The Yamaha AN1x Synthesizer mailing list

Yep WE RULE :)))

If got one question, that doesn't concern the an1x . . . directly . . .

What are your experiences with MP3.Com. (any non us members that are on this site)

I maybe want to get some of my music out there, but i don't know someone that is on mp3.com that is not from the us. So any advice is welcome

thanks in advance,

M

jondl <jondl@...> wrote:

Hello and a big welcome to all you new list members! In the past month
our membership has more than doubled (we're over 80 strong now) and the
amount of correspondence has quadrupled. Hopefully the supply of new
Voices will parallel this happy trend ;-)

Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: M Kalsbeek [mailto:floating_point_productions@...]
Verzonden: zondag 30 april 2000 11:37
Aan: AN1x-list@egroups.com
Onderwerp: [AN1x-list] MP3dotcom ?

Yep WE RULE :)))

If got one question, that doesn't concern the an1x . . . directly . . .

What are your experiences with MP3.Com. (any non us members that are on this site)

I maybe want to get some of my music out there, but i don't know someone that is on mp3.com that is not from the us. So any advice is welcome

thanks in advance,

M

jondl <jondl@...> wrote:

Hello and a big welcome to all you new list members! In the past month
our membership has more than doubled (we're over 80 strong now) and the
amount of correspondence has quadrupled. Hopefully the supply of new
Voices will parallel this happy trend ;-)

Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. Community email addresses:
Post message: AN1x-list@onelist.com
Subscribe: AN1x-list-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: AN1x-list-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: AN1x-list-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/AN1x-list

From: "M Kalsbeek" <floating_point_productions@...>

> What are your experiences with MP3.Com. (any non us members that are on

this site)

>
> I maybe want to get some of my music out there, but i don't know someone

that is on mp3.com that is not from the us. So any advice is welcome

It depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to have exposure, this
might be a good way. If you want to make money out of it, forget it, it's
not going to happen.

I've read an article the other day - unfortunately, I no longer have the
URL - that described how MP3.com and the likes weren't that much different
from traditional music labels. The difference is that they don't pay you at
all, and that the artists don't seem to mind that and put on their tracks
just for exposure.

All in all, I doubt if I will ever put my music (as soon as I start
producing it :) ) online.

- Peter

I'd read that thread at Dancetech too - the wording of the disclosure at
MP3.com is a bit dodgy, i.e., subject to interpretation. I think you'll
probably be okay. A couple of my friends and acquaintances here in the
U.S. are beginning to promote themselves on MP3.com.

I know of one Euro musician that posts to MP3.com regularly - Master
Zap. He's the fellow who wrote Stomper and Little Drummer Boy.
http://www.Master-Zap.com/ OT: Stomper is pretty cool for building
whacked out drum sounds - it's built into the ASR-X Pro. No Mac version
though - only Win.

On the ASR-X List Zap once mentioned that he'd made a few dollars off
MP3.com but certainly nothing to write home about. If you're serious
about promoting yourself you really have to work at it and not just sit
back and let MP3.com do the 'work' for you. Spamming mailing lists with
the URL to your latest opus isn't necessarily the best way either -
unless you're a regular contributor / participant you're likely to get
ignored :-/

Peter's probably pretty close or 'on the money' - ha haha - regarding
payments. There are always good news / bad news stories regarding payments.

A couple of alternatives you may want to check out are:

http://www.liquidaudio.com
http://www.riffage.com
http://www.iuma.com

Regards,
Jon


--
http://www.jdlx-musique.com/

> What are your experiences with MP3.Com. (any non us members that

are on this site)

>

I am in the US and I am not on MP3.com..... So why am I answering
your post?


Well, based on my friend Kevin Mathews. Kevin has quite a popular
band in Singapore and is on MP3.com. They have a Singapore top 40
list and Kevin's stuff was in the Singapore top 10 (on MP3), so at
least there is some visibility. By clicking on the relevant links I
was able to order Kevin's music through a US distributor he is using.
So in theory I can follow Singapore music and buy at least some of it
here. No, he doesn't have an AN1x ;)

I think this global thing is coming together quickly.

Hope this helps,

Jerry

--- In AN1x-list@egroups.com, "Peter Korsten" <peterk@i...> wrote:

> All in all, I doubt if I will ever put my music (as soon as I start
> producing it :) ) online.

Why not? The advantage of MP3.com and similar sites is that you have
the choice if you want to let people download a full mp3-file or let
them just listen to your songs. That´s at least what MP3.com
offers.
Noone forces you to put all songs up. A lot of ppl, as far as i´ve
seen, put only a few songs up as appetizer, add a URL of their record-
company site and they tell the ppl to buy the CD from there, if they
want more. MP3.com and similar sites are always good to test the
reaction of your audience. Still i don´t understand, why the major
record companies don´t try to use this more often to attract more
ppl
in their artists. But that´s completely OT now....

tomfinegan@... shared with us:

> --- In AN1x-list@egroups.com, "Peter Korsten" <peterk@i...> wrote:
> > All in all, I doubt if I will ever put my music (as soon as I start
> > producing it :) ) online.
> Why not? The advantage of MP3.com and similar sites is that you have
> the choice if you want to let people download a full mp3-file or let
> them just listen to your songs. That´s at least what MP3.com
> offers.

The thing is, the prime objective of MP3.com is making money, and
it's doing so with my music. In this respect, it does not differ
from traditional record companies. The difference is that your
material is there to download for anyone.

MP3.com is in a lot of trouble right now, but that's another issue.

> Noone forces you to put all songs up. A lot of ppl, as far as i´ve
> seen, put only a few songs up as appetizer, add a URL of their record-
> company site and they tell the ppl to buy the CD from there, if they
> want more. MP3.com and similar sites are always good to test the
> reaction of your audience. Still i don´t understand, why the major
> record companies don´t try to use this more often to attract more
> ppl
> in their artists. But that´s completely OT now....

Off-topicness won't do harm, if it's kept within reasonable limits.

Perhaps I've been on the internet for too long, but I have a problem
with putting my produce on a web site beyond my control. And that's
what happens with these sites. They're not there to give me exposure,
but just to make money. Possible exposure is a mere side-effect.

I know a couple of people who put their music on MP3.com, and Sayer
is the only one who's had significant sales. Perhaps I'm a bit too
pessimistic, but then again I think my focus towards music is
different from many others here.

- Peter

tomfinegan@... wrote:

>

Still i don´t understand, why the major

> record companies don´t try to use this more often to attract more
> ppl

Because the major label's in association with the RIAA (boo, hiss) have to
kill every good idea that comes along under the guise of copyright infringement!

The RIAA is solely responsible (well, them and the US Congress) for the
advent of the SCMS protocol that crippled DAT from becoming a widely
used consumer format and priced the early DAT machines out of the reach
of ordinary musicians. MP3 scares the s*** out of them and there is
currently resumed litigation between the majors and MP3.com. They can't
stand the fact that someone else can get their fingers into the
distribution of music beyond their control. It completely breaks up the
status quo and dominance of the majors. Yeah!!!! Have you heard the
crap being played on american radio lately?!?! The majors no longer
have a clue.

In addition, they're feeble attempts to enact a watermark security layer
for encoded music distribution is a joke!!! Liquid Audio already does
it - and does it better than anything this collective has prescribed.
Roland and Emagic have already joined up with Liquid Audio creating
interfaces from their hardware and a software DAW's to the Liquid Audio
specification. I only hope other big names join in.

> in their artists. But that´s completely OT now....
>

Yeah, it's OT. You're right - but it is relevant to many of the
musicians on this list. Sorry to rant and rave but as a fellow who
remembers Frank Zappa insulting Tipper Gore ("Mothers of Prevention"
anyone?) and the US Congress on the evening news during the mid eighties
I just can't stand to see the crap they try and pull on us!


MP3 may not be perfect but look at your alternatives :-(

Jon

--
http://www.jdlx-musique.com/

From: "jondl" <jondl@...>

> tomfinegan@... wrote:
> >
> Still i don´t understand, why the major
> > record companies don´t try to use this more often to attract more
> > ppl
>
> Because the major label's in association with the RIAA (boo, hiss) have to
> kill every good idea that comes along under the guise of copyright

infringement!

>
> The RIAA is solely responsible (well, them and the US Congress) for the
> advent of the SCMS protocol that crippled DAT from becoming a widely
> used consumer format and priced the early DAT machines out of the reach
> of ordinary musicians. MP3 scares the s*** out of them and there is
> currently resumed litigation between the majors and MP3.com. They can't
> stand the fact that someone else can get their fingers into the
> distribution of music beyond their control. It completely breaks up the
> status quo and dominance of the majors. Yeah!!!! Have you heard the
> crap being played on american radio lately?!?! The majors no longer
> have a clue.

The case of the RIAA versus MP3.com is rather clear. MP3.com put 45,000
commercial, copyrighted CD's online. These are CD's from the traditional
record companies, not from MP3.com. Now you must have the original CD to
download the MP3's, but fact of the matter is that they infringed the
copyright. There's no doubt about that.

Did they have to do this? No.

Was this very stupid? Positively so.

Another reason why DAT failed is because it's expensive, cumbersome (it's
still a tape), it wears easily (rotating heads are always good for high
costs), different sampling rate (48 kHz instead of 44.1 Khz) and it wasn't
that much better than compact cassette.

Sound quality wise, yes, but regarding the fact that most people wouldn't
know if their speakers are in phase, they don't really care about the
superiour sound quality of DAT, they just want to listen to music.

DCC again was a tape, and it also failed. MiniDisc, although it had a slow
start, has become a success, and it also has the SCMS protocol. So my guess
is that SCMS wasn't the sole reason why DAT failed.

About MP3.com, they're just as commercial as record companies. They just
took a different posture, just like some bands (Metallica, Sex Pistols) sell
a lot of records with their anti-establishment posture.

> In addition, they're feeble attempts to enact a watermark security layer
> for encoded music distribution is a joke!!! Liquid Audio already does
> it - and does it better than anything this collective has prescribed.
> Roland and Emagic have already joined up with Liquid Audio creating
> interfaces from their hardware and a software DAW's to the Liquid Audio
> specification. I only hope other big names join in.

The trouble with encoded audio is that it has to be decoded somewhere along
the stream. And you can always pick it up at that point. Hey presto,
unencoded, high quality digital audio.

> MP3 may not be perfect but look at your alternatives :-(

I like CD's. :) I've found that, after downloading an MP3 file, I want to
have the record. And I mean the whole record, including cover art, booklet,
print on the CD... I suppose the record companies would stuff MP3 down our
throats if everyone was like me. :)

- Peter

Peter Korsten wrote:

>

>
> The case of the RIAA versus MP3.com is rather clear. MP3.com put 45,000
> commercial, copyrighted CD's online. These are CD's from the traditional
> record companies, not from MP3.com. Now you must have the original CD to
> download the MP3's, but fact of the matter is that they infringed the
> copyright. There's no doubt about that.
>
> Did they have to do this? No.
>
> Was this very stupid? Positively so.

Well, that's what being debated isn't it? For those of you who would
like to read more, here's the link:

http://www.mp3.com/my/news/yourmusic.html

*I* believe this goes back to my original point regarding the monopoly
of distribution by the majors. The majors are resisting with all their
might coming into the digital age and it surely has nothing to do with
'artists rights', IMO.

>
> Another reason why DAT failed is because it's expensive, cumbersome (it's
> still a tape), it wears easily (rotating heads are always good for high
> costs), different sampling rate (48 kHz instead of 44.1 Khz) and it wasn't
> that much better than compact cassette.
>

What? The sounds quality of DAT is vastly superior to cassette and, uh,
have you noticed that 24 / 96 is being widely implemented at the moment?
32-bit will be in many Cubase users hands this summer with Cubase v5.
Granted, there are limits to the amount of resolution our analog ears
can detect ;-) and I find the idea of recording from 16-bit DAC to
18-bit ADC's at 48 Khz of dubious merit at best but...Furthermore, most
of the then cutting edge DAT recorders offered selectable sampling rates
and corresponding record times, i.e., 32, 44.1, and 48 Khz. Alesis made
a FORTUNE off of ADAT technology which was the next generation of
spinning head technology (still in use BTW in every household VCR!) as
did Tascam.

> DCC again was a tape, and it also failed. MiniDisc, although it had a slow
> start, has become a success,

Not here in the U.S. It's still floating near the surface but not close
to a success, IMO. DCC was a flop. Period. Waste of everybodys time.

and it also has the SCMS protocol. So my guess

> is that SCMS wasn't the sole reason why DAT failed.

We'll agree to disagree. SCMS kept the price between professional and
consumer MSRPs so out of whack it's amazing DAT became so widely used in
professional circle.

>
> About MP3.com, they're just as commercial as record companies. They just
> took a different posture, just like some bands (Metallica, Sex Pistols) sell
> a lot of records with their anti-establishment posture.

Yeah, and Metallica is suing Napster. ;-) haha ha LOL Along with Dr.
Dre too. Like he hasn't EVER used a sample without clearance ;-)

>
> > In addition, they're feeble attempts to enact a watermark security layer
> > for encoded music distribution is a joke!!! Liquid Audio already does
> > it - and does it better than anything this collective has prescribed.
> > Roland and Emagic have already joined up with Liquid Audio creating
> > interfaces from their hardware and a software DAW's to the Liquid Audio
> > specification. I only hope other big names join in.
>
> The trouble with encoded audio is that it has to be decoded somewhere along
> the stream. And you can always pick it up at that point. Hey presto,
> unencoded, high quality digital audio.
>
> > MP3 may not be perfect but look at your alternatives :-(
>
> I like CD's. :) I've found that, after downloading an MP3 file, I want to
> have the record. And I mean the whole record, including cover art, booklet,
> print on the CD... I suppose the record companies would stuff MP3 down our
> throats if everyone was like me. :)

Well, most the artists I know - myself included - agree with you. I
LIKE having the artwork too. Very much so but that again opens the door
to new modes of distribution. Notice the lack of graphics on my site?
That's because I stink at it!!! whereas some of my acquaintances are
fantastic with these new tools! There is NOTHING stopping an
independent artist from pressing his own CD's with quality artwork and
distributing them via online, SSL encrypted distribution & ordering
tools. There are a variety of virtual store fronts services available
at tiered prices points for the amount of product being supported.
MP3.com is only one or many avenues available today. The majors are NOT
the only recourse for musicians today. Unless you WANT to be the next
Ricky Martin or Brittany Spears.


Jon

--
http://www.jdlx-musique.com/

Featuring support for the Ensoniq ASR-X Pro Sampler and Yamaha AN1x Synthesizer

From: "jondl" <jondl@...>

> Peter Korsten wrote:
>
> > The case of the RIAA versus MP3.com is rather clear. MP3.com put 45,000
> > commercial, copyrighted CD's online. These are CD's from the traditional
> > record companies, not from MP3.com. Now you must have the original CD to
> > download the MP3's, but fact of the matter is that they infringed the
> > copyright. There's no doubt about that.
> >
> > Did they have to do this? No.
> >
> > Was this very stupid? Positively so.
>
> Well, that's what being debated isn't it? For those of you who would
> like to read more, here's the link:
>
> http://www.mp3.com/my/news/yourmusic.html

I'd prefer a less biased view. Try this one:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/28/1411231&cid=94

> *I* believe this goes back to my original point regarding the monopoly
> of distribution by the majors. The majors are resisting with all their
> might coming into the digital age and it surely has nothing to do with
> 'artists rights', IMO.

It has to do with easy duplication, and digital media means easier, cheaper
and better duplication than ever was possible on analogue media. That is a
concern alright. Or do you only have legitimate music and software? All of
it?

> > Another reason why DAT failed is because it's expensive, cumbersome

(it's

> > still a tape), it wears easily (rotating heads are always good for high
> > costs), different sampling rate (48 kHz instead of 44.1 Khz) and it

wasn't

> > that much better than compact cassette.
> >
>
> What? The sounds quality of DAT is vastly superior to cassette and, uh,
> have you noticed that 24 / 96 is being widely implemented at the moment?
> 32-bit will be in many Cubase users hands this summer with Cubase v5.
> Granted, there are limits to the amount of resolution our analog ears
> can detect ;-) and I find the idea of recording from 16-bit DAC to
> 18-bit ADC's at 48 Khz of dubious merit at best but...Furthermore, most
> of the then cutting edge DAT recorders offered selectable sampling rates
> and corresponding record times, i.e., 32, 44.1, and 48 Khz. Alesis made
> a FORTUNE off of ADAT technology which was the next generation of
> spinning head technology (still in use BTW in every household VCR!) as
> did Tascam.

Next time you quote me, quote the next paragraph as well, in which I said
that sound quality is indeed better, but that no consumer really cares. What
you're describing is all pro stuff. Pros don't make a consumer product a
success.

Which leaves the point that DAT botched as a consumer product because of the
reasons I mentioned.

> > DCC again was a tape, and it also failed. MiniDisc, although it had a

slow

> > start, has become a success,
>
> Not here in the U.S. It's still floating near the surface but not close
> to a success, IMO. DCC was a flop. Period. Waste of everybodys time.

It's getting there. Check the figures. I recently bought one, and I'm
wondering why I didn't do so earlier. It's a brilliant product, overall
better and cheaper than all those portable MP3 players.

> and it also has the SCMS protocol. So my guess
> > is that SCMS wasn't the sole reason why DAT failed.
>
> We'll agree to disagree. SCMS kept the price between professional and
> consumer MSRPs so out of whack it's amazing DAT became so widely used in
> professional circle.

I don't get this one, really. SCMS could be a reason not to buy a DAT, but
only if you wanted to make a copy from a commercial CD to a DAT, and from
that DAT to another DAT.

This is off-topic, and bordering on the edge of boredom for the average
reader, but I wanted to set this straight.

- Peter

Peter Korsten wrote:

>
> From: "jondl" <jondl@...>
>
>
> I'd prefer a less biased view. Try this one:
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/28/1411231&cid=94
>
> Or do you only have legitimate music and software? All of
> it?
>

Uh, Yes and yes. I *actually* pay for my shareware and music purchases.

>
> Next time you quote me, quote the next paragraph as well, in which I said
> that sound quality is indeed better, but that no consumer really cares. What
> you're describing is all pro stuff. Pros don't make a consumer product a
> success.
>

Good point - poor editing on my part.

> This is off-topic, and bordering on the edge of boredom for the average
> reader, but I wanted to set this straight.
>

Okay, we'll put it to bed. Here's my last link on the subject.

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2557555,00.html

Jon

--
http://www.jdlx-musique.com/

Featuring support for the Ensoniq ASR-X Pro Sampler and Yamaha AN1x Synthesizer

--- In AN1x-list@egroups.com, jondl <jondl@j...> wrote:

> Because the major label's in association with the RIAA (boo, hiss)
> have to
> kill every good idea that comes along under the guise of copyright
> infringement!

It´s like with everything on our small tiny blue Planet....it´s all
about power (and protecting the posession of it), money and a few
ppl, who takes themselves too important.

Now i understand, why the entertainment industry is pushing streaming
technologies so hard...Music, Movies, Books and TV on demand...the
biggest business on the world....
Well i hope the consumer is not so stupid, as the industry believes...

> Yeah, it's OT. You're right - but it is relevant to many of the
> musicians on this list.

Yes it is.

> I just can't stand to see the crap they try and pull on us!

Well, "they" brought us also these hyper-dangerous nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons...

>
>
> MP3 may not be perfect but look at your alternatives :-(

Well, i don´t have a problem with MP3. With 160kb/s it´s quite
adequate to a normal CD.

Tom

http://beam.to/Plasmaleitung

--- In AN1x-list@egroups.com, "Peter Korsten" <peterk@i...> wrote:

> > MP3 may not be perfect but look at your alternatives :-(
>
> I like CD's. :) I've found that, after downloading an MP3 file, I

want to

> have the record.

Good point. I usually find myself as well rather buying a CD and
stuffing into my Kenwood, instead of downloading stuff and only be
able to hear it when the PC is turned on. Plus nothing can beat the
feeling, when you have the music literally in your hand.
Another reason is that to download music you need the right
bandwitdth, which is still extremely expensive in Germany or in whole
Europe???

--- In AN1x-list@egroups.com, "Peter Korsten" <peterk@i...> wrote:

> This is off-topic, and bordering on the edge of boredom for the

average

> reader, but I wanted to set this straight.

Well, not at all. Actually i found this discussion, quite refreshing
and interesting indeed.

Tom

http://beam.to/Plasmaleitung