Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

let me rephrase, then:

the natty priviledged whites who dish out melting praise or crushing
disdain on sites like pitchfork generally don't pay for the music.
it's not even necessary to send them promo copies if you're pretty
sure the thing's already being talked about.

i doubt that the people who read these websites tend to pay much for
music either, since it's trivially easy to go a couple clicks away and
get a relatively high-quality copy.

i'm even prepared to argue that these people (whoever they are) spend
less on music than i did when i was 13, spending my $20/week car
washing money.

these are the people who are hyping the equivalent of sonic youth's
early records, whereas in the 80's they would have been hyping them
AND BUYING them.

saying that it's ok for only massively popular acts to make any money
is just not acceptable for me. i think home recording is great, and
getting better, but it is built on the tools and skills developed by
professionals, especially professionals with limited recording
budgets.

i know, individuals like scott will claim that they actually buy lot's
of cd's. i will also make this claim. but people as a whole do not,
unarguably.

and they still listen... not just on the train... how bout on the
sidewalk, at the office... at home...

actually i think it's pretty cool to be able to have 10,000 records.
of course i do. i don't want to turn back the technological clock. but
i want people who claim to care about music, especially underground
music, to drop some $ on it from time to time, as much as they can.
how bout just as much as you pay for video games. can we agree on
that? if we have to MAKE it an ethical issue in order to get musicians
compensated, then i'm totally prepared to do that.

i see less and less people doing that. i SEE it. i am not blind or
particularly stupid.

i see music reviewers with racks of video games offering you a place
to sleep on their couch and then trying to get a copy of your LP for
free. that is diseased. but it is typical of our current attitudes
towards what music is worth.

(i can always sleep in the car, but we really need that $10...)

i contradict myself a lot in these posts because the stuff is
complicated. there are many truths and i want to acknowledge all the
things that are awesome and exciting while still trying to maintain
that there are big problems that need careful consideration, not snide
defensive dismissal. i think it's correct to be conflicted, but i want
the bottom line to be respect and support for people who are out there
risking their savings on making really good stuff.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:51 AM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>>
>> and a lot of people don't, particularly
>> those who are technologically equipped to copy it (hence, you would
>> think, able to afford it), and that does suck.
>
> Umm, a computer capable of copying a CD, encoding mp3s from a redbook
> audio CD, or downloading CDs from the internet could be purchased for
> $20 these days. So I guess that means they could afford to buy one or
> two CDs instead of being able to obtain a lot of mp3s. Of course, they
> may have to pay at least $10 a month for a dialup connection, unless
> they invest $100 in an old laptop and wifi card instead, and use free
> hotspots throughout cities. So, your claim that "people who are
> technologically equipped to copy it, (hence...afford it)" is not bourn
> out by fact. Besides, it all depends on how much music they want. If
> someone wants to own 10,000 albums, that person would need a pretty
> good paying job to obtain them in an expedient manner via retail
> sources.
>
>