December 2002 - zorn-list - mailman.xmission.com

Turntable.
by Jason J. Tar 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

At 06:11 PM 12/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: >but was wondering = >if anyone could point me to the more experimental side of turntable = >music. Obvious would be Otomo Yoshihide. Others include Philip Jeck, Erik M, Tsunoda Tsuguto, Martin Tetreault, Martin Ng (I think), etc. One swell project to look into would be Les Sculptuers Des Vinyl. A group project led by Yoshihide, featuring several other turntablists. http://www.japanimprov.com/yotomo/disco/memorymoney.html If you need more info, I can assist another time perhaps. (Speaking of hip hop side, the new D-Styles is supposed to be very swell example of turntablism. Hope to have a copy soon.) JJTar.

1 0

But is it stealing?
by Michael Vandelaar 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

Who amongst us doesn't steal? I read a quote last week from some executive, advertising or TV I can't remember (sorry about the vagueness of this but I got the gist of the quote if not the detail) that if you channel hop during the ad break or if you use the mute button (pity there wasn't a 'moot' button) so that you don't hear the ad, then you are stealing from the advertisers. The argument is that they pay for your brain for the allotted time during a show & if you switch off during the ads then your are ripping the advertisers off. This seems to me to fit in with Craig's simplistic argument that if you can't afford to buy a cd, then you have no right to listen to the music. You can't afford to buy a TV station, or the air time to broadcast a show, so you rely on the 'goodwill' & hard cash of advertisers to pay the bill for you. You don't watch the ads, you are stealing from them. I hope you all feel guilty now. Cheers, Michael _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

RE: majors & self released music
by mark 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

Less and less - recently a number of the big labels have been rationalising - and that has included droping people who don't make large sales. I admit I am being overly dramatic to make a point but there is a trend here. Music that is interesting and of depth does not normally sell in large numbers and when you are trying to maximise your profits the first thing you do is cut expenses (developing bands from outside) and take control (creating your own bands,putting members on a salary etc.). Now I hope that there will be a rebellion in the market place agaist this but commercial sense suggests that this will not be the case. mark -----Original Message----- From: zorn-list-admin(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:zorn-list-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Zitt Sent: 02 December 2002 16:40 To: zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: majors & self released music On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:43:25 -0000 "mark" <mark(a)junklight.com> wrote: > In a world where the majors appear to be moving away from music and > towards product however you need to take what you can get. But here on Earth, even major label CDs still tend to have music on them. -- | jzitt(a)josephzitt.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | GPG: A4224EFA http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code / VoiceWAVE Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | _______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list

2 1

RE: majors & self released music
by mark 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

"same functions. And these functions are so intrinsic to mass culture in the world as it is, that "self released music" alone won't change much of anything." In a world where the majors appear to be moving away from music and towards product however you need to take what you can get. mark

2 1

majors & self released music
by Herb Levy 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

"john schuller" <superbadassmofo(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Self released music. Uh, this really doesn't answer Joseph's question. Composers & performers releasing their own recordings doesn't address the same functions as major record companies do. You may not like some or all of the functions these companies serve (I know I don't), but independent labels do not and can not serve the same functions. And these functions are so intrinsic to mass culture in the world as it is, that "self released music" alone won't change much of anything. -- Herb Levy P O Box 9369 Fort Worth, TX 76147 herb(a)eskimo.com

1 0

why isn't it stealing?
by CuneiWay＠aol.com 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

Please tell me why, if someone copies and keeps one of our releases, thereby depriving me of the sale of that release and our artist for the payment of the sale of that release, why this *isn't* theft? Thank you, Steve Cuneiform Records >WC> Well, it is stealing. It's stealing the artist's royalty that >WC> otherwise would have been paid if the burned-copy-recipient had >WC> bought a legit copy instead. > >Still, technically it is not. The artist's royalty probably is >underpaid, but there is no stealing.

5 4

Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
by Fritz Feger 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

> > Then there is the subject of used cd's. I told him that when he bought a > > used cd he may as well have made an unauthorized copy...becuase the artist > > does not see any of the money past the initial sale of that cd. Or that >when > > he sells used cd's to stores he may as well be selling audience tapes > > because he is now making money off of someone else's music. >Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see how that theory works. When >you sell a cd you don't want, you rarely make money, but rather lose money - >say you spend $20, then perhaps get back $10, you have paid out $10 for a cd >which you don't even own anymore! >Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever >money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, >there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one >payoff to the artist? The basic point behind this is: what is the artist paid for? The physical CD copy, or royalities for his intellectual property? I think the idea that it is the CD you purchase is only a vehicle which makes intellectual property tradeable in the first place; a practical consideration of how to make solid money from something as aetherical as music. For the artist to make a living, this is the crucial point. But theoretically, the artist should get paid per listener. Or per listening. With an intensity of listening experience factor. But there the question arises: should the more intense listening be more expensive since the listener gets more from the artist, or should it be cheaper as a discount price, or to prevent misuse of inattentive listening? Fritz ############################################## Fritz Feger mail(a)fritzfeger.de www.fritzfeger.com ##############################################

4 3

Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
by john schuller 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

>From: "Julian" <germ(a)iinet.net.au> >To: "john schuller" ><superbadassmofo(a)hotmail.com>,<zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com> >Subject: Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc. >Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:25:52 +1100 > > > Then there is the subject of used cd's. I told him that when he bought a > > used cd he may as well have made an unauthorized copy...becuase the >artist > > does not see any of the money past the initial sale of that cd. Or that >when > > he sells used cd's to stores he may as well be selling audience tapes > > because he is now making money off of someone else's music. > >Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see how that theory works. When >you sell a cd you don't want, you rarely make money, but rather lose money >- >say you spend $20, then perhaps get back $10, you have paid out $10 for a >cd >which you don't even own anymore! Yes, you do lose money on your initial purchase. But the item you are selling is only generating any money because of the artist created material on it. Now the artist very well may have sold two copies new for versus just one copy with two seperate owners at different times. Just a thought and you make a great point. > >Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever >money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, >there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one >payoff to the artist? Again great point. But you have to look at the fact that the artist may have sold two copies of that cd new - versus one. Of course I do not claim to have any answers that make any sense. I am just curious about all sides and all angles to this topic. John Schuller _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

4 4

Re: burnin' in the heat of . . .
by Ryan Novak 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

>From: Matthew Garrington <thegrandguignol(a)yahoo.com> > >Maybe I'm just different from everyone, but I never >feel quite satisfied with a burned copy. It just >never >feels complete. I don't think that's all that different from the majority of people though. I think musicians and record labels are lacking some confidence in the worth of their product if they worry so much about copies. I think that there is a feeling to a legitimate product from the artist that is still respected, even if subconsciously, in the "digital age". If you over-think it, yes, you have the true "product"- the music- when you have a copy, but the whole thing as a package or in a package is strangely important I've found. For all practical purposes, fake diamonds look like the real thing right- so how do people still make money on the real ones? Authenticity is important to people- can you believe that? ---Ryan Novak __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: why isn't it stealing?
by john schuller 02 Dec '02

02 Dec '02

Self released music. >From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt(a)metatronpress.com> >To: zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com >Subject: Re: why isn't it stealing? >Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:13:14 -0800 > >On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 23:00:10 -0800 >"john schuller" <superbadassmofo(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Of course they are not intrinsically evil. Is anything? Of course > > possible to run an ethical business of that size without inevitable > > corruption. But are they? > >So if you were to destroy them, how might you create something that >would serve their function without falling victim to this corruption? > >-- >| jzitt(a)josephzitt.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | >| GPG: A4224EFA http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | >| == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | >| Comma / Gray Code / VoiceWAVE Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | > > >_______________________________________________ >zorn-list mailing list >zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com >To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list John Schuller www.johnschuller.com www.worldmisery.com do you know the deutsch that I'm sprechen? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

3 2