff because people enthusiastically come to the table and interact.
Then maybe you should pick a different career where you CAN make money. If there are too many musicians, just as there are too many hamburger & fry flippers, than the income will plummet and be crappy. So choose a higher-paying income, rather than being a musician or McDonalds employee.
NOBODY is owed a living just because they want to do something. *I* happen to like writing science fiction but I'm not stupid enough to think I can make a career out of it. The field of writers is waaaay too full. So I became an engineer instead..... something few people can do, so I get paid big bucks. You (and others) ought to try the same if music isn't working out for you.
Your response strongly suggests that you didn't actually read what I wrote. So just to make a couple of things clear:
1. I'm not *trying* to make any money in music; my "real job" is as a physicist. I'm paid just fine. My post wasn't about me or my situation in the tiniest bit.
2. In no way did I assert that anyone deserves to make money at something simply because they want to do it. How you got that out of my post, I'll never know.
I was under the impression that it was always this way... that the records don't make you much, it's the gigs. Is that wrong?
You're not wrong that that's how it is; you're wrong that it was always this way. Historically, gigs existed to promote music sales. These days, for all but those at the top of the heap, it's the other way around.
Are we going to see millionaire musicians anymore? Absolutely not. Those days are done. But is music dead? Certainly not. But the record labels are no longer needed. An artists can make it on their own. Will they make the same money? No. But this is the point: yes it's less money than before, but it's either that or nothing. The old days are gone and people are going to have to accept it. But it's good because now the artists will own their own creations and can sell directly to the fans and keep all of the profits.
The problem isn't that we aren't going to see millionaire musicians anymore. The problem is that your statement that "an artist can make it on their own" is, for the most part, not true. Never mind millions -- almost no artists are making a basic living selling music anymore. I am a musician -- only an amateur, but I get around enough to know and meet lots of professional musicians, some of whom are pretty well known; and I nobody that makes enough money to eat and pay their rent/utilities from music sales. And this is pretty pervasive -- I've talked about this with lots of artists that are big enough to sell out venues that range in size between 500-3000 people and they all say the same thing: no artists, except those at the absolute top of the heap, are making a living selling their music anymore. You curse the big labels and champion the independence the modern era has allowed artists to have, and those are worthy sentiments to have, and I agree with them. But it's important to remember that perversely, the practical effect of these changes has been that only a small number of artists are making money from music sales, and by and large they aren't independent artists.
These days, to the extent that an artist or act is able to make enough money to continue to make music, that money isn't coming from music sales. It's coming from shows: what they make playing shows (including merchandise sold at shows) minus the costs of doing them. It used to be the other way around: shows existed to promote record sales, and record sales were where the money came from. Now, if you like an act and what them to continue to make music, the best thing you can do for them is go see them live and buy their stuff at the merch table. If I go to a show and I really, really like a band, I'll almost always walk out with a CD (even if it's music I already have -- I'll give it to someone as a gift) because I know that that's what will keep them going.
I've been coming to/. since about 2000. Yeah, I got news here; I've also had good discussions here.
I've seen several people in this thread talking about how they come here rarely now, and get what they used to get here from other sources. My question: what are those other sources? There are lots of sci/tech news sites on the web, yes; but they all seem to me to tend towards the "enterprise IT" variety and not at all of the "news for nerds" variety. Where are you going to find out about the stuff you used to discover on/. ten years ago?
And more importantly, where are you going to have the same discussions that used to take place on/.? Much of the interaction I had on Usenet in the 80s and 90s seemed to move to/.; I honestly don't know where it is now.
"You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example." one comes, every square meter, every second.
Right. That's too low a luminosity.
I do agree that the current crop of physicists are not up to it because they know very, very rudimentary statistics. But there is hope, they know lots of probability and it isn't a huge leap.
Rephrase? This doesn't make grammatical sense to me -- I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
This may be an ignorant question, but . ..I think of Google as perhaps the company that has most profited from free/open source software. I presume they make contributions through development channels (e.g. LKML); I don't participate in the development of anything Google cares much about, so I dunno whether they do, but I presume they do. But have they ever donated money to any free/open source software projects?
God, who modded this up? In what way does that clearly show intent? It might, or it might not, depending on how he meant the word "jihad," which normally does not mean terrorism or, to western Muslims, even any kind of armed fight with or assault on enemies. It can (and frequently does) mean nothing more than the personal struggle to lead a good life.
Mind, I'm not saying he didn't have nefarious ends in minds; I have no idea. But how are you so sure he did, from those words?
You don't think it could be because a large fraction of the scientists that founded the magazine *were* atomic scientists, in the sense that they were significant figures at Los Alamos, Hanford and Oak Ridge from 1943-1945?
I first became aware of your efforts when the Dow Chemical/Bhopal news stories hit. It struck me as brilliant at the time; but less than seven years later, it's hard for me to find folks who remember that bit of agitprop (indeed, sadly, it's often challenging to find people who remember what happened at Bhopal at all). In general, it's definitely hard to see any trend towards change in the attitudes of the type of organizations you've lampooned. I wonder sometimes if the most lasting effect of your efforts isn't simply to boost morale among activists who share your views and love seeing you skewer your targets? What do you think? In your opinion, what is the lasting impact of your work?
People have already correctly answered this question in the responses -- it's not expanding into anything -- but it's worth talking about that answer a little.
It's our nature, when confronted with something we don't comprehend, to try and understand it in terms of something else we know about. So when we try to imagine a physical entity of finite extent expanding, we're drawn to things like that in our lives: a balloon blowing up, or a cake rising as it bakes, etc. Indeed, many of the analogies we're given in articles and books appeal to just such an approach to understanding, e.g. "Imagine a 2-D universe. Draw dots on the surface of a balloon, and watch them growing further and further apart as the balloon blows up. The dots are analogous to galaxies, the inflation of the balloon is analogous to the expansion of the Universe, etc." You can find that analogy in a variety of sources. But it's a bad analogy -- it's flawed in that it depends on the existence of a third spatial dimension that is associated with the expansion of the balloon; there is no analogous spatial dimension for the expansion of the Universe. The thing you have to come to terms with is this: all attempts at understanding by analogy to something in our everyday lives will fail, because like quantum tunneling or the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it's simply not analogous to anything in our daily lives.
As Feynman put it, "I can't explain it in terms of something you're more familiar with, because I don't understand it in terms of something you're more familiar with."
I'd turn the question around: why is it that you think that if the government doesn't do it, private industry will? Especially when they could right now, even though the government is in the market -- witness the success of UPS, FedEx, etc. -- and choose not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody modded this "Troll"? Good lord.
/. was never meant to be just about tech/IT. In fact, these days, it's arguably more that way than it was as a baby.
If you're willing to pay, Myriad has the real deal for a steal! You can try it for free,
http://myriad-online.com
(I am not a paid spox for them, I just loooove their products)
How much does their Linux version cost?
1. Get tickets to show that says 8PM.
2. Drive for an hour and then pay for parking/drive around to find parking.
3. Arrive there 8PM and wait outside in a line for 0.5-1 hour (the establishment that you paid over $50 in tickets won't let you use the restroom because nobody is allowed inside until the band is ready).
4. Get inside. Wait indefinite time (from 1-1.5 hours) until the opening band starts.
5. After opening band finishes, wait another 1-1.5 hours for the band you paid tickets to start.
6. Show finishes.
You start around 6PM and you are done at 1-2AM. Eight hours to listen to a 1.5 hour set from the band you're supporting. Meanwhile, all this empty time you end up buying junk food and alcohol from the establishment.
I hate going to live shows because of this reason - it's a time sink. Why don't the musicians start their shows on time and print the time each band will be starting on the tickets so I arrive and enjoy the show and leave.
This seems a little overstated to me -- most of the places I go to see a show open their doors when they say, most openers aren't *that* late and most gaps between acts aren't *that* long, in my experience -- but tweaking the details doesn't change your overall point, and there's a lot of truth in your post. I don't go to shows as much as I used to, despite how much I want to because I know that's how acts make their money; I've got to go to work in the morning and I just can't get away with it like I used to.
If someone expects to make millions playing music, then they are ignorant and ought to select a different career. You post strongly implies that they should somehow be able to - hence cpu's reply.
Except it doesn't imply that at all -- the difference being the difference between making a statement about an individual and the world at large. I tried to clarify that in the reply to the post immediately preceding yours.
2. In no way did I assert that anyone deserves to make money at something simply because they want to do it. How you got that out of my post, I'll never know.
You said "The problem is that your statement that "an artist can make it on their own" is, for the most part, not true. Never mind millions -- almost no artists are making a basic living selling music anymore." To which I and my GP say "So what?" No one is paid to do what they love just because they love it; they're paid to produce a product that has demand. If your friends aren't making any money, then there's either too much supply or not enough demand.
I do think it's a problem that almost no artists are making a simple living selling music anymore; but it doesn't logically follow that I think anyone should expect to make money selling music.
If it's still not clear what I'm actually trying to say, let me rephrase it by making a similar statement: I don't think anyone should expect to grow up and become a doctor, but I think it would be a very bad thing if nobody grew up and became a doctor.
but anyone that really expects to make a living at it based on their desire to do so is ignoring reality for the sake of wishful thinking.
But again, my comment a few parents up wasn't that anyone expects to make a living at it; so I don't know why this comment keeps getting made. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said that.
Let me put what I am saying another way: I have no expectation that any specific individual artist should be able to make a living making music. Long before the internet era, I'd seen tons of people with tons of musical talent and ability and devotion get exactly nowhere; so I'm not under any illusions that anyone that decides to make music professionally should have any expectation of making a living at it. But I do think that it would be a good thing if somebody, somewhere (other than, of course, the major labels' American Idol-ish diva of the month) was able to make a living at it. For me, what sucks isn't that John Doe or Jane Schmoe don't make a living at music; it's that seemingly nobody does anymore.
A year ago or so, I had a conversation with the lead guitarist for one of the really popular bands out of Seattle in the 90s. It didn't surprise me at all when he told me that he really doesn't make any money at music anymore; it's been a long time since their peak in popularity. What caught my attention, though, was his emphatic statement that nobody else he knows makes money at music these days, either.
That artists made any money from recordings was never really true, except for a few really big acts. Witness Roger McGuinn of the Byrds (testimony before the house judiciary committee) to name just one:
So there's nothing new there. Live gigs were always the life blood of any musician in the "recording era".
I think from the late 60s into the early 90s, it was true for more acts than just a few really big ones; it just simultaneously wasn't true for many acts that you'd expect it to be the case for, because (to put it very simply) they were being screwed by their labels. Much of the over-the-top pagentry of the stage shows for arena rock bands from the 70s (e.g. Electric Light Orchestra's spaceship on the Out of the Blue tour) was intended to serve as promotional material; Parliament/Funkadelic even took a loss on their tours for years, despite selling out most venues, for that very reason. I agree, though, with the general notion that even then, the pendulum eventually swung back in the other direction as you looked at smaller and smaller (in terms of popularity) bands.
That is not a problem, its a paradigm shift.
I think both are true. I agree that it's a paradigm shift. Where I think the problem lies now is that much of the music audience doesn't realize this -- doesn't realize that if you like an artist and want them to keep making music, the best path to see this happen is to go to shows and spend money at shows.
Related story: at a sold out Sebadoh reunion show I went to maybe a year ago, also in DC (hi neighbor), my wife pointed out when we arrived that Lou Barlow was working the merch table. I've seen a lot more of that lately -- big artists working the merch table themselves. It's probably good for all parties: fans get an opportunity to meet and actually talk with performers they love; performers save money on another person in the van during the tour, and likely sell more stuff because people enthusiastically come to the table and interact.
Then maybe you should pick a different career where you CAN make money. If there are too many musicians, just as there are too many hamburger & fry flippers, than the income will plummet and be crappy. So choose a higher-paying income, rather than being a musician or McDonalds employee.
NOBODY is owed a living just because they want to do something. *I* happen to like writing science fiction but I'm not stupid enough to think I can make a career out of it. The field of writers is waaaay too full. So I became an engineer instead..... something few people can do, so I get paid big bucks. You (and others) ought to try the same if music isn't working out for you.
Your response strongly suggests that you didn't actually read what I wrote. So just to make a couple of things clear:
1. I'm not *trying* to make any money in music; my "real job" is as a physicist. I'm paid just fine. My post wasn't about me or my situation in the tiniest bit.
2. In no way did I assert that anyone deserves to make money at something simply because they want to do it. How you got that out of my post, I'll never know.
I was under the impression that it was always this way... that the records don't make you much, it's the gigs. Is that wrong?
You're not wrong that that's how it is; you're wrong that it was always this way. Historically, gigs existed to promote music sales. These days, for all but those at the top of the heap, it's the other way around.
Or it could be that your sarcasm detector is broken, and the parent how s/he thinks most people here see it.
Are we going to see millionaire musicians anymore? Absolutely not. Those days are done. But is music dead? Certainly not. But the record labels are no longer needed. An artists can make it on their own. Will they make the same money? No. But this is the point: yes it's less money than before, but it's either that or nothing. The old days are gone and people are going to have to accept it. But it's good because now the artists will own their own creations and can sell directly to the fans and keep all of the profits.
The problem isn't that we aren't going to see millionaire musicians anymore. The problem is that your statement that "an artist can make it on their own" is, for the most part, not true. Never mind millions -- almost no artists are making a basic living selling music anymore. I am a musician -- only an amateur, but I get around enough to know and meet lots of professional musicians, some of whom are pretty well known; and I nobody that makes enough money to eat and pay their rent/utilities from music sales. And this is pretty pervasive -- I've talked about this with lots of artists that are big enough to sell out venues that range in size between 500-3000 people and they all say the same thing: no artists, except those at the absolute top of the heap, are making a living selling their music anymore. You curse the big labels and champion the independence the modern era has allowed artists to have, and those are worthy sentiments to have, and I agree with them. But it's important to remember that perversely, the practical effect of these changes has been that only a small number of artists are making money from music sales, and by and large they aren't independent artists.
These days, to the extent that an artist or act is able to make enough money to continue to make music, that money isn't coming from music sales. It's coming from shows: what they make playing shows (including merchandise sold at shows) minus the costs of doing them. It used to be the other way around: shows existed to promote record sales, and record sales were where the money came from. Now, if you like an act and what them to continue to make music, the best thing you can do for them is go see them live and buy their stuff at the merch table. If I go to a show and I really, really like a band, I'll almost always walk out with a CD (even if it's music I already have -- I'll give it to someone as a gift) because I know that that's what will keep them going.
no, i suggest russia and china grow a human conscience
Good luck with that.
I've been coming to /. since about 2000. Yeah, I got news here; I've also had good discussions here.
I've seen several people in this thread talking about how they come here rarely now, and get what they used to get here from other sources. My question: what are those other sources? There are lots of sci/tech news sites on the web, yes; but they all seem to me to tend towards the "enterprise IT" variety and not at all of the "news for nerds" variety. Where are you going to find out about the stuff you used to discover on /. ten years ago?
And more importantly, where are you going to have the same discussions that used to take place on /.? Much of the interaction I had on Usenet in the 80s and 90s seemed to move to /.; I honestly don't know where it is now.
"You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example." one comes, every square meter, every second.
Right. That's too low a luminosity.
I do agree that the current crop of physicists are not up to it because they know very, very rudimentary statistics. But there is hope, they know lots of probability and it isn't a huge leap.
Rephrase? This doesn't make grammatical sense to me -- I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
This may be an ignorant question, but . . .I think of Google as perhaps the company that has most profited from free/open source software. I presume they make contributions through development channels (e.g. LKML); I don't participate in the development of anything Google cares much about, so I dunno whether they do, but I presume they do. But have they ever donated money to any free/open source software projects?
God, who modded this up? In what way does that clearly show intent? It might, or it might not, depending on how he meant the word "jihad," which normally does not mean terrorism or, to western Muslims, even any kind of armed fight with or assault on enemies. It can (and frequently does) mean nothing more than the personal struggle to lead a good life.
Mind, I'm not saying he didn't have nefarious ends in minds; I have no idea. But how are you so sure he did, from those words?
You don't think it could be because a large fraction of the scientists that founded the magazine *were* atomic scientists, in the sense that they were significant figures at Los Alamos, Hanford and Oak Ridge from 1943-1945?
Well, they were certainly relevant from 1943-1945, when they were working in Los Alamos, Hanford and Oak Ridge and developed the atomic bomb.
I remember a movie about this.
I first became aware of your efforts when the Dow Chemical/Bhopal news stories hit. It struck me as brilliant at the time; but less than seven years later, it's hard for me to find folks who remember that bit of agitprop (indeed, sadly, it's often challenging to find people who remember what happened at Bhopal at all). In general, it's definitely hard to see any trend towards change in the attitudes of the type of organizations you've lampooned. I wonder sometimes if the most lasting effect of your efforts isn't simply to boost morale among activists who share your views and love seeing you skewer your targets? What do you think? In your opinion, what is the lasting impact of your work?
People have already correctly answered this question in the responses -- it's not expanding into anything -- but it's worth talking about that answer a little.
It's our nature, when confronted with something we don't comprehend, to try and understand it in terms of something else we know about. So when we try to imagine a physical entity of finite extent expanding, we're drawn to things like that in our lives: a balloon blowing up, or a cake rising as it bakes, etc. Indeed, many of the analogies we're given in articles and books appeal to just such an approach to understanding, e.g. "Imagine a 2-D universe. Draw dots on the surface of a balloon, and watch them growing further and further apart as the balloon blows up. The dots are analogous to galaxies, the inflation of the balloon is analogous to the expansion of the Universe, etc." You can find that analogy in a variety of sources. But it's a bad analogy -- it's flawed in that it depends on the existence of a third spatial dimension that is associated with the expansion of the balloon; there is no analogous spatial dimension for the expansion of the Universe. The thing you have to come to terms with is this: all attempts at understanding by analogy to something in our everyday lives will fail, because like quantum tunneling or the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it's simply not analogous to anything in our daily lives.
As Feynman put it, "I can't explain it in terms of something you're more familiar with, because I don't understand it in terms of something you're more familiar with."
I'd turn the question around: why is it that you think that if the government doesn't do it, private industry will? Especially when they could right now, even though the government is in the market -- witness the success of UPS, FedEx, etc. -- and choose not to.