for 18 October 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.
|
|
Caveat Expert
Well, being the techno-boring guy that I am, I'd like to point out that hypertext markup language was actually invented so as to more or less obviate traditional citation by linking directly to the primary source or citation. To wit, citation is the whole point of HTML, current abuses notwithstanding. NATO <hyperman@gte.net> I do agree with you. However, have you seen the MLA's recommendations on citing hypertext documents or including hyperlinked citation on a page? If anything, hypertext was a goner from the word go. There's too much brand-name recognition invested in a visible citation list for academics to willingly do the logical thing and create a contextual web of knowledge. Best, Vixel Pixen  Steve-olution Hey, anyone who puts out as much as Steve Allen outputs has got to produce a little garbage once in a while. And besides, we don't know if he even wrote the article about TV content, or just sold his name. Of course, he's always been the liberal's liberal, since 1964 when he wrote his smarmy "Open Letter to a Conservative" in opposition to the Goldwater campaign. But look, any guy who thinks he can speak for Napoleon, Julius Caesar, and Marie Antoinette just shouldn't be taken seriously anyway. Still, I enjoyed your article. Bob Benz <robert.f.benz@worldnet.att.net> Hey, I talk to Julius Caesar all the time — he was the original inspiration for A Man Called Dagger, BTW. But, BB, you got it all wrong. It isn't that prolific Steve — the same man who once wrote a symphony orchestra while bear-hunting with Teddy Roosevelt in a Kalamazoo, Michigan, bed and breakfast — occasionally puts out crapola. It's that prolific Steve—the same man who once nominated his wife's sister, Jayne "Alice Kramden" Meadows, for membership in the Raccoon Lodge while writing six songs simultaneously (one by each toe on his left foot) — only puts out crap. He's throwing the curve on Sturgeon's Law, by which 90 percent of everything is crap. Mr. M. Wow ... a shocker. When I saw the title, I thought reflexively, "Steve Forbes," because that is exactly the kind of crap he's been up to lately. I nearly jumped out of my seat when I discovered that it was Steve Allen. As I recall, this is the same Steve Allen who wrote a book called Dumbth, the gist of which was his trust in the Viewing Public to determine Right from Wrong. I guess he had a change of heart, natch. Christopher Driskell <casaubon@ compuex.com> It's one thing to trust the public to know right from wrong when they still remember who you are. It's another thing to trust them when they can't remember whether Steve Allen is the man who once wrote personal theme songs for 25,000 migrant workers at a Kalamazoo, Michigan, Black Mass or if he is the same man who played Benny Goodman in the Knute Rockne Story. In either case, it's clear that the public be damned. Mr. M. None-Hit Wonder Subject: You live in Cali, right? The center of all creation, the "if it isn't here, it isn't anywhere" state? Take a walk outside and realize that to a whole bunch of folks, this Internet thing ain't nuthin' but a concept. Now watch when said folks get broadband, or whatever AT&T@Home plans on marketing it as, and they can download a new song BEFORE they finish the one they are currently listening to. Go take a nice long walk outside and realize that while you may live in Internet time, most people still use paper dictionaries. Seventy-five percent of the population doesn't even know what an MP3 is, much less that you can get a free player and all the free music you could ever want in the time it takes to digest a sitcom. Get a clue; you guys Suck. Wah <thewah@uswest.net> You blew our whole paradigm out of the water, dude. Are you a consultant? What are your fees? Clearly we need the wisdom and guidance of a true professional. the Sucksters Ordinarily I tend to agree with the Suck viewpoint, but the article about the plight of MP3 was weak. The beginning of the piece seemed to suggest that the future of MP3 technology in general is questionable, whereas the conclusion implied that only the profitability of MP3 is in doubt. Huh? "The red carpet's been collecting dust for a while, but the guest of honor hasn't shown up yet," reads the opener, citing the ridiculous media hype surrounding MP3. The end, however, has a different tone: "Digital audio's black market is way bigger than its legitimate trade, and there's no reason for that to change." This makes sense, and this sort of situation is bound to prevent any real moneymaking from taking place. So I'm confused. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that MP3 is doomed due to its lack of serious cash-generating power? If so, you're dead wrong. Your reasoning seems to come from the notion that MP3 lacks an "organic buzz." This is an awfully fuzzy argument. MP3 will never be able to generate a buzz around an individual act the way MTV can, simply because it allows so many voices to be heard and lacks any way to single out any one performer for the audience. But MP3, as a technology and as a medium, already has a tremendous buzz. The market for MP3s is very similar to the market for traditional music media outlets like MTV and commercial radio stations; namely, affluent white kids with a lot of spare time. Their ability to spread songs, legit or otherwise, is immense, and their cable-modem-equipped PCs make the hobby simple. I access the Internet through a LAN at my university, and students here regularly trade popular songs. Most of the new pop music I hear I get through MP3 instead of MTV or radio. The simple fact is that for a lot of kids, it's much easier to email a cool song to your friends than it is to dupe a CD or wait for it to play on MTV. With this kind of market base, the companies that create the basic MP3 technology (players, rippers, and even portables) are assured long-term profitability. Though we may eventually see the major labels use MP3 the same way they use MTV (namely, for advertising), the technology and the medium are definitely viable. Andrew Dollard <goldhick@mail.rit.edu> The future of MP3 technology is certainly questionable, partly because its profitability doesn't exist in anything but a speculative way, but mostly because MP3 is just an encoding paradigm that will last only until something better comes along. It's like the difference between "wax cylinders" or "shellac discs" and "the (traditional) music business." It makes more sense, I think, to think about digital-audio-download technology in general, which has been set up to be the Big New Thing but hasn't attracted much that's both a) legitimate and b) interesting. So far, despite all the hype, it's been the poor relation of the plastic-and-metal music business. At best, maybe a listener will hear about bands via MP3, but the point is still the CD. And there's not much drawing listeners to the Web for something they can't hear via other media; there's not yet a band that's made any kind of real-world splash through the exposure they've had through their downloads. Opening for Alanis and Tori (thanks to a multimillion-dollar stock injection) doesn't cut it. You have them but you don't actually own them? Now, that's Socratic reasoning. Thanks for writing. E. F. Nuttin Yes, so the current crop of (either legally or illegally) available MP3s are shit ... so? When the phonograph was first invented, the first records pressed were probably not very good either. Does anyone care about these records now? The new world that MP3 technology could usher in is one of beauty: No record companies. Free music for everyone to own (that is, everyone with Internet access). The death of music journalism as a tool of record consumption. Diversity and availability maximized! No more Warner Brothers, Sony, or anything to do with Murdochs newsgroups! Get your heads out of the stilted present availability problems and at least look at the wonderous possibilities. You schmucks! mr jeremy bradshaw <jeremy.bradshaw@strath.ac.uk> Actually, among the earliest commercially available recordings were cylinders by the United States Marine Band conducted by John Phillip Sousa in 1889 and 1890, some of which are still in print. (Mass duplication of cylinders wasn't possible then, so they had to be cut individually.) Pretty great stuff. E. F. Nuttin Subject: Oh yeah, that's the spot ... First, nobody wants to type in a credit card number without getting something you can hold in your hand. Otherwise, porn wouldn't be the only really profitable e-commerce model. Mmmmeg. That was good. Write to us more often. This is what I read Suck for. Sitting in my software design class, trying to ignore the moron SQL "coders," bemoaning the distinct lack of nerds surrounding me, trying manfully not to howl with laughter and consequently receive glares of reproach from ex-Navy, ex-electricians who need to compete in the "digital age." I feel the love. Or something. Jonathan Grant <the_pooka@hotmail.com> If you're still feeling the love, you might want to ask those ex- electricians if they can do something about it. The Navy has dealt with it pretty effectively over the last few years. Thanks for writing. E. F. Nuttin Subject: MP3: Does that stand for Musicians will be Poor? Sorry, but I'm having trouble with the whole MP3 thing. I like to pretend I do this techie stuff for a living, but I still can't make the numbers work. If we limp along on 28.8-Kbps or even 56-Kbps lines, MP3 downloads are a usable way to sample music we'd probably have to buy anyway. In short, it's an interesting piece of technology but it won't change anything. However, if we ever get decent connections and can actually download music in minutes or seconds, anything on the Web becomes essentially a free ad (if it's effective) for a band's live performances. If this means every band starts touring and there's live music everywhere — good music, in small venues, just like those old '20s movies seem to suggest — this is again not a bad thing, but I can't see it supporting a music industry. Do we really want a world in which a few musicians make money and most play only for fun and attention and to make a few bucks on the side? Actually, in most contexts, yes we do.... Let music be part of lots of people's lives, not an industry. But ... I won't weep many tears if there's less mediocre pop music. Probably less music is always a Bad Thing, but so is the ebola virus, and I manage to live in a world with that too. But what about non-pop? Currently on the machine is Handel's Carmelite Vespers (EMI 7 497492), two CDs' worth of magic. It's got soloists and choruses and orchestration, and it isn't exactly going to come live to a venue near you real soon. If they can't sell it, they can't afford to record it. And if I can download it for free from some pirate site, why should I pay for it? The only way most people are ever going to hear this is on a recording, and it is always going to be expensive to make such a recording. Somebody is going to have to pay for all this, and if the music wants to be free ... nobody is going to pay. As I said, I'm having trouble working out the business logic here. Maybe not all technology is worth having? Alan S. Kornheiser <ASKornheiser@prodigy.net> With very few exceptions, the people making lots of money from "the music industry" are not the musicians. Even if, someday, downloadable music somehow destroys the infrastructure of the industry as we know it, I can't imagine it will have that much of an effect on most musicians' lives. Obviously, there are kinds of music that not only can't be replicated live but can't be "performed" in any way other than pressing the Play button. But I think that as much as there's a basic human drive to get cool stuff for free, there's a basic human drive to spend money for an "authentic" artifact. I suspect that most of the audience for the Carmelite Vespers would be happy to shell out US$40 for a nice package with a booklet on good stock rather than download the music for free. E. F. Nuttin Does it seem like stories of well-balanced people under 30 will drive down sales at TV Corp? I am 32 and know lots of smart, savvy, younger adults who won't take any bullshit. Perhaps that's why the next generation could be a problem. Michael Rowan <mkr0waves@earthlink.net> You know lots of smart, savvy, younger adults who won't take any bullshit? Do you know lots of smart, savvy, younger adults who will take any bullshit? Do you have their email addresses? Scheming, the Sucksters |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |  |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |   | |||||||||||||||||||
![[Tim Cavanaugh]](/fish/staff/images/tim.gif)
![[the fixin'
pixie... ]](/fish/staff/images/emily.gif)
![[Ian
Connelly]](/fish/staff/images/ian.gif){kind=small}
![[Copy Edit]](/fish/staff/images/copyeditors.gif){kind=small}
![[Phillip Bailey]](/fish/staff/images/phil.gif){kind=small}
![[yes, it's
a plunger. i'll l
eave the rest up to your imagination ... ]](/fish/staff/images/erin.gif){kind=small}
![[Brian
Forsyth, " we're just spanning time "]](/fish/staff/images/brian.gif)