logo Sign In

xhonzi

User Group
Members
Join date
30-Oct-2005
Last activity
13-Oct-2020
Posts
6,428

Post History

Post
#472766
Topic
Paid Music vs Free Music
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/472766/action/topic#472766
Time

I said in the other thread:

Youtube hasn't killed the Box Office.  It may eat in to it, but the desire to see "anything" will never replace the desire to see "something that's actually worth seeing."  If "professional" Movie Makers stop producing "things that are actually worth seeing", then youtube will win.  But it will be because the pro's let them.

Not to offend anyone here, but there's a difference music I'd pay for and music I wouldn't... and no amount of music I wouldn't or don't have to pay for will replace music that I would and do pay for.

Does that make sense?

 

Then I also said:

While I agree with the perceived value bit, the comment I was trying to make was more along the lines of this: quality.  There's free crap, there's free quality stuff, there's expensive crap and there's expensive quality stuff.

Of those 4 categories, I think "free quality stuff" is the rarest kind.  So, if you're looking for quality, it tends to be stuff you have to pay for.  Because the people that are really good at creating that quality stuff are probably really good at it to the exclusion of other marketable skills. 

And a man's gotta eat.

So, it's not impossible to find objectively good things for free, it's just statistically unlikely.

I wanted to follow up on my comments.

There's a lot of music out there.  So much, that I couldn't spend 16 hours a day listening to everything once and do a very good job of keeping up with it.  So I can either randomly choose (or let be chosen) music to listen to or I can go at it with some kind of strategy. 

Like most people, my strategy is "I will listen to the music that I like and not listen to the music that I don't like."  I exectute this strategy by listening to music that I already know I like and music that I think I will like, based on the culmination of other factors.  I also execute this strategy by not listening to country stations or anyone that plays John Tesh.

So! Listening to music I already know I like is simple, but how do I identify music that I will probably like?  Recommendations from friends/family/clever software algorithms that know my tastes and make suggestions is one good way.  Listening to Radio Stations that play a mix of things I like with things I don't yet know about is also another good way.  Buying (or receiving for free, if you like) CDs (little plastic things with bits on them) by groups I like, that might contain a few songs I already know I like beside several others I don't yet know about is good.  Otherwise, I watch TV and see films and sometimes just walk around public places or whatnot and encounter new songs that way as well.

None of these methods are guaranteed to bring me more music that I actually like.  But, it's statistically more likely to work than randomly listening to ANY music.  I NEED SOME KIND OF FILTER.  I never said (and I won't say now) that free music, by uncompensated musicians, can't be good and won't be a song that I will like, but I can say that it's proven to not be worth my time to go through uncommerical music because there are no decent filters out there that I can trust.  Say what you will, but commercial music is "targeted" and therefore it's more worth MY time to look for new music there.

Of course I would check out a free song recommended to me by someone whose opinion I trust.  Of course I would accept a free CD from a band that I enjoyed.  (Not a good comparison- I'm so cheap I would accept most any CD handed to me for free, I just might not go through the trouble of actually listening to it).

I listened to your Youtube song, eiyosus.  Not my kind of thing, but it sounded clean.  As I'm sure you know well, there's no accounting for taste.  But you're right, your production values were high enough, if I enjoyed that kind of music.  I didn't mind listening to it- I just wouldn't go out of my way to hear it again or chose it over the music I do enjoy.

And a slight change of tact here at the end- I recently read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers.  I recommend it to anyone.  Part of the main point of the book is: the people that are really good at things are really good at them almost invariably because they have spent a lot a lot a lot of time working on their skills.  I would extend this theory to this conversation by restating what I said before.  Someone who is paid to make music can focus their time and talents on making music.  Someone who does it for free must either be independently wealthy, impervious to hunger, or be conscripted to devote a majority of their time to working for "the man" and therefore have much less of their time, energy, and talent to dedicate to their music- for which their music MORE THAN LIKELY suffers.

 

Post
#472743
Topic
The Social Network is a modern day Citizen Kane
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/472743/action/topic#472743
Time

We just saw The Social Network and I have to say I enjoyed it.  I assumed that the movie was more or less accurate (as accurate as movied based on true stories ever are) until I started looking at some controversy about it after seeing it.

I believe the "contract" that the movie establishes with its audience includes a clause that more or less says "These are real(-ish) people.  These are real(-ish) events.  This story is real(-ish)."  And, for me personally, my enjoyment of the movie was propped up on assuming that the movie held up its end of this contract.

Sorkin, the screenwriter, seemed to be of two minds on whether the film was accurate.  Early on he said the film was so accurate as to show Zuckerberg drinking the correct beer in certain scenes.  The wardrobe was proudly proclaimed to be extremely accurate.  But then later, Sorkin has publicly volunteered that he knows very little of Zuckerberg and that he wrote his movie to be entertaining, and didn't care too much for accuracy.  Huh?  He and Fincher have been very careful to refer to Zuckerberg in the movie as a "character which has little in common with the real life Zuckerberg".  Sorkin refered to his script and the movie as a (and I'm paraphrasing since 10 minutes didn't turn up the actual quote) "parable hung on the story of Zuckerberg [without it actually being the story of Zuckerberg]"

Anyways...

http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/10/truth-and-the-art-of-the-social-network/64701/

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/09/21/the-social-network-screenwriter-sorkin-and-actors-discuss-film/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oK1yiXfc36UJ:www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-us-oscar-nominations-true-life-tales,0,5348881.story+social+network+screenwriter+accuracy&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Post
#472663
Topic
How do you hear your fellow board members in your head?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/472663/action/topic#472663
Time

doubleofive said:

TV's Frink said:


Alright, this time I'm serious.  I really recorded something (first time too!) and uploaded it to youtube.

Enjoy!
Exactly what we wanted and what we deserved. Perfect TV's!

Wow, I never actually clicked on it because I figured that it was, you know, a joke.

Not the voice I had in mind.  But now I can't think of what it was before.