I very rarely talk guitar here, but I figured I might as well. Over on my facebook page today, I noted (happily) that I had just gotten my Taylor guitar back from the shop (truss rod adjustment, new bone nut and saddle to replace the tusq that Taylor puts in all their models). So I get an email asking what model Taylor I have: an 814ce. Then another question: why not a Martin D28?

That’s a tough question to answer. They’re often compared, as they both are built the same way: same types of bracing, same wood types, and same price range. In fact, back in 2003 when I purchased my Taylor, I played a Martin D28 as a comparison. It should be noted that I went in looking for a less expensive model than I went out of the store with, so when I played the 814 and the D28, I had no real intention of buying either.

I played both, but never seriously considered the Martin. Why not? I hated how it felt. It sounded great, but not substantially better than the 814. People keep telling me that the Martin has better low end, but if it does, I don’t hear it. What sold me on the Taylor was playability. The guitar felt wonderful to play. I really did not like the higher action on the Martin. At all. And yes, I know I could have had it adjusted, but Taylor’s specs are pretty close to what I want by default.

Tone-wise, the 814 had the same complexity of tone that the Martin had. Then, of course, I went to the lower-priced models and simply couldn’t justify it. I wanted a guitar that would last me essentially the rest of my life. So I invested in the 814 and haven’t regretted it since. I didn’t try the D28 out very long: just a few minutes. My first impression was bad, and so I didn’t go back. Maybe if I had spent more time with it I would have a different impression.

That said, guitar choice is very subjective, and not just with tone. Comfort is more important than tone in my opinion, and my Taylor is very comfortable. I’m sure others will prefer something different.

tags: music, whatever
No Squawks »

During last year’s writer’s strike, writer and (in my opinion) creative genius Joss Whedon got together with friends and colleagues and produced Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog, a three-episode musical comedy for distribution over the Internet. If you haven’t seen it, it’s available for viewing here. The production (I’m not sure what else to call it) stars Nathan Fillion, Felicia Day, and Neil Patrick Harris. It’s brilliant in a lot of ways, so long as you look past the obviously low production values (the value here is in the writing and performances, not the sets and … costumes).

Anyway, it’s yet another example of Hollywood content creators coming up with new, unique and experimental ways of trying to monetize the Internet. After all, the studios are screwing the writers and actors out of the profits they’re making off the Internet, so it makes sense that they’d try to find their own way.

Whedon talks here about the limited success of the venture. It’s an interesting read that uncovers some of the mixed results of the project (which, according to Whedon, has made at least some profit overall). Like recent experiments in music distribution, these early attempts are guaranteed to be mixed. After all, there is no solid business model for the Internet in terms of media distribution. Whedon took advantage of a number of outlets, including iTunes, Hulu and more traditional DVD distribution. The combination seems to have worked. The question is, I guess, whether other content creators would have the same results.

I’m happy to see that some writers and actors are willing to put their talent on the line for this sort of thing. But it’s going to take more experiments like this before a real, reliable model emerges.

Lots of good insight there, and it’s worth a read if you are at all interested in the future of creative media.

tags: culture, media, movies, music, technology, television
No Squawks »

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how we conceptualize digital media. In particular, these endless debates over content ownership and copyright. I’ve always been a bit conflicted on this point, because as a staunch capitalist I understand the need for content creators to be paid for their work, and yet as a devotee of technology, I understand that this is becoming impossible.

The problem with copyright isn’t the “rights” part.  Content creators have rights to their work, not only the right to protect the integrity of the work, but the right to profit from it. Art requires profit, you see: without it, art can’t be created. So rights aren’t the problem. It’s the “copy” part that’s the problem.

Culturally, it’s important to understand the nature of the “copy.” During the 20th century, when we purchase something (a book, a song, or a movie), we are walking away with a physical thing. A copy of a work. Certain people were given rights to copy the work. Those who made copies of their own were breaking the law.

This was a wholly justifiable solution to the problem of profiting from a work. If unauthorized copies abounded, the creators would see no profit and thus create no new works. Copyright ensured that content creators would continue to create. Sure, by making it “copy” right, we allowed businessmen to insert themselves between the creator and the consumer. But it was necessary, as creators required businessmen to distribute their works. But that isn’t the case anymore.

I would suggest that “copying” no longer makes sense, at least for certain types of digital media. I simply do not need to own my own copy of every single song, movie or book that I want to have access to.  This is a cultural obstacle: we must learn to be comfortable with the concept of not having our own copy of everything.

We don’t need to. With the internet, all the movies, songs and books can be stored in one place and accessed by all.  Like a Library of Congress but remotely accessible. All I need is a device on which I can temporarily display whatever work I want to see at the moment. A box plugged into my TV. An iPod. An eBook reader. I access the central database (I pay a service fee for access), and voila. I have access to every work of art ever produced.  Why buy individual works when I can access everything for a flat fee?

But there are other advantages.  Think of the conversion from VHS to DVD. People complained that they’d have to re-purchase all the movies they loved to be compatible with the new format. It’s a legitimate gripe. And with Blu-Ray, the question has come around again: I need to buy a new copy for my new setup.  It simply doesn’t make sense.  It’s expensive.  It’s a pain. I’m paying again for content I already “own.”

But with the internet, this is not longer a problem.  Say in ten years, a new higher definition format comes out. I buy a new TV, and a new device to connect it to the internet. But what about all that media? Since I haven’t purchased it, there’s no problem. Since I’m paying for access, rather than files, creators can upload their digital files in the newer format. All I need to do is upgrade my single device to access them. I don’t need to re-purchase individual works.

How would creators get paid in this system? That’s simple. My devices would record which works I’ve been accessing and split the fee accordingly.  Say my fee is $50/month.  I’ve listend to 20 hours worth of music, watched 30 hours worth of TV and movies, and read five books (50 hours).  So I’ve used 100 hours of access, so each gets $0.50 per hour.  So I’ve paid perhaps a dollar to watch a movie. A book that takes ten hours to read will receive $5. An album that takes forty45 minutes to listen to might receive $0.75. Of course, if I ever watch these things again (or read them again or listen again), they get paid again.  It’s all transparent to me: I don’t have to worry about paying these things out. I just pay my fee and access what I want. I let the computer distribute the money.

People who consume more media will pay less per use than those who consume more, of course. If I only watch two hours of television and do nothing else, those two shows will get $25 each.  Perhaps you could choose which types of media you wish access to, and pay for individual books (for example) a la carte.

The key is that copying isn’t an issue.  Sure, you could still somehow capture the digital information being sent to you (like a movie), put in on media and give it (or sell it) to someone.  But why would you? It’s so much cheaper just to pay for it. Copying is obsolete.

I’ve said most of this before, but it’s worth stating again. Copyright is becoming a problem. It’s limiting the necessary development of technology and services. A new structure which acknowledged that copying is no longer the correct paradigm for distributing entertainment would go a long way toward allowing artists and creators the ability to profit fairly from their work.  It’s good for the creator, it’s good for the consumer.

And it would end these stupid debates on the internet about copying and stealing.

tags: Books, culture, movies, music, technology, television
No Squawks »

According to this article, Sony BMG will be releasing at least part of its music catalog in digital format sans digital rights management, which will free digital music from all sorts of restrictions which make it sometimes impossible for consumers to do what they want with their purchased music. Warner, EMI, and Vivendi made similar announcements last year, making Sony the last of the big music labels to do this.

Why did Sony finally cave? Well, it looks like they realized that giving something away for free can actually make them money:

Sony has been experimenting with DRM-free songs for about six months. The company began giving away DRM-free promotional downloads for recording artists that sell less than 100,000 units, and at least one artist gained mainstream exposure through the effort. “A lot of these tests have led people to believe that maybe this works,” says a Sony BMG executive who asked not to be identified. A Sony BMG spokesman declined to comment. Amazon also declined to comment on its DRM-free deals, beyond what it has disclosed in press releases.

It only takes a few examples like this to make it cost effective. And honestly, if Sony’s execs are signing good bands–even bands with limited appeal–this will happen more often. More importantly, losing DRM will open up competition with Apple’s iTunes, which should (knock on wood) offer price competition in the marketplace. Actually, a quick Google search indicates that this is already happening. All the more reason to expect that with price pressure, DRM-free music will finally put copy protection into the grave where it belongs. Now, if they’ll just remember this lesson when it comes to downloadable movies…

tags: drm, markets, music
No Squawks »

Glenn Reynolds points to this article (just an abstract at the link) about the increasing distance between the law and the norm when it comes to intellectual property protection and copyright:

First, copyright law is increasingly relevant to the daily life of the average American. Second, this growing pertinence has precipitated a heightened public consciousness over copyright issues. Finally, these two facts have magnified the vast disparity between copyright law and copyright norms.

I was just thinking about this the other day, although I had another example in mind: speeding. Few laws are disregarded as pervasively as speed limit laws. The Sunday before Thanksgiving, I was driving down to Washington, DC, for work and couldn’t help but notice that I was in the minority in keeping my speed below 80mph. With a 65mph speed limit. And this on a weekend which likely saw increased speed limit law enforcement. Still, I doubt more than 1 percent of drivers were actually keeping within the letter of the law.

It’s obvious that speed limit laws have utility. They are meant to keep us safe. But when the disparity between public consciousness and law enforcement becomes so strained, it’s worth looking at whether the laws are actually fulfilling a purpose. Few of us feel guilty in breaking the speed limit law, not just because the penalties are enforced unequally, but because in reality we think the laws are too narrow. I’ve long thought it time to reexamine those laws, and how they’re enforced.

With intellectual property, however, things become more difficult. Someone created the property. Free societies depend on the protection of property rights. And yet we’re faced with a huge disparity between the law and the behavior of most people.

Some of this is simply perspective. The ones vigorously enforcing their property rights aren’t the ones (in the minds of the public) who hold those rights. In other words, when people steal music online, they don’t see themselves as violating the rights of the band they love, but the rights of the faceless corporation which distributes it. And not all bands disagree with that perspective.

Eventually, though, things will come to a head. People are already being sued by record labels for illegal copying, not all of which is egregiously illegal. If the record companies had their way, we’d be forced to buy a copy of a song for each instance–one for a CD, one for an MP3 player, one for our computer, one for our stereo… etc. On the other hand, many don’t want to buy music at all, and want it free.

This needs to be sorted out. I have a lot of sympathy for the artists, but not much for the record companies. I’m sure that there will be some solution eventually. I would rather that solution emerge in the market, however, than in the courts.

tags: music, technology
No Squawks »

Here’s an interesting take on the current state of the recording industry, heavily critical of the RIAA’s obsession with ending piracy. I’ve already made my own opinion on this clear enough, but I think a few points the article makes are important.

First, I think the article’s claim that if the recording industry had adapted to new internet technology rather than attacking it, it would be in better shape today. It’s possible that if the industry had played its cards right, worked with its talent to find ways of embracing online music culture and technology, piracy would probably not be (as much) of an issue.

Instead, the industry went after people, and created a cultural backlash against them–and that backlash has been what has sustained online music piracy for all these years. Had things been different, people would not see pirating music as a kind of political statement.

As far as I can tell, the recording industry can do one of two things: continue their assault on individual music pirates through the courts, or call it all off and embrace the internet. They can’t do both.

Other industries are facing similar problems, the most obvious one being print media: newspapers. There is a lot of momentum behind doing things the same way they’ve always been done. Until these industries realize that the internet is the modern equivalent of the printing press in terms of its cultural power, they’ll continue to lag behind those willing to embrace the new technology. It might be painful, and it might mean a relinquishing of some control, but the other option is obsolescence.

tags: culture, media, music, whatever
No Squawks »

As I blogged earlier, British band Radiohead decided to give their album away for free on their website, asking only for a voluntary donation. Well, it looks like (maybe) this has paid off for them:

Gigwise has learnt that Radiohead have sold an amazing 1.2million copies of their seventh album ‘In Rainbows.’ …Even if every person who downloaded the album paid just 10 pence, the band will still rake in a massive £120,000. That figure is likely to be higher, with many speculating the average figure will even out at around the £1 mark.

Some online polls of purchasers claim the average price paid was close to $8, or about £4 (now, remember that such polls are wildly inaccurate most of the time). In such polls, people often report that they’ve paid more than they really have. Still, at $8, that translates to $10 million, which is a lot when you consider that’s nearly all profit (subtracting, of course, the cost of producing the album and distributing it digitally). By eliminating the record companies, they’re dramatically increasing the percentage of payment that goes into their own pockets. Let’s also note, though, that if this becomes a more common occurrence, bands will need to make larger outlays for advertising (since Radiohead got a lot of free press on this by being first). Even still, their return percentage will still be high.

There’s also the question of whether there was any substantial “protest” payments–people buying the album who wouldn’t normally do so because it was a way to make a statement. People have been known to do that.

All said, it looks like Radiohead will make money off this–and, more importantly, produce a lot of very loyal fans. We’ll know more once we see solid numbers.

tags: drm, markets, music
No Squawks »

British band Radiohead is going to distribute it’s new album online for free–and simply asking for a donation. The tracks will be available in DRM-free MP3 format. The band’s record deal apparently expired in 2003, so they have distribution rights for their new music.

This isn’t quite the model I’ve been picturing in my head, mostly because it doesn’t really help average performers. Radiohead can afford this approach because they’ve got a global audience and millions of fans (of which I am not one). A loyal audience means that some will pay for the download because they want the band to continue making music.

However, many will just download the songs and not pay. People need to be reconditioned to pay for music they download. It’s like tips at a restaurant. It’s not mandatory, but there’s a huge social pressure to give a decent tip, and those who don’t are considered rude. Right now, the recording industry has created a climate where people feel like downloading music off the internet for free is a form of “sticking it to the man” and the social pressure is opposite: pay for something you get online for free? You’re considered an idiot. Propping up unjust systems, and such.

Of course, you’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s nice to see a band like Radiohead put their fame and fortune on the line to make this point.

As I’ve said, though, I think an online clearinghouse with regular fees and access to all music is a better option than simply giving it all away. The same principle applies beyond music, however. For instance, independent journalists like Michael Yon depend on contributions from supporters–even though access to his material is free. Recently the New York Times tried the traditional business model with some of its writers–called Times Select. You pay their price, then you access the information. The new internet model is the opposite: access information. If you like it, pay whatever you want.

I’m not sure if this model can work in the long run. That’s why I think a fee-based service for music is a better bet–if you can access all the music available (or, at least, most of it), the question of quality isn’t there. You know you’ll find something you like, so paying isn’t a problem. Recording an album has up-front costs which have to be recouped somehow. Anyway, we’re going to see a lot more experimentation with this in the future. Record companies, beware.

UPDATE: Heh. It looks like Nine Inch Nails (another band I’m not a huge fan of) is doing the same thing.

tags: drm, music, technology
No Squawks »

It was when I was listening to the radio. Actually, when I was listening to an internet feed of the radio. Anyway. It used to be that I could remember when songs came out. So, you could say, “Shout at the Devil” and I could tell you…1983. That was a little before my time, though. You could say, “Rusty Cage” and I could tell you…1991. And nine times out of ten I’d be right.

So, this afternoon Bush’s “Glycerine” came on, and I could have sworn the song couldn’t be that old. I was thinking 1999 or 2000. But it came out in 1994. And I thought, heck, that song couldn’t possibly be thirteen years old. But it is. Or “Interstate Love Song.” 1994 again. Dang, it seemed more recent than that. Now, granted, these songs were when I was just in college and not paying as much attention to music as I did in high school.

So, U2’s “One” is fifteen years old. The Wallflowers’ “One Headlight” is ten years old. Matchbox 20’s “Push” is ten years old. Live’s “I Alone” is twelve years old. Living Colour’s “Cult of Personality” is 18 years old, as is “Gretchen Goes to Nebraska” from King’s X. Both albums are old enough to vote.

Well, I got all these wrong. I can no longer remember when songs came out. Sometimes I can’t even remember who did a specific song. Some of it is age, and some apathy (I just don’t listen closely to music much anymore).

Ok, they are playing “Lightning Crashes” now, by Live. I’m guessing…1995. Ok, I’m close. The album (Throwing Copper) came out in 1994. Still, I should have known that…. I vaguely remember listening to the song after coming back from college for the summer.

Not that getting older bothers me–it doesn’t. But every once in a while, it just hits me that I’m in my thirties. It’s just odd.

tags: music, whatever
1 Squawk »

Here’s a new instrumental guitar track I laid down over the last few days. You know, you learn to have a lot of respect for audio engineers and musicians when you try to do this stuff yourself. It’s one thing to actually play an instrument, but to record it? It’s exhausting. Anyway, it was a riff I’d been screwing around with for a year, and I figured if I didn’t record it, eventually I’d forget it. It’s as good an excuse as any to sit down and figure out this recording stuff.

So, it’s about six hours of work. For three minutes of so-so music. My guitar had a delay effect, and it made syncing the drums nearly impossible. I’m sure there’s an easier way of doing it, but I don’t know what it is. I will say that forcing myself to record has forced me to be a little more creative. It’s like exercising long unused muscles. Now I’m sore. I really should do this more often.

I usually dive into a project like this completely unprepared. I figure I’ll learn the software the hard way–brute force. I did the same thing last year when I built a cabinet, without really knowing what I was doing. Figure it out as you go along. I think I had more success there than here.

Some software is easier than others to figure out. But audio recording software is a completely different beast than most. So, while it’s easy to record a riff, getting a song together is a completely different thing. I’ll need to pick up a book on Adobe Audition, because I’m sure it does things I can’t even imagine.

tags: music, technology
No Squawks »