All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Windows Geniune Pain in the Arse

<< < (6/11) > >>

Calum:
that final nested quote is actually my reply, sorry. Also, the digital economy act doesn't only force rights holders, it legislates pointlessly for lots of other related issues too.

Calum:

--- Quote ---I think pitch correction is good because it allows the singer to make a fuckup without having to rerecord anything, although I can see why it's controversial as it can make any shit singer sound good but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
--- End quote ---
did you actually mean that? Have you ever heard pitch correction used? it doesn't make anybody sound good!

it's an amusing effect, but highly limited in its practical use (like phased drum fills or backwards guitar solos). If you (or a recording artist, more's the pity) thinks it is the solution to poor singing, they are clearly as tone deaf as they would need to be to sing that badly in the first place.

No, your ear's the judge, and saying pitch correction's the answer for people who can't sing is like saying this is the solution for people who can't be bothered to learn how to play the guitar.

Aloone_Jonez:
Yes, I've heard pitch correction used and I simply disagree, it's brilliant if used correctly. There was an item on the radio about it, some DJ who couldn't sing recorded a song, got some expert in pitch correction software to play with it and he sounded great. Apparently nearly everyone in the audio industry uses it these days and no doubt you've heard it without realising it.

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Calum on 15 June 2010, 17:12 ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 12 June 2010, 13:22 ---I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.
--- End quote ---
maybe i am misunderstanding you. are you saying my argument is simpleminded? or that you chose not to read the post you were replying to because you assumed it had only simpleminded content?

Basically: if you don't read something, you can't reply to it. You can call it names, but you are talking from a position of ignorance unless you read it, am i wrong? did i just misunderstand what you meant?
--- End quote ---
I assume you have read all of my posts in this thread?

--- Quote from: me, 1st time i told Kintaro I wasn't interested in reading his post fully ---I didn't read your post entirely Kintaro, reason number 1 is that this isn't something I want to battle out over the internet, here no less, this is something I want to study and research more at some point in my life [...]
--- End quote ---
Notice that I was saying those things to Kintaro, not to yourself.

In my mind, the questions are complicated and they deserve open-minded considerations: not knee-jerk reactions or dumps of feelings. In Kintaros mind he has all the right answers, which imo are not open-minded or considered enough, and are certainly not going to help me. So, I will happily skip or skim his posts, let him know basically what I think of his remarks, without wasting my time reading a complete page of trash.

I have read everything you have said on the other hand.

--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).
--- End quote ---
that's not something i can agree with, you propose prohibiting creators from licencing their own works under a licence of their choosing? It's not inherently evil, but it is censorship of a very strong kind (quite Orwellian as they say). Why do you imagine that prohibition is ever the solution? History has shown us that prohibition never works.
--- End quote ---
Huh?
What I am advocating is prohibition of licenses that prohibit sharing, if you want to put it like that.
I don't understand your point here whatsoever, because therefore we're screwed eitherway.

--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.
--- End quote ---
would you? or are those "medium" bands just "big" bands with fashionable PR. Anyway how do you imagine a band gets to that status anyway if hamfisted legislation (such as the digital economy act, which comes dangerously close to forcing creators and rights holders to licence their music in a certain way) has destroyed the music industry so that the only people able to make money are X-Factor finalists? You haven't thought this through. I'm not trying to be condescending but i have devoted a lot of thought to this and talked to a lot of people, many of whom are industry professionals, and i can't see any clear solutions myself, and haven't really met anybody (except within this thread!) that seems to think they know the hard and fast solutions to the current digital copying situation.
--- End quote ---
I am not saying I have the hard and fast solutions. I simply believe that the world can operate like this, without the roofs falling from above artists heads (and I believe that's all I've tried to defend thus far). This doesn't mean I believe we will have more or better art, or that I know what the world will look like. But certainly, if we aren't prepared to consider the idea, then we'll never know.

Kintaro:
Lyrics are wasted time between solos.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page