| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
or, at least, impact our free time. anyway, i have a software idea. caveats: 1) this may have already been done, 2) this may not be possible, 3) i don't know jack about the napster architecture. that said, i think we should could as a community to build a universal file name mangler that will exist as a layer between the napster client and the rest of the napster network. like a proxy. the idea would be to have a single key on the network by which the file names would be encrypted. this key would change periodically (period would have to depend on how frequently napster updates its index.) this would effectively remove napster's ability to filter out files by name, which, ultimately, remove napster's liability and increase the freedom of speech on the net. client would have to be freeware. source would have to be copyrighted to prevent the recording industry from reverse engineering the encryption scheme and using it against the system. anyone interested? Antigone? |
Spell the filename backwards...add 666..secret codes that are shared between fans. Any server that helps the piracy would be subject to goverment intervention. You cant fuck with "the man". Or you could just use bearshare or any other proggie instead. |
In any case I like the idea, I'll talk to some people about it. The Napster case is a heated subject of debate with my circle right now, privacy and copyright issues and all. And its also split the music industry right down the middle, half the recording artists are on one side, and the others are oposing them... Its kinda like the battle of heaven and hell, you got some angels on this side, you got some angels on the other side, and whoever loses will go to hell for eternity. Personally I think napster is in the right for this one. I mean come on, shut down Napster and whats going to stop people from just FTPing the fucking MP3's to each other? The industry can't stop it, Napster is a current means of control in the fact that because their service makes it easier people stray away from the difficult and time consuming means. Like if you were to leagalize pot, why the fuck would you buy them from some lowlife off the street, when you could go down to your local pot store and pick some up? I understand the copyright issues that the industry is having with Napster. But remember Napster isn't the one giving us the files, were just getting from each other, and that might help you awnser your questions a little bit Nate. Napster is just a server that connects millions of computers and allows the users of those machines some filesharing capabilities. I like your idea man, I'll share it with some people. |
personally, i think this is bullshit. you can't shut down a phonebook printer just because some of the massage parlors in the yellowpages are really brothels. hell, if the mangler layer encrypted the mp3 bits too, napster wouldn't even be passing links to copyrighted material. if you weren't using the mangler layer, all you would get is mangled names with mangled packets. and we could call it something cute, like mumbull. i'm thinking the names would need to have a character-by-character encryption to make the searches work. it would be easy to crack, but the license would make that illegal (in the same way DVD encryption is illegal to crack). changing names by hand so that your own group of buddies can still pass files is fine, but limited. this would be global and seamlessly integrated. |
BUT, if i have an opinion....its this. I say if an artist wants his music on napster, for free, so be it...if an artist doesn't, then fine, napster should honor that artists desires....as an enabler. They do act, as a very public bootlegger....and well.....bootleggers are considered illegal, but i also don't deny the important aspect of bootlegs...some of the greatest albums i have are bootlegs. so... Fortunately, or unfortunately, however you look at it....bands reliquinsh the publishing rights of their music to the labels....effectively giving up their voice, or enacting the label to be their voice. So if a band wants to be on napster, yet their label doesn't, then the band looses out. they should have read their contract. if i were approached by a label, i would never give up my right to say how, when and where my music will be heard. the music is mine, not theirs....and I would always want the final say. which effectively, should i ever get my music rolling again, means i would most lilely not be picked up by a major, should they want it, which is fine with me. I don't need them. So in short, this whole squabbling over the napster thing seems awfully silly. |
this is a medium that can be, but is not necessarily, used for illegal activity. you can't shut down the phone system because i call up a buddy and ask him to bring an oz over to my house. |
you artists think your artistic license overrides all others. i say, if you don't like what happens to your thing once you unleash it upon the masses, then keep it to yourself. otherwise, stop whining and be grateful that people are digging your art. |
i don't advocate photographing people against their will, if their will has been expressed. if the will has been expressed to not be photographed, then it supercedes everything, in my mind. If an artist expresses a desire not be heard, traded or whathaveyou on napster, fine, they should have that right and it should superceded everything else. if a bldg owner has a sign outside said bldg thats says "no photographs", that supercedes everything, and if I photograph it, im in violation. I can't possibly obtain the will of every passerby in a photograph i take on the street. however if a passerby recognizes their image, say in the paper and comes to me and asks not to publish the photo anymore , Im going to do it. Also dave photograph copyright policies are completley different. the laws are far more complex, especially when it comes to journalism...so its not really a valid comparison. Your assumption appears that people make art, to be consumed by others, which is not always the case. There's no whine involved, it's my music, my photograph, my decision on whats to be done with it. All I am saying is the artist has the final say. If the artists in question on napster were making music from other people's music, in way of samples, or direct duplication, then who gets the final say?...the orginal composer. Same with a photograph....ultimately, the model will have the the final say, but if release is obtained, then the photographer acts on that models behalf, so to speak. Similar to record labels. so im not contradictory at all, in fact its the same logic. if anyone is whining it's everyone who won't be able to get free music anymore....and speaking of some inalienable right to get said free downloads. Im not saying its wrong....i just think the public needs to get a persepctive. For those who are for napster to sit here and say shit like "stop whining man were just your fans" is a bunch of shit. If we extend copyright respects to artists in every other manner, i don't see why this medium should be excluded from copyright laws. |
copyright is what's mixed up. the idea that when i go and buy a cd, i don't really own it is mixed up. what exactly do i own and what exactly don't i own. do i own the plastic? the little ones and zeros burned into the plastic? can elektra come and repo my ween cds? what is it that the copyright holders own? the chords and notes? the words? that particular application of reverb to those chords, notes and words? is it still theirs if somebody else plays it but tunes down a fifth and sings the words in farsi? it's too nebulous to say "that song is mine" or "that picture is mine" when they are clearly not the original recording or negative or whatever. a shitty copy of the stairway to heaven is not the same as the original master tape. if it's really shitty, no one will care what happens to it but if it's a pretty good copy, someone might get upset. at what point does it become shitty enough to not merit action? when it doesn't threaten to cut into the copyright holder's cash flow. tough noogies that copyright holders made their fortune on something so tenuous. i'm sure they never imagined that people would be able to so easily make perfect copies of their officially released products. if alchemists ever figure out a way to turn lead into gold, gold will become devalued and the gold lobby will try to stop alchemy. for that matter, what happens if, 500 years from now, the ability to replicate perfect copies of anything is achieved? then what? things will be left with only their intrinsic value and not their supply and demand value, as it should be. and so it goes. . . |
|
let's fuck the incentive. it only leads to innovation. |
it's like suing god for causing war. |
i'm d/ling a bunch of episodes of the tick and i'll bet the commercials have even been edited out. how evil is that? |
anyway, it's not like it matters. the cat's out of the bag. and i've got beer in the fridge. i'll see you all in copyright hell. |
I know lots of musicians, some who have even gotten gold records, and they do not get rich from CD sales. they earn their money from touring and from getting their songs played on the radio and placed in movies and commercials. napster may affect big, big artists who sell zillions of records. but those people aren't going to go hungry because geeks are swapping files. |
|
yeah, right. and these aren't the droids you're looking for. nice try, though. |
the point: when you buy a cd, you buy a license to listen to it. not to reproduce and distribute. now do i gotta call you a "bitch", too? bitch. i hope this snowstorm blows over by tomorrow night. i'm dead empty on bullshit and i'm damn close to running outta beer. |
i'm going back to sleep. |
|
dave, perhaps if you were a musician, or photographer, model or whatever, you might have a better perspective on this. and besides the quality of napster is equal to far out european and asian bootlegs.....so why all the fuss? dwelling on the nitty gritty of chords, and riffs and ownership is silly. dave do you think a journalism photographer, obtains permission from every soldier, gov't official, starving citizen, criminal and so on when reporting? every image you see on reuters, and ap does not have an appropriate model release. to a certain extent you don't own your image. i really don't feel like diggin up the specifics....but whether you like it or not your image can be used for journalism and permission does not have to be obtained. |
you're all astray. antigone: i know there are more viable alternatives. |
|
|
But, if there are more viable alternatives, post 'em! I'm all ears. About a year ago I had the idea to make something similar to FreeNet, so I searched and there it was. Maybe there's something better out there now... |
|
|
my intent wasn't to make a better tool. my intent was to make a point. freenet isn't in the news the way napster is. i'm not sure that even aimster will have the impact. what is necessary is specifically stating that it works with napster. anonymous, free software. and press releases. people need to realize that the only way the recording industry can win is by taking away considerable rights and demoting innovation in the net. if people don't realize this, then the justice deptartment might just listen to big money. |
|
"The Judge's injunction also demands that Napster police files for misspellings of artists' names or song titles. "All parties shall use reasonable measures in identifying variations of the file names or of the spelling of the titles or artists' names," she wrote." - http://www.msnbc.com/msn/539964.asp a full mangle would be necessary. |
i'm filled with glee when something like napster comes along and bursts a seam on the status quo straitjacket, even if it is just a cuff. i think it's beautiful. |
but you should be filled with glee to wake with agatha and chloe in your world. rimming on and on about status quo and the beneficiaries and banging your head against a wall because of it ain't livin man. i mean i understand your frustration, generally speaking, but truly....what does it all mean in the end? are you into to the music because of how it's presented to you, or are you into the music because of the music? Does this whole napster shit really mean anything to Dave Doe and his life in Olympia WA, USA, Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy? You still get your music right? you may have to pay for it,vinyl and used records stores are a god send. I mean if you have this incessant need to rip the status quo from time to time....just go pee in your neighbors lawn in the morning, or steal a pack of gum from the liquor store...get it outta your system Homer Simpson style...and live on brother! Its not gonna matter in the end. sorry nate to distract your intent here. |
hey patrick- used records are the same crime as napster. think about it, bitch. |
and you don't havea point. i PAY for used records! i don't download them for free. |
isn't that the concern? you think the labels are sueing on principle? or because they preceive a loss of revenue? |
napster means that i get to listen to a lot of music that i would never buy but wonder about what it sounds like. it also means that i get a lot of music that i would buy for free which makes me very happy. in fact, i pretty much have all the music i could ever want at this time and i'd like to thank napster and it's millions of users and frauenhofer and bill gates and xerox parc and the dod and all of those other beautiful people who i may have left out but who helped to make it all possible. thanks! |
don't be silly dave. in the case of used music, the label or artist has already been paid. perhaps this could be for napster as well. for example i've already paid the labels and retailer for my Bon Jovi. Now im gonna upload it for you anklegrabbin ho's to download. In the case of used music, the music, literally leaves one hand and goes to another...it's not like that used vinyl copy of Steel Wheels keeps multiplying with each resale. Napster potentially acts an endless rack in a record store, where the clerk is suckin on a chloroform lollipop. I'm gonna guess the lables are suing napster on point of loss revenue. Which again, im not necessarily siding with either side on this debate. I expect the labels to behave in this manner, so it's no shock. But this ultimatly burns down to a fight between technology and capitalism. Two things im not completely in bed with. But i'll jump in the sack and give it you two anyday, just to stop your whinning about napster. |
|
have i been whining about napster? i expect napster to go down in flames, a pyhrric victory for the riaa. i just think it's a shame because every one of the arguments, both for and against, has holes but the riaa will win the suit simply because "that's the way it is". do goatsnake play around there? god damn they sound good in the car with the windows down on a warm, sunny day. |
|
never heard goatsnake. i dont drive anymore, i bus and subway around...and i can't rememebr the last sunny warm day we had. |
the internet has them skeerd. the riaa can only win against napster. no other company will leave it's gates so open. |
i wish dave would direct his energies. he could rule the world. he's going to be mad that i wrote this. |
you're pretty fucking frustrating, too. hon. |
|
me! Now you're not stealing from the artists OR the labels, just the store. This localizes and simplifies the problem. |
that had to do more about personal economics j and a personal vendetta against my employer. I was supposed to live off $5.50/hour. That comes to roughly $500/month after taxes. There is serious imbalance in the record store business. i don't deny the evil nature of record labels. 80% of your cost on a cd are promotions and other costs endured by the label. approximately 10% or less go to the artist, and the other small margins go to the record store you buy from. Retailers make bigger margins off a pack of chewing gum than the sale of a cd....and then record store clerks, (not speaking of the mall blockbuster type zombies) who are often very knowledgeable about their job, get paid shit....and it's not because the employers don't want to pay you shit, they just CAN'T because the major labels are fucking evil. We scowled at the Sony, WEA and BMG reps when they came in to push their shit on us. The thing is, we had to listen, well not me, i was the import/indie buyer...but poor Curtis did. Also, its a well documented fact, when they gave us promo copies.....we always got excess of the shittiest music and maybe ONE of say the new Pearl Jam release. The logic for that is clear. THATS what you pay for when you buy a CD. So... J...i love you to death....BUT... ripping off a record store for used and new copies albums and cds is hardly comparable to grand scheme of things concerning napster. |
|
when you buy a used record, you are not buying a new record. therefore, you're taking money from the mouths of poor artists. |
|
im not positive if that statement is bait.... but it sure looks like it based on how idiotic it is. i guess you could say the same thing about any item bought used. |
napster allows you to get music in a way that 1) does not pay the label/artist and 2) is more attractive than buying the music in a way that pays the label/artist. in napster's case, this is by facilitating the free trade of music. in the case of used records, record stores still make money. however, when you buy a used record the label doesn't see any cash from it. the theory is, if you want the record, and it isn't available used, you'd buy it new. therefore, a used record sale is not only a sale of a record without profit for the label. the availablity of used records reduces the sale of new records. |
subjective. napster doesn't attract me and most of my friends have never used napster either. a record label, like any other manufacturer, shouldn't see profits twice from the same physical item...and generally speaking most business don't. the availability of used cars cuts into new car sales too. your statement is idiotic because it could be made about the sale of any used item. this comparison to used record trade and napster doesn't gel guys. its apples and oranges. as i have said the entire crux and difference of the whole fucking comparison napster makes it available infinitely. a used record store doesn't. you could even argue that without used item sales....independent record stores would be starved to survive and offer the new records the labels want them to sell. If you were to do an indepth analysis of cost with a record store, in regards to new product, you might find that some even loose money. Chains are able to maintain afloat, due to the marketing rack programs they charge back to the publishers and labels. Really, the margins on CDs is so small. A mom and pop store couldn't stay afloat if they couldnt offer used goods. |
napster surely will die if the riaa has its way. ""2) is more attractive than buying the music in a way that pays the label/artist" subjective. napster doesn't attract me and most of my friends have never used napster either. " this is the riaa arguement. free is more attractive than $16. you and your luddite friends are just freaks. "a record label, like any other manufacturer, shouldn't see profits twice from the same physical item" this is the problem. record labels are in the physical item business. they sell license to use physical items. ie, if you were buying the physical item you could use it as you see fit, including taking the music off it and making it available to the world. ford isn't going to come knocking on my door if i put a picture of my truck on the internet. that's because ford sells physical items. record labels sell license to listen. personal use. if they sold physical goods, they wouldn't be up against napster right now. |
that should have been aren't in the physical item business. |
free and lesser quality and having to buy a burner, and blank cds is certainly not attractive. putting a picture of a ford on the internet is not the same as buying a ford, making it available in byte form, downloading, and KABOOM, i got me a (not as good, but close enough) ford truck for free. tell me how that makes sense? they are in both businesses nate. physical and liscensing. thats what makes them unique. im most other trades, there two entities for this. ugh.....now im convinced your baiting me. |
you cannot download a CD from the internet -- only its music. you will not get the liner notes, case art, printed disc. so the commodity we are discussing is not the physical media, but rather the license to listen to the music, right? how is listening to music from the internet without paying the label any different than listening to music from a used record store without paying the label? the 1:1 transaction is the same. yes, putting an mp3 on the internet is potentially a much larger distribution. however, if you are purchasing the CD (instead of the license to listen to the music) then you bought the 1's and 0's and you can do what you please. if i buy the mona lisa, i can spray paint "FUCK OFF" right across her little cockhungry mouth. however, if you are infact buying a license, then, when a used record store resells a physical CD without compensating the label, that used record store is selling an unlicensed copy. because, though the CD was printed by the label, the owner of the license is the person who originally bought it. Garth Brooks, maybe 5-10 years ago, tried to stop the sale of used CDs for this very reason. the courts spray painted a big "FUCK OFF" right across his cockhungry mouth. |
Cleaners..accountants..doormen..security. As robots become more advanced there will no more need for manufacturing jobs. Also the virtual fax machine that faxes objects will also wipe out many many jobs. And when mankind falls the robots will eat our bones and drink our blood. |
how frightening. |
this is what my company is all about. reducing workforces via automation. |
Fucking burn 'em all, I say... |
if we speak not of the physical... napster makes said licensed materials available infinitely. a used record store merely transfers it from one to another.....like a broker so to speak. one looses it, another gains it. with your theory, id have to pay the labels to GIVE you my Ricky Martin CD though im tired on this, i'll continue to trade punches with ya.....but im ready to agree to disagree. do you think those upset with loss of napster have this fucked up sense of entitlement? Fuck it, why doesn't napster just do the capitalist thing, and starge charging a nominal fee comparable to what a used record store charges for a used cd or perhaps slightly less. you don't get the linear notes, pretty sleeves or the highest quality, but that would most likley satisfy the labels and artists...and make naspter some money |
You might have thought that was a joke. Don't laugh yet. |
if there is no used record, so you buy it new, the label gets 2. the scale of the crime is different, but the crime is the same. the problem with napster being hit like this, is that napster isn't exchanging any music files. that's my gripe. stealing music is stealing music. napster is just providing a thief list. |
but does any of this change when VP3 technology is as prevelant as MP3 technology? Then people will be swapping entire digital movies for free. I read somewhere that one filming company is already (?) starting sales of movies in digital format over the internet. Are we going to have the same problem? (once broadband is widespread enough to even make this possible) Would swapping VP3 videos be different than loaning a video you rented for the week, or loaning/selling a video you bought? |
|
All that's lacking is really zippy broadband, and movie swapping will be as common as music swapping. |
i'd rather d/l rar-ed isos than crappy mp3s if i could choose one or the other. |
Yep. what's this here intermap comin to anywho? |
|
|
|
milemarker interview |
I have nothing to contribute except to say that I shall purchase *less* music after Napster's demise, since there won't be an easy way to preview things. That's all. |
er, music previewing. |
|
none of it is OK by the RIAA, however they don't have a leg to stand on with complaints against other companies. you can't sue the phone company for crimes committed over the phone. and the RIAA isn't going to start going after every single "real" criminial in this case. that would be a PR nightmare |
How do the other services work? |
Although, if we're not vigilant, the internet will be changed so that free flow of data is not possible. |
|
I bet the majority of people who don't like napster have never used it. it's goddamn lovable. |
|
|
|
|
the other day I typed in the name of a song that was popular around the time I was born. I didn't know who sang it, I don't think I'd ever even heard the recording. but my mom and dad used to sing it to me when I was little. five seconds later, I was downloading it. whenever I think, "oh yeah, and what was that song that went, "da da da, blah blah blah," you can just type in the words you remember from the chorus. even if that isn't the actual title of the song, usually someone on napster will have the song entered under the most obvious part of the lyrics. "there was this crazy british band I saw in this little club in prague in 1994, and all the singer -- this old, fat guy who sang in a falsetto -- wrote about was whores and drugs. no, I'm not thinking of frank black. umm, I think they had a song where the lyrics were "heroin, heroin, and cocaine." and then there it was. now if you think I'm going to get dressed late at night and go to record shops with the most knowledgeable (read: snottiest) clerks and sing little snippets of songs I happen to remember from my past, hoping they'll know what it is and have it in stock, well, that just isn't going to happen, is it? if I could go the rest of my life bypassing every underpaid, thieving, righteous, cute record store clerk, the kind who mumble "ha ha, cuddle core" under their breaths when I buy a used cub cd, then right the fuck on. screw 'em! |
she's from tacoma. never met her, don't regret it. |
|
after the show we tried to get the cub chicks to come back to our place for drugs and sex. they said they had to get right on the road. or so i'm told. they had a nasty van. the johns drove a mercedes. the johns were pricks. the bass player was very nice. |
i don't care for the concept of making my pc into a music console. my stereo system, turntable and cdplayer are far more better. actually even if i wanted to get into napster id have to go and upgrade my computer, at least the one at home. I don't like to do large downloads at work. sys manager gets mad when we suck up bandwidth. Monies for personal 'puter aren't a priority. "cuddle core?" HA! thats a new one. the stereotypical record store clerk you descibe....for some reason it just seems logical they would flourish in your region. maybe it's just the notion of flannel to your area. i was actually pretty nice to the customers. i always made fun of them and their purchases after they left. |
the snooty record store guys go with the territory i think. |
digital is a degredation, man. it's not real music, man. analog only, man. it's REAL music, man. |
i didnt say anything of the sort. in terms of music creation.....digital eliminates the human element in the craft and art of creation, and thats undeniable. i have cds because many labels don't make vinyl anymore. but lets just compare it why i would prefer a sit down, home cooked meal as opposed to microwaved or fast food. yeah its food.....but the technology has chipped at the human element and the craft of meal creation. whena door is opened, somewhere a window is closed. |
not in my house. a microwave, as a tool, can be used in handcrafing meals. moron. bake a cake without a bowl, a spoon, refined flour and an oven. are cakes bad? "digital eliminates the human element in the craft and art of creation, and thats undeniable" i'll deny that whole heartedly. in fact, i'm insulted by it. First, check your CDs and tell me how many of them are AAA. Has the human element in the craft and art of creation been wiped from your CDs? Second, is production not an art? your position that technology removes craft is retarded. I'd bet good money that your drum sets aren't collections of found logs, sticks and boulders that you pound with fist sized rocks. I'm sure you're not saying you don't value the technological advancements that have brought us the electric guitar or the piano? basically, what you are saying is that anything new after a certain date removes craft from creation. so basically, what you're saying is that you are afraid of change. tools are tools are tools. it's what you do with them that is art. camera boy. |
|
thanks |
a microwave most certainly can be a tool to make home cooked meals....i was really referring to say a pizza vs. a home made one. im very aware of what i say sounds like the criticisms the pictoralists faced. someone sitting behind a computer cutting pasting tracks...adding drums samples, running their guitar track through a metronome program...etc.leaves out the synergy and talent between a group of humans sitting in a recording studio. there are prices to pay for technology with every instance. its not the tools i have a problem with necessarily....its the quality of what comes from certain tools. the integrity of a digital image manipulated with software hardly compares to the imagery of say .....a man ray or a steiglitz, exposed and hand printed i take advantage of certain technology....but only in minimal way as i see fit. its a bias...no denial there. but something i hardly apologize for butternuts. don't be silly boy by the way why you so uptight man? |
|
|
|
|
logic, perfection and technology only get you so far. i was listening to Miles' title "So What" Friday night.... man you couldnt produce that by cutting and pasting if you tried. techno, trip hop and (all the other names for that shit) lack one thing......soul. They are flat and lack emotional. Yeah they vibe your head, and they motivate you to move yourself. But think about it and see if you can find one moving song in that genre. i actually had dreams about this over the weekend. all i kept hearing in my conscious hours were "luddite luddite" the dream didnt have so much to do with this subject, but there were hints of it. nonetheless. i don't deny a pretty picture can be made with a digital camera, or a good song with digital equip... but there is something to be said for the live experience. listen to White Light /White Heat....here the tension between Lou and John manifest itself on Sister Ray...hear the two engage in a battle of volumes....hear Mo's mistakes as she trys to keep up and make peace. you don't get that on a digital cut and paste job. These days most producers would consider that take shit....as far as i am concerned, its perfection. whatever. |
|
good song yes. however, i heard his new album....the guy hasnt done anything interesting since, in my opinion. He's like a goth version of Leonard Cohen, only worse i think. That song is no more moving than say "Pocket Calculator" by Kraftwerk. I like Suicide. They were all electronic. But their music is just as flat i think, kinda funny, like the two aforementioned tunes. "Ghost Rider Motorcycle Hero" and "Frankie" are aboslutely hilarious. |
The whole vinyl is better than digital thing is stupid. If you had a perfect vinyl recording and a digital recording there is no way you could tell the difference. I read an article once about a guy who fooled vinyl snobs by putting a digital player inside an old analog machine. At first people could tell the differnece..then he figured out he just needed to add a little distortion to the digital recording and then everyone thought it was the real deal..pointing out how right they were about analog being so much better. The author was gleeful to open up the box and reveal the digital insides. But bottom line..good music is good music..im listing to a 20kbs stream now..and the songs they are playing are awesome..it still hits my pleasure center..even though it is a low quality digital stream. |
Rather just state my personal preference and why. |
|
i don't get why some people feel the need to get their panties all bunched up in a knot over this shit. i mean, it's not like much has changed. people are gonna continue to make shitty music regardless of technology. and i don't hear anybody blaming analog tape for "the moody blues". anyway. that "white light/white heat" example has everything to do with the recording technique rather than the recording medium. throw velvet underground into electric lady today and they'll be mic'd through a SSL board connected to a pro tools rig with digital compression and analog filters. the end product would be the same shit as if it were AAA instead of DDD. the only difference would be that your "tension" is captured in 0's and 1's instead of magnetic pulses. it sounds like you have more of a problem with digitally sequenced music that's been arpeggiated and quantized to death rather than digital production/recording in general. but who knows. you've got all sorts of apples and oranges up there. i think you're having conceptual problems. and kraftwerk sucks. |
yes. i have no problem with using digital tools to produce and master something concrete. i've done it many of time with my own music, but the music was still there...there was never a replacement. We liked what we played live.....our goal was to reproduce that as accurately as possible. actually i too could careless, but if we wish to talk about it......and actually we've gone all over the map here....from digital made music, to digital transferred music to digital imagery. my approach to all three of these it not necessarily the same. kraftwerk, for the most part did suck ass....don't have any of their records. However klaus schulz prior to kraftwerk did some amazing drum work in Ash Ra Temple... while we might be blaming technology on certain by-products...along with Moody Blues, could we throw in Yes, ELectric Light Orechestra and Alan Parsons Project and that other silly assed "progressive shit" that clogs up the used records bins. thanks im not sure any of this is due to conceptual conflicts. |
|