From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #142 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Wednesday, June 27 2001 Volume 01 : Number 142 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] RSM's Songwriting Tips [Carolyn Dorsey ] [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) [Matthew Weber ] Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) ["Andrew Hamlin" ] [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News [Michael Bowen ] Re: [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) [Cardinal007@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News [Jer Fairall ] Re: [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News ["glenn mcdonald" ] Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? [John F Butland ] Re: [loud-fans] RSM's Songwriting Tips [dmw ] RE: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? [Jon Tveite Subject: [loud-fans] RSM's Songwriting Tips R. Stevie Moore's Songwriting Tips http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/rsmkjo/songtips.html An R. Stevie Edi-Tutorial (as appeared in "Modern Song Rider" magazine November 1999) I've been credited with jump-starting a whole new style of successful pop song writing, and for readers of this column I take great pleasure in sharing some of my many secrets. In my experience, I always found it easy to compose a catchy original song by sitting down and having a brief man-to-man talk with my hands. Another great tool for you to use is a cup of black coffee with a shake of cinnamon. Helps keep the major chords in order. Minimizes the impulse to rely on suspendeds and augmenteds. Tastes purty good too! Depending on your desired effect, try starting by singing what you write in a low register, and then whoop way up high for your choruses. Won me three Grammies, yessir. You might frighten the family pet, but A&R executives absolutely adore this technique. I've written a lot of tunes in my career, but the most honored (and profitable) ones tend to incorporate at least 10 different chords. Honest! Try to begin your basic sketch on the piano. That way, you'll be tempted to overstretch your chord pallette, sometimes indulging in over 2 dozen different finger positions. Then, after a second cup of coffee, switch to guitar and shave back some of the unnecessary chords. Stay with it until you've reached just the right amount. Remember, verses can be repeated, a nice way to build up anticipation for the all-important choruses. Dynamics are the key, almost universally. Top 40 radio now thrives on variety and unexpected changes. Not like it used to be! If you're feeling depressed, that's great! Grab a pencil and paper and write a ballad! Or a blues! Remember the 10 chords! Repetition is a proven method in this category. Repeat things. Don't be afraid to lean toward a classical mode. A simple piece of musical narrative can take on new meaning with a complex orchestral arrangement. Do it yourself! Once you've written down your complete song and can sing and play it on your instrument, simply scribble tiny notes to yourself in the margins: contrabassoon here, tympani there, french horns in and out of refrains, 101 strings punctuating the hook of the chorus, etc. Use your imagination! Avoid the hip-hop route. That's not songwriting! And anybody can do that. Steer clear, my dear. Jazz is good. You'll demand some high-brow respect if your song can truly swing. But NO 4/4 funk, please. They've tried to ruin the classic jazz traditions (with incorrect rock beats), but don't you let 'em! Hillbilly and folk motifs are perfect for beginners. Earthy simplicity in conveying your musical message is a free ticket to ear-catching consistency for your listeners. Just don't get too serious or morose. Rely on abrupt humorous turns or erratic improvisation to remind them of your qualities of unbridled versatility. Always bridge the gaps. Time-honored rules concerning lyrical content can be thrown out the window. Speak it like you mean it. Be honest with yourself, even if you are composing lines about sheer nonsense fantasy. There's someone out there who will relate to you exactly as intended. Your audience will identify with your genuine convictions regardless of subject matter. The upcoming new millennium has allowed for stream of consciousness in the mainstream as never before imagined. Be creative! This is the future. Here today. Often, I've found it irresistable to jump from a somber tale of pursued romance to a mind-numbing 3-D portrait of a 2AM amusement park sex & drug massacre cartoon, all in the same 2:30 tune! Now THAT was a melody folks couldn't stop humming in their heads! And with proper emphasis on rhythm section grooves, that award winning hit continues to have listeners' toes tapping. Humming and tapping. The R. Stevie Credo. Always stay open minded in your song writing. Spread your tastes across all genres of music, experiment with cross pollenization and dump all your styles into a blender. See what comes out! :-) Make sure your demo tape is prepared with total impact in mind. The more songs you compile the better. Record labels like prolific writers. Edit all tunes back-to-back, closely (where one goes directly into the next). Avoid combining songs in the same key. Copy cut and paste to your heart's content. Peak the level meters for maximum aural first impression. And never neglect to stress your confidence and self-worth on the outside label graphic! Don't worry about publishing or copyright issues. Music is free, like oxygen! Pretend that you are protected by making up a funny company name. They'll never know! By all means, ROCK! That's one ethic that's never ever gone out of style! In conclusion, a fail-safe trick on your every submitted song is to NEVER FADE OUT! Tell them I sent ya! Toodle Ooh! NEXT MONTH: "BACKWARDS MASKING" (or GNIKSAM SDRAWKCAB) Mr. Moore is well-known as the composer of 'White Christmas,' 'Louie Louie,' 'Alexander's Ragtime Band,' 'The Twist,' 'Sratdust,' 'Perfidia,' 'Yesterday,' 'Rhapsody in Blue' and hundreds of other standards. His famous seminars are conducted twice a month here. He currently resides at the Brill Building in NYC, which he rebuilt in 1954. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:40:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] hey! While Toast Magazine gets its new act together, it's filled its space with an amusing little (if derivative - turbogeekly ex-MST3K fans will know) Flash animation thingy - check it out at www.toastmag.com. This has been an unpaid promotional announcement. (Can I have my dividends now, please?) - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Being young, carefree, having your whole life ahead of you, ::dancing the night away to celebrate... ::oh, and the untimely death of Jackson Pollock. np: Radiohead _Amnesiac_ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:50:45 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) - --dana, slightly chilly without my mantle of sarcasm <><><><><><><> Aaawwww, I'm *REEEAALLLY* sorry ; would you like it back? >>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's ok. I'm planning to steal Cardinal's veil of impenetrability. With respect, therefore, to that (do we really?!) turning again... ...do I digress?? (as if we all couldn't) (not without...that is to say... - --dana np: http://www.appliance-music.co.uk/ with emphasis on track #11 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:35:51 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) At 10:50 AM 6/26/01 -0400, Dana L Paoli wrote: >--dana, slightly chilly without my mantle of sarcasm > ><><><><><><><> > >Aaawwww, I'm *REEEAALLLY* sorry ; would you like it back? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >No, that's ok. I'm planning to steal Cardinal's veil of impenetrability. > >With respect, therefore, to that (do we really?!) turning again... > >...do I digress?? (as if we all couldn't) (not without...that is to >say... > >--dana Now Cardinal's identity can be revealed: he's Henry James. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Be skillful in speech, that you may be strong; [ . . . ] it is the strength of [ . . . ] the tongue, and words are braver than all fighting . . . a wise man is a school for the magnates, and those who are aware of his knowledge do not attack him. _The Teaching for Merikare_ (c. 2135-2040 B.C.), Par. 4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:08:23 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) >Now Cardinal's identity can be revealed: he's Henry James. You mean he lives six feet under this hunk of stone? http://www.findagrave.com/pictures/538.html Updating my address book, Andy "There are more than 30 references to salt in the Bible, but not a single mention of jalapeno peppers." - --from 2201 FASCINATING FACTS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:12:49 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News I found out about Elmore's old band, Sarge, just as they were breaking up. Too bad for me, because they were really good - "Detroit Star-Lite", from their album DISTANT, is one of the greatest rock records ever. Anyway, I just found out that Elmore is going to be putting out a new record with Bob Nanna (formerly of Braid; anyone know anything about them?) next week. I don't know anything else about it. MB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:29:29 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Michael Bowen wrote: > I found out about Elmore's old band, Sarge, just as they were breaking up. > Too bad for me, because they were really good - "Detroit Star-Lite", from > their album DISTANT, is one of the greatest rock records ever. Anyway, I > just found out that Elmore is going to be putting out a new record with Bob > Nanna (formerly of Braid; anyone know anything about them?) next week. I > don't know anything else about it. i haven't hard it, but on thoroughly good authority i expect it to be pretty good. don't neglect to pick up a copy of [sarge's] _the glass intact_. _charcoal_ shows promise, but is less well-formed, played & recorded. on the other hand the single version of "stall," for vinyl-philes, smokes the pants off the album version. much more ~~skree~~ in a good way. - -- d. = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:30:16 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) In a message dated 6/26/01 11:19:59 AM, dana-boy@juno.com writes: >No, that's ok. I'm planning to steal Cardinal's veil of impenetrability. > >With respect, therefore, to that (do we really?!) turning again... > >...do I digress?? (as if we all couldn't) (not without...that is to >say... You could have been polite and just termed it a "veil of incoherence..." :-) [let em explain the origins of .....] I kid. NP: "Hello Dummy!" -- Don Rickles ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:41:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Jer Fairall Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News > formerly of Braid; anyone know anything about them? aaron or glenn could probably tell you a lot more about them, but based on a few listens of their album FRAME & CANVAS, I'd classify them as "emo" of the Fugazi-ish variety. Not bad, but I much prefer Jimmy Eat World, Mineral, The Promise Ring, Porter Hall, Rainer Maria and Jejune. Jer ===== Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:03:33 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Elizabeth Elmore News > formerly of Braid; anyone know anything about them? Braid are pretty much the *definitive* emo band, as I understand the genre. I reviewed _Frame & Canvas_ in http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0236.html#entry6. The two posthumous Braid live albums, _Movie Music_ vols 1&2, are also pretty impressive, including some great covers at the end of vol 2. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:50:11 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) ...species I, Robot Did I win? - --DM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:51:40 -0300 From: John F Butland Subject: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? Interesting. ************************************* From the Los Angeles Times: Napster Inc. has been losing fans by the milions. The slide began after a devastating March 5 federal injunction directing the file-swapping service to block users from sharing copyrighted songs. From a high of 16.9 million users in February, the service has dropped to 10.9 million users last month, according to research company Jupiter Media Metrix. So with Napster in retreat, music fans must be buying more albums in stores, right? Wrong. Retailers say their record sales are down 5 percent to 10 percent so far this year compared with the same period a year ago. The numbers raise the issue of whether Napster truly represented the doomsday for record companies that some industry executives predicted. And they call into question the Recording Industry Association of America's contention that Napster would cause "immeasurable" harm to the business. Napster loyalists suggest the service may have spurred sales. Still, some retailers say Napster may not affect music sales at all. Slumping sales have more to do with a comparatively weak release schedule, a stumbling national economy and the popularity of video games and other competing forms of entertainment. "I don't think it's as big a factor as the industry says it is," said Bob Feterl, director of Tower Records' Southwest region. "If it's good product out there, people buy the CD." SoundScan research shows total music sales are down about 5.7 percent from the same period last year, dragged down by giant drops in sales of the singles format and cassettes - both of which are being manufactured less by the major record conglomerates. The story with CDs is even more intriguing. According to SoundScan, CD sales from January through March 4 were up 5.6 percent from the period a year earlier. But for the period from March 5 - just after Napster began removing copyrighted material from its service - through June 12, CD sales were behind last year's numbers by 0.9 percent. Some of Napster's users have fled to rival file-sharing services such as Aimster, BearShare and Gnutella. But according to Jupiter research and other analysts, the combined audience of those sites in May had reached only about 1 million. One possible explanation is that Napster's free file exchange encouraged consumers to buy music. Once Napster was ordered to police its music files, the record industry lost a powerful marketing device. Hank Barry, Napster's chief executive, said the current sales slide proves that Napster was actually aiding retailers by stoking consumers' appetites for music. "Exposure over the Internet prior to a record's release increases sales," Barry said. "They listen to it, they like it, they go and buy it. (Napster users) are the record industry's best customers." A service that had as much mainstream popularity as Napster included a large number of casual users. Ric Dube, an analyst with online research company Webnoize, said, "If they find Napster isn't what it used to be, they don't pack up and move somewhere else to consume music (online). They consume less music. They play a game. They read a book." However, the explanation may be far simpler. Business is down from last year, retailers say, because this year's albums aren't as popular as 2000's blockbusters. "We're up against some major releases from last year that nothing has come close to" this year, said Dick Odette, a senior vice president for the Musicland store chain. "To say, 'Boy, (sales should rise) because Napster's shut down' is going too far." In March 2000, for example, a new album from pop act 'N Sync broke industry records by selling an estimated 2.4 million copies in its first week in stores. Last March, there was no hit comparable to 'N Sync's "No Strings Attached." In May 2000, retailers enjoyed huge first-week sales from pop queen Britney Spears and rap act Eminem. Each sold more than 1 million copies of their new records. In contrast, the biggest first-week numbers so far this year came from the Dave Matthews Band, whose album sold an estimated 732,000 copies in its first week, according to SoundScan. Such figures are by no means disappointing, but retailers say they remain starved for more smash hits, pointing to the expected arrival of another 'N Sync record next month. The apparent lack of a Napster effect on album sales, however, contrasts sharply with the suggestions of the RIAA and the major record conglomerates. In August, after a federal court issued an initial ruling against the file-swapping service, the RIAA said on its Web site that "in view of the healthy state of the U.S. economy, it would be surprising if record sales did not increase. Common sense suggests that sales would have increased even more without Napster." And in court papers, the record companies bolstered their case with experts who said Napster downloads cut into CD sales. Hilary Rosen, president of the RIAA, declined to address what retailers say is an apparent lack of a Napster effect. "I'm optimistic that our year-end figures will even out as our numbers in the third and fourth quarters will reflect great products being distributed between now and then," Rosen said. best, jfb John F Butland O- butland@nbnet.nb.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:59:37 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? > they call into question the Recording Industry Association of America's > contention that Napster would cause "immeasurable" harm to the business. The real "immeasurable" harm Napster could have caused to the music industry was entrenching the idea that downloaded music should be free, costing them an entire distribution mechanism, not just a few CDs. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:33:35 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? According to SoundScan, CD sales from January through March 4 were up 5.6 percent from the period a year earlier. But for the period from March 5 - just after Napster began removing copyrighted material from its service - through June 12, CD sales were behind last year's numbers by 0.9 percent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientists also note that the temperature in North America began a slow and steady rising trend commencing shortly after March 4th of 2001, the date that Napster began removing copyrighted material from its service. Leading scientific figures state that this categorically proves that the earth will reach a surface temperature of approximately 500 degrees within 9 months, unless Napster is restored to its former state. But even before the Earth is reduced to a fiery ball of lava, the fallout from the Napster debacle is having a decisive impact on our lives. Ric Dube, an analyst with online research company Webnoize, said, "If they [consumers] find Napster isn't what it used to be, they don't pack up and move somewhere else to consume music (online). They consume less music. They play a game. They read a book." In related news, book sales reached new highs this June, as millions of former music lovers took up reading, but only after first sampling the books via the new Readster.com service on the internet. With that service, book lovers are able to read any new book, free of charge, before deciding whether to buy it or not. "I'm so tired of reading a three-hundred page novel, only to discover that the ending really sucks" said one Readster proponent. "Now I can check to see if the book ends with a bunch of Russians dying of starvation before I plunk down my cash. It's so much more convenient!" Meanwhile, parents everywhere who have been trying in vain for years to get their children to go outside and play, or to read a nice book, are rejoicing. "All these years, we thought that television was the problem," stated one concerned mother, "when in fact, it was Napster that was keeping our children away from books and games!" Thank God it's gone, I say, and if anyone would like to join Shari and me for a book reading or a nice game of backgammon, feel free to call or email us. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:41:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? > The story with CDs is even more intriguing. > > According to SoundScan, CD sales from January through March 4 were up 5.6 > percent from the period a year earlier. But for the period from March 5 - > just after Napster began removing copyrighted material from its service - > through June 12, CD sales were behind last year's numbers by 0.9 percent. There is nothing intriguing about these numbers. As an economist who regularly does these types of things, I can tell you that these numbers don't even come close to suggesting that Napster had a statistically significant impac on sales, one way or the other. (Besides, with copyright law, it's unnecessary to show consumer harm, right?) And now for something completely different, I've been stuck pretty much in bed for the better part of a week. So far, I've only come up with two good things about having a kidney stone. 1) After the pharmacy repetedly refused to put my prescription ahead of others' despite the fact that I was clearly in agony, there was a certain poetic justice about throwing up at the counter that made me feel pretty good. 2) I've been able to catch up on all this reading I've been meaning to do, which leads me to... I think literary types on this list would be interested in an article in the Atlantic Monthly that just came out. The author complains about the pretensiousness in much of modern literature, and sticks on his skewer 5 authors: Proulx, Delillo, Mcormac, Guterson, and Auster. The article is of course the requisite "provocative" article for the month, but it does make some really good points. He picks out particular passages, argues why they are such bad writing, and I have to say, it was pretty hard for me to disagree. And finally..."mantle of sarcasm?" "Cloak of impenetrability?" "Loose shorts of snide remarks?" This is all coming within a hit point of my "No good list discusses dungeons & dragons" rule! Still weilding a +3 kidney stone, Michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:37:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, glenn mcdonald wrote: > > they call into question the Recording Industry Association of America's > > contention that Napster would cause "immeasurable" harm to the business. > > The real "immeasurable" harm Napster could have caused to the music industry > was entrenching the idea that downloaded music should be free, costing them > an entire distribution mechanism, not just a few CDs. Bosh. Piffle. Balderdash. Both parties in this dispute exaggerate wildly concerning the impact of Napster etc. By far most of the "free" music downloaded from Napster et al. was already available free - by turning on your radio, walking into a store in a mall, turning on MTV, etc. The most popular tracks elsewhere were the most popular there as well. Most people already feel that music is, was, and always has been free, for the most part. (And don't forget that lots of music *is* distributed free by the industry - and that such promotional considerations are used as a classic ruse to deprive artists of earnings.) If you're going to argue that it's ethically wrong to deprive musicians (or record companies, publishers, etc.) of the benefits of their labor, okay, I can understand that argument. But at least in the current market, doomsday predictions about "an entire distribution mechanism" falling to the Cybergoths just don't bear much validity. Too few people have fast enough connections, and the sound quality is dubious, and for more serious fans, the lack of packaging, information, etc. means that downloaded music is just a temporary item, a means of checking out what something sounds like - not a replacement for it. The big radio consultant conglomerates could kill Napsterism quickly by opening up playlists - inasmuch as the people downloading things other than 'N Sync are doing so, they stand for a hunger for a broader variety of music than radio or MTV provides for them. Even if you disagree with the above, you might agree with this: the rhetoric of such doomsday scenarios (or, for that matter, the salvific scenarios put forth by some pro-Napsterites) makes it a lot harder to come up with a workable, fair method that allows both access and compensation and also recognizes the value of promotional downloading. I think many people would be willing to pay a small fee to allow access - there could be variable pricing plans depending on how much music people downloaded. But by so tightly controlling and limiting what's heard, and by crying wolf at every new technology (I still remember the charming little cassette-n-crossbones logo on early '80s album sleeves above the slogan HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC), the recording and broadcast industries have made it a lot easier for some ethically dubious arguments to seem a lot more plausible (under the "sticking it to the man" theory). And I think at least part of this is due also to the possibility that many serious music fans don't view Napstering as a means to deprive artists but as a way to kick Big Music in the shins - a kick that it richly deserves, if perhaps better done more constructively. What you all think of www.fairtunes.com? - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::the sea is the night asleep in the daytime:: __Robert Desnos__ last played: Anton Barbeau _The Golden Boot (Antology Vol. 2)_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:02:01 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > What you all think of www.fairtunes.com? did i huckster this here already? i forget. i may have. i'm a fan and a supporter. i've traded a mess o' emails with one of the founders; he seems like a very straight-up guy & very quick and ready to discuss misgivings, misinformation or shortcomings of the site. the one thing i DON'T like about it is the "this is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing" disclaimer. i'm not as scrupulous as dana or glenn, and i have extremely ambivalent feelings about unauthorized /semi-authorized (eg those authorized by the musicians, not the copyright holders, in cases where the parties diverge) live recordings. but i've never used Napster (again, more for reasons of security/privacty than anything else, i would have at least TRIED it in that experimental dope-smoking way* elsewise) and my contributions to fairtunes are meant to either redress perceived market inequity or defray medical expenses. - -- d., trying to be clear without mounting the high horse of morality (which i would look silly sitting upon clad in the loose shorts of snide remarks) (which is by way of not conceding that archetypes must be the province of dungeon games. should i read spenser's _faerie queen_? probably. what i really should do is go to sleep.) p.s. i agree that trying to find statistical significance in sales figures over the durations being examined is almost entirely pointless. except, perhaps, for the dgree to which reportage creates self-fufilling prophecies. * note that this metaphor is not to be construed as an admission of guilt regarding any specific offense. = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:15:35 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RSM's Songwriting Tips On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Carolyn Dorsey wrote: > R. Stevie Moore's Songwriting Tips I'm really glad Carolyn sent this along. This was really fascinating, not least because my (smattering) of RSM knowledge suggest strongly that some of the tips are meant as "succeed by not following tips" but others seem like reasonable suggestions for a strong-personalitied songwriter working out of the mainstream. but in many cases I have little idea which is which. perhaps that's the point? - -- d., not wearing the loose shorts of snide remarks this time. too darn hot! = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:09:02 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Was Napster actually beneficial? ===== Original Message From Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ===== > But at least in the current market, >doomsday predictions about "an entire distribution mechanism" falling to >the Cybergoths just don't bear much validity. Too few people have fast >enough connections, and the sound quality is dubious, and for more serious >fans, the lack of packaging, information, etc. means that downloaded music >is just a temporary item, a means of checking out what something sounds >like - not a replacement for it. Not that you would necessarily disagree, but we're skirting what I think has always been the main concern of the major labels: control. The Internet is not currently a great vehicle for the distribution of music, but someday it will be, and the majors never want anyone's fingerprints on their products -- whether it's beneficial to them, or not. If they had stood by and allowed other people to control any sort of distribution scheme for their product, it would be hard for them to cry "foul" later on when Internet music really takes off. So I think Glenn's point is largely valid: they didn't want the practice of getting major-label stuff from unauthorized suppliers to become widely accepted. >I think many >people would be willing to pay a small fee to allow access - there could >be variable pricing plans depending on how much music people downloaded. I tend to agree. I don't know if a subscription service model would work best, or maybe some kind of very small pay-by-the-song scheme. Scott McCloud, in his latest book on the comics industry, is arguing that the key to supporting artistic distribution over the Internet will be the latter -- a very convenient system by which I can send $.25, or whatever, directly to artists in exchange for downloading their work. Right now it's too much of a pain. Nobody wants to type in all their credit card info everytime, and the middle-man services are not much better. But I agree with McCloud that these things will be worked out, eventually. Jon ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #142 *******************************