Public Enemy Release full single as mp4 84
Tom writes "public enemy - the hiphoppers that already tried to put a mp3 on their website and where kicked by their label for doing so - have
released the single "swindlers lust" in full length on their website. not only the release
itself, but also the content of the single is a major criticism of greed and corporatism in the music industry. it's in the new mp4 format which rivals
cd in quality. there's also a bit of a rant about mp3/4 and the industry on the website. "
These guys are definitely bucking the industry- I'm glad to
see someone is trying to do it, but how can I play
an MP4?
Now in MP3! (Score:1)
http://www.mailbag.com/users/deanengmann/ [mailbag.com]
MP3 Version available (Score:1)
Now I need an MP4 player (Score:1)
All talk and no walk? (Score:1)
Just taking the stats from the last week for my homepage, there have been approximately 5000 hits, and 3 of those were Linux. 8 total were using various *nix systems (3 Linux, 2 Irix, 2 SunOS, 1 FreeBSD). 2 were using OS/2. more than 4500 were using Win*, and about 150 were using Macintosh.
So I somehow doubt that they're going to be aware of a problem that fewer than 0.05% of their users will have.
All about MPEG-4 Audio (Score:1)
I downloaded refsoft980508.tgz which should
be the MPEG-4 encoder/decoder if I am correct.
When I try to compile it however, I get these...
src_frame/audio.c:64: libtsp.h: No such file or directory
src_frame/audio.c:65: libtsp/AFpar.h: No such file or directory
I can't find these libs anywhere...
How does one compile this?????
Tell GlobalMusic, too. (Score:1)
--
No, I think he meant winamp (Score:1)
I agree (Score:1)
One important point to note was that, at the time they signed their contracts, MP3 was unheard of, and releasing your tracks via the Internet was something nobody had thought of. When these new technologies appeared, PE couldn't take advantage of them and couldn't convince their label to allow them to explore it. I think that's what their anger towards their label is about at this point.
Though I agree 100% with both the original comment and this one. They're making a relatively good living off of their music. The fact of the matter is, they want more. The label takes the bulk of their profits (which is something the band agreed to by signing the contract!), and the band is no longer comfortable with their relationship.
Sucks to be them... or does it?
Information for all you Ingnorant Trolls (Score:1)
Having worked in the music industry for several years (as a DJ, programming director) and having worked with several bands (in the family and friends, many of which are signed with relatively major and minor labels), I do not consider myself ignorant. I may not have had the experiences you or your friends have had, but I am rooting my arguments based upon what I have seen and know.
No, I'm saying, "I want to buy this CD because I like the music or the artist and I'm willing to spend $17.99USD for it." To be honest, I (like most consumers) could care less where the money is going. If I found out that one label and/or artist was being significantly more evil than the rest, I might take that into consideration when contemplating purchase, but this is the way the record business is. So I bought the CD. So what? Does this make me an evil person for supporting the tyrrany of the record industry? No; I'm just a consumer. I've also bought CD's from most all of the friends and friends of friends that have released CD's. I support my friends.
Yes, being a band IS a job. There's a tremendous overhead involved and frequently, bands will be too sucked into the "we're gonna make it big!" bug that they're WILLING to sign over most of the money they make as well as the rights to everything they produce. Some bands are more cautious than others. Some don't *want* to try and "make it big" for this reason. For those that do, all the power to them, but they should expect the record company to do what record companies do and shouldn't start whining because they lacked the foresight to see that they'd get exploited.
Remember, the record companies are out to make money too. If you agree to sign your life over to them, be prepared to give it to them. If you don't like the terms, don't sign. Keep your day job.
Now I'm not saying protest and education isn't worthwhile. If you can provide artists and consumers with an alternative to the established record industry, I would be very interested to see if it succeeds. However, so long as there are artists that are aware of the risks of signing but are still willing to do it, and so long as there are record labels willing to continue doing what record labels do, I don't forsee much of a change in the near future.
Record labels will change when it becomes profitable for them to do so. So long as bands are lining up to get reamed and consumers are lining up to purchase what the labels offer, that won't happen.
Here here! (Score:1)
I agree that this is the direction we need to try and go. But, existing groups locked into contracts with existing labels will have a hard time migrating. It's just a matter of finding people with enough flexibility, backing and will to make something like this work. I would love to see it happen.
But I don't think one band whining about their record label's greed and inflexibility is the way to make it happen.
MP3 II ? (Score:1)
for "MPEG Layer 3", i.e. the audio layer of the
video encryption standard.
If this is the case, isn't "MP4" the wrong name?
Or am I just plain wrong?
Not that exciting. (Score:1)
--
MP3 Version available (Score:1)
"yeah,Dean go ahead do your thing... thanx for helping out
Yiihaa!
Public Enemy Get Played (Score:1)
Sorry, guys, you guys were played and played hard. You think that virus was an accident? Why should it have been; the music industry *loves* the concept of "Don't get music from unknown sources, it might format your hard drive."
Look up sustainable competitive advantage. If the music labels format my hard drive, I can sue them--I can't do that to some random web site--so boom, they got their SCA.
Humorous, to say the least.
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
that was yesterday. :) (Score:1)
Duh.
It's the seedling of doubt. Follows from the last completely unsubstantiated MP3 Virus Scare that *nobody* knows where it came from.
Look at how mass media tries to portray the internet--full of rumors, can't trust em, red light district...
The idea that the music industry would love MP3 to seem risky isn't THAT far fetched, Tom.
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
yeah, I know (Score:1)
Sounds like a compromise to me, Tom.
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
MPEG group says "THERE IS NO MP4" (Score:1)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
if it is a pk-self-extr. zip linux can still do it (Score:1)
LoL LoL LoL!!!! (Score:1)
If you downloaded Swindler's Lust MP4 today (1/7)
between 3 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. EST, it may be infected
with a virus. A new copy has been uploaded. P.E.
apologizes for the oversight.
Arf ...
help them out (Score:1)
chances are they don't know. educate them. help them out. they are trying
All talk and no walk? (Score:1)
And at the bottom of the page:
"DOWNLOAD NOW! [Windows 95/98/NT only]"
Hmm, seems like if they really supported anti-corporatism, they'd release the music in a format that everyone can use, not an EXE file that only runs on proprietary operating systems created by a particular corporation. And this isn't even an issue of porting or anything. The EXE is likely just a self-extracting archive for the MP4 file itself.
Greed (Score:1)
All talk and no walk? (Score:1)
No Content on these Posts about THE MUSIC! (Score:1)
Did I mention stupid people shouldn't breed?
out.
For those who are interested (Score:1)
need a player (Score:1)
martian
Greed (Score:1)
You have it backwards: the corporations do not make the bands rich, the bands make the corporations rich.
It's the beginning of the end for the traditional record company, who sells you a CD for $15 and gives $1 to the musicians. It used to be that the musicians needed the record companies to handle the logistics and the distribution, but the deal is going to change.
In this new world, the musicians can make more money and the public can get access to the music for less money, all by cutting out the suits in the middle.
so... MP4 = VQF? (Score:1)
PE's Take on MP4 and OSs (Score:1)
"i got macs and cant get mp4, but were working on it...did you know that 96% of this board is pc?
So the crew aknowledges it wasn't the greatest plan to release it as an
MP4 not EXE? (Score:1)
Player not needed (Score:1)
talking windows users is where I draw the line
Take a step back and open your eyes... it's genius (Score:1)
What we have is an executable file, a player that came with the music. It not only shows a snappy interface and oscilloscope (the wavy thing
Folks, they are going a step beyond releasing the single to a bunch of radio stations. They are releasing an amazing little program to the world that should be impressive enough so that at least 1/4 or 1/8th become interested enough to buy thier stuff. Of course, when you are in the buisness as long as they have been, it's more than just the money. Take the money to pay your way, and along the way get everybody up on the beat. It's fun for them, it's their way of life.
So go to the site, boot into Windows for a moment to check it out, and buy the CD if you like it. Plain and simple.
And seriously, why would they care if they didn't release something in Linux? It would have taken too much effort to cater to such a small part of the computing. They didn't release it as an MP3 because it'd become just another pirate pass-along. Too many of you are acting like there's been a great injustice. Just look at all the Macintosh users, they aren't chanting MAC OS! MAC OS! on the PE message board.
fellow Linux users, behave yourselves.....
-Richard "Rahga" Hoelscher
No Content on these Posts about THE MUSIC! (Score:1)
I saw mp4 format on CNET TV Saturday (Score:1)
The new format is a way of encoding the audio and I think video file into an executable. The executable is then run without a player. Of course this only works under windows because it is a
It may be possible to take the binary
I'll be honest here. I personally think that the person who created this format was trying to get ride of all other Operating Systems or was not thinking of other Operating Systems.
So now the question is:
1) Can this
2) The Public Enemy mp4 also had a virus in it. The virus has since been removed. Will this be the next way to distribute viruses and thus promote Windows anti-virus software? (Could be)
3) It was also designed to make it easier for people to keep in touch thru video email. Parents coudl buy there children video camera and have one at home and they could send each other video emails, and not ned any extra software to decode it. I think this was a good idea, but I also think that is is a bit short cited. I think they should have made it maybe a Java or Tcl/Tk executable, or some other cross platform executable. Will someone come up with a more efficient cross platform method of encoding video / audio data that doesn't need an external player?
The file format is not relevant (Score:1)
I think we should give PE mad props for going against the record company and showing everyone how things should be.
MP4 does "rival" CD quality... (Score:1)
It is true that MPEG-4, like other modern audio formats, is a lossy psychoacoustic coder, and so the bits aren't the same as on a CD. But MPEG and independent groups have done extensive testing to make the sound quality as good as possible.
MPEG found when testing Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), which is the basis for the the high-quality coder in MPEG-4, that at 64 kbps/channel and higher rates it acheives "Indistinguishable Quality" as that term is defined by the European Broadcasting Union. (This means that a certain percentage of highly-trained listeners cannot hear any difference in a formal listening test with certain special methods.)
Anyone who really wants to criticize MPEG-4 sound quality should first read "Report on the MPEG-4 Stereo Verification Tests" by Meares, Watanabe, and Scheirer, available here. [mit.edu]
Best to all,
-- Eric
Editor, ISO/IEC 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio)
AAC independant test (Score:1)
I would have cited this in my original post, but the MPEG test is available online, and you have to go to the library to read the JAES report.
Second, I think you misread the MPEG report -- there are 22 subjects included in the test results. There were 3 *sites* and 3 *listening positions*, but 31 subjects in all were tested. 8 had to be removed in post-hoc tests as detailed in Section 10.3 of the report.
I agree on the relative accuracy of Ref/A/B tests compared to subject-switchable. It's a tradeoff between time and cost and robustness. The Toronto test used hard-disk playback and allowed users to switch.
Finally, I am not trying to deny that both tests show there is a difference between AAC and original recording -- this is very clear. But it's not a conspiracy nor a secret, and AAC is much closer to transparency than any other coder at equivalent bitrates. It depends on the application whether or not the quality degradation you get with AAC is acceptable. It's better than FM radio, cassette tape, and MP3 -- all formats which have proven viable in the marketplace. Thus, I conclude that the coding artefacts in MPEG-4 and AAC are not barriers to their marketplace acceptance.
If you really want something to argue about, you should attack FM radio. Start yelling "the quality of radio is bad, you shouldn't listen to it!" and see what people say.
All the best,
-- Eric
Works with Wine 990110 (Score:1)
MPEG group says "THERE IS NO MP4" (Score:1)
Looks like CNN may be a bit more on top of the ball than some think...
On the first page of the site, near the top of the page:
"MPEG-4 version 1, the standard for multimedia applications (Oct. 98)"
Mark