Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

> Yeah, I almost bought a Beatle's apple Ipod the other day, 
> its so confusing with two different apple companies. 
> (Sarcasm). I love the Beatle's music and what they did. But 
> this kind of thing makes me lose respect for them. Apple 
> records doesn't even exist anymore except to harass Apple 
> computer. Paul McCartney is already the richest rocker in the 
> world, and I am sure Ringo is not on the dole.

I'm not sure that the Beatles deserve your anger. I'm not sure you know the
whole story, but from what I understand, the original lawsuit could have
forced Apple (Mac) to stop using the name "Apple" altogether. However, the
Beatles agreed to allow Jobs/Apple to continue using the Apple name as long
as they did not get into the music business and ... for a tidy sum of money.
Jobs/Apple *agreed* and has clearly broken that agreement. If anyone is in
the wrong, it is Apple (Mac). At least that is how is seems to me. A deal is
a deal. Isn't it?

I don't think how much money Paul McCartney has really has any relevance.
IMO.

With that said, I hope that some further agreement is reached this time,
'cause I really like my Logic. ;)

Kamm

On Dec 30, 2004, at 9:53 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> Apple (Beatles) is already going to court (and will
>  almost assuredly win) against Apple (Mac) over the iPod and iTunes 
> store.
>
>
>
>  Yeah, I almost bought a Beatle's apple Ipod the other day, its so 
> confusing with two different apple companies. (Sarcasm). I love the 
> Beatle's music and what they did. But this kind of thing makes me lose 
> respect for them. Apple records doesn't even exist anymore except to 
> harass Apple computer. Paul McCartney is already the richest rocker in 
> the world, and I am sure Ringo is not on the dole.
>
>  It reminds me of the Moog thing. Some guy in England registered the 
> name Moog. So Bob Moog himself can not sell synths in England under 
> his own name.
>
>  And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit song 
> Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from a Stones song, 
> and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not get a nickel from 
> their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard up for money?

In other words stealing is OK as long as you are stealing from someone 
with more money than you?

>  Its just sad to see.

Boo Hoo.

>> And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit
>> song Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from 
>> a Stones song, and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not 
>> get a nickel from their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard 
>> up for money?

> In other words stealing is OK as long as you are stealing from
> someone with more money than you?


Personally, I enjoy imagining a world where money and corporate
interests don't set the tone for how art is created, stored, shared,
and handled.  In fact, the whole paradigm of the competitive profit
model is retooled and balanced out with a  cooperative approach.

In an even more insane display of differentness, beautiful things are
openly shared in that world because people choose not to buy into
the idea that resources are scarce and that survival is a deathgame
necessitating the protection of one's own.  Artists view their
creations as gifts they were given rather than commodities they
manufactured, and the ego's insatiable need for praise and credit is
assuaged by the satisfaction that the world has been made a better
place.

Also, dogs and cats live together in harmony, and coffee is better for
you than broccoli.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?


u b i k

On Dec 30, 2004, at 3:01 PM, u b i k wrote:

>
>  >> And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit
>  >> song Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from
>  >> a Stones song, and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not
>  >> get a nickel from their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard
>  >> up for money?
>
>  > In other words stealing is OK as long as you are stealing from
>  > someone with more money than you?
>
>
>  Personally, I enjoy imagining a world where money and corporate 
> interests don't set the tone for how art is created, stored, shared, 
> and handled.  In fact, the whole paradigm of the competitive profit 
> model is retooled and balanced out with a  cooperative approach.

I guess that is a harmless enough form of entertainment but that is not 
and never will be this world.

Personally I enjoy imagining a world free of hackneyed platitudes.

>  In an even more insane display of differentness, beautiful things are 
> openly shared in that world because people choose not to buy into the 
> idea that resources are scarce and that survival is a deathgame 
> necessitating the protection of one's own.  Artists view their 
> creations as gifts they were given rather than commodities the 
> manufactured, and the ego's insatiable need for praise and credit is 
> assuaged by the satisfaction that the world has been made a better 
> place.

And in this paradise what do artists eat?

I guess that is a rhetorical question since they probably all are 
washing dishes during the day and the pantry chef has DLed all their 
tunes and is a real fan so he keeps the turkey sandwiches coming.

>  Also, dogs and cats live together in harmony, and coffee is better 
> for you than broccoli.
>
>  Hey, I can dream, can't I?
>
>
>  u b i k

So, say I notice CDs with the name "u b i k" on them are selling pretty 
good and ones with the name "dennis gunn" on them are not.   Since you 
are such and altruistic type surely it will be OK if I start selling 
CDs under the name

  "u b i k"

?

On Dec 30, 2004, at 3:34 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> >> And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit
>  >> song Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from
>  >> a Stones song, and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not
>  >> get a nickel from their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard
>  >> up for money?
>
>  > In other words stealing is OK as long as you are stealing from
>  > someone with more money than you?
>
>
>
>  Of course not. Regarding the Stones lawsuit, I would think that a 
> reasonable settlement would have been at most half, or more fairly 
> maybe 1/10 of all profits.

Why?  I mean really how do you figure? The VervePipe use that riff 
through the whole song and it is the one and only hook of the song.  If 
they really have so much to bring to the party then they should have 
brought their own riff too.  But it would appear that they did not, so 
they had to not only use the stones riff but the stones recording as 
well.

> The Vervepipe's were just too lazy or inexperienced to re-record the 
> string riff.

"Dumb" is the adjective that springs to my mind.  I mean they were not 
even creative in who they ripped off.  They could have lifted a string 
riff off of any obscure symphonic CD and the chances are no one would 
have ever noticed and the tune would have been public domain besides.  
But no they rip off the stones.  It's like a pick pocket deciding the 
US president looks like a good mark.  Surely all those body guards 
won't notice, surely the president won't mind since he has lots of 
money...

duh.

> But it was their creativity to write the song and the vocal 
> performance and so forth, that made it a hit song - which is 
> immediately clear because the Stones never released the 5 second riff 
> as a song themselves.

No they released it as a part of a larger work that had a whole lot of 
other ideas on it as well.  I don't see where repeating one idea (that 
isn't even your own) ad infinitum is supposed to be so creative in 
itself.


> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

"Mommy mommy is it "art" yet?"

"No dear":


> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity......

<sigh>

> I think this is a bit of a technicality to take all of their money, 
> and I think its mean spirited for one of the richest bands in the 
> world to take every penny from some guys who have thier first (and 
> last) success - just from a human point of view.

I think it was more than the Stones right to take all the money for 
that song it was the stones *duty* to take all the money for it.

Without a system for the protection of intellectual property we would 
not have the music we have, in fact would would not have the medicine 
we have, we would not have the internet, we would probably not have 
cars or any other technology that requires any kind of expensive 
research to develop.

It's a surprise that the Stones sued the Vervepipe, I heard that Mick and Keith wrote Bittersweet Symphony for them.
Of course I could be wrong.

Howard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 12/29/2004 4:53:39 PM 
Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Lawsuits (was M-Audio 88Pro


Apple (Beatles) is already going to court (and will
almost assuredly win) against Apple (Mac) over the iPod and iTunes store.



Yeah, I almost bought a Beatle's apple Ipod the other day, its so confusing with two different apple companies. (Sarcasm). I love the Beatle's music and what they did. But this kind of thing makes me lose respect for them. Apple records doesn't even exist anymore except to harass Apple computer. Paul McCartney is already the richest rocker in the world, and I am sure Ringo is not on the dole.

It reminds me of the Moog thing. Some guy in England registered the name Moog. So Bob Moog himself can not sell synths in England under his own name. 

And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit song Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from a Stones song, and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not get a nickel from their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard up for money?

Its just sad to see. 
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Hi,

On 30-Dec-04, at 4:44 AM, dennis gunn wrote:

> I think it was more than the Stones right to take all the money for 
> that song it was the stones *duty* to take all the money for it.
>
> Without a system for the protection of intellectual property we would 
> not have the music we have, in fact would would not have the medicine 
> we have, we would not have the internet, we would probably not have 
> cars or any other technology that requires any kind of expensive 
> research to develop.


I agree fully here with Dennis.  While I feel bad for the guys from the 
Vervepipe, this lawsuit has nothing to do with needing more money (in 
the case of the Stones).  It has more to do with protecting their own 
creativity.  If they let someone take a piece of one of their songs, 
there is nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same.  Sure, they 
have lots of money but they got there by doing the same thing over and 
over and over again (writing hits that millions love).  The Vervepipe 
has not.  Sure it was them that thought of using it and not the Stones 
but they were not the ones who came up with the riff to begin with.

It has not to do with the Stones being greedy at all.  Think of it 
another way perhaps.  What if the riff was something that you had done 
and released.  You sold only 50 copies of your CD and did not even 
cover your expenses on making it.  Someone got a hold of one of those 
copies and wrote a song that sold 10 million copies.  The riff went 
throughout the entire song and they never got permission from you to 
use it.  Do you think now that, because you don't have tons of money, 
you are entitled to at least some of the proceeds?  The law has to work 
for everyone and not discriminate based on wealth (rich or poor).

Fernstudio

Hi Howard,

On 30-Dec-04, at 9:07 AM, Howard Lipp wrote:

> It's a surprise that the Stones sued the Vervepipe, I heard that Mick 
> and Keith wrote Bittersweet Symphony for them.
> Of course I could be wrong.

No, they did not.  The Verve were just too 'dumb' (as Dennis put it) to 
get that riff cleared.  They had been around for a while by the time it 
was released and should have at least had some knowledge of copyright 
(even if it was basic knowledge like I have).  Here is a link 
http://mtvshop.mtv.com/namepage.aspx?pid=P27134&type=P&loc=33656 to an 
article on them that explains it a little bit.

Fernstudio

Exacttly.  If they'd talked to the stones before
release, they likely would have gotten the riff for a
fraction of what they wound up paying, if they had to
pay at all.  The Stones had to go after them, or risk
setting a precedent that would lead to more copying
and sampling of their material without permission.  I
saw an interview with teh Beastie Boys recently and
they talked about how they contacted the original
artist for every single sample that goes onto an
album, no matter how small, unless it is so distorted
and warped as to not represent the original material
in any way any longer.

--sam

--- Fernstudio <fernstudio@...> wrote:

> 
> No, they did not.  The Verve were just too 'dumb'
> (as Dennis put it) to 
> get that riff cleared.  They had been around for a
> while by the time it 
> was released and should have at least had some
> knowledge of copyright 
> (even if it was basic knowledge like I have).  Here
> is a link 
>
http://mtvshop.mtv.com/namepage.aspx?pid=P27134&type=P&loc=33656
> to an 
> article on them that explains it a little bit.
> 
> Fernstudio
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page \ufffd Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

On 12/29/04 11:51 PM, "dennis gunn" <dennis@...> wrote:

> 
> On Dec 30, 2004, at 9:53 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:
> 
>> Apple (Beatles) is already going to court (and will
>>  almost assuredly win) against Apple (Mac) over the iPod and iTunes
>> store.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Yeah, I almost bought a Beatle's apple Ipod the other day, its so
>> confusing with two different apple companies. (Sarcasm). I love the
>> Beatle's music and what they did. But this kind of thing makes me lose
>> respect for them. Apple records doesn't even exist anymore except to
>> harass Apple computer. Paul McCartney is already the richest rocker in
>> the world, and I am sure Ringo is not on the dole.
>> 
>>  It reminds me of the Moog thing. Some guy in England registered the
>> name Moog. So Bob Moog himself can not sell synths in England under
>> his own name.
>> 
>>  And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit song
>> Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from a Stones song,
>> and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not get a nickel from
>> their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard up for money?
> 
> In other words stealing is OK as long as you are stealing from someone
> with more money than you?


When you're talking about culture, appropriation is a very different thing
than stealing. The Rolling Stones did their share of appropriation, they
simply did not have a technological means to do so. Legally your argument is
correct, but who is in charge of the law? And is art and culture best served
by strapping legal definitions to them?

I really doubt that the interests of either Apple Music or Apple Computer
are served with this lawsuit, if they were smart they would come to an
agreement to offer the entire back catalog of Apple music on iTunes and make
everyone happy!

Eddie
IMS


> 
>>  Its just sad to see.
> 
> Boo Hoo.
> 

--

> Lets take this situation to more ridiculous extreme.
> Say you sampled one drum 
> hit from Madonna, and included that on your greatest
> pop song that made 10 
> million. Would it be fair for Madonna to demand all
> the money and you get 
> nothing?

No, but then if you had only sampled one drum hit, she
wouldn't win a 100% royalty in court, either.  I'm not
familiar with the Vervepipe song in question, but the
impression I get from the discussion here is that the
Stones riff is pretty integral to the song and not
modified to a significant extent.  And the award given
in court is almost inevitably far higher than a fee
negotiated up front would be.  There are, I believe,
some unofficial industry standards for how much to
charge for samples of varying length and
recognizability, or at least that's the impression I
was left with after reading a Beastie Boys interview,
recently.  

The point is to negotiate reasonable fees for EVERY
sample up front, to avoid costly lawsuits and punitive
damages later.  Even on a song which consists 100% of
sampled music, there would still be money leftover for
the artist who combined those samples in a new manner,
because the 'standard' percentages are very
reasonable.  As a musician, if someone else comes to
me and says I really like some aspect of your work and
I've used it in a song, let's negotiate an agreement
as to how much I should pay you in order to release
it, in all likelihood, I'm going to let them use it
for free, providing they aren't just blatantly ripping
off my song, wholesale.  However, if they release
without permission and the first time I hear it is
when it reaches number 10 on the charts, I'm certainly
going to take my pound of flesh in a courtroom.  I
don't fault the Stones on that one at all.  And if the
jury and/or judge felt that the Stones' contribution
to the Vervepipe hit was worth 100% of the royalties,
then that's the risk they took by releasing without
permission.  As musicians, I find it very hard to
believe that the stones would have charged 100% for
the riff in a pre-release negotiation.

But then, I don't download mp3's or rip friends cd's
either, because that's stealing from people just like
me.  I may have a listen via mp3, and I'll even rip a
cd at a friend's house when I first hear it, but if I
haven't bought a copy of my own within a couple of
weeks, I delete the mp3.  It is just a point of honor
for me, as a musician, to not steal the work of other
musicians, either via mp3 or sampling.

--sam



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

>
>> I think this is a bit of a technicality to take all of their money, 
>> and I think its mean spirited for one of the richest bands in the 
>> world to take every penny from some guys who have thier first (and 
>> last) success - just from a human point of view.
>>
Oh almost forgot,
I need your EXS key for Logic 7 too, I know you spent $1000, since I 
cannot afford it, and I really don't want to work hard to pay that 
dough, and you have it, I should have the right to it too, right?
Please send it FedEx Priority Overnight to:

Gio
Grand Theft Avenue #1
Show Me the Money, RO. (Rip Off)
USA. 1234

;) (this is just a hypothetical argument from the comment above)
Ciao
Gio

> And in this paradise what do artists eat?

Food!  

Hot damn, I really DO have all the answers!


u b i k


ps - congrats on your show, that's quite an accomplishment.

Hey guys,

I've been following the discussion you guys are having, but the 
philosophical aspect of it frankly doesn't help me at all.

But I do have a question:

Say I've written something, a song, a film cue, anything, where do I 
go or who do I ask whether I'm infringing on someone's copyright? 
Even though I consider myself having a broad knowledge on music I am 
also very aware of the fact that there are at least 20 times more 
works out there than I know.

How do you guys deal with it?

Cheers
Hans

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Hans Hafner <hanshafner@g...> wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
> I've been following the discussion you guys are having, but the 
> philosophical aspect of it frankly doesn't help me at all.
> 
> But I do have a question:
> 
> Say I've written something, a song, a film cue, anything, where do I 
> go or who do I ask whether I'm infringing on someone's copyright? 
> Even though I consider myself having a broad knowledge on music I am 
> also very aware of the fact that there are at least 20 times more 
> works out there than I know.
> 
> How do you guys deal with it?
> 
> Cheers
> Hans

Good question - I'd like to know also.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "deals4days" <coolcat@h...> wrote:
> 
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Hans Hafner <hanshafner@g...> 
wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> > 
> > I've been following the discussion you guys are having, but the 
> > philosophical aspect of it frankly doesn't help me at all.
> > 
> > But I do have a question:
> > 
> > Say I've written something, a song, a film cue, anything, where 
do I 
> > go or who do I ask whether I'm infringing on someone's copyright? 
> > Even though I consider myself having a broad knowledge on music I 
am 
> > also very aware of the fact that there are at least 20 times more 
> > works out there than I know.
> > 
> > How do you guys deal with it?
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Hans
> 
> Good question - I'd like to know also.

The times we live in are truly as John Lennon said many years 
ago, "There's nothing you can do that can't be done", and the 
multitudes of musical pieces that exist are enormous, to say the 
least. I too, have a large library of music in my head from having 
listened attentively, as well as played most of my life and that's my 
best guide when writing music. I fancy myself as a creative person 
and wouldn't ever want to think I infringed on anybody elses works. 
So the desire not to and the broad knowledge of existing music 
together guide me when I go about writing. 
Gary

>
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Hans Hafner <hanshafner@g...> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I've been following the discussion you guys are having, but the
>> philosophical aspect of it frankly doesn't help me at all.
>>
>> But I do have a question:
>>
>> Say I've written something, a song, a film cue, anything, where do I
>> go or who do I ask whether I'm infringing on someone's copyright?
>> Even though I consider myself having a broad knowledge on music I am
>> also very aware of the fact that there are at least 20 times more
>> works out there than I know.
>>
>> How do you guys deal with it?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Hans
>
> Good question - I'd like to know also.
>
>
Hi guys,
Not sure on this one since I used it long time ago, but BMI and ASCAP 
have a research area,
also Library of Congress office of Copyrights too has a research area 
for questions.
Hope this helps.
Ciao
Gio

I use sometimes a friend in an ad agency who has the "Red Book" dont 
know where he gets it from, but when I get back to the states (the 8th) 
I'll ask him where to go and get it.

At 3:54 Uhr -0600 01.01.2005, Gio wrote:
>Hi guys,
>Not sure on this one since I used it long time ago, but BMI and ASCAP
>have a research area,
>also Library of Congress office of Copyrights too has a research area
>for questions.
>Hope this helps.
>Ciao
>Gio

You're not serious are you? Can you imagine the amount of time and 
work that has to be spent to find out whether something I wrote is 
infringing? You gotta be kiddin' me!

But that is not to say, that I don't appreciate you participating, 
don't get me wrong. It is not meant to be a personal attack on what 
you wrote. But a general statement on the mechanisms involved in 
creating things.

Plus, there's only so many notes in a scale and so many combinations 
and although I am a hundred percent convinced we will not run out on 
new musical material the same way we won't run out on stories even 
though they all use the same words, it is always going to be 
difficult to be original while still staying in the tonal areas that 
are acceptable and tried and true in popular music...

So really this is an issue that is very very delicate.

Cheers
Hans

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Hans Hafner <hanshafner@g...> 
wrote:
> At 3:54 Uhr -0600 01.01.2005, Gio wrote:
> >Hi guys,
> >Not sure on this one since I used it long time ago, but BMI and 
ASCAP
> >have a research area,
> >also Library of Congress office of Copyrights too has a research 
area
> >for questions.
> >Hope this helps.
> >Ciao
> >Gio
> 
> You're not serious are you? Can you imagine the amount of time and 
> work that has to be spent to find out whether something I wrote is 
> infringing? You gotta be kiddin' me!
> 
> But that is not to say, that I don't appreciate you participating, 
> don't get me wrong. It is not meant to be a personal attack on what 
> you wrote. But a general statement on the mechanisms involved in 
> creating things.
> 
> Plus, there's only so many notes in a scale and so many 
combinations 
> and although I am a hundred percent convinced we will not run out 
on 
> new musical material the same way we won't run out on stories even 
> though they all use the same words, it is always going to be 
> difficult to be original while still staying in the tonal areas 
that 
> are acceptable and tried and true in popular music...
> 
> So really this is an issue that is very very delicate.
> 
> Cheers
> Hans
That's the part I like about all of this!!
Gary

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, GAmoore@a... wrote:
> I read that there is some software being developed that can tell if 
you used 
> any audio from a commercial release. It was a year or two ago that 
I read it, 
> but I think it has a library of all released CD's and then it scans 
your audio 
> file and looks for the same patterns of audio waves. 
> 
> Of course this doesn't address the copyright debate per melodies. 
Regarding 
> melodies, there are many that similar that never get prosecuted. We 
have all 
> heard a song which sounds almost identital to another. The George 
Harrison thing 
> is a bit scary because its essentially three notes that were the 
same ("My 
> Sweet Day" and "One Fine Day")   - but I think George's song was 
more intersting 
> what it did with it (the "really wanna a...." part). All of pop 
music walks a 
> thin line between to being too similar to other music and 
> uncommerical/unpopular.
> 
> By the way, did you notice that Destiny's Child "Survivor" uses the 
same 
> chords as Gansta Paradise which is a rip of Stevie Wonder's 
Pasttime Paradise?

The song and line is "He's so fine" and it's exactly the same as "My 
sweet Lord"
The next line is "I don't know how I'm gonna do it" and George's line 
is "I realy wanna see you". They're also exact.
My understand is a musical line identical constitutes an infringment. 
How many notes is the question. I happen to like both songs and 
although the melodies are the same, I never think of the other when 
listenening to either.

The Pastime Paradise thing was probably liscesed from Stevie, cause 
it's his track and he's not that ignorant about such things.
Gary

"My Sweet Lord" \ufffd whole song is identical with "He's
So Fine", but with slower tempo & different lyrics.
Mitchell
--- GAmoore@... wrote:

> I read that there is some software being developed
> that can tell if you used 
> any audio from a commercial release. It was a year
> or two ago that I read it, 
> but I think it has a library of all released CD's
> and then it scans your audio 
> file and looks for the same patterns of audio waves.
> 
> 
> Of course this doesn't address the copyright debate
> per melodies. Regarding 
> melodies, there are many that similar that never get
> prosecuted. We have all 
> heard a song which sounds almost identital to
> another. The George Harrison thing 
> is a bit scary because its essentially three notes
> that were the same ("My 
> Sweet Day" and "One Fine Day")   - but I think
> George's song was more intersting 
> what it did with it (the "really wanna a...." part).
> All of pop music walks a 
> thin line between to being too similar to other
> music and 
> uncommerical/unpopular.
> 
> By the way, did you notice that Destiny's Child
> "Survivor" uses the same 
> chords as Gansta Paradise which is a rip of Stevie
> Wonder's Pasttime Paradise?
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

On 12/31/04 9:28 PM, "gswerner2002" <gswerner2002@...> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "deals4days" <coolcat@h...> wrote:
>> 
>> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Hans Hafner <hanshafner@g...>
> wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>> 
>>> I've been following the discussion you guys are having, but the
>>> philosophical aspect of it frankly doesn't help me at all.
>>> 
>>> But I do have a question:
>>> 
>>> Say I've written something, a song, a film cue, anything, where
> do I 
>>> go or who do I ask whether I'm infringing on someone's copyright?
>>> Even though I consider myself having a broad knowledge on music I
> am 
>>> also very aware of the fact that there are at least 20 times more
>>> works out there than I know.
>>> 
>>> How do you guys deal with it?
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Hans
>> 
>> Good question - I'd like to know also.
> 
> The times we live in are truly as John Lennon said many years
> ago, "There's nothing you can do that can't be done", and the
> multitudes of musical pieces that exist are enormous, to say the
> least. I too, have a large library of music in my head from having
> listened attentively, as well as played most of my life and that's my
> best guide when writing music. I fancy myself as a creative person
> and wouldn't ever want to think I infringed on anybody elses works.
> So the desire not to and the broad knowledge of existing music
> together guide me when I go about writing.
> Gary
> 
>

Yah sometimes I try to get a particular effect that I hear, and the process
of re-creation actually spawns something new. There is no artist that ever
'comes out of nowhere,' even the most dramatically unique voices out there
derive their inspiration from somewhere...

Eddie
IMS


 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gendler <logicusers@i...> wrote:
 SNIP...
> But then, I don't download mp3's or rip friends cd's
> either, because that's stealing from people just like
> me.  I may have a listen via mp3, and I'll even rip a
> cd at a friend's house when I first hear it, but if I
> haven't bought a copy of my own within a couple of
> weeks, I delete the mp3.  It is just a point of honor
> for me, as a musician, to not steal the work of other
> musicians, either via mp3 or sampling.
Sam,
If everyone had your take on this, the world would be a better place for musicians. 
If I was an employer, I would ask that question in the interview.  "Do you copy friends CD's 
and put them on your iPod?" or a trickier worded variation of that question.

This debate has been going on for years.  I once knew a software developer that 
programmed sounds for the DX7 (an instrument made by Yamaha in the early days of 
keyboard synths and not easy to program).  He started a company from scratch to sell his 
work and immediately had to face the piracy of his data.  He couldn't make enough to 
keep his company afloat and last I heard, he was in sales in CA.  His creations are still out 
there and used everyday.  He tried to defend himself in Keyboard Magazine and the rant 
and bashing of him went on for months.  This was where I first heard the "he's rich" angle.  
This was in the mid eighties.

Charlie

> This was in the mid eighties.


Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's? 
Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?  Cold
reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then again, the cold war
peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...

My friend wishes more than anything that he could remix Jane's
Addiction's _Nothing Shocking_.  

Personally, I'm glad the mighty weed is back in vogue, so much music
sounds so incredible these days.  I'm glad I find it inspiring,
because it could easily be discouraging to have the bar raised so
high.


u b i k

> 
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gendler <logicusers@i...> 
wrote:
>  SNIP...
> > But then, I don't download mp3's or rip friends cd's
> > either, because that's stealing from people just like
> > me.  I may have a listen via mp3, and I'll even rip a
> > cd at a friend's house when I first hear it, but if I
> > haven't bought a copy of my own within a couple of
> > weeks, I delete the mp3.  It is just a point of honor
> > for me, as a musician, to not steal the work of other
> > musicians, either via mp3 or sampling.
> Sam,
> If everyone had your take on this, the world would be a better 
place for musicians. 
> If I was an employer, I would ask that question in the 
interview.  "Do you copy friends CD's 
> and put them on your iPod?" or a trickier worded variation of that 
question.
> 
> This debate has been going on for years.  I once knew a software 
developer that 
> programmed sounds for the DX7 (an instrument made by Yamaha in the 
early days of 
> keyboard synths and not easy to program).  He started a company 
from scratch to sell his 
> work and immediately had to face the piracy of his data.  He 
couldn't make enough to 
> keep his company afloat and last I heard, he was in sales in CA.  
His creations are still out 
> there and used everyday.  He tried to defend himself in Keyboard 
Magazine and the rant 
> and bashing of him went on for months.  This was where I first 
heard the "he's rich" angle.  
> This was in the mid eighties.
> 
> Charlie

It's funny how this computer based world we live in has brainwashed 
us all into believing that it's a crime to share. That's not what my 
mom and dad taught me. As for the artists, I've not seen any one of 
them attend the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a 
refrigerator box located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet. 
When I purchase something, it's mine!

u b i k wrote:

>
> > This was in the mid eighties.
>
>
> Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?
> Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?  Cold
> reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then again, the cold war
> peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...
>
> My friend wishes more than anything that he could remix Jane's
> Addiction's _Nothing Shocking_. 
>
> Personally, I'm glad the mighty weed is back in vogue, so much music
> sounds so incredible these days.  I'm glad I find it inspiring,
> because it could easily be discouraging to have the bar raised so
> high.
>
>
> u b i k

what drug did they take in the 90's that made them forget how to play 
guitar ???? what happened to the over the top vocal performances ???? 
mabey 2005 is the year when they start producing decent mixes with 
virtuoso performances.

gswerner2002 wrote:

>
> It's funny how this computer based world we live in has brainwashed
> us all into believing that it's a crime to share. That's not what my
> mom and dad taught me. As for the artists, I've not seen any one of
> them attend the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a
> refrigerator box located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet.
> When I purchase something, it's mine! 


mabey if the record industry didn't take such an outrageous share of the 
revenue, it wouldn't be such an issue.

Thanx John!  Exactly my thoughts.
And to me most of the 80s mixes sound much better than todays´.
That may be because of the brutal overcompression/clipping today, but 
the old mixes had depth and todays mixes are mostly 2D.

Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de

Am 04.01.2005 um 15:47 schrieb Bigg John:

> u b i k wrote:
>> Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?
>> Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?  Cold
>> reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then again, the cold war
>> peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...
>>
>> My friend wishes more than anything that he could remix Jane's
>> Addiction's _Nothing Shocking_.
>>
>> Personally, I'm glad the mighty weed is back in vogue, so much music
>> sounds so incredible these days.  I'm glad I find it inspiring,
>> because it could easily be discouraging to have the bar raised so
>> high.
>>
>> u b i k
>
> what drug did they take in the 90's that made them forget how to play
> guitar ???? what happened to the over the top vocal performances ????
> mabey 2005 is the year when they start producing decent mixes with
> virtuoso performances.

> It's funny how this computer based world we live in has brainwashed us 
> all into believing that it's a crime to share. That's not what my mom 
> and dad taught me. As for the artists, I've not seen any one of them 
> attend the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a refrigerator box 
> located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet.
> When I purchase something, it's mine! 

What most people do is not sharing. If you have a car and let your neighbor
borrow it, that is "sharing". There is only one car (yours). If you make a
copy of your car by sticking it in the automobile duplicator slot of your
computer and *give* your neighbor the copy, that is stealing.

If you want to share, go right ahead. Let your neighbor *borrow* your CDs.
If you find that you miss those CDs, make your neighbor buy his/her own CD.

Kamm

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Bigg John wrote:

> u b i k wrote:
> 
> >
> > > This was in the mid eighties.
> >
> >
> > Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?
> > Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?\ufffd Cold
> > reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.\ufffd Then again, the cold war
> > peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...

FM synthesis, the Aphex Exciter and production by Stock/Aitken/Waterman.

That's where your bass went.

Production went a little gadget-crazy around 1984.  A few of those 
recordings from that era have so much excited high end that it feels like 
your teeth will explode.  Like the loudness wars now, there seemed to be 
a high-end war back then.  The rest - like anything mixed by Jon Fryer ca 
1985 - really went big into the new digital reverbs, which by modern 
standards sounded pretty icy.  The retro-warmth crazy didn't hit until 
around 89 or so.


_______________________________________________________
Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
Synthetic music for synthetic people.

> And to me most of the 80s mixes sound much better than todays´.

In my viewpoint, 80s mainstream popmusic sounds like oversaturated analog tape 
and an abundance of choruses and other effects to smoothen any scary guitar 
roughness. :o)

> That may be because of the brutal overcompression/clipping today, but
> the old mixes had depth and todays mixes are mostly 2D.

I don't notice that difference, only between mainstream and alternative music 
but not really between 80s and 00s mainstream. To me it all sounds glued to 
0dB with sticky shiney goey (well -0.2 to be exact) ;o)

The music itself has become somewhat more 2D though..

Maurits.

Just one more thing about sharing...

The concept of sharing requires that in the process, *you* lose something.
If you share your M&Ms, there are less of them for you. If you share your
car, you don't get to use it while the person you are sharing with is using
it. That is why sharing has to be taught. Our natural desire is to keep
everything for ourselves.

If you make a copy of your CD, you are *not* sharing because you have lost
nothing.

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> Just one more thing about sharing...
>
> The concept of sharing requires that in the process, *you* lose something.
> If you share your M&Ms, there are less of them for you. If you share your
> car, you don't get to use it while the person you are sharing with is 
> using
> it. That is why sharing has to be taught. Our natural desire is to keep
> everything for ourselves.
>
> If you make a copy of your CD, you are *not* sharing because you have lost
> nothing.
>
> Kamm


This list is awesome. where else could you get info on Logic AND moral 
issues ????

I know i'm not sharing my peanut m&m's with anybody. you may get a 
couple if they are plain... & if u r really, really nice too me

> This list is awesome. where else could you get info on Logic 
> AND moral issues ????
> 
> I know i'm not sharing my peanut m&m's with anybody. you may 
> get a couple if they are plain... & if u r really, really nice too me

LOL! :)

In all seriousness though, this issue really hits home for a lot of people
in the music business.

Kamm

At 2:20 PM +0000 1/4/05, gswerner2002 wrote:
>It's funny how this computer based world we live in has brainwashed
>us all into believing that it's a crime to share. That's not what my
>mom and dad taught me.

Your mom and dad were probably not talking about intellectual property, though, were they? More like "share some of those Fritos with your brother".


>As for the artists, I've not seen any one of
>them attend the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a
>refrigerator box located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet.

Are you trying really to extrapolate to the world at large, based on the people who get nominated for a Grammy?


>When I purchase something, it's mine!

But what about when you license something?

-C

-- 
                       | In theory, there is no difference between
 http://www.xfade.com/ | theory and practice. In practice, there is.
     cbm@...      |               - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

On 1/4/05 10:08 AM, "wonko@..." <wonko@...> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Bigg John wrote:
> 
>> u b i k wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> This was in the mid eighties.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?
>>> Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?  Cold
>>> reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then again, the cold war
>>> peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...
> 
> FM synthesis, the Aphex Exciter and production by Stock/Aitken/Waterman.

Don't forget Yamaha NS10M's...

>As for the artists, I've not seen any one of
>them attend the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a
>refrigerator box located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet.

If I am invited to the grammy's I'll get rid of my washing machine box and 
rent a tuxedo too.

>When I purchase something, it's mine!

I don't have any beef with intellectual property rights, but if you think 
about it, we don't pay royalties every time we tell a joke that someone wrote, or 
follow a recipe that someone came up with. But if we gave all of our music 
away, we could not make a living.


> mabey if the record industry didn't take such an outrageous share of the
> revenue, it wouldn't be such an issue.
> 

A few months ago they asked Prince about his return to releasing commerical 
CD's as opposed to self-releasing stuff on his website,   implying it was a 
failure because it only sold 200,000. He laughed and said he made more money from 
those releases than he did fom the big commercial releases which sold 
millions. Now an artist like Prince is going to get the most favorable terms compared 
to some new unknown act.

Hey, I think one of us can make millions by organizing a new music system 
where we all sell online, and people can browse by genre and so forth, and have 
connections to radio stations which play these - like MusicChoice does on cable 
radio. Of course, the record companies and music stores and Amazons will 
suffer, but more musicians will release music, and more people will hear the music 
they want to hear.


>>> Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?

- The sunset of heavy metal hair bands - Van Halen, Journey, Bon Jovi, etc - 
what started as pretty rebellious in 70's became more mainstream
- someone realized that Disco really wasn't completely dead
- The gradual rise of electronica (Depeche Mode, Tears for Fears, Thompson 
Twins, ... a bunch of bands whose songs I remember but I can't remember the 
group names) - a new sound that was rebellious and yet to become mainstream
- 99 luftballoons

--- Kamm Schreiner <kamm@...> wrote:

> In all seriousness though, this issue really hits
home for a lot of people
> in the music business.

> Kamm

And the 'grammy winners don't look poor' argument is
just so irrelevant.  For every hugely rich celebrity
rock star, there are countless bands and individual
musicians who are pushing self-produced cd's at
concerts, or who will never see more than the advance
that they spent on studio time, and an atmosphere of
rampant and easy file 'sharing' affects their bottom
line infinitely more than it affects Metallica,
Madonna, or any other multi-platinum artist.  

More and more, I find that younger kids don't consider
copying a cd to be any sort of a problem, and we need
to educate them about the issue.  At least when I was
a broke high school and college student, I KNEW that
taping a cd was theft, but it was all I could afford
so I did it anyway, but I also knew that if I really
liked the cd, I'd buy it when I could afford it,
because my copy was so inferior.  There is some
validity to the argument that a broke-ass college kid
downloading songs isn't affecting anyone's margins,
because they wouldn't have bought it anyway.  However,
the quality of the copies, even mp3 copies, is good
enough for most folks that they have no incentive to
pay for a high quality original, later.  I know that I
own legal copies of all the cd's I taped back in
college, but I don't think that will be true of the
people I see with, literally, thousands of downloaded
cd's.  

That's why the online music stores are such a good
thing for the industry.  Prices are cheap, but they
are selling an inferior product, so that's ok.  More
importantly, given the quality of today's music, it is
a great venue for buying individual songs.  I think
that most of the music I like really deserves to be
heard in the context of the whole album, and whole
albums of my favourite artists are often of high
quality from start to finish. Every once in a while,
however, a popular song grabs my interest, and we all
know that for many 'popular' artists, the rest of the
album is full of garbage being used to pad the one or
two 'singles' on the cd, so a $.99 purchase of a
single song at iTMS is perfect.  I pay for all kinds
of things I would never have bothered with a few years
ago, and my music collection is richer as a result.

Even worse than the file sharers, however, are the
record store employees.  Is anyone here friends with
someone who works at a music store?  Those people
bring home any cd they like, copy it, then bring it
back the next day to be rewrapped and sold as new. 
And they are getting full cd-quality copies, not
inferior mp3 or aac versions.  I have friends who work
at various record stores, and the theft is just
endemic, and their employers encourage it.  No matter
how much I try to impress upon them that they are
stealing real money from real people, it doesn't
change their behaviour.  And most of them are into the
kind of independant artists who are truly affected by
that kind of theft, too.  It ticks me off.

--sam



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com

On 04/01/2005, at 8:37 PM, u b i k wrote:

> Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?
> Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?  Cold
> reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then again, the cold war
> peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...

It was the initial post punk era that emerged around the late 70's. 
Punk itself being (ideologically at least) a lot about not having to be 
a virtuoso often had really simple bass lines so it was not much of a 
step to either a very soft bass or no bass - think Prince's "When Doves 
Cry"


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paul Najar
Jaminajar Music Production
www.jaminajar.com

On 04/01/2005, at 8:37 PM, u b i k wrote:

> Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?
> Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?  Cold
> reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then again, the cold war
> peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...

It was the initial post punk era that emerged around the late 70's. 
Punk itself being (ideologically at least) a lot about not having to be 
a virtuoso often had really simple bass lines so it was not much of a 
step to either a very soft bass or no bass - think Prince's "When Doves 
Cry"


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paul Najar
Jaminajar Music Production
www.jaminajar.com

>
> That's why the online music stores are such a good
>  thing for the industry.  Prices are cheap, but they
>  are selling an inferior product, so that's ok. 
>
>
>
>  They are essentially selling crappy MP3 files for the same price as 
> you pay for a physical CD with full audio resolution. On the basis of 
> their lower costs of manufacturer (printing, plastic, CD, graphic 
> arts), shipping, etc... they should pass on the discount to the 
> customers.
>
>

Dont forget that now you dont have to pay 15+ Dollars for the one song 
you want.
Unfortunately since labels have decided to promote bands with one good 
song, I stopped buying CD's and now spend my hard earned money buying 
ONLY what I like and not having to ditch a CD because the rest is crap.
Now, the artwork and credits pages kind of bum me out cause I know a 
lot of us are involved in the production of these tracks and I like 
reading the liner notes, but for 15+ bucks.... hmmmm I rather post on 
the Logic Cafe to see who of us was involved, heck its free.... sort 
of.
Ciao
Gio

>
>
> Even worse than the file sharers, however, are the
> record store employees.  Is anyone here friends with
> someone who works at a music store?  Those people
> bring home any cd they like, copy it, then bring it
> back the next day to be rewrapped and sold as new.
> And they are getting full cd-quality copies, not
> inferior mp3 or aac versions.  I have friends who work
> at various record stores, and the theft is just
> endemic, and their employers encourage it.  No matter
> how much I try to impress upon them that they are
> stealing real money from real people, it doesn't
> change their behaviour.  And most of them are into the
> kind of independant artists who are truly affected by
> that kind of theft, too.  It ticks me off.
>
> --sam
>
>

Sam,
I'm with you on this one.
One of my interns who is a musician works for a (unnamed) record store 
and has flaunted around how great it is to rip everything that comes 
through. So in light of that knowledge, when his band released their 
new self made album and he brought a copy for me to listen to, I 
unwrapped it, shoved it into my machine and ripped it, ejected it and 
handed it to him, throughout the whole process I could tell he was a 
bit uncomfortable with what I was doing, he did not say anything (cause 
I'm his boss I guess), but at the end I told him "let me ftp these to 
my site so my other band mates/friends can check it out. After a short 
pause (which seemed an eternity) I brought up the point of what I was 
doing and what he was doing.
"Hits home when its your stuff does it not?"
I trashed the tracks, told him I'd be happy to buy a CD from him if 
they'd sign it, and I helped their cause.
A week later he said he learned more during his internship than just 
producing music and commercials.
He trashed his tracks he had ripped (hopefully he's truthful) and is 
encouraging his buddies at the store to not rip stuff.
I guess age does teach us something more than just how to be grumpy ol 
farts with morals and a little extra cash.
Its very different when its your stuff isn't it?
Ciao
Gio

It seems to me that they are.  If you buy a whole
album, it is usually $9.99.  None of the cd's I buy
cost less than $10.  And you can't beat the savings if
you are only going to buy a song or two off of an
album.  The only time it gets expensive is when you
buy an entire album one song at a time, and I can't
imagine why you'd do that.

--sam

--- GAmoore@... wrote:

> 
> In a message dated 1/4/05 1:11:24 PM,
> logicusers@... writes:
> 
> > That's why the online music stores are such a good
> > thing for the industry.\ufffd Prices are cheap, but
> they
> > are selling an inferior product, so that's ok.\ufffd
> > 
> 
> They are essentially selling crappy MP3 files for
> the same price as you pay 
> for a physical CD with full audio resolution. On the
> basis of their lower costs 
> of manufacturer (printing, plastic, CD, graphic
> arts), shipping, etc... they 
> should pass on the discount to the customers. 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

On Jan 5, 2005, at 12:08 AM, wonko@... wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Bigg John wrote:
>
>  > u b i k wrote:
>  >
>  > >
>  > > > This was in the mid eighties.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 
> 80's?
>  > > Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass?  Cold
>  > > reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then again, the cold war
>  > > peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...
>
>  FM synthesis, the Aphex Exciter and production by 
> Stock/Aitken/Waterman.
>
>  That's where your bass went.
>
>  Production went a little gadget-crazy around 1984.  A few of those 
> recordings from that era have so much excited high end that it feels 
> like your teeth will explode.  Like the loudness wars now, there 
> seemed to be a high-end war back then.  The rest - like anything mixed 
> by Jon Fryer ca 1985 - really went big into the new digital reverbs, 
> which by modern standards sounded pretty icy.  The retro-warmth crazy 
> didn't hit until around 89 or so.

I have a theory.

In the mid to late 70s there were some very nice sounding pop records 
with a hyped high end by the likes of Gerry Rafferty and Fleetwood Mac. 
They were probably some of the first to use something like the aphex 
exciter or at least if that was not what they used, that was what it 
sounded like they used. It was a nice different, modern sound at the 
time. Until about the early to mid 80's when digital recording started 
catching on, a nice clean dependably crisp high end was a precious 
commodity, you had to be very careful how many times you recorded to a 
given spot on the tape and you had to be careful about deterioration 
when bouncing from tape to tape and the first thing to go was the high 
end, then digital recording came in and all that ceased to be a 
problem.  So two things happened, some engineers just went right on 
hyping the high end like they always had in the past, forgetting that 
it was not going to end up getting lost somewhere down the line, other 
engineers just liked the new ability to dependably get the bright crisp 
high end in the end product and they went kind of nuts.  In other words 
I think it basically just took a few years for the entire industry to 
adjust to the flatter response and lack of generation loss you get with 
digital recording equipment.  For example the aphex exciter itself was 
basically something that was invented in response to the limitations of 
magnetic tape.  When people stopped using magnetic tape, they *should* 
have realized they did not need the exciters anymore either.  But not 
all of them did.

On Jan 5, 2005, at 3:48 AM, Eddie Sullivan wrote:

> >>> Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly happened in the 80's?
> >>> Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass, or no bass? 

>  > FM synthesis, the Aphex Exciter and production by 
> Stock/Aitken/Waterman.
>
>  Don't forget Yamaha NS10M's...
>

Actually NS10M's by being the high mid hyped, bottomless, and generally 
loathsome little bastards they are make you tend to  mix with *less* 
high end and *more* bass.

On Jan 5, 2005, at 4:48 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> >As for the artists, I've not seen any one of
>  >them attend the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a
>  >refrigerator box located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet.
>
>  If I am invited to the grammy's I'll get rid of my washing machine 
> box and rent a tuxedo too.
>
>  >When I purchase something, it's mine!
>
>  I don't have any beef with intellectual property rights, but if you 
> think about it, we don't pay royalties every time we tell a joke that 
> someone wrote, or follow a recipe that someone came up with.

That's easy.  Because few of us get paid to tell the joke so there is 
in fact nothing to be paid to the guy who wrote it from any but a small 
number of joke tellers and in fact the few who do get paid to tell 
jokes do pay the joke writers quite well, and the use of recipe's is 
not only  too hard to track but most recipes  are ancient anyway.  
Recipe *books* on the other hand can be, and damned well are, protected 
by copyrights just like any other book.

> But if we gave all of our music away, we could not make a living.

Right, that is how some of us make our living's.  If it was how you 
made your living you would not have any difficulty with the concept.  
But it seems you do have some difficulty with the concept so you talk 
about UBIK or whoever's beautiful mind because he thinks the world 
would be a better place if I simply gave away my work instead of 
insisting on getting paid for it.  I work hard at what I do and I have 
spent 30 years honing my abilities. Sometimes my work is fun but not 
always, most of the time it is just plain work and it is *my* work.

I never have seen what is so beautiful about people who want to be 
generous with *other people's* property.

I mean I do not know how you make your living but if you do it by for 
example delivering papers, how would you feel if some "beautiful mind" 
suggested you should not be getting the credit (and therefore the 
money) for delivering those papers?  I mean after all, bascially all 
you are doing is taking a walk around the neighborhood and getting some 
fresh air and exercise and lots of people see getting fresh air and 
exercise as leisure activity so why should you get paid for what they 
see as a leisure activity?   Why do you have to be so greedy?  Why 
don't you just deliver papers for the satisfaction of delivering 
papers?


La La La, I have such a fucking beautiful mind I just want to cut my 
skull open and stare at it in the mirror every day...


> mabey if the record industry didn't take such an outrageous share of 
> the
>  revenue, it wouldn't be such an issue.

The problem is distribution and if you know how the system of CD 
distribution works it stops looking quite as outrageous what record 
companies take.  Not to say that they don't screw artists just not as 
much as it seems at first glance.

At first blush the possibilities opened up by internet distribution 
would seemingly change all that instantly  but:

>  A few months ago they asked Prince about his return to releasing 
> commerical CD's as opposed to self-releasing stuff on his website,  
> implying it was a failure because it only sold 200,000. He laughed and 
> said he made more money from those releases than he did fom the big 
> commercial releases which sold millions. Now an artist like Prince is 
> going to get the most favorable terms compared to some new unknown 
> act.

So why has he gone back to commercial releases?

I am willing to bet it is because he reaches more people that way and 
in order for him to make the kind of money he did with is independent 
internet releases he has to be a big famous star and to maintain that 
status he has to  feed the record industry promotional monster or else 
gradually trade in his superstar status and fade into "has been land".

The problem here is that distribution while being a *vital* component 
of the big picture, is not and never was the *only* component of it.

The internet is in the process of changing the way the whole thing 
works but, some important aspects will stay the same for a long time to 
come.

>  Hey, I think one of us can make millions by organizing a new music 
> system where we all sell online, and people can browse by genre and so 
> forth, and have connections to radio stations which play these - like 
> MusicChoice does on cable radio. Of course, the record companies and 
> music stores and Amazons will suffer, but more musicians will release 
> music, and more people will hear the music they want to hear.

Read what you wrote again.  You are not talking about getting justice.  
You are talking about "one of us" simply taking over the same position 
that you are blasting the record companies for.  And you are talking 
about somebody "making millions" managing intellectual property that 
you previously were applauding some "beautiful mind" for suggesting the 
artists should be giving away.  For me that really sums up what irks me 
about this discussion "one of us" should be making millions on 
distribution (or whatever), while the artists "should be giving it 
away".

gswerner2002 wrote:
>>It's funny how this computer based world we live in has brainwashed us 
>>all into believing that it's a crime to share. That's not what my mom 
>>and dad taught me.

To which Kamm Schreiner replied:
> What most people do is not sharing. If you have a car and let your neighbor
> borrow it, that is "sharing". There is only one car (yours). If you make a
> copy of your car by sticking it in the automobile duplicator slot of your
> computer and *give* your neighbor the copy, that is stealing.
> 
> If you want to share, go right ahead. Let your neighbor *borrow* your CDs.
> If you find that you miss those CDs, make your neighbor buy his/her own CD.

Ex-bloody-actly! Well put, Kamm!

I find it mind-boggling that people try to defend the theft of music by 
giving it a puerile euphemism like "file sharing". I think it's about as 
stupid as saying bank robbery's not a crime because you've given it a 
different name, like "taking out a permanent, free loan" or something, 
and then saying "My mom and dad taught me it's OK to take out a loan".

gswerner2002 then added:
 >>As for the artists, I've not seen any one of them attend
 >>the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a refrigerator box
 >>located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet.

I'd probably say exactly why I think that's a stupefyingly ridiculous 
argument, if I could only figure out where to start...

 >>When I purchase something, it's mine!

Yep. Yours. Not the whole world's.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Bill Canty <bill@b...> wrote:
> gswerner2002 wrote:
> >>It's funny how this computer based world we live in has 
brainwashed us 
> >>all into believing that it's a crime to share. That's not what my 
mom 
> >>and dad taught me.
> 
> To which Kamm Schreiner replied:
> > What most people do is not sharing. If you have a car and let 
your neighbor
> > borrow it, that is "sharing". There is only one car (yours). If 
you make a
> > copy of your car by sticking it in the automobile duplicator slot 
of your
> > computer and *give* your neighbor the copy, that is stealing.
> > 
> > If you want to share, go right ahead. Let your neighbor *borrow* 
your CDs.
> > If you find that you miss those CDs, make your neighbor buy 
his/her own CD.
> 
> Ex-bloody-actly! Well put, Kamm!
> 
> I find it mind-boggling that people try to defend the theft of 
music by 
> giving it a puerile euphemism like "file sharing". I think it's 
about as 
> stupid as saying bank robbery's not a crime because you've given it 
a 
> different name, like "taking out a permanent, free loan" or 
something, 
> and then saying "My mom and dad taught me it's OK to take out a 
loan".
> 
> gswerner2002 then added:
>  >>As for the artists, I've not seen any one of them attend
>  >>the grammy's looking like he stepped out of a refrigerator box
>  >>located on homeless avenue and onto the red carpet.
> 
> I'd probably say exactly why I think that's a stupefyingly 
ridiculous 
> argument, if I could only figure out where to start...
> 
>  >>When I purchase something, it's mine!
> 
> Yep. Yours. Not the whole world's.

And still, no record exec. has gone from a mercedes to a chevy 
because of file sharing.

On Jan 5, 2005, at 11:37 AM, gswerner2002 wrote:
>  And still, no record exec. has gone from a mercedes to a chevy
>  because of file sharing.

While I am no fan of your average A&R guy or record Co. executive or 
whatever the fact of the matter is that the career of your average A&R 
guy is even shorter than that of your average flash in the pan boy band 
and the A&R guys are under vast amounts of pressure to see the artists 
they pick succeed and to pick the next successful artist.  The same 
thing somewhat for record execs though they do last longer the fact of 
the matter is that they are managing large businesses and just like the 
managers of other business they can and often do fail to perform and 
get shitcanned for it just like the rest of us.

I mean there is this tendency to vilify entire genres of human being 
here that I find ridiculous.

I would love to deal with a record exec that is: honest, kind, 
tasteful, wise, fair and generous.  I am sure that just about all 
artists would.  I mean given the choice who would want to deal with any 
other kind of person.  So a person with those traits (and they *are* 
out there) should be successful, right?

Apparently not always.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, dennis gunn <dennis@s...> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 5, 2005, at 12:08 AM, wonko@n... wrote:
SNIP.....> 
>> digital recording equipment.  For example the aphex exciter itself was 
> basically something that was invented in response to the limitations of 
> magnetic tape.  When people stopped using magnetic tape, they *should* 
> have realized they did not need the exciters anymore either.  But not 
> all of them did.

I can't live without my Aural Exciter!  Used with care, there is nothing that makes cymbals 
and vocals come to life like it does without sacrificing head room.

And.....I  mix with NS10m's also.....  I guess I am committing a double crime!  However my 
stuff sounds good anywhere it's played.  Part of the reason for the thin bass was that the 
NS10m's were not on the scene yet and people were mixing with big Altec's, JBL's and such 
and LOUD.  "There was plenty of bass in the room before we took it home but something 
happened...... "

I  got a kick out of the MIX mag testing of nearfield monitors and their non-stop bashing 
of the Yamaha's but then..... they used the NS10's as a reference!  I don't think they even 
realized what they did.  In 85% of the pictures or ads of control rooms in MIX, you could 
always spot a pair of 10m's.

I know I'll get a rant on this but..... if you don't have a pair and you can find a pair, you'd 
better buy them as they ain't making anymore!

Charlie
P.S. I also listen on a pair of Auratones, some nice Altecs and headphones.

On Jan 5, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Charlie Massey wrote:

> I  got a kick out of the MIX mag testing of nearfield monitors and 
> their non-stop bashing
> of the Yamaha's but then..... they used the NS10's as a reference!  I 
> don't think they even
> realized what they did.  In 85% of the pictures or ads of control 
> rooms in MIX, you could
> always spot a pair of 10m's.
>
> I know I'll get a rant on this but..... if you don't have a pair and 
> you can find a pair, you'd
> better buy them as they ain't making anymore!
>
> Charlie
> P.S. I also listen on a pair of Auratones, some nice Altecs and 
> headphones.
>
>


Charlie!

	I have no NS10's but I check all mixes on a pair of Radio Shack 
Minimus 7's!
They are vintage and wonderful little speakers.

Dave Shirk
Pamlico Sounds

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Shirk <dave@p...> wrote:

>> 	I have no NS10's but I check all mixes on a pair of Radio Shack 
> Minimus 7's!
> They are vintage and wonderful little speakers.
> 
> Dave Shirk
> Pamlico Sounds

Dave,
You're absolutely right.  I've used them myself and found them to give an honest picture.

Charlie

On Jan 5, 2005, at 3:18 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/4/05 6:20:44 PM, bill@... writes:
>
>
> I find it mind-boggling that people try to defend the theft of music by
>  giving it a puerile euphemism like "file sharing".
>
>
>
>  I think Ubik's comment was that he wanted to share his own music and 
> wished artists could do that for the love of their craft.

The love of their craft is precisely the reason people protect the 
concept of intellectual property, because without protection of it 
there can be no professional songwriters because there will be no way 
for them to get paid for what they do.

> I don't think he advocated borrowing from someone else without their 
> permission.

That is exactly what you are advocating when you say the Vervepipe 
should not have been prosecuted for borrowing the Stones property 
without their permission.

> As for me, I am in agreement with intellectual property rights for 
> songwriters,

Apparently not.

> and thats why I felt the Vervepipe should get >some< compensation for 
> thier creative endeavors. That doesn't mean its ok to steal samples.

They did steal samples and they got fined for it.  If they had not 
gotten fined then they would have basically been rewarded for stealing 
the samples and that would have encouraged other people to do the same 
thing.  Honestly I cannot see what is difficult to comprehend here.


>  Jokes are written by human beings - creative and clever ones - and 
> comedians make livings just as muscians do.

And the comedians who get paid to use the jokes pay them as do the 
people who publish the books with the jokes in them.

> So do chefs. Check out www.foodnetwork.com for thousands of recipes 
> from tv shows. New recipes are created all the time by people who went 
> to chef school and spent years praticing their craft and using their 
> creativity.

And they get money for publishing recipes.  That's why they publish 
them.  And if there were not intellectual property rights to protect 
those publications they probably would not publish them.


> Hopefully songwriters will continue to be compensated as they have 
> been but with the MP3 model - all of you buying only one song instead 
> of an album means that the songwriters for those other songs don't get 
> royalties - therefore the playing field will become more uneven.

Which means that the guy who writes the song that sells gets paid and 
the guys who don't write songs that sell don't.

> Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag for mp3's just as its easy to 
> send email jokes and email recipes, people share music now.

You have already said that and it does not work.  People do not get 
paid for forwarding a Joke or a Recipe so there simply is no cut of any 
royalty to be sent to the original author.

> So the business model has changed, and people need to adapt to make 
> money.

Adapt how?  By letting the Vervepipe screw them at will?

--- GAmoore@... wrote:
> Check
> out www.foodnetwork.com 
> for thousands of recipes from tv shows. New recipes
> are created all the time by 
> people who went to chef school and spent years
> praticing their craft and 
> using their creativity.

Your analogy isn't terribly accurate.  At best, a
recipe website is the equivalent of giving sheetmusic
away.  Sharing mp3's is the equivalent of forcing
those tv chefs to come over to your house and cook you
a meal.  Or maybe more accurately, it is going to the
supermarket and STEALING the wolfgang puck frozen
foods.  A little but lossy, but a reasonable facsimile
of the original.  Do you think you should be able to
get Wolfgang Puck's food for free at your local
supermarket, just because you could, with a lot of
effort and talent, buy a meal at his restaurant and
recreate it for free in your own kitchen?  That's the
argument in favour of filesharing.  I should be able
to have the original for free because, after all, I
could make the exact same song if I just spent a
couple hundred grand on recording facilities and
talented musicians, so therefore I'm entitled to it
for free.

Given how easy it is for a talented (or not) musician
to generate sheet music from a couple of listens to a
song, I think it is fair to argue that musicians
already willingly accept the same level of exposure as
a professional chef revealing his recipe.  The magic
isn't in the combination of ingredients to proportion,
it is in the execution of the preparation, just like
music.  You can mix the correct notes together to your
hearts content, but only an artist (or artists) will
generate something equal in artistic endeavour to the
original.

Copying a cd, on the other hand, allows any joe blow
to access the original performance as though someone
had shoved a chef's masterpiece in a star trek
replicator and delivered a copy to ev ery home in
america.

--sam



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

--- dennis gunn <dennis@...> wrote:

> > and thats why I felt the Vervepipe should get
> >some< compensation for 
> > thier creative endeavors. That doesn't mean its ok
> to steal samples.
> 
> They did steal samples and they got fined for it. 
> If they had not 
> gotten fined then they would have basically been
> rewarded for stealing 
> the samples and that would have encouraged other
> people to do the same 
> thing.  Honestly I cannot see what is difficult to
> comprehend here.
> 

The reality is, that the Vervepipe to the decision out
of the Stones' hands.  If they had asked in advance,
the Stones would have had the option of saying no. 
And if they had said yes, they would have negotiated 
a FAIR agreement for the use.  It was unfair of the
vervepipe to not allow the Stones the opportunity to
decide what happens to THEIR music, so the settlement
against the vervepipe unfairly PUNISHED them.  It
wasn't just a matter of righting a wrong and getting
the Stones their cash. It was a matter of punishing
them for theft, not to mention setting an example to
prevent future abuses.  Given their actions, the
Vervepipe didn't deserve a penny.  Had they approched
the situation honestly and before the release, I'm
sure that they would have kept much of the profit fomr
their sales, assuming the Stones allowed the use of
their music at all.  And if they didn't, then the
Vervepipe had no business whatsoever releasing a song
containing someone else's work against their will.

--sam



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

On Jan 5, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Charlie Massey wrote:
>  I can't live without my Aural Exciter!  Used with care, there is 
> nothing that makes cymbals
>  and vocals come to life like it does without sacrificing head room.
>
>  And.....I  mix with NS10m's also..... 

You are hardly alone.

> I guess I am committing a double crime! 

Probably.

> However my
>  stuff sounds good anywhere it's played. 

Perhaps they do, but certainly no thanks to your monitors.  I mixed for 
years on NS10s too.

Then I got some Dynaudio Acoustics BM6As and I heard what things 
actually sounded like.

The mixes I do on the BM6As translate to other systems better than the 
ones I did on the NS10s and mixing on the BM6As does not drill holes in 
my skull.

I also can enjoy recreational listening of classical music on the BM6As 
and feel like I am right there in the symphony hall when I close my 
eyes.  Attempting the same with NS10s makes me feel like I am in a 
dentist's chair.



> Part of the reason for the thin bass was that the
>  NS10m's were not on the scene yet and people were mixing with big 
> Altec's, JBL's and such
>  and LOUD.  "There was plenty of bass in the room before we took it 
> home but something
>  happened...... "
>
>  I  got a kick out of the MIX mag testing of nearfield monitors and 
> their non-stop bashing
>  of the Yamaha's but then..... they used the NS10's as a reference!  I 
> don't think they even
>  realized what they did.  In 85% of the pictures or ads of control 
> rooms in MIX, you could
>  always spot a pair of 10m's.

Yes, everybody knows they are an industry standard and that is why I 
have a pair of the ugly little beasts staring at me with their big 
baleful white eyes even as I type this.  They were recognized for years 
as an example of an average crap speaker.  Though once in a blue moon 
somebody does ask to check a mix through them these days in my room 
they mainly serve as gargoyles to remind me what mixing must be like in 
hell.

Though they still can be found in most studios people are finally 
starting to move away from them for several reasons.  For one thing the 
consumer audio industry has evolved and while speakers are still kind 
of shitty it is a different flavor of shit than the NS10s were designed 
to squirt.

Anyway I used to buy into the "if it sounds good on NS10s it will sound 
good on anything" theory until I got some actual decent speakers and 
found mixes I did on them transported to other systems even better than 
the ones I did on the NS10s and I had basically been torturing myself 
for nothing.

I find it amusing to see people drop 40k on a recording system and then 
play back through some $300 speakers that don't even make any sound 
under 60hz.


>  I know I'll get a rant on this but..... if you don't have a pair and 
> you can find a pair, you'd
>  better buy them as they ain't making anymore!

Oh yes, a real "must have..."

>  Charlie
>  P.S. I also listen on a pair of Auratones, some nice Altecs and 
> headphones.

That is the way I used to work too.  Then after I got the BM6As I 
gradually stopped because I found I did not have to do that anymore.  
When I was done on the BM6As I was done period because I knew exactly 
what I had.

I second what Denis said. I have a pair of dynaudio acoustic BM6As, and 
they are absolutely spot on. whatever I mix on them is going to sound 
exactly the same anywhere else I play them...

Uzo

On 5 Jan 2005, at 13:30, dennis gunn wrote:

> Perhaps they do, but certainly no thanks to your monitors.  I mixed 
> for years on NS10s too.
>
> Then I got some Dynaudio Acoustics BM6As and I heard what things 
> actually sounded like.

> I second what Denis said. I have a pair of dynaudio acoustic 
> BM6As, and they are absolutely spot on. whatever I mix on 
> them is going to sound exactly the same anywhere else I play them...

Oh? What if your mix is played back through NS10s? ;)

The point is, *all* speakers (and I do mean ALL) color the sound. There is
no such thing as a speaker with zero distortion and a perfectly flat 1 to
100,000 Hz frequency response. Even where you place your speakers makes a
difference. What speaker sounds best is subjective.

Kamm

On Jan 5, 2005, at 7:29 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

>
>  In a message dated 1/5/05 1:58:35 AM, dennis@... 
> writes:
> > I don't think he advocated borrowing from someone else without their
>  > permission.
>
>  That is exactly what you are advocating when you say the Vervepipe
>  should not have been prosecuted for borrowing the Stones property
>  without their permission.
>
>  Please don't change my words. I have always said that the Vervepipe 
> were wrong, and that the Stones desserved compensation (or whoever 
> wrote the string arrangement of their song who was clearly not them - 
> that unknown guy was the one who was actually ripped off). My only 
> point was that the Verve Pipe added a melody, lyrics, and a made a 
> song out of it, and it doesn't seem fair in my view that they get 
> nothing at all for their creativity and intellectual property rights.

It is perfectly fair.  The reason they got nothing for their 
intellectual property was because in the process of publishing it they 
tried to use the intellectual property of somebody else for nothing.  
It is the most beautifully symmetrical bit of fairness I can imagine.  
They got done to them the exact thing they were trying to do to someone 
else.


>  I think you and several others have made your point quite clear 
> (multiple times) that the Stones desserve 100% of all royalties as 
> some sort of punitive measure.

We only made it clear to those with a sense of morality.

> I understand that view. If I was in one of the biggest and richest 
> bands in the world I would have been a bit more magnanamous and asked 
> for them to properly credit the sample,  perhaps recall unsold copies 
> and have a sticker placed on them about the source of the sample, and 
> demanded half of their earnings. I think that would have sent a 
> message. If I was very successful I wouldn't try to crush a new band 
> with their only hit song. It just seems unnecessarily greedy. But that 
> is my opinion and I don't ask anyone else agree with it.

The wealth or lack thereof of the plaintiffs is not supposed to matter. 
  The law is supposed to apply equally to all.  Thieves are not supposed 
to be rewarded for stealing.  There is nothing complicated about it.

>
> > and thats why I felt the Vervepipe should get >some< compensation for
>  > thier creative endeavors. That doesn't mean its ok to steal samples.
>
>  They did steal samples and they got fined for it. 
>
>
>  Fine. They should pay. The only difference in our views is in how 
> much they should pay. What if I A wrote the music for Bittersweet 
> Symphony and B wrote the Lyrics. A steals the sample and doesn't tell 
> B. Should B not get any money for his lyrics?

I don't know but I also do not know if that is what happened in fact I 
doubt very much that is what happened.  Furthermore for publishing 
purposes of that album the Vervepipe is probably a single entity under 
the law.  Also when you sign publishing documents you sign an affidavit 
that the material you are publishing is yours free and clear and that 
nobody can make any claims against it.  The Vervepipe most certainly 
presented such a document to the European publishing authority and 
clearly it was done in bad faith since in fact they were not the sole 
authors of the material and some of contributing authors (the Stones) 
had not been notified.  This in itself renders the Vervepipe's claim to 
royalties null and void.  The Stones did not screw them, they screwed 
themselves.

>
> >  Jokes are written by human beings - creative and clever ones - and
>  > comedians make livings just as muscians do.
>
>  And the comedians who get paid to use the jokes pay them as do the
>  people who publish the books with the jokes in them.
>
>  Many jokes are put into email lists and sent around the world. If 
> people arbitarily sent MP3's around I don't think you would be happy.

People do arbitrarily send mp3s around and people who make the music 
don't like it.  So?

> One could argue that writing good jokes takes the same amount of 
> talent as being a great musician - a different kind of talent, but not 
> something many people can do.

So?  Like I keep telling you people publish these things in magazines 
or books ore whatever or comedians pay for them as original material 
and if they are really good the general public picks them up and starts 
retelling them.  The people who write them get their bit from the 
initial publication.  That is the way it happens that is the way it is 
expected to happen, that is the way it always has happened and that is 
the way it always will.  No one is upset about it.  The people who pass 
them on DO NOT GET A PROFIT FOR IT SO THERE IS NOTHING FOR THEM TO PASS 
ON TO THE AUTHOR.

It is not a comparable situation to the VervePipe ripping off the 
stones.


> > So do chefs. Check out www.foodnetwork.com for thousands of recipes
>  > from tv shows. New recipes are created all the time by people who 
> went
>  > to chef school and spent years praticing their craft and using their
>  > creativity.
>
>  And they get money for publishing recipes.  That's why they publish
>  them.  And if there were not intellectual property rights to protect
>  those publications they probably would not publish them.
>
>
>
>  Actually some recipes are copyrighted. But we don't pay royalties for 
> their use.

That is because like I have said about 5 times now the people who 
publish them make their money on the sale of the publication they 
appear in.  They do not expect any other compensation and that is 
reasonable for the simple reason that policing their usage would be 
impossible.


> > Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag for mp3's just as its easy to
> > send email jokes and email recipes, people share music now.
>
>  You have already said that and it does not work.  People do not get
>  paid for forwarding a Joke or a Recipe so there simply is no cut of 
> any
>  royalty to be sent to the original author.
>
>
>  Comedians get paid for live shows, tv appearances, and DVD's. If 
> someone copied thier jokes to text and emailed it, its equivalent to 
> someone ripping an MP3 and forwarding it.

No it is not comparable.  They did the show and they got paid.  It is 
one thing to see Steve Martin tell a joke, it is another thing 
altogether to hear me repeat it.  It is like the difference between 
hearing the stones play Jumping Jack Flash and having me hum it to you 
over the phone.


> I imagine that there are quite a few CD's you can't find on the Itunes 
> music store and can only be purchased in an AIFF/CD format. So in the 
> same way, there is no particular cut of MP3 forwarding, but it might 
> cut into sales of the legitimate product.
>
>
>
> > So the business model has changed, and people need to adapt to make
>  > money.
>
>  Adapt how?  By letting the Vervepipe screw them at will?
>

> Its been a fact for several years, that 'stealing' MP3's is a world 
> wide phenomenan. Its doubtful that its going to ever be curtailed.

The old "Lots of people steal so therefore stealing is not wrong" 
argument?  Your moral compass has been resting on a magnet for too 
long.  But really what does that have to do with the Stones letting the 
Vervepipe get away with ripping them off.

> With pods and computer audio systems, the entire world of music is 
> changed. Like it or not. You can argue until you are blue in the face, 
> but the reality remains that people steal music and they listen to 
> music in different forms. Its a changing business world. and its 
> necessary for music creators to adapt - as Prince and Bowie and Peter 
> Gabriel and others are trying to do.

That still does not suggest that the Stones should allow the VervePipe 
to rip them off at will if they do not have to and the facts on the 
ground are proof that they don't have to.

So what exactly is your point?

>  When synths came out, the musicians unions tried to prevent thier use 
> - these guys worked hard to become good musicians then suddenly the 
> model for making music changed. And the ones who kept complaining 
> about the new technology didn't make it, while the ones who adapted, 
> did.

Pff.  Somebody's stupidity proves nothing.  Real violins and saxophones 
still have not been replaced.

GAmoore@... wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/4/05 1:11:24 PM, logicusers@... writes:
>
>> That's why the online music stores are such a good
>> thing for the industry.  Prices are cheap, but they
>> are selling an inferior product, so that's ok. 
>
>
>
> They are essentially selling crappy MP3 files for the same price as 
> you pay for a physical CD with full audio resolution. On the basis of 
> their lower costs of manufacturer (printing, plastic, CD, graphic 
> arts), shipping, etc... they should pass on the discount to the 
> customers. 

hopefully, nature will take it's course and the markets and competition 
will drive prices down.

let's not forget, the whole time the RIAA  was sueing  12 year olds over 
downloading mp3z, they(all the members) implemented a "minimum retail 
value" policy. in other words, price fixing. this is why it's so vitally 
important to bust up the current monopolistic power structure of music 
industry and distribute the power among the producers and artists. power 
concentrated in the hands of a few is a bad and dangerous thing.

Punk emerged in the early 1970's with Iggy Pop as the
father of it.  Post New Wave in the 1980's is all
about melody & experimentation with musical electronic
instruments (i.e. drum machines, efx boxes,
sequencers, loops, and music video for the first time,
etc.).  Things evolve; then someone says "Hey, we need
some more bass here!" and it sticks.  Heavy bass is
now.  That will come and go like other music trends.  

The only thing I noticed, as far as drugs go, was that
the Beatles, Rolling Stones, et al's music became
increasingly sleepy as they got off booze and moved
into LSD & Js.  It was like the energy got zapped out
of their music.  A lot of mellow groups evolved during
that time.  You may now call their music fit for the
elevators.

Mitchell

--- Paul Najar <pnajar@...> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 04/01/2005, at 8:37 PM, u b i k wrote:
> 
> > Speaking of, can anybody explain what exactly
> happened in the 80's?
> > Does doing coke make you want to hear less bass,
> or no bass?  Cold
> > reverb mixes for a cold drug, I guess.  Then
> again, the cold war
> > peaked, maybe blow isn't to blame...
> 
> It was the initial post punk era that emerged around
> the late 70's. 
> Punk itself being (ideologically at least) a lot
> about not having to be 
> a virtuoso often had really simple bass lines so it
> was not much of a 
> step to either a very soft bass or no bass - think
> Prince's "When Doves 
> Cry"
> 
> 
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Paul Najar
> Jaminajar Music Production
> www.jaminajar.com
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page \ufffd Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

Hi,

On 5-Jan-05, at 7:12 AM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

>  The point is, *all* speakers (and I do mean ALL) color the sound. 
> There is
>  no such thing as a speaker with zero distortion and a perfectly flat 
> 1 to
>  100,000 Hz frequency response. Even where you place your speakers 
> makes a
>  difference. What speaker sounds best is subjective.

Yes, that is true.  However, with all other things being equal, some 
speakers color the sound *more* than others.  That is a big reason why 
you have nearfields that cost only a few hundred dollars and other 
nearfields that cost several thousand.  A speaker that is more accurate 
(less coloring) and has a smoother transition through the crossover 
frequency (most nearfields employ a 2-way system) will allow you to 
hear more of what is really going on and provide a more accurate stereo 
image.

All Dennis is saying is that by using a better speaker, it is easier 
for him to get a better mix and the final result that he is looking 
for.  For some people, they don't see the point or they can't justify 
the extra expense.  To each their own.  To a certain extent, what 
speaker sounds best *is* subjective.  However, there are more than 
subtle differences when you're comparing something like an NS10 to the 
Dynaudios or my A.D.A.M. S2A's.  I spent a ton of time choosing which 
speakers would work best for me in my room a couple of years ago.  I 
tried everything from the lower end such as the NS10's, Alesis, etc. to 
Mackie, Blue Sky, A.D.A.M., Dynaudio, Genelec.    At one time I had 
about 5 different brands of monitor covering a large range in terms of 
price.  The differences were quite apparent to most people.  Yes, it 
was still subjective, but the bottom line and common theme between 
everyone's preferences was that you do get what you pay for.  Not any 
one speaker pleased everyone.  In some cases, some people preferred the 
low end of one and the high end of another.

The old cliche of "you've got to know your speakers" is only a partial 
truth IMHO.  This is a saying, IMHO, that makes people feel better 
about themselves when they've chosen to use lower-end speakers instead 
of investing in more expensive (and more accurate) monitors.  IMHO, if 
you can't hear it, how can you possibly compensate for it.  You may 
know about it and you may boost/cut at a particular frequency to 
compensate for your speaker, but you'll always be guessing.  *KNOWING* 
is much better and I think that that is what Dennis is getting at.

Just MHO,
Fernstudio

> Comedians get paid for live shows, tv appearances,
> and DVD's. If someone 
> copied thier jokes to text and emailed it, its
> equivalent to someone ripping an 
> MP3 and forwarding it. 

No, it's not.  Copying someone's joke into text and
emailing it is the equivalent to a garage band
learning to play your song and then performing it for
someone else.  There is a huge difference.  I might
pay to see Prince performing Musicology (I did, in
fact), but I have no interest in hearing 'Prance'
cover the tune.  If it such covers cost prince
anything at all, it is a tiny amount compared to what
file 'sharing' costs him, particularly when he is
producing and distributing the album himself, taking
80% instead of 5%.

You are right, it is a changing business world, and
folks need to embrace technology, but they DON'T have
to give up all their work for free, particularly when
talking about something as simple and easily enforced
as copyright on works being used by other artists. 
iTMS and others have restored a business model that
works, but stopping the trade in illegal music should
remain a priority, whether through DRM or some other
mechanism.  That said, I think maintaining some level
of fair use availability for future purchases is
important.  If I can't listen to a purchase at home,
on every stereo in the house, at work, and on my mp3
player(s), I have no interest in buying it.

--sam



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

> Yes, that is true. However, with all other things being 
> equal, some speakers color the sound *more* than others. That 
> is a big reason why you have nearfields that cost only a few 
> hundred dollars and other nearfields that cost several 
> thousand.

Yes, of course, some speakers are better than others. But there does come a
point of diminishing returns. First of all, nobody listens to music on
studio monitors other than people who work in studios. So, right away, there
is no way that what *you* hear is going to sound like what everyone else
hears. Speakers are tested in special rooms and with mics set in specific
locations and with specific mics. Unless your room is identical and your
ears are at exactly the same distance from the speaker as the test
equipment, what you hear will be somewhat different.

I'm not saying you should go out and buy cheap speakers. On the contrary, I
think you should buy good speakers and test results are one way of
evaluating the speakers. What others say is another. But unless you've
actually compared all available speakers in *your* studio, can you really
say for sure you've found the best pair?

Anyway I agree with you - mostly - but I would not blanketly accept that if
you pay more money, you'll get better speakers. It only increases your
chances of getting a better speaker.

With that said, I wasn't really making the statement that you thought I was,
I was responding to Uzo's statement. What Uzo said was:

<<
I have a pair of dynaudio acoustic BM6As, and they are absolutely spot on.
whatever I mix on them is going to sound exactly the same anywhere else I
play them...
>>

He said that it sounds *exactly* the same anywhere. That's clearly bull and
I was catching him in a, well, untruth. The truth is that it will sound
different, to some degree, on any other speaker system it is played through.

Regards,

Kamm

Hi Kamm,

On 5-Jan-05, at 11:25 AM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

>  Yes, of course, some speakers are better than others. But there does 
> come a
>  point of diminishing returns. First of all, nobody listens to music on
>  studio monitors other than people who work in studios. So, right 
> away, there
>  is no way that what *you* hear is going to sound like what everyone 
> else
>  hears. Speakers are tested in special rooms and with mics set in 
> specific
>  locations and with specific mics. Unless your room is identical and 
> your
>  ears are at exactly the same distance from the speaker as the test
>  equipment, what you hear will be somewhat different.

Certainly, the more expensive you go, the more subtle the differences 
are.  The point of good/better monitors is not so that everyone can 
hear what you hear in your room.  It is, rather, so that you are able 
to get a good mix that will translate well to other systems.  By that, 
I mean that, things will sound in place no matter where you go.  That 
does not mean that the mix will sound exactly the same everywhere else 
nor that it will be perfect everywhere else.

>  I'm not saying you should go out and buy cheap speakers. On the 
> contrary, I
>  think you should buy good speakers and test results are one way of
>  evaluating the speakers. What others say is another. But unless you've
>  actually compared all available speakers in *your* studio, can you 
> really
>  say for sure you've found the best pair?

Certainly, testing them out in your own space is the best situation.  
That's exactly what I did for the reasons you mention.

>  <snip>
>
>  He said that it sounds *exactly* the same anywhere. That's clearly 
> bull and
>  I was catching him in a, well, untruth. The truth is that it will 
> sound
>  different, to some degree, on any other speaker system it is played 
> through.

I understand now.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Fernstudio

So, does anyone else here do low-end mastering with Logic/AU plugins?  

I've been mastering a few demos for some local bands and while I think I'm 
doing a decent job, I'd love to hear what other people are using.

Thus far my chain has been a (when needed) multiband compressor/limiter -
either PSP Vintagewarmer or more recently l7's multiband comp, then Firium
for EQ (although sometimes I put that before the multiband), and then
ad-Limiter to peak limit at the end (I don't have Waves Masters and I'm
sick of dealing with the company).  I recently snagged ApulSoft's port of
the SlimSlowslider Multiband, which is FIR and have been toying with that
- it looks pretty cool.

Anybody else?

_______________________________________________________
Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
Synthetic music for synthetic people.

> Certainly, testing them out in your own space is the best 
> situation. That's exactly what I did for the reasons you mention.

Ahh. A smart man. (woman?) I know too many people who simply accept what
they are told by others as gospel. If I had done that, I'd be using ProTools
instead of Logic, but I went to Guitar Center and tried ProTools before
buying it. Obviously, I didn't like it. ;)

Kamm

> 
> I downloaded some free tunes on Apple's "free song
> on Tuesday" deal. But its 
> in Apple's protected AAC format. So I download to my
> laptop, and then copy to 
> my desktop where I keep my itunes library organized,
> and it gives me an error 
> message that these songs is not authorized to run on
> this different computer. 
> This is a fatal flaw which is going to prevent me
> from buying anything on 
> iTunes.
> 


There is a way to deauthorize the song on the
downloaded computer and authorize it somewhere else, I
believe, although I have no idea what it is.  Also, I
thought that normal iTMS songs could be played on 3
computers, not just 1.  Perhaps the free songs are
different.

--sam



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

I love Firium and EQium myself. And contrary to the standard advice to make 
only slight changes in EQ, I make some pretty radical cuts on individual 
tracks.

Did you try the multi-band compressor and the Logic's limiter at the final 
stage? I have some problems with UAD's LA2A in limit mode because it seems hard 
to control the level.   The UAD pultec seems to some beef at times.

>
>> Comedians get paid for live shows, tv appearances,
>> and DVD's. If someone
>> copied thier jokes to text and emailed it, its
>> equivalent to someone ripping an
>> MP3 and forwarding it.
>
> No, it's not.  Copying someone's joke into text and
> emailing it is the equivalent to a garage band
> learning to play your song and then performing it for
> someone else.  There is a huge difference.

AMEN THERE BUDDY
I agree with this part Sam,
but the whole Prance thing..... well.
Let me add, Thats why Bars, Clubs, and Venues pay ASCAP and BMI a 
yearly fee to have cover bands perform, so Labels can cover costs and 
artists get some royalties. Venues charge an entry fee to pay the 
band/sound guy (girl) and recoup their yearly fees from ASCAP and BMI.
That goes also for playing DMX, XM or SAT music, etc. in a 
Club/Bar/Venue. They fall out of the category of "private" use and go 
into an invitational (cover fee) or promotional tier. They pay a little 
more for the subscription. There is Residential, Corporate, Venue fees.
That covers everybody a little better.
Imagine your tune jamming at your local bar or club, you'll be very 
pleased to find a check in your mailbox after the taxi drops you off 
home after a night of partying with the (Logic) gang. Thats where 
copyrights come in very tasty. you get paid while you........ 
ahem...... party, or even drive around in your car (with a hangover 
from the party the night before, those darn Logic users can really put 
them down)you'll hear your tune and when you check that mail box again, 
well, you'll know you were not dreaming that you found a check in there 
the night before.
Radio pays royalties too.
Ciao
Gio

>
> There is a way to deauthorize the song on the
> downloaded computer and authorize it somewhere else, I
> believe, although I have no idea what it is.  Also, I
> thought that normal iTMS songs could be played on 3
> computers, not just 1.  Perhaps the free songs are
> different.
>
> --sam
>

I might be wrong, and I'll check on this but I believe, last I saw, its 
been extended to 7 copies now.
Ciao
Gio

On 06/01/2005, at 2:12 AM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> The point is, *all* speakers (and I do mean ALL) color the sound. 
> There is
> no such thing as a speaker with zero distortion and a perfectly flat 1 
> to
> 100,000 Hz frequency response. Even where you place your speakers 
> makes a
> difference. What speaker sounds best is subjective.

And don't forget that the room you have them in has a HUGE bearing on 
what you will hear also. Even in  the near field.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paul Najar
Jaminajar Music Production
www.jaminajar.com

--- Fernstudio <fernstudio@...> wrote:

  However, there
> are more than 
> subtle differences when you're comparing something
> like an NS10 to the 
> Dynaudios or my A.D.A.M. S2A's. 

I just upgraded speakers and via an online forum,
consulted with the renowned mastering engineer Bob
Katz. If I can be so bold as to paraphrase him, he
really disliked NS-10s and said that in all of his
years of mastering, at most, only 1 out of 6 mixes
done on NS-10s did not have serious problems with
bass. FWIW, based on his advice I purchased a pair of
DynAudio BM 15s and could not be happier.  JP

--- GAmoore@... wrote:

> I downloaded some free tunes on Apple's "free song
> on Tuesday" deal. But its 
> in Apple's protected AAC format. So I download to my
> laptop, and then copy to 
> my desktop where I keep my itunes library organized,
> and it gives me an error 
> message that these songs is not authorized to run on
> this different computer. 
> This is a fatal flaw which is going to prevent me
> from buying anything on 
> iTunes.
>
Are you sure these restrictions aren't only placed on
the free songs? When paying for a song you can choose
the download format and although there is some
transferring restriction, I know you are allowed more
than one transfer.  JP

On Jan 6, 2005, at 12:12 AM, Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> >
>  I second what Denis said. I have a pair of dynaudio acoustic
>  > BM6As, and they are absolutely spot on. whatever I mix on
>  > them is going to sound exactly the same anywhere else I play them...
>
>  Oh? What if your mix is played back through NS10s? ;)

Then it will sound like shit just like everything else that passes 
through NS10s.  I don't think he really meant the mixes would sound 
"the same" every where, what I think he meant and I know I meant was 
that they translated better.

Interestingly I listened to a hug part of my pretty extensive CD 
collection when I got my BM6As because I just could not believe what I 
was hearing.  After listening to about 200 CDs there was exactly one 
that I actually thought sounded better on the Yamahas it was a Tito 
Puente album and the horns were just some how punchier and groovier and 
the whole thing just sounded more vibrant on the NS10s than the BM6As.  
The other 199 sounded far far far far far better on the Dynaudios.

>  The point is, *all* speakers (and I do mean ALL) color the sound.

Sure but there is the issue of degrees to which different speakers 
color the sound and if you think BM6As color the sound as much as or as 
harshly NS10s you best start hunting for them marbles you have clearly 
lost.

> There is no such thing as a speaker with zero distortion and a 
> perfectly flat 1 to 100,000 Hz frequency response.

Again some speakers are measurably flatter than other and NS10s are not 
in the "measure as relatively flat" camp at all

> Even where you place your speakers makes a difference.

Sure, it also makes a much more noticeable difference with BM6As than 
it does with NS10s because BM6As are very good and rendering nuances 
and image wonderfully whereas NS10s don't really image worth a shit.

> What  speaker sounds best is subjective.

Of course it is.  For example I think Genelecs and Mackies are probably 
just as accurate as the Dynaudios, and I don't particularly like 
Genelec or Mackies from a subjective point of view, but I would not 
argue with anyone who preferred their sound, there is no argument to 
make, but even if they are not my faves they still beat the hell out of 
NS10s for the simple reason that they are in an entirely different 
league of accuracy and the don't lop off the bottom end.

What speaker is more accurate is not subjective it is quite 
measureable.  Nor is what speaker more accurately reflects current 
trends subjective.  Modern systems, even cheap ones simply have more 
bottom end, and CDs can reproduce more bass than records used to 
because the people who master them don't have to worry about stuff like 
shooting the needles out of the grooves than they used to and cutting 
everything off under 60hz like NS10s do (take a sine wave generator and 
test it for yourself if you think both me and the specs are lying) is 
just not really a very viable option anymore.

Also my experience has shown me that people have just been doing it 
backwards for the about the past 20 years and they have been doing it 
for basically no better reason than simple heard mentality.  They mix 
on these shitty speakers (which there is simply no denying NS10s are) 
and then check on good ones to see if there are problems.  It is just 
fucking absurd, and I am ashamed to admit that I ran with that absurd 
herd for years.  The fact is if you get it right on some accurate 
speakers you probably have it right, period.  That is at least what I 
have found to be the case since I switched to be more accurate speakers 
and it really stand to reason that it should be that way.

<Bowing head in shame>

> > Then it will sound like shit just like everything else that passes
> > through NS10s....whereas NS10s don't really image worth a shit.
> > ...they still beat the hell out of
> > NS10s ....They mix on these shitty speakers
> > (which there is simply no denying NS10s are)
>
> I'm having trouble understanding your opinion because its a bit vague. Can
> stop beating around the bush, and be more clear as to whether or not you
> like the NS-10's?

NS10s rule! :o)

(Not that I ever saw or heard one, I just wanted to put some oil on the 
fire). :o)

Maurits.

Hi,
the NS 10 are for me a great tool as second set speakers. Good for 
balancing, doing levels and EQ in the midrange.. I also like them 
beeing pretty clear while not playing so loud, trying keeping the 
volume down...
If i get a mix sound good on them it sounds good (better.. :-) on the 
Genelecs... but not always the other way round.. :-)

The Dynaudio series are great as well.... A good speaker for mixing is 
a pair you know well, for composing a pair you like and think sound 
good.. :)

Best,
Pelle

On 6/1-2005, at 10.52, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:

> > > Then it will sound like shit just like everything else that passes
>  > > through NS10s....whereas NS10s don't really image worth a shit.
>  > > ...they still beat the hell out of
>  > > NS10s ....They mix on these shitty speakers
>  > > (which there is simply no denying NS10s are)
>  >
>  > I'm having trouble understanding your opinion because its a bit 
> vague. Can
>  > stop beating around the bush, and be more clear as to whether or 
> not you
>  > like the NS-10's?
>
>  NS10s rule! :o)
>
>  (Not that I ever saw or heard one, I just wanted to put some oil on 
> the
>  fire). :o)
>
>  Maurits.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	• 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
>  
> 	• 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> 	• 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>
________________________________________________________
Pelle Fridell - pelle@fridell.dk

If it sounds good on NS10s it will sound good just about anywhere.  :)
Retired the NS10s this year for a pair of Yamaha MSP3s for reference.  Still
using Mackie 824s with Mackie HRS120 for the majority.

> 
> Hi,
> the NS 10 are for me a great tool as second set speakers. Good for
> balancing, doing levels and EQ in the midrange.. I also like them
> beeing pretty clear while not playing so loud, trying keeping the
> volume down...
> If i get a mix sound good on them it sounds good (better.. :-) on the
> Genelecs... but not always the other way round.. :-)
> 
> The Dynaudio series are great as well.... A good speaker for mixing is
> a pair you know well, for composing a pair you like and think sound
> good.. :)
> 
> Best,
> Pelle
> 
> On 6/1-2005, at 10.52, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:
> 
>>>> Then it will sound like shit just like everything else that passes
>>>> through NS10s....whereas NS10s don't really image worth a shit.
>>>> ...they still beat the hell out of
>>>> NS10s ....They mix on these shitty speakers
>>>> (which there is simply no denying NS10s are)
>>> 
>>> I'm having trouble understanding your opinion because its a bit
>> vague. Can
>>> stop beating around the bush, and be more clear as to whether or
>> not you
>>> like the NS-10's?
>> 
>>  NS10s rule! :o)
>> 
>>  (Not that I ever saw or heard one, I just wanted to put some oil on
>> the
>>  fire). :o)
>> 
>>  Maurits.
>> 
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> 
>> €     To visit your group on the web, go to:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
>>  
>> €      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>  
>> €      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>> Service.
>> 
>> 
> ________________________________________________________
> Pelle Fridell - pelle@...
>

Ive always hated the NS10s due to the lack of bass that I need to hear 
when mixing. Whats the big difference between the NS10 and the NS10m?

Believe it or not Ive gotten really good results from a pair of MAudio 
SP5's (the original ones, not the newer models) and Sub at home, but was 
thinking lately I want to get a pair of NS10's for reference.. Although 
Im not too particularly thrilled about picking up a pair of someones 
used monitors to do it heh..

-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

Hi James,

On 5-Jan-05, at 11:19 PM, james page wrote:

>  <snip>
>  FWIW, based on his advice I purchased a pair of
>  DynAudio BM 15s and could not be happier.  JP

Great!  I nearly bought the BM-15A's myself and they are great 
monitors.  In the end I went with the S-2A's from A.D.A.M.   I felt the 
top end on them a little bit truer.  While the BM-15A's have a smooth 
top end, there were some subtleties that showed better on the S-2A's.  
I could "hear" the drum stick hitting the ride cymbal and the pick 
plucking the strings.  The BM-15A's go down a little bit lower than the 
S2-A's (but not by that much) which is why I nearly went with them but 
the bass was much tighter on the A.D.A.M.'s.   These were the last two 
that I had narrowed it down to at the end.

Anyway, in the end, it all comes down to what works for each 
individual.  I would never attempt to choose a set of speakers for you 
nor anyone else.  I'll give my opinions and preferences in terms of 
what works for me but I would never tell you that these are the only 
ones that work.  Although some people like to subscribe to the theory 
of "if it sounds good on the NS10's, then it will sound good anywhere 
else", I personally think that these people are working too hard and 
guessing too much.  The NS10's don't have very much bass in them at all 
and everything below 60 Hz or so, you're probably just guessing.  Can 
you get a great mix on NS10's?  Yes.  Can you get a great mix on 
<insert brand of speaker here>?  Yes.  When you can't hear something 
though, you are simply guessing.

In my tests of various speakers, there was an interesting result in one 
test.  I had a jazz track where the drummer was using brushes.  On the 
NS10's I could barely hear the "swish" of the brush (it was there but 
just low in the mix).  On some of the higher end monitors such as the 
Genelecs, Dynaudios, and A.D.A.M.s, it was present and at an 
appropriate volume relative to the rest of the mix.  At that point was 
where I nixed the NS10's.  This track had live drums but I thought 
about the scenario where I'm doing a tune with sampled drums and the 
swish is a sample, separate from the other brush snare hits.  On the 
NS10's I'd be mixing the "swish" much higher than I would on more 
accurate monitors.  Or, rather, since I know about this, I'd be mixing 
it lower on purpose to compensate and guess at what level it would be 
right.

Here is where a subtlety between low and high end monitors shows.  That 
"swish" is well within the NS10's specs for frequency response, and 
since they are fairly bright to begin with, you would figure that it 
would have all been there.  The mix sounded fine being played back 
through the NS10's and better on some of the better monitors.  That is 
not how I want to mix though.  I want to "know" that what I am hearing 
is as accurate as it can be so that the translation to other speakers 
will be good too.  I don't expect it to sound the same everywhere - but 
I do want the mix to translate well without having things stick out 
when they're not supposed to.

Oh well, I don't need to preach to you on the benefits of better 
monitors.  I simply wanted to include my thoughts and opinions on 
monitors and to provide some examples so people don't necessarily think 
that I'm talking out of my *ss.  As well, it may provide another 
perspective so that people can at least consider other things that they 
may not have previously.  That's about it.  I don't get too hung up on 
monitors or brands.  The only other thing that I'll include here is 
that, especially as you invest in better monitors, the room that you 
place them in has a certain importance.  At least some acoustical 
treatment is desirable so that you don't have too many "excited" 
frequencies in your room.  That can cause problems while mixing as 
well.  Oh well,

Best regards,
Fernstudio

Hi,
the only dif betwen 10 and 10m studio is a fuse on the tweeter i 
believe.....

Pelle


On 6/1-2005, at 16.46, Chris Coccia wrote:

>
>  Ive always hated the NS10s due to the lack of bass that I need to hear
>  when mixing. Whats the big difference between the NS10 and the NS10m?
>
>  Believe it or not Ive gotten really good results from a pair of MAudio
>  SP5's (the original ones, not the newer models) and Sub at home, but 
> was
>  thinking lately I want to get a pair of NS10's for reference.. 
> Although
>  Im not too particularly thrilled about picking up a pair of someones
>  used monitors to do it heh..
>
>  --
>  Chris
>
> http://www.descentrecords.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	• 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
>  
> 	• 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> 	• 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>
________________________________________________________
Pelle Fridell - pelle@...

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Fernstudio <fernstudio@t...> wrote:

Snip......> 
> In my tests of various speakers, there was an interesting result in one 
> test.  I had a jazz track where the drummer was using brushes.  On the 
> NS10's I could barely hear the "swish" of the brush (it was there but 
> just low in the mix).  On some of the higher end monitors such as the 
> Genelecs, Dynaudios, and A.D.A.M.s, it was present and at an 
> appropriate volume relative to the rest of the mix.  At that point was 
> where I nixed the NS10's.  This track had live drums but I thought 
> about the scenario where I'm doing a tune with sampled drums and the 
> swish is a sample, separate from the other brush snare hits.  On the 
> NS10's I'd be mixing the "swish" much higher than I would on more 
> accurate monitors.  Or, rather, since I know about this, I'd be mixing 
> it lower on purpose to compensate and guess at what level it would be 
> right.
> 
> Here is where a subtlety between low and high end monitors shows.  That 
> "swish" is well within the NS10's specs for frequency response, and 
> since they are fairly bright to begin with, you would figure that it 
> would have all been there.  The mix sounded fine being played back 
> through the NS10's and better on some of the better monitors.  That is 
> not how I want to mix though. 

Hi Fernstudio,

Here's the deal.  Sure you listened on your Genelecs and other good speakers in your 
studio and the swish was there.  The trick is to go to your neighbor's house and drop the 
CD in their entertainment center and to get in a friend's car and drop the needle on the CD 
on his car setup, etc, etc, etc. Now I don't know this for sure but in many of the test cases 
outside of your enviroment, the swish will disappear which was what the 10m's were 
telling you.

There used to be a studio that had an FM  transmitter so he could broadcast through the 
air to his car radio.  This was pre CD when it was hard to get a good tape player in a car.

Another studio said that the true test was listening on AM radio in his convertible on the 
freeway with the  top down...... 

In other words, as has been stated here before, the environment will never be the same 
and I stand by my words that a good mix on NS10m's will sound good in more 
environments then any other.

I warned everyone about the rant that would ensue, just by mentioning this speaker....... :)

I have other topics  that I will bring up as we motor through time........ haha

Charlie
HFP Florida

Hey Charlie!

	Your points are well taken!  But my studio does
the following:

We mix and master the best damn CD we can - and use the
best damn equipment we have at our disposal - including
monitor speakers.  We want it to sound great for the few
consumers that own high quality stereo systems.  We have
found that listening in lesser environments - the person
listening "on AM Radio in his convertible" is going to be
happy if he can hear anything at all musical!

Dave Shirk
Pamlico Sounds

On Jan 7, 2005, at 2:49 AM, Charlie Massey wrote:

> Hi Fernstudio,
>
> Here's the deal.  Sure you listened on your Genelecs and other good 
> speakers in your
> studio and the swish was there.  The trick is to go to your neighbor's 
> house and drop the
> CD in their entertainment center and to get in a friend's car and drop 
> the needle on the CD
> on his car setup, etc, etc, etc. Now I don't know this for sure but in 
> many of the test cases
> outside of your enviroment, the swish will disappear which was what 
> the 10m's were
> telling you.
>
> There used to be a studio that had an FM  transmitter so he could 
> broadcast through the
> air to his car radio.  This was pre CD when it was hard to get a good 
> tape player in a car.
>
> Another studio said that the true test was listening on AM radio in 
> his convertible on the
> freeway with the  top down......
>
> In other words, as has been stated here before, the environment will 
> never be the same
> and I stand by my words that a good mix on NS10m's will sound good in 
> more
> environments then any other.
>
> I warned everyone about the rant that would ensue, just by mentioning 
> this speaker....... :)
>
> I have other topics  that I will bring up as we motor through 
> time........ haha
>
> Charlie
> HFP Florida

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Pelle Fridell <pellefri@a...> wrote:
> Hi,
> the only dif betwen 10 and 10m studio is a fuse on the tweeter i 
> believe.....
> 

Hi Pelle,

I believe the m stood for monitor and came without the snap on cover.  You could buy the 
NS10's in regular audio stores for many years.

After blowing several of the tweeters, I had a speaker tech tell me to buy a bulb that is 
used to light the interior of cars.  You could buy it at any auto parts house.  Solder it in the 
hot line to the tweeter and Viola!  I haven't fried an $80. tweeter since.  I still have a spare 
tweeter sitting on the shelf that I may sell one of these days. :)  BTW, I have seen the light 
come on inside the box.

Charlie
HFP Florida

Hi Charlie,

On 6-Jan-05, at 11:49 PM, Charlie Massey wrote:

>  Here's the deal.  Sure you listened on your Genelecs and other good 
> speakers in your
>  studio and the swish was there.  The trick is to go to your 
> neighbor's house and drop the
>  CD in their entertainment center and to get in a friend's car and 
> drop the needle on the CD
>  on his car setup, etc, etc, etc. Now I don't know this for sure but 
> in many of the test cases
>  outside of your enviroment, the swish will disappear which was what 
> the 10m's were
>  telling you.

For one, I don't want to have to go to a neighbour's house everytime I 
need to check a mix.  For 2, the mixes that I do on my system sound 
good and balanced on other systems that I take them to.  They may not 
sound exactly the same but they're still balanced.  The fact that the 
swish will disappear on systems outside of my environment is irrelevant 
to me.  There will be people whose systems can reproduce more 
accurately than an NS10 and *they* will hear the difference.  I stand 
by my words that if I can't hear it, I will boost something which may 
make the mix sound good on that speaker but may leave it out of balance 
on another.  The old argument of "knowing one's speaker" doesn't stand 
true for me.  I don't want to compensate blindly without actually 
hearing my results nor do I want to go check mixes on a bunch of other 
systems if I don't need to.

>  In other words, as has been stated here before, the environment will 
> never be the same
>  and I stand by my words that a good mix on NS10m's will sound good in 
> more
>  environments then any other.

If we created our music for the lowest common denominator, then there 
would be no need for Neumann condensers, Apogee converters, Avalon mic 
pres, etc.  Just because someone can't hear the subtleties in those 
higher-end devices doesn't mean that you should use lesser equipment.

>  I warned everyone about the rant that would ensue, just by mentioning 
> this speaker....... :)

I'm not ranting - just stating an opinion as you are.  :-)

>  I have other topics  that I will bring up as we motor through 
> time........ haha
>

Bring 'em on  ;-)

Fernstudio

On Jan 7, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Charlie Massey wrote:
>  Here's the deal.  Sure you listened on your Genelecs and other good 
> speakers in your
>  studio and the swish was there.  The trick is to go to your 
> neighbor's house and drop the
>  CD in their entertainment center and to get in a friend's car and 
> drop the needle on the CD
>  on his car setup, etc, etc, etc. Now I don't know this for sure but 
> in many of the test cases
>  outside of your enviroment, the swish will disappear which was what 
> the 10m's were
>  telling you.

And on many other consumer systems they won't disappear and rather will 
become exaggerated and it is pretty much impossible to say which will 
do what.  If Yamaha NS10s dominated the consumer market there might be 
some validity to your line of reasoning but they don't so there isn't.  
So lets say he does nudge up the brushes so he can hear them on the the 
Yamahells and then he goes to his neighbors house and discovers to his 
horror that they totally dominate the mix.  The fact of the matter is 
if you mess with a mix to get it to sound right on some speaker with an 
uneven frequency response the only thing that you are assured of is 
that the mix will never sound quite right on anything that does not 
have the same uneven frequency response and quite likely it won't even 
sound right on them either.


>  There used to be a studio that had an FM  transmitter so he could 
> broadcast through the
>  air to his car radio.  This was pre CD when it was hard to get a good 
> tape player in a car.
>
>  Another studio said that the true test was listening on AM radio in 
> his convertible on the
>  freeway with the  top down......

All these tests tell you is what the mix sounds like when you can't 
hear it, and you can do whatever you want with your NS10s but they will 
not tell you what the mix will sound like on car speakers.


>  In other words, as has been stated here before, the environment will 
> never be the same
>  and I stand by my words that a good mix on NS10m's will sound good in 
> more
>  environments then any other.

The proof is in the puddin and as several others have said here the 
experience has been that the mixes I did on NS10s never translated as 
well or as universally as the ones I did on the BM6As.

NS10s are crap and Yamaha either had an incredible stroke of pure luck 
that they caught on or entered some bizarre three way pact with the NSA 
an the Beezlibub, or something, because it sure was not the sound or 
the accuracy of these speakers that made them so undeservedly 
successful.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Massey" <tenorsax20@m...> 
wrote:



> 
> Hi Fernstudio,
> 
> Here's the deal.  Sure you listened on your Genelecs and other good 
speakers in your 
> studio and the swish was there.  The trick is to go to your 
neighbor's house and drop the 
> CD in their entertainment center and to get in a friend's car and 
drop the needle on the CD 
> on his car setup, etc, etc, etc. Now I don't know this for sure but 
in many of the test cases 
> outside of your enviroment, the swish will disappear which was what 
the 10m's were 
> telling you.
> 
> There used to be a studio that had an FM  transmitter so he could 
broadcast through the 
> air to his car radio.  This was pre CD when it was hard to get a 
good tape player in a car.
> 
> Another studio said that the true test was listening on AM radio in 
his convertible on the 
> freeway with the  top down...... 
> 
> In other words, as has been stated here before, the environment 
will never be the same 
> and I stand by my words that a good mix on NS10m's will sound good 
in more 
> environments then any other.
> 
> I warned everyone about the rant that would ensue, just by 
mentioning this speaker....... :)
> 
> I have other topics  that I will bring up as we motor through 
time........ haha
> 
> Charlie
> HFP Florida

Mention the word share and see what happens!!!!

Charlie Massey wrote:

> After blowing several of the tweeters, I had a speaker tech tell me to buy a bulb that is 
> used to light the interior of cars.  You could buy it at any auto parts house.  Solder it in the 
> hot line to the tweeter and Viola!  I haven't fried an $80. tweeter since.  I still have a spare 
> tweeter sitting on the shelf that I may sell one of these days. :)  BTW, I have seen the light 
> come on inside the box.
> 
> Charlie
> HFP Florida
> 

Hehe same trick JBL uses for their PA speakers. Some friends were 
rehearsing in our space awhile back. Pretty tiny room so the singer is 
standing by one of the PA speakers. He was facing the speaker and got 
some gnarly feedback out of it and we started seeing this bright glowing 
light coming out of the speaker when it would peak. We thought it was 
like god trying to tell us to stop playing death metal, then we looked 
inside hehe.

-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Chris Coccia <mothra@d...> wrote:
> 
> Hehe same trick JBL uses for their PA speakers. Some friends were 
> rehearsing in our space awhile back. Pretty tiny room so the singer is 
> standing by one of the PA speakers. He was facing the speaker and got 
> some gnarly feedback out of it and we started seeing this bright glowing 
> light coming out of the speaker when it would peak. We thought it was 
> like god trying to tell us to stop playing death metal, then we looked 
> inside hehe.
> 
Thanks for sharing this Chris! LOL  Must have been a fun moment!  (can I say sharing 
without starting another rant???)  hehe

Charlie
HFP

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, dennis gunn <dennis@s...> wrote:
> 
> The proof is in the puddin and as several others have said here the 
> experience has been that the mixes I did on NS10s never translated as 
> well or as universally as the ones I did on the BM6As.
> 
> NS10s are crap and Yamaha either had an incredible stroke of pure luck 
> that they caught on or entered some bizarre three way pact with the NSA 
> an the Beezlibub, or something, because it sure was not the sound or 
> the accuracy of these speakers that made them so undeservedly 
> successful.

Dennis,

Very good points and since you can't buy them anymore, guess they won't be mucking up 
mixes anymore........ :)

Charlie
HFP Florida

Hi Charlie and thanks for your reply :-)

Good idea with the bulb.... I'll be thinking about doing that.
You have probably heard about the mods to correct the crossoverfilter.  
I have not done them myself, neither planning to, wanting the speaker  
to be nasty in the 1k range.. :-)

Sorry, I cant get the link to work but believe it was  
http://www.dillonacoustics.com/Loudspeaker_plans/Yamaha/ 
Yamaha_XOYA1.htm

Pelle

On 7/1-2005, at 9.02, Charlie Massey wrote:

>
>  --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Pelle Fridell <pellefri@a...>  
> wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  > the only dif betwen 10 and 10m studio is a fuse on the tweeter i
>  > believe.....
>  >
>
>  Hi Pelle,
>
>  I believe the m stood for monitor and came without the snap on  
> cover.  You could buy the
>  NS10's in regular audio stores for many years.
>
>  After blowing several of the tweeters, I had a speaker tech tell me  
> to buy a bulb that is
>  used to light the interior of cars.  You could buy it at any auto  
> parts house.  Solder it in the
>  hot line to the tweeter and Viola!  I haven't fried an $80. tweeter  
> since.  I still have a spare
>  tweeter sitting on the shelf that I may sell one of these days. :)   
> BTW, I have seen the light
>  come on inside the box.
>
>  Charlie
>  HFP Florida
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <111704_1104_g_300250a.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	• 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Logic_Cafe/
>  
> 	• 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Logic_Cafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> 	• 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of  
> Service.
>
>
________________________________________________________
Pelle Fridell - pelle@...