Actually, you'd be amazed at what some of the modern vocal effects can do, especially with a well trained engineer/producer. Antares , for example, can do everything from change the pitch/time, to alter the vocal characteristics of the track using things like "throat modeling". They can generate harmonies complete with tiny imperfections to make it sound more "human", They can make a voice have more "rasp" or "smokiness", so when you hear guys screaming (think Chris Cornell) and you think "how can they do that without their voice getting sore?", the answer is, they're not. Those are the effects at work.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not against the use of vocal effects. I look at them the same way I look at guitar effects. If you layer a guitar with enough delay, chorus, compression, tube distortion, tape saturation, EQ, and maybe some octave effects, even a rudimentary player is going to sound pretty killer. They're not going to stand up to a virtuoso like Al DiMeola or Steve Vai. Same goes for vocalists. Sure, you can find someone of marginal talent and make them sound good with effects, but they're never going to touch really capable, trained singers.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

True. And there's also a writer for The Big Bang Theory saying "I TOLD you something like that could happen!!"

Ah, MitchDev. You're adorable. Such an insightful and though provoking response. I find it so cute when teenagers take time away from playing Grand Theft Auto and practice talking with grown ups on the internet. You are a super scary and tough boy, I am totally totally intimidated by you.

Sincerely, fuck you. Go suck a dick.

Oh please, that attitude is bullshit and you know it. Does this same edict that you're proposing also apply to Authors? Should they only be paid for the hours they're writing their books? How about painters? Film makers?

Look, you're clearly one of these guys who (for some reason) has a problem with the idea that people can make money creating art, which evidently is something that you think is easy, trivial, and virtually superfluous (Plato, among others, would disagree with you). I can assume that you yourself are not an artist, and with the sarcasm and condescending with which you're commenting, I'm going to make the mental leap and assume that you're one of these guys who just likes to argue and haggle with everybody.

I get it man. You don't like that people can make money this way, and you don't feel like you should have to pay for music because....well....music is dumb, or whatever.

But, you're wrong. Everybody knows it. You sound like a moron. Things will never work out the way you're proposing, and I regret to inform you that musicians and artists are going to continue to make money doing what they love. Sorry that you hate your job and are jealous.

Notion is actually pretty great, and a good deal cheaper than Finale or Sibelius.

Ha! Man, I like you. You hit the nail on the head. I swear, I try not to indulge these dudes when they spout off like this, but sometimes I just can't resist. Every time you put the shoe on the other foot and ask them if the same thing applies to books, or movies, or coding, or whatever, they've got 100 well-rehearsed reasons why music is somehow different so that they can feel better about themselves for jacking stuff off of The Pirate Bay.

No ya didn't. You read that 5 times or more....fuming....seething. How dare I not acquiesce? And then you copped out because you have no argument that is based in reality. This is all conjured up garbage in your head.

Listen, you obstinate prick, please stop embarrassing yourself. The only thing different about that is who the specific customer is. Different markets, sure, different "business model", no. At the end of the day, it's selling music.


Sorry, Charlie. You've been served. Thanks for playing.

I understand how advertising works. Which is a wonderful way to make money off of music. Which I also mentioned in my comment above that you responded too. And is nothing at all like charging for music. Are you OK?

Man, do you ever get dizzy from spinning around to all these different positions? You must. So it's a "wonderful way to make money off of music", but it's "nothing at all like charging for your music"? You're simply not making any sense. I think what you might be saying is that charging an advertiser, or a film maker, or a television production company for using music is different that charging Joe Sixpack for downloading a song. If that is what you're saying, then yes, I agree that it's different. However, that difference does not negate the validity of some form of copyright protection for the artist. This is the mechanism that artists have to collect the wonderful money that you're graciously giving us your permission to make.

Well we can go back further if you like. How about 1885? 1585? 1485 BC? There was no recorded music. Did music exist? The advent of recorded music as a commodity began and ended in the last century. It is the aberration, not the magic rule This Is How God Intended. For every century before, you got a patron, and/ or you charged for performance. Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms would frequently wake up crying at the injustice of their inability to charge for recordings and how it was impeding their ability to make music. Right?

Yes, of course music existed. No, recorded music is not an aberration, it is a progression. Is television an aberration as opposed to live theater? Your silly example of Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms simply doesn't hold water. During those times, there were many alternative ways for those artists to make money from their music. Pieces could be commissioned (as they often were). Society in general was much more in the habit of going and paying to see orchestras perform work by these composers for many reasons...not the least of which was because there was NO OTHER WAY TO HEAR IT. Unless of course you think that said composers were doing a "one man band" thing and travelling all over Europe performing with a tin cup in front of them for a living. No. Your argument is a red herring, and you know you're comparing apples and oranges.

Is it that you believe the last century is the only way music can be made? That if music be produced by some other economic model that's just me being a selfish jerk? Or is it possible you have no historical perspective and no imagination and your mind is closed and uneducated?

Of course not. I'm interested in what this "other economic model" is you're referencing here. Because prior to this, you certainly seem to have been suggesting that music should simply be "free". This seems quite different from there being some other way to monetize music. I have plenty of historical perspective, much of it from my own personal experience in the industry, and certainly do not lack any imagination. It's rather ironic that you assert such a thing, when it seems clear that you're unable to step outside your own view and understand all of the moving parts to this evolving situation.

Well, either that, or you're an unhappy, argumentative person who likes to think of himself as an intellectual and feels entitled to prattle on about subjects upon which he has absolutely no experience.

When the printing press was introduced some monks decried it as an affront to their means of support. Horseshoe blacksmiths were not happy with the arrival of the railroad and automobile. Typewrite manufacturers insisted the computer industry was abhorrent and could not be allowed to hurt God's Only And True word processing tool.

Le sigh. Yet another condescending red herring. The monks job was to physically copy the work that an author (i.e. artist) had created. And as far as I'm aware, authors are also protected by copyright. Unless of course all works of literature should also be "free", right? Those selfish pricks like Steinbeck, Salinger, and Hemingway. How DARE they charge for their books? Shit man, it's just words. Anybody can make sentences.

To quote Vincent Vega, you ain't my friend, Palooka. And while I adore this dialog with someone who clearly believes he is looking down his nose at me while "schooling" me on how things are changing, I realize that this is truly an exercise in futility. You're very clearly incorrect, but for some reason, you have your fingers in your ears and you're shrieking "la la la la" like a child having a tantrum because he can't get his way. We, the artists, are indeed adapting. We're doing so in spite of unsupportive, short sighted people like yourself who have the gall to parade around as if your charge is to "stick it to the man", never once considering the other implications.

You mean the list of anachronistic references that have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation? No, I'm all set thanks. Yes, all famous, successful, accomplished composer and musicians. However, you're equating it to now, which is very different. Aristocrats no longer pay composers to commission pieces of music to play at the ball in honor of their daughter turning 16. Entire villages no longer turn out regularly to see and support their local musicians/artists/theaters because there's nothing else to do.......nowadays people watch tv, go to movies, or post on slashdot. You're making a comparison between two completely different times. Those guys were successful without current copyright law because a) they were goddamn musical genuises and b) because society was simpler back then, and there were many different ways for those artists to make money.

Yes, music did work fine without copyright for centuries......BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A GODDAMN WAY TO COPY IT. And yes, you silly person, artists DO indeed get paid for copies of their works. Unless of course you think that all those pictures that you're buying at Garden Ridge and World Market to hang in your home are all originals that were hand painted just for you.

Now where you and I do agree (believe it or not, we do share a little common ground) is that no, these privileges should not be "ad infinitum". However, your argument seems to be that ANY copyright protection is worthless and should be abandoned. I also agree that the current copyright system has been exploited in many ways to benefit large, predatory corporations, and of course agree that many artists have been screwed by this process. I should know. I've experienced it personally. However, to suggest that there be NO mechanism for artists to monetize their music just doesn't make any sense.

Ah. Ok. Now I see.

I had originally thought that you might have understood how the music industry works. But several of your statements illustrate clearly that you most certainly do not, never did, and clearly never will (I guess I should've paid attention.....your sig pretty much illustrates that you're one of "those" guys).

You clearly do not understand LOTS of artists can make quite a bit of money by having their music used in advertising, tv shows, movies, and yes, even YouTube (apparently you haven't heard of services like this and you just assume that it's all "free"......guess you also think that all that great music in movies you're paying to see is just done for posterity too, huh? ).

Your assertion that people can only make money and reach a wide audience is by giving it away for free is not just anecdotal horse shit, it's not even close to the facts.

And I just love when guys like you get all snarky with your "1985 business model" comments as if you have any goddamn clue what you're talking about. So you're a miser who feels like he doesn't need to pay for music ever. Great. Bully for you. You'll excuse the rest of us as we move on without you.

I see. So since there's a chance that a musician might be unfairly sued which would cost them tons of money, you're suggesting that people just rip the artists off by taking their work.

Great.

Thanks a goddamn lot. Big help, dude.

How come guys like you can never think past the idea of music that's played by a 4 or 5 piece band in some club somewhere? What about orchestral compositions that would require hiring a 40 piece orchestra to perform live in concert? What about texture/underscore music used in movies or TV shows? What about people who aren't in a position where they can go "on tour" (maybe health related, geographic limitation, etc)? What about people who write songs for other artists?

This isn't as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.

So lemme get this straight. It's ok for a musician to charge people for t-shirts, concerts, private appearances, and even product endorsement, but it's abhorrent for the artist to ask people to pay a nominal fee for a copy of the music he/she has worked on?

Yeah, um, that's utterly absurd.

No one is suggesting this idea where you "pay someone every time you walk across your floor" (seriously, what kind of example was that, dude?), and yes, everyone knows that the traditional model for the pop music industry is broken. With those things said, that does not mean that having ANY protection for the artists is unreasonable. You said yourself that you recognize that the little guy gets screwed. Yes, you're right. We often do. And it sucks.

You know what also sucks? Comments like yours that make it sound as if we, the artists, are trying to fuck everyone out of money or cash in via lawsuits. We're not. I do sometimes choose to give my stuff away for free, particularly to help fellow artists. But, I also sometimes charge for people to use my stuff. I have no qualms about having the choice to monetize my music, and don't give a particular fuck if guys like you can't understand why it isn't all free.

You might want to check your numbers.

I believe you may be confusing the word "compassion" with "deference" or otherwise equating it with passivity. It has been my experience that engaged compassion is far more useful that the exaggerated facade of confidence that many people present so as to seem "strong".

From a different perspective, compassion offers the mind something to chew on in confrontational and challenging situations that isn't offered by simply meeting a challenge with resistance or avoiding a confrontation. Compassion allows the person to understand the ROOT of the issue(s), and therefore can make a better informed decision about how (or if) to respond to the situation.

So, to build on your suggestion, let's assume that his daughter does indeed continue in the "geeky arts and sciences" and let's assume that she does face all of the challenges and opposition she's going to get from her mostly male classmates/peers. She could adopt the "cast iron bitch" attitude or just power her way through, ignoring it as best she can, and she'll probably make it through just fine. On the other hand, if she looks at these situations with compassion, she gets to fully understand it. She can realize why each of those peers treats her that way, and come to understand that it's likely born out of jealousy, or fear, or lack of understanding, or any other number of things that could explain why these people are treating her poorly. The significance of this, of course, is now that she fully understands how and why these things are happening, she can a) fully drop any personal apprehension she might have about things she might be doing to create it and b) be better informed and able to look for these behavior patterns in the future. With each encounter, she can further refine her understanding of her environment and her dealings with her fellow humans, and she can therefore refine how she responds to each.

Compassion does not mean "turning the other cheek", and incidentally, your "religious" quote about the "meek inheriting the earth" is christian, not universally religious......a lot of us think that's a bunch of crap (me included).