All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows Geniune Pain in the Arse
Calum:
--- Quote ---I assume you have read all of my posts in this thread?
--- End quote ---
i think so, though i can't go back and refresh my memory because something on page one of the thread is blocked by my work's firewall. I understand what you mean, but i still think that if you are going to reply to someone, it's generally pointless not to read what they actually said.
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
clever response but no, you're not quite proposing a prohibition of prohibition, plus, two wrongs don't make a right.
Creators being able to release their output under whatever conditions they choose is not prohibition. i am the rightsholder to my created works. if you want to use one of my songs in (say) a computer game, then i should have been able to specify in the licence for that song what the conditions are. In practice there are fairly normal and sensible de facto standards for how this is done, with creative commons released music becoming more popular. The choice of licence then (especially in a world where more and more artists are "independent", rather than the rather sad "unsigned") becomes an important business decision, and legislating against the artist's choice of how to licence their own intellectual property is not protecting anybody.
You want to use a song for free in your film (for example)? Go and find a song that allows this in the licence, or write your own. Why is this a problem for anybody except those that want to "liberate" music for their own use (ie: to imprison this music into their own projects). Arguably the song would get more exposure if it allowed free reproduction or arguably it might make more money if it didn't (or not, because of lack of exposure), but i firmly believe this is the rights holder's right to decide which model they will go for, see why? because they are the rights holder! Make your own damn song/book/film etc if you don't like it.
Nope, the more i think of this it's the legislators who are stealing here, not the public, and its our rights being stolen, not our music.
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
you're right about that, but i think you might be wrong about this "roof". The situation we're all used to in the music industry is new. it was created in the mid 20th century, on the back of the takeoff of telecommunications and cheaply copying recorded media. Now the world's saturated with recorded output and recordings and multimedia have advanced to the point where there are a lot less natural restrictions on the music, and ironically, we're back to a position like before the 20th century where music (and art and writing etc etc) are chiefly amateur pursuits, with some people being sponsored by patrons (like Groove Armada and Bacardi).
What i'm saying is i think it'd be a mistake to assume we can or should maintain the 20th century model indefinitely and artificially. If we try, and that's not the way the market goes, then ultimately these regulatory efforts will fail. Remember the parable about the oak and the willow? the supple willow survived the storm by bending in the wind, while the strong but unbending oak was destroyed.
Calum:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 15 June 2010, 18:21 ---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.
--- End quote ---
i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?
Sorry but if you can't sing, then don't. Or learn. Or just sing as best you can and maybe it'll still sound good and people'll like it. I am aware (strangely enough by using my ears, as i said your ears are the judge) that far too many pop records are soaked in autotune and are heavily overproduced in protools as well, but this doesn't mean it's "good". The voice is an inherently microtonal instrument. Surely only the most simple vocal parts require literally no movement when going from one note to the next, even if you quantise it for quarter tones, you'd be able to hear the artificialness when sliding from one note to another, and obviously quantising any finer than maybe a semitone or quarter tone is pointless because it's for people who can't sing.
No wonder the industry's falling on its arse if autotune is not only acceptable but somehow being put forward as superior to actually being able to sing.
eg: T-Pain vs Otis Redding - who can sing? Who sounds better on their records? You decide.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Calum on 17 June 2010, 12:18 ---i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?
--- End quote ---
Sorry I forgot, you're the one who claims inferior analogue formats sound better than superior digital formats, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered having this discussion with you.
You do know that there's more distortion in even the highest quality speaker system and recording studio acoustics than there is in an ADC with a ridiculously high sample rate and number of bits per sample?
Calum:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 17 June 2010, 12:59 ---
--- Quote from: Calum on 17 June 2010, 12:18 ---i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?
--- End quote ---
Sorry I forgot, you're the one who claims inferior analogue formats sound better than superior digital formats, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered having this discussion with you.
--- End quote ---
don't be such a self righteous wanker. "inferior analogue formats"? it's a contradiction in terms! if something is an analogue of a sound, it is not inferior to a digital representation. Analogous recordings are superior to representations. And your superior "you're not worth my time" attitude only serves to show that you don't even believe you could have a discussion with someone who doesn't already agree with your point of view.
If i were you i wouldn't be as proud of that fact as you seem to be.
--- Quote ---You do know that there's more distortion in even the highest quality speaker system and recording studio acoustics than there is in an ADC with a ridiculously high sample rate and number of bits per sample?
--- End quote ---
i don't give a fuck about that, any digital system has speakers too you know, big deal? Why are you attempting to steer the issue away from autotune anyway? is it because you just got pwned?
I might clarify one thing though, i am not "against" autotune as a technique or effect, i am just saying that as a substitute for hitting the right notes, it's laughable. can you imagine applying autotune to a lead guitar part on the questionable basis that it would improve the guitarist's performance? Very silly.
Calum:
furthermore i'm not "against" digital either, and i just wanted to point out that you not only steered the discussion away from what we were talking about, but you've also turned this into a "which is better" argument, when it was actually about whether you can tell the difference between one thing or another. You claimed i couldn't tell the difference, i maintain that that's ill-informed garbage just like when you claimed scotland always votes predominantly Liberal, without checking your facts, because you know best.
Generally, for anyone who's interested in the subject of legal/illegal and moral/amoral digital distribution, here's enough discussion to make you blue in the face and sick to the stomach: http://fawm.org/forums/thread/1257/
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version