Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
irvin

OT: very impressed with Reaper

Recommended Posts

Irvin, I am doing pretty fine. Accept it. ("lol.." as you seem to erratically spice up your thoughts)

I wonder a little what me (or you) being a no/anybody changes for the situation of artists. If the record finally goes to a crackling Vinyl or a shabby MP3 doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the recording was done on DAT or on 48 tracks 96/24. In the end, getting more gigs, getting more awareness is what counts. But there will be no or minimal direct returns, i.e. net earnings from selling records. The profits of the MI industry are a separate question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irvin, I am doing pretty fine. Accept it. ("lol.." as you seem to erratically spice up your thoughts)

I wonder a little what me (or you) being a no/anybody changes for the situation of artists. If the record finally goes to a crackling Vinyl or a shabby MP3 doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the recording was done on DAT or on 48 tracks 96/24. In the end, getting more gigs, getting more awareness is what counts. But there will be no or minimal direct returns, i.e. net earnings from selling records. The profits of the MI industry are a separate question.

You are not doing that well if you are complaning (as you did two posts ago) that you and your friends are not seeing a "ROI". Don't share your frustration and people won't comment on them. That said, if you insist you are doing great, fine, even better for you!.

So, what's your point? It has always been like this: a tiny fraction of the musicians recording their music makes a profit or achieve fame and success. The vast majority toils in obscurity - often for the love of music and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with that. The greater number of people having access to recording technology is not a problem, contrary to what you claim. Music today is not any worse or better than before. Just different. Accept it.

Stop believing you own lies: what makes you (or me, or most people) qualified to determine who deserves to record and who doesn't? You criticize the record labels, but you are trying to do the exact same thing they do: filter opportunities based on...your own ideas!

Stop believing the lies: there is a lot for very capable people out there (some here, some on GearSlutz!, everywhere) making wonderful music, great-sounding music because the recording opportunities are abundant today. You don't *necessarily* need a mixing engineer, a mastering engineer or even a commercial studio any longer (this is the real root of your problem).

Let's be honest: what makes a "mastering engineer" other than putting up a sign calling yourself a "mastering engineer"? It's not a college degree. There is no exam to pass to prove competency in the field. There is no certification. Anyone can claim to be a "mastering" or "recording" or "mixing" engineer. It's not the equipment - anyone can buy a great piano, regardless of playing skill. It's a fake title. Some people are great at it, some are so-so and some are bad. How do you determine which one is which?

That's the problem for people like you: your fake title's value has plummeted. But that's your problem - and putting people down will not solve it. Your only hope is to begin making good music - with "good" meaning music that a lot of people actually like. Sitting in a little room complaining to other frustrated musicians that today's music sucks and pretending that "Happy" is a bad song will not solve your problems. It will only make you even more deluded (look at you: embracing piracy as harmless while claiming that not everybody should make music!!!!).

We live in great times and everybody is blessed to have an opportunity to pursue a musical dream, regardless of talent or intentions. That's the way it should be. Good for all, all for good! (corny, right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be naive. It's not about making people happy. This is about a product that sells: Toilet paper, beer, cars, pop songs. Only that the exploitation rights for a mediocre song end 70 years after the author's death. In practise, mediocre music has a market life of less than 2 years, and margins are small. That's why it has to be produced cheap and fast.

Who's being naive? And about what? Your post makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irvin, the way you are using "lie", "truth", "honesty", "wrong", "right", "good"... doesn't compute for me at all. It's complete "meta".

What you say about record labels "filtering" is obsolete. It was true for the "old" business model they had. Nowadays, they are at best gatekeepers of their back catalogue, at worst they are meaningless. Most of them are about ruining their back catalogue by not adding new things to it of the same quality, which is the small 1o1 of license business.

It's true that there are capable people out there. The issue for them is to be heard of, which is more difficult than ever.

Scrape the rest: Making music is not a question of recording in a cheap home studio. Making music is playing or singing, performing. Making "good" music is as well not a question of playing in front of thousands of people, or selling 100.000 copies. It's as Sascha said: The biggest reward is making people happy.

Sold copies and tickets are a matter of music business, which is something completely different, just borrowing the word "music". Luckily, it doesn't depend on your verdict, or mine. Business is neither the scope of the majority of home recording studios. So, yet another kettle of fish. IMO, home recording and music industry have nothing but an opportunistic dependency: A bunch of people who what to utilize cheap commodity equipment. It could be different, and it will be different as soon as the business changes to more profitable perspectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be naive. It's not about making people happy. This is about a product that sells: Toilet paper, beer, cars, pop songs. Only that the exploitation rights for a mediocre song end 70 years after the author's death. In practise, mediocre music has a market life of less than 2 years, and margins are small. That's why it has to be produced cheap and fast.

Who's being naive? And about what? Your post makes no sense.

Sascha in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irvin, the way you are using "lie", "truth", "honesty", "wrong", "right", "good"... doesn't compute for me at all. It's complete "meta".What you say about record labels "filtering" is obsolete. It was true for the "old" business model they had. Nowadays, they are at best gatekeepers of their back catalogue, at worst they are meaningless. Most of them are about ruining their back catalogue by not adding new things to it of the same quality, which is the small 1o1 of license business.It's true that there are capable people out there. The issue for them is to be heard of, which is more difficult than ever.Scrape the rest: Making music is not a question of recording in a cheap home studio. Making music is playing or singing, performing. Making "good" music is as well not a question of playing in front of thousands of people, or selling 100.000 copies. It's as Sascha said: The biggest reward is making people happy.Sold copies and tickets are a matter of music business, which is something completely different, just borrowing the word "music". Luckily, it doesn't depend on your verdict, or mine. Business is neither the scope of the majority of home recording studios. So, yet another kettle of fish. IMO, home recording and music industry have nothing but an opportunistic dependency: A bunch of people who what to utilize cheap commodity equipment. It could be different, and it will be different as soon as the business changes to more profitable perspectives.

I think you have nothing concrete to say - just a collection of rambling an often contradictory statements passing off as some sort of position. Perhaps it's the language, perhaps it's you. I don't know.

Take these sentences, for example: "Business is neither the scope of the majority of home recording studios. So yet, another kettle of fish" - i have no idea what that means.

Perhaps if you were to take the time to make a coherent argument, people would offer comment on it. As it is, you are coming across as a guy bitter at the music industry and fellow unknown musicians for some vague reason. Nothing more than that, to be frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take these sentences, for example: "Business is neither the scope of the majority of home recording studios. So yet, another kettle of fish" - i have no idea what that means.

It's the language. My bad, sorry. I try again:

"Business is not the scope of the majority of home recording studios, as well. So, home recording is yet another story, apart from Music and Music Business, as home recorders typically are not doing any business, and recording is not the same as making music (as in performance)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take these sentences, for example: "Business is neither the scope of the majority of home recording studios. So yet, another kettle of fish" - i have no idea what that means.

It's the language. My bad, sorry. I try again:

"Business is not the scope of the majority of home recording studios, as well. So, home recording is yet another story, apart from Music and Music Business, as home recorders typically are not doing any business, and recording is not the same as making music (as in performance)."

Much better, but it's still not very clear what you find at fault with "home recording". You stated previously:

"The fact that everybody is recording from bedroom upwards is good for MI manufacturers, and for no one else. The downsides prevail. "

So, somehow you think people having the opportunity to make some music on their own is bad. There are no 'downsides' to people making music on their own. Eminem is not suffering because there is some unknown kid in Amsterdam recording and mastering his own (good or bad) songs.

You have a problem with the current state of the music industry because blaming it on the government, the record labels or other musicians makes you feel better about your own failures as a musician or business man. There is no other explanation for your irrational position - why on earth do you think all the great resources available to people for very little money is bad for anyone? How is it bad?

Your position amounts to: "I'm so pissed at the recording industry, with all those guys using semi-pro equipment to record their songs. I don't get much business because of them and because of the companies (software/hardware manufacturers) that empower them. I'm also pissed at the record labels for doing what they have done forever: promote their artists and make a profit from it. I'm pissed at people who think 'Happy' and 'GangNam Style' are good music that makes people happy (why would anyone buy music they enjoy?). I'm really pissed at anyone who doesn't see a problem where I see one."

In essence, you are making arguments to prove your unfair and totally irrational position. You are trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 5. Thus the crazy nature of your posts, the verbal contortions to provide a foundation for a position without any basis in reality. Don't expect too many people to agree with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irvin, there is indeed a lot wrong with these statements above. First and foremost, because they are yours.

Just a few examples:

1. I don't think and I didn't say that making music autonomously is "bad". What I have said is that making music is great, and nobody needs the any industry for that.

2. I don't think that record labels are "doing what they have done forever: promote their artists and make a profit from it.".

3. I am not pissed at anyone who likes "Happy". (did I mention Gangnam Style at all??) What I stated is about an issue with abundant, exchangeable products with only some weeks of shelf life, or one-hit wonders that come and go. The music industry cannot create sustainable income that way.

4. I am not pissed at someone who doesn't see a problem where I see one. But I am pissed at you now as your only sports seems to be using unfair means, such as excessive rephrasing, arbitrary re-contexting, and made-up quotations. This is not ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irvin, there is indeed a lot wrong with these statements above. First and foremost, because they are yours.

Just a few examples:

1. I don't think and I didn't say that making music autonomously is "bad". What I have said is that making music is great, and nobody needs the any industry for that.

2. I don't think that record labels are "doing what they have done forever: promote their artists and make a profit from it.".

3. I am not pissed at anyone who likes "Happy". (did I mention Gangnam Style at all??) What I stated is about an issue with abundant, exchangeable products with only some weeks of shelf life, or one-hit wonders that come and go. The music industry cannot create sustainable income that way.

4. I am not pissed at someone who doesn't see a problem where I see one. But I am pissed at you now as your only sports seems to be using unfair means, such as excessive rephrasing, arbitrary re-contexting, and made-up quotations. This is not ok.

Nice try at retracting your previous statements. Here's the proof:

#1. You DID state "The fact that everybody is recording from bedroom upwards is good for MI manufacturers, and for no one else. The downsides prevail." - what 'downsides' were you talking about????

#2. What do you think the record labels are doing, if not that?

#3. "Happy" and "GangNam Style" are not "abundant", "exchangeable" products with "only some weeks of shelf life". They are legitimate hits that a large number of people actually like and enjoy. You even called Sasha "naive" for saying that music has the power to make people happy and argued that it was just a product, like toilet paper. If that type of music is so "abundant" and "exchangeable", why aren't you and your friends making easy millions producing some "garbage" for the world to consume?

#4. You have been pissed at me for a while because I don't buy into your BS. You want to be perceived as some sort of "expert", but your techno-babble and pseudo-scientific nonsense is easy to spot by most normal people. You are constantly putting people down, like you have any real credentials other than the poisonous envy brewing in your heart. You are a bitter individual, angry at the current state of recording technology and industry.

I'm not your enemy - your biggest and only real enemy lives in the mirror. Go and talk to him. I have nothing to do with it - I'm just another one in the billion fellow "nobodies" that you despise.

Don't for a secon think I'm being a little too rash with you. Just look at this sentence you wrote a couple of posts ago:

"Making music is not a question of recording in a cheap home studio. Making music is playing or singing, performing. Making 'good' music is as well not a question of playing in front of thousands of people, or selling 100.000 copies."

Should we infer, then, that making music is a question of recording in an expensive commercial studio?

Shouldn't we naturally assume that people who play in front of thousands of people and sell hundreds of thousands of copies are the ones making "good music"? Should we assume that YOU, and not Phareell Williams is the one making great music? ...lol... Gimme a break...lol...

There is something clearly wrong with your thinking. That's what you have to focus on, not on hating the people who have the balls to call your thinly-disguised BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would read it would have been helpful. I stated explicitly that "recording" and "making music" is not the same for me. I understand they are for you.

Could it be that you recombine my thoughts with yours a little too much?

I.e. the music/product issue: by no means I have stated that musicians in general couldn't make people happy. I made a statement about a specific product that is highly processed, beautified, styled, and much money is spent on marketing, for nothing but to sell quickly. It's you who turns it upsidedown, suggesting that I had some nonsense problem.

For the last time: Stop it, please.

There is not the least contradiction between a song being a hit and being a short-lived product. These often go well together. However, there are quite a number of quality records that sell well over decades. Those are the real gems in the catalogue. Guess why Michael Jackson bought rights from Lennon/McCartney songs in the 80's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irvin, I have not read into Sebastian's comments, nor do I see, a single thing that you have read or that you see.

Each to their own, and for their own reasons.

Cheers,

Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be naive. It's not about making people happy. This is about a product that sells: Toilet paper, beer, cars, pop songs. Only that the exploitation rights for a mediocre song end 70 years after the author's death. In practise, mediocre music has a market life of less than 2 years, and margins are small. That's why it has to be produced cheap and fast.

Who's being naive? And about what? Your post makes no sense.

Sascha in this case.

Oh, I'm perfectly fine with that. Already 43, but still to young to play the old wise man... wink.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would read it would have been helpful. I stated explicitly that "recording" and "making music" is not the same for me. I understand they are for you.Could it be that you recombine my thoughts with yours a little too much?I.e. the music/product issue: by no means I have stated that musicians in general couldn't make people happy. I made a statement about a specific product that is highly processed, beautified, styled, and much money is spent on marketing, for nothing but to sell quickly. It's you who turns it upsidedown, suggesting that I had some nonsense problem.For the last time: Stop it, please.There is not the least contradiction between a song being a hit and being a short-lived product. These often go well together. However, there are quite a number of quality records that sell well over decades. Those are the real gems in the catalogue. Guess why Michael Jackson bought rights from Lennon/McCartney songs in the 80's?

Once again, do not let your failures cloud your judgement. The world is perfectly fine and all that envy only exist in your heart. But if you really believe your own lies, just go ahead, make your own 'beautified' and 'highly processed' hit...collect the money and get that much-desired 'ROI'...lol...

End of thread for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is perfectly fine and all that envy only exist in your heart.

Well, I am getting the impression that "envy" and "hate" exist as words on the screen. Else, your utterance reminds me of a Vicar I met when I was young. A most laughable encounter, entertaining, but spooky, and presumably uncertain about the whereabouts of some of his marbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×