Brad Mehldau and Non Jazz originated music..i.e Radiohead
pookle
his takes on various radiohead songs. radiohead is pretty much the only
band whom i still listen to ocassionally outside of jazz and so it is
most intersteing to see mehldau's version of their offerings.
one thing for sure, mehldau makes the songs feel equally as haunting if
not more and i have been particularly impressed with 'paranoid andriod'.
exit music for a film is again something of a gem.
it would be intesreing to hear what others have to say about these
radiohead covers. i would be particularly interested in comments from
those who actually know the music of radiohead and heard them before
listening to mehldau's versions.
thanks to folks who recommended kazaa light. due to a cable modem
installation i am able to log on whenever i like and my username is
puckfaery. can't say that i have an extensive archive os music, around
135 mp3 and wav files with mostly jazz and some jazz but i hope the
latter grows into a sizeable colection.
--
puck
'...blame it in my youth...'
JC Martin
news:MPG.177a8293...@news.ntlworld.com...
> i have been listeng to more and more of brad mehldau and in particular
> his takes on various radiohead songs. radiohead is pretty much the only
> band whom i still listen to ocassionally outside of jazz and so it is
> most intersteing to see mehldau's version of their offerings.
> one thing for sure, mehldau makes the songs feel equally as haunting if
> not more and i have been particularly impressed with 'paranoid andriod'.
I'm not aware of Meldau doing this (Paranoid Android). What album is it off
of? A live boot possibly?
-JC
pookle
subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net says...
i don't have an album title jc but downloaded it off kazaa as an mp3. the
quality of the recording it not perfect (that may simply bee too much
compression within mp3 format) but would be more than happy to forward it
to you an an email attachment. quite a big file though as there is 9
minutes of music. or you can look out for my nick as puckfaery in kazaa.
Glenn M.
installation i am able to log on whenever i like and my username is
puckfaery. can't say that i have an extensive archive os music, around
135 mp3 and wav files with mostly jazz and some jazz but i hope the
latter grows into a sizeable colection.>>>
I live in Australia and I see stealing music a huge threat and insult to
musicians and songwriters. I've reported several DJs to the Australian
Federal Police who have come around and forced the DJ to destroy pirate
music (there are many DJs with the majority of their CDs being copies).
Don't you have any such means to stop the collection of illegal music in the
USA (or in your country)? Who could/do you report to, or don't you?
I find it unusual that nearly every day, if not most days in the week, there
is a news report of police finding people with a store of stolen goods, be
it TVs/videos/DVDs, or car parts, wheels/sports-trims/etc. And yet people
can have collections of thousands of illegal MP3s, which, if purchased
legally would have cost thousands of dollars, and yet the local authorities
don't care, or don't have it in their list of crimes people can be arrested
for.
So, I don't understand why people don't take a moral stance and do something
about it. I've found lots of bands and recordings on emp3finder.com, such
as the acoustic jazz quartet... an amazing band. I report these to the
artists and publishers concerned... and I also report them to the
webmaster's of the sites... often the site housing these illegal MP3s are
.EDU... US universities... which intrigues me. Geocities routinely
searches and deletes MP3s, but .EDUs do not... surely they have bandwidth
concerns too?
Sure, if artists want to give away free music I have no problem, but the
sheer majority of the ILLEGAL and unwanted by the artists. I've had a few
personal emails from popular artists thanking me for pointing out where
their music is being stolen, so I feel it must disappoint them to know their
fans are abusing them.
Going off on a tangent here, I feel I'm the only person with this approach,
which really frustrates me... it's like: we love listening to music, so it's
okay to steal it; we love having sex, so it's okay to murder babies we don't
want; we love to watch murders, so it's okay to depict bloody murders on
film... it's just all weak and sick.
Please note I've crossposted this, so remove any groups your reply isn't
relevant to. I read these three groups. Thanks
Glenn
Nadia Aqui
<glenn...@bigpond.CHANGE> wrote:
> I find it unusual that nearly every day, if not most days in the week, there
> is a news report of police finding people with a store of stolen goods, be
> it TVs/videos/DVDs, or car parts, wheels/sports-trims/etc. And yet people
> can have collections of thousands of illegal MP3s, which, if purchased
> legally would have cost thousands of dollars, and yet the local authorities
> don't care, or don't have it in their list of crimes people can be arrested
> for.
Well there is a limited police force and we have a lot of laws. So
first they have to hunt down killers and burglars and arsonists. It's
much later that they go after people who are involved with swapping
music, as they have since the advent of the tape recorder.
It's not like it's not really evil to avoid payment, it most certainly
is. And don't forget some people are stealing pens and paper from work
too. And using the telephone and fax machine for their personal usage.
This is clearly a petty crime, but crime is crime. That's why I write
them all down in a book and show them to my boss.
Glenn M.
> In article <3D111CC0...@bigpond.CHANGE>, Glenn M.
> <glenn...@bigpond.CHANGE> wrote:
>
> > I find it unusual that nearly every day, if not most days in the week, there
> > is a news report of police finding people with a store of stolen goods, be
> > it TVs/videos/DVDs, or car parts, wheels/sports-trims/etc. And yet people
> > can have collections of thousands of illegal MP3s, which, if purchased
> > legally would have cost thousands of dollars, and yet the local authorities
> > don't care, or don't have it in their list of crimes people can be arrested
> > for.
>
> Well there is a limited police force and we have a lot of laws. So
> first they have to hunt down killers and burglars and arsonists. It's
> much later that they go after people who are involved with swapping
> music, as they have since the advent of the tape recorder.
> It's not like it's not really evil to avoid payment, it most certainly
> is. And don't forget some people are stealing pens and paper from work
> too. And using the telephone and fax machine for their personal usage.
> This is clearly a petty crime, but crime is crime. That's why I write
> them all down in a book and show them to my boss.
Someone
"Glenn M." <glenn...@bigpond.CHANGE> wrote in message
news:3D111CC0...@bigpond.CHANGE...
> Going off on a tangent here, I feel I'm the only person with this
approach,
> which really frustrates me... it's like: we love listening to music, so
it's
> okay to steal it; we love having sex, so it's okay to murder babies we
don't
> want; we love to watch murders, so it's okay to depict bloody murders on
> film... it's just all weak and sick.
And since we have something like usenet, self-appointed busy-bodies like
yourself feel free to inflict their personal problems on the rest of us.
Go find a hobby, will ya?
Abjorn
Abjorn
"Glenn M." <glenn...@bigpond.CHANGE> skrev i meddelandet
news:3D111CC0...@bigpond.CHANGE...
Kev
I have only heard "exit music", which I loved to begin with as it's one of the
more passionate tunes I've heard of radiohead's, and I love what he's done with
it. I like the fact that he didn't "smooth out" the rhythmic phrasing of the
verse lyrics, which lie against the accompanying rhythm in an interesting and
somewhat disconcerting way, I think.
I also dig the approach Jorge Rossy has taken with that tune, putting a rapid
undercurrent to a slow ballad is, when done this tastefully, a nice way to add
more of a feeling of forward motion to the tune without altering the tempo
inappropriately. I never would've predicted that Mehldau would've chosen this
material, but unpredictability is one thing that sets him and his trio apart
from most of the rest. I'm interested now to hear his take on "Paranoid
Android".
pookle
says...
> I live in Australia and I see stealing music a huge threat and insult to
> musicians and songwriters. I've reported several DJs to the Australian
> Federal Police who have come around and forced the DJ to destroy pirate
> music (there are many DJs with the majority of their CDs being copies).
> Don't you have any such means to stop the collection of illegal music in the
> USA (or in your country)? Who could/do you report to, or don't you?
why don't you get of your high horse and get a life?
there might be a problem with music sharing but thats a problem for the
record industries who are already making millins of dollars sucking life
out of punters in promoting fixed chart pop music, memorabilia and in any
other way to cash in. in an age of popstars and britney spears and the
inbecile kyle queen of pop the younger generation need to be introduced
to music rather than entertainment and the whole idea of music sharing is
discovering a whole new world.
music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
piracy etc.
i am an indivudial and not a dj. i download tracks from kazaa and used
napster extensively to listen to tracks from particular albums. this
would enable me to make up my mind about whether i want to buy the album
or not. as a new jazz fans i can say that 90% of my album collection was
acquired having sampled tracks after recommendation from kind folks here.
i shall continue to do so. the record company is making a lot of money
out of me.
pookle
glenn...@bigpond.CHANGE says...
>
> Maybe you have limited comprehension :) but I was talking about an organization that prosecutes people who steal music. When you say "swapping" music it shows how much you value people's work. Do you call people who break into your house and steal things "valuable swappers"? I think not. Do you call them burglars? Are burglars criminals? What field do you work in? Would you call people who steal what you produce "swappers"?
it is your comprehension that is at fault. music is not like a dvd player
or a hi fi that someone can come to your house and steal. it is for
everyone. for those who wish to sample music prior to buying even the
likes of amazon these days have sample tracks.
> That's cool. Then why don't you report the music "swappers"? Aren't they stealing a lot more than the price of a box of wholesale pens?
>
because people have better things to do. hunger and poverty should be the
main issue plaguing humanity, not a small penny here and there that the
record industry boss lost in their multi million pound bonus. they are
the real convicts.
pookle
brillian...@hotmail.com says...
> I have only heard "exit music", which I loved to begin with as it's one of the
> more passionate tunes I've heard of radiohead's, and I love what he's done with
> it. I like the fact that he didn't "smooth out" the rhythmic phrasing of the
> verse lyrics, which lie against the accompanying rhythm in an interesting and
> somewhat disconcerting way, I think.
>
> I also dig the approach Jorge Rossy has taken with that tune, putting a rapid
> undercurrent to a slow ballad is, when done this tastefully, a nice way to add
> more of a feeling of forward motion to the tune without altering the tempo
> inappropriately. I never would've predicted that Mehldau would've chosen this
> material, but unpredictability is one thing that sets him and his trio apart
> from most of the rest. I'm interested now to hear his take on "Paranoid
> Android".
>
if someone can tell me which album paranoid andriod came from or perhaps
it is an album in making that would be much appreciated as i can't wait
buy a copy. the downloaded mp3 was not very good quality but was close to
9 minutes of brilliance.
Kevin Dooley
find a recording of Paranoid Android, but I don't seem to have one...
weird, I thought I had all of his records. I have heard him play it live
a couple of times, but I don't know if there are any official recordings
of it.
Here's a reasonably complete discography:
http://www.linge.de/music/records/mehldau/
But even this doesn't include this tune. If I had to guess, I'd suspect
that
the recording that you have is probably from a video made at the
Montreal Jazz Festival a couple of years ago. But, as I said, he's done
this song live a lot, so there may be a few boots out there.
K
"pookle" <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.177bc959...@news.ntlworld.com...
George Rivera
> if someone can tell me which album paranoid andriod came from or perhaps
> it is an album in making that would be much appreciated as i can't wait
> buy a copy. the downloaded mp3 was not very good quality but was close to
> 9 minutes of brilliance.
It's on his soon to be released cd, "Largo", which will contain the
following tracks:
1. When It Rains
2. You're Vibing Me
3. Dusty Mcnugget
4. Dropjes
5. Paranoid Android
6. Frankli Avenue
7. Sabbath
8. Dear Prudence
9. Free Willy
10. Alvarado
11. Wave/Mother Nature's Son
12. I Do
It is scheduled for release on August 13th.
He is also featured as a sideman on a lot of releases coming out of Spain.
I'll try to post a complete list.
--
Musically,
George Rivera
geo.r...@verizon.net
"Cuando Puerto Rico comprenda el valor de su folklore, luchará con mucha
fuerza para defender su honor." - Don Rafael Cepeda
Chel van Gennip
> I find it unusual that nearly every day, if not most days in the week,
> there is a news report of police finding people with a store of stolen
> goods, be it TVs/videos/DVDs, or car parts, wheels/sports-trims/etc. And
> yet people can have collections of thousands of illegal MP3s, which, if
> purchased legally would have cost thousands of dollars, and yet the
> local authorities don't care, or don't have it in their list of crimes
> people can be arrested for.
>
> So, I don't understand why people don't take a moral stance and do
> something about it. I've found lots of bands and recordings on
> emp3finder.com, such as the acoustic jazz quartet... an amazing band. I
> report these to the artists and publishers concerned... and I also
> report them to the webmaster's of the sites... often the site housing
> these illegal MP3s are .EDU... US universities... which intrigues me.
> Geocities routinely searches and deletes MP3s, but .EDUs do not...
> surely they have bandwidth concerns too?
>
> Sure, if artists want to give away free music I have no problem, but the
> sheer majority of the ILLEGAL and unwanted by the artists. I've had a
> few personal emails from popular artists thanking me for pointing out
> where their music is being stolen, so I feel it must disappoint them to
> know their fans are abusing them.
I think the general idea of counting illegal MP3s and multiplying the
number with CD prices is not right. Music sharing programs should be
seen as something between a public library and radio broadcast.
Some studies show that the net result of music sharing programs
is an increase of CD sales. The effect is different however for
heavely marketed music (top100) and other music.
I know a number of artists that regret the fact Audiogalaxy was
shut down. Most of those are artists without a budget to create
MTV clips for promotion, or artists in a genre not suitable for
MTV or alike.
It would be nice if some kind of compensation is possible. Sites
like Audiogalaxy could help to implement a fair compensation mechanism.
But I don't think the compensation should be more than the compensation
per radio play or library transaction.
Up to now the RIAA is killing all internet initiatives, without even
discussing a fair model, because it weakens their current marketing
policies and dominance, not because it is hurting the artists.
--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Bob Olhsson
van Gennip <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:
>Up to now the RIAA is killing all internet initiatives, without even
>discussing a fair model, because it weakens their current marketing
>policies and dominance, not because it is hurting the artists.
Excuse me, the RIAA has NEVER killed "all internet iniatives" other
than ones that were based on CORPORATIONS PROFITING from promoting
music piracy.
At the indi level, piracy is seriously hurting artists. who can't
afford to tour and sell tee-shirts off the stage in order to break
even.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
Mike Cassells
pookle <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote:
> if someone can tell me which album paranoid andriod came from or perhaps
> it is an album in making that would be much appreciated as i can't wait
> buy a copy. the downloaded mp3 was not very good quality but was close to
> 9 minutes of brilliance.
It's on a Warner promo disc called "Deregulating Jazz". I have a jazz
show on a campus radio station and they have it there.
mike
Brian Rost
>
> I find it unusual that nearly every day, if not most days in the week, there
> is a news report of police finding people with a store of stolen goods, be
> it TVs/videos/DVDs, or car parts, wheels/sports-trims/etc. And yet people
> can have collections of thousands of illegal MP3s, which, if purchased
> legally would have cost thousands of dollars, and yet the local authorities
> don't care, or don't have it in their list of crimes people can be arrested
> for.
Here in the US, there is no law against having an MP3 file (or any type
of bootleg recording) in your possession.
What IS illegal is SELLING or distributing pirated/bootleged recordings.
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Brian Rost
>
> it is your comprehension that is at fault. music is not like a dvd player
> or a hi fi that someone can come to your house and steal. it is for
> everyone.
What an idiotic statement! I'd certainly want to prosecute anyone who
came to my house and stole my CDs.
Brian Rost
>
> music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
> middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
> piracy etc.
Are you a musician? I am and I like to get paid for what I do. I don't
do it strictly for money, but at the same time I wouldn't go out and
play gigs and record CDs at my own expense.
Walter Davis
>
> In article <pan.2002.06.20.16....@vangennip.nl>, Chel
> van Gennip <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:
>
> >Up to now the RIAA is killing all internet initiatives, without even
> >discussing a fair model, because it weakens their current marketing
> >policies and dominance, not because it is hurting the artists.
>
> Excuse me, the RIAA has NEVER killed "all internet iniatives" other
> than ones that were based on CORPORATIONS PROFITING from promoting
> music piracy.
>
(which profit not at all) to police this. The RIAA influenced Congress
to pass a law that made it illegal to program or distribute
copy-protection disabling software, whether done for profit or not.
The RIAA was also the driving force behind the moronic copyright ruling
saying they deserved a royalty for internet radio and online streams and
they're the ones asking that NONPROFIT stations not only pay the royalty
but pay it at such a high rate that they're forced off the internet.
It's about controlling the market and has absolutely nothing to do with
artist compensation. Artists make next to nothing off their cd sales
anyway, unless produced by themselves or independently.
> At the indi level, piracy is seriously hurting artists. who can't
> afford to tour and sell tee-shirts off the stage in order to break
> even.
>
I'd like to see your evidence that music file-sharing hurts indie
artists. I've never heard such a thing -- the internet is the only
available avenue for such artists to gain exposure. Besides, touring
and selling t-shirts is where they make what little money they do.
Chel van Gennip
> In article <pan.2002.06.20.16....@vangennip.nl>, Chel van
> Gennip <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:
>
>>Up to now the RIAA is killing all internet initiatives, without even
>>discussing a fair model, because it weakens their current marketing
>>policies and dominance, not because it is hurting the artists.
>
> Excuse me, the RIAA has NEVER killed "all internet iniatives" other than
> ones that were based on CORPORATIONS PROFITING from promoting music
> piracy.
>
> At the indi level, piracy is seriously hurting artists. who can't afford
> to tour and sell tee-shirts off the stage in order to break even.
MP3.com was not promoting piracy, MP3.com had a business model that was
good for indies. Now MP3.com is a Vivendi/Universal company and payments
to artists dropped below 1% of the income of MP3.com. Payments for
artists were 10 to 20 times higher before the RIAA members started their
actions.
Even Audiogalaxy had some nice benefits for indies. Most of the about 60
tracks there orginated from the MP3 site. I've made some tracks available
on Serg's website, with good tags pointing to the website. I've noticed
these tracke becoming available on Audiogalaxy, and generating new
website traffic. I don't think people from Brasil would come to our website
and buy CDs without any promotion.
I think a site like Audiogalaxy is good for indies.
There were some nice search capabilities, and there was some quality
control as many users delete bad MP3s from their disks.
A mechanism for fair compensation for music sharing would be nice,
but is not the first priority.
cliff
> saying they deserved a royalty for internet radio and online streams and
> they're the ones asking that NONPROFIT stations not only pay the royalty
> but pay it at such a high rate that they're forced off the internet.
I am not a defender of the RIAA, which is a lapdog for the major labels
and run by uncreative, mindeless drones.
BUT: There is not necessarily anythgin moronic about wanting internet
radio (and for that matter, broadcast radio) paying royalties to
PERFORMERS for theior recorded work. This is in fact common in most fo
the rest of the world, where a 'performance' of your music on the
national radio is paid, the same as BMI collects for the songwriters.
In some European countries there are many artists and their record
labels who depend on airplay performance royalties to assure they can
afford to record. Finland even goes one step further, using part of that
royalty from radio (commercial, government and non-commercial) to fund
an organization that writes grants to artists to continue their
recording and performance work. Seems civilized to me.
The new copyright rules (pretty much written by RIAA) were ridiculous in
execution, because they placed an immense burden on a small industry
(INTERNET radio) and ignored the well-funded (well-lobbied) larger
industry, national-corporate commercial broadcast radio.
But don't use RIAA as an excuse to rule out a fair and equitable system
of performance royalties. The ARTISTS (and their voluntarily contracted
agents like record companies) own the music, not the public (commercial
or non-commercial). They DO have a right to control that work, but
reason should be the rule, not greed or corporate control.
cliff furnald
Irene Jackson
news:3D120FB4...@stargen.com...
> pookle wrote:
> >
> > music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
> > middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
> > piracy etc.
>
> Are you a musician? I am and I like to get paid for what I do. I don't
> do it strictly for money, but at the same time I wouldn't go out and
> play gigs and record CDs at my own expense.
I think that this is certainly one of the dividing lines..those of us who
make an income, even a measly one, from music, and those who don't. As far
as the people who support "free music", if their livelihoods were threatened
in some way because others wanted them to work for free, you can bet it
would be a whole different story. The only thing you ever hear as an
argument is the "big, bad, record companies" ripping everyone off. People
need to be educated that there are a lot of others out there who are
affected by this. But I'm afraid that many of them don't care to be
educated, they just want their "free" music.
Irene
--
Irene Jackson
http://www.irenejackson.com
MP3 Songs
http://www.mp3.com/irenejackson
Tips
http://www.irenejackson.com/tips.html
Peter J King
> In article <SYaQ8.333615$o66.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> glenn...@bigpond.CHANGE says...
>
> >
> > Maybe you have limited comprehension :) but I was talking about an
> > organization that prosecutes people who steal music. When you say
> > "swapping" music it shows how much you value people's work. Do you
> > call people who break into your house and steal things "valuable
> > swappers"? I think not. Do you call them burglars? Are burglars
> > criminals? What field do you work in? Would you call people who
> > steal what you produce "swappers"?
>
> it is your comprehension that is at fault. music is not like a dvd player
> or a hi fi that someone can come to your house and steal. it is for
> everyone.
That's pretty feeble; you could as easily have said: "Hi-fi and dvd
players aren't like music that people can steal through napster-like
sites. Technology is for everyone." It would have made as much sense.
What does "music is for everyone" mean? When a musician tries to make a
living, should we defend those who sneak into her concerts without paying
("music's for everyone")? Should we defend those who steal her CDs from
shops ("music's for everyone")? Could it be that you're simply trying to
defend what *you* do?
Do you think that it's OK to steal an Mp3 player ("music's for everyone")?
If not, why is it OK to steal the music to play on it? Is it because,
someweher inside you, you respect musicians less than you do engineers?
or do you think that, while the CD industry is run by fat cats, the
technology industry's run by philanthropic hippies in hemp jumpsuits with
a disdain for cash?
> for those who wish to sample music prior to buying even the likes of
> amazon these days have sample tracks.
So what was your reason for stealing *other* tracks?
> > That's cool. Then why don't you report the music "swappers"? Aren't
> > they stealing a lot more than the price of a box of wholesale pens?
> >
>
> because people have better things to do. hunger and poverty should be the
> main issue plaguing humanity, not a small penny here and there that the
> record industry boss lost in their multi million pound bonus. they are
> the real convicts.
Are you really saying that, because one thing's more important, we should
ignore everything else? Murder's worse than burglary, so the police
shouldn't try to catch burglars; world hunger's more important than
playing music, so we should insist that musicians stop frittering their
time away and go out to work on water projects.
The penny here and there won't affect the bosses, it's true -- it affects
those further down in the hierarchy, such as the musicians.
OK, you want to steal music (whether you call it "swapping" or "sampling"
or whatever), and the arguments of those who point out that it's immoral
won't stop you. At least shut up and steal quietly, and don't try to make
out that those with a moral sense are the ones in the wrong.
Peter J. King
Peter J King
> Bob Olhsson wrote:
> >
> > Excuse me, the RIAA has NEVER killed "all internet iniatives" other
> > than ones that were based on CORPORATIONS PROFITING from promoting
> > music piracy.
> >
> Nonsense. The RIAA has put tremendous pressure on college campuses
> (which profit not at all) to police this. The RIAA influenced Congress
> to pass a law that made it illegal to program or distribute
> copy-protection disabling software, whether done for profit or not.
>
> The RIAA was also the driving force behind the moronic copyright ruling
> saying they deserved a royalty for internet radio and online streams and
> they're the ones asking that NONPROFIT stations not only pay the royalty
> but pay it at such a high rate that they're forced off the internet.
Why does it matter that the thief isn't making a profit? If someone broke
into your house and stole your CDs, would you be happy if the police told
you that they couldn't do anything about it because the thief had given
all your CDs away, and so had made no profit? (And remember, according to
"puck", music is for everyone -- not fair your hogging all those CDs for
yourself.)
PJK
pookle
> pookle wrote:
> >
> > it is your comprehension that is at fault. music is not like a dvd player
> > or a hi fi that someone can come to your house and steal. it is for
> > everyone.
>
> What an idiotic statement! I'd certainly want to prosecute anyone who
> came to my house and stole my CDs.
>
>
of course you would but nobody is coming to your house to steal your
music, not least jazz anyway. put it this way matem if someone came to
steal your jazz collection you ought to give them a medal for having good
taste.
music in the internet as exchanged by people who are not making any money
out of it is not like your cds or dvd player locked in your house. if you
own a sony dvd player and a thief comes to steal it sony would not be
offended but would actually take pride in the fact that they have put
together something that is worth stealing for that lowlife thief. please
think of music sharing a bit like that.
pookle
> pookle wrote:
> >
> > music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
> > middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
> > piracy etc.
>
> Are you a musician? I am and I like to get paid for what I do. I don't
> do it strictly for money, but at the same time I wouldn't go out and
> play gigs and record CDs at my own expense.
>
>
i am not going to question your ability as a musician or the exposure you
have had or perhaps the money you have lost out because people liked your
music so much that they couldnae wait to log on to a music share
programme and download your fabulas music. put it this way mate, if your
music was shared as an mp3 file and someone like me happened to like it
it would make the person go and buy the album and thus gaining you more
money.
i have about 20 tracks of two of my favourite artists ailsa bates and
hannah werdmuller in my system and they like the fact that they have a
chance of gaining some exposure through the sharing of their files and
they hope that one day such sharing would actually create a band of
following big enough for them to get record deals.
pookle
i...@irenejackson.com says...
> I think that this is certainly one of the dividing lines..those of us who
> make an income, even a measly one, from music, and those who don't. As far
> as the people who support "free music", if their livelihoods were threatened
> in some way because others wanted them to work for free, you can bet it
> would be a whole different story. The only thing you ever hear as an
> argument is the "big, bad, record companies" ripping everyone off. People
> need to be educated that there are a lot of others out there who are
> affected by this. But I'm afraid that many of them don't care to be
> educated, they just want their "free" music.
>
> Irene
i can see what you are trying to say. i am one of those who support free
music to the extent that it gives us an opportunity to listen to many
artists before buying the album. after all, would you rather have someone
buy your album without listening to it first, think of it as crap and
leave it to gather dust? wouldn't you rather have someone who listened to
some of your tracks, decided that the music was shit hot and then bought
an album which got played over and over and then he recommended the stuff
to his friends and so you would get more exposure?
pookle
shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk says...
> What does "music is for everyone" mean? When a musician tries to make a
> living, should we defend those who sneak into her concerts without paying
> ("music's for everyone")? Should we defend those who steal her CDs from
> shops ("music's for everyone")? Could it be that you're simply trying to
> defend what *you* do?
people who steal cds from shop are doing it for an entirely different
reason. please bear in mind that the mp3 files we had started this thread
about actually did not appear in cd form as yet and i am now awaiting for
the release of largo on the 13th august so i can buy the album.
downloading an mp3 file from the net is not the same as staling a cd. i
think we both know that. the first is with a view to buying the album.
> Do you think that it's OK to steal an Mp3 player ("music's for everyone")?
where do you get that theory from?
> If not, why is it OK to steal the music to play on it? Is it because,
> someweher inside you, you respect musicians less than you do engineers?
> or do you think that, while the CD industry is run by fat cats, the
> technology industry's run by philanthropic hippies in hemp jumpsuits with
> a disdain for cash?
i am sorry, the above is not good ligic at all. you are not stealing
music when you download an mp3 file. how is it stealing? who have you
stolen from? someone has let you share something. my housemate borrowed
my brolly this morning to go to town as it was raining. he went to town
to buy his own brolly. think of it as that.
> > for those who wish to sample music prior to buying even the likes of
> > amazon these days have sample tracks.
>
> So what was your reason for stealing *other* tracks?
sorry, you are assuming that it is stealing, you have not provided me
with any evidence why downloading mp3 files is considered as staling
anything from anyone.
> > because people have better things to do. hunger and poverty should be the
> > main issue plaguing humanity, not a small penny here and there that the
> > record industry boss lost in their multi million pound bonus. they are
> > the real convicts.
>
> Are you really saying that, because one thing's more important, we should
yes i am. you and i have more money and sense to own a computer and
debate about feeble things like music sharing. there are children in
bangladesh who are looking for scraps and competeing with dogs in rubbish
heaps. now that is something important to fight for, not mp3 sharing.
Irene Jackson
When I play live and people hear something they like, they might by my CD's.
But I've also had some of the same songs up for "free" on mp3.com, 240,000
listens, and next to no CD sales. If it weren't for the fact that I get a
little payback for those plays, it would mean nothing except a bunch of
listens to brag about. I've been a songwriter and performer for a long,
long time...I'm "exposed" so much, there's only teeth and bones left :-)
Irene
Bageeno Hormonis
news:3D111CC0...@bigpond.CHANGE...
Aggh.. I hate to respond to cross-posted garbage. Every newsgroup has dealt
with this subject before on its own; this looks like it's going to be
disasterously long and unpleasant.
> Going off on a tangent here, I feel I'm the only person with this
approach,
> which really frustrates me... it's like: we love listening to music, so
it's
> okay to steal it; we love having sex, so it's okay to murder babies we
don't
> want; we love to watch murders, so it's okay to depict bloody murders on
> film... it's just all weak and sick.
I'm not sure who you think died and made you the morality police. Not
everyone shares your views of ethics. Some people would say that you are
hideously immoral for eating meat; some would say you're hideously immoral
for supporting a capitalist, industrial society; some would say you're
hideously immoral simply for not facing Mecca and kneeling often enough.
Thus, your morals are of little concern to me. But let me respond to each
of these "charges".
1. I don't feel that music is something that carries financial value. I
don't believe that people have the right to sell information and treat it
the same way as physical property. Further, for artists to wrangle over
financial gain, and write with an eye to that gain, cheapens the art.
Finally, I believe the recording industry is corrupt, greedy, and is
mistreating its artists while at the same time perverting our legal system
by lobbying Congress to create copyright laws so restrictive that they
damage our culture and intellectual growth. For these three reasons, I will
never pay one thin dime for recordings of music. Therefore, if I pirate the
music and listen to it, nobody suffers; I'm not pirating songs I would have
otherwise purchased.
It's also important to remember that stealing and piracy are different
crimes. Stealing removes the property of the victim; piracy does not. The
morality of piracy and stealing have to be addressed separately.
2. A cluster of sixteen cells is not a "baby". The point at which a zygote
turns into an embryo turns into a fetus turns into a baby is very subjective
and arguable from both scientific and theological grounds. Still, a very
early abortion, in my opinion and in the opinion of many rational, moral
people, is no more "murder" than masturbation is.
3. Your claim that depictions of murder are immoral essentially makes most
of the world's great art negative in your eyes. Are Oedipus Rex and Macbeth
"immoral" plays that we should burn every existing copy of? Just because an
evil exists in the world doesn't mean we should shut our eyes, cover our
ears, and pretend it doesn't exist.
Bageeno
Bageeno Hormonis
> Maybe you have limited comprehension :) but I
> was talking about an organization that
> prosecutes people who steal music. When you
> say "swapping" music it shows how much you
> value people's work. Do you call people who
> break into your house and steal things "valuable
> swappers"? I think not. Do you call them
> burglars? Are burglars criminals? What field do
> you work in? Would you call people who steal
> what you produce "swappers"?
Wow, Glenn, you just eloquently phrased the reaon that pirates - those who
"swap" music - are not theives. Obviously, people who break into my house
and steal things aren't creating copies of them, swapping them between each
other. Obviously, people who break into my house don't create fifty copies
of my television, leaving me with my original television. Obviously,
burglars are people who break and enter into your property to take things;
pirates don't break, they don't enter, and they don't take.
Piracy and theft are different crimes. They need to be addressed
separately.
(I hate HTML posts).
Bageeno
Chel van Gennip
> "pookle" <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.177c51e44...@news.ntlworld.com...
...
>> i can see what you are trying to say. i am one of those who support
>> free music to the extent that it gives us an opportunity to listen to
>> many artists before buying the album. after all, would you rather have
>> someone buy your album without listening to it first, think of it as
>> crap and leave it to gather dust? wouldn't you rather have someone who
>> listened to some of your tracks, decided that the music was shit hot
>> and then bought an album which got played over and over and then he
>> recommended the stuff to his friends and so you would get more
>> exposure?
>
> When I play live and people hear something they like, they might by my
> CD's. But I've also had some of the same songs up for "free" on mp3.com,
> 240,000 listens, and next to no CD sales. If it weren't for the fact
> that I get a little payback for those plays, it would mean nothing
> except a bunch of listens to brag about. I've been a songwriter and
> performer for a long, long time...I'm "exposed" so much, there's only
> teeth and bones left :-)
There was a time mp3.com gave a fair compensation to artists. That was
before the copyricht disputes with RIAA members, and before the takeover
by Vivendi/Universal
I see you "earned" $22.27 this month for 20,000 downloads, but you still
have to subtract a $20.00 fee for being a "paid" artist on this site of
RIAA member Universal.
Some artists, who had a lot of downloads in the pre-RIAA-member time had
reasonable pays, eg. John Bell Young, now 400,000 downloads and $20,000
Serg van Gennip joined later, and got $7,500 for 240,000 downloads.
But after the Vivendi/Universal takeover and the cut in payments I
removed most of his music there, even the track that was nr.1 on the
genre charts of that moment and although he was featured on the MP3.com
sampler CD. I rather put his music for free on his own website, than
sponsoring Universal.
Bageeno Hormonis
news:gppQ8.45885$s82.3...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> The only thing you ever hear as an
> argument is the "big, bad, record companies" ripping everyone off.
If nothing else, you have to admit that's not the only argument you hear
from me :) I don't think information is valid property that can be charged
for.
> People need to be educated that there are a lot of others out there who
are
> affected by this. But I'm afraid that many of them don't care to be
> educated, they just want their "free" music.
We aren't stupid; we realize that there are a lot of people affected by
this. During the industrial revolution, thousands of craftsman lost their
jobs. Now, during the information revolution, thousands of those who depend
on copyright will lose their jobs. This will create shaky conditions for a
while, but in the end, society will come out of it stronger and richer than
ever.
The word "sabotage" comes from French shoemakers who threw their wooden
shoes, or "sabots", into the machinery of shoe-making factories because
their livelihood was threatened. Today, the RIAA is responding to the
internet with its own "sabots" - piles of money dumped in politicians' laps
to destroy the concepts of public domain, fair use, and privacy forever.
Bageeno
Irene Jackson
news:pan.2002.06.20.21...@vangennip.nl...
> I see you "earned" $22.27 this month for 20,000 downloads, but you still
> have to subtract a $20.00 fee for being a "paid" artist on this site of
> RIAA member Universal.
Actually, this month ain't over yet. Mp3.com often features my songs or
uses them in special promotions as well, so my average is usually at least
double what I pay to have them there. And for the record, just about every
mp3 site (besides the "file sharing" ones) is beginning to charge a monthly
or yearly fee.
The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't drive any CD sales for
me...FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
sharing public always says it does.
Irene
Bageeno Hormonis
> The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't drive any CD sales for
> me...FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
> sharing public always says it does.
Filesharing drove CD sales up in the year 2000. 2001 was screwy because of
the NASDAQ crash in conjunction with September 11, so no real useful data
could be derived from it.
However, the accepted wisdom is that filesharing will drive CD sales up for
a short period of time (say, 5 years), and then as it becomes more and more
ubiquitous, it will drive them through the floor.
Bageeno
flippit
lol! so if your sixteen cells had been "terminated" you wouldn't consider
yourself dead?
Bageeno Hormonis
news:m5tQ8.337468$o66.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > 2. A cluster of sixteen cells is not a "baby".
>
> lol! so if your sixteen cells had been "terminated" you wouldn't consider
> yourself dead?
Um.. think about that, flippit. If my cluster of sixteen cells had been
"terminated", I wouldn't consider myself at all.
And if my parents hadn't had sex on their honeymoon, I wouldn't consider
myself at all, either. Of course, no one claims that abstinence is immoral.
Bageeno
Marc Sabatella
> > That's cool. Then why don't you report the music "swappers"?
Aren't they stealing a lot more than the price of a box of wholesale
pens?
>
> because people have better things to do. hunger and poverty should be
the
> main issue plaguing humanity
Many, if not most, musicians are poor. Which makes it doubly shameful
to steal from them.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> The only thing you ever hear as an
> argument is the "big, bad, record companies" ripping everyone off.
People
> need to be educated that there are a lot of others out there who are
> affected by this.
And for a good example of this, consider how many jazz artists are under
contract to these "big, bad, record companies", and how much turnover
there is. If a record doesn't sell well, the result isn't just a rich
person getting slightly less rich, it is a musician having his contract
dropped. And of course, that's just the majors. With the independents,
who produce the vast majority of all recorded jazz, a few sales can mean
the difference between the label staying afloat and not.
The notion that stolen music doesn't hurt anyone is ludicrous. Sure,
one CD isn't going to make or break anyone's career, but then, neither
is that one picture of Andrew Jackson in your pocket. That still
doesn't justify my stealing it, because it *does* add up.
Marc Sabatella
> i can see what you are trying to say. i am one of those who support
free
> music to the extent that it gives us an opportunity to listen to many
> artists before buying the album. after all, would you rather have
someone
> buy your album without listening to it first, think of it as crap and
> leave it to gather dust? wouldn't you rather have someone who listened
to
> some of your tracks, decided that the music was shit hot and then
bought
> an album which got played over and over and then he recommended the
stuff
> to his friends and so you would get more exposure?
As an artist, I want to be free to make that decision - whether or not
to make samples of my music available for free - for myself. One could
make this same argument regarding practically any consumer good.
Richard Thurston
<youareonthewa...@youhavenochancetosurvivemakeyourtime.com>
wrote:
(Snip)
>
>1. I don't feel that music is something that carries financial value.
Sadly that is too often the case. But not for the reason you are
suggesting.
> Idon't believe that people have the right to sell information and treat it
>the same way as physical property. Further, for artists to wrangle over
>financial gain, and write with an eye to that gain, cheapens the art.
Was it Mark Twain who wrote (and I paraphrase), "Only a fool never
wrote for money"?
Richard Thurston
JC Martin
> >
> > music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
> > middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
> > piracy etc.
>
> Are you a musician? I am and I like to get paid for what I do. I don't
> do it strictly for money, but at the same time I wouldn't go out and
> play gigs and record CDs at my own expense.
The majority of musicians making money today do so by offering free music
actually. It's the best marketing one could ever hope for. It's too bad
jazz musicians are often too short-sighted to see this.
-JC
JC Martin
"Irene Jackson" <i...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
news:RqsQ8.46900$s82.3...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
So by not allowing free CD downloads, you're music would sell more? You can
easily test that theory out. I believe you're wrong. Your chances at
making money are greater than relying off of a major record label. The
truth is people buy what they like. Free music downloads allow you to
market your music and get it heard. Try signing to a major. Most artists
never get their record released and if they do, most of them end up in the
cut-out bins. And then your stuck for 5 or 6 years not being able to make
your own album. Be thankful for free music downloads and keep trying.
-JC
Irene Jackson
news:QZtQ8.8174$Fv1.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> The majority of musicians making money today do so by offering free music
> actually. It's the best marketing one could ever hope for. It's too bad
> jazz musicians are often too short-sighted to see this.
Yikes, are you disillusioned.
Irene
JC Martin
news:PjtQ8.71$wT1....@news.uswest.net...
> "Irene Jackson" <i...@irenejackson.com> wrote:
>
> > The only thing you ever hear as an
> > argument is the "big, bad, record companies" ripping everyone off.
> People
> > need to be educated that there are a lot of others out there who are
> > affected by this.
>
> And for a good example of this, consider how many jazz artists are under
> contract to these "big, bad, record companies", and how much turnover
> there is. If a record doesn't sell well, the result isn't just a rich
> person getting slightly less rich, it is a musician having his contract
> dropped. And of course, that's just the majors. With the independents,
> who produce the vast majority of all recorded jazz, a few sales can mean
> the difference between the label staying afloat and not.
>
> The notion that stolen music doesn't hurt anyone is ludicrous. Sure,
> one CD isn't going to make or break anyone's career, but then, neither
> is that one picture of Andrew Jackson in your pocket. That still
> doesn't justify my stealing it, because it *does* add up.
I highly doubt jazz sales are poorly affected by people downloading MP3's
Marc. Again, music downloads are free marketing, a very similar form of
marketing as the radio is. When I was a kid I used to tape numerous songs
and albums off of the radio. No one was complaining then. Why now?
-JC
Irene Jackson
>
> "Irene Jackson" <i...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
> news:RqsQ8.46900$s82.3...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > "Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2002.06.20.21...@vangennip.nl...
> > > I see you "earned" $22.27 this month for 20,000 downloads, but you
still
> > > have to subtract a $20.00 fee for being a "paid" artist on this site
of
> > > RIAA member Universal.
> >
> > Actually, this month ain't over yet. Mp3.com often features my songs or
> > uses them in special promotions as well, so my average is usually at
least
> > double what I pay to have them there. And for the record, just about
> every
> > mp3 site (besides the "file sharing" ones) is beginning to charge a
> monthly
> > or yearly fee.
> >
> > The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't drive any CD sales for
> > me...FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
> > sharing public always says it does.
>
>
> So by not allowing free CD downloads, you're music would sell more?
Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm going to say this just one
more time...my free downloads DON'T translate into CD sales. I'm not
really sure how I can word it differently. Can you?
Irene
Irene Jackson
Two arguments...quality (mp3's are much better quality than cassettes, no?)
and because they eventually (at least here in Canada), added a levy to
cassettes to compensate. Lots of people complained about cassettes, you
just weren't listening.
Irene
Bob Olhsson
Jackson <i...@irenejackson.com> wrote:
>FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
>sharing public always says it does.
The amazing thing is that for all of the "free" music that's been
downloaded, not one single artist has become a major recording star as
a result. Carrier current radio broadcasts to dormitories and public
access cable TV BOTH have launched numerous artists' careers within a
few months while hundreds of millions of file downloads over several
years have done zip for anybody. At this point "exposure" from
downloads has no credibility at all.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
JC Martin
Well, music doesn't magically sell because you offer it for free downloads.
But the point remains...it is the best way for a musician to market
themselves and receive 100% of the profits.
-JC
JC Martin
Relatively, not really. People have always taped free music. It was
accepted before, and now that we have a digital revolution, folks are
complaining about MP3's. Artists need to use this to their advantage, not
buy into the major record companyies' logic
> and because they eventually (at least here in Canada), added a levy to
> cassettes to compensate. Lots of people complained about cassettes, you
> just weren't listening.
Not at this level.
-JC
JC Martin
Yikes, I've seen it in action. Of course I was too generalized. But I will
say, I also have many friends here in Los Angeles who have signed onto both
indie and major labels with nothing to show. Who's disillusioned? You can
make money in the music business is to write songs for other people.
There's a great way. My wife does that. For your own projects (unless you
expect to be the next big one), the allowing of concert taping, trading,
etc. has been very beneficial for musicians in the know. You have to have
something that people want to hear however. That's the bottom line.
-JC
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>Here in the US, there is no law against having an MP3 file (or any type
>of bootleg recording) in your possession.
>What IS illegal is SELLING or distributing pirated/bootleged recordings.
You may be technically right, but it's interesting that you choose to
emphasize selling, as if that's the deciding factor. And that is
indeed a common misconception: that copying and distributing music is
perfectly OK as long as no money is changing hands. But selling is
only one form of distributing, and any form of distributing without
the artist's consent is illegal.
If I make a copy of a recording and give it to 100 of my friends (or
even one of my friends), I have most certainly broken the law, whether
or not they pay me anything for it. *They* may not have broken any
law, but that's just legal nitpicking. They're as much in the wrong
for accepting the illegal copy as I am for distributing it.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
JC Martin
"Bob Olhsson" <o...@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:200620022101096499%o...@hyperback.com...
> In article <RqsQ8.46900$s82.3...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, Irene
> Jackson <i...@irenejackson.com> wrote:
>
> >FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
> >sharing public always says it does.
>
> The amazing thing is that for all of the "free" music that's been
> downloaded, not one single artist has become a major recording star as
> a result. Carrier current radio broadcasts to dormitories and public
> access cable TV BOTH have launched numerous artists' careers within a
> few months while hundreds of millions of file downloads over several
> years have done zip for anybody. At this point "exposure" from
> downloads has no credibility at all.
Your kidding, right? Talk to the jam band community who thrives on this
approach. Numerous bands sell out theaters because of live tape trading and
music downloads. Some of them even have their own labels.
-JC
Irene Jackson
Well, I'm going to let it go at that JC. We obviously have different
perspectives on the matter.
Irene
Dennis J. Kosterman
<pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote:
>music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
>middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
>piracy etc.
1. I can assure you that many musicians are concerned about piracy. It
directly affects their income.
2. Do you think that musicians should work for free? Would you rather
only be able to listen to music made by amateurs in their spare time
(because they have to work day jobs to make a living)? Or do you
believe (as I do) that it's worth some money to have professional
musicians who can spend all their time and creative energy making
music? Yes, I realize that many musicians *do* have to work day jobs,
but do you think that's the way it *should* be for all musicians? Or
do you think music is valuable enough that it should be possible to
make a living creating it? I certainly do.
3. Any musician with a recording contract signed that contract
voluntarily. They voluntarily contracted the record company to perform
essential services (recording, manufacturing, packaging, distributing,
and marketing the CDs) that they were either unable or unwilling to do
themselves. Do you think the record company should perform those
services for free?
>i am an indivudial and not a dj. i download tracks from kazaa and used
>napster extensively to listen to tracks from particular albums. this
>would enable me to make up my mind about whether i want to buy the album
>or not. as a new jazz fans i can say that 90% of my album collection was
>acquired having sampled tracks after recommendation from kind folks here.
>i shall continue to do so. the record company is making a lot of money
>out of me.
This may be true *for you*, and it seems defensible, but let me ask
two more questions:
1. Next time you go to the grocery store, try munching a few apples or
bananas before you decide whether or not you're going to buy any. Then
use the same logic as above to defend this action. Do you think the
grocer will buy it? Shouldn't the seller be the one to decide whether
or not to give "free samples"?
2. What about all the people (I know several of them) whose music
collection is 90% MP3s that they have no intention of ever buying? Why
should they, when they can get them for free? (That's their attitude,
not mine.)
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Luke Kaven
> In article <MPG.177bc959...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> pookle <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > if someone can tell me which album paranoid andriod came from or perhaps
> > it is an album in making that would be much appreciated as i can't wait
> > buy a copy. the downloaded mp3 was not very good quality but was close to
> > 9 minutes of brilliance.
>
> It's on a Warner promo disc called "Deregulating Jazz". I have a jazz
> show on a campus radio station and they have it there.
>
> mike
Deregulating Jazz?
Sounds like conservative forces trying to give the impression that
they are "freeing jazz up" by producing only crossover records now.
This is not to knock Brad, by the way, but WB. Major jazz labels
don't seem to get the idea jazz musicians are not the same as pop
stars. They just might succeed,-- boy if only they can just get these
jazz musicians to not play so much *jazz*.
Dennis J. Kosterman
<subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
>> ... If a record doesn't sell well, the result isn't just a rich
>> person getting slightly less rich, it is a musician having his contract
>> dropped. And of course, that's just the majors. With the independents,
>> who produce the vast majority of all recorded jazz, a few sales can mean
>> the difference between the label staying afloat and not.
>> The notion that stolen music doesn't hurt anyone is ludicrous. Sure,
>> one CD isn't going to make or break anyone's career, but then, neither
>> is that one picture of Andrew Jackson in your pocket. That still
>> doesn't justify my stealing it, because it *does* add up.
>I highly doubt jazz sales are poorly affected by people downloading MP3's
>Marc. Again, music downloads are free marketing, a very similar form of
>marketing as the radio is. When I was a kid I used to tape numerous songs
>and albums off of the radio. No one was complaining then. Why now?
I don't know about jazz, but it certainly affects rock sales. Just
about everyone I know who likes music at all sees nothing wrong with
downloading MP3s as a form of acquiring the music. They have no
intention of ever buying any of it. It has nothing to do with
marketing or sampling -- they're just getting as much music as they
can get without paying for it.
It's not the same as radio at all. For one thing, radio pays
royalties. And the old model for radio was: you heard something on the
radio, and if you liked it, you went out and bought it. It really was
a marketing tool back then. Sure, some people taped stuff off the
radio, but not that many, because the quality of a cassette tape from
a radio source wasn't that good. The real thing sounded a lot better,
and included a nice cover, liner notes, etc.
But the new model is: you hear something on the radio, you like it,
and you go on the internet and download it. And then you go somewhere
else and download the cover art, liner notes, lyrics, etc., and you
can make yourself a damn near perfect copy of the CD. OK, MP3s also
have degraded quality, but they're a lot closer to the real thing than
cassettes were in the old days. And if you have a CD burner and know
someone else who has the disc, you can make an exact copy that *isn't*
degraded. And that's what people are doing -- at least the people I
know. They're not using free MP3s as a way of discovering new music --
it's a way of acquiring music that they're already familiar with,
without paying for it.
And that's what we're complaining about.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
<youareonthewa...@youhavenochancetosurvivemakeyourtime.com>
wrote:
>1. I don't feel that music is something that carries financial value. I
>don't believe that people have the right to sell information and treat it
>the same way as physical property. Further, for artists to wrangle over
>financial gain, and write with an eye to that gain, cheapens the art.
>Finally, I believe the recording industry is corrupt, greedy, and is
>mistreating its artists while at the same time perverting our legal system
>by lobbying Congress to create copyright laws so restrictive that they
>damage our culture and intellectual growth. For these three reasons, I will
>never pay one thin dime for recordings of music. Therefore, if I pirate the
>music and listen to it, nobody suffers; I'm not pirating songs I would have
>otherwise purchased.
The logic here is pretty convoluted. I decided 10 or 11 years ago that
I was never going to buy a car again (not because of any vendetta
against the car manufacturers, but the reasons are irrelevant here). I
haven't changed my mind yet, and I don't expect to. Does that mean
there's nothing wrong with me going out and stealing one? You know,
I'm not stealing anything that I would have otherwise purchased.
If you don't place any value on music, you should be willing to live
without it -- just as I'm willing to live without a car. If you do
place a value on it, you should be willing to pay for it. Why should
musicians (and record companies, too) provide music for you for free?
Don't they deserve to make a living, too? Do you work for free?
>It's also important to remember that stealing and piracy are different
>crimes. Stealing removes the property of the victim; piracy does not. The
>morality of piracy and stealing have to be addressed separately.
OK, they're not quite the same thing. But piracy removes the right of
the victim to make a living at his or her chosen profession. Is that
not just as valuable as property? I'd rather have some of my property
stolen than lose my job (especially if it was the only job of its kind
in the world).
>2. A cluster of sixteen cells is not a "baby". The point at which a zygote
>turns into an embryo turns into a fetus turns into a baby is very subjective
>and arguable from both scientific and theological grounds. Still, a very
>early abortion, in my opinion and in the opinion of many rational, moral
>people, is no more "murder" than masturbation is.
>3. Your claim that depictions of murder are immoral essentially makes most
>of the world's great art negative in your eyes. Are Oedipus Rex and Macbeth
>"immoral" plays that we should burn every existing copy of? Just because an
>evil exists in the world doesn't mean we should shut our eyes, cover our
>ears, and pretend it doesn't exist.
I can't argue with number 2 and 3 -- my feelings are pretty much the
same as yours on those topics, and I'm a little baffled that the
original poster chose to bring them in -- they really don't have much
to do with CD piracy.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
>> pookle wrote:
This is fine if the musician *chooses* to offer free music. But that's
not what anyone is complaining about. My beef is with those who think
that all music "should be free" whether the artist wants it that way
or not. And many artists don't want it that way. Shouldn't it be their
decision to make?
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Bageeno Hormonis
news:3d129719...@news.tds.net...
> 1. Next time you go to the grocery store, try munching a few apples or
> bananas before you decide whether or not you're going to buy any. Then
> use the same logic as above to defend this action. Do you think the
> grocer will buy it? Shouldn't the seller be the one to decide whether
> or not to give "free samples"?
It's so, so utterly foolish to try to make these analogies between
information and physical property. If I take a bite out of an apple, the
apple has a hole in it. It's unsellable; it's irreversibly changed.
Listening to music doesn't erase it or degrade its quality or make it
unsellable. I happen to know that most Britney fans heard "Baby One More
Time" before they bought it; the album, AFAIK, didn't come with teeth marks
(ear marks?)
I don't know what it is about people's minds that they so frequently pretend
that songs and fruit are the same. If I could produce fruit by strumming on
my guitar and singing, why, I could singlehandedly end world hunger.
> 2. What about all the people (I know several of them) whose music
> collection is 90% MP3s that they have no intention of ever buying? Why
> should they, when they can get them for free? (That's their attitude,
> not mine.)
Yeah, I don't like buying stuff I can get for free, myself. Not a big fan
of purchasing bottled water or soil or books or maps or sex. Can't say I
fault your friends - they recognize that technological trends have rendered
information so abundant that trying to build fences around it and declare it
property is become less and less practical every day.
Bageeno
Bageeno Hormonis
> The logic here is pretty convoluted. I decided 10 or 11 years ago that
> I was never going to buy a car again (not because of any vendetta
> against the car manufacturers, but the reasons are irrelevant here). I
> haven't changed my mind yet, and I don't expect to. Does that mean
> there's nothing wrong with me going out and stealing one? You know,
> I'm not stealing anything that I would have otherwise purchased.
Funny, you say my logic is convuluted and then compare a song to a car in
the same paragraph. Let me clue you in on something: when you steal a car
off a lot, the lot no longer owns it. If you snuck into Ford's corporate
headquarters with a plumbing outfit on, photocopied the blueprints for the
Explorer, and built one in your backyard, that would be a better metaphor.
This would be illegal, but I wouldn't get on some moral high horse and call
you a dirty theif. The analogy still isn't perfect, though, because a song
is simply not a car. It's not an apple or a pear. It's not physical
property.
> If you don't place any value on music, you should be willing to live
> without it -- just as I'm willing to live without a car. If you do
> place a value on it, you should be willing to pay for it. Why should
> musicians (and record companies, too) provide music for you for free?
> Don't they deserve to make a living, too? Do you work for free?
I place a value on air, soil, water, books, and sex; I pay for none of them
and am willing to pay for none of them. I don't consider playing music
"work" - it's art and recreation. I don't expect anybody to "provide" me
with music; there will always be people out there who want to write it and
play it and share it.
> OK, they're not quite the same thing. But piracy removes the right of
> the victim to make a living at his or her chosen profession.
Wow, I have that right? In that case, I'm off to play Heroes of Might and
Magic IV and eat Pringles. You can mail me my paycheck at the end of the
week.
> Is that
> not just as valuable as property? I'd rather have some of my property
> stolen than lose my job (especially if it was the only job of its kind
> in the world).
You, unfortunately, don't have a right to your job. You're only allowed to
keep it to the extent that people are willing to pay you to do it. As we
speak, many secretaries are losing their jobs because voice-recognition
technologies are rendering them irrelevant. Technology creates more jobs
than it destroys, but it destorys plenty. And it's going to slough off a
good deal of songwriters before this information revolution is through.
[off-topic stuff deleted]
Bageeno
Michael Leahy
she's the proud 100% owner of $0.
M
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UPvQ8.9436$uH2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Michael Leahy
Michael
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com
"Dennis J. Kosterman" <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:3d12a030...@news.tds.net...
Chel van Gennip
> "Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
> news:pan.2002.06.20.21...@vangennip.nl...
>> I see you "earned" $22.27 this month for 20,000 downloads, but you
>> still have to subtract a $20.00 fee for being a "paid" artist on this
>> site of RIAA member Universal.
>
> Actually, this month ain't over yet. Mp3.com often features my songs or
> uses them in special promotions as well, so my average is usually at
> least double what I pay to have them there. And for the record, just
> about every mp3 site (besides the "file sharing" ones) is beginning to
> charge a monthly or yearly fee.
So you get about $20 for 50,000 downloads of your music frome this
defender of the rights of artists?
> The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't drive any CD sales for
> me...FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
> sharing public always says it does.
I understand, but look again at your MP3.com statistics. Over 95% are
"Business Music Services Plays". This means the RIAA member Universal is
selling your music as e.g. background music for elevators, without giving
you propper compensation. As there is no reference to you with this music,
it wil do you no good at all. This kind of commercial usage of music
without payment to the artist is not the kind of FREE MUSIC that will
drive CD sales. It will only make money for the RIAA member Universal.
MP3.com's total payments to artists are less than 1% of their income.
MP3s, with propper information about the artist, shared between music
lovers can help artists.
The old MP3 model, before the actions of RIAA members and before the
Universal takeover could have worked. At that time they were paying the
artists, and still had cache for settlements with RIAA members.
I understand the total payments to RIAA members were over $100,000,000
If I understand correctly, this $100,000,000 was payed because MP3.com
for their locker service, only verified if the listener owned a certain CD,
but used another copy of the same CD to stream music: they did not make
hundreds of copys of the same CD, as the RIAA members argued they should.
If the RIAA members would have got the same compensation for their music,
as Universal is giving you for the use of your music, they would have got
only a small fraction of this $100,000,000.
This is what I call killing internet initiatives.
--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
pookle
ch...@vangennip.nl says...
> There was a time mp3.com gave a fair compensation to artists. That was
> before the copyricht disputes with RIAA members, and before the takeover
> by Vivendi/Universal
>
> I see you "earned" $22.27 this month for 20,000 downloads, but you still
> have to subtract a $20.00 fee for being a "paid" artist on this site of
> RIAA member Universal.
>
> Some artists, who had a lot of downloads in the pre-RIAA-member time had
> reasonable pays, eg. John Bell Young, now 400,000 downloads and $20,000
>
> Serg van Gennip joined later, and got $7,500 for 240,000 downloads.
> But after the Vivendi/Universal takeover and the cut in payments I
> removed most of his music there, even the track that was nr.1 on the
> genre charts of that moment and although he was featured on the MP3.com
> sampler CD. I rather put his music for free on his own website, than
> sponsoring Universal.
>
>
is it possible that having listend to the music people didn't enjoy it
enough to want to buy the albums?
people go to live gigs and don't really have a choice to turn off even if
they thing that the music is of not very good quality.
so what i say to the musicins is that keep on improving and strive to be
better and greater and play music that is truly worth buying and surely
the money will follow. i have the money in my pocket and i will only buy
stuff that i like. if a musician fails to impress me i won't buy their
music and the same goes for most music fans.
--
puck
'...blame it in my youth...'
pookle
i...@irenejackson.com says...
> When I play live and people hear something they like, they might by my CD's.
> But I've also had some of the same songs up for "free" on mp3.com, 240,000
> listens, and next to no CD sales. If it weren't for the fact that I get a
> little payback for those plays, it would mean nothing except a bunch of
> listens to brag about. I've been a songwriter and performer for a long,
> long time...I'm "exposed" so much, there's only teeth and bones left :-)
>
> Irene
hi irene, keep on playing, keep on striving and keep on going. at the end
of the day, if people like your music they will end up buying the albums.
a lot of jazz musicians struggle and its only the likes of kenny g who
make easy money.
your day will come one day.
pookle
i...@irenejackson.com says...
> Actually, this month ain't over yet. Mp3.com often features my songs or
> uses them in special promotions as well, so my average is usually at least
> double what I pay to have them there. And for the record, just about every
> mp3 site (besides the "file sharing" ones) is beginning to charge a monthly
> or yearly fee.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't drive any CD sales for
> me...FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
> sharing public always says it does.
>
> Irene
>
>
>
umm... so did you sell any more cds before the age of napster? i stand by
my point of mp3 downloads increasing exposure for the musician and album
sales as i like to buy stuff having had a chance ti listen to a few
tracks from a particular album first.
pookle
i...@irenejackson.com says...
> Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm going to say this just one
> more time...my free downloads DON'T translate into CD sales. I'm not
> really sure how I can word it differently. Can you?
>
> Irene
okay, here is what i am going to say, i shall try to locate some of your
mp3 files, give them a listen and if i like them i will go and order the
album! happy now?!?
do you sing under the name irene jackson or maybe have a stage name?
pookle
subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net says...
> Your kidding, right? Talk to the jam band community who thrives on this
> approach. Numerous bands sell out theaters because of live tape trading and
> music downloads. Some of them even have their own labels.
>
> -JC
>
>
>
i can concur that this is certainly the case with a lot of new and small
local rock bands in uk. the reason they get packed halls is because they
have managed to build up a cult following despite being nobody's. incubus
is a prime example.
pookle
says...
> "pookle" <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote:
> As an artist, I want to be free to make that decision - whether or not
> to make samples of my music available for free - for myself.
okay do that and also put together music which really gets people excited
and get them rushing through the shop door.
pookle
says...
> "pookle" <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > That's cool. Then why don't you report the music "swappers"?
> Aren't they stealing a lot more than the price of a box of wholesale
> pens?
> >
> > because people have better things to do. hunger and poverty should be
> the
> > main issue plaguing humanity
>
> Many, if not most, musicians are poor. Which makes it doubly shameful
> to steal from them.
firstly, it is not stealing! secondly, you are no where near as poor as
the street musicians of bangladesh who haven't even heard of the format
mp3.
Richard Wilcox
> We aren't stupid; we realize that there are a lot of people affected by
> this. During the industrial revolution, thousands of craftsman lost their
> jobs. Now, during the information revolution, thousands of those who depend
> on copyright will lose their jobs. This will create shaky conditions for a
> while, but in the end, society will come out of it stronger and richer than
> ever.
>
> The word "sabotage" comes from French shoemakers who threw their wooden
> shoes, or "sabots", into the machinery of shoe-making factories because
> their livelihood was threatened. Today, the RIAA is responding to the
> internet with its own "sabots" - piles of money dumped in politicians' laps
> to destroy the concepts of public domain, fair use, and privacy forever.
>
> Bageeno
Again, this is the wrong anology. People still "buy" shoes, only the
methods of manufacture and distribution have changed.
I don't think any of the pro-copyright lobby here or elsewhere are
suggesting that there should not, or will not, be progress in the
means of creation and distribution of music, books, and other
copyrightable material. Nor are we suggesting the music distributors
have any right to continue to exist in the present manner, nor are
they good or bad guys, or the price of CDs is right, or that some
artists earn more money than their talent deserves. Nor even that US
radio stations should pay royalty monies - these are all items which
we could argue til the cows come home and still not get a collective
agreement on.
What the pro-copyright lobby has said is that the creators should have
control over their own material and if they want to, or can, take it
to the market place should get paid for that service. Equally if they
want to give it away, then that's fine too. It's called personal
choice. If they work and don't get paid for it it's called slavery.
Maybe we should call in the Anti-Slavery League on this one ;-))
At the present time we are in a situation where "music distibutors"
are financing the music with all the services of the necessary support
staff required for the creation of the best setting of that music (and
I am deliberately ignoring all other incidental expenses) and because
of the internet some feel they are justified in copying that material
- because they can. If this situation continues and the flow of
revenue ceases to reach the artists and the quality of music will
*decrease* not increase. Not specically because those in it for the
money will go elsewhere, but because there will no longer be the
revenue to finance the quality recordings, i.e. from a earlier era, no
Pet Sounds, no Sgt Pepper,
It's great that I can now listen to some singer/performer/writer in
Austin Texas, or elsewhere round the world that I wouldn't have heard
of otherwise, it's the great thing about the net, and in time a few of
these people will rise to the surface of general public consciousness.
BUT, and there always is a but, that's only my personal preference,
and, if the net becomes the promotional tool and public performance
becomes the only way artistes earn money I finish up with 1000 spam
e-mails in my folder every day telling me "I am the greatest" Ugh.
Radio, still wishing to appeal to the masses will only be playing
music from what will become the golden era (the days of vinyl and CD)
so musical development will have been stopped dead in it's tracks.
Never can there be another Beatles, another Queen, another R.E.M.,
another (please insert your own personal preferences in here) etc.
In this scenario what we have is music that has totally stagnated
because no risks can be taken, so although I couldn't give a damn
about hearing or the income of, say, Britney Spears, I do appreciate
that the profits generated for the support staff she has could now be
financing the next big thing - which could be exactly what you or I
want to hear.
Those that claim that music has already stagnated can debate the
chicken and egg thing by themselves.
Maybe somebody more knowledgeable about the financial side of the
music business would confirm or deny a thought I have : that the
golden years of music have generally been when there has been the
largest income from music sales.
I have also seen the claim that artists should earn their livelihood
from performing. In the UK that would be so unrealistic as to be
laughable, and with popular radio, as outlined above, becoming golden
oldie stations, it would be impossible for new artists to break
through. The idea that some MP3 only artist, irrespective of number of
plays/downloads is going to earn enough money through actual live
performance seems remote, even in American.
There have been a few posts that quote dictionaries and use that as
justification for their beliefs. That's pure semantics and has no
relationship with reality. For instance, the words "free" and
"freedom" don't really mean the same thing ;-))
Music is important to everybody reading this post, but, for a moment,
imagine it was something life threatening, like aids, tb, polio, etc.
If medicines weren't patented would their have been the same amount of
money put into development to find cures?
Again, if music is so important to everybody here, why are some
advocating it's destruction? The curious thing is, if the
quasi-socialist claims that music should be free why do they advocate
a system where only the already wealthy can make music?
The days of the proverbial wagons rolling across the net to reach
freedom of the Pacific Ocean are ending - soon we're gonna have to pay
for what is presently free. So probably all the above rant was a waste
of time and only done because I could do it for free ;-))
Richard
Mike Cassells
ka...@rci.rutgers.edu (Luke Kaven) wrote:
> Deregulating Jazz?
>
> Sounds like conservative forces trying to give the impression that
> they are "freeing jazz up" by producing only crossover records now.
> This is not to knock Brad, by the way, but WB. Major jazz labels
> don't seem to get the idea jazz musicians are not the same as pop
> stars. They just might succeed,-- boy if only they can just get these
> jazz musicians to not play so much *jazz*.
Ya, and if we could just get the jazz radio to stop playing music with
so much improvisation in it we'd all be better off. And would it kill
the musicians to make a 3 minute tune?
;-)
mike
Joshua Bayer
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> "pookle" <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's cool. Then why don't you report the music "swappers"?
> Aren't they stealing a lot more than the price of a box of wholesale
> pens?
> >
> > because people have better things to do. hunger and poverty should be
> the
> > main issue plaguing humanity
>
> Many, if not most, musicians are poor. Which makes it doubly shameful
> to steal from them.
I agree. Years ago, I had all my saxes (and a clarinet) stolen in one
fell swoop. So much for making a living. I guess these instruments
were 'for everybody' and I was being selfish for keeping them all to
myself.
flippit
news:hvzQ8.3322$LW3.13...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> "Dennis J. Kosterman" <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:3d12a030...@news.tds.net...
>
> > The logic here is pretty convoluted. I decided 10 or 11 years ago that
> > I was never going to buy a car again (not because of any vendetta
> > against the car manufacturers, but the reasons are irrelevant here). I
> > haven't changed my mind yet, and I don't expect to. Does that mean
> > there's nothing wrong with me going out and stealing one? You know,
> > I'm not stealing anything that I would have otherwise purchased.
>
> Funny, you say my logic is convuluted and then compare a song to a car in
> the same paragraph. Let me clue you in on something: when you steal a car
> off a lot, the lot no longer owns it. If you snuck into Ford's corporate
> headquarters with a plumbing outfit on, photocopied the blueprints for the
> Explorer, and built one in your backyard, that would be a better metaphor.
> This would be illegal, but I wouldn't get on some moral high horse and
call
> you a dirty theif. The analogy still isn't perfect, though, because a
song
> is simply not a car. It's not an apple or a pear. It's not physical
> property.
The hell it's not. There's absolutely no doubt that it is. Property:
Something owned; a possession; the right of ownership; title. Somebody
writes a letter... they don't own it? Shakespeare writes a play... he
doesn't own it? Somebody designs a time machine and protects their property
(design) with a patent... and yet they don't own it? Ha, ha! Welcome to
the real world, music is property. Music is a "creation": which is produced
or caused to exist, as the world or some original work of art or of the
imagination. It's a product, a commodity, an outcome of labor, and a
saleable piece of merchandise. Whoever creates it has the right to the
fruits of it, should they wish it to be sold or licenced
flippit
nobody else has the right to copy money... just as a composer or songwriter
creates music, nobody else has the right to copy it (or own a copy of it)
unless they have the authority of the creator
Someone
"Bob Olhsson" <o...@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:200620022101096499%o...@hyperback.com...
> In article <RqsQ8.46900$s82.3...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, Irene
> Jackson <i...@irenejackson.com> wrote:
>
> >sharing public always says it does.
>
> downloaded, not one single artist has become a major recording star as
> a result.
How do you define "major"?
Here's a guy who went from giving away his music on the net to being signed
to a label with international distribution.
Someone
> If I make a copy of a recording and give it to 100 of my friends (or
> even one of my friends), I have most certainly broken the law, whether
> or not they pay me anything for it. *They* may not have broken any
> law, but that's just legal nitpicking.
Like the rest of your argument. Give it a rest.
Someone
> Yes, I realize that many musicians *do* have to work day jobs,
> but do you think that's the way it *should* be for all musicians?
Well, since we're talking about the way things *should* be, I'm all for
everyone contributing what they can, taking what they need, and eliminating
the parasitic middle-men.
Someone
>
> Sure, some people taped stuff off the
> radio, but not that many, because the quality of a cassette tape from
> a radio source wasn't that good. The real thing sounded a lot better,
> and included a nice cover, liner notes, etc.
This is what the record companies have to relearn. Technology has made the
old model obsolete. So what the marketing geniuses at Sony, Universal, et
al, have to come up with is a way to add value to the package so that
consumers want to go out and spend money for the music AND the other stuff
that comes with it.
Remember the multimedia edition of Blue Train? I had an old copy of that cd
but went and spent more money on the new edition because it had lots of
stuff I couldn't get - or copy - elsewhere.
flippit
news:MPG.177d02d32...@news.ntlworld.com...
so you can sample albums for your mp3 collection
Watson Davis
<subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Irene Jackson" <i...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
>news:RqsQ8.46900$s82.3...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> "Chel van Gennip" <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2002.06.20.21...@vangennip.nl...
>> > I see you "earned" $22.27 this month for 20,000 downloads, but you still
>> > have to subtract a $20.00 fee for being a "paid" artist on this site of
>> > RIAA member Universal.
>>
>> Actually, this month ain't over yet. Mp3.com often features my songs or
>> uses them in special promotions as well, so my average is usually at least
>> double what I pay to have them there. And for the record, just about
>every
>> mp3 site (besides the "file sharing" ones) is beginning to charge a
>monthly
>> or yearly fee.
>>
>> The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't drive any CD sales for
>> me...FREE MUSIC doesn't necessarily drive CD sales...and yet the file
>> sharing public always says it does.
>
>
>So by not allowing free CD downloads, you're music would sell more? You can
>easily test that theory out. I believe you're wrong. Your chances at
>making money are greater than relying off of a major record label. The
>truth is people buy what they like.
This is simply not true. If there is free music available, many
people won't buy. They'll just take what is free.
>Free music downloads allow you to
>market your music and get it heard. Try signing to a major. Most artists
>never get their record released and if they do, most of them end up in the
>cut-out bins. And then your stuck for 5 or 6 years not being able to make
>your own album. Be thankful for free music downloads and keep trying.
That all sounds nice and wonderful on paper, but it isn't the way the
world works. If something is available for free, people aren't going
to buy it unless they get something extra with what they buy. If the
entire CD is available for free download, people will download
everything and then just create their own CD's of their favorite
songs. Why bother buying artist X's CD, when you really only love 2-3
songs off of the CD and you can download those songs and then combine
them with your favorite songs of artist Y?
Eventually the music industry is going to crash. Hard. And then it
will evolve into something else. Which might not be so bad.
And as computer's and mpeg technology gets better, the film and TV
industry is going to crash. Hard.
Watson (the ninja of nice) Davis
flippit
<youareonthewa...@youhavenochancetosurvivemakeyourtime.com> wrote
in message news:bmzQ8.3319$rT3.13...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> "Dennis J. Kosterman" <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:3d129719...@news.tds.net...
>
> > 1. Next time you go to the grocery store, try munching a few apples or
> > bananas before you decide whether or not you're going to buy any. Then
> > use the same logic as above to defend this action. Do you think the
> > grocer will buy it? Shouldn't the seller be the one to decide whether
> > or not to give "free samples"?
>
> It's so, so utterly foolish to try to make these analogies between
> information and physical property. If I take a bite out of an apple, the
> apple has a hole in it. It's unsellable; it's irreversibly changed.
> Listening to music doesn't erase it or degrade its quality or make it
> unsellable. I happen to know that most Britney fans heard "Baby One More
> Time" before they bought it; the album, AFAIK, didn't come with teeth
marks
> (ear marks?)
>
> I don't know what it is about people's minds that they so frequently
pretend
> that songs and fruit are the same. If I could produce fruit by strumming
on
> my guitar and singing, why, I could singlehandedly end world hunger.
you're using Windows right? you own a licence to it because you paid for it
right? (I assume you actually buy your operating system[s])? does Windows
exist? does software exist? software is just zeros and ones. music is
just melody, harmony and rhythm. does software exist? do you buy software?
music is the same as software. when you buy music you buy a licence to it.
that's another of the million reasons why music exists, and why people
should get paid for producing it (should they want to be paid... it's their
work).
> > 2. What about all the people (I know several of them) whose music
> > collection is 90% MP3s that they have no intention of ever buying? Why
> > should they, when they can get them for free? (That's their attitude,
> > not mine.)
>
> Yeah, I don't like buying stuff I can get for free, myself. Not a big fan
> of purchasing bottled water or soil or books or maps or sex. Can't say I
> fault your friends - they recognize that technological trends have
rendered
> information so abundant that trying to build fences around it and declare
it
> property is become less and less practical every day.
So, you don't purchase software?
flippit
> fault your friends - they recognize that technological trends have
rendered
> information so abundant that trying to build fences around it and declare
it
> property is become less and less practical every day.
what a load of shit. when I last checked programmers were still getting paid
Dan Given
> I don't consider playing music
> "work" - it's art and recreation.
Well, that's a comment that is going to piss off every musician here.
Watson Davis
You're kidding right?
AFAIK, Incubus followed the classic Tim Sweeney Recipe For Success.
They started off playing lots of local gigs around Hollyweird around
'91. Released an independent CD. Got picked up by a major label.
Put out an EP and went on tour with Korn. Then put out a full length
CD in '97 and supported it with extensive touring for two years
opening for big name acts like Limp Bizkit, 311, and Korn. Released
their CD in '99 and toured with Primus.
Maybe they did market themselves through the music sharing crowd, but
that looks like the classic formula for success in rock.
Walter Davis
>
> > The RIAA was also the driving force behind the moronic copyright ruling
> > saying they deserved a royalty for internet radio and online streams and
> > they're the ones asking that NONPROFIT stations not only pay the royalty
> > but pay it at such a high rate that they're forced off the internet.
>
> I am not a defender of the RIAA, which is a lapdog for the major labels
> and run by uncreative, mindeless drones.
>
> BUT: There is not necessarily anythgin moronic about wanting internet
> radio (and for that matter, broadcast radio) paying royalties to
> PERFORMERS for theior recorded work. This is in fact common in most fo
> the rest of the world, where a 'performance' of your music on the
> national radio is paid, the same as BMI collects for the songwriters.
It is moronic if (1) the performers get next to nil of the royalty and
(2) the US legal precedent for radio, satellite radio, cable radio,
telephone holding systems, music in restaurants, and every single other
means of transmitting music was that no royalty was owed to the record
companies. (Royalties were owed to songwriters) The rulings were based
on the very obvious grounds that (1) airplay was a means of promotion
for the record companies and (2) if the record companies didn't want to
give the music away, they shouldn't give (at no charge) their records to
radio stations to play.
Plus your original point was that the RIAA only went after profit-making
entities, which is utter nonsense.
> The new copyright rules (pretty much written by RIAA) were ridiculous in
> execution, because they placed an immense burden on a small industry
> (INTERNET radio) and ignored the well-funded (well-lobbied) larger
> industry, national-corporate commercial broadcast radio.
>
They didn't ignore it, previous copyright rulings held that no such
royalty was owed, so the RIAA had no standing to challenge the status
quo. It's a long-standing precedent in US law that was ignored to shut
down internet radio.
> But don't use RIAA as an excuse to rule out a fair and equitable system
> of performance royalties. The ARTISTS (and their voluntarily contracted
> agents like record companies) own the music, not the public (commercial
> or non-commercial). They DO have a right to control that work, but
> reason should be the rule, not greed or corporate control.
But greed and corporate control are the rule right now. That's what
shutting down internet radio and file swapping is all about.
I would love it if it was up to the artist. But it's not and never has
been. Moreover I think that any artist, especially indie artists, that
thinks they're being hurt by internet radio and file swapping is
seriously mistaken.
Walter Davis
>
> "Brian Rost" <ro...@stargen.com> wrote in message
> news:3D120FB4...@stargen.com...
> > pookle wrote:
> > >
> > > music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
> > > middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
> > > piracy etc.
> >
> > Are you a musician? I am and I like to get paid for what I do. I don't
> > do it strictly for money, but at the same time I wouldn't go out and
> > play gigs and record CDs at my own expense.
>
> I think that this is certainly one of the dividing lines..those of us who
> make an income, even a measly one, from music, and those who don't. As far
> as the people who support "free music", if their livelihoods were threatened
> in some way because others wanted them to work for free, you can bet it
> would be a whole different story. The only thing you ever hear as an
> argument is the "big, bad, record companies" ripping everyone off. People
> need to be educated that there are a lot of others out there who are
> affected by this. But I'm afraid that many of them don't care to be
> educated, they just want their "free" music.
>
Provide evidence that independent artists are hurt by this. Again, this
is the best promotional vehicle that indie artists have ever had.
Walter Davis
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Walter Davis wrote:
>
> > Bob Olhsson wrote:
> > >
> > > Excuse me, the RIAA has NEVER killed "all internet iniatives" other
> > > than ones that were based on CORPORATIONS PROFITING from promoting
> > > music piracy.
> > >
> > Nonsense. The RIAA has put tremendous pressure on college campuses
> > (which profit not at all) to police this. The RIAA influenced Congress
> > to pass a law that made it illegal to program or distribute
> > copy-protection disabling software, whether done for profit or not.
> >
> > The RIAA was also the driving force behind the moronic copyright ruling
> > saying they deserved a royalty for internet radio and online streams and
> > they're the ones asking that NONPROFIT stations not only pay the royalty
> > but pay it at such a high rate that they're forced off the internet.
>
> into your house and stole your CDs, would you be happy if the police told
> you that they couldn't do anything about it because the thief had given
> all your CDs away, and so had made no profit? (And remember, according to
> "puck", music is for everyone -- not fair your hogging all those CDs for
> yourself.)
>
> PJK
reading comprehension time. I was responding to the following claim,
quoted in your own note:
> > > Excuse me, the RIAA has NEVER killed "all internet iniatives" other
> > > than ones that were based on CORPORATIONS PROFITING from promoting
> > > music piracy.
The RIAA has done its very best to kill all internet initiatives
regardless of whether they are (1) corporate or (2) for profit or (3)
promoted music piracy. Internet radio, and especially broadcast
stations streaming over the web, do not promote music piracy in any way
-- the streams aren't even saveable and generally aren't of the highest
quality either. Many broadcast stations streaming over the web are
non-profit stations that the RIAA is trying to prevent from broadcasting
over the web. And many other internet radio/streaming outfits are just
hobbyists having fun, not corporations out for profit.
Copyright law in the US does provide some minimal protection for
non-profit entities.
Walter Davis
>
> When I play live and people hear something they like, they might by my CD's.
> But I've also had some of the same songs up for "free" on mp3.com, 240,000
> listens, and next to no CD sales.
cd's. And who can blame them?
Next time you play live, ask the audience how many people first heard
your music on the internet. When you sell cd's at shows, ask them that
question. Then get back to us.
Just curious, are you also against radio airplay for your music? Are
you also against internet radio airplay for your music?
Walter Davis
>
> Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm going to say this just one
> more time...my free downloads DON'T translate into CD sales. I'm not
> really sure how I can word it differently. Can you?
>
Walter Davis
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:07:17 +0100, pookle
> <pu...@NOSPAMkindofblue.plus.com> wrote:
>
> >music is for everyone, musicians and the audience. it is mostly the
> >middlemen, i.e, the record industry folks who are more concerned about
> >piracy etc.
>
>
> voluntarily. They voluntarily contracted the record company to perform
> essential services (recording, manufacturing, packaging, distributing,
> and marketing the CDs) that they were either unable or unwilling to do
> themselves. Do you think the record company should perform those
> services for free?
>
Actually the musicians pay for the recording and a good bit of the
marketing as well. Record companies give them advances, then get to
recoup a significant portion of the costs of producing and marketing a
record. In essence, the record company is paid for their services by
the musician. Consumers pay the distribution and profit.
Walter Davis
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:08:21 GMT, "JC Martin"
> <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
>
> >> ... If a record doesn't sell well, the result isn't just a rich
> >> person getting slightly less rich, it is a musician having his contract
> >> dropped. And of course, that's just the majors. With the independents,
> >> who produce the vast majority of all recorded jazz, a few sales can mean
> >> the difference between the label staying afloat and not.
>
> >> The notion that stolen music doesn't hurt anyone is ludicrous. Sure,
> >> one CD isn't going to make or break anyone's career, but then, neither
> >> is that one picture of Andrew Jackson in your pocket. That still
> >> doesn't justify my stealing it, because it *does* add up.
>
> >I highly doubt jazz sales are poorly affected by people downloading MP3's
> >Marc. Again, music downloads are free marketing, a very similar form of
> >marketing as the radio is. When I was a kid I used to tape numerous songs
> >and albums off of the radio. No one was complaining then. Why now?
>
> It's not the same as radio at all. For one thing, radio pays
> royalties.
Radio pays royalties to songwriters only.
> But the new model is: you hear something on the radio, you like it,
> and you go on the internet and download it.
You sure about that? The small decline in cd sales is (1) small and (2)
due to the economy as every other aspect of the entertainment industry
is also seeing decreasing sales.
Eminem's recent album was the most downloaded thing in history and it's
been #1 for 4 weeks, selling 285,000 copies on its first day. And that
was with no advertising due to them moving up the release date due to
fear of bootleggers. Unwarranted fear it would seem.
Walter Davis
> Again, if music is so important to everybody here, why are some
> advocating it's destruction? The curious thing is, if the
> quasi-socialist claims that music should be free why do they advocate
> a system where only the already wealthy can make music?
>
The system that has existed throughout this century was one where only
the wealthy (i.e. the record companies) could make music.
Self-producing (much less promotion/marketing) were prohibitively
expensive, so only corporations could really afford to do that. They
used their position of power to rip off musicians.
In the last decade we have seen an explosion of technology that has
enabled virtually anyone to record and distribute their music. The
number of indie labels and self-producing artists has exploded, and the
internet has brought even more people into the system. Irene Jackson
now gets thousands of people listening to her music -- before all this,
she'd have had no one. There has never been a more democratizing
technology in the history of music.
So under your worst-case scenario, we end up where we've always been.
Under the best-case scenario, the non-wealthy have equal access to the
system. That's not much of a gamble now is it?
If your hypothesized connection between profit from music and quality of
music is correct, then we are in the most golden of golden ages as
record companies have been posting record profits throughout the 90's
and saw sales more than double.
Or maybe you meant profit to musicians -- in which case the old system
has never produced good music because it's never provided significant
profit to many musicians.
Chel van Gennip
> "Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote:
....
>>
>> It's not the same as radio at all. For one thing, radio pays royalties.
>
> Radio pays royalties to songwriters only.
>
Internet radio will do the same:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/06/21/internet.radio.ap/index.html
The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge
webcasters 70 cents per song heard by 1,000 listener
BTW, this is more than the $20 Universals MP3.com pays Irene for the 50,000
downloads.
--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Walter Davis
Yes, but unless they were going to buy under the circumstances of not
hearing it, then nothing is lost.
>
> >Free music downloads allow you to
> >market your music and get it heard. Try signing to a major. Most artists
> >never get their record released and if they do, most of them end up in the
> >cut-out bins. And then your stuck for 5 or 6 years not being able to make
> >your own album. Be thankful for free music downloads and keep trying.
>
> That all sounds nice and wonderful on paper, but it isn't the way the
> world works. If something is available for free, people aren't going
> to buy it unless they get something extra with what they buy.
But we know this is far from universally true. Take our friend puck who
downloads songs as samples, then purchases albums. Studies show that
people who download the most music are also the people who buy the most
music and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they're also the people who
go to shows.
People now pay for TV. Libraries haven't ended book sales. The VCR
fueled an explosion in movie ticket sales and created the whole video
rental and sales business. Why do people buy videos and dvd's when they
could rent and copy them?
The people who download heavily are the people who have made music a
huge part of their lives. They are the exact market which musicians
(and labels) want to reach. This is especially true for indie musicians
and musicians of less popular music as these are the folks who have
already shown a tremendous musical curiosity.
If nothing else, look at it in purely practical terms. If you release a
cd, somebody can copy it and they will always be able to make it freely
available. So you have two choices -- stop releasing music or figure
out how to take advantage of these promotional possibilities. Moral
high horses are nice, but they don't pay the rent. This is the biggest
opportunity for musicians (again, especially indie and genre ones) that
there's ever been. You finally have the capability to make your music
directly available without having to give 99% of your profit to the
record companies.
Walter Davis
No you don't. You show a serious misunderstanding of the law and hence
the issues involved. When you buy music, you buy a physical product (a
cd, a record) but you hold no license whatsoever to that music. If you
owned a license to it, then you would be able to replace it if it was
lost, but no such right exists (for music or usually software).
You can do anything you want with a physical product that you own -- you
can copy cd's, you can sell them, you can give them away. As far as I
know, there's still no legal ruling as to whether you can give a copy to
a friend.
Anyway, if we owned licenses to music such that we could replace lost or
worn-out copies, have access to it everywhere we wanted it, and could
get free upgrades, we'd all be a lot happier.
And of course I assume you've heard of the open source programming
movement.