Subj : Should EMulation.... To : Amcleod From : D.Jaye Date : Thu Jan 04 2001 06:05 pm RE: Should EMulation.... BY: Amcleod to D.Jaye on Mon Jan 01 2001 03:54 pm OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [28] Alas, There is intelligent life Scottie :)~ > I am _quite_ well aware that the producers and distributors > are double-wrist thieves and that when I pay fifteen bucks > for a CD the artist is lucky to se single dollar. I have ON a Release we did about 3 years ago... we made a wholloping 34$ off 500 cd's. The Promotor made some 2grand. I blame this on the bands poor judgement. We _knew_ the jerk we were dealing with, but there was nobody else we could use that had the assets this rat did. > majority of the money and - perhaps worse - they influence > the content AWAY from what thew artist has to say and TOWARD > what they wish to publish, is no in question. I recognise This is realism. A good example could stem back from the band "Warrent" or "Skid Row". They first appeared as "Glam" or "Hair" bands. After they made a few bucks.. Look at their second releases.. they in _no way_ resembled their first releases. They were able to somehow bank a few bucks and do their second works the way _they_ wanted to do. Producers ( especially to a young/new artist/band ) run the show. With the acception of Gene Simmons ( Kiss ) most of the producers care not for any of the term "musical integrity ". They just want the artist to "hurry up, meet production deadlines, refund my investment with half your profits". Captiolism bolds well in the music industry. This is why I fully support napster. > hand! No, the problem isn't that Metallica are idiots or tha > Napster is intrinsically bad. Exchanging files is a _good_ > way for an arti to get public exposure. The problem is that Metallica is not _bad_. They have become what they started out slamming. "Posers". Sure.. Hanoi Jane begged forgivness at one point too.. but in the world of music, when you sell out, its not "Seeking a new direction". its Blasphomy. They have _every_ right to play what they want, but when _I_ hold them to their own words, they better not piss-n-whine about it. To be 120% honest, I would _never_ want their sucess. I would rather be a local Icon then a major labels property. > if Prometheus of Buffalo decides to put six tracks from > their latest album on the net for download, they should be Actually.. its more like 8. Were working on the final 2 right now :)~ and it will be a 100% free download to butrn off and give away.. hell.. even have your band re-record it.. doesnt matter to us. Music is never about money. Its about emotion, raw talent. When you mix the words "music" and "money" you no longer have a musician in the picture.. you have their lawyers, producers, sound eng's... > able to do so at will, and hopefully, attract enough > attention as to get filthy rich and star wearing scarlet > velvet cod-pieces in public (or whatever they wanna do) beca Ah.. Sweat pants, a tear shirt.. Vans sneakers... :)~ > the music is THEIRS and no big production company should be The music is EVERYONE who enjoys it. Someone may own the paper-written Tablitures or standard notations, But the emotions behind it are somethign _everyone_ shares. Those that don;t even like our material own a part of it as well. This is where corporate america has lost its soul. This is where the bleeding heart liberals have no clue. VBoth sides of the napster issue have totally forgotten what its really all about. Music is Not an mp3 file. Its not notation on paper. Its not my USA jackson soloist cranked through my Boogies or Laney's.... Its sound and emotion mixed together with feelings from those who listen. > able to tell the not to. But on the other hand, if > Prometheus of Buffalo d remaining six tracks on the net, for > whatever their reas smart idea or a dumb idea, whether they > would get more or le or layed as a result, doesn't matter. Us gettin laid? Not hardly :( > If THEY decide NOT to tracks on the net, then nobody ELSE > should come al tracks from their CD and stick it on the net > against their w rubbish talk about "information wants to be > free" and "if t the money instead of the art, then they > can't be very tala robbing them, I'm robbing the RIAA who > make too much mone a smokescreen. It just is a cover for "I > want to do it, eve unethical, and since you can't stop me > I'm going to go ahea YOUR music (unless you've sold the > rights) is YOUR music, and no excuses can justify the > distribution of your music AGAINST YOUR WILL by any means. Heres the greatest fall of it all. Maby this is a moot point because we _freely_ will distribute _anything_ we record. If another _musician_ ( read:not lable) wishes to record anything _we_ put together.. hey.. I'd feel honored. It would mean that these individuals have something in common with myself. Its a common thought that there will _always_ be one musician learning/playing/recording anothers work. Just as scientists figured out and passed along, all the recorded information they did.. so do musicians. Basic passing of evolutions no? Music _could be_ defined as recorded thoughts. If we start litigating our thoughts.. whats left of real freedom? D.Jaye .... All right... Who's been cooking hot dogs in the warp nacelles? .