Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

well, part of the greyness comes from the fact that not all ethical
concerns are pecuniary. if the music reviewer for the new yorker posts
your track on his blog, he is arguably doing you a great service even
though it's technically an illegal act of data theft.

sometimes people just want their music to reach people and don't care
if they sell cd's. the bleak economic prospects for full-time
musicians (and i don't think they've ever been all that rosy compared
to, say, those facing full-time lawyers) encourage such an attitude,
and i personally feel that if it's a choice between people
experiencing the work for free and nobody experiencing it at all, any
decent artist would choose the former.

if some teenager halfway across the world downloads my record and is
stoked enough on it to share it with 500 of his online friends, many
of whom are also stoked, how could i not be happy? how would that kid
have ever even heard my record, let alone bought it, under
pre-internet distribution models?

in those much-hyped new economic models for digital music, such a
process is called viral marketing, and provides the pecuniary angle to
this ethical greyness. of the many people who download illegally, a
few end up buying legal copies (downloaded or otherwise), either for
higher audio quality or because they feel like the product is good
enough to pay for. hence the phenomenon of deliberate leaks from
artists and record labels as part of their marketing strategy.

compare this to the shareware model of software distribution, and
products like Photoshop whose success (read: ubiquity) is due in part
to (deliberately?) ineffective copy control.

but i still think the bottom line is that potential income from
recordings is lower than it used to be, and certainly is scaled
differently... homemade music has a better shot at being heard, and
superstars can still live large (mostly off licensing and tours, not
record sales), but the "middle class" of independent professionals is
quickly disappearing.

i starting posting about this because i thought mr. 420's comments
were a little distorted and potentially dismissive of the truly harsh
economic realities facing people who want to hope to make a living off
of music (nothing personal, dude... just my own response). there is no
question that illegal downloads are bad for cd sales; this is as
obvious as you can get.

but if the question is whether illegal downloads are bad for the
future of music, well... that's a lot more complicated. if you asked
me a few years ago, i would have said illegal downloads are great for
the future of music. personal experience might not be all that
relevant here (because there are so very many roads you can take as a
musician), but the fact is that i've been in bands that have been
pretty successful by some standard; meaning i've been able to travel
the world doing nothing but play music, and know that a lot of people
are enjoying the stuff i've made. but i haven't made any money off
music, and i don't expect to. (when people in my band start talking
about licensing deals at practice, i know it's my time to quit...)
anyway, whatever success i've had with bands is inarguably due to the
extant ability to share stuff on the internet, and i don't ever want
that ability to go away.

at the same time, i think in recent years i've started seeing some of
the fallout of that ubiquity in the form of shorter and shorter
attention spans, shorter and shorter fad-cycles in "underground"
music, more derivation, less actual originality. i think this has a
lot to do with listening habits (i'm starting to resent the ipod kind
of a lot), and something to do with the increasingly desperate and
shrill clamor of the hype machines... it's a big, big, big subject...

maybe music should never have been integrated into capitalist
economics. folk musicians have traditionally been indigent (the blind
monks of japan, the hobos of america, the troubadors of medieval
europe), and art music has traditionally been patronized by
governments, religious organizations, or powerful individuals...

so maybe we're witnessing the dying frenzy of music economics, and
we'll soon be back to itinerant artists bartering cd's for food (or
maybe flash cards for gasoline), and the court musicians of hollywood
(and MGM) eyeing daggers at the court musicians of new york city (and
the NEA). unless that's already kinda happened...

and then, well, there will always be christian rock of course.

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:33 PM, synergeezer <synergeezer@...> wrote:
> zebra, I like most of what you have said.
>
> I don't agree that the "ethics are pretty grey these days". I find
> that theft of property is pretty easy to identify. These days, it is
> very easy to steal movies, music, and computer software, with almost
> no chance of being held accountable. The issue as I see it is that
> ethics is just not a consideration for most of the people in the
> U.S.A. (I can't speak for elsewhere.) "Ethics" has been reduced to
> the question of "What can I get away with?"
>
> Also, I think that these discussions are appropriate on every forum!
>
> I think that there are many reasonably good substitutes for the
> Microwave and the Poly-80. I have found no good substitute for a CZ.
>
> -synergeezer
>
> --- 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.
>>
>> but i think you're deploying some highly selective logic.
>>
>> it's common sense that when buying a cd from a touring band becomes an
>> act of charity (guilt drives you to "support the musicians"), rather
>> than an act of self-interest ("i want to listen to this at home"), a
>> big part of the economic mechanism is broken.
>>
>> it was scary when i started noticing that our band was selling more
>> vinyl than cd's on our tours. vinyl is coveted by nerds (i'm a nerd),
>> and partially for its scarcity, not by people who are casually
>> attracted to the music but would like to have it in their car. the
>> profit margin is much lower for vinyl and not every artist can manage
>> to produce it in the first place.
>>
>> 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. 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...
>>
>> of course, nine inch nails can afford to give away their music and
>> rake in millions from touring. that's nice enough, 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.
>>
>> that's not the worst thing in the world, maybe. art without commercial
>> interest is certainly liberated in some way.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> and this is because talented underground artists used to be able to
>> make money touring, without sponsorships or movie tie-ins.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> call me a snob but i can't help thinking that these two forms of
>> devaluation are related, somehow.
>>
>> 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, 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.
>>
>> maybe a piece of music that could make the rest of your life more
>> pleasurable is worth more than 99 cents... or nothing...
>>
>> sorry, i'm done
>>
>> /eb
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
>> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "synergeezer" <synergeezer@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ain't it great live in a post-ethical society! I wish I could join
>> >> you there. Where can I go to steal your products?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Pretty much any of the sites CDbaby allows to exploit my recorded
>> > output. It's weird, they encode your CD and send mp3s to dozens of
>> > different mp3 vendors, some of which turn around and give the mp3s
>> > away, and some of which sell them for a dollar or so. For some
>> > reason, even though they're available for free on some sites, people
>> > still buy them for a dollar from others.
>> >
>> > Incidentally, I've never had an ethical problem downloading mp3s, and
>> > I was a very early adopter. I was a little concerned about the
>> > artists livelihood at first, but I've been downloading mp3s for over
>> > 10 years now and recording artists seem to be making more money than
>> > ever, including myself (though a 100% increase in almost nothing
>> > still isn't much). Those mp3 sites CDBaby seeds have provided me
>> > with the bulk of my CDBaby earnings, rather than the CDs that CDBaby
>> > sells for me. Although, almost all of that revenue has come from a
>> > single song I titled 'StunnaShades' because I've been wearing big
>> > chunky ridiculous sunglasses since long before the Oakland 'hyphy'
>> > movement popularized them. Anyway, now I get over 1000% more
>> > downloads for that song than any other, probably because people are
>> > expecting a rap song, which they don't get, but by then it's too late!
>> >
>> > Anyway, like I said I have no qualms about downloading mp3s, and
>> > never have. I think the main reason for that is because any mp3 I
>> > want will be from some artist who is fairly Big, and is already
>> > making scads of money as a hot new trend. Any sad-sack act that
>> > isn't a hot new trend can't give their mp3s or 'demos' away fast
>> > enough. The CD shelves of those thrift stores I mentioned are filled
>> > with CDs put out by local nobodies that nobody buys, and I suspect
>> > every thrift store in North America is filled with similar local
>> > fodder. Anyone who really 'cares about supporting music' would be
>> > buying those up, or better yet, buying them before they wind up in
>> > the thrift store. But they suck, and that's why nobody cares.
>> >
>> > Now, here's a case in point about a band that is currently considered
>> > hot and trendy: A few days ago I was watching Tom Green's talk show
>> > and his musical guest was Leslie and the Lys. I liked their
>> > performance so I searched Google for their product. Turns out they
>> > had released a few albums through CDBaby. But the CDBaby pages
>> > representing those albums only had the mp3s for sale, not the
>> > original CDs. You see, the band had become so hot and trendy, the
>> > early birds got all the worms. Those CDs are now collectors items,
>> > and worth a lot more than those people paid for them. So, you want
>> > to support music? Scour CDBaby for new stuff that totally rocks,
>> > that you're sure will be the next big thing, and buy their CD. Not
>> > only will you be injecting cash into the bank accounts of artists who
>> > not only need it the most, and also deserve it the most, you'll be
>> > investing in an item that you may be able to resell at a later date
>> > for several times what you paid for it. How many people do you think
>> > actually do that? Not many, and even fewer who bother maintaining an
>> > obsolete notion of morality regarding mp3 files.
>> >
>> > I would've bought one of those Leslie and the Lys CDs from CDbaby,
>> > but I was too late. And that's not the only out-of-print album from
>> > CDbaby I've wanted to buy. I wanted Spookey Rueben's CDbaby albums
>> > too, but they're all sold out, too. See the pattern developing
>> > here? If you're some cool underground artist people actually like,
>> > you will have no problem selling your product, and those smart and
>> > savvy enough to buy it (even if they only plan on flipping it on Ebay
>> > next year) will have no problem shelling out for it, either.
>> >
>> > Fact is, if my music were good enough, I'd be selling out my CDs on
>> > CDBaby. So rather than whine about nobody giving me a 'big break', I
>> > decided to keep working on making my music better, so that someday it
>> > will be worth buying.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>> but i still think the bottom line is that potential income from
> recordings is lower than it used to be, and certainly is scaled
> differently... homemade music has a better shot at being heard, and
> superstars can still live large (mostly off licensing and tours, not
> record sales), but the "middle class" of independent professionals 
is
> quickly disappearing.

What middle class?  Who are you talking about specifically?  There 
are still bars where cover bands get nightly gigs.  If that's what 
you want to do, I'm sure there are opportunities.  But the record 
industry has ALWAYS been hit-driven.  You don't have a hit, you don't 
make money.  It's never been any other way.  Now that there are 
industry-respected online charts, more artists than ever are charting 
and getting exposure.  I'm not here to insult you, but maybe you're 
just bitter because you never got to grab the brass ring?  There are 
tons of new bands out there making scads of money.  Far more than I 
could ever hope to keep up with, luckily most don't interest me.

> there is no
> question that illegal downloads are bad for cd sales; this is as
> obvious as you can get.

Your own statements regarding 'viral marketing' earlier in the same 
post suggested that illegal downloads lead directly to greater CD 
sales.

> but i haven't made any money off
> music, and i don't expect to. (when people in my band start talking
> about licensing deals at practice, i know it's my time to quit...)

Ah, ok, so you deliberately sabotage your own career on a regular 
basis.  Well hey, we all know there is a greater proportion of the 
insane among musicians than in the general population.
> at the same time, i think in recent years i've started seeing some 
of
> the fallout of that ubiquity in the form of shorter and shorter
> attention spans, shorter and shorter fad-cycles in "underground"
> music, more derivation, less actual originality. 

I disagree, there has always been a vast amount of complete crap 
sitting on the shelves of record stores.  I agree that when it cost 
more to produce an album, people putting up that money only risked it 
when they really thought they'd had a potential hit on their hands, 
and that served as a filter to keep substandard product out of the 
market to some degree, but nobody has ever forced anyone to listen to 
crap.  

> maybe music should never have been integrated into capitalist
> economics. folk musicians have traditionally been indigent (the 
blind
> monks of japan, the hobos of america, the troubadors of medieval
> europe), and art music has traditionally been patronized by
> governments, religious organizations, or powerful individuals...
> 

Those options are far worse.  Like the Olympics.  It's an absolute 
travesty that organization has convinced governments to throw their 
big party for the elites of the world and passing the bill for it to 
the regular joe taxpayer.  They actually managed to convince sucker 
populations that their event is more 'pure' without corporate logos 
everywhere and its downright despicable.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> music has traditionally been patronized by
> ...or powerful individuals...
> 

Yeah, and if you think you have to cater to the fickle trends of the 
masses now, if you were to live in a world where musicians worked under 
patronage of a 'powerful individual', you'd have to be content writing 
songs with titles like "All Hail Super Wonderous Godlike Bill Gates 
Hero", or "Ode To The Greatest Being Ever Conceived: Adolf Hitler" for 
the rest of your life...

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
>> at the same time, i think in recent years i've started seeing some of
> the fallout of that ubiquity in the form of shorter and shorter
> attention spans, shorter and shorter fad-cycles in "underground"
> music, more derivation, less actual originality.

By the way, that sounds like a total contradiction.  If people have 
shorter attention spans, that should foster change quicker.  If fads 
are cycling faster, that would be because of more originality.  How 
could the same unoriginal stuff keep entertaining people with short 
attention spans?  Short attention spans should make culture evolve more 
quickly.  And short attention spans of consumers would be a good thing 
for creators of entertainment content, since it means that, inspite of 
the tools being democratized, consumers' short attention spans prevent 
them from having the patience to create their own entertainment, thus, 
they must rely on obtaining their entertainment from people who's 
attention spans are long enough to be able to create content.

> What middle class? Who are you talking about specifically? There

i'm talking bout pre-internet indie bands and labels. if you listen to
punk rock, pick any punk band ever. i don't know... sonic youth?

> are still bars where cover bands get nightly gigs. If that's what
> you want to do, I'm sure there are opportunities. But the record
> industry has ALWAYS been hit-driven. You don't have a hit, you don't
> make money. It's never been any other way. Now that there are
> industry-respected online charts, more artists than ever are charting
> and getting exposure. I'm not here to insult you, but maybe you're
> just bitter because you never got to grab the brass ring?

ha! i wish it were so simple.

 There are
> tons of new bands out there making scads of money. Far more than I
> could ever hope to keep up with, luckily most don't interest me.

>> there is no
>> question that illegal downloads are bad for cd sales; this is as
>> obvious as you can get.
>
> Your own statements regarding 'viral marketing' earlier in the same
> post suggested that illegal downloads lead directly to greater CD
> sales.

yes, i am trying to present both sides. i was also replying to
'geeeezer's query: "why are the ethics of downloading complicated?, to
paraphrase. well, they are complicated.

>> but i haven't made any money off
>> music, and i don't expect to. (when people in my band start talking
>> about licensing deals at practice, i know it's my time to quit...)
>
> Ah, ok, so you deliberately sabotage your own career on a regular
> basis. Well hey, we all know there is a greater proportion of the
> insane among musicians than in the general population.

hm, i thought you weren't here to insult me. ;)

it happens that i personally have never thought that my records could
make money on their own, and i'm just not interested in pursuing a
full-time music career since it would mean having to think bout a lot
of weird stuff that has nothing to do with making records. i'm much
happier as a part time musician with a well-paying day job. i think a
lot of people are reaching that conclusion, for better or worse.

i know, i don't really get it either... this really maybe doesn't have
much to do with the original question of whether it's ok to download
mp3's without paying for them.

but i guess my answer is that it seems like fads are cycling ever
faster and faster. (remember electroclash? remember dancehall?) and
maybe that's because there's no huge stylistic shifts to break that
circle??

hm

actually you're right, that's all bullshit. i simply don't understand
what kids listen to, and that's the end of it.

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM, zoinky420 <zoinky420@...> wrote:
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>>
>>> at the same time, i think in recent years i've started seeing some of
>> the fallout of that ubiquity in the form of shorter and shorter
>> attention spans, shorter and shorter fad-cycles in "underground"
>> music, more derivation, less actual originality.
>
> By the way, that sounds like a total contradiction. If people have
> shorter attention spans, that should foster change quicker. If fads
> are cycling faster, that would be because of more originality. How
> could the same unoriginal stuff keep entertaining people with short
> attention spans? Short attention spans should make culture evolve more
> quickly. And short attention spans of consumers would be a good thing
> for creators of entertainment content, since it means that, inspite of
> the tools being democratized, consumers' short attention spans prevent
> them from having the patience to create their own entertainment, thus,
> they must rely on obtaining their entertainment from people who's
> attention spans are long enough to be able to create content.
>
>

> Yeah, and if you think you have to cater to the fickle trends of the
> masses now, if you were to live in a world where musicians worked under
> patronage of a 'powerful individual', you'd have to be content writing
> songs with titles like "All Hail Super Wonderous Godlike Bill Gates
> Hero", or "Ode To The Greatest Being Ever Conceived: Adolf Hitler" for
> the rest of your life...

ha! i know, i'd much rather just be able to sell a few records... ;)

look, this all seems a little out of hand for an OT discussion. it's
fun to think about, but my only point is that it seems to me that it's
harder to make a living as an independent musician than it used to be
when people bought more music. that's not rocket science!

i only posted in the first place because it seemed to me like you were
saying that people who complain about diminishing revenue from record
sales are just whiners and should be on CDbaby or something. i know
you probably weren't really saying exactly that, but i thought another
perspective wouldn't hurt.

forget about my own situation, i'm kind of sorry i ever brought it
into the mix; my decisions have been made for my own reasons which are
largely not pecuniary at all, as you've pointed out.

but it is absolutely true that many musicians who i consider my
friends, whose work i have known and respected for many years, and who
have been in the game for a long-ass time, are no longer able to tour
self-sufficiently in this country. some of that has to do with oil
prices and other factors, but a huge part of it is the much, much,
much-reduced market for physical copies of recordings, and the fact
that the independent distributors and brick-and-mortars are gone,
replaced by digital entities which probably don't have the same
interests at heart (e.g., they are "not punk.")

some people can deal with this by evolving into new, sleeker beasts...
other people are really used to supporting themselves on the old indie
model of selling your own records directly (or at least more directly)
to the people who want to hear it (which makes sense to me).

incidentally, these people largely rely on making music in groups,
with other people, with real instruments, which all entails a large...
um, meat-space commitment. meat music. maybe that's relevant.

digital distribution as it exists now is centralized and diembodied.
some musical cultures are already well adapted to those attributes,
others really are not, and have always been driven by localized,
face-to-face experiences.

also, i'm talking about styles of music that will never produce
"hits." they never have. and yet, people make the music, spend their
whole lives at it, and other people listen to the music, and some kind
of money has to change hands somewhere to keep the cycle going.

anyway, it's really really weird right now for independent (or maybe
"underground" is a better term) musicians and labels, who don't have
the luxury of experimentating with their revenue model. all i ask is
that you please don't dismiss the issue.

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM, ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>> Yeah, and if you think you have to cater to the fickle trends of the
>> masses now, if you were to live in a world where musicians worked under
>> patronage of a 'powerful individual', you'd have to be content writing
>> songs with titles like "All Hail Super Wonderous Godlike Bill Gates
>> Hero", or "Ode To The Greatest Being Ever Conceived: Adolf Hitler" for
>> the rest of your life...
>
> ha! i know, i'd much rather just be able to sell a few records... ;)
>

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.

I can guess where this will lead.  Yes, the indie "middle class" will dry up, as will most of the recording industry.  Once again, I can't really see this as a bad thing (though it will be painful for a while).  It might even loosen the corporate strangle-hold on mainstream (or at least "indie") culture (though this might be overly optimistic).  

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).  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.

Second, giving things away sort of erodes the construction of value that this sort of thing depends on.  Scarcity really hasn't been a factor for a while, but there's still the perception that if you're not asking anything for it, it's not worth bothering with.  Again, I can't really suggest any solution, but I don't think it will help to play along and charge some nominal fee just to spur up enough interest that people fire up their P2P program of choice.  Maybe groups like Nine Inch Nails will draw some attention to free music, maybe MySpace will help as well.

I've been pondering the idea of an ad-supported website as a way to generate income from free music/art/whatever.  Of course it's not something that most people will be able to achieve, but it works for some (popular bloggers, etc.).  At least any commerce will be centered around tangible goods.

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.  Yes, there's more music out there than I can choke on, but I'm happy with that.  As far as I'm concerned it just puts the lunatic fringe in closer reach.

But I'm not sure if you can say that this shift is responsible for the shorter lifespan of increasingly derivative fads.  Most of the fads I'm aware of had corporate backing of some sort and weren't so much MySpace phenomena.  Perhaps it's just because an online fad propagates extremely rapidly, to the extent that it tends to hit everywhere all at once.  Warhol's fifteen minutes aren't what they used to be.  This hurts when applied to genres as a whole, especially if something isn't allowed to reach a state of maturity or depth of expression beyond "this shit all sounds the same" before it's instantly over.  Not sure quite how I feel about this.



________________________________
> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
> From: ezra.buchla@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:42:52 -0700
> Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Re: music economics
>
> it happens that i personally have never thought that my records could
> make money on their own, and i'm just not interested in pursuing a
> full-time music career since it would mean having to think bout a lot
> of weird stuff that has nothing to do with making records. i'm much
> happier as a part time musician with a well-paying day job. i think a
> lot of people are reaching that conclusion, for better or worse.
_________________________________________________________________
Get more from your digital life.  Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008

Zebra, I agree with most of what you have said. Are you related to Don?
This _is_ OT, isn't it?
I agree with Ayn Rand's view as expressed very well in "The
Fountainhead" (don't read anything else she wrote!), that the creator
of a work, music in our discussion, architecture in hers, should have
approval on the use of his, or her, works.
I would think of an artist as foolish, who didn't take advantage of
the promotional opportunities of current technologies, but it should
be up to the artist.  Artists are not always wise, but wisdom is not
necessarily expected of them.  (Anyone care for a slice of Van Gogh's
ear?)
In case you're not as deep into your geezerhood as I am, here's a
reminiscence: When Pop/Rock/Soul music exploded in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, the businessmen didn't know how to take advantage of it.
 They hired musicians to help them make more money off the
music-loving kids.  The musicians they hired helped their musician
friends to make records.  This was the Golden Age of Cut-Outs (vinyl
LPs that were essentially discarded by the record companies -
containing some extremely interesting stuff amid Sturgeon's crap)! 
Between my degree in philosophy and my (fall-back) career in
computers, I managed a record store in the mid-70s.  There were a
great many artists who were given major label contracts because their
musician friends inside the music industry liked their music.  Many
stiffed after one LP, but there were a lot of artists who became
recognized as great, who would not have made it through the world of
marketing in the music bidness.  The "cut-outs" were cheap, and
sometimes interesting.  I wish I had bought  the live recording of a
Marcel Marceau (a famous mime) concert!
Regarding the issue of "attention span", current technology has
enabled an ever-decreasing tendency of many in this area.  From an
early age, I found myself remembering musicians whose work I admired,
and, if I found myself admiring several songs by an artist, they
became high on my list for the purchase of LPs.  That's why I have
albums by The Ventures, Roy Orbison, The Doors, Roger Miller, and The
Four Tops.  (Aren't you glad you asked!)
I didn't buy many 45's.  I don't buy many MP3s.
Most real artists (in my opinion) have more to say than what they say
in a single song!  I think the grain of expression for artists I like
is the album (LP or CD - now a DVD?)
I like CDBaby, and I'm their favorite customer! (FYIYDGTJ!)  Go there
for Happy Rhodes, Trashcan Joe, Rachel Taylor Brown, Chris Robley. 
Go elsewhere for Allan Holdsworth, Conrad Schnitzler, Mike Oldfield.

kthxbye
Synergeezer
(The Synergy DKII is the best music synthesizer ever made!)



--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> look, this all seems a little out of hand for an OT discussion. it's
> fun to think about, but my only point is that it seems to me that it's
> harder to make a living as an independent musician than it used to be
> when people bought more music. that's not rocket science!
> 
> i only posted in the first place because it seemed to me like you were
> saying that people who complain about diminishing revenue from record
> sales are just whiners and should be on CDbaby or something. i know
> you probably weren't really saying exactly that, but i thought another
> perspective wouldn't hurt.
> 
> forget about my own situation, i'm kind of sorry i ever brought it
> into the mix; my decisions have been made for my own reasons which are
> largely not pecuniary at all, as you've pointed out.
> 
> but it is absolutely true that many musicians who i consider my
> friends, whose work i have known and respected for many years, and who
> have been in the game for a long-ass time, are no longer able to tour
> self-sufficiently in this country. some of that has to do with oil
> prices and other factors, but a huge part of it is the much, much,
> much-reduced market for physical copies of recordings, and the fact
> that the independent distributors and brick-and-mortars are gone,
> replaced by digital entities which probably don't have the same
> interests at heart (e.g., they are "not punk.")
> 
> some people can deal with this by evolving into new, sleeker beasts...
> other people are really used to supporting themselves on the old indie
> model of selling your own records directly (or at least more directly)
> to the people who want to hear it (which makes sense to me).
> 
> incidentally, these people largely rely on making music in groups,
> with other people, with real instruments, which all entails a large...
> um, meat-space commitment. meat music. maybe that's relevant.
> 
> digital distribution as it exists now is centralized and diembodied.
> some musical cultures are already well adapted to those attributes,
> others really are not, and have always been driven by localized,
> face-to-face experiences.
> 
> also, i'm talking about styles of music that will never produce
> "hits." they never have. and yet, people make the music, spend their
> whole lives at it, and other people listen to the music, and some kind
> of money has to change hands somewhere to keep the cycle going.
> 
> anyway, it's really really weird right now for independent (or maybe
> "underground" is a better term) musicians and labels, who don't have
> the luxury of experimentating with their revenue model. all i ask is
> that you please don't dismiss the issue.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM, ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
> >> Yeah, and if you think you have to cater to the fickle trends of the
> >> masses now, if you were to live in a world where musicians worked
under
> >> patronage of a 'powerful individual', you'd have to be content
writing
> >> songs with titles like "All Hail Super Wonderous Godlike Bill Gates
> >> Hero", or "Ode To The Greatest Being Ever Conceived: Adolf
Hitler" for

> >> the rest of your life...
> >
> > ha! i know, i'd much rather just be able to sell a few records... ;)
> >
>

well, i haven't seen too many real numbers, but my guess is that
spending on recorded music, as a percentage of income, is way down
from what it was ten or fifteen or twenty years ago. i do know that
it's been vastly overtaken by spending on other forms of recorded
digital entertainment, particularly videogames.

there's a technological gap which makes music really easy to copy for
free, and videogames comparatively difficult, and it's hard to ignore
the influence of this fact while considering the numbers for spending.

a lot of musicians in the bottom of the income plot (whatever it looks
like) are going to cross a threshold where they can't make a full-time
living, because the whole plot will shift straight down. i haven't
seen the plot, but maybe that threshold will actually pretty damn
high...

i happen to think every art needs professional practitioners to
survive. that doesn't, of course, mean that i think better selling
music is higher in quality; if anything, my bias skews the other way.
but people need resources in order to devote their lives to something.

so only point is that i do think people should pay for the music they
listen to, one way or another, 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. so there is an ethical
issue buried in these phenomena. how is that deniable?

i don't really have any right to relate that stuff to any aesthetic
value judgements.  but i suspect that many recordings i love would not
have been made in a society whose economy values videogame music much,
much higher kinds of music.

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM, 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.
>
> I can guess where this will lead. Yes, the indie "middle class" will dry up,
> as will most of the recording industry. Once again, I can't really see this
> as a bad thing (though it will be painful for a while). It might even loosen
> the corporate strangle-hold on mainstream (or at least "indie") culture
> (though this might be overly optimistic).
>
> 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). 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.
>
> Second, giving things away sort of erodes the construction of value that
> this sort of thing depends on. Scarcity really hasn't been a factor for a
> while, but there's still the perception that if you're not asking anything
> for it, it's not worth bothering with. Again, I can't really suggest any
> solution, but I don't think it will help to play along and charge some
> nominal fee just to spur up enough interest that people fire up their P2P
> program of choice. Maybe groups like Nine Inch Nails will draw some
> attention to free music, maybe MySpace will help as well.
>
> I've been pondering the idea of an ad-supported website as a way to generate
> income from free music/art/whatever. Of course it's not something that most
> people will be able to achieve, but it works for some (popular bloggers,
> etc.). At least any commerce will be centered around tangible goods.
>
> 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. Yes, there's more music out
> there than I can choke on, but I'm happy with that. As far as I'm concerned
> it just puts the lunatic fringe in closer reach.
>
> But I'm not sure if you can say that this shift is responsible for the
> shorter lifespan of increasingly derivative fads. Most of the fads I'm aware
> of had corporate backing of some sort and weren't so much MySpace phenomena.
> Perhaps it's just because an online fad propagates extremely rapidly, to the
> extent that it tends to hit everywhere all at once. Warhol's fifteen minutes
> aren't what they used to be. This hurts when applied to genres as a whole,
> especially if something isn't allowed to reach a state of maturity or depth
> of expression beyond "this shit all sounds the same" before it's instantly
> over. Not sure quite how I feel about this.
>
> ________________________________
>> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
>> From: ezra.buchla@...
>> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:42:52 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Re: music economics
>
>>
>> it happens that i personally have never thought that my records could
>> make money on their own, and i'm just not interested in pursuing a
>> full-time music career since it would mean having to think bout a lot
>> of weird stuff that has nothing to do with making records. i'm much
>> happier as a part time musician with a well-paying day job. i think a
>> lot of people are reaching that conclusion, for better or worse.
> __________________________________________________________
> Get more from your digital life. Find out how.
> http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008
>
>

yes, and yes it is OT. but actually i don't really get into ranting
about gear, but i can't really help ranting about this stuff cause
it's kindof in my face a lot these days.

i do have a cz1 and two 101's, love em to death (over and over)

i do buy cd's and vinyl, i really need the dynamic range (yay mastering)

so my nerd credentials are intact.

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:57 PM, synergeezer <synergeezer@...> wrote:
> Zebra, I agree with most of what you have said. Are you related to Don?
> This _is_ OT, isn't it?
> I agree with Ayn Rand's view as expressed very well in "The
> Fountainhead" (don't read anything else she wrote!), that the creator
> of a work, music in our discussion, architecture in hers, should have
> approval on the use of his, or her, works.
> I would think of an artist as foolish, who didn't take advantage of
> the promotional opportunities of current technologies, but it should
> be up to the artist. Artists are not always wise, but wisdom is not
> necessarily expected of them. (Anyone care for a slice of Van Gogh's
> ear?)
> In case you're not as deep into your geezerhood as I am, here's a
> reminiscence: When Pop/Rock/Soul music exploded in the late 1960s and
> early 1970s, the businessmen didn't know how to take advantage of it.
> They hired musicians to help them make more money off the
> music-loving kids. The musicians they hired helped their musician
> friends to make records. This was the Golden Age of Cut-Outs (vinyl
> LPs that were essentially discarded by the record companies -
> containing some extremely interesting stuff amid Sturgeon's crap)!
> Between my degree in philosophy and my (fall-back) career in
> computers, I managed a record store in the mid-70s. There were a
> great many artists who were given major label contracts because their
> musician friends inside the music industry liked their music. Many
> stiffed after one LP, but there were a lot of artists who became
> recognized as great, who would not have made it through the world of
> marketing in the music bidness. The "cut-outs" were cheap, and
> sometimes interesting. I wish I had bought the live recording of a
> Marcel Marceau (a famous mime) concert!
> Regarding the issue of "attention span", current technology has
> enabled an ever-decreasing tendency of many in this area. From an
> early age, I found myself remembering musicians whose work I admired,
> and, if I found myself admiring several songs by an artist, they
> became high on my list for the purchase of LPs. That's why I have
> albums by The Ventures, Roy Orbison, The Doors, Roger Miller, and The
> Four Tops. (Aren't you glad you asked!)
> I didn't buy many 45's. I don't buy many MP3s.
> Most real artists (in my opinion) have more to say than what they say
> in a single song! I think the grain of expression for artists I like
> is the album (LP or CD - now a DVD?)
> I like CDBaby, and I'm their favorite customer! (FYIYDGTJ!) Go there
> for Happy Rhodes, Trashcan Joe, Rachel Taylor Brown, Chris Robley.
> Go elsewhere for Allan Holdsworth, Conrad Schnitzler, Mike Oldfield.
>
> kthxbye
> Synergeezer
> (The Synergy DKII is the best music synthesizer ever made!)
>
> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>>
>> look, this all seems a little out of hand for an OT discussion. it's
>> fun to think about, but my only point is that it seems to me that it's
>> harder to make a living as an independent musician than it used to be
>> when people bought more music. that's not rocket science!
>>
>> i only posted in the first place because it seemed to me like you were
>> saying that people who complain about diminishing revenue from record
>> sales are just whiners and should be on CDbaby or something. i know
>> you probably weren't really saying exactly that, but i thought another
>> perspective wouldn't hurt.
>>
>> forget about my own situation, i'm kind of sorry i ever brought it
>> into the mix; my decisions have been made for my own reasons which are
>> largely not pecuniary at all, as you've pointed out.
>>
>> but it is absolutely true that many musicians who i consider my
>> friends, whose work i have known and respected for many years, and who
>> have been in the game for a long-ass time, are no longer able to tour
>> self-sufficiently in this country. some of that has to do with oil
>> prices and other factors, but a huge part of it is the much, much,
>> much-reduced market for physical copies of recordings, and the fact
>> that the independent distributors and brick-and-mortars are gone,
>> replaced by digital entities which probably don't have the same
>> interests at heart (e.g., they are "not punk.")
>>
>> some people can deal with this by evolving into new, sleeker beasts...
>> other people are really used to supporting themselves on the old indie
>> model of selling your own records directly (or at least more directly)
>> to the people who want to hear it (which makes sense to me).
>>
>> incidentally, these people largely rely on making music in groups,
>> with other people, with real instruments, which all entails a large...
>> um, meat-space commitment. meat music. maybe that's relevant.
>>
>> digital distribution as it exists now is centralized and diembodied.
>> some musical cultures are already well adapted to those attributes,
>> others really are not, and have always been driven by localized,
>> face-to-face experiences.
>>
>> also, i'm talking about styles of music that will never produce
>> "hits." they never have. and yet, people make the music, spend their
>> whole lives at it, and other people listen to the music, and some kind
>> of money has to change hands somewhere to keep the cycle going.
>>
>> anyway, it's really really weird right now for independent (or maybe
>> "underground" is a better term) musicians and labels, who don't have
>> the luxury of experimentating with their revenue model. all i ask is
>> that you please don't dismiss the issue.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM, ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>> >> Yeah, and if you think you have to cater to the fickle trends of the
>> >> masses now, if you were to live in a world where musicians worked
> under
>> >> patronage of a 'powerful individual', you'd have to be content
> writing
>> >> songs with titles like "All Hail Super Wonderous Godlike Bill Gates
>> >> Hero", or "Ode To The Greatest Being Ever Conceived: Adolf
> Hitler" for
>> >> the rest of your life...
>> >
>> > ha! i know, i'd much rather just be able to sell a few records... ;)
>> >
>>
>
>

Oh yeah!
I have two CZ-101s, a CZ-1000, a CZ-5000, and a CZ-1 (and several
VZs).  Ain't it great!?
But are you related to Don Buchla?

synergeezer



--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> yes, and yes it is OT. but actually i don't really get into ranting
> about gear, but i can't really help ranting about this stuff cause
> it's kindof in my face a lot these days.
> 
> i do have a cz1 and two 101's, love em to death (over and over)
> 
> i do buy cd's and vinyl, i really need the dynamic range (yay mastering)
> 
> so my nerd credentials are intact.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:57 PM, synergeezer <synergeezer@...> wrote:
> > Zebra, I agree with most of what you have said. Are you related to
Don?
> > This _is_ OT, isn't it?
> > I agree with Ayn Rand's view as expressed very well in "The
> > Fountainhead" (don't read anything else she wrote!), that the creator
> > of a work, music in our discussion, architecture in hers, should have
> > approval on the use of his, or her, works.
> > I would think of an artist as foolish, who didn't take advantage of
> > the promotional opportunities of current technologies, but it should
> > be up to the artist. Artists are not always wise, but wisdom is not
> > necessarily expected of them. (Anyone care for a slice of Van Gogh's
> > ear?)
> > In case you're not as deep into your geezerhood as I am, here's a
> > reminiscence: When Pop/Rock/Soul music exploded in the late 1960s and
> > early 1970s, the businessmen didn't know how to take advantage of it.
> > They hired musicians to help them make more money off the
> > music-loving kids. The musicians they hired helped their musician
> > friends to make records. This was the Golden Age of Cut-Outs (vinyl
> > LPs that were essentially discarded by the record companies -
> > containing some extremely interesting stuff amid Sturgeon's crap)!
> > Between my degree in philosophy and my (fall-back) career in
> > computers, I managed a record store in the mid-70s. There were a
> > great many artists who were given major label contracts because their
> > musician friends inside the music industry liked their music. Many
> > stiffed after one LP, but there were a lot of artists who became
> > recognized as great, who would not have made it through the world of
> > marketing in the music bidness. The "cut-outs" were cheap, and
> > sometimes interesting. I wish I had bought the live recording of a
> > Marcel Marceau (a famous mime) concert!
> > Regarding the issue of "attention span", current technology has
> > enabled an ever-decreasing tendency of many in this area. From an
> > early age, I found myself remembering musicians whose work I admired,
> > and, if I found myself admiring several songs by an artist, they
> > became high on my list for the purchase of LPs. That's why I have
> > albums by The Ventures, Roy Orbison, The Doors, Roger Miller, and The
> > Four Tops. (Aren't you glad you asked!)
> > I didn't buy many 45's. I don't buy many MP3s.
> > Most real artists (in my opinion) have more to say than what they say
> > in a single song! I think the grain of expression for artists I like
> > is the album (LP or CD - now a DVD?)
> > I like CDBaby, and I'm their favorite customer! (FYIYDGTJ!) Go there
> > for Happy Rhodes, Trashcan Joe, Rachel Taylor Brown, Chris Robley.
> > Go elsewhere for Allan Holdsworth, Conrad Schnitzler, Mike Oldfield.
> >
> > kthxbye
> > Synergeezer
> > (The Synergy DKII is the best music synthesizer ever made!)
> >
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
> >>
> >> look, this all seems a little out of hand for an OT discussion. it's
> >> fun to think about, but my only point is that it seems to me that
it's
> >> harder to make a living as an independent musician than it used to be
> >> when people bought more music. that's not rocket science!
> >>
> >> i only posted in the first place because it seemed to me like you
were
> >> saying that people who complain about diminishing revenue from record
> >> sales are just whiners and should be on CDbaby or something. i know
> >> you probably weren't really saying exactly that, but i thought
another
> >> perspective wouldn't hurt.
> >>
> >> forget about my own situation, i'm kind of sorry i ever brought it
> >> into the mix; my decisions have been made for my own reasons
which are
> >> largely not pecuniary at all, as you've pointed out.
> >>
> >> but it is absolutely true that many musicians who i consider my
> >> friends, whose work i have known and respected for many years,
and who
> >> have been in the game for a long-ass time, are no longer able to tour
> >> self-sufficiently in this country. some of that has to do with oil
> >> prices and other factors, but a huge part of it is the much, much,
> >> much-reduced market for physical copies of recordings, and the fact
> >> that the independent distributors and brick-and-mortars are gone,
> >> replaced by digital entities which probably don't have the same
> >> interests at heart (e.g., they are "not punk.")
> >>
> >> some people can deal with this by evolving into new, sleeker
beasts...
> >> other people are really used to supporting themselves on the old
indie
> >> model of selling your own records directly (or at least more
directly)
> >> to the people who want to hear it (which makes sense to me).
> >>
> >> incidentally, these people largely rely on making music in groups,
> >> with other people, with real instruments, which all entails a
large...
> >> um, meat-space commitment. meat music. maybe that's relevant.
> >>
> >> digital distribution as it exists now is centralized and diembodied.
> >> some musical cultures are already well adapted to those attributes,
> >> others really are not, and have always been driven by localized,
> >> face-to-face experiences.
> >>
> >> also, i'm talking about styles of music that will never produce
> >> "hits." they never have. and yet, people make the music, spend their
> >> whole lives at it, and other people listen to the music, and some
kind
> >> of money has to change hands somewhere to keep the cycle going.
> >>
> >> anyway, it's really really weird right now for independent (or maybe
> >> "underground" is a better term) musicians and labels, who don't have
> >> the luxury of experimentating with their revenue model. all i ask is
> >> that you please don't dismiss the issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM, ezra buchla <ezra.buchla@> wrote:
> >> >> Yeah, and if you think you have to cater to the fickle trends
of the
> >> >> masses now, if you were to live in a world where musicians worked
> > under
> >> >> patronage of a 'powerful individual', you'd have to be content
> > writing
> >> >> songs with titles like "All Hail Super Wonderous Godlike Bill
Gates
> >> >> Hero", or "Ode To The Greatest Being Ever Conceived: Adolf
> > Hitler" for
> >> >> the rest of your life...
> >> >
> >> > ha! i know, i'd much rather just be able to sell a few
records... ;)

> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

--- 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.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "synergeezer" <synergeezer@...> wrote:

>  They hired musicians to help them make more money off the
> music-loving kids.  The musicians they hired helped their musician
> friends to make records.  This was the Golden Age of Cut-Outs (vinyl
> LPs that were essentially discarded by the record companies -
> containing some extremely interesting stuff amid Sturgeon's crap)! 
> Between my degree in philosophy and my (fall-back) career in
> computers, I managed a record store in the mid-70s.  There were a
> great many artists who were given major label contracts because 
their
> musician friends inside the music industry liked their music.  Many
> stiffed after one LP, but there were a lot of artists who became
> recognized as great, who would not have made it through the world of
> marketing in the music bidness.  The "cut-outs" were cheap, and
> sometimes interesting.

Dude you are confused, but since you like Ayn Rand, maybe that's not 
surprising.  Your history lesson is bang on, but your opinion of what 
it all means is totally skewed.  Yes, it's true that various 
parasites thrived off cut-outs once upon a time.  A guy called 
Richard Branson built an empire off of it, that is, after he begged 
his mother to mortgage her home in order to pay off all the fines he 
was racking up for being such a scumbag.  You are right that the 
industry did not know how to market the new music of the 1960s, so 
they started hiring longhairs as A&R reps.  These longhairs managed 
to sign enough good stuff to keep the labels profitable, but no label 
in the world wants loads of its albums to end up in the cut-out bin.  
Cut-outs are failures.  Now it just so happened that the period 
between 1965-1975 was a time in which an unprecedented amount of 
really good music was made.  So much, that some of it got lost in the 
shuffle, did not become hits, and ended up in the cut-out bin even 
though it was very good.  Maybe it was the LSD or the marijuana, but 
it seemed like anyone who wan't a total square was capable of 
creating a mind-blowing album in those days.  This all died around 
the time disco became a producers game, and bands became much less 
important.

But it all started to repeat itself after Nirvana's Smells Like Teen 
Spirit rocketed to #1.  Once again the industry was at a loss as to 
how to market the stuff, and more importantly, how to find the stuff 
worth marketing.  So they fired their hair-band metal A&R reps and 
hired a bunch of grungey-looking A&R reps.  And these grungey-looking 
A&R reps didn't have the benefit of a creative scene.  The best they 
could do was sign Led Zepplin wannabes, the better of which went big 
(Pearl Jam), the rest of which wound up in the cut-out bin.  And 
there were tons of cut-outs.  I hung out at my friend's college radio 
show at the time and would come home with boxes of them, almost all 
from obscure, crappy bands that I never heard from again.  The only 
ones I heard from again were Stabbing Westward and Live both of which 
kind of suck, especially the latter.  And my local thrift store still 
gets shipments of brand-new cut-outs from the 1990s, and it's true, 
there are some gems among them (Low And Sweet Orchestra, Zoom, That 
Dog, Vermont, Bill Ding), but the ratio of crap to gem is 20 to 1 at 
least (crap ones include: Ape Hangers, Bandit Queen, The Indians, and 
those are only the ones AMG reviews tricked me into buying thinking 
they might be good!)  Labels invested a lot of money into those 
records, and lost of a lot of money on them.  If you want to know why 
it's hard to get signed, this is why.  And this is why I have little 
sympathy for everyone who complains about not being able to make a 
living in the music industry.  Because most people trying to make a 
living in the music industry, don't deserve to be, and their crappy 
music only clogs up the channels that could be used to get my, much 
better stuff released.  


> Most real artists (in my opinion) have more to say than what they 
say
> in a single song!  

In my opinion, the catchy pop single rules supreme.  The only thing 
more impressive is an album packed full of them, but how often does 
that happen?  Not very.  There's nothing worse than an artist who 
thinks he has 'something to say with his music'.  That's how we end 
up with pretentious U2 and Sting albums (not that I knock these for 
being popular - lets face it, I'm never going to convince vapid 
boomers to ditch Sting and embrace my glitch-hop sound...)  But as 
far as I'm concerned, John Lennon's Imagine has nothing over The 
Archie's Yummy Yummy (and I think Lennon would agree, Imagine is a 
catchy song just like Yummy Yummy)...

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> yes, and yes it is OT. but actually i don't really get into ranting
> about gear, 

People should be pleased when off-topic threads occur in groups like 
this, because they are invariably much more interesting than on-topic 
threads. I have no idea why some people go into conniptions over 'off-
topic' posts, but I'm glad that hasn't happened here.

I think it's not a matter of the "plot" shifting downwards, but more flattening out.  Taken to an extreme, everyone's freely trading and no one's making any money, like 80's cassette culture only with (presumably) far more connections between individuals.  I think most people could handle small-budget home recording, but it makes certain things more difficult (but string sections, etc. have always been out of reach for most people anyway).

There will always be professionals, I guess, at least where performance and touring are concerned.  It's generally presumed that an industry has to exist for some intellectual property type things to be possible- big budget movies, for example.  But I'm finding evidence to the contrary in, for example, the open source software arena.  I'm not sure what that might imply for music.

The ethical element gets more and more muddled if you scratch the surface.  About a year ago I bought something like 12 CDs from an artist that I never would have heard of had it not been for multiple copyright infringements (youtube, soulseek, etc.).  That's how I've been operating lately- "exploring" via downloading and buying the most amazing segments out of that.  That leads to some weird territory, obviously, that goes beyond any simplistic black and white thinking.

To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com

From: ezra.buchla@...
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:00:25 -0700
Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Re: music economics



















    
            well, i haven't seen too many real numbers, but my guess is that

spending on recorded music, as a percentage of income, is way down

from what it was ten or fifteen or twenty years ago. i do know that

it's been vastly overtaken by spending on other forms of recorded

digital entertainment, particularly videogames.



there's a technological gap which makes music really easy to copy for

free, and videogames comparatively difficult, and it's hard to ignore

the influence of this fact while considering the numbers for spending.



a lot of musicians in the bottom of the income plot (whatever it looks

like) are going to cross a threshold where they can't make a full-time

living, because the whole plot will shift straight down. i haven't

seen the plot, but maybe that threshold will actually pretty damn

high...



i happen to think every art needs professional practitioners to

survive. that doesn't, of course, mean that i think better selling

music is higher in quality; if anything, my bias skews the other way.

but people need resources in order to devote their lives to something.



so only point is that i do think people should pay for the music they

listen to, one way or another, 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. so there is an ethical

issue buried in these phenomena. how is that deniable?



i don't really have any right to relate that stuff to any aesthetic

value judgements.  but i suspect that many recordings i love would not

have been made in a society whose economy values videogame music much,

much higher kinds of music.



On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM, 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.

>

> I can guess where this will lead. Yes, the indie "middle class" will dry up,

> as will most of the recording industry. Once again, I can't really see this

> as a bad thing (though it will be painful for a while). It might even loosen

> the corporate strangle-hold on mainstream (or at least "indie") culture

> (though this might be overly optimistic).

>

> 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). 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.

>

> Second, giving things away sort of erodes the construction of value that

> this sort of thing depends on. Scarcity really hasn't been a factor for a

> while, but there's still the perception that if you're not asking anything

> for it, it's not worth bothering with. Again, I can't really suggest any

> solution, but I don't think it will help to play along and charge some

> nominal fee just to spur up enough interest that people fire up their P2P

> program of choice. Maybe groups like Nine Inch Nails will draw some

> attention to free music, maybe MySpace will help as well.

>

> I've been pondering the idea of an ad-supported website as a way to generate

> income from free music/art/whatever. Of course it's not something that most

> people will be able to achieve, but it works for some (popular bloggers,

> etc.). At least any commerce will be centered around tangible goods.

>

> 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. Yes, there's more music out

> there than I can choke on, but I'm happy with that. As far as I'm concerned

> it just puts the lunatic fringe in closer reach.

>

> But I'm not sure if you can say that this shift is responsible for the

> shorter lifespan of increasingly derivative fads. Most of the fads I'm aware

> of had corporate backing of some sort and weren't so much MySpace phenomena.

> Perhaps it's just because an online fad propagates extremely rapidly, to the

> extent that it tends to hit everywhere all at once. Warhol's fifteen minutes

> aren't what they used to be. This hurts when applied to genres as a whole,

> especially if something isn't allowed to reach a state of maturity or depth

> of expression beyond "this shit all sounds the same" before it's instantly

> over. Not sure quite how I feel about this.

>

> ________________________________

>> To: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com

>> From: ezra.buchla@...

>> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:42:52 -0700

>> Subject: Re: [CZsynth] Re: music economics

>

>>

>> it happens that i personally have never thought that my records could

>> make money on their own, and i'm just not interested in pursuing a

>> full-time music career since it would mean having to think bout a lot

>> of weird stuff that has nothing to do with making records. i'm much

>> happier as a part time musician with a well-paying day job. i think a

>> lot of people are reaching that conclusion, for better or worse.

> __________________________________________________________

> Get more from your digital life. Find out how.

> http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008

>

> 


      

    
    
	
	
	
	


	


	
	
	
	
	


_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are.  Start here.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008

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

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, zebra <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> > What middle class? Who are you talking about specifically? There
> 
> i'm talking bout pre-internet indie bands and labels. if you listen 
to
> punk rock, pick any punk band ever. i don't know... sonic youth?
> 

Great example!  Sonic Youth's early output was a cacophonous mess, 
along the lines of early Boyd Rice.  Then they started getting 
popular when they started recording pop songs (such as Sugarcane).  
Those pop songs are what made Sonic Youth a household name, and 
Pavement rips off nothing but their pop songs.  You wouldn't see 
Pavement trying to rip-off the sound of Sonic Youth's early 
recordings!

So, like I said, crap sinks, cream rises.  We all like to think we're 
not making crap, but maybe we've still got a ways to go before we're 
really ready for the big leagues.  What ever happened to patience?  
(Ok, I admit it's a little silly for me, at 37 years old, to still be 
waiting for my big break, but I'll be the first to admit that my 
first five years of output was embarassingly bad and technically 
incompetant).  But if it were really important to me to make money in 
the music industry, I could always become producer-svengali to some 
boy-band, and so could the rest of you.  If that's not what you want, 
then focus on what you DO want.  And don't wait for someone to make 
things happen for you, because if you do that, someday you will wind 
up 37 years old without ever getting anywhere like me.  I only wish I 
had realized this 15 years ago; realized that instead of goofing off 
or looking for shortcuts, I should work hard on my craft, until it is 
so good that people are busting down my door to get it.  Ever seen 
the movie Groundhog Day?  Bill Murray lives the same day over and 
over again, so he knows what the woman he's trying to pick up is 
going to say, so he tries to scam her this way, and it doesn't work, 
he always ends up coming off as a jerk.  He finally gives up, decides 
to take piano lessons, rescue the various people he sees every day 
getting in the same accidents, and then when the woman of his desires 
sees what an impressive guy he's made himself into, she winds up 
chasing him.  


> >> but i haven't made any money off
> >> music, and i don't expect to. (when people in my band start 
talking
> >> about licensing deals at practice, i know it's my time to 
quit...)
> >
> > Ah, ok, so you deliberately sabotage your own career on a regular
> > basis. Well hey, we all know there is a greater proportion of the
> > insane among musicians than in the general population.
> 
> hm, i thought you weren't here to insult me. ;)

I'm not, but here you are complaining about a lack of (sustained) 
success and then you state that you deliberately leave whenever any 
talk of the nuts & bolts of pursuing success comes up.  If that only 
seems bizarre to me, and not you, then I think you're probably 
insane, regardless of whether that observation feels insulting to you.

> 
> it happens that i personally have never thought that my records 
could
> make money on their own, and i'm just not interested in pursuing a
> full-time music career since it would mean having to think bout a 
lot
> of weird stuff that has nothing to do with making records. i'm much
> happier as a part time musician with a well-paying day job. i think 
a
> lot of people are reaching that conclusion, for better or worse.

Yeah fine, I'm not saying you have to be a business man to be 
successful, as I said, my advice would be to continue to hone your 
craft until the world simply can't live without it. That way you can 
attract the best business men to work the business side for you.  But 
the mere concept of business is not kryptonite.  Your attitude, taken 
to the extreme, reminds me of people who claim that they don't want 
to learn how to read musical notation because they think that doing 
so will confine them to stifling 'rules' and hinder 
their 'creativity', when in fact if they are creative individuals in 
the first place, then learning more of their craft could only improve 
their output.

--- 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.

could we maybe shut up about this now? and focus on what this forum is all about ? pleeeeas?

--- Den mån 2008-08-11 skrev zoinky420 <zoinky420@yahoo.com>:

Från: zoinky420 <zoinky420@...>
Ämne: [CZsynth] Re: music economics
Till: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
Datum: måndag 11 augusti 2008 11.51






--- 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.

 














      __________________________________________________________
Går det långsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. 
Sök och jämför priser hos Kelkoo.
http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100015813-bredband.html?partnerId=96914325

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

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>
> could we maybe shut up about this now? and focus on what this forum 
is all about ? pleeeeas?
>

The amusing part about posts like yours is that they inevitably appear 
as the conversation seems to be drawing to an end (when all parties 
interested in participating in the discussion have pretty much said all 
they want to on the subject).  This leads me to believe that the 
motivation for posting these kinds of posts is so that the posters of 
them can delude themselves into thinking their request brought the 
conversation to a close.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>
> could we maybe shut up about this now? and focus on what this forum 
is all about ? pleeeeas?
> 

By the way, we're talking about music and this is a forum in the Music 
Groups section dealing with a particular series of synthesizers that 
people use to make music.  I think it's on topic.  If I were you I'd be 
asking myself why it's important to me to tell people it isn't.  It 
could be a sign of feelings of powerlessness in important aspects of 
your life.

I don't believe it's appropriate to question each other's personalities
and motives here.

For what it's worth, I would also say I think this thread has been largely
off-topic as the topic I would believe is specific to the details of CZ
synths.  However, I'm not the mod nor do I care mucb.

> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>>
>> could we maybe shut up about this now? and focus on what this forum
> is all about ? pleeeeas?
>>
>
> By the way, we're talking about music and this is a forum in the Music
> Groups section dealing with a particular series of synthesizers that
> people use to make music.  I think it's on topic.  If I were you I'd be
> asking myself why it's important to me to tell people it isn't.  It
> could be a sign of feelings of powerlessness in important aspects of
> your life.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

uhh... right! now we speak CZ and other cool casio keys please ;=)

--- Den mån 2008-08-11 skrev zoinky420 <zoinky420@...>:

Från: zoinky420 <zoinky420@...>
Ämne: SV: [CZsynth] Re: music economics
Till: CZsynth@yahoogroups.com
Datum: måndag 11 augusti 2008 14.44






--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups .com, KW <memtechlist@ ...> wrote:
>
> could we maybe shut up about this now? and focus on what this forum 
is all about ? pleeeeas?
>

The amusing part about posts like yours is that they inevitably appear 
as the conversation seems to be drawing to an end (when all parties 
interested in participating in the discussion have pretty much said all 
they want to on the subject). This leads me to believe that the 
motivation for posting these kinds of posts is so that the posters of 
them can delude themselves into thinking their request brought the 
conversation to a close. 

 














      __________________________________________________________
Går det långsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. 
Sök och jämför priser hos Kelkoo.
http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100015813-bredband.html?partnerId=96914325

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

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, wilson.zorn@... wrote:
>
> I don't believe it's appropriate to question each other's 
personalities
> and motives here.

Me neither!  Nor is it appropriate to tell each other to shut up.

> 
> For what it's worth, I would also say I think this thread has been 
largely
> off-topic as the topic I would believe is specific to the details of 
CZ
> synths.  However, I'm not the mod nor do I care mucb.
> 

See above.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>
> uhh... right! now we speak CZ and other cool casio keys please ;=)
>

This coming from someone for whom english is clearly not his/her first 
language.  No wonder you'd rather see nothing but technical talk, you 
are incapable of joining the discussion.  Too bad you think that means 
you should try to end a discussion you're not engaging in.

> Great example! Sonic Youth's early output was a cacophonous mess,
> along the lines of early Boyd Rice. Then they started getting
> popular when they started recording pop songs (such as Sugarcane).
> Those pop songs are what made Sonic Youth a household name, and
> Pavement rips off nothing but their pop songs. You wouldn't see
> Pavement trying to rip-off the sound of Sonic Youth's early
> recordings!

beyond the aesthetic calls, can we agree that sonic youth might have
had a hard time surviving those first few years if the people who
liked their messy noise had obtained high-quality recordings for free
instead of buying them / if SST hadn't been able to stay in the black?

can you just please respect that point?

i'll i'm saying is that people should pay for the music they listen
to. maybe that just means buying a ticket to a show once in a while.
but the old model worked pretty well, where you bought a ticket,
evaluated the live music, and then were given a choice whether to
spend more on the recording. now you buy a ticket and watch the  show
and go home and download the record, if you're like most people.\

i swear to god, once nanofaxes become cheap and popular, and people's
e.g. sheet metal fabriction skills can no longer be compensated, we're
going to hear a different tune from a lot of folks.

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.
>
>

> I'm not, but here you are complaining about a lack of (sustained)
> success and then you state that you deliberately leave whenever any
> talk of the nuts & bolts of pursuing success comes up. If that only
> seems bizarre to me, and not you, then I think you're probably
> insane, regardless of whether that observation feels insulting to you.

i'm actually not complaining bout a personal lack of success; i
consider myself adequately successful on my own terms: decently
respected by plenty of people.

i'm fortunate enough to have skills besides musicianship that ARE
highly valued in our society, so i am not hurting for income. some
people don't have such skills, they are "only" very talented
musicians, and they are hurting a lot.

i'm also fortunate enough to have the skills and resources to make
perfectly great-sounding recordings at home. again, many people do
not, despite the sale of lots and lots of "budget-pro" equipment.

Reporting your rude behavior, for whatever that may be worth.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "zoinky420" <zoinky420@...>
To: <CZsynth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:57 AM
Subject: SV: [CZsynth] Re: music economics


--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>
> uhh... right! now we speak CZ and other cool casio keys please\ufffd ;=)
>

This coming from someone for whom english is clearly not his/her first
language.  No wonder you'd rather see nothing but technical talk, you
are incapable of joining the discussion.  Too bad you think that means
you should try to end a discussion you're not engaging in.



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Please note that we have an active founder/moderator in this group 
and I watch this forum closely. No insults please! 

Thanx!

...Summa

On 11 Aug 2008 at 17:57, zoinky420 wrote:

> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
> >
> > uhh... right! now we speak CZ and other cool casio keys please ;=)
> >
> 
> This coming from someone for whom english is clearly not his/her first
> language.  No wonder you'd rather see nothing but technical talk, you
> are incapable of joining the discussion.  Too bad you think that means
> you should try to end a discussion you're not engaging in.

-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/

http://www.summasounds.de/

....-..-- -.-..   .-.--. . ............ . ... . .--. . -. -. .... . - - -...... 
 
 
.............................. a non english speaking trying to anticipate in the discussion, my first language is (CZsynth)


      __________________________________________________________
Ta semester! - sök efter resor hos Kelkoo.
Jämför pris på flygbiljetter och hotellrum här:
http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052

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

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...> wrote:
>
> Reporting your rude behavior, for whatever that may be worth.
> 

It's unfortunate that you think that sticking up for oneself against 
attacks of rude behavior constitutes initiating an attack of rude 
behavior, but in my experience that is how most people deal with 
conflict in this world.  Maybe that's why it's always so screwed up.  
Are you going to keep the whole class for detention after school until 
I apologize, too?

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, KW <memtechlist@...> wrote:
>
> ....-..-- -.-..   .-.--. . ............ . ... . .--. . -. -
. .... . - - -...... 
> Â 
> Â 
> .............................. a non english speaking trying to 
anticipate in the discussion, my first language is (CZsynth)
> 
> 

And I'm the one being taken to task for inappropriate text?  Hey at 
least I stick to low-ascii!

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>
> > Great example! Sonic Youth's early output was a cacophonous mess,
> > along the lines of early Boyd Rice. Then they started getting
> > popular when they started recording pop songs (such as Sugarcane).
> > Those pop songs are what made Sonic Youth a household name, and
> > Pavement rips off nothing but their pop songs. You wouldn't see
> > Pavement trying to rip-off the sound of Sonic Youth's early
> > recordings!
> 
> beyond the aesthetic calls, can we agree that sonic youth might have
> had a hard time surviving those first few years if the people who
> liked their messy noise had obtained high-quality recordings for 
free
> instead of buying them / if SST hadn't been able to stay in the 
black?

No, why is it important to you that I agree with you?

> 
> can you just please respect that point?

I don't think I've been disrespecting any of your points.  
Refutations are not disrespectful to people with healthy egos.  I 
don't agree with your conclusion and I've stated the reasons why, in 
clear, plain, and extensive language.  What more do you want from 
me?  Apparently, you will not be satisfied until I agree with you, 
and you think my not agreeing with you is disrespectful.  Sorry, your 
royal highness, but that doesn't fly in my world.

> i swear to god, once nanofaxes become cheap and popular, and 
people's
> e.g. sheet metal fabriction skills can no longer be compensated, 
we're
> going to hear a different tune from a lot of folks.
>

Yeah and I'm sure there were world-wide labour strikes in the Star 
Trek universe when the replicator was invented.  So, progress can be 
an interesting and exciting thing to behold.  If there's one thing 
that is consistent in human civilization over the eons, it's 
perpetual social turmoil. And I for one prefer that, with all its 
inherent challenges, to stagnation.

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "zoinky420" <zoinky420@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Yeah and I'm sure there were world-wide labour strikes in the Star 
> Trek universe when the replicator was invented.  So, progress can be 
> an interesting and exciting thing to behold.  If there's one thing 
> that is consistent in human civilization over the eons, it's 
> perpetual social turmoil. And I for one prefer that, with all its 
> inherent challenges, to stagnation.
>

And by the way, if you want to make yourself useful in this future 
brave new world we're talking about, you will try to think of ways to 
make the new paradigms work best and most efficiently, rather than 
settling for a way that criminalizes large portions of the population 
which would only add to the social strife. I personally don't get a 
whole lot out of the 'Tigger vs. Eeyore' debate, but I think you might.

Thanks for chiming in. I found some of the comments (especially 
recently) to be extremely rude and are out of place with the history of 
this forum.
--Steve 

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:

>
> Please note that we have an active founder/moderator in this group 
> and I watch this forum closely. No insults please! 
> 
> Thanx!
> 
> ...Summa
>

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@...> 
wrote:
>
> Thanks for chiming in. I found some of the comments (especially 
> recently) to be extremely rude and are out of place with the history 
of 
> this forum.

I don't know much about the history of this forum, but I certainly 
agree with you about extremely rude comments.  I can't understand what 
motivates some people to try to stifle what are obviously interesting, 
cerebral debates, but it seems to happen every time an interesting, 
cerebral debate occurs in a forum with a 'topic'.  Inevitably, they 
will insist that debate must stop and only discussions that fit under 
the narrow criteria of the topic be allowed.  But that only happens if 
the debate interests the people engaging in it enough for it to 
continue for a few days.  Off topic discussions lasting only a few 
posts are tolerated, or even welcomed.  But you know, somehow I think 
that's not what you were referring to.  I think that you actually want 
to convince the moderator to boot or censor me for failing to heed 
requests to stop discussing what I am interested in discussing, and 
particularly my public declaration that I chose not to heed the 
request.  Am I right?

I simply want you to respect other persons opinion, even so english 
isn't their native language, btw. it isn't mine either. Please react 
reasonable to critics, at least as long as you're posting to this 
forum...

thanx!

...Summa

On 12 Aug 2008 at 13:22, zoinky420 wrote:

> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@...>
> wrote: > > Thanks for chiming in. I found some of the comments
> (especially > recently) to be extremely rude and are out of place with
> the history of > this forum.
> 
> I don't know much about the history of this forum, but I certainly
> agree with you about extremely rude comments.  I can't understand what
> motivates some people to try to stifle what are obviously interesting,
> cerebral debates, but it seems to happen every time an interesting,
> cerebral debate occurs in a forum with a 'topic'.  Inevitably, they
> will insist that debate must stop and only discussions that fit under
> the narrow criteria of the topic be allowed.  But that only happens if
> the debate interests the people engaging in it enough for it to
> continue for a few days.  Off topic discussions lasting only a few
> posts are tolerated, or even welcomed.  But you know, somehow I think
> that's not what you were referring to.  I think that you actually want
> to convince the moderator to boot or censor me for failing to heed
> requests to stop discussing what I am interested in discussing, and
> particularly my public declaration that I chose not to heed the
> request.  Am I right?

-- 

CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/

http://www.summasounds.de/