You can't do that these days, you need to sign your soul over to the RIAA if you want to get published.forgivin said:And while youre at it you fund the project with your own money.
Upvote
0
You can't do that these days, you need to sign your soul over to the RIAA if you want to get published.forgivin said:And while youre at it you fund the project with your own money.
The reason I didn't address that was because you find unoriginality in all music genres. But it all boils down to personal opinions. Your opinion of original music may differ dramatically from my opinion. I addressed the fact that no matter how bad it is, you shouldn't get it for free unless the owner of that song wants it to be for free. If a song were so bad then why would anybody want it? And if you only get songs that you think are original why wouldn't you buy it so the owner of the song get what they deserve for making such an original song?burrow_owl said:that's interesting that you didn't address my initial point, which is that most pop music doesn't have sufficient quanta of originality. i'll take that as concession.
burrow_owl said:"But it all boils down to personal opinions."
no, not really. There about 4 or 5 progressions that are continually recycled. append progression y onto x for a chorus, and you got yourself a pop song. that's not even close to the kind of creativity evinced in other media. This collage method of composition has been recognized as a challenge to the very notion of originality in every other medium. absurd. note: i didn't say anything about bad or good; just original/not original. If i do a cover version of some song, it can be very enjoyable while obviously not being original.
"you shouldn't get it for free unless the owner of that song wants it to be for free."
that's not how it works with copyright. the ability to charge and restrict rights is directly moored to the originality of the piece; so we can drop the good/bad concept and the free/charge (that latter argument), since both are irrelevant.
the only question is whether there's a modicum of creativity. I say no. I could make program a graphing calculator to write pop songs - it seems to me that you couldn't do that with any other form of art in which there is actual creativity.
this may be a mistaken way of thinking about it, but you'll have to help me see how. intuitively, i could see why one would disagree with that (if a graphing calculator could replicate it, how original could it possibly be?), but i can't seem to flesh the objection out.
oh yeah: i'm just talking about your basic pop music, not jazz or classical or minimalism (that's a whole other thing that'd be fun to go through, though)
That's not what burrow_owl is saying. I don't think you quite understand what he means. The above examples you give of cover songs are all authorised uses of copyright, and royalties would have been paid to whoever owns the copyright.forgivin said:You seem to take music to serious for me to understand. I hear cover songs all the time and you can hear a performers original style all in that song. Van Halen doing Roy's Pretty Woman, Aerosmith doing the Beatles Come Together, Whitney Houston doing Dolly Partons I Always Love You, Run DMC doing Aerosmiths Walk This Way, and on and on, all the way to todays stuff.
Thank you and viva revolution!!g00dreading said:In regards to the music industry,
I think the real issue here is the big record companies do not want to relinquish their control over the power/ability to promote some musicians/artists and therefore justify why they should get top $$$(%) of the CD revenue.
Online music sites may be a solution where listeners can download the song/music in mp3 format (very small size) after sampling and payng for it. This means more opportunities exists for those >thousands++ of artists who did not make it to the major recording studios. It cuts out the middle man and the cost per CD/music file(s) is significantly lower & more reasonable (which listeners would pay to support their fav. artists). Consequently artists should get more for their creative work.
hxxp://3w.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000375.html
Where the Money Goes
Terry Fisher's data on where the $18 paid for a typical music CD goes: $7.00 to the retailer, $1.50 to the distributor, $9.31 for record company expenses (including performer and composer royalties of $2.85), and $0.19 for record company profit.
Interesting point:
A Musician's Take on File Sharing, DRM, and Copyleft Licensing
written by Miriam Rainsford: a composer, singer and songwriter in classical, electroacoustic and underground dance music.
hxxp://news.dmusic.com/article/6867
excerpts
Musicians are often unwilling to speak out against the tight constraints of their record labels, afraid of biting the hand that feeds. But an increasing number of artists are embracing the changes in digital technology as a potential revolution which may free them from the shackles of the commercial record industry
....
However, regardless of one's position either for or against P2P, it's clear that file sharing has indeed proved a direct threat to the establishment, as it decentralises control.
....
We as musicians are tired of being subject to the whims of middlemen, who take a greater cut from our earnings than is reasonable. Like the mediaeval peasants, we are seeking change and revolution - but when musicians revolt, they do so with creative flair. We are exploring solutions such as mediAgora and copyleft licensing as a means by which we can return the balance of power to where it rightly belongs, with those who create the music.
Example of an online music site that allows artists to broadly distribute and promote their work.
hxxp://3w.mp3.com/
No way. My daughter tried putting it on my laptop without my permission of course. As we speak, I am having a nightmare. My PC has been overrun win the ad ware and spyware. I can't even get my antivirus to boot up right. My ad zappers can no longer snuff out the pop ups. It's a mess.snoopyloopysk8a said:Is Kazaa++ really spyware-proof like it says it is?