peoples' taglines.
Go!
That's so five minutes ago. Try to keep up! :-D
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 24, 2006, 09:16:10 AM
That's so five minutes ago.  Try to keep up!  :-D
Fuck off.
Whats ITT mean?
Gotcha.
I really hate being white. Right now it makes me sad that people are celebrating Christmas, and not at all considering how Jews feel. Everyone should put down their christmas ham and hug a Jew. White people are also mean to people that have Kwanza. It's not like its a made up holiday or anything. On Christmas white people should take their gifts and give them to a squirrel. Black people can keep their gifts because they've never sold each other into slavery (exept to the whites in Africa, but thats OK. It's their people!) White people should also give some of their skin for animals to wear, because we skin them. It's only FAIR.
-or kill me
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 24, 2006, 09:41:27 PM
Gotcha.
I really hate being white. Right now it makes me sad that people are celebrating Christmas, and not at all considering how Jews feel. Everyone should put down their christmas ham and hug a Jew. White people are also mean to people that have Kwanza. It's not like its a made up holiday or anything. On Christmas white people should take their gifts and give them to a squirrel. Black people can keep their gifts because they've never sold each other into slavery (exept to the whites in Africa, but thats OK. It's their people!) White people should also give some of their skin for animals to wear, because we skin them. It's only FAIR.
-or kill me
:troll: :troll: :troll:
3 trolls. Good work.
Wanna know what sucks moar? Being married to a Muslim who's whiter than you are, but still being blamed for not being "brown enough" by his relatives.
That fucking bites my ass.
But they can suck my dick anyway. /grinch
you are all exploiting assholes.
or kill me
lawler sk8ts guys,
It's like white people (myself included) don't care about the environment or anything, and only care about making money, which requires that you cut down more trees, which requires that you care less about th eenvironment and stuff, and like, if we could just break that cycle I think we would all be better off, so, I've thought about it really long and really hard, and I think I've come up with a solution:
Kill everyone.
It's so simple. It's like when I got asked to solve the problem of what to do with the dirty dishes, I just took them all outside wrapped up in a big sheet, and beat a wandering direlict with it until he stopped moving!
And presto! No more dirty dishes!
Also, white people just buy stuff all of the time, which is inherently bad.
I mean, it's always "I need food" or "I need that medicine to live" or "Someone hand me my glasses, I'm legally blind!".
Bunch of pussies they are, amirite?
White people suck because they don't have huntz0r skillz, w00dsman skillz, sabretooth tigar pwning skillz, or anything like that, and would problem not do well in the woods of our post-humanity world.
I think it's all the American Idol.
Or mill ke.
Quote from: Hangero on December 26, 2006, 01:52:48 AM
White people suck because they don't have huntz0r skillz, w00dsman skillz, sabretooth tigar pwning skillz, or anything like that, and would problem not do well in the woods of our post-humanity world.
:lol:
I just spewed eggnog all over my plasma screen. :x
White people are so fucking smarmy it makes me want to get a full-body henna tatoo and change my last name to something foreign.
Maybe I'm born wih it, and maybe it's Maybelline.
It's not the skin color that I have the problem with, it's the assumptions that go along with the culture. "Look, something pretty! I'm gonna steal it! What? I can't steal it? I better smash it then." History is full of that shit.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 26, 2006, 08:33:36 AM
It's not the skin color that I have the problem with, it's the assumptions that go along with the culture. "Look, something pretty! I'm gonna steal it! What? I can't steal it? I better smash it then." History is full of that shit.
What? White people do that?
Jesus, you waffle in between the realms of incoherence and shear brainlessness.
I don't even know what to make of that.
Are you meaning to talk about Colonialism or exploitation? Because white people aren't alone there bucko, that's the fucking human condition looking you in the face.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 26, 2006, 08:33:36 AM
It's not the skin color that I have the problem with, it's the assumptions that go along with the culture.  "Look, something pretty!  I'm gonna steal it!  What?  I can't steal it?  I better smash it then."  History is full of that shit.
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4107/readingdudesaygtfoxs5.jpg)
Feeling guilty about yourself or your race is typical catholic inculturation. All races are bastards, because all people are bastards. Being born white doesn't make you any more or less of a bastard than anyone else. Burn down your local church if you don't believe me.
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 26, 2006, 01:04:24 PM
Feeling guilty about yourself or your race is typical catholic inculturation. All races are bastards, because all people are bastards. Being born white doesn't make you any more or less of a bastard than anyone else. Burn down your local church if you don't believe me.
Name a group of people that weren't huge bastards at some point.... GO!
Where did white people get slaves? From the black people that sold them.
Why were whites so brutal to indians? Because indians had some of the most brutal tactics and torture methods ever witnessed.
Japanese? Rape of Nanking
Chinese? Tienamen Square
Arabs? 6000 years of slavery and brutal executions
Egyptians? ask Moses
Wiccans? the pain I feel hearing about how "I've made people ill with my revenge spell"
Mongolian Hordes! Assyrian skull pyramids! Dancing with the stars!
History is fun.
Fuck, I'm white, and I'm French. Canadian-French no less.
I suck.
I'm gonna go put on the Black Parade and take a nice warm bath.......
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 26, 2006, 08:33:36 AM
It's not the skin color that I have the problem with, it's the assumptions that go along with the culture.  "Look, something pretty!  I'm gonna steal it!  What?  I can't steal it?  I better smash it then."  History is full of that shit.
And you are a prime example.
"What? I can't have my own forest to run around in hugging trees? Kill everyone!"
Now, if you want to see a REALLY fucked up culture, google Shaka Zulu's Zimbabwe or the Mexica.
But that might fuck with your preconceived notions of racial guilt, so you won't.
White people aren't all evil. At least they've started to eat their young.
:mrgreen:
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 26, 2006, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 26, 2006, 01:04:24 PM
Feeling guilty about yourself or your race is typical catholic inculturation. All races are bastards, because all people are bastards. Being born white doesn't make you any more or less of a bastard than anyone else. Burn down your local church if you don't believe me.
Name a group of people that weren't huge bastards at some point.... GO!
Where did white people get slaves? From the black people that sold them.
Why were whites so brutal to indians? Because indians had some of the most brutal tactics and torture methods ever witnessed.
Japanese? Rape of Nanking
Chinese? Tienamen Square
Arabs? 6000 years of slavery and brutal executions
Egyptians? ask Moses
Wiccans? the pain I feel hearing about how "I've made people ill with my revenge spell"
Mongolian Hordes! Assyrian skull pyramids! Dancing with the stars!
History is fun.
I so approve this post.
heh.
I hope this assclown is still hanging around when I get my internets back.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 04, 2007, 12:44:34 PM
heh.
I hope this assclown is still hanging around when I get my internets back.
He's still around. He just hardly ever posts anymore, except for totally ineffectual attempts at "revenge" on me.
He has been broken, and driven into the desert.
Kinky Kum Kovers rock the jingle bollocks ftw!!!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 26, 2006, 05:37:13 PM
Fuck, I'm white, and I'm French. Canadian-French no less.
I suck.
I'm gonna go put on the Black Parade and take a nice warm bath.......
For the love of god you can't possibly be white enough to like My Chemical Romance, are you?!
Quote from: kaousuu on January 05, 2007, 10:14:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 26, 2006, 05:37:13 PM
Fuck, I'm white, and I'm French. Canadian-French no less.
I suck.
I'm gonna go put on the Black Parade and take a nice warm bath.......
For the love of god you can't possibly be white enough to like My Chemical Romance, are you?!
Must admit I only heard black parade but I kinda like it. Kinda Busted or Mcfly crossed with Smashing Pumpkins.
Hmm, I thought it sounded more like them trying to emulate Green Day AND Queen in the same song.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 05, 2007, 10:20:44 PM
Quote from: kaousuu on January 05, 2007, 10:14:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 26, 2006, 05:37:13 PM
Fuck, I'm white, and I'm French. Canadian-French no less.
I suck.
I'm gonna go put on the Black Parade and take a nice warm bath.......
For the love of god you can't possibly be white enough to like My Chemical Romance, are you?!
Must admit I only heard black parade but I kinda like it. Kinda Busted or Mcfly crossed with Smashing Pumpkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb1IVPOehNM
Listen and prepare to....laugh. In a bad way.
:lol:
is this the actual video? (i didn't watch it to the end though)
kids fall for that?
couldn't they just summarize those zooming mindcontrol letters to
IF YOU'RE A WHINY EMO FUCK
?
and .. and .. WTF
how obvious can you tailor music for a target demographic
what did exactly happen btw, since when is it cool to portrait yourself as a nerd who -deep down inside- is (feels) better than anyone else, REALLY!!
so uhm, it's -- um .. i'm speechless.
maybe the video should have had more Tom Green in it?
Yeah. You wont believe how much I laughed when I first saw that. I thought it was a parody, but since it was on an actual music channel, it must be the real thing.
yeah, it is. I've seen it before on MTV and VH1 here. They also had one that was pretty funny that takes place in a funeral hall. I forget the song, it's all choreograhphed dancing kind of like you'd see in an old Michael Jackson video. Oh yeah, the corpse does some ballet moves in the middle of the song. Oh, and then there was their "serious" video where they are all soldiers in a war somewhere.
Quote from: Cain on January 06, 2007, 05:48:17 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 05, 2007, 10:20:44 PM
Quote from: kaousuu on January 05, 2007, 10:14:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 26, 2006, 05:37:13 PM
Fuck, I'm white, and I'm French.  Canadian-French no less.
I suck.
I'm gonna go put on the Black Parade and take a nice warm bath.......
For the love of god you can't possibly be white enough to like My Chemical Romance, are you?!
Must admit I only heard black parade but I kinda like it. Kinda Busted or Mcfly crossed with Smashing Pumpkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb1IVPOehNM
Listen and prepare to....laugh.  In a bad way.
That's hilarious, in the BEST way.
Ask me why. Go ahead. Ask.
Alright, I will. Why?
Quote from: Cain on January 06, 2007, 11:26:14 PM
Alright, I will.  Why?
They got PAID for that rant.
When is the last time you or I got paid for ranting?
This is true. The only way any of us will get that cushy a gig is if we somehow land a column in a newspaper.
Quote from: Cain on January 06, 2007, 11:35:41 PM
This is true.  The only way any of us will get that cushy a gig is if we somehow land a column in a newspaper.
Har! First you're gonna have to start being a fan of a political party.
Hahahahaha, that was great. One fine example of how a video can make a mediocre song hilarious.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2007, 11:29:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 06, 2007, 11:26:14 PM
Alright, I will.  Why?
They got PAID for that rant.
When is the last time you or I got paid for ranting?
I'd be depressed if I weren't so amused.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2007, 11:29:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 06, 2007, 11:26:14 PM
Alright, I will.  Why?
They got PAID for that rant.
When is the last time you or I got paid for ranting?
ok, but they only get paid as long as they rant about what their managers/recordlabels want them to rant about
but still they got paid, yea.
i would have worn more makeup, so people wouldn't recognize my face from the videoclip though.
I couldn't get over how much the singers eyes and whiny facial expression reminded me of Lars Ulrich - another whiny fuck.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 07, 2007, 12:11:12 PM
I couldn't get over how much the singers eyes and whiny facial expression reminded me of Lars Ulrich - another whiny fuck.
Oh yes, Lars Ulrich, or as music lovers everywhere SHOULD call him. "The Great Satan"
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 07, 2007, 12:49:53 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 07, 2007, 12:11:12 PM
I couldn't get over how much the singers eyes and whiny facial expression reminded me of Lars Ulrich - another whiny fuck.
Oh yes, Lars Ulrich, or as music lovers everywhere SHOULD call him. "The Great Satan"
Why?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2007, 05:06:31 PM
Why?
His constant whining just fills me with a desire to punch infants, especially the lawsuits against file sharing programs and the companies or persons that make them.. A few years back, I don't know if anyone remembers this, but He and the rest of metallica attempted to sue some canadian band for using two guitar chords that he claimed were a "trademark of metallica's sound"
The man is the enemy of music.
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 07, 2007, 05:24:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2007, 05:06:31 PM
Why?
His constant whining just fills me with a desire to punch infants, especially the lawsuits against file sharing programs and the companies or persons that make them..  A few years back, I don't know if anyone remembers this, but He and the rest of metallica attempted to sue some canadian band for using two guitar chords that he claimed were a "trademark of metallica's sound"
The man is the enemy of music.
So...because he objects to being stolen from, he's the enemy of music.
Someone takes MY money away, I'm going to break their legs and kill their dog, not just sue them. I guess that makes me the enemy of asshattery.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2007, 05:26:40 PM
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 07, 2007, 05:24:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2007, 05:06:31 PM
Why?
His constant whining just fills me with a desire to punch infants, especially the lawsuits against file sharing programs and the companies or persons that make them.. A few years back, I don't know if anyone remembers this, but He and the rest of metallica attempted to sue some canadian band for using two guitar chords that he claimed were a "trademark of metallica's sound"
The man is the enemy of music.
So...because he objects to being stolen from, he's the enemy of music.
Someone takes MY money away, I'm going to break their legs and kill their dog, not just sue them. I guess that makes me the enemy of asshattery.
That's just it, noone was taking money out of his pockets, there is evidence to support that in the first year that napster was in popularity, music sales actually increased signifigantly, I can say exactly why as well, because of napster, a lot of people, myself included, were being exposed to all sorts of music that we otherwise wouldn't have and buying more albums...
but anyway, our personal views on file sharing aside, trying to sue another band for using two guitar chords? trying to claim that your band and your band alone has the right to use two guitar chords? That'd be like someone trying to say that E5 on a piano is owned by them and noone can use that note in their songs... That'd be like me telling people that rubbing sandpaper on a microphone is a Ruined888 trademark and that if I find out anyone else is using that technique to make a noise sample for their songs I will sue them sideways.
Sueing someone over the use of guitar chords is asshattery at it's finest... IMO
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 07, 2007, 08:26:22 PM
That's just it, noone was taking money out of his pockets, there is evidence to support that in the first year that napster was in popularity, music sales actually increased signifigantly, I can say exactly why as well, because of napster, a lot of people, myself included, were being exposed to all sorts of music that we otherwise wouldn't have and buying more albums...
but anyway, our personal views on file sharing aside, trying to sue another band for using two guitar chords? trying to claim that your band and your band alone has the right to use two guitar chords?  That'd be like someone trying to say that E5 on a piano is owned by them and noone can use that note in their songs...  That'd be like me telling people that rubbing sandpaper on a microphone is a Ruined888 trademark and that if I find out anyone else is using that technique to make a noise sample for their songs I will sue them sideways.
Sueing someone over the use of guitar chords is asshattery at it's finest... IMO
If you take someone's intellectual property without permission or payment, you have stolen from them.
As for the two chords, I am not familiar with the lawsuit. Link?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 12:15:31 AM
As for the two chords, I am not familiar with the lawsuit.  Link?
Im curious as well
i acually dont doubt it
copywrite law has gotten a little ridiculous
as for the Napster case
im not a metal fan, so i could be wrong
if i remember correctly they had no problem with the distribution of bootleg or live material
it was having free access to their back catalogue they had a problem with
with seems a little reasonable to me
of course Im little bit of a hypocrite
<-----a dirty thief
If the artist wants to distribute it for free, then they should. If they don't, then they shouldn't. But of course, when you consider the say the big record companies have in this, some bands may not be able to make some of "their" stuff free, even if they want, because they don't fully own it.
It is often in the record companies interest to allow limited free downloads, however little they actually do it. Thats what happened in America with anime, the Japanese companies allowed it to be copied and shared freely, then came along later with charged items. They built a huge fanbase that way, much more quickly than most expected.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 12:15:31 AM
If you take someone's intellectual property without permission or payment, you have stolen from them.
As for the two chords, I am not familiar with the lawsuit. Link?
Agreed, but I have to argue devil's advocate for file sharing because my collection would probably get me upwards of 20 years, so as to not sound like a hippocrite (call me a thief damnit, but not a hypocrite!) I argue the pro-filesharing standpoint...
As for the lawsuit, this was about 3 or 4 years ago I think, and I'll look for an article on it, I remember that it was thrown out because the ruling was simply that no band or musician can own a chord or a note or anything of that nature.
As I said, I'll look for an article, I don't know how much luck I'll have. If I recall it was one of those links that came my way back in the day, I put down my bong, read the article, and probably made some really deep statement like "Wow, that's a total bummer" and went back to being so stoned I couldn't stand.
*Shrug*
Edit:
Found a link, and also that this "lawsuit" was a hoax..
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/17/ctv.metallica/
I stand corrected, and I humbly shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 07, 2007, 08:26:22 PM
That'd be like someone trying to say that E5 on a piano is owned by them and noone can use that note in their songs... 
in fact, John Cage has the copyright on a certain piece of conceptual music, a few minutes of silence.
when some guy "recorded" a piece of silence explicitly as a tribute to Cage, he got sued (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2276621.stm).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 12:15:31 AMIf you take someone's intellectual property without permission or payment, you have stolen from them.
just to get things clear .. intellectual property/copyright laws are tricky business, if you wanna get into this discussion:
i assume with "stolen" you mean breach of copyright. no matter what the RIAA propaganda says, according to the law "theft" is still something that can only happen to physical objects.
then, "copyright" means that the "author" of a "work" has two
exclusive rights:
- to make a copy of the "work"
- to distribute the "work" to the public
if anybody else does one of these two things without permission from the "author" (either written as a license as you get with software, or implicitly when you buy a CD)
these rules are agreed on by just about any country in the world. how they are interpreted however, differs. for example in the Netherlands, because Kazaa's lawyers were smart and our local version of the RIAA made a stupid mistake, we have a high court ruling that, for digital music, only uploading counts as "copying", while downloading doesn't.
(i followed a course about copyright and other information laws, learned some quite interesting things there -- the more complicated the rules, the more loopholes .. heh)
Property is theft. Intellectual property is intellectual theft. Fuck everyone from the corporate fat cats to the not exactly starving artists. I steal their ideas and digital copies of those ideas. Same with the software companies and the motion picture association. I wouldn't steal a car because it's too easy to get caught but stealing something that doesn't exist and doesn't go missing is the perfect crime. Catch me if you can.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 11:03:26 AMProperty is theft. Intellectual property is intellectual theft.
this comparison doesn't hold, since "Intellectual Property" is really a specific legal term with a specific legal meaning, and not, as you seem to suggest, an "Intellectual" version of "Property".
and if you want to say "fuck exact legal definitions" and want to go with a more "intuitive" definition of intellectual property, you might wanna explain a what you mean bit further than a vague notion of "people should or should not copy what i create".
I have a vague laymans grasp of law, so far it's been enough to keep me out of jail but that's as far as my interest goes. My interpretation of the phrase intellectual property is that it pertains to ownership of ones thoughts and ideas, taken to be treated in the same sense as objects. My point being that I was not guilty of stealing an object when I downloaded a film, game or mp3.
I'm sure you've heard this argument to death but just in case I'll reiterate for the cheap seats - I buy media occasionally. Sometimes I want to try something out or give it a listen. If I play it once and then delete it cos it sucks I don't see that as theft - I see it as avoiding paying good money for something that either sucks completely or is 'not my cup of tea' Regardless. If it wasn't available to 'steal' the chances are I'd have never bothered paying for it anyway.
Then theres' prohibitively expensive software like photoshop, xsi and the like which I use a lot but couldn't justify spending that kind of cash on. They've priced themselves out the market as far as I'm concerned so I nick it. If they want to reduce the price to around 20-40 quid I'll quite happily part with my buck because it's worth that to me. Economically it makes more sense to rip off rather than be ripped off (as I see it) so that's what I do. There's a moral issue but fortunately for me I'm not really big on moral conventions.
I say its theft, but I admit I'm a thief. That said, if I really like a band I'll try and see them on tour or buy their merchandise instead of buying their albums, because in reality they are only getting a small cut of the profits, unless they somehow become really big and can demand alot on their contract.
I'm pretty certain the intellectual copyright laws on the songs are actually owned by the companies who produce and market the album. The contract means the writers get a cut, but the corp takes the vast share of the earnings. And since the corp didn't write it....that feels wrong. Profits are fine, but that aspect of the current system needs to be changed.
same for me, the last CDs i bought were the Shpongle "trilogy" and OTT Blumenkraft. these CDs are still in their sealed wrapping. as soon as i realized i was actually never playing the CDs but listening to the mp3s (ogg, in fact) of the same CDs, i decided to leave them in their wrapping as a reminder to never buy a CD again.
instead i indeed try to support my favourite artists by going to their concerts, and recommending them to my friends, cause they hardly see a penny from CD sales anyway.
also it's out of a kinda idealistic view. i think that free downloading and spreading of music, without intervention from the (IMO utterly obsolete) record companies would be a great advantage to art/music and especially the more original and innovative types of music (and a disadvantage to sonic diarrhea like MCR).
the infrastructure is already there. once it's free for anyone to use, imagine the possibilities.
i would liken it to complaining that carriage-drivers will go out of business when the speed highways are already there.
basically, yes i admit i'm currently stealing, but i'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be considered as such:
there is a fundamental difference between selling information and selling physical objects. let's say i sell you an apple. the result is that i get money and you have an apple. i can no longer sell this apple because i don't possess it.
now let's say i sell you my weather-prediction for tomorrow. the result is, i get money, you get my weather prediction. but i can still sell my weather prediction again and again! (and so can the person i sold it to but that's besides the point)
this fundamental difference lies at the core of the problem. big software companies like Microsoft with Vista in cooperation with hardware companies like Intel and general evil like the RIAA are in fact with their Digital Rights Management, Palladium chips, DMCA laws and copy-protection stuff basically trying to turn copyrighted information into behaving like physical objects. this is the wrong way to go. these properties of information should be used as an advantage, instead of being tied down like this.
The basic argument for me remains as follows:
How is your favorite band going to make money if they can't sell their music? I don't really give a rat's ass about the record company's "take", or the fact that each album only gives a few pennies to the artist. Record companies decide if an artist will make more albums dependent on how much money they have made or lost on their last album. An artist is in debt to the company until they "recoup" the money they spent on the album through sales of the album, not merchendise*. If the comany feels that the band is a financial risk, they will not put up the money for a second album.
So, every song you steal from your favorite artist hampers them from making more of the music you love. Especially considering that the artists you probably like are obscure and have tenuous deals in the first place.
*In a standard contract.
:mittens:
A band like Metallica, honestly, could survive quite comfortably if fans started downloading their back catalogue and stopped buying it in CD stores. However, an underground metal band (to use an example I am familiar with) cannot. If one of those bands stops selling, they get dropped very quick, and then they are fucked. There is nothing more sad really then a legendary, albeit underground, band being left in the dust without a recording contract.
And really, music isn't that expensive. What's 13 or 14 bucks for a CD? Or if that's too steep get ITunes and download it to your computer, most albums are only 10 bucks.
I guess I'm an old school fogey. I still look forward to opening a brand new CD and peering over the liner notes like I did when I was an acne ridden teenager. Watching a little blue progress bar just doens't have the same magic to me.
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2007, 02:08:08 PM
The basic argument for me remains as follows:
How is your favorite band going to make money if they can't sell their music?  I don't really give a rat's ass about the record company's "take", or the fact that each album only gives a few pennies to the artist.  Record companies decide if an artist will make more albums dependent on how much money they have made or lost on their last album.  An artist is in debt to the company until they "recoup" the money they spent on the album through sales of the album, not merchendise*.  If the comany feels that the band is a financial risk, they will not put up the money for a second album.
So, every song you steal from your favorite artist hampers them from making more of the music you love.  Especially considering that the artists you probably like are obscure and have tenuous deals in the first place.
That's my whole ethos - if I feel they deserve a donation I'll give it. I just paid 30bucks for medieval 2 total war (i'd already been playing it for a week from a copy I downloaded), that's my contribution to rome2 or whatever the next one is called. I basically award the best bands, games devs and filmmakers every month or two with a donation. I aint gonna go bankrupt paying for everything I watch, play or listen to so that's how I do it. Like I already said- if you have a problem with this then have a nice problem - it aint mine.
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2007, 02:08:08 PM
The basic argument for me remains as follows:
How is your favorite band going to make money if they can't sell their music?  I don't really give a rat's ass about the record company's "take", or the fact that each album only gives a few pennies to the artist.  Record companies decide if an artist will make more albums dependent on how much money they have made or lost on their last album.  An artist is in debt to the company until they "recoup" the money they spent on the album through sales of the album, not merchendise*.  If the comany feels that the band is a financial risk, they will not put up the money for a second album.
So, every song you steal from your favorite artist hampers them from making more of the music you love.  Especially considering that the artists you probably like are obscure and have tenuous deals in the first place.
*In a standard contract.
Plus, theft is just theft.
Just look what I did to Bhode for "sharing" my tagline.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 04:11:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2007, 02:08:08 PM
The basic argument for me remains as follows:
How is your favorite band going to make money if they can't sell their music?  I don't really give a rat's ass about the record company's "take", or the fact that each album only gives a few pennies to the artist.  Record companies decide if an artist will make more albums dependent on how much money they have made or lost on their last album.  An artist is in debt to the company until they "recoup" the money they spent on the album through sales of the album, not merchendise*.  If the comany feels that the band is a financial risk, they will not put up the money for a second album.
So, every song you steal from your favorite artist hampers them from making more of the music you love.  Especially considering that the artists you probably like are obscure and have tenuous deals in the first place.
That's my whole ethos - if I feel they deserve a donation I'll give it. I just paid 30bucks for medieval 2 total war (i'd already been playing it for a week from a copy I downloaded), that's my contribution to rome2 or whatever the next one is called. I basically award the best bands, games devs and filmmakers every month or two with a donation. I aint gonna go bankrupt paying for everything I watch, play or listen to so that's how I do it. Like I already said- if you have a problem with this then have a nice problem - it aint mine.
Okay, how about if your boss decides to start paying you like that?
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 04:11:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2007, 02:08:08 PM
The basic argument for me remains as follows:
How is your favorite band going to make money if they can't sell their music? I don't really give a rat's ass about the record company's "take", or the fact that each album only gives a few pennies to the artist. Record companies decide if an artist will make more albums dependent on how much money they have made or lost on their last album. An artist is in debt to the company until they "recoup" the money they spent on the album through sales of the album, not merchendise*. If the comany feels that the band is a financial risk, they will not put up the money for a second album.
So, every song you steal from your favorite artist hampers them from making more of the music you love. Especially considering that the artists you probably like are obscure and have tenuous deals in the first place.
That's my whole ethos - if I feel they deserve a donation I'll give it. I just paid 30bucks for medieval 2 total war (i'd already been playing it for a week from a copy I downloaded), that's my contribution to rome2 or whatever the next one is called. I basically award the best bands, games devs and filmmakers every month or two with a donation. I aint gonna go bankrupt paying for everything I watch, play or listen to so that's how I do it. Like I already said- if you have a problem with this then have a nice problem - it aint mine.
My favorite classical guitarist, Andrew York, is nowhere near the mainstream. As such, he doesn't make a whole lot of money, but enough to get by (hes also been in LA guitar quartet so that used to bring him money, but he retired from there to address his own personal projects from now on, and I applaud him for it). So, I always purchase his music, out of complete respect of his playing (not to mention thats really the only way to find it). Furthermore, I tell everyone I can about his music, and give people tracks in the hope they will go and purchase his music as well.
If its not worth listening to I don't listen to it, and therefore I don't buy it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 05:41:08 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 04:11:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2007, 02:08:08 PM
The basic argument for me remains as follows:
How is your favorite band going to make money if they can't sell their music? I don't really give a rat's ass about the record company's "take", or the fact that each album only gives a few pennies to the artist. Record companies decide if an artist will make more albums dependent on how much money they have made or lost on their last album. An artist is in debt to the company until they "recoup" the money they spent on the album through sales of the album, not merchendise*. If the comany feels that the band is a financial risk, they will not put up the money for a second album.
So, every song you steal from your favorite artist hampers them from making more of the music you love. Especially considering that the artists you probably like are obscure and have tenuous deals in the first place.
That's my whole ethos - if I feel they deserve a donation I'll give it. I just paid 30bucks for medieval 2 total war (i'd already been playing it for a week from a copy I downloaded), that's my contribution to rome2 or whatever the next one is called. I basically award the best bands, games devs and filmmakers every month or two with a donation. I aint gonna go bankrupt paying for everything I watch, play or listen to so that's how I do it. Like I already said- if you have a problem with this then have a nice problem - it aint mine.
Okay, how about if your boss decides to start paying you like that?
He already does. I get my salary as long as I continue to make him money. I'm in IT so he makes money indirectly through my efforts but he's a reasonably smart guy so he makes the decision that I'm worth what I'm worth to him. If I stop doing cool stuff that makes his company more competitive in the marketplace then he'll pay me off. Would be stupid if it was any other way.
Difference is I didn't choose to be in a position where my employee value was dependent on impressing a large number of people, consistently. Music biz is high risk, most acts make next to nothing from it, only the chosen few get the lear jets, private ranches and pools full of groupies. The smart players sign up for a steady wage as session musicians or studio producers. But there's no fame there, no fortune. So fuck Metallica. I've seen the lifes those bitches lead, hell I contirbuted, buying every album up to and including load, saw them every time they played scotland. They wanna bitch and whine cos their earnings haven't risen enough for lars to spend another 2million on some piece of shit paint spattered canvas, I don't give a fuck.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:02:10 PM
Difference is I didn't choose to be in a position where my employee value was dependent on impressing a large number of people, consistently.
So do you not work for a company that has stockholders? What about customers?
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:02:10 PM
He already does. I get my salary as long as I continue to make him money.
What if he decides to "share" your work, and not bother paying you?
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:02:10 PM
Difference is I didn't choose to be in a position where my employee value was dependent on impressing a large number of people, consistently.
And people who DO don't deserve to be paid.
Gotcha.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:02:10 PM
Difference is I didn't choose to be in a position where my employee value was dependent on impressing a large number of people, consistently.
And people who DO don't deserve to be paid.
Gotcha.
You win the argument, I keep my hard drive full of shit I never paid for. It's a win win situation.
also - people who DO take their chances. Before filesharing it was home taping that was killing music. I still see rock stars in lear jets.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:02:10 PM
Difference is I didn't choose to be in a position where my employee value was dependent on impressing a large number of people, consistently.
And people who DO don't deserve to be paid.
Gotcha.
You win the argument, I keep my hard drive full of shit I never paid for. It's a win win situation.
also - people who DO take their chances. Before filesharing it was home taping that was killing music. I still see rock stars in lear jets.
Are you suggesting that the scale of the Brady kids taping LPs approaches that of international file sharing?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 06:43:53 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:02:10 PM
Difference is I didn't choose to be in a position where my employee value was dependent on impressing a large number of people, consistently.
And people who DO don't deserve to be paid.
Gotcha.
You win the argument, I keep my hard drive full of shit I never paid for. It's a win win situation.
also - people who DO take their chances. Before filesharing it was home taping that was killing music. I still see rock stars in lear jets.
Are you suggesting that the scale of the Brady kids taping LPs approaches that of international file sharing?
I've no idea. I have met a lot of people who haven't fileshared music. I haven't met a lot of people who didn't tape records if they were alive during that period of history. I've even had a lift to my hotel suite for the night in a cop car which had a bunch of tape copies beneath the car stereo.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:48:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 06:43:53 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2007, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:02:10 PM
Difference is I didn't choose to be in a position where my employee value was dependent on impressing a large number of people, consistently.
And people who DO don't deserve to be paid.
Gotcha.
You win the argument, I keep my hard drive full of shit I never paid for. It's a win win situation.
also - people who DO take their chances. Before filesharing it was home taping that was killing music. I still see rock stars in lear jets.
Are you suggesting that the scale of the Brady kids taping LPs approaches that of international file sharing?
I've no idea. I have met a lot of people who haven't fileshared music. I haven't met a lot of people who didn't tape records if they were alive during that period of history. I've even had a lift to my hotel suite for the night in a cop car which had a bunch of tape copies beneath the car stereo.
And anecdotes are evidence, as we all know.
Okay so you can prove that filesharing is causing more musicians to starve than home taping used to?
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 06:51:51 PM
Okay so you can prove that filesharing is causing more musicians to starve than home taping used to?
Okay. 
First point:  When you taped an album, were there 50,000 people in Hong Kong ripping a copy with you?
And who cares if they are starving?
I used to tape a lot of pirate stuff that my mates dad brought home from saudi. Hong kong people never ever bought music as far as I'm aware.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 07:14:04 PM
I used to tape a lot of pirate stuff that my mates dad brought home from saudi. Hong kong people never ever bought music as far as I'm aware.
So, we agree that you < Hong Kong, population-wise, right?
For sake of argument I'll go along with that
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 08, 2007, 07:29:59 PM
For sake of argument I'll go along with that
Now, can these massive hordes of people download faster, or tape faster?
Bear in mind that we are only talking about one (1) city, so far.
takes about half the time to record as it does to listen to. Download rate may be slightly faster, even on an overloaded network like gnut or kazza. Much slower most of the time if using peer to peer.
so, how many times do you think albums are copied compared to how many times they are sold? 10 times? 100 times? 1000 times?
does it then matter if you download another CD you weren't going to buy anyway?
ok, that question most probably made you go UNNNNNG inside, sorry for that. i'd still like the answer though, cause i'm having a real tough time wrapping my head around this.
i'm a computer science student. in Dutch, literally translated, an "informatician". information is my passion, my business and my expertise.
what i don't get is this, we are totally building all the infrastructure, we are creating the technology, we are connecting everthing to the global network and send information at immense speeds anywhere. because of this the individual is getting more power than ever. and then suddenly we aren't allowed to use it. wtf.
the entire concept of "property" has been centered about one thing for as long as mankind, and probably even before that, anybody knows. that of exclusivity. you don't even notice it, until it's taken away.
if i have an apple, then you don't. you can take the apple from me and i don't have it any longer. (contrast to the weather-prediction example in my previous post)
computers, digital technology and the global network have completely turned this picture upside-down: information is not a physical object!!
it behaves completely different and this is IMO not a difference that should be quickly overlooked!
it is the fundamental difference of information compared to physical stuff, that it can be copied without any (significant) extra cost. by applying copyright, digital rights management or plainly said, "copy protections", you stifle this property of information and try to turn it into a regular physical object.
except that this will plainly simply not work in the end (information is not going to let itself tied like that -- but that's just my speculation), you are also crippling the technology (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt) that made this digital age possible in the first place.
remember what LHX said a while ago about how the term "anti-biotics" should give people the creeps? well (and i don't intend to put words into his mouth here) the term "copy-protection" is for me the same to information.
now, on the other hand. i can understand the moral and ethical problems with copying a work of art freely like that.
hey, i wouldn't like it either if a customer of mine would copy the website i developed for them and gave it away to another customer.
the fact that they couldn't do it if they wanted, or they wouldn't need me for developing a website in the first place isn't the complete solution.
the fact that i made a custom-tailored website specially for them is also not the complete solution.
the fact that - as LMNO sometimes said - you can't compare micro to macro scale like that and the difference is several orders of magnitude, might be a big part of the solution but even that is not it.
i would give it up though, i would, if that was what it would take to set information free.
i also draw cartoons. maybe one day i will put them together into a book. the book will be the physical item i might be selling. but what if someone would copy my cartoons from my website and publish them somewhere else? they are in fact already online, and nobody has done so. why would they, as they are already available for free. the book is just for people who'd like to hold the physical object.
now, what if some big asshole company would take my cartoons, publish them into a book and make loads of moneys with it? that would suck big time imho. but there are again differences. first, companies aren't people. i don't like any company, but i like some people. second there's a complete inversion of scale here. we have one entity that is copying stuff and selling it to -say- millions. compare to filesharing, where there's millions of entities copying stuff but not selling anything.
on the other hand, if information would be truly free, i might even settle for that, perhaps. the big company would perform some kind of newspaper function "what kind of cool stuff has been released this week", and with nearly 7 billion people on this earth that would be enough cool stuff.
as you can see i'm kind of torn apart between two ideals. i can see the moral/ethical problems, but on the other hand i really feel strongly about this information thing, and it's most probably the thing that's going to win anyway, by sheer numbers (and other, more complex, factors) so we might as well start thinking about how to reconcile with that notion.
love to hear your ideas on this (besides calling me a stealing bastard)
We're arguing about capitalism here again. Under the present system it's morally dubious to deprive an artist of his right to earn. In an ideal world the artists would be fed, housed and shit and therefore free to create which is what we want the sonofabitch to do in the first place. But his art would not be sold at the end - it would be released into the world for the rest of society to benefit from.
This isn't an ideal world tho. Artists have to compromise their integrity by order of corporations cowtowing to the bottom line. And I can't afford to give handouts to every starving artist I listen to, especially when their shit is available for free. I aint prepared to live in silence or listen to the same cd over and over but, if it wasn't available to download I may buy slightly more but the bottom line is I'd spend more time listening to the radio. Either way artist starves.
Quote from: triple zero on January 08, 2007, 09:24:35 PM
so, how many times do you think albums are copied compared to how many times they are sold? 10 times? 100 times? 1000 times?
does it then matter if you download another CD you weren't going to buy anyway?
ok, that question most probably made you go UNNNNNG inside, sorry for that. i'd still like the answer though, cause i'm having a real tough time wrapping my head around this.
i'm a computer science student. in Dutch, literally translated, an "informatician". information is my passion, my business and my expertise.
what i don't get is this, we are totally building all the infrastructure, we are creating the technology, we are connecting everthing to the global network and send information at immense speeds anywhere. because of this the individual is getting more power than ever. and then suddenly we aren't allowed to use it. wtf.
the entire concept of "property" has been centered about one thing for as long as mankind, and probably even before that, anybody knows. that of exclusivity. you don't even notice it, until it's taken away.
if i have an apple, then you don't. you can take the apple from me and i don't have it any longer. (contrast to the weather-prediction example in my previous post)
computers, digital technology and the global network have completely turned this picture upside-down: information is not a physical object!!
it behaves completely different and this is IMO not a difference that should be quickly overlooked!
it is the fundamental difference of information compared to physical stuff, that it can be copied without any (significant) extra cost. by applying copyright, digital rights management or plainly said, "copy protections", you stifle this property of information and try to turn it into a regular physical object.
except that this will plainly simply not work in the end (information is not going to let itself tied like that -- but that's just my speculation), you are also crippling the technology (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt) that made this digital age possible in the first place.
remember what LHX said a while ago about how the term "anti-biotics" should give people the creeps? well (and i don't intend to put words into his mouth here) the term "copy-protection" is for me the same to information.
now, on the other hand. i can understand the moral and ethical problems with copying a work of art freely like that.
hey, i wouldn't like it either if a customer of mine would copy the website i developed for them and gave it away to another customer.
the fact that they couldn't do it if they wanted, or they wouldn't need me for developing a website in the first place isn't the complete solution.
the fact that i made a custom-tailored website specially for them is also not the complete solution.
the fact that - as LMNO sometimes said - you can't compare micro to macro scale like that and the difference is several orders of magnitude, might be a big part of the solution but even that is not it.
i would give it up though, i would, if that was what it would take to set information free.
i also draw cartoons. maybe one day i will put them together into a book. the book will be the physical item i might be selling. but what if someone would copy my cartoons from my website and publish them somewhere else? they are in fact already online, and nobody has done so. why would they, as they are already available for free. the book is just for people who'd like to hold the physical object.
now, what if some big asshole company would take my cartoons, publish them into a book and make loads of moneys with it? that would suck big time imho. but there are again differences. first, companies aren't people. i don't like any company, but i like some people. second there's a complete inversion of scale here. we have one entity that is copying stuff and selling it to -say- millions. compare to filesharing, where there's millions of entities copying stuff but not selling anything.
on the other hand, if information would be truly free, i might even settle for that, perhaps. the big company would perform some kind of newspaper function "what kind of cool stuff has been released this week", and with nearly 7 billion people on this earth that would be enough cool stuff.
as you can see i'm kind of torn apart between two ideals. i can see the moral/ethical problems, but on the other hand i really feel strongly about this information thing, and it's most probably the thing that's going to win anyway, by sheer numbers (and other, more complex, factors) so we might as well start thinking about how to reconcile with that notion.
love to hear your ideas on this (besides calling me a stealing bastard)
I also feel very strongly that information should be a free resource. But the clinch point comes when you try to draw the line between the free resource of information and the noncentralized and nonphysical source of information that becomes media as software. There is this huge gray area where the two are basically inseparable. A computer program is really nothing but lines of code, information that when inserted into a computer superstructure becomes a process. The same thing happens when media (pictures, music, etc) are changed to a digital format; all of their makeup becomes code. And then, when you set this code, this information, loose on the internet in large amounts, scattering and decentralizing it until it becomes non-physical, can we really still talk of it as "property"?
The real problem, I think, is our basic understanding of information. At its base state, to call something intellectual property, what does that even mean? I read something online, that information is then inside me. Does that mean that the person who wrote it is in ownership of me then? Thats how strange some of this sounds!
To me, it comes down to two things: Respect and money. Respect indicates that I credit the originator of information, or as close as I can get. Money indicates that the originator of information should be the one who gains monetarily from it, unless they pass that gain on to someone else. However, for me, there is a colloraly: if the originator does not choose to gain monetarily (to sell), or ceases to gain monetarily from the information, then that information should become free, in the sense that it should be allowed to be freely passed in between individuals. The credit is still due to the originator, but since they are not selling, then the issue of money should become moot.
An example: Nintendo discontinued production of the NES in 1995. As such, all console software and cartridge software in their original format are no longer being produced. Since they cannot be purchased, free sharing of them should be allowed. Thus I support the free sharing of NES emulators and roms.
Those are my ideas.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe link=topic=11240.msg351579#msg351579
To me, it comes down to two things: Respect and money. Respect indicates that I credit the originator of information, or as close as I can get. Money indicates that the originator of information should be the one who gains monetarily from it, unless they pass that gain on to someone else. However, for me, there is a colloraly: if the originator does not choose to gain monetarily (to sell), or ceases to gain monetarily from the information, then that information should become free, in the sense that it should be allowed to be freely passed in between individuals. The credit is still due to the originator, but since they are not selling, then the issue of money should become moot.
I can certainly agree with this, and here is a thought that I have to add to it...
On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead. I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind. So who am I stealing from? The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him. And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...
Look...all you need to do to see a world in which there is no intellectual property is to visit Bulgaria.
Is that what you want?
bulgaria, you say? have you in fact ever been there?
Quote from: ICQSession Start (Mordred): Tue Jan 09 09:37:24 2007
[09:38.17] 000: some american guy (generally clever guy though) in a discussion about intellectual property:
> Look...all you need to do to see a world in which there is no intellectual property is to visit
> Bulgaria.
> Is that what you want?
except that i'm gonna ask him if he's ever actually *been* to bulgaria, would you like to add a comment perhaps? ;-)
[09:39.01] Mordred: Heh, he's both right and not right.
Of course there is legislation for IP
[09:39.18] Mordred: And of course there are many cases of successfullly protected IP
[09:39.24] 000: (btw you need to interpret this in a very cynical mode)
[09:39.35] Mordred: and of course there is piracy :)
[09:39.47] Mordred: I don't think it's much different than any other country actually
[09:40.23] Mordred: A few years ago it was even better, we had huge .bg-only accessible "free" servers where everyone could have a 1-2G account to upload warez
[09:40.50] Mordred: now they reverted to torrents, but there are still tons of publicly known warez ones
[09:41.00] 000: i think he was more trying to refer to bulgaria as "some poor east european country" in a kind of Borat-style way
[09:41.12] Mordred: in a sense, piracy is common knowledge, not a part of the underground or something
[09:41.20] 000: well, same here :)
[09:41.30] Mordred: Ah well, he's not unright about that too ;)
[09:42.06] Mordred: Interesting though, our biggest torrent tracker has a policy of NOT allowing .bg software on the tracker :)
[09:43.02] 000: so, you would say "just look at Bulgaria" is a good argument for intellectual property?
[09:44.27] Mordred: Yeah, a passable one. Still, you may ask him if he's been here ;))
I wonder if Moldova really doesn't have copyright laws as Fjalar states
[09:44.44] Mordred: if so, they would be an even better example ;)
[09:44.53] 000: hehehe
[09:45.07] Mordred: But generally, yes, everyone pirates.
Don't tell anyone that I do, though ;P~
[09:45.30] Mordred: Btw i know of enough firms, that use some unlicensed soft as well :/
[09:45.49] Mordred: So it's really a part of the culture, you might saw
[09:45.51] Mordred: *say
[09:46.06] 000: well it seems the propaganda machines in the usa might actually work and cause people to actually reconsider downloading music (cause that's what we were talking about, not software)
[09:46.59] Mordred: Well, for music there are even pay sites, maybe they are even legal ;)
But generally everyone with a computer and a taste for music downloads it for free
[09:47.38] Mordred: Last CD I bought was only because it was Bulgarian, and I really liked it and the guitarist is the brother of a colegue ;)
[09:48.46] Mordred: try this:
(Link: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=66582462)http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=66582462
[09:49.01] Mordred: The squeaky sounding instrument is a Bulgarian bagpipe
[09:49.05] 000: but, looking at Moldavia, you would agree that not having intellectual property laws will bring a country down into cultural savagery and failing economies?
[09:49.41] 000: :)
[09:49.49] Mordred: On the contrary, I think piracy is very boosting for an economy
[09:50.19] Mordred: Do you think all the bright kids can afford to buy visual studio, photoshop, illustrator, 3d max, maya
[09:51.12] 000: well definitely not when you're only 14 or something, which is when you should start learning it if you wanna become real good ;-) [music is pretty good btw, esp when the guitars kick in]
----------
BMW: thanks, it seems i actually got my point across (hard for me sometimes on complicated subjects like these). about respect, money and property, according to the law it means this:
- you create a "work". this "work" must be based upon an original idea (in addition there is some kind of rule for "derived works" which i forgot), and placed on a physical medium (meaning if you just have an idea but don't implement it, you have no copyright even though you might have come up with it first)
- once you did this, you may write "copyright 2007" next to it, which doesn't really carry any legal value (though maybe it does in the US, i'm not sure) but in any way serves as a reminder that the work is copyrighted (which it is anyway by default) and when it was made.
- now, you automatically attain two rights:
1. the copyright, which is split into two other rights i explained above. you can transfer copyright by matter of licenses (contracts), which can also happen implicitly (for example if you do a job for a company, the copyright might automatically transfer to them even without the contract stating this).
the copyright is mostly about
money, since you charge people for the license.
notice btw copyright says nothing about
using the "work". in fact even, if the copyright conflicts with the "intended use" of the "work", the "intended use" takes precedence. one exception is computer software, of which the "intended use" is to copy it to the RAM of a computer in order to run it, some software companies were very smart in court and now this copying is considered a copyright-protected act, which means according to law you are not allowed to run
any software without an explicit license.
music on the other hand doesn't have this exception, and you are in fact explicitly allowed to make home-copies of your music, in order to play your CDs on a cassetteplayer as well.
also note, that the copying of music is the illegal bit. once you have acquired MP3s illegally, there's no law for taking them away from you (because according to law it is
not stealing, as the original author still possesses the copyright), and also no law preventing you from playing them and listening to them. you may not, however make copies of them.
this means there is no such things as "illegal MP3s". anyway i'm digressing.
2. the second right, is the maker's right. this one is about the
respect. it is a right you can NOT transfer to anybody. you have made something, you have made it and nobody is going to take that away from you. even if you are a ghost writer for somebody else, you could come claiming 20 years later "hey i wrote that" and if you can prove it you would be legally entitled to get the credit for it. the law doesn't do much more than stopping people from claiming the honour or putting their name under something they haven't made. if, for example in the case of ghost writers, the maker decides not to make a big fuss about it, that is fine as well.
notice that "maker's right" is separate from "copyright", but both are part of IP laws.
(i am not a lawyer, and part of the stuff i explained may be specific to dutch IP laws and slightly different in other places)
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 09, 2007, 04:47:18 AM
On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead.  I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind.  So who am I stealing from?  The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him.  And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...
So where should the profits of dead musicians go? Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free? And are you also suggesting that taking advantage of someone who is dead is okay?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_gy48cBl-g - song
It's Know it All by Lagwagon from the albumn Trashed
This is kinda off topic, but this song sums up how I feel about people who hate any band that get's signed by a big label and makes money. Just thought i'd stick this thought here.
Lyrics-
KNOW IT ALL
Look at the world in disbelief You used to follow - now you lead College has enlightened you And you are proud to be different And like different bands - different types You ain't nobody's fool It's like certain bands remind you of someone you hated 'Cause they didn't wear the right clothing And there's only one true fashion Alot of the bands on the college charts are great bands until they get signed. Then you hate them It's such bullshit - you used to love them you hypocrite I remember you and I listening to bands that we liked Only the songs mattered to you But now you're a D.J. and preaching that hype "Corporate Rock Sucks" "You know, college radio enlightens you" It's supposed to serve as a means to expose new bands without prejudice, but it makes no sense Safe harbor for the underground 'Til the alternative becomes the popular sound The bands are good 'til they make enough cash to eat food and get a pad Then they're sold out and their music is clich?© Because talent's exclusive to bands without pay Know it all - Did you really listen to that song? Could you ever write what you call wrong?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 09, 2007, 08:53:29 PM
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 09, 2007, 04:47:18 AM
On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead. I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind. So who am I stealing from? The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him. And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...
So where should the profits of dead musicians go? Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free? And are you also suggesting that taking advantage of someone who is dead is okay?
Any copyrighted material comes into public domain after a number of years anyway. 100, or something like that. Gaspar Sanz wrote Canarios near the end of the 17th century. That music is in the public domain, which means I can record it and sell the recording without having to ask for permission. But no, I don't think that death should cancel out any monetary gain, if the artist has passed on that to another individual.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 09, 2007, 08:53:29 PM
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 09, 2007, 04:47:18 AM
On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead. I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind. So who am I stealing from? The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him. And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...
So where should the profits of dead musicians go? Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free? And are you also suggesting that taking advantage of someone who is dead is okay?
Taking advantage? I don't see it that way...
But James O'Barr put it better than I can...
"One owes respect to the living, to the dead, one owes only truth."
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
When a musician dies, his intellectual property is assigned to his heirs, just like his regular property, and it remains theirs until either they fail to maintain the copyright, sell the rights, or the time limit expires and it enters the public domain.
how do you "fail to maintain the copyright" ?
after a certain amount of time after the artists death his shit goes into public domain unless someone renews copywrite
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2007, 05:40:19 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
When a musician dies, his intellectual property is assigned to his heirs, just like his regular property, and it remains theirs until either they fail to maintain the copyright, sell the rights, or the time limit expires and it enters the public domain.
Yup. It's basically his property/assets/estate. This is exactly what I would've said.
Quote from: triple zero on January 10, 2007, 06:21:36 PM
how do you "fail to maintain the copyright" ?
Copyrights have a certain number of years in which they have to be renewed.
If they aren't renewed, they go into the public domain.
They go into the public domain in 90-100 years in any case.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
I am in fact suggesting that when an artist dies, their body of work should enter public domain, unless there are Heirs that inherit the rights to said IP. The rights should NOT be transferred to the record label for them to profit from indefinitely...
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 10, 2007, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
I am in fact suggesting that when an artist dies, their body of work should enter public domain, unless there are Heirs that inherit the rights to said IP.  The rights should NOT be transferred to the record label for them to profit from indefinitely...
What if the record label owned the rights before the artist's death?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2007, 07:33:07 PM
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 10, 2007, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
I am in fact suggesting that when an artist dies, their body of work should enter public domain, unless there are Heirs that inherit the rights to said IP. The rights should NOT be transferred to the record label for them to profit from indefinitely...
What if the record label owned the rights before the artist's death?
That's a part of my beef with the system too...
the rights should be owned by the artist, under no circumstances should they be in the hands of the record company...
these are simply my opinions.
What if an individual owns them? Like Michael Jackson and his retirement plan, the Beatles record rights?
Genuinely curious here.
Question:
Who will pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars to record, manufacture, and distribute the musician's work if the companies are not guaranteed some sort of recoupment?
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 10, 2007, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
I am in fact suggesting that when an artist dies, their body of work should enter public domain, unless there are Heirs that inherit the rights to said IP.  The rights should NOT be transferred to the record label for them to profit from indefinitely...
Why not? There's a reason it is called the Recording Industry and not the Recording Swap Meet.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 07:41:38 PM
Question:
Who will pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars to record, manufacture, and distribute the musician's work if the companies are not guaranteed some sort of recoupment?
Kazza! And they'll do it for next to nothing.
Kazaa will pay for studio space, microphones, equipment, an engineer, and a mastering studio?
Amazing.
Actually, if they charged all the spyware companies and put up some advertising embedded in the program they could probably afford to.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 08:17:13 PM
Kazaa will pay for studio space, microphones, equipment, an engineer, and a mastering studio?
Amazing.
Ah! Okay I thought you was talking about already recorded stuff.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 08:18:40 PM
Actually, if they charged all the spyware companies and put up some advertising embedded in the program they could probably afford to.
ZANG!
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 08:18:40 PM
Actually, if they charged all the spyware companies and put up some advertising embedded in the program they could probably afford to.
hell they probably could make it just on the spyware companies. big reason why i dont touch the program
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 10, 2007, 07:37:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2007, 07:33:07 PM
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 10, 2007, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
You didn't answer the first two questions.
So, I will ask again,
Where should the profits of dead musicians go?
Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?
I am in fact suggesting that when an artist dies, their body of work should enter public domain, unless there are Heirs that inherit the rights to said IP.  The rights should NOT be transferred to the record label for them to profit from indefinitely...
What if the record label owned the rights before the artist's death?
That's a part of my beef with the system too...
the rights should be owned by the artist, under no circumstances should they be in the hands of the record company...
these are simply my opinions.
So the artist shouldn't have the right to sell his own work?
I don't particulary like the idea of some Commie property is for all love-fest. That said, I also don't like the dominance of 5 main record companies (who probably fund the government and thus have gained monopoly powers over the market) either. Whats the track record like when it comes to smaller record companies screwing people over when it comes to song rights and ownership? I guess some would be better, but you'd always have a charlatan or two.
Sometimes, it's not so much the indie lable screwing over an artist on purpose, it's that the indie lable either collapses out of debt, it itself screwed over by distribution companies, or sells the company to a larger company, which then screws the artist.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 01:00:04 PM
Sometimes, it's not so much the indie lable screwing over an artist on purpose, it's that the indie lable either collapses out of debt, it itself screwed over by distribution companies, or sells the company to a larger company, which then screws the artist.
...and then lets the indie label go to flounder alone again until it finally dies. That's what happened to Earache records. I think it still exists but it is a pathetic shell of itself during the Death Metal heydeys in the early 90s.
Ah, Earache....
Metal Blade too, if I recall.
Yup, of course Metal Blade was always a little screwy anyway. Seriously what business does a record label called "Metal Blade" have releasing an album by the Goo Goo Dolls?
Anyway, some of the smaller labels can be fairly successful in an underground scene, but I think there's a bit of luck involved too, getting bands that enough kids will latch onto. Peaceville is a good example. They are an indie label that managed to sign a couple of legendary underground UK metal bands. One of them has continued on with the label and the label pretty much lets them do whatever they want because they know just having that band's name on their roster brings them the money they need to keep on.
And as far as record company dominance, I suspect you will see that wane over the coming years, especially as the internet expands and more and more kids discover music on the net. Because, they aren't going to discover them on the Capitol, Geffen, or Warner Brothers websites. They're going to discover them on youtube or myspace, or a band's website somewhere. Sure, there will still be record companies but I just don't see them being as powerful as they were during the heydey of FM radio and MTV.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 02:22:03 PM
Yup, of course Metal Blade was always a little screwy anyway.  Seriously what business does a record label called "Metal Blade" have releasing an album by the Goo Goo Dolls? 
Anyway, some of the smaller labels can be fairly successful in an underground scene, but I think there's a bit of luck involved too, getting bands that enough kids will latch onto.  Peaceville is a good example.  They are an indie label that managed to sign a couple of legendary underground UK metal bands.  One of them has continued on with the label and the label pretty much lets them do whatever they want because they know just having that band's name on their roster brings them the money they need to keep on. 
And as far as record company dominance, I suspect you will see that wane over the coming years, especially as the internet expands and more and more kids discover music on the net.  Because, they aren't going to discover them on the Capitol, Geffen, or Warner Brothers websites.  They're going to discover them on youtube or myspace, or a band's website somewhere.  Sure, there will still be record companies but I just don't see them being as powerful as they were during the heydey of FM radio and MTV. 
I been thinking the same thing for a while now. Another thing that follows from that is that the whole 'superstars' thing will fall by the wayside. No one will be promoting or paying these bands to anything near the same level as they were before, since the market will be flooded and the public even more fickle than before. Flavour of the month will be replaced with flavour of that hour.
Three potential benefits I see -
1) Musicians will lose the bullshit political soapbox they've been abusing for so long.
2) Yoof culture may be forced to work out for themselves what music they like and what politics they subscribe to
3) Quality will be paramount. With the cult of celebrity dying by the wayside the motivation for people to make music will be the music, rather than the lear jets and the bling bling lifestyle.
Without wads of cash to help develop the songwriting and perfect the sound, I disagree with point 3.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 11, 2007, 02:33:09 PM
I been thinking the same thing for a while now. Another thing that follows from that is that the whole 'superstars' thing will fall by the wayside. No one will be promoting or paying these bands to anything near the same level as they were before, since the market will be flooded and the public even more fickle than before. Flavour of the month will be replaced with flavour of that hour.
Three potential benefits I see -
1) Musicians will lose the bullshit political soapbox they've been abusing for so long.
2) Yoof culture may be forced to work out for themselves what music they like and what politics they subscribe to
3) Quality will be paramount. With the cult of celebrity dying by the wayside the motivation for people to make music will be the music, rather than the lear jets and the bling bling lifestyle.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. You'll still have 'superstar' artists but it may be more like American Idol and fame isn't as longlived as it used to be. Of course, I will put out the disclaimer that we could all be fooled. The music industry, save for Sub-Pop records, never saw Nirvana coming. Though they didn't hesitate to get their mangy paws all over that one. I think it's hilarious that Queensryche's record label asked them to go grunge after the whole Seattle thing happened.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 02:35:19 PM
Without wads of cash to help develop the songwriting and perfect the sound, I disagree with point 3.
The technology to perfect the sound is becoming increasingly available as technology advance. Right now I have a better post production facility on my laptop than Elvis did when he cut Heartbreak hotel. This is going to progress, not regress.
You're still thinking inside the current paradigm - little people can do nothing without the help of big people. The new paradigm - you can do things for yourself, is gradually toppling that structure. Talent does not have to fuck around in the vain hope that they'll be discovered and put on MTV now.
For every Elvis, Hendrix, or Cobain how many do you think never even made it to the studio, never got discovered, never even bothered trying? Nowadays if you are good enough there is much less standing between you and releasing your song. I've heard the stuff some of these kids are turning out in their bedroom and some of it is none too shabby. And I think it's only going to get better.
You can hand a 16-year-old a laser scalpel, but I'm not letting him perform surgery on me.
There is a huge difference between having new technology, and actually knowing how to use it well. Not to mention, unless you're only going to be creating electronically generated music, there are issues of real-world acoustics, microphone choice and placement, and technical ability on one's instrument of choice.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 03:13:03 PM
Not to mention, unless you're only going to be creating electronically generated music
ZOMG COKESTUDIOS (http://www.mycoke.com/index.html?tunnel=cokemusic) FTW EVR1 CAN B ROKSTAR!!!!!1!11!
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 03:13:03 PM
You can hand a 16-year-old a laser scalpel, but I'm not letting him perform surgery on me.
There is a huge difference between having new technology, and actually knowing how to use it well.  Not to mention, unless you're only going to be creating electronically generated music, there are issues of real-world acoustics, microphone choice and placement, and technical ability on one's instrument of choice.
We were talking about the recording industry specifically. I'm going to stick with that because live music is a different argument. In terms of electronically generated, everything you listen to is. It's recorded digitally, remastered and edited digitally then, at the other end your equipment reads it digitally and transfers this, electronically to the analogue output , via your speakers.
The technical ability thing doesn't wash with me either. Most popular music is performed by people who have a passable level of technical ability but use this to maximum effect. The virtuosos are few and far between. Having said this tho, I'm sure a lot of virtuoso's go undiscovered because they can't be bothered with the hassle of getting a recording contract.
I knew I should have been more specific.
What I mean is this: Unless you use a synth, a sampler, a drum machine and a guitar Pod jacked straight into your computer, you're still gonna have to capture and process analog soundwaves propagating though the atmosphere.
That involves equipment and knowledge that goes beyond what is in the "ProTools for Dummies" manual.
And it don't come cheap.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 03:31:48 PM
I knew I should have been more specific.
What I mean is this:  Unless you use a synth, a sampler, a drum machine and a guitar Pod jacked straight into your computer, you're still gonna have to capture and process analog soundwaves propagating though the atmosphere.
That involves equipment and knowledge that goes beyond what is in the "ProTools for Dummies" manual.
And it don't come cheap.
If you're talking about more than mics then I dunno enough to argue the toss. How uncheap are we talking here? Ballpark - 1000, 10000, 1000000?
(in case u missed it I just Made the transition from debate to education)
Well, let's break down some of the costs.
First, let's assume that you don't want the Sebadoh lo-fi sound, you want (just for the sake of argument) a song to sound like Nirvana.
First, you'll need an environment.  In this case, you want both a "good sounding" room (a room with aesthetically pleasing acoustic reflections), and the ability to not "hear the room" when recording so you can add your own environment (reverb/delay).
So, what you need is a person who can tell what a good room sounds like, so you hire one.  Usually that's the engineer, which can go for either a percentage of your record sales, or $100-?? an hour, depending on how famous he/she is.
Second, you need the room itself.  You can either build it, or rent it.  If you build it you need zoning permits, and construction costs to soundproof it, and contractors to build it to specification (i'll let any of you other homeowners out there figure out the cost of that).  If you want to rent it, that can again go upwards of $100 an hour.  Typically, one song takes about 4 hours to record, from setup to breakdown.
We will assume that the musicians have their own equipment, and that you don't need to hire studio musicians.
Third, you need microphones.  To record a drumset, you will need about 10 mics:  Kick, Snare, Hi Hat, 3 toms, 2 cymbals, and 2 room.  The type and cost of these mics can range between $100 - $5000 each.  You will also need to record the guitar, bass, and vocals (the vocal mic is usually the most expensive, and can reach $10,000).  Often, the guitar and bass will be recorded with multiple microphones.
Fourth, you need someone who knows where to place the microphones for optimum sound quality, and knows about acoustic sound cancellation (quickly, it means that if you have 2 mics, and they record the same sound, but are paced with a 3" lateral difference, when they are mixed, frequencies with a 3" wavelength will be cancelled out).  Again, you're talking about an engineer, prices listed above.)
Fifth (you knew there had to be a fifth, right?) many of the digital effects emulators do not have the resolution or sound quality of the original analog devices (reverb, compression, distortion, phase shifter etc.).  These vintage pieces of analog equipment are vital to get the "perfect" sound.  The cost range of these are enormous.
So, to record one song, with no overdubs, a minimun of microphones, un-mastered, with crappy equipment and a cut-rate engineer, you'll be spending about $3000.  
But it's not gonna sound like Nevermind until you drop about $10,000, for starters.
Someone who understands sound is essential. It's the difference between your bass drum sounding like a bass drum, or a typewriter. Nothing can ruin a record faster than bad production, and your ears cannot escape it.
The kick drum on ...And Justice For All is a prime example.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 05:04:08 PM
The kick drum on ...And Justice For All is a prime example.
Amen. Oh, I know this is an aside but Lars has stated that the next album will not feature the crappy drum mix and also Kirk will be allowed to perform solos again.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 05:09:45 PM
and also Kirk will be allowed to perform solos again.
LOL - has the phrase "if it aint broke don't fix it" ever applied more aptly than here?
Large percentage of oldschool metallica fans are either guitar dabblers themselves or just plain love it when Kirk let's wail.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 02:53:19 PM
I think it's hilarious that Queensryche's record label asked them to go grunge after the whole Seattle thing happened.
And thankfully, Geoff Tate told them to fuck themselves...
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 11, 2007, 05:27:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 02:53:19 PM
I think it's hilarious that Queensryche's record label asked them to go grunge after the whole Seattle thing happened. 
And thankfully, Geoff Tate told them to fuck themselves...
Um, have you ever heard the album "Hear in the Now Frontier?"
That's a perfect mix of bad production and bad songwriting.
Metallica is very skilled in the instrument department, and I do like even some instrumentals (Call of Cthulu = awesome), but don't encourage to much of that. I like words in my songs, not just two lines and then 7 minutes of guitar. (they did do it well on Justice though)
I think reading KLF's The Manual will help clear up alot of the problems in here, as while it is somewhat out of date, it still explains the technical aspects of modern pop music making in a very good way.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 11, 2007, 05:49:12 PM
Metallica is very skilled in the instrument department, and I do like even some instrumentals (Call of Cthulu = awesome), but don't encourage to much of that. I like words in my songs, not just two lines and then 7 minutes of guitar. (they did do it well on Justice though)
I'm kinda both ways tbh I love everything from Dylan which sounds like dogshit but its all about the words right up to Steve Vai who actually sounded worse when he started putting singing in his solo albums.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 03:31:48 PM
I knew I should have been more specific.
What I mean is this: Unless you use a synth, a sampler, a drum machine and a guitar Pod jacked straight into your computer, you're still gonna have to capture and process analog soundwaves propagating though the atmosphere.
That involves equipment and knowledge that goes beyond what is in the "ProTools for Dummies" manual.
And it don't come cheap.
Unless all you want to do is record your classical guitar tracks, and then all you need is a good mic, a recording program, and a room with good acoustics.
Simple FTW.
Like I implied, a lot of it really does depend on your intentions of the end result.
You can get a really good raw garage rock album with 4 mics and 2 tracks of tape, if that's the sound you want.
I was hypothesizing a standard "commercial" rock album.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 06:01:01 PM
Like I implied, a lot of it really does depend on your intentions of the end result.
You can get a really good raw garage rock album with 4 mics and 2 tracks of tape, if that's the sound you want.
I was hypothesizing a standard "commercial" rock album.
The better the musicianship, the less cleaness of recording you need for it to sound good.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 11, 2007, 05:52:07 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 11, 2007, 05:49:12 PM
Metallica is very skilled in the instrument department, and I do like even some instrumentals (Call of Cthulu = awesome), but don't encourage to much of that. I like words in my songs, not just two lines and then 7 minutes of guitar. (they did do it well on Justice though)
I'm kinda both ways tbh I love everything from Dylan which sounds like dogshit but its all about the words right up to Steve Vai who actually sounded worse when he started putting singing in his solo albums.
My music taste is varied and random. I can't get in any kind of music discussion because my taste seems arbitrary. Words generally take the importance though.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 11, 2007, 06:03:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 06:01:01 PM
Like I implied, a lot of it really does depend on your intentions of the end result.
You can get a really good raw garage rock album with 4 mics and 2 tracks of tape, if that's the sound you want.
I was hypothesizing a standard "commercial" rock album.
The better the musicianship, the less cleaness of recording you need for it to sound good.
Then again, some lo-fi hack musicianship stuff would sound like
shit if you cleaned it up.
Yeah, that was to say nothing of crappy musicianship. Some stuff will NEVER sound good, no matter how clean you make it. :lol:
The point being that sometimes the lo-fi quality helps the final product.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 06:10:33 PM
The point being that sometimes the lo-fi quality helps the final product.
To tell truth, I don't really want to listen to something if the musicianship is hackish. I could care less about it.
Thats just my personal opinion.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 06:10:33 PM
The point being that sometimes the lo-fi quality helps the final product.
Sonic Youth are a good example of that. In fact I think their songs sound much better live with the bleeps and burps of the feedback then the reigned in result on tape.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 11, 2007, 05:27:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 02:53:19 PM
I think it's hilarious that Queensryche's record label asked them to go grunge after the whole Seattle thing happened.
And thankfully, Geoff Tate told them to fuck themselves...
Um, have you ever heard the album "Hear in the Now Frontier?"
That's a perfect mix of bad production and bad songwriting.
Yeah. I have that album...
...
Yeah...it was horrid, everyone makes mistakes though, tribe wasn't bad at all...
but we can forgive Queensryche nearly all crimes for two reasons...
1. Operation Mindcrime
2. Promised Land
Promised Land was so good we can even forgive them for making that terrible video game that accompanied it...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 06:10:33 PM
The point being that sometimes the lo-fi quality helps the final product.
Sonic Youth are a good example of that.  In fact I think their songs sound much better live with the bleeps and burps of the feedback then the reigned in result on tape. 
Sonic Youth FTW  :-D
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 11, 2007, 06:05:56 PMMy music taste is varied and random. I can't get in any kind of music discussion because my taste seems arbitrary. Words generally take the importance though.
Heh - my opinion on it is that music can stand on its own without words, but if it's got words, then those are what will receive my attention. There are parts of
Les Miserables that irk the snot out of me *kleenex* 'cause it's two song lines going at the same time on top of each other, and I can't follow them both.
Odd thing with my brain...if I want to engage my brain without distracting it (like, totally background music), it HAS to be instrumental. Otherwise I want to listen to the words instead of focusing on whatever else. I have to turn down the radio in my truck if I want to have a serious conversation with someone, too.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 11, 2007, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 11, 2007, 06:05:56 PMMy music taste is varied and random. I can't get in any kind of music discussion because my taste seems arbitrary. Words generally take the importance though.
Heh - my opinion on it is that music can stand on its own without words, but if it's got words, then those are what will receive my attention. There are parts of Les Miserables that irk the snot out of me *kleenex* 'cause it's two song lines going at the same time on top of each other, and I can't follow them both.
Odd thing with my brain...if I want to engage my brain without distracting it (like, totally background music), it HAS to be instrumental. Otherwise I want to listen to the words instead of focusing on whatever else. I have to turn down the radio in my truck if I want to have a serious conversation with someone, too.
I'm somewhat like that, but I find that if the music is truly shitty and I can't understand the words, then fuck that and I don't want to ever listen to it.
Afghan music ftl.
Quote from: Jenne on January 11, 2007, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 11, 2007, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 11, 2007, 06:05:56 PMMy music taste is varied and random. I can't get in any kind of music discussion because my taste seems arbitrary. Words generally take the importance though.
Heh - my opinion on it is that music can stand on its own without words, but if it's got words, then those are what will receive my attention. There are parts of Les Miserables that irk the snot out of me *kleenex* 'cause it's two song lines going at the same time on top of each other, and I can't follow them both.
Odd thing with my brain...if I want to engage my brain without distracting it (like, totally background music), it HAS to be instrumental. Otherwise I want to listen to the words instead of focusing on whatever else. I have to turn down the radio in my truck if I want to have a serious conversation with someone, too.
I'm somewhat like that, but I find that if the music is truly shitty and I can't understand the words, then fuck that and I don't want to ever listen to it.
Afghan music ftl.
One word - "Emotion".
Quote from: Jenne on January 11, 2007, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 11, 2007, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 11, 2007, 06:05:56 PMMy music taste is varied and random. I can't get in any kind of music discussion because my taste seems arbitrary. Words generally take the importance though.
Heh - my opinion on it is that music can stand on its own without words, but if it's got words, then those are what will receive my attention. There are parts of Les Miserables that irk the snot out of me *kleenex* 'cause it's two song lines going at the same time on top of each other, and I can't follow them both.
Odd thing with my brain...if I want to engage my brain without distracting it (like, totally background music), it HAS to be instrumental. Otherwise I want to listen to the words instead of focusing on whatever else. I have to turn down the radio in my truck if I want to have a serious conversation with someone, too.
I'm somewhat like that, but I find that if the music is truly shitty and I can't understand the words, then fuck that and I don't want to ever listen to it.
Afghan music ftl.
Thats sad. Discounting a whole country of music. I have heard some gorgeous afgan music, full of emotion. I've never heard it again though.
In a way I'm not a true music lover. I simply like poetry with a beat. I don't care about how many chords there are, or how simplistic the drumming is.
In the Les Mis example it's all about the emotion, and the music could be a kazoo. The words and delivery makes me feel like i'm in the friggin revolution.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 12, 2007, 03:20:33 AM
Quote from: Jenne on January 11, 2007, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 11, 2007, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 11, 2007, 06:05:56 PMMy music taste is varied and random. I can't get in any kind of music discussion because my taste seems arbitrary. Words generally take the importance though.
Heh - my opinion on it is that music can stand on its own without words, but if it's got words, then those are what will receive my attention. There are parts of Les Miserables that irk the snot out of me *kleenex* 'cause it's two song lines going at the same time on top of each other, and I can't follow them both.
Odd thing with my brain...if I want to engage my brain without distracting it (like, totally background music), it HAS to be instrumental. Otherwise I want to listen to the words instead of focusing on whatever else. I have to turn down the radio in my truck if I want to have a serious conversation with someone, too.
I'm somewhat like that, but I find that if the music is truly shitty and I can't understand the words, then fuck that and I don't want to ever listen to it.
Afghan music ftl.
Thats sad. Discounting a whole country of music. I have heard some gorgeous afgan music, full of emotion. I've never heard it again though.
Well, I can only speak from my own experience, can't I?
And most that I hear is a two-to-three note experience, with very very little variation in percussion or strings. It truly sucks. The poetry residing in the music apparently rocks, but because I can't undertand it, to me, the song sucks even more. Here's this beautiful piece of poetry, but it's unreachable, and I have to still listen to it and endure it, as the rest of it sounds like a few ba-bum-ba-bum's with a tee-dee-tee-dee and a dying cow voice in accompaniment.
*shrug*
I adore Indian music, on the flipside. And Persian music as well. It has VERVE.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 11, 2007, 11:15:27 PM
One word - "Emotion".
Troof. Music has to reach your gut to be good. Otherwise, it's just kinda noisy.
Quote from: Jenne on January 12, 2007, 06:40:44 AM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 11, 2007, 11:15:27 PM
One word - "Emotion".
Troof. Music has to reach your gut to be good. Otherwise, it's just kinda noisy.
It was the -just kinda noisy - type of music I was trying to defend with this. I'm thinking the sex pistols. Not a bunch of motzarts by any stretch but they were angry enough to get a whole room full of people jumping up and down.
I'm tripping balls right now
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 12, 2007, 09:04:44 AM
I'm tripping balls right now
Is that one of those native american names?
If so I'm dances with chillum
no i am really tripping hard
ego is gone
ok, so basically TheyTM got the last few generations completely hooked to guitar music that is incredibly expensive to produce "correctly"?
and now They have deluded us into thinking music is and should be totally expensive to produce, in order to sound "right".
welcome to yet another bar in your prison.
now, somebody already spoke about electronic music. the stuff Silly described is already happening for the electronic music scene, has been happening for years already, in fact. semi underground techno "net-labels" are blossoming.
sure, there's still a difference between people who got the right skills to balance the sounds, master, equalize etc, and those who don't quite understand that yet. but there's tutorials out there and of course people are willing to learn, as you can simply hear the difference. plus data is passed all over the place, people are remixing and remastering eachothers tracks, because electronica makes this so easy.
as far as vocals go, i wasn't kidding about the vocoders. autotuners. hell, even speech synthesizers are being used! otherwise you just sample some voice, and warp it up until it becomes something new.
and suddenly, all it takes has become talent, musical insight, inspiration and emotion, you know the stuff we actually love about music. not the million dollar budget.
then, once that's out of the way, we can perhaps take a good look at what "intellectual property" is actually supposed to mean, what we want it to mean. because it should really be about the protection of ideas, right? not the protection of extreme budgets that had to be burned in order to implement an idea.
so what, you cannot make smooth sounding cleanroom recorded whatever guitar rock music without a million dollar budget? well that sucks, but as soon as anything becomes significantly larger than a small group of people can produce, you will have a Machine to deal with.
now, not everyone likes electronica but that's cutting yourself short imo cause there's zillions of styles out there. don't think it's all boom-boom tekkno.
also there's probably also other ways besides using (software)synthesizers to make good quality music on a small budget (though you will be needing a computer to master the sound). so it won't sound like Nirvana, but we already had Nirvana. been there, done that, got the merchandise.
time to move on. and if it's time for people to start "do it for yourself, Schmuck", then this is probably the way to go.
ok there's probably a lot of holes to be shot in what i just wrote, but let's hear it then :)
(edited for fixing bb tags)
Quote from: triple zero on January 12, 2007, 12:35:48 PM
so what, you cannot make smooth sounding cleanroom recorded whatever guitar rock music without a million dollar budget? well that sucks, but as soon as anything becomes significantly larger than a small group of people can produce, you will have a Machine to deal with.
A little lightbulb just went off in my fucking stupid head!!!!
of course you still need to build a Cathedral once in a while, and you need a lot of people to do it, but such things could/should very well be the exception not the rule.
and it doesn't mean that smaller beautiful shit can't be built by "amateurs".
000, there's nothing wrong with what you said, as far as I read.
What I read was, "If your intended end result is to make music that doesn't sound like it was recorded with high-end equipment in an aesthetically pleasing acoustic environment, don't. If you want a sound that only takes a few hundred bucks to produce, do it."
It all depends on what your end goal is. A $200 DIY punk album can be just as powerful as Houses of the Holy. My point is that you'll never get the one to sound like the other, no matter how powerful your computer is.
Acoustic modelling will catch up eventually. I already got a cab simulator on my fx box but you're right - things like drumkits and the like are going to have to wait for immersion vr - still a long way off.
hey, you could probably do some interesting drum-computing with that new nintendo Wii wand thingy.
though on the other hand, you don't need immersion VR, you can just use an electronic drumkit. works very nice, you are actually drumming but on some pressure sensitive sensor plates instead. you get different sounds depending on where you hit, how hard you hit etc.
since output is digital, recording will be clean.
physical models aren't that hard to build. i implemented myself a variation Karplus-Strong guitar snare algo, some friends got a pretty good hoeboe (sp?) going [it helped that one of them was a fanatic hoeboe player].
except for the Chinese gong. some guy wrote a masters thesis about that, it's pretty much impossible to model such a huge metal (nonlinear) plate efficiently.
but why settle for existing elements? you could emulate instruments that would be physically unplayable (for ex, you'd need three arms, one of which would have to be two meters long, stuff like that).
ahh back in the days when i programmed that stuff. i couldn't and still can't write any decent tune/melody, but i coded some small bits that created some kickass bleeps/bass/weirdness.
Quote from: triple zero on January 12, 2007, 01:17:32 PM
hey, you could probably do some interesting drum-computing with that new nintendo Wii wand thingy.
though on the other hand, you don't need immersion VR, you can just use an electronic drumkit. works very nice, you are actually drumming but on some pressure sensitive sensor plates instead. you get different sounds depending on where you hit, how hard you hit etc.
since output is digital, recording will be clean.
physical models aren't that hard to build. i implemented myself a variation Karplus-Strong guitar snare algo, some friends got a pretty good hoeboe (sp?) going [it helped that one of them was a fanatic hoeboe player].
except for the Chinese gong. some guy wrote a masters thesis about that, it's pretty much impossible to model such a huge metal (nonlinear) plate efficiently.
but why settle for existing elements? you could emulate instruments that would be physically unplayable (for ex, you'd need three arms, one of which would have to be two meters long, stuff like that).
ahh back in the days when i programmed that stuff. i couldn't and still can't write any decent tune/melody, but i coded some small bits that created some kickass bleeps/bass/weirdness.
I got a roland guitar synth a while back. Was awesome playing everything from keyboards to flutes to drums on guitar. Sequencing part totally killed it for me tho. Slows the whole creative process down to a slog.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 12, 2007, 01:07:11 PM
Acoustic modelling will catch up eventually. I already got a cab simulator on my fx box but you're right - things like drumkits and the like are going to have to wait for immersion vr - still a long way off.
Sorry to burst yr bubble, but analog acoustics will
always sound different. Too many variables to properly compute.
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 01:27:31 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 12, 2007, 01:07:11 PM
Acoustic modelling will catch up eventually. I already got a cab simulator on my fx box but you're right - things like drumkits and the like are going to have to wait for immersion vr - still a long way off.
Sorry to burst yr bubble, but analog acoustics will always sound different. Too many variables to properly compute.
Sound waves obey fairly straightforward rules. Current problems are accurately simulating their behaviour in a big area fast enough. Principle is no different from raytracing, tho, give it time It'll be done.
physical modelling FTW, you can get arbitrary close, given enough computing power (and some smart algorithms).
though, then comes the problem of controlling the model. it's all nice and sweet if you can model some guy plucking a guitar string perfectly, but it gets kinda tedious when you need hundreds of sliders to specify the exact way in which his finger is moving over the string.
One word - Presets!
Imagine an online database with every concert venue that ever existed from the Cavern club to The royal concert hall. Acoustic modelling the way I see it panning out will be a 3d cad job, rather than sliders, like sound engineering is right now. You'll build your room from a choice of materials from padded plasterboard over breezeblock, to solid, 3 foot thick mahogany. Choose the size, shape, etc then let the soundwaves bounce and interfere their way to the mic spots.
I have a couple of Danelectro guitars at home. Danelectro has come out with all sorts of pedals and fx boxes for them. One was a sitar effect, supposedly to make your Danelectro sound like a sitar. Awful! I've heard better sitar sounds on a Casio keyboard. Modern technology still has a long way to go to reproduce sounds like that.
I don't begrudge electronic music. Heck, I have a program on my computer at home where I experiment with electronic beats, sounds, etc. But, for me, at the end of the day, nothing can compete with the raw energy of a guitar, bass and drums. A computer can't reproduce that. I think even if you came up with a "raw energy" emulator or whatever, it still wouldn't be the same. That's where a lot of the "power" of rock music comes from, the feedback, the little intangibles and tangibles of the electrified and acoustic instruments. The literal strumming of a guitar, slightly imperfect beats. You just can't reproduce that on a computer. But, then again, if you aren't into rock music I suppose that isn't an issue. I grew up on it. I've fed myself a steady diet of that stuff, and while I appreciate the creativity of electronic music, it just doesn't affect my soul the same way.
But, that's just me.
Take 1 drum.
We'll make it easy.  A floor tom.  Wooden cylinder, 2 heads.
Each head has 8 lugs on the rim, and can be tightened anywhere between 1 and 16 revolutions.  Just for the sake of actual numbers, we will say that for this experiment, there are no subsets of revolutions*.
So, for each lug, you have 16 options.  If I recall, that means for one head, the possible combination of tunings are (8 x 16!), which means (8 x 20922789888000) = 167382319104000 combinations.  
However, since there are two heads, when one strikes a drum, the they react to each other through sympathetic resonance.  I believe that means the possible combinations are now (8 x 16!)2 = 28016840748633283362816000000 combinations.
Now it gets interesting.  Where on the head you strike a drum affects how the drum responds.  Let us assume that we're playing a 16" head, and (again, for number's sake) let's say one can only strike in 1" differences, and rim shots don't count.  The number of places to strike is (pi 82) = 200.96 different places to strike the drum, which now brings the total number of possible sounds from one floor tom to 5630264316845344624591503360000 possible combinations.  The current top-end electronic drum pad contains between 16 - 128 different sounds (most of which are merely velocity settings).
Now, seeing how each one of these combinations will yeild a different set of wavelengths, which will reflect and refract in the given acoustic space, and considering one usually plays an entire drum set, rather than just one drum, I find it quite amusing that y'all think an electronic drum kit or a computer simulation will be able to mimic a real drum in real space.
*else, we could just say that the amount of combinations are infinite.
Bingo!
Try taking a John Bonham drum track, reproduce it note for note, drum head by drum head, onto a computer program, mix it in with the original Zepplin tune, all the other tracks being the same. I guarantee the difference would be night and day. No comparison.
Now I know, you're saying that's a bad example because it was recorded back in the 70's. Okay, do it with a more modern band that uses a live drummer. A computer program simply can't reproduce the intricacies of the human wrist and ankles, nor the example LMNO lays out. I use a drum machine for my recordings because of space considerations in my house. While it is suitable for keeping the beat to arrange guitar and keyboard tracks, I'd never use it in a final mix, unless I was doing an industrial metal track. It just makes the song sound canned.
But again, if your intended goal isn't to have your music sound like a real drummer in real space, the point is moot (take Big Black as an example. Great use of a crappy drum machine, there. Or Kraftwerk.)
Just don't go around saying that your MIDI drum sound "just like" a real drum.
True, "Head Like a Hole" would sound really funny with real drums. I wonder if Rock n Roll will survive, and if so how long. Will it eventually be replaced by Click n Drag? Man, I am getting old.
::cue appropriate Neil Young song::
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 02:35:40 PM
True, "Head Like a Hole" would sound really funny with real drums. I wonder if Rock n Roll will survive, and if so how long. Will it eventually be replaced by Click n Drag? Man, I am getting old.
Folks will always want to stand on a stage and play real instruments and I reckon enough folks will always want to stand in the same room, drinking beer, taking chemicals nd generally having a stonking god time. Look at how strong classical music still is today then think about the fact that there weren't as many people listening to it back in its heyday as there are people listening to rock right now. I reckon it's got centuries in it yet :)
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 02:10:24 PM
Take 1 drum.
We'll make it easy. A floor tom. Wooden cylinder, 2 heads.
Each head has 8 lugs on the rim, and can be tightened anywhere between 1 and 16 revolutions. Just for the sake of actual numbers, we will say that for this experiment, there are no subsets of revolutions*.
So, for each lug, you have 16 options. If I recall, that means for one head, the possible combination of tunings are (8 x 16!), which means (8 x 20922789888000) = 167382319104000 combinations.
However, since there are two heads, when one strikes a drum, the they react to each other through sympathetic resonance. I believe that means the possible combinations are now (8 x 16!)2 = 28016840748633283362816000000 combinations.
Now it gets interesting. Where on the head you strike a drum affects how the drum responds. Let us assume that we're playing a 16" head, and (again, for number's sake) let's say one can only strike in 1" differences, and rim shots don't count. The number of places to strike is (pi 82) = 200.96 different places to strike the drum, which now brings the total number of possible sounds from one floor tom to 5630264316845344624591503360000 possible combinations. The current top-end electronic drum pad contains between 16 - 128 different sounds (most of which are merely velocity settings).
Now, seeing how each one of these combinations will yeild a different set of wavelengths, which will reflect and refract in the given acoustic space, and considering one usually plays an entire drum set, rather than just one drum, I find it quite amusing that y'all think an electronic drum kit or a computer simulation will be able to mimic a real drum in real space.
*else, we could just say that the amount of combinations are infinite.
Most of what you just said there was based around calculations. Moore's law is still holding fast (the sorta bastardised popular version too) You underestimate the technology like a lot of people who say "computers will never...." Notice that a lot of the things these people have said have already been cpu-pooed, "A computer will never beat a human at chess..."
"Computers will never _____ " is one of those arguments I will never let lie until I've fixed it with "Eventually computers probably will"
Bear in mind that what you actually hear IS a model, simulated by your brain
What you say is possible, yes.
But, when you are programming your MIDI drum track, are you really going to want to choose from (at least) 56x1029 different options for one sound?
Furthermore, will a synth drum manufacturer want to put that many sounds on a drum pad?
And let's not forget, one of the selling points of a drum pad is that it can emulate many different kinds of drums, from timbales to congas. Do you think they will want to take the time to program that many options into their system?
I think not, from a cost-effective basis.
I would venture that you might want to phrase it then, as "Eventually computers probably will theoretically be able to"
I would further posit that music composition and creation would be different between live instruments and computer simulated ones.  You get a different feeling and vibe from hitting a drum with a stick or your hand then you do dragging a mouse and clicking.  You get a different feeling from strumming a guitar than you do clicking and dragging.  And, that feeling, at least in my experience, influences the song.  You can't "jam out" on a computer the same way you can on a live instrument.  Again, LMNO's point about the intended result rings true.  If all you want to create is computer-styled/electronic music, then this is all moot.  But, if your aim is to reproduce rock music, blues, funk, folk whatever on a computer, I just don't see how the cold environment of 1's and 0's can do that.  
I bet you could teach a robot to play.
Probably, but would it have enough "soul"? Sorry, I'm not the most spiritual person in the world until it comes to music. I've experienced different scenarios. I've played in different live bands, (funk, blues, jazz, improv/jam, etc.) I've recorded music in a "real" studio, on my home "studio", on a computer. I've used live instruments, I've used computerized instruments.
Anyway, my point, for me personally, I just don't get the same feeling in front of a computer that I get from playing my Danelectro until my fingers bleed. It just can't compare. And I doubt a robot could ever, truly, reproduce that spirit in the same manner. Sure, it is possible to make music, I just can't see the music having the same affect on me personally. Being "inside" the music is different then experiencing it from the outside. To me, composing on a computer feels like I am outside of the music. Plugging into an amp, laying on some distortion, and going with it, to me, feels like I am in it. Does this make any sense or am I just nutty?
From my perspective, robots will inevitably have what you refer to as soul. I plan to design these robots. And did you know "robot" comes from a Czech word meaning slave? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want your entire race named an instantly derogatory word. As a sympathizer to future synthetic intelligence, my first instinct is in fact to shout you down as a racist.
I won't though. It just seems to me that you haven't acknowleged that your mind and body are just complex biomachines whose functions are perfectly reproducible in manufactured constructs. We've already started.
In sum, yes it would have enough 'soul'. I'll see to that.
i wonder why people try so hard to make computers sound like not-computers
the computer is just another instrument that happens to be the most accessible instrument around
digital and analog are 2 different things and always will be
and good content will always be good content
 
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 12, 2007, 03:20:51 PM
From my perspective, robots will inevitably have what you refer to as soul. I plan to design these robots. And did you know "robot" comes from a Czech word meaning slave? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want your entire race named an instantly derogatory word. As a sympathizer to future synthetic intelligence, my first instinct is in fact to shout you down as a racist.
I won't though. It just seems to me that you haven't acknowleged that your mind and body are just complex biomachines whose functions are perfectly reproducible in manufactured constructs. We've already started.
In sum, yes it would have enough 'soul'. I'll see to that.
Well, I will gladly and humbly acknowledge it if the day comes.  Until then, based on my experiences, I simply call bullshit.
Quote from: LHX on January 12, 2007, 03:23:31 PM
i wonder why people try so hard to make computers sound like not-computers
the computer is just another instrument that happens to be the most accessible instrument around
digital and analog are 2 different things and always will be
and good content will always be good content
Analog begat digital, and digital begat (whatever robots will run on).
Good content, I would say, needs refreshing to stay the best.
I dunno why people do that to themselves, man.
as a extension of man, it seems that robots and computers already have everything it takes to have 'soul'
its just a matter of time
just like sperm and egg
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 03:25:18 PMWell, I will gladly and humbly acknowledge it if the day comes.  Until then, based on my experiences, I simply call bullshit.
Back it up, then.  You're the one betting against technology, time to show your cards.
I also want to go on the record for a moment.
Although my past few posts have been to show that analog is exponetially more complex than digital, I am no stranger (nor an enemy of) the use of computers in music.
If you go to my music site (http://earfatigue.multiply.com), specifically http://earfatigue.multiply.com/music/item/98 , both of those songs are a mixture of electronic and acoustically generated music.
I ain't no purist. I'll use what technology I have to do the best to create the sounds in my head. So don't go thinking I'm hatin' on synths.
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
I also want to go on the record for a moment.
Although my past few posts have been to show that analog is exponetially more complex than digital, I am no stranger (nor an enemy of) the use of computers in music.
If you go to my music site (http://earfatigue.multiply.com), specifically http://earfatigue.multiply.com/music/item/98 , both of those songs are a mixture of electronic and acoustically generated music.
I ain't no purist. I'll use what technology I have to do the best to create the sounds in my head. So don't go thinking I'm hatin' on synths.
Second one is fucking beautiful :mittens:
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
I also want to go on the record for a moment.
Although my past few posts have been to show that analog is exponetially more complex than digital, I am no stranger (nor an enemy of) the use of computers in music.
If you go to my music site (http://earfatigue.multiply.com), specifically http://earfatigue.multiply.com/music/item/98 , both of those songs are a mixture of electronic and acoustically generated music.
I ain't no purist. I'll use what technology I have to do the best to create the sounds in my head. So don't go thinking I'm hatin' on synths.
so basically, what youre saying here is that analog is better than digital, and you hate computers?
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 12, 2007, 03:58:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
I also want to go on the record for a moment.
Although my past few posts have been to show that analog is exponetially more complex than digital, I am no stranger (nor an enemy of) the use of computers in music.
If you go to my music site (http://earfatigue.multiply.com), specifically http://earfatigue.multiply.com/music/item/98 , both of those songs are a mixture of electronic and acoustically generated music. 
I ain't no purist.  I'll use what technology I have to do the best to create the sounds in my head.  So don't go thinking I'm hatin' on synths.
Second one is fucking beautiful  :mittens:
Thanks. The only analog things were the dry guitar (no 'verb, etc) and the voice (our very own Eldora). Everything else was created on the computer.
Quote from: LHX on January 12, 2007, 04:02:15 PM
so basically, what youre saying here is that analog is better than digital, and you hate computers?
Exactly.
Ass.
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
I also want to go on the record for a moment.
why would you go on the record? whats wrong wiff CD?
Quote from: LHX on January 12, 2007, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
I also want to go on the reel-to-reel tape for a moment.
why would you go on the record? whats wrong wiff CD?
Fixxored.
Quote from: LHX on January 12, 2007, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
I also want to go on the record for a moment.
why would you go on the record? whats wrong wiff CD?
digital media - there's all sortsa little nuances you don't get on cd :troll:
um. i don't have much time to read the rest of the thread to here, but this is just plain quite wrong.
you are thinking of sampling (recording) existing drum-sounds.
well, apart from that that would cost similar studio costs to build a sample set for recording quality etc, it's mostly not how drum machines work.
samples are nice, but only if you want to go for that sampled hiphop sound :)
i was talking about electronic drums. these are pressure plates with sensors. and sticks to hit them with. basically they're virtual drum input devices.
so you hit the input device with a stick, the computer records where you hit it, how hard you hit it and puts that into the physical model of the intended drum-type to be simulated, calculates what the air vibrations would be that come out of it, and you have your drum sound. this technique actually works.
you would "tighten the lugs on the rim" before you start playing, by setting the parameters for the drum beforehand.
one advantage of this is that you could for example switch configurations mid-concert or just play around with them, knowing you can always reset to defaults, as opposed to real world instruments where you would horrible detune them, or perhaps even permanently damage your insturment.
(also your permutation calculations were wrong, but the numbers would be very large, for sampled drums indeed)
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 02:10:24 PM
Take 1 drum.
We'll make it easy.  A floor tom.  Wooden cylinder, 2 heads.
Each head has 8 lugs on the rim, and can be tightened anywhere between 1 and 16 revolutions.  Just for the sake of actual numbers, we will say that for this experiment, there are no subsets of revolutions*.
So, for each lug, you have 16 options.  If I recall, that means for one head, the possible combination of tunings are (8 x 16!), which means (8 x 20922789888000) = 167382319104000 combinations.  
However, since there are two heads, when one strikes a drum, the they react to each other through sympathetic resonance.  I believe that means the possible combinations are now (8 x 16!)2 = 28016840748633283362816000000 combinations.
Now it gets interesting.  Where on the head you strike a drum affects how the drum responds.  Let us assume that we're playing a 16" head, and (again, for number's sake) let's say one can only strike in 1" differences, and rim shots don't count.  The number of places to strike is (pi 82) = 200.96 different places to strike the drum, which now brings the total number of possible sounds from one floor tom to 5630264316845344624591503360000 possible combinations.  The current top-end electronic drum pad contains between 16 - 128 different sounds (most of which are merely velocity settings).
Now, seeing how each one of these combinations will yeild a different set of wavelengths, which will reflect and refract in the given acoustic space, and considering one usually plays an entire drum set, rather than just one drum, I find it quite amusing that y'all think an electronic drum kit or a computer simulation will be able to mimic a real drum in real space.
*else, we could just say that the amount of combinations are infinite.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 12, 2007, 03:30:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 03:25:18 PMWell, I will gladly and humbly acknowledge it if the day comes.  Until then, based on my experiences, I simply call bullshit.
Back it up, then.  You're the one betting against technology, time to show your cards.
Please to reread where I say "based on my experiences"  and then read where I say "I will gladly and humbly acknowledge..." etc., etc.,  
My experiences in composing and playing music, with analog and digital, instruments and computers, has shown
me that you can't get
my concept of soul in computerized music. Again, I'm not arguing that you can't make music on a computer.  I'm not arguing that you can't make "good" music on a computer.  I'm arguing you can't, at least currently, reproduce the human element in music on a computer.  Again, if machines are ever able to do that, I will acknowledge it.  Even then, though, I would still prefer to do it myself with the instrument in my hand.  
ooo, they aren't really vitual input devices, they're MIDI devices.  The parameters set into each drum are finite, and nowhere near as complex as an acoustic drum.
They do not "calculate what the air vibrations would be", they trigger pre-recorded sounds, combined with digital effect processing.
You can even program them to play a different kind of instrument entirely, depending on how hard you hit them.  For example, you can set it that a velocity interpreted as -25 would trigger a kick drum sound, while a velocity of 70-128 would trigger a cymbal sound.
The problem comes again when the person building the MIDI system has to decide how many variations of a drum sound they want to load into the system, and how each sound would respond to each set of trigger parameters.
LMNO: well, the input devices are there (recording how hard you hit and where you hit them) and the physical models are there as well, so i wonder why no one has put those together yet?
though you are right, i think the ones that i saw sounded pretty sampled as well. still cool devices though. and it SHOULD be possible to hook them up to a physical model.
MIDI is just a stream of time, velocity (and position?) data, and it depends on the synthesizer to convert that data into sounds..
hm MIDI .. that's a long time ago :) they're *still* using that, right? i mean, it's from the beginning of the 80s, afaik?
RWHN:
i will just repeat shortly here. that all depends on the input-devices you use. if you have an input device that leaves as much room for variation and style as a guitar would, you could -with practice- get it to sound as soulful as you could a guitar.
on the other hand if you just set notes and sounds in a sequencer, of course it will sound digital and rigid (which can be a good thing, but it's a different thing).
you could kind of compare it to
- drawing by putting pixels one by one on the screen
- drawing with your mouse
- drawing with a drawing tablet
- drawing with a pressure/angle sensitive drawing tablet
- actually taking a brush on a piece of paper
given a good computer and a good piece of software, the last two are practically equivalent (except that drawing software isn't that much aiming towards actually recreating all the texture and brushstrokes of actual painting, because most people tend to prefer the "cleaner" features of computer drawing, but there is indeed software available that can simulate oil or aquarel painting like this, it's just no photoshop)
000: simply put, latency.
The amount of time it takes to interpret the strike, calculate the proper algorhthm, and generate the sound would take several hundred milliseconds, which would create a noticable gap between the strike and the sound.
Even in on-board computer sound processors (reverb, compression, etc) have a built-in latency corrector that calculates how many milliseconds a process will take, and then delays the original track to correct it.
Second, MIDI is simply a protocol. It's a language written in Hexidecimal that allows two different devices to speak with each other, which is why you can use a drum pad with several different sound modules.
Third, that drum pad still needs discrete values in order to operate, which creates buit-in limitations.
000, I suppose, eventually, what you say will be possible. Sort of like a MIDI guitar maybe. But, still, for the kind of music I do, it's hard to conceptualize it. I employ feedback, the strange buzzes and vibrations a guitar string can make, e-bows, etc. It just seems like the amount of variations a machine or computer would have to mimic are a mountain, not a mole-hill.
- i know how MIDI works, i once built a simple software synthesizer that is able to respond to MIDI
- latency is bullshit. it's simply a function directly related to processing power, and a current day 2GHz machine would be ample to pull this off. it gets tricky once you want to simulate multiple instruments at once. also, Moore's law will function for at least 10 more years.
- MIDI has 128 levels of velocity recording, i agree these values should be upgraded from 7bit (128) to 16bit (65536) but that should be enough. change of protocol, not processing power.
but ok, the hardware apparently isn't there yet, and it will take some trouble just to make it work from the stuff available now.
i totally think people should try it though :)
I agree it's possible, but I'm much more fascinated in making electronic drums sound like instruments that are physically impossible than trying to emulate a real drum.
For example, you could make a drumset out of samples of striking various empty water towers with a sledgehammer.
Imagine playing 6 different 5-story watertowers with sledgehammers, all in the comfort of your own room.
Why do what's already done?
Man, if I ever move to Boston, you and I need to start a band.
I like your ideas!
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 04:51:05 PM
I agree it's possible, but I'm much more fascinated in making electronic drums sound like instruments that are physically impossible than trying to emulate a real drum.
For example, you could make a drumset out of samples of striking various empty water towers with a sledgehammer.
Imagine playing 6 different 5-story watertowers with sledgehammers, all in the comfort of your own room.
Why do what's already done?
Well said. Also, outside the digital sphere, there's a kind of plateau been hit with which actual instruments are played. I been looking forward to a new thing for a while now that could take it's place alongside guitar, keyboard, woodwind or brass .... People invent the occasional new thing but most of them are kinda based on existing models. I'd love to have a go on something that was destined to be as popular as the piano in the near future.
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 04:37:43 PM
000: simply put, latency.
The amount of time it takes to interpret the strike, calculate the proper algorhthm, and generate the sound would take several hundred milliseconds, which would create a noticable gap between the strike and the sound.
Even in on-board computer sound processors (reverb, compression, etc) have a built-in latency corrector that calculates how many milliseconds a process will take, and then delays the original track to correct it.
Second, MIDI is simply a protocol. It's a language written in Hexidecimal that allows two different devices to speak with each other, which is why you can use a drum pad with several different sound modules.
Third, that drum pad still needs discrete values in order to operate, which creates buit-in limitations.
The brain IS faster than computer. And capable of higher levels of creativity.
Synthetic will NEVER be as good as organic. You may be able to get some use outta it, but a computer 'musician' will never equal a human one.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 12, 2007, 05:34:11 PM
Well said. Also, outside the digital sphere, there's a kind of plateau been hit with which actual instruments are played. I been looking forward to a new thing for a while now that could take it's place alongside guitar, keyboard, woodwind or brass .... People invent the occasional new thing but most of them are kinda based on existing models. I'd love to have a go on something that was destined to be as popular as the piano in the near future.
I  disagree with the second sentence, to a degree.  I would agree that in popular music it probably seems that way.  But, that's because there are a whole slew of instruments that popular music doesn't consider, or employ very often.  Have you ever heard a ululator in popular music?  Probably not. How about bagpipes?  Dulcimers, a very beautiful instrument, could be used more often.  There's a whole world of musical instruments that you rarely hear in the mainstream music arena.  That's not to say, however, that new instruments aren't good.  I just believe that there is a whole world beyond the guitar/bass/drum set convention that has not been fully explored by enough musicians, or at least, the ones that manage to get their music beyond their garage and the local dive.  
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 04:51:05 PM
I agree it's possible, but I'm much more fascinated in making electronic drums sound like instruments that are physically impossible than trying to emulate a real drum.
For example, you could make a drumset out of samples of striking various empty water towers with a sledgehammer.
Imagine playing 6 different 5-story watertowers with sledgehammers, all in the comfort of your own room.
Why do what's already done?
definitely! :-D
also i would like to take the moment to point out that - in the same way as you aren't a synth hater - i mostly agree that it is at the very least very infeasible to simulate real instruments exactly on a computer, especially if you want to simulate a complete guitar band.
i was mostly responding because i really disagreed with the
arguments used why it would be possible/impossible. you know how it is :)
whether it is in fact possible or not, i'm not sure, it's an interesting discussion. don't underestimate what technology can do these days. but on the other hand i'm quite sure that once you get the tech out of the way, there are some other problems you'll run in to.
and that it's a LOT of effort, especially considering if you're starting out from the idea it might be a good way to avoid clean microphone recording hassles ;-)
also, Felix: the wordt "robot" does not mean slave. it means "worker". as you probably know it comes from an old theatre play (either turkish or russian, i forgot). the phrase was "ja tvoi sluga, ja tvoi rabotnik" which means "i'm your slave, i'm your worker", "sluga" of course meaning slave, and "rabotnik" worker. (the text is featured in the song "The Robots" by Kraftwerk, at least the remastered version on the "The Mix" album)
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 12, 2007, 05:44:52 PM
The brain IS faster than computer. And capable of higher levels of creativity.
Synthetic will NEVER be as good as organic. You may be able to get some use outta it, but a computer 'musician' will never equal a human one.
1. For now.
2. For now.
Really, I thought it was from Karel Kapek's RUR, where the term originated and means "compulsory labor", which translates to me as slave.
I will also concede that much of my initial argument was ideology vs practicality.
Example: There is no argument that a clean $50 guitar sounds waaaaay different than a $500 guitar.
However, when you plug both of them to a marshall stack with 3 distortion pedals maxed out...
In the same way, most drum machines work in the same realm. You want a drum beat, no one will really listen to it, you can bury it in the mix. I don't really deed 5000 snare drum options, because who the fuck will really notice?
What people notice is the mechanical rhythm, and that can be fixed by locking the tempo to the analog track. it's the easiest way to add the "human" element to the mix. The above "relax" track I wrote is a perfect example. I set the MIDI track to map the guitar rhythm/tempo, which varied a few BPM from measure to measure.
The casual listener couldn't tell, but they could feel it.
I had an idea, just now.
Why not handheld electronic instruments, the interface using several input devices? Whole new instrument.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 02:35:40 PM
True, "Head Like a Hole" would sound really funny with real drums. I wonder if Rock n Roll will survive, and if so how long. Will it eventually be replaced by Click n Drag? Man, I am getting old.
it sounds pretty groovy on real drums...
Keep in mind reznor has an actual band that tours with him for live shows...
Watching him press play on a sequencer and then singing would otherwise make for a pretty lame concert experience..
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 04:51:05 PM
I agree it's possible, but I'm much more fascinated in making electronic drums sound like instruments that are physically impossible than trying to emulate a real drum.
For example, you could make a drumset out of samples of striking various empty water towers with a sledgehammer.
Imagine playing 6 different 5-story watertowers with sledgehammers, all in the comfort of your own room.
Why do what's already done?
genius
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 06:52:20 PMWhat people notice is the mechanical rhythm, and that can be fixed by locking the tempo to the analog track.  it's the easiest way to add the "human" element to the mix.  The above "relax" track I wrote is a perfect example.  I set the MIDI track to map the guitar rhythm/tempo, which varied a few BPM from measure to measure.
The casual listener couldn't tell, but they could feel it.
that's a pretty neat trick!
listening to the song right now, i like it! kinda reminds me of a cross between Enigma and Boards of Canada, sort of.
only things i don't like about it is that i think the reverb-effect on the snaredrum is way overdone, and the synth-pad sound in the background sounds like one of my not-very-advanced tries at writing code for synthesizing such a sound (basically, three detuned sawtooth waves with a filter). but that's IMHO of course :)
I have crappy equipment, what can I say?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 02:35:40 PM
True, "Head Like a Hole" would sound really funny with real drums.
Oh jeez, shameful confession time: It wasn't until they released "Only" (or whatever that song is - there is no you, there is only me) that I learned NIN used a drum machine. But that particular line is SO repetitive, to the point where I said out loud to somebody "daaaamn, that drummer must be really fuckin' bored doing it like that, without even the occasional turnaround after four measures or somethin'." He looked at me and said "Sweetie, you realize which band this is, right?"
I had never had any fuckin' clue.
Oh, and LMNO: Abso-fucking SQUEEEEE on your trick of occasionally screwing with the BPM to make it sound more live. One of the new toys that A Link For Life (http://www.alinkforlife.com/) has in their arsenal is something called Interactive Metronome. I get to play with it so I can write the copy for their website - that, and Tamela really thinks it will do me good. When they first put me on the thing, I was thinking "Shit, why do I need THIS?! I was a bass player in high school, and a damn good one at that - I already KNOW how to keep a beat!" And, in fact, I was already very good at it compared to others of her patients. But it was really interesting to play with it and see how sometimes I'd be 50 milliseconds ahead of the beat, and sometimes 36 milliseconds behind it, and it actually took several tries to consistently get to where I was within 10 milliseconds of the actual beat (in either direction). Then factor in that I was doing absolutely nothing else but focusing on lining up with where the beat "should" be. It'd be a long, long time before I could hit that kind of perfection with so little conscious effort that I'd have brain cycles to spare for other things, like plucking a string and moving fingers around on frets.
So yeah; I think it's awesome that you are deliberately mucking with the machine-generated beat to make it sound closer to something a human would generate.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 16, 2007, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 02:35:40 PM
True, "Head Like a Hole" would sound really funny with real drums.
Oh jeez, shameful confession time: It wasn't until they released "Only" (or whatever that song is - there is no you, there is only me) that I learned NIN used a drum machine. But that particular line is SO repetitive, to the point where I said out loud to somebody "daaaamn, that drummer must be really fuckin' bored doing it like that, without even the occasional turnaround after four measures or somethin'." He looked at me and said "Sweetie, you realize which band this is, right?"
I had never had any fuckin' clue.
Oh, and LMNO: Abso-fucking SQUEEEEE on your trick of occasionally screwing with the BPM to make it sound more live. One of the new toys that A Link For Life (http://www.alinkforlife.com/) has in their arsenal is something called Interactive Metronome. I get to play with it so I can write the copy for their website - that, and Tamela really thinks it will do me good. When they first put me on the thing, I was thinking "Shit, why do I need THIS?! I was a bass player in high school, and a damn good one at that - I already KNOW how to keep a beat!" And, in fact, I was already very good at it compared to others of her patients. But it was really interesting to play with it and see how sometimes I'd be 50 milliseconds ahead of the beat, and sometimes 36 milliseconds behind it, and it actually took several tries to consistently get to where I was within 10 milliseconds of the actual beat (in either direction). Then factor in that I was doing absolutely nothing else but focusing on lining up with where the beat "should" be. It'd be a long, long time before I could hit that kind of perfection with so little conscious effort that I'd have brain cycles to spare for other things, like plucking a string and moving fingers around on frets.
Lately I've gotten a bit addicted to playing with a 3-sec delay. My improv/jamming skills have come on leaps and bounds since I'm constantly trying to fit in something that counterpoints the 3 seconds before and if the timing isn't bang on it doesn't sound the same.
Pentatonic scale.
Works every time.
Quote from: LMNO on January 16, 2007, 05:32:25 PM
Pentatonic scale.
Works every time.
I wish I had the musical training you do so I could really take advantage of all the possibilities that the classical guitar offers.
In the key of C, the Major pentatonic is C, D, E, G, A; the minor is C, Eb, F, G, Bb.
The pentatonic is also snarkily known as the "Garcia scale", as Jerry would play up and down the scale incessently.
For color, you can flatten the third and fifth (the "blue" notes).
Enjoy.
Quote from: LMNO on January 17, 2007, 08:00:56 PM
In the key of C, the Major pentatonic is C, D, E, G, A; the minor is C, Eb, F, G, Bb.
The pentatonic is also snarkily known as the "Garcia scale", as Jerry would play up and down the scale incessently.
For color, you can flatten the third and fifth (the "blue" notes).
Enjoy.
Thanks. I'll try that later today. Don't know how well pentatonic will work with baroque guitar music, but I'll give it a try.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 17, 2007, 08:06:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 17, 2007, 08:00:56 PM
In the key of C, the Major pentatonic is C, D, E, G, A; the minor is C, Eb, F, G, Bb.
The pentatonic is also snarkily known as the "Garcia scale", as Jerry would play up and down the scale incessently.
For color, you can flatten the third and fifth (the "blue" notes).
Enjoy.
Thanks. I'll try that later today. Don't know how well pentatonic will work with baroque guitar music, but I'll give it a try.
It it aint Baroque don't fix it.
You suck.
:roll: x1600
BMW - if you can find the movie 'Crossroads' starring Karate Kid Ralph Macchio, you will indeed learn about what happens when a Julliard student starts messing with the blues scale.
:wink:
Wait, I take it back-- Mang, you suck.
that you have to sell your soul to Steve Vai
Quote from: Pope T.Mangrove xvii on January 17, 2007, 08:19:29 PM
BMW - if you can find the movie 'Crossroads' starring Karate Kid Ralph Macchio, you will indeed learn about what happens when a Julliard student starts messing with the blues scale.
:wink:
Ralph Macchio? I'll pass.
Quote from: LMNO on January 17, 2007, 08:21:00 PM
Wait, I take it back-- Mang, you suck.
hey! i didn't say it was a good movie. it's just the only way i could link classical guitar and the pentatonic scale together.
but the vehemence of your retort leads to suspect that you've seen it  8-)
Yeah.
"Son, the blues ain't nothing but a good man feelin' bad."
Ugh.
Quote from: LMNO on January 17, 2007, 08:31:26 PM
"Son, the blues ain't nothing but a good man feelin' bad. Thinking about the woman he once was with."
corrected for accuracy
Jazz-Classical fusion guitar can be really fine though. John Mclaughlin with Paco De Lucia and Al DiMeola in the Guitar Trio...man, 'Passion Grace and Fire' is still one of the best guitar cd's I own. Damn fine guitar playing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0QKbnCDW94
posted cos vai pwns
it's sort of ironic how this thread has gone considering the title.
just to put the boot in. eric clapton hated the final scene of crossroads on account that karate kid couldn't 'out blues' vai but instead, had to resort to his julliard repertoire.
:thanks:
I don't care how bad this gets me flamed... it's the truth
Joe Satriani > Steve Vai
Well, yeah. And?
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 18, 2007, 03:40:46 AM
I don't care how bad this gets me flamed... it's the truth
Leadbelly > Joe Satriani > Steve Vai
Just to remind y'all who the
real badasses are...
Quote from: LMNO on January 18, 2007, 01:51:47 PM
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 18, 2007, 03:40:46 AM
I don't care how bad this gets me flamed... it's the truth
Leadbelly > Joe Satriani > Steve Vai
Just to remind y'all who the real badasses are...
Definitely...
These :mittens: are for Leadbelly
i'm starting to think that mentioning ralph macchio is what caused the forum to crash.
sorry. turns out that i suck.
Poor Mang. It was your moral imperative, though, so I for one cannot blame you.
thanks for the vote of confidence there, jenne.
from now on i will just use r**** m****** if i ever need to refer to that particular person again. just to be on the safe side.
Sounds good. Or you could just give him a codename...
Quote from: Jenne on January 23, 2007, 08:58:00 PM
Sounds good.  Or you could just give him a codename...
how about "that 80s B-movie Karate Kid dickwad?"
Quote from: Pope T.Mangrove xvii on January 23, 2007, 09:11:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 23, 2007, 08:58:00 PM
Sounds good. Or you could just give him a codename...
how about "that 80s B-movie Karate Kid dickwad?"
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/
:troll: :troll: :troll:
Come on man...he was in "The Outsiders"
lol
Don't forget "My Cousin Vinny".
this is from the trivia on ralph's bio:
Once saved a baby porpoise that was beached on the shores of Malibu. When reporters tried to cover the story, he asked to remain anonymous.
maybe i was wrong to accuse him? he was doing it for the dolphins!
DAMN IT!!
THE DOLPHINS HAVE CLAIMED HIM TOO!!!
DAMN YOU DOLPHINS!!! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!
Quote from: Pope T.Mangrove xvii on January 23, 2007, 09:59:56 PM
this is from the trivia on ralph's bio:
Once saved a baby porpoise that was beached on the shores of Malibu. When reporters tried to cover the story, he asked to remain anonymous.
maybe i was wrong to accuse him? he was doing it for the dolphins!
:lulz:
Quote from: Pope T.Mangrove xvii on January 23, 2007, 09:59:56 PM
this is from the trivia on ralph's bio:
Once saved a baby porpoise that was beached on the shores of Malibu. When reporters tried to cover the story, he asked to remain anonymous.
maybe i was wrong to accuse him? he was doing it for the dolphins!
Because I was bored...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v326/ruined888/Funny%20Pictures/MacchioDolphins.jpg)
Bump for Bhode. :lulz:
Quote from: Kai on August 23, 2010, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 23, 2010, 07:49:24 PM
Bump for Bhode. :lulz:
HE'S BACK??! :lulz:
No. But I miss him. He was an inspiration to 11/12ths of me. :(
You people need more faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q294/jtlaw123/FearandLoathinginLasVegas.jpg)