gwilendiel

Entirely correct. But nobody had to buy snake oil either, and look what happened with that.

Yeah. Selfish entitlement. Says the musician. Who wants money. I have this thing and if you want it, you have to pay me. You have to pay for your own living as well as mine, and in return you get this song to listen to. You don't get a car, or a house. You get a song. I hope you really like that song. Funny that there's an old metaphor about getting something 'for a song'. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And I'm not a 'he'.

That's what asking questions are for. Or doing research. Or even trying it myself. And I HAVE slaved over music. I've sat for 20 hours straight without even EATING just to perfect one bar. But then there's the crap that I throw together too. I could make a song that a DJ would spin at a rave in probably two hours or less, because I know the popular elements.

You don't know that. Stop assuming. Also I pretty much know EXACTLY what goes into the music I have interest in. I make it my business to know. In fact, how it is made is often more interesting to me than the result itself. And also it's funny to find out that a lot of times it isn't that hard to whip up something that somebody will buy. And certain people are famous for their ability to do this, I've heard parody artists who could barf up up any song ever, except for the fact that the songs don't take them seriously - they instead mock how lame things have gotten and they usually are spot on. But if it took itself seriously people would buy it and have no clue they are actually being insulted. But that's just my opinion there. My subjective opinion.

Well, I understand your reasoning but it doesn't apply to me... I guess that has biased my view of things. I often do make songs that I want to hear. Not every song, but a lot of them. And I don't like most of what the 'industry' has to offer. I pretty much avoid 90% of it, except for when I happen across it. And I don't pirate mp3's - I either buy something or get things that are freely given. But when I do buy something, it is from somebody who I want to help that I think needs a chance. Anyway, I'm done here.

Yeah, you got me there. Anyway, I think we can delete this thread if it should be deleted. I was a total ass. I can't think straight when I get flustered and angry. Plus I was a bit disillusioned by some recent events which I won't go into. Anyway, I apologize.

Finally! Thank you thank you. You said what I was too stupid and frustrated to say.

You are part of the public, in case you had forgotten. And you do have the right to say what price you want. You don't have the right to GET that price necessarily, but you have the right to not buy until you find that price. It's called shopping.

Maybe I was disrespectful, but I don't see me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to share my opinion. Or read this, or reply to it. And people who want to express themselves artistically shouldn't make a living from it? Holy crap you summed that up quite nicely. So yes, industry music is fashion. That totally works for me. So lets stop calling people artists and call them fashionable music creators instead. Well maybe that's too long. How about just 'fashionators' or maybe 'fashionists'.

You do have the right. That's free market economy at work. People have just lost their minds when it comes to music, simply because the industry controls copies. With everything else, with the possible exception of movies, you are able to negotiate. Even the sports industry CATERS to it's customers in some fashion. They do make money hand over fist, but we have some control based on attendance numbers, plus it is an ongoing process. You do have the right to get what you want and pay what you think is fair. That is the benefit of capitalism, fair competition. But you know what? If you are a musician, and people don't like you, they are going to kick you out. And if you are on a label, the label will likely drop you like a hot potato. THAT'S how it works. With the caveat that if you are good you will be milked for all you are worth instead of kicked out. Trust me, if you plan to make a living doing music, you will most likely not get to do the songs you like to do, because of the mass appeal of the market mentality. But art should have never been a commodity in the first place.

Then why is OCR even around in the first place? I don't see Metallica doing any video game remixes (forgive my dated example) So there. Less variety. Plainly objective example. Secondly, many pieces on here are undeniably equal or better than CD quality. Objective again. This is ensured to some extent by the submission rules. If you don't agree with me, then don't agree. Just don't try to discredit me to break my argument... that's using a straw man.

re: bgc That post was going by the varieties of available music and production quality, so yes, it is objective. I think you only have to look at OCR itself to see that in action.... but believe me there are better examples out there,

I never said you can't make a living! I said you shouldn't hold anyone over a barrel disproportionately. That's far more offensive than I could ever be. I said art should be supported. A long time ago in this thread. Turning it into a mere cash cow doesn't help it along in my mind... it turns it into a homogeneous disgrace. yes, it attracts artists to make money, but it doesn't necessarily make better art. It only makes more rock. And heavy metal. And hip hop. And things that sell. To be honest with you, I have heard better music from people that willingly GIVE it away than people who do it for money. I'll pay those people first, if you don't mind.

I think you are starting to get it now, but aren't quite there. Did you read my idea about doing away with record labels? You got the artists should have complete control part right at least. As I said, we need more Tindeck and Myspace music. Artists pay promoters rather than give up their music to a label. They sell music on demand. they provide a service and set their own competitive price for their service, and hold the copyright. So you can still sell music. We just stop selling music IDEAS. I don't mind paying an artist for his song if that is what he wants and I like it... I WAS NEVER AGAINST THAT. With my idea, it does work both ways. We don't have companies making money off The Beatles just because they are who they are. If The Beatles want money, they negotiate, with the promoter as their helper if they need to. And if a song gets hot after 30 years, the artist can still sell it. But what if he's dead by then? Who gets to sell it then?

Figures a forum full of people who make music wouldn't get what I'm saying. Music is different than anything else. And yeah, I apply it to most of the entertainment industry too. It's funny that some times more goes into making a hamburger than what goes into making a CD. I think the entertainment industry is one of the few industries where a corporation keeps getting paid for work that is already long done, and they want to make sure it stays that way. There's a difference between selling music as a service and just selling the music. Maybe I got a little out of hand, but the topic gets me heated. I just can't stand the principal. How much does a company need to make off of an idea? As much as they can, it seems. 50 year copyrights are already unnecessary and they are trying to make them even LONGER. Just because they got this idea and they 'own' it. The whole 'selling time' idea is WAY out of proportion. My need vs. want idea was to illustrate this comparison. Say one group does a year of work on an album, and the album is sold for fifty years. How is that fair? They do nothing and get more money just because somebody wants what they have? If that's fair, why doesn't EVERYBODY do it? Why don't companies who do legitimately more work band together and do some price gouging? Like internet companies. They actually do a lot of work, and it is CONSTANT, they don't just work for a year and reap the benefits. So since they do proportionally more work, and are proportionally in more demand, they should get more money! RIGHT?? Why not $100 a month! Or $500! You know why they don't do that? Because it's stupid. And probably illegal.

You know what else galls me? Elvis has been dead for over 30 years, but they still sell his music and his image. This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Where's his compensation? He's fricking dead! He doesn't need to make a living! And they can't use the excuse of providing a service or getting his music 'out there'.... his music is some of the most proliferated ever. But yet he is still under copyright. Heck there is a whole enterprise dedicated to him. But they can't say it's a service, it isn't unique, anyone could do what they are providing. All they have is some papers that say they 'own' it and are entitled to the oodles of money it generates. May as well be a mafia racket if you ask me.... I don't care if they do good things with the money either, because everyone else could too, but no, we aren't allowed!! So that excuse is BS too. But now that I think of it, record labels should be done away with entirely, aside from existing contracts that must legally be completed. That would get rid of this extortion mentality. What we would only have instead would be promoters. I have no problem with an artist selling music as a service. I have problems with the industry selling the whole idea of music itself. So, instead of labels, you have more services like Tindeck or Myspace music. The artist holds the rights to be paid, and the artist pays the promoter if that is what is required. And the artist can set the price. If the artist dies, or copyright limitation has exceeded or lapsed, the work becomes public domain. There is no excuse to keep hawking something after the author is dead, everyone with a PC can publish now so that is no longer a legitimate service.

Are you running XP? If so, look here http://www.petri.co.il/change_system_drive_letter_in_windows_xp.htm Be careful with it. Don't break your system...

re sgx: Well, there's a little thing about service that people have forgotten in modern times. There is such a thing as demand out of necessity. Art is great, art is wonderful. Art should be supported. But art is not NEEDED. You will not die without it. It's understood that food is something you should compensate for when you receive it, it is keeping you alive. Somebody truly worked for your physical benefit. But music? Music doesn't NEED to be done. It's done because somebody feels like it. Somebody FELT like spending thousands of dollars on gear. Can they be compensated? Well absolutely! Should they be able to hold you over a barrel as if you can't survive without them? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Nobody asked them to be a professional musician. They aren't doing something people can't live without either. There are better (albeit more sinister) ways to basically extort money if that is the goal... like being a doctor. Or a lawyer. People actually have a need for those. Edit: And again, don't get me wrong. I totally think music is worth paying for. It's the industry principal that I hate. It could even be argued that it HURTS music. Record labels appeal to broad demographics because they want money. And they will make damn sure they can get that money everywhere possible. And to some extent they tell artists what songs to make, for the sake of their money. That is limiting. It shouldn't be 'if you like this you must pay me' - it should be 'i like this, so I feel like paying you'. I mean really. It isn't even a basic commodity either... like gold, it costs money to mine gold. But at least you can resell gold. Edit edit: What is the price of happiness? More than the cost of living, apparently. Maybe I should give in to the industry. Heck, even if I spend $100,000 on a hit production that makes at least ten million, I can sit back on my laurels and never work another day in my life while the 'impoverished peasantry' who are struggling on minimum wage buy the CD at too high a price and find a little joy in their lives. Joy that I won't give two craps about because I have TEN MILLION DOLLARS. >:\

I'm sick of this song being 'untitled' Any ideas for a name? I'm usually pretty good at naming things but lately I suck. And please don't mind the crappy preset intro... Edit: and now that i remember, heres another song I need to name.

It's alright, thanks for the correction. Though it's similar ideas, I was just a bit off with my time frame. Edit: What I'm getting at is, publishers are bunk, and so are some artists. Especially with the advent of the internet. Pre-internet (and especially before the ability to record at home became common) publishing was a legitimate service, it was often the only way you could get something without actually going to a performance in person. (which as an aside is why copyright was more lax back then, copying was actually beneficial because it was actually a difficult job that only a select few had the time for) Anyway, in modern times, publishers and artists need the consumers more than the consumers need them...

The plagiarism thread made me remember this... not that it's related really, but anyway. I was just thinking... is it really a good thing to sell music itself? Or even to sell your 'image'? Really. I'd imagine the concept of paying for art or music came out of demand, in ancient times. It was not a way to get rich (even though you could). What I mean to say is, it was the listener/viewer which had the control then. The ONLY reason artists got paid is the logic that if the artist doesn't have to work another job to make a living, they can spend more time doing what the listener enjoys. I'd imagine this is why kings employed residential musicians, artists, and poets. The listener was doing the artist a favor back then, NOT the other way around - and in some eras and cultures, some arts would be considered frivolous and a waste of time, so these artists would NOT be paid... so the starving artist comes along. So yeah... should an artist (or publisher... ESPECIALLY publishers, those evil bastards...) really be able to lord over the listener? Should they be the ones DEMANDING money at every turn? I do wonder...

Well I suppose you are right there, but it would be fuzzy logic at best. Like the DLC issue. It would seem logical if I were to leave out features so I can force you to pay for them later, right? But that is actually fuzzy logic because it may not always work, people might hate DLC and it would actually backfire on me. What would be logical is to give the best service possible, and not intentionally withhold something that is normally easy to implement. Edit: in other words, doing the best you can in your power is logical. It's still possible to fail, but it won't be from lack of trying. To do less in a gamble to gain more is fuzzy because you are intentionally giving up your control of the outcome more than what is necessary.

Hmm.. This thread perked my interest. I don't know these games, but based on what I've read here... there's BS going on and I hate BS. There is no real LOGICAL reason for them to be doing what they are doing. I'm sure it has something to do with money in their little ignorant corporate minds, though. There's no reason consoles can't have dedicated servers. And obviously no reason PC can't. There's also no reason you can't have both servers and P2P match making, even if P2P has a different amount of players. That is an engineering problem which is EASILY solved. Also, I'd just like to point out that PC's are not dedicated servers. They can have 'listen' servers on them, but there's a difference between a dedicated server and a listen server.... but that's irrelevant because even those two can be easily made to work together.

See that's the thing. I don't know what you know, what you did on purpose, or what sounds 'bad' to be due to your inexperience or whatever. Maybe you want it to sound a certain way, and you know about it, so who would I be to judge? Like if I were to tell you about filtering but you are already a master of filtering and just chose not to use it for your own reasons. Plus I don't like to be overly specific, because it takes me time, and is done in professional regard when I am not a professional at reviews. In addition to the fact that I want you to hear for yourself, not do something just because I asked you. Maybe you'll hear a different thing from what I do and you'll make it better than I could have suggested. Sorry for the philosophical discussion there... that's just how I am though.