E.B. Mp3 site is up!
Eric Bolvin
are eight tunes there for
free download or listening and a CD for only $6. The url is:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_eric_bolvin_group.html
Thanks for visiting!
PS..Some of you may actually appear on the site...
--
Eric Bolvin
Trumpet, EVI, arranger, producer, educator
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/8357
(408) 236-2009 Hear "The Eric Bolvin Group" at
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_eric_bolvin_group.html
Eric Bolvin
--
Brian <b...@mac-addict.com> wrote in message
news:bsh-0B8FC2.1...@news.cloudnet.com...
> In article <8a3rfb$lh5$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Eric Bolvin"
> <EBJ...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey folks! Just to let you know that my MP3 site is up and running.
There
> > are eight tunes there for
> > free download or listening and a CD for only $6. The url is:
> > http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_eric_bolvin_group.html
> >
> >
>
>
> B
>
> --
> Brian Heller
>
> It is easier to tame wild beasts
> than to conquer the human mind.
Brian; The mp3 files are too big to email. If you order the DAM cd, it has
mp3 files and audio files so you can play both. You still have to go to
mp3.com. Just curious as to why you don't want to go the site??
Tim Imlay
> I find MP3.com to be quite unwieldy in its design & implementation,
> aside from the fact that it's VERY picky about what browser is being
> used. For example, the link in your message was re-routed by MP3.com to
> take me to their home page, where I would have to search and then wade
> through about 3-4 pages before I got to your files, which I couldn't
> download without switching browsers. Why can't people just use regular
> HTML? Then it wouldn't matter what browser is being used. It's one of
> those sites where you can't get THERE from HERE. Anyway, I think some
> time ago you had posted a link for files or samples to try, and I liked
> what I heard then. Cheers,
What version of what browser are you using? The link worked fine in both IE 5.0
and Netscape 4.71. From that page, I clicked to listen to a song, put in my
e-mail address (it doesn't even have to be your real address), and it
automtically ran the associated program (WinAMP) and streamed fine.
I've never had a problem using mp3.com, in fact, I find it particularly
well-organized for its purpose. I think the problem may with your computer's
setup.
By the way, I really enjoyed the mucsic from Eric's group. Thanks.
Tim
--
To e-mail me, change "NOSPAM" to "net"
One time I... Oh wait, that wasn't me.
Dr. Trumpet
<b...@mac-addict.com> wrote:
> Actually, I use iCab. I'm sure you never heard of it. It doesn't take up
> a ton of HD space, it doesn't use a ton of RAM, it doesn't crash (as
> much as Netscape), and it isn't the product of a monopolist. So aside
> from the fact that it's picky about its HTML rendering, and doesn't yet
> support Javascript, it's perfect. Al, if you're reading this, see if
> that description grabs you. It's one of those Mac-only programs. ;)
> That's www.icab.de.
>
> B
Brian (from whom I stole my think different x-face),
I have tried and like iCab, especially on older macs. That is perfect for the
old powerbooks, and a lot of other machines without the speed or the rendering
ability to load some of the pages out there. I think it is a the wave of the
future.
This brings up a pet peeve of mine. Too often now, pages takes "days" to
download (figuratively) even on a T3 or cable modem. This is beyond reason.
How can anyone afford that kind of time to download so much? I try and keep the
ITG web page under 400K if possible, including pictures and graphics. Were it
not for the fact that they want us to have our picts up there, I'd take it down
too. But, with all of the text and the number of dates up there right now, the
html file rund over 100K by itself.
Back to the point: I like iCab a lot and use it whenever I can.
AL
Dennis
>It's one of those Mac-only programs. ;)
You are paying a price for turning your nose up at technology. Not only
missing EB's recordings, but Nick Drozdoff has some great things there.
And there are some very nice Brass quintet recordings. It's a wave of
the future, making it possible for good musicians to get their music out
there without the backing of a studio, or a lot personal expense.
Dennis
> This brings up a pet peeve of mine. Too often now, pages takes "days" to
> download (figuratively) even on a T3 or cable modem.
Often these days it isn't the page at fault. It's the server is overloaded.
There are certain sites I won't visit because their server can't spit even
simple stuff out. When you have cable, you tend to get spoiled. (I want
it NOW!!!).
Another problem is some people don't know they are using too high
a resolution for graphics/pictures. A program that can resize and then
resample is a valuable thing to have. Some of the graphics I used on my
website, actually had their file size shrink (even after enlarging them)
when I let FrontPage resample the file. I'm guessing it may use about
150dpi, but the screen doesn't show any difference from the 300dpi
file I start with.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Change NoSpam to wildtrumpet for e-mail replies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis
> but iCab is faster at page rendering in my experience, so
> that makes it a better program. I suggest that it is you who turns his
> nose up at technology, though you may not even realize it. ;)
Oh well, I recognize your type. I'll get my Goosebumps listening
to Nick's incredible playing on Blue Skies, and you can get yours
watching iCab render incomplete pages. Have fun. Whatever tickles
your fancy.
: )
Dennis
> You do not know me. You know next to nothing about me.
I know there's no use trying to talk any sense into you. You'd rather
miss out on great stuff than admit your browser isn't as wonderful
as you think. (There's even still a few people around that only want to
know about DOS).
: )
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Change NoSpam to wildtrumpet for e-mail replies
http://members.home.net/wdhill/home.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis
a site for "Internet Trumpeters" to share. There is a great Bach piece
by Ian Mckechnie from England, on an Eb trumpet, and other good stuff
at: http://www.mp3.com/InternetTrumpeters
Toshi Clark
<NoS...@home.com> wrote:
> "Brian" <b...@mac-addict.com> wrote
> > You do not know me. You know next to nothing about me.
>
> I know there's no use trying to talk any sense into you. You'd rather
> miss out on great stuff than admit your browser isn't as wonderful
> as you think. (There's even still a few people around that only want to
> know about DOS).
Dennis,
As a Mac user who dabbled with iCab myself, I can't understand your
prejudice against it, and the people who choose to use it. Just because
mp3.com uses some weird/non-standard html to do their magic doesn't mean
that iCab isn't wonderful (standards compliance is a mixed blessing,
eh?), or that Brian has no sense...
Toshi Clark
Dr. Trumpet
<spik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
And, as a Mac user who has all of the hardware necesary to run it, all of the
software necessary to use it, and has tried MP3 technology, I personally see no
reason to get so upset over it all. Further, I see no reason that everyone
seems to so readily espouse all this nonstandard coding. It seems to me that
one would want to write to include as many people as possible, not exclude them.
And, as far as Macs go themselves, I've used one since 1987. And will continue
to do so.
Finally, as far as i-cab goes, I like it. But, I still use Navigator because I
can. Were I tight on memory, running an older machine, or have a machine with a
limited hard drive, I would use iCab. Heck, I'd use a cup and a string before
I'd run any version of Windows again.
AL
Dr. Trumpet
<NoS...@home.com> wrote:
> I thought I sent this, but don't see it, so here's another go,
> edited in light of Al's comments:
And, I hope that it was clear that I don't mean anything personal. Just don't
see what all the fuss is about.
> > Actually in the beginning I was just poking fun at him. He needs to
> lighten up. But there is so much good stuff on MP3 that he IS missing
> out. And It's only going to get better.
We hope. Right now, it seems a little limited and less than impressive. Of
course, the alternatives aren't great and seem to be even more resource hungry
(Real Audio, as an example)
>
> There is a trade off when someone snobbishly wants to
> go against the flow. It's his loss. If it's because of limited
> space, then my sympathies.
I beleive it is the later, not the former.
>
> But I have nothing against Macs. As we see with Intel, and
> AMD, competition only benefits the end user. I have a hobby
> of misc. graphics stuff, and I'm just glad that Adobe recognized
> they would be missing a big market if they ignored Windows
> users. Windows keeps getting better, and Adobe's programs
> are made that you can learn on a Mac or PC (whatever the school
> has) and the interface is the same. It's pretty cool.
Dennis, you're right. If everyone made a commitment to both platforms like
Adobe, Coda Music, Netscape and a couple other, there would be so little
difference in use or interface it wouldn't really matter. Too bad more people
haven't made that reasonable and astute discovery.
Best,
AL
Dennis
edited in light of Al's comments:
"Toshi Clark" <spik...@my-deja.com> wrote
> As a Mac user who dabbled with iCab myself, I can't understand
your
> prejudice against it, and the people who choose to use it. Just because
> mp3.com uses some weird/non-standard html to do their magic doesn't mean
> that iCab isn't wonderful (standards compliance is a mixed blessing,
> eh?), or that Brian has no sense...
Actually in the beginning I was just poking fun at him. He needs to
lighten up. But there is so much good stuff on MP3 that he IS missing
out. And It's only going to get better.
There is a trade off when someone snobbishly wants to
go against the flow. It's his loss. If it's because of limited
space, then my sympathies.
But I have nothing against Macs. As we see with Intel, and
AMD, competition only benefits the end user. I have a hobby
of misc. graphics stuff, and I'm just glad that Adobe recognized
they would be missing a big market if they ignored Windows
users. Windows keeps getting better, and Adobe's programs
are made that you can learn on a Mac or PC (whatever the school
has) and the interface is the same. It's pretty cool.
Best wishes,
D
Tim Imlay
I'm a computer science major with a systems administration position at a large
company. Please remember I am overgeneralizing here somewhat and they are just
my opinions...
iCab is a good, simple browser. for what is it made for It is not made to run
HTML 2.0. It's designed for people with slower computers or slower connections.
It's similar to early versions of Netscape like version 2.0. It does its job well
and quicky -- as long as the job doesn't require HTML 2.0, Java, Javascript,
Macromedia, or Flash support (among other bells and whistles).
The newest browsers (Netscape Navigator 4.72, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0) are
made to run with the newest, fastest computers. If you don't have at least a
550mhz machine, you're not getting everything the way it was intended. These
browsers support everything, and it looks good as long as you have a fast
connection and a fast processor.
Certain people, like Brian, find simple browsers like iCab to be suitable for his
web experience. Maybe he has a slower computer or net connection. Maybe he just
likes how it works compared to Netscape. He accepts the fact that his browser
cannot do some things Netscape can do because its faster.
On the other hand, people like myself feel the need for the newest and fastest to
keep up with the technology. I plan on using computers for a living. I can
guarantee that a 850mhz AMD Athlon-equipped machine will render any page more
quickly in Netscape 4.72 than a Macintosh from 1995 possibly could do using iCab.
Now, of course, the downside of this is that Brian with his Mac and iCab has a
bunch of extra money to spend because he *didn't* get the top-of-the-line with the
bells and whistles... His choice.
It's all about what you use it for. I program, play games, render music and
video, create art, watch DVDs, make CDs, and spend about 4 hours a day sitting
here doing homework or whatever. I could not do much of what I do without
up-to-date equipment and software... Some will disagree.
People like Brian accept the tradeoff. Sites like www.MP3.com don't use 'weird'
html. They're simply compliant with HTML 2.0 and should work with all browsers
that support it. By choosing not to update your software, you are leaving behind
large amounts of internet content for functionality. It's only going to get worse
over the next few years. For now, I am happy with my occasional bugs and crashes
for the chance to experience things the way they're supposed to be experienced.
Sorry if anybody takes this as a personal attack, it's just my opinion. I don't
mean to offend, and I don't mean to start a fight. I know many people get by fine
with what they have... good for you. I'd surely like to have that extra $ laying
around to try out a Wild Thing (really!)... But for now, I'm a computer science
student who plays with his computer way too much.
Cheers,
Dennis
> The newest browsers (Netscape Navigator 4.72, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0) are
> made to run with the newest, fastest computers. If you don't have at least a
> 550mhz machine, you're not getting everything the way it was intended.
I have a P166, and it does fine with IE 5.0, but what it doesn't do fine
is rasterize an .eps file. Or view large folders of fonts in Typograph.
Or apply certain effects in Photoshop. I too spend a lot of time in front
of my computer. And am counting the days until my new Dell arrives.
And I rarely have problems with Windows. But my theory is many
people's problems are often related to driver incompatibility, and
other issues related to getting bargain computers. Certain people
rarely have a problem. And others have nothing seem to have all the
problems. . That is why I will buy a Dell. They are #1 in customer
satisfaction, and just about every other catagory.
This is one reason Mac has had a perception of stableness (IMO), is
they build all their own. they don't have thousands of little geeks buying
the cheapest parts, putting a fast chip in and calling it a "screamer"
for only $1,700. Without working out the compatibility issues.
Dell has a new 64 meg graphics card on their site you can choose,
but they are still working out driver issues before shipping. They
won't release it until it's not going to be problematic. You may
pay hundreds more for a Dell, but I've seen bargain hunting
friends go through more than hundreds of $$$ worth of grief.
> I could not do much of what I do without
> up-to-date equipment and software... Some will disagree.
I won't argue. But patience is my big factor. I do not have enough
time in my life for all my interests. Every night I go to bed wishing
there were a few more hours. Each weekend I wish there was one
more day.
I spend probably a minimum of 30 minutes a day waiting for
my 166 to finish some task. That figure goes up if I'm doing certain
things. I want that time back.
> Sorry if anybody takes this as a personal attack, it's just my opinion.
Very well stated. As it is, I almost placed my order the other day, but
read something in a newsletter that gave me second thoughts.
I think I'm holding out for NEC to start cranking out RDRAM,
then the price should drop considerably on the $4,600 system I want.
Plus by then I can substitute a 1,000mghz for the 800 (since by then
AMD and Intel will have released the 1,250mghz), plus get the
Millennium Edition. But I'm counting the days.
: )
Toshi Clark
<adve...@uswest.nospam> wrote:
> iCab is a good, simple browser. for what is it made for It is not made to run
> HTML 2.0. It's designed for people with slower computers or slower
> connections. It's similar to early versions of Netscape like version 2.0. It
> does its job well and quicky -- as long as the job doesn't require HTML 2.0,
> Java, Javascript, Macromedia, or Flash support (among other bells and
> whistles).
Whoa, stop right there. From <http://www.icab.de/info.html>, iCab
supports HTML 4.0. I'm not quite sure what you refer to when you say
iCab "is not made to run HTML 2.0." This HTML 2.0 standard, from
September 1995? <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_toc.html>
As for Javascript, support is coming, and Java is already supported. Out
of your paragraph, at least you were correct on one point: Flash and
Shockwave aren't supported, afaik.
> The newest browsers (Netscape Navigator 4.72, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0)
> are made to run with the newest, fastest computers [...]
Been listening to the Intel (or AMD, same difference) marketing machine
again, have you?
> Certain people, like Brian, find simple browsers like iCab to be suitable for
> his web experience. Maybe he has a slower computer or net connection. Maybe
> he just likes how it works compared to Netscape. He accepts the fact that his
> browser cannot do some things Netscape can do because its faster.
Not all people who choose to run simpler solutions are technological
Luddites. Also, faster != simpler in all cases; after all, how else
could Mozilla be faster than Netscape (as they claim they would be)? As
a CS major yourself, you should know that speed and features are not
mutually exclusive.
> On the other hand, people like myself feel the need for the newest and fastest
> to keep up with the technology. I plan on using computers for a living. I
> can guarantee that a 850mhz AMD Athlon-equipped machine will render any page
> more quickly in Netscape 4.72 than a Macintosh from 1995 possibly could do
> using iCab. Now, of course, the downside of this is that Brian with his Mac
> and iCab has a bunch of extra money to spend because he *didn't* get the
> top-of-the-line with the bells and whistles... His choice.
And because of people like yourself, the PC industry thrives. Pat
yourself on your back. But then again, because of people like you
software becomes more and more bloated; programs gain more features and
bloat (Netscape, Office), people buy new computers to run the software
at a decent speed, then new software comes out to take advantage of this
new speed...
> It's all about what you use it for. I program, play games, render music and
> video, create art, watch DVDs, make CDs, and spend about 4 hours a day sitting
> here doing homework or whatever. I could not do much of what I do without
> up-to-date equipment and software... Some will disagree.
I for one. Although my computer is not out of date, it is really
irrelevant - a SSH session is really all I need to do my programming.
How do you "render music" anyway? :->
> People like Brian accept the tradeoff. Sites like www.MP3.com don't use
> 'weird' html. They're simply compliant with HTML 2.0 and should work with all
> browsers that support it. [...]
I'll assume you mean HTML 4.0 again, as above. In that case, you are
misguided:
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mp3.com%2F> shows,
without a doubt, that mp3.com is _not_ compliant with HTML 4.0 (and this
is transitional, not strict).
> But for now, I'm a computer science student who plays with his computer way
> too much.
And you have shown where your priorities lie.
> Cheers, Tim
Toshi Clark
Tim Imlay
> Whoa, stop right there. From <http://www.icab.de/info.html>, iCab
> supports HTML 4.0. I'm not quite sure what you refer to when you say
> iCab "is not made to run HTML 2.0." This HTML 2.0 standard, from
> September 1995? <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_toc.html>
I did mean HTML 4.0 (which apperars to be wrong as well below). I was actually
thinking Java 2.0 and I it was late (technically early quite early).
> As for Javascript, support is coming, and Java is already supported. Out
> of your paragraph, at least you were correct on one point: Flash and
> Shockwave aren't supported, afaik.
I wasn't aware that iCab fully supported Java yet
> Been listening to the Intel (or AMD, same difference) marketing machine
> again, have you?
I'm not saying it has to be that way... but (especially web browser) programmers
will utilize code that takes advantage of what 'most people buying computers' have.
And to take advantage of the newest fastest system available. Netscape 3.0 runs
fine on a P133. Now try running Netscape 4.7 side by side on that P133 and a P850.
Especially when viewing pages with Java, Flash, Shockwave, etc.
> Not all people who choose to run simpler solutions are technological
> Luddites. Also, faster != simpler in all cases; after all, how else
> could Mozilla be faster than Netscape (as they claim they would be)? As
> a CS major yourself, you should know that speed and features are not
> mutually exclusive.
I am not denouncing anybody as a Luddite. I use several very basic programs for
doing what I do on my PC. Notepad for HTML scripting, ACDSee for viewing pictures,
some ancient hex editor from 1996... but I like to have the ability of doing what I
need sometimes.
> And because of people like yourself, the PC industry thrives. Pat
> yourself on your back. But then again, because of people like you
> software becomes more and more bloated; programs gain more features and
> bloat (Netscape, Office), people buy new computers to run the software
> at a decent speed, then new software comes out to take advantage of this
> new speed...
I do *want* the PC industry to thrive. For the most part, the competition is good.
The best thing coming from AMD and Intel's pissing contest is that as they struggle
to get out the 1ghz chips, normal people can get a good deal on the 650mhz they
really want.
> I for one. Although my computer is not out of date, it is really
> irrelevant - a SSH session is really all I need to do my programming.
> How do you "render music" anyway? :->
Hehe... I use programs like Soundforge and Cool Edit Pro, along with Sonic Foundry
Acid. The rendering comes in when I try to edit, or try an effect on a 300MB sound
file and wait for 20 minutes. Same with rendering video, or MP3s. Faster
processors can finish much faster than slower processors using the same codec.
> I'll assume you mean HTML 4.0 again, as above. In that case, you are
> misguided:
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mp3.com%2F> shows,
> without a doubt, that mp3.com is _not_ compliant with HTML 4.0 (and this
> is transitional, not strict).
Again, I haven't done my homework. MP3.com uses a form of "Microsoft/Netscape
'Standard' HTML". I mean, from these companies' perspectives... they actually have
more control in establishing utilization of new commands... We'll see this happen
more in the future I'm sure. As bad as it sounds, we're going to see independent
browsers begin adopting this nonstandard code just to prevent them from being left
behind rendering complete pages. Many online entities go against the W3's advice
and use code that will only work for IE and Netscape.
<http://help.mp3.com/help/faqs/login.html#minimum_sys> shows that MP3.com is not
made for so-called nonstandard browsers.
> And you have shown where your priorities lie.
Guilty as charged. I'm not saying you're wrong, Toshi. I'm just saying that you
have to adopt the system somewhere if you use the computer teh way I do it.
Wolfgang Hukriede
speed needed at all, only network bandwidth. Of course there's no
graphics (good!). Otoh, whether lynx runs on your GigaHertz/K$ Windows
and Mac boxen I do not know...
Cheers, Wolfgang.