Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> dunno even how necessary it is to add to such a bloated topic...
> particularly on a synth forum... oh well, here's some more thoughts:
> 
> i sympathize with yr position and i do agree that the ethics are
> pretty grey these days.
> 

I'm not looking for any sympathy, I knew Synergeezer was baiting me 
when I chose to respond.  My ethics aren't 'grey', either.  

> but i think you're deploying some highly selective logic.

I read your whole post and didn't see you actually challenging 
anything I said.  And besides, if you use logic to develop ethics, 
you're abusing logic.

> the
> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can 
manage
> to produce it in the first place.

Whereas the profit margin for mp3s is high, they're easy to produce, 
and more people want them than want vinyl.  

> 
> if you think cdbaby (which has paid out $14million TOTAL to artists
> over its ENTIRE existence) is an adequate substitute for being able 
to
> sell enough (audible) merchandise to support a tour, you've never
> tried to make a living as an independent musician.

You're putting words in my mouth.  I said that I make more money off 
of CDBaby than I did before CDBaby, but that "next to nothing still 
isn't much".  As for CDBaby having paid out $14million, you're 
wrong.  CDBaby has paid out a total of $80million to date, and pays 
out $2.5million per month.  But those stats are meaningless, because 
the money is divided up unequally.  Even an average would be 
meaningless because the fact is just because you spent $50 to 
register a CD on CDBaby doesn't mean you deserve to make a living off 
of it, or even make your $50 back.  You seem to have missed my point 
entirely.  I pointed out that the really successful artists who had 
been on CDbaby are no longer in print there because they have been 
picked up by labels.  That's what happens to successful bands.  


> this was never an
> easy thing to do, and it is now accepted as basically impossible.
> everyone is a weekend warrior these days, or at the very least 
they're
> spending more time on their t-shirts and less time on their 
albums...
>

There are lots of band signed to independent record labels that go on 
tours and make a living as a band.  I don't know whether there are 
more or less than there were during some fabled halcyon days of the 
past, but I've been at this for 18 years now and I don't remember any 
glory days.  And I think the only thing making it any harder is the 
fact that musicians now compete with a lot more forms of 
entertainment for attention.  Mp3s have only helped musicians, as 
have Ipods.  What has hurt musicians is YouTube, DVDs, Playstation, 
Xbox, Guitar Hero, tons of channels available to tv cable or 
satellite subscribers, karaoke, and a jillion other things that 
people can be doing rather that listening to your album or going to 
your show.
 
> of course, nine inch nails can afford to give away their music and
> rake in millions from touring. that's nice enough,

You know what?  I haven't listened to Nine Inch Nails since their 
first album.  And I was all over their first album for the first two 
years it slow-burned before charting.  After that, I lost interest.  
Nine Inch Nails probably make a thousand times as much money as they 
did when I listened to them, and the same pattern plays out with most 
of the bands I've been into over the years.  The way it works is, I 
find the cutting-edge music, people who know that I am always 
listening to the best music ask me what's good these days, and then 
whatever I say is good gets popular later on.  Not because of me, but 
because of hundreds of other people just like me, finding the good 
stuff and then introducing it to the masses.  And by the time the 
masses are into it, we're onto something else.  And you think we 
should feel guilty for this?  We should be getting PAID for it!

 but these
> high-profile "new economic structures" are only possible because the
> twentieth century already happened. we are spending our accumulated
> cultural capital, and despite the many many flimsy justifications i
> hear (like, i'm sorry, yours), the fact is everyone listens to music
> all the time now, and few people pay for it.
> 

First, I only justify my actions to myself.  Second, as I said I 
think fewer people listen to music than ever before, and we're damn 
lucky mp3s and Ipod's came along or we'd be even more destitute.  
Third, I've seen no compelling evidence that people need to pay for 
music.  I get similar if not more revenues from sites hosting my mp3s 
and paying me with ad revenue as I do from ITunes which pays me for 
mp3s being sold.  

> that's not the worst thing in the world, maybe. art without 
commercial
> interest is certainly liberated in some way.
> 

Only if you think that getting fired 'liberates' one from having to 
collect a paycheck.

> for example, myspace lets everyone be heard, including a lot of 
great
> werid stuff and a tremendous amount of utterly lame and derivate
> stuff, and some stuff that's just weird and bad (eye of the beholder
> applies). one could argue that this is a needed injection of 
democracy
> to the system, and non-professional music is cool. i agree, but i 
hate
> spending time on myspace, and i hate the sound of their
> mega-compressed flash player, and i miss hearing albums that are
> produced with some care and craft because the band had time to
> practice and some cash to put into recording sessions, even though
> they're making quirky music that's never going to be licensed for 
car
> commericals or clearchannel radio.

I have no interest in MySpace and Facebook or similar sites.  I think 
they look terrible, are pointless, and are for kids.  While there are 
plenty of 'celebrities' who have pages at those places, nobody gets 
famous from them unless they've done something that deserves 
worldwide ridicule.  

> 
> and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
> make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.
> 

Did they?  Who paid for those tours?  Why aren't these tours making 
money anymore?  I thought this was about lost revenue from recorded 
product, now you're talking about tours.  The only thing I can think 
of that would make tours less profitable now than before is the price 
of gas.

> now we have to go to europe where tradition demands we at least will
> be well fed and given a place to sleep. usually pays pretty good 
too,
> so you can go home with some money in your pocket despite the fact
> that you sold about 35 cd's to 35 enthusiastic crowds over the last
> month and a half. america? not even so kind.

And this is because they don't listen to mp3s in Europe, and go to 
concerts instead?  I'm not getting your point here... your post is 
all over the place.


> 
> besides all that, most mp3's just sound bad... (oops...) i can't
> imagine hearing all my music on an iPod, with terrible cheap little
> earbuds, in 192kbit mp3's, "sound enhancer" -ed... on a train...
> what's the point? and yet this mode of listening appears to be
> tremendously popular. gah...

So did AM radio, and so did cassettes.  Personally I think, no, I 
KNOW that mp3s at 192kbit sound better than vinyl.  CDs can sound 
better, though, but that depends on how well they were mastered in 
the first place. 

> 
> call me a snob but i can't help thinking that these two forms of
> devaluation are related, somehow.

I don't think muddled thinking is particularly snobish.

> 
> maybe ubiquity isn't really the greatest goal for music. maybe you 
got
> more enjoyment from those CD's you paid for in the 90's than from 
any
> track that you'll download and trash after 30 seconds,

Uh no, if I trash a song after 30 seconds it would be because I don't 
like it, so if I had paid for that same song on CD I'd be much more 
disappointed.  I have a large mp3 collection saved to CDs and DVDs, 
and I wouldn't even want all of those on CD if I could afford it, 
because they'd take up way too much space.

> because you can
> and because there's a billion more tracks to try and not enough time
> left in all your remaining days to hear them all.

I seem to have more of a problem tracking down anything worth 
listening to, than having too much to listen to.  

> 
> maybe a piece of music that could make the rest of your life more
> pleasurable is worth more than 99 cents... or nothing...
> 

The rest of my life?  I can't even listen to most of my favorite CDs 
from the 1990s, because in the 1990s I listened to them so many times 
I no longer find them enjoyable, they sound extremely 'overplayed' to 
me now.  Had I access then to the amount of selection I do now, I 
would likely still find them enjoyable to listen to once in a while.