"This won't work in the long run. It's only a matter of time before TicketMaster puts a stop to it. TicketMaster will demand from arenas and venues to stop it. And those places will have to comply."
Why is this?
Does Ticketmaster have some sort of legally enforceable monopoly on the sale of little pieces of paper used to get into concerts?
Actually, I know they don't because there are numerous local venues here where you can avoid Ticketmaster fees if you buy the tickets at the venue's box office. I am just wondering how Ticketmaster became so ubiquitous.
"'Live' is very restrictive compared to what can be accomplished through a recording."
Yes and no. It depends on how many musicians that you can get together.
"Connections are much more profound when they can be made one to one; ie laying in bed listening to your favorite artist. I don't go in for groupthink, people singing along to songs I want records, I want the music to be "mine," so I can listen to it whenever and wherever I want to."
I understand entirely.
"I don't know why people suspect that musicians will just continue going through the PAIN and arduous process of recording if there's no market for recordings."
Because they are musicians, and recordings are the permanent medium of musical expression in our time.
Because they like to hear the recording when they are done (this is my principle motivation).
Because they like doing it all themselves, and that's difficult to do in a live setting.
"Mistakes breeze right by at a live show, but a recording must be perfect (or at least reasonably so). Bands don't break up on tour *nearly* as often as they break up in the studio. Recording is a hellacious process."
Bands break up because of a thousand reasons, most of them stemming from behavioral issues. These issues are simply more acute within the confines of a studio setting.
But recording is certainly no more difficult than writing an orchestral score. And the recording process yields an artifact of immediate gratification, whereas a score, even when finished and printed, yields nothing. A performance must still take place for music to happen: a performance involving great difficulty and expense.
And yet composers like Mahler and Bruckner still wrote these immense scores for 500 musicians, singers and soloists; knowing full well that neither sales of the score (actually, the bigger scores were usually rented in those days) nor the ticket sales for the resulting performances would come close to paying for the time and effort involved.
I wonder why they went through all of this effort to lose money?
Or why composers like Varese or Webern or Ives or Ruggles bothered writing their scores that were often never performed at all?
Or what got projects like the San Francisco Tape Music Center going when no one was earning a dime off of it?
I wonder, in fact, why the Island of Bali is filled with all manner of musicians who rehearse rigorously and regularly when the only possible 'reward' is the pride of having the best gamelan in the region.
Maybe it's because real musicians make music because they want to. And whether it involves the challenge of writing a score, rehearsing an ensemble, or making a recording, they will get it done because that is what fulfills their needs.
In the 70's this might not have been as true, because making a recording involved really expensive equipment that most musicians just didn't have. Today, this is simply no longer the case.
"Yes, and if anyone had actually said that, you'd have a point.
But no one has. So you don't."
He actually does sort of have a point.
For all of the power that the internet puts into the hands of creative people, I really don't think that 'making a living off of your art' is all that much easier than it was in 1985.
Granted, it is probably slightly easier, and it definitely is open to more people than ever before. But in the end, trying to make a living being a musician is as bad a business decision today as it ever was. And for some kinds of musicians (e.g. studio musicians put out of work by sample libraries, analog audio engineers put out of work by the affordable ease of audio software suites like ProTools and Cubase) things are worse than ever.
The power of the internet has less to do with making a living and more to do with creating lines of communication, and developing communities of people with common interests.
The cute-young-people-posing-and-emoting-for-their-devoted-fans business, whether thriving or dying in it's new, social-media-driven form, seems like one big yawn by comparison.
"I'm sorry, I had to reply because you're so horribly wrong, Herodotus."
Don't be sorry.
"Time, and the 'ticking' of time, and time as small measurable quantities, was long, long, long, long before the catholic church, let alone musicians hired by the catholic church."
Of course it was. For instance the Chinese were making astronomical clocks as far back as the year 979 of the common era. The thing is, that they didn't 'take' in that context. There weren't numerous clocks that could be checked against each other, nor were the clocks public. They were private playthings of the imperial household. Modern scientific clock time is inherently public, and uniquely western in origin.
Sorry if that offends you, but the historical record does seem to bear this out. Check out David Landes' book 'Revolution in Time' for an overview. It has extensive and detailed notes if you want to investigate the matter further. There is also a good bit about more or less the same subject in the early chapters of Boorstin's book 'The Discoverers', and the bibliography is awesome.
"For an example, let us simply look at hourglasses and water clocks, which may predate the catholic church by millenia, and were around in the times BCE. Nearly older than the church by tens of millenia, actually.
They clearly break down time into small measurable bits."
Clearly you can see that hourglasses, which tell different time depending on shape, the kind and fineness of the sand, and the humidity; and water clocks, which are influenced by temperature variations and other weather conditions, are unlikely to be the basis of a consistent, universal method of time measurement?
"I think that you greatly misunderstood what the book meant; I don't have the book or a copy..."
What, you haven't even seen the book and you are still certain that I didn't understand it? That's rather uncharitable, don't you think?
Here's the deal: the notion of a universal, public, measured chronometric time is a specific thing. It has similarities to older attempts at time measurement, but that is all they are, similarities.
The specific origin of this notion of time is, indeed, shrouded in obscurity, but the evidence is quite clear that it developed in the west from the 13th century onward, which was exactly when the notion of polyphonic musical notation was first developed.
The reason Geza Szamosi thinks that the origin of clock time AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK came from the notation of early polyphonic music was that this was the first occasion known that time durations were tied to an abstract symbolic framework.
13th and 14th century composers wrote out the separate 'parts' of their compositions (e.g. 'Soprano 1', 'Soprano 2', 'Alto', 'Bass', and so on) in separate part books. In many cases, these parts were rhythmically and metrically independent of each other. The 'Ars Nova' notation as it has come to be called, was a practical innovation that allowed composers to be certain that all of the parts would meet up at the right time. Any notational idea that didn't add up would becoming glaringly obvious as soon as the singers started singing and the parts didn't synchronize properly. For example, each section of each musical piece ended with a cadence sung together by the whole choir. If the parts were out of sync there would be a major train wreck at the cadence, if not long before. And so this whole system of symbolic time measurement was developed in a context where every new conception was subject to a rigorous series of practical tests. Any false notions would be audibly and painfully obvious as soon as they were employed.
So a couple of hundred years pass, and Galileo has
the realization that all of the important features of motion--the distance covered, the speed, the change of speed--could be expressed in terms of the time elapsed...Galileo saw that time is the independent variable in the description of motion.
And yet...
Galileo himself did not make much of his discovery. He treated it as just another mathematical trick and never seemed to realize its revolutionary character.
Why? Because
In the four centuries preceding Galileo, an important sensory model had been created in Western Europe by which a numerically well defined, exactly measurable, and exactly measured structure was imposed upon the experience of what we call the flow of time....the theory and praxis of polyphonic music and it's measured notations
And finally, he points out that educated Europeans would all be aware of these concepts because "the study of music theory, like the study of geometry and astronomy, was compulsory in higher education."
(Gosh, I hope all of those quotes are fair use.) ;)
Now, it's possible that Mr Szamosi is completely wrong, but I have certainly never seen anyone even try to refute him, much less succeed in doing so. If you can find someone, by all means, tell me about their work.
So to continue with your objections:
"But if you would say music time measurement systems, period, not just the current system, you'd still be wrong because the first metronomes also belong to BCE."
Again see above regarding the idea of universal, public, measured chronometric time and it's specific origins.
"And evenso, you seem to not understand that the physical idea of simultaneity is entirely false. There is no such thing as two simultaneous events, as in some viewpoint of some observer moving at some relative speed, the two events will happen at different times."
None of which has much bearing on any of this. But even so, all of these conception have the notion of measured chronometric time at their basis. Relativity didn't supersede the concept of measured time, it used it.
"We have to specify the frame of reference they are simultaneous in. Thus, we measure clocktime in the rate of radiations of some Caesium-133 that is in the same frame of reference as us."
Well, sure.
"That frame of reference bit is important, because it entirely changes the idea of time."
Entirely changes the idea of time?
So in other frames of reference, some seconds are longer than others? Sometimes hours have 65 minutes and sometimes only 49? Can this other kind of time be measured at all, or is it just sort of understood intuitively?
Because, if it can be measured, it is simply a refinement of the same notion of time.
Now, I'm sorry but I must bow out of this conversation, because I have a great deal yet to do tonight, but it's been a pleasure.
Really, mabey you should talk to your great physics guy and ask him if he has heard of Einstain, and his 'modern' concepts of time."
With so many misspellings and misused punctuation in such a short paragraph it is hard to take you seriously, but what the hell....
The book in question mentions Einstein many times, I see a total of 30 actual references, in addition to obiter dicta.
And the 'ticking of time' is neither old nor outdated. It is what allowed physicists to determine that light had a speed and what that speed was.
All of the advanced notions such as Proper Time and Space-time are refinements of the idea of clock time, not replacements of it. The fact that modern astronomical observatories use quartz and atomic regulators instead of 'ticking clocks' doesn't change the fact that they are measuring the same hours and seconds as an Earnshaw chronometer made in the eighteenth century.
Indeed any standard physics equation that has a 't' symbol in it assumes the existence of clock time.
"I'm going to give you a chance to convince me that you are not a luddite and ask you: if you were forced to make a choice, would you give up all science and technology, or all art? Which do you think is a luxury, and which is vital for the betterment and possibly the survival of the human race?
Way to dodge the question.
But as for your false dichotomy of 'science and technology' and 'art' I suggest you consult this book by a genuine scientist, a man named Geza Szamosi, who is Professor of Physics at the University of Windsor in Ontario.
The chapter of this book that is most relevant here is the one entitled "Law and Order in the Flow of Time (Polyphonic Music and the Scientific Revolution)"
But just in case you don't have the time to search out and read this book, I will provide a short summary of the relevant chapter: the conception of time as a measurable entity, something that can be broken up into consistent numerical identities that can meaningfully be measured against each other; this conception of time, a foundational element of modern science, was created by musicians who wrote music for the Catholic church.
Let's say that again:
The modern idea of measurable, chronometric time was created and developed by musicians who wrote music for the Catholic Church.
Now if you can develop the ability to wrap your head around this sort of ideologically inconvenient truth, you might be able to understand why the dichotomy between 'art' and 'science and technology' is a spurious one.
"Yes, actually. It's been discussed over and over again in Techdirt that everyone borrows from the past. So if we program computers in the right way, they will creatively do the job for us."
Thus are centuries of tradition reduced to a cheap slogan.
I won't try to convince you of it, but I think I should at least mention the possibility that there might be more to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony than you are seeing (or rather, hearing).
I love it when people talk about algorithmic music like it will fill the same function as real music. I wonder, will algorithmic science take the place of real science?
What, science can't be created by an iPhone app? Why not?
Why is it always music that is going to be made by machines and not, say, physics papers? I mean, you'd think that computers would be more into doing science than art, wouldn't you? And yet, one hears nothing about science being done by some clever computer algorithm.
In science, computers are the slaves, but in music they are in line to be the next Beethoven.
Almost like these fantasies are conceived by scientists who mistake their own very shallow conception of music for music-in-itself.
It's possible, right now, to have an algorithm that could create music that would fool people who know nothing about music. It's also possible, right now, for anyone with half a brain to invent an encryption method that would stymie people who know nothing about codes.
And in both of these cases, the proper response is: 'So what?'.
"Start looking at ways to create technological tools so that the average second grader is creating art equal to or even better than what the industry is currently doing. The revolution is in the tools."
So the only thing preventing a second grader from writing Beethoven's ninth Symphony is that the software isn't intuitive enough?
And here I thought that it was life experience and hard won compositional skill.
OH, I get it, you are talking about 'the industry', where childish non-songs are the norm.
It's sad that while the industry is dying at last, everyone is still talking as if it's lowest common denominator 'standards' still meant something.
"Software developers not only create something of practical value that improves people's daily lives, they occasionally have to take on a HUGE amount of responsibility -- who do you think writes the software the runs the internet, or your car, or airplanes, and so on? People's lives depend on the devs doing a good job!
Entertainers are just.. clowns. They are a luxury for those who have money to waste, and even if they all disappeared tomorrow, it would make little difference to the world.
I simply HATE it when people put "artists" on a pedestal like they are something special. They aren't."
So I am going to give you a chance to convince me that you are not a philistine and ask you if you really mean this literally.
Do you really think:
That this applies to all artists? Beethoven? Bach? Shakespeare? Sophocles? Homer?
That history wouldn't change if all of these artists were to somehow disappear from it's pages?
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to sue degenerate offspring for copyright infringement, or to let them starve for their obvious musical inability, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...
"I'll just leave you with one CMJ anecdote to illustrate my point. It was an indelible moment to me. I was on a "tech trends" panel at CMJ a couple of years ago. On the panel were people from a couple of startups, including one of the ones that records your band's gig and puts it up online, at no charge to you (the band), for the ad revenue. The guy actually said something like "Musicians don't do it for the money, they do it because they love playing and love to share their art." The audience was full of the indie musician types that populate CMJ. All I can tell you is that this panelist was lucky to get out of the room alive."
CMJ is a corporate rock publication for people with Tattoos.
Most of the people who pay attention to it want to be the next Nirvana or Radiohead. These people aren't necessarily representative of independent musicians taken as a whole.
Like most people, you're confusing "creativity" with "originality." You can sound totally unique and still be "derivative" in the sense we're talking about here. It's less a matter of "sounding like someone else" and more a matter of influence.
I'm not confused at all, thanks.
'Originality' doesn't require a completely blank slate. The sense I am using it in is: "Showing a marked departure from previous practice: new"
I have never really overestimated the power of originality to create something out of nothing. I know well that Schoenberg and Co. were deeply immersed in their Austro-Germanic tradition. But of course, this kind of 'derivation' doesn't come into conflict with copyright law does it?
There is a big difference between how Schoenberg was influenced by Brahms and how Timbaland was 'influenced' by Janne Suni.
In any case, I wasn't commenting on the original article. I agree with Mike on the issues involved 98 percent of the time anyway. I was just taking up the challenge provided by DH's Love Child for shits and giggles.
"OK, I'm going to give you the same pop quiz that I always give people who think that all content is 'original'. Here you go:
Name me 1 piece of music that is completely original. By completely, I mean that there is no part of it that could be identified as coming from any other piece of music. ANY."
While I do not think that all content is 'original' (that would be silly), I will accept your challenge.
Arnold Schoenberg's 'Erwartung'.
If you would like a few more examples, try:
Karlheinz Stockhausen's 'Gesang Der Juenglinge'
Henri Pousseur's 'Scambi'
Pierre Schaeffer's 'Etudes de Bruits'
Not to mention Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Bartok's String Quartet no. 3, or Diamanda Galas' 'Divine Punishment'.
Musical Originality is not all that hard to find. The problem is that no one really has any interest in it. People just like to pretend that they do. Why, I don't know.
A collectivist 'bravely' disparages the work of yet another proponent of free markets, all the while pretending to be a lone voice of reason in a wilderness of right-wing party hacks.
"Copyright does not take away the rights from society and give them to the author. Quite the opposite. It takes away from the author and his patrimony what would naturally and morally otherwise be theirs, and it gives it to society. Without copyright, society would NEVER get the rights to an author's works. With copyright, society is guaranteed to get the rights. That's the whole point.
I'm sure many will have unsupported arguments in opposition to this post, but unsupported opinions are not authoritative much less persuasive. Cite to authority if you can."
You mean cite an authority, I suppose?
The problem with this entire line of thought is that if you want to keep your work to yourself, you can. Copyright only steps is when a work is published.
...the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Note the key words: "distribute", "perform publicly", "display publicly"
No one can coerce authors to share their work with the world. At least not without breaking much more ancient and established laws than copyright.
Copyright is there specifically to convince authors to publish.
"While $200k for a producer may seem absurdly high, a good, experienced and proven producer is still expensive.
It's no different than paying a lawyer $400 an hour to keep you out of prison - you get what you pay for..."
It is actually very different from paying a lawyer to keep you out of jail.
In the first place, bands don't use 200,000 dollar producers because they need them, but because their label insists on it. Name me a single independent, self-financed band that payed a producer anything like that to 'oversee' their recording. You can't, because it would be daylight madness.
In the second place, the value of the lawyer is obvious and tangible. The value of the producer is much more nebulous. They aren't there because anyone did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it made sense to pay out that kind of money.
"Oh, and $15-$20k can get you the tools, but $200k will get you the genius producer, $100k will get you the super talented sound engineer, $50k will get you the studio rental, $50k can get you the set-up crew and interns, the rest is in the margin."
200,000 dollars for a producer?
100,000 dollars for an engineer?
Why?
Say that the engineer gets 50 dollars an hour (which is a ridiculous amount of money, but never mind). At that rate, you are getting 2000 hours of time from the engineer. At the rate of 50 hours a week, that gets you 40 weeks worth of engineering for a single album.
That is wasteful by any measure.
I am not saying that this doesn't happen. I am saying that there is no good reason for it.
"It is hard to feel sorry for the bands, they get themselves into this. They sell their soul for fame and fortune and maybe get fame. Today, they have so many more options available that they have no excuse if they sign deals like this."
This kind of talk shows an abysmal understanding of how the best musicians think and work.
I don't know why it is that so many people are taking this hard line with musicians. If I had a dime for every time I have read some or other variation on the theme of "you made a stupid mistake, so suffer on dipshit!" I would never have to work again.
The end result of expecting musicians to be smart business people is a musical culture that emphasizes business-like virtues.
All of the best musicians that I have known have been hopelessly naive in this regard, because their minds were directed toward developing their abilities as musicians. Hell, even Robert Fripp made stupid mistakes with his first label (Editions EG), and he is one of the most obviously intelligent musicians out there. He made these mistakes because he immersed himself in his musical training, which took many hours a day, leaving only enough time to eat, sleep, tour, and maybe do a bit of reading. And as a result he became one of the most amazingly skilled and expressive electric guitarists in the history of the instrument. Had he spent more time worrying about business matters, he would never have become such a phenomenal guitarist, though he might have made more money. There are only so many hours in the day.
I realize that major labels have never been the stewards of art that they have pretended to be. Their claims in this regard are a PR scam, plain and simple. Sadly, NO ONE seems to be interested in being such a steward.
And as these labels die, instead of a bunch of cynical executives overseeing the production of a vast amount of crappy forgettable pop music, we see a vast culture of people voluntarily creating crappy forgettable pop music. Because in the end, that is the smart business move to make.
The internet and cheap digital audio have done more for musical culture than any technology since polyphonic musical notation was developed in the fourteenth century. But the advantage of the internet for music has nothing to do with business models, whether new and smart, or old and obsolete. The advantage is that it allows musical culture to develop and grow without the need for patrons of any sort, whether they be the aristocracy or the general public.
Re: Re: That Jawad on Web article about Edison is bullshit
"Hate to be a pedant but the ability to record sound is not the same thing as the ability to record and playback. The phonoautograph could certainly record sound..."
I don't mind pedantry, actually.
But recording a picture of a sound and recording a sound are really quite distinct activities. The potential market for the former is vanishingly small by comparison.
And again, Edison was absolutely the first to record audible sound. I know he was a salesman and a quack and a charlatane, but he did have one great invention that was truly his own, and the phonograph was it.
I realize that this fact is inconvenient to the 'innovation is more important than invention' point of view, but this doesn't make it any less a fact.
On the post: Artists Realizing It's Time To Offer Cheaper Concert Tickets Directly, And To Get Rid Of Annoying Fees
Why is this?
Does Ticketmaster have some sort of legally enforceable monopoly on the sale of little pieces of paper used to get into concerts?
Actually, I know they don't because there are numerous local venues here where you can avoid Ticketmaster fees if you buy the tickets at the venue's box office. I am just wondering how Ticketmaster became so ubiquitous.
On the post: Rolling Stone Offers 'A Big Fat Thanks' To The RIAA For Screwing Up Music Online [Updated]
I can certainly understand this.
"'Live' is very restrictive compared to what can be accomplished through a recording."
Yes and no. It depends on how many musicians that you can get together.
"Connections are much more profound when they can be made one to one; ie laying in bed listening to your favorite artist. I don't go in for groupthink, people singing along to songs I want records, I want the music to be "mine," so I can listen to it whenever and wherever I want to."
I understand entirely.
"I don't know why people suspect that musicians will just continue going through the PAIN and arduous process of recording if there's no market for recordings."
Because they are musicians, and recordings are the permanent medium of musical expression in our time.
Because they like to hear the recording when they are done (this is my principle motivation).
Because they like doing it all themselves, and that's difficult to do in a live setting.
"Mistakes breeze right by at a live show, but a recording must be perfect (or at least reasonably so). Bands don't break up on tour *nearly* as often as they break up in the studio. Recording is a hellacious process."
Bands break up because of a thousand reasons, most of them stemming from behavioral issues. These issues are simply more acute within the confines of a studio setting.
But recording is certainly no more difficult than writing an orchestral score. And the recording process yields an artifact of immediate gratification, whereas a score, even when finished and printed, yields nothing. A performance must still take place for music to happen: a performance involving great difficulty and expense.
And yet composers like Mahler and Bruckner still wrote these immense scores for 500 musicians, singers and soloists; knowing full well that neither sales of the score (actually, the bigger scores were usually rented in those days) nor the ticket sales for the resulting performances would come close to paying for the time and effort involved.
I wonder why they went through all of this effort to lose money?
Or why composers like Varese or Webern or Ives or Ruggles bothered writing their scores that were often never performed at all?
Or what got projects like the San Francisco Tape Music Center going when no one was earning a dime off of it?
I wonder, in fact, why the Island of Bali is filled with all manner of musicians who rehearse rigorously and regularly when the only possible 'reward' is the pride of having the best gamelan in the region.
Maybe it's because real musicians make music because they want to. And whether it involves the challenge of writing a score, rehearsing an ensemble, or making a recording, they will get it done because that is what fulfills their needs.
In the 70's this might not have been as true, because making a recording involved really expensive equipment that most musicians just didn't have. Today, this is simply no longer the case.
On the post: U2 Manager Blames 'Free' And Anonymous Internet Bloggers For Industry Troubles
But no one has. So you don't."
He actually does sort of have a point.
For all of the power that the internet puts into the hands of creative people, I really don't think that 'making a living off of your art' is all that much easier than it was in 1985.
Granted, it is probably slightly easier, and it definitely is open to more people than ever before. But in the end, trying to make a living being a musician is as bad a business decision today as it ever was. And for some kinds of musicians (e.g. studio musicians put out of work by sample libraries, analog audio engineers put out of work by the affordable ease of audio software suites like ProTools and Cubase) things are worse than ever.
The power of the internet has less to do with making a living and more to do with creating lines of communication, and developing communities of people with common interests.
The resultant pooling of resources and sharing of information allows smaller, geographically scattered cultural communities to thrive in a way that was impossible before the web.
The cute-young-people-posing-and-emoting-for-their-devoted-fans business, whether thriving or dying in it's new, social-media-driven form, seems like one big yawn by comparison.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Don't be sorry.
"Time, and the 'ticking' of time, and time as small measurable quantities, was long, long, long, long before the catholic church, let alone musicians hired by the catholic church."
Of course it was. For instance the Chinese were making astronomical clocks as far back as the year 979 of the common era. The thing is, that they didn't 'take' in that context. There weren't numerous clocks that could be checked against each other, nor were the clocks public. They were private playthings of the imperial household. Modern scientific clock time is inherently public, and uniquely western in origin.
Sorry if that offends you, but the historical record does seem to bear this out. Check out David Landes' book 'Revolution in Time' for an overview. It has extensive and detailed notes if you want to investigate the matter further. There is also a good bit about more or less the same subject in the early chapters of Boorstin's book 'The Discoverers', and the bibliography is awesome.
"For an example, let us simply look at hourglasses and water clocks, which may predate the catholic church by millenia, and were around in the times BCE. Nearly older than the church by tens of millenia, actually.
They clearly break down time into small measurable bits."
Clearly you can see that hourglasses, which tell different time depending on shape, the kind and fineness of the sand, and the humidity; and water clocks, which are influenced by temperature variations and other weather conditions, are unlikely to be the basis of a consistent, universal method of time measurement?
"I think that you greatly misunderstood what the book meant; I don't have the book or a copy..."
What, you haven't even seen the book and you are still certain that I didn't understand it? That's rather uncharitable, don't you think?
Here's the deal: the notion of a universal, public, measured chronometric time is a specific thing. It has similarities to older attempts at time measurement, but that is all they are, similarities.
The specific origin of this notion of time is, indeed, shrouded in obscurity, but the evidence is quite clear that it developed in the west from the 13th century onward, which was exactly when the notion of polyphonic musical notation was first developed.
The reason Geza Szamosi thinks that the origin of clock time AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK came from the notation of early polyphonic music was that this was the first occasion known that time durations were tied to an abstract symbolic framework.
13th and 14th century composers wrote out the separate 'parts' of their compositions (e.g. 'Soprano 1', 'Soprano 2', 'Alto', 'Bass', and so on) in separate part books. In many cases, these parts were rhythmically and metrically independent of each other. The 'Ars Nova' notation as it has come to be called, was a practical innovation that allowed composers to be certain that all of the parts would meet up at the right time. Any notational idea that didn't add up would becoming glaringly obvious as soon as the singers started singing and the parts didn't synchronize properly. For example, each section of each musical piece ended with a cadence sung together by the whole choir. If the parts were out of sync there would be a major train wreck at the cadence, if not long before. And so this whole system of symbolic time measurement was developed in a context where every new conception was subject to a rigorous series of practical tests. Any false notions would be audibly and painfully obvious as soon as they were employed.
So a couple of hundred years pass, and Galileo has
And yet...
Why? Because
And finally, he points out that educated Europeans would all be aware of these concepts because "the study of music theory, like the study of geometry and astronomy, was compulsory in higher education."
(Gosh, I hope all of those quotes are fair use.) ;)
Now, it's possible that Mr Szamosi is completely wrong, but I have certainly never seen anyone even try to refute him, much less succeed in doing so. If you can find someone, by all means, tell me about their work.
So to continue with your objections:
"But if you would say music time measurement systems, period, not just the current system, you'd still be wrong because the first metronomes also belong to BCE."
Again see above regarding the idea of universal, public, measured chronometric time and it's specific origins.
"And evenso, you seem to not understand that the physical idea of simultaneity is entirely false. There is no such thing as two simultaneous events, as in some viewpoint of some observer moving at some relative speed, the two events will happen at different times."
None of which has much bearing on any of this. But even so, all of these conception have the notion of measured chronometric time at their basis. Relativity didn't supersede the concept of measured time, it used it.
"We have to specify the frame of reference they are simultaneous in. Thus, we measure clocktime in the rate of radiations of some Caesium-133 that is in the same frame of reference as us."
Well, sure.
"That frame of reference bit is important, because it entirely changes the idea of time."
Entirely changes the idea of time?
So in other frames of reference, some seconds are longer than others? Sometimes hours have 65 minutes and sometimes only 49? Can this other kind of time be measured at all, or is it just sort of understood intuitively?
Because, if it can be measured, it is simply a refinement of the same notion of time.
Now, I'm sorry but I must bow out of this conversation, because I have a great deal yet to do tonight, but it's been a pleasure.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Really, mabey you should talk to your great physics guy and ask him if he has heard of Einstain, and his 'modern' concepts of time."
With so many misspellings and misused punctuation in such a short paragraph it is hard to take you seriously, but what the hell....
The book in question mentions Einstein many times, I see a total of 30 actual references, in addition to obiter dicta.
And the 'ticking of time' is neither old nor outdated. It is what allowed physicists to determine that light had a speed and what that speed was.
All of the advanced notions such as Proper Time and Space-time are refinements of the idea of clock time, not replacements of it. The fact that modern astronomical observatories use quartz and atomic regulators instead of 'ticking clocks' doesn't change the fact that they are measuring the same hours and seconds as an Earnshaw chronometer made in the eighteenth century.
Indeed any standard physics equation that has a 't' symbol in it assumes the existence of clock time.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Way to dodge the question.
But as for your false dichotomy of 'science and technology' and 'art' I suggest you consult this book by a genuine scientist, a man named Geza Szamosi, who is Professor of Physics at the University of Windsor in Ontario.
The chapter of this book that is most relevant here is the one entitled "Law and Order in the Flow of Time (Polyphonic Music and the Scientific Revolution)"
But just in case you don't have the time to search out and read this book, I will provide a short summary of the relevant chapter: the conception of time as a measurable entity, something that can be broken up into consistent numerical identities that can meaningfully be measured against each other; this conception of time, a foundational element of modern science, was created by musicians who wrote music for the Catholic church.
Let's say that again:
The modern idea of measurable, chronometric time was created and developed by musicians who wrote music for the Catholic Church.
Now if you can develop the ability to wrap your head around this sort of ideologically inconvenient truth, you might be able to understand why the dichotomy between 'art' and 'science and technology' is a spurious one.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Thus are centuries of tradition reduced to a cheap slogan.
I won't try to convince you of it, but I think I should at least mention the possibility that there might be more to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony than you are seeing (or rather, hearing).
I love it when people talk about algorithmic music like it will fill the same function as real music. I wonder, will algorithmic science take the place of real science?
What, science can't be created by an iPhone app? Why not?
Why is it always music that is going to be made by machines and not, say, physics papers? I mean, you'd think that computers would be more into doing science than art, wouldn't you? And yet, one hears nothing about science being done by some clever computer algorithm.
In science, computers are the slaves, but in music they are in line to be the next Beethoven.
Almost like these fantasies are conceived by scientists who mistake their own very shallow conception of music for music-in-itself.
It's possible, right now, to have an algorithm that could create music that would fool people who know nothing about music. It's also possible, right now, for anyone with half a brain to invent an encryption method that would stymie people who know nothing about codes.
And in both of these cases, the proper response is: 'So what?'.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
So the only thing preventing a second grader from writing Beethoven's ninth Symphony is that the software isn't intuitive enough?
And here I thought that it was life experience and hard won compositional skill.
OH, I get it, you are talking about 'the industry', where childish non-songs are the norm.
It's sad that while the industry is dying at last, everyone is still talking as if it's lowest common denominator 'standards' still meant something.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Entertainers are just.. clowns. They are a luxury for those who have money to waste, and even if they all disappeared tomorrow, it would make little difference to the world.
I simply HATE it when people put "artists" on a pedestal like they are something special. They aren't."
So I am going to give you a chance to convince me that you are not a philistine and ask you if you really mean this literally.
Do you really think:
That this applies to all artists? Beethoven? Bach? Shakespeare? Sophocles? Homer?
That history wouldn't change if all of these artists were to somehow disappear from it's pages?
That they are all less important than, say, any of the people on the Committers list at the ASF?
Really?
Or would you like to add a bit more nuance to this characterization?
On the post: After Hundreds Of 'Empire State Of Mind' Parodies... Why Does EMI Suddenly Take One Down?
Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
On the post: Can We Please Stop The False Dichotomy Of 'Creators' vs 'Consumers' When It Comes To Copyright?
CMJ is a corporate rock publication for people with Tattoos.
Most of the people who pay attention to it want to be the next Nirvana or Radiohead. These people aren't necessarily representative of independent musicians taken as a whole.
On the post: Can We Please Stop The False Dichotomy Of 'Creators' vs 'Consumers' When It Comes To Copyright?
I'm not confused at all, thanks.
'Originality' doesn't require a completely blank slate. The sense I am using it in is: "Showing a marked departure from previous practice: new"
I have never really overestimated the power of originality to create something out of nothing. I know well that Schoenberg and Co. were deeply immersed in their Austro-Germanic tradition. But of course, this kind of 'derivation' doesn't come into conflict with copyright law does it?
There is a big difference between how Schoenberg was influenced by Brahms and how Timbaland was 'influenced' by Janne Suni.
In any case, I wasn't commenting on the original article. I agree with Mike on the issues involved 98 percent of the time anyway. I was just taking up the challenge provided by DH's Love Child for shits and giggles.
And thanks for the link. It looks promising. :)
On the post: Can We Please Stop The False Dichotomy Of 'Creators' vs 'Consumers' When It Comes To Copyright?
Name me 1 piece of music that is completely original. By completely, I mean that there is no part of it that could be identified as coming from any other piece of music. ANY."
While I do not think that all content is 'original' (that would be silly), I will accept your challenge.
Arnold Schoenberg's 'Erwartung'.
If you would like a few more examples, try:
Karlheinz Stockhausen's 'Gesang Der Juenglinge'
Henri Pousseur's 'Scambi'
Pierre Schaeffer's 'Etudes de Bruits'
Not to mention Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Bartok's String Quartet no. 3, or Diamanda Galas' 'Divine Punishment'.
Musical Originality is not all that hard to find. The problem is that no one really has any interest in it. People just like to pretend that they do. Why, I don't know.
On the post: Innovation Happens When Ideas Have Sex
A collectivist 'bravely' disparages the work of yet another proponent of free markets, all the while pretending to be a lone voice of reason in a wilderness of right-wing party hacks.
Yawn.
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
I'm sure many will have unsupported arguments in opposition to this post, but unsupported opinions are not authoritative much less persuasive. Cite to authority if you can."
You mean cite an authority, I suppose?
The problem with this entire line of thought is that if you want to keep your work to yourself, you can. Copyright only steps is when a work is published.
Just look at the list of Exclusive rights in copyrighted works in the relevant section of the US Code.
Note the key words: "distribute", "perform publicly", "display publicly"
No one can coerce authors to share their work with the world. At least not without breaking much more ancient and established laws than copyright.
Copyright is there specifically to convince authors to publish.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
It's no different than paying a lawyer $400 an hour to keep you out of prison - you get what you pay for..."
It is actually very different from paying a lawyer to keep you out of jail.
In the first place, bands don't use 200,000 dollar producers because they need them, but because their label insists on it. Name me a single independent, self-financed band that payed a producer anything like that to 'oversee' their recording. You can't, because it would be daylight madness.
In the second place, the value of the lawyer is obvious and tangible. The value of the producer is much more nebulous. They aren't there because anyone did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it made sense to pay out that kind of money.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
200,000 dollars for a producer?
100,000 dollars for an engineer?
Why?
Say that the engineer gets 50 dollars an hour (which is a ridiculous amount of money, but never mind). At that rate, you are getting 2000 hours of time from the engineer. At the rate of 50 hours a week, that gets you 40 weeks worth of engineering for a single album.
That is wasteful by any measure.
I am not saying that this doesn't happen. I am saying that there is no good reason for it.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
This kind of talk shows an abysmal understanding of how the best musicians think and work.
I don't know why it is that so many people are taking this hard line with musicians. If I had a dime for every time I have read some or other variation on the theme of "you made a stupid mistake, so suffer on dipshit!" I would never have to work again.
The end result of expecting musicians to be smart business people is a musical culture that emphasizes business-like virtues.
All of the best musicians that I have known have been hopelessly naive in this regard, because their minds were directed toward developing their abilities as musicians. Hell, even Robert Fripp made stupid mistakes with his first label (Editions EG), and he is one of the most obviously intelligent musicians out there. He made these mistakes because he immersed himself in his musical training, which took many hours a day, leaving only enough time to eat, sleep, tour, and maybe do a bit of reading. And as a result he became one of the most amazingly skilled and expressive electric guitarists in the history of the instrument. Had he spent more time worrying about business matters, he would never have become such a phenomenal guitarist, though he might have made more money. There are only so many hours in the day.
I realize that major labels have never been the stewards of art that they have pretended to be. Their claims in this regard are a PR scam, plain and simple. Sadly, NO ONE seems to be interested in being such a steward.
And as these labels die, instead of a bunch of cynical executives overseeing the production of a vast amount of crappy forgettable pop music, we see a vast culture of people voluntarily creating crappy forgettable pop music. Because in the end, that is the smart business move to make.
The internet and cheap digital audio have done more for musical culture than any technology since polyphonic musical notation was developed in the fourteenth century. But the advantage of the internet for music has nothing to do with business models, whether new and smart, or old and obsolete. The advantage is that it allows musical culture to develop and grow without the need for patrons of any sort, whether they be the aristocracy or the general public.
On the post: Snoop Dogg Sued By Famed Jazz Artist For Sampling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4KX7SkDe4Q
And that certainly requires very little innovation at all.
On the post: Patent Lawyer Insists Open Source Stifles Innovation
Re: Re: That Jawad on Web article about Edison is bullshit
I don't mind pedantry, actually.
But recording a picture of a sound and recording a sound are really quite distinct activities. The potential market for the former is vanishingly small by comparison.
And again, Edison was absolutely the first to record audible sound. I know he was a salesman and a quack and a charlatane, but he did have one great invention that was truly his own, and the phonograph was it.
I realize that this fact is inconvenient to the 'innovation is more important than invention' point of view, but this doesn't make it any less a fact.
Next >>