JTC111
Active member
I just bought the 003 rack and added the Music Production Toolkit for $245 (special price with new system) and that bumps ProTools LE up to 48 stereo audio tracks. And no, it's not 48 mono/24 stereo...it's 48 stereo tracks.
- Status
I just bought the 003 rack and added the Music Production Toolkit for $245 (special price with new system) and that bumps ProTools LE up to 48 stereo audio tracks. And no, it's not 48 mono/24 stereo...it's 48 stereo tracks.
TerraMortim
New member
yeah no doubt... bullshit... I do have the odd bit of evaluating software and little snitch has never alterted me to a single plugin phoning home...so even if it logged every single keystroke..where's it going to send it without connecting to someone.
T
Toker41
Better Than You
Four Mistakes That Killed the Record Indstry Before File Sharing
Most everyone who follows the record industry knows that it is slowly imploding and most don't care seeing as how its leaders have basically ignored technology and tried to sue people to push their profit margins back in line. But, the demise of the record industry actually began long before technology gave it the final push over the edge. It started in the 80's with the birth of the CD and the swallowing of independent record labels by major corporations to the point that now there are only four majors left.
In each critical moment, record labels had the opportunity to think ahead and look beyond their immediate revenue streams. Like many large corporations, they were unable to do so. As a result, they forgot that music is about people and they continue to ignore that fact at their own peril.
For myself, I believe the record industry - and this includes radio - made four mistakes that preceded their ignorance of technology and lawsuit happy antics of present day.
1. CD sales are not the same as record sales.
At first, this may seem like semantics, but my distinction is between the actual compact disc - the physical item - and the concept of a record - the music an artist records to put on a CD. When the CD was invented, profit margins for what were once moderate sized labels shot through the roof. If you had a back catalog of good music, you were about to become a millionaire if you weren't already because everyone was replacing their vinyl with CD's.
Record profits resulted and multi-national corporations took notice. In much the same way "dot com" start ups managed to convince venture capitalists to back questionable opportunities, independent labels began to entertain offers to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Corporations saw this as a long-term money making venture that would be great for their portfolio and their shareholders.
What they failed to realize is that the CD gravy train would soon come to an end as people finally replenished their collections and went back to their normal buying routines. The years of off the chart sales came to an abrupt end and corporations were stuck with bloated record divisions and they had no clue what to do - the end result when you replace creative minds seeking talent with bean counters seeking profit.
2. Longevity trumps the flavor of the week.
Because labels were feeling the pinch and because they were now subject to corporate budget constraints, annual reports and shareholders, they began to look for ways to cut costs. One of the first places they looked was artist development and promotion. I remember reading about how A&R departments were slashed to the bone and promotions departments saw their budgets cut dramatically.
Labels, in a desperate need to justify their existences, cut off their noses to spite their faces. Instead of trimming corporate expense accounts and the bloated salaries of their higher ups, they decided to rely on things like cross promotion, radio, television and other forms of media to do the legwork their promoters had done previously.
Worse yet, they focused on one-hit wonders and bubblegum pop to push profits ignoring their own rich history and tradition.
It's expensive to develop an artist. It is common knowledge that for every 12 artists signed to a label, 10 lose money, 1 breaks even and 1 makes enough to pay for the development of all the others put together. It's a really risky business. But, the small independent labels didn't care because they wanted to discover the next Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen. They knew that one major success could make up for a string of costly failures.
Unfortunately, that equation doesn't work in the corporate environment. You have to justify your budget every year, every quarter. If the only way to do that was to release lowest common denominator music that would sell fast but fade just as quickly, you did it.
They even managed to forget how they got to this point in the first place somehow missing that what are now termed "heritage" artists like Springsteen, Tom Petty and others were what sustained them over the long haul, not The Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears. Those were bands and musicians developed over years and they didn't come cheap, but they made up for it in the long run.
3. Destroying the chain of distribution is death.
For years, the way music got from artist to fan was the same. One department (A&R) would discover and develop artists helping them with everything from day-to-day expenses to making records. Another department (Promotions) would take the finished product and promote it using teams of college interns, radio promotions staff and others. They would pass the actual product on to distributors who would send their representatives to record stores to convince stores to buy records. The promotions interns would put up displays in the store and hold promotional events designed to help artist, distributor and record store. The employees at the store would talk to their customers and play the music in the store.
That system worked really well for a very long time. But, once again, the big corporations saw an opportunity to cut costs by making independent deals with big box retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy. The result was the death of distribution companies and independent music stores (as seen today with the legendary Morninglory Music going under after 38 years in business) and even chain music stores. This may have seemed like a smart financial decision, but they got it wrong again.
What the suits failed to realize was that the chain of people working on selling music for them was key to making sales. Even now in the age of blogs, people still listen to what others suggest when it comes to buying music. Prior to the internet, those people included DJ's (we'll get to them in a second) and record store employees. After your friends, these were the people you trusted to know music.
Even worse, retailers like Target only put about 300 titles per year on shelves out of 3000 or more possible releases, honing it down to ONLY the most salable (according to them) artists and records. A good record store could not only steer you towards a great alt rock record, but also to a blues record that influenced that alt rock band you like so much.
I'm not naive. I realize that with iTunes and other forms of downloading, the days of the music store were rapidly coming to a close, but the labels, instead of acting as partners with stores as they always had, turned their backs on them prematurely before anyone had ever heard of an MP3 or Napster. It not only cost thousands of people their jobs, it placed limited stock on the shelves narrowing the choices for people even further. Like cutting development, they were forgetting that it takes more than just a pretty face and a catchy hook to sell records and the more options you put out there for people, the better your chances of developing artists who will sell for you for more than just a few years.
4. Killing the DJ
I think there is real truth to the idea that video killed the radio star, but the radio industry helped it along by killing off the primary link between listeners and stations: the dj.
Much like the chain of distribution, there was a long history of record label staffs sending music to radio stations where program directors and DJ's would play what they thought their audience wanted to hear. DJ's took chances and, as a result, broke artists for labels and made them an awful lot of money. There was always corruption and undue influence exerted on DJ's, but a large percentage were in it for the music.
When the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law, large corporate radio empires like Clear Channel destroyed the listener-DJ relationship by flooding markets with stations owned by a signle entity with programming decisions made at a regional level, far removed from the DJ and his/her show. DJ's were replaced with "on-air personalities" more about selling ad revenue than "spinning hot wax" as they used to say.
While the record industry may not have been directly involved, they sat by and did nothing and even encouraged the centralization of power because it made it cheaper for them to peddle music. They didn't have to call or visit hundreds of DJ's anymore. Now, they just went to a central nexus.
Just like destroying distribution removed variety from the shelves of retailers, centralizing programming ended variety as we once knew it on terrestrial radio. In the Steely Dan song "FM" they talk about how FM stations in the 70's would play pretty much anything from reggae to blues to rock and everything in between. It was all about the relationship between DJ and listener, between people. Once that relationship was destroyed and stations began playing the same narrow play list, people began to abandon radio in droves.
---
Long before the record industry was, in their estimation, attacked by downloaders and people believing music should be free, the record industry itself compromised its own business through questionable decisions, corruption and the corporatization of music. Art and commerce always have and always will have a tenuous relationship. But, when the pendulum swings so far to one side, it is no shock when it eventually comes flying back the other direction. So, record execs, the next time you look into a camera or into a room full of onlookers and try to tell us that file sharing and video games killed your business, don't waste your breath. Instead, take a look in the mirror and you'll probably find the culprit.
Most everyone who follows the record industry knows that it is slowly imploding and most don't care seeing as how its leaders have basically ignored technology and tried to sue people to push their profit margins back in line. But, the demise of the record industry actually began long before technology gave it the final push over the edge. It started in the 80's with the birth of the CD and the swallowing of independent record labels by major corporations to the point that now there are only four majors left.
In each critical moment, record labels had the opportunity to think ahead and look beyond their immediate revenue streams. Like many large corporations, they were unable to do so. As a result, they forgot that music is about people and they continue to ignore that fact at their own peril.
For myself, I believe the record industry - and this includes radio - made four mistakes that preceded their ignorance of technology and lawsuit happy antics of present day.
1. CD sales are not the same as record sales.
At first, this may seem like semantics, but my distinction is between the actual compact disc - the physical item - and the concept of a record - the music an artist records to put on a CD. When the CD was invented, profit margins for what were once moderate sized labels shot through the roof. If you had a back catalog of good music, you were about to become a millionaire if you weren't already because everyone was replacing their vinyl with CD's.
Record profits resulted and multi-national corporations took notice. In much the same way "dot com" start ups managed to convince venture capitalists to back questionable opportunities, independent labels began to entertain offers to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Corporations saw this as a long-term money making venture that would be great for their portfolio and their shareholders.
What they failed to realize is that the CD gravy train would soon come to an end as people finally replenished their collections and went back to their normal buying routines. The years of off the chart sales came to an abrupt end and corporations were stuck with bloated record divisions and they had no clue what to do - the end result when you replace creative minds seeking talent with bean counters seeking profit.
2. Longevity trumps the flavor of the week.
Because labels were feeling the pinch and because they were now subject to corporate budget constraints, annual reports and shareholders, they began to look for ways to cut costs. One of the first places they looked was artist development and promotion. I remember reading about how A&R departments were slashed to the bone and promotions departments saw their budgets cut dramatically.
Labels, in a desperate need to justify their existences, cut off their noses to spite their faces. Instead of trimming corporate expense accounts and the bloated salaries of their higher ups, they decided to rely on things like cross promotion, radio, television and other forms of media to do the legwork their promoters had done previously.
Worse yet, they focused on one-hit wonders and bubblegum pop to push profits ignoring their own rich history and tradition.
It's expensive to develop an artist. It is common knowledge that for every 12 artists signed to a label, 10 lose money, 1 breaks even and 1 makes enough to pay for the development of all the others put together. It's a really risky business. But, the small independent labels didn't care because they wanted to discover the next Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen. They knew that one major success could make up for a string of costly failures.
Unfortunately, that equation doesn't work in the corporate environment. You have to justify your budget every year, every quarter. If the only way to do that was to release lowest common denominator music that would sell fast but fade just as quickly, you did it.
They even managed to forget how they got to this point in the first place somehow missing that what are now termed "heritage" artists like Springsteen, Tom Petty and others were what sustained them over the long haul, not The Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears. Those were bands and musicians developed over years and they didn't come cheap, but they made up for it in the long run.
3. Destroying the chain of distribution is death.
For years, the way music got from artist to fan was the same. One department (A&R) would discover and develop artists helping them with everything from day-to-day expenses to making records. Another department (Promotions) would take the finished product and promote it using teams of college interns, radio promotions staff and others. They would pass the actual product on to distributors who would send their representatives to record stores to convince stores to buy records. The promotions interns would put up displays in the store and hold promotional events designed to help artist, distributor and record store. The employees at the store would talk to their customers and play the music in the store.
That system worked really well for a very long time. But, once again, the big corporations saw an opportunity to cut costs by making independent deals with big box retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy. The result was the death of distribution companies and independent music stores (as seen today with the legendary Morninglory Music going under after 38 years in business) and even chain music stores. This may have seemed like a smart financial decision, but they got it wrong again.
What the suits failed to realize was that the chain of people working on selling music for them was key to making sales. Even now in the age of blogs, people still listen to what others suggest when it comes to buying music. Prior to the internet, those people included DJ's (we'll get to them in a second) and record store employees. After your friends, these were the people you trusted to know music.
Even worse, retailers like Target only put about 300 titles per year on shelves out of 3000 or more possible releases, honing it down to ONLY the most salable (according to them) artists and records. A good record store could not only steer you towards a great alt rock record, but also to a blues record that influenced that alt rock band you like so much.
I'm not naive. I realize that with iTunes and other forms of downloading, the days of the music store were rapidly coming to a close, but the labels, instead of acting as partners with stores as they always had, turned their backs on them prematurely before anyone had ever heard of an MP3 or Napster. It not only cost thousands of people their jobs, it placed limited stock on the shelves narrowing the choices for people even further. Like cutting development, they were forgetting that it takes more than just a pretty face and a catchy hook to sell records and the more options you put out there for people, the better your chances of developing artists who will sell for you for more than just a few years.
4. Killing the DJ
I think there is real truth to the idea that video killed the radio star, but the radio industry helped it along by killing off the primary link between listeners and stations: the dj.
Much like the chain of distribution, there was a long history of record label staffs sending music to radio stations where program directors and DJ's would play what they thought their audience wanted to hear. DJ's took chances and, as a result, broke artists for labels and made them an awful lot of money. There was always corruption and undue influence exerted on DJ's, but a large percentage were in it for the music.
When the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law, large corporate radio empires like Clear Channel destroyed the listener-DJ relationship by flooding markets with stations owned by a signle entity with programming decisions made at a regional level, far removed from the DJ and his/her show. DJ's were replaced with "on-air personalities" more about selling ad revenue than "spinning hot wax" as they used to say.
While the record industry may not have been directly involved, they sat by and did nothing and even encouraged the centralization of power because it made it cheaper for them to peddle music. They didn't have to call or visit hundreds of DJ's anymore. Now, they just went to a central nexus.
Just like destroying distribution removed variety from the shelves of retailers, centralizing programming ended variety as we once knew it on terrestrial radio. In the Steely Dan song "FM" they talk about how FM stations in the 70's would play pretty much anything from reggae to blues to rock and everything in between. It was all about the relationship between DJ and listener, between people. Once that relationship was destroyed and stations began playing the same narrow play list, people began to abandon radio in droves.
---
Long before the record industry was, in their estimation, attacked by downloaders and people believing music should be free, the record industry itself compromised its own business through questionable decisions, corruption and the corporatization of music. Art and commerce always have and always will have a tenuous relationship. But, when the pendulum swings so far to one side, it is no shock when it eventually comes flying back the other direction. So, record execs, the next time you look into a camera or into a room full of onlookers and try to tell us that file sharing and video games killed your business, don't waste your breath. Instead, take a look in the mirror and you'll probably find the culprit.
CoolCat
Well-known member
I just bought the 003 rack and added the Music Production Toolkit for $245 (special price with new system) and that bumps ProTools LE up to 48 stereo audio tracks. And no, it's not 48 mono/24 stereo...it's 48 stereo tracks.
I get confused on the 24/48, 24/192. 16/44.1....in relate to the software.
Does the software drive the quality of the "bit/sample rate"?
Will Pro Tools LT have the same quality as Cubase LE or any of the others?
or is the main difference more in relate to the functions of the software?
if that question even makes sense....
zazz
hmmmm
R
recording 101
New member
I just bought the 003 rack and added the Music Production Toolkit for $245 (special price with new system) and that bumps ProTools LE up to 48 stereo audio tracks. And no, it's not 48 mono/24 stereo...it's 48 stereo tracks.
You GO DUDE!...Yes regular PT is 32.....Haven't need more yet but I am sure the time will come!
A
apratsunrthd
New member
I'll admit that I've 'tried' a few DAWs/plugins. Then out of nowhere, someone mentions Reaper so I figure I may as well try it. That was the day I figured out that Reaper is likely all I'll ever need. It's just me and my guitar. Reaper is simple, incredibly affordable and not bloated. And yes, I paid the $50.
The one thing I've learned from all the 'trial' stuff I've done is most of the commercial software out there is way too bloated for what I need. As far as plugins, when I had access to tons of high dollar plugins, I focused less on tracking and more on just plain old dicking around. That's not at all a healthy practice for someone as green as me at recording. Furthermore, I'm learning a lot more from Reaper's built-in plugins than I am from the high dollar stuff because I'm forced to understand how each plugin works.
5 years from now, my situation could totally change and I may need ProTools and Waves Mercury. But I assure you that I'd have to be in a position where I recorded for a living to need such software -- and if that were the case, I wouldn't hesitate to pay for it.
The one thing I've learned from all the 'trial' stuff I've done is most of the commercial software out there is way too bloated for what I need. As far as plugins, when I had access to tons of high dollar plugins, I focused less on tracking and more on just plain old dicking around. That's not at all a healthy practice for someone as green as me at recording. Furthermore, I'm learning a lot more from Reaper's built-in plugins than I am from the high dollar stuff because I'm forced to understand how each plugin works.
5 years from now, my situation could totally change and I may need ProTools and Waves Mercury. But I assure you that I'd have to be in a position where I recorded for a living to need such software -- and if that were the case, I wouldn't hesitate to pay for it.
T
Toker41
Better Than You
N-Track is $50 and does just about everything the "higher" end recording software proggies do. You simply don't have to spend a lot to get a lot. Sgt. Pepper was done of 2 four tracks in a basement.
S
soundprizm
New member
I've been in hiatus for about 2 years now, but now I'm just getting back!
I've switched to Linux!!! Ubuntu Studio rocks, and I will not be going back to Windows.
So to answer the question, nope, I do not really buy that expensive recording software. To me, the music software on linux is so much more stable, it's not about the money! Although, I think I might invest into a certain program called EnergyXT, it's available on windows as well, but still, only about 80 bucks.
I've switched to Linux!!! Ubuntu Studio rocks, and I will not be going back to Windows.
So to answer the question, nope, I do not really buy that expensive recording software. To me, the music software on linux is so much more stable, it's not about the money! Although, I think I might invest into a certain program called EnergyXT, it's available on windows as well, but still, only about 80 bucks.
G
GroovyUwe
New member
I'm a bit confused here. So you are saying because you're a student and have not much money it's ok to steal? I'm usually not a moral apostle but what about making do with what you got until you safe the money? Come on, for £100 you can buy a digital 4 track recorder with Cubase Lite which gives you, admittedly, some limitations, but you can work with it and again safe some money to get the full version at a later date. It really annoys me when people have these ideas that, because of their own financial difficulties, it's ok to just take what they think they need, explaining theft with "oh, when I'm earning money I'll buy the real thing" Shame on you! It makes all of us who have saved their hard earned cash to buy a proper version look like dopes.
legionserial
New member
Good god. This thread is still going?
E
ermghoti
New member
As long as people try to justify downloading software without properly compensating the creators, this thread wil live...
T
Toker41
Better Than You
As long as people thump their Bibles, and judge others...this thread will live.
Live and let live.
Live and let live.
wheelema
Boner-obo
I like the way you think! Let's see how we can extrapolate this morally ambiguous position.
...I'm not getting laid very much, but as soon as it picks up at home I'll stop raping women.
...I'm not earning nearly enough money, so it's okay to supplement my income by robbing people. I'll stop as soon as I get a good job.
Hmmmm... I like it!!!
T
Toker41
Better Than You
or....
.....as soon as I don't believe I'm better than others I'll stop judging them.
The question was asked "do you buy...."
Then people get attacked, and judged for their answer.
The best part is that the ones doing the judging usually have no real idea about the impact, or lack of, "stealing" software on a consumer basis. I really love when they throw out the excuse "it causes the rest of us to have to pay more".
If I'm not stealing software, I don't really care what the next guy is doing, as it is none of my business, and has no impact on me what so ever.
.....as soon as I don't believe I'm better than others I'll stop judging them.
The question was asked "do you buy...."
Then people get attacked, and judged for their answer.
The best part is that the ones doing the judging usually have no real idea about the impact, or lack of, "stealing" software on a consumer basis. I really love when they throw out the excuse "it causes the rest of us to have to pay more".
If I'm not stealing software, I don't really care what the next guy is doing, as it is none of my business, and has no impact on me what so ever.
wheelema
Boner-obo
or....
.....as soon as I don't believe I'm better than others I'll stop judging them.
The question was asked "do you buy...."
Then people get attacked, and judged for their answer.
The best part is that the ones doing the judging usually have no real idea about the impact, or lack of, "stealing" software on a consumer basis. I really love when they throw out the excuse "it causes the rest of us to have to pay more".
If I'm not stealing software, I don't really care what the next guy is doing, as it is none of my business, and has no impact on me what so ever.
Cool! Can I get you on my jury?
T
Toker41
Better Than You
You are appointed neither judge, nor jury.
...and since you compare downloading software/music to raping women, I'd say it's a good thing.
wheelema
Boner-obo
Oh, nonsense. I did not equate rape with theft. I merely said that the prior poster's position was morally ambiguous. Legal and moral absolutes are absolutes for good and valid reasons. Once you rationalize deviant and/or unacceptable behavior or positions you open doors that IMO should not be opened.
The Nazi's didn't decide to start the wholesale slaughter of gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, and Jews from day one... they worked themselves up to it. People always start small. This is not to infer... given your capacity for going from a unfounded assumption to a foregone conclusion... that software piracy will result in the societal acceptance of grand theft auto, rationalizing it as okay is simply going down a road that should not be traveled.
If you are going to rape someone, or steal from them, or illegally copy a software program... fine! No problem! Do it! Just DON'T FUCKING RATIONALIZE.
Own up to like a man!
T
Toker41
Better Than You
Gotta give you that last part. If you are going to do it, fine. Don't rationalize it, though.
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
That's a ludicrous comparison. It completely ignores the difference between choosing to sin and merely failing to do good. (Little Catholic reference there.) In the real world, there's a difference between a lost sale and theft. By your standards, if I walk by Wal-Mart and stare lustfully at their new riding mower but don't choose to buy it and instead borrow my neighbor's, I'm stealing from Wal-Mart. That argument doesn't fly with me.
Raping women and robbing people are both examples of causing direct harm. They both actually take something away from someone. Someone who uses pirated software because they legitimately can't afford it is not doing that. It is more on the level of putting a slug into the poor box on your way out of confession.
From my perspective as a software engineer, I'd much rather somebody use a piece of software I wrote without paying for it than use the competitor's product. Even if they never pay for it, they are creating mindshare---creating a larger user base whose members share files amongst themselves, thus contributing to vendor lock-in, which ultimately is good for the vendor.
And most of them do eventually pay for it. As such, you really can't consider the previous usage to be lost sales because the alternative to piracy would likely have been the person doing without or using someone else's product, neither of which would have eventually ended in a sale of your product.
Either way, there's plenty of evidence that piracy among the people who can't afford it not only should be tolerated, but also possibly even encouraged. With the exception of what I refer to as "ephemeral software" (e.g games), software that has allowed piracy has consistently seen higher market share than software that has tried really hard to prevent it. In the case of games, of course, the reverse is true (and dramatically so), but that's mainly because, as software goes, games have very little staying power.
So yeah, even those of us who would be broke if people stopped buying software think that this is a grey area. Anybody who doesn't see it that way is probably just trying to get over the guilt of having pirated software in the past. Next time, drop a real coin in the poor box, then say three Hail Marys and an act of contrition.
- Status