Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Music and video piracy might bring about good changes.

Music and video piracy might bring about good changes.
Thread Tools
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 01:51 PM
 
Piracy means performers will only get paid for actually doing something. Preforming.
Piracy means you actually have to contribute to society in order to make money.
Why should one guy live high on the hog for doing one song when your family doc spends most of his life keeping your kids healthy?
Music and Video piracy = rethinking values = don’t do anything. don’t get paid.

I work in a factory. I get paid for what I do every day. But I have to do something to get paid. I don’t show up for work for a few days and then get paid the rest of my life for it.

There might be two greatest contributions to the human race the internet brings about.
One
information to all.
Two
Experiencing life is worth more than paying someone for a recording. Fantasy has no real value.
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 02:32 PM
 
What about songwriters? Suppose I can't sing to save my life but I can write the best lyrics or music ever heard. So a performer hears my song, gets to go on tour performing my song and makes lots of money while I get nothing. Is that fair? Why would I write the song in the first place then?

How does this help authors? I write a great book, so do I now have to go on tour and read it aloud to get paid? How many people want to go to a theatre and pay to hear someone read them a book?

Suppose in your spare time, you invent a process that when applied in your boss' factory, saves them millions of dollars every year. What kind of remuneration do you expect? Your regular wage for inventing the process or something that reflects the value of what you did?

Putting conditions in place to protect those that invent something is what keeps people motivated to invent said things. In your world, very few people would make movies, write songs, books, etc. because they're all too busy working in factories or offices to pay their bills.

But if you really feel that "fantasy" has no real value, then don't watch movies, don't listen to music (except at concerts), and don't read books. After all, all of that is worthless to you, right?
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 02:54 PM
 
A songwriter gets paid by the performer for the songs he rights.
Authors get paid by publishers for the rights to put the book in print.
Most factories actually pay employees for inventions. Ours does.

Everything here takes an action to do.
People get paid for that action.
Entertainers get paid for doing something once. over and over and over.....
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 03:01 PM
 
Is it really time for another round of this crap?

Why weren't you in that Pirate Bay thread a few weeks ago?

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...ly-creative/2/

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 03:12 PM
 
I'm game for only being paid to perform as long as everyone else is OK with only listening to music at performances.

It's going to be awfully quiet and non-romantic when you finally manage to persuade that blind, fat, ugly chick with low self-esteem to have it away with you, putrid.

Yes, that's right. No music while you're shagging. No music while you're driving. No music while you're working. No music while you're cleaning. No music while you're posting on MacNN.
Suits me fine. Does it suit you blokes?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 03:37 PM
 
1. Your job doesn't cost you anything and the reward is guaranteed.

2. You haven't paid them to record anything. So are you saying you want music recording to stop?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 04:04 PM
 
Rob?
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
A songwriter gets paid by the performer for the songs he rights.
Should the songwriter get paid once the performer lefts ?

-t
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 04:40 PM
 
LOL Turtle777. Guess it depends on what hand the performer uses.

Sorry I don't think everyone is getting the point I'm trying to make. Unfortunately this thread seams to be going to an extreme that wasn't intended.

A music group records a CD. A publisher pays the group for the music. We all hear the music that the group as been paid for making. Radio stations play that music. If folks like it they'll what to hear more from them. If not, the publisher will no longer buy songs from that group.

An actor stars in a film. A publisher pays for the rights to distribute that film. We all watch the film the actor has stared in. The actor has been paid.

In both cases the music group and actor have already been paid for their work.

The same thing goes for manufacturing. If I came up with a new mathematical formula for radio conductivity the company I work for would pay me for it. However I wont get paid every time someone uses it.

No one has the rights to redo or preform those works and claim them as their own. I figured I'd put that in here before someone goes off the deep end on this.

The argument isn't about weather or not someone hasn't been paid. Everyone has. If I buy a used CD does this mean I'm ripping off the group?

If I buy a gallon of milk I pay for it once. Everyone that was connected to that gallon of milk has been paid. I don't pay again for each glass I drink out of it.

There was a time in our history when performers only got paid once for their work. What happened?
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
If I buy a gallon of milk I pay for it once. Everyone that was connected to that gallon of milk has been paid. I don't pay again for each glass I drink out of it.
And then next week when your gallon of milk has "stopped playing", you have to go buy another one. Unlike that CD you bought, which will last a good twenty years.

You are not buying the CD. You're buying the ability to listen to the performer's work any time you like. Because Metallica won't play in your kitchen while you cook dinner, no matter how desperate Lars gets.

Originally Posted by putrid View Post
There was a time in our history when performers only got paid once for their work. What happened?
Performers figured out that trolling up and down the M6 in the back of a tranny van for £20 a night ain't much fun. That's what happened.

Oh, and you guys decided that it'd be a good thing to listen to music when you're not at a gig. So we recorded it onto shiny discs for you.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 04:54 PM
 
I'll tell ya what happened.

Movies were still being made.

People like Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby still put out recording after recording despite the fact they only got paid once for it.

Greed.
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 04:59 PM
 
Do you understand the difference between a performing artist and the person who creates the material that the guy performs?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
I'll tell ya what happened.

Movies were still being made.

People like Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby still put out recording after recording despite the fact they only got paid once for it.

Greed.
We still only get paid once for it. But that payment is split into lots of little payments which are spread over forty years instead of being in one lump sum. Like when the colonials win the state lottery.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
People like Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby still put out recording after recording despite the fact they only got paid once for it.
I'd like to see a source for that little tidbit of information, please.

If bing and frank didn't get points on sales after the first few records went gold, they'd have been complete and utter morons - which I doubt.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
We still only get paid once for it. But that payment is split into lots of little payments which are spread over forty years instead of being in one lump sum. Like when the colonials win the state lottery.
Good perspective. Plus, it's actually adjusted for real value. If you create something that's extremely desirable, it's worth more and should be able to be sold for more.
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 06:31 PM
 
Then why isn't the same payment plan done with shovels, dinner flatware or coffee cups?

I think the biggest change in the entertainment industry will be exclusion of royalties. Artist value would be judged more on the amount of movement over the net rather than album sales. To keep radio stations afloat there will no longer be the corporate sponsoring of new music. A station would pay close attention to the music within it's genre. Continuing to pay publishers for the rights to play the music that continually moves over the net. As long as an artist continually puts out music folks want to hear that artist will still get paid for it. People will still want to see them live. Radio stations will still stay afloat. CD's will still be manufactured because not everyones entire collection are made up of MP3s.

The up side of all this is the possibility for more artists to be heard. Not just the ones sponsored by big corps. Less artists will become over night millionaires but more artists will get paid and be heard.

I can buy a used CD for $.75 from Amazon. Or I could buy the 12 MP3s off of Amazon for $.99 cents each..........so if I buy the used CD I'm a pirate because the record company isn't getting paid. If i buy the MP3s I'm stupid for buying inferior sounding recordings that I wont be able to play in my car.
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 07:22 PM
 
Mods, are you sure there isn't some law about 12-year-old girls posting on Interwebs forums?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Mods, are you sure there isn't some law about 12-year-old girls posting on Interwebs forums?
Ugh, now I feel dirty having posted in this thread...

-t
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 09:52 PM
 
Rethinking the model of how performers and songwriters get paid is a Very Good Thing. Arbitrarily setting up some new system HERE is another thing altogether.

If we get the labels out of the middle, where they pay performers "advances" which can chain that performer to the label both for production and distribution AND by carefully adjusting the numbers shown to the performer so as to indicate that the advance hasn't been paid back (a major racket in the industry), then we can start to get things fixed. Sony and Warner should be paying performers for the right to distribute their stuff, and offering production facilities as payment in kind, rather than this economic ball and chain crap that's been standard for so long. And frankly it should be done on a per-album basis too. Let the labels sweat it out on whether a big seller will go with them or not.

My idea might actually lead to higher CD prices, but at least the money will be going more to the people who make the music and less to the people in suits who sponge off of them.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2009, 11:25 PM
 
Thanks Ghporter. The music industry has been in need of a good over hall for years now. I'm personally hoping for more major groups to publish their albums on line instead of threw the self serving industry.

It would be interesting to see sites on line that showcase new music in separate genre. These sites could charge a subscription fee with parts of the profits going to the musicians that produce the music. Thus helping the musicians stay in business. More studios would be able to showcase more artists. Increasing the amount of good music available to the listener. Radio stations could also be set up to pay the performers directly threw these showcase sites. This along with monitoring the amount of movement a song has on line would determine that songs 'value' and a pricing could be statistically set up.
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Rethinking the model of how performers and songwriters get paid is a Very Good Thing. Arbitrarily setting up some new system HERE is another thing altogether.

If we get the labels out of the middle, where they pay performers "advances" which can chain that performer to the label both for production and distribution AND by carefully adjusting the numbers shown to the performer so as to indicate that the advance hasn't been paid back (a major racket in the industry), then we can start to get things fixed.
Who actually pays for the recording, then?

Who actually pays for the survival of the artist during the time (weeks, months, years) he isn't performing because he's writing/composing/recording/producing?

Who actually pays for the $20,000 - $2,000,000 equipment/room required for the recording (depending on what you're recording)?

Who pays for the hired musicians' time in the studio?

And most importantly, the part that gets completely ignored every time people say that artists should get paid for "performing":

What about the hundreds of thousands of artists that make music that can't be "performed" as such? I mean, sure, I'll go out and stand in front of my laptop posing to a playback - I feel like a complete fool doing so - but does it really make *more* sense to you that I get paid vastly better for a day of work jumping around on a stage than for the SIX MONTHS of work put into actually creating the music?

That's just idiotic.

And before you go "well, that'll favor 'real' bands that can 'really' play" I put up for your consideration that the only musicians I know that actually make money from touring are either playback/laptop artists, or they're playing musicians with big-name acts - pushed and financed by MAJOR LABELS. Touring is *expensive*.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Touring is *expensive*.
Let's not forget the other expense with touring - family life. I don't think people realise just how hard it is to have a spouse/kids/pet whilst they're always on the road, never sleeping in the same bed twice.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Sony and Warner should be paying performers for the right to distribute their stuff, and offering production facilities as payment in kind
Production facilities as payment in kind? Do you know how expensive production is? These two videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdZn7k5rZLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdhXxxWREo

...and the album they came off cost over a million bucks to make.

How do you propose that Sony and Warner differentiate between the artistes who're worth spending a million bucks on and those who're "knocked this song up in GarageBand and my mom really likes it so we should now change the system to reflect my awesomeness" folks?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 08:30 AM
 
Doofy, I'm not saying that production is (or should be) cheap. I'm saying that the labels should be competing for the opportunity to produce artists' work, and that this should be something they risk when they pick out an artist. Which may (one could hope) lead to less expansive, less expensive album production, more straightforward videos with less "cast of thousands" and "effects to rival Lord of the Rings" bells and whistles.

Dire Straits got noticed when they took a cassette of their songs to BBC's Charlie Gillette to ask his advice on where to go from there-and he liked their stuff a lot. Garage tapes have their place, but while that cassette had five of Dire Straits' most impressive early songs on it, those tracks were NOT released-the band recorded new tracks of those songs for their album. In this case, Phonogram risked at most £13k in producing their first album-a very safe risk, I think, and everybody made basketsfull of money off this relationship. I should also note that one of the great attractions of DS's sound was that it was NOT the "overproduced," excessively orchestrated sound that typified the late 1970s' rock landscape, which I think is a lesson for everyone: more fancy crap that gets between the music and the listener/viewer is not necessarily a good thing.

The Nightwish videos you linked to are impressive, but the first one seems overboard to me. In the first, very expensive video effects (lush and beautiful as they are), along with switching back and forth to "studio" shots of the band seemed to detract from either side of the video. The second video seems to work much better for me, and I'd be surprised if they were both directed by the same guy. (This is a pet peeve of mine-video directors with a "vision" that seems to indicate they haven't been on their ADD (or anti-psychotic) meds for a while and spend a pile of money realizing that "vision".) The second video was obviously a LOT less expensive to produce-one in-studio production crew, no extras, no period costumes, no fire, etc.- and it got the energy and passion of the music across just fine. I don't think that the >$1M to produce that album was entirely well spent, and it certainly didn't make me like the band any more than I did just from hearing them (they're great, by the way!).

Perhaps there's too much of an expectation in the public's eye for blockbuster stuff in new artists' releases. Maybe the public needs to start listening to the music and not paying so much attention to the other stuff? I think so. Doesn't the music matter by itself?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 09:16 AM
 
One of the major differences between being a factory worker and being a musician is that the musician is taking a higher risk. Anybody with a pre-set skill set can work in a factory and be rewarded for these skills to a pre-determined level. In most cases, this will allow you to make a living, buy a house and look after your children. If you acquire new skills, chances are that your level of compensation will go up.

For a musician, there are no such guarantees. Talent alone does not bring success, luck and being at the tight time at the right place plays a huge part in it. Just because a piano player learns how to play the trumpet doesn't mean an almost automatic increase in earnings. And traditionally, within our society, we accept that those who take the bigger risks may reap the bigger rewards.

I own my own business. I took a risk starting it, I am taking a risk every day running it. Should it fail it will adversely affect my life, and considerably so. Should it be successful I will make more money than I am paying the people who are working for me. Why do I feel that I deserve a higher reward? Simply, because like the musician, my risk is higher.

I agree that the music industry's business model is broken, but I am not sure that your suggestion is the answer.
( Last edited by Phileas; Jul 19, 2009 at 09:24 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Doofy, I'm not saying that production is (or should be) cheap. I'm saying that the labels should be competing for the opportunity to produce artists' work, and that this should be something they risk when they pick out an artist.
But that's exactly what happens now.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Which may (one could hope) lead to less expansive, less expensive album production, more straightforward videos with less "cast of thousands" and "effects to rival Lord of the Rings" bells and whistles.
It's simply not possible to have less expensive production on an album and create the sound which the punters expect.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Dire Straits got noticed when they took a cassette of their songs to BBC's Charlie Gillette to ask his advice on where to go from there-and he liked their stuff a lot. Garage tapes have their place, but while that cassette had five of Dire Straits' most impressive early songs on it, those tracks were NOT released-the band recorded new tracks of those songs for their album. In this case, Phonogram risked at most £13k in producing their first album-a very safe risk, I think, and everybody made basketsfull of money off this relationship. I should also note that one of the great attractions of DS's sound was that it was NOT the "overproduced," excessively orchestrated sound that typified the late 1970s' rock landscape, which I think is a lesson for everyone: more fancy crap that gets between the music and the listener/viewer is not necessarily a good thing.
Let's put it into perspective here. £13k back then was new Ferrari money - still expensive. And they still needed the big guns and the A&R to get behind them.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Perhaps there's too much of an expectation in the public's eye for blockbuster stuff in new artists' releases.
There you go, you just said it. Everything has to be "all singing, all dancing" these days. Every silly muppet with a copy of Garageband and FCE can come out with stuff like this* these days, so those who want to be taken seriously have to up the ante. It's an arms race. Back in the '70s, music didn't have DVDs, computer games and arguing with hippies in political lounges to compete with - nowadays, due to these alternative entertainments essentially the whole population has ADHD. So that has to be catered for with nice looking videos and the like.

(* and they ain't going anywhere. Trust me on that. )
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 11:38 AM
 
Having worked on both sides of the studio sean I have to say all that high price production work is BS. Now I'm not going to pretend I'm the only one on this forum that knows why you stick toilet paper in a speaker to test the final mix. But I am going to say that paying 5k an hour for studio time and spending all that time creating songs instead of recording them is a complete waist of money. Is there difference between the quality of the work if your plugging into a Neve or a Peavy? You bet. And for the effort there's no way of making bad equipment sound good. Choose a studio with good equipment and go there with finished songs. That'll stop 90% of the production cost.
As far as vids go? T@A and bublebut boys jiggling reproductive organs on your TV has nothing to do with music. How a performer looks has nothing to do with talent. If a performer needs a video to sell music then perhaps the music isn't worth buying in the first place. And as far as an effective low cost vid Van Halen's "Jump ' is a great example of a cheap but effective work.

However this argument has nothing to do with piracy, the internet and an industry that will have to change in order to survive. I'll admit to be an optimist on this. But to comment on an earlier statement. I'm only buying the rights to listen to the CD's I buy. These CD's get damaged or stolen. All I have to to is keep the receipts. After all I'm just buying the rights to listen. Not the CD's. If I buy a good set of screwdrivers they'll last me a life time. I own these tools. The only reason there's a difference between these two items is control and greed.
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
Now I'm not going to pretend I'm the only one on this forum that knows why you stick toilet paper in a speaker to test the final mix.
I'd like you to explain when and why this is done. Just to prove that you we doing more than making coffee when you worked on "both sides of the studio sean".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 12:45 PM
 
It's simply not possible to have less expensive production on an album and create the sound which the punters expect.
Sure it is. You just have to do what Apple does so well: tell (and convince) the punters to expect something else.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
I work in a factory. I get paid for what I do every day. But I have to do something to get paid. I don’t show up for work for a few days and then get paid the rest of my life for it.
Don't ever become a musician or author, or anything else that depends on talent and the fickle nature of the masses. You'll starve.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 01:50 PM
 
If you can clearly hear everything in the mix then the mix is good. The toilet paper reduced the frequency range of a good set of speakers. Mixing with this set up helps insure everything that should be there is. However a bad set of speakers with a reduced frequency range wont work. They wont produce the needed frequencies so no matter how much you mix with them the mix will be bad. If you only mix with good speakers the brain will interpret and you will hear everything your listening for. Kinda like those ghost hunters and their 'evp's' You can interpret random EMF fields to say 'get out' all you want but it's still a random EMF fields effecting the recorder. But it makes for good TV LOL

a link to a thread i made a few months ago.
http://forums.macnn.com/82/applicati...p-based-music/

I'll admit it's been years sense I've been in a studio. Everything was still done on big tape machines. Midi was just coming out. Cross talk and track noise were still big issues. I'd have a lot of catching up to play with all this digital stuff.
( Last edited by putrid; Jul 19, 2009 at 02:00 PM. Reason: adding a link)
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
If you can clearly hear everything in the mix then the mix is good.
No.

Originally Posted by putrid View Post
The toilet paper reduced the frequency range of a good set of speakers. Mixing with this set up helps insure everything that should be there is. However a bad set of speakers with a reduced frequency range wont work. They wont produce the needed frequencies so no matter how much you mix with them the mix will be bad. If you only mix with good speakers the brain will interpret and you will hear everything your listening for.
Funny that. Everyone I know does it for a different reason.

Sorry mate but to me you sound like someone who doesn't know what he's on about. Are you sure you weren't the coffee monkey?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
putrid  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 02:29 PM
 
OK first there's the '12 year old girl' comment and now this. I'm game. Let's hear what you know.
I've often wondered if there is relativity between the eleven dimensions in the universe and the eleven secret herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 03:04 PM
 
In all fairness Doofy, we have no idea about your qualifications either. For all we know you could just be pulling our collective legs.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
OK first there's the '12 year old girl' comment and now this. I'm game. Let's hear what you know.
I know I don't work in a factory and spend my spare time making unworkable suggestions with regard to how I think the music industry should operate. And I know how to spell "scene".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
In all fairness Doofy, we have no idea about your qualifications either. For all we know you could just be pulling our collective legs.
Spheric will tell you which one of us is talking sense.

There's no logic to these arguments. For example, is there any logic at all to this statement:

These CD's get damaged or stolen. All I have to to is keep the receipts. After all I'm just buying the rights to listen. Not the CD's. If I buy a good set of screwdrivers they'll last me a life time.
?

Let's just modify that a little:

These CD's get damaged or stolen. All I have to to is keep the receipts. After all I'm just buying the rights to listen. Not the CD's. If I buy a good set of screwdrivers they'll last me a life time... ...unless they're damaged or stolen.
IIRC I read in another thread that putrid is about 45 (ish). But was working studios when "MIDI was coming out". That makes him a teenager when/if he was working studios. Which makes him the coffee boy.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 03:18 PM
 
Okay, then I'll chime-in: this guy's the coffee monkey.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
In all fairness Doofy, we have no idea about your qualifications either. For all we know you could just be pulling our collective legs.
To be honest, reading putrid's comments on mixing, it's really not hard to tell that he has very little clue.

You don't need to flaunt references to know what you're saying.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by putrid View Post
If you can clearly hear everything in the mix then the mix is good.
Layered sounds and psychoacoustics were known and used even in the 70s, my friend.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
In all fairness Doofy, we have no idea about your qualifications either. For all we know you could just be pulling our collective legs.
You are NOT allowed to know who he is, but you MUST respect him as if you did.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You are NOT allowed to know who he is, but you MUST respect him as if you did.
Rule #6 of the 'NN Club.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You are NOT allowed to know who he is, but you MUST respect him as if you did.
Or failing that, you could stalk me. Like you do, Brian. Don't tell me you broke off your honeymoon just to make this comment.

My words stand by themselves... ...while putrid tried to qualify his opinion ("Now I'm not going to pretend I'm the only one on this forum that knows why you stick toilet paper in a speaker to test the final mix.") with what looks like second-hand information (the type you'd likely pick-up if you were a coffee-boy, tape-op or bedroom wannabe).

http://www.bobhodas.com/tissue.html

I prefer ladies' knickers draped over the tweets, myself. Red silk ones. They sound lovely.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post


That's just wonderful. I love applied science.

Never actually seen anyone stick toilet paper on NS-10s, but I'd never consider using them as main mixing monitors, personally. I really dislike them.

They're brutally honest with certain types of mixing mistakes, though, so I see why they're used as secondary monitors.

Why would you reduce the HF output, though? Removing their harshness seems to thwart the entire point of having them around, no?

I'm fairly new to mixing.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
They sound lovely.
They taste even better. I have no idea what ladies knickers taste like.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Never actually seen anyone stick toilet paper on NS-10s, but I'd never consider using them as main mixing monitors, personally. I really dislike them.
Never used 'em in anger 'coz they always sounded like tinny little crapboxes to me. I've seen a few with the paper over them and as far as I can tell they're still tinny little crapboxes. Even with Charmin Ultra gracing them.

Which is why I likes my Control 1s for the small stuff.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
They're brutally honest with certain types of mixing mistakes, though, so I see why they're used as secondary monitors.

Why would you reduce the HF output, though? Removing their harshness seems to thwart the entire point of having them around, no?
Monkey see, monkey do.
"Hey, if we get a pair of NS-10s and put tissue over the tweets then our clients will take us seriously, everything will sound better and we'll make zillions from all the hit singles we create during downtime! We'll sound just like HugeMegaProducer!".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Never used 'em in anger 'coz they always sounded like tinny little crapboxes to me. I've seen a few with the paper over them and as far as I can tell they're still tinny little crapboxes. Even with Charmin Ultra gracing them.

Which is why I likes my Control 1s for the small stuff.
Heh, I was gonna say that my studio's just too small for a secondary set of speakers, but your mention of the JBLs defeats that point.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
But that's exactly what happens now.
Except that in many cases the label winds up "owning" the performer through fake "advances" and such.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
It's simply not possible to have less expensive production on an album and create the sound which the punters expect.
"Less expensive?" You're right-the quality of the recording would suffer. "Less costly?" Sure thing! Cut out the treating the artists' "entourage" like royalty, dump the three or so suits that follow the artist around pampering them and boosting their ego (by freely spending lots of money), eliminate the fancy bottled water for the drummer's "guy who keeps track of the drumsticks," and so on, and the actual COST of recording can go down quite a bit. Focus on capturing the music as perfectly as possibly and dump anything that doesn't directly impact that.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Let's put it into perspective here. £13k back then was new Ferrari money - still expensive. And they still needed the big guns and the A&R to get behind them.
How much did a "stadium rock" album cost to produce in '78? A LOT less than £13k I'll bet. The string and horn sections alone would probably set the label back that much.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
There you go, you just said it. Everything has to be "all singing, all dancing" these days. Every silly muppet with a copy of Garageband and FCE can come out with stuff like this* these days, so those who want to be taken seriously have to up the ante. It's an arms race. Back in the '70s, music didn't have DVDs, computer games and arguing with hippies in political lounges to compete with - nowadays, due to these alternative entertainments essentially the whole population has ADHD. So that has to be catered for with nice looking videos and the like.

(* and they ain't going anywhere. Trust me on that. )
Who is doing the "taking seriously?" Record execs? What have they done to the business but made the 60s and 70s payola scandals look like the good old days? Didn't labels used to have people who actually knew what talent was? Didn't more than one label wind up kicking its own collective butt because Capitol signed someone they had a chance at-and then went out and started beating the bushes for real talent to counter "the one that got away?" Being taken seriously used to mean getting paying gigs to play in person, and maybe after the band had shown it was drawing crowds and keeping them, then the labels started thinking about contracts...

And is the whole "overdo it all the time" thing because the fans demand it, or because the label's executives THINK that's what sells. I for one don't trust ANY suit in the recording industry any more. Do they actually have real market research? I doubt it, because that would have told them 10 years ago that casually sharing digital tracks was FREE ADVERTISING instead of strangling their goose before she could lay more golden eggs. And if it IS that the buying public wants all the crap that goes with just putting a song on disc, is it the "buying" public, or the "DADDY I'LL HATE YOU IF YOU DON'T BUY THIS FOR ME!!!!!!" public? What do the 20 somethings-the people who earn the money they spend on music-what do THEY want? If it's the videos, I'd be surprised. I think it's the music.

(I'd also like to know where in the US people can see the variety of videos that were what MTV started out with. I haven't seen a video on MTV in years, and I have to go to VH1 Classic to see videos there. A couple of other, much smaller channels have videos, but they're usually not the kind of thing I hear on mainstream, pop, or even "heavy rock" radio...Where are the inventive, interesting, "get someone who has never listened to this artist to go buy their CDs" stuff? If they're spending all this money on videos, why aren't they putting them out on DVDs that actually show up in stores?)

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Every silly muppet with a copy of Garageband and FCE can come out with stuff like this* these days
Incidentally, I’ve always never wondered what a cross-pollination-cloning of AC/DC and Bon Jovi would sound like—now I guess I know.

(That was horrible)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Incidentally, I’ve always never wondered what a cross-pollination-cloning of AC/DC and Bon Jovi would sound like—now I guess I know.

(That was horrible)
"I’ve always never wondered..."

I gotta keep that in mind

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2009, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Except that in many cases the label winds up "owning" the performer through fake "advances" and such.
No label/company is ever going to invest money in anyone without some kind of contract. Just not going to happen. It's bad business - for any business.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
"Less expensive?" You're right-the quality of the recording would suffer. "Less costly?" Sure thing! Cut out the treating the artists' "entourage" like royalty, dump the three or so suits that follow the artist around pampering them and boosting their ego (by freely spending lots of money), eliminate the fancy bottled water for the drummer's "guy who keeps track of the drumsticks," and so on, and the actual COST of recording can go down quite a bit. Focus on capturing the music as perfectly as possibly and dump anything that doesn't directly impact that.
Dude, the only person in my studio who gets the fancy bottled water is me. I don't know how stuff works over there but I've never encountered that kind of thing here (probably because I don't work with the likes of Mariah Carey).

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
How much did a "stadium rock" album cost to produce in '78? A LOT less than £13k I'll bet. The string and horn sections alone would probably set the label back that much.
I don't understand the question.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Who is doing the "taking seriously?" Record execs?
Nope. Money-wielding punters.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And is the whole "overdo it all the time" thing because the fans demand it
Yes. The market is saturated, so you need to engage in the arms race in order to be noticed.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I for one don't trust ANY suit in the recording industry any more. Do they actually have real market research?
They don't need it. The guys on the ground don't work in isolation from the rest of the world - they know what's cool and what isn't.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I doubt it, because that would have told them 10 years ago that casually sharing digital tracks was FREE ADVERTISING instead of strangling their goose before she could lay more golden eggs.
A few shared tracks = free advertising.
A centralised database of links to every song in the artiste's catalogue for free = not free advertising.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And if it IS that the buying public wants all the crap that goes with just putting a song on disc, is it the "buying" public, or the "DADDY I'LL HATE YOU IF YOU DON'T BUY THIS FOR ME!!!!!!" public?
There ain't any "Daddy buy this for me!!!" public in my genre. I can't speak for the Eminem fans.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
What do the 20 somethings-the people who earn the money they spend on music-what do THEY want? If it's the videos, I'd be surprised. I think it's the music.
But you're 50ish - you no longer understand the way the kids think.
Seriously, the old days are gone - it's not about sitting around listening to music any more, it's about total entertainment. Video killed the radio star, etc..

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
(I'd also like to know where in the US people can see the variety of videos that were what MTV started out with.
YouTube?

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
If they're spending all this money on videos, why aren't they putting them out on DVDs that actually show up in stores?)
Because it's advertising, basically. Hence "promo video".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2