"But look at you! Aren't you clever! Your catty comment made me forget that you didn't come up with a logical retort, or even a well-formed sentence. Oh, yeah ... You're mean!"
Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there's more meanness in your four comments on this thread than in my 1,400+ on this site. I'll let others judge who's cleverer.
You're right - that was pretty nasty of me - apologies (no sarcasm). The only thing i can say is was meant to be sort'a tongue-in-cheek (i thought it was obvious, obviously not), but still, funny at your expense, which was pretty weak of me.
"-What'cha gonna do today?
-I'm gonna be MEAN to EVETRYONE" -Killdozer
A bit off-topic, but this made me think of recorded music (vinyl and later radio) killing the need for live bands back at the turn of the century (err... last century). Each Hicksville used to have bands of (possibly quite lousy) players, who made a living by playing ...well, every function in needed of music - weddings, dances,whatever. The gramophone made those local bands obsolete by offering the no-brainier choice: Paying live players of dubious abilities vs. listening to well-orchestrated, latest music, preformed by "trained professionals," for a fraction of the cost/hassle. I'm not sure why, but that's sort-a sad to me.
In a way, the 'net did something similar to music (i know, OT, not piracy - the net itself) - somehow devalued it (this is so subjective, i'm not portending that this is even a defensible stance) . [end of potentially long and weepy tangent, but ... can't resist another odd bit of trivia:]
I think it's sort'a funny that for a long time, recordings of pop music were used to promote/support sheet music sales, where labels made *real* money. Ability to read music & parlor pianos (talking US middle-class here) were the norm, not the exception. (seamless segue tosomething like "The Point")
'Puter boxen brought about a resurgence of "do it yourself" music, but in a limp way. No news to players out there, but *almost all* recording software, from Fruity Loops (pardon, FL Studio now) to Pro Tools (industry standard, as far as i'm concerned - but won't argue the poin)t - anyhow, software used by many professional (for profit) studios) - is, or is capable of being, "loop-based" (a player can record a few bars of music, and use them, like leggo(tm) blocks, to make an entire song), with collections of these loops (for instance, a collection of Acid Jazz or Trip-Hop drum loops, "alternative" bass riffs and grooves, etc, etc.) which anyone with the ability to click a mouse can turn into entire compositions. And with "all-software" real-time pitch correction (this is not just "pull-up to the closest note", but programmable to the point of modulating atonal spoken word into a perfectly-pitched vocal track with predefined melody line, volume, vibrato and harmonic content of each note), the tone-deaf could (and do) sing.
I'm not music Luddite (well, maybe), but, somehow, it seems that making music - once done by people whose lives revolved around it - is now done by anyone bored enough to bother. No more demanding than willingness to roll the dice (yes, there is software which will create random riffs/melody lines 'till the[cough] musician hears something he/she/it likes, and then come up with variations on the theme, fluff out the chords, offer choices of harmony lines, etc., etc - in other words, rolling dice and applying basic music theory to write your music). Inspired by nothing but ... the desire to dump this crap on the net. No worse than cut-up writing, i suppose, though people who did cut-up were usually already steeped in writing.
Oh, and to those who claim that the s8it/Shinolla ratio is irrelevant, as long as the amount of Shinola stays the same - nonsense. There is more gold in the world's oceans than in all the vaults in the world - wanna' stake some claims?
I'm not offering you language lessons - teaching syphilis spirochetes manners would be more productive and gratifying. I don't even think you need language lessons. Sort 'a like giving a drafting set to a puppy - wasteful, thoughtless and possibly dangerous.
But look at you! Aren't you clever! Your catty comment made me forget that you didn't come up with a logical retort, or even a well-formed sentence. Oh, yeah ... You're mean!
RIAA is just about the optimal EQ curve for vinyl, though i do wish they picked something which could be reverted with simple, passive filters... Just try building a "correct" phono preamp.
Wait, are you trying to tell me "Is the subjective valuation of downloaded albums high or low?" = "quality"? Come on, the guy's got a PHuD, he *knows* the word "quality." He even devotes this catchy paragraph to convince us he's a scholar who's got a pretty good grasp on academia-speak(only partially quoted in the interest of Greater Good): "The first is the distinction between ex post and ex ante
valuation, which is necessary because music is an experience good[SIC]. The
second is the relationship between the decision to download and the subjective
ex post valuation. To simplify the exposition we ignore for now the distinction
between ex ante and ex post valuation and focus instead on the possibility
that downloading may be correlated with valuations. We integrate ex ante
valuation into the theory immediately afterward."
Whoa! Don't know 'bout you, but i couldn't think of a clearer way of saying "we ignore the difference 'tween expected and actual value, but assume the two are somehow related" (whatever "value" means is up to you). But hey - maybe he did mean "quality." That's the wonderful thing about great studies - like muse-inspired art and divine texts, the studies have no singular meaning - just a plethora (barf) of personal interpretations. In other words: STOP, You're BOTH right! and "Apples are fine, I suppose, but watermelon is the best thing in the world!" -D. Kharms
Mike Masnick told someone to "... try reading the methodology and the actual study before slamming it." i'll offer a link to the paper by Joel Waldfogel the hypebot.com *story* is based on (according to hypebot.com citation): http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/waldfogj/jle_piracy.pdf.
Mike, is this what you're talking about? Did *you* check the methodology? Did you even read through 35 tedious pages? (I didn't - a snoozer)
Yahhhzz. Well, there's no mention of "quality" (or even the word "quality" - unless my PDF reader is screwy) in all 35 pages of scientistic tripe the author himself would have giuven a C+ (for effort, great formatting and extensive citations) . It's all about *quantity* - sounds similar, but not quite the same me.
If not, point me to the study you're quotin'. Otherwise, it looks like you're (either intentionally or through shabby research) misinterpret studies, and are easily impressed with charts and important-looking formulas peppered with weirdsly mathematical symbols. Anyhow, the study's conclusion is equally wordy and bland: "Two facts bear emphasis again. First, our sample is not representative, so
our results should not be generalized. Second, our evaluation of welfare takes
supply as given. It is entirely possible that downloading has important effects
on the quantity and types of music recorded and marketed in the first place.
This is an important area for further research."
That said, I steal music all the time - it's *cheaper* that way.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Everclear.
Re: Re:
Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there's more meanness in your four comments on this thread than in my 1,400+ on this site. I'll let others judge who's cleverer.
You're right - that was pretty nasty of me - apologies (no sarcasm). The only thing i can say is was meant to be sort'a tongue-in-cheek (i thought it was obvious, obviously not), but still, funny at your expense, which was pretty weak of me.
"-What'cha gonna do today?
-I'm gonna be MEAN to EVETRYONE" -Killdozer
OT Make Music NOW! or Idiot's Guide to Making Music
In a way, the 'net did something similar to music (i know, OT, not piracy - the net itself) - somehow devalued it (this is so subjective, i'm not portending that this is even a defensible stance) . [end of potentially long and weepy tangent, but ... can't resist another odd bit of trivia:]
I think it's sort'a funny that for a long time, recordings of pop music were used to promote/support sheet music sales, where labels made *real* money. Ability to read music & parlor pianos (talking US middle-class here) were the norm, not the exception. (seamless segue tosomething like "The Point")
'Puter boxen brought about a resurgence of "do it yourself" music, but in a limp way. No news to players out there, but *almost all* recording software, from Fruity Loops (pardon, FL Studio now) to Pro Tools (industry standard, as far as i'm concerned - but won't argue the poin)t - anyhow, software used by many professional (for profit) studios) - is, or is capable of being, "loop-based" (a player can record a few bars of music, and use them, like leggo(tm) blocks, to make an entire song), with collections of these loops (for instance, a collection of Acid Jazz or Trip-Hop drum loops, "alternative" bass riffs and grooves, etc, etc.) which anyone with the ability to click a mouse can turn into entire compositions. And with "all-software" real-time pitch correction (this is not just "pull-up to the closest note", but programmable to the point of modulating atonal spoken word into a perfectly-pitched vocal track with predefined melody line, volume, vibrato and harmonic content of each note), the tone-deaf could (and do) sing.
I'm not music Luddite (well, maybe), but, somehow, it seems that making music - once done by people whose lives revolved around it - is now done by anyone bored enough to bother. No more demanding than willingness to roll the dice (yes, there is software which will create random riffs/melody lines 'till the[cough] musician hears something he/she/it likes, and then come up with variations on the theme, fluff out the chords, offer choices of harmony lines, etc., etc - in other words, rolling dice and applying basic music theory to write your music). Inspired by nothing but ... the desire to dump this crap on the net. No worse than cut-up writing, i suppose, though people who did cut-up were usually already steeped in writing.
Oh, and to those who claim that the s8it/Shinolla ratio is irrelevant, as long as the amount of Shinola stays the same - nonsense. There is more gold in the world's oceans than in all the vaults in the world - wanna' stake some claims?
(untitled comment)
But look at you! Aren't you clever! Your catty comment made me forget that you didn't come up with a logical retort, or even a well-formed sentence. Oh, yeah ... You're mean!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The first is the distinction between ex post and ex ante
valuation, which is necessary because music is an experience good[SIC]. The
second is the relationship between the decision to download and the subjective
ex post valuation. To simplify the exposition we ignore for now the distinction
between ex ante and ex post valuation and focus instead on the possibility
that downloading may be correlated with valuations. We integrate ex ante
valuation into the theory immediately afterward."
Whoa! Don't know 'bout you, but i couldn't think of a clearer way of saying "we ignore the difference 'tween expected and actual value, but assume the two are somehow related" (whatever "value" means is up to you). But hey - maybe he did mean "quality." That's the wonderful thing about great studies - like muse-inspired art and divine texts, the studies have no singular meaning - just a plethora (barf) of personal interpretations. In other words: STOP, You're BOTH right! and "Apples are fine, I suppose, but watermelon is the best thing in the world!" -D. Kharms
Re: Re:
Mike, is this what you're talking about? Did *you* check the methodology? Did you even read through 35 tedious pages? (I didn't - a snoozer)
Yahhhzz. Well, there's no mention of "quality" (or even the word "quality" - unless my PDF reader is screwy) in all 35 pages of scientistic tripe the author himself would have giuven a C+ (for effort, great formatting and extensive citations) . It's all about *quantity* - sounds similar, but not quite the same me.
If not, point me to the study you're quotin'. Otherwise, it looks like you're (either intentionally or through shabby research) misinterpret studies, and are easily impressed with charts and important-looking formulas peppered with weirdsly mathematical symbols. Anyhow, the study's conclusion is equally wordy and bland:
"Two facts bear emphasis again. First, our sample is not representative, so
our results should not be generalized. Second, our evaluation of welfare takes
supply as given. It is entirely possible that downloading has important effects
on the quantity and types of music recorded and marketed in the first place.
This is an important area for further research."
That said, I steal music all the time - it's *cheaper* that way.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Everclear.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt