Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

> 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 problem is that the underlying technology has a built-in bias
towards letting music be copied. i agree that legalities are pretty
worthless in this situation.

ethics as self-interest seems to work, and you seem to be in favor of
that idea. certainly it's the basis of capitalism. right now,
self-interest among consumers will dictate that more of them take the
free music than the paid-for music. that is broken, on whatever level
you choose to analyze it (laws, technologies, morals...)

ethics and economics seem pretty intimately related, to me... but i
studied math and music in college, not philosophy or whatever that is
up there.

> 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.

ok. those people are my friends, sometimes. i argue with them too, and
arrogance is part of the package, but i don't think they're twits.

thing is, EVERY label is making less money than they used to. the ones
who make the least will fold. i think "least" might actually represent
a bigger chunk than i want to accept. maybe the answer is that no-one
needs labels, including musicians. but i suspect it will be harder to
coalesce people around a style, hard to keep the the stylistic
momentum that drives innovation and creates new imitation-worthy
stuff, when every artist is struggling tooth-and-nail against each
other for the attention of a few marketing behemoths, without the
small-group support network that "the label" used to provide.

the labels that are hurting most are the ones that offer the biggest
cuts to artists. screwed up.

anyway, the bands' bottom line is also suffering.

> 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.

really? yuck. i kind of do think that that time on the train might be
worth something, though.

and i suspect that some people use itunes and winamp, from time to
time... even while playing videogames!

>> 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...

ok, but let's assume that at least some music is worth something
significant. or maybe we can't agree on that, in which case i give up.

i wish small bands (the kind that play instruments in groups) weren't
having such a hard time surviving, no matter how critically acclaimed
they get. no one can stand to do it for more than a couple years any
more. there's no chance to grow and become something worth imitating
in future generations (going back to the sonic youth example).

it's a very different prospect to render out some techno and get a few
dollars a month from ads.

>> but there are
>> exceptions. deerhunter comes to mind. no age come to mind.
>>
>
> Never heard of them. Maybe because I don't do MySpace.

oh well. these are people who started self-releasing and on myspace,
and are now on kranky and sub pop. deerhunter might be best known as
the current NIN opener slot, succeeding peaches and bauhaus.

>
> 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.

no, i could give half a crap about myspace. what i appreciate is being
able to go to portugal and play to a large sold-out crowd of stoked
kids; i suspect that "the internet" has something to do with this.
this is the most awesome aspect of digitally distributed music, to me:
reaching a lot more people in different places than you could with
mail-order catalogues. the less awesome aspect is not being able to do
it full-time because there's no money in it. i can survive on tour but
i don't want to have to tour 10 months a year, like the kids in my
band's "touring lineup" do...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-gmh6ShJD4 in case you're actually
interested (the video sucks, the mix sucks, you hate the songs...
whatever)

> 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.

oh, sure... so WRONG...

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...

i addressed this somewhere else. the show used to function as a portal
to get people to buy recordings. now it doesn't. i think it's retarded
to have to be a popular clothing designer as well as a popular
musician in order to make money off your music. it also sucks to have
to charge $10 or $15 a head to get into a punk rock show; really
limits the audience. if you could expect 30% of those people to buy a
record, you could charge less or even make the shows free (because so
many more potential record customers would show up).

plus the profit margin for records sold at shows is WAAAY higher than
through any distributor, digital or otherwise.

> 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.

hm, maybe. but i kind of doubt it. i've been in rock bands. i think
music styles are more geographically distributed than they used to be,
for obvious reasons. the difference in the economic value attached to
culture in europe vs. america is vast and reaches across styles and
art forms. it's really astounding to experience.

my point there was that even though people have less disposable income
in, say, spain or slovenia, even though they are way more cost-minded
with their technology (which means linux and filesharing are huge), i
STILL get paid more as a musician in slovenia than i do in america.
it's not because the style of music i play is somehow more respected
there than it is in my hometown of los angeles. these kids already
have the mp3's but they still buy records! it's amazing!!!

maybe bands that know how to play live music will just disappear from
america. i don't really think that's cool, but whatever...