Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
The online catalog is wonderful! Praise, peacock eggs and riches from the east for Owen and Sol, what a fine job! http://www.fluxus.org/FLUXLIST/box1/fbindexm.html thank you thank you thank you
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
If you could convince us to buy your music you can convince the world ;-) My music is not for sale. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Myke, The point is that if people are going to routinely rip music from CDs and distribute them via the internet or other means to their They only do it with their favourite music, I would never do it with Metallica, I once did it with Ratex X, a 400 kb file in 8 bits per second... The question with corporations like yahoo doing the same is something completely different. Today, its more or less legal here, btw, because the law only prohibits distribution of private burned CDs, not distribution of the files themself. I wouldnt change this situation. Get those Yahoos etc with unfair competition.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
MP3 and the internet are the death knell to all that as far as I'm concerned. Everybody's having a lot of fun doing things with the If you put yourself in such a position, out of time. Its the time of digitalisation. CD ripping is something completely different in soundquatity than taping CDs. But its the same socialy. There are no more ripped CDs than there were private tapes. new technologies which were not possible before. They're not concerned about the artists they're ripping off. So what if Please cool down. Metallica is a group of rich guys now. They deserve to be rich because they're good at what they do and the market has made them so. I will not allow the anonymous public at large to treat me so rudely. I deserve better treatment and at this point by keeping Never heard of Metallica. Dont miss it. Somebody send me a tape of a tape of a tape of a Miles Davis concert from 70. Am I ripping off Metallica ? Some people gave me some CDs that were burned. Beethoven, and Prince. This "rare" Prince sux. Maybe I get Revolver etc, Beatles would be fine. "Tomorrow never knows" !! But the only CD player I have is my computer. my works to myself I can ensure that I get it and cannot be abused by others who would get off on trying. This is akin to not casting pearls before swine in my humble opinion. If you could convince us to buy your music you can convince the world ;-) Anyway, still think that the times they are changing, analog gear, the cover of the CD, rox. Cover and music are a unity, as far as the product goes, or not ? Comparing tapes and LPs.. CDs can get broken... The internet, one big jukebox. H. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Hi Myke ! to the public. By keeping them all to myself I can rest assured that no anonymous scum out there will ever snub me with some stupid philosophical argument that what I create is not mine and can be There are no such philosophical arguments. freely distributed by anyone to anyone without my permission at any time by any means necessary. I have always wanted to share my But digitalisation of music has given private copying another meaning. The copy isnt anymore worse than the original (like in the case of taping a cd). works with others who would have an appreciation for them - and at first I believed the internet would open doors to me that were always closed before. Now I see that this just is not the case. Dont understand this. Is it for the copyright thing, private copying or what ? Nobody can sell your works against your will, play it in the radio etc. Musicians have never had control over private copying. And human beings have only 2 ears, dont hear music all the time. And if somebody would steal your music and publish under his own name, things like this could happen, well, everything is possible, but its no reason not to release your mididisk experiments, *your* works. Did I miss something ? Please explain. Heiko Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
works with others who would have an appreciation for them - and at
first I believed the internet would open doors to me that were always
closed before. Now I see that this just is not the case.
Dont understand this. Is it for the copyright thing, private copying or
what ? Nobody can sell your works against your will, play it in the radio
etc. Musicians have never had control over private copying.
Perhaps visual artists already have the equivalent of Napster. First
with printed media (oh how those Durers and Hogarths would debase the
original) then later with more ubiquitous images and now with
hypertext. The w3c community is concerned about control of the
original generation of an image just as people are looking into ways
of encoding music with a sonic watermark. I think it's important to
remember that these are all multiple generations of an artwork and as
such both value the rare original more, devalue the impact of vision
or sound ("Ways of Seeing," John Berger, please help me here) yet
cast a broad net.
Do Ymphony!s exist solely as taped music or is there a performance or
other element involved?
Public Enemy was on Charlie Rose [rap artist/music producer was on
popular public television talk show] last night, with the drummer
Lars from Metallica. PE talked about ancillary correlates of
downloadable music: live concert, talk, visuals. Especially the live
aspect.
Look at the Fluxlist box. Could even the cleverest scripted browser
pages substitute for the artifact? It might be fun, possibly more
informative and definitely more structured. But without presence and
tactility we're all still boys in the bubble awaiting gene therapy
for our auto-immune disorders.
Even given a full 360 degree vision, being able to physically walk in
and around a hologram, we'd be at to loss to experience vitally,
unless we ourselves were de-carbonized/siliconized/digitized. Cross
elemental rushes.
Music's different in that we accept the digital or analog
representation, often its only form, as coin of the realm. Perhaps
Napster proliferation will bring about a resurgence of live music.
Kathy
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
There are no such philosophical arguments. There is maybe one aspect somehow philosophical, the end of the "artist" as some individual. How do the many voices on those mididisk things contribute ? They do the music. Another case is sampling. But you also can say, that is boring, why not produce something completely new ? Hmm, somewhere in the middle somehow bla bla bla. Editing and the material. The material asks questions.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Another case is sampling. I frequently sample from CDs of well-known artists when I create music of my own, however, the fun of that for me is to then take the sampled sound and process it so that it is completely unrecognizeable. I created an instrumental in 1994 called "Resurgence (A Night On The Rocks)" which contains a percussion sound sampled right out of Paul McCartney's "Kreen-Akrore", however, the way it sounds now you'd never know it by listening. I passionately detest artists who do little to mask the origin of their samples - leaving them in obviously recognizeable form. I also sample my own Ymphony!s when building instrumentals with my keyboard. I'm glad I recorded what I did when I was younger. I never imagined then that they could be so useful to me today. Sampling hadn't yet appeared in my life when I first began recording sounds. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Nobody can sell your works against your will, play it in the radio etc. Musicians have never had control over private copying. The point is that if people are going to routinely rip music from CDs and distribute them via the internet or other means to their friends and associates then at some point there won't be any sales of legitimate product because there won't be a need to buy it. I know several people with huge MP3 collections on their computers. They like to brag about having them. I don't want my music to end up in their collections without some form of recompense. They haven't supplied the artists involved with any form of support whatsoever and therein lies the rub. MP3 versions of just about everything are available now. I want nothing to do with it. I come from a Commodore computing background and it always appalled me when I learned of how many cracked games there were floating around. Now people have C64 emulators on their PCs and use that as an excuse for their behaviour. You have to crack the games to get them to work on the PC because there are no Commodore-formatted 5.25" floppy drives from which to boot them. I say use a real Commodore or leave it alone. I have legally purchased all of my Commodore software. When I would buy a used system which came with a buttload of cracked games, I wouldn't destroy the disks, but I also never allowed anyone else to obtain copies of them from my collection. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Ymphony!s are recorded compositions. If I ever need something to accompany a live performance, they can be handy when no other intended sound is available. I am simply on the side of Metallica with this one. I buy a lot of CDs and am happy to financially support the artists who entertain me. I too would like for my recordings to one day assist in my financial well-being as well. That has been part of my mindset all along. MP3 and the internet are the death knell to all that as far as I'm concerned. Everybody's having a lot of fun doing things with the new technologies which were not possible before. They're not concerned about the artists they're ripping off. So what if Metallica is a group of rich guys now. They deserve to be rich because they're good at what they do and the market has made them so. I will not allow the anonymous public at large to treat me so rudely. I deserve better treatment and at this point by keeping my works to myself I can ensure that I get it and cannot be abused by others who would get off on trying. This is akin to not casting pearls before swine in my humble opinion. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Let he who is a painter, first cast good. (From Don, the sculptor)
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Two articles on the subject that I've found interest are: Information as a global public good:A right to knowledge and communication Oxfam International campaign proposal by Danny Yee http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/oicampaign.html The Value of Gnutella and Freenet by Andy Oram http://webreview.com/pub/2000/05/12/platform/index.html?wwwrrr_2512.txt cheers, George
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
BP writes: " What are good paintings ? What good are paintings ! a good painting is without sin" Let he who is a good painting cast the first stone!
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Let he who is a good painting cast the first stone! Let he who is good and stoned paint my cast. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
In a message dated 05/11/2000 11:46:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let he who is painting stones first cast good. Let he who is first in the cast paint stones for good. Let good she who is cast repaint the stones.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 05/11/2000 11:46:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let he who is painting stones first cast good. Let he who is first in the cast paint stones for good. Let good she who is cast repaint the stones. Often it is best to post a notice that the painting is on loan. Marcel Broodthaers did this, in, I believe, Musee des Aigles - all the paintings were on loan, thus, there was no painting displayed, but the suggestion of such. PK
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
The Concept of Copyright Fights for Internet Survival By JOHN MARKOFF While American courts struggle over the recording industry's challenge to digital music swapping, Ian Clarke, a 23-year-old Irish programmer, is moving on to the next battleground. He is finishing a program that he says will make it impossible to control the traffic in any kind of digital information -- whether it is music, video, text or software. His program, known as Freenet, is intended to make it possible to acquire or exchange such material anonymously while frustrating any attempt to remove the information from the Internet or determine its source. Mr. Clarke and his group of programmers have deliberately set themselves on a collision course with the world's copyright laws. They express the hope that the clash over copyright enforcement in cyberspace will produce a world in which all information is freely shared. In any case, the new programs could change the basic terms of the discussion about intellectual property. The swapping of music files over the Internet, through services like Napster and MP3.com, has already raised the hackles and mobilized the lawyers of the recording industry and some musicians, who say the practice amounts to piracy. They hope either to halt the services or to collect royalties on the digital works being swapped. But programs now emerging make it possible to find and acquire files without reference to a central database, and thus provide no single target for aggrieved copyright holders. And methods being developed to protect such works -- like scrambling the data and requiring a key to decode it -- may wind up being trumped by similar encryption that covers the tracks of those doing the swapping. "If this whole thing catches on," Mr. Clarke said, "I think that people will look back in 20 to 40 years and look at the idea that you can own information in the same way as gold or real estate in the same way we look at witch burning today." The groups and companies pursuing the new distribution technologies -- programs that in effect create vast digital libraries spread across potentially hundreds of thousands of large and small computers -- do not necessarily share Mr. Clarke's ideological viewpoint. They range from iMesh, an Israeli-American start-up company that aspires to become an international commercial digital distribution system, to several small groups of free-software developers intent on building new systems for the sharing of any kind of digital information. Some contend that if their software lends itself to copyright infringement, it is the user's responsibility, not theirs. Mr. Clarke, putting into practice a view expressed by many in the free-software movement, takes the more extreme position that copyright protection is simply obsolete in the Internet era. A test version of his Freenet program -- written in England and now distributed free to many countries around the world -- was posted on the World Wide Web in March. Mr. Clarke, who lives in London and works for a small electronic commerce company, said last week in a telephone interview that there had been more than 15,000 downloads of the early versions of his product, indicating that hundreds or perhaps thousands of network servers on the World Wide Web are already running the program. Any file that any user wants to offer to others can be made available through the system. So far, that includes software programs, video pornography and a copy of George Orwell's "1984." Mr. Clarke said he was confident that corporations trying to develop complex technologies to encrypt information or otherwise halt the free sharing of computer data would ultimately fail. "I have two words for these companies: give up," he said. "There is no way they are going to stop these technologies. They are trying to plug holes in a dam that is about to burst." That attitude, plus the fact that millions of users have come to rely on easy access to digital information via the Internet, suggests that the issue may quickly outstrip the current debate over copyright infringement between the recording industry association and a variety of Internet music distributors. "I have no shortage of gray hairs from worrying about these programs," said Talal G. Shamoon, a Silicon Valley executive who heads a working group of the Secure Digital Music Initiative, a technology and entertainment industry working group. Some legal experts believe that the intellectual property laws are being used in an effort to grapple with technologies they were never intended to address. "Copyright law is not the right tool in the case of many of the new technologies," said Pamela Samuelson, a digital technology and copyright expert at the law school of the University of California at Berkeley. "The question will quickly become whether other governments have reasons
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
He who paints good gets stoned first. T.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
What are good paintings ? What good are paintings ! Myke I was going to say that. Blooming heck! You have to be quick in this Fluxgame.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
In a message dated 05/10/2000 7:05:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are good paintings ? What good are paintings ! a good painting is without sin
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
What are good paintings ? What good are paintings ! Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
On the front page of today's NYTimes: The Concept of Copyright Fights for Internet Survival http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/10digital.html
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
At 07:24 pm -0400 10/5/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 05/10/2000 7:05:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are good paintings ? What good are paintings ! a good painting is without sin a break with their very concept of painting m. duchamp
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Myke Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: My point was that it only takes a split-second to view an entire image. Like the artist (who!) who finally made it to the Vatican five minutes before museum closing time, craned his grizzled head to the Ceiling, possibly licked a finger, and said, "okay, I've seen it." Popular television: I saw upcoming previews for one of the legal shows (maybe Law and Order which is tonight) about a painting which was implicated in a murder. The 'canvas' was in a small corner of the screen but seemed to be an animated swirl of viscous color, quite nauseating though also riveting. K.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Well, maybe this is why it's hard for people to see paintings nowadays. They expect to see everything at once. 2D work and sculpture are also temporal, even though they do not move. When I write reviews, I try to always include some note on how long you need to look at the work to start seeing it. It's never instant. Hockney talks about strategies for defeating the "15-second gaze." This is important. That length of time is the typical duration of people's gaze at works of art in museums, etc. It's an information-gathering glimpse, meant to identify what is seen. Giving something a classification is perhaps the opposite of coming to know it. This brief gaze is only reinforced by all the text and interpretive material that is usually supplied with visual art now, which, far from helping people see the work, simply aids in the process of identification. Drives me nuts. AK Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: Paintings are experienced at once. Albums are experienced through time. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Paintings are experienced at once. Albums are experienced through time. And operas are pictures in time... What are good paintings ?
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I only wish that there was a visual-image equivalent to Napster. (Record Gnutella. For everything..
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Heiko Recktenwald wrote: I only wish that there was a visual-image equivalent to Napster. (Record Gnutella. For everything.. http://www.sltrib.com/05082000/business/47375.htm So it would seem. Spreads easily..
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Hi all, Different bands have different views regarding mp3. Public Enemy have championed mp3 and are probably one of the few high-earning artists to do so. It seems clear to me that mp3 is not taking money away from anyone but helping to build up a fan base and get music out to people that want to hear it. No-one said anything about not selling CDs, cassettes etc. alongside mp3. check out http://www.public-enemy.com/mp4/swinlust.html and read below for a fuller picture. from http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/topics/infoart/public-enemy/ Public Enemy and mp3s symbolize the growing movement of music and technology working together. For the past five years, Public Enemy has been moving toward the use of web sites and mp3s to speak out to their fans. Being one of the largest voices for the new industry of web music, Public Enemy stands as one of the first major bands to release a full album on the web before it became available through stores. This successful attempt scares the record label industry. With the ability to market, sell, and display a band's image through mp3s and web sites, record labels can become virtually obsolete. These money hungry "middle man" will soon be left out of the equation. The band connects directly with its fans as well as portrays its purpose as a group. Through this technology, music becomes information. Public Enemy's Chuck D aggressively promotes the band's use of the internet. According to Rolling Stone magazine (www.rollingstone.com) , "Chuck D shows no fear in the face of technology." He continues to stretch the music industry toward the web and takes a little power away from the record labels. The label takes time to present the music Public Enemy creates, leaving the fans in the dust. So Public Enemy took this problem into their own hands. "We predicted that there would be an alternative way of distributing music versus the industry trying to catch up. . . we set up our super site that was gonna spread most of our noise and that was www.public-enemy.com." This growing and innovative way of promoting sales gives the band a new look on how to cut out the "middle man" and make their music have a voice. Chuck D asserts that the lyrics hold a meaning and no one can escape that thought. The web site allows Public Enemy to display their lyrics and make it impossible for the fans to miss the meaning. "We're going to say what we got to say regardless of its popularity or what." Chuck D makes a strong point of promoting his lyrics. He continues to state that "A wind storm won't blow some of these lyrics to the side. Nor will hype or press releases or liner notes." Public Enemy needs the web site to show what they truly stand for. The press release or marketing, according to Chuck D, will not get the job done. What does that mean? The record label does not give the band its meaning or allow them to present the statement the music entails. Music holds a certain meaning or point of information. It is the art of information. "The question is, what are people going to do with the information that they've got?" Chuck D asks an important question, but without the web site or mp3s, the people will not have the information to use. An interesting "side show" occurs with the use of mp3s and web sites. The idea of plagiarism becomes a huge issue. As a result of the simplicity involved with stealing a band's property, labels are still a necessity. Local bands and unsigned bands do not have the privilege of copyright laws protecting the ideas presented on the web. As of right now, taking music off of the web proves itself to be a difficult thing to do. Rolling Stone magazine, in an article on Public Enemy's album being released on the web, argues that "the music will be encrypted onto the disks and playable only in conjunction with a Liquid Audio player, so attempts to duplicate the album won't be easy." In addition, the majority of music on the mp3s by local bands is simply a clip of a song, not an entire song. So while plagiarism is an issue, it does not seem to pose a huge problem. Mp3s and web sites scare record labels for this reason. If stealing property does not show a threat to the music bands, then what's the problem? The problem becomes free advertisement and less dependency on the record labels. Looking into the future, another issue arises. The record labels fear the use of mp3's. But once the record label gains control of the internet, they can use it for their own advantage, just as music groups use it now. The difference lies in the fact that record labels will secure their place in the music industry if they manage to own and control each method of advertisement, sales and promotion. Public Enemy shows that while the music industry may be necessary for sponsorship, copyright laws and producing albums, they can not do it all. The web allows music to be a source of information and not just a money producer. Mp3s and web sites allow
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
From "The Terrordome", an article by Chuck D. of Public Enemy. First I like to get directly to the points 1. The day of the one dimensional naïve artist is over 2. 95% of all music will be free, at least for a period 3. The whole financial structure of the entertainment business is in the process of getting redefined 4. NAPSTER has turned music into baseball cards and the consumer base of kids are leading the pack, ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT MUSIC. 5. With a million artists joining a new way of getting music across the world via the MP-3 internet, new ways of artists making money will eventually be discovered or rediscovered 6. As in kindergarten everyone will be re-taught how to share 7. NAPSTER, MP3, downloaded music and sharing is the new radio for the O-DEC old school artists, get over the fact and adapt Im in support of the sharing of music files. I believe that truly another parallel music industry will be created alongside the one that presently exists, and thats the bottom line stake that traditionalists fear. Having been connected to the genre of hiphop and rap music for 22 years, I've witnessed the lack of proper service areas to fully support the majority of artists, songwriters, producers and labels in getting the music to its fanbase. Although there's this talk about rap/hiphop growth and power, we are still only talking about a sliver of selected artists that participate on a major level. As far as the major labels go, the artists, producers, songwriters, etc concerned most about sharing music for free are those select few who are signed to that structure. Long ago the majors upped the ante on what it took to promote and market a song, thus totally squeezing the small, independent entrepreneur out of the distribution game. With radio choosing the more traditional popular favorites, the skyrocketed video costs, and even college jocks on the take, getting a record to the fans was becoming impossible. I believe this structure has hurt the artist more over the past 50 years than the thought of someone passing the song around for free. Thus the emergence of the internet and its non-bias way can introduce new ideas, options, and solutions to the excess of waste the companies push out in their promotional campaigns. What about the artists? Well with the music business trying to adapt and reluctantly adopting the facts of digital distribution, this is a prime opportunity for artists to understand that they can operate beyond the naïve slave or limited employment positions of the old music business templates. In the past, most artists had little say over how their product would be marketed and sold anyhow. A contract would guarantee they would get a few cents on a dollar, usually in the limited territory of their signed region. And if it didnt work out, the label would cease selling the art but owning it forever. And, thus looking back over the last 50 years, this has been the major cause of frustration amongst artists. Right now, companies like NAPSTER are creating new fan interest in the acquisition of music, as well as establishing an infrastructure that previously was non-existent for unknown artists. In fact, if the flexibility in the ownership of the master rights were also in the artists domain, milking a song for a smart artist would always be a possibility. For years now the major labels have enjoyed a boom period by being a step ahead on the technologies that allowed the listener to hear and keep the music, eventually even merging with the hardware manufacturers. Since the 1920s with the RCA upgraded, Thomas Edison created phonograph, through the stereo hi-fis, 8 track, cassettes and eventually CD players, the music lover was subjected to turn into a consumer by every account on getting an artist to his/her ears. The last straw was the CD period where labels charged the marketplace (that means you) a whopping 250% increase and continues to get it even today, while barely adjusting artist contracts and leading the record company execs into the world of 7 and 8 figure salaries. At the same time, a method of disposability was employed on the artistry; making the jacked up marketing and promotional costs the only way to get an artist to superstar status. The "no more time for artist development, screw the art" aspect thus eliminates the area of re-negotiation, while maintaining the same budgets but fattening the profit area by flipping a small batch of artists in and out. That is todays music industry. Well, the MP3 has been a thorn in that bulls side, downloadable distribution has become a case of the chickens coming home to roost," while allowing the global audience who were only previously thought as consumers, the ability to interact as participants. MP3 was the first impact hitting the old way. The second impact as in the case of NAPSTER, is gonna revolutionize music and redefine what a song can and should do. What
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I only wish that there was a visual-image equivalent to Napster. (Record Gnutella. For everything.. http://www.sltrib.com/05082000/business/47375.htm So it would seem. Spreads easily.. There is a search engine with gnutella, but I am not so fast like you with URLs, well, its not www.smurf.org, its www.surfy.com, for a first imprssion. (Didnt check it today..) H.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
To All: I'm at the day job (the artist at the day job, heh heh) now, so do not have references in front of me, but I've learned much from the input on this subject, and have calmed down a bit from my initial kneejerk response as a visual artist. While I agree with Ann wholeheartedly about the hell artists who make one-of-a-kind work go through, and I have not changed my views on the rights of artists, it seems comparing recorded music with same has become a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Oh, and by the way, somebody said this wasn't relevant? Technology is changing our lives and exploding and renewing itself daily at a rapid pace and a part of that change deals with the marketing of art - visual in the sense that we can sell it on the web, (and so can galleries) and, of course make art on the web for all to view. Music has become so commodified and costs so blown out of proportion (what does it cost the industry to burn a cd - 25 cents?) that technology (and those behind it) is taking its due on the industry and giving it an overdue comeuppance. What I glean from these posts is that we all use the music "freebies" in different ways. I have used mp3, certainly, but mainly as a preview to cd's I might buy, as I believe Sol posted. Ron has used it to market his music, another for a minidisk for a class lecture. It would seem that the "ripping off" of the actual music mainly affects the pockets of the popular mainstream; i.e., Metallica, and they are fighting it with legal means. Seems technology has become the dog here and the recording industry the tail and the dog is wagging the tail. I picked up my copy of the catalogue from the Walker Art Center's "In the Spirit of Fluxus" last night and was rereading Dick Higgins' "Statement on Intermedia." "Art is one of the ways that people communicate. It is difficult for me to imagine a serious person attacking any means of communication per se. Our real enemies are the ones who send us to die in pointless wars or to live lives which are reduced to drudgery, not the people who use other means of communication from thsoe which we find most appropriate to the present situation. When these are attacked, a diversion has been established which only serves the interest of our real enemies." I'd like to retype the entire statement, but unable to right now, so, hopefully without destroying context, I'll do the fourth paragraph. "For the last ten years or so, artists have changed their media to suit this situation, to the point where the media have broken down in their traditional forms, and have become merely puristic points of reference. The idea has arisen, as if by spontaneous combustion throughout the entire world, that these points are arbitrary and only useful as critical tools, in saying that such-and-such a work is basically musical, but also poetry. This is the intermedial approach , to emphasize the dialectic between the media. A composer is a dead man unless he composes for all the media and for his world." From "Statement on Intermedia" Dick Higgins, New York, August 3, 1966 Best, PK
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
In a message dated 05/09/2000 2:07:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A composer is a dead man unless he composes for all the media and for his world." This reminds me of Month Python's Decomposing Composer song. Thanks Patricia, and if yr up to it, I'd love to see the whole thing (Dick Higgins's pamphlet). I appreciate your efforts. BP
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
And what you do with it sounds promising !! Couldnt you burn something ? What exactly are you saying/asking? I don't understand your message. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
syquest 135 is/was better to use and faster but zip became the standard. Another example. Why must we always settle for less? I still find the microphone handeling awkward. www.minidisco.com has three stereo mics available. They are all small and custom made which makes them a bit pricey but worth it. The one I bought has two mics with clips attached to them joined to a single miniplug. I can clip each mic on my shoulders, belt / beltloops, shoes, etc. Totally hands free. I like walking around with my MD portable set in pause/record mode, my headphones in my ears listening through the open circuit, and the left and right microphones reversed. That way I hear things on the left which I see on the right and vice versa. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I still find the microphone handeling awkward. Maybe there is an ear implant mike in the future. www.minidisco.com also has a stereo mic which can be attached to your sunglasses' earpieces. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Paintings are experienced at once. Albums are experienced through time. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Paintings and sculpture and related works in the visual medium are created over time and experienced over time, anew - again and again and again. And so it is with audial art. Best, PK Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: Paintings are experienced at once. Albums are experienced through time. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
syquest 135 is/was better to use and faster but zip became the standard.
Another example. Why must we always settle for less?
"... modern marketing."
I still find the microphone handeling awkward.
www.minidisco.com has three stereo mics available.
They are all small and custom made which makes them a bit pricey but worth it.
The one I bought has two mics with clips attached to them joined to a single
miniplug. I can clip each mic on my shoulders, belt / beltloops, shoes, etc.
Totally hands free. I like walking around with my MD portable set in
pause/record mode, my headphones in my ears listening through the open circuit,
and the left and right microphones reversed. That way I hear things on the left
which I see on the right and vice versa.
Sony has a pretty good mic (ECM-MS907 about $90US) that I use with my
minidisc recorder; there are better mics but they tend to be much bigger
than the recorder, which seems odd...
I tend to sit in one place for the duration of the 74 minute MD 'recording
session.' I don't seem to be able to react fast enough to
fleeting/interesting sounds. My last session was at the new San Francisco
baseball stadium -- I was most surprised 'to hear' that all the chants and
stomping that the fans do during the game are prompted by
prerecorded/broadcasts in the stadium.
The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project since 1994
+ + + serial ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/b/bbrace
+ + + eccentricftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace
+ + + continuous ftp://ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace
+ + +hypermodern ftp://ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace
+ + +imagery ftp://ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace
News://alt.binaries.pictures.12hr ://a.b.p.fine-art.misc
Mailing-list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg
Reverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net
{ brad brace }[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~finger for pgp
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I tend to sit in one place for the duration of the 74 minute MD 'recording session.' I've got a few tapes like that from way back when. Without any serious editing capabilities for cassette like there is for MiniDisc, however, I never really enjoyed the results unless there were a lot of people around making impromptu noise and speech, etc. The stereo mics w/ clips I use are small. If I fastened the player to my belt and ran the mic cord(s) under my shirt, most people around me would probably never notice I was 'wired'. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Terrence writes; excellent intuitive set up. I'll check it out minidisco.com now. btw can you control off the unit, as is there a way to remote pause/record on the mic line in? Nice to have a hand on the unit (he he) but it is slippery, I added stick on neopream bumpers on my sony minidisc after my first drop and kick. Id like to get a zoom mic (parabolic?) as well for coloring/detailing. Any ideas on that? thanks T.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
{ brad brace } wrote:
I was most surprised 'to hear' that all the chants and
stomping that the fans do during the game are prompted by
prerecorded/broadcasts in the stadium.
Terrence writes;
It is even less obvious to all, but the thinking eye and mind, that the art
galleries/institutions have something similar to this operating for years.
T.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I personally think MP3's are the coolest thing going. I have pretty compulsive music interests, so its great to be able to find stuff by most artists for free. I download a lot of stuff that I'd never just go out and buy. To me, its no real difference than dubbing an album on cassette or burning a CD copy of a commercially bought CD. Its just that its a little easier. and the sound quality is better. I check out a lot of music from the library, is that cutting into the artist's rights, since I will listen to a library CD about as much as I do the average MP3 I download? Both involve one copy being bought and then shared among a large pool of people. And I just can't get too excited about defending the profit channels of huge record companies. If CD's weren't so expensive I might feel differently. A quip from Jon Stewart on the Daily Show about Metallica's lawsuit against Napster sums it up for me. "It's the latest move in Metallica's campaign against youth culture and fun." Alex From: Patricia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 07:52:50 -0700 Hi all, I'm interested in thoughts out there about Napster. I downloaded it just to check it out yesterday, the download actually asked me if I wanted to upload all of the MP3 files on my hard drive!! While I don't like paying high cd prices, what appears to be a tempting free buffet at Napster, seems to me to be a HUGE ripoff of artists' rights. I would be outraged at others taking my work without my permission and sharing it. Let alone the loss of income. I'm interested in opinions on this. Best, PK Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I would be outraged at others taking my work without my permission and sharing it. Let alone the loss of income. I would think a majority of recording artists do what they do on a full time basis. Take away their income and they'll find another means by which to earn a living. I believe things such as Napster only work to ultimately rob the individuals doing the trading of the very music they enjoy trading. It's a mild form of suicide if you ask me. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Well to put my two cents in on this issue...there is a good side and a bad side to it. As a creative musician who produces music that major labels do not deem as commercially viable, mp3.com and napster are a great way to get your music out there. My Spiritpark webpage gets 20-30 hits and listens a day and over the last two months that it has been up that means that 1200-1500 people have heard my music...so with the intention of getting my name and music out there, mp3.com is a great thing. Now the bad side is that if you are commercially released and being distributed and people are illegally trading your music, well that is definitely something that I could understand being upset about. thanks Ron
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I personally think MP3's are the coolest thing going. No, I think that belongs to MiniDisc. I wish I knew why so many people tend to think of audio files only in terms of the pre-recorded. MP3s compress more than twice as much as do MiniDiscs and you just can't go about with microphones on your shoes making 75-minute digital stereo recordings of your environment and then edit and rearrange the results anyway you like using MP3s. Ever tried to record a class lecture using MP3s? Music isn't everything. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
of artists' rights. I would be outraged at others taking my work without my permission and sharing it. Let alone the loss of income. This is an old topic, but if you are interested, I prefer gnutella, because it works without central database. And "privat copying" is ok. As it ever was.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
or is it possibly changing the way it all works. As it becomes easier and easier to produce your own website and distribute/sell your music through MP3's yourself, for a lot less money than a record company, maybe you'll find you really don't need a big record deal and a big record company. Maybe it will change what it takes to "make it" as a musician. From: Lord Hasenpfeffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:36:59 -0400 (EDT) I would be outraged at others taking my work without my permission and sharing it. Let alone the loss of income. I would think a majority of recording artists do what they do on a full time basis. Take away their income and they'll find another means by which to earn a living. I believe things such as Napster only work to ultimately rob the individuals doing the trading of the very music they enjoy trading. It's a mild form of suicide if you ask me. Myke Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
But you can record it with minidisk and convert it to mp3 in a second step. For email etc. True, but there are a gazillion people out there who think they have no use for MiniDiscs because they have MP3 capability. For some crazy reason, people see them as competing mediums when really MP3 can't hold a candle to MiniDisc. Misinformation and misconceptions about MiniDiscs and what they offer vs. MP3, I think, is the greatest threat facing the format. I can very easily imagine a future when MiniDisc is put out to pasture because of MP3's popularity - and what will have been gained vs. lost in such a scenario? The world at large may never know, however, I for one will be robbed of a great workhorse of an art and music editing and storage medium. We suffer with VHS instead of Beta and with PCs instead of Amigas for similar reasons. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Terrence writes; I think trading is OK. Kids used to trade pogs. It's not much different with pop music that is specifically aimed at exploiting a youth market, especially Metalica; ~pogs dun dun dun dun draang drannng dun dun dun dun dun pogs pogs pogs.~ T. Sol Nte wrote: - all the artists who complain about this kind of thing are loaded anyway.
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Sol wrote in response to Patricia: I think that's the case here. People are too hung up on possibly losing money that they haven't even made yet - all the artists who complain about this kind of thing are loaded anyway.when it comes down to it you can't really own anything. You come into this world with nothing and leave with nothing so why hang on so tight to stuff you'll have to give up in the end. But income is time. If people rip off my work, for which I am ordinarily paid, then I have to put in more hours at other kinds of work, much of which I'm not crazy about, and thus cannot do my work, my artwork that is. Copyright history is quite fascinating, the arguments for and against, it's fairly recent, actually. What I remember from accounts of the fight for copyright laws in France is that rather well-known authors often didn't want copyright because it would reduce their rep--fewer people around the world knowing their names--and a large part of their incomes was derived from the fame machine (talks, lectures, all the furniture of fame) and less from the actual sale of works, whereas lesser-known writers who derived a larger proportion of income from actual sales of works favored copyright. So it's been kind of a little-guy thing. If other means of deriving income from the pursuit of music or artmaking can be found, great. If not, do we have to hack off a few more inches from the limbs of artists, again, so that we can all have our free music? Why are you so attached to the few bucks you might have to spend to buy a CD? O, by the way, CDs are much cheaper in the States. What is it about the distribution mechanism in the UK that doubles the price? I don't know, payment for work done seems like a pretty universal desire. Is it so much to ask? Why are all artists and musicians expected to have either trust funds or day jobs? Do we expect surgeons to sweep floors so they can be privileged to indulge in their surgical avocations when they can scrape together the time to do it? What would the quality of surgery be like if everyone doing it had to do something else for 8 hours a day? Why does this argument still have to be made? It kind of makes me crazy. AK
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
lectures, all the furniture of fame) and less from the actual sale of works, whereas lesser-known writers who derived a larger proportion of income from actual sales of works favored copyright. So it's been kind of a little-guy Think it was about libraries, what should they pay to the authors association ? Same, somehow, with CD burners. How much ? And empty CDs for the burners. We have it with tapes, photocopy machines etc.mp3 is just a side aspect (today) and the individual author gets just a share, somehow calculated..
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Can we ask bands to return cd money for the portion of the cds that aren't any good? Like when you have to buy a whole cd to get two or three songs you really like? Why do we have to pay for all the songs when we don't want em?
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
How about we cut out the bits of paintings we don't like, too, and demand our money back? How come people who complain about spending their hardearned money on art always follow up by criticizing artists for being too desirous of money? Like bitching about spending an extra ten bucks isn't materialistic? Come on. Artists are human beings. They make interesting artifacts, that's what they do. They are not responsible for pleasing you, they are responsible for making interesting artifacts. You are responsible for finding the flipping inner resources to make the most of those artifacts. Of course tomorrow I'll take up the other cause. I'm just tired of hearing people say, "I'm too cheap to give money to those moneygrubbing musicians." AK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we ask bands to return cd money for the portion of the cds that aren't any good? Like when you have to buy a whole cd to get two or three songs you really like? Why do we have to pay for all the songs when we don't want em?
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Terrence writes; Paintings are different. They are more like a fabulous concert played only once. They are one of a kind. (Mp3's are more like cheap posters but better). Packaged and distributed cd's are the fancy seriographs. But you know the new money making concept for soft media. Design once sell many times. I think the artists need to get more from the music but I think it this is more about money grubbing promoters and distributors then musicians. The artits speaking against mp3 are acting more as spokespeople for the suits who are just paracitical creatures who feel threatened by those they seek to exploit. ~Die suits die dun dun dun dun daannggg!mp3 killed the suits mps killed the suits! yaaa! dun dun dun dun dun drang! Die suits die dun dun dun dun daannggg! dun dun dun dun daannggg! mp3 killed the suits mps killed the suits! yaaa!~ T. ann klefstad wrote: How about we cut out the bits of paintings we don't like, too, and demand our money back? How come people who complain about spending their hardearned money on art always follow up by criticizing artists for being too desirous of money? Like bitching about spending an extra ten bucks isn't materialistic? Come on. Artists are human beings. They make interesting artifacts, that's what they do. They are not responsible for pleasing you, they are responsible for making interesting artifacts. You are responsible for finding the flipping inner resources to make the most of those artifacts. Of course tomorrow I'll take up the other cause. I'm just tired of hearing people say, "I'm too cheap to give money to those moneygrubbing musicians." AK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we ask bands to return cd money for the portion of the cds that aren't any good? Like when you have to buy a whole cd to get two or three songs you really like? Why do we have to pay for all the songs when we don't want em?
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
Terrence writes, Minidisc and has the size and tactilty and physical archiving/ labeling and I prefer. Anything that makes the recording and handling pleasurable is great. syquest 135 is/was better to use and faster but zip became the standard. Even if it gets skipped as a standard Minidisc still is great to use for us affectionado's. I still find the microphone handeling awkward. Maybe there is an ear implant mike in the future. Who knows we might even be downloading sensory info from and to our brains from a finger diode in the future. ( Reminds me of the famous Titan ? painting of God and Adams finger meeting up.) T. Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: We suffer with VHS instead of Beta and with PCs instead of Amigas for similar reasons. Myke
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
I only wish that there was a visual-image equivalent to Napster. (Record
companies don't pay the majority of 'their artists' much at all. The Net
will eventually provide a much better income/audience for artists.)
Check-out the following message; these folks project my 12hr-images in
UK music-clubs!
-- Forwarded message --
Got one today (1st May)
Glad to have you back.
If you check out my website (url at bottom) you will see that my
colleague (Ian - Blahulah) has used some of your jpegs in an animated
gif
Hope you don't mind
I would like to mention you and your project on my web pages, alongside
Ian's Blahulah animation, and put a link or links to your stuff. If you
would like this tell my which url(s) to link to.
I've been collecting your pics since number 01227.
We both love your stuff and use it for slide shows. Everyone that sees
our stuff loves it and we always take the opportunity to tell people
about where we get our material, so your name, the 12hr project and what
you do is mentioned regularly to anyone interested enough to come and
talk to us during our performances.
As well as keeping a copy of all 12hr jpegs in your original order I
also keep a second set that I have categorised.
My collection is currently:
79 recent ones that I haven't sorted yet plus 971 sorted into the
following categories:
20 animals
151 blurs
118 buildings
75 faces
27 fairground centrifuge
17 fireworks
22 food
31 landscapes
33 landscapes industrial
18 mass production (bottles)
95 misc
25 misc domestic icons
41 misc modern icons
31 patterns (including dry earth)
42 people
57 people parts (inc. 20 ears, 6 feet, 19 hands)
42 reflection mixes (mostly trees through a window?)
51 roads
20 statues
25 trains
30 water
We've made some wonderful avi movies with both solely your stuff and
also mixed with other stuff.
I'd be happy to cut a CD-ROM for you and post it to you FOC as a
thankyou for your excellent project.
Your newsgroup is the only one I stay permanently subscribed to.
Keep up the excellent work.
Many thanks
Regards and Respect,
Aero
:)
inFINitE ART, Huddersfield,UK
www.rherrero.demon.co.uk
Phone: 00 44 (0) 1484 303737
Love Respect, Richard Herrero
_.aERo._.aERo._.aERo._.aERo._
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Patricia wrote:
Hi all,
I'm interested in thoughts out there about Napster. I downloaded
it just to check it out yesterday, the download actually asked me
if I wanted to upload all of the MP3 files on my hard drive!!
While I don't like paying high cd prices, what appears to be a
tempting free buffet at Napster, seems to me to be a HUGE ripoff
of artists' rights. I would be outraged at others taking my work
without my permission and sharing it. Let alone the loss of
income.
I'm interested in opinions on this.
The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project since 1994
+ + + serial ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/b/bbrace
+ + + eccentricftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace
+ + + continuous ftp://ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace
+ + +hypermodern ftp://ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace
+ + +imagery ftp://ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace
News://alt.binaries.pictures.12hr ://a.b.p.fine-art.misc
Mailing-list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg
Reverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net
{ brad brace }[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~finger for pgp
Re: FLUXLIST: Napster/ArtsJournalArticle/ArtistsRights
In a message dated 05/08/2000 6:20:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about we cut out the bits of paintings we don't like, too, and demand our money back? How come people who complain about spending their hardearned money on art always follow up by criticizing artists for being too desirous of money? Like bitching about spending an extra ten bucks isn't materialistic? The difference for me there, is that I get to see the entire painting before I buy it. With cd's most of the time only a couple of the cuts get played on the air, and without listening rooms, you can't tell what you're buying. And yes, I'm materialistic in the sense that I only have so many ten bucks, and not a lot of extra ones, so I have to be careful where I spend it. Yes, if I worked more, I'd have more money, but I don't want to work fulltime. I don't think it's horrible to want to know what you're buying. It'd be nice to be able to just buy the cuts I want from a cd, and that's what MP3s could be good for, in my opinion. Come on. Artists are human beings. They make interesting artifacts, that's what they do. They are not responsible for pleasing you, they are responsible for making interesting artifacts. You are responsible for finding the flipping inner resources to make the most of those artifacts. Of course tomorrow I'll take up the other cause. I'm just tired of hearing people say, "I'm too cheap to give money to those moneygrubbing musicians." Some artists make interesting artifacts. Some artists make uninteresting artifacts. I never said they're responsible for pleasing me. In fact, it would probably be a duller world if every artist had to enter a "Being John Malkovitch" kind of portal and run through my brain before creating something. Scary thought, even for me. But I'm certainly not responsible for buying their artifacts if I don't like em, anymore than they're responsible for pleasing me. And if I shell out $15 for a cd, I'd like the whole cd to be good, not just one or two cuts. That's all I'm saying. I never said I didn't believe in paying for people's work. As for Metallica, I could care less if they make anymore money or not. Can't help it. I just don't care. The entire big record industry is such a rip off and keeps so many good musicians out of the loop, that I find it difficult to care that mulit-millionaire bands don't get another 10 million. I'm more interested in small-time musicians being able to be heard and distribute their wares on the web. Or what if you buy a cd, based on advertising and cover art, thinking it's going to "fit" and you get it home, and it doesn't fit your head? Be nice if you could return it, the way you can return clothes that don't fit. BP
