I'm slightly miffed that you believe that I'm unable to find a "compelling" woman to share an evening with. My current single state is, believe it or not, due to a prioritizing of female companionship below other concerns. I'll get over it, though:D
However, I also know from experience that women who do not figure financial resources (or, should I say, "resources" in general) into their model of what they find attractive in a man are relatively rare. Even the smart ones (and sometimes specially the smart ones) do such, consciously or not. Since we are not that far removed from our hunter-gatherer origins, mates with significant resources are still (though filtered through our society models) sought after due to the higher likelihood that both the mate, the attracted, and the offspring will survive.
I also realize that most of the time, geeks in this type of conversation are complaining they never get dates/attention/laid. However, in this case, I was merely relating what I've experienced in the past.
Alas, I doubt I'd be able to find what I'm really looking for, which is someone who cares more about what's in my mind than what's on my chest, but...;)
Well, right tools for the job and all that. I'd suggest that by and large, finding life-long mates at any given quasi-random social grouping these days is a crap shoot. As much as people demean them, dating websites are much more likely to narrow your options to a few, select individuals with the desired attributes.
I disagree with this too - intellect nullification doesn't happen until drink #5+ and if there's anything I learned in college, it's that high level intellectual conversations are readily fueled by alcohol (up to a point).
No, they just *seem* high level at the time you're talking about them.
Look, yeah, not everyone is a geek. But there's value in learning to interact with people who aren't exactly like you are. Not everything in life is about geeking out constantly.
Actually, that's a "cutting analysis" of "women with a fetish for CEOs who, in their mind, must have money to spend on them." It's got little to do with women liking geeks, and everything to do with the idea that someone women will go after anything that spends money (and nothin' spends money on a woman like a lonely geek with disposable income).
There's a huge difference between chatting with people who are generally intelligent, and people who like to speak about all the same things you do. Besides, this type of gathering sounds much, much too planned. It's like a grown-up kid's birthday party, with a schedule and everything.
I'd suggest that if you find most people you speak with to be idiots, that you're hanging out in the wrong places. It's fine to sound elitist, but realize that elitism is often just another way of saying "I'm unable to relate to people who aren't exactly like myself."
Besides, it's healthy to be dumb once in a while and let loose. I'm not sure why the whole "geeks shouldn't get wild" meme persists. Maybe it's a leftover from their highschool days when they didn't get to be wild with all the "Cool Kids" or something?
I dunno. Honestly, I really enjoy decompressing with a couple beers and the whole "upscale strip club with hot women" environment. For me, over the top makes it better.
But, I agree. Just because one is geeky, doesn't mean one shouldn't stop on a regular basis and just embrace our instinctual urges without analyzing them to death.
Doing a small range of actions over and over again is indeed grind. However, my point is that "hard work" (such as it is in a game) is not synonymous with grinding. It's just that grinding is, as you say, the very easiest way to get people set into a carrot-stick mindset and extend their participation in your revenue stream.
And I second the other guy who pointed out EVE as a very significant European game.
Well, there was the original B5 game planned to release called "Into the Fire". There was also one called, "I've Found Her" which, in spite of the strange name, I recall being an impressive looking demo.
IMO, Freespace is, quite frankly, superior to anything WC did after the first sequel. It's fairly easy to find updates/TCs of it now, due to the source being available.
"Hard work and perseverance" are *not* synonymous with trendmilling/grinding. "Eastern" MMOs (for whatever value that definition even has) tend to focus doing a small range of things over and over again in order to advance in the game.
While this is pretty much the order of the day for the majority of MMOs, "eastern" MMOs (the term makes me wonder each time if its even accurate -- given that there's plenty of MMOs that aren't even in English) take it to excessive lengths.
Yeah, except that "record label" means something different than what you just took 5 sentences to redefine. There's already a phrase that describes that. You just say "Reznor released the album on his own label." It's a pretty common thing for big artists to do. Saying "without a label" is just plain incorrect.
Not without being in breach of contract, they can't.
The key is "with enough money". Most bands do not, and never will have, enough money to bootstrap themselves into that independence if they desire to be huge.
If they never want to be anything more than local/regionally popular, or underground, then your point begins to be more successful.
No, good musicians become known because they're promoted by way of various media channels.
Listen, I like the idea that the cream rises to the top on its own, too. But frankly, there's many, many good bands in the world that most people will never hear of because they have no marketing beyond their local city.
Big labels provide the means by which to market world-wide, regardless of your talent level.
The interested parties are probably still pretty pensive considering the previous announcements on what they had to excise from the game in order to meet their self-imposed release date.
Can a band sustain itself without a record label, while still releasing music in an album format digitally?
Nine Inch Nails is sans label and is doing quite well, Trent Reznor does seem to be missing some of the polish on The Slip (first non-label non-instrumental album) that he had on Year Zero (last label backed production), but it was a free album, Ghosts I-IV (instrumental non-label album) was an interesting experiment.
You can't really produce large-scale music without a label anymore. What you mean is "non-major label". Year Zero was the last on the Interscope label. The Slip etc are on the "The Null Corporation" label.
I'm not entirely unsure that non-major labels don't sometimes work like this, already. It's hard to say because there's only a handful of major labels, but literally hundreds of medium/indie/genre-specific labels.
We would put up "Win one of the bands guitars!" flyers around before a show and take a cheap Kramer that we bought online and play it for the last 3 or 4 songs. After which we would sign it and have a raffle and everyone who bought any of our merchandise got a ticket for each item bought. Sales went up a good 40% and the fans loved it.
That's actually a great little idea. I'll be sure to steal it;)
I came across a really cheap guitar signed by Staind at a local music store a few months ago, coincidentally. They must do something similar.
Like the parent, I can't believe I'm here defending record labels, but the fact is they do serve a purpose. That doesn't mean I support everything they do or that I think their current form is right for the way music is distributed today - their business model is still very 1950's, and they need to get smaller and streamline. They also need to acknowledge that the internet is not going away. A lot of bands might not need a "full service" record label, but then they shouldn't expect as much help either (be it financial or practical).
I'm in the same boat. The big labels DO have a purpose. When you're working with a major label, it's like having a big corporation standing behind your software project. Sure, you could probably make some dough by putting up a nice website, making things available on sourceforge, selling via Amazon or something. But if ConHugeSoft Inc. decides that they're interested in distributing your software using their resources, you're gonna make a LOT more money (provided you watch your ass).
Now that I think about it, that's a really great analogy. I'll need to use it more often.
Not really. The world is full of people who own and play instruments, and non-musicians who listen to them and deem the sounds they make to be acceptable.
Truly skilled musicians aren't quite so plentiful.
Yes, I'm being elitist. No, I don't have an objective method that allows me to quickly discern between the two groups:D
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't surprise me if they started working on one of the FS2 TC's instead.
I'm slightly miffed that you believe that I'm unable to find a "compelling" woman to share an evening with. My current single state is, believe it or not, due to a prioritizing of female companionship below other concerns. I'll get over it, though :D
However, I also know from experience that women who do not figure financial resources (or, should I say, "resources" in general) into their model of what they find attractive in a man are relatively rare. Even the smart ones (and sometimes specially the smart ones) do such, consciously or not. Since we are not that far removed from our hunter-gatherer origins, mates with significant resources are still (though filtered through our society models) sought after due to the higher likelihood that both the mate, the attracted, and the offspring will survive.
I also realize that most of the time, geeks in this type of conversation are complaining they never get dates/attention/laid. However, in this case, I was merely relating what I've experienced in the past.
Alas, I doubt I'd be able to find what I'm really looking for, which is someone who cares more about what's in my mind than what's on my chest, but... ;)
Well, right tools for the job and all that. I'd suggest that by and large, finding life-long mates at any given quasi-random social grouping these days is a crap shoot. As much as people demean them, dating websites are much more likely to narrow your options to a few, select individuals with the desired attributes.
I disagree with this too - intellect nullification doesn't happen until drink #5+ and if there's anything I learned in college, it's that high level intellectual conversations are readily fueled by alcohol (up to a point).
No, they just *seem* high level at the time you're talking about them.
Look, yeah, not everyone is a geek. But there's value in learning to interact with people who aren't exactly like you are. Not everything in life is about geeking out constantly.
Actually, that's a "cutting analysis" of "women with a fetish for CEOs who, in their mind, must have money to spend on them." It's got little to do with women liking geeks, and everything to do with the idea that someone women will go after anything that spends money (and nothin' spends money on a woman like a lonely geek with disposable income).
There's a huge difference between chatting with people who are generally intelligent, and people who like to speak about all the same things you do. Besides, this type of gathering sounds much, much too planned. It's like a grown-up kid's birthday party, with a schedule and everything.
I'd suggest that if you find most people you speak with to be idiots, that you're hanging out in the wrong places. It's fine to sound elitist, but realize that elitism is often just another way of saying "I'm unable to relate to people who aren't exactly like myself."
Besides, it's healthy to be dumb once in a while and let loose. I'm not sure why the whole "geeks shouldn't get wild" meme persists. Maybe it's a leftover from their highschool days when they didn't get to be wild with all the "Cool Kids" or something?
I dunno. Honestly, I really enjoy decompressing with a couple beers and the whole "upscale strip club with hot women" environment. For me, over the top makes it better.
But, I agree. Just because one is geeky, doesn't mean one shouldn't stop on a regular basis and just embrace our instinctual urges without analyzing them to death.
Heh. Gotta say that I didn't notice the typo that has caused your mental breakdown.
(yes, it is a typo)
(OR IS IT?????)
Doing a small range of actions over and over again is indeed grind. However, my point is that "hard work" (such as it is in a game) is not synonymous with grinding. It's just that grinding is, as you say, the very easiest way to get people set into a carrot-stick mindset and extend their participation in your revenue stream.
And I second the other guy who pointed out EVE as a very significant European game.
Well, there was the original B5 game planned to release called "Into the Fire". There was also one called, "I've Found Her" which, in spite of the strange name, I recall being an impressive looking demo.
IMO, Freespace is, quite frankly, superior to anything WC did after the first sequel. It's fairly easy to find updates/TCs of it now, due to the source being available.
Seems more like someone made up a false dichotomy in order to advertise their new game for free on slashdot.
"Hard work and perseverance" are *not* synonymous with trendmilling/grinding. "Eastern" MMOs (for whatever value that definition even has) tend to focus doing a small range of things over and over again in order to advance in the game.
While this is pretty much the order of the day for the majority of MMOs, "eastern" MMOs (the term makes me wonder each time if its even accurate -- given that there's plenty of MMOs that aren't even in English) take it to excessive lengths.
Nutty. Certainly exciting, however.
Yeah, except that "record label" means something different than what you just took 5 sentences to redefine. There's already a phrase that describes that. You just say "Reznor released the album on his own label." It's a pretty common thing for big artists to do. Saying "without a label" is just plain incorrect.
Cool. Thanks dude.
Not without being in breach of contract, they can't.
The key is "with enough money". Most bands do not, and never will have, enough money to bootstrap themselves into that independence if they desire to be huge.
If they never want to be anything more than local/regionally popular, or underground, then your point begins to be more successful.
Ripping up your contract gets you sued, though :D
No, good musicians become known because they're promoted by way of various media channels.
Listen, I like the idea that the cream rises to the top on its own, too. But frankly, there's many, many good bands in the world that most people will never hear of because they have no marketing beyond their local city.
Big labels provide the means by which to market world-wide, regardless of your talent level.
The interested parties are probably still pretty pensive considering the previous announcements on what they had to excise from the game in order to meet their self-imposed release date.
Can a band sustain itself without a record label, while still releasing music in an album format digitally?
Nine Inch Nails is sans label and is doing quite well, Trent Reznor does seem to be missing some of the polish on The Slip (first non-label non-instrumental album) that he had on Year Zero (last label backed production), but it was a free album, Ghosts I-IV (instrumental non-label album) was an interesting experiment.
You can't really produce large-scale music without a label anymore. What you mean is "non-major label". Year Zero was the last on the Interscope label. The Slip etc are on the "The Null Corporation" label.
Right. To steal from computing lingo, a band manager is (ideally) the API by which the outside world interacts with the band as an entity.
I'm not entirely unsure that non-major labels don't sometimes work like this, already. It's hard to say because there's only a handful of major labels, but literally hundreds of medium/indie/genre-specific labels.
We would put up "Win one of the bands guitars!" flyers around before a show and take a cheap Kramer that we bought online and play it for the last 3 or 4 songs. After which we would sign it and have a raffle and everyone who bought any of our merchandise got a ticket for each item bought. Sales went up a good 40% and the fans loved it.
That's actually a great little idea. I'll be sure to steal it ;)
I came across a really cheap guitar signed by Staind at a local music store a few months ago, coincidentally. They must do something similar.
Like the parent, I can't believe I'm here defending record labels, but the fact is they do serve a purpose. That doesn't mean I support everything they do or that I think their current form is right for the way music is distributed today - their business model is still very 1950's, and they need to get smaller and streamline. They also need to acknowledge that the internet is not going away. A lot of bands might not need a "full service" record label, but then they shouldn't expect as much help either (be it financial or practical).
I'm in the same boat. The big labels DO have a purpose. When you're working with a major label, it's like having a big corporation standing behind your software project. Sure, you could probably make some dough by putting up a nice website, making things available on sourceforge, selling via Amazon or something. But if ConHugeSoft Inc. decides that they're interested in distributing your software using their resources, you're gonna make a LOT more money (provided you watch your ass).
Now that I think about it, that's a really great analogy. I'll need to use it more often.
The world is full of skilled musicians.
Not really. The world is full of people who own and play instruments, and non-musicians who listen to them and deem the sounds they make to be acceptable.
Truly skilled musicians aren't quite so plentiful.
Yes, I'm being elitist. No, I don't have an objective method that allows me to quickly discern between the two groups :D