...Haha... c'mon, stop messing around...Hahahaha... just give me the source code and let me compile it myself.... Haha...
What do you mean "I can't have the source code"?...hahahaha...
But you still want me to put it on my Linux box?....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHA... STOP IT! NOW! HAHAHAHAHA! MY SIDES ARE HURTING! MY EYES ARE WATERING.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
We all agree that distributing music on pieces of plastic doesn't make any economic sense.
No we definitely do not.
A piece of plastic:
1. Gives me something tangible to arrange nicely alongside other pieces of plastic on a shelf.
2. Gives me music in a much less of a lossless format than anything I download.
3. Let's me rip my own music in a format that is suitable for any portable devices I own.
4. Let's me listen to an album from start to finish in the way I want to. I can play it in an un-DRMed format in any CD drive I put it in.
5. Let's me place myself entirely in the hands of a record company that I have paid to entertain me for anything up to 76 minutes (for a single CD). I do not feel the compulsion to rearrange tracks or create playlists, that is what I have paid the record company to do.
6. Enjoy a pretty cover and some sleevenotes to read.
7. Lend it to a friend to listen to without having to worry about DRMed tracks tied to a specific MP3 player.
i see music collections that dwarf my 50000 song collection all the time on IRC.
In other words, you're quite happy to brag about the extent of your thieving but would like it understood that you are not, by any means, the biggest thief out there.
Sonny, I have 1200 legitimate CDs, that equates to about 12000 tracks, it's still only a quarter the size of yours but it's legal
i leech the snot out of servers often time forcing the owners to place a daily limit on their server due to my consistant downloading.
Ah, so you make a "protest" by downloading and hoarding what you can but carry out that protest behind the anonymity of (presumably) P2P sharing.
and was temporarily denied internet access from my ISP, when they got a notice from the RIAA requesting my server be shut down.
Fantastic. I, who pay for my music, wholeheartedly approves of the RIAA action.
basically what i'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter THAT much to record companies when 1, 10, 100, 100,000 people download music illegally.
Of course it doesn't, as long as there are people like me who by CDs in order to subsidise your theft. And if we all stole music, they wouldn't make it and you would have none or be forced to buy it.
they are sill making profits. they are still selling hundreds of millions of albums every year.
Yes, because me and a whole lot of other people pay for our music legally.
if i was rich, i would buy all these albums, or at least most of them.
So how about buying some of them only, and appreciating the ones you can afford? How about hunting around in used CD stores or online retailers? How about having some fun and really going balls out to get good deals on music? After all, music must be important to you because you have 50,000 tracks.
or now, i am going to stick with my illegal downloading,
Of course you will - because even now, hiding behind your cloak of anonymity both on here and on the Internet, you have come up with a stupidly perverse argument that justifies your theft to yourself.
and the bands that i really do like, i will continue to go see them LIVE and hear them as it is TRULY intended.
Oh, I see. So the real purpose of music is to just see it live, rather than just sitting back listening to a CD with a nice cup of tea when and if you feel like it. I get you.
Of course, this goes entirely against any reason you would have to horde 50,000 tracks of music, wouldn't it?
One of the arguments that is used as a "plus" for legal digital downloads of music is that it allows for independent artists to get in on the act, free themselves of the shackles of the mega record companies and just do their own thing, right from making their music in the first place down to distributing it (presumably) via their own web site.
Therefore, what the people that buy digital downloads are saying is that the music they want to buy is not available via the traditional music distribution process (i.e. CDs) because the big record companies do not cater for what they want.
By assumption, therefore, the music in the charts is not representative of the music most people like to listen to which therefore suggests that it is easy-to-manufacture, maximum-profit product.
Think about it for a minute - how many of the chart artists out there actually write their own songs now? Yet an independent artist is probably not going to have enough money to buy the rights to cover someone else's songs so therefore has to write their own stuff anyway.
But the fact is that digital downloads do not solve the indie artist issue alone. When you've got thousands upon thousands of (possibly very talented) artists distributing their music via a web site, how can they compete with the mega record corps who have millions of marketing budget and are, by virtue of the above, quite capable of shifting vast amounts of music which is not representative of what people want?
Right. And if every independent (or "dependent") artist chose to plug their music on Slashdot, then it would be swamped with advertisements.
I appreciate the guy has health issues but then I'd lost both my parents by the age of 20 - yep, you can feel sorry for the both of us but it's not relevant to what's being discussed here.
Digital music formats are gravitating to DRM-free formats, for the simple reason that newer acts are using DRM-free formats to distribute their work.
I disagree. Sure, Amazon, for example, are distributing DRM-free music but I'm sure you'll agree that there has so far been no mass-migration of downloadable music buyers from iTunes to it - presumably price and size of catalogue has much to do with it.
I'm playing "devil's advocate" here because from the type and way I personally enjoy music, the record companies give me more than enough good value products for me to enjoy and happily spend my money on. If the artist's are getting ripped off by the record companies then that's their problem, in much the same way as I wouldn't expect the members of Iron Maiden to care about what pay scale I'm on in my job.
But the whole point to my argument is that a musician who signs up with a record company gets advertising and marketing of what they do at a much more vast scale than they can hope to do independently on their own web site.
And as I happen to be a discerning music fan, if I fancy something new to listen to I'll naturally gravitate to places where I've found good music before - in my case, I go to Amazon, read a lot of reviews and trawl through peoples' lists of stuff and maybe try to find a sample on BitTorrent or Usenet before committing to buy.
I really don't care if an artist is on a big label or independent - if I get to hear the music and like it enough I'll buy it. And it may be that one day I might decide to spend a half day on Google trawling indie artists web sites but, for the moment, there's far too much older music being rereleased for me to not even need to do that.
How I feel about it has nothing to do with the quality or disposability of the music.
But you're the one that said in an earlier comment that you have friends with huge downloaded music collections and that you yourself pay for your music.
And I'm sure you'll agree that illegal music downloading is rife today, and if you ask anyone why they download music illegally, they'll invariably respond with a statement that says "I'm not buying a whole CD with just one or two good tracks on it".
I, on the other hand, research my music well before buying it and therefore buy albums that are enjoyable all the way through. And since that music is invariably older stuff, then it suggests to me that the quality of modern music is generally lower than older stuff.
I'll admit it. I've bought popular music, many times. I've even bought music by boy bands. Some popular music is popular because it's, well, actually good!
But even then you're basically saying "I do buy some popular music but most of the time I don't". If anything, you've demonstrated discerning taste, even if, opinion-wise, we may not agree on what we both like and dislike.
The RIAA aren't the Nazis, but on the other hand I'm only defending modern music from criticism, not smuggling people out of concentration camps.
I'm not attacking all modern music, I like some of it myself, Radiohead for example. But I can look through a chart CD rack and just see endless black female singer clone artists (none of whom have ever come close to singing with the quality of, say, Aretha Franklin) and find absolutely nothing that remotely interests me in wanting to explore further or buy.
Really? Tell me where I can get a remastered copy of Minus 10 and Counting, or any of the other tapes I bought over the decades that have (apparently) been lost. If 5% of the music released the same month as Led Zeppelin IV is still available, I'll eat your hat (not mine, I don't like how my conditioner tastes).
We can all think of something obscure that is no longer available - if the original tapes have been lost then that's the end of it anyway. But there really is a lot more out there than you believe there is, take it from me.
If 1% of the music being released today is available in 40 years that'll still leave more tracks for your grandchildren to select from when they're crotchety old fogeys bemoaning the mass-produced plastic music of 2058 than you've got available now, because there's so much more mass-produced plastic music... sorry, I mean classics... to choose from.
Yes, but by virtue of the same, I'd also hope that 75 year old classics like Led Zeppelin IV or 80 year old classics like Sgt. Peppers would also be available.
And it won't *need* to be remastered, digital music doesn't degrade.
Again, you're missing the point of remastering. You can copy something from a degrading medium to a non-degrading one and it sounds the same. Remastering is about using modern technology to improve the sound quality of the original. I'm not saying all remasters are necessarily better than the original but in my experiences most sound better.
That doesn't mean anything the RIAA would still sue you if you use bittorrent to sample albums.
Well, I'm in the UK so they have bugger all say in what I do anyway!:-)
But even if was the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) doing it, I pretty much doubt they'd bother with someone like me anyway - they're more likely to get a result from someone who can't demonstrate that they buy a lot of music.
I'm not defending the RIAA's practice, I think its despicable that they can go after teenagers for downloading a few MP3s. But at the same time, if you copy something because you're not prepared to pay for it, then that gives the justification to the mega-corps to put all manner of copy protection on stuff meaning that I, as an honest user, has to suffer.
The core of my digital music collection is ripped from my own tapes and CDs, supplemented with purchases from eMusic and iTunes, and samples from artist's websites via MP3 blogs.
Likewise my digital music collection is ripped from my own CDs, I have no reason to doubt yours isn't either. But then you're an exception to the rule as a lot of people are out there getting their music for free. How does that make you feel knowing you pay for all yours legally, just as I do?
"Bah, Humbug, kids today listen to such trash. There hasn't been any good music since Joplin died.
Okay, let me put it another way since you are missing my point entirely. Just about everyone on Slashdot has an interest in technology so it's fair to say we're all a pretty savvy bunch here. I doubt anyone on Slashdot is going to admit that they buy the mass-produced plastic music that is in the charts. In which case, neither you or I can state that we are representative of the general music-buying public who put that stuff into the charts in the first place - so you are defending something that you yourself are not a part of. Why?
How much music released 35 and 40 years ago is still available today?
Like I said in the OP, absolutely loads of it. Plus it's all being remastered with additional tracks. In 35 years of buying music, I've never had so much choice.
How much old music is only available now because it's so cheap to distribute it online?
I don't think the two are related. If anything, I could argue that's it cheaper to get a few sound engineers to remaster from old master tapes than it is to get a band to record a new album in a studio. I'd say rereleasing is easy money for the record labels.
1. Digital forms of storage mean that they can't recharge for the same product on a different media every fifteen years - the revolving door business model of vinyl to tape to CD etc.
Why do you believe that with digital downloads that it will be any different? There is no way that long term the music industry is going to put up with non-DRMed digital downloads. Sure, Amazon is doing it currently but then why are people then still using DRM-ed iTunes formats? Face it, with digital downloads will come product expiry (in a lot less than fifteen years) and a rental model for your music.
2. People can create without them. The labels have cooked up a good racket making themselves a necessary part of the distribution process. Online, anyone can get their work out to an unlimited number of people.
People have always been able to create without them. It has nothing to do with creation but everything to do about publicity and marketing. There are not hoards of musicians out there who want to give their music away freely, quite rightly they want to make a living from it and in order to do that they need people to buy the music from their web-sites. With the Internet, self-promotion is much easier these days but promotion and marketing is what record companies are very good at, whatever their failings.
And if we are in the middle of a music revolution instigated by today's youth (who we are told buy most of the music), then how come the majority of music these days is plasticized, turgid crap?
No thanks - I may decide to buy your CD in my own time but the fact that you've used Slashdot to shamelessly plug your own music has turned me right off any idea of doing so.
In case you guys don't believe it: yes, we pay $20 for a music CD, and think it's cheap. Amazing, isn't it?
Don't get me wrong, it's entirely a matter of perspective - with an average price of around £14, there are very few films I would buy on DVD simply because I'd play them once and never watch them again. On the other hand, a film buff buddy of mine is happy to pay that amount because he will watch and re-watch movies.
For me, a good CD is well worth £10 because I'd play it over and over again.
Very true. Even today I can't bring myself to search around for new music out of fear that it will suck and because I'm used to it always being brought to me, yet I don't think twice when I fire up a Google search to find answers to, well, almost everything.
You yourself may well be an exception to the rule - but then if what I am saying is not the case, then how come the charts are filled with turgid crap? We're constantly being told that the 18-25s buy most of the music after all...
I can assure you that these youth have filled their computers with a vast array of music. I haven't bothered to do so, but I know many "discerning youth" who have libraries both thick and diverse.
Sorry, please explain how filling your computer with a vast array of (presumably illegally downloaded) music makes you in any way discerning? It's more likely to show you as a hoarder purely out to impress your peers with the size of your collection.
Music has always been marketed as a "disposable commodity." Don't believe me?
That's right, I don't believe you. I'm still listening to albums like Led Zeppelin IV and Sgt. Peppers that were released 35 and 40 years ago respectively that I will probably continue listening to until the day I die.
I am in no way defending the RIAA or the major record companies but, looking at this purely from the perspective of a music enthusiast, I personally have no problem with the way things currently are with music distribution. I have more than enough good music to listen to and to go buy in the future, so please take this post as an observation rather than any gripes I might have with the music industry.
Firstly, I'm pretty happy with the price of CDs. Because I research my music well and, yes, I do use BitTorrent and Usenet to preview any albums I intend to buy that I cannot hear otherwise, I always buy a CD that I know will be good before I buy it. And then I source it online as cheaply as possible, usually below £10. That means I'm never disappointed by any CD and, before anyone accuses me of doing anything wrong, I own over 1200 of them.
Secondly, I do listen to some modern music but generally I listen to (mainly British) hard rock, rock, psychedelia and blues from the late sixties to the present day. Currently, a lot of this stuff is enjoying a resurgence - not only are existing popular albums being expanded & remastered (for example the back catalogues of Jethro Tull, Yes, Black Sabbath, etc.) but also a lot of very obscure albums from the late sixties and early seventies are being released onto CD for the first time. Currently, I am totally spoilt for choice as to what to buy next and I think the record companies a doing a pretty good job with this.
Thirdly, I'm sure there are a lot of good independent artists out there but, in my mind, whether the big four record companies are there or not won't change a thing for them. Okay, so the record companies are too narrow-minded and money-orientated to give these artists recording contracts but either way, they are still faced with the problem of self-promotion and getting people to their web sites to buy their music. And in my own view, I'm more than happy to listen to some of these artists and buy a CD of theirs - but there's no way, I'm afraid, that I am going to pay for downloadable music. The fact is, I like my music in the best quality I can afford on a reasonable hifi and compressed downnloads don't do it for me.
Fourthly, the younger generation may have a hankering for downloadable music but please do not confuse this with them having a discerning music taste. The fact is that they are the "now" generation with short attention spans and a complete lack of interest in putting any effort into anything. The fact that the charts are filled with plastic manufactured music shows that the majority will buy anything that is put in front of them purely because it is deemed fashionable and is easy to obtain. Anyone who believes these same people will go searching the the Internet for new independent artists rather than just going to iTunes for the latest fad music has no understanding of the way marketing and hype works on the minds of the younger generation.
Yes, the major record labels are killing their own industry because they're not interested in anything new but the latest Leona Lewis clone. Personally, I don't care, there's a huge back catalogue of older stuff to go out and listen to which I suggest the "discerning youth" should also go and explore a little rather than whining about modern music.
But downloadable music is also contributing to that death because it's turning music into a disposable commodity - don't like it any more? Then just wipe your iPod's hard drive and start again...
Any you're probably about the right age to be an Apple fanboi.
Please don't tell me how I should or shouldn't act. I'm reasonably suceessful in what I've achieved in my life, I'm certainly happy with it, so I doubt there's any advice I need to take from you.
Your need to call me names betrays the weakness of your point.
It was your need to question me about having ever been on an aircraft that kicked that off - especially since in my original post I had stated such was the case.
The question wasn't "did you enjoy your seatback video," but "you'd rather watch something on a seat back screen [than use something portable like the iPhone]?"
They are one and the same question, then, in my view. Yes I would rather watch something on the back seat screen on the basis that it won't fail from lack of battery power after a couple of hours and I won't get arm cramp as a result of having to hold it to my face for so long.
Perhaps when you grow up you'll experience somebody in the seat next to you spilling something. You might also want to watch something semi-privately.
I'm 46 years of age, in my business as a security consultant for a global telecoms equipment supplier, I fly long haul on business at least 3 times a year and travel to my home in Spain from the UK at least once a month. I've been in a techie/telecoms role for about 25 years and my business travel habits these days have lessened, if anything.
So, as an experienced air traveller, I repeat - I generally find that not being an obnoxious git to fellow air travellers makes the limited comforts of flying that much more endurable for all of us. I've never had a drink spilt on me and the only time I've ever even started to get angry with anyone on a flight was with my sister's kids on a flight to Florida when they were much younger and them constantly getting up to go the toilet every 10 minutes.
Common courtesy and friendliness goes a long way during a flight.
You are arguing that you'd rather watch something on a seat back screen? Have you ever been on an airplane?
There you go, you see? Typical Apple fanboi reaction - starts writing a response before finishing reading the OP. Please reread it properly, that will answer the second question for you.
As to the first question, given that I'm not allowed to bring my own flatscreen TV on a flight, the seat back screen I used on the Emirates flight (now you've reread my message) was excellent. As far as I recall, I listened to some music, had a meal and a drink, watched a couple of movies, had another meal and a drink, listened to a bit more music and I'd landed. Didn't notice the flight, end of story.
which other people can see and spill their drinks on.
I can't say I've ever watched anything on a plane that I'd be ashamed of someone else seeing over my shoulder. As for the drinks spilling, I can't speak for your own countrymen but I've never really had a problem with anyone sat next to me on a flight. To be honest, I find showing some courtesy and friendliness to anyone who is sat next to me generally makes the flight as comfortable as possible for both of us.
So rather than watch a small display in the back of your seat, you're saying a tiny display on your iPhone is better???
And does the iPhone happily feed movies and music to you all the way through an eight hour flight without a battery recharge?
I don't know about the Virgin system but I took an eight hour flight on Emirates from London to Dubai last year, I was in standard economy class and the back of the seat entertainment system was excellent. I have no idea what OS it was running on but there were several hundred albums to choose from and at least 50 movies as well and at least 30 games, all of it was free.
Plus it was the first time I was able to listen to music on headphones during take off - having the "Back In Black" album by AC/DC blaring at full volume in headphones as the plane taxied and took off was pretty cool!
It happens to be a free game that is still very much in development.
No, it probably isn't very much in comparison to some of the FPSes out there - but then the whole idea is that it is released as a "proof of concept" in the hope that intelligent, constructive people will give both good and bad feedback so that the developers can maybe implement some of those ideas to make it better.
If you don't like it, hell, then don't play it. It's not as though it cost you any money or anything now, is it? But please find the intelligence somewhere within your pea-sized brain to understand that this is how a lot of Open Source development actually works.
If you pay for something and it's crap, you have every right to complain. If you don't pay for something and it's crap (in your opinion) then tell the people who made it or keep your pointless griping to yourself.
Can I suggest a new feature on Slashdot for automatic moderation?
If anyone posts a comment with such words and phrases as "brand recognition", "user experience", "increasing velocity", "methodology" or "marketshare", can they automatically be modded down 1 point for each occurrence of said words?
Might you also consider taking the feature a stage further by secretly designating one of these words or phrases to be "Buzzword Of The Day"? And that the first person to use the "Buzzword Of The Day" immediately has their home address revealed on Slashdot? Then the Slashdot reader who lives nearest can go round his/her house with the "Slashdot Slappacam" and beat the living shit out of him/her whilst filming it so we can all stream it and watch it?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I thought not...
What do you mean "I can't have the source code"? ...hahahaha...
But you still want me to put it on my Linux box? ....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHA... STOP IT! NOW! HAHAHAHAHA! MY SIDES ARE HURTING! MY EYES ARE WATERING.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
No we definitely do not.
A piece of plastic:
1. Gives me something tangible to arrange nicely alongside other pieces of plastic on a shelf.
2. Gives me music in a much less of a lossless format than anything I download.
3. Let's me rip my own music in a format that is suitable for any portable devices I own.
4. Let's me listen to an album from start to finish in the way I want to. I can play it in an un-DRMed format in any CD drive I put it in.
5. Let's me place myself entirely in the hands of a record company that I have paid to entertain me for anything up to 76 minutes (for a single CD). I do not feel the compulsion to rearrange tracks or create playlists, that is what I have paid the record company to do.
6. Enjoy a pretty cover and some sleevenotes to read.
7. Lend it to a friend to listen to without having to worry about DRMed tracks tied to a specific MP3 player.
In other words, you're quite happy to brag about the extent of your thieving but would like it understood that you are not, by any means, the biggest thief out there.
Sonny, I have 1200 legitimate CDs, that equates to about 12000 tracks, it's still only a quarter the size of yours but it's legal
i leech the snot out of servers often time forcing the owners to place a daily limit on their server due to my consistant downloading.
Ah, so you make a "protest" by downloading and hoarding what you can but carry out that protest behind the anonymity of (presumably) P2P sharing.
and was temporarily denied internet access from my ISP, when they got a notice from the RIAA requesting my server be shut down.
Fantastic. I, who pay for my music, wholeheartedly approves of the RIAA action.
basically what i'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter THAT much to record companies when 1, 10, 100, 100,000 people download music illegally.
Of course it doesn't, as long as there are people like me who by CDs in order to subsidise your theft. And if we all stole music, they wouldn't make it and you would have none or be forced to buy it.
they are sill making profits. they are still selling hundreds of millions of albums every year.
Yes, because me and a whole lot of other people pay for our music legally.
if i was rich, i would buy all these albums, or at least most of them.
So how about buying some of them only, and appreciating the ones you can afford? How about hunting around in used CD stores or online retailers? How about having some fun and really going balls out to get good deals on music? After all, music must be important to you because you have 50,000 tracks.
or now, i am going to stick with my illegal downloading,
Of course you will - because even now, hiding behind your cloak of anonymity both on here and on the Internet, you have come up with a stupidly perverse argument that justifies your theft to yourself.
and the bands that i really do like, i will continue to go see them LIVE and hear them as it is TRULY intended.
Oh, I see. So the real purpose of music is to just see it live, rather than just sitting back listening to a CD with a nice cup of tea when and if you feel like it. I get you.
Of course, this goes entirely against any reason you would have to horde 50,000 tracks of music, wouldn't it?
I know the iPod can play MP3s but that's irrelevant.
One of the arguments that is used as a "plus" for legal digital downloads of music is that it allows for independent artists to get in on the act, free themselves of the shackles of the mega record companies and just do their own thing, right from making their music in the first place down to distributing it (presumably) via their own web site.
Therefore, what the people that buy digital downloads are saying is that the music they want to buy is not available via the traditional music distribution process (i.e. CDs) because the big record companies do not cater for what they want.
By assumption, therefore, the music in the charts is not representative of the music most people like to listen to which therefore suggests that it is easy-to-manufacture, maximum-profit product.
Think about it for a minute - how many of the chart artists out there actually write their own songs now? Yet an independent artist is probably not going to have enough money to buy the rights to cover someone else's songs so therefore has to write their own stuff anyway.
But the fact is that digital downloads do not solve the indie artist issue alone. When you've got thousands upon thousands of (possibly very talented) artists distributing their music via a web site, how can they compete with the mega record corps who have millions of marketing budget and are, by virtue of the above, quite capable of shifting vast amounts of music which is not representative of what people want?
I appreciate the guy has health issues but then I'd lost both my parents by the age of 20 - yep, you can feel sorry for the both of us but it's not relevant to what's being discussed here.
I disagree. Sure, Amazon, for example, are distributing DRM-free music but I'm sure you'll agree that there has so far been no mass-migration of downloadable music buyers from iTunes to it - presumably price and size of catalogue has much to do with it.
I'm playing "devil's advocate" here because from the type and way I personally enjoy music, the record companies give me more than enough good value products for me to enjoy and happily spend my money on. If the artist's are getting ripped off by the record companies then that's their problem, in much the same way as I wouldn't expect the members of Iron Maiden to care about what pay scale I'm on in my job.
But the whole point to my argument is that a musician who signs up with a record company gets advertising and marketing of what they do at a much more vast scale than they can hope to do independently on their own web site.
And as I happen to be a discerning music fan, if I fancy something new to listen to I'll naturally gravitate to places where I've found good music before - in my case, I go to Amazon, read a lot of reviews and trawl through peoples' lists of stuff and maybe try to find a sample on BitTorrent or Usenet before committing to buy.
I really don't care if an artist is on a big label or independent - if I get to hear the music and like it enough I'll buy it. And it may be that one day I might decide to spend a half day on Google trawling indie artists web sites but, for the moment, there's far too much older music being rereleased for me to not even need to do that.
But you're the one that said in an earlier comment that you have friends with huge downloaded music collections and that you yourself pay for your music.
And I'm sure you'll agree that illegal music downloading is rife today, and if you ask anyone why they download music illegally, they'll invariably respond with a statement that says "I'm not buying a whole CD with just one or two good tracks on it".
I, on the other hand, research my music well before buying it and therefore buy albums that are enjoyable all the way through. And since that music is invariably older stuff, then it suggests to me that the quality of modern music is generally lower than older stuff.
I'll admit it. I've bought popular music, many times. I've even bought music by boy bands. Some popular music is popular because it's, well, actually good!
But even then you're basically saying "I do buy some popular music but most of the time I don't". If anything, you've demonstrated discerning taste, even if, opinion-wise, we may not agree on what we both like and dislike.
The RIAA aren't the Nazis, but on the other hand I'm only defending modern music from criticism, not smuggling people out of concentration camps.
I'm not attacking all modern music, I like some of it myself, Radiohead for example. But I can look through a chart CD rack and just see endless black female singer clone artists (none of whom have ever come close to singing with the quality of, say, Aretha Franklin) and find absolutely nothing that remotely interests me in wanting to explore further or buy.
Really? Tell me where I can get a remastered copy of Minus 10 and Counting, or any of the other tapes I bought over the decades that have (apparently) been lost. If 5% of the music released the same month as Led Zeppelin IV is still available, I'll eat your hat (not mine, I don't like how my conditioner tastes).
We can all think of something obscure that is no longer available - if the original tapes have been lost then that's the end of it anyway. But there really is a lot more out there than you believe there is, take it from me.
If 1% of the music being released today is available in 40 years that'll still leave more tracks for your grandchildren to select from when they're crotchety old fogeys bemoaning the mass-produced plastic music of 2058 than you've got available now, because there's so much more mass-produced plastic music ... sorry, I mean classics ... to choose from.
Yes, but by virtue of the same, I'd also hope that 75 year old classics like Led Zeppelin IV or 80 year old classics like Sgt. Peppers would also be available.
And it won't *need* to be remastered, digital music doesn't degrade.
Again, you're missing the point of remastering. You can copy something from a degrading medium to a non-degrading one and it sounds the same. Remastering is about using modern technology to improve the sound quality of the original. I'm not saying all remasters are necessarily better than the original but in my experiences most sound better.
Well, I'm in the UK so they have bugger all say in what I do anyway! :-)
But even if was the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) doing it, I pretty much doubt they'd bother with someone like me anyway - they're more likely to get a result from someone who can't demonstrate that they buy a lot of music.
I'm not defending the RIAA's practice, I think its despicable that they can go after teenagers for downloading a few MP3s. But at the same time, if you copy something because you're not prepared to pay for it, then that gives the justification to the mega-corps to put all manner of copy protection on stuff meaning that I, as an honest user, has to suffer.
Likewise my digital music collection is ripped from my own CDs, I have no reason to doubt yours isn't either. But then you're an exception to the rule as a lot of people are out there getting their music for free. How does that make you feel knowing you pay for all yours legally, just as I do?
"Bah, Humbug, kids today listen to such trash. There hasn't been any good music since Joplin died.
Okay, let me put it another way since you are missing my point entirely. Just about everyone on Slashdot has an interest in technology so it's fair to say we're all a pretty savvy bunch here. I doubt anyone on Slashdot is going to admit that they buy the mass-produced plastic music that is in the charts. In which case, neither you or I can state that we are representative of the general music-buying public who put that stuff into the charts in the first place - so you are defending something that you yourself are not a part of. Why?
How much music released 35 and 40 years ago is still available today?
Like I said in the OP, absolutely loads of it. Plus it's all being remastered with additional tracks. In 35 years of buying music, I've never had so much choice.
How much old music is only available now because it's so cheap to distribute it online?
I don't think the two are related. If anything, I could argue that's it cheaper to get a few sound engineers to remaster from old master tapes than it is to get a band to record a new album in a studio. I'd say rereleasing is easy money for the record labels.
Why do you believe that with digital downloads that it will be any different? There is no way that long term the music industry is going to put up with non-DRMed digital downloads. Sure, Amazon is doing it currently but then why are people then still using DRM-ed iTunes formats? Face it, with digital downloads will come product expiry (in a lot less than fifteen years) and a rental model for your music.
2. People can create without them. The labels have cooked up a good racket making themselves a necessary part of the distribution process. Online, anyone can get their work out to an unlimited number of people.
People have always been able to create without them. It has nothing to do with creation but everything to do about publicity and marketing. There are not hoards of musicians out there who want to give their music away freely, quite rightly they want to make a living from it and in order to do that they need people to buy the music from their web-sites. With the Internet, self-promotion is much easier these days but promotion and marketing is what record companies are very good at, whatever their failings.
And if we are in the middle of a music revolution instigated by today's youth (who we are told buy most of the music), then how come the majority of music these days is plasticized, turgid crap?
No thanks - I may decide to buy your CD in my own time but the fact that you've used Slashdot to shamelessly plug your own music has turned me right off any idea of doing so.
Don't get me wrong, it's entirely a matter of perspective - with an average price of around £14, there are very few films I would buy on DVD simply because I'd play them once and never watch them again. On the other hand, a film buff buddy of mine is happy to pay that amount because he will watch and re-watch movies.
For me, a good CD is well worth £10 because I'd play it over and over again.
You yourself may well be an exception to the rule - but then if what I am saying is not the case, then how come the charts are filled with turgid crap? We're constantly being told that the 18-25s buy most of the music after all...
I can assure you that these youth have filled their computers with a vast array of music. I haven't bothered to do so, but I know many "discerning youth" who have libraries both thick and diverse.
Sorry, please explain how filling your computer with a vast array of (presumably illegally downloaded) music makes you in any way discerning? It's more likely to show you as a hoarder purely out to impress your peers with the size of your collection.
Music has always been marketed as a "disposable commodity." Don't believe me?
That's right, I don't believe you. I'm still listening to albums like Led Zeppelin IV and Sgt. Peppers that were released 35 and 40 years ago respectively that I will probably continue listening to until the day I die.
But on the basis that that method of music playing actually works, it also says a lot about the sheep-like mentality of the listenership.
No matter how much something is hyped, no-one forces you to buy it.
Firstly, I'm pretty happy with the price of CDs. Because I research my music well and, yes, I do use BitTorrent and Usenet to preview any albums I intend to buy that I cannot hear otherwise, I always buy a CD that I know will be good before I buy it. And then I source it online as cheaply as possible, usually below £10. That means I'm never disappointed by any CD and, before anyone accuses me of doing anything wrong, I own over 1200 of them.
Secondly, I do listen to some modern music but generally I listen to (mainly British) hard rock, rock, psychedelia and blues from the late sixties to the present day. Currently, a lot of this stuff is enjoying a resurgence - not only are existing popular albums being expanded & remastered (for example the back catalogues of Jethro Tull, Yes, Black Sabbath, etc.) but also a lot of very obscure albums from the late sixties and early seventies are being released onto CD for the first time. Currently, I am totally spoilt for choice as to what to buy next and I think the record companies a doing a pretty good job with this.
Thirdly, I'm sure there are a lot of good independent artists out there but, in my mind, whether the big four record companies are there or not won't change a thing for them. Okay, so the record companies are too narrow-minded and money-orientated to give these artists recording contracts but either way, they are still faced with the problem of self-promotion and getting people to their web sites to buy their music. And in my own view, I'm more than happy to listen to some of these artists and buy a CD of theirs - but there's no way, I'm afraid, that I am going to pay for downloadable music. The fact is, I like my music in the best quality I can afford on a reasonable hifi and compressed downnloads don't do it for me.
Fourthly, the younger generation may have a hankering for downloadable music but please do not confuse this with them having a discerning music taste. The fact is that they are the "now" generation with short attention spans and a complete lack of interest in putting any effort into anything. The fact that the charts are filled with plastic manufactured music shows that the majority will buy anything that is put in front of them purely because it is deemed fashionable and is easy to obtain. Anyone who believes these same people will go searching the the Internet for new independent artists rather than just going to iTunes for the latest fad music has no understanding of the way marketing and hype works on the minds of the younger generation.
Yes, the major record labels are killing their own industry because they're not interested in anything new but the latest Leona Lewis clone. Personally, I don't care, there's a huge back catalogue of older stuff to go out and listen to which I suggest the "discerning youth" should also go and explore a little rather than whining about modern music.
But downloadable music is also contributing to that death because it's turning music into a disposable commodity - don't like it any more? Then just wipe your iPod's hard drive and start again...
Please don't tell me how I should or shouldn't act. I'm reasonably suceessful in what I've achieved in my life, I'm certainly happy with it, so I doubt there's any advice I need to take from you.
You do it you way, I'll do it mine, end of story.
It was your need to question me about having ever been on an aircraft that kicked that off - especially since in my original post I had stated such was the case.
The question wasn't "did you enjoy your seatback video," but "you'd rather watch something on a seat back screen [than use something portable like the iPhone]?"
They are one and the same question, then, in my view. Yes I would rather watch something on the back seat screen on the basis that it won't fail from lack of battery power after a couple of hours and I won't get arm cramp as a result of having to hold it to my face for so long.
Perhaps when you grow up you'll experience somebody in the seat next to you spilling something. You might also want to watch something semi-privately.
I'm 46 years of age, in my business as a security consultant for a global telecoms equipment supplier, I fly long haul on business at least 3 times a year and travel to my home in Spain from the UK at least once a month. I've been in a techie/telecoms role for about 25 years and my business travel habits these days have lessened, if anything.
So, as an experienced air traveller, I repeat - I generally find that not being an obnoxious git to fellow air travellers makes the limited comforts of flying that much more endurable for all of us. I've never had a drink spilt on me and the only time I've ever even started to get angry with anyone on a flight was with my sister's kids on a flight to Florida when they were much younger and them constantly getting up to go the toilet every 10 minutes.
Common courtesy and friendliness goes a long way during a flight.
There you go, you see? Typical Apple fanboi reaction - starts writing a response before finishing reading the OP. Please reread it properly, that will answer the second question for you.
As to the first question, given that I'm not allowed to bring my own flatscreen TV on a flight, the seat back screen I used on the Emirates flight (now you've reread my message) was excellent. As far as I recall, I listened to some music, had a meal and a drink, watched a couple of movies, had another meal and a drink, listened to a bit more music and I'd landed. Didn't notice the flight, end of story.
which other people can see and spill their drinks on.
I can't say I've ever watched anything on a plane that I'd be ashamed of someone else seeing over my shoulder. As for the drinks spilling, I can't speak for your own countrymen but I've never really had a problem with anyone sat next to me on a flight. To be honest, I find showing some courtesy and friendliness to anyone who is sat next to me generally makes the flight as comfortable as possible for both of us.
In other words, it's possible to build a Linux system that's not very stable. The same can be said for any OS. Nothing to see here.
So rather than watch a small display in the back of your seat, you're saying a tiny display on your iPhone is better???
And does the iPhone happily feed movies and music to you all the way through an eight hour flight without a battery recharge?
I don't know about the Virgin system but I took an eight hour flight on Emirates from London to Dubai last year, I was in standard economy class and the back of the seat entertainment system was excellent. I have no idea what OS it was running on but there were several hundred albums to choose from and at least 50 movies as well and at least 30 games, all of it was free.
Plus it was the first time I was able to listen to music on headphones during take off - having the "Back In Black" album by AC/DC blaring at full volume in headphones as the plane taxied and took off was pretty cool!
No, it probably isn't very much in comparison to some of the FPSes out there - but then the whole idea is that it is released as a "proof of concept" in the hope that intelligent, constructive people will give both good and bad feedback so that the developers can maybe implement some of those ideas to make it better.
If you don't like it, hell, then don't play it. It's not as though it cost you any money or anything now, is it? But please find the intelligence somewhere within your pea-sized brain to understand that this is how a lot of Open Source development actually works.
If you pay for something and it's crap, you have every right to complain. If you don't pay for something and it's crap (in your opinion) then tell the people who made it or keep your pointless griping to yourself.
Firefox 3 is still beta state - therefore it's safe to assume that there will be a few major bugs in it still.
If anyone posts a comment with such words and phrases as "brand recognition", "user experience", "increasing velocity", "methodology" or "marketshare", can they automatically be modded down 1 point for each occurrence of said words?
Might you also consider taking the feature a stage further by secretly designating one of these words or phrases to be "Buzzword Of The Day"? And that the first person to use the "Buzzword Of The Day" immediately has their home address revealed on Slashdot? Then the Slashdot reader who lives nearest can go round his/her house with the "Slashdot Slappacam" and beat the living shit out of him/her whilst filming it so we can all stream it and watch it?