Again, INVESTMENT! If they look at things from both the artistic and the business side it will be easier to get the loans. If they educate themselves it will be easier to market themselves. Please read my posts in their entirety instead of picking out the soundbites that you want to rip apart.
I qualified that bit by mentioning that artists can invest in the marketing themselves. The implicit idea being they could study up on how the business side of music is done, take out some loans and approach it as an investment in their success as much as their art. Either that or find an indie label that has already proven to be successful and work with them.
Defacto monopoly? Yes. Legal monopoly? No. There's another word that might be more appropriate, but I'm too lazy to figure out what it is. It's the same thing as when baseball teams conspire against a player and agree to not sign him. They were accused of it by Barry Bonds and his agent.
Is it possible to just sign a distribution deal? I'd like to say that there are plenty of indie artists who aren't signed to majors, but have a wide familiarity among listeners and I imagine distribution plays a part. That familiarity seems to be parlayed into decent sales. I'd *like* to say that, but I don't know enough about the industry outside of the indies I'm aware of (Epitaph, Sub Pop and a handful of others.)
I also think of other avenues such as Starbucks. While I probably would have heard about them eventually, I first found out about Broken Bells while standing in line for a coffee one day.
I used to go this route when I was younger and living in the San Diego area. There was a small chain of used CD stores and about once a month a group of us friends would all jump in a car and drive around the county hitting them all looking for "new" stuff. It was a nice way to build a collection and get some stuff that at the time might have been hard to find.
With the ability to distribute online so easily these days, I don't know why artists even bother with major labels anymore. I'm sure with a little investment even the smallest artist can attain a decent marketing campaign. Word of mouth and social networks are a wealth of free publicity as well.
And to add to what you've said, likening Twitter to Facebook isn't very effective. They both may be social networks, but their approaches are different. Twitter already allows the expansion of one's network on the fly based strictly on such things as interests. If someone retweets someone that posted a link to an interesting article you can immediately subscribe to that person's feed. If you later find that you no longer consider that person relevant you simply unsubscribe with no impact.
Facebook, on the other hand, is primarily geared toward connecting you to people that you would interact with normally anyway. Basically, it's just an online circle of friends as opposed to Twitter's online exchange of information and ideas. If you encounter someone that you feel inclined to befriend you do so. However, unlike Twitter, "unfriending" a person carries more social (in the traditional sense) weight. People tend to get upset and confrontational when you do that in Facebook.
This isn't to say that I think Twitter is the be-all-end-all of social networks. You'll find Twitter often falling into the state of just another IRC channel and they're starting to slide in a direction that I'm less inclined to follow (no pun intended) them toward. All things considered, though, it is better for what Tim Berners-Lee thinks it should be than he seems to be giving it credit for.
I find the free version to be better than the Citrix version. The problem I have with the Citrix version is that they took Xen and tried to reshape it into a VMware clone right down to the GUI used to manage it. In the process, they changed how things are managed on the command line and left holes in not only the documentation of those changes but also the functionality in the overall product. I think Citrix buying Xen was a step backward and if Xen had not been bought it probably would have advanced further than it has and been a better product than it turned out to be.
I disagree. I've successfully used Xen on a workstation. As long as the processor supports virtualization and has the capacity and there is enough RAM to run more than one VM smoothly it is irrelevant whether the hardware is a desktop or a server. If the OP had hassles, I'd wager he simply didn't have a powerful enough machine regardless of the platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like something child pornographers would be interested in. Among other people.
Just add a massive capacitor or tesla coil, maybe?
I am under no obligation to comply with the illegal and unconstitutional wishes of evil leaders or states.
For now. Let's see what happens at the end of this trial and subsequent appellate and Supreme Court decisions.
Yeah, but that's pop music. Formulaic and predictable. Scientists have even studied it. What about music that isn't formulaic?
Fuck me. Does no one read anymore? I never suggested that it was that easy.
Again, INVESTMENT! If they look at things from both the artistic and the business side it will be easier to get the loans. If they educate themselves it will be easier to market themselves. Please read my posts in their entirety instead of picking out the soundbites that you want to rip apart.
Publishing != Marketing.
I qualified that bit by mentioning that artists can invest in the marketing themselves. The implicit idea being they could study up on how the business side of music is done, take out some loans and approach it as an investment in their success as much as their art. Either that or find an indie label that has already proven to be successful and work with them.
Defacto monopoly? Yes. Legal monopoly? No. There's another word that might be more appropriate, but I'm too lazy to figure out what it is. It's the same thing as when baseball teams conspire against a player and agree to not sign him. They were accused of it by Barry Bonds and his agent.
I'd *like* to say that, but I don't know enough about the industry outside of the indies I'm aware of...
You're snarkiness might be funny if I hadn't already said I don't know enough about the industry. I was asking out of ignorance and a desire to know.
Is it possible to just sign a distribution deal? I'd like to say that there are plenty of indie artists who aren't signed to majors, but have a wide familiarity among listeners and I imagine distribution plays a part. That familiarity seems to be parlayed into decent sales. I'd *like* to say that, but I don't know enough about the industry outside of the indies I'm aware of (Epitaph, Sub Pop and a handful of others.) I also think of other avenues such as Starbucks. While I probably would have heard about them eventually, I first found out about Broken Bells while standing in line for a coffee one day.
I used to go this route when I was younger and living in the San Diego area. There was a small chain of used CD stores and about once a month a group of us friends would all jump in a car and drive around the county hitting them all looking for "new" stuff. It was a nice way to build a collection and get some stuff that at the time might have been hard to find.
With the ability to distribute online so easily these days, I don't know why artists even bother with major labels anymore. I'm sure with a little investment even the smallest artist can attain a decent marketing campaign. Word of mouth and social networks are a wealth of free publicity as well.
Where does the dandruff play in all this?
Then why did you bother putting forth the effort to even comment? Attention whoring?
While not a real blogging feature, they do have the Notes feature that can be used for more in depth updates.
Games are software.
They're evil for pushing an update that inadvertently broke a feature? Hyperbole much?
Does this mean that people with photographic memories are more likely to develop schizophrenia?
See, now you're thinking!
To take the blocks from the bins and place them at the beginning of the belts? Man, what a slacker.
Agreed.
And to add to what you've said, likening Twitter to Facebook isn't very effective. They both may be social networks, but their approaches are different. Twitter already allows the expansion of one's network on the fly based strictly on such things as interests. If someone retweets someone that posted a link to an interesting article you can immediately subscribe to that person's feed. If you later find that you no longer consider that person relevant you simply unsubscribe with no impact.
Facebook, on the other hand, is primarily geared toward connecting you to people that you would interact with normally anyway. Basically, it's just an online circle of friends as opposed to Twitter's online exchange of information and ideas. If you encounter someone that you feel inclined to befriend you do so. However, unlike Twitter, "unfriending" a person carries more social (in the traditional sense) weight. People tend to get upset and confrontational when you do that in Facebook.
This isn't to say that I think Twitter is the be-all-end-all of social networks. You'll find Twitter often falling into the state of just another IRC channel and they're starting to slide in a direction that I'm less inclined to follow (no pun intended) them toward. All things considered, though, it is better for what Tim Berners-Lee thinks it should be than he seems to be giving it credit for.
They currently hold a third of the cards, not the whole deck.
Even when they control everything they're not working with a whole deck
At one point I submitted the suggestion that they change it to "Messed Up Texas", but no one knew what I was talking about.
I find the free version to be better than the Citrix version. The problem I have with the Citrix version is that they took Xen and tried to reshape it into a VMware clone right down to the GUI used to manage it. In the process, they changed how things are managed on the command line and left holes in not only the documentation of those changes but also the functionality in the overall product. I think Citrix buying Xen was a step backward and if Xen had not been bought it probably would have advanced further than it has and been a better product than it turned out to be.
I disagree. I've successfully used Xen on a workstation. As long as the processor supports virtualization and has the capacity and there is enough RAM to run more than one VM smoothly it is irrelevant whether the hardware is a desktop or a server. If the OP had hassles, I'd wager he simply didn't have a powerful enough machine regardless of the platform.