Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, Scott Nordlund <gsn10@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Home recording is cheap, online distribution is easy.  File sharing 
>is its own little ethical oddity with its own nebulous pros and 
>cons, and is increasingly prevalent.  "Making it" has always been 
>difficult, and it's becoming more so.  Fuck it, I've got an 
>electrical engineering degree, why put so much effort into the 
>business/promotion side of things when the most I can expect is a 
>meager and temporary subsistence (if I'm lucky)?  I'll keep my day 
>job, do my thing in my spare time, and give away the fruits of my 
>creative labor.  It's becoming a pretty obvious mindset, and I can't 
>see it as a bad thing.

Sounds a lot like how famous actors wish they were rock stars, and 
rock stars wish they were famous actors.  It's a sad commentary on 
our culture that the ability to sell a few recordings is valued more 
than an electrical engineering degree.  Just be glad your parents or 
that little voice in your head insisted you stay in school just in 
case you "don't make it" in the entertainment industry, because there 
are a hell of a lot of people (like me) who were too stupid to 
develop a backup plan.  I totally disagree with wankers like Jon 
Lovitz who claims that if he had had anything to fall back on, he 
would have, and never would have become the famous rarely-amusing 
comedian he is today.  In his case, that may have worked, but for 
most, it's a failing strategy.  


> Still, I can see a few issues with this.  First, popularity doesn't 
>correlate with quality.  This has always been the case, 
>but "democratization" isn't a solution for this (and I can't really 
>suggest what would be). 

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to convey, but I believe I 
was the only person to use the word 'democratization' in this thread 
up till now, and I referred to the 'democratization of tools', which 
you summed up as "Home recording is cheap, online distribution is 
easy. "

> There will continue to be a small population of relative successes 
>standing out in a vast sea of total obscurity.  And this will 
>continue to have almost no relation to any measure of quality.  I 
>don't think it will be any worse than it's always been, though it's 
>still not what it probably should be.
> 

I disagree.  Just because there will always be Britney Spears and 
Nsync in the charts, there is room for good music.  There are also 
plenty of acts that fail to crack the charts but are just under them, 
with decent sales figures.  Most artist's first album doesn't chart 
but provides momentum for future albums to possibly chart.  I would 
agree that good music tends to get charted outside of North America 
first (then again, in countries like Germany where good stuff charts 
more often, they still chart tons of crap that would never chart in 
North America - David Hasselhoff, anyone?)  

> Second, giving things away sort of erodes the construction of value 
>that this sort of thing depends on. 

That's an old argument that has been proven to be false by decades of 
radio play fuelling record sales.

> Again, I can't really suggest any solution,

The solution is to quit whining and focus your energy on honing your 
craft.  Or focusing on your 'grown up' career, you know, that 
electrical engineering degree that I'm so embarassed to not also 
possess?

> I've been pondering the idea of an ad-supported website as a way to 
generate income from free music/art/whatever. 

Not exactly a new idea.  There are dozens such sites, and they seem 
to be thriving enough to continue to exist and pay me through CDBaby, 
anyway.

 > On the whole, I don't see any reason to fight the changes.  Life 
>will get harder for some people, but I think it will get easier for 
>more as people look at the "dream" a little more realistically.

I agree, and in order to be realistic, people need access to good 
information and the ability to accept facts.  That holds true in life 
as a whole, not just the music industry.

>  Most of the fads I'm aware of had corporate backing of some sort 
>and weren't so much MySpace phenomena.

Good point, and the Electro-clash fad that Ezra mentioned is a very 
good example.  Fischerspooner and Peaches didn't just come out of 
nowhere, they bubbled underground, and were picked up by the industry 
and packaged as a new underground trend for the masses.  Which is 
what I keep saying can happen to anyone who manages to make good 
enough music (or, perhaps in Fischerspooner's case, good enough 
costumes... worked for Gwar and Slipknot, hell even Green Jelly got 
their 15 minutes in the 90s, and that is not a bygone era, it can 
still happen and still does, and if I were in the loop these days I'm 
sure I'd be able to rattle off a dozen bands it's happening to. Cex, 
Venetian Snares and Leslie and the Lys who I mentioned earlier will 
have to do, but really, there are hundreds more)


>  Perhaps it's just because an online fad propagates extremely 
>rapidly, to the extent that it tends to hit everywhere all at once.  
 
Another good point, but also I think that a lot of the 'new' fads are 
repackages of old fads, so thats why they don't hold the interest as 
much.  Again, electro-clash is a good example.  It worked because by 
then everyone had forgotten about, or were nostalgic for the electro-
craze of the 1980s.  But that had the effect of unearthing much of 
that lost 80's electro and the fad likely died when Electro-clash 
fans began being more interested in collecting superior 80s electro 
than the repackaged electro-clash fad.