You just need the free FLV player (do google) to view the downloaded vids fadel - 7-7-2007 at 12:05 PM
hi
Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank
slamatLintfree - 7-8-2007 at 02:18 AM
There are several schools of thought concerning downloading music. There are some musicians that used to sell C.D.s as part of making a living. Now
their music can be downloaded for free; entire C.D.s, live concerts, lessons, musical compositions not yet published and they have to go work at
MacDonald's nights. Going to a record company to sign a deal is a thing of the past for anyone but the biggest selling acts. Those recordings of Udi
Hrant giving lessons are out on C.D. I wonder if any of his sons or daughters or grandchildren made anything from the sale of those recordings? For
someone who could be selling hundreds of C.D.s and now sells a few dozen it can mean paying the rent or not paying the rent.arsene - 7-9-2007 at 02:20 AM
Hey Lintfree
yes, there are several schools of thought concerning this "internet music revolution"... here's mine:
- Most videos on Youtube are made with webcams/handycams and mobile phones, and are clearly not commercially released.
- The downloading of Youtube videos only makes sense if you're not connected to the internet 24/7 (or if you have another computer that's internet
free), otherwise there's no difference: you can watch those video's anytime you want so it's the same as having them. (blame youtube).
- You need a special player to view the files, and there is no way that I know of to burn those files to DVD (and I don't want to, because: )
- the audio and video quality is SO poor I'd STILL buy the CD/DVD if available. Same with mp3: mp3 means audible loss of quality. I'd rather have a
CD... I'm downloading those youtube vids just to be able to learn to play oud
- Last but not least, it's thanks to internet (and in part to music sharing communities) that people are buying those Udi Hrant cd's - lots of people
wouldn't even know he existed, were it not for the internet. So, unless you know something I don't (which is very well possible) the coming of
internet and downloading only changed the way people sell and promote their music, but didn't change the label's or artist's income as much as the
record labels would have us believe.
Thanks to the internet and downloading I discorvered lots of new artists (by first downloading mp3 or through youtube) - if I liked their music I went
out and got their cd/dvd (if it was available). If I didn;t like it, well, I just deleted the mp3s
That's just my 2 cts.
- Andirebetostar - 7-22-2007 at 10:43 AM
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, too. I think YouTube and it's ilk are clearly the way forward.. it's so democratizing! Just about anyone
can create content which could become popular world-wide. The only crucial thing missing is a method of compensating the content creators... not
necessarily the party who posts the content! There must be a way to permanently tag content with it's creators' credit. That way, if it becomes really
popular and gets millions of hits, the creator can be fairly compensated even if they're not the one who uploaded it. Even the folks who get 2000 hits
every 6 months or so should get a small cheque every year or something like that.
I like to buy CDs too, but will never buy one ever again without previewing the tracks online first (or hearing the band live and buying directly from
them, to support them).
Re: saving YouTube content.. it's inevitable, and could be handy.. as long as the content creator is credited and eventually compensated for their
work, I support it.eliot - 7-24-2007 at 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by rebetostar
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, too. I think YouTube and it's ilk are clearly the way forward.. it's so democratizing! Just about anyone
can create content which could become popular world-wide.
It may end up being the only way forward, but...
How is it "democratizing"?
This term gets thrown around a lot, and often confused with "access to technology," which can be democratic, undemocratic, or totally unrelated to any
issues of democracy (which is really concerned with collective decision making more than anything else). Think of terrorist cells or militias (is
there any difference?) which permit members easy access to weapons, easier access than individuals could gain in a broader society. That access isn't
always considered "democratizing."
Though from one standpoint cheap access to technology has produced an inordinate amount of content on the web, I have still to find anything that had
any more than passing meaning. When's the last time you were moved to tears by a heartfelt oud performance on myspace that you would have not had
access to otherwise?
Quality art probably emerges (this is just a theory of mine) in highly unfair and hierarchical social and political situations, often when
artists face significant personal challenges. Computer-based audio and video recording has been somewhat affordable for 13+ years now, but we still
listen longingly to Oum Kalthoum, Udi Nevres Bey, Cinuçen Tanrıkorur, Tanburi Cemil Bey, Qasabgi, etc.
I'm not meaning to personally pick on you, rebetostar; you're not the first to use the term "democratizing" in the same sentence with youtube or
myspace, which are profitable corporate entities first and foremost. Your post was too inviting not to respond to!rebetostar - 7-25-2007 at 02:30 PM
Hi Eliot,
What I mean by democratizing is something which puts power in the hands of the people, thus freeing us from dependence on larger institutions. In the
media/music sphere, I (and you, and lots of people) now have the power to make a music video and show it to an audience of potentially millions. Ten
years ago the only way to do that was to be chosen by a major record label or television network.. the realm of the elite. (And, increasingly, the
artistic sell-outs).
Who defines what is quality art anyhow? There's no accounting for people's taste. Sure there's going to be a lot more lower-quality stuff out there,
but I'm sure there's a few gems that wouldn't see the light of day were it not for YouTube.
Kind of a bizarre analogy with the terrorists, but one could see how they would find their weapons democratizing, in the mistaken belief that violence
is a useful tool to achieve self-rule.
Anyways, I enjoy these types of discussions
If you really want to pick on me, I just posted a taqsim in the member's sound clips area
