From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V4 #280 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Monday, October 18 1999 Volume 04 : Number 280 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Alloy: Beatnik - Utter Frustration for the Techno-ninny ["Stephen M. Tils] Re: Alloy: Beatnik - Utter Frustration for the Techno-ninny [Robyn Moore ] Alloy: Beatnik - Utter Frustration for the Techno-ninny ["Stephen M. Tils] Alloy: MB5 convention [RThurF@aol.com] Alloy: Sunday Morning Mix [Brian Clayton ] Alloy: Sunday Morning Mix ["Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Beatnik - Utter Frustration for the Techno-ninny Melissa, Try downloading a newer version of Netscape from Netscape.com to start. Currently we're at v. 4.7, but I think anything 4.5 and above should do. (You can get older versions, as well as the current one.) Then you'll need Beatnik 2.0.0 or later. Beatnik Pro, the registered version of Beatnik ($20), is currently at v. 2.0.1. Support Thomas! It is helpful to use the Add/Remove Programs program in Control Panel to remove any previous versions of Netscape or Beatnik you might have. BUT BEFORE YOU DO THIS move those files that hold your preferences and bookmarks, usually in the folder Program Files\Netscape\Users\MJordan (or whatever you use). If you like, make a copy of and move the folder "Users" and all it contains to a temporary holding place just to be sure. Alternatively, just install the new version right over the old. This results in multiple entries for "Netscape" in the Add/Remove Programs applet, however. Remove Beatnik, remove netscape. (You have already downloaded, but not installed, the new versions, right?) Restart your computer. Install Netscape exactly where it was before (maybe your bookmarks and preferences will still be right. If not you have a backup.) Restart your computer. Install Beatnik. Restart your computer, just to be thorough. That should get Beatnik up and running again. I don't know if that will help you run the Science1999 remix though. It hasn't worked for me yet - Brian's the only one I know of... and I hate him! I've written to the support staff at Beatnik but don't expect to hear from them until Monday at the earliest. Will advise if solution is of general interest. Luck! /\/\iles ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:26:10 -0700 From: Robyn Moore Subject: Re: Alloy: Beatnik - Utter Frustration for the Techno-ninny At 10:54 PM 10/16/99 , you wrote: >That should get Beatnik up and running again. I don't know if that >will help you run the Science1999 remix though. It hasn't worked for >me yet - Brian's the only one I know of... and I hate him! I've >written to the support staff at Beatnik but don't expect to hear from >them until Monday at the earliest. Will advise if solution is of >general interest. You can hate me too. ;) Just went over to see if it'd work, and I didn't have a lick of trouble with it. I hope you get it working soon - it's fabulous. Robyn M @ Robyn Moore @ http://www.alveus.com/kbrm/robyn.html @ You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. - S.C. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 08:10:38 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Beatnik - Utter Frustration for the Techno-ninny Melissa, A quick follow up to save you time . . . Your current version of Netscape should be sufficient. Still, un and re install it as previously suggested. Get the new version of Beatnik. Uninstall any previous versions before installing this one. When uninstalling programs (always use the Add/Remove Programs applet if possible) make a note of that which could not be removed/modified (write down the "details") and do it manually if appropriate. (Some "details" may refer to things that do not exist anymore.) Before re-installations, power down and restart your computer. You DO NOT need to move the "Users" folder as previously suggested for Netscape as long as you re-install the program exactly where it was before. (Good news!) After re-installing Netscape reboot the computer. Start your dialup (from "Dial Up Networking" under "My Computer"), but not Netscape. Install Beatnik. When installation is complete Beatnik will start your browser and take you to the Beatnik walkthrough. If you hear music you've been successful! More later, /\/\iles PS Finally got Science1999 running . . . What a gas! But Mongo tired now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 12:44:36 EDT From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Alloy: MB5 convention I tried to go to the MB5 convention's live broadcast both last night and this morning, but got 'timed out' last night (I figured tons of people must be visiting it) and this morning it just sits there.. oh well. Still no word on whether my friend Kristen actually went or not (I imagine she'd have preferred to go to the beach!) Robin T ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:16:50 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: Brian Clayton Subject: Alloy: Sunday Morning Mix Sorry to hear of folk's frustration at getting Science 1999 running. I know the feeling, as my office computer simply wouldn't load it. Hopefully, Stephen's recommendations will prove successful for Melissa and others with similar problems. Well, my late-night attempts at remixing were less than fruitful, largely because my hand-eye coordination goes to heck at that hour. That's the thing about these Beatnik remixes: once you hit "record" you need to keep on your toes to make those channel changes--no reediting or sliding the tracks forward or backward allowed here. Definitely more for amusement than real production, these little Beatnik demonstrations nonetheless whet the appetite for more experimentation with this amazing little plug-in. Now if only there were a Beatnik Editor for Windows... So this morning, fresh and reasonably alert, I tried again. I took a less frenetic approach and kept the number of track changes down a bit (not one every bar, as I was first tempted to do), so overall it's more of a "minimalist" mix. Still, it's quite serviceable, I think. I'll let you be the judge. http://www.beatnik.com/cgi-bin/mix_retriever.cgi?mix_id=u78m2d19991017100655 I don't know now that I'll cook up that "perfect" mix, but the search is its own reward, yes? BC - --- Brian Clayton "I hope I can continue to confuse and exasperate stemish@lns.com you for a couple more decades." -- TMDR ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:40:20 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Sunday Morning Mix Lord Stemish (the show-off): > So this morning, fresh and reasonably alert, I tried again. I > took a less frenetic approach and kept the number of track > changes down a bit (not one every bar, as I was first tempted to > do), so overall it's more of a "minimalist" mix. Still, it's > quite serviceable, I think. I'll let you be the judge. I like, I like! Good job, Bri! It takes concentration to get through the whole thing, eh? Now that I'm up and running I'll see if I can produce a worthy mix for what may become the Alloy Science1999 library. Maybe we can't win a scholarship, but we can have our own bit of fun . . . Geez, who knows this material better than us, anyway?!? Remix is calling you, M'lissa. (from the mouth of the megaphone) Remix is calling you, Russ. Remix is calling you, Crackers. (and other cartoon characters) Remix is calling you, /\/\iles - who absolutely *must* turn off the computer - big test Tuesday wherein I must satisfactorily demonstrate my ability to fly a complex high-performance airplane. WooHoo!!! Fun fun fun. Oh yeah. But first I have to clean the house. ;-( ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 19:19:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Cracknell Subject: Alloy: Freeing The World One Song At A Time I've been thinking, as all geekboys do at one time or another, of putting together a Linux box for myself. I keep meaning to dust off my old 486 and make it a Linux box but I just haven't had the time. I like the whole idea behind "Open Source" software and it's neat that last year Red Hat made about 48 million by selling "free" software. Think about that. They're selling open source software. Anyone can download and burn their own Red Hat CD, they can even give or sell CDs away. They can take the program and custom tailor the source code to suit their own needs. You would think with all that in opposition it would be damn near impossible to make a decent buck off open source software, but Red Hat managed to pull in about 48 million in profit. Not bad for a wee company. I've worked for bigger ones that have done worse. I've been thinking a lot about copyright laws lately, especially now that here in Canada laws have been pushed through legislation by the big record companies working under the guise of "copyright protection" which are, infact, designed only to squash the uprise of independent artists releasing their own albums. It seems that copyright laws, which were originally created to serve and protect the needs of both the artists and the general public, are now more tools for corporate oppression than anything else. When copyright laws were first created life was much different for the typical artist than it is today. Publishing and distributing a work was very expensive and labour intensive. Copyright laws were passed to encourage the creation of works by granting to the work's creator a limited monopoly of 28 years on all works created. This law was a good thing for both artists and the average citizen. The artist had a financual incentive to create and publish works (although the truth of the matter was the typical artist would sell the copyrights of their works to the publishers for a mere pitance and the publishers would rake in the dough from the works). The general public would gain free access to the works in 28 years when it became public property. It was a win-win situation. But something dark and unfortunate happened. Created works ceased to be art and became instead corporate owned assets. Pressures were put on lawmakers by companies who feared the thought of their assets belonging to the public someday, to extend the duration of these so called "limited" monopolies. Gradually the term of copyright protection grew and grew until it reached the absurd period of protection offered today under most copyright laws. Suddenly the rights of the public to access works took the back seat to the rights of the corporations that owned the rights to the works. Even the artists themselves could be screwed over if they allowed ownership of their works to fall into corporate hands because they will never again, in their lifetime, have free access to their own works. Pretty sad, pretty bleak and in a very real way it reduces "art" to "product". But what can be done about it? There is certainly no way to fight a big government/big business tag-team, especially not if your just a bunch of artists as anyone who has ever tried to wrangle a bunch of artists together to work towards a common goal will likely tell you it can be easier to herd cats. What does copyright law even mean to the average musician now adays anyways? The creative world of the late 20th century is vastly different from the creative world of the early 20th century. There has never been a time in human history where it has been easier and cheaper to produce, publish, and distribute a work than it is right now. Drops in the prices of recording equipment coupled with advances in technology have given musicians the power to produce professional sounding tapes and CDs from their very own basements and garages. Access to the World Wide Web is giving them avenues of distribution that were not available to the average musician only a decade or so ago. Cost is no longer the stumbling block it once was in the path of creation. Money is no longer the barrier to producing a work of art, publishing a work of art, and distributing a work of art. Is money still needed then as an incentive to create art when artists have the power and the means to create, publish, and distribute their works for themselves? Would any of us lay down our instruments, our pens, and our brushes if we knew that we would never see another cent from our creations? Why would we stop creating when we have never in history had such power to express ourselves? How much money does the average musician see from the creation of their art? The city in which I live, Hamilton Ontario, has the highest number of musicians per capita of anywhere in Canada. Most people in this city can probably give you the names of at least 3 friends or relatives they know who are working musicians. Most of them don't earn enough to be able to give up their day-jobs but they still recieve a sizable portion of their income from their art. But how do they earn that income? I'm sitting here pondering my last SOCAN cheque (SOCAN is the Canadian copyright institution similar to ASCAP or BMI in the US) and thinking about how much of my income as a musician comes from royalties and how much of my income as a musician comes from other sources. The truth is I make far, far more money working as a session musician, playing on other people's albums on a per/hour or per/project basis, than I have ever made from royalties. Infact, I make far more money playing gigs in smokey little bars than I have ever made from royalties. Would I really miss my royalty cheques if they stopped comming? No, not really. I think too of my friends who are also working musicians, some make more money than me from their art, many make less. How much would their lives be changed if the SOCAN cheques stopped? For every Micheal Jackson out there who becomes a mega-hit superstar and rakes in money at an obscene rate, there are likely 100 thousand working musicians who will never recieve a substantial royalty cheque for their work and will likely never be able to quit their day-jobs. The money they do make from their art will come from being session musicians, from playing gigs, and from their own direct sales of their independently released albums. Their SOCAN cheques will never be their bread winners. Why then do we cling to copyright laws so desperately as a financual incentive when the vast majority of artists will never see enough money in the form of royalties to shed their day-jobs? It is because the lure of becoming that mega-hit superstar is so very seductive. Just like the lottery, the numbers are stacked against us, but we buy the ticket and we dream the dream and for every winner that makes it to stardom we say "that could be me". The seductiveness of a dream is a powerful thing and hard to fight. The illusion that you're only one hit away from superstardom is so very intoxicating. But the reality is your not going to "make it". If you make a living from your art it will be doing session work, playing gigs, or composing music for bigger projects. You won't become a superstar and you'll never know the joy of trading in a royalty cheque of an 80 foot yacht. But if we give up the illusion of this dream, what is there that we might embrace? It is my hope that the software concepts of "open source" can be moulded to apply to works of art to create "open art". This is why I've decided to publish this letter on the Alloy E-mail list. Alloy is an interesting collection of artists and free thinkers, many on this list are working musicians such as myself. It would be my hope that together we could pound out a guideline for "open art" that might create a mini-revolution in the arts industry, particularily the music industry which is where my intrests lie, that would benefit artists who choose to release their works as "open art". Here is what I envision the guidelines for a work of "open art" to be. I hope that together we can solidify these guidelines into an "open art" movement and at least in some small way challenge the industry of art in the same way "open source" has challenged the industry of computer software. What is a work of "open art"? A work of "open art" is a created work that has been released by the artist to the public in general with few or no limitations on its use. Because the field of music is the field of art in which I have the most experience I will give all my examples of "open art" as they would apply to that field. Others whose talents lie in other artistic directions can modify and express the concept of "open art" as it would apply to their disciplines. Any work released as a work of "open art" would be free for the public to use, broadcast, copy, reproduce, modify, and distribute but credit for the original work must always be given to the original work's creator and any work or body of works which incorporates an "open art" work itself becomes a work of "open art". What would this mean in terms of "open art" and works of music. If I were to release a song as "open art" that would mean any radio station would be free to broadcast that song without having to pay me royalties to do so but credit for the song must be given to me. It would mean that any musician may perform, record, and distribute "covers" of that song without paying to me a royalty but must credit me for the song. It would also mean that any works that they create and distribute with my work of "open art" also become works of "open art". So if they cover my song on an album, every song that they have created that is also on that album and the album itself become works of "open art". It would mean that any musician may modify my song and distribute the modified version. The modified version of the song would become "open art". They would get credit for the performing the modifications and I would get credit for composing the original work. It would mean that any film maker, video maker, video game maker, multi-media maker etc. would be free to use my song in the production of one of their works without paying me a royalty. However, credit for the song must be given to me and by employing my "open art" song in their production, their production itself becomes a work of "open art". It would mean that people may copy and distribute my song without having to pay me royalties to do so. Wether employment of a work of "open art" is done for money or not is irrelivant. "Open art" derived works may be distributed freely or may be sold. No royalty is needed to be paid to the works creator but credit must be given. This, however doesn't mean that you cannot pay the creator of an "open art" work for the use of their art. If you employ a work of "open art" in your production and in turn use that production to generate a sizable profit, you may choose to grant an honorarium or percentage of the profits to the creator of that "open art" work as you see fit but such financual recompense is not required to employ a work of "open art". What it does not mean is that every work created by an artist is "open art" or that every work an artist creates will be "open art". Only works specifically released by the artist as "open art" will fall under these guidelines. It is my hope that with the help of my fellow artists a precise guideline and definition of "open art" can be crafted at which point in time I would like to take all works which I have created to this date and likely most works I will create in the future and release them as "open art". People of Alloy, please share with me any ideas, insights, and suggestions you might have that will help to make an "open art" movement a reality. If you know of any arts organizations that have similar goals in mind please share them with me too. I can't see "open art" toppeling the music industry giants anymore than I can see Linux toppeling Microsoft. But I do see a vision of an "open art" movement allowing more artists to reach more people with their works and to promote the creative free exchange of ideas and expression of ideas between artists. CRACKERS (Open artist hopeful from hell!!!!!!!!) -- Collector of Atari 2600 carts - Accordionist - Bira Bira Devotee - Anime fan * http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html | Crackers' Arts Base * * http://www.angelfire.com/ma/hozervideo/index.html | Hozer Video Games * Nihongo ga dekimasu - 2600 programmer - Father of 2 great kids - Canadian eh ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V4 #280 ***************************