Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
At 5:02 PM -0500 3/10/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quality = marketability? To a businessman, sure. Profits come from units sold. The more units sold at a given price point, the more profits. I'm not saying that's a measure of quality (although it is certainly ONE measure of ONE kind of quality), just that nobody who's serious about the bottom line can think otherwise. Artists of any kind are not notorious for being good at business or at marketing. I don't know how many reject letters I got with rhetoric to the effect that this is a business decision only and does not reflect the quality of your work. Does it clarify the quality vs. marketablity in the hands of business executives if we substitute Hollywood film industry types for record company executives? Same paradigm entirely, but dealing in multimillions of dollars investments rather than only tens of thousands to produce a new product. But I can't help thinking that the whole 20th century attitude of I define quality because I'm the artist and you're not, that completely ignores the marketplace and does not respond to society's attempts at feedback, encouraged the feeling that the inmates were running the asylum in the arts. Beyond I know it when I see (or hear) it, there are no completely objective measures of quality that everyone can agree on. That made it very safe for the wording in your reject letters to be used, since they couldn't define quality any more than anyone else could! (See Dr. Alan Gowans, The Unchanging Arts, for an insider's strongly held opinions on the matter.) John -- John R. Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Quality = marketability? I don't know how many reject letters I got with rhetoric to the effect that this is a business decision only and does not reflect the quality of your work. Does it clarify the quality vs. marketablity in the hands of business executives if we substitute Hollywood film industry types for record company executives? ajr ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting how much confidence a group of musicians is putting in record company executives to know and deliver what's good. Who here has not had the experience of having music thrown in the trash without being considered by some executive type or other gatekeeper? Certainly not a way to discern its quality. When you realize what kind of marketing philosophy drives so many artistic executives (if they bought it once let's sell it to 'em again) it's absolutely specious to assert that it's artistic quality that moves them. I'm very thankful to find the independent artists of all types who can get their work out to me and the rest of the public without being censored/straightjacketed by some who knows better. It does occasionally happen. No, actually in spite of my comments on the record companies' filtering of what was available, I have never thought they always knew or delivered what I considered good. I know they missed a whole lot of stuff and for whatever egotistical or political or legal reasons there is a whole lot of terrific stuff which they refused to deliver. But my point is/was that I never had access to that other stuff, so I didn't have to spend my time wading through all the stuff the record companies didn't release to find the good stuff. With the internet I DO have access to all the stuff that labels won't release. The problem is that I don't have any more hours in my day, nor years in my life than I probably would have had back in the 60s when I was in my LP-buying heyday. Sturgeon's law applies everywhere (as many of us have already pointed out) but if there are 1000 albums released every year, it's possible to sift through them to find what I like. If there are 1,000,000 songs released on everybody's individual web-sites and at iTunes and CDBaby and CDnow and Facebook and MySpace, I just don't have the time to go through them all to find the good stuff. The total pile of available material has mushroomed exponentially to the point that I don't even bother trying to find new stuff anymore because so much (90%) of it is crap and I just don't have the time. Yes the record companies weren't always the best arbiters of what was good, but at least they made the available pile of stuff to sift through manageable. It all comes down to time -- I've got what I feel are much better things to do with my time than to search the internet in the hopes of finding the next Louis Armstrong or the next Bob Dylan or the next Beethoven. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
At 10:30 PM -0600 3/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting how much confidence a group of musicians is putting in record company executives to know and deliver what's good. Who here has not had the experience of having music thrown in the trash without being considered by some executive type or other gatekeeper? Certainly not a way to discern its quality. When you realize what kind of marketing philosophy drives so many artistic executives (if they bought it once let's sell it to 'em again) it's absolutely specious to assert that it's artistic quality that moves them. I'm very thankful to find the independent artists of all types who can get their work out to me and the rest of the public without being censored/straightjacketed by some who knows better. It does occasionally happen. Hi, Aaron, and please don't misread my comments. I was simply describing The Way It Used To Be, since I was deeply immersed in it back in the '60s, and pointing out both the good and bad of the emerging paradigm. And yes, it was a kind of censorship. That went on the negative side of the ledger. But yes, they at least had the opportunity to exercise high standards. That went on the positive side. And yes, of course, their definition of quality meant marketability. How could it be otherwise? Unless you're happy with believing that If the music business was a business it couldn't stay in business! Boils down to, there's good and bad in everything. John -- John R. Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Firat, I agree with nearly everything you three are saying. But this conversation reminds me of a group discussion I was a part of , some years back, one in which a lady older than I was wistfully saying that the last lighthouse on some island somewhere had closed, and it was a shame, etc. etc., and everyone was agreeing with her that all the old things were going away and all the new things were no good, etc. etc. Finally I felt forced to interject that probably the reason the lighthouses were closing was that that there were now better ways to keep ships from crashing onto the shore, and that most of the time the reason new technology replaced old technology is that it is actually better. Yes, Sousa was right: These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape. Recordings have devalued and replaced live music to a degree even he could never have imagined - but the gain has been tremendous. And the new technology, at which we can share rare recordings by MP3 around the world in seconds - is fantastic. And as far as the new technology for composers - it has freed me, who is both a terrible pianist and could never get an ink pen to work worth a darn. Back when I had to copy stuff out by hand I got a fraction of the music written that I do now, and it wasn't played as much, and the music wasn't as good. (I love the ability to play it back.) And I still keep sketches, some in pencil and some on the computer, if anybody but myself ever wants to look at them. (John, there _are_ available copies of the different MS of books of the Bible, BTW. And many good translations will have good notes of the significant differences, also, but that is another subject, as you say. And all of the apocryphal books are out there, also. It's not nearly as sinister as you are making it out to be. Go to a good seminary library.) Raymond Horton John Howell wrote: At 7:00 PM -0500 3/6/08, Christopher Smith wrote: On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: Some even suggest that the concept of the album is pretty much dead. Oh, I forgot to add: In the case of jazz albums, some of the most accurate and well-written jazz scholarship appears (appeared?) on album covers. Reducing these albums to collections of mp3's reduces their value considerably for the usual well-informed jazz listener who considers the reading almost as important as the listening! Personnel lists, dates, producer notes, technical notes; all these are invaluable information that is largely lost to the mp3 generation. Yes, and literary scholarship is changing as well, as authors adopt word processing rather than making longhand drafts, and earlier drafts are trashed or overwritten. Same thing with composers, at least those who now work directly to their computers. The times, they are a-changin', and these are minor adjustments that go along with those changes (although they might not seem so minor to specialists!). Case in point. I just did a program of music from the Roman de Fauvel of 1316. That was a bitterly satirical poem first written in about 1310. It survives in 12 copies, each hand-written of course, and each having differences from the others, some minor, others including entire new sections. But the single manuscript from 1316 is unique in also containing over 120 musical examples, carefully chosen to comment on and amplify the story line. The invention of printing started us on the road to standardization, and mass production technology took us further along that long road. Don't even get me started about all the varying versions of the books of the Bible, from which the present approved books were selected by a committee in the 4th century, and even then the Hebrew, Catholic, and Protestant versions have significant differences. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Ray Horton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as far as the new technology for composers - it has freed me, who is both a terrible pianist and could never get an ink pen to work worth a darn. Back when I had to copy stuff out by hand I got a fraction of the music written that I do now, and it wasn't played as much, and the music wasn't as good. (I love the ability to play it back.) And I still keep sketches, some in pencil and some on the computer, if anybody but myself ever wants to look at them. Exactly! Well except I'm not a composer, but it's the same situation. These baroque pieces I'm working on, I asked piano players to give a run through for me, because I wanted to hear something I had labored on for days upond days with pencil and paper. The music was too complex for them. Finale / Sibelius gives me the chance to hear the music in a way that was NOT possible. It's opened doors in such a big way for me. I could never be doing my research if not for the PC. Thanks for your thoughts Ray! Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
The lighthouses were pretty, though. RBH Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Ray Horton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as far as the new technology for composers - it has freed me, who is both a terrible pianist and could never get an ink pen to work worth a darn. Back when I had to copy stuff out by hand I got a fraction of the music written that I do now, and it wasn't played as much, and the music wasn't as good. (I love the ability to play it back.) And I still keep sketches, some in pencil and some on the computer, if anybody but myself ever wants to look at them. Exactly! Well except I'm not a composer, but it's the same situation. These baroque pieces I'm working on, I asked piano players to give a run through for me, because I wanted to hear something I had labored on for days upond days with pencil and paper. The music was too complex for them. Finale / Sibelius gives me the chance to hear the music in a way that was NOT possible. It's opened doors in such a big way for me. I could never be doing my research if not for the PC. Thanks for your thoughts Ray! Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On Mar 8, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Ray Horton wrote: Yes, Sousa was right: These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape. Man, this is my week for Sousa quotes! I came across this one earlier in the week and thought it was fantastic imagery for great music (and great art in general): A good march is as free of padding as a marble statue. Man, I loved that quote! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Good points Ray-- I also have been deeply affected by the availability of music on line, and using the computer for composing.. Many years ago, I decided to try to compose..but had NO idea how to progress. My idea then--which I STILL follow-- was to, as TOTALLY as possible, keep myself from listening to ANY older music..so as NOT to sound dated, in my musical speech, gestures, etc... I would guess my cut off point was the 1920's. Sounds drastic, but it has really helped me.. I had many of the CRI, Nonesuch recordings-many which I picked up for 99 cents at record stores-(eg Boulez Structures-) Now with the Internet (and sites like http://www.dramonline.org/, which has many ( I believe to eventually be all of the old CRI catalog recordings) and other sites eg http://musicmavericks.publicradio.org/, and streaming performances, from overseas, etc ,I can stay abreast of what's going on, and totally immerse myself in a way unimaginable to me. It's as the commercial says.priceless. I have often felt that many works (the Copland and Carter Piano Sonatas immediately come to mind) where later in the work, it seems to just fall apart.-- and being a Monday morning quarterback.composer I wonder what they were thinking!! Both composers and their musical material were EXCELLENT, so my thoughts are that these and many works suffered from the composer NOT being able to sit back-- SOLELY as a critically listening member of the audience-- and hear his work played back, as many times as needed during the composing process. They would either be involved playing it, or reading from score, which would divert their attention away... But SOLELY as a listener to our works--which we can now do with computer playback, and a good mockup--its so much easer to hear, find and fix areas of pitch, and gesture fatigue, form problems etc., and the flow of the piece from beginning to end can really be judged, Just some thoughts. Bob Morabito. On Mar 8, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Ray Horton wrote: - but the gain has been tremendous. And the new technology, at which we can share rare recordings by MP3 around the world in seconds - is fantastic. And as far as the new technology for composers - it has freed me, who is both a terrible pianist and could never get an ink pen to work worth a darn. Back when I had to copy stuff out by hand I got a fraction of the music written that I do now, and it wasn't played as much, and the music wasn't as good. (I love the ability to play it back.) And I still keep sketches, some in pencil and some on the computer, if anybody but myself ever wants to look at them. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Christopher Smith wrote: On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: Some even suggest that the concept of the album is pretty much dead. Oh, I forgot to add: In the case of jazz albums, some of the most accurate and well-written jazz scholarship appears (appeared?) on album covers. Reducing these albums to collections of mp3's reduces their value considerably for the usual well-informed jazz listener who considers the reading almost as important as the listening! Personnel lists, dates, producer notes, technical notes; all these are invaluable information that is largely lost to the mp3 generation. Christopher has brought up a very important point -- I have especially enjoyed the CD reissues where all the original liner notes were included along with newly written material which incorporates more recent research and knowledge. Of course, to some extent (if one can filter the 90% of crap that we always have to wade through) those liner notes have been replaced by fan web-sites where a lot of the knowledge which used to be available in the liner notes is still available (along with new knowledge). But it takes an extra effort (or two) to find that information which used to be included for the price of the recording. And those liner notes would serve as terrific advertising for other recordings -- I would often buy an LP and read the liner notes and think, Wow, I really like that drumming style (or piano style or sideman tenor sound or whatever) and then look for other LPs which had that person on them. Without knowing who's playing on any of the mp3 files I can buy online, those extra sales get lost unless or until I make the extra effort to try to find who all the personnel are on the files I enjoy. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
At 7:00 PM -0500 3/6/08, Christopher Smith wrote: On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: Some even suggest that the concept of the album is pretty much dead. Oh, I forgot to add: In the case of jazz albums, some of the most accurate and well-written jazz scholarship appears (appeared?) on album covers. Reducing these albums to collections of mp3's reduces their value considerably for the usual well-informed jazz listener who considers the reading almost as important as the listening! Personnel lists, dates, producer notes, technical notes; all these are invaluable information that is largely lost to the mp3 generation. Yes, and literary scholarship is changing as well, as authors adopt word processing rather than making longhand drafts, and earlier drafts are trashed or overwritten. Same thing with composers, at least those who now work directly to their computers. The times, they are a-changin', and these are minor adjustments that go along with those changes (although they might not seem so minor to specialists!). Case in point. I just did a program of music from the Roman de Fauvel of 1316. That was a bitterly satirical poem first written in about 1310. It survives in 12 copies, each hand-written of course, and each having differences from the others, some minor, others including entire new sections. But the single manuscript from 1316 is unique in also containing over 120 musical examples, carefully chosen to comment on and amplify the story line. The invention of printing started us on the road to standardization, and mass production technology took us further along that long road. Don't even get me started about all the varying versions of the books of the Bible, from which the present approved books were selected by a committee in the 4th century, and even then the Hebrew, Catholic, and Protestant versions have significant differences. John -- John R. Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Interesting how much confidence a group of musicians is putting in record company executives to know and deliver what's good. Who here has not had the experience of having music thrown in the trash without being considered by some executive type or other gatekeeper? Certainly not a way to discern its quality. When you realize what kind of marketing philosophy drives so many artistic executives (if they bought it once let's sell it to 'em again) it's absolutely specious to assert that it's artistic quality that moves them. I'm very thankful to find the independent artists of all types who can get their work out to me and the rest of the public without being censored/straightjacketed by some who knows better. It does occasionally happen. ajr ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Kim Patrick Clow wrote: [snip] I think it's very exciting to be able to do all this, and while I'm not sure where the dust will settle on all this (distribution seems to be a big issue still for independent publishers), I'm very curious for other thoughts on this entire process. I know many here have been in music and publishing since before the advent of the Internet and PC. These developments have to be fascinating to participate in. [snip] I think it's fascinating, as well. There are good points and bad points in all this democratization. With the old-line publishers, not all of whom are necessarily using big seller status as a determinant of what they will publish (Southern, Kjos, Presser, MMB, CLBarnhouse, come to mind as publishers who publish because of the musical quality and less because they'll make large profits on any one composer or composition) there was always the culling of garbage that went on. They wouldn't publish just anything -- it had to have what that particular publisher felt had musical merit. With the internet, anybody can publish anything, so that people who in the past could simply buy anything from a particular publisher knowing it had a minimum level of quality, need to know what to look for in advance. The individual needs to have much more expertise and ability to filter the crap from the gems. Unfortunately, today's educational system is preparing people less and less to be able to make such decisions for themselves, with all the teaching towards success on standardized tests (no child left behind evaluation tests as well as personal-success tests such as the S.A.T. or the A.C.T. in the U.S. -- I can't speak at all about educational processes in other countries) the ability of the individual to assess quality in products is sorely lacking. Just as the advent of MIDI and personal computers and notation software allows anybody who can find the on switches and can press a key on a musical keyboard to call themselves composer with no educational minimum which used to be required in order to know how to write the music on paper to put in front of others, so, too, the potential of internet sales has allowed anybody to call themselves publisher. Another downside to this democratization is that everybody gets to shout at the world Hey, my opinion is worthwhile, read all about it right here at www.icanspewgarbage.com and read how wonderfully brilliant I am! Heck, most of the people who have made it over the hurdle to actually make it into print don't have opinions worth reading and often get over-inflated ideas about how important to the rotation of the earth their opinions are -- now that anybody and everybody can do it, there are more inflated egos and more silly rantings than before. Maybe there are more gems as well, but the signal-to-noise ratio hasn't gotten any better. Sturgeon's law (90% of anything is crap) most definitely holds true of the stuff on the internet. The problem is that with such an exponential explosion of how much stuff is available, it makes it much harder to find the 10% which is worthwhile. The democratization offered by the Internet hasn't necessarily produced much more worthwhile content -- it's just made it harder to wade through all that is available in order to find the worthwhile stuff, whether it be self-published music, self-important opinions offered on countless blogs, videos on youtube which shouldn't have made it out of the video cameras they were recorded on, whatever. On the other hand, support groups such as this Finale group were never possible, not with the breadth of membership and scope of knowledge and experience, before the advent of the internet, and that alone makes all the overabundance of crap worthwhile. :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
While the special was lengthy, and it covered a lot of turf in 2 hours, it was essentially showing how the notion of democratization in our daily lives are now because of the Internet. I've written about this before, and I'm curious about any opinions and thoughts about this process. I find it amazing that anyone with a computer, music notation program can essentially publish music at will, and give the big boys a run for their money. I, too, find this an interesting subject. I am not sure just how much of a run for their moneywe self/independent publishers can give the big guys. I have had some success in self publishing with sales of most of my pieces at one time or another. But even with great reviews it still takes a great deal of money to shop yourself your goods. I've been through the direct mail bit as well as advertising in the trades and even had a booth at some conferences. These are very expensive endeavors which, for someone like me, is just entirely too expensive to maintain. It has given me some insight as to why the big guys are so picky. Personally I have thought about and would love to see something like an independent music publishers co-operative which, if large enough, might actually give the big guys a run for their money. In my conversations with music teachers (much of my music is geared to the education level market), they are very receptive to new material and would like to see more variety available to them. So I think, at least for the educational market, the door is ajar. Nick Raspa NJR Music Enterprises http://members.aol.com/njrmuse ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
At 11:52 PM -0500 3/5/08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: While the special was lengthy, and it covered a lot of turf in 2 hours, it was essentially showing how the notion of democratization in our daily lives are now because of the Internet. I've written about this before, and I'm curious about any opinions and thoughts about this process. Hi, Kim. I can easily see both sides of the equation. At some point in the process of creativity and distribution (or perhaps better of availability), it's necessary for SOMEONE to exercise good judgement. Pre-internet, that decision-making was in the hands of a few, who were essentially working full time or on contract for large corporations. In the recording industry it was record company executives, A R people, and recording producers. In the publishing industry it was again company executives, plus editorial staffs and individual editors. In the entertainment industry it was a shared responsibility among producer/promoters, booking agents, and personal managers. And part of the result was the recording and movie industries' creative bookkeeping, which guaranteed that the artists doing the work saw very little of the money their work generated. Democratization bypasses that layer of decision making, and also bypasses the maintaining of high quality professional standards that those decision makers could enforce. Anyone with adequate creativity, cybersmarts, and several thousand dollars worth of equipment and software can now put forward their personal product, either following high standards or totally unaware that such things exist and, so to speak, run it up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes. Through the Internet we are not only ALLOWED to make our own decisions about what we find attractive and worthwhile, we are REQUIRED to do so. We have met the enemy, and he is us! And Sturgeon's Law has never been repealed: 90% of everything is crap. I find it amazing that anyone with a computer, music notation program can essentially publish music at will, and give the big boys a run for their money. For my part, I safely assume none of the main publishers would have *any* interest in my editions. That's not to say there is a lack of interest, I get a lot of inquires about what I'm working on-- but like most huge media moguls, they're not interested in anything that doesn't reach a certain level of money. At this point I think we're talking about a niche industry, a cottage industry in which people with the time and skill are doing work for the love of it rather than as a business. On the other hand when I broke into the entertainment business back in the '60s there was a niche industry creating, hand-copying, and making amonia-smelling copies of arrangements for live shows, concerts, and recording sessions, not one note of which was ever handled or sold by any major publishers, and it was a very profitable niche industry for those involved in it. I think it's very exciting to be able to do all this, and while I'm not sure where the dust will settle on all this (distribution seems to be a big issue still for independent publishers), I'm very curious for other thoughts on this entire process. Distribution is no longer a problem, with the advent of .pdf files and instant communications (although bandwidth can get in the way). Certainly some refinement is needed, first in the matter of arranging for secure payment, and also in such details as reconciling the difference between U.S. letter size pages and European A4 size pages (which has yet to be done). And the quality of individual editors will come to be judged exactly as the quality of different publishers is judged, in terms of excellent and readable page layout, good page turns, clear cues, intelligent placement of bar numbers and rehearsal markings, etc. Folks on this list and others have laughed at and disparaged the standards put forward by MOLA, but it is so easy to shrink the size of notes and staves in Finale that too many self-publishers have done so to get more music on the page, up to and including a major publisher like Hal Leonard. No, distribution is no longer a major problem. Promotion is! Cutting through the background noise of everything now freely (or reasonably) available isn't easy, and advertising and promotion is perhaps the single most important thing that traditional publishers did for their clients. Just another corollary to democratization: We have to become our own publicists and business managers instead of putting that time and energy into creativity. And 90% of everything is STILL crap! The answer, at this point in time, is to discover or develop selective mailing lists where the product you happen to produce will be of interest. There is an OrchestraList, on which composers who are receiving performances and commissions can mention those successes and conductors giving those performances can comment; a
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Personally I have thought about and would love to see something like an independent music publishers co-operative which, if large enough, might actually give the big guys a run for their money.  In my conversations with music teachers (much of my music is geared to the education level market), they are very receptive to new material and would like to see more variety available to them.  So I think, at least for the educational market, the door is ajar. [snip] Especially with the ability we have to tailor copy-making to the situation, where the big publishers seem rather intransigent. The hard part for many is the business end of things -- being setup to handle the peculiar billing needs of various school departments, purchase orders and the like, along with being able financially to survive the intervening months between the shipping of the order and the actual cashing of the check for that order. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Yeah, is that what is known as Book to Bill Ratio? in the world of economics? Dean On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:51 AM, dhbailey wrote: The hard part for many is the business end of things -- being setup to handle the peculiar billing needs of various school departments, purchase orders and the like, along with being able financially to survive the intervening months between the shipping of the order and the actual cashing of the check for that order. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. R. Buckminster Fuller ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:23 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Kim. I can easily see both sides of the equation. At some point in the process of creativity and distribution (or perhaps better of availability), it's necessary for SOMEONE to exercise good judgement. Pre-internet, that decision-making was in the hands of a few, who were essentially working full time or on contract for large corporations. In the recording industry it was record company executives, A R people, and recording producers. In the publishing industry it was again company executives, plus editorial staffs and individual editors. In the entertainment industry it was a shared responsibility among producer/promoters, booking agents, and personal managers. And part of the result was the recording and movie industries' creative bookkeeping, which guaranteed that the artists doing the work saw very little of the money their work generated. Democratization bypasses that layer of decision making, and also bypasses the maintaining of high quality professional standards that those decision makers could enforce. Anyone with adequate creativity, cybersmarts, and several thousand dollars worth of equipment and software can now put forward their personal product, either following high standards or totally unaware that such things exist and, so to speak, run it up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes. Through the Internet we are not only ALLOWED to make our own decisions about what we find attractive and worthwhile, we are REQUIRED to do so. We have met the enemy, and he is us! And Sturgeon's Law has never been repealed: 90% of everything is crap. But wouldn't you say that is true for what the big boys did as well? Big boys meaning large media outlets, such a record labels, book publishers, etc. There were a few things that sold really well, that allowed those businesses to work, while the other 90 percent didn't make them all that much money. This special talked about all the Internet start ups-- in 1999, about 200 IPOs were offered, but only a few survived, and everyone was talking about the death of the idea of the Intenet when the bubble burst. But life was really changed after all of this, and new innovations sprang out of the dot com bust, e.g. facebook, and myspace and The Google. Just another corollary to democratization: We have to become our own publicists and business managers instead of putting that time and energy into creativity. I have a lot of luck with some of my web pages and I do try to figure ways to advertise even there, the Internets help in a big way by speeding up the process. I couldn't imagine writing to people by snail mail with weeks between replies! And 90% of everything is STILL crap! you're right, Kim, it's very exciting to be living at this particular time in history, at least for those with the flexibility to adapt and innovate. I am not a keyboard player, and I do not have a music degree, I'm pretty much self taught and I can only do because of the advent of the PC and the software (and really the Internet--I couldn't imagine making the friends and contacts I have without it). It may sound corny but the reality is: technology has allowed me to particpate in something I could only have dreamed of ten years ago. Thanks so much! Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Kim Patrick Clow wrote: [snip] But wouldn't you say that is true for what the big boys did as well? Big boys meaning large media outlets, such a record labels, book publishers, etc. There were a few things that sold really well, that allowed those businesses to work, while the other 90 percent didn't make them all that much money. But it was so much easier to find the good stuff because there was less stuff to begin with. Going into a music store to buy something, especially with any experience behind you to know which publishers were most likely to have the kind of stuff you would want to buy, was easy. Yes, 90% of what was available was crap, but there was so much less stuff to begin with in those days. It used to be so much easier to find the good stuff. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On 6-Mar-08, at 4:06 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:23 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And Sturgeon's Law has never been repealed: 90% of everything is crap. But wouldn't you say that is true for what the big boys did as well? Big boys meaning large media outlets, such a record labels, book publishers, etc. There were a few things that sold really well, that allowed those businesses to work, while the other 90 percent didn't make them all that much money. I don't suppose you thought that the criteria for the 90% was the same for everyone involved? According to the businesses, the 10% that made money was the gold, and screw the other stuff. However, according to me (the guy who listened avidly to the stuff on the middle of the B sides of LPs) the stuff that got popular was mostly the crap, and I had to dig a bit to find the 10% that I liked! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On 3/6/08, Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't suppose you thought that the criteria for the 90% was the same for everyone involved? According to the businesses, the 10% that made money was the gold, and screw the other stuff. However, according to me (the guy who listened avidly to the stuff on the middle of the B sides of LPs) the stuff that got popular was mostly the crap, and I had to dig a bit to find the 10% that I liked! Sure I completely agree with you. But from a record label's point of view none of the other stuff would be possible without big sellers. But even with this model, the Internet and the PC has overturned the concept of albums and singles and the role of record companies in this process. Mp3s allowed people to make their own albums in any particular order, or buy single songs that you want, not because the record company determined which singles were released. Some even suggest that the concept of the album is pretty much dead. Thanks Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: Some even suggest that the concept of the album is pretty much dead. Hmm, yes, for better or for worse. While I really like the idea of programming an album, and the amount of time and thought that went into it, in reality it often ended up as a straitjacket for the artist if he had any kind of originality. But complete albums are still available through iTunes, for a reasonable price (and crappy sound quality) for those who still like professional selection, pacing and mastering. Because of the nature of iTunes' pricing, sometimes you can do better by buying the whole album, while sometimes you can do better buying the tunes one at a time and assembling it yourself. christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On 3/6/08, Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But complete albums are still available through iTunes, for a reasonable price (and crappy sound quality) for those who still like professional selection, pacing and mastering. Because of the nature of iTunes' pricing, sometimes you can do better by buying the whole album, while sometimes you can do better buying the tunes one at a time and assembling it yourself. That's right, but at least now consumers have more of a choice, and it's precisely because of the technology, networks of end users, and market forces. In the TV special I'm discussing, a former executive for EMI was relating how in the mid 1990s, IBM and some record labels financed a very very expensive study that suggested end users would NOT want to burn music cds for their own use. This was a major goof on IBM's part (well the labels too, because they fought the technology tooth and nail before they found a good model that worked). IBM didn't learn an earlier study it commissioned in the early 1980s, that suggested the public at large wouldn't be interested in PCs and it would have limited market potential. Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
I discovered some segments of this special online (go figure ;) http://science.discovery.com/tv/download/download.html There are a quite a few video clips and some bring up the topic I've been focused on. Thanks Kim On 3/6/08, Kim Patrick Clow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/6/08, Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But complete albums are still available through iTunes, for a reasonable price (and crappy sound quality) for those who still like professional selection, pacing and mastering. Because of the nature of iTunes' pricing, sometimes you can do better by buying the whole album, while sometimes you can do better buying the tunes one at a time and assembling it yourself. That's right, but at least now consumers have more of a choice, and it's precisely because of the technology, networks of end users, and market forces. In the TV special I'm discussing, a former executive for EMI was relating how in the mid 1990s, IBM and some record labels financed a very very expensive study that suggested end users would NOT want to burn music cds for their own use. This was a major goof on IBM's part (well the labels too, because they fought the technology tooth and nail before they found a good model that worked). IBM didn't learn an earlier study it commissioned in the early 1980s, that suggested the public at large wouldn't be interested in PCs and it would have limited market potential. Kim -- Kim Patrick Clow Early Music enthusiasts think outside the Bachs! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
At 5:29 PM -0500 3/6/08, dhbailey wrote: Kim Patrick Clow wrote: [snip] But wouldn't you say that is true for what the big boys did as well? Big boys meaning large media outlets, such a record labels, book publishers, etc. There were a few things that sold really well, that allowed those businesses to work, while the other 90 percent didn't make them all that much money. But it was so much easier to find the good stuff because there was less stuff to begin with. Going into a music store to buy something, especially with any experience behind you to know which publishers were most likely to have the kind of stuff you would want to buy, was easy. Yes, 90% of what was available was crap, but there was so much less stuff to begin with in those days. It used to be so much easier to find the good stuff. Well, we're all making up these percentages, of course, but yes, I'd say the preliminary screening by record labels and music publishers DID get rid of at least half that 90% of crap, at least the stuff by the musically incompetent or illiterate, and those with a low supply of creativity or no knowledge of the marketplace. But you really can't compare music publishing with book publishing. A best-selling novel can generate millions, quite enough to keep publisher, author, and author's agent happy and ready to move on the the next best seller. I doubt that any music in history has generated that kind of interest and that kind of income, certainly no classical music. Which is why composers don't have composers' agents working on their business deals, and why publishers can demand that copyrights be signed over to them as a condition of publishing a piece of music, while best selling authors retain their copyrights and publishers make nice with them. It may be that the significant question is whether music self-publishing is a viable business, or whether it's the equivalent of vanity press publication in the world of literature and poetry. John -- John R. Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: Some even suggest that the concept of the album is pretty much dead. Oh, I forgot to add: In the case of jazz albums, some of the most accurate and well- written jazz scholarship appears (appeared?) on album covers. Reducing these albums to collections of mp3's reduces their value considerably for the usual well-informed jazz listener who considers the reading almost as important as the listening! Personnel lists, dates, producer notes, technical notes; all these are invaluable information that is largely lost to the mp3 generation. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On 3/6/08, Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the case of jazz albums, some of the most accurate and well- written jazz scholarship appears (appeared?) on album covers. Reducing these albums to collections of mp3's reduces their value considerably for the usual well-informed jazz listener who considers the reading almost as important as the listening! Personnel lists, dates, producer notes, technical notes; all these are invaluable information that is largely lost to the mp3 generation. I worked for a large record label (in the royalities division) and I worked on a LOT of jazz material (I had to reenter a lot of this information from one system into another). The type of information you are talking about was hard for even ME to find, and I worked there! It required a lot of research and phone calls on my part. The same issue you bring up in reference to mp3s exists for Classical music as well, e.g. some of the old Nonesuch albums had liner notes that were really for intents and purposes, research papers (most of them included full citations for sources (ancient and modern) for the music. And the cover art? Forgetaboutit with mp3s !! Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
On 6 Mar 2008 at 16:06, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: There were a few things that sold really well, that allowed those businesses to work, while the other 90 percent didn't make them all that much money. Go to Google and search on long tail. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] O.T. The Internet and the Democratization of Music Publishing
Hi all: Let me apologize a bit for the length of this post, but I'm constantly fascinated by the impact the PC and the Internet has had on music publishing. The Science Channel (available in the United States on cable systems), had a history on the Internet which was really fascinating. One common theme throughout so many of the developments that drove innovation was the idea of allowing people the ability to enrich their lives the way they wanted to. The founder of eBay believed that buyers and sellers should determine the market and set the rules, Amazon wanted to make the experience of buying books much easier and allow greater access to many hard to find titles. Craig's List developer Craig Newmark wanted to simply allow buyers/sellers to have a free way to connect and bypass expensive newspaper classified ads, Shawn Fanning developed Napster to let his friends find an easier way to connect and download music from each other and create networks. Facebook, myspace, et all are user defined models for creating new media outlets (users are able to share music, photos, movies etc). Youtube allows anyone with a video camera to make a movie and share it instantly with whoever wants to watch it, by passing the need for an expensive television network or tv station. Want to share your opinions? Before the Intenet, you could maybe hope for a few lines in the letters to the editor section of the paper, but that was it. The founder of Wikipedia wanted an online community for creating a forum for knowledge that would be essentially self policing, and content determined by the users. While the special was lengthy, and it covered a lot of turf in 2 hours, it was essentially showing how the notion of democratization in our daily lives are now because of the Internet. I've written about this before, and I'm curious about any opinions and thoughts about this process. I find it amazing that anyone with a computer, music notation program can essentially publish music at will, and give the big boys a run for their money. For my part, I safely assume none of the main publishers would have *any* interest in my editions. That's not to say there is a lack of interest, I get a lot of inquires about what I'm working on-- but like most huge media moguls, they're not interested in anything that doesn't reach a certain level of money. I think it's very exciting to be able to do all this, and while I'm not sure where the dust will settle on all this (distribution seems to be a big issue still for independent publishers), I'm very curious for other thoughts on this entire process. I know many here have been in music and publishing since before the advent of the Internet and PC. These developments have to be fascinating to participate in. Thanks so much Kim -- Kim Patrick Clow Early Music enthusiasts think outside the Bachs! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
