| RIP Michael Brecker [message #78316] |
Sat, 13 January 2007 21:28  |
John Macy
Messages: 242
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
25KkcM9W1Cjl7eK5vNSBPxx79Rv7Cnx0Poc3K
7DSQdFfbhopeov8AuHgvuUf4y8FPaeGiqOr9UARTn8OxQreB4DJPiwtciDgL
rBNEAi2QRi9dnt9yZqEM6kCKaBtQOh1W9DNRbQWVKoKOvmHgF9yh/E+CntPD
9Nf0QPIeUY4PTDnPiulEXMN1M7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP Michael Brecker [message #78327 is a reply to message #78316] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 08:24  |
|
|
KsyKksTIUKO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 Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP Michael Brecker [message #78349 is a reply to message #78323] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 11:59 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anyway, the bottom line is Apple has no choice but to have some form of restrictions
in order for the iTunes music store to work. That is the deal they have
with the record industry. I believe Apple is will to change, but it's really
up to the record industry.
James
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
>
>I'm not 100% sold that this is genuine, that Apple would really open up
iPods
>to use any software in the world to load and unload music, but if I could
>load .ogg files onto a Nano from my Debian laptop I would buy one in a second.
>flac support would really, really be nice too.
>
>But the real point here, I think, is that Apple knows it owns the portable
>device market now and they're not terribly happy with the deals they struck
>with the media cartels to make that market. Legitimate complaint in many
>ways, 'Hey fellas, before us you were stuck flogging CDs nobody wanted to
>buy anymore, and we dug the ditches to get you out of that mess. But people
>don't like the DRM and we think we can sell a little more now that you guys
>aren't allergic to the term 'download.''
>
>But Apple is in many ways a victim of their own success. Having made the
>iPod the market dominant portable player, everyone else says (almost certainly
>incorrectly), 'Hey, let's make our own brilliant little player for [insert
>type of media that cartel wants to flog] and keep from paying Estebahn Jobs
>his vig.' And your ISP will want their ounce of flesh, and everyone who
thinks
>they're getting screwed in the deal will try to find some DMCA reason to
>sue everyone else, etc. and so forth.
>
>So I think the Jobs piece is good, though a bit disingenuous. And as I said,
>when I can load OGG/FLAC to my iPod from my linux boxes I'd love to have
>one.
>
>TCB"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>According to things I've read Apple pays an average of around
80 cents a song.
And for a record label who has invested half a mil or more into
a band, that equates to HOW many downloads to break even? So
you're saying that in this field, Apple should be able to turn a
profit selling iPods, and turn a profit selling downloads, but
the labels should get what? Squat? Or less than squat?
of COURSE Jobs would like to see no DRM - what does he have to
lose by that? Absolutely nothing; especially since he's not
investing any money in the front-end of making the music itself.
Neil"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>People might not like the content, but from a sonic standpoint it's about
>1000x more interesting that whatever geezer rock retread platter was just
>released.
Endless Wire is great, vital, and new music made by geezers,
not "geezer rock".
have you heard it?
How was your NOOGIE btw?
DC"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>According to things I've read Apple pays an average of around
>80 cents a song.
>
>And for a record label who has invested half a mil or more into
>a band, that equates to HOW many downloads to break even? So
>you're saying that in this field, Apple should be able to turn a
>profit selling iPods, and turn a profit selling downloads, but
>the labels should get what? Squat? Or less than squat?
Neil PLEASE!
Apple is just one of many resellers of the record industries products. News
flash Apple helped turn them around!!! The Record Companies were dyeing
on the vine. Apple came up with a business model that worked. There were
other companies that were around like mp3.com that didn't really work, it
wasn't until Apple got in to the game. Apple is NOT screwing the record
labels. Apple has help the labels sell their product!!!
Who do you think get screwed when an artist gets 8 to 13 cents a record that
sells for $10.00 to $20.00? Who do you think makes all the money? In a
typical record deal, that half a million dollars has to be payed back by
the band or artist before the artist sees any profit. If the artist is
not profitable the record company gets to write off the loss! It's a nice
little deal they got going with the government. If the artist doesn't make
it they go bankrupt, and are ofte
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP Michael Brecker [message #78477 is a reply to message #78316] |
Tue, 16 January 2007 09:57 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
nel pass through) isn't changing the summing -
it's
>just rounding the final mix EQ, compressing a bit with a little saturation,
>and perhaps adding some phase non-linearities.
>
>That said, if you like the sound and you get a great mix, that's what it's
>all about, regardless of the details of how you got there. :-)
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 2/11/07 12:53 AM, in article 45cebd82$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjd
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
