Future of Music Distribution

Music is a big part of my life, not only because I have been listening to some type of it everyday for as long as a I can remember, but because I enjoy it. I am glad that all these bands and record labels are trying to the best they can to keep the music flowing, whether its online or on TV or through some kind of physical copy. The coolest thing is that these people are really interested in getting all kinds of music out to as many people as they can, through different mediums so that almost everyone has some kind of access to it.

I am interested to see if these new ideas change the way we listen to music inthe future, though. Right now, the dominent form of music is still the CD... but, by testing these new types of distribution, are record labels/bands going to find something new that won't involve owning a physical copy? Will we, as fans, not even be able to purchase some music in album form? While I commend any new ideas for getting music out into the spotlight, I hope we will always have the option of holding onto something physical.

Nextfest: Tomorrow's Technology

After seeing of the project from the article "Nextfest", I have only one word to describe this "WOW". These things might become part of our future daily lives.

I also notice that these projects fall into three main categories ROBOTICS, VIRTUAL WORLD, and ENERGY EFFICIENT. I don't know if anyone agresses, but do you think this is the way technology is heading towards?

Making smart human-liked robots to work for humans, expanding our world without being limited by physical territory, and creating more possibilities without increasing the need for current limited energy.

Music Reborn

So I read the music reborn article and found it really interesting who the record labels ar finally catching up with times.
I think that it's good for the fans and the bands. Accessing and useing new technology is going to keep music labels afloat. But I'm not sure about the big labels?
Do you think major music labels are going to be able to change with the times? Labels have a long history of resisting change in the industry.

I thought it was really interseting that of all musicial talents to lead the parade in this revolution it's Beck. Who will be next?

Next Fest!

Wow. Gadgets have always fascinated me, but for the most part, they end up being things that interest me, but I'd never justify buying or using it! Some of these things I could see using (and some, not so much; like the Hug Shirt? Interesting idea, but I couldn't imagine having to be away from my S.O. long enough to need that, let alone on such a regular basis to warrant it!).

The light up purse, or "suntrap handbag" is a pretty neat idea. As a guy, I've always been secretly jealous that girls get purses; I have to jam all my crap into my pockets, resulting in jeans that look like parachute pants.. I really like the power strip that shows how much juice your devices are using; this would be particularly useful if you have a place like mine where there's few outlets in a room, and most of them are horribly, inconveniently located, and all run on the same circuit. Who knew TVs and Famicoms used so much power!

The virtusphere looks kind of interesting; but maybe from the picture I'm misjudging how you can jump and roll without getting injured? Does the thing roll like one of those balls from American Gladiators? That Police 911 and Boxing game that used the "movement detection" technology were pretty fascinating, but I've hurt myself playing Ms. Pac-Man before, so I don't know exactly how people won't hurt themselves in this contraption.

The LifeStraw seems like a very cool innovation; sort of an in-line water filter of sorts. That could be pretty revolutionary for people who refuse to drink tap or fridge water, and in countries (or cities in the US!) where water is atroucious and dangerous. Maybe if they can produce it in a slightly smaller version (I dig those MTV pants the kid in the background is wearing in this picture).

I still find it amusing that there's so many gadgets that are deemed the "such and such of the future!" I'm always wary about this, seeing films from many years ago showing the kitchens, cars, cities of the future. "We'll be flying in our cars in '74!" I think it's fantastic that there's such evolution and achievement with technology, but a lot of this stuff proclaiming how we'll be in the next ten years never really seems to pan out, in a lot of these cases (in some cases though they are correct!)

What gadgets did you all find to be the most interesting, revolutionary or useful?

infinite album...?

a) Beck isn't the first to create the notion of an infinite album...or the downloadable/non-album "album". I have friends in the electronic music circuit who have been dishing out this model for years.

b) It takes someone with prestige, power, and money to support a model of this sort.

My question is this: Why are we so congratulatory to major label artists and major label company spin-offs who are able to rejuvinate music, while still not addressing the thousands of good artists who aren't able to land a major record label and have to create these models out of neccessity instead of "organic corporate evolution?" I feel bad for musicians who have been creating unique models of delivery for their music but never get anywhere with it.

Wired #3

The Rebirth of Music

Music has always been a close friend of mine. And with technology constantly on the move for advancements with the growing age, it only makes sense that cds will, inevitably, become a thing of the past. Just like records and cassettes.

I liked Beck's idea of having multiple ways for music to be available to the public. His idea of releasing a song on the web as soon as it's produced, has potential. Though I question how his actual sales will be when he finally puts all those songs onto a full album. Will people still buy the whole album or will they just be content with the individual songs that they downloaded before the actual album came out.

Having ProTools files available to the public, I think will be something that people, especially DJs will like. I'm not so sure I'll take available of something like that... I'm not much of a mixer. Though I do like making ringtones for my phone. And I know there are a few songs that I wish I could cut out parts of the music here and there, and emphasize more on the part that I like. If this takes off... then perhaps I'll find use for something like this if there's a song I want to cut up and recreate in my own way.

I'm definitely guilty of wanting to track down songs that are opening theme songs to TV series. I really felt like this part of the article related to me. I always have my ears open and waiting for new tunes to strike my fancy. And I've been in the situation where I've heard an opening song to a TV series and went in search for it. Then found out that I've never heard of this band/singer before. Next thing you know, this person is making it big. TV series are the way to go!


NextFest

Power-Aware cord would save lives! I know it would save my life! It may get kind of creepy though... if there were numerous ones throughout a pitch black house... but at least you wouldn't get your feet tangled up in them.

The Hug Shirt was really interesting. I have a couple of friends who are in long distance relationships... and it's always heartbreaking to see them struggle sometimes when they can't see their S.O for months at a time. At first, the hug shirt seems kind of cheesy... but it sounds like a wonderful tool, if anything, to almost feel like you're being hugged by that special someone. If I ever felt the need for one of those, I'd probably wear a sweater over it though. The visual design isn't my style, haha~

The Actroid... I dunno. It's cool and all... but after all those movies where robots tweak out and then turn on their owners, or the world, even!--- Yah, just doesn't cause me to jump for joy with any human-robot-things...

I would get a kick outta the digiwall! I'd get one for my house [if I ever get a house of my own]. Put it in the backyard or something. I've always enjoyed indoor rock climbing, so this advancement just makes me squirm with excitement!

Geting free Wiki blog beer!!

There was an old chinese saying that meant something like "3 ordinary guys can win over Zu guo liang(a very famous 3 kingdoms war strategist)". I agree that when more people with the heart to work on, improve and monitor something seriously, it will get better in big deal and getting it faster than just one or two person working at the same time. especially on some science and knowledge base stuff, because they have a certain standard and people can really test them out and able to see practical results. Thanks to the internet and the birth of blog communities it all become possible. It is like a world size classroom without bounderies and limited class time and schedule, everyone can have their input at anytime they want, everyone can look at and learn from other's works and ideas without spending a lot of time.
Actually i think this is very similar to the Free software, beer, or whatever thingy too. it's all open source and free for everyone to optain and tinker with them. Some people can't really accept it because they have a narrow mind that they afraid they will lose their profit, but if you see the benifit of the whole world and community as your own benifit then there's nothing bad at all. I think those companies had already profited too much and shouldn't be that selfish and narrow mind anymore.
David cheung

"Free, as in Beer"

While the "free" Free Beer beer (I couldn't resist) is a clever application of open-source ethos, I don't think there are really many questions anymore surrounding the free-as-in-speech software business model. The most often-heard criticism is that companies won't want to incorporate open-source software protected by GPL-like agreements because of the requirement that they release proprietary changes will stifle innovation. It turns out, however, that since we've moved into an era in which software is more or less a commodity, the real money is made in support. Many companies have followed the support model, most notably, IBM, with their Linux initiative. Other companies have started to give away "old" code (that is not commercially viable), like Id Software, who released the entire Quake 3 Arena source code under the GPL in 2005.

I would like to see a lot more code released without a license, though. I realize that some people may find that unacceptable since anyone could then use that code commercially either in part or as a whole. In many cases, though, it's just not that important. 99.99% of the code I write has no commercial application, and I'd be thrilled if someone found it usefully at all.

Free, as in Open Source

The idea of open source software(and beer now, I guess), has always interested me. I find it strange that companies are willing to release all the information involved in the creation of a product in order to allow users to manipulate and improve the code(or, ingredients). It is cool that not only are companies successful in this idea, but they also have very few problems with people trying to hurt their product. We hear stories of all these big-name software companies having issues with people hacking loopholes in their products, yet their code is PRIVATE. Then we see these open-source products and they have practically no problems with hackers even though their code is PUBLIC.

Maybe it's because there are more people who are able to stop the hackers, since everyone has access... or maybe it's because hackers feel like its too easy; either way, open-source seems to be gaining momentum in all kinds of ways and I like it.

Splogs!

I found the article Spam + Blogs = Trouble to be fascinating after being repeatedly and recently swamped with these stupid (in function, but really sort of brilliant in a scheming sort of way) results from Google. It's getting a bit easier to spot these sort of results, especially when you see the exact same phrase that you entered as part of the result ("Save 50% off pictures of my aunt Martha and her dog Chunky!") Unfortunately it seems as though more of these results turn up than real results, and spammers are using any form of communication that they can, such as the spam on MySpace. It's unfortunate to think that these scams actually work; but you'd think enough people would be able to "smell a scam" or "smell spam" from the next town over to avoid clicking on these types of things.

How do you compare on-line spam to junk snail mail, or telemarket calls? It seems as though on-line spam is more intrusive; sometimes it can be opened without your consent (via e-mails, web pages, etc) and can be in your face. Harmful spam can occur too, installing spyware and malware. At least with snail mail, and the phone, you have the choice to open it or dump it (without fear of the contents spewing out of the envelope; unless it's a vile detergent sample or something).

Splogs, Spam, What's Next?

I found the article Spam + Blogs = Trouble pretty interesting. It seems like when ever a new internet technology emerges these spamers find a way to corrupt and make money off users like you and me.

What's strikes me as funny is those spamers and splogers will always be on step ahead of legitimate tech companies trying to protect the integrity of their software and programming.

Who's right in this battle? Multi-million dollar companies who create internet programs like blogs and back in the day email? Or the spamers who figure out how to manipulate the internet to put money in their pockets?

Does the age old saying "survival of the fittest," apply to the internet?

WIRED #2

Graffiti Goes LED

Well if we look at it this way... at least the freeways where graffiti resides, will be more lit up at night. I'm curious as to how graffiti artists who specialize in this style, maintain the power to keep their artworks lit. Do they revisit it with a fresh batch of duracell batteries? In any case, I think the concept is definitely intriguing. Definitely an eyecatcher, but hopefully it won't lead to any rubbernecking on the road. There's more than enough of that everyday, in my opinion. However, LED-lit graffiti is definitely something I'd take a minute or two to observe [not while on the road though]. If I were a graffiti artist, I'd want to try something like that. With new media growing by the minute, this was bound to happen at some point!


Free, As In Beer

This was a mediocre read for me. Though it did get me thinking about all those free programs you can download on the web. I was never aware that users could submit their own upgrades to the software. I probably wouldn't tweak around with the program, personally, but I'm for the idea. There's a lot of ppl who can't afford all the designer named brands, and this is a good alternate option. And with more people working together, I'd figure the software will continue to meet demands.


Spam + Blogs

Now I'm just paranoid of googling anything. Up until I read this article, I never heard of splogs. But now... I'm well aware that I've visited these so-called splog sites before. I'm not for the idea of having splogs. While reading about it, I couldn't help, but imagine some couch potato lounging around and collecting the dough off of internet users naively clicking onto one of their spam ads. I'm probably going to go back to this article and look at that screenshot of a splog page... it just seems helpful. This just reminds me of all those times when I've googled some keyword and ended up getting misled to a porn site. When I google, I want what I'm looking for. Not some splog!


Get Wiki With It

I like the idea of peer review on the web for people who want to submit their articles. Peer review on my papers and the likes in school always helped me see things in my paper that I didn't see before, and then in return, strenghtened that paper for the final review. With everything, I'd hope that people who read the articles submitted to those kind of sites, will be honest. The sites ask for the person's name, affliation and email address. I can see this as a potential for people who want to spam comment. Regardless, there will be flaws on the system. Though hopefully a good portion of the commenters will be there truthfully to comment with some helpful feedback.

Advertising conquering new territory

Emails used to be a place where you can write to your frinds or others without going through the trouble to buy stamps, walking to the mailbox, and spending weeks waiting for responses. But now it is the perfect place for companies to spam everyone with their advertisings at one click. Blogs used to be a place where you can share your feelings and opinions. But now it is full of splogs.

I guess what I want to ask is not just how or why this happened, but since this is becoming such a huge problem that most people notice, what should we do about it? Or do people actually want to have the net and search engine fill with ads and just the popular culture?

search engines, blogging and the enterprise known as spam

In Spam + Blogs = Trouble, there was no mention of the search engines responsibility or response to splogs, spam sites, or anything which manipulates search algorithms. Early in web history, specifically in Google's history, web searches were a new and innovative way to get around the net and get exposed in the net. Since the "formula" for google and other search engines' algorithms has been revealed, splogs have an easy time creating link farms to harvest net surfers.

Is it not time for search engines to repair their models for searching the internet? When I search for something, it seems like it is becoming increasingly difficult to find anything pertinent on the net because my search results are dictated by "popularity" instead of by relevance. Perhaps search engines should re-evaluate their data collection methods.

The way of seeing

I agree with the idea that things around you, the culture, value, etc. affect the way different people seeing the same object and their perspective towards it. This is the beauty of art that when the same image or art is viewed by different people, different meaning and feelings occour. This is what seperate human from computer or machines. and also it is very true that most of time the sense of seeing comes first and have bigger impact than other senses. For example when u look at a person, the first impression, their pyhsical appearance really give u a lot of ideas and feelings towards that person. But what about a blind person, how would that person interact and build perspective towards things around him/her, will they have images inside their head? so when the sense of vision no longer exist, is seeing, images, etc the biggest influences to a person? if not, then what is?
David Cheung

The Medium is the Message

That is the voice of the current somnambulism. Suppose we were to say, "Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value." Or, "The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value." Again, "Firearms are in themselves neither good nor bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value." That is, if the slugs reach the right people firearms are good. If the TV tube fires the right ammunition at the right people it is good.

Some of these analogies raise problems for me, because I do in fact believe that, for example, a gun is neither inherently good, nor inherently bad. There are many circumstances in which is can be used for what I believe is good in the sense that I value self-preservation. And obviously there are just as many hypothetical circumstances in which a gun could be used for terrible things. While it's nice to believe that the message is generally static and a reflection of it's medium, the "message" of shooting someone can have many different context, and while the end result may be the same (being shot) the message may be very different in different circumstances. The act of shooting an enemy soldier during wartime is very different than shooting someone who has invaded your home, and different still than the shooting of someone during a heist.

The anecdote of the African man who listened to the BBC every day without understanding a word of it is quaint, however the fact that the man enjoyed the broadcast without understanding the language says nothing about listeners who did understand it. The message may be fluid; the medium obviously informs the message, but in the case of radio, the message is not wholly and universally "radio". An example that's brought up in CADRE frequently is Photoshop: The designers of Photoshop have enabled the development of an almost infinite number of images with their software, but the very finite tool-set is what determines what images may be created, and so in a sense they have "pre-created" all the images that will ever be produced with Photoshop (and most likely many that won't). This doesn't mean that these images have no value other than as a meme-like carrier for the idea of "Photoshop", however. What, then, happens when I manipulate a photo of a painting in Photoshop, then fax it? Someone's head explodes, semiotically, I assume.

medium definitely part of message

In the beginning of "The Medium Is the Message," the author discusses the idea that every medium is the medium of something else. I thought this was an interesting view on the subject and agree with it, though it may not be true for everything.

Another idea I thought was intriguing and completely support is the idea that 'The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.' This thought has been around and probably most famously used in the commonly heard statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It is a very important issue to remember that even with these constantly evolving technologies that any outcome of their use is still the sole responsibility of the humans using them.

See it, Believe it

Ways of Seeing by John Berger, really got me thinking a lot about how we, as spectators of the world, view things. Naturally, I always believed that not everyone sees something the same way. Through out own influences in life, interests and beliefs, among other things, we use those factors to form an opinion or conclude something for ourselves. Berger talks about that fairly early on and as a result, I was immediately intrigued and drawn into the reading.

"The way we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe."


I wish I had taken more trips to museums before I endulged myself into the art department here at San Jose State. I'm curious to know how my classes [more importantly, my art history courses] have influenced me in how I view works of art at museums. When Berger began elaborating on Frans Hals work, I was reminded of what I read in The Medium is the Message by Marshall McLuhan.

"We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves."

"Yet, although every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing.

McLuhan speaks at one point, about Cubism. How this is the medium. Not so much the blatant narrative or content of the piece that the viewer can clearly see at first glance, but how the piece was constructed. Though the first thing that just about anyone asks is "what's the piece about." The particular style of the piece is overlooked. The artist and those in similar interest, see the medium and importance in the Cubism styled used. Whereas, others may see the medium and importance in the characters or storyline depicted in the piece. This brings me back to Berger and him saying "our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing." Due to our unique backgrounds and experience, we will all perceive and appreciate works of art in a spectrum of different ways.

In my Art198, I was assigned to go SFMOMA this past weekend to observe the Matthew Barney exhibition of his Drawing Restraint Series. I went with my bf simply because I enjoy going to museums with someone else to share the experience with. It's interesting to say that I was thinking about these things that McLuhan and Berger brought up. About how we perceive things and mediums. During my visit, I found myself wondering how my bf was perceiving the pieces. With him not having too much of an artist background, was he viewing the pieces in the same way as I?

I find it quite amusing to come back to school the week after and find out that my readings for the week in this class are related to what I experienced at the museum that day.

Seeing in one's own way

In "Ways of Seeing", John Berger talks about reproduction causing the art of the past to lose its authority and become insubstantial, available, valueless, free, etc. It is true that the reproduction is not the same as the orginal master piece and may not give the same effect as the one in a museum or art gallery. But even in art galleries and museums, don't people always see the art piece in their own way with their own interpretations and therefore, making the art personal? Is there really an universal way of seeing? Is it possible for people to see in a similar way as the artist during different time and place?

Replacement of Museums

In a section from the book Ways Of Seeing by John Berger, he discusses the idea that individual's own use of what they personally consider to be artwork or items with similar value that people hold to pieces in museums, this could in turn replace or work in tandem with museums (like that dream I had about the Tony Orlando and Dawn museum someone had in their house...at any rate). He also says that the originals can never be replaced, however believes that the way we view art in galleries and museums (certainly at least in terms of when this was written) won't always be the same, and this appears to be true, especially with more media and technologies being accepted into the art world. How would you view art differently depending on the location? Say if it was a ''masterpiece'' painted on a wall in some street location, an upper-crust fine arts museum in San Fransisco, somebody's apartment, or on-line, would you view the art in a different manner regardless of the medium or content?

how to make "art" more easily "read"...

...or "why do we think that specializing a discipline makes it better?"

In Ways of Seeing, Berger ends his essay claiming that "the masses, thanks to reproductions, can now begin to appreciate art as the cultured minority once did." This statement, along with the whole presuppositions of the essay is that the image of art becomes blurred due to the reproduction of that art. Who is to say that a reproduction of the Virgin of the Rocks is any less of an existant Virgin of the Rocks than the original? I agree with the author on this point. However, we have become so specialized in our definition of "art" that the "masses" are no longer with us in how we define art. To claim to the masses that a reproduction is the same thing as art ostracizes them and isolates us further from attaining a public understanding of art. Although the intentions of the author are good, in my view, I feel like by jumping into such a theoretical debate with the public will not lead to them appreciating art beyond a "traditional" understanding.

I guess I think my question is whether anyone believes that further specializing our field invites the public to better understand art?

Ways of Seeing

I thought this article had some very insightful things to say. The perception of how we see and how we are reflected into the world around us. The article discussed living in a modern world so saturated by images and art that we see art in a different way then those of earlier generations.

The part of the article that I found confusing was when the author was talking about the reproduction of paintings and art in general. I understood the idea that we get so used to seeing replicas of famous art that when we see the real thing we are comparing it to the replica. But there seemed to be some other thoughts tied in there I couldn't grasp.

The article was talking about art in some very philosophical terms. How it is etched in out subconscious, and obtains a personal meaning in it's relationship to ourselves.

nationalism, identity and the future of technology

In Barbarians at Gate 8, page 084 of the August '06 Wired, Bruce Sterling refers to a future world where (due to the war on terror and technology) we live in a "world so ripped up by nets and jets that sovereign nation-states like the UK are colapsing economically, politically, even physically..." He goes on to explain that a result of globalization and the closeness that we feel due to technology, it absolves us from feeling alliegence to nationality and nationhood. He calls it "reverse colonization."

Is nationhood a thing of the past? Have we gone beyond the 18th-20th century ideal of placing our nationality and national heritage as one of the primary identity traits of our existence? In times past, the term "Americans" has been used for anyone who came into America wishing to be apart of this nation. I believe that still holds true. But people maintain their cultural identity so well now that they are able to extend their communication across the globe, I have wondered what it means to nation-states to have the people within them no longer hold a continuious thread of ideals.

I'm curious what other people think.

Wired 08/06

I've been following the development of the Tesla Roadster for a while and so I was pretty excited to see a full article on it in the August edition of Wired Magazine. The article is in a test-drive format with some technical discussion thrown in, but it mostly seemed to be trying to convince the reader that "it's a real car!" as opposed to the previous generations of electrics that were under-powered and unpleasant to live with for a variety of reasons.

I had no doubt before reading the article that it would be a pleasant car, and that's not really the issue with the Tesla. The factor that's most important and most interesting about viable electric vehicles, roadster or minivan, is the mechanism by which they charge, and more specifically the speed at which they charge. Electric vehicles, from what I understand, are a good application for Li-Ion technology, which the Tesla Roaster uses, however it the battery technologies that are being developed right now seem much more suitable. No one wants to plug their car in a drip-charge it over a series of hours before they can go somewhere, and no one wants to get stranded without a dead battery. People are comfortable buying hybrids because when worst comes worst, you can still fill it with gas. There are battery technologies on the horizon that promise longer life and near-instant charging, but they're still years away. The Tesla Roaster would have been an ideal means of discussing that sort of thing, but it's strangely absent from the article. The real question isn't "who killed the electric car?", it's "what's going to power the electric car". What we've seen so far has been a series of false-starts, and the Tesla could be the start of a series of technological innovations with a real market application, but it seems like there aren't many people asking the right questions.

How to Make a Post

By now, all of you should have received an invitation to join this blog from eblogger. This email contains instructions on how to log in and join this blog. You MUST follow the link from that email to join this blog as a team member.

When you follow that link you can either log in if you already have an eblogger account or you can create an account if you don’t have one.

You must log in to post to the blog. When you log in, your screen will look different than the main interface of the blog.

Once you’ve logged in, click on “posting” and “create new post”. Enter in your text and click “Publish”

Seems it might take a week for everyone to get this, we will go over it in class next time too.