24 Jan
2004
24 Jan
'04
5:17 p.m.
Hey Ron, try to be a bit less reserved, don't hold back, you'll get high
blood pressure :-D
Jan
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:54, R Parker wrote:
Hi,
Mark, the following is my pre-coffee knee jerk
reaction to your proposals. I got a little pissed off
and irresponsible but feel my positions are worthy of
consideration. I can't apologize for my feelings.
Reguardless, I don't want what I stated to be directed
at you...when the field is dry, water it. My reactions
always suck but for some reason I have no aversion to
looking the part of a fool.
This would be a fine enough impetus for war if
musicians aren't its greatest victim. They are!
Yeah but that's "old world" crud
that helps keeps
bookkeepers and
lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of
expensive paper music
manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had
some vaildity but
these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low
it's obnoxious
(to me) that these archaic payment restrictions
still exist at all.
I pay much more for bandwidth than I ever did for
sheet music and vinyl.
But this
music had another license, which
explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new
world" game is
to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not
to tie it up
and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical
bureaucracy of paper
work shufflers that have nothing to do with either
the creation
or the presentation of said music. These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that
it's more of a
priviledge for the artist to get their music
exposed, at all,
rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake
of the artists
work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my
view).
That doesn't feel much different than indentured
servitude. I saw the first commercial album produced
with Ardour in a juke box a couple days ago. I loved
it! I might go back and take a picture. The bar is a
neighborhood dump that's been in business since 1938.
Anyway, while producing that album the artist and I
went dumpster diving and shoplifting food together,
several times. The artist is a U.S. illegal alien whos
teeth are turning yellow and falling out. He's about
30 years old. Next time I see him, I'll tell him his
wrotten teeth are the price of priviledge.
That "obnoxous bureaucratic system"
already
exists for those
who want direct payment for their works of art... I
don't see how
these restrictions apply to music, or art in
general, in the commons.
If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
I would like to think the point of music in the
commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
hearing it !
I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because artists
can't afford to finance the ideal you describe.
Discussing altnerative methods of payment isn't an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
want you speaking for me.
--markc
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/