Re: [linux-audio-user] Music made with Linux

Gene Heskett wrote:

>On Sunday 15 January 2006 11:21, Folderol wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0600
>>
>>Jan Depner <eviltwin69@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark, et al,
>>>
>>> Many thanks for all the feedback (mostly positive). To
>>>paraphrase a familiar quote - with many ears all mixes are easy ;-)
>>>I forgot to mention that I used LADSPA effects (not counting the
>>>electric guitar which is through a V-AMP Pro) other than running the
>>>final master mix through a BBE sonic maximizer. I have taken most
>>>everyone's advice and lifted the vocals (dropped some processing
>>>too). Also, a tip of the hat to Dave Phillips for introducing me to
>>>the Versatile Plate Reverb.
>>>
>>> The new version is in the same place -
>>>
>>>http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/katrina.mp3
>>>
>>>
>>Very nice piece of work, especially with the vocals lifted a bit.
>>
>>Who need the RIAA :)
>>
>>
>
>Surely off topic by now, but what the hey...
>
>We don't. But that raises the question as to how we should compensate
>those who are doing work such as this? Thats what the RIAA was
>supposedly formed to do as part of their reason to exist. But once you
>get a suit involved its everyone for himself, suits first.
>
>Some, like Janice Ian, have taken the commercial route by selling her
>work on cd's, over the net at prices in the area of the big name stuff,
>and I've bought some knowing she will get quite a bit of it to spread
>to her assistants after the card processing fees.
>
>This is a good model for those well established although Janice is a bit
>borderline to the 'great unwashed masses'.
>
>What I'd like to see is a site where works like this could be posted in
>a quad of format choices. A very highly smunched version could be used
>as the free sampler, in both ogg and mp3 formats, while the high
>quality, ogg at Q7 or so, mp3 at or more than 128k, would cost the
>downloader a trip into his wallet for his credit card. The site owner
>could then take 50 cents of that dollar for processing the credit card,
>and the artist gets the other 50 cents. More than he/she would ever
>get from the RIAA today.
>
>Maybe thats unrealistic from the standpoint of the card people, who
>probably lose money processing a $1 purchase if they aren't fully
>computerized, but you get the idea.
>
>Personally I think it sucks the big one when the RIAA gives the artist
>less than 5 cents on the dollar and then has the unmitigated gaul to
>charge the artist for the production and advertising of the disk,
>sleeve and carrier as has become prevalent today. Where is their
>gamble? The artist is sure tossing the dice, with a heck of a lot
>lower chances than a roll of the dice offers.
>
>
>
All this is unnecessary!

Artists can publish themselves nowadays, putting their music on a web
page and provide a paypal button for donations. If you really care for
an artist and his/her music you can give him some money. That's all.

Sorry if I sound rude, but to me it's absurd to read this kind of
comments on a list about using open source software. Your assumption is
that artists shouldn't make their music available unless they get paid
while fine programmers should give away the result of years of work?

c.
www.cesaremarilungo.com
Received on Mon Jan 16 00:15:06 2006