Should Music Be FREE????

[stefancrs]

Thank you emdot - I did not read it

Its pure luck that the tv analogy has some relevance though with regards to licensing - I just seen BBC, the comments, licensing and thought - yep! I can see them trying that out in the UK - if you have an Internet connection you have to pay a license - after all the internet will eventually be the main distribution of media over any other form including radio and television.

The only problem is going to be the corporations behind it could well become so big that it will exclude a good number of people access to the net - like SKY, AOL, Google, Yahoo, IBM, Microsoft etc. It could push out companies like the BBC (hard to think now) from partaking on the Internet too.

That is not the only problem. There are way bigger problems imho. For one, we'd put a made up price upon a service, that wouldn't be market regulated. So the price would have nothing to do with the market value, and yet you'd pay that price. Another big issue is how to split up the money, without going into a nasty big brother society where everything you do on the internet is recorded and analysed.

[Cryogenic]

Well, since its non-material, we all can download a copy of Synthmaker 1.0 and use it freely.
Can't wait. Is it finished soon?

[stefancrs]

Well, since its non-material, we all can download a copy of Synthmaker 1.0 and use it freely.
Can't wait. Is it finished soon?

If you want to break the law, commit copyright infringement and use our services without supporting what we do that is entirely up to you. I don't sympathize with such an action. Have I done something to offend you, or are you just trolling?

I thought it could be possible to discuss the flaws with the current system, even if I'm using it myself, with others in this thread, but maybe it isn't.

[pinkster]

Music doesn't seem to cost the birds, the cicadas, the crickets, the whales, or the spheres of the cosmos anything.

These things are not music, although some people might consider them 'musical'.

Almost all animal sounds are forms of communication; you might as well say music doesnt cost a newsreader for all it actually means.

As for 'the spheres of the cosmos', well I dont really think metaphysics is a great foundation for a logical argument about capitalism.

Well said sir, well said.

Peace

i dunno man.....
to me, the greatest music is the random sounds of nature, which is what us silly humans probably sought to emulate in the FIRST place..
smoke a joint, or do some acid, and go out in the middle of nowhere on a pleasant day , close your eyes, and just LISTEN....
the music of the spheres comment somebody else made will suddenly become much more valid.

[whyterabbyt]

i dunno man.....
to me, the greatest music is the random sounds of nature, which is what us silly humans probably sought to emulate in the FIRST place..
smoke a joint, or do some acid, and go out in the middle of nowhere on a pleasant day , close your eyes, and just LISTEN....
the music of the spheres comment somebody else made will suddenly become much more valid.

The perception of something heard as being musical, and the intention of creating something which is music are not the same thing.

For example, take the earlier statement 'Solar flares make sound. Pulsars make sound. The planet Earth vibrates and creates sound.'

To 'hear' the 'sounds' of solar flares, they must be downshifted in frequency by a factor of about 1000, because they are not audible. You might as well call them 'video' as 'music' since they could similarly be resampled into the visible spectrum.

In fact the real clue was also in the same post "In fact every bit of matter has a frequency at which it vibrates." Yes; everything vibrates. Basic property of matter. It just doesnt necessarily vibrate within the range of frequencies audible to the human ear, ie sound.

Now if you want, you can argue the differences between 'sound' and 'organised sound' and 'music', and many people have, but at the end of the day, I dont see any consensus that all sound is music, let alone that all vibrations are music. I personally feel that without any concrete intent to make something which is music, you only have that which is musical; with some of the qualities of music, but not all.

"Organization" also seems necessary because it implies human organization. This human organizing element seems crucial to the common understanding of music. Sounds produced by non-human agents, such as waterfalls or birds, are often described as "musical", but rarely as "music".

(Encyc. Brittanica via Wikipedia)

If one is to insist that 'the spheres of the cosmos' is music, then everything is. If everything is, the distinction is worthless, and nothing is.

[herodotus]

Well, since its non-material, we all can download a copy of Synthmaker 1.0 and use it freely.
Can't wait. Is it finished soon?

If you want to break the law, commit copyright infringement and use our services without supporting what we do that is entirely up to you. I don't sympathize with such an action. Have I done something to offend you, or are you just trolling?

I thought it could be possible to discuss the flaws with the current system, even if I'm using it myself, with others in this thread, but maybe it isn't.

Sure it is.

One just has to rigorously mute people whose idea of an argument consists of variations on 'Blah, blah, pants on fire!'

By the way, I am a professional musician, and think that the breakdown of the current system is inevitable and healthy for music.

In fact, the only people who should really be defending the current system are people who think that songs like 'My Humps' really do represent the best pop music being made today; that commercial radio is aesthetically satisfying; and that there are no major flaws in the 2000 page 'law' called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Everyone else is on the side of the reformers, whether or not they choose to acknowledge it.

[stefancrs]

Well, since its non-material, we all can download a copy of Synthmaker 1.0 and use it freely.
Can't wait. Is it finished soon?

If you want to break the law, commit copyright infringement and use our services without supporting what we do that is entirely up to you. I don't sympathize with such an action. Have I done something to offend you, or are you just trolling?

I thought it could be possible to discuss the flaws with the current system, even if I'm using it myself, with others in this thread, but maybe it isn't.

Sure it is.

One just has to rigorously mute people whose idea of an argument consists of variations on 'Blah, blah, pants on fire!'

By the way, I am a professional musician, and think that the breakdown of the current system is inevitable and healthy for music.

In fact, the only people who should really be defending the current system are people who think that songs like 'My Humps' really do represent the best pop music being made today; that commercial radio is aesthetically satisfying; and that there are no major flaws in the 2000 page 'law' called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Everyone else is on the side of the reformers, whether or not they choose to acknowledge it.

I don't think it's inevitable. Or, well, long term I think it is. But short term moving towards a society with full digital supervision (a "big brother" one that is) where everything you do with your computer / iPod / mobile is recorded and analysed might be an "option" as well. So far, moving towards that is exactly what we've been doing. But I doubt such a system would last for very long.

[Cryogenic]

Well, since its non-material, we all can download a copy of Synthmaker 1.0 and use it freely.
Can't wait. Is it finished soon?

If you want to break the law, commit copyright infringement and use our services without supporting what we do that is entirely up to you. I don't sympathize with such an action. Have I done something to offend you, or are you just trolling?

I thought it could be possible to discuss the flaws with the current system, even if I'm using it myself, with others in this thread, but maybe it isn't.

Just interesting to see that you defend your own copyrighted material, but think you can steal copyrighted music.

[stefancrs]

Well, since its non-material, we all can download a copy of Synthmaker 1.0 and use it freely.
Can't wait. Is it finished soon?

If you want to break the law, commit copyright infringement and use our services without supporting what we do that is entirely up to you. I don't sympathize with such an action. Have I done something to offend you, or are you just trolling?

I thought it could be possible to discuss the flaws with the current system, even if I'm using it myself, with others in this thread, but maybe it isn't.

Just interesting to see that you defend your own copyrighted material, but think you can steal copyrighted music.

1st, it's not theft.
2nd, where do I say that I can steal/copy copyrighted music?

[herodotus]

1st, it's not theft.
2nd, where do I say that I can steal/copy copyrighted music?

Some people think that the only reason that someone would take any point of view other than the RIAA line is to 'justify their thievery'.

These are people who think that the only kind of argument that exists is the ad hominem. They are incontrovertably convinced that every argument they encounter is 'a justification' or 'a rationalization' of some preconceived notion.

That someone should hold a point of view based on rational thought processes is quite simply outside their understanding.

[progfusion74]

I won't read the whole thread since I am sure by the time I am done my head will be reeling. Should people have a right to earn a living via music? Absolutely. Should people distribute music freely if they wish so? It's their right.

The flaw lies not in the intent to earn money, which is fundamentally sound, but in the distribution models available and the cost sharing. I am not an expert on the music industry, but from where I sit, there are some definite flaws in how the money is distributed, who owns certain rights and how these are protected. It would be very interesting to see how the internet will change these models (it will definitely change the distribution model).

[stefancrs]

I won't read the whole thread since I am sure by the time I am done my head will be reeling. Should people have a right to earn a living via music? Absolutely. Should people distribute music freely if they wish so? It's their right.

No one has a right to make a living in any specific way. There's no "I have a right to earn money by doing what I want!" right, so to speak. You have to rely upon the existance of a market and your own success in that market, and atm, I must say that the market I, and many others, make a living in has a not-so-bright future and will most likely need to be revised and totally change its model (and hence basically change market, even if what I do still remains the same what is sold probably won't). This is probably a good thing though, and new services and markets will flourish when/if this happens.

PS: Herodotus: I know It's kindof like it can be when trying to have a civil and logic based argumentation about philosophy or religion. You _will_ end up pissing people off, and that is never my intent. DS.

[Ubiety]

i dunno man.....
to me, the greatest music is the random sounds of nature, which is what us silly humans probably sought to emulate in the FIRST place..
smoke a joint, or do some acid, and go out in the middle of nowhere on a pleasant day , close your eyes, and just LISTEN....
the music of the spheres comment somebody else made will suddenly become much more valid.

The perception of something heard as being musical, and the intention of creating something which is music are not the same thing.

For example, take the earlier statement 'Solar flares make sound. Pulsars make sound. The planet Earth vibrates and creates sound.'

To 'hear' the 'sounds' of solar flares, they must be downshifted in frequency by a factor of about 1000, because they are not audible. You might as well call them 'video' as 'music' since they could similarly be resampled into the visible spectrum.

In fact the real clue was also in the same post "In fact every bit of matter has a frequency at which it vibrates." Yes; everything vibrates. Basic property of matter. It just doesnt necessarily vibrate within the range of frequencies audible to the human ear, ie sound.

Now if you want, you can argue the differences between 'sound' and 'organised sound' and 'music', and many people have, but at the end of the day, I dont see any consensus that all sound is music, let alone that all vibrations are music. I personally feel that without any concrete intent to make something which is music, you only have that which is musical; with some of the qualities of music, but not all.

"Organization" also seems necessary because it implies human organization. This human organizing element seems crucial to the common understanding of music. Sounds produced by non-human agents, such as waterfalls or birds, are often described as "musical", but rarely as "music".

(Encyc. Brittanica via Wikipedia)

If one is to insist that 'the spheres of the cosmos' is music, then everything is. If everything is, the distinction is worthless, and nothing is.

whyterabbyt,

Rarity of occurence does not render identical, complementary, different or directly opposing personal perspectives invalid.

Also, the "common" understanding of anything is not without its flaws. Nor are the "expert" understanding of anything not without its flaws.

Further it is clear that I know what I am talking about with reference to the difference between audible and inaudible frequency. Re-read my comments on the Aurora phenomenon -- I know that just because something makes noise does not also mean that I can hear it. There was no need for you to rehash the point of differences because I had already done so, and I did so within a very specific context.

Just because you need to hear something with your physical ears in order to determine that it is music to you does not mean that for another music cannot simply be felt. Take a couple of hours one day and have a conversation with someone who is deaf. Ask him or her how it is that he or she perceives sound. Then ask if he or she listens to music. Just because a deaf person cannot physically hear your voice with her ears does not also mean that he or she cannot listen to you.

You persist with your own value judgements and yet you deny the value judgements of others. At any rate what you have said, what others have said and what I have said highlights the arbitrariness and validity of the matter and the question of whether music should be free.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the relation between nature and economics, you ignore my reference to Olivier Messiaen and what the reference really means, and you continue in vain trying to assert that the definition of music makes music what it is. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by taking what I have said out of context? Check out Olivier Messiaen, re-read and fully digest the natural laws of economics, brush up on your physics and have a conversation with a good or (preferably) great sound engineer and you will come to understand that what I have said makes sense. You may, then, still not agree with me but you will understand what I have said.

It is much more healthy to recognize that all living things attune to their own individual perspectives. This way you will lessen the need to persuade others through force of your personal convictions. What holds true for you does not necessarily hold true for others.

[whyterabbyt]

i dunno man.....
to me, the greatest music is the random sounds of nature, which is what us silly humans probably sought to emulate in the FIRST place..
smoke a joint, or do some acid, and go out in the middle of nowhere on a pleasant day , close your eyes, and just LISTEN....
the music of the spheres comment somebody else made will suddenly become much more valid.

The perception of something heard as being musical, and the intention of creating something which is music are not the same thing.

For example, take the earlier statement 'Solar flares make sound. Pulsars make sound. The planet Earth vibrates and creates sound.'

To 'hear' the 'sounds' of solar flares, they must be downshifted in frequency by a factor of about 1000, because they are not audible. You might as well call them 'video' as 'music' since they could similarly be resampled into the visible spectrum.

In fact the real clue was also in the same post "In fact every bit of matter has a frequency at which it vibrates." Yes; everything vibrates. Basic property of matter. It just doesnt necessarily vibrate within the range of frequencies audible to the human ear, ie sound.

Now if you want, you can argue the differences between 'sound' and 'organised sound' and 'music', and many people have, but at the end of the day, I dont see any consensus that all sound is music, let alone that all vibrations are music. I personally feel that without any concrete intent to make something which is music, you only have that which is musical; with some of the qualities of music, but not all.

"Organization" also seems necessary because it implies human organization. This human organizing element seems crucial to the common understanding of music. Sounds produced by non-human agents, such as waterfalls or birds, are often described as "musical", but rarely as "music".

(Encyc. Brittanica via Wikipedia)

If one is to insist that 'the spheres of the cosmos' is music, then everything is. If everything is, the distinction is worthless, and nothing is.

whyterabbyt,

Rarity of occurence does not render identical, complementary, different or directly opposing personal perspectives invalid.

Also, the "common" understanding of anything is not without its flaws. Nor are the "expert" understanding of anything not without its flaws.

Further it is clear that I know what I am talking about with reference to the difference between audible and inaudible frequency. Re-read my comments on the Aurora phenomenon -- I know that just because something makes noise does not also mean that I can hear it. There was no need for you to rehash the point of differences because I had already done so, and I did so within a very specific context.

Just because you need to hear something with your physical ears in order to determine that it is music to you does not mean that for another music cannot simply be felt. Take a couple of hours one day and have a conversation with someone who is deaf. Ask him or her how it is that he or she perceives sound. Then ask if he or she listens to music. Just because a deaf person cannot physically hear your voice with her ears does not also mean that he or she cannot listen to you.

You persist with your own value judgements and yet you deny the value judgements of others. At any rate what you have said, what others have said and what I have said highlights the arbitrariness and validity of the matter and the question of whether music should be free.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the relation between nature and economics, you ignore my reference to Olivier Messiaen and what the reference really means, and you continue in vain trying to assert that the definition of music makes music what it is. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by taking what I have said out of context? Check out Olivier Messiaen, re-read and fully digest the natural laws of economics, brush up on your physics and have a conversation with a good or (preferably) great sound engineer and you will come to understand that what I have said makes sense. You may, then, still not agree with me but you will understand what I have said.

It is much more healthy to recognize that all living things attune to their own individual perspectives. This way you will lessen the need to persuade others through force of your personal convictions. What holds true for you does not necessarily hold true for others.

I wasnt actually addressing you there at all, so try keeping your presumptions and assumptions to yourself, thanks. I had no interest in responding to you directly at all... And my rationale behind deciding against responding has been borne out completely by your response here, with your insistence on 'injecting' yourself back into a conversation I was having with someone who isnt actually you.

However, for your "what holds true for you does not necessarily hold true for others', summation, well, thats exactly what I was saying. Maybe you ought to try and understand what I said first, might make you look a little less like you're missing the point.

"You persist with your own value judgements and yet you deny the value judgements of others."

Hmmm. Ironic.

Whatever. Your "learn these things I tell you before you are even fit to disagree with me" shit reinforces exactly the reasons I had for not responding to you in the first place. Muted!

[Ubiety]

Muted!

First off, this is an open forum and so it is assumed that we are all freely speaking to everyone who happens to read what we write.

I haven't denied your value judgements. What I have done is not to include your or anybody else's perspective in my argument without providing evidence that at least one person share's my viewpoint or some phenomenon supports my viewpoint to some extent.

I brought into focus one famous composer who happens to share to some degree the same viewpoint that I have. I did so because it directly addresses your music versus musical comments. I also talked about west african talking drums to address your comments about some sounds being only reserved for non-music communication and not for music communication. I mentioned the natural laws of economics to address your assertion that nature cannot be used as a base to form an argument on capitalism. You thought that because I was talking about whales and the cosmos and its relation to music and economics that I was talking about metaphysics when I was talking about physics!

You said, "If one is to insist that 'the spheres of the cosmos' is music, then everything is. If everything is, the distinction is worthless, and nothing is." Not only do I disagree with this statement but what you have said also includes the perspectives of every living thing! Why must your statement hold true? Why must it hold true for every living thing? Where is the evidence? Where is the proof?

You can say whatever it is that you want or need. However, at least, keep me out of it unless I happen to truly complement your statements in the way that you would say that I do. Otherwise I would then have to point out the difference.

Also, it would be nice if that when you do decide to make statements that you would at least address the topic of the forum. Outside of your initial question to me you have not done so.