WTF??? You Can Do Better Then That!

[Drew Wilson]

I guess someone is pirating my music: http://www.genxglow.com/forum/dbd005...ssessed-t23092

FYI: Both the stream and the offered download are merely samples and not the whole track.

I'm a little saddened that someone could take my music like this and post it online for free. I mean, dammit, post the whole thing if you're going to pirate it! C'mon, please proper the release with the whole thing. Top sites and everywhere else on p2p ideally, but one step at a time here.

BTW: I'm serious on my invitation to up the whole song for free.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Sounds like something that would work well on Ur-Quan masters in a remix pack.

Congrats? You've been pirated.

[w31n3r]

BTW: I'm serious on my invitation to up the whole song for free.

you sure about that? just don't go blaming anyone later when you can't afford a remote for the surround sound system in your private plane...

[evilmegaman]

As a musician, I don't care if i make money off my music as long as someone's listening. It seems kinda far fetched to think someone should shell out 15 bucks a cd when they can't afford to eat anything but the dollar menu when they's hungry.

Which is why I definitely like the radiohead/nin method.

pay what you think it's worth maaaan, and if you go to a show, you can buy a hard copy. wooooahhh unheard of man..


speaking of making music, Did I mention I hate recording? boy, I HATE RECORDING

[Drew Wilson]

I probably should be clear that I have no problem with what the user has done. To me, this was a pretty cool thing I found.

Had a conversation recently with someone about music and mentioned that I managed to get on a record label. He told me how great it was that I got on to a label and that I might soon start selling enough music to live off of royalties for the rest of my life. I told him, "Well, such a thing doesn't happen right away."

He responds, "Yeah, but it'll happen I'm sure."

I didn't really continue with the conversation because I could tell he was hooked on the idea that the only way to do well in the music business is to sell millions upon millions of songs. It was a very interesting reminder just how many people in every day life really truly believe that this is the only way to be successful and that you were either a multi-millionaire or completely broke and worthless. All or nothing.

The thing that redeems him is the fact that it's a capitalist society, so you are pretty much brought up on this idea and the concept of the "only" way of making it in music is the aforementioned way. If you've been around the net long enough though, you'll quickly realize that this hard core capitalist approach isn't the only way. One of the reasons why music quality has tanked so much in the mainstream is, I think, that it is driven entirely on what you can sell, not what you can produce. So it's no surprise to me that most of the high quality stuff tends to be distributed online for free by people who create music because they enjoy it (be it production, performing or whatever)

There was quite the reminder the other day when news outlets were all over Lady Gaga winning a whole bunch of music awards. The first question that popped in to my mind was, what music has she produced that merits such awards anyway? The media outlets didn't seem to care what music was being produced, but, instead, went nuts over her wearing a steak outfit instead. It reaffirmed my suspicion that the music awards have diddly squat to do with the music in question, but rather, the celebrity status some people have achieved instead for reasons that more often then not have nothing to do with producing a decent tune. I've seen artists in the past in certain music awards that had the hint of any sort of "wow" factor like the cookie-cutter one hit wonder "Good Charlotte" to name one artist - to which it seems even that kind of music might have grown to sophisticated for the taste of major record labels. It's like the majors push anything that is a knock-off of the 80's and 90's music whether through style or all out blatant lyrical rip-off of other artists with the hope of selling a quick buck and dumping the artist on the curb penniless after. That's OK, some artists are talking about "bustin' people up" or whining about break-ups, so they are automatically classified as "rebellious" and therefore profitable even though the formula has been around for years now especially after Linkin Park graced the music scene with their first album.

These days, I can listen to the radio for hours on end and can either classify the song being played as either "old" or "crap" while the DJs use their phony voices to pronounce how their station "rocks" and is the greatest in town. If that counts as the greatest, then I've lost faith in humanities ability to find and appreciate a song with some hint of quality.

Meanwhile, I go online, go to all these independent sources for music and, give me a week, I'll find at least two or three brand new tracks that I classify as "great" and some of these sources don't make money on their music. It proves to me just how superficial music sales and money well and truly is. Even the RIAA admits that music sales is not a measuring stick for success.

So, quite frankly, I'm just like what megaman said, I care more that people are listening to my music than if they are buying it. I mean, last I checked, music was meant to be listened to, right?

[Excrement_Cranium]

Speaking scientifically, you are a cynic.

The success of pop music is totally random, and quality/talent is in the ear of the beholder. Given 50 years, you will have one random one-hit-wonder that is somehow timeless, and a few artists who have produced timeless bodies of work.

Why is Michael Jackson more popular, or more beloved than Prince? Prince has the musical talent to do everything he does all by himself. He can write, produce, play the instruments, and sing. However, Michael is a better over-all entertainer.

Now, you may file either one of the aforementioned into your "old" and "crap" categories, or both. "The awards are for the media blah blah blah," music IS media. Music is art, it's propaganda, it's emotion, it's a moment, it's a time of year, it's a memory, it's an era, it's a day at the beach, a favorite food.

Now, I don't care if people are technophiles, metalheads, hip hop junkies, pop princesses, emo, punk, whatever, what pisses me off is when anyone presumes that they have some say in the definition of what "good" music is. Fuck you, really.

Then, oh boy, then, we want to "blame capitalism." Oh, it's the big companies, they did it. They only sell what sells.

Um, and as a mass, we have bought what they sold, and ignored other things. Capitalism is consumer driven, not producer driven.

Get over yourselves, people.

[Drew Wilson]

Um, and as a mass, we have bought what they sold, and ignored other things. Capitalism is consumer driven, not producer driven.

I'll disagree with you on this point for now purely on the music level. Four major corporations have worked for centuries to create a market where only their "product" can thrive. How many artists have become mainstream without releasing under an RIAA influenced label (I can ignore the aspect of distribution because some music is released independently, but utilizes big four distribution channels)? I don't know the exact number, but I know for a act that such acts are few and far between.

Was it because only popular acts use big major labels while "bad" acts use smaller ones? After several years of listening to independently produced music, I can safely say that the answer is "no". This is not an answer based on, "I think this music is better than that music" because there is no shortage of music that "sounds like" mainstream music that I really do dislike.

The truth in the matter is that major record labels have a major stranglehold in the market to the point where the only way to "make it" is through them. They have an overwhelming amount of control on what gets aired on the radio, they influence which artists gets in to the biggest venues, they have a good portion of control of what music can be sold in stores both online and offline, and they even have marketing firms working around the clock to influence word of mouth both online and offline. They spend millions making sure that you only have heard of their music which really borders on anti-competitiveness. If you want a great example of this, just look at the policies being set for royalties being collected at bars as well as the debate on royalty distribution of online radio and its very easy to see that the big guns are skewing the market into their favor through legal means too.

When it comes to music, the consumer aren't really in much control at what they are exposed to unless they invest in significant amount of time and effort to find alternative channels to expose themselves to non-RIAA music which is, admittedly, more than just throwing your hands up and flicking on MTV. The consumer in this "market" is herded to re-buy whatever it is the majors want you to buy. Like in American politics, freedom of choice is more of an illusion.

In this case, the consumer isn't exactly driving the capitalist system, but rather, capitalism is driving the capitalist system.

[Excrement_Cranium]

No clue what you are going on about.

I'm spoiled. I have a nice, small, thriving local music store. It remains healthy despite all of the changes in the music "industry."

Now, all the local radio stations are large, corporate-owned stations which follow those formats, so that fits. I'm kind of interested in how making radio pay royalties will work. Will they continue to push the majors? Or will we start to see more push into smaller acts? Could be nice. Dunno, I have a six-disc changer and an MP3 player in my car.

At the same time, I'm glad I have kids. My kids have kept me from turning into some crotchety cynic constantly yelling at them to "turn that noise down." Fuck that, I hate those people. My dad used to shit himself if we had MTV on. He would bitch about lyrical content, like John Melloncamps "Hurts So Good."

No fucking thanks. I spent 8 years of my life playing brass. I LOVE MUSIC. All of it. Period. Some of it I won't listen to, but I refuse to become so fucking cynical based on half-assed ideologies that seem more fitting to high school kids and liberal arts majors than they do to an adult. And I refuse to get stuck on Nirvana like some people's moms were stuck on Elvis.

Give me Mozart, John Phillip Sousa, Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, The Scorpions, Bush... fuck, give me Nickleback and Creed. Give me Garth and Meridith Brooks. Give me Keith Sweat and E-40. Give me Sick Wid It, Cash Money, and No Limit. Give me Roadrunner. Give me Kris Kristoferson. Give me Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard. Give me Kenny Rogers. Give me Inflatable Soul, Sir Mix-a-Lot, Downset, Kid Sensation, Boneyard Jack, Two-Headed Chang, Blue Scholars, and Common Market. Give me New York Dolls, The Stooges, The Ramones, and Green Day.

You know why? Because it doesn't fucking matter.

"Oh, it's unoriginal."

Yeah. You know what? It is. It really is. It is unoriginal because music is usually made by people who love music. They love music, they love media. MF Doom loves pulp movies and comic books. It comes out in his music. Being influenced by music and other media doesn't make things unoriginal. Even science is often inspired and influenced by other science. That doesn't make a new discovery somehow unimportant. And sometimes, it's just your own psychology, your own ability to recognize patterns that makes something "sound alike," or "look alike." Your mental schema build that bias, it's not the world doing it. Well, not every time. Currently, you have Will.i.am who is intelligent enough to know how to socially engineer a song based on what things get a popular reaction. Maybe people don't think he's a "good" musician, but he is smart.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2009/12/22/pop-music/

[mountain_rage]

No clue what you are going on about.

I'm spoiled. I have a nice, small, thriving local music store. It remains healthy despite all of the changes in the music "industry."

Now, all the local radio stations are large, corporate-owned stations which follow those formats, so that fits. I'm kind of interested in how making radio pay royalties will work. Will they continue to push the majors? Or will we start to see more push into smaller acts? Could be nice. Dunno, I have a six-disc changer and an MP3 player in my car.

At the same time, I'm glad I have kids. My kids have kept me from turning into some crotchety cynic constantly yelling at them to "turn that noise down." Fuck that, I hate those people. My dad used to shit himself if we had MTV on. He would bitch about lyrical content, like John Melloncamps "Hurts So Good."

No fucking thanks. I spent 8 years of my life playing brass. I LOVE MUSIC. All of it. Period. Some of it I won't listen to, but I refuse to become so fucking cynical based on half-assed ideologies that seem more fitting to high school kids and liberal arts majors than they do to an adult. And I refuse to get stuck on Nirvana like some people's moms were stuck on Elvis.

Give me Mozart, John Phillip Sousa, Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, The Scorpions, Bush... fuck, give me Nickleback and Creed. Give me Garth and Meridith Brooks. Give me Keith Sweat and E-40. Give me Sick Wid It, Cash Money, and No Limit. Give me Roadrunner. Give me Kris Kristoferson. Give me Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard. Give me Kenny Rogers. Give me Inflatable Soul, Sir Mix-a-Lot, Downset, Kid Sensation, Boneyard Jack, Two-Headed Chang, Blue Scholars, and Common Market. Give me New York Dolls, The Stooges, The Ramones, and Green Day.

You know why? Because it doesn't fucking matter.

"Oh, it's unoriginal."

Yeah. You know what? It is. It really is. It is unoriginal because music is usually made by people who love music. They love music, they love media. MF Doom loves pulp movies and comic books. It comes out in his music. Being influenced by music and other media doesn't make things unoriginal. Even science is often inspired and influenced by other science. That doesn't make a new discovery somehow unimportant. And sometimes, it's just your own psychology, your own ability to recognize patterns that makes something "sound alike," or "look alike." Your mental schema build that bias, it's not the world doing it. Well, not every time. Currently, you have Will.i.am who is intelligent enough to know how to socially engineer a song based on what things get a popular reaction. Maybe people don't think he's a "good" musician, but he is smart.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2009/12/22/pop-music/

So what I understand from this is that you want william hung and ricky martin in your pants.

[Potato]

I didn't read this thread because I couldn't get past the title: WTF??? You Can Do Better Then That!

[Mels_Smileys45]

I too did NOT read this thread!!!


:peace::hippie::peace::deadhorse::deadhorse::washi ng:

[Drew Wilson]

*sighs*

Note to self: Never get ranty while in a cranky mood. (cranky mood had nothing to do with the re-posting of my material)

[Excrement_Cranium]

I do have William Hung in my pants...

*cue comedic riff*

No, I have a growing hatred of crushing cynicism. It causes me to have bowel spasms, because it's a bunch of shit. If people applied the same cynicism to the rest of life that they do to music, books, movies, and other media... well, there just wouldn't be much hope left. I'm not blindly optimistic, I'm not all cherry blossoms and sunshines, but fuck people for trying to shit on the things I do find some joy in.

[Drew Wilson]

I do have William Hung in my pants...

*cue comedic riff*

No, I have a growing hatred of crushing cynicism. It causes me to have bowel spasms, because it's a bunch of shit. If people applied the same cynicism to the rest of life that they do to music, books, movies, and other media... well, there just wouldn't be much hope left. I'm not blindly optimistic, I'm not all cherry blossoms and sunshines, but fuck people for trying to shit on the things I do find some joy in.

Hah. I hardly call what I said "crushing cynicism" (maybe an irritated critique of the mainstream music system). If what I said was that to you, you would probably consider an academic environment intellectual hell.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Depends on the academics that populate it. It's no secret that there are cynical academics as well, which is why some scholars push for decades to get published. Not because they don't have a good thesis, but because they are against the academic status quo. I had a psychology professor facing this.

I am curious, however, as to what songs in the study I linked qualified as "absolute crap" or "actually good" vs the mediocre songs that randomly floated up.