blue2blue

I was thinking more principle than practice, here. Obviously, under the last two administrations, the FCC has -- in the eyes of many -- not been fulfilling their congressionally mandated duties with regard to a number of provisions of federal communications law. No, I was addressing the fundamental difference between a commercial publisher -- or cable- or net- caster -- and a commercial entity which has been granted stewardship of a band of the airwaves, which is a limited public resource. While the rationale for extending "decency standards" laws to cable casters may stretch many legal minds to the breaking point, I think most folks can see the rationale for attaching restrictions and provisos to a license to use the public airwaves. But, just so I'm not misunderstood here, I'm not saying that CC did necessarily break any laws or violate rules of their license. I'm only talking about the distinction between broadcasting on the public airwaves and print, cable, or net publishing or media transmission. I don't know if they did violate laws or rules -- but I think it's extremely unlikely that there would be legal consequences from this FCC, even if they did. Particularly given the givens.

Originally posted by Billster I'll say it again - free speech is protected by the government. Megalomaniac corporations may act badly, but they do so at the risk of a civil rights lawsuit. If the alleged "victims" here (who by the way have a number one album and leveraged themselves onto the cover of Rolling Stone as a result of this nonsense) were really being squished, they could pursue legal action. Just because many people might agree with the opinion being "blacklisted" by a radio conglomerate, doesn't mean the station owners can't disagree and take action to express that opposition. Bill, I understand your thinking here -- but there's one crucial distinction between a magazine (or internet or cable station) -- and a broadcast station. Broadcast stations are granted a limited license to use a (limited supply) public asset, the airwaves in order to pursue their 'private' business. Because of that, the courts have consistently upheld greater restrictions and qualifications to the license granted than would ever be constitutionally tolerated were they somehow applied to a form of commercial speech which did not use such a public asset (the airwaves).

If it was all about just short-term profit -- Clear Channel would not have been one of the key supporters of the Bush campaigns, both through direct contributions and in many indirect ways. But Clear Channel had a lot of motivation to assure the assent and retention of Bush and his team, since they were very much concerned by the threat of de-monopolization efforts under a different president. As they should be.* *And by that, I mean they've had a bust-up coming for a long time (IMHO) but complicity of the Clinton and Bush FCC's (as well as Republicans and some Demos in Congress) has helped them all but wrap up some markets.

The Dalmatian coast is pretty wonderful. I was lucky enough to spend a week or so there in 1971, long before the troubles. We stayed in a VERY pretty little wooded campground, trees right to the edge of the water, on a little inlet not far from Pula. My GF (girlfriend) and I had just spent a strange but groovy week in Venice, staying in a garret room in the private quarters of a little hotel not too far from one of the side canals. It was August and it was absurdly hot and humid with all that brings in Venice... but it was, nonetheless, really beautiful and fun. But even in the dead of night it was stinkin' hot. (Operant word: stinkin'.) But, because of where we were, we could go out on the roof to sleep, which has really stuck in my head... I'll always remember sitting up there with my first, very funky guitar, putting TS Eliot poetry to my clumsy fingerpicking. (Talkin' Wasteland and Prufrock stuff, here. No cats. BIG diff.)

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide In this matters, are there huge differnces between country side and metropolitan areas? . Not quite as much as the difference between rural and urban in the old Bosnia -- but almost. For instance, in California, most coastal, urban and suburban areas tend to be moderate-right to left (with the exception of San Diego County, which is where many of the white Californians who found mixing with people of color distasteful moved to during the 60s-80s). But in the central valleys, agribusiness has dominated civic life for a long time. By and large, the only people of color are disenfranchised latinos. And the politics in those areas will be familiar to anyone familiar with the politics of Serbia in the late 80s, early 90s. Even there (central Cali), though, Bush has lost a lot of support. But for a different reason -- he's seen as too liberal.

Originally posted by franknputer Yes, there are artists who support Bush. They don't get banned anywhere, though. But it's probably safe to say that these days those artists probably are not talking that up, much. And though those artists undoubtedly have a welcome home on the big chains like ClearChannel (strong supporters of the current president in his campaigns) those same artists are probably viewed with a jaundiced eye by the youthful staffes of some other show biz entities. But it's the golden rule: the man with the gold makes the rules. And the bosses call the shots on what goes on the playlists -- much of which is bought and paid for directly, of course, by payola from promotres and record companies. But outfits like CC find many ways to inculcate their politics into the minds of the lumpen radio masses.

I don't think it DID turn out to be good publicity for them... even now, when some in their old fan base have presumably rethought their position on the Iraq invasion, I can't believe there's not a lot of resentment and bitterness among their old fans. They were seen as traitors. Traitors to their fans. Traitors to country. Traitors to the nation. (That seems extreme but just try googling "traitors dixie chicks" and take a look at the 55,000 odd returns on the phrase.) People may change their mind about their own political positions -- but I think it's MUCH harder for most folks to re-embrace someone they feel (rightly or wrongly) they've been betrayed by.

Sorry you didn't like it, Ani. You're not imagining that it's a long song, though I have to say until you pointed it out, I'd never noticed. Though at five and a half minutes I'm shocked I hadn't. That's a good 2 minutes after I'm usually reaching for the next button. I hadn't thought about the negative aspect. I suppose that's a bit shortsighted given the subext of some of the comments and controversies. Frankly, most of the music with lyrics that I listen to -- quite a bit of British and American folk and generally, I suppose, darker modern writers -- is fairly dark. And when I think about the music of my youth -- it seemed dominated by the same kinds of things, from Teen Angel to Soldier Boy. Cheer up though... I was just listening to some classic 60's Brit neo-folk from Pentangle... gorgeous guitars, stand up bass, percussion... and lyrics about jealousy, sibling murder, dismemberment, singing bones... so, you know. That's why the negativity one might find in "Travelin' Soldier" didn't strike me. _____________ PS... Hmmm... I just looked up the lyrics to the Shirelle's Soldier Boy... don't know if these are complete but there's actually nothing particularly dark in them. I guess it was just growing up at the time of the Cuban Missle Crisis, Kennedy assasination, etc. Hmm. Imagine. I always thought they sounded so mournful. Well, I know the Teen Angel's dead, anyhow. ______________ PPS... with regard to culture-bombardment, I have to say that I'm delightfully mostly free of it. I mean, I can enjoy the Dixie Chicks or Black Eyed Peas (or whatever rare pop band that catches my fancy) for what they are because I simply don't go places (radio stations, TV channels) where I'm subjected to the kind of hype that makes it impossible (for a guy like me) to enjoy its object. If I was getting them jammed down my throat, I'd probably hate 'em as much as anyone. It's kind of nice, sometimes, being a cultural naif...

I'm very fond of the Dixie Chicks' "Travelin' Soldier"... I like their rootsy stuff -- but I'm not that fond of the country pop stuff. You know -- when's the last time you heard a JAW HARP SOLO on a Nashville song? (Of course, there's also a fuzz guitar, twin fiddles, mandolins, pedal steel, and I think there was a banjo in there, too. "Sin Wagon.")

Originally posted by philbo Yup - - I think the Dixie Chicks are fabulous musicians who make great music. Not my cup of tea, but I appreciate great music wherever I hear it... But using celebrity to foist your views on anybody else puts you on exactly the same footing as Rush Limbaugh. And I just can't respect that. Not sure about that analogy... I mean, Limbaugh's merits or total lack thereof aside, his celebrity is focused around his political views. At any rate, I think celebs have EVERY bit as much right to their political views and to speak their mind about them as any of the rest of us do. And -- just like us -- there can be professional consequences if they do. Just as our bosses might not like us spouting off about our personal b

For the record -- as much as I enjoy the Dixie Chicks music and writing, as much as I respect them for the decidedly uncommercial stands they've taken in opposition to the dictates of the Nashville/country radio oligopoly -- I really don't care who they're dating.

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli Tom Cruise is the new Michael Jackson. Would that Cruise was as shy as Jackson claims to be. I have to say that BrittanyLips post had me looking for signs of abject irony... no, really, Britt, you gotta be kidding. You're calling Tom Cruise one of the most talented people on the planet? I'm sorry. Everyone's tastes are different. There is no universal criteria for art. Yet -- in all seriousness -- I personally find that a disturbing statement. Fred Astaire was talented. James Dean was talented. Bob Hope was talented. Zazu freakin' Pitts was talented. Tom Cruise makes Rock Hudson look like Laurence Olivier.

Originally posted by Anderton And I don't care about Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie, Katie Holmes, Denise Richards, Heather Locklear, any of them. Why do people spend any time whatsoever being interested in this kind of stuff? Aside from Tom Cruise, I barely know who any of them are. Nor, indeed, care. I have to say, though, that Tom Cruise is a singularly irritating man.

Originally posted by xanaducomplex I don't care either. I really don't need pop singers to think for me. But the media has to talk about something. God forbid they go out and find a real story. I think that's an EXCELLENT POINT. The mainstream US media are obviously LOATH to cover much of the REAL news right now, which is increasingly calling into question the carefully created false reality so many US Americans have tried to live inside for the past 5 years... ... so what are essentially non-stories are given lots and lots of play to avoid covering the horror-inspiring realities of a HUGE increase in terrorism around the world, nuclear proliferation to rogue nations fostered by one of the US's "closest allies" (Pakistan) in the so-called war on terror -- and the increasingly disastrous results of global warming -- and, of course, arching over all of that the historic incompetence of the current US administration in almost all aspects of governance. [since I'm a Republican businessman, it's my sense that I'm allowed to talk like this. But let me hasten to add that I have not been able to vote for a Republican at the national level in 6 years (and it most decidedly was not the appointed president.]

I think the thing is that they were frozen out of the country pop machine by a concerted effort, getting little ink, and virtually no airplay in the mainstream country pop media -- which had been their undisputed turf. The fact they're back -- with a no. 1 album -- is a repudiation of the people who run country pop as well as a repudiation of large parts of the media who went along with the boycott and career-slamming. I don't pick my country faves by their politics -- if I did, it would make it hard to listen to some of them, like Ricky Skaggs -- but when the Dixie Chicks started bucking the Nashville Pop Machine and the country music industry, I actually went out to check out their music (normally I stay far away from the country pop charts for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who likes real country music). And I really liked what I heard. It's not just exceptionally well made country pop, a lot of their songs are actually about something (not all, mind you ). So, I guess, if the Country Pop Machine hadn't done everything it could to scuttle the 'Chicks' career, I might not have ever discovered one of the exceptions to the dreary rules that dominate country poop... I mean pop.

Originally posted by Paul J. Edwards Thanks to all for the insight. I have to think it is user error on my part. I am just having a tough time with this stuff. Thanks again. This stuff can be A) confusing and B) frustrating -- especially when someone else seems to be having no problems with what seems to be the same set up. First -- having computer problems or getting frustrated over them is NO MORAL FAILING. It's happened to almost all of us at some point or another -- and usually multiple points. And those of it "lucky" enough to have started way back used to be confused and frustrated at least 1/2 the time, for sure. Sometimes it seems like having computer problems is a little like having an old-fashioned nervous breakdown. (Look it up, kids. It's kind of like a cross between chronic fatigue syndrome and psychosis.) Your friends are sympathetic but act almost as though it might be catching. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get on with life, they seem to say. Hmmm... I'm not sure where I'm going here. I guess it's just a prelude to me saying: "Hang in there, bro. We've all been there!" and sneaking out the side door.... Good luck to you....! ____________ PS... does Ableton have a BB dedicated to their users? You might want to check that out for tips on it.

Originally posted by Gutter Pup "Digital is to music as flourescent is to light" - Gutter Pup That's a great quote, for sure. All I can really say is -- have you tried the latest generation 'screw-in' low power flourescent bulbs? There are a couple bunk brands out there (but who buys flourescent lights at Big Lots besides my mom?) -- but most are steady, with a nice color balance... I HATE old school flourescent lights... I could never work in an office with them again, I don't think... they're really fatiguing to me. But the lights I use most of the time in my work area and living room are latest gen flourescents and I love 'em. And they're really fuel efficient and last a long time. It's not your granddaddy's flourescent you know...

Well, different strokes. I did my first overdub in 1964, and worked freelance in (analog tape-based) studios. I started building my home rig in 1981 with a used four track 1/4" TASCAM. My last analog multitracker was a 1/2" 8 track (that was in the shop more than it was in my 2 room project studio). Not counting cassette machines (literally too many to remember), I've owned 10 reel analog tape recorders. Do I like everything about digital recording? Not necessarily. Did I like everything about analog tape? Hell, no. I got sick to death of the hiss, speed issues, phase slur, lack of high end at low tape speed, lack of low end at high tape speed, mechanical breakdowns, the need to align your machine ('easy' on an MCI, maybe, a total hassle, an obvious design afterthought on the TASCAM machines I could afford). And when I tried noise reduction (Dolby B and dbx) add ons, I found them almost as obnoxious as the hiss they were meant to reduce. Particularly with dbx, any little tracking error produced big anomalies once it had been magnified by the dbx NR (which happened with the crap tape put out by Ampex and 3M... no wonder they had to get out of the business and/or change their name.) Can you do some nice work in a quarter million dollar tape-based studio? I hope so. But are the advantages of best-case-scenario high end work visited on those who only have a few thousand to spend? Ha. _____________ You say your current computer rig works great one day but doesn't the next... That means there's something wrong. And when there's something wrong with your rig -- you fix it. And if you can't fix it, you ditch it. But it sounds like you're a long way from knowing whether or not you need to ditch anything. You mention latency... there are a lot of kinds of latency. Is the misalignment between your MIDI tracks and your analog recorded tracks consistent? Is it the same each time? If so, there is likely a MIDI-vs-Audio "offset" in Ableton Live somewhere to let you adjust for that offset. (Such an offset adjustment is a frequent feature in DAWs and other MIDI and audio software.) How about when you record analog tracks -- do THEY line up properly, timewise? Not all software allows for automatic adjustment for the usually very tiny amount of time it takes for your interface to process its A/D and D/A conversions. Often, this misalignment is only a few milliseconds and most folks choose to ignore it. But with some interfaces and software, you can end up with a significant misalignment between previously recorded tracks and new ones. [Do you also have monitoring latency? (You try to monitor your inputs but you hear your should-be live sound delayed in your headphones.) As you suggest, monitoring directly from your interface's zero lateny or near zero lateny monitor output should give you no or almost no latency. But if you're STILL hearing an "echo" bounce back at you, check your software -- most DAWs (not sure about Live, here, but it seems likely) have a software switch to let you fold the through-the-box monitor signal back into what's going out to the interface. That through the box signal will, of course, be delayed. So, you need to turn it off and only monitor your live track out the near/zero latency monitor output on your interface. ]

there's some info here: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=70939

I can't say that anyone has told me my tracks sound like his (for good reason) but I've always deeply admired Lee "Scratch" Perry, who was deeply influential on the development of reggae music and pretty much invented dub music. Perry worked with primitive equipment and severe limitations and budgets in his heyday and yet was a continuously inventive, resourceful producer whose influence spread far out from reggae to lay the foundation for dub and dance remixing around the world.

"Enormity" when misused for "enormousness." "Basically" as a substitute for "um" or "uh." "Irregardless." Regardless of context.

I saw a video demonstration of a multipoint touch screen. It was pretty amazing. I don't remember it as an Apple thing, though. Maybe I was just so wowed... In the video the demonstrator did a bunch of realtime graphic stuff where he could essentially fingerpaint with multiple points of contact, swirling screen images around... big potential for light shows. I think he showed a musical keyboard GUI... obviously not velocity sensitive, I don't think -- but, depending on how it works, that might not be so hard, you could used the amount of contact surface to determine 'velocity'... It seems like the kind of thing that getting into a number of hands and achieving critical user mass may seed must-have uses for such a display. It would be cool to do the four finger spread on a bunch of virtual faders and ride a group 'bareback'* like we used to do way back when. (I guess.) Can't do that with a mouse -- even with fader grouping... _________ * as opposed to with those fader yokes... poor man's automation...

Originally posted by where02190 This is about the worst advise regarding quality recording anyone could give. Apart from the obvious mic choice, position tuning, etc., to get good sounds going in, proper levels are the most important factor in digital recording. Stay conservative, understand what your meters are telling you, and pay attention to them. Awwww... you're BOTH right.

Originally posted by tehuti What about Sound Forge Audio Studio? That's supposed to be a really basic one. I picked it up recently but I haven't spent much time with it yet to figure it out. I was a Sound Forge and CD-Architect user for years before Sony bought Sonic Foundry. Having had negative experiencese with Sony products in the past (enough that I feel foolish talking about it, since I NEVER seem to learn) I was extremely reluctant to buy an upgrade to the current versions. But Sony offered an u/g to SF for $100 and threw in CD-Arch so I thought, well, that's cool. But -- despite the fact that I have a number of other burn softwares that all work and I'd used previous versions of CD-Arch -- it cannot apparently be made to work on my rig. Sony was little help. I'd already addressed the meager suggestions they offered in a cut-paste tech response. And Sound Forge 8 can't even find all my audio drivers! Even though my old Sound Forge 5 can... so very lame. Even though Sony was the first brand I ever fell in love with -- back in the 60's -- I've just got to learn: don't buy Sony. (Don't even ask me about the stupid VCR I bought from them or the world's least comfortable headphones...)

Originally posted by jamesp I've heard good things about "Band in a Box." Not sure if that was whimsy... Band in a Box is actually very good for generating MIDI arrangements for quick songwriter demos, practicing (it's a GREAT practice tool, actually, since it can generate jazzy chord progressions, generate harmonies and guitar parts from melodies, etc) and as a starting place for MIDI projects -- but its recording capabilities are really quite limited. (It does let you generate fairly complex harmonies from vocal tracks though, using the chords in your project or other harmonic guides.) The publisher, PG Music, does have a MIDI/audio sequencer called PowerTracks Pro (I think) that is very reasonably priced and, as I understand it, fairly straightforward.