Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

Can't we all just play our casios?



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: zoinky420 
  To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:44 AM
  Subject: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & poly-8


  --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
  >
  > it's cool dude, i obviously don't expect you to agree wth me on 
  much.
  > although i think you're probably picking at more points than you 
  need
  > to; it seems like we both agree that the situation is complicated. 
  i'm
  > gonna follow the point-by-point format i guess, because you have, 
  but
  > i think it's kind of unnecessary.

  I think it's far preferable than claiming you're going to refute a 
  thesis, then proceeding to refute a strawman rather than the actual 
  content of the thesis.

  > 
  > > 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.
  > 
  > i don't rely follow that. or maybe i just don't agree.
  > 

  Ok, but if you don't agree with that, you're just plain wrong. A 
  leap of faith is required to get from logic to ethics or morality. 
  Various thought experiments, like the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrate 
  that taking that leap can be beneficial under certain circumstances, 
  and so far that's about the best we can do in order to arrive at 
  ethical behavior through reason. But even in the Prisoner's Dilemma, 
  humans have to be logical beings, and they have to be aware of the 
  Prisoner's Dilemma, and they have to be aware of their partner-
  prisoner's awareness of the Prisoner's Dilemma for ethical behavior 
  to be beneficial, and since humans are definitely not well-informed, 
  and are definitely not logical beings, it still appears that the best 
  strategy for the individual, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, is to act in 
  an unethical manner. Luckily, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a 
  situation that ever arises in most, if anybody's life. In our 
  society, it is in most cases easier to act in an ethical manner, and 
  will generate fewer hassles. But that's only because of our 
  extensive punative legal system. In the case of mp3 downloading, 
  unless the long arm of the law can catch and punish a lot of mp3 
  downloaders, people will choose to download mp3s. If the legal 
  system cannot stop the widespread illicit downloading of mp3s, then 
  an alternative means of doing business must be developed. A law that 
  the majority of the population ignores is not a good law, period. 

  > >> 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.
  > 
  > but that's my point... those things are true, so why am i making 
  more
  > money off vinyl in 2008?

  Because there is a niche market for vinyl, and far fewer choices 
  available to those who want it. I'm in the process of developing a 
  quad 8-track. Yes, there are still people who listen to 8-tracks, 
  and quad (four channel) ones are especially coveted. I happen to 
  have a high-end quad recording deck so I think it would be fun to 
  record one, and I know that when I post about it's release on the 
  various 8-track collecting websites, I'll sell more copies of my quad 
  8-track than I've ever sold in any other format.

  You are simply shrewdly exploiting an under-exploited market, and a 
  market small enough that many big movers & shakers in the industry 
  don't want to bother with, so you have a niche where you can thrive 
  better than you could in a bigger market with tougher competition.

  > well, beause people STEAL mp3's, to use a
  > somewhat hysterical verb. if you relly read all my posts yu'd see 
  that
  > i don't care that much.

  What I read from your post is a series of contradictions. I don't 
  get the impression you've made up your mind on any of this. A strong 
  opinion is a consistent one, not one with a lot of emotion behind it 
  (thankfully you haven't tried to back yours up with much emotion, 
  though).

  > 
  > a lot of my favorite independent labels from the 90's are going out 
  of
  > business or reconfiguring enormously: merging with majors, or
  > switching to licensing and management: kill rck starts, troubleman,
  > touch and go... the list goes on and on and on.
  > 

  Independent labels go up and down all the time. How did Rough Trade 
  go out of business with New Order and the Smiths? It was badly 
  managed, that's how. BTW, I had a flame war with the management of 
  Kill Rock Stars, and they seemed like a bunch of arrogant twits to 
  me. 

  > the ones that stay in business seem to be pursuing a couple 
  different
  > strategies: 1) stop signing bans that are interesting and only sign
  > bands that you think will make money (meaning the probably sound 
  like
  > something you'v heard before), or 2) sign lots and lots of bands in
  > the hope that one of them will produce a license-able single, but
  > don't put very much money into any of them.
  > 

  and perhaps the biggest factor: 3) stop putting all the profits into 
  management's crack cocaine habits...

  > maybe this is why you're not hearing as much new music you like? 
  dunno.

  I'm not hearing as much new music I like because I'm not interested 
  in most of it, not because there is a shortage in new music. I see 
  more bands getting popular in the underground than ever before. The 
  only trend that sickens me is Christian Rock becoming a viable 
  commercial force after decades of the ridicule it deserves.

  > i don't care about nine inch nails. (i also don't really care about
  > your music tastes, and i'm quite sure you don't care about mine...)

  I wasn't telling you about my music tastes. I was reinforcing the 
  same simple point I've been making all along here: If you're any 
  good, you'll get somewhere, and if you're stupid, you'll blow it 
  somehow. Not exactly a story we can't find zillions of examples of 
  in the industry...

  i
  > still think they're n interesting example of a band as a money-
  making
  > machine that is really trying to duck and weave with the changing
  > landscape... they are actually giving away high quality downloads of
  > the new record with no expectation of any compensation. so naturally
  > this is a fvorite example if you want to show that people can be
  > successful pro musicians in a context of total loss of recording
  > profit. to which my response is usually that they wouln't be able to
  > do that now if they hadn't sold so many records in 1994.
  > 

  Great, now if only you could quit trying to argue both sides by 
  pointing out that you said 'this' after your paragraph about 'that' 
  was refuted. 

  > just an example.
  > 
  > > First, I only justify my actions to myself. Second, as I said I
  > > think fewer people listen to music than ever before,
  > 
  > really? i take the train to work everyday and probably 3 out of 4
  > people are plugged into something. it makes me wonder. it can't 
  sound
  > very good.

  So? You see these people listening to music during their commute, 
  which is the only thing they can do during their commute. They 
  listen to it there and then do other things for the rest of the day. 
  Just because you see them with Ipods plastered to their ears on the 
  train doesn't mean you should assume that when they get off that 
  train they spend the rest of the day with Ipods plastered to their 
  ears. Fact is, fewer people (per capita) are listening to music than 
  ever, because they have far more entertainment choices than the 
  past. What keeps the industry alive is population growth.

  > 
  > 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.
  > 
  > because both of those quantities are pittances?

  And why do you assume I deserve more? You know nothing about my 
  music. Perhaps it is only worth a pittance...

  > but there are
  > exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
  > 

  Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace. Dane Cook 
  apparently made some MySpace splash by signing up more friends than 
  anyone else. But Dane Cook steals other comedians jokes, then passes 
  them off as his own. Get back to me when someone is doing that to 
  your music, then you'll actually have a valid complaint.

  > but the point is that a tremendous amount of (young) people do turn
  > to myspace to tell them about new music. they really do. i can't
  > believe it either.

  I know they do, but I don't care. And I'm also not complaining about 
  them not buying my music. You said you get a thrill out of some punk 
  listening to your tunes off MySpace. I used to be on mp3.com and 
  before that I hosted my own mp3 files (in fact, I hosted them before 
  Winamp even existed), and I got over the thrill of seeing my download 
  numbers pretty quick. MySpace has no means of directing a revenue 
  stream back to me, so it does me no good to be hosted there. You 
  know, if you actually thought about all this with perhaps a little 
  more effort, perhaps you, too, could develop a consistent viewpoint 
  and strategy which won't have you finding yourself simultaneously 
  defending and complaining about free downloads.

  > um... i'm talking about selling cd's on tour. or tapes, or records, 
  whatever
  > 
  > this used to happen. now it doesn't. that's a huge financial loss.
  > 
  > and yeah, gas prices are a big deal. combine these factors and it
  > means that a lot of bands just won't tour anymore... this is 
  happening
  > right now.

  Well I can't comment on experience, but I'm reluctant to take your 
  experience at face value simply because you've been wrong about so 
  many other aspects of this conversation. It seems to me that if fans 
  don't have to pay for the music, that's money they can use to buy 
  stickers, or t-shirts, or other 'merch', including tickets to the 
  show itself...

  > could be. sorry i'm not a better writer. the point is that in europe
  > you get paid MUCH better for shows, and hospitality is better so you
  > don't have to spend as much on food and lodging, making tour profits
  > less depndent on merchandise.

  I think this has more to do with the type of music you're making. If 
  you're here in a synth yahoogroup, you probably make electronic-type 
  music which is far more popular in Europe than North America. You 
  probably get treated there the same way people trying to copy 
  Nickelback or Blackeyed Peas get treated here. 

  > 
  > actually i think they steal MORE mp3's over there.
  > 

  Probably. They were, afterall, impoverished by World War II and the 
  Cold War. Until recently, even Ireland's infrastructure resembled 
  the Eastern Bloc. 



   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]