So, I'm from Dallas. And The Toadies? Well, they're from Fort Worth. But it's all basically the Dallas "metroplex" anyway.
I care a lot about the local music scene. I run a tiny little record label. I help my friends in bands out all the time.
Recently, a college station here did a "fest" with The Toadies headlining. I went to help out one of the "lesser" bands playing n the bill, and to see another band I'm good friends with.
The first band on the main stage (where Toadies would later play) that I came to see was Little Grizzly. The show was at a bad venue (cool looking, the Ridglea Theater, but bad) and it wasn't there best show, but dear God, the heckling from those Toadies fans. It's almost as if they'd never heard the college station or anything.
After their set, some little kid in front of me who was heckling the band finally pissed me off to the point that I said something about it. He said, "Who's the loser? I came to see a NATIONAL band, and you came to see a LOCAL band."
The fact is, people don't really care as much about music as some of us do. Hell, most Slashdotters obviously don't... they're too busy decrying the RIAA for "making" them buy "$17 CDs" with "only one or two good songs on them".
The fact that people want to be told what to listen to is sad. The fact that the ability to tell them what to listen to is for sale is both expected and yet very depressing.
Yes, really, go see a local band. And not some fucking Adidas rock bullshit... ie something that doesn't sound like Limp Bizkit. Think a little.
If anyone cares, feel free to email me - I can tip you off to 20 great bands from Dallas, some of whom tour around the country (and no, Flickerstick doesn't count).
Yes, but why should techs bother keeping a job when they can just go somewhere else? Why fight to improve anything, just quit and let bad things persist. We crab about how bad things are, but we never do anything about it.
Dude, did you get your legal info from Cryptonomicon? I have never heard of a shareholder lawsuit against a big company for failing to be greedy enough. The incentive for a coporate board is their salaries, jobs, and bonuses, which are all tied to stock price, which is ostensibly tied to company performance. If the companies don't make lots of money, their stock price stagnates or drops, and the board is fired. They are a bunch of greedheads, and that is their job.
Um, no, Stephenson (man that he is) got his info from REALITY - it's called breach of fiduciary duties or responsibilities. Such lawsuits do occur, though you don't keep up with business stuff, so I expect you wouldn't know about it. Typically it only happens in such vindictive circumstances (sort of like in the book) and is not very publicized for same reasons.
Give me an ffen break. The artists don't lost CRAP. It's the money-sucking-lets-try-to-kill everyone's-freedom RECORD companies that lost. And you know what? WHO CARES? These companies are MONOPOLIES. If the artist got all the money, it might be a different story - but I think not since the record companies make MILLIONS off some of the more popular albums. And do the artists see this? NO!
You are what is commonly referred to as "wrong". If an artist gets a percentage of the cost of each CD (which is typically how their payment is structured), and the artist sells less CDs, both the artist and the label lose money.
No, this does not excuse the fact that labels do treat artists poorly and are structured to get artists into debt so they have to do what the label wants. But it does poke a hole in your very flimsy rationalization.
Now now, I can't believe nobody mentioned that the Dallas Observer did the article about Ion Storm those many moons ago... I remember all the beautiful letters that came in the weeks after that from clueless net.kids who couldn't stand that beautiful John Romero got trashed in a newspaper. "I've never heard of the Dallas Observer, so it must suck." was among my favorite comments.
Made for a nice change from the people bitching about the music reviews.
if you're not able to run OS 9 (check the apple site to see what they recommend for that model, ram, etc) you might be able to get an older 8.x version on ebay or at Sun Remarketing. that's where i got system 6 for one of my old toaster macs.
Those guys have an interesting business - some of their prices are great, and some are just REALLY bizarre.
Since virtually all labels have spoken out against Napster as though it is the most evil thing ever, I think all labels should be boycotted. Even the Non-RIAA members artificially increase the price of CD's. All of them hold on to an almost brutal level of control over their music, and most of them stop producing music to make other bands more succesful.
Okay, you're one of the naive ones. But I'm not going to let this go unchecked. Not all non-RIAA members artificially increase the price of CDs - Dischord is a good example. Matador's prices to wholesale/distribution and direct are really reasonable as well. Most indie labels are okay with selling a few bucks cheaper because they want to keep customers happy. They know that the more you offer a customer, the more likely they are to come back. I know with Matador, I'm highly inclined to respect and listen to any artist on their label. I may not like all of them (Mecca Normal? gack!), but I'll give em all a try because Helium, Chavez, Pavement, etc, are all so good.
As for the brutal level of control - hey, they're a business. They have a finite amount of resources, and they have to decide what CDs to promote and how to do it. I think most of the labels that are non-RIAA are going to be sufficiently small that this really doesn't come into play. Matador pushes everything they release (except for singles, maybe) - they're not releasing 100+ records a year, so it's not a matter of only being able to promote 5 bands and hope they sell really well, and ignoring all the rest.
I have heard of virtually no label that says "Yes, take our music we appreciate the advertising" apart from a few isolated bands. Those who did seemed to assume that copyright didnt' apply at all, and stole Napsters logo just to make a profit. All labels are evil so boycott the lot
The reason you've heard virtually no labels say that is because it's really hard running an independent record label. It's even harder to make money doing it. So you're saying they should risk their chances at that so people can have things for free? These bands pay for musicians to spend weeks in the recording studios and such. They have office buildings. They mail records out. Things cost money. They're not in favor of shifting their business model to giving away stuff for free. Look how well it's working for most.coms.
The bands that have jumped on the Napster bandwagon for the most part seem really self-promoting. ie "We like Napster! We are a band of the people! Love us! Buy our CDs, on sale now!"
I personally run a very very very small record label. And yes, I use Napster. So it's hard for me sometmes to justify both sides. But not all record labels are evil by any measure. I personally work with my artists to ensure that what costs I can afford to cover get covered, I set up shows so people can see my bands, I mail promos all the time and try to convince people at college radio to play our stuff. It's hard work. But I do it for my love of music, particularly that of the people I work with. I'm hardly evil. Well, in that respect, anyway.
Now if someone comes along and wants to give away something that I'm charging money for on the grounds that we have too much money already, then I need to take some of my riches and buy a baseball bat to go upside their head with. Come on, guys! Not all people in music make as much money as Britney Spears. Hell, not all people in music get heard on your pop radio station. Take a wider view.
As for MP3s, yeah, we got em. I deal with my artists and try to get some fun, different, exclusive, whatever, stuff up on the web for download. And I offer up RealAudio files of our releases so people can try before they buy.
You're in the UK, so you'd be forgiven for thinking that. They're one of those bands that is far more famous in the UK than in the US, not unlike Madder Rose. On the commercial end, I'd doubt any of their albums has sold even 100,000 copies. And since Throwing Muses broke up, I don't expect the revenues are going anywhere but down.
I noticed Salon didn't interview any of the less popular artists whose music does not sell and they end up in massive debt to the record companies.
Artists quoted in the article (among others): Aimee Mann Kristin Hersh Scott Sapp from Creed Jonatha Brooke drummer from Sevendust Mandy Barnett Bif Naked Debbie Harry
At most, two of these people are living comfortably. The guy from Creed and Debbie Harry. Some of them, I haven't even heard of, and that's saying something.
*sigh* Time for "Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Music Business" theater...
I think it's bullshit. I for one have gigs upon gigs of mp3s, and while i'd admit Napster has saved me from buying another CD from time to time, however if I like the album I downloaded i'll probably catch them in concert when they stop by. They must make money off concerts. While they do have to pay up to venues, why not use advertising to help out? I'm not talking about cutting in the middle of a song to say it's brought to you by M&M's or something like that, but banners and such should definitely help bring in some cash. T-shirts I usually pass on, because they usually don't come in my size. They should have XXL and XXXL - the other sizes shrink too fast. There's always ways to make money, and I think if artists start looking at concerts and touring more, they can tell the record labels to kiss their ass.
How many times do you have to be told before you realize that MOST TOURS DO NOT MAKE MONEY. It's in the frigging article on Salon. Come on kids, learn to read! Please. I'm begging.
You're suggesting bands find sponsorship from corporations. That's great, if you're a band with a significant audience. But even so, most corporations have plenty of other ways to advertise that are cheaper and more efficient.
Inherently? Do I deserve to get paid for my work? For all my work? For the work of writing this?
I'd say anyone who invests a substantial body of time into such an effort deserves compensation, more specifically, if they are choosing to do it as a career. Let me turn it on the flipside - do you work for free? Do you ask other people to work for you for free? Yes, it does depend on what work you're doing as to what it's worth. I'm not saying all musicians should get rich, but I don't think you have the right to deny them pay because you don't feel like paying $14 for an album.
I think you'll find that it's only the big commercial "artists" who are whingeing about Napster. The guys with day jobs aren't making enough money out of CDs to care.
Read the article. They quoted Kristin Hersh of Throwing Muses, among others. Have you even heard of Throwing Muses? I suspect not.
Service in this respect means live concerts. And that is where the income for most musicians come anyway. Sure, there are those lucky ones who makes a hit, and gets rich very fast, but I can't say that I feel very sorry if that gets harder. For the majority of musicians, where live performances is the way they make an income, limiting distribution of their work means that they are limiting the potential audience.
You must not be in a band. I am friends with a band (book them regularly, beg them to do shit for my label, etc) that has been going at it for 6 or 7 years. As far as I know, they just started getting paid for their shows in the last year or two at most. So that's 5 years of playing for free. Minimal t-shirt sales in those 5 years (they had shirts and stickers, but when the total fanbase is under say, 100 people...), minimal CD sales (the lead singer's a perfectionist and usually disavows any recording about 3 months after it's finished) on 2 projects, one a full CD (they still have probably 300-400 of the 500 copies), and one a CD-R EP later done as a tape.
Now they're on their third album ("their debut" to roughly the whole world) and headlining shows in Dallas. They played in Austin (first time outside of Dallas area) last weekend, and the room was mostly packed with Dallas area people. But it took them more than 5 years to get to this point. And I guarantee you, being huge in Dallas does not carry over to anywhere else in the world. Look At Tripping Daisy, Deep Blue Something (oops), Hagfish, Toadies (well, ok), Brutal Juice, etc... so if they were to play in another state, they'd be looking at the same old crowds of 5 people again.
The band in question is Chomsky. You can find them and some of their songs at http://www.chomsky.com.
Did anyone else but me notice that, by substituting the word 'radio' for 'napster', these same arguments could have been made fifty years ago? It's only very recently that artists started getting a commission from airplay.
While I can see similarities, you are in fact wrong. Airplay royalties have been around for about 50 years. Since the creation of ASCAP and BMI in the Tin Pan Alley days. SESAC, I honestly don't know enough about.
But this can't last. Take the Aimee Mann case. Someone I know saw Magnolia and liked the Aimee Mann songs. He downloaded the most memorable songs -- "One" "Save Me" and "Wise Up" -- from Napster and they are indeed good. He looked up on CDNow what the other album tracks are. He downloaded a few of those...but they suck. He burned the 3 MP3s (160 kbs) he liked to CD. He listens to that CD a lot and he even burned copies for his brother- and father-in-law, neither of whom know how to use a computer at all.
Personally, My friend is never going to buy a music CD again.
Meanwhile, Aimee Mann has gotten dropped from a few labels, had problems making ends meet, etc. Now she runs her own label because the majors were so short-sighted and did such a poor job at promoting her. I'm glad you only liked 3 of her songs, but she deserves to get paid for her work.
Hmm, well those of us in bands that don't get continual air-play actually make money by touring and playing in bars.
I know and have dealt with plenty of bands that do not get continual airplay. You might be making money on touring and selling shirts, but you're either lucky, or only playing your hometown.
From the article you apparently did NOT read:
"'We can make a new model' -- yeah, right," says the singer. "It's laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you're Alanis Morissette or Dave Mathews, you're not making money on the road. It's all I can do to break even on tour. And the only reason to tour is to promote the sale of my CD."
Bought one a few weeks back on the recommendation of MSNBC, at $300. Already have a Palm IIIe, but told myself I'd find something to do with it. Haven't successfully installed telnet yet and Windows CE Services suck ass, otherwise I'd read my shell mail in comfort laying on my bed instead of sitting at my big box.
Now I just have to figure out if I'm up to learning how to get NetBSD onto it and maybe I'll be set. That and a network card. Yay!
Re:Well, I'm still kinda iffy
on
MacOS X DP3
·
· Score: 1
In the dock, when you mouse over items, the name of the application is shown. As for multiple consoles, that I didn't get to try.
As for oversize icons and such, you can set how large they are and what they do in the Finder Preferences, but real estate wasn't an issue from what I could tell. And I don't think having 4 windows up would be a big issue.
But then, I am a typical Windows endluser - (and I did get mocked indirectly by those showing me DP3 when they maximized a window, because...) I like all my windows maximized and taking up all my attention for the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Most bands do not make money from touring. Perhaps Public Enemy does. But most bands do not. Huge major label bands, maybe. *MOST* bands do not.
I'll gain $1000 + $1000/(number of active members of my team)!
Tomato. Potato.
Might as well waste the karma.
Dude, please tell me you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, you're a fucking idiot.
So, I'm from Dallas. And The Toadies? Well, they're from Fort Worth. But it's all basically the Dallas "metroplex" anyway.
I care a lot about the local music scene. I run a tiny little record label. I help my friends in bands out all the time.
Recently, a college station here did a "fest" with The Toadies headlining. I went to help out one of the "lesser" bands playing n the bill, and to see another band I'm good friends with.
The first band on the main stage (where Toadies would later play) that I came to see was Little Grizzly. The show was at a bad venue (cool looking, the Ridglea Theater, but bad) and it wasn't there best show, but dear God, the heckling from those Toadies fans. It's almost as if they'd never heard the college station or anything.
After their set, some little kid in front of me who was heckling the band finally pissed me off to the point that I said something about it. He said, "Who's the loser? I came to see a NATIONAL band, and you came to see a LOCAL band."
You can't argue with logic like that, folks.
Luckily, Legendary Crystal Chandelier's set went more smoothly, since it was upstairs.
The fact is, people don't really care as much about music as some of us do. Hell, most Slashdotters obviously don't... they're too busy decrying the RIAA for "making" them buy "$17 CDs" with "only one or two good songs on them".
The fact that people want to be told what to listen to is sad. The fact that the ability to tell them what to listen to is for sale is both expected and yet very depressing.
Yes, really, go see a local band. And not some fucking Adidas rock bullshit... ie something that doesn't sound like Limp Bizkit. Think a little.
If anyone cares, feel free to email me - I can tip you off to 20 great bands from Dallas, some of whom tour around the country (and no, Flickerstick doesn't count).
Yes, but why should techs bother keeping a job when they can just go somewhere else? Why fight to improve anything, just quit and let bad things persist. We crab about how bad things are, but we never do anything about it.
Dude, did you get your legal info from Cryptonomicon? I have never heard of a shareholder lawsuit against a big company for failing to be greedy enough. The incentive for a coporate board is their salaries, jobs, and bonuses, which are all tied to stock price, which is ostensibly tied to company performance. If the companies don't make lots of money, their stock price stagnates or drops, and the board is fired. They are a bunch of greedheads, and that is their job.
Um, no, Stephenson (man that he is) got his info from REALITY - it's called breach of fiduciary duties or responsibilities. Such lawsuits do occur, though you don't keep up with business stuff, so I expect you wouldn't know about it. Typically it only happens in such vindictive circumstances (sort of like in the book) and is not very publicized for same reasons.
Give me an ffen break. The artists don't lost CRAP. It's the money-sucking-lets-try-to-kill everyone's-freedom RECORD companies that lost. And you know what? WHO CARES? These companies are MONOPOLIES. If the artist got all the money, it might be a different story - but I think not since the record companies make MILLIONS off some of the more popular albums. And do the artists see this? NO!
You are what is commonly referred to as "wrong". If an artist gets a percentage of the cost of each CD (which is typically how their payment is structured), and the artist sells less CDs, both the artist and the label lose money.
No, this does not excuse the fact that labels do treat artists poorly and are structured to get artists into debt so they have to do what the label wants. But it does poke a hole in your very flimsy rationalization.
Now now, I can't believe nobody mentioned that the Dallas Observer did the article about Ion Storm those many moons ago... I remember all the beautiful letters that came in the weeks after that from clueless net.kids who couldn't stand that beautiful John Romero got trashed in a newspaper. "I've never heard of the Dallas Observer, so it must suck." was among my favorite comments.
Made for a nice change from the people bitching about the music reviews.
if you're not able to run OS 9 (check the apple site to see what they recommend for that model, ram, etc) you might be able to get an older 8.x version on ebay or at Sun Remarketing. that's where i got system 6 for one of my old toaster macs.
Those guys have an interesting business - some of their prices are great, and some are just REALLY bizarre.
Well, Simple Machines doesn't really exist as a record label anymore. But, killing two birds with one stone, you can find them on the web at:
The Machine at Insound
It's recommended reading for those of you who say hilarious things like "bands can make money from touring".
Since virtually all labels have spoken out against Napster as though it is the most evil thing ever, I think all labels should be boycotted. Even the Non-RIAA members artificially increase the price of CD's. All of them hold on to an almost brutal level of control over their music, and most of them stop producing music to make other bands more succesful.
.coms.
Okay, you're one of the naive ones. But I'm not going to let this go unchecked. Not all non-RIAA members artificially increase the price of CDs - Dischord is a good example. Matador's prices to wholesale/distribution and direct are really reasonable as well. Most indie labels are okay with selling a few bucks cheaper because they want to keep customers happy. They know that the more you offer a customer, the more likely they are to come back. I know with Matador, I'm highly inclined to respect and listen to any artist on their label. I may not like all of them (Mecca Normal? gack!), but I'll give em all a try because Helium, Chavez, Pavement, etc, are all so good.
As for the brutal level of control - hey, they're a business. They have a finite amount of resources, and they have to decide what CDs to promote and how to do it. I think most of the labels that are non-RIAA are going to be sufficiently small that this really doesn't come into play. Matador pushes everything they release (except for singles, maybe) - they're not releasing 100+ records a year, so it's not a matter of only being able to promote 5 bands and hope they sell really well, and ignoring all the rest.
I have heard of virtually no label that says "Yes, take our music we appreciate the advertising" apart from a few isolated bands. Those who did seemed to assume that copyright didnt' apply at all, and stole Napsters logo just to make a profit. All labels are evil so boycott the lot
The reason you've heard virtually no labels say that is because it's really hard running an independent record label. It's even harder to make money doing it. So you're saying they should risk their chances at that so people can have things for free? These bands pay for musicians to spend weeks in the recording studios and such. They have office buildings. They mail records out. Things cost money. They're not in favor of shifting their business model to giving away stuff for free. Look how well it's working for most
The bands that have jumped on the Napster bandwagon for the most part seem really self-promoting. ie "We like Napster! We are a band of the people! Love us! Buy our CDs, on sale now!"
I personally run a very very very small record label. And yes, I use Napster. So it's hard for me sometmes to justify both sides. But not all record labels are evil by any measure. I personally work with my artists to ensure that what costs I can afford to cover get covered, I set up shows so people can see my bands, I mail promos all the time and try to convince people at college radio to play our stuff. It's hard work. But I do it for my love of music, particularly that of the people I work with. I'm hardly evil. Well, in that respect, anyway.
Now if someone comes along and wants to give away something that I'm charging money for on the grounds that we have too much money already, then I need to take some of my riches and buy a baseball bat to go upside their head with. Come on, guys! Not all people in music make as much money as Britney Spears. Hell, not all people in music get heard on your pop radio station. Take a wider view.
As for MP3s, yeah, we got em. I deal with my artists and try to get some fun, different, exclusive, whatever, stuff up on the web for download. And I offer up RealAudio files of our releases so people can try before they buy.
Sonic Therapy
So don't call us evil. Much.
You're in the UK, so you'd be forgiven for thinking that. They're one of those bands that is far more famous in the UK than in the US, not unlike Madder Rose. On the commercial end, I'd doubt any of their albums has sold even 100,000 copies. And since Throwing Muses broke up, I don't expect the revenues are going anywhere but down.
You know, not all bands play arenas. Not all bands charge $50-$75 a ticket. Hell, I can't remember the last show I went to where I paid more than $30.
And most of the bands I go see don't have baseball caps. You went to a Rolling Stones concert once, I guess.
I noticed Salon didn't interview any of the less popular artists whose music does not sell and they end up in massive debt to the record companies.
Artists quoted in the article (among others):
Aimee Mann
Kristin Hersh
Scott Sapp from Creed
Jonatha Brooke
drummer from Sevendust
Mandy Barnett
Bif Naked
Debbie Harry
At most, two of these people are living comfortably. The guy from Creed and Debbie Harry. Some of them, I haven't even heard of, and that's saying something.
*sigh* Time for "Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Music Business" theater...
I think it's bullshit. I for one have gigs upon gigs of mp3s, and while i'd admit Napster has saved me from buying another CD from time to time, however if I like the album I downloaded i'll probably catch them in concert when they stop by. They must make money off concerts. While they do have to pay up to venues, why not use advertising to help out? I'm not talking about cutting in the middle of a song to say it's brought to you by M&M's or something like that, but banners and such should definitely help bring in some cash. T-shirts I usually pass on, because they usually don't come in my size. They should have XXL and XXXL - the other sizes shrink too fast. There's always ways to make money, and I think if artists start looking at concerts and touring more, they can tell the record labels to kiss their ass.
How many times do you have to be told before you realize that MOST TOURS DO NOT MAKE MONEY. It's in the frigging article on Salon. Come on kids, learn to read! Please. I'm begging.
You're suggesting bands find sponsorship from corporations. That's great, if you're a band with a significant audience. But even so, most corporations have plenty of other ways to advertise that are cheaper and more efficient.
And bands do not typically have to pay venues.
"she deserves to get paid for her work."
Inherently? Do I deserve to get paid for my work? For all my work? For the work of writing this?
I'd say anyone who invests a substantial body of time into such an effort deserves compensation, more specifically, if they are choosing to do it as a career. Let me turn it on the flipside - do you work for free? Do you ask other people to work for you for free? Yes, it does depend on what work you're doing as to what it's worth. I'm not saying all musicians should get rich, but I don't think you have the right to deny them pay because you don't feel like paying $14 for an album.
I think you'll find that it's only the big commercial "artists" who are whingeing about Napster. The guys with day jobs aren't making enough money out of CDs to care.
Read the article. They quoted Kristin Hersh of Throwing Muses, among others. Have you even heard of Throwing Muses? I suspect not.
Service in this respect means live concerts. And that is where the income for most musicians come anyway. Sure, there are those lucky ones who makes a hit, and gets rich very fast, but I can't say that I feel very sorry if that gets harder. For the majority of musicians, where live performances is the way they make an income, limiting distribution of their work means that they are limiting the potential audience.
You must not be in a band. I am friends with a band (book them regularly, beg them to do shit for my label, etc) that has been going at it for 6 or 7 years. As far as I know, they just started getting paid for their shows in the last year or two at most. So that's 5 years of playing for free. Minimal t-shirt sales in those 5 years (they had shirts and stickers, but when the total fanbase is under say, 100 people...), minimal CD sales (the lead singer's a perfectionist and usually disavows any recording about 3 months after it's finished) on 2 projects, one a full CD (they still have probably 300-400 of the 500 copies), and one a CD-R EP later done as a tape.
Now they're on their third album ("their debut" to roughly the whole world) and headlining shows in Dallas. They played in Austin (first time outside of Dallas area) last weekend, and the room was mostly packed with Dallas area people. But it took them more than 5 years to get to this point. And I guarantee you, being huge in Dallas does not carry over to anywhere else in the world. Look At Tripping Daisy, Deep Blue Something (oops), Hagfish, Toadies (well, ok), Brutal Juice, etc... so if they were to play in another state, they'd be looking at the same old crowds of 5 people again.
The band in question is Chomsky. You can find them and some of their songs at http://www.chomsky.com.
Did anyone else but me notice that, by substituting the word 'radio' for 'napster', these same arguments could have been made fifty years ago? It's only very recently that artists started getting a commission from airplay.
While I can see similarities, you are in fact wrong. Airplay royalties have been around for about 50 years. Since the creation of ASCAP and BMI in the Tin Pan Alley days. SESAC, I honestly don't know enough about.
But this can't last. Take the Aimee Mann case. Someone I know saw Magnolia and liked the Aimee Mann songs. He downloaded the most memorable songs -- "One" "Save Me" and "Wise Up" -- from Napster and they are indeed good. He looked up on CDNow what the other album tracks are. He downloaded a few of those...but they suck. He burned the 3 MP3s (160 kbs) he liked to CD. He listens to that CD a lot and he even burned copies for his brother- and father-in-law, neither of whom know how to use a computer at all.
Personally, My friend is never going to buy a music CD again.
Meanwhile, Aimee Mann has gotten dropped from a few labels, had problems making ends meet, etc. Now she runs her own label because the majors were so short-sighted and did such a poor job at promoting her. I'm glad you only liked 3 of her songs, but she deserves to get paid for her work.
Hmm, well those of us in bands that don't get continual air-play actually make money by touring and playing in bars.
I know and have dealt with plenty of bands that do not get continual airplay. You might be making money on touring and selling shirts, but you're either lucky, or only playing your hometown.
From the article you apparently did NOT read:
"'We can make a new model' -- yeah, right," says the singer. "It's laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you're Alanis Morissette or Dave Mathews, you're not making money on the road. It's all I can do to break even on tour. And the only reason to tour is to promote the sale of my CD."
Bought one a few weeks back on the recommendation of MSNBC, at $300. Already have a Palm IIIe, but told myself I'd find something to do with it. Haven't successfully installed telnet yet and Windows CE Services suck ass, otherwise I'd read my shell mail in comfort laying on my bed instead of sitting at my big box.
Now I just have to figure out if I'm up to learning how to get NetBSD onto it and maybe I'll be set. That and a network card. Yay!
You might wish to consider fixing your computer.
In the dock, when you mouse over items, the name of the application is shown. As for multiple consoles, that I didn't get to try.
As for oversize icons and such, you can set how large they are and what they do in the Finder Preferences, but real estate wasn't an issue from what I could tell. And I don't think having 4 windows up would be a big issue.
But then, I am a typical Windows endluser - (and I did get mocked indirectly by those showing me DP3 when they maximized a window, because...) I like all my windows maximized and taking up all my attention for the moment.