Um, I hate to make a nuisance of myself in this thread, but, as I'm sure you're aware, there are only, you know, like, TWELVE NOTES. So if you want to talk about originality in music, 12-tone western tonality is just a *bad* place to start. I'm sure if you're on slashdot in the first place you're intelligent enough to know that, given the constraints of a) twelve tones and b) the 3-minute pop song, the possibilities exhaust themselves pretty quickly.
To respond to the factual meat of your statement, Eminem can actually sing. He's not Luciano Pavarotti, but he can hold a tune. Controlling the frequency and amplitude of vocal chords is, fundamentally, no different then controlling the amplitude and frequency of an instrument (all those nasty jokes I made about vocalists while I was at music camp notwithstanding).
And what's more important than holding a tune, is that he can *write* a tune. Last I heard, he makes a good portion of his own beats these days, as well as a good portion of the beats on the 50-cent album. Programming music into a computer might not require the physical dexterity of playing an instrument, but it damn sure does require the mental dexterity or being able to actually compose a song (albeit a pop song). Something, I might add, that many people who can "actually play instruments" lack the ability to do. Say, for instance, Nickelback. The fact that they can play "real instruments" doesn't change the fact that they suck major donkey asshole.
Mozart and Beethoven (even though they could) didn't play instruments at performances of their works. They had hired hands play the parts they wrote. Eminem has machines and hired hands play the parts he wrote. The main difference being that you can tell a machine *exactly* what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Whereas with humans performing your composition you always run the risk that they'll screw it up, or even worse, put their own spin or interpretation on it.
When the Mom-and-Pop band goes into the studio to record an album, they emerge with two related yet discrete products. A collection of songs (the notes, lyrics, chords, tempo, modulations, etc... essentially metric data that can be easily reverse-engineered) and a collection of recordings (the tape or disk, containing the actual bits or electromagnetic flux representing the specific performances of the metric data by musicians).
Look closely on any retail CD you own. The *songs* will be copyright-ed (copywritten?) by the author (as in, "Big Stanky Lovin'" copyright 1999 Herb Stank). Somewhere in the vicinity, there will also be a note that "the copyright in this original sound recording is owned by Universal Music Group". What this means is that Herb Stank may have written the song, but that Universal owns the master tapes of this recording. Usually somewhere in there is the standard disclaimer about "all rights reserved".
The rights that the record companies are reserving are the right to sell CD's; the right to control who performs the recording live; the right to make and sell sheet music of the recording; the right to sell these rights to an interested party. These are all forms of publishing, which is the only thing the record company cares about, because publishing is the only part of the music industry that actually makes money. That little blurb on the CD about "lyrics reprinted by permission"? It's not the songwriter's permission. It's Universal's. And if that blurb weren't on there, technically Universal could sue their own band (and believe me, that's an all too common occurance). And yes, they could decide to get their undies in a bundle and keep you from even printing your lyrics on your own CD. And yes, technically once you sign that dotted line, Universal could sue you for ever performing your own song live.
This might seem like a lot of rights for the record companies to have, considering they didn't write the song. This is why many musicians, independant and otherwise, form their own publishing companies. As long as Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing is the first to obtain the publishing rights to a song (and there's no reason they shouldn't be if the band isn't signed), the Mom and Pop band is in a much better position to negotiate with the record company to retain some of these rights, or to have them revert to Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing after a set period of time, then they would be if they just signed right up to Universal.
So, when rapper X sticks the CD from the Mom-and-Pop Band in his computer, fires up audiograbber and rips off a chunk of "Big Stanky Lovin", written by Herb Stank, performed by the Mom-and-Pop band, published by Mom-and-Pop's Publishing Inc., and (most importantly) OWNED by Universal, there can be four pipers to pay. But usually it's just the big one, since the big one has bought the publishing rights from the littler three. In fact, the most common scenario is that if Universal likes the Mom-and-Pop Band so much, they typically will buy Mom-and-Pop's Publishing as part of the deal. Which still leaves the artists pretty screwed, but at least they got more money.
On the other hand, if rapper X is smart and has his guitar playing friends reverse engineer the metric data contained within the digital (or analog) data of the sound recording, then you eliminate the record company being able to come after you for stealing their recording. OF course, they'll still come after you for stealing their song, but that's almost impossible to prove if you are clever enough...
Some legal protection does still exist for the fair use (although they don't call it that) of this metric data. There are certain legal requirements one must meet when attmpting to copyright a song (you can't copyright a two-note phrase). Etc...
Well from my personal experience with my friends and co-workers, people are switching already - to windows 98. I've been asked by no less than three people to wipe xp from their systems and roll them back to 98.
And I've been happy to oblige. Personally, I find that the occasional crashes one experiecnes with a win98 system are more than compensated for by it's blinding speed compared to xp. Apparently there's a few like-minded people out there since MS just decided to extend support for 98 for... what, two, three more years?
Just some facts, in case that's what you care about: 1) Nirvana (I assume that's the band you refer to) had considerably more hits than one (four number one hits from their second album alone). How many number one hits has your band had? 2) having a drug habit/problem makes one neither a bad person, nor deserving of the hatred and scorn you heap upon him. 3) he died about four years after the "one hit" you noticed, maybe that's "shortly" to you but most people would probably consider four years to be a not insignificant span of time. 4) in most circles, it's generally considered impolite to speak ill of the dead. 5) he was murdered, and evidence abounds if you care to investigate.
What I don't know for a fact is why you feel complelled to beat up on a dead murder victim on slashdot, in the midst of a discussion on MS security (or lack therof)
this is all academic. Show me a system that relies on electronic data and I'll show you a system that can be hacked. It's just a matter of time. Whether it comes in the form of stolen hands/eyes a la "minority report", or latex gloves that you stick in the microwave and then hold up to somebody's hand, or a palmtop hacking into the data stream from the unit itself, or an unscrupulous person with access falsifying records. There is no such thing as un uncrackable digital system. They said DVD was uncrackable too, remember?
"Actually, McDonald's is precisely the type of place that needs this kind of system. McDonald's generally hires both full and part time employees, and they often have erratic schedules. More importantly, employees often have to clock without any supervision by management."
If corporate is too cheap to pay supervisors to watch the employees, whose fault is that? Aren't they supposed to *earn* their money? Isn't the job of a supervisor to actually, you know, like, *supervise*? Isn't that why they make *more money*?
The only place I've worked with paper time cards, nobody ever punched anybody else in or out, ever. Know why? Cuz the time clock was right next to the manager's desk. Which means the manager would see anybody doing this. Which means he could stop them. This isn't rocket science, folks. Stop trying to let management off the hook, they should have to perform their job duties just like the rest of us. And if they can't they should be replaced. Keep going down this road and eventually the management will just stay home and we'll just mail them checks while these draconian automated systems do all the actual managing.
"On a tinfoil-beanie note, if the government wants to have you "picked up" they probably have better ways than checking to see if you clocked into a McDonalds"
Why would they? McDonalds is going to do it for them. And if you think the data from these hand scanners won't be integrated into the Total (oh wait, I mean terrorist... no I don't) Information Awareness program you are sadly mistaken.
Um, because they could sell it to telemarketers? Um, because they could sell it to identity theives on the black market? Um, because the govt could pass some stupid law *requiring them to keep it*? For, say, seven years? you know, just in case you commit a crime?
All my life, my employers have gotten by just fine without my fingerprints. I see no good reason for that to change. If it means that supervisors and managers have to actually do work trying to keep people from breaking the rules, oh well. That's why they're making the big bucks. I went to a check-cashing place recently and they tried to take my prints. I walked out. Since I've committed no crime, nobody should need my fingerprints. Since nothing good can come of it, by default the only thing that can come of it is something bad.
I agree with you that as soon as biometrics are accepted by the mass public we will need *stringent* laws on the books to compel the destruction of this data by employers, and to prohibit the sale thereof. I'm not holding my breath. If anyting, the govt will want employers to keep it (unfunded mandate) so the govt doesn't have to! Your employer will be legislated into being a non-profit data warehouse for the government, while simultaneously exposing you to very real dangers. Hasn't the identity theft crime wave taught us anything? The more information about us is out there, the more information about us will be abused.
I don't see how so many people can be so complacent about this. People, especially corporate and gov't people, are just shitheads and will get away with whatever they can. To quote a book I just finished, they will never stop unless somebody makes them stop.
when VHS movies were first available for sale, they were like $80. 20 years later, they are now about $5.
When DVDs were first available for sale, they were about $50. Five years later, they are now about $15.
when CDs were first available for sale, they were about $18.99. 20 years later, they are... $18.99. And the RIAA and major labels have all been found guilty in US courts of price-fixing, multiple times.
Look, simply put, if there were no shoplifting, you can bet that pack of gum would cost $10. If you couldn't go to friends or family for a loan of money, you can bet the interest rates charged by banks on those same loans would skyrocket. Capitalism works best when there's just enough alternatives for the consumer to keep the merchants honest. Obtaining the goods without paying the merchant is an alternative for the consumer. Really, it is the logical extension of consumerism - what could possibly be morally wrong about wanting the best deal possible? The greed of the consumer balances out the greed of the merchant. Checks and balances. Sounds American to me.
CD=$18 for 72 minutes of 44.1 kHz 16 bit audio only, presumably up to $36 under this new claptrap
DVD=$5-$20 for over 90 minutes (usually) of mpeg-2 video PLUS 24bit 96kHz audio, PLUS extra footage, PLUS theatrical trailers, PLUS whatever else they can fit on the disc
No, there's no discrepancy here, move along folks, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
And besides, I know the record companies aren't paying the artist. I know because many of my friends are on these receord labels and get sued way more often then they get paid. So why should I pay the record companies? So they can continue mistreating their workers? If I keep giving them my business they'll have no incentive to change. I fully support record labels that treat their artists fairly with my cash - I have downloaded zero songs from dischord records. If the record companies want my business that's great, all they have to do is stop gouging me on CD prices (like they've already been ordered to do by the govt)and stop litigating against my friends.
"This isn't a war like Vietnam or Desert Storm. The battlefield is every home, every building, and every street in the entire world. "
That statement is patently untrue. In my house, nobody is shooting anybody, nobody is building bombs, nobody is promoting terrorism. We watch too much TV, play guitar, eat junk food, drink beer, and surf the web. We do not engage in, nor do we promote, terrorism. So leave my house out of your trite little PC bullshit phrase of the month. How about your houses, slashdotters? This guy just said you're letting terrorists fight wars in YOUR HOUSE, anybody else going to tell him he's wrong?
How about the White House? That's a building. The war must be there too, according to you, right? Let's see you storm that perimeter. Let's see you tell GWB with a straight face that you honestly truly believe that there's just as great a chance you could find terrorists under his roof as any other, because the battlefield is every house everywhere. That is what you said, right? Can you see how stupid you'd look? How about the tool shed behind the garage at my house? That's a building. It hasn't been occupied by a human being in over ten months, but hell, it's a building. How about the First Baptist Church down the street, that's a building. How about the Pentagon? It's got walls, a roof, and plumbing, sounds like a building to me.
The battlefield is NOT, I repeat NOT every building and street in the entire world. If it is, we have no chance of winning, because our armed forces aren't big enough to occupy every building in the world. And, come to think of it, it means there must be a veritable TON of terrorists, if there's one in every building in the world (I mean, they have to be in every building the world, because every building in the world is the battlefield, so that means there's enemy troops there, right? a battlefield without enemy troops seems kinda anticlimactic) so for the sake of our victory, let's hope you're very wrong (don't worry, you are).
Your statement is also possibly the most un-American and dangerous sentiment being bandied about America today, in the media and elsewhere. If you think the war against terror is going on in my house you're obviously not looking very hard for the real war. The real war isn't that hard to miss (Hint: Saudi Arabia. Hint: We're losing). The FBI saw where the real war was, that's why their field agents predicted and tried to prevent 9/11. The CIA saw the real war, that's why their field agents did the same thing. These warnings were deliberately ignored because (and this is the best-case scenario giving Junior as much benefit of the doubt as I can muster) Junior wanted to take a month-long vacation and because he didn't want to be seen doing any of the things Bill Clinton did (you know, preventing terrorist attacks, making sensible economic and environmental decisions, being acconutable to voters, working cooperatively with the international community). And now you have the balls to tell me that MY house is the battlefield? Chump.
Those who say that my house is the battlefield, I postulate, are those that very much WANT my house to be the battlefield (Ashcroft and his evil minions). Those truly fighting the war, those truly in harm's way, have a pretty good idea where the war is. I find it kind of telling that no US soldier has shown up on my doorstep. Maybe it's because my house isn't the battlefield. See, *they* can figure it out, why can't you? Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel, Russia, Indonesia, all are smarter bets for where real terrorists are to be found then my hosue. Maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq and Afghanistan. And not in my house.
IMHO, yes they were overpriced, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out another contributor to their downfall was the inordinate amount of product tie-ins (star wars especially). It got to the point where when I would go lego shopping all I would see is star wars legos. If I want start wars toys I'll buy star wars toys. They thought having all these product tie-ins would make more people buy them, but instead they just bought real star wars toys. They need go get away from the specialty set and concentrate on making squares, rectangles and hinges again.
that was 1988. let me ask you a question: how long do you think bacteria live outside of any growth medium? 15 years? How long do you think highly volatile and reactive chemicals last? 15 years? We can't even get *food* to last more than a few months on the shelf (outside a can anyway). We have a *food preservative industry* to make sure that bread, cheese and other food products made from bacteria can stay on shelves for just a few months. And food isn't designed to blow up and kill anybody, and if it were, it's shelf life would be considerably shorter. Think, people, think.
Let me ask you another: How did he get all that gas to use on the Kurds 15 years ago? Who sold it to him? And what does that do to any pretense of morality on the part of said sellers of WMD?
Let me ask one final question, if you're even still reading: If we were absolutely certain that he posessed WMD, what scared us so much about the UN inspectors? What was Bush so afraid of that he had to pull the plug on them?
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about how divided Americans are against each other. Now, complete this sentence: Divide and...
because it's just math, and anybody can do math given the training and resources. Numbers are not property. Numbers are numbers, and anybody with a pencil, let alone a computer, can copy them.
More importantly and relevantly, anybody who knows how to do math can come up with the same thing. If you and I are working on identical projects, and you finish yours first and patent it, but then I come up with the same thing *on my own*, why can't I make money off it too? I thought of it just as much as you did. Intellectual property is a lie and I'm sorry you believe it. There is just a fundamental difference between math and, say, a whirlpool washing machine. Intellectual property laws lead to Microsoft and SCO. Sharing leads to open source and really good music available to everyone.
Yes, SHARING. Not STEALING. There is a very significant distinction.
Plus, on the metaphysical side, the only thing that can keep a closed system from entropic heat-death is to make the system be not closed. Sharing is a very effective way to keep the system open. As is, incidentally, love.
it doesn't cause the OS to crash (usually) just the app trying to read the cd. although if that app happens to be explorer, and you don't have the option enabled to run all explorers as separate processes, then it can affect the OS. bluescreens, says "the cd might be dirty" or something like that. let's you hit esc to abort in which case windows (usually) picks up where it left off.
Windows 98 is very stable if you know how to coax it and caress it. I've been using 98 on my main studio/gaming machine for years. Using the 98lite patch helps a lot. I haven't bluescreened in over 18 months, unless a CD was dirty. In fact when I set up my first web server it ran 98, and was up constantly with zero downtime for six months, until I moved. Of course, it wasn't always so, but it's been around for so long that most of the major bugs have been worked out (hell, most of em were worked out by the release of 98SE). So of course MS had to go invent new bugs to put back in and call it Millennium Edition.
I'm not saying that it's the right choice for everyone or for all situations, but for my multitracking/simcity box I wouldn't have it any other way. 98SE is VASTLY faster than XP. And, BTW, VASTLY more secure.
"Your argument is flawed, probably to the point of being completely void."
Yeah... containers are void, analogies are specious. Except when they're not, but here, have some more rope...
"Wal-Mart, the only specific retailer you've mentioned, has a very nice system for sampling CDs in every one of the stores that I've seen; far better than anything else I've ever used."
Hmm. All things being equal, their preview method might be quite functional. However we all know WalMart doesn't carry anything worth listening to anyway. If I can go to WalMart and preview, with this wonderful method you descsribe, the latest UNCENSORED release from Shellac or Atari Teenage Riot, I will cheerfully eat my hat, as my analogy will have indeed been rendered specious (not void). And the concept of American free speech, incidentally, will have been validated. But then WalMart, the late great K-Mart (KMart is dead, long live KMart), Target... all these major "big-box" retail outlets are well-known to eschew any and all CD's containing any controversial material. In fact, I might be crazy, but if you don't carry Snoop Dogg or Jay-Z (the REAL CD's, not the wussy-ass watered down republican version) you ain't serious about music retailing. Next.
"It's really quite simple. You just wander up to one-of-many listening stations with a random CD and put on the provided headphones."
And you have your choice of Anne Murrays' greatest hits or, if the manager of that particular WalMart likes "alternative" music, maybe even the greatest hits of Gordon Lightfoot. Next.
"conveniently-located barcode reader scans the UPC of the CD in question. After a very brief pause, music flows forth. You can listen to selected tracks in their entirety, or (I suppose) complete discs."
1) Are you, like, *trying* to sound like an RIAA shill? 2) This is a GREAT idea. Now if only they'd actually carry any CD's worth listening to, let alone previewing... This is getting boring, you appear to have precisely one arguement (and a specious one at that). Next.
"It sounds quite nice, in my experience, free of any discernable MP3-esque faults."
That's because MP3 is a lossy codec. Something the RIAA conveniently doesn't ever mention. Ever. Kinda like they didn't mention in the late 70's and early 80's that those insidious cassettes they were trying so hard, and so righteously, to outlaw (look it up) didn't sound as good as either vinyl (medium of choice at said time period) or *certainly* CD's. Funny coincidence, huh? Next.
"Imagine that - the world's largest retailer, allowing customers to listen to music before they purchase it."
No. The world's largest retailer allowing customers to listen to music that they, in their infinite corporate wisdom, deem fit. Next.
"And they've been doing it for -years-, long before Napster made 'MP3' a dinnertable word."
Yeah. The assumption that Napster is what made MP3 a dinnertable word, as opposed the greed and neglect of consumers by the RIAA, is yours and yours alone. I was actually cool enough to hear about the codec long before I ever heard of Napster. I know it's not relevant, but I figure if you can brag about using CDnow then I can brag about using MP3. Next.
"Your argument thus invalidated, I'll move along to my own anecdotes while we see if Taco is willing to create a new mod category of -1, Treason:"
Hah! Treason? That's a very strong word to use about something like MP3's. If you consider participation in the MP3 scene to be tantamount to treason well then, 1) color me treasonous and 2) color everybody that ever made a cassette mixtape the same shade. Study your history before you come to me with words like "treason" regarding the RIAA, for they are not to be taken lightly. This is not the first time the RIAA has attempted to circumvent the realities of free-market competition as it specifically applies to the SHIT they deem "popular music", and it won't be the last. Especially with willing syncophants to parrot their bullshit. You do realize that the RIAA and affilliated companies have been con
Why? Why does Apple not have to follow the laws of market economics? Why did you convince some poor sould to spend more money for less product?
Could it possibly be that your entire K-12 education was populated by Apples and those who extolled their virtues so convincingly that you now find yourself in the same role?
...and has been practiced for years by record stores, that is, stores that actually still sell vinyl records (primarily DJ shops). You open the package. You take the record (or cd's in a used cd store) out of the package and place it in a turntable or cd player behind the counter. You hand the customer headphones. Customer listens. If customer likes it he buys it, if not he hands you a different CD to listen to.
File-sharing isn't as popular as it is because people want to *own* the music. It's popular because people just want to hear what it sounds like before they buy it. If I wanted to actually *own* those songs it sure would't be in mp3 format (80% data loss), and without any liner notes, catalogs, or stickers.
I mean, when you buy an $8 t-shirt at wal-mart, you get to try it on first, right? When you want to buy a $10 book, you get to browse it at the bookstore before you buy it. Why should an $18.99 CD be any different?
Try-before-you-buy has always been my reason for using filesharing for music, if I hear a CD I like I buy it, that is if I can even find it at the store (thanks again RIAA).
But the RIAA will never pursue this method of both reducing piracy and meeting the consumers' needs, because they have zero interest in one of those two things. Guess which one. I maintain my opinion that the RIAA is terrified of file-sharing not because of any loss of profits to them (they're doing just fine, thanks) or to their artists (who they've been ripping off since the '20's), but because it means the average music consumer will no longer be satisfied with the STINKING, VOMITOUS, VILE, REPUGNANT, DISGUSTING, MALODOROUS, REPULSIVE SHIT being passed off as "popular" music by the RIAA. People have no option if they want to hear good music but to turn to the black market, for in this case the black market happens to be the only free, or even fair, market around.
All that could change if the music stores let you listen before you bought. For some reason, though, I'm not holding my breath.
I couldn't agree more, and I can't understand why nobody but us smart people has figured this out yet.
Can anybody out there seriously say they don't know what McDonalds makes? Why are they advertising period, considering that their ads consist of subjects as relevant to burger-eating as a DJ spinning records, or kids playing soccer. They don't even mention their food, everybody already knows it's there and knows it's crap. They advertise, well, nothing more than the Corporate Name. which isn't in any danger of being forgotton. To my mind, they could stop advertising on TV tomorrow and their sales would be completely unaffected. In fact, their bottom line would probably be up considerably given how much their ads must cost to produce.
I think that consumers, TV ad producers, and the businesses who use them have all gotten so desensitized to the TV commercial that nobody is asking anymore if the whole premise is even valid. I mean, back in the 50's you had ads that actually talked about their products and why they were better. Hardly any ads do this anymore, preferring to dwell on shiny happy people holding hands as they walk through a McDonalds. Ads today sell a feeling, not a product, and should be seriously examined by their producers and buyers as considerable wastes of resources.
Speaking from my own point of view, the only effective ads that work on me are word of mouth ones. When I heard about Krispy Kreme, when I heard about my favorite record store (that I still go to), when I heard about slashdot, it wasn't a TV commercial that told me. It was a friend. Companies have shown since (TTBOMK) the early 80's that this was a very effective line of marketing, that's why they started giving Guess jeans away to the popular kids for free. It worked like a charm. So why this tired old blindered approach to advertising, that the only thing that will sell a product is a TV commercial? IMHO that's the thing most guaranteed NOT to sell a product, in the same way that junk mail is guaranteed NOT to make me enter the publishers' clearinghouse sweepstakes.
The bottom line is, as long as commercials are ignorable, a lot of people will ignore them. Whether the means to that ignorance is a VCR or a tivo or, God forbid, your own power of attention, is irrelevant. When I'm at the gas pump and they start scrolling an ad for some cigarettes they've got on sale, I... actually look away. It's easy, especially if there's any girls around. I don't think TV commercials were effective when they started, I don't think they were effective 20 years ago, and I don't think they're effective now. If fact, I kinda suspect that they're just an excuse for the entire business model of broadcasting to exist at all. I would be THRILLED to be able to pay for the equivalent of network TV (non-movie channels) with content that I enjoyed and with NO commercials. I think many many other people would too. I think that this could result in a revolution of TV content many of us have been waiting decades to see. But as long as TV networks have to worry about their advertisers, we will continue to see programming as bland and inoffesive as possible.
One thing I don't understand is how skipping commercials is a huge problem with tivo, but it wasn't with VCR's. IMHO companies buying ads in a medium with as wide a demographic focus as network TV are suckers anyway - like somebody else in this thread said, if I'm watching an episode of "Law and Order" I can see ads for both douche and nursing homes. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that those two demographics are mutually exclusive. Wheras when I watch any discovery channels, I see ads for things that I might actually possibly care about. Most of them still don't hit home to me, but at least I can tell they're *trying*.
The TV advertising business model is dead, long live the TV advertising business model.
That's funny, I thought I did a pretty good job trying to be polite and explain all the technical stuff. I actually previewed and revised my post several times just because you seemed to have a modicum of intelligence and I didn't want to piss you off. Oh well. I'm pretty sure that I said that I also like vinyl. I'm pretty sure I did say that CD's weren't perfect. I'm pretty sure I did say you have the right to your opinion. Just like you have the right to have the opinion that the world is flat if you want.
But I'll be damned if I'll let you present that as the truth. I never said you were wrong to have your opinion, and you can't quote a passage where I did. I did say you were wrong to present this opinion as the unvarnished, empirical truth.
ObDisclaimer: I own 2 milk crates full of vinyl and a halfway decent turntable, and I like lots of things about vinyl. I like that you can look at the size of the grooves and tell the quality of the recording. I like that I can put my hand on the record and slow down or speed up the rate of playback, with zero-latency. I like that the cover art is bigger and easier to read, especially in dimly lit dj booths. I like that somebody can look at your record while it's playing and find out information about it (if they can keep from getting dizzy). I like that I own green, clear, and pink marble vinyl.
I do NOT like the audio, and here's why.
Do you know what "dynamic range" is? Dynamic range is, quite simply put, the difference between how loud and how quiet a recording can get (audiowise). In video terms, think of a TV with the "contrast" knob turned all the way down, a black and white picture where the blacks are just dark grey and the whites are just light grey, and there's not much distinction between them - this video signal has a low dynamic range. A medium that has a limited dynamic range will result in the content being less dynamic, more static, which means it changes less, which means it has a greater tendency to sound the same. Do you know that CD's have a 96dB dynamic range while vinyl has 60dB? In other words, the loudest 33% of what you have on a CD literally wouldn't FIT onto vinyl (or if you turned it down, the quietest 33% would disappear). Do you know why there was (and is) such a glut of CD's "digitally remastered"? It's because these albums were all mastered for vinyl, which means they were mastered quiet. It's because when transferred to a CD, that CD would sound about 2/3 as loud as a CD *not* mastered for vinyl. It means that on that CD before the remastering, fully 33% of all the data capacity was wasted. The "sound quality" that you like and are referring to isn't the quality of the medium (vinyl obviously wears out after repeated playings), it's the quality of the compression and limiting (and exciting, and subharmonic synthesis, etc) done during the mastering process. Do you know why mastering was invented? It was invented to make the music all soudns the same, amplitude-wise, to make the louds not so loud and the quiets not so quiet. It was because the soft parts of a master tape, when transferred directly to vinyl, just kinda... disappeared. So the volume needed to always be at the same level when transferring to vinyl. So they invented the compressor. Tape, even casettes, and even the studio tape used in the 40's, can hold at least 80dB (yes, almost 30% more than a record) of dynamic range. Again, the mastering process was *invented* to compensate for the physical limitations of vinyl. Keep in mind, vinyl was first used a medium for recorded music in the 30's. Are you still driving a model-T and claiming it "rides better"? Of course not. Model-T's are cool, and I'd love to own one, but I wouldn't be caught dead saying it's a better car than a Camry!
Incidentally, you can achieve the same "quality" effect you speak of by using Sound Forge or some similar program to compress the shit out of cd's that you rip. They have entire DirectX plugin suites dedicated to making digital audio sound like vinyl - because it's a subtractive process, an effect achieved by the willful destruction of data.
Are there problems with CD's as a music medium? Mos def. Is Steve Albini justified in many of his criticisms of CD audio? Yes. Are records cool? Yes. Do they offer any quantifiable benefits over CD's? No way in hell. It doesn't mean you can't like them, I like them too. It just means you can't say that they have better sound quality and claim to be being objective, or even rational.
But hey, in five years, I'll still be buying vinyl too.
Easy: the right to make a backup of a CD I purchased at a store, in case I lose the original. The right to make mixtapes for my friends (protected by act of friggin congress under "fair use"). And most importantly, my right to participate in a music-industry business model that does not leave me no other choices then to buy a Britney Spears CD for 18.99 or to not buy anything.
Don't get me wrong, as a musician I do see the need for copyright laws, but the RIAA and entertainment industrial complex keep pushing and pushing, extending the cutoff dates for when copyrights expire (yes, they do expire folks, as does the author/creator). The copyright laws as they stand now are an instrument designed solely to expediate laziness and hegemony by a few monolithic corporations.
Copyright is a tricky thing. Does the creator of an original work have the right to make money off of it? Sure. But if that was all there was to it, then nobody would be allowed to sing folk songs, because they'd all still be under copyright. Why, there'd be nothing to stop somebody from copyrighting the national anthem, and charging major leage baseball to sing it. American copyright law was originally intended to preserve the rights of both the author and the consumer (ie I have the right to sing "If I had a hammer" if I want to, because it's been part of American history and folklore and hence, belongs in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, whether I make money or not). The trend now is iron-clad, extensive (if not intrusive) rights for the copyright *owner* (who is increasingly not the author) but absolutely none for the consumer.
Is it any wonder we're taking our business somewhere else?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, I hate to make a nuisance of myself in this thread, but, as I'm sure you're aware, there are only, you know, like, TWELVE NOTES. So if you want to talk about originality in music, 12-tone western tonality is just a *bad* place to start. I'm sure if you're on slashdot in the first place you're intelligent enough to know that, given the constraints of a) twelve tones and b) the 3-minute pop song, the possibilities exhaust themselves pretty quickly.
To respond to the factual meat of your statement, Eminem can actually sing. He's not Luciano Pavarotti, but he can hold a tune. Controlling the frequency and amplitude of vocal chords is, fundamentally, no different then controlling the amplitude and frequency of an instrument (all those nasty jokes I made about vocalists while I was at music camp notwithstanding).
And what's more important than holding a tune, is that he can *write* a tune. Last I heard, he makes a good portion of his own beats these days, as well as a good portion of the beats on the 50-cent album. Programming music into a computer might not require the physical dexterity of playing an instrument, but it damn sure does require the mental dexterity or being able to actually compose a song (albeit a pop song). Something, I might add, that many people who can "actually play instruments" lack the ability to do. Say, for instance, Nickelback. The fact that they can play "real instruments" doesn't change the fact that they suck major donkey asshole.
Mozart and Beethoven (even though they could) didn't play instruments at performances of their works. They had hired hands play the parts they wrote. Eminem has machines and hired hands play the parts he wrote. The main difference being that you can tell a machine *exactly* what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Whereas with humans performing your composition you always run the risk that they'll screw it up, or even worse, put their own spin or interpretation on it.
Here's how it works:
When the Mom-and-Pop band goes into the studio to record an album, they emerge with two related yet discrete products. A collection of songs (the notes, lyrics, chords, tempo, modulations, etc... essentially metric data that can be easily reverse-engineered) and a collection of recordings (the tape or disk, containing the actual bits or electromagnetic flux representing the specific performances of the metric data by musicians).
Look closely on any retail CD you own. The *songs* will be copyright-ed (copywritten?) by the author (as in, "Big Stanky Lovin'" copyright 1999 Herb Stank). Somewhere in the vicinity, there will also be a note that "the copyright in this original sound recording is owned by Universal Music Group". What this means is that Herb Stank may have written the song, but that Universal owns the master tapes of this recording. Usually somewhere in there is the standard disclaimer about "all rights reserved".
The rights that the record companies are reserving are the right to sell CD's; the right to control who performs the recording live; the right to make and sell sheet music of the recording; the right to sell these rights to an interested party. These are all forms of publishing, which is the only thing the record company cares about, because publishing is the only part of the music industry that actually makes money. That little blurb on the CD about "lyrics reprinted by permission"? It's not the songwriter's permission. It's Universal's. And if that blurb weren't on there, technically Universal could sue their own band (and believe me, that's an all too common occurance). And yes, they could decide to get their undies in a bundle and keep you from even printing your lyrics on your own CD. And yes, technically once you sign that dotted line, Universal could sue you for ever performing your own song live.
This might seem like a lot of rights for the record companies to have, considering they didn't write the song. This is why many musicians, independant and otherwise, form their own publishing companies. As long as Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing is the first to obtain the publishing rights to a song (and there's no reason they shouldn't be if the band isn't signed), the Mom and Pop band is in a much better position to negotiate with the record company to retain some of these rights, or to have them revert to Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing after a set period of time, then they would be if they just signed right up to Universal.
So, when rapper X sticks the CD from the Mom-and-Pop Band in his computer, fires up audiograbber and rips off a chunk of "Big Stanky Lovin", written by Herb Stank, performed by the Mom-and-Pop band, published by Mom-and-Pop's Publishing Inc., and (most importantly) OWNED by Universal, there can be four pipers to pay. But usually it's just the big one, since the big one has bought the publishing rights from the littler three. In fact, the most common scenario is that if Universal likes the Mom-and-Pop Band so much, they typically will buy Mom-and-Pop's Publishing as part of the deal. Which still leaves the artists pretty screwed, but at least they got more money.
On the other hand, if rapper X is smart and has his guitar playing friends reverse engineer the metric data contained within the digital (or analog) data of the sound recording, then you eliminate the record company being able to come after you for stealing their recording. OF course, they'll still come after you for stealing their song, but that's almost impossible to prove if you are clever enough...
Some legal protection does still exist for the fair use (although they don't call it that) of this metric data. There are certain legal requirements one must meet when attmpting to copyright a song (you can't copyright a two-note phrase). Etc...
b.echthros
Well from my personal experience with my friends and co-workers, people are switching already - to windows 98. I've been asked by no less than three people to wipe xp from their systems and roll them back to 98.
And I've been happy to oblige. Personally, I find that the occasional crashes one experiecnes with a win98 system are more than compensated for by it's blinding speed compared to xp. Apparently there's a few like-minded people out there since MS just decided to extend support for 98 for... what, two, three more years?
Wow, off topic and a troll! Congratulations!
Just some facts, in case that's what you care about: 1) Nirvana (I assume that's the band you refer to) had considerably more hits than one (four number one hits from their second album alone). How many number one hits has your band had? 2) having a drug habit/problem makes one neither a bad person, nor deserving of the hatred and scorn you heap upon him. 3) he died about four years after the "one hit" you noticed, maybe that's "shortly" to you but most people would probably consider four years to be a not insignificant span of time. 4) in most circles, it's generally considered impolite to speak ill of the dead. 5) he was murdered, and evidence abounds if you care to investigate.
What I don't know for a fact is why you feel complelled to beat up on a dead murder victim on slashdot, in the midst of a discussion on MS security (or lack therof)
And their manager/supervisor was.... where?!
this is all academic. Show me a system that relies on electronic data and I'll show you a system that can be hacked. It's just a matter of time. Whether it comes in the form of stolen hands/eyes a la "minority report", or latex gloves that you stick in the microwave and then hold up to somebody's hand, or a palmtop hacking into the data stream from the unit itself, or an unscrupulous person with access falsifying records. There is no such thing as un uncrackable digital system. They said DVD was uncrackable too, remember?
"Actually, McDonald's is precisely the type of place that needs this kind of system. McDonald's generally hires both full and part time employees, and they often have erratic schedules. More importantly, employees often have to clock without any supervision by management."
If corporate is too cheap to pay supervisors to watch the employees, whose fault is that? Aren't they supposed to *earn* their money? Isn't the job of a supervisor to actually, you know, like, *supervise*? Isn't that why they make *more money*?
The only place I've worked with paper time cards, nobody ever punched anybody else in or out, ever. Know why? Cuz the time clock was right next to the manager's desk. Which means the manager would see anybody doing this. Which means he could stop them. This isn't rocket science, folks. Stop trying to let management off the hook, they should have to perform their job duties just like the rest of us. And if they can't they should be replaced. Keep going down this road and eventually the management will just stay home and we'll just mail them checks while these draconian automated systems do all the actual managing.
"On a tinfoil-beanie note, if the government wants to have you "picked up" they probably have better ways than checking to see if you clocked into a McDonalds"
Why would they? McDonalds is going to do it for them. And if you think the data from these hand scanners won't be integrated into the Total (oh wait, I mean terrorist... no I don't) Information Awareness program you are sadly mistaken.
Um, because they could sell it to telemarketers? Um, because they could sell it to identity theives on the black market? Um, because the govt could pass some stupid law *requiring them to keep it*? For, say, seven years? you know, just in case you commit a crime?
All my life, my employers have gotten by just fine without my fingerprints. I see no good reason for that to change. If it means that supervisors and managers have to actually do work trying to keep people from breaking the rules, oh well. That's why they're making the big bucks. I went to a check-cashing place recently and they tried to take my prints. I walked out. Since I've committed no crime, nobody should need my fingerprints. Since nothing good can come of it, by default the only thing that can come of it is something bad.
I agree with you that as soon as biometrics are accepted by the mass public we will need *stringent* laws on the books to compel the destruction of this data by employers, and to prohibit the sale thereof. I'm not holding my breath. If anyting, the govt will want employers to keep it (unfunded mandate) so the govt doesn't have to! Your employer will be legislated into being a non-profit data warehouse for the government, while simultaneously exposing you to very real dangers. Hasn't the identity theft crime wave taught us anything? The more information about us is out there, the more information about us will be abused.
I don't see how so many people can be so complacent about this. People, especially corporate and gov't people, are just shitheads and will get away with whatever they can. To quote a book I just finished, they will never stop unless somebody makes them stop.
Our best chance is to not let it get started.
Well, it's been said, but it bears repeating:
when VHS movies were first available for sale, they were like $80. 20 years later, they are now about $5.
When DVDs were first available for sale, they were about $50. Five years later, they are now about $15.
when CDs were first available for sale, they were about $18.99. 20 years later, they are... $18.99. And the RIAA and major labels have all been found guilty in US courts of price-fixing, multiple times.
Look, simply put, if there were no shoplifting, you can bet that pack of gum would cost $10. If you couldn't go to friends or family for a loan of money, you can bet the interest rates charged by banks on those same loans would skyrocket. Capitalism works best when there's just enough alternatives for the consumer to keep the merchants honest. Obtaining the goods without paying the merchant is an alternative for the consumer. Really, it is the logical extension of consumerism - what could possibly be morally wrong about wanting the best deal possible? The greed of the consumer balances out the greed of the merchant. Checks and balances. Sounds American to me.
CD=$18 for 72 minutes of 44.1 kHz 16 bit audio only, presumably up to $36 under this new claptrap
DVD=$5-$20 for over 90 minutes (usually) of mpeg-2 video PLUS 24bit 96kHz audio, PLUS extra footage, PLUS theatrical trailers, PLUS whatever else they can fit on the disc
No, there's no discrepancy here, move along folks, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
And besides, I know the record companies aren't paying the artist. I know because many of my friends are on these receord labels and get sued way more often then they get paid. So why should I pay the record companies? So they can continue mistreating their workers? If I keep giving them my business they'll have no incentive to change. I fully support record labels that treat their artists fairly with my cash - I have downloaded zero songs from dischord records. If the record companies want my business that's great, all they have to do is stop gouging me on CD prices (like they've already been ordered to do by the govt)and stop litigating against my friends.
"This isn't a war like Vietnam or Desert Storm. The battlefield is every home, every building, and every street in the entire world. "
That statement is patently untrue. In my house, nobody is shooting anybody, nobody is building bombs, nobody is promoting terrorism. We watch too much TV, play guitar, eat junk food, drink beer, and surf the web. We do not engage in, nor do we promote, terrorism. So leave my house out of your trite little PC bullshit phrase of the month. How about your houses, slashdotters? This guy just said you're letting terrorists fight wars in YOUR HOUSE, anybody else going to tell him he's wrong?
How about the White House? That's a building. The war must be there too, according to you, right? Let's see you storm that perimeter. Let's see you tell GWB with a straight face that you honestly truly believe that there's just as great a chance you could find terrorists under his roof as any other, because the battlefield is every house everywhere. That is what you said, right? Can you see how stupid you'd look? How about the tool shed behind the garage at my house? That's a building. It hasn't been occupied by a human being in over ten months, but hell, it's a building. How about the First Baptist Church down the street, that's a building. How about the Pentagon? It's got walls, a roof, and plumbing, sounds like a building to me.
The battlefield is NOT, I repeat NOT every building and street in the entire world. If it is, we have no chance of winning, because our armed forces aren't big enough to occupy every building in the world. And, come to think of it, it means there must be a veritable TON of terrorists, if there's one in every building in the world (I mean, they have to be in every building the world, because every building in the world is the battlefield, so that means there's enemy troops there, right? a battlefield without enemy troops seems kinda anticlimactic) so for the sake of our victory, let's hope you're very wrong (don't worry, you are).
Your statement is also possibly the most un-American and dangerous sentiment being bandied about America today, in the media and elsewhere. If you think the war against terror is going on in my house you're obviously not looking very hard for the real war. The real war isn't that hard to miss (Hint: Saudi Arabia. Hint: We're losing). The FBI saw where the real war was, that's why their field agents predicted and tried to prevent 9/11. The CIA saw the real war, that's why their field agents did the same thing. These warnings were deliberately ignored because (and this is the best-case scenario giving Junior as much benefit of the doubt as I can muster) Junior wanted to take a month-long vacation and because he didn't want to be seen doing any of the things Bill Clinton did (you know, preventing terrorist attacks, making sensible economic and environmental decisions, being acconutable to voters, working cooperatively with the international community). And now you have the balls to tell me that MY house is the battlefield? Chump.
Those who say that my house is the battlefield, I postulate, are those that very much WANT my house to be the battlefield (Ashcroft and his evil minions). Those truly fighting the war, those truly in harm's way, have a pretty good idea where the war is. I find it kind of telling that no US soldier has shown up on my doorstep. Maybe it's because my house isn't the battlefield. See, *they* can figure it out, why can't you? Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel, Russia, Indonesia, all are smarter bets for where real terrorists are to be found then my hosue. Maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq and Afghanistan. And not in my house.
Sheesh.
Um, if he's raising funds, according to SCOTUS, it couldn't have more to do with the first amendment. Money equals speech now, remember?
IMHO, yes they were overpriced, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out another contributor to their downfall was the inordinate amount of product tie-ins (star wars especially). It got to the point where when I would go lego shopping all I would see is star wars legos. If I want start wars toys I'll buy star wars toys. They thought having all these product tie-ins would make more people buy them, but instead they just bought real star wars toys. They need go get away from the specialty set and concentrate on making squares, rectangles and hinges again.
that was 1988. let me ask you a question: how long do you think bacteria live outside of any growth medium? 15 years? How long do you think highly volatile and reactive chemicals last? 15 years? We can't even get *food* to last more than a few months on the shelf (outside a can anyway). We have a *food preservative industry* to make sure that bread, cheese and other food products made from bacteria can stay on shelves for just a few months. And food isn't designed to blow up and kill anybody, and if it were, it's shelf life would be considerably shorter. Think, people, think.
Let me ask you another: How did he get all that gas to use on the Kurds 15 years ago? Who sold it to him? And what does that do to any pretense of morality on the part of said sellers of WMD?
Let me ask one final question, if you're even still reading: If we were absolutely certain that he posessed WMD, what scared us so much about the UN inspectors? What was Bush so afraid of that he had to pull the plug on them?
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about how divided Americans are against each other. Now, complete this sentence: Divide and...
ok, you asked...
because it's just math, and anybody can do math given the training and resources. Numbers are not property. Numbers are numbers, and anybody with a pencil, let alone a computer, can copy them.
More importantly and relevantly, anybody who knows how to do math can come up with the same thing. If you and I are working on identical projects, and you finish yours first and patent it, but then I come up with the same thing *on my own*, why can't I make money off it too? I thought of it just as much as you did. Intellectual property is a lie and I'm sorry you believe it. There is just a fundamental difference between math and, say, a whirlpool washing machine. Intellectual property laws lead to Microsoft and SCO. Sharing leads to open source and really good music available to everyone.
Yes, SHARING. Not STEALING. There is a very significant distinction.
Plus, on the metaphysical side, the only thing that can keep a closed system from entropic heat-death is to make the system be not closed. Sharing is a very effective way to keep the system open. As is, incidentally, love.
Dude, you asked.
it doesn't cause the OS to crash (usually) just the app trying to read the cd. although if that app happens to be explorer, and you don't have the option enabled to run all explorers as separate processes, then it can affect the OS. bluescreens, says "the cd might be dirty" or something like that. let's you hit esc to abort in which case windows (usually) picks up where it left off.
Windows 98 is very stable if you know how to coax it and caress it. I've been using 98 on my main studio/gaming machine for years. Using the 98lite patch helps a lot. I haven't bluescreened in over 18 months, unless a CD was dirty. In fact when I set up my first web server it ran 98, and was up constantly with zero downtime for six months, until I moved. Of course, it wasn't always so, but it's been around for so long that most of the major bugs have been worked out (hell, most of em were worked out by the release of 98SE). So of course MS had to go invent new bugs to put back in and call it Millennium Edition.
I'm not saying that it's the right choice for everyone or for all situations, but for my multitracking/simcity box I wouldn't have it any other way. 98SE is VASTLY faster than XP. And, BTW, VASTLY more secure.
"Your argument is flawed, probably to the point of being completely void." Yeah... containers are void, analogies are specious. Except when they're not, but here, have some more rope... "Wal-Mart, the only specific retailer you've mentioned, has a very nice system for sampling CDs in every one of the stores that I've seen; far better than anything else I've ever used." Hmm. All things being equal, their preview method might be quite functional. However we all know WalMart doesn't carry anything worth listening to anyway. If I can go to WalMart and preview, with this wonderful method you descsribe, the latest UNCENSORED release from Shellac or Atari Teenage Riot, I will cheerfully eat my hat, as my analogy will have indeed been rendered specious (not void). And the concept of American free speech, incidentally, will have been validated. But then WalMart, the late great K-Mart (KMart is dead, long live KMart), Target... all these major "big-box" retail outlets are well-known to eschew any and all CD's containing any controversial material. In fact, I might be crazy, but if you don't carry Snoop Dogg or Jay-Z (the REAL CD's, not the wussy-ass watered down republican version) you ain't serious about music retailing. Next. "It's really quite simple. You just wander up to one-of-many listening stations with a random CD and put on the provided headphones." And you have your choice of Anne Murrays' greatest hits or, if the manager of that particular WalMart likes "alternative" music, maybe even the greatest hits of Gordon Lightfoot. Next. "conveniently-located barcode reader scans the UPC of the CD in question. After a very brief pause, music flows forth. You can listen to selected tracks in their entirety, or (I suppose) complete discs." 1) Are you, like, *trying* to sound like an RIAA shill? 2) This is a GREAT idea. Now if only they'd actually carry any CD's worth listening to, let alone previewing... This is getting boring, you appear to have precisely one arguement (and a specious one at that). Next. "It sounds quite nice, in my experience, free of any discernable MP3-esque faults." That's because MP3 is a lossy codec. Something the RIAA conveniently doesn't ever mention. Ever. Kinda like they didn't mention in the late 70's and early 80's that those insidious cassettes they were trying so hard, and so righteously, to outlaw (look it up) didn't sound as good as either vinyl (medium of choice at said time period) or *certainly* CD's. Funny coincidence, huh? Next. "Imagine that - the world's largest retailer, allowing customers to listen to music before they purchase it." No. The world's largest retailer allowing customers to listen to music that they, in their infinite corporate wisdom, deem fit. Next. "And they've been doing it for -years-, long before Napster made 'MP3' a dinnertable word." Yeah. The assumption that Napster is what made MP3 a dinnertable word, as opposed the greed and neglect of consumers by the RIAA, is yours and yours alone. I was actually cool enough to hear about the codec long before I ever heard of Napster. I know it's not relevant, but I figure if you can brag about using CDnow then I can brag about using MP3. Next. "Your argument thus invalidated, I'll move along to my own anecdotes while we see if Taco is willing to create a new mod category of -1, Treason:" Hah! Treason? That's a very strong word to use about something like MP3's. If you consider participation in the MP3 scene to be tantamount to treason well then, 1) color me treasonous and 2) color everybody that ever made a cassette mixtape the same shade. Study your history before you come to me with words like "treason" regarding the RIAA, for they are not to be taken lightly. This is not the first time the RIAA has attempted to circumvent the realities of free-market competition as it specifically applies to the SHIT they deem "popular music", and it won't be the last. Especially with willing syncophants to parrot their bullshit. You do realize that the RIAA and affilliated companies have been con
Why? Why does Apple not have to follow the laws of market economics? Why did you convince some poor sould to spend more money for less product?
Could it possibly be that your entire K-12 education was populated by Apples and those who extolled their virtues so convincingly that you now find yourself in the same role?
...and has been practiced for years by record stores, that is, stores that actually still sell vinyl records (primarily DJ shops). You open the package. You take the record (or cd's in a used cd store) out of the package and place it in a turntable or cd player behind the counter. You hand the customer headphones. Customer listens. If customer likes it he buys it, if not he hands you a different CD to listen to.
File-sharing isn't as popular as it is because people want to *own* the music. It's popular because people just want to hear what it sounds like before they buy it. If I wanted to actually *own* those songs it sure would't be in mp3 format (80% data loss), and without any liner notes, catalogs, or stickers.
I mean, when you buy an $8 t-shirt at wal-mart, you get to try it on first, right? When you want to buy a $10 book, you get to browse it at the bookstore before you buy it. Why should an $18.99 CD be any different?
Try-before-you-buy has always been my reason for using filesharing for music, if I hear a CD I like I buy it, that is if I can even find it at the store (thanks again RIAA).
But the RIAA will never pursue this method of both reducing piracy and meeting the consumers' needs, because they have zero interest in one of those two things. Guess which one. I maintain my opinion that the RIAA is terrified of file-sharing not because of any loss of profits to them (they're doing just fine, thanks) or to their artists (who they've been ripping off since the '20's), but because it means the average music consumer will no longer be satisfied with the STINKING, VOMITOUS, VILE, REPUGNANT, DISGUSTING, MALODOROUS, REPULSIVE SHIT being passed off as "popular" music by the RIAA. People have no option if they want to hear good music but to turn to the black market, for in this case the black market happens to be the only free, or even fair, market around.
All that could change if the music stores let you listen before you bought. For some reason, though, I'm not holding my breath.
I do. I mean, I can remember it if I have to, but usually it's jsut muscle memory. When you think about it, it's almost biometric...
that's funny, that's the same combination I've got on my luggage
Hail Scroob!
I couldn't agree more, and I can't understand why nobody but us smart people has figured this out yet.
Can anybody out there seriously say they don't know what McDonalds makes? Why are they advertising period, considering that their ads consist of subjects as relevant to burger-eating as a DJ spinning records, or kids playing soccer. They don't even mention their food, everybody already knows it's there and knows it's crap. They advertise, well, nothing more than the Corporate Name. which isn't in any danger of being forgotton. To my mind, they could stop advertising on TV tomorrow and their sales would be completely unaffected. In fact, their bottom line would probably be up considerably given how much their ads must cost to produce.
I think that consumers, TV ad producers, and the businesses who use them have all gotten so desensitized to the TV commercial that nobody is asking anymore if the whole premise is even valid. I mean, back in the 50's you had ads that actually talked about their products and why they were better. Hardly any ads do this anymore, preferring to dwell on shiny happy people holding hands as they walk through a McDonalds. Ads today sell a feeling, not a product, and should be seriously examined by their producers and buyers as considerable wastes of resources.
Speaking from my own point of view, the only effective ads that work on me are word of mouth ones. When I heard about Krispy Kreme, when I heard about my favorite record store (that I still go to), when I heard about slashdot, it wasn't a TV commercial that told me. It was a friend. Companies have shown since (TTBOMK) the early 80's that this was a very effective line of marketing, that's why they started giving Guess jeans away to the popular kids for free. It worked like a charm. So why this tired old blindered approach to advertising, that the only thing that will sell a product is a TV commercial? IMHO that's the thing most guaranteed NOT to sell a product, in the same way that junk mail is guaranteed NOT to make me enter the publishers' clearinghouse sweepstakes.
The bottom line is, as long as commercials are ignorable, a lot of people will ignore them. Whether the means to that ignorance is a VCR or a tivo or, God forbid, your own power of attention, is irrelevant. When I'm at the gas pump and they start scrolling an ad for some cigarettes they've got on sale, I... actually look away. It's easy, especially if there's any girls around. I don't think TV commercials were effective when they started, I don't think they were effective 20 years ago, and I don't think they're effective now. If fact, I kinda suspect that they're just an excuse for the entire business model of broadcasting to exist at all. I would be THRILLED to be able to pay for the equivalent of network TV (non-movie channels) with content that I enjoyed and with NO commercials. I think many many other people would too. I think that this could result in a revolution of TV content many of us have been waiting decades to see. But as long as TV networks have to worry about their advertisers, we will continue to see programming as bland and inoffesive as possible.
One thing I don't understand is how skipping commercials is a huge problem with tivo, but it wasn't with VCR's. IMHO companies buying ads in a medium with as wide a demographic focus as network TV are suckers anyway - like somebody else in this thread said, if I'm watching an episode of "Law and Order" I can see ads for both douche and nursing homes. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that those two demographics are mutually exclusive. Wheras when I watch any discovery channels, I see ads for things that I might actually possibly care about. Most of them still don't hit home to me, but at least I can tell they're *trying*.
The TV advertising business model is dead, long live the TV advertising business model.
That's funny, I thought I did a pretty good job trying to be polite and explain all the technical stuff. I actually previewed and revised my post several times just because you seemed to have a modicum of intelligence and I didn't want to piss you off. Oh well. I'm pretty sure that I said that I also like vinyl. I'm pretty sure I did say that CD's weren't perfect. I'm pretty sure I did say you have the right to your opinion. Just like you have the right to have the opinion that the world is flat if you want.
But I'll be damned if I'll let you present that as the truth. I never said you were wrong to have your opinion, and you can't quote a passage where I did. I did say you were wrong to present this opinion as the unvarnished, empirical truth.
Disagreement!=belittlement
Stop now, please.
ObDisclaimer: I own 2 milk crates full of vinyl and a halfway decent turntable, and I like lots of things about vinyl. I like that you can look at the size of the grooves and tell the quality of the recording. I like that I can put my hand on the record and slow down or speed up the rate of playback, with zero-latency. I like that the cover art is bigger and easier to read, especially in dimly lit dj booths. I like that somebody can look at your record while it's playing and find out information about it (if they can keep from getting dizzy). I like that I own green, clear, and pink marble vinyl.
I do NOT like the audio, and here's why.
Do you know what "dynamic range" is? Dynamic range is, quite simply put, the difference between how loud and how quiet a recording can get (audiowise). In video terms, think of a TV with the "contrast" knob turned all the way down, a black and white picture where the blacks are just dark grey and the whites are just light grey, and there's not much distinction between them - this video signal has a low dynamic range. A medium that has a limited dynamic range will result in the content being less dynamic, more static, which means it changes less, which means it has a greater tendency to sound the same. Do you know that CD's have a 96dB dynamic range while vinyl has 60dB? In other words, the loudest 33% of what you have on a CD literally wouldn't FIT onto vinyl (or if you turned it down, the quietest 33% would disappear). Do you know why there was (and is) such a glut of CD's "digitally remastered"? It's because these albums were all mastered for vinyl, which means they were mastered quiet. It's because when transferred to a CD, that CD would sound about 2/3 as loud as a CD *not* mastered for vinyl. It means that on that CD before the remastering, fully 33% of all the data capacity was wasted. The "sound quality" that you like and are referring to isn't the quality of the medium (vinyl obviously wears out after repeated playings), it's the quality of the compression and limiting (and exciting, and subharmonic synthesis, etc) done during the mastering process. Do you know why mastering was invented? It was invented to make the music all soudns the same, amplitude-wise, to make the louds not so loud and the quiets not so quiet. It was because the soft parts of a master tape, when transferred directly to vinyl, just kinda... disappeared. So the volume needed to always be at the same level when transferring to vinyl. So they invented the compressor. Tape, even casettes, and even the studio tape used in the 40's, can hold at least 80dB (yes, almost 30% more than a record) of dynamic range. Again, the mastering process was *invented* to compensate for the physical limitations of vinyl. Keep in mind, vinyl was first used a medium for recorded music in the 30's. Are you still driving a model-T and claiming it "rides better"? Of course not. Model-T's are cool, and I'd love to own one, but I wouldn't be caught dead saying it's a better car than a Camry!
Incidentally, you can achieve the same "quality" effect you speak of by using Sound Forge or some similar program to compress the shit out of cd's that you rip. They have entire DirectX plugin suites dedicated to making digital audio sound like vinyl - because it's a subtractive process, an effect achieved by the willful destruction of data.
Are there problems with CD's as a music medium? Mos def. Is Steve Albini justified in many of his criticisms of CD audio? Yes. Are records cool? Yes. Do they offer any quantifiable benefits over CD's? No way in hell. It doesn't mean you can't like them, I like them too. It just means you can't say that they have better sound quality and claim to be being objective, or even rational.
But hey, in five years, I'll still be buying vinyl too.
Easy: the right to make a backup of a CD I purchased at a store, in case I lose the original. The right to make mixtapes for my friends (protected by act of friggin congress under "fair use"). And most importantly, my right to participate in a music-industry business model that does not leave me no other choices then to buy a Britney Spears CD for 18.99 or to not buy anything.
Don't get me wrong, as a musician I do see the need for copyright laws, but the RIAA and entertainment industrial complex keep pushing and pushing, extending the cutoff dates for when copyrights expire (yes, they do expire folks, as does the author/creator). The copyright laws as they stand now are an instrument designed solely to expediate laziness and hegemony by a few monolithic corporations.
Copyright is a tricky thing. Does the creator of an original work have the right to make money off of it? Sure. But if that was all there was to it, then nobody would be allowed to sing folk songs, because they'd all still be under copyright. Why, there'd be nothing to stop somebody from copyrighting the national anthem, and charging major leage baseball to sing it. American copyright law was originally intended to preserve the rights of both the author and the consumer (ie I have the right to sing "If I had a hammer" if I want to, because it's been part of American history and folklore and hence, belongs in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, whether I make money or not). The trend now is iron-clad, extensive (if not intrusive) rights for the copyright *owner* (who is increasingly not the author) but absolutely none for the consumer.
Is it any wonder we're taking our business somewhere else?