St Pats in NYC photos
In case anyone's intersted you can check out some photos of a recent trip to NYC...
posted by James Harris at 10:24 AM
0 comments
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Blog refresh
I changed the look of the site today because I was getting sick of all the pokadots. Hope no one cares. Also, now we have a section for links on the side panel. If anyone has a site that they would like added to this panel either reply to this post with the URL or e-mail me jameskurtz3@mac.com.
posted by James Harris at 3:39 PM
0 comments
Friday, April 22, 2005
Losing your virginity sucks
Losing your virginity sucks. Your first time is (usually) the worst. It just doesn’t work out the way you planned. Then after you give it another chance, it gets better…. then better… then BETTER. I’m talking about sex here… No, actually I’m talking about music.
Why is it that, whenever I listen to a new album (sometimes), I always think “eh…. that was… okay.” But I can’t just write the album off after only one listening. I mean I’m not paying $10 to $15, sometimes $18 for a CD just so I can try it out. I probably wouldn’t pay that much to test drive most cars. So, then I say, “I’ve got nothing better to do… (it’s Friday, I aint got no job, and I aint got shit to do) alright… I’ll listen to it again.” Of course, the second listening is (usually) better than the first, so I start to dig on it. Most of the time, the third time I listen to an album is when I really get hooked (if it ends up actually being a good album… if not, it’s toast). Why is that??? What is this phenomenon??? Why do I have to listen to an album thrice before it reels me in???
Now, don’t get me wrong… there are some albums that I can say I have liked (loved) the very first time I listened to them, even sometimes after I’ve only heard the first song. Albums like Jet’s “Get Born” or both of the Strokes albums, Green Day’s last 2 (Am Idiot, Warning) or even like Donovan Frankenreiter and Jack Johnson just hit me the very first time I heard them and I knew I liked them. But then you have albums that I have honestly all but written-off after the first listen. Then, somehow, someway I hear it again and it grows on me.
The album that prompted this discussion (with myself) is G Love’s “The Hustle.” Now, I’ve been a G Love fan for a while now. I got his first album (G Love and Special Sauce) not too long after it originally came out. Anyway, after hearing this new album once, I really only found maybe 2 songs that I actually liked on it. Then, listened again…. then again… and now I love it. It has grown on me like I couldn’t believe. (Side note, not really on the side: pick this album up and listen to it at least twice, you’ll be glad) But I can’t even name off ALL the other albums that this has occurred on. Wilco’s YHF and Ghost, the new Beck album, Lyrics Born, Pete Yorn’s music for…, even some Radiohead albums, to name a few, have all left me feeling less-than-satisfied after the first time. If it weren’t for me wanting to try to like it (so as not to just waste it) and listening again, I might never have had the pleasure of really enjoying these albums.
I think… think… think… that what happens on a lot of these albums is that as you listen again and again and again, you start to appreciate the entirety of the music. You hear little complexities that you never would have heard the first time. And then you see how these little things relate to the bigger things, and the music… starts to… make more sense, and flow better, and… sound better. Now, some albums you listen to, you like at first, but then that’s it. They don’t get better with each go-around. It’s like a fine wine… gets better with age. I think albums that don’t, don’t have much depth to them, musically. An album that, essentially, changes every time you hear it, is truly something to behold.
Anyone have any other ideas on this phenomenon?? Comments?? Or… the answer?
Why is it that, whenever I listen to a new album (sometimes), I always think “eh…. that was… okay.” But I can’t just write the album off after only one listening. I mean I’m not paying $10 to $15, sometimes $18 for a CD just so I can try it out. I probably wouldn’t pay that much to test drive most cars. So, then I say, “I’ve got nothing better to do… (it’s Friday, I aint got no job, and I aint got shit to do) alright… I’ll listen to it again.” Of course, the second listening is (usually) better than the first, so I start to dig on it. Most of the time, the third time I listen to an album is when I really get hooked (if it ends up actually being a good album… if not, it’s toast). Why is that??? What is this phenomenon??? Why do I have to listen to an album thrice before it reels me in???
Now, don’t get me wrong… there are some albums that I can say I have liked (loved) the very first time I listened to them, even sometimes after I’ve only heard the first song. Albums like Jet’s “Get Born” or both of the Strokes albums, Green Day’s last 2 (Am Idiot, Warning) or even like Donovan Frankenreiter and Jack Johnson just hit me the very first time I heard them and I knew I liked them. But then you have albums that I have honestly all but written-off after the first listen. Then, somehow, someway I hear it again and it grows on me.
The album that prompted this discussion (with myself) is G Love’s “The Hustle.” Now, I’ve been a G Love fan for a while now. I got his first album (G Love and Special Sauce) not too long after it originally came out. Anyway, after hearing this new album once, I really only found maybe 2 songs that I actually liked on it. Then, listened again…. then again… and now I love it. It has grown on me like I couldn’t believe. (Side note, not really on the side: pick this album up and listen to it at least twice, you’ll be glad) But I can’t even name off ALL the other albums that this has occurred on. Wilco’s YHF and Ghost, the new Beck album, Lyrics Born, Pete Yorn’s music for…, even some Radiohead albums, to name a few, have all left me feeling less-than-satisfied after the first time. If it weren’t for me wanting to try to like it (so as not to just waste it) and listening again, I might never have had the pleasure of really enjoying these albums.
I think… think… think… that what happens on a lot of these albums is that as you listen again and again and again, you start to appreciate the entirety of the music. You hear little complexities that you never would have heard the first time. And then you see how these little things relate to the bigger things, and the music… starts to… make more sense, and flow better, and… sound better. Now, some albums you listen to, you like at first, but then that’s it. They don’t get better with each go-around. It’s like a fine wine… gets better with age. I think albums that don’t, don’t have much depth to them, musically. An album that, essentially, changes every time you hear it, is truly something to behold.
Anyone have any other ideas on this phenomenon?? Comments?? Or… the answer?
posted by B-Qbd at 1:26 PM
1 comments
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Music Industry and the Future (part 2)
Okay, well this was a topic started by B. Love awhile back to which I never properly replied...
The future is here, the future is now. iTMS has already sold over 300 million songs and will soon replace Wal-Mart as the largest music retailer in the world. The iPod is on track to be the best selling consumer electronic device in history. Sony announced last week of their plans to open an "iTunes for movies." Digital music is here to stay, digital movies will explode within the next two years so kiss your shiny 5" discs goodbye. I hardly ever purchase "physical" music anymore, it's to expensive and it's a hassle. There are a lot of people like me, but even more that aren't.
CDs are still by far the most popular choice for the masses; when the masses catch on, what services will they use and how much money can corporations make. The big players are setting precedents for when the Ma and Pa Idaho's of the world make the switch. Legal battles have been going on for 100's of years over technology and copyright. It's unlikely they'll stop anytime soon.
The RIAA and MPAA are fighting for tight restrictions on how digital content can be distributed and consumed. Activists for freedom of information are fighting back by deliberately breaking their encryption and distributing the hacks for free. Corporations retaliate with lawsuits and after the courtroom battles the precedents are set, and not always in favor of the corporations.
Jon Johansen (DVD Jon) is the most famous of these activists. As a 16 year old he broke the encryption that comes standard on DVDs (De-CSS). Most recently he has broken the encryption on iTMS files and created a version of the store where you can buy and download the songs without any kind of DRM (Digital Rights Management or as Johansen calls it Digital Restriction Management). He believes information wants to be free (not free as in monetary but free as in freedom). After 3 years in court he was cleared of all charges which set a huge precedent (in his country).
As information becomes more fluid, easier to copy and distribute, it seems evident that information wants to be free. Distributors of digital content will continue to research and develop new ways to restrict the flow of information while individuals will continue to break these restrictions once again freeing the work.
Just because there is a tradition of making money a certain way does not mean there is any law that protects that tradition. Record companies are reinventing themselves so artists will still want to go to them and consumers will still by there recordings. Now they are marketing companies, glorified public relation firms, really. There is no longer a need for their recording equipment or even their distribution, just the image of the musicians they spoon feed the public. Record Companies don't need copyrights to ensure they exist. They need innovation.
With the invention of the printing press writers often found themselves victims of theft. Their ideas were stolen and they were left penny-less. Publishers were abusing writers. Then came the laws known as copyrights. Copyrights were originally intended to protect the short term interest of the artists and ultimately after 10-25 years all information was to become public. Over the last 50 years lawmakers and lobbyists have twisted these laws and the public opinion of copyrights. They have made copyrights practically infinite and they now protect "content owners" not creators. Once again publishers are abusing artists, now the laws are on their side.
The class system within the world of artists is quite polarized. Very few artists receive attention, fame, glory and wealth. Most live in poverty and eventually give up for a day job. Freedom of information combined with lower costs of creating content could help to create a new social class of artists. The artist that creates in the basement, sells on the internet and makes an honest living. In effect the middle class artist replaces the starving artist. Keeping the systems of information distribution exclusive to corporations allows the companies to continue to abuse artists.
Abraham Lincoln was "for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar." Lawmakers are forgetting they need to be protecting the rights of the citizens, artists and consumers not the greed of lobbyists and corporations.
The future is here, the future is now. iTMS has already sold over 300 million songs and will soon replace Wal-Mart as the largest music retailer in the world. The iPod is on track to be the best selling consumer electronic device in history. Sony announced last week of their plans to open an "iTunes for movies." Digital music is here to stay, digital movies will explode within the next two years so kiss your shiny 5" discs goodbye. I hardly ever purchase "physical" music anymore, it's to expensive and it's a hassle. There are a lot of people like me, but even more that aren't.
CDs are still by far the most popular choice for the masses; when the masses catch on, what services will they use and how much money can corporations make. The big players are setting precedents for when the Ma and Pa Idaho's of the world make the switch. Legal battles have been going on for 100's of years over technology and copyright. It's unlikely they'll stop anytime soon.
The RIAA and MPAA are fighting for tight restrictions on how digital content can be distributed and consumed. Activists for freedom of information are fighting back by deliberately breaking their encryption and distributing the hacks for free. Corporations retaliate with lawsuits and after the courtroom battles the precedents are set, and not always in favor of the corporations.
Jon Johansen (DVD Jon) is the most famous of these activists. As a 16 year old he broke the encryption that comes standard on DVDs (De-CSS). Most recently he has broken the encryption on iTMS files and created a version of the store where you can buy and download the songs without any kind of DRM (Digital Rights Management or as Johansen calls it Digital Restriction Management). He believes information wants to be free (not free as in monetary but free as in freedom). After 3 years in court he was cleared of all charges which set a huge precedent (in his country).
As information becomes more fluid, easier to copy and distribute, it seems evident that information wants to be free. Distributors of digital content will continue to research and develop new ways to restrict the flow of information while individuals will continue to break these restrictions once again freeing the work.
Just because there is a tradition of making money a certain way does not mean there is any law that protects that tradition. Record companies are reinventing themselves so artists will still want to go to them and consumers will still by there recordings. Now they are marketing companies, glorified public relation firms, really. There is no longer a need for their recording equipment or even their distribution, just the image of the musicians they spoon feed the public. Record Companies don't need copyrights to ensure they exist. They need innovation.
With the invention of the printing press writers often found themselves victims of theft. Their ideas were stolen and they were left penny-less. Publishers were abusing writers. Then came the laws known as copyrights. Copyrights were originally intended to protect the short term interest of the artists and ultimately after 10-25 years all information was to become public. Over the last 50 years lawmakers and lobbyists have twisted these laws and the public opinion of copyrights. They have made copyrights practically infinite and they now protect "content owners" not creators. Once again publishers are abusing artists, now the laws are on their side.
The class system within the world of artists is quite polarized. Very few artists receive attention, fame, glory and wealth. Most live in poverty and eventually give up for a day job. Freedom of information combined with lower costs of creating content could help to create a new social class of artists. The artist that creates in the basement, sells on the internet and makes an honest living. In effect the middle class artist replaces the starving artist. Keeping the systems of information distribution exclusive to corporations allows the companies to continue to abuse artists.
Abraham Lincoln was "for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar." Lawmakers are forgetting they need to be protecting the rights of the citizens, artists and consumers not the greed of lobbyists and corporations.
posted by James Harris at 3:08 PM
0 comments